Moderator: Community Team
Phatscotty wrote:Well, I was talking to Night Strike, and then you butted in. I was not talking to you before, so yes, you initiating talking to me...
Phatscotty wrote:See? this is just stupid!!!!!!!
ScottyLicious wrote:I understand it seems like the small L libertarians notice they can get elected in the new Republican party, and the capital L libertarians are moving to the third party. But I think we need to come together in a big tent and oppose Obama, because I don't want Obama appointing the next 2 or 3 Supreme Court Justices, as that will probably nail the lid on the casket on any Libertarian issues getting anywhere for the next generation or maybe even 2 generations....
9 minutes ago Ā· Like
BigBallinStalin wrote:The growth of non-libertarian SCJs is encouraged by the current political system, regardless of president, but I see your point and will marginally budge but not quite.
Besides, that growth is affected by the dominant cultural attitudes of most Americans whose good intentions lead them to further increase the government's scope of authority.
It's lose-lose with either political party, so all I can work on is voting independent and encouraging others to be more libertarian/classical liberal.
ScottyLicious wrote:I understand it seems like the small L libertarians notice they can get elected in the new Republican party, and the capital L libertarians are moving to the third party. But I think we need to come together in a big tent and oppose Obama, because I don't want Obama appointing the next 2 or 3 Supreme Court Justices, as that will probably nail the lid on the casket on any Libertarian issues getting anywhere for the next generation or maybe even 2 generations....
9 minutes ago Ā· Like
Woodruff wrote:ScottyLicious wrote:I understand it seems like the small L libertarians notice they can get elected in the new Republican party, and the capital L libertarians are moving to the third party. But I think we need to come together in a big tent and oppose Obama, because I don't want Obama appointing the next 2 or 3 Supreme Court Justices, as that will probably nail the lid on the casket on any Libertarian issues getting anywhere for the next generation or maybe even 2 generations....
9 minutes ago Ā· Like
Is there a reason why you believe that Republicans are more likely to pass Libertarian issues than Democrats? It seems to me that there is a LOT of similarity between liberalism and libertarianism.
(As if Obama or Democratic politicians are particularly liberal.)
Night Strike wrote:Woodruff wrote:ScottyLicious wrote:I understand it seems like the small L libertarians notice they can get elected in the new Republican party, and the capital L libertarians are moving to the third party. But I think we need to come together in a big tent and oppose Obama, because I don't want Obama appointing the next 2 or 3 Supreme Court Justices, as that will probably nail the lid on the casket on any Libertarian issues getting anywhere for the next generation or maybe even 2 generations....
9 minutes ago Ā· Like
Is there a reason why you believe that Republicans are more likely to pass Libertarian issues than Democrats? It seems to me that there is a LOT of similarity between liberalism and libertarianism.
(As if Obama or Democratic politicians are particularly liberal.)
When it comes to fiscal issues, yes, the Republicans are more likely to approve Libertarian issues.
Night Strike wrote:And libertarianism IS similar to classical liberalism; there's just nothing remaining of classical liberalism in the Democratic party.
Night Strike wrote:They've all turned into big-government progressives/statists. And yes, there are some statists in the Republican party too, but because of the Tea Party and Libertarians, they haven't taken complete control of the party.
thegreekdog wrote:I think NS is right that Republicans are more likely THAN DEMOCRATS to decrease spending (the Bush administration notwithstanding). The chances of Democrats to appreciably decrease spending is approximately 0.8%. The chances of Republicans appreciably decreasing spending is 1.4%.
thegreekdog wrote:I think NS is right that Republicans are more likely THAN DEMOCRATS to decrease spending (the Bush administration notwithstanding). The chances of Democrats to appreciably decrease spending is approximately 0.8%. The chances of Republicans appreciably decreasing spending is 1.4%.
Also, I would note that Libertarians and Republicans (including Tea Partiers) differ on some range of fiscal issues.
That being said, fiscal issues are not the only thing that Libertarians stand for.
Night Strike wrote:My evidence is the exact same that you keep ignoring since you've convinced yourself that the Tea Party has been taken over by republicans (and not the other way around). The evidence is that there were people in the House who actually attempted to make some cuts in spending. There is further evidence in several states that have slashed state spending and enacted many other fiscally responsible policies.
Night Strike wrote:There was a good op-ed on Foxnews.com this morning by Judge Napolitano about how the election is between Obama's massive spending and supporters of Bush's massive spending. At this point, I'd much rather return to Bush's massive spending because even that spending is much lower than Obama's spending. In order to return to fiscal sanity, we have to start somewhere. There's just no way we'll be able to start that return under Obama.
thegreekdog wrote:Wait... the Tea Party is for a marriage law and voter identification? I thought they were a libertarian-leaning wing of the Republican party. Explain Phatscotty.
Let me put it another way - the only difference between a Bush Republican and a Tea Party Republican is that Tea Party Republicans think Bush spent too much (but Obama is worse, so we should go back to Bush spending, which was better). That's not a big enough ideological shift for me. And it's not libertarian (by any definition - fiscal or social). So, I'm glad I bowed out of the Tea Party.
Phatscotty wrote:I think Strike touched on the most important part, concerning the Tea Party anyways. Our biggest impact has been at the state and local level. Anyone paying close enough attention can see our impact all across the country on state ballot initiatives, state constitutional amendments, and even a few balanced budgets, including my state. We got a Tea Party Majority in the House and the Senate, and now we boast a surplus, Our guns laws are being relaxed, we are getting voter ID and a marriage amendment, becoming a right to work state, amongst many other positive things. I am seeing a lot of change, right before my very eyes. Might explain why I remain so positive and hopeful for the future and our cause. we are putting up fights against the labor unions and collective bargaining, much like in Wisconsin, but not at the same level. We would be, but our Tea Party candidate for governor lost by 5,000 votes. Interestingly, the third party candidate in my state got 6,000 votes.
Maybe this sheds a little more light on why I have been turned off by third parties over the last year, and why I am going with the big tent philosophy. I see firsthand what we are missing out on, ad how important it is to have an Executive that will be able to work with it's Congress.
That's why Obama needs to go. He will ignore Congress, executive order after executive order. I think Romney can be moved by a Tea Party Congress.
BigBallinStalin wrote:Phatscotty wrote:I think Strike touched on the most important part, concerning the Tea Party anyways. Our biggest impact has been at the state and local level. Anyone paying close enough attention can see our impact all across the country on state ballot initiatives, state constitutional amendments, and even a few balanced budgets, including my state. We got a Tea Party Majority in the House and the Senate, and now we boast a surplus, Our guns laws are being relaxed, we are getting voter ID and a marriage amendment, becoming a right to work state, amongst many other positive things. I am seeing a lot of change, right before my very eyes. Might explain why I remain so positive and hopeful for the future and our cause. we are putting up fights against the labor unions and collective bargaining, much like in Wisconsin, but not at the same level. We would be, but our Tea Party candidate for governor lost by 5,000 votes. Interestingly, the third party candidate in my state got 6,000 votes.
Maybe this sheds a little more light on why I have been turned off by third parties over the last year, and why I am going with the big tent philosophy. I see firsthand what we are missing out on, ad how important it is to have an Executive that will be able to work with it's Congress.
That's why Obama needs to go. He will ignore Congress, executive order after executive order. I think Romney can be moved by a Tea Party Congress.
I think you're overestimating the capability of the minority Tea Party group to effectively implement change within the larger Republican group.
In my view, this is due to two factors: (a) there simply aren't enough Tea Party Congressmembers, and (b) some of the self-avowed Tea Party Congressmembers are false Tea Party members because they apply Tea Party principles selectively--as oppose to "across the board."
Phatscotty wrote:thegreekdog wrote:Wait... the Tea Party is for a marriage law and voter identification? I thought they were a libertarian-leaning wing of the Republican party. Explain Phatscotty.
Let me put it another way - the only difference between a Bush Republican and a Tea Party Republican is that Tea Party Republicans think Bush spent too much (but Obama is worse, so we should go back to Bush spending, which was better). That's not a big enough ideological shift for me. And it's not libertarian (by any definition - fiscal or social). So, I'm glad I bowed out of the Tea Party.
not specifically, but they are conservative values.
Phatscotty wrote:That is the overall point I was making
Phatscotty wrote:my state is moving from a blue state to a red state for the first time since 1984. Those were just 2 of about 6 different things I named. Turning a state from blue to red (no easy task!) is not the answer to everything, but we have to start somewhere no?
Anything that is for spending less, and has a realistic shot and I'm not wasting my time with, is a good start for me.
Phatscotty wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:Phatscotty wrote:I think Strike touched on the most important part, concerning the Tea Party anyways. Our biggest impact has been at the state and local level. Anyone paying close enough attention can see our impact all across the country on state ballot initiatives, state constitutional amendments, and even a few balanced budgets, including my state. We got a Tea Party Majority in the House and the Senate, and now we boast a surplus, Our guns laws are being relaxed, we are getting voter ID and a marriage amendment, becoming a right to work state, amongst many other positive things. I am seeing a lot of change, right before my very eyes. Might explain why I remain so positive and hopeful for the future and our cause. we are putting up fights against the labor unions and collective bargaining, much like in Wisconsin, but not at the same level. We would be, but our Tea Party candidate for governor lost by 5,000 votes. Interestingly, the third party candidate in my state got 6,000 votes.
Maybe this sheds a little more light on why I have been turned off by third parties over the last year, and why I am going with the big tent philosophy. I see firsthand what we are missing out on, ad how important it is to have an Executive that will be able to work with it's Congress.
That's why Obama needs to go. He will ignore Congress, executive order after executive order. I think Romney can be moved by a Tea Party Congress.
I think you're overestimating the capability of the minority Tea Party group to effectively implement change within the larger Republican group.
In my view, this is due to two factors: (a) there simply aren't enough Tea Party Congressmembers, and (b) some of the self-avowed Tea Party Congressmembers are false Tea Party members because they apply Tea Party principles selectively--as oppose to "across the board."
I agree completely, on a Federal level. I have even made that point many times, that there aren't enough tea party members, so the tea party message can only by partially pushed in a divided republican party
Phatscotty wrote:I think a balanced budget signed on Romney desk is a reality in 2013. It might take 10-15 years, but I believe that is what I am fighting for.
Woodruff wrote:Then why are you going on about Romney being moved "by a Tea Party Congress", as if that were about to happen? You seem to be contradicting your own statements again.
Night Strike wrote:Woodruff wrote:Then why are you going on about Romney being moved "by a Tea Party Congress", as if that were about to happen? You seem to be contradicting your own statements again.
The Tea Party people who are currently in Congress have already worked to change the default mode of Congress from "How much should we expand the government by?" to "Should we really be spending all this money?".
Night Strike wrote:Once they get even more support on the federal level, the next step will be to move to "Where should we cut actual spending?" and then eventually to "How do we get this budget balanced?". It has taken decades to get us to these levels of excess spending; you can't expect it to be fixed in just a couple of years. And there is absolutely no chance that we will move down that path with Obama in office. We do have that opportunity with Romney.
Return to Out, out, brief candle!
Users browsing this forum: No registered users