NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok, as the title says, I can't stand either candidate. I need either a viable alternative or a good reason to vote for one or the other.

McCain - I won't vote for him because of Palin and her Dominionist (link - http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Dominionism) tendencies and her warped notion of family values. I don't dislike McCain, but I fear that he'll die in office and she'll become President.

Obama - He keeps talking about change, but I can't for the life of me begin to figure out what he means. What's he changing? How's he changing it? Is this just a buzzword for more of the same? What is he going on about?

I know where Palin stands and I don't want to go there, but I have no idea in Hell where Obama stands.

Convince me, one way or the other. The caveats are - I want facts, not rumors. If you cite National Enquirer or some other tabloid rag or some extreme liberal or conservative source, I will disregard your arguments.

I'm caught between my son and daughter right now, she's an Air Force Officer who seems to be veering towards Obama, he's an engineer he thinks Palin is wonderful.

Obama - He keeps talking about change, but I can't for the life of me begin to figure out what he means. What's he changing? How's he changing it? Is this just a buzzword for more of the same? What is he going on about?

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/service/

That's the first thing that I bring up when someone asks about Obama's "change" mantra. He wants Americans to do more for their country, and that message is resonating with many people...myself included.

"Yes WE can" is supposed to be taken literally. ;)

inb4 Ron Paul.


I can't really help with this one, not a US citizen.

Honestly, if you can't get behind either candidate, I'd suggest not voting for either one of them. I've always found this whole "Vote, no matter what!" movement silly. I think people are more likely to do more damage to the country by voting either against their interests or without appropriate knowledge. I'm a big fan of "Vote your conviction, or don't vote."

Honestly, if you can't get behind either candidate, I'd suggest not voting for either one of them. I've always found this whole "Vote, no matter what!" movement silly. I think people are more likely to do more damage to the country by voting either against their interests or without appropriate knowledge. I'm a big fan of "Vote your conviction, or don't vote."
While I agree to a certain extent--mostly due to the whole voting against interests thing--the issue here is more a lack of full information.

My hope, though, is that it's simply a lack, and not a case of Anti-Social Darwinism here intentionally refusing to consider certain information. I have seen that from some people who say Obama's change message is all meaningless rhetoric. I have no reason to believe that of her at this time, but I point it out nonetheless.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/service/

That's the first thing that I bring up when someone asks about Obama's "change" mantra. He wants Americans to do more for their country, and that message is resonating with many people...myself included.

"Yes WE can" is supposed to be taken literally. ;)
Woot, mandatory voluntary public service for high school and college kids, yeah, that's gonna go over well.

I wonder how long it will be before we have organized college protests of student burning their peace corp. draft notices.

inb4 Ron Paul.
Paul is out. It's Barr now.


I can't really help with this one, not a US citizen.
Actually, I think you can help more than US citizens...

Woot, mandatory voluntary public service for high school and college kids,
You can tell us about mandatory-voluntary service, maybe first-hand, or at least close to that.

Vote for Obama. I don't agree with many of his policies, and I think he's a bit naive about how certain things like healthcare can be dealt with, but that doesn't really matter because his hands are going to be tied to a very great extent anyway.

His election would be very important symbolically for the country though. It would really be a message that the US has changed from the 1960s and is moving in the right direction socially in many respects.

It would really be a message that the US has changed from the 1960s and is moving in the right direction
http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/customavatars/avatar257894_2.gif

I have seen that from some people who say Obama's change message is all meaningless rhetoric.
I'm standing on the outside here, but maybe the thing about most of Obama's policy proposal isn't that it wouldn't constitute change, but that it's not actually all that imaginative. It almost seems to me like most of the things he's talking about are stock-standard proposals Democrats have been trying to bring forward some time. Given that Republicans have kept them away for ages now, Obama might well change what the US government does, but he hasn't really demonstrated that he'd initiate any real structural, deeper change in the way the US government operates - or the US as a whole, for that matter.

And maybe that's not surprising, since even a PotUS is in the end limited in what he or she can realistically hope to achieve.

My advice to you is to run and hide. I said the same thing and ended up getting blamed for the general state of US elections and told that I will be held personally responsible should McCain win in November.

http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/customavatars/avatar257894_2.gif

Think of it as a more tolerant version of the USSA.

I haven't seen any evidence that Gov. Palin is out to institute "dominionism" as public policy, beyond her Christianity, which she shares with a hundred or so million Americans, including many in positions of power. The article you're linking to is contradictory regarding Pres. Bush for a start (using the expression "God forbid" or referring to the "four corners" of the Earth is hardly proof of a "dominionist" philosophy - I use those phrases and have no religious belief. And Bush has denied saying what Mahmoud Abbas claims he said about God and Iraq, as I recall.) and doesn't support a conclusion that that sort of belief is at all common. It seems far more likely to me that Gov. Palin supports drilling in Alaska (for example) because it's a large part of that state's revenue, or because it's a large part of her family's income, than because it's God's will to defile the Earth.

That said, I don't expect John McCain to die in office. I've seen Obama supporters claim that he has a 1/3 chance of dying in office based on some imaginary actuarial table, but his family seems to be pretty long-lived, and McCain himself seems spunky enough. :p

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/service/

That's the first thing that I bring up when someone asks about Obama's "change" mantra. He wants Americans to do more for their country, and that message is resonating with many people...myself included.

What has Obama convinced you to do for your country? I'm curious.

"Yes WE can" is supposed to be taken literally. ;)

Yes. It will take more than one vote to put him in the White House. Hence "WE." :tongue:

Ok, as the title says, I can't stand either candidate. I need either a viable alternative or a good reason to vote for one or the other.

McCain - I won't vote for him because of Palin and her Dominionist (link - http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Dominionism) tendencies and her warped notion of family values. I don't dislike McCain, but I fear that he'll die in office and she'll become President.

Obama - He keeps talking about change, but I can't for the life of me begin to figure out what he means. What's he changing? How's he changing it? Is this just a buzzword for more of the same? What is he going on about?

I know where Palin stands and I don't want to go there, but I have no idea in Hell where Obama stands.

Convince me, one way or the other. The caveats are - I want facts, not rumors. If you cite National Enquirer or some other tabloid rag or some extreme liberal or conservative source, I will disregard your arguments.

I'm caught between my son and daughter right now, she's an Air Force Officer who seems to be veering towards Obama, he's an engineer he thinks Palin is wonderful.

I have to admit I don't understand this attitude. If you have specific questions about the policies of any of the candidates, that is one thing. But this general hand-waving implies a lack of effort on your part.

Go to On the Issues (http://www.issues2000.org/default.htm). They do a decent, if somewhat superficial summary of each candidates positions.

The differences between McCain/Palin and Obama/Biden are copious and compelling, including on the Economy, Civil Rights, the Environment, etc.

EDIT: Some specific reasons to vote for Obama/Biden:
(1) a careful, but expedited end to the Iraq War
(2) protection of reproductive rights
(3) teaching of science and not religion in our schools
(4) diplomacy used once again as a primary tool in foreign policy
(5) an improved economy -- by candidates that actually think there is something wrong with the economy and not just "whining" by the Amercian people
(6) a space-program-like investment in alternative energies
(7) comprehensive sex education
(8) civil rights for all Americans
....etc, etc, etc.

What has Obama convinced you to do for your country? I'm curious.
I'm going to buy a twice more (if not better) fuel efficient car... but it's the original Osama Bin Laden who convinced me to, not the Obama-Biden ersatz.

Ok, as the title says, I can't stand either candidate. I need either a viable alternative or a good reason to vote for one or the other.

McCain - I won't vote for him because of Palin and her Dominionist (link - http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Dominionism) tendencies and her warped notion of family values. I don't dislike McCain, but I fear that he'll die in office and she'll become President.

Obama - He keeps talking about change, but I can't for the life of me begin to figure out what he means. What's he changing? How's he changing it? Is this just a buzzword for more of the same? What is he going on about?

I know where Palin stands and I don't want to go there, but I have no idea in Hell where Obama stands.

Convince me, one way or the other. The caveats are - I want facts, not rumors. If you cite National Enquirer or some other tabloid rag or some extreme liberal or conservative source, I will disregard your arguments.

I'm caught between my son and daughter right now, she's an Air Force Officer who seems to be veering towards Obama, he's an engineer he thinks Palin is wonderful.

2 more points:

1. McCain is almost as batshit insane on social issues as Palin. If you don't like Palin, you shouldn't like the man that picked her to be VP.

2. Obama is talking about change on several levels, but first and foremost he is talking about change away from the failed policies of the last 8 years under Bush/McCain and company. I guess if you think our economy, foreign policy, civil rights, etc are doing dandy, you may be less interested in change.

What has Obama convinced you to do for your country? I'm curious.

I volunteered for the local Democratic campaign office...which is something I had never done before, despite a high interest in politics.

I'm also considering joining AmeriCorps, although I have a medical situation in my family that has to be resolved before I can move foward with that idea.

I've also donated money to flood and hurricane relief efforts.

If Obama is elected, and his proposal moves foward, I will gladly join his Clean Energy Corps.

I volunteered for the local Democratic campaign office...which is something I had never done before, despite a high interest in politics.

I'm also considering joining AmeriCorps, although I have a medical situation in my family that has to be resolved before I can move foward with that idea.

I've also donated money to flood and hurricane relief efforts.

If Obama is elected, and his proposal moves foward, I will gladly join his Clean Energy Corps.

Well, it's good to do good works regardless your motivation. Kudos for that. As for AmeriCorps, I didn't know they had health requirements. I was approached twice by AmeriCorps while in college, and there were no questions asked.

Honestly, if you can't get behind either candidate, I'd suggest not voting for either one of them. I've always found this whole "Vote, no matter what!" movement silly. I think people are more likely to do more damage to the country by voting either against their interests or without appropriate knowledge. I'm a big fan of "Vote your conviction, or don't vote."

Well, if you vote, you can't complain, so there's some validity to that post.

If you're not willing to vote for Obama are you willing to be responsible for McCain/Palin being elected? Those are our choices. The way the system is currently set up those two tickets are the only ones that stand a chance of winning.

As for AmeriCorps, I didn't know they had health requirements. I was approached twice by AmeriCorps while in college, and there were no questions asked.

I don't know that they do...it's not my health that is the issue. I'm helping to take care of my disabled father, and until his long-term care is finalized, I can't make any extensive commitments that might require me to be away from home.

Ok, as the title says, I can't stand either candidate.

Emigrate.

You can have the back shed until you get a job and can afford your own place. It's got water and a wood-burning stove.

Actually not joking. You're good people, come on down!

Well, if you vote, you can't complain, so there's some validity to that post.

If you vote, though ... and your candidate gets three percent of the vote ... you should just commit suicide.

That's what you do when you're massively pissed-off, but accept that you can't complain. You top yourself.

I don't know that they do...it's not my health that is the issue. I'm helping to take care of my disabled father, and until his long-term care is finalized, I can't make any extensive commitments that might require me to be away from home.

Ah, right. I mis-read you there. Sorry to hear that.

Following the link The Cat-Tribe provided (I seriously didn't know that existed), I took a quick look at the records of Obama and McCain on Homeland Security and the "Patriot Act." These things concern me profoundly, since the erosion of our rights has been accelerated since the inception of both. Obama's record has been, in my estimation, much superior to McCain's.

I'll look at other areas of concern more closely, but, I'm seriously considering Obama over McCain.

If you vote, though ... and your candidate gets three percent of the vote ... you should just commit suicide.

That's what you do when you're massively pissed-off, but accept that you can't complain. You top yourself.

Ohhhhh......



......kaaaaaaaay.

I don't know who to vote for. :(

Obama and McCain? I have yet to vote for a Democrat or a Republican for President. There have always been better candidates. Is this year the exception that proves the rule?

Nader: I voted for him in 2000 and 2004. He's 74 years old now and comes off to me like an angry and bitter old man now. Still, he looks and sounds amazingly spry for a 74 year old. I dunno.

Bob Barr? Yeah, right. When the fuck is the Libertarian Party going to stop nominating wackos and repainted conservatives?

Cynthia McKinney threatned to slap me if I didn't vote for her. Though any congressman who thinks Tupac Shakur's death is worthy of congressional investigation, while being completely nuts, is at least entertainingly so.

Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party? Why do they name their party after what they want to gut?

Where does this leave me?

Vermin Love Supreme.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2294/2180135572_bdd6d1c4b7.jpg?v=1199932919

Yes, he is running for President. :D

bob barr? Yeah, right. When the fuck is the libertarian party going to stop nominating wackos and repainted conservatives?

2000?

Vote for a third party. Trust me, the Republican sucks and the Democrats blow.

Vote for a third party. Trust me, the Republican sucks and the Democrats blow.
As does the Libertarian candidate this year.:(

As does the Libertarian candidate this year.:(

True, all I'm concerned right now is getting more vote for the Libertarian Party this year than 2006 and 2004.

Write me in.

Write me in.

Do *you* promise to remove flying monkeys from the streets of New York?

True, all I'm concerned right now is getting more vote for the Libertarian Party this year than 2006 and 2004.

Nothing like getting that "Rebel Without A Cause" street cred.

Except nobody is really impressed by voting Libertarian.

And there's this little thing about basically blowing off the interests of your country.

But, nevermind, you go, you "rebel."

Write me in.

I might just do that. :)

Nothing like getting that "Rebel Without A Cause" street cred.

Except nobody is really impressed by voting Libertarian.

And there's this little thing about basically blowing off the interests of your country.

But, nevermind, you go, you "rebel."

Blowing off the interests of our country? How so? Please, elaborate.

True, all I'm concerned right now is getting more vote for the Libertarian Party this year than 2006 and 2004.

Erm.... You Do realize that Elections are once every FOUR years?

Do *you* promise to remove flying monkeys from the streets of New York?
Yeah, then I'll take the gays from SF. :rolleyes:
I might just do that. :)

:fluffle:

Yeah, then I'll take the gays from SF. :rolleyes:

Fine then, then I guess I'll be voting for Vermin Love Supreme then.;)

Erm.... You Do realize that Elections are once every FOUR years?

2004 Presidental and Congressional

2006 Congressional

2008 Presidental and Congressional

2004 Presidental and Congressional

2006 Congressional

2008 Presidental and Congressional

Ohhhh....

Blowing off the interests of our country? How so? Please, elaborate.

Wilgrove appears to openly admit (as well he should) that Bob Barr and Wayne Root have no chance whatsoever of winning the election. Given that this is a historic election with much at stake that may turn out to be a close contest, voting Libertarian can fairly be seen as throwing one's vote away.

Moreover, even if you agree with the Libertarian platform (which is much improved over past election cycles), neither Bob Barr nor Wayne Root can honestly be said to be the best candidates for President or Vice-President. A vote for them is a protest vote -- a personal pique, rather than sharing shaping the national interest.

(Note: although I don't think very highly of fringe-party voting in general, this critique is specific to Wilgrove's goal of just getting more votes for the Libertarians than last election.)

Nothing like getting that "Rebel Without A Cause" street cred.

At least I'm not a sheep. So tell me, will you be voting for Bowl of Shit A, or Bowl of Shit B? Bowl of Shit A has slightly more shit, but bowl of Shit B has a stronger smell.

And there's this little thing about basically blowing off the interests of your country.

Let me guess, I should vote for Obama right? Because clearly, he's the man for the job, I mean it's not like he doesn't have years of experience to fall back on...ooops.

There's always Mc. Cain, I mean I'm sure he stands for true Conservative values, you know small government, low taxes, etc. Oops, he's a Neo Con. Pretty much the same league as Bush. No thank you.

Yea, trust me, the Republican and Democrats are doing more of "blowing off the interest of my country" than I am.

But, nevermind, you go, you "rebel."

Or, I could you know, vote for the party that shares my political ideology and beliefs.

At least I'm not a sheep. So tell me, will you be voting for Bowl of Shit A, or Bowl of Shit B? Bowl of Shit A has slightly more shit, but bowl of Shit B has a stronger smell.

Let me guess, I should vote for Obama right? Because clearly, he's the man for the job, I mean it's not like he doesn't have years of experience to fall back on...ooops.

There's always Mc. Cain, I mean I'm sure he stands for true Conservative values, you know small government, low taxes, etc. Oops, he's a Neo Con. Pretty much the same league as Bush. No thank you.

Yea, trust me, the Republican and Democrats are doing more of "blowing off the interest of my country" than I am.

Or, I could you know, vote for the party that shares my political ideology and beliefs.

You yourself have said the Libertarian candidate "sucks," so I guess you like Bowl of Shit C 'cuz its the rebel shit.

Wilgrove appears to openly admit (as well he should) that Bob Barr and Wayne Root have no chance whatsoever of winning the election. Given that this is a historic election with much at stake that may turn out to be a close contest, voting Libertarian can fairly be seen as throwing one's vote away.

Moreover, even if you agree with the Libertarian platform (which is much improved over past election cycles), neither Bob Barr nor Wayne Root can honestly be said to be the best candidates for President or Vice-President. A vote for them is a protest vote -- a personal pique, rather than sharing shaping the national interest.

(Note: although I don't think very highly of fringe-party voting in general, this critique is specific to Wilgrove's goal of just getting more votes for the Libertarians than last election.)

Sorry if I don't do the "vote for the lesser evil" shtick. I'd rather work on laying the foundation of giving the Libertarian Party a real chance of winning a national election. That means increasing the votes for Libertarians candidates every election cycle, thus getting them to the point where they qualify for election funding.

People who "Vote for the lesser evil" are the one that are screwing the country over.

You yourself have said the Libertarian candidate "sucks," so I guess you like Bowl of Shit C 'cuz its the rebel shit.

It's got corn in it. :)

Wilgrove appears to openly admit (as well he should) that Bob Barr and Wayne Root have no chance whatsoever of winning the election. Given that this is a historic election with much at stake that may turn out to be a close contest, voting Libertarian can fairly be seen as throwing one's vote away.

And do you know why it is? because of people like you, who believe that voting Libertarian is throwing their vote away. If that view wasn't so prevalent in this country, the Libertarian party WOULD have a chance of winning. And furthermore, EVERY election is historical! I don't care how you look at it, it is. So all we can do is vote for the Libertarian party and hope that the larger number of votes will melt some people's pessimism about third parties.

Moreover, even if you agree with the Libertarian platform (which is much improved over past election cycles)

Much disagreement here. It's turning into a milder Republican party.
, neither Bob Barr nor Wayne Root can honestly be said to be the best candidates for President or Vice-President. A vote for them is a protest vote -- a personal pique, rather than sharing shaping the national interest.
Neither McCain or Obama can honestly said to be the best candidates for president. All they are is the most likely. I CAN honestly say that I prefer Bob Barr to McCain or Obama.

(Note: although I don't think very highly of fringe-party voting in general, this critique is specific to Wilgrove's goal of just getting more votes for the Libertarians than last election.)
You do realize that if that attitude was held by everyone, we'd probably be two nations right now instead of one?

You yourself have said the Libertarian candidate "sucks," so I guess you like Bowl of Shit C 'cuz its the rebel shit.
Well, it's Big steaming bowl of crap #1 or #2 AKA Obama and McCain, or it's little bowl of cold crap #1, Barr.:p

Sorry if I don't do the "vote for the lesser evil" shtick. I'd rather work on laying the foundation of giving the Libertarian Party a real chance of winning a national election. That means increasing the votes for Libertarians candidates every election cycle, thus getting them to the point where they qualify for election funding.

People who "Vote for the lesser evil" are the one that are screwing the country over.

People who characterize every election as a "vote for the lesser evil" rather than actually supporting good candidates aren't exactly helping the country.

Funny how all your shtick is about voting your conscience, but you openly admit you don't really support the Libertarian candidate for whom you'll be voting.

BTW, you do realize that Bob Barr has his own platform (http://www.bobbarr2008.com/issues/) that differs from that of the Libertarian Party (http://www.lp.org/platform)? Which one is the one you'll be supporting if you vote for Barr?

People who characterize every election as a "vote for the lesser evil" rather than actually supporting good candidates aren't exactly helping the country.

Funny how all your shtick is about voting your conscience, but you openly admit you don't really support the Libertarian candidate for whom you'll be voting.

BTW, you do realize that Bob Barr has his own platform (http://www.bobbarr2008.com/issues/) that differs from that of the Libertarian Party (http://www.lp.org/platform)? Which one is the one you'll be supporting if you vote for Barr?

BTW, did you also know that McCain and Obama aren't exactly in line with their parties too!:eek2: No, it's true! I think it's cause they're individuals, or something like that.

Darn individuals, not agreeing with their parties 100%.:mad:

And do you know why it is? because of people like you, who believe that voting Libertarian is throwing their vote away. If that view wasn't so prevalent in this country, the Libertarian party WOULD have a chance of winning. And furthermore, EVERY election is historical! I don't care how you look at it, it is. So all we can do is vote for the Libertarian party and hope that the larger number of votes will melt some people's pessimism about third parties.

Much disagreement here. It's turning into a milder Republican party.

Neither McCain or Obama can honestly said to be the best candidates for president. All they are is the most likely. I CAN honestly say that I prefer Bob Barr to McCain or Obama.

You do realize that if that attitude was held by everyone, we'd probably be two nations right now instead of one?

First, you seem to misunderstand me. I'm not saying you shouldn't vote Libertarian merely because you'll be throwing your vote away. I'm saying: (1) You shouldn't vote Libertarian for a variety of reasons we haven't gone into AND (2) You shouldn't throw your vote away.

If you truly believe Bob Barr would make a better President than either McCain or Obama, I think your judgment is seriously flawed, but my guess is it is beyond saving through discussion.

And, pray tell, what exactly is my "attitude" and how would it have hurt this country historically? If you are going to compare the Libertarians to the Republicans, spare me the laugh.

BTW, did you also know that McCain and Obama aren't exactly in line with their parties too!:eek2: No, it's true! I think it's cause they're individuals, or something like that.

Darn individuals, not agreeing with their parties 100%.:mad:

SO who do you vote for; the individual or the party?

BTW, did you also know that McCain and Obama aren't exactly in line with their parties too!:eek2: No, it's true! I think it's cause they're individuals, or something like that.

Darn individuals, not agreeing with their parties 100%.:mad:

Um. Check your sarcasm. I'm not the one saying I want to vote for a party's candidate for President when I don't actually like the party's candidate.

Isn't Wilgrove's voting for Barr, by definition, a version of voting for the "least evil" -- which type of voting he claims to disdain?

First, you seem to misunderstand me. I'm not saying you shouldn't vote Libertarian merely because you'll be throwing your vote away. I'm saying: (1) You shouldn't vote Libertarian for a variety of reasons we haven't gone into AND (2) You shouldn't throw your vote away.

If you truly believe Bob Barr would make a better President than either McCain or Obama, I think your judgment is seriously flawed, but my guess is it is beyond saving through discussion.

And, pray tell, what exactly is my "attitude" and how would it have hurt this country historically? If you are going to compare the Libertarians to the Republicans, spare me the laugh.

AN argument could be made that breaking the two-party lock and the tide of election reform that would follow would do far more good for the country in the long run than one crappy president. We have experience dealing with them. :p

I'm not necessarily thrilled with agreeing with the Libertarians here, but I have to side with them on this one. Yes, it's a little like gamesmanship, but that's the way it's set up. If a party can reach a certain threshold they become eligible for the same funds that the two major parties have access to, and that's the step towards more viable parties up for election, breaking the binary lock that we currently have. Barr won't be president, every one knows it. Nader was never going to be president, we all knew it-the idea was to get them the votes the party needed to get federal funding and a seat at the big table. Therefore if you support the party, even if you support the party more than the current candidate, your still serving your interest by voting for them to help get them to that threshold.

Plus, if you're like me and live in a district that is more than likely going to go one way anyway you could argue that your vote is being wasted in a landslide anyway and you might as well contribute to rise of a party you believe in, given the nature of America's all or nothing electoral system.

Yeah, if the stakes are high (and it can easily be argued that they are now) and your district is close the strategy of your vote is different. But in either case, these are strategic votes and I don't think one to grow a minor party is so easily dismissed. Even if that minor party is as off base as the Libertarians.

Given that Barr was a staunchly conservative and rabidly partisan Republican, it is amusing to see him re-packaged as the Libertarian candidate.

I wonder which of the following "Libertarian" positions appeal to Wilgrove:

Fiercely anti-choice
Believes same-sex marriage "should be left to the states" (but authored the Defense of Marriage Act)
Beleives in banning gay adoptions
Believes in amending the Constitution to prohibit flag "desecration"
Supports restrictions on habeas corpus and other appeals of criminal convictions, especially in capital cases
Long history of support for the War on Drugs
Supports prayer in schools
Supports bans on physician-assisted suicide
Voted for the Patriot Act, but now regrets it
Still believes Clinton should have been impeached -- was an impeachment prosecutor
Sponsored bill declaring English the US's official language

link (Bob Barr on the issues) (http://www.ontheissues.org/Bob_Barr.htm)

Given that Barr was a staunchly conservative and rabidly partisan Republican, it is amusing to see him re-packaged as the Libertarian candidate.

I wonder which of the following "Libertarian" positions appeal to Wilgrove:

Fiercely anti-choice
Believes same-sex marriage "should be left to the states" (but authored the Defense of Marriage Act)
Beleives in banning gay adoptions
Believes in amending the Constitution to prohibit flag "desecration"
Supports restrictions on habeas corpus and other appeals of criminal convictions, especially in capital cases
Long history of support for the War on Drugs
Supports prayer in schools
Supports bans on physician-assisted suicide
Voted for the Patriot Act, but now regrets it
Still believes Clinton should have been impeached -- was an impeachment prosecutor
Sponsored bill declaring English the US's official language

link (Bob Barr on the issues) (http://www.ontheissues.org/Bob_Barr.htm)

He also supported having the religious practice of Wicca banned from the armed forces. That's pretty messed up.

Given that Barr was a staunchly conservative and rabidly partisan Republican, it is amusing to see him re-packaged as the Libertarian candidate.

I wonder which of the following "Libertarian" positions appeal to Wilgrove:

Fiercely anti-choice
Believes same-sex marriage "should be left to the states" (but authored the Defense of Marriage Act)
Beleives in banning gay adoptions
Believes in amending the Constitution to prohibit flag "desecration"
Supports restrictions on habeas corpus and other appeals of criminal convictions, especially in capital cases
Long history of support for the War on Drugs
Supports prayer in schools
Supports bans on physician-assisted suicide
Voted for the Patriot Act, but now regrets it
Still believes Clinton should have been impeached -- was an impeachment prosecutor
Sponsored bill declaring English the US's official language

link (Bob Barr on the issues) (http://www.ontheissues.org/Bob_Barr.htm)
Yeah, but it is only fair that there should be a socially acceptable way to be drafted into the Republican fold.

for a long time i just suggested that you watch the debates and decide (and honestly, if you cant decide between the men surely you can decide between their platforms) but mccain has severely scared me with this palin pick.

it not JUST that an old man with a darned good chance of dying in office has picked a neophyte who looks good on camera (and whose politics are scary) its that he has abandoned all the things he once stood for (and still claims to). he is NOT putting country first, he is NOT willing to lose an election in order to keep his priciples. he will do anything, say anything, endorse any ugly lie in order to win. he will pick ms palin not because she is a GOOD candidate and would be able to step into the big chair at a moments notice (the notion is ludicrous) but because she will help him win.

i dont want him anywhere near the white house. not even for a quick visit to congratulate president obama in january.

Even if he has no meaningful policies, simply voting for Obama will strengthen the US's diplomatic standing in the world drastically, so it's worth voting for him anyway.

Ok, how about we just elect a deodorant instead. It doesn't matter who wins, there will be no change. The lobbyists control the Presidents, the people never do. :rolleyes:

The lies and distortions of the McCain campaign, the Palin pick, and the Bush-like politics that both of them are in favor of (as is apparent through their statements and/or their earlier actions) have scared me well into the Obama camp.

As they're both proposing "change" right now, I advice that you think more about what you actually want to change, and who's more likely to bring about that change.

Join the dark side.......vote Green.

Green only steals from democrats.

he will pick ms palin not because she is a GOOD candidate and would be able to step into the big chair at a moments notice (the notion is ludicrous) but because she will help him win.
I think nobody has yet hit on the real reason: it's because he has long been thinking at least subconsciously that it's time to trade Cindy in for a younger model, and when he looked at Palin his little head started thinking for his big one.

I think nobody has yet hit on the real reason: it's because he has long been thinking at least subconsciously that it's time to trade Cindy in for a younger model, and when he looked at Palin his little head started thinking for his big one.

Which plays into the Evangelical hands. The more McSame gets a hardon for I Can't Believe It's Not Hillary, the more likely he is to suffer a stroke or heart attack as the flow of blood is redirected.

If Bush/Cheney 2008 wins the election somehow and I Can't Believe It's Not Hillary wears a skimpy enough dress in the inauguration, McSame will die of a killer boner literally and the country can look forward to shit Margaret Atwood was only writing about.

I think nobody has yet hit on the real reason: it's because he has long been thinking at least subconsciously that it's time to trade Cindy in for a younger model, and when he looked at Palin his little head started thinking for his big one.
oh now you are just saying that because when he introduced her he called her his SOULMATE.

which still gives me the creeps.

oh now you are just saying that because when he introduced her he called her his SOULMATE.

which still gives me the creeps.

It's the same McCain who called Ohio Televangelist Rod "KILL ALL TEH EBIL MOZLEMS!!!!1111" Parsley his Spiritual Advisor.

It's the same McCain who called Ohio Televangelist Rod "KILL ALL TEH EBIL MOZLEMS!!!!1111" Parsley his Spiritual Advisor.
i am very upset at this new mccain. the old mccain was an OK guy who (in 2000) would have made a darn good republican president. this mccain is old, tired, and creepy.

i am very upset at this new mccain. the old mccain was an OK guy who (in 2000) would have made a darn good republican president. this mccain is old, tired, and creepy.

It's not John McCain anymore. He was cloned and disposed of by that Bushevik Body Snatcher Pod back around the 2000 election.

i am very upset at this new mccain. the old mccain was an OK guy who (in 2000) would have made a darn good republican president. this mccain is old, tired, and creepy.

I suspect that somehow the old guard of the RNC has got ahold of his strings ever since he became presumptive nominee.

i am very upset at this new mccain. the old mccain was an OK guy who (in 2000) would have made a darn good republican president. this mccain is old, tired, and creepy.

Agreed. I could have supported old McCain, but I can't support the new McCain! :eek2:

The President who I consider as the touchstone for every President since (despite some concerns about his private life) is Kennedy. I don't think he was ever anyone's puppet, including his father's - that's probably why he was assassinated. No President since has approached his quality - I had some hopes for McCain, but they went away with Palin and senility. Obama's record seems to be good, but I don't have much hope for him, either.

Ok, how about we just elect a deodorant instead. It doesn't matter who wins, there will be no change. The lobbyists control the Presidents, the people never do. :rolleyes:

"If this is evolution in terms of candidates, then in 12 years, we're gonna be voting for plants."

-- Lewis Black

"If this is evolution in terms of candidates, then in 12 years, we're gonna be voting for plants."

-- Lewis Black

If McCain suffers a stroke from constantly getting a hardon from his Soulmate I Can't Believe It's Not Hillary, then Lewis Black would be 11 years too late.

And do you know why it is? because of people like you, who believe that voting Libertarian is throwing their vote away. If that view wasn't so prevalent in this country, the Libertarian party WOULD have a chance of winning.

Or, you know, maybe if they put up a candidate worth voting for.

Much disagreement here. It's turning into a milder Republican party.

And that's what happens when the strategy is "just get more votes" instead of "put up a good candidate".


I'm not necessarily thrilled with agreeing with the Libertarians here, but I have to side with them on this one. Yes, it's a little like gamesmanship, but that's the way it's set up. If a party can reach a certain threshold they become eligible for the same funds that the two major parties have access to, and that's the step towards more viable parties up for election, breaking the binary lock that we currently have. Barr won't be president, every one knows it. Nader was never going to be president, we all knew it-the idea was to get them the votes the party needed to get federal funding and a seat at the big table. Therefore if you support the party, even if you support the party more than the current candidate, your still serving your interest by voting for them to help get them to that threshold.

If a party is going to put up candidates you don't like, why support it?

And if you liked a party before, why send the message that you're ok with a crappy candidate?

Join the dark side.......vote Green.

Having McKinney in the White House would certainly be.....interesting. =)


I suspect that somehow the old guard of the RNC has got ahold of his strings ever since he became presumptive nominee.

I figured they did that soon after Bush beat him for the nomination in 2000. They definitely had him well in hand by 2004.

Jackson Kirk Grimmes 08

And that's what happens when the strategy is "just get more votes" instead of "put up a good candidate".

You've got to do what you've got to do to win. Truth is, good candidates are meaningless if they don't get votes.

Hell, that's why Biden is on the Obama ticket; he's nothing more than a career politician and plagiarist yet he knows how the system works and how to build up support for Obama in order to give them a good chance of winning. Obama might be a good candidate, but he needs someone to bring in the votes; frankly, I think Hillary would have been a better choice but you've got to play the hand you're dealt.

You've got to do what you've got to do to win.

That statement makes sense from a party leader's point of view, but not from a voter's.

Truth is, good candidates are meaningless if they don't get votes.

Voting is largely meaningless if you never have a good candidate to vote for.

That statement makes sense from a party leader's point of view, but not from a voter's.

Yeah, which is why we get such mediocre candidates. Party leaders want to win, not achieve anything or please their voters anymore than is necessary to build up their power and influence in various levels of government.

Voting is largely meaningless if you never have a good candidate to vote for.

I think in that case you have to vote on the basis of who you feel is most capable of working with the people you want to see making the decisions.

Yeah, which is why we get such mediocre candidates. Party leaders want to win, not achieve anything or please their voters anymore than is necessary to build up their power and influence in various levels of government.



I think in that case you have to vote on the basis of who you feel is most capable of working with the people you want to see making the decisions.

I understand that Palin has difficulty working with people who disagree with her and that she dismisses, out of hand, any ideas that aren't hers or don't come from her hand-picked advisors. Another point against her.

McCain seems to have distanced himself from those who disagree with him, much like Bush. Or perhaps his staff has created the distance. In any case, he seems to be off in some ivory tower where the US is one homogenous nation and no one who thinks differently is an American.

Obama does seem to understand diversity.

Yeah, which is why we get such mediocre candidates. Party leaders want to win, not achieve anything or please their voters anymore than is necessary to build up their power and influence in various levels of government.

So maybe we should raise the bar on what is necessary?

The President who I consider as the touchstone for every President since (despite some concerns about his private life) is Kennedy. I don't think he was ever anyone's puppet, including his father's - that's probably why he was assassinated. No President since has approached his quality - I had some hopes for McCain, but they went away with Palin and senility. Obama's record seems to be good, but I don't have much hope for him, either.
take a look at his foxnews interview with bill o'reilly

http://www.foxnews.com/oreilly/index.html

you have to wait for the videoplayer to load then click on the politics menu item, the interview is broken up into 4 segments.

Having McKinney in the White House would certainly be.....interesting. =)
She's definitely pro-choice.

She's definitely pro-choice.

Pro-batshit, too. Also pro-pimp-slap.

Pro-batshit, too. Also pro-pimp-slap.

:p Can't argue with that.

Write in Jesus Christ. He has the same chance as being elected as any other third-party candidate, and is better than them all.

Ok, as the title says, I can't stand either candidate. I need either a viable alternative or a good reason to vote for one or the other.

McCain - I won't vote for him because of Palin and her Dominionist (link - http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Dominionism) tendencies and her warped notion of family values. I don't dislike McCain, but I fear that he'll die in office and she'll become President.

Obama - He keeps talking about change, but I can't for the life of me begin to figure out what he means. What's he changing? How's he changing it? Is this just a buzzword for more of the same? What is he going on about?

I know where Palin stands and I don't want to go there, but I have no idea in Hell where Obama stands.

Convince me, one way or the other. The caveats are - I want facts, not rumors. If you cite National Enquirer or some other tabloid rag or some extreme liberal or conservative source, I will disregard your arguments.

I'm caught between my son and daughter right now, she's an Air Force Officer who seems to be veering towards Obama, he's an engineer he thinks Palin is wonderful.

Frankly, I too hate both candidates... Which is exactly why I won't vote (I don't believe in the lesser of two evils garbage). As I've told several of my students (off the record and outside of class, of course), if you don't vote you can't be blamed for the state of America and if you DO vote, you don't have any right to complain because you put them into office.

Personally, if American politics continues to be this laughable I'm going to take advantage of my Hebrewness and become a citizen of Israel after I get my Ph.D.

Frankly, I too hate both candidates... Which is exactly why I won't vote (I don't believe in the lesser of two evils garbage). As I've told several of my students (off the record and outside of class, of course), if you don't vote you can't be blamed for the state of America and if you DO vote, you don't have any right to complain because you put them into office.

Personally, if American politics continues to be this laughable I'm going to take advantage of my Hebrewness and become a citizen of Israel after I get my Ph.D.

If you don't vote you can absolutely be blamed - you choose not to exercise your democratic right, and if you don't like what ended up in office, you are just as culpable as anyone who actually voted FOR that candidate.

If you DO vote, you can be 'blamed' if you voted FOR the candidate, less so if you voted against them.

Bottomline - vote for the best candidate. If you don't vote, you're part of the problem.

Nice to see someone fucking things up for the next generation, though.

Frankly, I too hate both candidates... Which is exactly why I won't vote (I don't believe in the lesser of two evils garbage). As I've told several of my students (off the record and outside of class, of course), if you don't vote you can't be blamed for the state of America and if you DO vote, you don't have any right to complain because you put them into office.

Personally, if American politics continues to be this laughable I'm going to take advantage of my Hebrewness and become a citizen of Israel after I get my Ph.D.

I've always felt that those who don't vote are the ones who got us into this mess. By expressing your apathy, you give the politicians carte blanche. Voting, intelligently, sends the message that you care and will be watching. That's why I'm concerned. I've always voted, I will always vote, until I'm too senile to care. I'm just trying to get as much real information as I can (incidentally, thank you Cat-Tribes for the issues link) so my choice, as poor as it is, will be the best possible for me and my country. Obama's looking pretty good, so far.

Oh, and btw, how is Israel's politics not screwed up? I read, recently (right here on NSG) that a law was passed requiring women to sit at the back of busses so that those poor Orthodox Jewish men wouldn't have to be contaminated by their presence. I thought Israel was supposed to be a bastion of equality and democracy, not an Orthodox Jewish theocracy.

If you don't want to vote for anyone, go to the polling station and spoil your ballot paper. Then it's put on record that you chose "None of the above".

If you don't want to vote for anyone, go to the polling station and spoil your ballot paper. Then it's put on record that you chose "None of the above".

Wait several hours in line just to do that? No thanks... If I vote at all I'm voting Libertarian (even though the Libertarian candidates never have a prayer of winning because of how the system is set up).

Wait several hours in line just to do that? No thanks... If I vote at all I'm voting Libertarian (even though the Libertarian candidates never have a prayer of winning because of how the system is set up).


Seriously? You have to wait "hours" just to vote? Wow, you need more polling stations. And if you know who you're voting for, sure go ahead. However, I hope you've actually fully read into the Lib candidate, and you're not just voting for him because of a label he's applied to himself.

Wait several hours in line just to do that? No thanks... If I vote at all I'm voting Libertarian (even though the Libertarian candidates never have a prayer of winning because of how the system is set up).

You mean you don't have early voting stations (which I love because it means I can include voting with my other errands - since the station I use is located at a convenient mall) or absentee ballots (which are now available to anyone who doesn't want the inconvenience of actually going to a polling place)?

Wait several hours in line just to do that? No thanks... If I vote at all I'm voting Libertarian (even though the Libertarian candidates never have a prayer of winning because of how the system is set up).

Or ... they don't have a prayer of winning because (1) they tend to be kooks and (2) they believe in Libertarian policies.

Just an alternative to your conspiracy theory.

I've always felt that those who don't vote are the ones who got us into this mess. By expressing your apathy, you give the politicians carte blanche. Voting, intelligently, sends the message that you care and will be watching. That's why I'm concerned. I've always voted, I will always vote, until I'm too senile to care. I'm just trying to get as much real information as I can (incidentally, thank you Cat-Tribes for the issues link) so my choice, as poor as it is, will be the best possible for me and my country. Obama's looking pretty good, so far.

Oh, and btw, how is Israel's politics not screwed up? I read, recently (right here on NSG) that a law was passed requiring women to sit at the back of busses so that those poor Orthodox Jewish men wouldn't have to be contaminated by their presence. I thought Israel was supposed to be a bastion of equality and democracy, not an Orthodox Jewish theocracy.

I disagree vehemently, but we can just agree to disagree.

On the other hand, regarding Israel, I have family who lives there and they tell me that's one of the hot button topics in Israel... Is it more of a religious state or a secular state with a strong religious presence? I think that's a perfectly reasonable arguement considering the history of Israel and the reason for its establishment.

Personally, I like Israel a great deal... But I will say that one of the main things is how rich it is with history.. As a Military Historian in training, I would personally love to have the region where many major battles of the ancient, classical, and medieval worlds took place in such close proximity. I already speak Hebrew fluently (my parents taught me the language as a baby and young child but they never really taught me how to read and write it, so I'm totally illiterate in Hebrew).

Or ... they don't have a prayer of winning because (1) they tend to be kooks and (2) they believe in Libertarian policies.

Just an alternative to your conspiracy theory.

That's really the thing; the libertarians tend to be just too hard libertarian to appeal to most people. That, more than anything, is why there are so many independents; the third parties that are out there are just too goddamn crazy to really be a good fit leaving us as the undecided group that usually ends up swinging electiosn one way or another.

I mean, the entire Libertarian leadership seems to be composed of Randroids, gold bugs and "states-rights" quasi-dominionists. That doesn't exactly appeal to us who don't like objectivism, like the concept of central banking and fiat money, and who think the government's duty is to protect rights, not delegate them to far more extreme state legislatures to oppress as they see fit. They're for oppression by the people they like, not freedom from it.

Or ... they don't have a prayer of winning because (1) they tend to be kooks and (2) they believe in Libertarian policies.

Just an alternative to your conspiracy theory.

Whatever you say, first party tool.

I'm standing on the outside here, but maybe the thing about most of Obama's policy proposal isn't that it wouldn't constitute change, but that it's not actually all that imaginative. It almost seems to me like most of the things he's talking about are stock-standard proposals Democrats have been trying to bring forward some time. Given that Republicans have kept them away for ages now, Obama might well change what the US government does, but he hasn't really demonstrated that he'd initiate any real structural, deeper change in the way the US government operates - or the US as a whole, for that matter.

And maybe that's not surprising, since even a PotUS is in the end limited in what he or she can realistically hope to achieve.
In some respects, yes, but Obama's change is a bit more than that. It's more than just policy. It's also about his ability as a person and as a leader to be willing to cooperate and compromise, as well as the simple fact that electing him means we've moved on from a lot of things that have been holding us back and have gotten past our weird obsession with ethnicity.



http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2294/2180135572_bdd6d1c4b7.jpg?v=1199932919

Yes, he is running for President. :D
PUT SHOE ON HEAD

...Is it more of a religious state or a secular state with a strong religious presence? I think that's a perfectly reasonable arguement considering the history of Israel and the reason for its establishment.


Which establishment?

The one based on genocide, or the one based on forced relocation of the natives?

That's really the thing; the libertarians tend to be just too hard libertarian to appeal to most people. That, more than anything, is why there are so many independents; the third parties that are out there are just too goddamn crazy to really be a good fit leaving us as the undecided group that usually ends up swinging electiosn one way or another.

I mean, the entire Libertarian leadership seems to be composed of Randroids, gold bugs and "states-rights" quasi-dominionists. That doesn't exactly appeal to us who don't like objectivism, like the concept of central banking and fiat money, and who think the government's duty is to protect rights, not delegate them to far more extreme state legislatures to oppress as they see fit. They're for oppression by the people they like, not freedom from it.

Forgive us for having spines and actually sticking to what we believe.

I'm not even going to grace you with debunking what you say about Libertarians, even if it is mostly BS. I'm in far too good a mood right now and I've been drinking anyway... I will say this, however, calling someone "crazy" just because their political ideology is different than yours is quite sophomoric.

Forgive us for having spines and actually sticking to what we believe.

I'm not even going to grace you with debunking what you say about Libertarians, even if it is mostly BS. I'm in far too good a mood right now and I've been drinking anyway... I will say this, however, calling someone "crazy" just because their political ideology is different than yours is quite sophomoric.

And blaming a conspiracy for why most Americans don't agree with your philosophy isn't sophomoric at all. :rolleyes:

Forgive us for having spines and actually sticking to what we believe.

I'm not even going to grace you with debunking what you say about Libertarians, even if it is mostly BS. I'm in far too good a mood right now and I've been drinking anyway... I will say this, however, calling someone "crazy" just because their political ideology is different than yours is quite sophomoric.

People who fly in the face of historical experience in order to stick to their ideology are crazy. The gold standard did not work, the laissez-faire policies of the 19th century did not work, the lack of government regulations did not work and in the end it took a considerable expansion of government authority to create the kind of stable, prosperous environment that has characterized the developed world in the past half-century. The free market is a wonderful thing, but it is not the universal panacea and defender of freedom and liberty; in fact, when left completely unchained it is the exact opposite.

Face it, there are a lot of nutjobs and conspiracy "theorists" in the Libertarian party and until they get rid of them and replaces them with saner choices they will never hold any kind of political power in this country.

People who fly in the face of historical experience in order to stick to their ideology are crazy. The gold standard did not work, the laissez-faire policies of the 19th century did not work, the lack of government regulations did not work and in the end it took a considerable expansion of government authority to create the kind of stable, prosperous environment that has characterized the developed world in the past half-century. The free market is a wonderful thing, but it is not the universal panacea and defender of freedom and liberty; in fact, when left completely unchained it is the exact opposite.

Face it, there are a lot of nutjobs and conspiracy "theorists" in the Libertarian party and until they get rid of them and replaces them with saner choices they will never hold any kind of political power in this country.

The gold standard didn't work... Right... Take a look at the state of the dollar now and then look at it when we had the gold standard... The difference is as clear as clear eyes.

Laissez-faire worked well... America in the early 20th century was the same as any industralizing nation... Dirty, poor citizens, extreme gap between rich and poor (which government programs have DEFINTELY not solved), and so on and so forth. The standard of living rises naturally over time and there's no way to prove that government regulation made America more prosperous

America was stable and prosperous before the government became omnipresent... Right now, our economy is going down the toilet and the government's solution is to offer an umbrella for what's quickly turning into a hurricane.

The freer the market, the freer the people, that's all I'm going to say.

You'll get what you call, "nutjobs" in any political party... Democrats and Republicans subscribe to conspiracy theories every bit as much as Libertarians. I'd like to make a note that I disagreed with you throughout this without calling you a nutjob... You can argue without making broad based assumptions about people based on their political beliefs.

Also, please do not argue with a historian about history. While I'm not an economic historian, the sensationalized high school textbook version of history you seem to be subscribing to is hardly an accurate account.

In conclusion, it doesn't matter what we do... The Libertarian Party will never hold power (at least, not under the party name) because of how the American political system is set up.

Frankly, I too hate both candidates... Which is exactly why I won't vote (I don't believe in the lesser of two evils garbage). As I've told several of my students (off the record and outside of class, of course), if you don't vote you can't be blamed for the state of America and if you DO vote, you don't have any right to complain because you put them into office.

Wow. What a wonderful teacher you are. I'm so glad that teachers like you are in our schools. It's probably a big part of the reason that our country is where it is today.

If you don't vote, you can still be blamed for the state of America - because you sat back and let others make the decisions for you so that you could point fingers and pretend to have principles.

If you do vote, you absolutely can complain. Often, the person you were voting for didn't get into office at all - and the idea that you can't complain about what the other guy is doing is patently ridiculous. And if the person you did vote for isn't delivering, you are also in a position to complain - just as any employer can complain about an employee that isn't performing.

When it comes right down to it, there are two categories that don't really have room to complain: 1) People who do nothing but complain and 2) People who keep voting the incumbent in while being dissatisfied with her.

Personally, if American politics continues to be this laughable I'm going to take advantage of my Hebrewness and become a citizen of Israel after I get my Ph.D.

Good for you. In fact, why not do it now? There's at least one good university in Israel.

Wait several hours in line just to do that? No thanks... If I vote at all I'm voting Libertarian (even though the Libertarian candidates never have a prayer of winning because of how the system is set up).

Ah, and the truth comes out. It's not principles. It's laziness.


Bottomline - vote for the best candidate. If you don't vote, you're part of the problem.

Even if you can't vote for any of the listed candidates with a good conscience, there's always the possibility of a write-in vote for who you think *should* be there. It certainly makes more of a statement than "I'm fed up so I'm just going to stay home and point fingers at other people."

Nice to see someone fucking things up for the next generation, though.


That's really the thing; the libertarians tend to be just too hard libertarian to appeal to most people.

Only on the economic issues. They're quite often rather in line with the neo-cons on social ones.

I mean, the entire Libertarian leadership seems to be composed of Randroids, gold bugs and "states-rights" quasi-dominionists. That doesn't exactly appeal to us who don't like objectivism, like the concept of central banking and fiat money, and who think the government's duty is to protect rights, not delegate them to far more extreme state legislatures to oppress as they see fit. They're for oppression by the people they like, not freedom from it.

^This. Although I don't see that states' rights argument as "hard libertarian". In fact, I see it as fundamentally opposed to libertarianism.

People who fly in the face of historical experience in order to stick to their ideology are crazy. The gold standard did not work, the laissez-faire policies of the 19th century did not work, the lack of government regulations did not work and in the end it took a considerable expansion of government authority to create the kind of stable, prosperous environment that has characterized the developed world in the past half-century. The free market is a wonderful thing, but it is not the universal panacea and defender of freedom and liberty; in fact, when left completely unchained it is the exact opposite.

This is why they make up an alternate history in which the near-lack of regulations was actually "over-regulation" and caused all the problems we apparently so stupidly attribute to under-regulation. *nodnod*

Even if you can't vote for any of the listed candidates with a good conscience, there's always the possibility of a write-in vote for who you think *should* be there. It certainly makes more of a statement than "I'm fed up so I'm just going to stay home and point fingers at other people."


See - right now, all people of consicence should be ignoring party lines, and voting for ANYONE except McCain.

Sounds insane?

The whole principle of Democratic government is that no party can abuse power - because they will be overturned at the next election.

The problem is - the current parties have people SO tied to brand loyalty, that this doesn't happen anymore...and won't, until there's a REAL upset.

Frankly, I too hate both candidates... Which is exactly why I won't vote (I don't believe in the lesser of two evils garbage). As I've told several of my students (off the record and outside of class, of course), if you don't vote you can't be blamed for the state of America and if you DO vote, you don't have any right to complain because you put them into office.

Still not seeing how I put Bush in office, considering I voted against him both times. People not voting for Kerry or Gore (and that includes people who refused to get up off their lazy asses to vote) are the ones who are to blame for the erosion of liberty we've suffered under him. So, yeah, I get to bitch. I get to bitch at you. YOU helped bring about Guantanamo. YOU helped America legalize torture. All because YOU decided that keeping that disgrace to the nation out of office wasn't worth voting.

The gold standard didn't work... Right... Take a look at the state of the dollar now and then look at it when we had the gold standard... The difference is as clear as clear eyes.

Laissez-faire worked well... America in the early 20th century was the same as any industralizing nation... Dirty, poor citizens, extreme gap between rich and poor (which government programs have DEFINTELY not solved), and so on and so forth. The standard of living rises naturally over time and there's no way to prove that government regulation made America more prosperous

America was stable and prosperous before the government became omnipresent... Right now, our economy is going down the toilet and the government's solution is to offer an umbrella for what's quickly turning into a hurricane.

The freer the market, the freer the people, that's all I'm going to say.

You'll get what you call, "nutjobs" in any political party... Democrats and Republicans subscribe to conspiracy theories every bit as much as Libertarians. I'd like to make a note that I disagreed with you throughout this without calling you a nutjob... You can argue without making broad based assumptions about people based on their political beliefs.

Also, please do not argue with a historian about history. While I'm not an economic historian, the sensationalized high school textbook version of history you seem to be subscribing to is hardly an accurate account.

In conclusion, it doesn't matter what we do... The Libertarian Party will never hold power (at least, not under the party name) because of how the American political system is set up.

Far be it from me to argue history with a self-proclaimed historian, but could you please identify for us when exactly was this Golden Age of American history where Libertarian policies made us stable, prosperous, and freer?

Personally, if American politics continues to be this laughable I'm going to take advantage of my Hebrewness and become a citizen of Israel after I get my Ph.D.
I lol'd.

BIBI vs. TZIPI! CLASH... OF THE TITANS...

Far be it from me to argue history with a self-proclaimed historian, but could you please identify for us when exactly was this Golden Age of American history where Libertarian policies made us stable, prosperous, and freer?

Ill give you a hint: Never.



But I have this strange feeling you already knew this;)

I also hate both. I still may vote for McCain but it's between that and not voting. It's getting ridiculous. Every day that comes, comes with a new story about how McCain is such a moron and a moron who's unfit to lead this country at that. Palin is nice and I'm sure a good mother but has only a little more qualification to become VP (or President) than I do.

Now say, I could run instead. :D Hell, if McCain and Palin can, almost anyone can!:p

Well, Obama promises to not spend more on war, though I do not know about anything else.

The gold standard didn't work... Right... Take a look at the state of the dollar now and then look at it when we had the gold standard... The difference is as clear as clear eyes.
The gold standard was not about the value of the dollar as such, it was about a convenient way to do international trade.

The dollar is in a 'better' state against many of the top currencies in the world now than it was at the time of its choice as the currency on which to base the gold standard, the prime example being the Sterling. A 1913 dollar was just over a fifth of the value of a pound sterling. Now it's about 57% of the value of the sterling.
Laissez-faire worked well... America in the early 20th century was the same as any industralizing nation... Dirty, poor citizens, extreme gap between rich and poor (which government programs have DEFINTELY not solved), and so on and so forth. The standard of living rises naturally over time and there's no way to prove that government regulation made America more prosperous
1) Laisssez-faire only applied to internal trade, the American system of trade has never and probably will never be actually free.

2) There was an extreme gap between the rich and poor at the time of the great depression, too...
America was stable and prosperous before the government became omnipresent...
When was this suppsed golden time?
Right now, our economy is going down the toilet and the government's solution is to offer an umbrella for what's quickly turning into a hurricane.
Laissez-faire policies would have the US government let AIG, Freddie Mac and FannieMae die. Which would have caused the stock markets to have completely freefalled in a manner not unlike that of 1929.

Surprising as this may sound, that's not a good thing.
The freer the market, the freer the people, that's all I'm going to say.
Freedoms other than that of trading are available.
Also, please do not argue with an internet historian about history.
Why not?
While I'm not an economic historian, the sensationalized high school textbook version of history you seem to be subscribing to is hardly an accurate account.
Uhu...
In conclusion, it doesn't matter what we do... The Libertarian Party will never hold power (at least, not under the party name) because of how the American political system is set up.
And because of its policies. That also affects things a lot.

Well, Obama promises to not spend more on war, though I do not know about anything else.
Lolz, was that before or after he visited Iraq, consulted with the generals and came back stating that we can't just leave Iraq?

Lolz, was that before or after he visited Iraq, consulted with the generals and came back stating that we can't just leave Iraq?

One more reason to vote for Bob Barr, who would actually cut spending.

Given that Barr was a staunchly conservative and rabidly partisan Republican, it is amusing to see him re-packaged as the Libertarian candidate.

I wonder which of the following "Libertarian" positions appeal to Wilgrove:

Fiercely anti-choice
Believes same-sex marriage "should be left to the states" (but authored the Defense of Marriage Act)
Beleives in banning gay adoptions
Believes in amending the Constitution to prohibit flag "desecration"
Supports restrictions on habeas corpus and other appeals of criminal convictions, especially in capital cases
Long history of support for the War on Drugs
Supports prayer in schools
Supports bans on physician-assisted suicide
Voted for the Patriot Act, but now regrets it
Still believes Clinton should have been impeached -- was an impeachment prosecutor
Sponsored bill declaring English the US's official language

link (Bob Barr on the issues) (http://www.ontheissues.org/Bob_Barr.htm)

And yet he wants to cut spending, and the Democratic candidate does not, despite the fact that nation is up to its armpits in debt.

And yet he wants to cut spending, and the Democratic candidate does not, despite the fact that nation is up to its armpits in debt.
... uhu...

But he's not actually Libertarian... he's just anti-spending money on things he doesn't particularly like, and not in a 'state's rights' kind of way.

Given that Barr was a staunchly conservative and rabidly partisan Republican, it is amusing to see him re-packaged as the Libertarian candidate.

I wonder which of the following "Libertarian" positions appeal to Wilgrove:

Fiercely anti-choice
Believes same-sex marriage "should be left to the states" (but authored the Defense of Marriage Act)
Beleives in banning gay adoptions
Believes in amending the Constitution to prohibit flag "desecration"
Supports restrictions on habeas corpus and other appeals of criminal convictions, especially in capital cases
Long history of support for the War on Drugs
Supports prayer in schools
Supports bans on physician-assisted suicide
Voted for the Patriot Act, but now regrets it
Still believes Clinton should have been impeached -- was an impeachment prosecutor
Sponsored bill declaring English the US's official language

link (Bob Barr on the issues) (http://www.ontheissues.org/Bob_Barr.htm)

I'll bold the ones I don't like or care about.

(Kind of ridiculous how Leftists call pro-life people " anti-choice". I don't see Rightists calling pro-choice people "pro-death" or something stupid like that....Honestly how can you ask for respect if you in turn are not respectful?

Ok, as the title says, I can't stand either candidate. I need either a viable alternative or a good reason to vote for one or the other.

McCain - I won't vote for him because of Palin and her Dominionist (link - http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Dominionism) tendencies and her warped notion of family values. I don't dislike McCain, but I fear that he'll die in office and she'll become President.

Obama - He keeps talking about change, but I can't for the life of me begin to figure out what he means. What's he changing? How's he changing it? Is this just a buzzword for more of the same? What is he going on about?

I know where Palin stands and I don't want to go there, but I have no idea in Hell where Obama stands.

Convince me, one way or the other. The caveats are - I want facts, not rumors. If you cite National Enquirer or some other tabloid rag or some extreme liberal or conservative source, I will disregard your arguments.

I'm caught between my son and daughter right now, she's an Air Force Officer who seems to be veering towards Obama, he's an engineer he thinks Palin is wonderful.

Vote third party. If more people did that we could send some sort of message to the Republicans and the Democrats that the populace knows they're destroying this country and care not for the Constitution or Declaration of Independence or anything that we were founded on and instead care only about their pockets. Maybe too idealist per say but I'm not voting for either. I detest McCain because he's no Republican. I'd rather have Dubyah than him and yes I know what that means, McCain is literally that bad. I won't vote for Obama either because I just loathe socialism.

I'll bold the ones I don't like or care about.

(Kind of ridiculous how Leftists call pro-life people " anti-choice". I don't see Rightists calling pro-choice people "pro-death" or something stupid like that....Honestly how can you ask for respect if you in turn are not respectful?

Because generally speaking, the position taken IS anti-choice.

I, for example, would call myself both pro-choice and pro-life. By that I mean that I favor life in general, would say that we should probably not allow abortions--except for medical purposes--beyond the point of first brain activity in the fetus, and am quite the pacifist(if a realistic one that will use violence if he has to but will exhaust all other options first), highly emphasize adoption and other methods for dealing with potentially unwanted children, etc etc.

On that same token, I also recognize my personal opinion on how and under what circumstances abortions should be performed is irrelevent, since I am not female. Further, I am an avid feminist and I firmly believe women should have control over their own bodies as much as men have control over theirs.

One can be pro-life and still be pro-choice, no matter how one defines pro-life. Trying to make abortion illegal means one is against giving women the choice at all, which makes them anti-choice. It's not disrespectful. It's the truth.

I don't see Rightists calling pro-choice people "pro-death" or something stupid like that....Honestly how can you ask for respect if you in turn are not respectful?

Then you've missed some of what antiabortion activists are writing. "Anti-life" is a reasonably common epithet for their opposite numbers. Less common but hardly unheard of is suggesting that Liberalism is a "death cult".

Life and Choice are not opposites. This is what happens when you fall asleep at the wheel of language and allow false dichotomies like this to flourish.

Pro-abortion,
Anti-abortion.

THOSE are opposites. It's as simple as that.

While I'm at it, the Inheritance Tax is not the "death tax".
Repealing an unwise tax cut is not raising taxes, but restoring them.
Ron Paul is not a Libertarian, he's a walking burrito.

(Kind of ridiculous how Leftists call pro-life people " anti-choice". I don't see Rightists calling pro-choice people "pro-death" or something stupid like that....Honestly how can you ask for respect if you in turn are not respectful?

Pro-life people are not necessarily anti-choice. It is perfectly possible to be both pro-life and pro-choice on the topic of abortion. People who actually recognize the fact that you can have an opinion about what people should do without supporting legislation of that opinion thus tend to look for a term that actually describes the position being discussed.

Those who support a ban on abortion are opposed to women having the choice available to them, so framing it in that light isn't wrong. In fact, it is much more descriptive of the position in question. Another useful term could be pro-ban.

Laissez-faire worked well... Dirty, poor citizens, extreme gap between rich and poor...
LG had no trouble finding mud.... a little trouble getting a good taco, but you can't have everything....

Far be it from me to argue history with a self-proclaimed historian, but could you please identify for us when exactly was this Golden Age of American history where Libertarian policies made us stable, prosperous, and freer?

The ratshit, cyanide, and human finger sausage time!

I won't vote for Obama either because I just loathe socialism.

PROTIP: Voting in Obama won't bring about socialism in America. So you're safe there.

PROTIP: Voting in Obama won't bring about socialism in America. So you're safe there.

Of course it will. He's a dirty commie.

Of course it will. He's a dirty commie.
He's a socialist in the pocket of the big-money lobbyists, an atheist Muslim who goes to a radical black-racist church, an elitist raised by a welfare queen!

PROTIP: Voting in Obama won't bring about socialism in America. So you're safe there.

I'm beginning to wonder if anyone actually knows what socialism means.

He's a socialist in the pocket of the big-money lobbyists, an atheist Muslim who goes to a radical black-racist church, an elitist raised by a welfare queen!

Which also makes him a flip flopper, don't forget!

:D

Of course it will. He's a dirty commie.
Wasn't that Hillary? I think Celtlund told me that...

He's a socialist in the pocket of the big-money lobbyists, an atheist Muslim who goes to a radical black-racist church, an elitist raised by a welfare queen!
And he's a sexist bent on destroying America too! Don't forget!

I'm beginning to wonder if anyone actually knows what socialism means.
In American Politics, it seems to mean "Not a republican".

McCain jumped on the change train not too long ago, so that's not really a good reason to speak negatively about that Muslim guy.

And yet he wants to cut spending, and the Democratic candidate does not, despite the fact that nation is up to its armpits in debt.

Counterintuitive though it may sound, cutting spending isn't necessarily the actual answer to debt. It certainly is not always the best.

I'll bold the ones I don't like or care about.

(Kind of ridiculous how Leftists call pro-life people " anti-choice". I don't see Rightists calling pro-choice people "pro-death" or something stupid like that....Honestly how can you ask for respect if you in turn are not respectful?

The 'pro-choice' platform is not comprised of people that want to see foetuses strewn from kerb to kerb. People often oppose abortion as a conscience choice, but believe that it is not up to THEM to legislate whether someone else should be allowed to make that choice for themselves. They are subverting their OWN position vis-a-vis abortion, to make the platform for choice.

Hence - the position is most accurately described as 'pro-Choice'.

On the other side of the debate, there is only a very tiny minority (who call themselves advocates of "Consistent Life Ethic") that have any real right to the "Pro-Life" name. Because, for the most part, abortion is an exception rather than a rule, for most of the 'pro-life' camp. Many support a Death Penalty, many do not oppose war, some have no such strong stand on euthanasia. Almost all are ONLY concerned about HUMAN life.

As such, 'Pro-life' is - to a greater extent, dishonest. A more appropriate term would be 'anti-abortion', but it's politically expedient to declare yourself 'pro-' something.

The 'pro-choice' platform is not comprised of people that want to see foetuses strewn from kerb to kerb. People often oppose abortion as a conscience choice, but believe that it is not up to THEM to legislate whether someone else should be allowed to make that choice for themselves. They are subverting their OWN position vis-a-vis abortion, to make the platform for choice.

Hence - the position is most accurately described as 'pro-Choice'.

On the other side of the debate, there is only a very tiny minority (who call themselves advocates of "Consistent Life Ethic") that have any real right to the "Pro-Life" name. Because, for the most part, abortion is an exception rather than a rule, for most of the 'pro-life' camp. Many support a Death Penalty, many do not oppose war, some have no such strong stand on euthanasia. Almost all are ONLY concerned about HUMAN life.

As such, 'Pro-life' is - to a greater extent, dishonest. A more appropriate term would be 'anti-abortion', but it's politically expedient to declare yourself 'pro-' something.

I've long since argued that we should refer to each side as "Pro-babykilling Asshats" and "Anti-Liberty Assholes"

The gold standard didn't work... Right... Take a look at the state of the dollar now and then look at it when we had the gold standard... The difference is as clear as clear eyes.

Laissez-faire worked well... America in the early 20th century was the same as any industralizing nation... Dirty, poor citizens, extreme gap between rich and poor (which government programs have DEFINTELY not solved), and so on and so forth. The standard of living rises naturally over time and there's no way to prove that government regulation made America more prosperous

America was stable and prosperous before the government became omnipresent... Right now, our economy is going down the toilet and the government's solution is to offer an umbrella for what's quickly turning into a hurricane.

The freer the market, the freer the people, that's all I'm going to say.



There's a reson the gold standard is no longer used in any nation of consequence and it's not because of some nefarious plot to use the Federal Reserve to create a New World Order and make us all slaves to the Owl God Moloch (there are some people who believe this:tongue:).

Also, American prosperity, much like European prosperity, was built behind a wall of protective tariffs and subsidies.

(Kind of ridiculous how Leftists call pro-life people " anti-choice". I don't see Rightists calling pro-choice people "pro-death" or something stupid like that....Honestly how can you ask for respect if you in turn are not respectful?

I've heard many Rightists calling pro-choice people pro-death. Pot. Kettle. Black.

... uhu...

But he's not actually Libertarian...

Neither am I.

[he's just anti-spending money on things he doesn't particularly like,

He appears to be for cutting spending in just about everything.

and not in a 'state's rights' kind of way.

Since I think "states' rights" are a load of nonsense, this does not bother me.

Counterintuitive though it may sound, cutting spending isn't necessarily the actual answer to debt.

It helps.

It certainly is not always the best.

And what is the best, exactly? Taxing more?

I've long since argued that we should refer to each side as "Pro-babykilling Asshats" and "Anti-Liberty Assholes"

Which I remain to be convinced would be helping in any way.

It helps.


Not necessarily.


And what is the best, exactly? Taxing more?

It could be. Far more important than just slashing expenditure, is to make sure you're spending appropriately.

Let me bring this down to a sort of personal-finances level, to make the illustration very simple and obvious.

Example:

My income, for the sake of example, is $500 per week.
My NECESSARY costs are, again, for the sake of example, $600 per week.
My discretionary expenses are, for the sake of argument, another $400 per week.


As you can see, simply cutting expenditure where it CAN be cut, still leaves me digging deeper into debt.

Even if I arrange to not pay... say... the electric this week, I will STILL have to pay for it in another week. Offsetting payments doesn't help, overall.

So - how can I get out of that spiral?

I could reduce my necessary costs. Like... by moving out of my house to live on the street. Not the best solution, not the most practical... and it doesn't carry very well to the bigger scale. The US can't 'move out of it's house'.

That leaves me with having to increase the amount of income.

Changing jobs might be an option - but often involves a period of even bigger hurt. (Multiply that up to a nation, and consider how to re-tool an entire country?)

Now, it could just so happen that I know someone who is selling a clapped-out old VW Bug for $300. I also know someone who is willing to spend $600 to buy a VW bug.

The logical course of action is to actually INCREASE my expenditure in certain areas.

I've long since argued that we should refer to each side as "Pro-babykilling Asshats" and "Anti-Liberty Assholes"

I prefer the less-loaded "abortion-rights" vs. "anti-abortion", but your suggestion, if adopted widely, might actually get people to shut up about the issue. In my current state of termagantry, this appears to be an unalloyed good.

Yes, I just made that word up. I have no idea what the correct form is.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/service/

That's the first thing that I bring up when someone asks about Obama's "change" mantra. He wants Americans to do more for their country, and that message is resonating with many people...myself included.

"Yes WE can" is supposed to be taken literally. ;)
A few questions and points:
1) What if I don't want to get involved in my community? I hate most of the people I encounter in my everyday life because they tend to be improbably unimaginably stupid. How will I benefit from this when I desire as little contact with my neighbors as possible?
2) Who'll be picking up the check? Remember that the rich do not have an infinite supply of dosh and tend to spread at least some of their fortunes to their underlings. I'm not saying that those with the least should be taxed the most but it's not a good idea to douse the hand that feeds you with gasoline and watch it go up in a bubbly, putrid flash no matter how good that might make you feel in the heat of the moment and charred flesh.
3) "Engage Retiring Americans in Service on a Large Scale: Older Americans have a wide range of skills and knowledge to contribute. Obama and Biden will expand and improve programs that connect individuals over the age of 55 to quality volunteer opportunities." Seriously? Do you really think the first thing I want to do when I retire is go back to work except not get paid for it? How a-boot you?
4) "Require 100 Hours of Service in College" sounds a lot like forced labor in exchange for a sheepskin. And it exploits the poor because only they would need the $4000 tax credit.
5) "Obama and Biden will set a goal that all middle and high school students do 50 hours of community service a year." I did community service once in junior high. It was punishment for getting dragged into a fight. Again, forced labor and it will be viewed by most of the students as punishment.
6) "Expand YouthBuild Program". I wouldn't trust most people to know the business end of a hammer. I certainly wouldn't want to have them meandering around the construction site for one of my buildings breaking drill bits and shooting each other with nail guns. Wait, scratch that last one. I would like them to shoot each other with nailguns, just not on my or a client's property.
7) All the talk on his page about jobs is focused on keeping jobs here. Fact is the reason a lot of jobs are being exported is because it's cheaper and easier to have a robot in some other country manufacture our goods or have a dozen people man a phone bank. How will the country hope to move forward or compete in the international market if we cling to obsolete practices? Besides, free and open trade provides nations with incentive not to go to war.

There's more of his platform that I disagree with, most of it is primarily a cost issue though quite a bit I don't like because it's overly optomistic. He seems to be a wide-eyed dreamer unconcerned with the nitty-gritty details required to make anything work. In short, he's all flash and no substance and hardly the agent of change his aides and party have tried to make him seem.

As for McCain, I don't think it's fair to say he'll die in office. I do think it's fair to say the man draws a blank on economics. His site has a better stance with global trade policies but I've got a funny feeling that it was written by his aides. There's some more points of disagreement I'd like to dredge up but it's getting late.

3) "Engage Retiring Americans in Service on a Large Scale: Older Americans have a wide range of skills and knowledge to contribute. Obama and Biden will expand and improve programs that connect individuals over the age of 55 to quality volunteer opportunities." Seriously? Do you really think the first thing I want to do when I retire is go back to work except not get paid for it? How a-boot you?

Actually, boredom is one of the biggest problems after retirement. A lot of seniors get into volunteer work because they want something to do and prefer it to be something that helps others. So why shouldn't we make it easier for them to find those opportunities?

4) "Require 100 Hours of Service in College" sounds a lot like forced labor in exchange for a sheepskin. And it exploits the poor because only they would need the $4000 tax credit.

Only the poor need the tax credit? Is "middle class" now synonymous with "poor"?

It's more like "only the rich don't need the tax credit."

5) "Obama and Biden will set a goal that all middle and high school students do 50 hours of community service a year." I did community service once in junior high. It was punishment for getting dragged into a fight. Again, forced labor and it will be viewed by most of the students as punishment.

They often view going to class as punishment too. What's your point?

7) All the talk on his page about jobs is focused on keeping jobs here. Fact is the reason a lot of jobs are being exported is because it's cheaper and easier to have a robot in some other country manufacture our goods or have a dozen people man a phone bank. How will the country hope to move forward or compete in the international market if we cling to obsolete practices? Besides, free and open trade provides nations with incentive not to go to war.

Of course, we aren't talking about a robot in another country. We're talking about human beings who will agree to work for much, much less a day than human beings who happen to be in the US.

What was that you said above about exploiting the poor?

There's more of his platform that I disagree with, most of it is primarily a cost issue though quite a bit I don't like because it's overly optomistic. He seems to be a wide-eyed dreamer unconcerned with the nitty-gritty details required to make anything work. In short, he's all flash and no substance and hardly the agent of change his aides and party have tried to make him seem.

He may not be as good as his party has tried to make him seem (is there a politician who is?), but he's certainly not a "wide-eyed dreamer unconcerned with the nitty-gritty details", which is what the opposing party has tried to make him out to be.

A few questions and points:
1) What if I don't want to get involved in my community? I hate most of the people I encounter in my everyday life because they tend to be improbably unimaginably stupid. How will I benefit from this when I desire as little contact with my neighbors as possible?

Without being able to speak to the particulars of your community, you'll enjoy the benefits of other people getting involved. Benefiting from other people's involvement doesn't necessarily mean having them over to your house for coffee -- you benefit by, say, having a better school in your community, or a cleaner park, or fewer hungry people.

2) Who'll be picking up the check? Remember that the rich do not have an infinite supply of dosh and tend to spread at least some of their fortunes to their underlings. I'm not saying that those with the least should be taxed the most but it's not a good idea to douse the hand that feeds you with gasoline and watch it go up in a bubbly, putrid flash no matter how good that might make you feel in the heat of the moment and charred flesh.

This is a point that deserves its own thread (and probably has at least a dozen devoted to it on NSG alone,) because the questions of the ideal tax rate and which tax structures produce an ideal outcome are both philosophical and economic (for starters, what's an ideal outcome?). Part of Obama's proposal is to raise taxes on higher-income earners. It's true that this makes the tax structure more progressive than it currently is, but despite critics' claims of "class warfare" this would hardly be even close to the highest tax burden that high-income earners have faced in the US. More than that I'm hesitant to dive into, as again, this really deserves its own thread.

Unless your question was "who's going to pay for the expansion of Americorps and for volunteer-coordination programs?" Americorps's current budget -- which includes support for volunteers and grants to local community organizations, since a large part of what Americorps does is provide volunteers to non-government organizations -- is about $550 million. This is about 0.1% of the discretionary portion of the federal budget (or about 0.02% of the total federal budget, or an even smaller percentage of what the government actually spends.) Tripling the size of Americorps isn't completely trivial, but it's hardly a major cause of the deficit. A better question isn't whether it's too costly but whether it's effective, and Obama's plan sounds like they want to return it to its original mission, which was to encourage volunteers to serve in areas which traditionally don't get enough (or any) volunteers.

3) "Engage Retiring Americans in Service on a Large Scale: Older Americans have a wide range of skills and knowledge to contribute. Obama and Biden will expand and improve programs that connect individuals over the age of 55 to quality volunteer opportunities." Seriously? Do you really think the first thing I want to do when I retire is go back to work except not get paid for it? How a-boot you?

Lots of seniors do. The social and psychological benefits they get out of interacting with their community and doing work that actually interests them (as opposed to their job) is worth their time. It's not everybody's preference, which is why it's not currently, and wouldn't be, a mandatory program -- hence the term "volunteer".

4) "Require 100 Hours of Service in College" sounds a lot like forced labor in exchange for a sheepskin. And it exploits the poor because only they would need the $4000 tax credit.

That's true if you regard any sort of community service work (even 2.5 weeks per year) as some sort of punishment. A number of universities don't, and either encourage or require students to do some sort of service work as part of their undergraduate experience. Many students find work somehow related to their studies (e.g. finance majors help with financial-literacy programs for kids or the elderly.) This would expand the idea to a national scale. It also answers one of the criticisms of Americorps, which is that the volunteers they attract don't use their educational subsidy. By making it a tax credit that everyone can take advantage of only if they go to college, rather than a subsidy given out to a local organization for its volunteers and not always recovered if unused, the government's not spending money it doesn't have to.

Also, based on my experience with the finances of very rich people, very rich people don't like paying college tuition any more than the rest of us do. Any tax credit they can take advantage of, they will, especially since they pay more in taxes than John Q. Starvingstudent. That's why so many recent taxpayer sops show up as tax credits, which benefit people who actually pay taxes, rather than adjustments, deductions, or exemptions. Republicans like tax credits. It's not at all evident that it's exploiting poor people.

5) "Obama and Biden will set a goal that all middle and high school students do 50 hours of community service a year." I did community service once in junior high. It was punishment for getting dragged into a fight. Again, forced labor and it will be viewed by most of the students as punishment.

Again, if all the kids are doing it together and it's worked into the curriculum, it's a class project, not a punishment. The point of promoting volunteerism at an early age is to get people comfortable with the idea of volunteering, and ideally to reduce the need for Americorps's subsidies over time. It's a very conservative idea, really.

6) "Expand YouthBuild Program". I wouldn't trust most people to know the business end of a hammer. I certainly wouldn't want to have them meandering around the construction site for one of my buildings breaking drill bits and shooting each other with nail guns. Wait, scratch that last one. I would like them to shoot each other with nailguns, just not on my or a client's property.

Obviously you have much more experience in construction than I do, so perhaps you could help me out here: how do your workers learn construction skills in the first place? My understanding has always been that trade school only teaches you so much -- a big part of a worker's education comes through an apprenticeship or on-the-job training of some sort, no? And YouthBuild is a program that provides that.

7) All the talk on his page about jobs is focused on keeping jobs here. Fact is the reason a lot of jobs are being exported is because it's cheaper and easier to have a robot in some other country manufacture our goods or have a dozen people man a phone bank. How will the country hope to move forward or compete in the international market if we cling to obsolete practices? Besides, free and open trade provides nations with incentive not to go to war.

This is another big question that needs its own thread, but neither demand-siders nor supply-siders believe that the US economy can function if all outsourcable jobs are outsourced overseas and we get by on healthcare, construction and cosmetology. Most of what I see on http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/ is about encouraging the innovation and entrepreneurship that is basically the US's only competitive advantage, coupled with support for free trade agreements. I don't see how this is "clinging to obsolete practices". Perhaps you saw something I didn't?

There's more of his platform that I disagree with, most of it is primarily a cost issue though quite a bit I don't like because it's overly optimistic. He seems to be a wide-eyed dreamer unconcerned with the nitty-gritty details required to make anything work. In short, he's all flash and no substance and hardly the agent of change his aides and party have tried to make him seem.

You're right, Obama's plan does appear to involve more government spending than McCain's does. I say "appear" because I think the policies of the Republican Party, which McCain has largely adopted in substance (rhetoric aside) have a lot more to do with making costs less visible than they do with reducing them. The two biggest examples of this are healthcare policy and irresponsible deficit spending.

Obviously the "overly optimistic" and "all flash and no substance" complaints aren't something that I can address point-by-point -- I can only say that in my opinion, Obama has been about as specific in his campaign as any major-party candidate in the 20th or 21st centuries. As with all of the other candidates this election cycle, much of the more substantive stuff he's said has been under- or un-reported as few people want to read about it. There's a natural selection in the news cycle for stories that engage the emotions rather than the intellect. What else is new?

As for optimism, that's a matter of taste. Many of the US's greatest presidents (whether they used their powers for good or ill) have been contagious optimists, from the Roosevelts to Reagan. Optimism is the source of the President's power to inspire people, which is essentially the basis of his power, period. In domestic matters he has only the power that he can convince Congress to give him, and in foreign matters...well, we've seen the limits of what the all-stick-and-no-carrot system can accomplish.

I see Obama as a pragmatic optimist, and that's probably because I'm from Chicago. As you may know, our local politics stink to high heaven. (This is one reason we take community organizers pretty seriously, as they're often Average Joe's only hope for speaking up to the Machine.) Obama has managed to negotiate with both the mayor and the governor without becoming consumed by the corrupting stench leaching from both of those offices, and nobody does that by being naive. One local columnist suggested that Obama's interactions with the mayor's office shouldn't be held against him -- they were preparation for negotiating with Iran and other rogue states. That's a bit of comic hyperbole, but it's got a grain of truth as well.

McCain has been at his best when he's been optimistic, himself, but sadly in this campaign he's ceded that ground to Obama and has decided to run on people's fears. It's quite possible that he'll become more optimistic if he's elected, but I've seen no indication that that'll be the case

Demipublicants and Trans Fatty Acids addressed this post quite thoroughly, but I'll respond briefly as well.

A few questions and points:
1) What if I don't want to get involved in my community?

Then don't.

2) Who'll be picking up the check?.

If your talking about spending as a whole, your grandchildren...clearly neither party is bothering to address that particular issue.

These service programs are long-term, relatively low-cost intiatives that will hopefully "pay" for themselves in the long run.

3) "Engage Retiring Americans in Service on a Large Scale: Older Americans have a wide range of skills and knowledge to contribute. Obama and Biden will expand and improve programs that connect individuals over the age of 55 to quality volunteer opportunities." Seriously? Do you really think the first thing I want to do when I retire is go back to work except not get paid for it?

No way to know for sure...unless you ask.

4) "Require 100 Hours of Service in College" sounds a lot like forced labor in exchange for a sheepskin. And it exploits the poor because only they would need the $4000 tax credit.

That tax credit works out to $40 per hour, which is more than I've ever made in my life. I think most college students would be more than happy to take advantage of such an opportunity.

5) "Obama and Biden will set a goal that all middle and high school students do 50 hours of community service a year." I did community service once in junior high. It was punishment for getting dragged into a fight. Again, forced labor and it will be viewed by most of the students as punishment.

If we worried about what high-school students considered punishment, school would last from 10am to 1pm, and there would never be homework.

I don't know about where you live, but in my area there are already standards at the local and state level that encourage or require some level of community service. How exactly would a federal initiative in this area be harmful?

6) "Expand YouthBuild Program". I wouldn't trust most people to know the business end of a hammer. I certainly wouldn't want to have them meandering around the construction site for one of my buildings breaking drill bits and shooting each other with nail guns. Wait, scratch that last one. I would like them to shoot each other with nailguns, just not on my or a client's property.

Shop class kids in my school worked on home construction as a part of the class...most of them weren't top level students, but they were hardlly walking disaster areas.

7) All the talk on his page about jobs is focused on keeping jobs here. Fact is the reason a lot of jobs are being exported is because it's cheaper and easier to have a robot in some other country manufacture our goods or have a dozen people man a phone bank. How will the country hope to move forward or compete in the international market if we cling to obsolete practices? Besides, free and open trade provides nations with incentive not to go to war.

That's a whole thread in and of itself, and it's late, so I'll save that one for another day.

Without being able to speak to the particulars of your community, you'll enjoy the benefits of other people getting involved. Benefiting from other people's involvement doesn't necessarily mean having them over to your house for coffee -- you benefit by, say, having a better school in your community, or a cleaner park, or fewer hungry people.
I repeat: I hate most of the people that live near me because they are pants-on-head retarded. Honestly, most of the people I have encountered in my daily life are not capable of performing even the simplest tasks. This even extends to co-workers. I don't want to get involved and would not benefit from it in any way.

This is a point that deserves its own thread...
Agreed. Would you care to start one?

It's just that I have a problem with the idea of trying to say how much of a profit is too much. Especially when those that promote that sort of idea aren't consistant or single out one company.

I'm sick of the demonization of the Big Oil boogy-man. They're just a company trying to turn a profit like any other. So what if they're really big? Without big businesses we wouldn't have cars or computers or a lot of the stuff we take for granted and rely on heavily in our daily lives. Big business is a good thing and the hatred of it is fueled by jealousy.

Lots of seniors do. The social and psychological benefits they get out of interacting with their community and doing work that actually interests them (as opposed to their job) is worth their time. It's not everybody's preference, which is why it's not currently, and wouldn't be, a mandatory program -- hence the term "volunteer".
-I won't be one of them.
-You have no hard data to back that up and you won't because there is no unit for social success or personal happiness.
-If Obama plans to "Require 100 Hours of Service in College" and demand "50 hours of community service a year" from all middle and high school students then it's seems like mandatory volunteering for even the elderly could be a possibility.

That's true if you regard any sort of community service work (even 2.5 weeks per year) as some sort of punishment...
My point is that requiring community service of anyone is wrong. It's not volunteering if you don't have a choice in the matter.

Again, if all the kids are doing it together and it's worked into the curriculum, it's a class project, not a punishment. The point of promoting volunteerism at an early age is to get people comfortable with the idea of volunteering...
When the work is required then it isn't volunteering, it's forced labor. There's a word for forced laborers: slaves. Choice is what seperates men from slaves. A man chooses, a slave obeys. It doesn't matter if it's King Cotton cracking a whip or a Crookston cop holding a gun to your head, slavery is slavery.


Obviously you have much more experience in construction than I do, so perhaps you could help me out here: how do your workers learn construction skills in the first place?
I've always been technically-minded but to really learn the tools and practices of the trade I needed to go to school. I wouldn't want someone unless they had an education from an acredited school or could demonstrate that they have necessary knowledge.

My understanding has always been that trade school only teaches you so much -- a big part of a worker's education comes through an apprenticeship or on-the-job training of some sort, no?
Not an inaccurate assesment. My education provided me with the knowledge and skills to do the job but experience really helps.

And YouthBuild is a program that provides that.
The level of stupidity required to text on phones while driving is bad enough in my book to justify tossing the idiot kids in jail and welding the door shut. I wouldn't want those kids because they wouldn't be much help and they'd be too busy typing on their phones to learn anything.

This is another big question that needs its own thread, but neither demand-siders nor supply-siders believe that the US economy can function if all outsourcable jobs are outsourced overseas and we get by on healthcare, construction and cosmetology. Most of what I see on http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/ is about encouraging the innovation and entrepreneurship that is basically the US's only competitive advantage, coupled with support for free trade agreements. I don't see how this is "clinging to obsolete practices". Perhaps you saw something I didn't?
"End Tax Breaks for Companies that Send Jobs Overseas", "Reward Companies that Support American Workers" and what has been said is speeches is isolationist.

It just doesn't make sense anymore to have someone manually weld a car frame on an assembly line. Those kinds of jobs are going or gone and are not coming back. We don't need telemarketers in America anymore, they can be replaced by machines or people in other countries.

One of the potential effects of punishing companies for participating in international free trade is that we could lose some of our foothold in the global market. Another is that it could make the world more unstable. You see, the French and the English have gone to war about ever 20 minutes for the past 800 years. They still hate each other but they've learned not to swing the axe now that they're trading because it could spell fiscal doom for both sides. The only way to get long-term peace is through financial inter-dependance, take that away and people won't have much reason to ignore their differences.

You're right, Obama's plan does appear to involve more government spending than McCain's does. I say "appear" because I think the policies of the Republican Party, which McCain has largely adopted in substance (rhetoric aside) have a lot more to do with making costs less visible than they do with reducing them. The two biggest examples of this are healthcare policy and irresponsible deficit spending.
Oh don't think I'm happy with the alternative. McCain has bought into this volunteerism stuff too I didn't see anything about forced labor when I skimmed his service page.

It's just that I can't stand Obamania for the same reason that I can't stand religion: it's all smoke and mirrors, demands personal sacrifice, and that people run around trying to convert the blasphemers. I don't mind personal sacrifice so long as I make the call and missionaries annoy me.

Obviously the "overly optimistic" and "all flash and no substance" complaints aren't something that I can address point-by-point -- I can only say that in my opinion, Obama has been about as specific in his campaign as any major-party candidate in the 20th or 21st centuries.
I made a thread a while back about something he said in a speech. Something along the lines of 'we need a civilian national security force just as strong and well-funded as the military'. That would be an additional $500 billion a year. How can anyone justify that kind of expense? Especially when we already have non-military national security agencies? That's the kind of thing I'm talking about, he's throwing things out there in speeches because of how they sound without considering how they'll be acccomplished.

As with all of the other candidates this election cycle, much of the more substantive stuff he's said has been under- or un-reported as few people want to read about it.
You're right, he was given a free pass on a lot of questionable campaign promises by a swooning news media.

As for optimism, that's a matter of taste...Optimism is the source of the President's power to inspire people, which is essentially the basis of his power, period.
Optomists don't have backup plans. A good engineer is always at least a little conservative if only on paper. I think that also goes for pretty much everyone else. If you think you'll succeed and you do then great, but if you don't then you're in trouble. Be a pessimist, you'll have a plan and you won't be disapointed as often.