Democrats & Republicans --or--

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Thanatoast, May 14, 2007.

  1. Thanatoast macrumors 6502a

    Thanatoast

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Location:
    Denver
    #1
    The Morons Leading the Imbeciles

    I just finished reading this story from Yahoo.

    In it, the Democrats say they are upset because George won't "let them" end the war. -farcical statement number one. They go on to say how incredibly important it is for them to end the war, and then lament that if they do they will be "abandoning the troops". -we've entered Onion territory, here.

    So they come up with a compromise. They want to pass a bill that sets a firm timetable for beginning to withdraw the troops in October along with -get this- a passage that allow a "Presidential Waiver". A clause that allows Bush to ignore the law they just passed. - now we're rapidly passing through Monty Python's Realm of Reason

    Now, and here's where the funny part is, rather than Bush saying to himself, "Really? Those dumb***** are gonna pass a bill that can only be enforced at my discrection when they already know what I'm gonna do? ****, yeah!" we get this: "A date for surrender is a date for surrender and the President will not sign such a bill." -an entirely unknown physical barrier in the laws of satire I think has been breached

    AM I KIDDING!? :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:
     
  2. Chef Medeski macrumors 6502a

    Chef Medeski

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2005
    Location:
    New York, NY
    #2
    Vote Ron Paul, Libertarian, for President in 2008!

    Libertarian party is the only party that voted against the war!
     
  3. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #3
    The libertarians in this country tend to be less uptight, but more self centered Republican-lites. But I agree, the Dems aren't exactly the fighters they should be. Even the last bill only provided for benchmarks, and a fairly non binding timetable, despite the hype. It also gave Bush more than what he asked for, and he still wasn't happy. They think they can just keep blaming the Dems, calling them unpatriotic, saying they don't support the troops, while they don't fight back against the rhetoric, and they'll cave. Which they might. But I don't know, people are getting pretty frustrated, and if they can get enough Republicans and hawkish Dems to go along with them without the earmarks that have nothing to do with anything (not that all of the earmarks were bad, and hey, let's be honest, they were there for the Republicans and Dems on the fence) they might be able to actually pass something. Probably nonbinding that Bush will find some way around anyway.

    And now, I'm depressed...
     
  4. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #4
    Link?
     
  5. it5five macrumors 65816

    it5five

    Joined:
    May 31, 2006
    Location:
    New York
    #5
    First of all, the Libertarian party didn't vote on anything related to the war. The only Libertarian in Congress is Ron Paul, who is in the Republican party.

    Secondly, there are many parties in this country that have been against the war from the beginning, though, just like the Libertarian party, they have absolutely no influence in politics.

    I'd rather eat **** and die before I voted for a Libertarian.
     
  6. Swarmlord macrumors 6502a

    Swarmlord

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2006
    #6
    Well, they did vote, but it was within the party to determine the official party position.

    You didn't have to end your post with a comment like that. You didn't state anything about the Libertarians that would warrant that level of vitriol.
     
  7. Chef Medeski macrumors 6502a

    Chef Medeski

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2005
    Location:
    New York, NY
    #7
    Yes... ahh.. Ron Paul, that libertarian. He voted against the war.

    Really which other party that has garnered a significant enough percentage of the vote in a presidential election to not be within a margin of error of 0 have been opposed to the war from the start?


    Oh and you can eat **** if you so please. Thats why its a right just like voting. I dont expect you to vote anyone. And you can vote whoever you want, just like you can eat whatever type of **** you want! Its glorious this nation, truly. And may I add, I think the Libertarians are the only ones truly fighting for YOUR right to eat **** from whichever species you so please or so help you god!
     
  8. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #8
    You must not know any then. Actually the libertarians only care about their own rights. They don't really care about the rest of us. There have been some libertarians here who've espoused as much. Allow me to preface that though and (stealing a line from Bill Maher) say I'd be a libertarian if only they would.

    Of course, I feel the same way about both the Democrats and Republicans.
     
  9. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #9
    Any chance of a fuctioning and purposeful Libertarian Party has been compromised by Objectivist hacks and nutters who think having to pay their taxes is a crime worse than genocide.

    We have a two party system because of our election system. If a serious candidate wants to enter politics, she does so through one of these two parties. Anyone who, for whatever reason, is unable to win support of a major party sometimes finds refuge in a third party. Oftentimes – no, I'll dare say usually – the people who enter the third party machines do so because they're too stupid, unqualified, compromised or just plain nuts to rise to prominence within the parties that win.

    But with politics as usual, and corruption both picayune and felonious that still runs rampant in the major party machinery, we're left feeling sorry for the underdog, lamenting the two party system.
    But it serves adequately. And while folks will tell you they'd like to have more parties from which to choose, they're never going to change the first-past-the-post election process that guarantees such a system.
     
  10. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #10
    Liberal Libertarianism is gonna be the new wave. Objectivists can go pluck themselves.
     
  11. Swarmlord macrumors 6502a

    Swarmlord

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2006
    #11
    Complete bunk. Check their website and go back over the post of libertarians you are impuning. You'll find after a bit of careful reading that just because a party or an individual doesn't pander to your interests, doesn't mean that they don't care about their country or the people living in it.

    Where do you get this stuff? Libertarians are NOT against taxes. They are against progressive, unfair taxation. Wow, I didn't know that wanting to pay the same as the next guy for government services was considered the thoughts of a hack and a nutter.
     
  12. Lyle macrumors 68000

    Lyle

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2003
    Location:
    Madison, Alabama
    #12
    If Ron Paul ever had a remote chance of being elected, he completely destroyed it in last night's Republican candidates' debate.
     
  13. Swarmlord macrumors 6502a

    Swarmlord

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2006
    #13
    Gotta agree with you there.
     
  14. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #14
    I have to agree with solvs here: judging from their posts on this board, every self-styled Libertarian I have encountered has come across as insufferably smug and uncaring.
     
  15. Swarmlord macrumors 6502a

    Swarmlord

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2006
    #15
    It's called tough love, baby. :)
     
  16. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #16
    That's what they all say, too.
     
  17. Chef Medeski macrumors 6502a

    Chef Medeski

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2005
    Location:
    New York, NY
    #17
    Oh yeah? I missed it. Dang.
     
  18. Lyle macrumors 68000

    Lyle

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2003
    Location:
    Madison, Alabama
    #18
    Presumably, there's a transcript (or video) of it somewhere online, but the point at which he self-destructed was when the moderator asked some question about the war. I don't remember exactly what the question was, by Mr. Paul's answer included his opinion that the 9/11 attacks were due to our foreign policy stance with regards to Iraq and the Middle East during the years leading up to 2001.

    The moderator asked him to clarify his statement: Was he saying that the U.S. invited the 9/11 attacks? Paul said yes. The Giuliani stepped in and expressed his outrage, asked Paul to retract the statement. Moderator gave Paul the chance to respond to Giuliani and he refused to back down from what he'd said.
     
  19. Chef Medeski macrumors 6502a

    Chef Medeski

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2005
    Location:
    New York, NY
    #19
    Just finished watching that clip. And think you should re-watch it as well. He said that the US thgough intervening in the Middle East in the past century has caused anger among Muslims which is a significant factor to the growth of Islamic radicals over the past couple decade. And last time I checked, hes right.

    Hes absolutely right, anyone who has researched AT ALL the history of the US and the Middle-East realizes how much Arabs and Iranians hate American meddling whether it be bringing Saddam to power, overthrowing the democratically elected gov't of Mossadeq, allowing Saddam to use gas against the Iranians and then also the Kurds, blocking any investigations into Saddam's use of chemical weapons, imposing useless sanctions on Iraq that only killed people without doing any help, bombing Iraq while they were still under sanctions, imposing arbitrarily no-fly zones but allowing helicopters to fly in them to pillage villages. That isn't half of the stuff for Iraq and Iran. If I go through all the countries and all the things, I'm sure anyone would be upset at the US.

    And what Ron Paul said was right. And the first step to getting our gov't back on a better path is realizing how wrong Bush is. Trying to actually sit down and analyze the situation which Paul did. He is clearly well-read by his numerous specific examples of political US history. From paraphrasing Reagan's memoirs to invoking the unknown presidency of Taft. This man understands whats actually going down and isnt hiding behind the questions and acting like an idiot like our current president. If you are going to control the Free World you BETTER damn well understand that. Ron Paul does. And I think any historian would back his assertions about 9/11.

    We didnt invite them, we just raped nearly every single Middle-Eastern country repeatedly over the past century without expecting a bit of revenge. That my friends is the real screw up.
     
  20. it5five macrumors 65816

    it5five

    Joined:
    May 31, 2006
    Location:
    New York
    #20
    Ron Paul is a Republican. He may be a Libertarian, but in Congress, his votes count as Republican.

    The Socialist parties in this country have been against the war from the beginning. They had 6% of the vote when Debs ran, which is more than your Libertarians have ever had.

    I can't wait for the primaries so I don't have to read anymore Ron Paul cheerleading spam.
     
  21. Lyle macrumors 68000

    Lyle

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2003
    Location:
    Madison, Alabama
    #21
    I was not making a value judgment about what he said. He may be right. But if you don't think that little tirade finished off his Presidential run, you're out of your mind.
     
  22. Peterkro macrumors 68020

    Peterkro

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Communard de Londres
    #22
    Id just like to make clear there are many people who are libertarians out here who have nothing to do with the right wing looneys in North America who have recently tried to hi-jack the name.Im a Anarchist but present myself sometimes as a libertarian socialist (mainly to people who have swallowed the 200 year old smear campaign against Anarchism).

    DO NOT VOTE IT ONLY ENCOURAGES THE BASTARDS.

    (or failing that vote early vote often :) )
     
  23. Chef Medeski macrumors 6502a

    Chef Medeski

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2005
    Location:
    New York, NY
    #23
    Well you might be right. I dont think its that decisive, but....

    You are probably right. He still was the most popular candidate of the whole election. That gives him some hope. But he'll be quite lucky if he wins the canidacy.
     
  24. Swarmlord macrumors 6502a

    Swarmlord

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2006
    #24
    Anarchy has been despised a lot longer than that.

    What in the heck is a libertarian socialist? A freemarket marxist?
     
  25. Peterkro macrumors 68020

    Peterkro

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Communard de Londres
    #25
    In the United States, the term libertarian is usually associated with the free market philosophy of libertarianism (and of the United States's Libertarian Party); the term libertarian socialism therefore strikes many Americans as inconsistent. However, libertarian socialism has a long history and has made a serious contribution to the political scene. The first person to describe himself as a libertarian was Joseph Déjacque,[2] an early French anarchist communist. The word stems from the French word libertaire (synonymous to "anarchist"), and was used in order to evade the French ban on anarchist publications.[3] In the context of the European socialist movement, libertarian has conventionally been used to describe those like Mikhail Bakunin who opposed state socialism.


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism
    (article is disputed by me amongst others)
     

Share This Page