Jump to content
  • Announcements

    • olyclimber

      WELCOME TO THE CASCADECLIMBERS.COM FORUMS   11/10/22

      Help keep cascadeclimbers.com going!  Please consider donating so we can keep this site going.   We have set expenses right now but no revenue.  We do hope to getting a sponsor to help out, but for now we just need funds to upgrade the site and pay for hosting and licensing. See the "DONATE" tab in the top menu.
Sign in to follow this  
David_Parker

An Ironic and Fearful election

Recommended Posts

If I see the word "diss" used again I'm going to puke. And that says a lot after all the puking I did over the election results.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For chrissakes people, quit shitting on people because they happen to have faith in God. You should hear yourselves talk. Pathetic.

 

I don't think they are shitting on people for faith in God. I think they are dissin' shocked.gif people for bringing "their" god into everyone's life. Does seperation of church and state mean anything to you?

 

The founders of our nation were clear about constructing a wall between organized religion and politics. I agree with this. What do you think?

 

It scares me when I hear this:

"The president would say that he relied on

his ''gut'' or his ''instinct'' to guide the ship of state,

and then he ''prayed over it.''"

 

I was hoping not to have to listen to crap like this for four more years. Yes, it would not have took too long before we realised Kerry was a fake, a crook, maybe just a tad better then the guy we have in office. There was not much choice at all. I vote libertarian. Not because I am one, but because they are closest to what I beleive made this country the great country that is "was". Beleive what you will, but please don't be a pusher.

 

Revolution, who's wit me. confused.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there were a lot of republicans who did not want to vote for Bush. My father was one. But he could not vote for Kerry (or Nader) either because he was to far left. If ever there was an election that demonstrates a need for a third party, this was it.

 

...

 

This election reminded me too much of a divorce. Each side felt they needed to be far out on a pendulum to find the middle. What the hell is wrong with trying to begin closer to the fence from the start? Is there something wrong with the middle?

 

...

 

This election was about fear. Churchill said, “the only thing we have to fear, is fear itself.” I blame the press

 

Dave, I completely agree with you that the average American is too moderate to agree with either party the way they stand right now. For that matter, the Libertarian party is too extreme to ever have a chance at getting elected, and they're not willing to dilute themselves to a more moderate stance.

 

Sorry for nitpicking, but the quote was actually by FDR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, the way I see it, the libertarian is the closest manifestation of true liberal politics. I am talking about classic liberalism here. Now I think that the nature of the 2 party system has more to do with the Libertarians' populaity than wacko ideology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"For that matter, the Libertarian party is too extreme to ever have a chance at getting elected, and they're not willing to dilute themselves to a more moderate stance."

That is most definitely their problem. It's like the entertainment industry where the only way you get noticed is if you're extreme (purveyors of schlock entertainment, most especially). Those who aren't extreme aren't interesting. But in the end no one's (or at least the general masses) going to latch on to their extremism. And so it is that the libertarians or greens make their presence known and maintain that presence by being "out there." It makes for good news stories but it does not represent anything people would actually want to aspire to.

 

BTW, you're slow to the nitpicking punch concerning the 'fear' quote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scott, I was talking yesterday with a fellow who had spent several years working for the Libertarian party. On a scale of 0% to 100%, his politics fall under 80% Libertarian. The party idealogues basically told him that he'd either have to find the errors in his ways or sit in the back of the bus while the 100%ers drive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What did he disagree with? The ending of welfare? I know some of the stuff is a little out there. Ending foreign aid is kinda out there but considering we have little to show for the last $400 billion it for sure needs "restructuring" at least. I am just curious what are the general sticking points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hahaha what about the current foreign "aid"

 

You mean,

"Hmmm, you have a hangnail. I'm afraid we'll have to amputate your arm."

?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hmmm

 

"American Indians should be free to determine their own system of governance and should have their property rights restored."

 

"Regulation of financial and capital markets represses capital ventures."

 

"We advocate the complete separation of education and State."

 

At an intellectual level this is classic liberalism, at a practical level these are revolutionary. Restoring all land rights to Indians? Going to give back Manhattan? Complete separation of Education and State? Goodbye State Universities, a majority of our science research budget,...

 

The libertarian party is great as an intellectual exercise, as a practical and legitimate form of government we'd be screwed by it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One can say the same thing about the democratic party. It is baisically based on being progressive. At some point this system will collapse or become absurd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also think you are taking the Native clause out of context. It doesn't mean that you will give their lands back but rather allow them to do what they will on their lands. Here is the unabridged section:

 

American Indian Rights

The Issue: The rights of American Indians have been usurped over the years.

 

The Principle: Individuals should be free to select their own citizenship, and tribes should be free to select the level of autonomy the tribe wishes.

 

Solutions: Indians should have their property rights restored, including rights of easement, access, hunting, and fishing.

 

Transition: The Bureau of Indian Affairs should be abolished leaving tribal members to determine their own system of governance. Negotiations should be undertaken to resolve all outstanding differences between the tribes and the government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I also think you are taking the Native clause out of context. It doesn't mean that you will give their lands back but rather allow them to do what they will on their lands.

That was clipped from their Party platform

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I also think you are taking the Native clause out of context. It doesn't mean that you will give their lands back but rather allow them to do what they will on their lands.

That was clipped from their Party platform

 

Well I just posted the whole thing straight from their Party Platform.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What did he disagree with? The ending of welfare? I know some of the stuff is a little out there. Ending foreign aid is kinda out there but considering we have little to show for the last $400 billion it for sure needs "restructuring" at least. I am just curious what are the general sticking points.

 

I personally don't know where he disagrees from Libertarian theory.

 

Libertarian theory tends to operate on a metalevel above regular issues that Dems and Repubs throw around. For example, Dems and Repubs argue about welfare being broken and how to fix it. Libertarians see welfare as a kludge used to fix the problem of unemployment that was created by the minimum wage.

 

Personally, I want the government the govt to fuck off when it comes to my personal freedoms, but I see it necessary for a fair amount of govt regulation and intervention when it comes to economics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that when battling, say democrats, the policies levied would be much better. Obviously they are not going to be able to impliment their policies 100% but the result of the comprimises between the libertarians and another party might well be the ticket.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WA State was up in arms about the recent move to consolidate the primary elections by making people chose one party or the other. I can see both sides of that story and I come from a state where that was the way. You chose a party, rep or dem, and then you are part of the process of choosing your candidate free from input of the other party. Kinda makes sense. If you didn't register as one or the other, you only voted in the final general election. If you chose to be "independant", then you still had to wait.

 

I didn't like that they named the third party in WA "libertarian". It seems more important that it remains open to whatever idealologies any particular candidate chooses to represent, some blending of the two parties. I certainly don't consider myself "libertarian" either. I come from a state that has flip-flopped back and forth from DEM and REP and is the only state that has elected 2 separate independant governors. It seems to be a state that choses carefully and is not overly affected by religious beliefs. In fact, until the last two elections there was a saying: As Maine goes, so goes the nation. They went Gore and Kerry and thus the saying no longer applies although many still think Gore won.

 

My point is, the third party should not have any label, but truly be "independent".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

State Avg. IQ 2004

1 Connecticut 113 Kerry

2 Massachusetts 111 Kerry

...

 

And just how was the "average" IQ computed, oh purveyor of nonsense? Was every single person in each state given a standardized IQ test? There are indeed three types of lies in this world, lies, damn lies, and statistics.

 

And again, we see the manifestation of the arrogant leftist group-think mind-set: he who is intelligent agrees with me, those who do not, are stupid. Somehow, I see reeducation camps in store if you folks ever seize control of this country again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×