Markovich wrote on 11/07/08 at 16:53:56:


I couldn't vote in 2000 (age, was pulling for Gore), and in '04 I didn't vote out of dislike for the candidates available.

I would've voted for Barr this year if he wasn't the biggest fake libertarian to walk the Earth, or for Baldwin if he wasn't trying to implement a theocracy.

When Paul withdrew, I had to reconsider who to vote for.

Quote:


McCain's "100 year" comment was directed at the notion we'll be there after the war ends. Just like we're in Korea, and Japan still. That's not a new concept, and I don't endorse the imperialism, but that's what America has been doing for a very long time. I doubt it changes regardless of the president.

Obama started out promising pull-out in the primaries to appease Democrats, and then promised to do as situations on the ground dictated in the main election. 

The contrast only existed during the primaries, and entirely disappeared during the main election. To a lot of voters they had almost identical positions.

Markovich wrote on 11/07/08 at 15:46:56:


I voted for Ron Paul in the primaries.

And for Ron Paul knowing nothing about the economy his economic adviser, Peter Schiff, has called everything that's happened so far.

I am anti-war, but both candidates were pro-war, and only the ignorant believe Obama is anti-war. He's going to pull out of Iraq, and then redirect everything to Afghanistan, that is still war. At this point it is arguable we even pull out of Iraq, but I digress.

Quote:


For the record, I can't stand the Palin supporters. They are what's wrong with the Republican base. It's the exact same as the Obama supporters that latched on to "hope and change" while having no clue what he stood for.

Quote:
 

Not every POTUS has had military experience, but to claim it doesn't help them in being a CIC is laughable. 

Of those, only Madison, Lincoln, Wilson, and Truman saw actual wars. Adams/Jefferson/Reagan did not. 

John Adams oversaw a naval skirmish with France, and other than that it was relatively peaceful.

James Madison almost oversaw the complete collapse of the United States in the War of 1812. We were lucky to draw that war, and it was not handled particularly well. One notable president ended up coming out of that war. James Madison, to his end, did little.

Woodrow Wilson conducted what little American involvement (in comparison to other countries) there was in WW I admirably.

Thomas Jefferson oversaw the Barbary Pirates incident. Sure, you can have that one.

Abraham Lincoln almost botched the Civil War, something that should've never reached the level it did, and were it not for the premature death of Stonewall Jackson the Union would've likely lost at Gettysburg, resulting in Confederate victory of the war despite the surrender at Vicksburg the following the day.

Harry Truman had the fortune of having a brilliant general to lean on, but he himself was quite admirable in his conduct.
 
Last I checked, we're currently involved in a war (two to be technical). Having experience in a CO capacity as McCain did, and given that I'll actually be in the armed forces, is the chief reason I voted for him. Obama, on the other hand, has little experience in any capacity.

By the way, George W. Bush's inexperience in a Commanding Officer role hurt him in his conduct of the Iraq war. I don't defend him in the slightest.

Markovich wrote on 11/07/08 at 12:53:54:


You're defining the neo-conservatives, which are not in the vein of Barry Goldwater conservatism. Rather, they are a reflection of the socially conservative, fiscally liberal crowd that runs the Republican party now. 

We're for a Constitutional government, which only has two chief capacities.

Defense, and taxes. The latter to pay for the former, and a few other things (like a politician's pay). Social issues were always to be a State's Rights issue. This is reflected by Amendments 9 and 10. The 14th Amendment indicates federal involvement only when other Amendments are practiced unfairly to some.

Ron Paul was the biggest small government advocate and he was pro-withdrawal from the wars. He's against FISA and the Patriot Act, was anti-torture, and using our troops to protect the border, as they're supposed to be. He was for eliminating the wasteful war on drugs, abortion/suicide/homosexual marriage are all State's Rights by definition. He also happens to be a traditional Republican. It's funny how you think that the small government crowd is for all those things you mentioned, but in reality they're not.

I love the people that have no idea what they're talking about when it comes to the small government crowd. Too often, they also have no clue about the Constitution as well, and in this case it still holds true.

I love these "small government" ideologues we have over here.  They're all for small government, including an enormous military; multiple foreign wars; a massive, secret and highly intrusive state security apparatus; torture of prisoners; an ugly wall between the U.S. and Mexico manned by battalions of Border Patrol; criminalization of marijuana; criminalization of assisted suicide; criminalization of abortion; and constitutional amendments to ban homosexual marriage.  Small government, right.

MNb wrote on 11/07/08 at 00:54:08:


We have no such protection measure, rendering it a moot point. As it is, we have corporations constantly pushing for laws, regulations, tax code changes - all things that shouldn't be going on, on a federal level unless they are amendments to the Constitution. 

I'm sure you're aware of the theories of social contract, so unless we begin to model the entire basis of the USA after Scandinavian countries, it won't help us. I'm already fully aware of the success of those countries. That being said, there will be corruption even in those countries eventually, if there hasn't been already. Every government throughout history gets it eventually.

Quote:


How is it not a pro small-government treatment if you want government to stay completely out of business? Government involvement in business only produces more beauracracy, and that's not to mention the corruption.

The government shouldn't be stepping in to rescue any institutions using taxpayer money, especially not if they're going to be claiming they are free-market (like Bush claimed he was, a big laugh at the mere thought now). Free-market systems do not work if failing companies aren't allowed to fail. The only businesses we seem to let fail are the little ones, which leads me to believe our politicians aren't Democrats, or Republicans, but rather Corporatists.

You only end up with companies that can't afford to fail, when governments take steps to make sure certain businesses succeed over others. Over time you end up with monopolies because competition dwindles.

That means the problem started a very long time ago. You can't have government involvement in the market place, and a truly free market system at the same time. We've been doing it for too long, and it blew up in our face like most people predicted (Peter Schiff being a notable one).

I'm not concerned with it being a socialistic idea. Actions taken by government need to be Constitutional, first and foremost. Based on the Constitution the federal government should have never reached the size it has. Indeed, it never would have without the American Civil War.

Smyslov_Fan wrote on 11/06/08 at 13:38:37:


The 14th Amendment does nothing to aid your cause, and its usage (ie: Jim Crow, Brown vs. Board of Education, Lawrence vs. Texas) is easy to understand. Everytime it is invoked is to make sure people are treated fairly in application of the law.

The 14th Amendment is one of the least complicated Amendments, and it doesn't, in any way whatsoever, provide the basis for a huge federal government that involves itself in issues reserved by the 10th Amendment. Every issue not mentioned in the Constitution itself is to be reserved by the States. The 14th only comes up when the 10th is being practiced unfairly to some individuals.

Constitutional issues aside, what in the world makes you believe the government is a source of good as opposed to corruption? Is there anything in mankind's entire history that endorses this notion?

Quote:


What model do you follow? Keynesian?

Considering I am a right-leaning Libertarian, I will tell you now there are more Austrian following American Libertarians than there are any other economic model. I should know since I am actively involved in politics, and other Libertarians.

Quote:


You haven't been patronizing in the slightest, and the only reason I called the other guy out for it was his ridiculous notion of flat-earth level thinking, and other ad hominems.

Quote:


The other ones, admittedly, I do not feel like investing the time in enough to argue it. However, I will challenge this one:

#1) The federal government created the problem of big business when Lincoln began playing favorites with the railroad barons. When the government involves to ensure the success of companies it eliminates competition, usually in the form of regulations that make it harder for competitors.

#2) The notion that government "takes on" big business is completely absurd, given that corporatists have undue influence on government. To the contrary, government ensures their success.

#3) If you want a great example of how government "takes on" big business just look at Monsanto, and the sheer amount of government backed evil (for lack of a better word, I don't know how else to describe getting farmers thrown in jail for not buying their terminator seeds all under the guise of being humane) they get away with in the agricultural industry. Is this the government standing up for the people, or the government standing up for big business?

#4) My idea is that the government aids big business more than it hinders it, and I am proven entirely right in what just happened with the bailout. That is the biggest proof I will ever need.

#5) Follow the money trail. Corporations are the ones giving money to our politicians, do you really think the politicians are going to represent the people first? Our president-elect pocketed over 100,000$ from Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac, who went under. Dodd, Chairman of the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee took even more than that. 

I can only think of two politicians immune to influence: Kucinich (D-OH), Paul (R-TX). Unless, of course, I'm missing all of the ones that fight purely for the people. The easiest way to find a straight politician is to find one that doesn't take money from corporations, and that number is few and far between.

I think BPaulsen has either forgotten the 14th Amendment or believes the Supreme Court has misinterpreted it since at least 1933.  The Federal government, slang for big centralized government, is viewed as the root cause of American corruption by a large minority of radicals, many of whom graduated from Hillsdale College.

I have two friends who graduated from Hillsdale, and while both are extremely intelligent, one has bought into the economic world view of the minor Austrian political economist Mieses lock stock and barrel.    This world view is a radicalised form of Adam Smith's Invisible Hand theory.  The fact that so many Nobel laureates in the last twenty years or so have given proof after proof that there is no such invisible hand, and the market does not act rationally, and that government intervention is essential for a healthy economic system has been lost on this minority of American Libertarians.

BPaulsen, if anything I say is untrue of you, please correct me.  Don't attack me by saying that I'm patronizing, challenge my ideas. 

• Challenge the ideas of those who agree that "trickle-down economics" did not work and never will work.  
• Challenge the ideas of those who focus more on the demand side of the economic equation.  
• Challenge the ideas of those who believe that government is now and has been since at least the Great Depression, the only force large enough to take on the big businesses, who in acting according to Smith's own credo of self-interest, cause more harm than good to the economic well-being of of many Americans.
• Challenge the idea, proven by countless economists and psychologists, that people act rationally.

BPaulsen wrote on 11/06/08 at 00:35:17:

Four things come up:
1. Reagan lied when he promised to cut the government budget before his first term. Already as governor of California he was a big spender.
2. The biggest budget deficit in American history until Bush Jr decided to break the record.
3. Irangate.
4. Starwars, maybe the biggest military failure in human history.

And you call these things positive?! Reagantic indeed.

Since I became interested in politics some 30 years ago I have learned that cons like Reagan and Bush Jr. (I can name quite a few other from Europe as well: eg Neville Chamberlain, Edouard Daladier, Dries van Agt) are absolutely unreliable as governmental leaders. Obama is right wing imo, but at least he seems to have skills.

Btw my favourite American post-war president is Jimmy Carter. That's probably because I am European. He was about the only one who involved ethical considerations in his politics.