Archive

Can we just shut the government down already?

  • Heretic
    Well, I'd say that in this current era of government shutdown because neither side is willing to work with each other, but all too willing to put all the blame on the other...that if the Libertarian's (or really, any third option) don't gain substantial traction, it'd be easy to write off the people in general as being too stupid to deserve to exist.

    Government of today is ruled by divisiveness and a desire to stomp out the other side, which leads to completely ineffective stalemates, showing the inherent flaws to the two-party system.
  • gut
    pmoney25;1516447 wrote:My hope is that with the disaster that is our government, it can create some sort of momentum for a legitimate third party.
    Can you imagine how big of a failure these clowns would be when they'd have to build coalitions across party lines to pass anything at all?

    You know what else is funny? Reid, Pelosi and Bush passed 2 budgets...but Reid, Pelosi and Obama couldn't pass one.
  • gut
    Heretic;1516465 wrote: Government of today is ruled by divisiveness and a desire to stomp out the other side....
    That's a relatively new phenomena ushered in by the authoritarian regime of Obama, Reid and Pelosi. When those 3 are gone watch how much American politics improve (it will still suck, but not nearly this bad).
  • O-Trap
    gut;1516476 wrote:That's a relatively new phenomena ushered in by the authoritarian regime of Obama, Reid and Pelosi. When those 3 are gone watch how much American politics improve (it will still suck, but not nearly this bad).
    You dont remember the Bush administration, do you?
  • QuakerOats
    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/10/10/Obama-balks-at-Boehner-s-debt-ceiling-offer


    obama: the dictator of 'no'
  • gut
    O-Trap;1516481 wrote:You dont remember the Bush administration, do you?
    You mean Bush I and the infamous "gridlock" I assume? Still wasn't this bad - they were passing budgets at least...The rhetoric is also a whole new level of ugly.
  • O-Trap
    gut;1516485 wrote:You mean Bush I and the infamous "gridlock" I assume? Still wasn't this bad - they were passing budgets at least...The rhetoric is also a whole new level of ugly.
    I'd submit that Bush 2 was more divisive than Bush 1, gridlock be damned. I'd say Bush 2 was as divisive a political leader as Obama, or at best, he was indistinguishably close to it.

    I've never heard so many comparisons to the "antichrist" as the last two.
  • jmog
    Imagine that, the Rs offer exactly what Obama wanted, a "clean" debt ceiling increase and he said no...

    Please can someone explain to me how all of this crap is the Rs fault again?
  • pmoney25
    BGFalcons82;1516460 wrote:Weird. Don't you have disdain for Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, and yet, they are the closest politicians to Libertarian views than anyone else?

    I agree the Libertarian movement has gained traction and it is making an impact on the Republican Party. I would also offer that the ObamaKare implementation and unworldly price hikes discovered over the past couple weeks have opened a lot of eyes of people that are sympathetic to Libertarian views. The Syrian "non-intervention" votes against Barry are also a stip in the right direction for Libertarian ideals. Yes, baby steps for now, but they were unheard of 5 years ago.
    I have no disdain for Rand Paul. Does he go far enough to my liking? No. I like him more than Cruz. I obviously am a bigger fan of his dad. Rand has some moments when he tows the Establishment line but for the most part if he were to run, I probably would vote for him unless there was a yet unknown stronger candidate who is closer to my beliefs. For some reason Cruz just seems like a snake to me. Probably because he is a lawyer.
  • WebFire
    pmoney25;1516513 wrote:I have no disdain for Rand Paul. Does he go far enough to my liking? No. I like him more than Cruz. I obviously am a bigger fan of his dad. Rand has some moments when he tows the Establishment line but for the most part if he were to run, I probably would vote for him unless there was a yet unknown stronger candidate who is closer to my beliefs. For some reason Cruz just seems like a snake to me. Probably because he is a lawyer.
    Take what you can get though. Paul towing the Establishment line sometimes is what will help him get elected. That will get some of the influence in the WH and able to be built on.
  • gut
    O-Trap;1516490 wrote:I'd submit that Bush 2 was more divisive than Bush 1, gridlock be damned. I'd say Bush 2 was as divisive a political leader as Obama, or at best, he was indistinguishably close to it.

    I've never heard so many comparisons to the "antichrist" as the last two.
    I don't think Bush was overly divisive - again, Congress managed to pass 2 budgets with Pelosi and Reid in control. Unpopular policies is quite a bit different than being divisive.

    Bush IMO was not divisive, but was vilified for the direction the country took and the way certain policies were executed. However he was consistently able to get broad bipartisan support for his policies (except, oddly enough, when it came to attempts at reigning in Fannie and Freddie).

    I don't think there is really a fair comparison - Bush did not demagogue opposition or dissent. He didn't push phony "wars on women...war on minorities...war on gays...". There was the whole "unpatriotic if you don't support the wars", but I can't recall actual Republican leadership saying such things (well, maybe Rumsfeld and Cheney did). Obama didn't start out that way, either (with the exception of his crusade against Fox from the beginning). But he's pretty clearly now in the Chicago politic mode of gaining support not thru ideas, but by giving them something to hate about your opponent.
  • gut
    WebFire;1516516 wrote:Take what you can get though. Paul towing the Establishment line sometimes is what will help him get elected. That will get some of the influence in the WH and able to be built on.
    Yep, it's why Ron Paul was completely unelectable but Rand Paul could be very electable. Rand at least is not outwardly extreme and is willing to pick his battles.
  • pmoney25
    WebFire;1516516 wrote:Take what you can get though. Paul towing the Establishment line sometimes is what will help him get elected. That will get some of the influence in the WH and able to be built on.
    I know and that is why I would vote for him out of the current potential GOP candidates in the upcoming primaries. Honestly, if I weren't comparing him to his dad, I probably would like him more.
  • gut
    pmoney25;1516531 wrote:I know and that is why I would vote for him out of the current potential GOP candidates in the upcoming primaries. Honestly, if I weren't comparing him to his dad, I probably would like him more.
    I just hope the nominee is not Ted Cruz. Rand Paul seems very genuine. Ted Cruz strikes me as very phony, exactly the sort of politicians we need to cleanse Washington of.
  • WebFire
    gut;1516520 wrote:Yep, it's why Ron Paul was completely unelectable but Rand Paul could be very electable. Rand at least is not outwardly extreme and is willing to pick his battles.
    I really believe Ron Paul ran the last one solely for Rand. He opened the door for him to be "Ron Paul without the extreme", which I think many people will be attracted to. Ron Paul knew he wasn't going to get the nomination, but he did know exactly what he was doing.
  • pmoney25
    WebFire;1516535 wrote:I really believe Ron Paul ran the last one solely for Rand. He opened the door for him to be "Ron Paul without the extreme", which I think many people will be attracted to. Ron Paul knew he wasn't going to get the nomination, but he did know exactly what he was doing.
    I dont really think his ideas were extreme, his demeanor/presentation may have been a bit off putting but his ideas are not really that crazy or far fetched. Rand is much more presentable doesn't give off the quirky old grandpa vibe.
  • O-Trap
    gut;1516517 wrote:I don't think there is really a fair comparison - Bush did not demagogue opposition or dissent.
    [video=youtube;-23kmhc3P8U][/video]

    Perhaps not as skilled with rhetoric or empty speaking skills, but that seems pretty textbook for demagoguery and vilification of opposition or dissent.
    gut;1516517 wrote:He didn't push phony "wars on women...war on minorities...war on gays...". There was the whole "unpatriotic if you don't support the wars", but I can't recall actual Republican leadership saying such things (well, maybe Rumsfeld and Cheney did).
    The "war on terror" was complete fabrication. Terror is not a thing, person, or body against which one can war.

    And whether or not he calls dissenters unpatriotic, he does mock them publicly.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2_C7mhnE34
    gut;1516517 wrote:Obama didn't start out that way, either (with the exception of his crusade against Fox from the beginning). But he's pretty clearly now in the Chicago politic mode of gaining support not thru ideas, but by giving them something to hate about your opponent.
    I don't disagree with that, but it's nothing new.

    http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/wayoflife/08/22/mf.campaign.slurs.slogans/

    Jefferson and Adams were doing it back in the day.
  • O-Trap
    pmoney25;1516544 wrote:I dont really think his ideas were extreme, his demeanor/presentation may have been a bit off putting but his ideas are not really that crazy or far fetched. Rand is much more presentable doesn't give off the quirky old grandpa vibe.
    His ideas actually present a more ideologically consistent governance. However, given that we're accustomed to a lack of such consistency from either party, it probably seems "extreme" in that it doesn't fit either group enough for them to call him one of their own.

    I'm sold on Rand about like I was on Gary Johnson. I'd probably vote for him, but I wouldn't particularly like it. I like some of the things he's said and done enough, but I still have my reservations about him.
  • WebFire
    O-Trap;1516546 wrote:His ideas actually present a more ideologically consistent governance. However, given that we're accustomed to a lack of such consistency from either party, it probably seems "extreme" in that it doesn't fit either group enough for them to call him one of their own.
    This. They are considered extreme because of what we have become. They really shouldn't be extreme though.
  • QuakerOats
    JFk would be considered a conservative republican in today's world ....... gives you an idea of how far left we have shifted. Simply amazing.
  • gut
    O-Trap;1516545 wrote: The "war on terror" was complete fabrication. Terror is not a thing, person, or body against which one can war.
    Who in this country does a war on terror divide? Terrorists?

    Obama has taken it to a whole new level. For starters, he is perpetually campaigning. And he rarely is able to speak at an event without attacking his opposition, and as he's lost moderates and independents he has ramped up the rhetoric to fire up and appeal to his base.

    When Obama speaks, he's often not being presidential but a community agitator. Other POTUS don't do it anywhere to that degree, because they knew they would, and did, have to reach across the aisle and compromise. Obama's tactic has been to demagogue to such extremes that he hopes Repubs just cave and he wouldn't really have to deal with them.

    I mean it's mere coincidence that our country is as divided as ever with a POTUS that has taken being divisive and demagogueing to an astonishingly new level. It's absolutely fraudulent compared to how he presented and sold himself in 2008. And it's also coincidence that it all really started ramping up in 2010 when Repubs took the House and Obama didn't have a Congress to just rubber-stamp his agenda.
  • gut
    pmoney25;1516544 wrote:I dont really think his ideas were extreme..
    At one point Ron Paul advocated a return to the gold standard. Then he became a proponent of the Fair Tax, which would probably be the equivalent of Obamacare for the tax system.

    Whether he went that route to gain momentum for more practical and common sensical approaches, he still attached his name to some pretty absurd policies. I think you have to take that at face value for what it is.
  • QuakerOats
    gut;1516558 wrote:Who in this country does a war on terror divide? Terrorists?

    Obama has taken it to a whole new level. For starters, he is perpetually campaigning. And he rarely is able to speak at an event without attacking his opposition, and as he's lost moderates and independents he has ramped up the rhetoric to fire up and appeal to his base.

    When Obama speaks, he's often not being presidential but a community agitator. Other POTUS don't do it anywhere to that degree, because they knew they would, and did, have to reach across the aisle and compromise. Obama's tactic has been to demagogue to such extremes that he hopes Repubs just cave and he wouldn't really have to deal with them.

    I mean it's mere coincidence that our country is as divided as ever with a POTUS that has taken being divisive and demagogueing to an astonishingly new level. It's absolutely fraudulent compared to how he presented and sold himself in 2008. And it's also coincidence that it all really started ramping up in 2010 when Repubs took the House and Obama didn't have a Congress to just rubber-stamp his agenda.


    Post of the day .........get a beer.
  • O-Trap
    gut;1516558 wrote:Who in this country does a war on terror divide? Terrorists?

    Obama has taken it to a whole new level. For starters, he is perpetually campaigning.

    And he rarely is able to speak at an event without attacking his opposition, and as he's lost moderates and independents he has ramped up the rhetoric to fire up and appeal to his base.

    When Obama speaks, he's often not being presidential but a community agitator. Other POTUS don't do it anywhere to that degree, because they knew they would, and did, have to reach across the aisle and compromise. Obama's tactic has been to demagogue to such extremes that he hopes Repubs just cave and he wouldn't really have to deal with them.

    I mean it's mere coincidence that our country is as divided as ever with a POTUS that has taken being divisive and demagogueing to an astonishingly new level. It's absolutely fraudulent compared to how he presented and sold himself in 2008. And it's also coincidence that it all really started ramping up in 2010 when Repubs took the House and Obama didn't have a Congress to just rubber-stamp his agenda.
    You actually make a compelling case. I believe I might just concede that you are correct.

    I wanted to give special note to this statement: "It's absolutely fraudulent compared to how he presented and sold himself in 2008."

    I submit, for your enjoyment/depression, this:

    [video=youtube;EpLWCvIZDuI][/video]
    gut;1516560 wrote:At one point Ron Paul advocated a return to the gold standard. Then he became a proponent of the Fair Tax, which would probably be the equivalent of Obamacare for the tax system.
    If you mean this functionally, then I'd suggest you're being presumptuous at best. If you're speaking of the electability of a candidate espousing them in light of our contemporary state, then while you have a point, I submit that it ought not be that way.
    gut;1516560 wrote:Whether he went that route to gain momentum for more practical and common sensical approaches, he still attached his name to some pretty absurd policies. I think you have to take that at face value for what it is.
    Policies that either historically worked (or a parallel of them) or are a logically plausible alternative to an income-based tax, which shows no distinction between what a single, 20-something young man with no children buys with his $40,000 salary and what a 40-something, married father of three buys with his $40,000 salary.

    However, I'd agree that we're not a country that could ever pass such laws. We've grown roots around how we've functioned over the last hundred years or so, and changing those foundations would involve ripping out some pretty long-standing roots.
  • gut
    O-Trap;1516575 wrote: Policies that either historically worked (or a parallel of them) or are a logically plausible alternative to an income-based tax, which shows no distinction between what a single, 20-something young man with no children buys with his $40,000 salary and what a 40-something, married father of three buys with his $40,000 salary.
    I certainly favor simplifying the tax code. But FairTax was an absolute abomination. It had a compelling pitch but would have functionally been a disaster on multiple levels, with harmful economic externalities. I studied and debated it fairly extensively on another forum (one of the few times I think I've convinced people on the internet that they were wrong). Suffice to say, it was such an absurd policy that most economists worth a damn summarily dismissed it saying that a 30% rate wasn't even remotely revenue neutral.

    Ultimately the tax code is complex because of redistribution and progressiveness. I don't think that is a bad thing, nor culturally would we be very receptive to a regressive system. Everything you do creates unintentional winners and losers, and then you have to carve out exceptions to address that...and eventually you get what we have.

    Maybe that's the problem, that instead of taking a generally good and generally fair/progressive system, we try to make it all things to all people. Sucks that 5% of people might get screwed, but I'm not sure it's beneficial to have 95% of the tax code trying to redress that 5% (making those numbers up).