Enough With The Finger Pointing

[tererun]

1.)
Exactly what I was just thinking about you, to be quite honest.

2).
No, it wasn't. He wanted answers and he wasn't getting any. So he held up progress. Also, his filibuster is what brought many conservatives to the light about the drone strikes. I knew many conservatives that were for the drones strikes, until after Rand Paul made his filibuster. The fact that someone would stand up there talking for 13 hours straight about the topic, made them stop and think.

3).
Blind follower, eh? If I were a blind follower I'd be a slave to partisan policies...which I'm not. I'd probably be a Mitt Romney supporter, rather then a Rand Paul supporter.

Look, water. perhaps it is your problem that you are believing in a man instead of an idea.

 

[specklebang]

I disagree. If they choose another moderate that can't even turn out their base then it will be curtains for them and possibly a permanent split in the party. A lot of folks don't want another candidate that represents reforming within big government and just thinks he can do it better than the Democrats. IMO they better find someone with a wide libertarian streak to them...... and someone needs to make that clear to the Republican elites.

Hm. Romney and McCain were both relatively moderate. Don't really see that that worked out too well. :shrug:

I've only got a minute so sorry if my reply is kind of short.

After Bush, no Republican stood a chance so McCain was doomed. In 2012, the problem with Romney wasn't his "moderation". He was so detached from (mortal) humans, he really had no chance and when he made cutting his own taxes his key piece of proposed legislation, we ended up with another Obama 4.

Had they chosen Huntsman, a Libertarian moderate, we could have won this one. Just being a "moderate" is not enough. Huntsman offered intelligence and it seems Christie offers personality. Just IMHO of course but I would vote for either one of those 2. Rand Paul is amusing but far too young and extreme.

Let me put it this way, I voted for Johnson. Make what you will of that.
:2wave:

 

[John Liberty]

When we set government and business at odds they fight each other and not the people. It is not that simple, but it is a matter of keeping powers in check and the best thing to use is other powers.


google the history of the US in the early 1900s. look at things like robber barrons, industrialist companies, and all the abuses that happened. The market does not correct itself in that fgashion due to man's greed, and you need to look into your system and see the regulations that were actually in place at the time. Those regulations might not be government imposed.


No, you are closer to anarchy than i am. You are the one who feels little government is a good thing. Though I do not have a full idea of the type of government i would support i do know it would regulate industries to some extent. It would most certainly not rely solely on the market to correct itself. That is capitalist anarchy. Unless you are a part of the one percent, you do not want to know what that looks like in it's pure form.

1).

When we set government and business at odds they fight each other

You're forgetting...businesses are run by people. Everyone who works(that number is dwindling, but that's for another thread) works for a business of some sort. When you make regulations that harm businesses, it harms everyone that works for that business. When you pass insane minimum wage laws, businesses are forced to lay off people because they cannot afford to pay everyone in their company that much. When you raise taxes on businesses, the same idea happens.

2).

No, you are closer to anarchy than i am.

You're the one saying we need a new government system, I just want to go back to the system that we were SUPPOSED to be run by.

3).

Unless you are a part of the one percent, you do not want to know what that looks like in it's pure form.

The 1% is a fictional mindset made by people who want to be rich, but aren't. People are people. There's no people better than other people. Poor people aren't taken advantage of(usually), it's the other way around. To "protect" people from the big bad businesses, government steps in and makes things "fair" by giving money to those who do not deserve it. The "1%" got there for a reason. You don't wake up one day with money in your pocket. It was earned to some extent. Even the big business CEOs that you think kick back and do nothing, are often up almost 24 hours dealing with issues in the company.

 

[John Liberty]

Look, water. perhaps it is your problem that you are believing in a man instead of an idea.

I believe in an idea, not a man. If Rand Paul were to come out and switch sides on his issues...I'd drop him faster than a hot rock. I have done it with many many many many many many many people...some of which were in fact Libertarians.

 

[code1211]

9/11 happened under Bush. Would it have happened if Obama had been in office? We can't know that. We can only know that it didn't happen under Obama.

So true.

The difference is that the footing of the 9/11/2001 attack was one in which we did not know that the Islamists were preparing to attack us.

In the case of the 9/11/2012 incident, the Obama Administration had turned down the requested help to the Ambassador and his staff multiple times and the military was ordered to stand down rather than to respond to the tortured cries for help. Of course, they did watch it on video. Makes you wonder which side they were betting on...

If Bush was in the White House when that happened, it is likely that there would have been enhanced security in place before the attack and if the attack had occurred anyway, one or both of the AC 130's which were ready to fly and only 1 hour away from the site would have been destroying the immediate area around the compound that had been painted by the lasers IN ANTICIPATION OF HELP BEING SENT.

The 9/11/2012 incident was a failure of understanding by the Administration, a failure of preparation by the Administration and a failure of response by the Administration. The cover up, however, has been absolutely first rate. The work of real political professionals.

It's a shame that the expertise of the Obama Administration does not extend beyond the next election.

Hillary, if you're reading this, the difference it makes at this point is that you failed and so did your boss. The 3:00 am phone came in and nobody answered the call. Your hands are bloody with the lives you've wasted.

 

[John Liberty]

I've only got a minute so sorry if my reply is kind of short.

After Bush, no Republican stood a chance so McCain was doomed. In 2012, the problem with Romney wasn't his "moderation". He was so detached from (mortal) humans, he really had no chance and when he made cutting his own taxes his key piece of proposed legislation, we ended up with another Obama 4.

Had they chosen Huntsman, a Libertarian moderate, we could have won this one. Just being a "moderate" is not enough. Huntsman offered intelligence and it seems Christie offers personality. Just IMHO of course but I would vote for either one of those 2. Rand Paul is amusing but far too young and extreme.

Let me put it this way, I voted for Johnson. Make what you will of that.
:2wave:

1).

so McCain was doomed

McCain was doomed not because he was Republican, but because he was Democrat Lite.

2).

He was so detached from (mortal) humans, he really had no chance and when he made cutting his own taxes his key piece of proposed legislation, we ended up with another Obama 4.

Agreed.

3).

Rand Paul is amusing but far too young and extreme.

What does age have to with it? Perhaps we need someone younger in office right now. Also how is he extreme?

4).

Let me put it this way, I voted for Johnson. Make what you will of that.

I will assume you meant Gary Johnson, correct me if I am wrong. I supported Gary Johnson as well, however Ron Paul would have been my ideal candidate. Gary Johnson's issues were spot on, and the thing that set him apart from Paul for me was his gay marriage thoughts(I am pro-gay marriage). However Paul has a very good track record, he has been saying the same thing for many many years. Even if you don't agree with the guy, you can't argue his consistency.

 

[Goshin]

I've only got a minute so sorry if my reply is kind of short.

After Bush, no Republican stood a chance so McCain was doomed. In 2012, the problem with Romney wasn't his "moderation". He was so detached from (mortal) humans, he really had no chance and when he made cutting his own taxes his key piece of proposed legislation, we ended up with another Obama 4.

Had they chosen Huntsman, a Libertarian moderate, we could have won this one. Just being a "moderate" is not enough. Huntsman offered intelligence and it seems Christie offers personality. Just IMHO of course but I would vote for either one of those 2. Rand Paul is amusing but far too young and extreme.

Let me put it this way, I voted for Johnson. Make what you will of that.
:2wave:

Granted, I'd like to see the GOP put up someone who was a "libertarian moderate". Ron Paul is too far out for most people. A moderate libertarian, I could vote for.

 

[Goshin]

I'd switch it around and say that big government is almost as much of a threat to personal liberty as big corporations. Almost, but not quite given that there remains a vestige of democratic accountability with government. Corporations are accountable to no one.

They're accountable to their stockholders. However, much like the problem with democracy, the "small scale" stockholder (the guy who holds a few shares as part of his retirement portfolio) pretty much disappears into the background compared to the large-scale stockholders (the ultra rich and other corporations), and the stockholders are mainly concerned with the bottom line --- money. What this means is that corporations will only act morally when they HAVE to... that is, when not acting morally would damage their bottom line significantly. If they can act immorally and make money and not get caught at it, it is almost assured that they will.

This, of course, is a problem. In the day when most biz were Mom-n-Pop stores, or family enterprises, or local/regional affairs that were small enough that the boss looked on his employees as human beings, and where one person was more readily identified as the problem if there was one, and more likely to be held accountable by the community... the whole affair was a bit more humane.

We now have employers telling employees what they can and can't do when they're NOT at work.... and that's worrisome....

 

[Montecresto]

Speckle, explain Rand Paul's extremism.

 

[Andalublue]

They're accountable to their stockholders.

I was expecting that response. 'They' ARE the stockholders and the stockholders are them; their owners, the people who profit, therefore the people ultimately responsible for the behaviour of the corporation.

However, much like the problem with democracy, the "small scale" stockholder (the guy who holds a few shares as part of his retirement portfolio) pretty much disappears into the background compared to the large-scale stockholders (the ultra rich and other corporations), and the stockholders are mainly concerned with the bottom line --- money. What this means is that corporations will only act morally when they HAVE to... that is, when not acting morally would damage their bottom line significantly. If they can act immorally and make money and not get caught at it, it is almost assured that they will.

In other words, you agree with me, they are unaccountable except to themselves.

This, of course, is a problem. In the day when most biz were Mom-n-Pop stores, or family enterprises, or local/regional affairs that were small enough that the boss looked on his employees as human beings, and where one person was more readily identified as the problem if there was one, and more likely to be held accountable by the community... the whole affair was a bit more humane.

We now have employers telling employees what they can and can't do when they're NOT at work.... and that's worrisome....

In other words, behaving like a state within a state, except you can't vote them out.

 

[Goshin]

I was expecting that response. 'They' ARE the stockholders and the stockholders are them; their owners, the people who profit, therefore the people ultimately responsible for the behaviour of the corporation.

In other words, you agree with me, they are unaccountable except to themselves.


In other words, behaving like a state within a state, except you can't vote them out.

More or less. I wasn't actually disagreeing with you, so much as just expanding on the thought.

 

[Wehrwolfen]

About 5,000 unless your question is completely specific to drones. Unless, of course, you can point out what we have benefitted from a decade of war in Iraq.

I think that qualifies as a conspiracy theory. My post was directly and specifically directed toward the Drone Program. I understand that Adam Kadan is another American on Obama's hit list. Are Tea Party members also on the list?

 

[specklebang]

1).
McCain was doomed not because he was Republican, but because he was Democrat Lite.

2).
Agreed.

3).
What does age have to with it? Perhaps we need someone younger in office right now. Also how is he extreme?

4).
I will assume you meant Gary Johnson, correct me if I am wrong. I supported Gary Johnson as well, however Ron Paul would have been my ideal candidate. Gary Johnson's issues were spot on, and the thing that set him apart from Paul for me was his gay marriage thoughts(I am pro-gay marriage). However Paul has a very good track record, he has been saying the same thing for many many years. Even if you don't agree with the guy, you can't argue his consistency.

I don't dislike him (Rand) and I've always been an Ron fan even though I don't agree with him on a number of issues. I just don't see him as electable and you can't get in the game if you can't put up the ante. That's part of the age issue.

We can agree to disagree about McCain. I think he was electable but the weight of Bush dragged him down. His Palin choice also wasn't very smart. Personally, I think McCain is a good guy and sincere.

Yes, I meant Gary Johnson. I've liked him since his days as governor of NM.

Granted, I'd like to see the GOP put up someone who was a "libertarian moderate". Ron Paul is too far out for most people. A moderate libertarian, I could vote for.

Exactly that. Moderate. Without that, you'll have 4 more years of another Obama. If the candidate is hard right, they'll fail and we don't need that to happen.

I think that qualifies as a conspiracy theory. My post was directly and specifically directed toward the Drone Program. I understand that Adam Kadan is another American on Obama's hit list. Are Tea Party members also on the list?

Yes, unquestionably. Drones are hunting you right now. :roll: Oooh, helicopters also.

 

[Andalublue]

More or less. I wasn't actually disagreeing with you, so much as just expanding on the thought.

Okay. Sorry for missing that. eace

 

[John Liberty]

I don't dislike him (Rand) and I've always been an Ron fan even though I don't agree with him on a number of issues. I just don't see him as electable and you can't get in the game if you can't put up the ante. That's part of the age issue.

We can agree to disagree about McCain. I think he was electable but the weight of Bush dragged him down. His Palin choice also wasn't very smart. Personally, I think McCain is a good guy and sincere.

Yes, I meant Gary Johnson. I've liked him since his days as governor of NM.



Exactly that. Moderate. Without that, you'll have 4 more years of another Obama. If the candidate is hard right, they'll fail and we don't need that to happen.



Yes, unquestionably. Drones are hunting you right now. :roll: Oooh, helicopters also.
View attachment 67152564

I am glad you are a Ron Paul and Gary Johnson fan. But we will have to disagree on the whole "unelectable" thing.

1). Even if Ron Paul were unelectable, that shouldn't matter. We are voting in election, not a football game.

2). Ron Paul had the best chance of any Republican nominee...in 2008 AND 2012. If Ron Paul were nominated he would get the establishment vote(you know...because he has an 'R' next to his name), he would have gotten the Liberty Republican vote, the Libertarian vote, the Moderate vote(because of his Foreign Policy) and he would probably get a lot of independent votes as well. Mitt Romney and John McCain succeeded in getting just the establishment vote, hence why they lost.

 

[specklebang]

I am glad you are a Ron Paul and Gary Johnson fan. But we will have to disagree on the whole "unelectable" thing.

1). Even if Ron Paul were unelectable, that shouldn't matter. We are voting in election, not a football game.

2). Ron Paul had the best chance of any Republican nominee...in 2008 AND 2012. If Ron Paul were nominated he would get the establishment vote(you know...because he has an 'R' next to his name), he would have gotten the Liberty Republican vote, the Libertarian vote, the Moderate vote(because of his Foreign Policy) and he would probably get a lot of independent votes as well. Mitt Romney and John McCain succeeded in getting just the establishment vote, hence why they lost.

Even if Ron Paul were unelectable, that shouldn't matter. We are voting in election, not a football game.
•••Being elected does matter.

Ron Paul had the best chance of any Republican nominee...in 2008 AND 2012. If Ron Paul were nominated he would get the establishment vote(you know...because he has an 'R' next to his name), he would have gotten the Liberty Republican vote, the Libertarian vote, the Moderate vote(because of his Foreign Policy) and he would probably get a lot of independent votes as well. Mitt Romney and John McCain succeeded in getting just the establishment vote, hence why they lost.
•••I don't see it the way you do but I would be hard pressed to claim that I am right and you are wrong. I guess we'll either never know or we'll get an education in the 2016 election.

 

[John Liberty]

Even if Ron Paul were unelectable, that shouldn't matter. We are voting in election, not a football game.
1).•••Being elected does matter.

Ron Paul had the best chance of any Republican nominee...in 2008 AND 2012. If Ron Paul were nominated he would get the establishment vote(you know...because he has an 'R' next to his name), he would have gotten the Liberty Republican vote, the Libertarian vote, the Moderate vote(because of his Foreign Policy) and he would probably get a lot of independent votes as well. Mitt Romney and John McCain succeeded in getting just the establishment vote, hence why they lost.
•••I don't see it the way you do but I would be hard pressed to claim that I am right and you are wrong. I guess we'll either never know or we'll get an education in the 2016 election.

2).

•••Being elected does matter.

You ever think that maybe the reason all these candidates are supposedly "unelectable" is because people label them unelectable and don't vote for them simply because they are unelectable. I mean if they are unelectable because you label them unelectable, are they really unelectable? Just a brain bender for you to think about.

I don't see it the way you do but I would be hard pressed to claim that I am right and you are wrong. I guess we'll either never know or we'll get an education in the 2016 election.

Hopefully the Republican Party straightens up and doesn't nominate Jeb Bush instead of Rand Paul. Because if they do, the RP will enjoy losing their third election in a row.

 

[specklebang]

2).
You ever think that maybe the reason all these candidates are supposedly "unelectable" is because people label them unelectable and don't vote for them simply because they are unelectable. I mean if they are unelectable because you label them unelectable, are they really unelectable? Just a brain bender for you to think about.
Hopefully the Republican Party straightens up and doesn't nominate Jeb Bush instead of Rand Paul. Because if they do, the RP will enjoy losing their third election in a row.

You ever think that maybe the reason all these candidates are supposedly "unelectable" is because people label them unelectable and don't vote for them simply because they are unelectable. I mean if they are unelectable because you label them unelectable, are they really unelectable? Just a brain bender for you to think about.
•••Yes, maybe. You did see my disclaimer? I offer up nothing but an opinion. With my opinion and $1.10 you can get a burger at McDonalds.

Hopefully the Republican Party straightens up and doesn't nominate Jeb Bush instead of Rand Paul. Because if they do, the RP will enjoy losing their third election in a row.[
•••Oh Lord, please doth not send us another Bush. A lot can happen in 3 years and if the GOP starts to moderate, offers useful ideas instead of sheer negativity and picks the right candidate....

 

[John Liberty]

you ever think that maybe the reason all these candidates are supposedly "unelectable" is because people label them unelectable and don't vote for them simply because they are unelectable. I mean if they are unelectable because you label them unelectable, are they really unelectable? Just a brain bender for you to think about.
•••yes, maybe. You did see my disclaimer? I offer up nothing but an opinion. With my opinion and $1.10 you can get a burger at mcdonalds.

Hopefully the republican party straightens up and doesn't nominate jeb bush instead of rand paul. Because if they do, the rp will enjoy losing their third election in a row.[
•••oh lord, please doth not send us another bush. A lot can happen in 3 years and if the gop starts to moderate, offers useful ideas instead of sheer negativity and picks the right candidate....

•••oh lord, please doth not send us another bush. A lot can happen in 3 years and if the gop starts to moderate, offers useful ideas instead of sheer negativity and picks the right candidate...

thank you!

 

[Spriggs05]

Hopefully the Republican Party straightens up and doesn't nominate Jeb Bush instead of Rand Paul. Because if they do, the RP will enjoy losing their third election in a row.

More chance of them nominating Ben Carson, Ted Nugent or Rick Santorum. Don't mind Rand, I would go for him over the aforementioned any day, but I would still go for Gary Johnson over Rand if he rejoined the republicans. If the Republicans don' choose a Liberty friendly/more libertarian candidate, not necessarily Rand, such as Chris Christie then they will lose 2016 by a long shot.

 

[AngryOldGuy]

I'm not saying they need to put up an ultra-conservative...

I find that I must disagree with the exalted poster on this issue

Today ol Ronnie Raygun or Barry 'nuke em till they glow' Goldwater would be considered an out of their minds Ultra-Right-Wing Conservative and after eight years of barry soetoro that's prolly just what the country needs!

Angry, your funny. You should be FunnyOldGuy!

hmm excellent observation & thank you for that, perhaps If I donate I can get a name change? Heck the 290 goal could prolly be found in just one of the couches in my evil corporate lair? I'll put that in the fourth quarter budget proposal.

 

[John Liberty]

More chance of them nominating Ben Carson, Ted Nugent or Rick Santorum. Don't mind Rand, I would go for him over the aforementioned any day, but I would still go for Gary Johnson over Rand if he rejoined the republicans. If the Republicans don' choose a Liberty friendly/more libertarian candidate, not necessarily Rand, such as Chris Christie then they will lose 2016 by a long shot.

Hmmm. Not sure I agree about Christie....

However I think Gary Johnson is a good candidate. I consider Rand Paul and Gary Johnson practically equal in terms of liberty(I say this until Rand Paul issues a statement on gay marriage). So if they were to run against each other in the primaries I would have some serious soul searching to do :2razz:

 

[AngryOldGuy]

There you go a dude that states right up front:
I am not going to concern myself with homosexual rights, abortion or (hmm what's that other thing the left always accuses us of?)

It's the economy stupid or is it the stupid economy?

 

[ChrisL]

Yes, and no. When corps get big enough and their consumer base broad enough, and their wealth and power reach certain levels, they can engage in a lot of propaganda as well as big-money lobbying. At that point, consumer anger bringing them down becomes improbable. Also, most Americans just buy whatever they want at the best price they can get and pay little attention to what the corps producing same do... partly because it is complex and hard to keep straight who makes what and who owns what, and most people just don't care enough to do that.

Big corps, though, I have become convinced in recent years, pose almost as much of a threat to personal liberty as big government. Almost.

Government makes and passes all the laws, lie to us constantly, and all other kinds of shady dealings. They control everything and they are the reason why the corporations are in bed with them is because the government wants it that way IMO.

 

[AngryOldGuy]

no No NO! business would love to go on it's way unmolested by taxes & regulations
but they find themselves having to pay protection money to the Mafia
when (which for most of you will be never) you run a business you realize early on that any and all government involvement has only one effect on your bottom line and therefore a deleterious effect on you your customers employees and their families. There are three types of folks you always lose when you have dealings with: Cops (and or lawyers) Doctors and the IRS. Of the group the least heinous is the doctors so Obama took that over too now they get ya coming and going