gearing up....

Jeff · Post by **Jeff** » July 6th, 2007, 3:45 pm

arthursimone wrote:Libertarians I wholeheartedly disagree with, but at least their beliefs are consistent.

I often lean Libertarian in my political beliefs, but I don't know how consistent my beliefs are. I like what Robert Anton Wilson said about that sort of thing: "The more things you totally believe in, the less thinking you're inclined to do. The less thinking you do, the stupider you get."

I guess what I've believed with the most consistency is that there's too damn much government telling us free people what we can and can't do.

acrouch · Post by **acrouch** » July 6th, 2007, 7:35 pm

The Brigadier wrote:
arthursimone wrote:I guess what I've believed with the most consistency is that there's too damn much government telling us free people what we can and can't do.

I think there's not enough damn government telling free, rich and powerful corporations what they can and can't do.

Wesley · Post by **Wesley** » July 6th, 2007, 10:11 pm

The Other libertarian wrote:I guess what I've believed with the most consistency is that there's too damn much government telling us free people what we can and can't do.

That's pretty much libertarianism in a nutshell.

Wesley · Post by **Wesley** » July 6th, 2007, 10:23 pm

The Hippy wrote:I think there's not enough damn government telling free, rich and powerful corporations what they can and can't do.

There's enough laws telling them what not to do, just no one with enough cajones to enforce them. It's easier to waste time on smoking bans, bicycle helmet laws, and making up excuses for giving people forgiveable loans than to actually crack down on big corporations, though. Also, those other things are easily soudbytable and distract the public beautifully.

Pay no attention to what the left hand is doing because the right one is pushing an emotional hot button!

mpbrockman · Post by **mpbrockman** » July 6th, 2007, 10:42 pm

acrouch wrote:I think there's not enough damn government telling free, rich and powerful corporations what they can and can't do.

Government? Corporation? There's an appreciable difference?

"I pledge unquestioning allegiance to the flag... and to Halliburton for which it stands..."

ducksrfr · Post by **ducksrfr** » July 6th, 2007, 11:53 pm

mpbrockman wrote:Government? Corporation? There's an appreciable difference?

Government has the power to lock you up.

Jeff · Post by **Jeff** » July 7th, 2007, 9:20 am

ducksrfr wrote:
mpbrockman wrote:Government? Corporation? There's an appreciable difference?
Government has the power to lock you up.

That's a big one.

Jeff · Post by **Jeff** » July 7th, 2007, 9:30 am

The Brigadier wrote:
ducksrfr wrote:
mpbrockman wrote:Government? Corporation? There's an appreciable difference?
Government has the power to lock you up.
That's a big one.

Anyway... presidential candidates...

York99 · Post by **York99** » July 7th, 2007, 5:49 pm

ducksrfr wrote:
mpbrockman wrote:Government? Corporation? There's an appreciable difference?
Government has the power to lock you up.

And corporations control the government. Transitive Property anyone?

Jessica · Post by **Jessica** » July 8th, 2007, 11:48 am

So just remember that we are a red state now, but we weren't always so. Ann Richards was a democratic governor from 1991-1995. Though it is true that the last presidential election we went Democratic was 1976. Still, it is with in living memory and quite possible to happen again.

apiaryist · Post by **apiaryist** » July 8th, 2007, 9:08 pm

Does Red mean Republican? I thought it was an overall vibe, not a party.

Jeff · Post by **Jeff** » July 8th, 2007, 10:06 pm

arthursimone wrote: If you want candidates who have endorsed instant runoff voting, the only real way to change the way elections are run in this two-party country, take a look at Barack Obama or John McCain.

Thanks for the link about IRV, Arthur. It looks like something that I wish all the candidates (or at least, those for whom I would conceivably vote) were pushing for.

I have a surveyish question for you folks: would you consider voting for Al Gore if he jumped into the race this year?

ducksrfr · Post by **ducksrfr** » July 8th, 2007, 11:25 pm

The Brigadier wrote:I have a surveyish question for you folks: would you consider voting for Al Gore if he jumped into the race this year?

sure!

but i don't think he will run, unless hillary or obama significantly drop in the polls. he's busy enjoying life as a private citizen, plus he now has the ability to focus all of his energy on his passion -- the environment. also, there is a lot of tension b/t gore and the clintons stemming from the 2000 election when gore distanced himself from clinton following the whole monica affair. gore even told clinton never to campaign for him, and there is somewhat of a grudge b/t them because of it.

arthursimone · Post by **arthursimone** » July 9th, 2007, 12:04 am

The Brigadier wrote: I have a surveyish question for you folks: would you consider voting for Al Gore if he jumped into the race this year?

David Broder said "Anybody who wants the presidency so much that he'll spend two years organizing and campaigning for it is not to be trusted with the office."

It doesn't look like he's interested.

Thus, yes!

Asaf · Post by **Asaf** » July 9th, 2007, 1:31 am

I would vote for Gore.

I would never vote for Hilary.

Whatever happened to Dean? I really appreciated the way he ran his campaign. He was reforming campaign finance while campaigning.