Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

LIBERTARIANS; THE SOCIALIST'S BEST FRIEND
THE LOGICAL VIEW ^ | 11/06/02 | MARK A SITY

Posted on 11/06/2002 5:34:44 AM PST by logic101.net

TIME FOR AN END TO THE CONSERVATIVE INFIGHTING MARK A SITY 11/6/02

When WI taxpayers burden skyrockets, we have Ed Thompson to thank. When Milwaukee and the surrounding area are saddled with a light rail system few want, and no one will ride, we have Ed Thompson to thank. When caps on property taxes are removed, and property taxes skyrocket, we have Ed Thompson to thank. When welfare reform is de-reformed in WI, we have Ed Thompson to thank. When public schools in WI get even worse, and the public school teachers get huge raises, we have Ed Thompson to thank. When WI residents find their rights to defend themselves against criminals who break into their homes weakened, we have Ed Thompson to thank. When companies leave WI, or decide not to set up shop here due to our repressive tax structure, we have Ed Thompson to thank. When Gov Jim "bingo" Doyle rewards his contributors, at the expense of the taxpayers (as he has a history of doing), we have Ed Thompson to thank.

Who is Ed Thompson? Ed is the brother of Tommy, our former governor; the current HHS Secretary. Ed was the Libertarian candidate for governor in WI. Ed gave the Governor's Mansion to Bingo Jim by getting 10% of the vote. Governor McCallum lost the election by only 3%. Thanks Ed.

IL can say much the same for Cal Skinner. I don't know how much of the vote Cal got, but it is likely that Jim Ryan would have won there rather than the Democrat were it not for Cal. One good thing for WI residents over IL residents; at least we can pronounce and spell Bingo Jim's name. I won't even try either for the IL Governor Elect!

Let's keep in mind that Libertarians and Republicans are generally going in the same direction. True, the Republicans don't want to go as far as Libertarians, and there are some very contrary views. However, both generally want a smaller federal government that is less intrusive. Democrats on the other hand want bigger and bigger government. They want hand outs. They want dependency. They want Socialism rather than freedom! They want gun control rather than criminal control. They want ignorant sheeple rather than an informed, educated self-dependent population. I prefer much of the Libertarian agenda to that of the Republicans, but I find the Democrat agenda totally repulsive. Libertarians often hand elections to the Democrats, by taking away conservative leaning votes. When a Libertarian candidate's message resonates with the public; Democrats win! A Democratic win doesn't help Republicans, Libertarians, or Constitutionalists! It sets back all of our causes. It is well past time for Libertarians and Republicans to get together to defeat the common enemy. We can work out our differences later; let's get rid of the common threat first! As far as my views; neither Libertarians nor Republicans go far enough; I am a Constitutionalist! Yet, I generally vote Republican; I'm a realist. When we break the stranglehold of the left, then we can fight each other; but let's fight each other on our terms, not theirs!

Now, as far as Ed Thompson goes; well I have to steal a line from one of my favorite movies (They Call Me Trinity). I'm not mad at Ed, I'm mad at his ma. She should have strangled him, or at least drown him when he was born.

MARK A SITY http://www.logic101.net/


TOPICS: Heated Discussion
KEYWORDS: copernicus2; opuslist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 581-600601-620621-640641-655 next last
To: Alan Chapman
Libertarian candidates appear on every single ballot that Republican candidates are on. They have exactly the same chance of winning.

Say what?!!!! That would mean that we must have at least 25 Senators, and how many members of the house as the Republicans.

Please, for your family's financial future; never gamble. You seem to have no concept of odds.

MARK A SITY
621 posted on 11/10/2002 7:17:38 PM PST by logic101.net
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 606 | View Replies]

To: logic101.net
...ever hear of Ronald Reagan?

Yup. He said government isn't the solution, but rather the problem. Then he presided over a 55% increase in federal spending over 8 years with $100 to $200 billion in deficits during each of those 8 years. He promised to abolish the Dept. of Education and then signed re-appropriations.

...didn't Bush (this one) pass a tax cut, a small one, but still a cut.

Any tax cut is meaningless unless it is accompanied by a corresponding reduction in government spending. We have a $165 billion budget deficit for 2002. We all pay for that through inflation. Bush's tax cut simply rearranged the burden of government. We all pay for big government either via taxes or inflation.

...if Al Whore would have been in the White House, do you think we'd have gotten ANY tax cut? If Al Whore was in the White House, would he have repealed gun control measures, or added to them?

Bifurcation. The notion that the only two alternatives available to us are either more gun-control or stricter enforcement of existing gun-control is nonsense.

...we are dealing with 2 diferent branches, Exec and Legislative. Bush had a split in the Senate, with the VP as a tie breaker. However, on "his" side, he also had Jumpin Jim, Lincoln Chaffe, and the Mcaniac (a swarn enemy). With what he had to work with, he did pretty good.

Presidents can influence legislative policy with vetos. Bush has neglected to use his veto since taking office.

...let's not forget what kind of judges Socialists put on the bench; that can do damage for many decades to come.

Give me a break. The idea that Republican appointed judges are upholding the Constitution is insulting.

622 posted on 11/10/2002 8:27:17 PM PST by Alan Chapman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 617 | View Replies]

To: logic101.net
Basic civics would show you that a President's power has limits (hint, you might want to read the Consitution; or what's left of it.

Congress requires a 2/3 majority to override a president's veto. No party has held a 2/3 majority in Congress since Reagan was president and even then Congress overrode less than 10 of Reagan's vetos.

Neither Republicans or Libertarians can get anything done without the power to combat the Socialists.

It's amusing how you talk about Republicans as though they're fighting against "the socialists." I used to think like you do.

623 posted on 11/10/2002 8:31:37 PM PST by Alan Chapman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 620 | View Replies]

To: logic101.net
[Libertarian candidates appear on every single ballot that Republican candidates are on. They have exactly the same chance of winning.]

Say what?!!!! That would mean that we must have at least 25 Senators, and how many members of the house as the Republicans...for your family's financial future; never gamble. You seem to have no concept of odds.

Let me elaborate so you understand. Carla Howell was the Libertarian candidate for governor in Massachusetts. Her name appeared on exactly the same number of ballots as her opponents. Everyone who voted had the opportunity to pick Carla Howell. No one was precluded from doing so. She had the same chance to win as the other candidates.

Now, let's suppose that Carla Howell appeared on only 50% of the ballots. Then I would agree with you that she had virtually no chance of winning.

While were on the subject of "chance" let me ask you this. What do you believe your chances are of reducing government while voting for candidates who contribute to the growth of government?

624 posted on 11/10/2002 8:42:00 PM PST by Alan Chapman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 621 | View Replies]

To: dcwusmc
"You can blame all you please"

hey, the blaming game is over...

the new game now is.....encourage the Liberaltarians and help them appeal to their true base....

that true base, in all reality...is the legalization of drugs, porno, prostitution, etc....

I know it sounds good to you to say that the Liberaltarians really just want smaller govt...less taxes.....but the real drawing card for a lot of the votes your candidates receive have more to do with legalizing drugs than taxes....

so no more blame....if the stupid party would just smarten up for a minute or two, and start pushing your Liberaltarian candidates where they can steal votes from the Democrats....on the college campusese where apparently drug legalization is a big draw....then I see no reason for any body to worry about you "stealing" votes from the Republicans.....

Your message will ultimaltely steal votes from the Democrats.....especially on the drugs and the porno....those ideas are truely Democratic ....

I can never understand, nor forgive, any adult in this country of ours not adamantly and thorougly condeming child pornagraphy....even the virtual stuff....

625 posted on 11/10/2002 11:02:39 PM PST by cherry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 595 | View Replies]

To: Alan Chapman
What are your chances of getting a reduced size of government while helping to get the liberal big government candidate elected?

And, I stand by my statement about gambling - stay away from horse tracks. By your logic, every one of those horses has exactly the same chance to win. Yet, some horses are faster, some are in a better gate position, some have lighter riders, some have more skilled riders.

The same can be said for candidates. Some have more money, some have a better platform. I agree with much of the Libertarian plank, but it doesn't play with the masses. This is the lesson of the '94 election - you have to move slowly to get the population used to the direction you are going. The Socalists know this lesson well, and rarely forget it (they did with Hillery Care and paid for it).

This is why it is better to work from within the power structure of the Republicans. The Libertarian platform is too "radical" (sad that the concept of limited government is considered such, but it is a testament to the incrimentalism the Socialists have used).

In WI Ed Thompson with a very limited budget managed to get 11% of the vote; very impressive for a 3rd party candidate. However he had a unique advantage most LP candidates don't - he was known in the state. His brother was a very popular Goveror for 14 years or so, and he had some public fights with him. Since Indian Casinos (oh oh, back to gambling here) first came up he's been campaigning (correctly) against the race based monoply. So, unlike most LP candidates his name was a household word in WI. Plus, he didn't talk much about some of the LP views that would be deamed "radical" by many.

Name recognition is one of the biggest problems LP candidates have, they are almost all virtual unknowns. To make things worse, they tend to run for the higher offices making thier job even harder.

However, if LP candidates begin to infultrate the RP, and start running under the Republican banner for offices like state assembly and senate they will become more known. They will also be in positions where they can affect the direction of the party and the state/nation. Plus, they'll have more money because they can tap into the reserves of the Republicans (or could - have to see how CFR works out in this respect). After they become known, they they can run for Governor offices with a much better chance at winning (better gate placement, and a more skilled rider). In addition, then candidates for these offices will have developed some campaign skills before going against the professional campaigners.

Just remember, if you don't have a place at the table; you won't be served. I'm trying to get you guys to re-evaluate your tactics and stratigy. I want to see some LP type candidates elected to high office. However, the way things are going it won't happen and we'll slide farther and farther into Socialism.

MARK A SITY
626 posted on 11/11/2002 5:48:03 AM PST by logic101.net
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 624 | View Replies]

To: Alan Chapman
A President cannot sponsor legislation, nor vote on it. He can only sign, veto, or allow to become law w/o his signature. He can ask for certain bills, and campaign for them, but he can't propose them as a bill. If one of the sides of the legislature refuses to act on legislation, there is little a President can do. This should have been obvious to everyone who watched the Dashole Senate.

MARK A SITY
627 posted on 11/11/2002 5:51:35 AM PST by logic101.net
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 623 | View Replies]

To: Alan Chapman
...ever hear of Ronald Reagan?

Yup. He said government isn't the solution, but rather the problem. Then he presided over a 55% increase in federal spending over 8
years with $100 to $200 billion in deficits during each of those 8 years. He promised to abolish the Dept. of Education and then signed
re-appropriations.


Again, there are limits on a President's powers - this is not a monarchy! He had a very liberal congress that were spending like drunken sailors on leave. He got what he could done, but w/o solid majorities in both houses of Congress he had to make deals (which only the Conservatives ever seem held to).

MARK A SITY
628 posted on 11/11/2002 5:54:52 AM PST by logic101.net
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 622 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
The NRA gives A-ratings to antis all the time. This is not to discredit your example, I'm not familiar with those two. The way the NRA rates candidates is based on how they voted on NRA-sponsored bills only. Some of those bills are known to be DOA so it is often safe for an anti to posture by voting for them. Conversely, if the grassroots has a competing bill and a candidate votes against that pro-gun, non-NRA sponsored bill, that doesn't count agaianst them. Here in the west (AZ, UT, TX) we've seen the NRA lobbyists screw over good bills simply because they are "not invented here". I'm a life NRA member and have in the past contributed heavily to ILA, but the NRA's accessed-based lobbying makes them susceptible to being co-opted. Most NRA memebers never follow the legislative sessions closely enough to even know when they've been sold out. Human nature doesn't change with politics- many will give up their position for relationship.
629 posted on 11/11/2002 9:08:01 AM PST by LibTeeth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 410 | View Replies]

To: LibTeeth
http://www.madison.com/captimes/news/local/32596.php
630 posted on 11/11/2002 9:31:01 AM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 629 | View Replies]

To: logic101.net
What are your chances of getting a reduced size of government while helping to get the liberal big government candidate elected?

You should ask Republican voters.

By your logic, every one of those horses has exactly the same chance to win. Yet, some horses are faster, some are in a better gate position, some have lighter riders, some have more skilled riders.

Your analogy is flawed. Betting on horses in no way influences the outcome of races. Voting does.

This is the lesson of the '94 election - you have to move slowly to get the population used to the direction you are going.

Republicans controlled both Houses of Congress from 1995 through 2001 during which time the federal budget increased from $1.4 trillion to $2.1 trillion. Federal expenditures increased roughly $100 billion annually. Is that the direction you want to continue going?

This is why it is better to work from within the power structure of the Republicans.

Why not work within the ranks of the Democratic party and change them instead?

Name recognition is one of the biggest problems LP candidates have, they are almost all virtual unknowns.

Third parties (not just Libertarians) have legislative obstacles to overcome just to get on the ballot and raise money, let alone get any kind of media attention. Republicans and Democrats have used the force of government to rig the electoral process in their favor. For example, in many states only candidates from the Republican and Democratic parties are allowed to be listed on ballots as Republicans and Democrats. Everyone else must be listed as "independent." This discourages third-party voters from voting at all since they can't even pick candidates from their own party unless they make a list ahead of time before entering the voting booth.

To make things worse, they tend to run for the higher offices making thier job even harder.

Huh? How does this make things worse? (Worse than what?)

...if LP candidates begin to infultrate the RP, and start running under the Republican banner for offices like state assembly and senate they will become more known.

Libertarians and Republicans disagree on practically everything. Quit pretending they're alike. Libertarians don't need help from Republicans to win State Assembly seats. Libertarians have won State Assembly races since 1979.

Plus, they'll have more money because they can tap into the reserves of the Republicans...

The Republican party isn't going to finance candidates calling for an end to the War on Drugs.

631 posted on 11/11/2002 1:37:37 PM PST by Alan Chapman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 626 | View Replies]

To: logic101.net
A President cannot sponsor legislation, nor vote on it. He can only sign, veto, or allow to become law w/o his signature. He can ask for certain bills, and campaign for them, but he can't propose them as a bill. If one of the sides of the legislature refuses to act on legislation, there is little a President can do...

There is no limitation on the number of bills a president can veto. The president can veto every bill if he chooses. Only a 2/3 majority in Congress can override a president's veto.

The purpose of the president is to act as a check against Congress and not act as a rubber stamp. The president can repeatedly veto legislation until Congress changes the legislation to his satisfaction.

632 posted on 11/11/2002 1:44:11 PM PST by Alan Chapman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 627 | View Replies]

To: logic101.net
Again, there are limits on a President's powers - this is not a monarchy!

There is no limitation on the number of times a president may veto legislation. A president can repeatedely veto legislation until Congress changes it to his satisfaction or overrides his veto with a 2/3 majority vote.

He had a very liberal congress that were spending like drunken sailors on leave.

Kind of like we had from 1995 through 2001 and like we have now.

633 posted on 11/11/2002 1:47:05 PM PST by Alan Chapman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 628 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
Well, it looks like there is a significant Libertarian block the Republicans would do well to woo. We had the same problem here in Arizona. Carpet bagger and anti-self-defense bigot Janet Napolitano (a Clinton Justice Dept US Attorney before being elected to AZ attorney general 2 years ago) just squeaked in over former US Rep. Matt Salmon. The Libertarian vote might have turned it for Salmon, but the truth is he didn't hold the R swing vote in the Phoenix area. There are a lot of unprincipled republicans out there.

With outcomes such as these, it will be interesting to see if the Republicans start to court the Libertarian voting block. The real actors to blame are those who vote for socialist Democrats. It's easy to scapegoat Libertarians, but why not for instance, direct that ire on those who aren't committed to any political position, the non-voters. They are far more responsible for bad representatives than principled Libertarians.

634 posted on 11/11/2002 1:55:33 PM PST by LibTeeth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 630 | View Replies]

To: logic101.net
It seems you didn't read the title of the site; "The Logical View". I don't need to link to any site related to logic - it IS logic

Thank you for your explanation.

I will indeed try to be more attentive when I read these threads.

Best regards,

635 posted on 11/11/2002 4:33:17 PM PST by Copernicus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 618 | View Replies]

To: LibTeeth
Well, it looks like there is a significant Libertarian block the Republicans would do well to woo.

No, Ed is Tommy's brother.

636 posted on 11/11/2002 6:57:45 PM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 634 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
You keep posting these vote totals in order to avoid answering a question you know you can't answer.

Without reposting the vote totals we've all seen about a dozen times, answer this:

How does someone who votes Libertarian help elect a Democrat?

Do you assume someone who votes Libertarian would vote Republican if their only choice is between Republican and Democrat?

If so, then why did you contend earlier that Libertarians would vote Democrat "if given a choice" (as if they didn't have a choice)? It would seem by that logic, Doyle would have received about 985,000 votes to McCallum's 732,000. The Democrat still wins, with or with the Libertarian voters.

These discrepancies in your logic are creating a fatal flaw in your argument. I'm sure you'd like to take this opportunity to clarify this logical discrepancy so we can all be enlightened by your wisdom.

637 posted on 11/12/2002 6:55:01 AM PST by tdadams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 534 | View Replies]

To: Alan Chapman
Reagan absolutely had to have some legisltation. In the absence of the line item veto, congress could tack on whatever they wanted to a bill that the President had to have (like authorizing payroll for the military).

To cure this problem for the future, Newt got passed line item veto power. However the Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional. Thinking about this, they were right; we need this as an Ammendment to the Constitution - the proscribed, Constitutional way to do so, since it does change the balance of power. I don't think the founders envisioned the way riders would be used against a President. However, the only way to do it is via an ammendment.

MARK A SITY
638 posted on 11/12/2002 7:06:16 AM PST by logic101.net
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 633 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
No doubt Kevin Curry, Roscoe, and Cultural Jihad want to bomb Iraq and Afghanistan because of the religious imperialism of Islam, but they see nothing at all wrong, and everything right, with their own religious imperialism.
639 posted on 11/12/2002 7:09:23 AM PST by tdadams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 579 | View Replies]

To: Kevin Curry
Honest, rational, clear-thinking, mature conservative voters--whether they call themselves Republicans or libertarians--can reasonably be expected to act honestly, rationally, objectively, and maturely to prevent the more liberal of any two candidates from ascending to power. Thus, the more conservative candidate is entitled to those votes...

I do hope you can recognize arrogant fascism when you see it, because it just showed up in your post.

Your biased sophistry notwithstanding, this country is still guided by the principle of 'one man, one vote' and each person is charged by their conscience and principle to vote for the candidate who best represents their beliefs, not the lesser of two evils.

When you propose in seriousness that a person's vote should go to candidate A instead of candidate B, despite the voter's wishes, because the stakes are so high, you are a fascist and your character is just as sullied as your fellow fascists, among them, Hillary Clinton, Charles Schumer, Barbera Boxer, Robert Reisch, and the list goes on.

The only difference is whether you're a right-leaning or left-leaning fascist.

640 posted on 11/12/2002 7:19:05 AM PST by tdadams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 581 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 581-600601-620621-640641-655 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson