ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

The Conservative/Libertarian appreciation thread

Lone Palm

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 207

Report this Feb. 27 2013, 11:23 pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=e6J4QBmdi-c&feature=endscreen The lady in the video might have me eating my words. 

Gawain_VIII

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 191

Report this Feb. 28 2013, 7:39 am

In the US, there are 4 general categories of "primary" elections.  Open, Closed, Modified closed (or semi-closed), and Nonpartisan Blanket (or Cajun) primary.


Open primaries allows anyone to walk in, pick a party ballot and vote in that party's primary, under the condition that they only get to vote for one party.  So, a slew of Democrats could concievably vote for the "most left" Republican thus undermining the efforts of registered Republicans.  The reverse is also true.


Closed primaries only allow registered members of the party to vote in the primary election.  The good side of this option is that it prevents the potential for cross-party abuses, as I described above.  The bad side is that unaffiliated/independants (40% of registered voters; 60%+ of actual participating voters) don't get to vote in ANY primary, and thus remain un-represented in the General election.


The best option, IMHO, is the Modified closed: For affiliated voters, it acts like a normal closed--GOP can only vote in GOP primary, Dems can only vote in Dem primary... Unaffiliated/independant voters can pick one or the other.  Slightly more complicated (not really, but consider the average level of common sense that the mass populace has historically demonstrated) but allows the most flexibility with the least amount of abust potential of the options currently provided.


The worst option is the confusing Blanket Primary.  All canidates, regardless of party affiliation, are placed on a single ballot.  The top two move on to an instant-runoff.  It hasn't happened, but it's concievable that two people from the same party might recieve the state's nomination for both primaries.  (Could you imagine, Hillary and Obama making the top 2, Hillary winning the Dem & Obama the Rep nomination for that state?)


Unfortunately, only 3 states (CA, AZ, & MA) use this method.  LA and WA use the Blanket Primary.


ROBERT CHARLES GRAHAM, Vice Admiral
U.S.S Gawain NCC-91980
Commanding Officer, Frontier Fleet
sto-frontier-fleet.proboards.com

darmokattanagra

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 386

Report this Feb. 28 2013, 8:41 am

Thirdly, and most importantly, the economy is going to fail soon and I would rather have a Democrat in Office than a Republican, because the Party (and the economic policies they espouse) holding Office will get the blame.

This confirms what I've long suspected, that Obama is just a shill. A scapegoat for capitalists so they can blame all the horrible sh!t they've done on "socialism."

And I'm not surprised that when a real libertarian gives Obama due credit for being more libertarian on social issues, it's followed by a page and a half of spam about how Obama is an evil socialist dictator.

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46297

Report this Feb. 28 2013, 8:49 am

Quote: Lone Palm @ Feb. 27 2013, 11:23 pm

>

>http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=e6J4QBmdi-c&feature=endscreen The lady in the video might have me eating my words. 

>
There are a ton of videos like that.  I blame our gubmunt edewkayshun & indocktrunayshun cystduuhhmm that these people can't do any critical thinking.  (But then again, there are also videos of people that vote R that can't think logically either.)

Gawain_VIII

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 191

Report this Feb. 28 2013, 9:20 am

Quote: darmokattanagra @ Feb. 28 2013, 8:41 am

>
This confirms what I've long suspected, that Obama is just a shill. A scapegoat for capitalists so they can blame all the horrible sh!t they've done on "socialism."

And I'm not surprised that when a real libertarian gives Obama due credit for being more libertarian on social issues, it's followed by a page and a half of spam about how Obama is an evil socialist dictator.


While I am an advocate of Free-market/Austrian economic theory and an adamantly oposed to Obama's pseudo-socialist/Keynsian economic policies... it is unfortunately true that "real" Libertarians place more (too much?) emphasis on economics over social policies.


There are quite a number of items which Obama has perpetuated which I, rightly, praise him for.  Not the least of these was the repeal of DADT.


I think that there is a false misrepresentation of priorities going on, however.  It may be that economic polocies may appear to be the higher priority for "real" libertarians because it is a more prominant issue to the general public at-large.


I condider myself a moderate conservative libertarian constitutionalist.  I espouse primarily libertarian pholosophies, moderate in scope (I abhor extremes--they cause deadlock and prevent the possibility of compromise); I lean on the more conservative side of most topics--but not always, and I demand (as much as a private citizen/voter can do so) strict adherence to the Constitution without "interpretation".


A Registered libertarian, I do vote for many Libertarian canidates when there is a reasonably viable canidate running... but in general, I will vote Republican more often at the national level, Democrat more-often at the local/county level... and a fairly even mix at the middle/state levels.


One thing that I absolutely reject is the "lesser of two evils" method of voting.  I support for the canidate which most closely matches my own political viewpoints, regardless of the canidate's official affiliation.


If I were the "power that be" for a day, I would outlaw parties alltogehter.  Of course, that violates Free Association, and even if it didn't "unofficial" parties would organize anyway.  So, failing that, the next best option is to pass a bill which requires equal treatment of parties so that sates could no longer have 1 rule apply to "major parties" and a second, more stringent, set of rules that apply to smaller Third Parties.


This way the major parties would have to follow the same ballot-access procedures that smaller parties have to go through (instead of automatically recieving access, as they currently do) and smaller parties would enjoy the same benefits of funds-matching that the big-two recieve.  Make it a more-level playing field and permanantly break up the two-party stranglehold that American politics has been stuck with since inception.


ROBERT CHARLES GRAHAM, Vice Admiral
U.S.S Gawain NCC-91980
Commanding Officer, Frontier Fleet
sto-frontier-fleet.proboards.com

darmokattanagra

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 386

Report this Feb. 28 2013, 10:20 am

Gawain, I was implying that you are a real libertarian. The others who claim to be libertarians are just conservatives. If they were real libertarians, they, like you, would praise Obama for things like ending DA/DT.


As for economic issues, I still don't see how anyone can call Obama a "socialist" with a straight face. He's clearly a capitalist. A crony capitalist, if you prefer, but definitely not a socialist.

Lone Palm

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 207

Report this Feb. 28 2013, 8:58 pm

This confirms what I've long suspected, that Obama is just a shill. A scapegoat for capitalists so they can blame all the horrible sh!t they've done on "socialism."

And I'm not surprised that when a real libertarian gives Obama due credit for being more libertarian on social issues, it's followed by a page and a half of spam about how Obama is an evil socialist dictator.


I agree that Obama is a shill, but not for capitalism. He's a shill for the unnamed people running the Federal Reserve and the recipients of the bailouts. These people control both the Republican and Democratic Parties, fronting two candidates that are superfically different to give the public the appearence of choice while still beholden to TPTB. 


As to Obama's policies, find me a policy that is good. I don't believe repealing DA/DT was good. DA/DT should be standard procedure for all individuals, because sexual orientation is irrelevant within the context of the military, which has no authority in that domain of an individual's life. If enlistment is voluntary, an individual assumes responsibility for his conduct amongst others while serving his tour of duty. Additionally, one should expect, while in the context of the government sector, to affiliate with others of differing beliefs and involuntary associations to be applicable. If this is not to one's liking, the individual should consider remaining in the private sector where voluntary associations may be resumed. However, if the individual is coerced into service by a military draft, which is involuntary servitude, than one may reasonably object to the involuntary associations that follow. This is all the more reason to avoid or nullify a military draft.


A repeal of DA/DT looks good at face value, but only for the short-term. But what are the long-term consequences? While all 18 year old males are forced to register for the draft, DA/DT actually provided homosexuals with a way to opt out of involuntary servitude should a military draft be resumed. Now, that excuse is gone and has basically expanded the military pool for the government, which by extension may lead to an expansion of government. The government is already considering forcing women to sign up for the draft.


So congradulations to all those wanting equality and fairness, for in the eyes of government, everyone can die equally and fairly for the government. Oh, but wait! We're discriminating against the chidlren. Let's include them too! 

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46297

Report this Mar. 01 2013, 9:05 am

Quote: Lone Palm @ Feb. 28 2013, 8:58 pm

>I agree that Obama is a shill, but not for capitalism. He's a shill for the unnamed people running the Federal Reserve and the recipients of the bailouts. These people control both the Republican and Democratic Parties, fronting two candidates that are superfically different to give the public the appearence of choice while still beholden to TPTB.
Exactly.  How many thousands of regulations did Obama push through to stop businesses?  How about how he screwed with the car companies, even firing and replacing them with his henchmen.  And then closing down businesses and throwing out contract law....


Just because he's helped some people who runs a business (Jeff Immelt, etc.) so that they don't pay taxes doesn't mean Obama is a capitalist.  Capitalism is open for everyone, not just Obama's friends.  If Obama believed in capitalism, he wouldn't be trying to take from people out of "fairness."  Capitalists don't use the government to pick favorites and harm the rest - they let the consumer have the choice.

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46297

Report this Mar. 01 2013, 9:18 am

Quote: Lone Palm @ Feb. 28 2013, 8:58 pm

>As to Obama's policies, find me a policy that is good. I don't believe repealing DA/DT was good. DA/DT should be standard procedure for all individuals, because sexual orientation is irrelevant within the context of the military, which has no authority in that domain of an individual's life. If enlistment is voluntary, an individual assumes responsibility for his conduct amongst others while serving his tour of duty. Additionally, one should expect, while in the context of the government sector, to affiliate with others of differing beliefs and involuntary associations to be applicable. If this is not to one's liking, the individual should consider remaining in the private sector where voluntary associations may be resumed. However, if the individual is coerced into service by a military draft, which is involuntary servitude, than one may reasonably object to the involuntary associations that follow. This is all the more reason to avoid or nullify a military draft.

>A repeal of DA/DT looks good at face value, but only for the short-term. But what are the long-term consequences? While all 18 year old males are forced to register for the draft, DA/DT actually provided homosexuals with a way to opt out of involuntary servitude should a military draft be resumed. Now, that excuse is gone and has basically expanded the military pool for the government, which by extension may lead to an expansion of government. The government is already considering forcing women to sign up for the draft.

>So congradulations to all those wanting equality and fairness, for in the eyes of government, everyone can die equally and fairly for the government. Oh, but wait! We're discriminating against the chidlren. Let's include them too! 

>
As a veteran, I wanted to add just a tidbit here....  The military is there for one thing - to protect the USA from our enemies.  That's it - we should have the best fighting force in the world so that when someone is idiotic enough to attack, we go kick their posteriors into the grave and come home.


The military should NOT be used as a social test tube to try different things to appease special interests.


We're an all volunteer force - when we took our oath, we agreed to follow the rules.  If we didn't want to follow the rules, nobody was forcing us to take the oath.

fireproof78

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 342

Report this Mar. 01 2013, 9:31 am

If Obama was a capatalist, he wouldn't be selectively choosing companies to succeed or fail based upon his opinion of what is right for business. He would not be blocking econimic opportunities because he feels that some businesses make "too much" money.


Obama has bought the auto industry and brought it under public control, rather than letting them go to bankruptcy and the free market take its course. He has set about a redistributionist, class warfare, rhetoric designed to make people envious of business owners and millionaires, and saying that they deserve what others have worked hard for.


Obama would rather be able to rule by executive fiat than through Congress. He would rather control all aspects of American life than allow for freedom.


Maybe he is not a socialist but a dictator. He certainly is not a captalist.

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46297

Report this Mar. 01 2013, 9:56 am

Quote: Lone Palm @ Feb. 28 2013, 8:58 pm

>The government is already considering forcing women to sign up for the draft.
I wanted to talk about this one separately.


As I stated above, the military has one and only one mission, and it's not a pitri dish for social experiments.  Anything that distracts from that mission is dangerous, not only to those in uniform, but to the entire USA.


Not every job in the military is the same and requires certain qualifications.  I could never have been a fighter pilot as I am too tall for the cockpit.  I could never have been a SEAL as I can't swim.  (Thankfully, I only wanted to do computers and got the job I wanted.)  Just a fact of life that not everyone is qualified for every job.


I think it's quite interesting that in the miltary, we have different physical fitness requirements.  Why?  If men and women are to be treated equally, why the discrimination?  Now.... some politicians want to "fix" that by lowering the qualifications to the womens' standard, but how does that help make us a better fighting force?


I've had both men and women working for me when I was in the military and I've worked for both men and women.  In the specialty I worked in, gender wasn't an issue as the qualifications for the job could be met by both genders as they were more mental than physical.  However.... in the field, it has become an issue in some circumstances because it's much easier for a man to carry a wounded comrade out of a kill zone than a woman carrying a man.  (And that doesn't count all the equipment they're carrying.)  Are there women than can do it?  Of course!  But they're the exception and not the norm.


Remember when GI Jane came out?  I was in the military then and this was a hot topic of discussion - especially with the women.  Not a single one of the ones I knew thought it was a good idea for women to do SpecOps or be in the front lines as they couldn't meet the physical requirements and thought it would be a hinderance to the mission.  (Of course, all of them were office people, not front lines, but none of those women knew any military woman who support it either.)  I also recently saw a special with several women who were in deployed in hot zones - all of those women agreed that there are just some jobs that women can't physically do.


 


Personally, I understand both sides - the wish for some women to have the choice of being on the front lines and those that don't.  Throughout history, there have been women warriors that did amazing things, but they were the exception and not the rule.  The question is.... Does it help the mission or does it hurt?


 


As I told my people - we're military first and our speciality is second.

darmokattanagra

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 386

Report this Mar. 01 2013, 12:07 pm

I agree that Obama is a shill, but not for capitalism. He's a shill for the unnamed people running the Federal Reserve and the recipients of the bailouts. These people control both the Republican and Democratic Parties, fronting two candidates that are superfically different to give the public the appearence of choice while still beholden to TPTB.

Yeah, capitalists. Corporatists. The 1%. The "opulent minority." Whatever you want to call them, they aren't socialists. They're doing the same thing any other capitalist would do if given the opportunity: monopolize.

And your defense of DA/DT is appalling.

fireproof78

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 342

Report this Mar. 01 2013, 12:37 pm

Quote: darmokattanagra @ Mar. 01 2013, 12:07 pm

>

>I agree that Obama is a shill, but not for capitalism. He's a shill for the unnamed people running the Federal Reserve and the recipients of the bailouts. These people control both the Republican and Democratic Parties, fronting two candidates that are superfically different to give the public the appearence of choice while still beholden to TPTB.

Yeah, capitalists. Corporatists. The 1%. The "opulent minority." Whatever you want to call them, they aren't socialists. They're doing the same thing any other capitalist would do if given the opportunity: monopolize.


>


Socialism is also a monopoly just held by the government rather than private corporations.


Capitalism is not perfect, but the society has greater freedom to change the system than under socialism. You will get corruption in any system run by humans so I would prefer one that I could change rather than one that I must just suffer under or wait for a violent revolution to change.

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46297

Report this Mar. 01 2013, 12:41 pm

Quote: fireproof78 @ Mar. 01 2013, 12:37 pm

>

>Socialism is also a monopoly just held by the government rather than private corporations.

>Capitalism is not perfect, but the society has greater freedom to change the system than under socialism. You will get corruption in any system run by humans so I would prefer one that I could change rather than one that I must just suffer under or wait for a violent revolution to change.

>
Yep - Capitalism means we have choices.  If someone had a 'monopoly' and was 'abusing' customers, it's amazing how other choices pop up to compete.  But remember - socialists don't want us to have choices.

fireproof78

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 342

Report this Mar. 01 2013, 12:43 pm

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Mar. 01 2013, 9:05 am

Quote: Lone Palm @ Feb. 28 2013, 8:58 pm

>

>I agree that Obama is a shill, but not for capitalism. He's a shill for the unnamed people running the Federal Reserve and the recipients of the bailouts. These people control both the Republican and Democratic Parties, fronting two candidates that are superfically different to give the public the appearence of choice while still beholden to TPTB.
Exactly.  How many thousands of regulations did Obama push through to stop businesses?  How about how he screwed with the car companies, even firing and replacing them with his henchmen.  And then closing down businesses and throwing out contract law....

Just because he's helped some people who runs a business (Jeff Immelt, etc.) so that they don't pay taxes doesn't mean Obama is a capitalist.  Capitalism is open for everyone, not just Obama's friends.  If Obama believed in capitalism, he wouldn't be trying to take from people out of "fairness."  Capitalists don't use the government to pick favorites and harm the rest - they let the consumer have the choice.


Exactly this point. Obama is using socialist policies to pick winners and losers, and forcing business to shut down, lay off workers and the like through poor economic policies that harm businesses, especially small businesses, which he claims to support.


The best example is the automobile industry. It wouldn't have collapsed or been destroyed as Obama and the mainstream media would have us believe. Bankruptcy laws exist and allow for negotiation.


The nature of the free market is that businesses who make poor choices and fail will fail. Its bad for people, but if the market won't support the business choice, no proping up by the government will make it work. But, that is what Obama is trying to do and he paints opponents as mean people who wouldn't save a business. If he is that worried about it, why not come to my town and save the two retail stores that are shutting down?

Recently logged in

Users browsing this forum: JOYOFVGR

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum