What are some other political hot potatoes? What would a moderate stand point be on them? Why aren't more people chiming in?
whats the hangup with "moderate" views? we are moderate as hell now. both candidates hug the middle. the right policy, and the policy most of you seem to think you favor, is considered extreme by today's standards. i think you guys are buying into red's (who recently i have not had enough green points to properly reward for all his good points) logic that the political middle ground has some value. isnt what most of you favor more properly called libertarianism? most of you (including me) seem to to favor libertarianism the way it is described by harry browne, the occasional presidential candidate. there is no doubt about that one. "A professional politician is a professionally dishonorable man. In order to get anywhere near high office he has to make so many compromises and submit to so many humiliations that he becomes indistinguishable from a streetwalker." - mencken
okay, alright, it wouldn't be mandatory, but a monument to guns would be built in DC, as a tribute to the creative genious of man, the right of man to self defend himself, and how a real man will not relenquish his well being --protection of family's life and property--to others, any entity or government. (not talking about war with other nations here) ...there's way too many namby pampy titty suckers in the world today...
and if you continue to fornicate in the manner you do, you will be on 60 minutes as the scandalous party leader
Well Salty, I think I am looking at the big picture and not getting distracted by making too much of trivial annoyances. No I don't. They just don't like to have to kiss our ass all of the time. And I don't blame them for that. Who else in the world shares our basic values of democracy, free-market economy, human rights and freedom better than the Europeans? We have no better friends in the world than the Brits. The NATO alliance are the countries that have more common interests with us than any other. To say that they are no better than our clear enemies (China, Korea, various Arabs and Persians, perhaps the Russians) is not being logical, practical, or realistic. Yes the French can be annoying little cheese-eating bastards, The Germans can be overbearing arrogant pricks, The Italians bitch and moan about everything. These are just trivial annoyances. In the big picture we have much more in common than not. We annoy them too, and everybody talks a lot of smack. But, the Brits and the Frogs are nuclear-armed, the Euro's have more troops, more combat aircraft, and more tanks than do we. And collectively, they have just as much money. We need them on our side in the next World War. The reason the Roman Empire fell was because it became so dominant, so over-stretched, and so arrogant that all it's small enemies rose up against it and in time overwhemed the superpower. There is a lesson here for us. We can't be the world leader by going it alone. We must lead effectively and with the good of us all in mind and the allies will follow. When they don't follow, we must question the path we are taking. If all we care about is ourselves, they will not follow. And when we have no allies . . . well, then begins the decline and fall of the American empire. Eisenhower was the unquestioned leader of the free world. Bush can no longer claim this for the American Presidency and I find that disturbing. I strongly disagree. What evidence do you have of this? Our allies have backed us time and again in the last six decades. Take just one--Spain has allowed us to base nuclear bombers there for decades, they let us base submarines there, and host refueling stations for our air and seapower. They back us in the UN for the most part and always have. But we failed to lead them into Iraq--we pushed them into it against their own will and interests and they declined. But they are still a vital strategic ally--we cannot operate in the Mediterranean without them. And they will back us again if we treat them with the respect that we would demand in their place.
There is some truth to this. But the Libertarian Party itself has failed to capture any serious national support. How do you account for this failure? What policies are holding them back.
good question, and i dont really have an answer. maybe people like to favor smaller government until it is their farm subsidy or whatever that the libertarians would abolish, so they are really only libertarian in theory. and many of the smaller government types also happen to be religious, so they favor guys like bush who really play to their judeo-christianity. and of course it is hard for any third party to garner any support, because people feel like they are wasting thier vote. maybe it is a tipping point type thing where after a certain amount of people (like 15% or so?) people really decide to go libertarian, then it will lead to a real swell of support. and finally, in my case, i think that libertarian isolationism, which normally i really favor, is not the right plan for now, because we are already knee deep in war and should not stop for a long while. so because of that i voted bush, when ordinarily i would not have.
My party would be called "FukSpecialInterestCrats"... I would run on door to door donation from all levels of income... I would become elected then "by the people" and would in turn owe my favors "to the people" I would start out by cutting foriegn aide to developed nations, while allowing a small portion to go towards burgeoning democratic nations. I would cut the defense budget, but before you draw-and-quarter me, I would cut away all the research and development expense of making bigger and better bombs... what we have now is great and russia is dead so their is no more race. I would then set up social programs that allowed for free trade schools to be operated for people on welfare. There would also be a 3 year limit to welfare, and a 2 child limit for families on welfare (which would control the amount of money given to families, while not allowing people to have 9 kids for the extra money). I would also triple to quadruple the education spending especially in southern public schools. While also giving tax credit for private donations to public schools. I would fight a war on drugs... but not from the street up... but from the top down. I would increase border patrol with military, while doubling the amount of customs agents around the country. Anyone who cannot declare how they made their money will have assets frozen until they can produce a paper trail. I would give more power to state governments to govern themselves without the Federal government punishing them (withholding federal funds)... this would have lead to La still having a drink age of 18 and I figure if im old enough to hold a full time job, support myself, or die for my country, I should be able to drink a beer. I would force all the United States allies to begin trade sanctions on North Korea (China, Japan, etc..) in order to quell the nuclear threat, and if they didnt agree, I would take away "Most Favored Nation" Status.. this also goes for allowing Taiwan to be independent. I would withdraw from the United Nations, and help whoever needed it without having to have that **** passed... see Somalia, Rwanda, Bosnia etc... I would hold the President responsible for all actions of the United States... not his staff. I would tax the rich and allow more tax breaks for small business' and the working man. I would double the luxury tax and use that money toward some other positive purpose. I would send white collar criminals to PRISON and they would stay there. I would also back up truth in sentencing... if you are a violent/sexual criminal or a 3 time felon... you get life in prison, no exception... except your prison would be self sustaining... no more free rides, you must build your own housing, grow your own food and live as a colony, if you dont figure out how to co exist, then you die... The death penalty would be upheld, but rather then spending 10 years on death row... you get three years, and then you are hung. **** lethal injection Abortion would be legalized, but would also entail a hysterectomy... if you dont want a kid... then fine, but you cant try for another one (exceptions rape, health of child, health of mother) At this point im tired and rambling... ill add more later, but thats were i would start.
This is a tuff one because of what power the two parties we have. They have generated enormous power thru pork. I like what Red55 is saying although I find it hard to believe that I would agree 100% on anything. As far Gay marriage and saying they are minorities. I just don't buy it. I am a traditionalist when it comes to that and do believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. With mass communication being what it is we should be able to better explain where this pork spending is going and who is responsible for each action and start putting a halt to this. It's national money going to individual states and as tax payers we should understand why. This is out of control.. I think to get a viable 3rd party it's going to have to start on the state level. But I don't see it happening due to $$$$..
Aid to developing nations means giving them a democratic mentor, which means a greater chance they are a democracy, which means more trade and greater wealth for both nations in the long run. I wouldn't say that this spending is very extravagent as is. I think minimal constant development is necessary but certainly at this point in time it shouldn't be a focus. I think the limit is 5 years fo welfare right now, is that right? Also the 2 child limit thing... a good idea because it is a problem, but how do you tell a good parent with 4 kids who happens to be unemployed and out of luck that too bad, chose which kids get to eat...? We need another solution. You & I both wish it was this easy. In reality, this serves an ice flakes chance in hell over going over well. Foreign relations are important, whether we like to admit it or not. I obviously don't know much about your financial situation, but something tells me that if you had worked your a$$ off to make money and wanted to spend it on a yacht, you'd be pretty pissed off about this rediculously high luxury tax. For better or worse, the government is aligned with the rich (this is a good thing because it means that in the event of catastrophy etc. the richest would have financial interests in keeping America alive, however arguments can definitely be made about why it isn't good.) Now you're definitely dreaming. A better system is needed, yes, but this stuff is more than a little outlandish. This is an idea that has a little merit but that would never fly.
