Posted on 11/06/2012 9:24:31 PM PST by TheArizona
It would seem our libertarian friends pretty much handed the election to Obama. Couple that with vote fraud and hello 4 more years of communism/nazism.
But you all can take comfort knowing you voted your conscience and your vote counted... For Obama...
The Arizona
How about abandoning your radical leftism of partial birth abortion, abortion, open borders, homosexual marriage, heroin advertising etc?
To be honest, most Libertarians I know would vote Democrat if no Libertarian were available.
I think the GOP got nearly all of the Libertarians who could possibly be convinced to vote for the Republican candidate.
The single unifying issue of Libertarians is not smaller government (that is the issue uniting GOP-leaning Libertarians, however), it is drug legalization.
Gary Johnson did not cost us this election. Women voters did.
Well; actually, the Obama Media would have immediately started in with the “bash the evil Republican Romney” drumbeat, and beat it and beat it and beat it, until, like the eeeeeeevvilll “Bush” he and the Republican Party would have ended up hated and despised until a Republican wouldn’t be elected in years. Really, I think Mitt and Ann are better off without that garbage. - Now, the feckless “community organizer” and his clownish VP will have to work wonders and produce millions of jobs in the next year or two, else their constituency will have to have more food stamps. - Joey Biden - bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. On a lighter note, now Michelle can take off on lavish vacations in earnest until her fawning subjects start noticing and rebel.
The point is that Ayn Rand believed in a god and wanted government to reflect her theocracy.
The great moment for the libertarians, their greatest electoral achievement, was against Reagan, they have never achieved those heights since.
...you could have had a Ron Paul.
Yep, GOPe got their pale pastels. We needed a choice - not an echo.
GOPe also needs to learn better propoganda techniques. The market crashed in 2008, and Nancy Pelosi was immediately front and center screaming about the failed policies of the Bush Administration.
Pubbies needed to immediately bury that into the actions of the Democrat Congress, Democrap Fannie/Freddie/Clinton changes to banks & mortgage loans etc. etc. etc.
It just came to be accepted that Bush’s economic policies caused it all. Pubbies never went to the mat on that.
It’s a stunning display of feckless stupidity that the GOP thinks that there is nothing in the DOD budget to cut.
Talk to the guys coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan and ask them about waste. There’s HUGE waste in the DOD, some of it just ripe-suck stupid stuff.
If the GOP came forward with a list of waste and fraud in the DOD to cut, they’d remove the #1 bargaining and PR point that the DNC has: That the GOP refuses to cut defense spending. OK, so give the DNC what they want: Defense cuts - in their districts. Give the DNC cuts galore - that hit their constituents. Then go forward proposing more cuts to many more departments.
But no, the GOP wants to double down on stupid and say “No defense cuts at all.”
Which shows that they’re not serious fiscal conservatives.
I don’t know what you’re talking about. There was no libertarian Ross Perot. If it’s that libertarians staying at hike cost Romney, well, no one deserves to lose whom voters did not prefer over Mr. Nothing.
Whoops, I meant win, not lose.
There is plenty to cut in the budget. We don’t have to be the global police, for example.
The way business is done in Washington, D.C., means Senators and Reps must “bring home the bacon” for constituents. Even Ron Paul played the game, only he was dishonest about it. He would come up with legislation to benefit his district, get others to sign on, then at the end vote against it.
It's a real shame that the G.O.P. talking heads didn't learn that lesson with McCain. Watch them do it again in 2016, they never learn
As far as limiting SCOTUS’ jurisdiction goes, Congress cannot touch its original jurisdiction, which includes cases arising under the Constitution. There isn’t anything whatsoever they couldn’t argue brings up a Constitutional issue, given how we know they’re apt to argue, and as such their jurisdiction is as wide as they feel it needs be
"god"? lower case "G"? Ayn Rand was an atheist.
Pardon me, you think Ron Paul would have won this election?
People like to bring up the fact that defense is Constitutionally empowered, unlike say Medicare. It’s not really a matter of defense anymore, rather “pursuing national interests,” or whatever, but nevermind. The unconstitutional departments should go first, however in insisting on that we lose tge game to the Dems. And I’m not talking about the perfect as the enemy of the good here. I’m not talking McCainian compromise. I’m saying all the other side has to do is bring up defense to stop us from cutting the budget.
It is their trump card, and they will beat us with it. Defense robs us of all credibility and makes them—them!—appear fiscally restrained. It’s worse; it makes us them.
Nope, Art III, Sec 2, Para 2 says:
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
Paragraph 1 provides the full list:
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;-- between a State and Citizens of another State,--between Citizens of different States,--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
As you can see, cases arising under the Constitution are not in the Original Jurisdiction list of P2 and therefore are subject to the underlined provision: meaning that Congress can prohibit the USSC from hearing cases on, say, abortion.
With a candidate as weak as Obama? Yes.
Ron Paul has had some very vibrant supporters, that sort of enthusiasm really would have been an asset. Moreover, it would have signaled that the GOP is not about "things as usual"/"just talk" but rather about actually addressing problems rather than, at most, acting as a defensive/holding-pattern.
Ayn Rand believed in a god and wanted government to reflect her theocracy:
Ayn Rand said:
I am done with the monster of “we,” the word of serfdom, of plunder, of misery, falsehood and shame. And now I see the face of god, and I raise this god over the earth, this god whom men have sought since men came into being, this god who will grant them joy and peace and pride. This god, this one word: “I.”
Lucifer said:
Isaiah 14:14
I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.
Thanks for bringing up that old canard, “national interests”. Globalists have dragged this nation into more foreign adventures in that cause just so the American people can shed their blood, tears, and treasure to save elitists economic butts.
Wrong decisions by Presidents listneing to advisers who do not know history is the result.
Nation building in Afghanistan is such a one. The reluctance to kill Somali pirates another. The way we should be dealing with terrorists and pirates is we catch them, execute them, and tell the host nations if it keeps happening we will make it painful for you. Then we follow through with the threat to such an extent that the host nations kill off the terrorists and pirates themselves! We have exhausted much money on these and have little benefit to show for the effort.
This nation is bankrupt, so I’ll just say this about Federal programs and non-constitutional departments: in a year or two - maybe even less! - the subject will be moot because there will no longer be any money in the Treasury. Social security payments will dry up as will Medicare and EBT financing. Those who are on the dole will face desperate times.
The suffering will be terrible but the problem of bloated government will be solved.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.