Republicans v. Libertarians (OPTIONAL reading)
- Thread starter Dennis
- Start date
- Status
DEnnis,
Can you answer for me what the libertarians have accomplished.....I mean this sincerly, what have they accomplished?
1. how many canidates do they have?
2. how many have won anything?
3. What record do they have that they can be evaluated against, exactly like you like to do against the republicans and democrats...do they have a record?.....and Id like you to make the distinction that Iam referring to accomplishments not rhetoric or promises, not a campaign plank.
Its wonderfully easy to sit around and tout all that they will do when they havent done anything....so other than running and claiming themselves a third party what have they done? Have they done anything?....as far as I know the only success has been with ron Paul and he ran as a republican......surely they have been more successful, or are we all so disgusted and desperate that we go to who ever says what we want to hear........Im hoping you can help with this as Im trying to evaluate what they do once they have won a position...tks fubsy.
Can you answer for me what the libertarians have accomplished.....I mean this sincerly, what have they accomplished?
1. how many canidates do they have?
2. how many have won anything?
3. What record do they have that they can be evaluated against, exactly like you like to do against the republicans and democrats...do they have a record?.....and Id like you to make the distinction that Iam referring to accomplishments not rhetoric or promises, not a campaign plank.
Its wonderfully easy to sit around and tout all that they will do when they havent done anything....so other than running and claiming themselves a third party what have they done? Have they done anything?....as far as I know the only success has been with ron Paul and he ran as a republican......surely they have been more successful, or are we all so disgusted and desperate that we go to who ever says what we want to hear........Im hoping you can help with this as Im trying to evaluate what they do once they have won a position...tks fubsy.
For one, fubsy, we pretty much single-handedly put down the FDIC "Know Your Customer" regulation. We don't have many candidates, but we have some, and we're getting bigger all the time. Those who believe in libertarian principles should support the LP now, when it's hard, or it will never be easy.
hey mort,
thanks for the quick reply.
How do you mean you single handedly put it down?.....you mean yall put out the word first or took legislative action? Was it a grass roots phone calling situation?
As far as canidates numbers go, does the lp have enuf canidates to strive for the number of congressional seats in each state?
How is the lp doing in local election's? Have they been able to put lp canidates in governorships, or city councils in any numbers?
Is their anyone city, state, county that their party is in control of?
Since Jessie Ventura is a reform canidate would he still be considered a libertarian?
I appreciate what help ya'll can give me in answering those questions.......tks for the help..fubsy.
thanks for the quick reply.
How do you mean you single handedly put it down?.....you mean yall put out the word first or took legislative action? Was it a grass roots phone calling situation?
As far as canidates numbers go, does the lp have enuf canidates to strive for the number of congressional seats in each state?
How is the lp doing in local election's? Have they been able to put lp canidates in governorships, or city councils in any numbers?
Is their anyone city, state, county that their party is in control of?
Since Jessie Ventura is a reform canidate would he still be considered a libertarian?
I appreciate what help ya'll can give me in answering those questions.......tks for the help..fubsy.
Fubsy,
You asked some GREAT questions! Let’s work on this together, okay? Frankly, I’m hoping some other Libertarians will help me out here!
-------
“What have the Libertarians accomplished?”
Obviously not as much (good or bad) as the Republicans and Democrats who have been in power for years and years.
-------
“1. how many candidates do they have?”
There are no candidates yet for the Presidency. All the political parties are still working on nominees. The Libertarians have five nominees at the moment.
-------
“2. how many have won anything?”
Few. Fewer still running as Libertarians. We continue to vote for those who screw us hoping each time that the next four years will be different. So far, the only difference is that each four years gets worse.
-------
“3. What record do they have that they can be evaluated against,...?”
Not much. You can’t create a Congressional track record without being in Congress. So, as you know, the only Libertarians who are in Congress ran as Republicans (as you pointed out). (We’ll discuss track records in a bit, ok?)
-------
“(Evaluate the Libertarians’) accomplishments not rhetoric or promises, not a campaign plank.”
As above, Libertarians have little in the way of a track record. But we KNOW
the Republicans violate their platform - so how much worse could Libertarians
possibly be?
-------
“...are we all so disgusted and desperate that we go to who ever says what we want to hear”?
I am. I know the Republicans and Democrats are going to destroy our gun rights. They BOTH have verbally and in print promised us that. I preserved that in one of my earlier rants.. er, threads.
-------
“...I’m trying to evaluate what they do once they have won a position.”
Me too, buddy. Me, too.
-------
Just to keep this post somewhat short, let’s limit this part of our discussion to
gun control.
I’ll be first in line to admit that I have no past proof that the Libertarians will
do as they promise. They have little track record by which to judge their veracity.
But "track record" is a two-edged sword.
The track record of the Republicans and Democrats is one of broken promises, lies, usurpations of power, and unconstitutional laws, directives, and regulations. Why would anyone expect anything different from them? As Patrick Henry noted, we have no way to judge the future but by the past. Let’s make a simple example.
-------
Let’s say you are trapped in someone’s back yard. There is a gate at each end
of the yard with a dog behind each gate. Both dogs wag their tails.
The dog at gate 1 sometimes growls even as it wags its tail. Dog 1 has bitten
other people in the past. It has bitten YOU in the past! It wags its tail then
bites.
The dog at gate 2 never has bitten anyone. You don’t know if he might bite in
the future, but (to date) he has never bitten anyone. And he doesn’t growl
when he wags his tail!
Obviously, you would avoid gate 1 (the dog that bites) and take your chances
at gate 2 (with the dog who has never bitten).
-------
The Democrats recently promised us gun control. They have given us
gun control in the past. They have “bitten” us repeatedly.
The Republicans recently promised us gun control. They have promised
to work with the Democrats for gun control. They have given us gun control
in the past. They have “bitten” us repeatedly.
BOTH the Republicans and Democrats have given us gun control.
BOTH the Republicans and Democrats have promised us MORE gun control.
For once, I think we can believe them.
-------
The Libertarians oppose gun control. As a matter of fact, they have promised
to wipe out most (if not all) gun control laws, directives, and regulations upon
taking office. The Libertarians never have “bitten” us.
The Libertarians might not be able to fulfill all their promises to roll back
unconstitutional gun laws, but:
- The Libertarians sure aren’t promising us more gun laws - the Republocrats
are.
- The Libertarians will fight against future gun laws. Congress would be
forced to override Presidential vetoes to pass gun control legislation. Can you
imagine how that kind of publicity would destroy the Republocrat machine?
For a change, the Republocrats would have to compromise!
- If you think the Republicans would nominate favorable Supreme Court
Judges, imagine what type of judges the Libertarians would nominate! Imagine
the publicity if the Republicans and Democrats would not compromise for a
change!
-------
I understand the argument about voting Republican in order to vote "against"
Gore because, to some extent, I intend to vote against both the Democrats and
Republicans by voting Libertarian. But there are some major differences here.
Republican supporters honestly feel the Republicans won’t hurt us as badly as
the Democrats. But they admit the Republicans WILL hurt us!
I believe the Republicans will hurt us WORSE than the Democrats because the Republicans will destroy our gun rights more gradually,
less obviously, than the Democrats would. But Republicans will still lead us to
registration and eventual confiscation of privately owned firearms.
In any case, why vote for Republicans because they are only “less bad” than
Democrats? We have a choice!
So here’s where I disagree with Republican supporters. The Republican track
record is too destructive of gun rights for me to support the Republican party.
Worse, they already promised more gun control. I refuse to vote for my
executioner.
I will take the chance and vote Libertarian.
- The Libertarians have no track record of shameful deceit.
- The Libertarians will not “compromise” away our gun rights.
- The Libertarians will fight for Constitutional Law as we gun owners would
want them to fight.
- A Libertarian President is our only chance to bring our Congress back to its
proper Constitutional role - until we can elect Libertarians to Congress.
--------
So, if you want more gun laws, unconstitutional search and seizures,
confiscations of private property with no legal recourse, more Wacos, more
Ruby Ridges, more midnight roadblocks on our Interstate Highways, etc. vote
Republican. They have promised most of these things.
If you want to return to our Constitution, you must avoid those political
parties with track records which show contempt for our American way of life.
Vote for the party who has never lied to us.
Vote Libertarian - for a change.
You asked some GREAT questions! Let’s work on this together, okay? Frankly, I’m hoping some other Libertarians will help me out here!
-------
“What have the Libertarians accomplished?”
Obviously not as much (good or bad) as the Republicans and Democrats who have been in power for years and years.
-------
“1. how many candidates do they have?”
There are no candidates yet for the Presidency. All the political parties are still working on nominees. The Libertarians have five nominees at the moment.
-------
“2. how many have won anything?”
Few. Fewer still running as Libertarians. We continue to vote for those who screw us hoping each time that the next four years will be different. So far, the only difference is that each four years gets worse.
-------
“3. What record do they have that they can be evaluated against,...?”
Not much. You can’t create a Congressional track record without being in Congress. So, as you know, the only Libertarians who are in Congress ran as Republicans (as you pointed out). (We’ll discuss track records in a bit, ok?)
-------
“(Evaluate the Libertarians’) accomplishments not rhetoric or promises, not a campaign plank.”
As above, Libertarians have little in the way of a track record. But we KNOW
the Republicans violate their platform - so how much worse could Libertarians
possibly be?
-------
“...are we all so disgusted and desperate that we go to who ever says what we want to hear”?
I am. I know the Republicans and Democrats are going to destroy our gun rights. They BOTH have verbally and in print promised us that. I preserved that in one of my earlier rants.. er, threads.
-------
“...I’m trying to evaluate what they do once they have won a position.”
Me too, buddy. Me, too.
-------
Just to keep this post somewhat short, let’s limit this part of our discussion to
gun control.
I’ll be first in line to admit that I have no past proof that the Libertarians will
do as they promise. They have little track record by which to judge their veracity.
But "track record" is a two-edged sword.
The track record of the Republicans and Democrats is one of broken promises, lies, usurpations of power, and unconstitutional laws, directives, and regulations. Why would anyone expect anything different from them? As Patrick Henry noted, we have no way to judge the future but by the past. Let’s make a simple example.
-------
Let’s say you are trapped in someone’s back yard. There is a gate at each end
of the yard with a dog behind each gate. Both dogs wag their tails.
The dog at gate 1 sometimes growls even as it wags its tail. Dog 1 has bitten
other people in the past. It has bitten YOU in the past! It wags its tail then
bites.
The dog at gate 2 never has bitten anyone. You don’t know if he might bite in
the future, but (to date) he has never bitten anyone. And he doesn’t growl
when he wags his tail!
Obviously, you would avoid gate 1 (the dog that bites) and take your chances
at gate 2 (with the dog who has never bitten).
-------
The Democrats recently promised us gun control. They have given us
gun control in the past. They have “bitten” us repeatedly.
The Republicans recently promised us gun control. They have promised
to work with the Democrats for gun control. They have given us gun control
in the past. They have “bitten” us repeatedly.
BOTH the Republicans and Democrats have given us gun control.
BOTH the Republicans and Democrats have promised us MORE gun control.
For once, I think we can believe them.
-------
The Libertarians oppose gun control. As a matter of fact, they have promised
to wipe out most (if not all) gun control laws, directives, and regulations upon
taking office. The Libertarians never have “bitten” us.
The Libertarians might not be able to fulfill all their promises to roll back
unconstitutional gun laws, but:
- The Libertarians sure aren’t promising us more gun laws - the Republocrats
are.
- The Libertarians will fight against future gun laws. Congress would be
forced to override Presidential vetoes to pass gun control legislation. Can you
imagine how that kind of publicity would destroy the Republocrat machine?
For a change, the Republocrats would have to compromise!
- If you think the Republicans would nominate favorable Supreme Court
Judges, imagine what type of judges the Libertarians would nominate! Imagine
the publicity if the Republicans and Democrats would not compromise for a
change!
-------
I understand the argument about voting Republican in order to vote "against"
Gore because, to some extent, I intend to vote against both the Democrats and
Republicans by voting Libertarian. But there are some major differences here.
Republican supporters honestly feel the Republicans won’t hurt us as badly as
the Democrats. But they admit the Republicans WILL hurt us!
I believe the Republicans will hurt us WORSE than the Democrats because the Republicans will destroy our gun rights more gradually,
less obviously, than the Democrats would. But Republicans will still lead us to
registration and eventual confiscation of privately owned firearms.
In any case, why vote for Republicans because they are only “less bad” than
Democrats? We have a choice!
So here’s where I disagree with Republican supporters. The Republican track
record is too destructive of gun rights for me to support the Republican party.
Worse, they already promised more gun control. I refuse to vote for my
executioner.
I will take the chance and vote Libertarian.
- The Libertarians have no track record of shameful deceit.
- The Libertarians will not “compromise” away our gun rights.
- The Libertarians will fight for Constitutional Law as we gun owners would
want them to fight.
- A Libertarian President is our only chance to bring our Congress back to its
proper Constitutional role - until we can elect Libertarians to Congress.
--------
So, if you want more gun laws, unconstitutional search and seizures,
confiscations of private property with no legal recourse, more Wacos, more
Ruby Ridges, more midnight roadblocks on our Interstate Highways, etc. vote
Republican. They have promised most of these things.
If you want to return to our Constitution, you must avoid those political
parties with track records which show contempt for our American way of life.
Vote for the party who has never lied to us.
Vote Libertarian - for a change.
Dennis:
Let me see if in my simplistic way I have this right.
The Republicans show us a primrose path.
The Democrats show us a hedgerow and tell us it's a primrose path.
The Liberatrians show us a field and tell us to plant whatever we want to end up with.
I have only 2 points of difference with the Libertarian Party. Open borders and the drug issue. I will be a hard sell on both. Hard, but not impossible
------------------
Want to feel your age?Check it out. http://web.superb.net/boy/age1.html
Let me see if in my simplistic way I have this right.
The Republicans show us a primrose path.
The Democrats show us a hedgerow and tell us it's a primrose path.
The Liberatrians show us a field and tell us to plant whatever we want to end up with.
I have only 2 points of difference with the Libertarian Party. Open borders and the drug issue. I will be a hard sell on both. Hard, but not impossible
------------------
Want to feel your age?Check it out. http://web.superb.net/boy/age1.html
Dennis,
If I go back and just keep you to the questions I asked and not the continuing barrage against the other two political parties which you turn every discussion around to, Your answers are evasive and provide promises, they have no substance as a party. Now dont take this as a personal attack because it is not........I have some problems with the libertarians and two of the points mentioned in the above post are a part of it. You and others keep trying to evade the fact that you have no political power, you have not as a party been able to create any political situations were you control anything, is that not right?
Now I also have problems with the republicans as well and the difference is that I dont see the libertarians as a means to salvation......they have wonderful rhetoric and chest pounding.....so do the existing parties, the difference is they have control of our governmental mechanisims, like it or not that is a fact.
Do you not agree that when a party has no track record they can claim anything and there is nothing to evaluate them against?
Just out of curiosity, have the republicans done anything you agree with? How about the democrats?
Remember Im working through this stuff too, so these arent personal attacks or defenses of a position, Im trying to evaluate a course of action which can actually do something, not talk about it, how is it to be done...--no magic wands, what is the mechanism that will be used....fubsy.
If I go back and just keep you to the questions I asked and not the continuing barrage against the other two political parties which you turn every discussion around to, Your answers are evasive and provide promises, they have no substance as a party. Now dont take this as a personal attack because it is not........I have some problems with the libertarians and two of the points mentioned in the above post are a part of it. You and others keep trying to evade the fact that you have no political power, you have not as a party been able to create any political situations were you control anything, is that not right?
Now I also have problems with the republicans as well and the difference is that I dont see the libertarians as a means to salvation......they have wonderful rhetoric and chest pounding.....so do the existing parties, the difference is they have control of our governmental mechanisims, like it or not that is a fact.
Do you not agree that when a party has no track record they can claim anything and there is nothing to evaluate them against?
Just out of curiosity, have the republicans done anything you agree with? How about the democrats?
Remember Im working through this stuff too, so these arent personal attacks or defenses of a position, Im trying to evaluate a course of action which can actually do something, not talk about it, how is it to be done...--no magic wands, what is the mechanism that will be used....fubsy.
Fubs...
RE:"Know your customer"
It was a grassroots move...the LP noted the bill/proposed agenda, alerted its people, who mobilized.
Burnt up telephones,fax, e-mail and postal avenues....literally bombed Congress in paper and electrons. Half those dorks in Congress didn't even know about it until they got angry calls and letters from constituents.
------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"
RE:"Know your customer"
It was a grassroots move...the LP noted the bill/proposed agenda, alerted its people, who mobilized.
Burnt up telephones,fax, e-mail and postal avenues....literally bombed Congress in paper and electrons. Half those dorks in Congress didn't even know about it until they got angry calls and letters from constituents.
------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"
I know dc, i was emailing and calling myself, and your right about those clowns not knowing what they should......thats a major loophole in our system....the bills should be evaluated seperately and no riders allowed and all votes should be on record period.....and I believe specific intent of the law/bill ought to be included as well and if the law bill isnt living up to its intent, out the durn thing goes...
Ive a friend who keeps talking about 100 laws and the first 10 being the 10 commandments, and those would not change but the other 90, in order to pass a new law, you'd have to get rid of one of the existing 90.....I dont know if thats his or where he got it although in these times of mega regulations how simple that would be..at least on the surface...lol....fubsy.
Ive a friend who keeps talking about 100 laws and the first 10 being the 10 commandments, and those would not change but the other 90, in order to pass a new law, you'd have to get rid of one of the existing 90.....I dont know if thats his or where he got it although in these times of mega regulations how simple that would be..at least on the surface...lol....fubsy.
Rich Lucibella
Staff
Sorry to all posters whose posts I've edited. The thread went to hell, visually spilling off the screen. I have not changed any of your comments, only the format of URLs and dashed lines.
The culprit turned out to be Fubsy. Fubs, your dashed lines constituted more unbroken characters than the screen width. The software doesn't hyphenate and causes the entire thread to take on the width of your longest line.
Rich
[This message has been edited by Rich Lucibella (edited August 07, 1999).]
The culprit turned out to be Fubsy. Fubs, your dashed lines constituted more unbroken characters than the screen width. The software doesn't hyphenate and causes the entire thread to take on the width of your longest line.
Rich
[This message has been edited by Rich Lucibella (edited August 07, 1999).]
Fubs...
RE: Bills
Yep...no attachments, riders and extras. Then each bill have an exhaustive analysis demonstrating Constitutional authority and compatibility by the author before being voted on. Thus each rep would only be able to author 2 or 3 bills per year
------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"
RE: Bills
Yep...no attachments, riders and extras. Then each bill have an exhaustive analysis demonstrating Constitutional authority and compatibility by the author before being voted on. Thus each rep would only be able to author 2 or 3 bills per year
------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"
Gosh! Now what would THAT be like?
------------------
John/az
"The middle of the road between the extremes of good and evil, is evil. When freedom is at stake, your silence is not golden, it's yellow..."
http://www.countdown9199.com
------------------
John/az
"The middle of the road between the extremes of good and evil, is evil. When freedom is at stake, your silence is not golden, it's yellow..."
http://www.countdown9199.com
All,
The idea that a bill should NOT have amendments, riders or whatever is
outstanding. I believe that is part of what the line-item veto was intended to
address - but apparently it was the wrong tool for the job.
-------
Fubsy,
Please don’t put me in the position where I must re-post your every sentence
to prove I am addressing the questions you ask me. That should be
unnecessary but to address your complaint I’ll do it one more time.
Fubsy: “Dennis,
If I go back and just keep you to the questions I asked and not the continuing
barrage against the other two political parties which you turn every discussion
around to, Your answers are evasive and provide promises, they have no
substance as a party. Now dont take this as a personal attack because it is
not.......”
Dennis: I find “evasive” a bit acidic for one not intending to offend. If
you re-read my post I believe you will find I addressed your every question.
The “barrage” however is earned and will continue.
- To call the Republicans and Democrats two different political parties is
similar to belaboring the differences between Communists and Socialists - the
differences to the common citizen are few and slight.
- The Libertarians have great “substance” (according to the definition in my
Webster’s). They have little or no track record because Americans continue to
vote for the two-party oligarchy rather than our freedoms.
-------
F: “I have some problems with the libertarians and two of the points
mentioned in the above post are a part of it.”
D: I’m not sure which two points you mean but I’m guessing it’s Hal’s
post so let me try that one, ok?
---------------------------------------
Hal,
LOL! Your “simplistic way” put me in stitches. I agree with your approach
but would add this:
The Democrats show us a hedgerow and tell us it's a primrose path.
The Republicans show us a primrose path but take us down the Democrat’s
hedgerow!
The Libertarians show us a field and tell us to plant whatever we want to end
up with.
Hal: I have only 2 points of difference with the Libertarian Party. Open
borders and the drug issue. I will be a hard sell on both. Hard, but not
impossible
Dennis: Me too! Both issues affect gun control and related legislation
so let’s address those issues.
I’m opposed to open borders and the legalization of illegal drugs. But,
gradually, my disagreements are becoming smothered by Libertarians’
seemingly effective arguments.
- Saturday evening my cousin phoned me from Connecticut. He served some
35 years with the Coast Guard and the Navy - mostly as a civilian, and mostly
on classified drug interdiction projects. As a youngster his background was
electronics and (although he wouldn’t disclose details) he was involved with
the development and implementation of electronic means of drug interdiction.
On land he served at various R&D centers. He was at sea a lot!
My cousin said realistic estimates of the amount of drugs we are catching and
preventing from entering our country is 12%. Even Navy “big wigs” claim no
more than 15%. So, apparently some 85% of all drug shipments make it into
our country.
My cousin said *some* small shipments of drugs are sent by small boats which
are easily detected and captured - apparently as “sacrificial shipments” intended
to maintain the status quo and to ensure methods are not developed to capture
the big shipments. He maintained he was being factual rather than cynical.
A retired Border Patrolman (a student in my CHL class some months ago)
stated our borders are. “... largely discretionary. Only the law-abiding go
through our checkpoints. ... We miss most of the rest.” He wouldn’t even
estimate how many “illegals” (HIS term!) come to America without even being
detected! When I asked if American authorities catch half of the border
crossers, he laughed and said, “Not even in our dreams!” He also stated
“about 10%” of the illegal drugs coming across the Rio Grande are discovered
and confiscated.
Many big companies and many government officials are getting rich fighting
the Drug War. However, people “in the know” tell me they can buy illegal
drugs, anywhere, anytime. (I have no personal way of knowing....)
Apparently we already have Open Borders.
Apparently we already lost the Drug War.
Do I like that! NO! I am so vehemently opposed to illegal immigration and
illegal drug use that some friends refuse to discuss it with me (even when
they’re on my side!). But many, many Americans apparently disagree with me
- illegal immigration and drug use are rampant.
I do NOT want to legalize drugs! I am terrified that my daughters and future
generations would believe drug use was NOT immoral or dangerous if it were
NOT illegal. However, I must consider the following:
a) My wife and I have been together some 25 years. She is a virtual teetotaler.
My “drug” use, typically beer, sometimes wine, rarely whiskey, (never again,
tequila!) has not induced her to drink at all.
b) My oldest daughter was married to a drug abuser. She did not become a
drug addict. So said both my daughter and her <expletive deleted> former
husband.
c) My middle daughter says she and her cowboy crowd just don’t use dope.
“Most of them can’t handle beer!” she says with a laugh. It’s around, she says,
“It just isn’t cool.”
d) My youngest daughter is in the “city”. She says at least half of the parties
she goes to end up with someone producing illegal drugs. She only goes to
parties with one or more of her group of friends (at least one of which has
transportation) and they immediately leave. “It’s a problem we don’t need to
be mixed up in.”
(Interesting side comment pertaining to “profiling”: She says, “We all look so
young we know we’re a police target - so we ALWAYS have a designated
driver. That stinks but we all take turns so it’s not really so bad.)
e) My daughters and their friends agree they could “score” drugs in any
American city within an hour of arrival there.
f) If the government REALLY wanted to eliminate drug use, they would:
- Reduce the Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) to 0.01% (to allow for various
medications) with mandatory one year jail time for the second offense (to allow
for simple mistakes). 0.04% could mean automatic one year in jail.
- At least try to develop some similar methods of evaluating drug use and
punishment.
Understand, I’m NOT advocating such draconian measures. (I’d still be in
prison for the indiscretions of my youth!) I’m only pointing out that something
is fishy when government policies and actions don’t seem to coincide.
Outlawing drug use has resulted in another “Prohibition” style crime wave.
Repeal of Prohibition eliminated a LOT of dangerous problems. And gangsters
had to turn to gambling, prostitution, and *illegal drugs*!
Other TFLers have concluded that illegal drug use is a medical problem. That
might be an argument I could support. I’m not yet totally convinced either,
Hal. I want to learn more about the argument.
I’ve read that most drugs which are now illegal but existed a century ago used
to be over-the-counter (OTC) drugs. Drug use (per capita) was much lower
when the drugs did NOT have the mystique and attraction of being illegal.
Other TFLers have concluded that the Drug War has created criminals out of
honest citizens. That frequently becomes an argument of mere definitions.
The bottom line seems to be that there is a greater percentage of drug users
than a century ago. Avoiding the arguments concerning causes, we all must
agree that the Drug War has resulted in violence, oppressive laws (especially
gun control laws), and dangerous threats to the American Rights of privacy,
private ownership, presumption of innocence, etc.
Using Prohibition as an example, I must assume there is SOME validity to the
argument of legalizing drugs. My opposition to that argument apparently is
merely emotional, unrealistic, and, um, without “substance”.
Therefore, Hal, although I also am a “hard sell”, I am told that my arguments
are no longer as valid as when I was a child. I’m not convinced but I am
wavering.
---------------------------
(back to Fubsy)
Fubsy: You and others keep trying to evade the fact that you have no
political power, you have not as a party been able to create any political
situations were you control anything, is that not right?
Dennis: We haven’t *evaded* anything.
We’ve repeatedly agreed the Libertarians have little or no track record! But
NO track record still is preferable to the Republican record of lies and
compromise. Again, Fubsy, why does Trent Lott, representing the Republican
hierarchy, publicly BRAG that they will work with the Democrats to bring
about more gun control?
The Libertarians have little power because people don’t vote for them in
adequate numbers - but our numbers are growing! Some Libertarian grass
roots efforts have been successful. Both the Democrats and the Republicans
recognize the Libertarian threat to the Democrat/Republican oligarchy.
F: Now I also have problems with the republicans as well and the
difference is that I dont see the libertarians as a means to salvation......they
have wonderful rhetoric and chest pounding.....so do the existing parties, the
difference is they have control of our governmental mechanisims, like it or not
that is a fact.
D: I’m glad you have problems with the Republicans. I’d call that an
awakening.
I can not argue that you should see the Libertarians as a means to salvation.
But I don’t quite understand why you do NOT see the Democrats and
Republicans as a means to tyranny.
Calmly now. Read and listen to the powerful Democrats say that we need
more government, more gun control, gun registration, and (in some cases)
Democrats already are calling for outright gun confiscation. (Ref Sen.
Feinstein, Schumer, et al).
Now, with an open mind, read how Trent Lott publicly advocates finding what
they call reasonable and realistic compromises on Democrats’ fight for gun
control. They mean what they say.
Both major parties want gun control!
And the FACT that those two parties already control our government is what
makes gun control, registration, and confiscation inevitable! I understand, “the
existing parties...have control of our governmental mechanisms, like it or not
that is a fact.” I agree!!! But it is a fact we can change! If we simply have
the integrity to vote our beliefs, we can vote the tyrants out of office!
F: Do you not agree that when a party has no track record they can
claim anything and there is nothing to evaluate them against?
D: I again agree, Fubsy. But the other two parties are both promising
gun control. I refuse to support gun control. The Libertarians are like us -
they are angry! They are Americans in the Constitutional sense of the term.
Therefore, to avoid CERTAIN tyranny, I will take a chance with my fellow
angry Americans. I consider it an opportunity for freedom.
F: Just out of curiosity, have the republicans done anything you agree
with? How about the democrats?
D: Yes. They adjourned. (Sorry, I’m just trying to lighten up a bit.)
Seriously, of course there is some good in every party. But the fact that Hitler
created the autobahns does not justify the horrors he perpetrated. By the same
token, I do not have the time, expertise, intent, or TFL bandwidth to critique
all the activities written into the Federal Register. I believe the treachery,
perfidy, and struggle for tyrannical control exhibited by our current
government is a greater threat to our way of life than any good they may have
done.
The current regime is a greater threat to our freedom than if you or I were
elected to the Presidency. (How’s that for a scary thought? )
Fubsy, I sincerely believe that if we do not vote the current rascals out of
public office, we will lose the keystone amendment. The rest of the Bill of
Rights will mean no more than the Soviet Constitution meant to their common
people. We already have seen so many infringements to our Bill of Rights we
have no moral choice but to replace our current government by the most
peaceful, least injurious method we have available - the ballot box.
F: Remember Im working through this stuff too, so these arent personal
attacks or defenses of a position, Im trying to evaluate a course of action
which can actually do something, not talk about it, how is it to be done...--no
magic wands, what is the mechanism that will be used....Fubsy.
D: Fine, Fubsy. Me too. Intelligent people of integrity don’t always
agree on every issue - even when they both have all the facts! (A luxury
neither of us have when predicting the future.)
No magic wands, Fubsy. What I wish for is an effective crystal ball to show
what the future would bring with either a Republican or a Libertarian as
President.
I agree the Libertarians have no track record to compare to the Republicans’.
But the Republican track record, combined with their promise of more gun
control, proves to my satisfaction that no gun owner has a place in the
Republican Party.
If only (again with the “if only”!), Ron Paul, Bob Smith, Bob Barr, Alan
Keyes, and a few others would create a new party, I bet we both would
support them.
Keep up the struggle, Fubsy. One of us may yet convince the other, but you
have the harder job.
====================================
All,
I’m now supposed to be over on the General Discussion Forum, so I must
restrict my time and comments here. Please continue to discuss whatever
relevant subjects require our examination. That’s how we develop our
opinions and sometimes even change our minds. Remember, Fubsy, I was a
Republican for more than thirty years!
Let’s uncover facts, identify opinions as such, use logic, and keep America free
so we can enjoy whatever aspect of “guns” we happen to like (as well as our
other freedoms).
Thanks for your time. Although I won’t be able to participate to the extent I
have in the past (to many folks’ obvious relief!) I’ll be reading and learning
from y’all - and popping in from time to time.
BCNU
The idea that a bill should NOT have amendments, riders or whatever is
outstanding. I believe that is part of what the line-item veto was intended to
address - but apparently it was the wrong tool for the job.
-------
Fubsy,
Please don’t put me in the position where I must re-post your every sentence
to prove I am addressing the questions you ask me. That should be
unnecessary but to address your complaint I’ll do it one more time.
Fubsy: “Dennis,
If I go back and just keep you to the questions I asked and not the continuing
barrage against the other two political parties which you turn every discussion
around to, Your answers are evasive and provide promises, they have no
substance as a party. Now dont take this as a personal attack because it is
not.......”
Dennis: I find “evasive” a bit acidic for one not intending to offend. If
you re-read my post I believe you will find I addressed your every question.
The “barrage” however is earned and will continue.
- To call the Republicans and Democrats two different political parties is
similar to belaboring the differences between Communists and Socialists - the
differences to the common citizen are few and slight.
- The Libertarians have great “substance” (according to the definition in my
Webster’s). They have little or no track record because Americans continue to
vote for the two-party oligarchy rather than our freedoms.
-------
F: “I have some problems with the libertarians and two of the points
mentioned in the above post are a part of it.”
D: I’m not sure which two points you mean but I’m guessing it’s Hal’s
post so let me try that one, ok?
---------------------------------------
Hal,
LOL! Your “simplistic way” put me in stitches. I agree with your approach
but would add this:
The Democrats show us a hedgerow and tell us it's a primrose path.
The Republicans show us a primrose path but take us down the Democrat’s
hedgerow!
The Libertarians show us a field and tell us to plant whatever we want to end
up with.
Hal: I have only 2 points of difference with the Libertarian Party. Open
borders and the drug issue. I will be a hard sell on both. Hard, but not
impossible
Dennis: Me too! Both issues affect gun control and related legislation
so let’s address those issues.
I’m opposed to open borders and the legalization of illegal drugs. But,
gradually, my disagreements are becoming smothered by Libertarians’
seemingly effective arguments.
- Saturday evening my cousin phoned me from Connecticut. He served some
35 years with the Coast Guard and the Navy - mostly as a civilian, and mostly
on classified drug interdiction projects. As a youngster his background was
electronics and (although he wouldn’t disclose details) he was involved with
the development and implementation of electronic means of drug interdiction.
On land he served at various R&D centers. He was at sea a lot!
My cousin said realistic estimates of the amount of drugs we are catching and
preventing from entering our country is 12%. Even Navy “big wigs” claim no
more than 15%. So, apparently some 85% of all drug shipments make it into
our country.
My cousin said *some* small shipments of drugs are sent by small boats which
are easily detected and captured - apparently as “sacrificial shipments” intended
to maintain the status quo and to ensure methods are not developed to capture
the big shipments. He maintained he was being factual rather than cynical.
A retired Border Patrolman (a student in my CHL class some months ago)
stated our borders are. “... largely discretionary. Only the law-abiding go
through our checkpoints. ... We miss most of the rest.” He wouldn’t even
estimate how many “illegals” (HIS term!) come to America without even being
detected! When I asked if American authorities catch half of the border
crossers, he laughed and said, “Not even in our dreams!” He also stated
“about 10%” of the illegal drugs coming across the Rio Grande are discovered
and confiscated.
Many big companies and many government officials are getting rich fighting
the Drug War. However, people “in the know” tell me they can buy illegal
drugs, anywhere, anytime. (I have no personal way of knowing....)
Apparently we already have Open Borders.
Apparently we already lost the Drug War.
Do I like that! NO! I am so vehemently opposed to illegal immigration and
illegal drug use that some friends refuse to discuss it with me (even when
they’re on my side!). But many, many Americans apparently disagree with me
- illegal immigration and drug use are rampant.
I do NOT want to legalize drugs! I am terrified that my daughters and future
generations would believe drug use was NOT immoral or dangerous if it were
NOT illegal. However, I must consider the following:
a) My wife and I have been together some 25 years. She is a virtual teetotaler.
My “drug” use, typically beer, sometimes wine, rarely whiskey, (never again,
tequila!) has not induced her to drink at all.
b) My oldest daughter was married to a drug abuser. She did not become a
drug addict. So said both my daughter and her <expletive deleted> former
husband.
c) My middle daughter says she and her cowboy crowd just don’t use dope.
“Most of them can’t handle beer!” she says with a laugh. It’s around, she says,
“It just isn’t cool.”
d) My youngest daughter is in the “city”. She says at least half of the parties
she goes to end up with someone producing illegal drugs. She only goes to
parties with one or more of her group of friends (at least one of which has
transportation) and they immediately leave. “It’s a problem we don’t need to
be mixed up in.”
(Interesting side comment pertaining to “profiling”: She says, “We all look so
young we know we’re a police target - so we ALWAYS have a designated
driver. That stinks but we all take turns so it’s not really so bad.)
e) My daughters and their friends agree they could “score” drugs in any
American city within an hour of arrival there.
f) If the government REALLY wanted to eliminate drug use, they would:
- Reduce the Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) to 0.01% (to allow for various
medications) with mandatory one year jail time for the second offense (to allow
for simple mistakes). 0.04% could mean automatic one year in jail.
- At least try to develop some similar methods of evaluating drug use and
punishment.
Understand, I’m NOT advocating such draconian measures. (I’d still be in
prison for the indiscretions of my youth!) I’m only pointing out that something
is fishy when government policies and actions don’t seem to coincide.
Outlawing drug use has resulted in another “Prohibition” style crime wave.
Repeal of Prohibition eliminated a LOT of dangerous problems. And gangsters
had to turn to gambling, prostitution, and *illegal drugs*!
Other TFLers have concluded that illegal drug use is a medical problem. That
might be an argument I could support. I’m not yet totally convinced either,
Hal. I want to learn more about the argument.
I’ve read that most drugs which are now illegal but existed a century ago used
to be over-the-counter (OTC) drugs. Drug use (per capita) was much lower
when the drugs did NOT have the mystique and attraction of being illegal.
Other TFLers have concluded that the Drug War has created criminals out of
honest citizens. That frequently becomes an argument of mere definitions.
The bottom line seems to be that there is a greater percentage of drug users
than a century ago. Avoiding the arguments concerning causes, we all must
agree that the Drug War has resulted in violence, oppressive laws (especially
gun control laws), and dangerous threats to the American Rights of privacy,
private ownership, presumption of innocence, etc.
Using Prohibition as an example, I must assume there is SOME validity to the
argument of legalizing drugs. My opposition to that argument apparently is
merely emotional, unrealistic, and, um, without “substance”.
Therefore, Hal, although I also am a “hard sell”, I am told that my arguments
are no longer as valid as when I was a child. I’m not convinced but I am
wavering.
---------------------------
(back to Fubsy)
Fubsy: You and others keep trying to evade the fact that you have no
political power, you have not as a party been able to create any political
situations were you control anything, is that not right?
Dennis: We haven’t *evaded* anything.
We’ve repeatedly agreed the Libertarians have little or no track record! But
NO track record still is preferable to the Republican record of lies and
compromise. Again, Fubsy, why does Trent Lott, representing the Republican
hierarchy, publicly BRAG that they will work with the Democrats to bring
about more gun control?
The Libertarians have little power because people don’t vote for them in
adequate numbers - but our numbers are growing! Some Libertarian grass
roots efforts have been successful. Both the Democrats and the Republicans
recognize the Libertarian threat to the Democrat/Republican oligarchy.
F: Now I also have problems with the republicans as well and the
difference is that I dont see the libertarians as a means to salvation......they
have wonderful rhetoric and chest pounding.....so do the existing parties, the
difference is they have control of our governmental mechanisims, like it or not
that is a fact.
D: I’m glad you have problems with the Republicans. I’d call that an
awakening.
I can not argue that you should see the Libertarians as a means to salvation.
But I don’t quite understand why you do NOT see the Democrats and
Republicans as a means to tyranny.
Calmly now. Read and listen to the powerful Democrats say that we need
more government, more gun control, gun registration, and (in some cases)
Democrats already are calling for outright gun confiscation. (Ref Sen.
Feinstein, Schumer, et al).
Now, with an open mind, read how Trent Lott publicly advocates finding what
they call reasonable and realistic compromises on Democrats’ fight for gun
control. They mean what they say.
Both major parties want gun control!
And the FACT that those two parties already control our government is what
makes gun control, registration, and confiscation inevitable! I understand, “the
existing parties...have control of our governmental mechanisms, like it or not
that is a fact.” I agree!!! But it is a fact we can change! If we simply have
the integrity to vote our beliefs, we can vote the tyrants out of office!
F: Do you not agree that when a party has no track record they can
claim anything and there is nothing to evaluate them against?
D: I again agree, Fubsy. But the other two parties are both promising
gun control. I refuse to support gun control. The Libertarians are like us -
they are angry! They are Americans in the Constitutional sense of the term.
Therefore, to avoid CERTAIN tyranny, I will take a chance with my fellow
angry Americans. I consider it an opportunity for freedom.
F: Just out of curiosity, have the republicans done anything you agree
with? How about the democrats?
D: Yes. They adjourned.
(Sorry, I’m just trying to lighten up a bit.)Seriously, of course there is some good in every party. But the fact that Hitler
created the autobahns does not justify the horrors he perpetrated. By the same
token, I do not have the time, expertise, intent, or TFL bandwidth to critique
all the activities written into the Federal Register. I believe the treachery,
perfidy, and struggle for tyrannical control exhibited by our current
government is a greater threat to our way of life than any good they may have
done.
The current regime is a greater threat to our freedom than if you or I were
elected to the Presidency. (How’s that for a scary thought?
)Fubsy, I sincerely believe that if we do not vote the current rascals out of
public office, we will lose the keystone amendment. The rest of the Bill of
Rights will mean no more than the Soviet Constitution meant to their common
people. We already have seen so many infringements to our Bill of Rights we
have no moral choice but to replace our current government by the most
peaceful, least injurious method we have available - the ballot box.
F: Remember Im working through this stuff too, so these arent personal
attacks or defenses of a position, Im trying to evaluate a course of action
which can actually do something, not talk about it, how is it to be done...--no
magic wands, what is the mechanism that will be used....Fubsy.
D: Fine, Fubsy. Me too. Intelligent people of integrity don’t always
agree on every issue - even when they both have all the facts! (A luxury
neither of us have when predicting the future.)
No magic wands, Fubsy. What I wish for is an effective crystal ball to show
what the future would bring with either a Republican or a Libertarian as
President.
I agree the Libertarians have no track record to compare to the Republicans’.
But the Republican track record, combined with their promise of more gun
control, proves to my satisfaction that no gun owner has a place in the
Republican Party.
If only (again with the “if only”!), Ron Paul, Bob Smith, Bob Barr, Alan
Keyes, and a few others would create a new party, I bet we both would
support them.
Keep up the struggle, Fubsy. One of us may yet convince the other, but you
have the harder job.
====================================
All,
I’m now supposed to be over on the General Discussion Forum, so I must
restrict my time and comments here. Please continue to discuss whatever
relevant subjects require our examination. That’s how we develop our
opinions and sometimes even change our minds. Remember, Fubsy, I was a
Republican for more than thirty years!
Let’s uncover facts, identify opinions as such, use logic, and keep America free
so we can enjoy whatever aspect of “guns” we happen to like (as well as our
other freedoms).
Thanks for your time. Although I won’t be able to participate to the extent I
have in the past (to many folks’ obvious relief!) I’ll be reading and learning
from y’all - and popping in from time to time.
BCNU
Dennis (or all),
I agree the war on drugs is a sham. The only thing it does is put money in the coffers to perpetuate iself. My area of concern is that if drugs are made legal, who controls them? Will the Federal gvt or the State gvt determine (regulate) where, when, strength, legal hours of sale, like alcohol is now. I can't see the DEA or the DOJ letting go of those very lucrative bobbles. I don't mean to imply the Feds are making money from the sale of drugs, but there are a good many careers on the line here, with a lot of decent pay and great benefits at stake. Some form of regulation has to take place, and the Libertarian Party is pretty much mum about the aftermath. Kind of like "This is what we want, but once we get it we aren't sure what to do with it".
The open borders and free trade issue also has me worried. The concept is a valid one, but I see no answer to the question of how to control it.I use the oil companies as an example. For Exon and Shell, it all came down to who got there first prior to the OPEC mess of the early '70's. Sure you can buy into an oil well, but BP pretty much determines what you return is going to be. I see a major cluster F*** at the end of that tunnel(Free Trade), where the first to get there will be at the top of the pyramid.
I am not trying to be difficult, I said I would be a hard sell, but these are areas that I am concerned with. I just don't see a plan for how to handle things once I looked at and dismissed the reform party back in '92 for this very reason. Ross offered a lot of solutions, but his solutions offered a lot of problems down the road.My basic belief of the gvt is that of lazze faire (sp), the LP seems to offer that approach, but they don't seem to provide long term answers.
* As a side note. A few months ago a phone poll being conducted by a student from the Ubiversity of Akron, asked my political affiliation. My response was Libertarian. I just couldn't bring myself to say Republican anymore.
------------------
Want to feel your age?Check it out. http://web.superb.net/boy/age1.html
I agree the war on drugs is a sham. The only thing it does is put money in the coffers to perpetuate iself. My area of concern is that if drugs are made legal, who controls them? Will the Federal gvt or the State gvt determine (regulate) where, when, strength, legal hours of sale, like alcohol is now. I can't see the DEA or the DOJ letting go of those very lucrative bobbles. I don't mean to imply the Feds are making money from the sale of drugs, but there are a good many careers on the line here, with a lot of decent pay and great benefits at stake. Some form of regulation has to take place, and the Libertarian Party is pretty much mum about the aftermath. Kind of like "This is what we want, but once we get it we aren't sure what to do with it".
The open borders and free trade issue also has me worried. The concept is a valid one, but I see no answer to the question of how to control it.I use the oil companies as an example. For Exon and Shell, it all came down to who got there first prior to the OPEC mess of the early '70's. Sure you can buy into an oil well, but BP pretty much determines what you return is going to be. I see a major cluster F*** at the end of that tunnel(Free Trade), where the first to get there will be at the top of the pyramid.
I am not trying to be difficult, I said I would be a hard sell, but these are areas that I am concerned with. I just don't see a plan for how to handle things once I looked at and dismissed the reform party back in '92 for this very reason. Ross offered a lot of solutions, but his solutions offered a lot of problems down the road.My basic belief of the gvt is that of lazze faire (sp), the LP seems to offer that approach, but they don't seem to provide long term answers.
* As a side note. A few months ago a phone poll being conducted by a student from the Ubiversity of Akron, asked my political affiliation. My response was Libertarian. I just couldn't bring myself to say Republican anymore.
------------------
Want to feel your age?Check it out. http://web.superb.net/boy/age1.html
cornered rat
Moderator
I recommend looking back at the Jewish popiulation of Europe. Somewhat like gun owners, they had to deal with much negative PR. Those who cooperated and kept their heads down perished. Commies/Nasdap, what's the difference, except in details.
Crazy Zionists with Stens and guts to vote with their feet made a new life for themselves. An imperfect life, to be sure, but a hell-hole all their own.
I would think that Libertarians, imperfect as they are, are the least of the threats...perhaps even allies. As opposed to the Republicrats who have *promised* us trouble. It isn't like we had not been warned...
Crazy Zionists with Stens and guts to vote with their feet made a new life for themselves. An imperfect life, to be sure, but a hell-hole all their own.
I would think that Libertarians, imperfect as they are, are the least of the threats...perhaps even allies. As opposed to the Republicrats who have *promised* us trouble. It isn't like we had not been warned...
CR,
It isn't like we haven't been warned.
Almost like a "Mein Kampf", isn't it?
-------------------------
Hal,
You and I are BOTH a hard sell on these issues.
The “turf” concept you mention is a very real problem - government entities
seldom fade away. Currently, the Republicans and Democrats “scratch each
other’s back” to such an extent (in the name of compromise, political reality,
etc.) that reduction in government size and influence is out of the question.
The Libertarians say they want to dismantle a huge portion of the federal
bureaucracy and give it back to the states. As Fubsy notes, it’s easy to make
promises but (as we ALL agree) accomplishing goals can be difficult. The one
indisputable fact is that at least the Libertarians might try - the Republocrats’
regime will only increase in size and burden.
Frankly, I haven’t researched the Libertarians enough to know how they would
handle (currently illegal) drugs. Maybe making them “prescription” drugs
would work. The American Medical Association and the Food and Drug
Administration might be able to handle it - maybe hiring a few DEA folks in
the process.
Putting the DEA out of existence with a stroke of a pen without some prior
plan would be a mistake, IMO. As far as the government employees are
concerned, some could be absorbed in other government endeavors, some
could retire early, some could find law enforcement work with other
organizations (federal, state, and local), and some would be like the rest of us
Americans - they would have to find productive work elsewhere.
Such an action surely would reduce that portion of our annual federal budget.
----------
On open borders, “From the Baltic in the North, to the Adriatic in the South,
the Soviet Union has drawn an Iron Curtain across Europe.” As the Soviet
Union showed us, and Winston Churchill reported, it is altogether possible to
close borders between political states.
I am NOT advocating an Iron Curtain around the United States. (Although I
could make some strong arguments for it on a different thread. ) I’m merely
saying our borders need not be sieves. Legalizing drugs would take a lot of the
pressure off smuggling, but we still have the problem of illegal immigration. I
don’t think there are any answers to the Open Border problem that do NOT
involve measures which would be too distasteful to implement. Among the
many considerations would be:
- Throwing our borders open would invite millions of people to America who
could not participate in our work force with their current levels of knowledge
and expertise. Welfare, medical, and job training costs would be horrendous.
Sweat shops and other undesirable conditions prevalent in many third-world
countries could result.
- Closing our borders effectively would involve controls repugnant to many
Americans.
- Totally free trade invites companies to take their manufacturing jobs out of
the U.S. in search of cheap labor. Our unemployment rates would rise until we
were willing to work for the same low wages prevalent in poverty-stricken,
“slave labor” countries. With those kinds of low-paying jobs, the U.S. would
become less of a market. Worse, our society would slide even faster into a
“Have v. Have Not” society - typically a precursor to a revolution of the
masses. (Whew! I’m in over my head here!)
- As for OPEC, it’s my understanding that OPEC may decide what to do but
the Arabs do what they want and the rest of OPEC must follow. Apparently
that’s why we struggle so hard to keep Saudi Arabia happy with us. By the
way, I’ll bet the TFLers from Texas and Oklahoma can provide many examples
of oils wells being shut down or capped because of low oil prices. There must
be some “behind-the-scenes” strategy involved here. I would like to know
what the Libertarians oil policy would be.
-------
I guess, as Fubsy notes, I’m running to a great extent on faith.
- I have LOST faith in the Republicans and Democrats. They BOTH are
trying to morph us from citizens to subjects. That is at least as dangerous to
our way of life as Open Borders, Free Trade, and Legalizing Drugs. If we can
regain control of our government, they must become more responsive to our
problems and solutions that the current regime.
- I have faith that the Libertarians will reduce the size of our government,
eliminate and prevent gun control, and ensure Americans have greater control
over our government “mechanisms”. Therefore, our fearsome problems can be
addressed as an American Challenge, rather than mere opportunities for greater
Republican/Democrat aggrandizement. In other words, I have faith that
Americans can meet almost any challenge if we are free of the self-serving
burdens of our current regime.
I have more trust in the ingenuity of Americans of good faith than in the
burdensome, increasingly tyrannical regime currently in power. I believe we
must return to Constitutional Law rather than law by self-serving compromise
and legislation buggered up with amendments and riders. Even worse are
non-legislated powers such as regulations, directives, memos, and Executive
Orders.
As more people become aware of the arrogance, lies, and treachery of our
current self-serving, self-perpetuating regime, more voters will stop supporting
the two major perpetrators of our problems.
As more people become aware that there IS an alternative, the various third
parties will gain the support of the American voters.
Which third party will lead the attack?
It can’t be a geographical party clinging to the failed Confederacy. It can not
be a single-issue party which attracts only those whose “hot button” is pushed
by only one issue. It must be a party with wide appeal to the general voters.
That’s why I believe the Libertarians will gain strength. Many voters are fed
up with the status quo and believe our Republican/Democrat political machine
is leading America in the wrong direction of increasing government size,
control, and cost. All the Libertarians lack is a charismatic, believable leader.
If Bob Smith became a Libertarian and could convey to the American voter the
charisma of John Kennedy, the integrity of Ronald Reagan, and the
organizational ability of Dwight Eisenhower, he would become our next
President by a landslide.
It isn't like we haven't been warned.
Almost like a "Mein Kampf", isn't it?
-------------------------
Hal,
You and I are BOTH a hard sell on these issues.
The “turf” concept you mention is a very real problem - government entities
seldom fade away. Currently, the Republicans and Democrats “scratch each
other’s back” to such an extent (in the name of compromise, political reality,
etc.) that reduction in government size and influence is out of the question.
The Libertarians say they want to dismantle a huge portion of the federal
bureaucracy and give it back to the states. As Fubsy notes, it’s easy to make
promises but (as we ALL agree) accomplishing goals can be difficult. The one
indisputable fact is that at least the Libertarians might try - the Republocrats’
regime will only increase in size and burden.
Frankly, I haven’t researched the Libertarians enough to know how they would
handle (currently illegal) drugs. Maybe making them “prescription” drugs
would work. The American Medical Association and the Food and Drug
Administration might be able to handle it - maybe hiring a few DEA folks in
the process.
Putting the DEA out of existence with a stroke of a pen without some prior
plan would be a mistake, IMO. As far as the government employees are
concerned, some could be absorbed in other government endeavors, some
could retire early, some could find law enforcement work with other
organizations (federal, state, and local), and some would be like the rest of us
Americans - they would have to find productive work elsewhere.
Such an action surely would reduce that portion of our annual federal budget.
----------
On open borders, “From the Baltic in the North, to the Adriatic in the South,
the Soviet Union has drawn an Iron Curtain across Europe.” As the Soviet
Union showed us, and Winston Churchill reported, it is altogether possible to
close borders between political states.
I am NOT advocating an Iron Curtain around the United States. (Although I
could make some strong arguments for it on a different thread.
) I’m merelysaying our borders need not be sieves. Legalizing drugs would take a lot of the
pressure off smuggling, but we still have the problem of illegal immigration. I
don’t think there are any answers to the Open Border problem that do NOT
involve measures which would be too distasteful to implement. Among the
many considerations would be:
- Throwing our borders open would invite millions of people to America who
could not participate in our work force with their current levels of knowledge
and expertise. Welfare, medical, and job training costs would be horrendous.
Sweat shops and other undesirable conditions prevalent in many third-world
countries could result.
- Closing our borders effectively would involve controls repugnant to many
Americans.
- Totally free trade invites companies to take their manufacturing jobs out of
the U.S. in search of cheap labor. Our unemployment rates would rise until we
were willing to work for the same low wages prevalent in poverty-stricken,
“slave labor” countries. With those kinds of low-paying jobs, the U.S. would
become less of a market. Worse, our society would slide even faster into a
“Have v. Have Not” society - typically a precursor to a revolution of the
masses. (Whew! I’m in over my head here!)
- As for OPEC, it’s my understanding that OPEC may decide what to do but
the Arabs do what they want and the rest of OPEC must follow. Apparently
that’s why we struggle so hard to keep Saudi Arabia happy with us. By the
way, I’ll bet the TFLers from Texas and Oklahoma can provide many examples
of oils wells being shut down or capped because of low oil prices. There must
be some “behind-the-scenes” strategy involved here. I would like to know
what the Libertarians oil policy would be.
-------
I guess, as Fubsy notes, I’m running to a great extent on faith.
- I have LOST faith in the Republicans and Democrats. They BOTH are
trying to morph us from citizens to subjects. That is at least as dangerous to
our way of life as Open Borders, Free Trade, and Legalizing Drugs. If we can
regain control of our government, they must become more responsive to our
problems and solutions that the current regime.
- I have faith that the Libertarians will reduce the size of our government,
eliminate and prevent gun control, and ensure Americans have greater control
over our government “mechanisms”. Therefore, our fearsome problems can be
addressed as an American Challenge, rather than mere opportunities for greater
Republican/Democrat aggrandizement. In other words, I have faith that
Americans can meet almost any challenge if we are free of the self-serving
burdens of our current regime.
I have more trust in the ingenuity of Americans of good faith than in the
burdensome, increasingly tyrannical regime currently in power. I believe we
must return to Constitutional Law rather than law by self-serving compromise
and legislation buggered up with amendments and riders. Even worse are
non-legislated powers such as regulations, directives, memos, and Executive
Orders.
As more people become aware of the arrogance, lies, and treachery of our
current self-serving, self-perpetuating regime, more voters will stop supporting
the two major perpetrators of our problems.
As more people become aware that there IS an alternative, the various third
parties will gain the support of the American voters.
Which third party will lead the attack?
It can’t be a geographical party clinging to the failed Confederacy. It can not
be a single-issue party which attracts only those whose “hot button” is pushed
by only one issue. It must be a party with wide appeal to the general voters.
That’s why I believe the Libertarians will gain strength. Many voters are fed
up with the status quo and believe our Republican/Democrat political machine
is leading America in the wrong direction of increasing government size,
control, and cost. All the Libertarians lack is a charismatic, believable leader.
If Bob Smith became a Libertarian and could convey to the American voter the
charisma of John Kennedy, the integrity of Ronald Reagan, and the
organizational ability of Dwight Eisenhower, he would become our next
President by a landslide.
- Status