Oh, it's a New York Times article? Well then, it must be unbiased.

^ Not that I expect it to change your mind, you're too biased against Democrats (still pissed off about James Buchanan, I suppose), but you could try reading the article, then complaining about any bias you discover.

Or you could just be a cheeky bastard.

uhm... not happening... neither for mcsame either. I'd rather vote for Cynthia McKinney than Obama anyday.

Bob Barr is an awesome choice for the Libertarian candidate. Many ideological Republicans who dislike McCain will go to Bob, although Palin may be able to slow the bleeding somewhat if she doesn't implode. Many ideological Libertarians who have taken a look at Bob Barr's abysmal (very un-libertarian) voting record will go to Obama. Both ideological and movement Democrats will never forgive Bob Barr for being the fascist bigot who authored the 'defense of marriage' bill and slavishly towed the Republican line for the duration of his public service.

GoBoBarr!

Putties and their willing familiars, getting the job done, according to their regularly, programmed, schedule....
http://www.videosift.com/video/Television-The-Drug-of-the-Nation

..."Breeeeeding Ignorance, and Feeeeding Radiation.."

Ron Paul would certainly have been my first choice, followed by Kucinich, but since neither of them have a chance this time around, it would definitely be Obama for me. That is, if I were a U.S. citizen.

I'm a "small-l" libertarian, and I'm voting Obama. McCain couldn't be more anti-libertarian. He disagrees with libertarians on . . .

gun control
abortion
stem cell research
foreign interventionalism
drug control
education
gay rights
intelligent design

. . . and there's probably a lot more that I missed.

>> ^Xax:
Ron Paul would certainly have been my first choice, followed by Kucinich, but since neither of them have a chance this time around, it would definitely be Obama for me. That is, if I were a U.S. citizen.


I'm not trying to pick on you particularly Xax, I just see this position expressed a lot and it confounds me a little. While RP and Kucinich agree on a few positions and how to achieve them, they're almost complete polar opposites on everything else. Even where their goals are the same their plans to achieve them are vastly different. For example they both claim to be anti-corporation and pro-competition, but RP feels a true free market is the only way to control corporations and support healthy competition and Kucinich feels regulation is necessary to achieve the same goal.

They're both admirable politicians (I know those two words rarely go together) because they stick to their guns and have a voting record to prove it, but they're on such different spectrums of ideology I'm confused as to how someone can support both at the same time.

>> ^Crosswords:
>> ^Xax:
Ron Paul would certainly have been my first choice, followed by Kucinich, but since neither of them have a chance this time around, it would definitely be Obama for me. That is, if I were a U.S. citizen.

I'm not trying to pick on you particularly Xax, I just see this position expressed a lot and it confounds me a little. While RP and Kucinich agree on a few positions and how to achieve them, they're almost complete polar opposites on everything else. Even where their goals are the same their plans to achieve them are vastly different. For example they both claim to be anti-corporation and pro-competition, but RP feels a true free market is the only way to control corporations and support healthy competition and Kucinich feels regulation is necessary to achieve the same goal.
They're both admirable politicians (I know those two words rarely go together) because they stick to their guns and have a voting record to prove it, but they're on such different spectrums of ideology I'm confused as to how someone can support both at the same time.


I agree that regulating corporations is definitely a necessity and I like both Kucinich and Paul but if I had to choose between the two it would be Paul because of how he'd handle economic reform. Personally I think it would have been best if there could have been a Paul/Kucinich ticket. Compromise is needed. Working together to solve the toughest issues would have been the best option. I only wish more people would realize this.

>> ^Crosswords:
>> ^Xax:
... I'm confused as to how someone can support both at the same time.

i think you answered your own question, crosswords.

"They're both admirable politicians because they stick to their guns and have a voting record to prove it..."

that's the debate we wanted to see.

where the two of them agree? it's a good bet that should be done, as it's then an idea tested and supported by both sides.
where they differ? they would explain themselves rationally, without mischaracterizing either their position or their opponent's, and let the voters decide.

to use your example issue, free market vs regulation? well, most of us are not economists, dig? we would be well-advised to listen to both Paul and Kucinich as they hash it out, finding new ideas and compromises in the process.

^CP
Well that seems at the least a reasonable expectation, if not what one should expect of all politicians. Making compromises to reflect the actual needs of citizens rather than ideology. I guess I'm just a bit more cynical, in that I don't think they'd compromise at all, specially given their voting records, they don't call RP Dr.No for nothing. Personally I love most of Kucinich's positions and proposals, I just don't think the rest of America would be too keen on them, and no matter how good a plan is if it doesn't have any support it's bound to fail.

I'm not sure if I've said this before but I really do wish I lived in a world where RP or Kucinich's plans were viable, where everyone believed in them, and truly followed the core tenants that would lead to their plans being successful. If the rich weren't always looking for a way to screw the poor out of more money, or if people weren't always looking for a way to cheat government programs. If personal and public responsibility and integrity meant anything to everyone. And it's not even an whether most people would comply because it'd only take a minority to ruin it for everyone.

Even though I support 'the candidate of hope' I really don't have a whole lot myself. I don't have hope in people as a whole, individuals are generally pretty smart reasonable, but when made part of a mob everything reverts to the LCD, aka a pack of feces flinging monkeys. My glass is half empty

and to address runner's post?
yes, i was already a bigger supporter of obama, than of the man mccain has become in the last 8 years.

primarily because i've always valued social issues over economic ones.

i do not agree with FDR's safety net/welfare state, but i can tolerate it, and try to convince Democrats that it's fiscally unsustainable, and we would all be better off without it.

but frankly, there's no way i'm going to let self-righteous pricks make this country any more socially conservative than they already have. what's next? reinstituting prohibition? and good luck convincing them otherwise, because many aren't deciding based on rationality.

Again I need to learn to type/think faster as by the time my last post was made another had already occurred before I even noticed.

I think I discussed some of what my15min covered in his post, but I guess I'll reiterate. Its not that I don't think it would be a good idea for there to be a compromise between the Kucinich and RP perspectives, it's that I think there won't be because both side's views are so polar opposite there'd be too many concessions on either side and nobody would be happy with it.

I guess it's not a matter of what I'd like or hope to happen but more of what I'd expect to happen given how things generally seem to play out. Both of them are really in the positions they are because, in part, they've refused to compromise and stuck to their ideals.

A professor of mine would sometimes say I don't want you to go out on a limb, but I'd at least like you to climb the tree. Maybe they've not compromised because nobody has attempted to climb their perspective trees. Though Kucinich seems more in line with his party than RP is with his. Maybe that's more of an indication of how far the party unity sickness has spread in the Republican party when someone in the party who actually votes for smaller government initiatives and against legislation that increases governmental size and involvement is considered an outcast of the party.

I don't know much about libertarianism, but what little i do know doesn't lead me to believe a libertarian would support liberalism. They may have something in common with the personal freedoms democrats espouse, but economically they are absolutely incompatible.

Thus, given that the author's argument revolves around an economic premise--I cannot see how it is in any way convincing. The statement "War is the antithesis of the libertarian philosophy of consent, voluntarism and trade,” is just patently false. There is nothing inherent in libertarianism, to my knowledge, that condemns a legally sanctioned war. Illegal war should be condemned by all parties, regardless of political affiliation.

Obama wants to increase government spending on so many fronts it's unrealistic of him to think he can support all these socialist welfare programs. This would increase taxes and government involvement in the public's financial lives.

The libertarians want to minimalize government involvement, not increase it.

The libertarians want to lower taxes and have the government regulate it's spending rather then raising taxes.

Quite frankly as a borderline libertarian myself, Barack Obama's record speaks louder then his double talk. And he does not have much in common with libertarians. Especially when it comes to economic matters which he understands only enough to give both sides what they want. Which is impossible.

>> ^imstellar28:
I don't know much about libertarianism, but what little i do know doesn't lead me to believe a libertarian would support liberalism. They may have something in common with the personal freedoms democrats espouse, but economically they are absolutely incompatible.
Thus, given that the author's argument revolves around an economic premise--I cannot see how it is in any way convincing. The statement "War is the antithesis of the libertarian philosophy of consent, voluntarism and trade,” is just patently false. There is nothing inherent in libertarianism, to my knowledge, that condemns a legally sanctioned war. Illegal war should be condemned by all parties, regardless of political affiliation.


You come across as one of the most doctrinally strict libertarians around these here parts.

Personally I don't see the argument made as revolving around an economic premise -- instead it's revolving around the premise that the current Republican party is anti-libertarian in the extreme, favoring a reduction of individual freedom, and an increase in the size of government; tax cuts entirely paid for by borrowing from other countries isn't shrinking the size of government at all, it's just forcing government to expand taxation at a later time.

Democrats have a respect for personal liberty that Republicans do not, and are in line with libertarians on social issues. Democrats do want to expand government, but it's a means to an end, not an end in and of itself.

Obama in particular is a new kind of Democrat, who's happy to kill programs that don't work, has no beef with the 2nd amendment (just with AK-47's in the hands of drug dealers), and believes that command and control-style economic plans should be used sparingly, and always kept under scrutiny.

Personally, I don't see how Libertarians aren't rallying behind Obama, if only to block the continued ascendancy of the anti-libertarian Republicans, who only use libertarian philosophy as a set of marketing slogans, nothing more.

^Maybe it's because we see that he's a CFR player that is deceiving the oblivious masses with slogans of non-descriptive "Change" and "Hope" and "Yes we can!".

I would have choosen him over McCain - however, knowing what I know about Obama and his CFR/Bilderberger peppered campaign party, I would walk away from the election poll puking from the disgust of selling out my vote, my country, our Constitution for the "lesser of two evils" - which is still evil.

^ If you're a single-issue CFR voter, do you really think the non-CFR candidates would stay free of their influence if they were polling competitively?

I'm thinking any organization that's kept the US government under their thrall for a century, in secret, won't let go of that control just because people decide to vote 3rd party.

For that matter, what makes you think they're bothering to count the votes, if they wield that kind of power?

Democrats have by far done the most to expand the government in the last century. If you look at governmental programs as a % of total, the programs enacted by democrats dwarf those of the republicans:

Here is our current system in action in 2007:
........................................(billions).............(%)
national defense................$552.................19%
education............................$91...................3%
health..................................$266.................9%
medicare............................$375................13%
income security..................$365................13%
social security.....................$596................21%
veterans benefits................$72..................3%
environment........................$31..................1%
transportation......................$72..................3%
community development......$54.................2%
international affairs.............$29.................1%
general science...................$23.................1%
agriculture...........................$25.................1%
admistration of justice.........$41................ 1%
general government............$18.................1%
interest..............................$226...............8%
total...................................$2836

education, health, medicare, income security, social security, community development--these are all democratic policies. and they total $1747 trillion or 61% of the budget.

The largest offender by the republicans is the national defense--but it is "only" up $282 billion or 10% from prewar levels ($270 billion).

Its not as simple as looking at the budgets during democratic presidents and comparing them to republican presidents: you have to look at the long term effects of legislation. FDR was president over 70 years ago but just look at social security--a policy he enacted. He is long dead and his legislation is still taking up 21% of our budget 2/3 of a century later.

Libertarians believe in small government and theres just no way to resolve that with the policy of democrats.