LGP Political Discussion Thread

[shafnutz05]

He WANTS nationalized healthcare, I am not saying he wants it now. And I would absolutely love for you to explain to me how the other points are untrue.

[doublem]

s bought and paid for by labor unions, supports amnesty, supports cap and trade legislation, is a fighter for increased taxes, spends taxpayer dollars like they are going out of style, etc etc etc etc

bought and paid for by labor unions- is not a liberal or conservative issue
supports amnesty- is not a liberal or conservative issue
supports cap and trade legislation- is not a liberal or conservative issue
is a fighter for increased taxes- On who?
spends taxpayer dollars like they are going out of style- who hasn't? is not a liberal or conservative issue

All those issues you named are issues that many presidents have supported not becasue of ideology but for money or votes.

[Guinness]

Sure, it's fine with me becasue Obama isn't to the left at all on anything important anyways. He is part of the same problem that has been going on for decades. Doesn't really matter to me either way.

Disappointingly boring use of the old left/right paradigm.

But when people claim Obama is a far left Marxist it kind of skews someone that is on the left and what the left is becasue Obama is not one.

Statism is on the left. Therefore, Obama is a leftist.

Great, then. Glad to see that you've finally admitted that leftism is a failed ideology.

[Guinness]

is a fighter for increased taxes- On who?

And, by , I mean, "your inability to discern the inherent inconsistency in what you mean by this".

[doublem]

is a fighter for increased taxes- On who?

And, by , I mean, "your inability to discern the inherent inconsistency in what you mean by this".

and by this I mean who has Obama raised taxes on?

[doublem]

To some level I agree with that but all ideologies are doomed to fail.

[Guinness]

is a fighter for increased taxes- On who?

And, by , I mean, "your inability to discern the inherent inconsistency in what you mean by this".

and by this I mean who has Obama raised taxes on?

Yeah, it's pretty easy to discern what you meant by that... And by "that" I mean some arbitrary limit that you and/or your betters have set. Or is there a sound logical basis upon which you and your betters have established that increased taxation?

[Guinness]

To some level I agree with that but all ideologies are doomed to fail.

This is you acknowledging that the philosophical underpinnings of your beliefs are so full of holes that you have to preempt the counter-argument.

You've admitted as much previously.

[doublem]

No, I'm trying to find out the level in which Obama was raised taxes compared to other presidents which Shaf seems to think and who hasn't raised taxes Dem or Rep since Shaf keeps claiming Obama is a leftist? Not some debate on the value of taxation.

[doublem]

To some level I agree with that but all ideologies are doomed to fail.

This is you acknowledging that the philosophical underpinnings of your beliefs are so full of holes that you have to preempt the counter-argument.

You've admitted as much previously.

I don't know if you know this or not Guinness but every philosophy is so full of holes. There are no long lasting answers to questions of government, philosophy and all the rest. Some are better but history has shown that nothing will ever be resolved long term unless you dramatically change who we are as people. It speaks volumes that you think you know the answers and they could last.

[Guinness]

I don't know if you know this or not Guinness but every philosophy is so full of holes. There are no long lasting answers to questions of government, philosophy and all the rest. Some are better but history has shown that nothing will ever be resolved long term unless you dramatically change who we are as people. It speaks volumes that you think you know the answers and they could last.

When have I said I think that I have the "answers"? Re-read the passage I posted from Hayek. I say exactly the opposite of that. That's precisely the point of my philosophy.

In fact, it's statists who obviously believe that they have "the answers". Otherwise they wouldn't seek to impose their vision on others by force.

You make no sense here, doublem. Just because you've been acknowledging some insecurity in your ideology lately doesn't mean anyone else is.

[Gaucho]

[doublem]

In fact, it's statists who obviously believe that they have "the answers". Otherwise they wouldn't seek to impose their vision on others by force.

You make no sense here, doublem. Just because you've been acknowledging some insecurity in your ideology lately doesn't mean anyone else is.

That has nothing to do with it. I'm looking at the big picture. I value human rights over property rights and social change that is why I'm on the left but on economics no one has been able to figure it out long term. I really doubt if anyone is 100% sure how an economy works without a bunch of guess work. People have been having these debates for centuries and haven't been able to figure it out and that is fine with me, You will never have a philosophy where the rich and powerful don't use their influence to control others at some point, everything breaks down at some point, the United States is at this point now, I don't think it can be repaired. This country had sound ideas better than any other in human history. I don't pretend to know to think that any system doesn't have huge flaws.You seem to believe that if we do so and so we will have a positive outcome, I don't.

[shafnutz05]

http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dc/201 ... rward.html

Very, very important election coming up on Tuesday in the state of Massachusetts. I am sure anyone that visits this thread often knows the story, so I won't bother with the details. If Brown wins the vote, expect just about every single dirty trick in the book to try and delay his seating as long as possible. Despite the fact that support for the healthcare bill is at 36% and falling, the Democrats still have the gall to tell us point blank that we don't know what is best for us (if not in those exact words).

The Democrats have made history this year........they have somehow maneuvered themselves into a position where no matter what they do with this bill (pass or abandon it), it will be an utter disaster for the party. That takes a special brand of incompetence and brashness.

That being said, I am definitely looking forward to seeing how many times "Mickey Mouse" and "Donald Duck" cast a vote for Coakley on Tuesday.

[shafnutz05]

http://washingtontimes.com/weblogs/wate ... n-winning/

In a side note, Ed Schultz was advocating loudly and nastily for Democratic voter fraud in Massachusetts on his show....youtube is on the link. It's a shame there is not a Republican version of ACORN to even the playing field (/sarcasm)...

[Guinness]

http://washingtontimes.com/weblogs/wate ... n-winning/

In a side note, Ed Schultz was advocating loudly and nastily for Democratic voter fraud in Massachusetts on his show....youtube is on the link. It's a shame there is not a Republican version of ACORN to even the playing field (/sarcasm)...

Un-f***ing-believable.

[Guinness]

In fact, it's statists who obviously believe that they have "the answers". Otherwise they wouldn't seek to impose their vision on others by force.

You make no sense here, doublem. Just because you've been acknowledging some insecurity in your ideology lately doesn't mean anyone else is.

That has nothing to do with it. I'm looking at the big picture. I value human rights over property rights and social change that is why I'm on the left but on economics no one has been able to figure it out long term. I really doubt if anyone is 100% sure how an economy works without a bunch of guess work. People have been having these debates for centuries and haven't been able to figure it out and that is fine with me, You will never have a philosophy where the rich and powerful don't use their influence to control others at some point, everything breaks down at some point, the United States is at this point now, I don't think it can be repaired. This country had sound ideas better than any other in human history. I don't pretend to know to think that any system doesn't have huge flaws.You seem to believe that if we do so and so we will have a positive outcome, I don't.

Honestly doublem, I don't know what you're talking about... and I don't think you do either.

I agree with you that no one can oversee an economy. That's exactly what the quote from Hayek was about. I recommend The Road to Serfdom to you, in all sincerity.

[Guinness]

Who amongst us are innocent?

[Gaucho]

Who amongst us are innocent?

Exactly my point.

[shafnutz05]

Un-f***ing-believable.

I can only imagine the outrage if Rush Limbaugh would have been advocating the same thing....

The fraudsters are going to be out in force tomorrow

[shafnutz05]

http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.co ... ma_ral.php

As audience members streamed out of Pres. Obama's rally on behalf of AG Martha Coakley (D) here tonight, the consensus was that the fault for Coakley's now-floundering MA SEN bid lies with one person -- George W. Bush.

"People are upset because there's so many problems," Rosemary Kverek, 70, a retired Charleston schoolteacher said as tonight's rally wrapped up. "But the problems came from the previous administration. So we're blaming poor Obama, who's working 36 hours a day ... to solve these problems that he inherited."

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!

I am convinced President Bush is going to be blamed for someone's overcooked steak in the year 2050. On a funnier note, Patrick Kennedy repeatedly referred to Martha Coakley as "Marcia"...watching her campaign self-destruct is enjoyable, but it will only mean something if she loses. The fact that Obama went to Massachusetts on Sunday speaks volumes. Hearing the Democrats refer to the open Senate seat as "Kennedy's seat" is ridiculous.....it doesn't belong to Kennedy, he is D-E-A-D. It belongs to the people....as they are quickly finding out.

[shafnutz05]

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100118/D9D9U7Q80.html

To me, there is something fundamentally wrong with the idea of scrambling to pass a shoddily put-together healthcare bill through shady means, all for the sake of being able to say that they passed something.

[Gaucho]

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100118/D9D9U7Q80.html

To me, there is something fundamentally wrong with the idea of scrambling to pass a shoddily put-together healthcare bill through shady means, all for the sake of being able to say that they passed something.

Say, you don't like Democrats, do you?

[shafnutz05]

Say, you don't like Democrats, do you?

The current crop? I despise them. Then again, I despise most of the Republicans for putting us in this position in the first place. Believe it or not, I didn't mind Clinton

[Guinness]

No conservative, especially those who lecture the world about moral relativism, can support Bill Clinton's sanctions on Iraq, for example. Sanctions always hurt only the subject population. Everyone knows that. A century ago the policy would have been condemned as an act of barbarism.

Great interview HERE with Thomas Woods...