2012 Election Thread

An interesting article...

The Muslims who immigrated to America in the 1970s, like the ones who immigrate to America today, were not lazy. Lazy people don’t leave their homeland 5,000 miles behind to move to a foreign country where they speak a foreign language. For these Muslims, the Republican message of self-reliance and entrepreneurship, the exaltation of small business owners, the emphasis on cutting taxes to encourage industriousness, was catnip. So too was the vilification of people sucking from the public teat and asking for handouts. There were no Muslim welfare queens, and Muslims joined the Republican stampede against them.

In the 2000 election, approximately 70% of Muslims in America voted for Bush; among non-African-American Muslims, the ratio was over 80%.

Four years later, Bush’s share of the vote among Muslims was 4%
Click to expand...
 
I get back from Cali to see you guys re-elected Obama?!? For real?!?;-)

Clak, true Libertarians are nonviolent. They don't believe in force being used for any other reason then protecting oneself and family. That's why they want a fair tax system, so the government can't come and imprison you for tax evasion. You pay tax on the things you elect to buy. As far as the tough and Blackbeard comments, I guess firefighters are tough and I do so love the sea. ;-)
As far as the indivisible Union, here are a few quotes from ol Thomas Jefferson.
"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.
The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is
wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts
they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions,
it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ...
And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as
to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost
in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from
time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
It is its natural manure."
"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."
"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty."
Now I'm back to servicing the non existent "welfare queen" down the street who negligently allowed one of her kids to swallow bug spray....
 
The intent is to show that the idea of secession and revolution is neither unjust or treasonous to a Founding Father. I'm not advocating force by any means....as long as my freedom and liberty are intact. Obama's policies, much like most presidents', haven't really impacted my life much.
 
[quote name='The Crotch']How do you reconcile "We're inherently nonviolent, yo!" with "Here are a bunch of quotes from our heroes glorifying political violence"?[/QUOTE]

Jeeze, it's not that hard to figure out, and this probably applies to most people.
For example, I don't want to use violence against anyone for any reason what so ever. However, if somebody is breaking into my house with violent intent, then violence will be used against them. I'd really rather not have to do it, but sometimes it's necessary.
Same with government. If issues can be solved in non-violent means, that will also take top priority, but violence is never off the table. I'm sure you're not a violent person and you probably do everything you can do avoid it, but does that mean you would NEVER resort to violence under any circumstances?
Point being, libertarians are typically peaceful, but we're not against answering aggression with aggression.

BTW, the insinuation that libertarians think this is a Christian nation is just completely false and I dare you prove otherwise.

EDIT* Dur, read that wrong, sorry.
 
[quote name='Temporaryscars']Jeeze, it's not that hard to figure out, and this probably applies to most people.
For example, I don't want to use violence against anyone for any reason what so ever. However, if somebody is breaking into my house with violent intent, then violence will be used against them. I'd really rather not have to do it, but sometimes it's necessary.
Same with government. If issues can be solved in non-violent means, that will also take top priority, but violence is never off the table. I'm sure you're not a violent person and you probably do everything you can do avoid it, but does that mean you would NEVER resort to violence under any circumstances?
Point being, libertarians are typically peaceful, but we're not against answering aggression with aggression.[/QUOTE]
I guess what I'm getting at is that, taken literally, things like, "God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion." and, "What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants." are fucking gleefully psychopathic. So I was wondering to what extent people - libertarians, Americans, whatever the fuck; y'all's deification of "The Founding Fathers" fucking mystifies me, anyway - think those words actually were intended literally rather than, say, as a warning against unchecked power and an entrenched political class, using violent imagery as a stirring rhetorical flourish.

Or something like that.
 
[quote name='Strell']One day, I too hope to run for President. Everything would be paid for me for months. I'd do some traveling and stay in nice hotels. I could boss people around. I could say INCREDIBLY STUPID SHIT. And at the end of it, pocket a few million.

The best part would be people for years afterward parroting the INCREDIBLY STUPID SHIT I was saying, not knowing I was playing them for the poor bastards they are.[/QUOTE]

Almost all presidential campaigns end up in debt.
 
[quote name='The Crotch']I guess what I'm getting at is that, taken literally, things like, "God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion." and, "What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants." are fucking gleefully psychopathic. So I was wondering to what extent people - libertarians, Americans, whatever the fuck; y'all's deification of "The Founding Fathers" fucking mystifies me, anyway - think those words actually were intended literally rather than, say, as a warning against unchecked power and an entrenched political class, using violent imagery as a stirring rhetorical flourish.

Or something like that.[/QUOTE]

I get what you mean, but I'm not sure I have an answer for you other than they probably see it as retaliation to a violent state. It's not necessarily psychopathic when it's in defense of something.

And just for laughs, I'll sum up how I and most other libertarians I know feel on the subject, with a quote!

"There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket."
 
In Libertopia Faerie Land, corporations wouldn't hire a mercenary force to take someone's home or pollute their land because it they'd be destroyed by all the boycotts and pr backlash and most importantly, property rights defended by eternally vigilant ubermensches like the frontier days when the government was too weak to stop bandits from stealing all your shit. Oh wai...
 
As opposed to Socialist Faerie Land where the government uses taxpayer money to fund cops and court systems and Congress all to allow private corporations to take someone's home and pollute their land as long as the corporations work to keep that government in power.

Yeah, this system is working.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']As opposed to Socialist Faerie Land where the government uses taxpayer money to fund cops and court systems and Congress all to allow private corporations to take someone's home and pollute their land as long as the corporations work to keep that government in power.

Yeah, this system is working.[/QUOTE]
LOLZ...you don't know what socialism is.

And your hyperbole doesn't refute my point about the failure of such a vapid ideology as libertarianism. I know this is going to be over your collective(lolz) libertarian heads, but there's nothing "natural" about property rights; it's social construct enforced using the coercive powers of government and not some lone moron sitting on his porch with a bazooka by his side.
 
http://www.lpsonoma.org/libertarian.html

We strongly support law-enforcement that ensures that everyone obeys the basic rules of not using force against others (except in self-defense) and not committing fraud or theft.

Libertarians believe that pollution of other people's property is a violation of individual rights. We believe that strict liability, not government agencies and arbitrary government standards, should regulate pollution.
 
[quote name='dohdough']In Libertopia Faerie Land, corporations wouldn't hire a mercenary force to take someone's home or pollute their land because it they'd be destroyed by all the boycotts and pr backlash and most importantly, property rights defended by eternally vigilant ubermensches like the frontier days when the government was too weak to stop bandits from stealing all your shit. Oh wai...[/QUOTE]

That or the courts... which they plan on buying off anyway.
 
[quote name='dohdough']LOLZ...you don't know what socialism is.

And your hyperbole doesn't refute my point about the failure of such a vapid ideology as libertarianism. I know this is going to be over your collective(lolz) libertarian heads, but there's nothing "natural" about property rights; it's social construct enforced using the coercive powers of government and not some lone moron sitting on his porch with a bazooka by his side.[/QUOTE]
:lol: NOW he sounds like a socialist
Common Property pfft ,.. Next he'll go all Captain Picard and start talkin about replacing currency altogether .. Like OBAMA
 
[quote name='egofed']http://www.lpsonoma.org/libertarian.html

We strongly support law-enforcement that ensures that everyone obeys the basic rules of not using force against others (except in self-defense) and not committing fraud or theft.[/quote]
And who is going to pay for that law-enforcement? And what governing body is going to enforce that law?

Libertarians believe that pollution of other people's property is a violation of individual rights. We believe that strict liability, not government agencies and arbitrary government standards, should regulate pollution.
Click to expand...
There's a reason why regulatory bodies exist and it's because liability wasn't a strong enough deterrent for people poisoning food for profits. History of the US tells us that your idea won't work.

Libertarianism is simple-minded horse shit.
 
I dont see how anyone could make the case that proactive regulation in an effort to prevent environmental hazards and accidents is the wrong approach. "Self -Regulation" is a fallacy. The idea that a company wouldn't cut corners for profits because its in the companies best interest for self survival or sustainability is almost laughable. Its like a trustfall with a barrel of toxic waste instead of a person. Liability would be punitive and reactive , not preventative
 
dohdough and statists like him have no interest in anything that doesn't continue the state's monopoly on violence. The very system they support is inherently violent. His simplification of libertarianism is laughable and he constantly misrepresents their positions.

I could pick his fallacies apart, but he'll just grumble something about "history," make baseless assumptions and claim that I said something that I never said, all the while, deny being a part of any political organization you might accuse him of being being a part of and profess that it's none of our business.

It's real easy to shit on other people's viewpoints while you safely guard your own from the same level of scrutiny.

In other words, don't waste your time.
 
Taxes are still collected and, with the savings obtained by cutting wasteful, ineffective, and immoral programs, will provide a larger treasury with which to perform the services that the government was originally intended to. There is still a governing body, doh, just not as bloated, corrupt, and inefficient as the one we have now. This should open some eyes concerning our current situation, "New data compiled by the Republican side of the Senate Budget Committee shows that, last year, the United States spent over $60,000 to support welfare programs per each household that is in poverty. The calculations are based on data from the Census, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Congressional Research Services." "The U.S. Census Bureau estimated that almost 110 million Americans received some form of means-tested welfare in 2011. These figures exclude entitlements like Medicare and Social Security to which people contribute, and they refer exclusively to low-income direct and indirect financial support—such as food stamps, public housing, child care, energy assistance, direct cash aid, etc. For instance, 47 million Americans currently receive food stamps, and USDA has engaged in an aggressive outreach campaign to boost enrollment even further, arguing that “every dollar of SNAP benefits generates $1.84 in the economy… It’s the most direct stimulus you can get.” (Economic growth, however, is weaker this year than the two years prior, even as food stamp “stimulus” has reached an all-time high.)"
 
[quote name='Temporaryscars']dohdough and statists like him have no interest in anything that doesn't continue the state's monopoly on violence. The very system they support is inherently violent. His simplification of libertarianism is laughable and he constantly misrepresents their positions.[/quote]
Libertarians are statists too, you fucking moron. Who do you fucking think is going to enforce those property rights? Tinkerbell with her magic dust?

I could pick his fallacies apart, but he'll just grumble something about "history," make baseless assumptions and claim that I said something that I never said, all the while, deny being a part of any political organization you might accuse him of being being a part of and profess that it's none of our business.
Click to expand...
Pick them apart then. Put up or shut the fuck up about it. You have a lot to catch up on, buddy. But hey, I guess history doesn't matter because it fucks up your "arguments."

It's real easy to shit on other people's viewpoints while you safely guard your own from the same level of scrutiny.
Click to expand...
My views are plain enough for everyone to see and for anyone to scrutinize. At least I don't resort to passive aggressive bullshit to substitute for an argument.

In other words, don't waste your time.
Click to expand...
Funny, I though this forum was filled with morons wasting time...you know...especially since krakrabbit lowered his standards to post here.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Libertarians are statists too, you fucking moron. Who do you fucking think is going to enforce those property rights? Tinkerbell with her magic dust?


Pick them apart then. Put up or shut the fuck up about it. You have a lot to catch up on, buddy. But hey, I guess history doesn't matter because it fucks up your "arguments."


My views are plain enough for everyone to see and for anyone to scrutinize. At least I don't resort to passive aggressive bullshit to substitute for an argument.


Funny, I though this forum was filled with morons wasting time...you know...especially since krakrabbit lowered his standards to post here.[/QUOTE]

:lol:

Thanks for proving my point. It's obvious that you think anarchists, neo-cons and libertarians all fall into the same boat.

Also? I never said krakrabbit lowered his standards to post here. I said the OTT lowered theirs to let him post there.

What a fucking dumbass.
 
[quote name='egofed']Taxes are still collected and, with the savings obtained by cutting wasteful, ineffective, and immoral programs, will provide a larger treasury with which to perform the services that the government was originally intended to. There is still a governing body, doh, just not as bloated, corrupt, and inefficient as the one we have now. This should open some eyes concerning our current situation, "New data compiled by the Republican side of the Senate Budget Committee shows that, last year, the United States spent over $60,000 to support welfare programs per each household that is in poverty. The calculations are based on data from the Census, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Congressional Research Services." "The U.S. Census Bureau estimated that almost 110 million Americans received some form of means-tested welfare in 2011. These figures exclude entitlements like Medicare and Social Security to which people contribute, and they refer exclusively to low-income direct and indirect financial support—such as food stamps, public housing, child care, energy assistance, direct cash aid, etc. For instance, 47 million Americans currently receive food stamps, and USDA has engaged in an aggressive outreach campaign to boost enrollment even further, arguing that “every dollar of SNAP benefits generates $1.84 in the economy… It’s the most direct stimulus you can get.” (Economic growth, however, is weaker this year than the two years prior, even as food stamp “stimulus” has reached an all-time high.)"[/QUOTE]
Somehow, less regulation translates into less corruption? Do I look like a fucking mark? Every recession in the last 40 years was due to loosening regulations at home and abroad.

Do you see people livingon the poverty line looking like they live off of $60k a year? And where the fuck do you think all that stimulus goes? Does it disappear like a fart in the wind? Of course not! It trickles the fuck up. Democrats might be corporate shills too, but Republicans have made it their modus operandi to sling as much bullshit as they can as if it was going out of style. Even Michelle fucking Bachmann tried to distance herself from them.
 
[quote name='Temporaryscars']:lol:

Thanks for proving my point. It's obvious that you think anarchists, neo-cons and libertarians all fall into the same boat.

Also? I never said krakrabbit lowered his standards to post here. I said the OTT lowered theirs to let him post there.

What a fucking dumbass.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='Temporaryscars']Oh, I forgot to pick apart your arguments. Here, I'll use your method.


YOU DON'T KNOW HISTORY!! *wallows in white guilt*[/QUOTE]
Looks like someone is doing the shifting goal posts two step.
 
I must be blind because I can't see where you discussed how you or libertarians aren't statists after you pejoratively used the term to describe me. Was that your shift? Or maybe you were too busy jerking off to your Gadsden flag.
 
[quote name='dohdough']I must be blind because I can't see where you discussed how you or libertarians aren't statists after you pejoratively used the term to describe me. Was that your shift? Or maybe you were too busy jerking off to your Gadsden flag.[/QUOTE]

Let me make it easy for you. Look up the definition of statist and then apply it to your comment.

[quote name='dohdough']Libertarians are statists too, you fucking moron. Who do you fucking think is going to enforce those property rights? Tinkerbell with her magic dust? [/QUOTE]

See the difference?
 
[quote name='Temporaryscars']Let me make it easy for you. Look up the definition of statist and then apply it to your comment.[/QUOTE]

Perhaps you'd be willing to tell me what you believe statist means? Last I checked, it wasn't what you seem to be implying.
 
I've been wondering, how would libertarianism deal with monopolies or antitrust law?

Also, what about copyrights or patents?
 
[quote name='ID2006']I've been wondering, how would libertarianism deal with monopolies or antitrust law?

Also, what about copyrights or patents?[/QUOTE]

They don't bother.
 
[quote name='EdRyder']Well you get a point for that. Thank the maker it wasn't "As defined by Ayn Rand"[/QUOTE]
Might as well be when we're playing the No True Scotsman Game. Minarchism is basically the same flavor of ice cream with some sprinkles. Getting there requires one to make a lot of assumptions about the "free" market, rational actors, and ignoring certain types of violence like passive acts that is incongruent with reality and again, history. It might work in simple agrarian societies with limited resources, but in no way would it work for a complex society with access to enough resources to completely fuck the world.

[quote name='ID2006']I've been wondering, how would libertarianism deal with monopolies or antitrust law?

Also, what about copyrights or patents?[/QUOTE]
The free market cures all, biatch!
 
I can tell you that the majority believes that anti trust interferes with markets. (I dont want to speak for the Libertarians here but for the most part Heritage , Cato and all the others are full-on laissez-faire capitalists)

Its an interesting question on how they regard IP though , I havent the slightest.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Might as well be when we're playing the No True Scotsman Game. Minarchism is basically the same flavor of ice cream with some sprinkles. Getting there requires one to make a lot of assumptions about the "free" market, rational actors, and ignoring certain types of violence like passive acts that is incongruent with reality and again, history. It might work in simple agrarian societies with limited resources, but in no way would it work for a complex society with access to enough resources to completely fuck the world.


The free market cures all, biatch![/QUOTE]

I like you. You're a cool bean.


http://www.lppgh.org/2008/02/20/antitrust-laws-actually-promote-monopoly/


TBH, economics will always take a back-seat to social issues. At least for me anyway.
 
I have enjoyed this topic even though I won't even begin to pretend I can add to it in an educated manner. What I can do is change it for just a second to mention Mitt decided to double down on his 47% idea.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/14/mitt-romney-obama-gifts_n_2133529.html

"Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney is telling top donors that President Barack Obama won re-election because of the "gifts" he had already provided to blacks, Hispanics and young voters and because of the president's effort to paint Romney as anti-immigrant.

"The president's campaign, if you will, focused on giving targeted groups a big gift," Romney said in a call to donors on Wednesday. "He made a big effort on small things.""
 
The fact that we have spent $60,000 of taxpayer money per poverty household without much progress (if not steps backward) prove that welfare is a bs system. You are a fool to disregard the importance of incentives to drive ambition. A certain segment of the population will take and breed off of "entitlements" if allowed. White, black, brown, whatever. And, doh, if you believe in affirmative action, do you agree with the reforming of Israel after WWII? Should every person who's ancestors have been screwed by society be given special consideration? If not, why? Who gets to choose who benefits? Screwing others now does not fix historic mistakes.
 
[quote name='egofed']The fact that we have spent $60,000 of taxpayer money per poverty household without much progress (if not steps backward) prove that welfare is a bs system.[/QUOTE]
I'd say that not having more homeless families starving on the streets is progress, which is still a huge problem in countries with little to no social safety net. Or do you get off on gangs of homeless kids begging you for money? There are countries you can visit if that's your thing.

You are a fool to disregard the importance of incentives to drive ambition.
Click to expand...
Incentives don't work because there is no such thing as an infallible system with no waste and no loop holes. There will ALWAYS be waste just like how tax dollars are wasted on you when you take a shit or sleep at the firehouse.

A certain segment of the population will take and breed off of "entitlements" if allowed. White, black, brown, whatever.
Click to expand...
And the people that benefit the most are on the opposite end of that economic spectrum.

And, doh, if you believe in affirmative action, do you agree with the reforming of Israel after WWII? Should every person who's ancestors have been screwed by society be given special consideration? If not, why? Who gets to choose who benefits? Screwing others now does not fix historic mistakes.
Click to expand...
The reason why Israel exists is because no nation after WW2 wanted them in their countries. It was the Allies idea to put them in the desert as a way to destabilize the area as well as a giant fuck you. Which is far different from what you incorrectly think affirmative action is.

Affirmative action isn't about making up for previous injustice, but to address injustices that currently exists...unless you're saying that whites should have those positions by right and that non-whites are naturally inferior. But no, it's easier to point your finger at the black guy that took a space instead of the five white guys in front of him that got in through legacy admits or cronyism.
 
You make a lot of wild assumptions. Correcting injustices with new injustices...fixing cronyism with all powerful government cronyism...I can't accept that logic.
I take it by your reply that you dislike Israel's reformation. I think the placement had a lot to do with historical ownership. It's weird that it fits in with Biblical prophecy also. Just don't take any marks on your hand or head/;-)
 
Surcharge For Obamacare


I keep putting shit here but maybe I should be starting a new thread. Something like post-election bullshit. I am now to the point where guys like the one the article can just go fuck themselves. Suddenly these "businessmen" are concerned about providing healthcare and good wages for their employees when in reality they have done nothing but chip away at these things for decades. It is like the owner of Papa Johns saying it might cost him 8 million dollars to enact Obamacare. Big fucking deal. Your ass is on TV with Peyton Manning giving away 2 million pizzas and you are bitching about having to provide healthcare for your employees...you know the people that actually make you your money. I hope the effect of this shit is that guys in the article loose business. I love how he thinks the only 2 options for his patrons are this:

"If I leave the prices the same, but say on the menu that there is a 5 percent surcharge for Obamacare, customers have two choices. They can either pay it and tip 15 or 20 percent, or if they really feel so inclined, they can reduce the amount of tip they give to the server, who is the primary beneficiary of Obamacare," Metz told The Huffington Post. "Although it may sound terrible that I'm doing this, it's the only alternative. I've got to pass the cost on to the consumer."

You know what else they can do? They can choose to stop eating at your shitty restaurant and put your ass out of business. I am sure he has not realty thought about that?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/13/john-metz-hurricane-grill-wings-dennys_n_2122412.html

Seriously, fuck these guys. They really are scum.
 
You know how "some" people complain about the backlash against corporations, especially in the younger generations? Well, seems to me that "those" people have no one to blame but themselves. At this point it's practically a badge of honor to be called anti-corporate.
 
I was also thinking about the self regulation argument the other day, since it seems to be something libertarians salivate for. I was actually thinking of discrimination laws though, and the idea that even without them, companies still wouldn't discriminate simply because it would be in their own best interest.

Then I thought about Chik-fil-A. In their case, discriminating against gays might actually make them MORE popular, especially with certain crowds. They don't' seem to be hurting, despite everyone knowing what they support (or rather, don't support). If they came out and openly said they wouldn't hire or serve gays, I don't think it would hurt them much to be honest. If they did lose any business from certain groups, they'd probably gain some from others.
 
[quote name='dohdough']LOLZ...you don't know what socialism is.[/QUOTE]

From the dude who equates Libertarianism with Anarchism and doesn't know the difference between "small" and "none"...
 
You got it man! Free market! If a private company is ignorant and doesn't want to hire gays, then let them. It's not the government's place to regulate morals. Public institutions need regulations for this because of taxpayer funding, but let private jerks be jerks. They will take their chances in the court of public opinion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top