Posted on 06/13/2002 8:27:39 AM PDT by christine
Which problems are you referring to? We may not agree on what constitutes a problem. For example, I don't consider the inability to pray in government school to be a problem. Give me some examples of what you consider to be problems.
...how do you intend on implimenting them?
By educating others about free-market solutions and by supporting candidates who support the same things I support.
Conservatives know what the problems are. Excessive taxation on working Americans that continues to feed the bloated federal bureaucracy. Massive political gridlock in Wash-DC that has caused legislative stalemate and forces a Republican president to battle an obstructionist liberal Democratic opposition, that impedes his agenda and thwarts his every move. With help of course, from their enabler friends in the media.
Your answers and those of your fellow libertarians and other third party types, has been to say you won't support conservative Republicans candidates, to constantly bitch about Bush and Republicans in general and say everything is unconstitutional. Wow! You call that problem solving? I don't! This is nothing but total disdain for the entire system, it doesn't fix what is broke and never will.
Now get off your butt, think for a change and give me some answers. Saying you're going to support and vote for some libertarian, or other third party candidate, isn't a solution. Saying you're going to educate people, is a worthy objective, but doesn't get the job done either. I'll repeat one hint, politics is a slow process.
So again, what are your solutions?
PS- Don't try and deconstruct what I've said. Give some solutions.
Despite being asked, you provided no examples of what you consider to be problems. All you've done is accuse me of providing no solutions. Since you will not identify a problem I cannot offer a solution.
My approach of politics and getting candidates elected and building a governing majority, does work.
I am also trying to get candidates elected. Getting a governing majority is not neccessary. It is possible to win an election with less than 50% of the votes.
You keep beating around the bush by listing certain aspects of the government that you would cut or abolish.
You asked the question, "What solutions do you have for the problems facing America..." You can't get more general than that.
Excessive taxation on working Americans...
Solution: repeal taxes. Despite controlling both chambers of Congress and the WH for most of 2001, Republicans did not repeal the death or capital-gains taxes when they had the opportunity.
Massive political gridlock in Wash-DC that has caused legislative stalemate and forces a Republican president to battle an obstructionist liberal Democratic opposition...
Gridlock is a good thing. It keeps government from getting bigger.
The president has veto power but he won't use it. Why should he veto big-government legislation, and be called an obstructionist, when he can sign it and take credit for its implementation?
Your answers and those of your fellow libertarians and other third party types, has been to say you won't support conservative Republicans candidates, to constantly bitch about Bush and Republicans in general and say everything is unconstitutional.
GWB and Congressional Republicans have done NOTHING to reduce government.
Which Republican candidates are conservative that Libertarians refuse to support?
Saying you're going to support and vote for some libertarian...candidate, isn't a solution.
Saying you're going to support and vote for some Republican isn't a solution either.
Saying you're going to educate people, is a worthy objective, but doesn't get the job done either.
Educating people is the only way to get the job done. If people believe that the only choices available are government-program-A and government-program-B, and are unaware that no government program is also an option, then government will continue getting bigger.
I'll repeat one hint, politics is a slow process.
The world is what we make of it. If Republicans wanted to make a difference in the federal government they would have done it already.
Give some solutions.
Give some problems.
Oh, boy! You'll really make any excuse for them won't you. Newt Gingrich was a strategic fool. He didn't know what he was doing and he royally screwed it up. The GOP would have a 50 seat majority today, if Newt hadn't been such a screw up.
I specifically asked you not to decontructed what I said, but rather to give examples of solutions to the problems facing America today. You responded to neither request. Instead, you went into a tit for tat mode and proceeded to deconsruct what I said, like a twelve year old. You then said, I've supplied no problems, so how can you supply solutions. Look, you have no trouble reading us conservative Republican Bush supporters, the riot act, on a daily basis. Now, all of a sudden your tongue tied and can't speak a word. It's not my responsibility to list the problems that you perceive to exist. As for solutions, that's what I want from YOU. Not anymore BS!
However, I did offer up a few problems from my persepctive. Like excessive taxation, which is the direct cause of excessive government spending. To me these are the two most significant problems that exist in Wash-DC today. Your answer was, "Solution: repeal taxes". That was it. You don't offer up any plan for repealing taxes, especially when you're up against the loyal opposition forces, special interest groups and the liberal media.
I also mentioned the massive political gridlock that exists inside the "Beltway" today. Your answer was "Gridlock is a good thing. It keeps government from getting bigger". That was it. While gridlock may be a good thing in controlling the growth of government, it does nothing to reduce government spending. And besides, since when do libertarians support gridlock?
You did mention one meaningful solution. That would be for President Bush to use the veto pen and strike down legislation. Of course you also didn't mention, that unless it's a pocket veto, there is always a chance Congress will overrule him. Remember the RINOS! Anymore solutions, or is that the extent of your problem solving?
>>>Saying you're going to support and vote for some Republican isn't a solution either.
Sure it's a solution. But I didn't say anything about Republicans or RINOS. I said we need to elect more conservative Republicans to office. Like Jim Robinson said:
The only chance we have of turning this thing around is to regain control of the Senate. Keep voting out the Democrats, regain contriol, and then we can worry about the RINOs.
565 posted on 6/5/02 9:06 PM Mountain by Jim Robinson
LINK to Jim Robinson's Remarks
Again, just what are you afraid of? You still show a deep lack of understanding American politics and the slow nature of the overall political process. You've proven to me, you have no solutions to the problems facing America today. You present a very limited and shortsighted view of the world. Typical libertarian tunnel vision.
If you ever come up with real solutions, look me up. Until then, tap dance around the issues qall you want.
Solve this math problem for me to the right of the arrow -----> _________
Don't ask me what the problem is. Just give me the solution.
In order for me to give you solutions to problems facing America you need to tell me what you perceive to be the problems.
It's not my responsibility to list the problems that you perceive to exist. As for solutions, that's what I want from YOU.
If you want me to give you solutions then you need to tell me what the problems are.
You don't offer up any plan for repealing taxes, especially when you're up against the loyal opposition forces, special interest groups and the liberal media.
As I said previously, the WH and both chambers of Congress were controlled by Republicans for most of 2001. Why didn't they take the opportunity to repeal any taxes? Why not repeal some gun-control?
My plan for repealing taxes entails supporting and voting for people who will repeal taxes.
While gridlock may be a good thing in controlling the growth of government, it does nothing to reduce government spending.
If the president wanted to reduce government he could exercise his veto power until Congress cut spending. Sure, they might override his vetos. But, at least the president wouldn't be a rubber stamp and every piece of legislation would be a fight.
The truth of the matter is that GWB has no intention of reducing government and never did. His primary concern at the moment is to please as many people as possible before the next election by promising goodies from the public treasury.
...since when do libertarians support gridlock?
What you call gridlock I call separation of powers.
...you also didn't mention, that unless it's a pocket veto, there is always a chance Congress will overrule him.
There is no limit to the number of times the president can exercise his veto. He could veto legislation until Congress either acquiesces or overrides it. The line-item veto gimmick keeps people spinning in cul-de-sacs to divert them from addressing the real problem.
You still show a deep lack of understanding American politics and the slow nature of the overall political process. You present a very limited and shortsighted view of the world. Typical libertarian tunnel vision.
None of that is an argument.
You've proven to me, you have no solutions to the problems facing America today.
You have yet to tell me what you perceive the problems to be.
You want to re-institute the Constitution yet you believe that no significant amount of liberty has ever been retained at the ballot box.
Woooowa what the ....?
I'm not sure what you mean by this. What is the comparison? More liberties have been lost at the ballot box compaired to...what?
I believe one of the greatest downfalls to these United States was the endorsement of the 17th Amendment. It pushed us further along Tyler's definition of a democracy. If anything we need to get the masses away from the ballot box, specifically at the general government level. One possible benefit of this would be limiting the pandering the higher house of our legislative system is doing to the public by way of the media. Turn that level of voting back over to the state houses where it belongs. We'll be closer to the Constitutional Republic the Founders envisioned, immediate limitation of campaign finances (no campaign? no major contributions), and on a personal note over time I wouldn't have to see Tom Daschle or Trent Lott every few minutes playing up their sob stories about why they're right and the other guy is wrong
I agree with the rest of this. The 17th is a stinker and the uninformed should not be encouraged to vote.
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.