posted on October 5, 2004 03:55:27 PM
Yes, rusty, I can see how you and other ultra-left progressives, like helen would see those two as being the same. But it's just your incorrect way of viewing the issue of kerry's and my votes and how they affect our national security.
See...my protest vote didn't affect anyone....the way he's voted has almost completely been against our military and it's needs. Mine didn't stand a chance of compromising our national security....his have and do.
Kerry's repeated votes against funding intelligence, our soldiers salaries and health care benefits, all the weapons and items they need to survive a war he voted to send them to.....there's a world of difference between my protest vote and his hundreds of votes against the best interests of those willing to put their lives on the line.
But I'd never expect to see someone as far left as you see anything clearly.
Maggie, There's the answer! LOL!!! ROCKY AND GIDGET!
"While I don't post much, I've been around these boards a long long time and as such, am very familiar with the dynamic between you and Helen."
fiset, I have significantly relaxed the dynamic force between Linda and me by ignoring her fanatical and trashy literature and by increasing my distance from the computer. I do this by asking myself a question before clicking on Vendio..."What is the best use of my time right now? Sometimes the question fails and I click, only to see the rambling c&p of my bęte noire.
But other times I find another activity to enjoy so my technique is somewhat effective. New and interesting and intelligent people are beginning to post here so I hope that the atmosphere will improve. As you know, if you've been reading here for awhile, it used to be fun.
posted on October 5, 2004 04:54:05 PM
Linda, face it. You lost. Your claims about Kerry are completely false. I guess you really don't know what a protest vote is do you? I mean, I really thought you had a grasp of it when you claimed (and I actually have a hard time believing) that you voted for Nader in 2000 as a protest vote.
In case you were wondering, a protest vote is a vote cast which will not affect the outcome. Let's see... better to vote for or against a bill for the military, but the cost will be pushed to future generations, and spiral America into further debt, or vote for a better bill that would fund it by current accountability? So, let's see... by your estimation it is better to go in debt and fund a war than to pay for it now and still fund a war. That is what the Republicans presented and you know it.
And most importantly, the very president who you are planning on voting for is the one who sent our sons and daughters into harms way. He had the final decision to do so, and he did it based on lies that were presented from his administration. So, if you want to point fingers at a voting, perhaps you should look at who made the ultimate decision to ignore the Senate's request that war be the last resort. Bush has brought this country on a death march, and you are there to defend it.
posted on October 7, 2004 09:31:59 AM
Thanks for your replies.
And to think I was scared to post in here! You all aren't such a bad bunch after all.
Profe, thanks so much in particular, for your response.
Traditionally, conservatism had nothing to do with the christian right, or the imposition of moral judgements onto the unwilling. It was about strict adherence to the letter of the constitution,the individual rights of the states, and personal and governmental financial responsibility.
Problem is, they don't see anything wrongwith imposing those values on society in general,and that's where they leave off being conservative.If that's not true, then why the push tobring religion into the classroom?Why push to have a biblical story of creation taughtin secular, public schools?Why try to change the constitution to allow it to definesomething as personal and private as marriage?No real conservative would stomachthat kind of irresponsible fiddling with the constitution.
I think that about sums it up. However, aside from the Libertarians view that all federally funded social programs should be abolished, doesn't the party lean more Democrat than Republican? Wouldn't a vote for Badnarik be a vote for Bush?
lol, thats why I missed it. Not your specific post, but because I, too, have limited time and many things that pull for my attention so that I sometimes don't get back to check threads for a day or two - or ever, lol.
New and interesting and intelligent people are beginning to post here so I hope that the atmosphere will improve. As you know, if you've been reading here for awhile, it used to be fun.
Agreed here. It seems that in general there are far fewer posters than in the past. I think part of the reason for that comes from a certain hostility that just becomes tiresome to read after about five minutes. And its not that I don't like a good arguement, but arguing for the sake of arguing loses its appeal real fast.
posted on October 7, 2004 08:44:33 PMdoesn't the party lean more Democrat than Republican? Wouldn't a vote for Badnarik be a vote for Bush?
I don't think so. I see the libertarians as being much more like traditional conservative republicans than anything else. There are plenty of those republicans left, and they're not happy about what has happened to the party. Some have joined groups like Republicans For Kerry, but there will be a few who will risk leaving the mainstream. I think they may vote libertarian, taking votes away from Bush, not Kerry.
____________________________________________
Dick Cheney: "I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11..."
posted on October 8, 2004 12:59:28 AM
I'm voting for the only real democrat in the race: Ralph Nader. Nader is the only candidate who is against the war, who is not bought and sold by special interests, and who is for gay marriage.
Check it out for yourself: http://www.votenader.com/
posted on October 8, 2004 05:37:03 AM
I'm sure the republicans here will applaud your vote.
____________________________________________
Dick Cheney: "I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11..."
posted on October 8, 2004 06:54:56 AM
And I am sure that Logansdadyeager will fall in love with you because of your beleifs on the homosexual marriage issue.
posted on October 8, 2004 07:46:12 AM
No one has addressed the question posed by the original post. I'll try.
A simple majority (more than 50%) of Americans are 'libertarians', they just don't know it. A Libertarian is fiscally conservative and socially liberal. In other words, a libertarian believes that you have a right to conduct your life any way you wish, just don't ask us to pay for it.
A small sampling of how a Libertarian views the issues:
Abortion: A woman's body is her property. Whether or not she chooses to suffer the tenancy of a fetus is nobody's business but hers.
Social Security: Providing for your maintenance when you become old and infirm is YOUR responsibility.
Gay marriage: Who you choose to sleep with or spend your life with is your business.
I could go on but I'm just trying to give you a peek at libertarian philosophy. What the original poster really wanted was insight to any negatives to the Libertarian party:
The primary problem with the Libertarian party is that, because of their socially liberal stance, they have become an umbrella party for nearly every crackpot organisation that wants to get their message out to a greater audience: anarchists, alien abductees, etc. Anyone who subscribes to the basic tenet of libertarianism; do and believe whatever you want as long as it harms none and you do not coerce anyone, is welcome.
These fringe organisations are a small minority of the Libertarian Party but the cause the primary message of the party to be overlooked by outsiders looking in who see only the strange associations.
In spite of this, the Libertarian party is more and more successful every year. There are many Libertarian congressmen and state governors. But the party's greatest success has been in local venues like school boards and county commissions etc.
While fringe elements with extreme views distort the message of the Libertarians, the party is the truest home for anyone who considers themselves a 'moderate' whether Republican or Democrat.
posted on October 8, 2004 12:20:51 PM
Yellow, you still having trouble finding woman at strip bars that will date you?
Perhaps if you didn't spend a lot of time in the dark looking for a raincoat you might find the love you are looking for.
Until then there is big hole in your park that needs to be plugged so why don't you do us all a favor and stick your big head in it. You can decide which head that may be since you think with both of them.
There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." —George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002
----------------------------------
Let's have a BBQ, Texas style, ROAST BUSH
------------------------------
On This Week with George Stephanopoulos, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld declares: "the area… that coalition forces control… happens not to be the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed. We know where they are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."
------------------------------
