Conservative Political Forum

General Category => Political Discussion and Debate => Topic started by: Yawn on January 07, 2013, 05:49:19 PM

Title: Even I May Vote 3rd Party!
Post by: Yawn on January 07, 2013, 05:49:19 PM
I'm HOPING the Tea Party is able to bring the Republican Party back to reality. The Demonrats are insane, and I have no hope for them.  But if the Tea Party becomes an actual 3rd Party, and I am forced to choose, I will vote for a Tea Party candidate.

Splitting the Republican Party seems like a BIG mistake, but maybe, when everything falls apart, even a majority of Democrat voters will come to their senses and understand the Tea Party message. Obummer, Pelosi and Reid do seem to still have a spell over these ignorant voters, but MAYBE they'll come around.

None of this 3rd Party talk would be necessary if the Republicans would just wake up before they help Obama finish us off!
Title: Re: Even I May Vote 3rd Party!
Post by: raptor5618 on January 08, 2013, 07:14:56 AM
I think the issues that the Tea party stands for have far more supporters than just those who have aligned themselves with the tea party.   As of today, I think the GOP is no longer relevant other than they are the party you have to vote for when the Dem choice is just too outrageous.  The GOP stands for nothing, they have no core values and as far as hypocrisy goes they may be worse than the Dem's because they go on and on about small govt and less taxes and then do no more than give lip service to those goals. 

I find fault with some of what Ron Paul saw as the way forward but I had to respect him because he followed those beliefs and the people who were in his district knew that if they voted for him they were going to be represented exactly as he said he would.  Vote for someone in the GOP and you are hoping they stick to their word.   If you think about it voting for a Dem you often do get what you voted for. Bigger govt and more taxes. They may claim that the Rich and corporations are going to pay for it but follow the money and it is clear that  the bottom of the consumer chain and those who take what jobs they can get ultimately take the hit for all that the Dem's do.  The Dem's are just lucky enough that there are enough people that cannot think past a single action. 

They see tax go up on say a gas and oil company and they are overjoyed that big bad oil companies are being punished.  That they are going to pay for their actions.  But especially when it comes to gas and diesel they can easily pass it on to the consumer who really pays for any taxes paid by companies.  For products where pricing is more competitive well it is not all that complicated to figure out how a company prices what ever products it makes.   Essentially the cost to produce it plus an add on for taxes and profit.   So if you cannot increase your price for your product well it is simple math that Obama and the Dems do not get.  OK first graders what is the answer,  yes that is right the company has to either reduce its profit and tax or reduce the cost to produce the product.  Each has its own implication but usually workers lose their jobs, and the consumer purchases a product that was manufactured more cheaply.  Sometimes through improved productivity but often the raw materials are of a lesser quality.   Same price but now the product is not as good.  it really is as simple as A+B=C and when you alter one variable you have to change one or both of the other variables.  Like I said it really is simple and yet the clowns in DC ignore this truth and so many swallow it hook line and sinker.   I heard one commentator yesterday get all heated and say it is not this or that type of problem but it is an education problem because people are not smart enough to figure it out. 
Title: Re: Even I May Vote 3rd Party!
Post by: AndyJackson on January 08, 2013, 07:31:20 AM
It may be time for us to embrace the Libertarians.  Them + the remaining legit tea party reps, may be the only way to hit the ground running with enough of a base.

I don't necessarily like the hands-off approach on drugs or international affairs....but then again I'm ready for anything to shrink the govt.  If those two things kill 2 big chunks of the bureaucracy...I think I'm ready to see how it goes.

Let's get back to 1884, and not Orwell's 1984.

Besides, what's the best way to fight the massive nanny state, than to throw the nanny out totally and let the kids grow up without her.
Title: Re: Even I May Vote 3rd Party!
Post by: raptor5618 on January 08, 2013, 07:44:01 AM
I am all for a whole lot of what is supported by the Libertarians.  I think that if the government focused on those things that are laid out in the constitution and not on preventing us from doing things to ourselves that might not be wise we would have a much better country.   No it will not eliminate addiction or people doing stupid things or harming others.  But if the govt and police only had to protect us from being harmed by others they would be far more effective than they are now when they waste so much time on actions that pose no harm to others.  I mean do we really need the govt protecting someone who is days or weeks away from succumbing to a terminal illness from taking a drug that has just been developed. 

I understand that there are aspects that might be cause for concern but so much of government is based on the assumption that we are incapable of making a good choice so the govt has to insure that they let us know what good choices we can pick from.  Clearly that protection has not eliminated bad outcomes so is it really necessary.   
Title: Re: Even I May Vote 3rd Party!
Post by: AndyJackson on January 08, 2013, 11:31:50 AM
At this point I think Boehner, OConnel, Rove, et al, are literally trying to destroy conservatism and the tea party, because they are just too troublesome in the mainstream GOP's efforts to meld with the dems, and maintain a permanent stasis where there are no real GOP beliefs other than playing a willing patsy.

Apparently power and permanence have replaced core beliefs and self respect.

And the hardcore leftist believers are loving it.
Title: Re: Even I May Vote 3rd Party!
Post by: taxed on January 08, 2013, 12:01:53 PM
I think we're looking at the wrong problem.  We have to figure out how to get the voting system back from the Marxists and unions.
Title: Re: Even I May Vote 3rd Party!
Post by: Solar on January 08, 2013, 12:15:44 PM
Quote from: taxed on January 08, 2013, 12:01:53 PM
I think we're looking at the wrong problem.  We have to figure out how to get the voting system back from the Marxists and unions.
Reid, Angle, Nevada.
She had a lock on his seat, but his union buddies and illegals made sure he would remain.
Proof unions and Dim party are symbiotic, like a tick on a leach, something has to die.
Title: Re: Even I May Vote 3rd Party!
Post by: AndyJackson on January 08, 2013, 01:16:58 PM
That does give me some hope.  Unions are actually dying a slow painful death in many places.  Though their violent backlash will be a sight to see.
Title: Re: Even I May Vote 3rd Party!
Post by: Bronx on January 08, 2013, 02:34:47 PM
Even though i'm somewhat new here most of you guys know how I feel. Never ever again will I waste my vote on the republican party again, unless a true conservative, better known as the Tea Party.

I didn't mind voting for Romney, I kind of though he was a stand up guy but what really pissed me off is the way the Republicans are acting now. So with that i'm going to have a cup of hot "TEA".

Solar if i'm not mistaken your here in Georgia with me. Come aboard and lets make some noise with the "Tea Party.
Title: Re: Even I May Vote 3rd Party!
Post by: taxed on January 08, 2013, 02:45:36 PM
Quote from: Bronx on January 08, 2013, 02:34:47 PM
Even though i'm somewhat new here most of you guys know how I feel. Never ever again will I waste my vote on the republican party again, unless a true conservative, better known as the Tea Party.

I didn't mind voting for Romney, I kind of though he was a stand up guy but what really pissed me off is the way the Republicans are acting now. So with that i'm going to have a cup of hot "TEA".

Solar if i'm not mistaken your here in Georgia with me. Come aboard and lets make some noise with the "Tea Party.

Same here.  It's conservative or bust for me.

Solar's in CA -- I'm in Jowja...
Title: Re: Even I May Vote 3rd Party!
Post by: Yawn on January 08, 2013, 04:29:26 PM
I won't vote 3rd party unless the Tea Party becomes an actual party. Until then, I will only vote for the most conservative Republican. I have no use for the Libertarians. The Founders were moral people--Conservatarians. They were not anarchists.
Title: Re: Even I May Vote 3rd Party!
Post by: Darth Fife on January 08, 2013, 06:33:03 PM
Quote from: Yawn on January 07, 2013, 05:49:19 PM
I'm HOPING the Tea Party is able to bring the Republican Party back to reality. The Demonrats are insane, and I have no hope for them.  But if the Tea Party becomes an actual 3rd Party, and I am forced to choose, I will vote for a Tea Party candidate.

Splitting the Republican Party seems like a BIG mistake, but maybe, when everything falls apart, even a majority of Democrat voters will come to their senses and understand the Tea Party message. Obummer, Pelosi and Reid do seem to still have a spell over these ignorant voters, but MAYBE they'll come around.

None of this 3rd Party talk would be necessary if the Republicans would just wake up before they help Obama finish us off!

What I feel most of the Political Establishment fails to realize is that the Tea Party is not just made up of Republicans - there are a fair number of Democrats who believe in Tea Party principles as well.

If the Tea Party could split both the Democrat and the Republican parties...

That would be something!
Title: Re: Even I May Vote 3rd Party!
Post by: Shooterman on January 09, 2013, 06:31:58 AM
Quote from: Yawn on January 08, 2013, 04:29:26 PM
I won't vote 3rd party unless the Tea Party becomes an actual party. Until then, I will only vote for the most conservative Republican. I have no use for the Libertarians. The Founders were moral people--Conservatarians. They were not anarchists.

Whatever is a Conservatarian? Exactly what were the Founders attempting to conserve?
Title: Re: Even I May Vote 3rd Party!
Post by: AndyJackson on January 09, 2013, 08:15:18 AM
I think the conservatarian term, while inventive, is pretty appropriate.

The founders wanted a government free of all of the failures and abuses that they had seen in govts before then.  They did a remarkable job with creating a tapestry of minimalist govt, checks and balances, and basically revering individual rights, property, and individuality above govt power, groupthink, and weak cries for protections.

It borders on the anarchy-lite of pure libertarian philosophies, but it was tempered by the Judeo-Christian ethic of helping your neighbors somewhat (internally and externally), and framing things in a moral / ethical framework that only a religious foundation can bring.

The constitution is a thing of beauty in that it serves only one purpose....a catalog of all the things the govt can not do, and all of the ways that citizens are pre-eminent, free of virtually all govt effect, and free to own all that they can, with hard work and ambition.

The left hates every last tenet of that description.  Every single aspect.  Obama has said so, that the constitution is not supposed to be 'negative' or exclusionary....that it should be changed to list all of the things that the govt should be providing, all of the ways to make everyone happy and equal, and of course the related ways to make sure that nobody gets any more than anybody else.

But still, they had a moral and ethical imperative that brought a little empathy and community into the equation.  Not just anarchy or nihilism.
Title: Re: Even I May Vote 3rd Party!
Post by: TowardLiberty on January 09, 2013, 08:31:46 AM
Quote from: AndyJackson on January 09, 2013, 08:15:18 AM
I think the conservatarian term, while inventive, is pretty appropriate.

The founders wanted a government free of all of the failures and abuses that they had seen in govts before then.  They did a remarkable job with creating a tapestry of minimalist govt, checks and balances, and basically revering individual rights, property, and individuality above govt power, groupthink, and weak cries for protections.

It borders on the anarchy-lite of pure libertarian philosophies, but it was tempered by the Judeo-Christian ethic of helping your neighbors somewhat (internally and externally), and framing things in a moral / ethical framework that only a religious foundation can bring.

The constitution is a thing of beauty in that it serves only one purpose....a catalog of all the things the govt can not do, and all of the ways that citizens are pre-eminent, free of virtually all govt effect, and free to own all that they can, with hard work and ambition.

The left hates every last tenet of that description.  Every single aspect.  Obama has said so, that the constitution is not supposed to be 'negative' or exclusionary....that it should be changed to list all of the things that the govt should be providing, all of the ways to make everyone happy and equal, and of course the related ways to make sure that nobody gets any more than anybody else.

But still, they had a moral and ethical imperative that brought a little empathy and community into the equation.  Not just anarchy or nihilism.

Well said.

I would think the libertarian perspective comes closest to this ideal.

For as much as libertarians are painted as heartless and cold, at least they understand that empathy, community, charity and virtue were not the outcome of a central plan or the nudging of enlightened leaders, rather they are found in a society with respect for individual rights and private property.

In other words, forced charity is no charity at all!
Title: Re: Even I May Vote 3rd Party!
Post by: raptor5618 on January 09, 2013, 09:23:05 AM
Wonder why you would be as anti libertarian as you are anti Dem?  I would think that their goals are very much in line with the original intent of the constitution.  I think they only want the government involved with defending this country and preventing individuals from harming others. 

I think most Rep's would revolt at the thought of allowing people to do to themselves as they wish including taking drugs that are currently illegal. I also think the the most common argument is that they will get drugged up and then possibly go out and hurt someone .  Seems that is very similar to the argument against guns.  I know some would talk about the costs of addiction but I think it would be vastly less expensive if every addict were housed in a rehab as compared to how it is now where most of our jails are filled with people who were involved in drugs, be it using, selling or distribution.  Rehab is cheaper than jail and most of those in jail would never get there because they might use but not in an addictive manner. 

I think that the libertarian beliefs are close to what was the original concept for this country but at this point in time they are light years away from what we have become. 
Title: Re: Even I May Vote 3rd Party!
Post by: taxed on January 09, 2013, 09:50:21 AM
Quote from: raptor5618 on January 09, 2013, 09:23:05 AM
Wonder why you would be as anti libertarian as you are anti Dem?  I would think that their goals are very much in line with the original intent of the constitution.  I think they only want the government involved with defending this country and preventing individuals from harming others. 

I think most Rep's would revolt at the thought of allowing people to do to themselves as they wish including taking drugs that are currently illegal. I also think the the most common argument is that they will get drugged up and then possibly go out and hurt someone .  Seems that is very similar to the argument against guns.  I know some would talk about the costs of addiction but I think it would be vastly less expensive if every addict were housed in a rehab as compared to how it is now where most of our jails are filled with people who were involved in drugs, be it using, selling or distribution.  Rehab is cheaper than jail and most of those in jail would never get there because they might use but not in an addictive manner. 

I think that the libertarian beliefs are close to what was the original concept for this country but at this point in time they are light years away from what we have become.

I'm a libertarian at heart, but I am VERY strong pro-military.  I want the largest military and the most technologically advanced defense system in the universe -- to the point of absurdity.  I don't consider us equal with other nations -- I consider us WAY better.  We don't treat our women like animals, and we put robots on Mars while wealthy dignitaries from other countries come here to get medical treatment that they don't allow their people.  I love being the strongest and most advanced country on the planet.
Title: Re: Even I May Vote 3rd Party!
Post by: AndyJackson on January 09, 2013, 10:00:33 AM
I'm actually somewhat for complete drug legalization.  I think it would wipe out most of organized crimed, especially the Mexican cartels.  Plus a huge cut in costs of law enforcement, and a huge revenue in taxes, new types of related businesses, commerce, etc.  What's not to like about that ?

We only have the end of prohibition as an example.

The downside is the prospect of increased drug misuse and addiction.  I'm gonna guess that addictive people are gonna get addicted somehow, to something, anyway.  And sensible people may try some things, but will revert back to their sensible ways after experimenting a little.

The little twinge I have is the moral imperative that I think exists in our country's origins.  Anything that hurts the family and community is a problem.  Drugs, drinking, perversion, theft........But I think when it's compared to the problems caused by the illicit drug trade, you have to make a choice.  The cartels have crystallized it for us, I'm afraid.

We can always pursue our moral imperative through charity and religious outlets.
Title: Re: Even I May Vote 3rd Party!
Post by: supsalemgr on January 09, 2013, 10:42:19 AM
Quote from: taxed on January 09, 2013, 09:50:21 AM
I'm a libertarian at heart, but I am VERY strong pro-military.  I want the largest military and the most technologically advanced defense system in the universe -- to the point of absurdity.  I don't consider us equal with other nations -- I consider us WAY better.  We don't treat our women like animals, and we put robots on Mars while wealthy dignitaries from other countries come here to get medical treatment that they don't allow their people.  I love being the strongest and most advanced country on the planet.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:
Title: Re: Even I May Vote 3rd Party!
Post by: TowardLiberty on January 09, 2013, 10:44:47 AM
Quote from: AndyJackson on January 09, 2013, 10:00:33 AM
I'm actually somewhat for complete drug legalization.  I think it would wipe out most of organized crimed, especially the Mexican cartels.  Plus a huge cut in costs of law enforcement, and a huge revenue in taxes, new types of related businesses, commerce, etc.  What's not to like about that ?

We only have the end of prohibition as an example.

The downside is the prospect of increased drug misuse and addiction.  I'm gonna guess that addictive people are gonna get addicted somehow, to something, anyway.  And sensible people may try some things, but will revert back to their sensible ways after experimenting a little.

The little twinge I have is the moral imperative that I think exists in our country's origins.  Anything that hurts the family and community is a problem.  Drugs, drinking, perversion, theft........But I think when it's compared to the problems caused by the illicit drug trade, you have to make a choice.  The cartels have crystallized it for us, I'm afraid.

We can always pursue our moral imperative through charity and religious outlets.

You make some fine points but I dont think you have to cede morality to the prohibitionists.

For they argue for the use of force to be used on people who by their "crimes" have violated the rights of no one.

If I set up a still during prohibition and sold some shine to the local speak, my actions could hardly be said to have harmed anyone. For even the worst drunk is not harming himself when he drinks his self into a stupor for this result is what he is seeking. He does not view it as a harm. And his view of his preferences are all that mattes in a society of free individuals.

It is only when our preferences turn into infringements on the rights or property of another, that the law should be interested.

And when it becomes interested in keeping us from hurting ourselves, then the use of force has become arbitrary and unjustified. The law itself becomes a tool of tyranny and subjugation.

Rather than the rule of law, it becomes rule by men.

So I would make the same points you did but stand on confident ground that the moral argument is on your side as well.

For there is no justification for the use of force to bend the actions of others unless those actions are creating victims.

That is what the law was meant to do- protect us from each other and settle disputes.
Title: Re: Even I May Vote 3rd Party!
Post by: raptor5618 on January 09, 2013, 11:11:26 AM
Quote from: taxed on January 09, 2013, 09:50:21 AM
I'm a libertarian at heart, but I am VERY strong pro-military.  I want the largest military and the most technologically advanced defense system in the universe -- to the point of absurdity.  I don't consider us equal with other nations -- I consider us WAY better.  We don't treat our women like animals, and we put robots on Mars while wealthy dignitaries from other countries come here to get medical treatment that they don't allow their people.  I love being the strongest and most advanced country on the planet.

I do not think that this is counter to be a libertarian.  I think that some say that defense of this country ends at our boarders.  I do not see it as going contrary to the intent of the constitution that we intervene in other countries conflicts nor having our military bases outside of the US. 

That being said I think that there is an awful lot of money that is wasted by DOD.  Anyone who has done business with them or for a company that does DOD work knows that they can cost us less and still do more than they do now.  But I think defending this country is one of the things that is directed by the constitution  so I think that having a military that is strong enough that anyone who thinks of starting up with the US understands that it most assuredly will be destroyed.  I have no problem with our military being the equivalent of Tyson in his prime while the rest of the world are featherweights.
Title: Re: Even I May Vote 3rd Party!
Post by: Shooterman on January 09, 2013, 11:15:07 AM
Quote from: taxed on January 09, 2013, 09:50:21 AM
I'm a libertarian at heart, but I am VERY strong pro-military.  I want the largest military and the most technologically advanced defense system in the universe -- to the point of absurdity.  I don't consider us equal with other nations -- I consider us WAY better.  We don't treat our women like animals, and we put robots on Mars while wealthy dignitaries from other countries come here to get medical treatment that they don't allow their people.  I love being the strongest and most advanced country on the planet.

Is it your position, Taxed, that to accomplish the noble goal of being the strongest militarily in the world, we should hold in abeyance the Constitution, or ignore it completely to the point of excessive spending?
Title: Re: Even I May Vote 3rd Party!
Post by: CubaLibre on January 09, 2013, 11:19:20 AM
The dichotomy between morality and libertarianism is a false one. The libertarian does not reject a moral code, just the idea that the state should be used to impose that moral code on others.

Title: Re: Even I May Vote 3rd Party!
Post by: taxed on January 09, 2013, 11:34:07 AM
Quote from: Shooterman on January 09, 2013, 11:15:07 AM
Is it your position, Taxed, that to accomplish the noble goal of being the strongest militarily in the world, we should hold in abeyance the Constitution, or ignore it completely to the point of excessive spending?

Where in the Constitution does it prohibit defense spending?
Title: Re: Even I May Vote 3rd Party!
Post by: TowardLiberty on January 09, 2013, 11:41:25 AM
Quote from: CubaLibre on January 09, 2013, 11:19:20 AM
The dichotomy between morality and libertarianism is a false one. The libertarian does not reject a moral code, just the idea that the state should be used to impose that moral code on others.

Very well said, CL.
Title: Re: Even I May Vote 3rd Party!
Post by: Shooterman on January 09, 2013, 11:43:24 AM
Quote from: taxed on January 09, 2013, 11:34:07 AM
Where in the Constitution does it prohibit defense spending?

Don't recall I even remotely suggested such.
Title: Re: Even I May Vote 3rd Party!
Post by: taxed on January 09, 2013, 11:49:00 AM
Quote from: raptor5618 on January 09, 2013, 11:11:26 AM
I do not think that this is counter to be a libertarian.  I think that some say that defense of this country ends at our boarders.  I do not see it as going contrary to the intent of the constitution that we intervene in other countries conflicts nor having our military bases outside of the US.
I don't disagree that libertarians want to defend the country from an attack.  However, it is my experience that a libertarian who is for heavy defense and defense technology spending is the exception. 

Quote
That being said I think that there is an awful lot of money that is wasted by DOD.  Anyone who has done business with them or for a company that does DOD work knows that they can cost us less and still do more than they do now.
There is a lot of waste by the DOD, like any government system, but I'll live with that.  What I won't live with is the financial raping and false promises given to our soldiers.  My brother just got out and he is telling me all the stories, and he has to stop because I start getting mad and break things.  There will be waste, and I'd want to keep aggressive accounting and accountability, but I'll take that under my system than the insanity we have now.  Our soldiers are having to pay most of the waste currently.

Quote
  But I think defending this country is one of the things that is directed by the constitution  so I think that having a military that is strong enough that anyone who thinks of starting up with the US understands that it most assuredly will be destroyed.  I have no problem with our military being the equivalent of Tyson in his prime while the rest of the world are featherweights.
Same here.
Title: Re: Even I May Vote 3rd Party!
Post by: taxed on January 09, 2013, 11:49:47 AM
Quote from: Shooterman on January 09, 2013, 11:43:24 AM
Don't recall I even remotely suggested such.

Then maybe I didn't understand your question.  Please dumb it down for me.
Title: Re: Even I May Vote 3rd Party!
Post by: Shooterman on January 09, 2013, 12:23:00 PM
Quote from: taxed on January 09, 2013, 11:49:47 AM
Then maybe I didn't understand your question.  Please dumb it down for me.

Simple, our armed services, constitutionally, were charges with protecting the homeland. Even at that, standing armies were unkindly looked upon, with well equipped militias designated as the first line of defense, but still, if necessary, only to be funded for a two year period at a time. Offensive use of the armed services were not specified. Unlimited funding for military adventurism was also not specified along with any and all foreign aid and placing and maintaining troops in foreign lands.

So, a very strong military is necessary and required for 'DEFENSE', but damned sure not for unlimited, undeclared, and unwarranted wars that we have absolutely not one tinkers damn of business being involved in.
Title: Re: Even I May Vote 3rd Party!
Post by: taxed on January 09, 2013, 12:24:00 PM
Quote from: Shooterman on January 09, 2013, 12:23:00 PM
Simple, our armed services, constitutionally, were charges with protecting the homeland. Even at that, standing armies were unkindly looked upon, with well equipped militias designated as the first line of defense, but still, if necessary, only to be funded for a two year period at a time. Offensive use of the armed services were not specified. Unlimited funding for military adventurism was also not specified along with any and all foreign aid and placing and maintaining troops in foreign lands.

So, a very strong military is necessary and required for 'DEFENSE', but damned sure not for unlimited, undeclared, and unwarranted wars that we have absolutely not one tinkers damn of business being involved in.

Where did I say anything about unwarranted wars?
Title: Re: Even I May Vote 3rd Party!
Post by: Shooterman on January 09, 2013, 12:47:45 PM
Quote from: taxed on January 09, 2013, 12:24:00 PM
Where did I say anything about unwarranted wars?

They go hand in hand with what we have been involved in since the end of WWII. We could spend a crap pot full of less money, if we more wisely spent our tax dollars in the right places.

Title: Re: Even I May Vote 3rd Party!
Post by: taxed on January 09, 2013, 01:17:49 PM
Quote from: Shooterman on January 09, 2013, 12:47:45 PM
They go hand in hand with what we have been involved in since the end of WWII. We could spend a crap pot full of less money, if we more wisely spent our tax dollars in the right places.

Is your logic, then, to not have a defense so we don't get into wars?
Title: Re: Even I May Vote 3rd Party!
Post by: AndyJackson on January 09, 2013, 01:27:01 PM
Quote from: CubaLibre on January 09, 2013, 11:19:20 AM
The dichotomy between morality and libertarianism is a false one. The libertarian does not reject a moral code, just the idea that the state should be used to impose that moral code on others.

This reminds me of the old saw "I can be just as dedicated to God without going to church, as everybody who does".

Technically, possible.  With normal human nature, very rare and unlikely.

People need the structure and discipline of a tangible system, and the support / accountability from others.

Show me the "Godly" man who hasn't gone to church in 5-10-20 years....I'll show you the guy who rarely thinks of God and has justified many, many shortcuts and excuses, for his tattered behaviors.

There are a few people out there who would pray and worship daily, and form all their other behaviors accordingly without any external influence.....but they are FEW and FAR between.  People are rife with failings and imperfections, even the really good ones.  And with no help, most won't defeat these things.
Title: Re: Even I May Vote 3rd Party!
Post by: AndyJackson on January 09, 2013, 01:36:19 PM
Quote from: Shooterman on January 09, 2013, 12:47:45 PM
They go hand in hand with what we have been involved in since the end of WWII. We could spend a crap pot full of less money, if we more wisely spent our tax dollars in the right places.
Any system this gigantic will be full of corruption.  That's why it should be smaller too, but a war is a war.  By nature, a gigantic enterprise.  If they had trouble documented the expenditures in Iraq, imagine what a mess the two WW's were, and even Vietnam.

In a strange way, I'd guess that we get a bigger economy boost from defense spending than entitlement spending. Defense at least builds the technology and logistics bases, and creates a huge amount of R&D and manufacturing.  Libs and Liberts are just mad that somebody gets rich in the process.  Entitlement spending is about as perfect as you can get in burning money with no outcome.  It just results in people laying on a couch eating, smoking, and injecting shit into themselves.  And ingesting the mental poison of TV and hip hop, lol.
Title: Re: Even I May Vote 3rd Party!
Post by: Shooterman on January 09, 2013, 01:39:26 PM
Quote from: taxed on January 09, 2013, 01:17:49 PM
Is your logic, then, to not have a defense so we don't get into wars?

A favor,  if you will, Taxed. Play your semantic bullshit with someone else.
Title: Re: Even I May Vote 3rd Party!
Post by: taxed on January 09, 2013, 01:43:46 PM
Quote from: Shooterman on January 09, 2013, 01:39:26 PM
A favor,  if you will, Taxed. Play your semantic bullshit with someone else.

I just mapped out your logic without semantics.  You say an increase in defense spending will cause unjust wars.  Therefore, it sounds like you want no defense spending for no unjust wars.  It is a pretty simple path to map out.

Defense spending doesn't have anything to do with Congress or the POTUS going to war.  If you can't lay out your reasoning, then that's OK.....
Title: Re: Even I May Vote 3rd Party!
Post by: Shooterman on January 09, 2013, 01:56:22 PM
Quote from: AndyJackson on January 09, 2013, 01:36:19 PM
Any system this gigantic will be full of corruption.  That's why it should be smaller too, but a war is a war.  By nature, a gigantic enterprise.  If they had trouble documented the expenditures in Iraq, imagine what a mess the two WW's were, and even Vietnam.

Outside of WWII, which was an outgrowth of us fokking up and getting into WWI, and possibly even then, tricked into getting engaged, the last justified war was the War of 1812. Since WWII, not one has been declared and/or justified. It is not now, now has it it ever been part of our Charter to remake the world in our image. We have paid a tremendous price in lives, the maiming of good people, untold trillions of dollars of our wealth and resources, and a steady erosion of the very thing our Revolution was predicated on- namely the establishment of our freedoms and liberties.

I would suggest the price has been too damned high.

Title: Re: Even I May Vote 3rd Party!
Post by: taxed on January 09, 2013, 01:57:27 PM
Quote from: Shooterman on January 09, 2013, 01:56:22 PM
Outside of WWII, which was an outgrowth of us fokking up and getting into WWI, and possibly even then, tricked into getting engaged, the last justified war was the War of 1812. Since WWII, not one has been declared and/or justified. It is not now, now has it it ever been part of our Charter to remake the world in our image. We have paid a tremendous price in lives, the maiming of good people, untold trillions of dollars of our wealth and resources, and a steady erosion of the very thing our Revolution was predicated on- namely the establishment of our freedoms and liberties.

I would suggest the price has been too damned high.

So........ no defense spending?  I'm confused.
Title: Re: Even I May Vote 3rd Party!
Post by: Shooterman on January 09, 2013, 01:59:32 PM
Quote from: taxed on January 09, 2013, 01:43:46 PM
I just mapped out your logic without semantics.  You say an increase in defense spending will cause unjust wars.  Therefore, it sounds like you want no defense spending for no unjust wars.  It is a pretty simple path to map out.

That is not what I said as you well know.

QuoteDefense spending doesn't have anything to do with Congress or the POTUS going to war.  If you can't lay out your reasoning, then that's OK.....

If you do not think defense spending has anything to do with Congress, the POTUS, or going to war, you have been living in a bubble.
Title: Re: Even I May Vote 3rd Party!
Post by: taxed on January 09, 2013, 02:04:55 PM
Quote from: Shooterman on January 09, 2013, 01:59:32 PM
That is not what I said as you well know.
I didn't say you said that. I was following your logic.  What are you saying??

Quote
If you do not think defense spending has anything to do with Congress, the POTUS, or going to war, you have been living in a bubble.
Now who's changing words?  I said Congress GOING TO WAR.
Title: Re: Even I May Vote 3rd Party!
Post by: AndyJackson on January 09, 2013, 02:08:41 PM
I agree that we should have left the nation building off of the tail end of things.

But I don't think that a case can be made that stopping the carnage of WW1, Hitler, communism, muslim terrorism, or the destruction of Israel.....is a waste of time or pointless effort.

That just doesn't make sense.  Some stuff you can't just let happen, and affect us however it will.
Title: Re: Even I May Vote 3rd Party!
Post by: Shooterman on January 09, 2013, 02:24:23 PM
Quote from: taxed on January 09, 2013, 02:04:55 PM
I didn't say you said that. I was following your logic.  What are you saying??
Now who's changing words?  I said Congress GOING TO WAR.

Have it your way, Taxed. Defending the country would take a hell of a lot less money if we confined ourselves to defending the homeland.
Title: Re: Even I May Vote 3rd Party!
Post by: taxed on January 09, 2013, 02:27:34 PM
Quote from: Shooterman on January 09, 2013, 02:24:23 PM
Have it your way, Taxed. Defending the country would take a hell of a lot less money if we confined ourselves to defending the homeland.

See, Shooter, you are linking defense spending to war.  We can have defense spending to protect the homeland.  You are just being emotional and not being rational.
Title: Re: Even I May Vote 3rd Party!
Post by: Shooterman on January 09, 2013, 02:44:38 PM
Quote from: AndyJackson on January 09, 2013, 02:08:41 PM
I agree that we should have left the nation building off of the tail end of things.

But I don't think that a case can be made that stopping the carnage of WW1, Hitler, communism, muslim terrorism, or the destruction of Israel.....is a waste of time or pointless effort.

That just doesn't make sense.  Some stuff you can't just let happen, and affect us however it will.

It is pretty much accepted that until we stuck our noses into Europe during WWI, it was a stalemate or pretty much on its way to being so. We changed the balance of power in favor of the French and British, of whom it may be said, had no vested interest in some Serb malcontent killing Ferdinand and his bride. We changed what would be a stalemate into a victory that left a crap pot full of Americans dead and maimed, and the raping of Germany at Versaille. The Germans did not forget and it allowed Hitler to come to power, getting us eventually into the war because Japan attacked us ( because we had created an embargo, an act of war ) against their supplies of raw materials. At least FDR, as much as he wanted the war, asked from Congress and got a Declaration of War. .

I admit, hindsight is a marvelous thing, but the chances of Hitler coming to power, if not for Versaille, were pretty slim.

The rest, no matter how wonderful and emotional an argument it may be, could all have been assuaged by simple requests from and granting of war declarations by the Congress. Israel is no different than any other nation. If and when the brown stuff hits the twirly blades and we default on our debt, the Israelis, in my opinion, won't lift a finger to help. Borrowing money to support not only Israel, but their enemies as well, seems stupid and counterproductive to me.
Title: Re: Even I May Vote 3rd Party!
Post by: Solar on January 09, 2013, 04:20:59 PM
Quote from: Shooterman on January 09, 2013, 12:23:00 PM
Simple, our armed services, constitutionally, were charges with protecting the homeland. Even at that, standing armies were unkindly looked upon, with well equipped militias designated as the first line of defense, but still, if necessary, only to be funded for a two year period at a time. Offensive use of the armed services were not specified. Unlimited funding for military adventurism was also not specified along with any and all foreign aid and placing and maintaining troops in foreign lands.

So, a very strong military is necessary and required for 'DEFENSE', but damned sure not for unlimited, undeclared, and unwarranted wars that we have absolutely not one tinkers damn of business being involved in.
Wrong, they were charged with protecting American interests here and abroad.
Case in point, Barbary Pirates.
Title: Re: Even I May Vote 3rd Party!
Post by: CubaLibre on January 09, 2013, 04:28:28 PM
Quote from: AndyJackson on January 09, 2013, 01:27:01 PM
This reminds me of the old saw "I can be just as dedicated to God without going to church, as everybody who does".

Technically, possible.  With normal human nature, very rare and unlikely.

People need the structure and discipline of a tangible system, and the support / accountability from others.

Show me the "Godly" man who hasn't gone to church in 5-10-20 years....I'll show you the guy who rarely thinks of God and has justified many, many shortcuts and excuses, for his tattered behaviors.

There are a few people out there who would pray and worship daily, and form all their other behaviors accordingly without any external influence.....but they are FEW and FAR between.  People are rife with failings and imperfections, even the really good ones.  And with no help, most won't defeat these things.
It's one thing to seek morality from religious faith. It's another to use the state to impose that morality upon others. It's entirely possible to have faith and live "by the Book", as they say, without recurring to statist enforcement of your moral codes.

And the same applies to pretty much every type of philosophy, not just religious.
Title: Re: Even I May Vote 3rd Party!
Post by: Shooterman on January 09, 2013, 05:32:07 PM
Quote from: taxed on January 09, 2013, 02:27:34 PM
See, Shooter, you are linking defense spending to war.  We can have defense spending to protect the homeland.  You are just being emotional and not being rational.

No where have I advocated not spending money for defense. Our national posture on defense requires we spend untold dollars maintaining a presence throughout the world. That is for one purpose; fight the enemy ( whoever that may be today, it may change tomorrow )  there and whup any body's ass if we don't like what they do )

Bring our people home and defend the homeland and let the world do as they wish. The unsaid caveat is if they fokk with us, shame on them. China and Russia excluded of course because we surely don't want to awake the Dragon and the Bear at the same time.
Title: Re: Even I May Vote 3rd Party!
Post by: Shooterman on January 09, 2013, 05:45:03 PM
Quote from: Solar on January 09, 2013, 04:20:59 PM
Wrong, they were charged with protecting American interests here and abroad.
Case in point, Barbary Pirates.

Case in point. Jefferson sent the Marines to take care of the Barbary Pirates, conditionally on the approval of the Congress. Once the problem was solved, the Navy and Marines came home.

What was our interest in Europe during WWI? What was Our interest in Korea? Vietnam? Kuwait? Iraq? What is our continued interest in a 11 year old war in Afghanistan?

I would suggest those troops could very easily be protecting our interest on the Southern Border.
Title: Re: Even I May Vote 3rd Party!
Post by: Yawn on January 09, 2013, 06:17:00 PM
Quote from: CubaLibre on January 09, 2013, 11:19:20 AM
The dichotomy between morality and libertarianism is a false one. The libertarian does not reject a moral code, just the idea that the state should be used to impose that moral code on others.

"You shall not murder", "You shall not steal" is not "imposing your morality" on others in your nation?

THIS is an example of why I could never be Libertarian. They pick and choose what THEY define as morality.  Of course they would accept THOSE moral laws, but would reject laws against adultery, recreational drugs, and sodomy.

No, the Founders were not at all the same as today's Libertarians. They reject the Founder who said, "Our democracy can only serve a just and moral people. It can serve no other."
Title: Re: Even I May Vote 3rd Party!
Post by: CubaLibre on January 09, 2013, 06:41:39 PM
Quote from: Yawn on January 09, 2013, 06:17:00 PM
"You shall not murder", "You shall not steal" is not "imposing your morality" on others in your nation?
Those are absolute, not relative examples. The thief, the murderer, and the rapist attack the rights of the individual and his or her property. Therefore, there is no room for such behavior in a civilized society.
Quote
THIS is an example of why I could never be Libertarian. They pick and choose what THEY define as morality.  Of course they would accept THOSE moral laws, but would reject laws against adultery, recreational drugs, and sodomy.
With regards to sodomy and adultery, not only would laws against such be impossible to adequately enforce, but the state wouldn't be as effective as education of the populace.

As for drugs, my views here have changed due to the failure of prohibition. I believe that, again, education of the populace about the dangers of drugs would be more effective than prohibition. Like we do with cigarettes.

Quote
No, the Founders were not at all the same as today's Libertarians. They reject the Founder who said, "Our democracy can only serve a just and moral people. It can serve no other."
Sounds to me like that statement speaks more about a just and moral people being more likely to cherish the rights and freedoms granted to them, and not taking them for granted. I doubt they were talking about the creation of laws.
Title: Re: Even I May Vote 3rd Party!
Post by: TowardLiberty on January 09, 2013, 07:21:08 PM
Libertarians pick and choose what they define as morality?

Is that right?

All along I thought libertarians had a systematic theory of morality rooted in self ownership, individual autonomy, and private property?

Now I am told that it is all subjective, arbitrary and whimsical!

Who would of thunk it?!
Title: Re: Even I May Vote 3rd Party!
Post by: Yawn on January 10, 2013, 02:28:10 AM
Quote from: TowardLiberty on January 09, 2013, 07:21:08 PM
Libertarians pick and choose what they define as morality?

Is that right?

All along I thought libertarians had a systematic theory of morality rooted in self ownership, individual autonomy, and private property?

Now I am told that it is all subjective, arbitrary and whimsical!

Who would of thunk it?!

Clearly not you.  Now try to keep up. I laid it out clearly so even a stoner SHOULD be able to follow. Let's try this again (keeping in mind that ALL law is based in Morality)

1) Do you support laws basically stating "You shall not murder"?  Yes, No

2) Do you support moral laws stating, "You shall not steal"?  Yes, No

NOW tell me if you support those moral laws stating....


3) "You shall not commit adultery"?  Yes, No

4) "A man shall not lie with a man as a man lies with a woman"?  Yes, No


Now, you can (and should) make the case that the Feds shouldn't be involved in these laws, but which should the states be allowed to enforce????
Title: Re: Even I May Vote 3rd Party!
Post by: CubaLibre on January 10, 2013, 07:13:59 AM
The law of God is infinitely greater than the law of man, and does not require the law of man to validate it.

The law of man should deal with protecting the natural rights of man. The law of God deals with living by a higher standard, rejeting our sinful tendencies, and trying (for nobody can fully achieve the goal) to apply the moral codes outlined in God's law to our everyday lives. Legislation is not needed to accopmlish any of this.

That said, the state governments should theoretically be able to enact and enforce any laws they see fit. In practice, though,  the concept of state sovereignty has become warped beyond recognition, so I am not sure if this would be feasible today. Or in the foreseeable future, given the current and potential future situation of the SCOTUS.
Title: Re: Even I May Vote 3rd Party!
Post by: AndyJackson on January 10, 2013, 07:56:39 AM
Quote from: CubaLibre on January 09, 2013, 04:28:28 PM
It's one thing to seek morality from religious faith. It's another to use the state to impose that morality upon others. It's entirely possible to have faith and live "by the Book", as they say, without recurring to statist enforcement of your moral codes.

And the same applies to pretty much every type of philosophy, not just religious.
I was just responding to the idea that anybody can have a personal moral code that's the equivalent of established religion or laws.

They can't, don't, and won't.

A tiny % may be able to achieve something like this.  But not enough to stave off anarchy, corruption, and so on.

Just the 60's-70's  idea that religion is irrelevant is already wreaking havoc on society.  Doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the decline of the last 45 years, and its genesis.
Title: Re: Even I May Vote 3rd Party!
Post by: AndyJackson on January 10, 2013, 08:10:40 AM
I'm not sure that one can legitimately seperate God's law and man's law.  In the history of man's law and enumerated rights, it's always based in some variation of God's law and the fact that human rights are derived from God, not man or his machinations.

Unregulated partying, adultery, and bungholery will wreck a civilization (ie family and community) more quickly than murder or theft.

They are insidious, ever growing, yet "cool" when you let things slide that way, while murder and theft will always be on somebody's radar and unacceptable.

Now having said that, I'm OK with drug legalization for the practical reasons I stated.

But there still needs to be some sort of tangible moral code that is delivered by something other than people's whims.
Title: Re: Even I May Vote 3rd Party!
Post by: AndyJackson on January 10, 2013, 08:30:36 AM
Quote from: Shooterman on January 09, 2013, 05:45:03 PM
Case in point. Jefferson sent the Marines to take care of the Barbary Pirates, conditionally on the approval of the Congress. Once the problem was solved, the Navy and Marines came home.

What was our interest in Europe during WWI? What was Our interest in Korea? Vietnam? Kuwait? Iraq? What is our continued interest in a 11 year old war in Afghanistan?

I would suggest those troops could very easily be protecting our interest on the Southern Border.
Is this the period where the Marines earned the moniker "leathernecks", because they actually wore leather collars to protect against the prevalence of swords in the muslim offensives ?  I always liked that little historical note.

But I  still have to reel in disbelief at your questions on our involvements.  In Korea we actually helped to stop the Chinese (communist) stealth sacking of Asia, and had great sucess militarily.  We pursued the same goal in Vietnam, and would have had the same success, if not for the new wave of America's internal traitors.  In the Korean War era, it was still fashionable to support your country and it's efforts to help others, or fight various despotic killers.  Vietnam, nah......the mentally ill, self absorbed, childish wave of liberalism had gained it's footing.

Kuwait was a simple effort to stop Hussein from continuing a habit of sacking / warring with his neighbors.  Not hard to divine the meaning, value, or philosophy of that.

Iraq and Afghanistan are parallel to Korea and Vietnam, in that they were pursued in order to halt the spread of Islamic terrorism / jihad.  It's not as though we don't see it growing and moving around the globe.

Same with WW2 and the cold war.  Two emerging philosophies, naziism and communism, that would either be given carte blanche to grow acorss the globe.....or not.

Now I fully understand the waste, politics, and for-profit problems of the military-industrial complex.  But this is a structural concept, rather than  self-interest-survival in light of global threats.

Should we just let the Israel-Arab-Muslim situation blow up however it will  ?  You know that the only eventual outcome, if we withdraw and stand aside indifferently, is a nuclear exchange and last-man standing outcome.  Is this better than our involvement ?

I laugh at all the new boogeymen in the liberal AND libertarian lexicon.....neocon, neoconservative, paleoconservative, etc.

Exactly WTH are these, besides what they've always been going back to the 1800's  ?  The USA has always had a moral or self-protection imperative in global involvements.  There's nothing new under the sun, just the ridiculous PR and propaganda that gets rewritten by each self-serving little clique.

The fact that the joooooooos are always in the mix, underscores this.
Title: Re: Even I May Vote 3rd Party!
Post by: CubaLibre on January 10, 2013, 08:53:48 AM
Quote from: AndyJackson on January 10, 2013, 08:10:40 AM
I'm not sure that one can legitimately seperate God's law and man's law.  In the history of man's law and enumerated rights, it's always based in some variation of God's law and the fact that human rights are derived from God, not man or his machinations.
There is certainly truth in that statement. If, after all, you believe that your rights come from God (as I do), then any laws taken to protect those rights would borrow heavily on the law of God (for example, theft, which is the forcible taking of property that is rightfully mine and which I have a right to).

Quote
Unregulated partying, adultery, and bungholery will wreck a civilization (ie family and community) more quickly than murder or theft.
Social ostracism is far more effective than legislation in these cases. The community is better equipped to deal with local issues than the state or federal government.

Quote
They are insidious, ever growing, yet "cool" when you let things slide that way, while murder and theft will always be on somebody's radar and unacceptable.
Education and social ostracism is the most effective way to deal with the situation. Arrest and prosecution is a terrible idea, logistically.

QuoteNow having said that, I'm OK with drug legalization for the practical reasons I stated.

But there still needs to be some sort of tangible moral code that is delivered by something other than people's whims.
The moral code wouldn't be driven by people's whims. Established belief systems would carry on. People turn to their religious institutions for moral guidance. They do not (and should not) turn to the government. 

Nor is it right for a group to apply its moral code to the laws of the nation, and especially a nation where the majority can change the government to their whim...
Title: Re: Even I May Vote 3rd Party!
Post by: AndyJackson on January 10, 2013, 09:19:03 AM
I still think you're assuming that people in general will all decide to do what's right and good.  Of their own volition, no prompting.

I think that 3 or 4 people out of 100 may do this.

And the rest will fall into selfish tangents.
Title: Re: Even I May Vote 3rd Party!
Post by: Solar on January 10, 2013, 09:30:01 AM
Quote from: AndyJackson on January 10, 2013, 09:19:03 AM
I still think you're assuming that people in general will all decide to do what's right and good.  Of their own volition, no prompting.

I think that 3 or 4 people out of 100 may do this.

And the rest will fall into selfish tangents.
Andy, please use the quote function, thanks.
Title: Re: Even I May Vote 3rd Party!
Post by: TowardLiberty on January 10, 2013, 10:18:05 AM
Quote from: Yawn on January 10, 2013, 02:28:10 AM
Clearly not you.  Now try to keep up. I laid it out clearly so even a stoner SHOULD be able to follow. Let's try this again (keeping in mind that ALL law is based in Morality)
You made a comment about libertarians, am I not a libertarian?

And are you sure all law is based on morality?

Where is the morality in tax law? In drug laws? In laws that redistribute wealth?
Quote

1) Do you support laws basically stating "You shall not murder"?  Yes, No

2) Do you support moral laws stating, "You shall not steal"?  Yes, No

Yes to both.

Quote

NOW tell me if you support those moral laws stating....


3) "You shall not commit adultery"?  Yes, No

4) "A man shall not lie with a man as a man lies with a woman"?  Yes, No

Are we talking about morals here or laws? I do not personally believe adultery is moral but I also would not have a law against it, for that would be immoral.

The law can have no say about what consenting adults do without tossing out morality and justice.
Quote

Now, you can (and should) make the case that the Feds shouldn't be involved in these laws, but which should the states be allowed to enforce????

I thought we were talking about morals and libertarians....
Title: Re: Even I May Vote 3rd Party!
Post by: TowardLiberty on January 10, 2013, 10:39:09 AM
Quote from: AndyJackson on January 10, 2013, 09:19:03 AM
I still think you're assuming that people in general will all decide to do what's right and good.  Of their own volition, no prompting.

I think that 3 or 4 people out of 100 may do this.

And the rest will fall into selfish tangents.

I completely disagree.

If what you say is true then how do we explain the existence of society and human cooperation?

Does not the law of association explain quite clearly why people will choose cooperation over conflict?
Title: Re: Even I May Vote 3rd Party!
Post by: Shooterman on January 10, 2013, 11:15:25 AM
Quote from: AndyJackson on January 10, 2013, 08:30:36 AM
Is this the period where the Marines earned the moniker "leathernecks", because they actually wore leather collars to protect against the prevalence of swords in the muslim offensives ?  I always liked that little historical note.

But I  still have to reel in disbelief at your questions on our involvements.  In Korea we actually helped to stop the Chinese (communist) stealth sacking of Asia, and had great sucess militarily.  We pursued the same goal in Vietnam, and would have had the same success, if not for the new wave of America's internal traitors.  In the Korean War era, it was still fashionable to support your country and it's efforts to help others, or fight various despotic killers.  Vietnam, nah......the mentally ill, self absorbed, childish wave of liberalism had gained it's footing.

Sorry, but Korea was a civil war designed, rightly or wrongly, to re-unite a people separated by edict of the UN. It is a peninsula, basically the armpit of Asia. We were already in Japan, as an occupying force after WWII. The silly fokkers surely wasn't coming across the Sea of Japan in sampans. I have always believed, Uncle Joe snookered Harry S into getting involved and it cost us a hell of a lot of casualties and resources to fight basically a draw. There wasn't one damned thing I saw there worth one American life. Harry s Truman screwed the pooch and we are still in that stinking hell hole. One of Ike's best moves was getting out of that war, though we lost a lot of people

Vietnam was another attempt at reunification of a people that was split by edict of treaty and the UN, useless as teats on a boar. We attempted to bail France's sorry asses out after they got smacked at Dien Bien Phu. 58000+ names on a wall because we chose to fight for a corrupt inconsequential parade of assholes. Hell, at one time, we could have walked in with no trouble. Ho Chi Minh had asked the US for help, we turned him down, but the Commies didn't.

Again, one of the few good things Tricky Dicky accomplished though it took too damned long to get out of that shit. Guess what- we got out, S Vietnam fell, the world is not any worse off, and we now trade with the little boogers. Kind of makes the sacrifice paid by those guys and gals whose names are on that wall seem somewhat wasteful, but fokk, it was just Americans and the price we paid, right. We saved the world.

Kuwait was a simple effort to stop Hussein from continuing a habit of sacking / warring with his neighbors.  Not hard to divine the meaning, value, or philosophy of that.

QuoteIraq and Afghanistan are parallel to Korea and Vietnam, in that they were pursued in order to halt the spread of Islamic terrorism / jihad.  It's not as though we don't see it growing and moving around the globe.

Sure, of course, by golly, they are parallel. Iraq was stable, Saddam was a bad sumbich but at one time he was our sumbich, until he pissed us off. As Jake said in Lonesome Dove, if you can't get hung by your friends, who cabn you get hung by or something to that effect. So, we hung Saddamy. Big Whoop. Sing that to 'Waltzing Matilda'. It is really catchy.

Afghanistan has, in the course of history, smashed many an empire. We've been there 11 years at a waste of men, materiel', and money, and basically, if we are to believe the MSM, Osama was taken out by a small, very mobile, dedicated strike team. Of course they are all dead now and dead men tell no tales. The point is all this 11 year bull shit seems to have accomplished little if anything except to piss a lot of folks off.

...........................................................

QuoteShould we just let the Israel-Arab-Muslim situation blow up however it will  ?  You know that the only eventual outcome, if we withdraw and stand aside indifferently, is a nuclear exchange and last-man standing outcome.  Is this better than our involvement ?

The entire Middle East can be turned into a glass parking lot and the world may just be a better place.

If MADD worked for 40 years to keep the Russkis and us from bombing each other into the dark ages, there is no reason for it not to work awhile longer while the Israelis and Muslims off each other. Tell me it makes sense to give aid to both sides.

A lot depends on how many young American lives YOU think is worth spending in the support of Israel. We can see the results of the last two bull shit wars over there on our young men and women. Of course it is voluntary, so it is what they choose. Right?



Title: Re: Even I May Vote 3rd Party!
Post by: Solar on January 10, 2013, 11:35:39 AM
Quote from: Shooterman on January 09, 2013, 05:45:03 PM
Case in point. Jefferson sent the Marines to take care of the Barbary Pirates, conditionally on the approval of the Congress. Once the problem was solved, the Navy and Marines came home.

What was our interest in Europe during WWI? What was Our interest in Korea? Vietnam? Kuwait? Iraq? What is our continued interest in a 11 year old war in Afghanistan?

I would suggest those troops could very easily be protecting our interest on the Southern Border.
Irrelevant. What part of "charged with protecting American interests here and abroad" do you not get?
Keeping or Military on the Homeland is what Jefferson warned about, and protecting American interests abroad can't be done from our soil, we need to be patrolling the world wherever we have Capitalist interests.
Like it or not, were a Capitalist society with interests all over the globe.
It would be nice to think we could trade peacefully around the globe without the need of a Military presence, but that's just Utopian fairy dust.
Title: Re: Even I May Vote 3rd Party!
Post by: TowardLiberty on January 10, 2013, 11:50:11 AM
It is true that the military is there to protect special interests.

No doubt.

The myth is that this is necessary, desirable or even good for the economy.

In reality, war is a welfare program that has always given the political class excuses for tax increases, currency debasement, conscription and all manners of abuses and intrusions into natural liberty.

And these are the tools of social stagnation and chaos.

A powerful military does not facilitate trade, it restricts it and protects trade for a special class of privileged men.


Title: Re: Even I May Vote 3rd Party!
Post by: Shooterman on January 10, 2013, 12:25:31 PM
Quote from: Solar on January 10, 2013, 11:35:39 AM
"charged with protecting American interests here and abroad"

Emotionalism or constitutionalism?

Title: Re: Even I May Vote 3rd Party!
Post by: AndyJackson on January 10, 2013, 12:49:08 PM
Quote from: Shooterman on January 10, 2013, 11:15:25 AM
Sorry, but Korea was a civil war designed, rightly or wrongly, to re-unite a people separated by edict of the UN. It is a peninsula, basically the armpit of Asia. We were already in Japan, as an occupying force after WWII. The silly fokkers surely wasn't coming across the Sea of Japan in sampans. I have always believed, Uncle Joe snookered Harry S into getting involved and it cost us a hell of a lot of casualties and resources to fight basically a draw. There wasn't one damned thing I saw there worth one American life. Harry s Truman screwed the pooch and we are still in that stinking hell hole. One of Ike's best moves was getting out of that war, though we lost a lot of people

Vietnam was another attempt at reunification of a people that was split by edict of treaty and the UN, useless as teats on a boar. We attempted to bail France's sorry asses out after they got smacked at Dien Bien Phu. 58000+ names on a wall because we chose to fight for a corrupt inconsequential parade of assholes. Hell, at one time, we could have walked in with no trouble. Ho Chi Minh had asked the US for help, we turned him down, but the Commies didn't.

Again, one of the few good things Tricky Dicky accomplished though it took too damned long to get out of that shit. Guess what- we got out, S Vietnam fell, the world is not any worse off, and we now trade with the little boogers. Kind of makes the sacrifice paid by those guys and gals whose names are on that wall seem somewhat wasteful, but fokk, it was just Americans and the price we paid, right. We saved the world.

Kuwait was a simple effort to stop Hussein from continuing a habit of sacking / warring with his neighbors.  Not hard to divine the meaning, value, or philosophy of that.

Sure, of course, by golly, they are parallel. Iraq was stable, Saddam was a bad sumbich but at one time he was our sumbich, until he pissed us off. As Jake said in Lonesome Dove, if you can't get hung by your friends, who cabn you get hung by or something to that effect. So, we hung Saddamy. Big Whoop. Sing that to 'Waltzing Matilda'. It is really catchy.

Afghanistan has, in the course of history, smashed many an empire. We've been there 11 years at a waste of men, materiel', and money, and basically, if we are to believe the MSM, Osama was taken out by a small, very mobile, dedicated strike team. Of course they are all dead now and dead men tell no tales. The point is all this 11 year bull shit seems to have accomplished little if anything except to piss a lot of folks off.

...........................................................

The entire Middle East can be turned into a glass parking lot and the world may just be a better place.

If MADD worked for 40 years to keep the Russkis and us from bombing each other into the dark ages, there is no reason for it not to work awhile longer while the Israelis and Muslims off each other. Tell me it makes sense to give aid to both sides.

A lot depends on how many young American lives YOU think is worth spending in the support of Israel. We can see the results of the last two bull shit wars over there on our young men and women. Of course it is voluntary, so it is what they choose. Right?

We didn't go to war anywhere to reunify anybody.  We went to Korea and Vietnam to stop communist invasions, both sponsored in varying degrees by China.

If you don't want to care about a major exchange of nuclear weapons in the middle east, yet another genocide against the Jews, and the destruction of the lone democracy in the region, that's your call.

Hussein was our ally, then 30 years later he wasn't.  Nothing new in geopolitics.  Poor excuse for doing nothing, generally used by liberals.

There is no MADD in the middle east.  The place is crawling with self-proclaimed Saladins and 12th Imams, for whom tens of millions of dead are nothing in order to make the prophecy and caliphate happen.  As usual, the Israelis have refrained from using their weapons, even when bum rushed by several countries and being completely justified.

You seem to specialize a lot in "killing our boys for the rich" and suggesting that any use of the military is nothing but murdering our kids.  Another decidedly liberal ploy.

I do agree with you on one lone point.  Yes, we are supposed to have transitioned from mass to special ops quite a while ago, and the current models of the OBL mission, and drone strikes, should be the rule.
Title: Re: Even I May Vote 3rd Party!
Post by: Shooterman on January 10, 2013, 01:48:04 PM
Quote from: AndyJackson on January 10, 2013, 12:49:08 PM
We didn't go to war anywhere to reunify anybody.  We went to Korea and Vietnam to stop communist invasions, both sponsored in varying degrees by China.

If you don't want to care about a major exchange of nuclear weapons in the middle east, yet another genocide against the Jews, and the destruction of the lone democracy in the region, that's your call.

Hussein was our ally, then 30 years later he wasn't.  Nothing new in geopolitics.  Poor excuse for doing nothing, generally used by liberals.

There is no MADD in the middle east.  The place is crawling with self-proclaimed Saladins and 12th Imams, for whom tens of millions of dead are nothing in order to make the prophecy and caliphate happen.  As usual, the Israelis have refrained from using their weapons, even when bum rushed by several countries and being completely justified.

You seem to specialize a lot in "killing our boys for the rich" and suggesting that any use of the military is nothing but murdering our kids.  Another decidedly liberal ploy.

I do agree with you on one lone point.  Yes, we are supposed to have transitioned from mass to special ops quite a while ago, and the current models of the OBL mission, and drone strikes, should be the rule.

You seem to use a lot of liberal name calling and ploys to make a point. Not once have I said anything about killing our boys for the rich, but as a Taxpayer, the same old shit gets old when the results are the same. Neither did I suggest we fought Korea and/or Vietnam to re-unite them. The people, rightly or wrongly, were attempting to re-unite their own homeland and it damned sure wasn't any of our business, especially in trying to bolster the French in Indo-China and maintain their colonial possession which is why Ho Chi Minh kicked their asses out to begin with.

When we fight a war, it must be declared and it must be just, and we haven't done that shit since WWII, in my opinion.
Title: Re: Even I May Vote 3rd Party!
Post by: Solar on January 10, 2013, 05:51:54 PM
Quote from: Shooterman on January 10, 2013, 12:25:31 PM
Emotionalism or constitutionalism?
What is that supposed to mean?
I say Constitutional, but your response seems to be emotional.
Title: Re: Even I May Vote 3rd Party!
Post by: Shooterman on January 10, 2013, 07:24:22 PM
Quote from: Solar on January 10, 2013, 05:51:54 PM
What is that supposed to mean?
I say Constitutional, but your response seems to be emotional.

Never managed to read that in the Constitution. Must have overlooked it.
Title: Re: Even I May Vote 3rd Party!
Post by: Solar on January 10, 2013, 10:31:56 PM
Quote from: Shooterman on January 10, 2013, 07:24:22 PM
Never managed to read that in the Constitution. Must have overlooked it.
That's because it's in the Preamble.
You know, the Document that Madison wrote explaining what the Constitution actually meant.
Quote
The Preamble to the Constitution lists six purposes for which the new government of the United States of America was established. These purposes, in general, are to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty.

And don't tell me you think it wasn't necessary after the fact, we just kicked England back to Europe.
Do you really think had we disbanded our Navy/Military, that they would have left us alone?

Point is, it's an evil world beyond our borders, keeping a Military at the Homeland is simply the stupidest thing I've ever heard.
On a small anecdotal scale, it's like driving through a bad neighborhood with a pickup full of the latest plasma screens.
You're just asking for trouble, which is why we have a Navy and Army stationed around the globe, to keep the hood honest and from ripping us off and holding our people hostage.
Title: Re: Even I May Vote 3rd Party!
Post by: Shooterman on January 11, 2013, 06:19:30 AM
Quote from: Solar on January 10, 2013, 10:31:56 PM
That's because it's in the Preamble.
You know, the Document that Madison wrote explaining what the Constitution actually meant.
And don't tell me you think it wasn't necessary after the fact, we just kicked England back to Europe.
Do you really think had we disbanded our Navy/Military, that they would have left us alone?

Point is, it's an evil world beyond our borders, keeping a Military at the Homeland is simply the stupidest thing I've ever heard.
On a small anecdotal scale, it's like driving through a bad neighborhood with a pickup full of the latest plasma screens.
You're just asking for trouble, which is why we have a Navy and Army stationed around the globe, to keep the hood honest and from ripping us off and holding our people hostage.

Common Defense, eh? How about common defense of the States which were the entities that ratified the Constitution?

Better yet- How about a constitutional amendment allowing us to get into bed with every Tom, Dick, Juan, and Mohammed? Then everyone is happy.
Title: Re: Even I May Vote 3rd Party!
Post by: Solar on January 11, 2013, 08:11:21 AM
Quote from: Shooterman on January 11, 2013, 06:19:30 AM
Common Defense, eh? How about common defense of the States which were the entities that ratified the Constitution?

Better yet- How about a constitutional amendment allowing us to get into bed with every Tom, Dick, Juan, and Mohammed? Then everyone is happy.
It's Govt, would you have expected anything less?
Though a Navy was to be maintained, the question of Army got mangled, and I'm certain it came about through precedent.

But the point is, the Founders saw to it that our interests abroad were to be protected, but we know how that got interpreted. :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Even I May Vote 3rd Party!
Post by: Shooterman on January 11, 2013, 10:04:01 AM
Quote from: Solar on January 11, 2013, 08:11:21 AM
It's Govt, would you have expected anything less?
Though a Navy was to be maintained, the question of Army got mangled, and I'm certain it came about through precedent.

But the point is, the Founders saw to it that our interests abroad were to be protected, but we know how that got interpreted. :rolleyes:

No entangling alliances was the by word of the leaders of the country.

BTW, yes, we are supposed to maintain a Navy. The fighting force of the Navy has always been the Marines, so by extension, they are constitutional and were accepted. A standing army was basically an unnecessary entity. The trained militia was determined to be the best means of defense of the homeland and was to hold the line until an army could be raised. I'm not telling you anything you don't know, but it seems to me even a standing army, if necessary, does not mean a standing army in Korea, Japan, Germany or the hundreds of other places we happen to be.

Take Korea, for instance. Do you honestly believe if Junior Son Fool Do sent his million man army across the DMZ, and the South's million man army could not stop them, that 27000 US troops could?

You spent time there- was there any thing worth one American life in the whole stinking, with crap, country?

BTW, there was no treaty in effect when Truman sent the troops to Korea- he caught a lot of flak for it and Ike was elected on the promise to end the war. Ike screwed the pooch by not getting the troops out when the fighting was over, and here we are, 60 years later, still in the stinkhole.
Title: Re: Even I May Vote 3rd Party!
Post by: Solar on January 11, 2013, 10:47:25 AM
Quote from: Shooterman on January 11, 2013, 10:04:01 AM
No entangling alliances was the by word of the leaders of the country.

BTW, yes, we are supposed to maintain a Navy. The fighting force of the Navy has always been the Marines, so by extension, they are constitutional and were accepted. A standing army was basically an unnecessary entity. The trained militia was determined to be the best means of defense of the homeland and was to hold the line until an army could be raised. I'm not telling you anything you don't know, but it seems to me even a standing army, if necessary, does not mean a standing army in Korea, Japan, Germany or the hundreds of other places we happen to be.

Take Korea, for instance. Do you honestly believe if Junior Son Fool Do sent his million man army across the DMZ, and the South's million man army could not stop them, that 27000 US troops could?

You spent time there- was there any thing worth one American life in the whole stinking, with crap, country?

BTW, there was no treaty in effect when Truman sent the troops to Korea- he caught a lot of flak for it and Ike was elected on the promise to end the war. Ike screwed the pooch by not getting the troops out when the fighting was over, and here we are, 60 years later, still in the stinkhole.
I agree, and Korea is a perfect example of the Precedent I spoke of, they used the idea that keeping troops stationed due to potential threat beyond two years was reason to ignore the limit set by Congress.

And when I was there, we knew we were sacrificial lambs, basically a line in the sand dared not to cross, but we were three minutes away from death and knew most of us would not survive had the mad man decided to invade.

I guess we were kind of an insurance plan that Kim wouldn't attack from threat of retribution of the loss of Americans lives.
Title: Re: Even I May Vote 3rd Party!
Post by: AndyJackson on January 11, 2013, 02:45:01 PM
When I was at Kunsan, the cute little theory was that we were there to keep the South from going north.

That may explain the prolonged stay.

I can see why.  Besides the original invasion, the idiots up north are poking and provoking every damned day.

I guess they always figured China would have their backs.  Shoulda listened to MacArthur, lol.  And Patton on Russia, heh.  The military men are here to end problems, the politicians are here to avoid/ ignore them until catastrophe rears it's head.
Title: Re: Even I May Vote 3rd Party!
Post by: Solar on January 12, 2013, 07:39:55 AM
Quote from: AndyJackson on January 11, 2013, 02:45:01 PM
When I was at Kunsan, the cute little theory was that we were there to keep the South from going north.

That may explain the prolonged stay.

I can see why.  Besides the original invasion, the idiots up north are poking and provoking every damned day.

I guess they always figured China would have their backs.  Shoulda listened to MacArthur, lol.  And Patton on Russia, heh.  The military men are here to end problems, the politicians are here to avoid/ ignore them until catastrophe rears it's head.
Booby traps are sent down the Imjin river daily,(relying on memory here) I lost a friend to one and another maimed for life, both were explosives.
The North is packed full of indoctrinated, ignorant people that believe they are being protected by Kim from a world of slavers looking to take them as chattel.
They see attacking the South as not only honorable, but a duty.