Leftist GWB to freeze Mortage Rates?

[Joe Schmoe]

My point being is the libertarian vote is more closely aligned with the republican party....not democrat. That's why your previous declaration makes absolutely no sense. Libertarian votes go to the right.....not left.

Libertarian=almost as far to the left as possible. Any farther left would be anarchy.
Republicans like GWB would love nothing more than to see the Bill of Rights abolished and to do away with personal freedom. Republicans persecute those who they see as having the "wrong" religion (eg Muslims), the "wrong" lifestyle (eg gays, drug users), etc. They also want to tell women what they can or can't do with their own bodies, and to tell people in general what kinds of books they can read, sex they can have, art they can look at, and so on. George Orwell's "Thought Police" are exactly what would-be dictators like GWB would love to have.

 

[Highlander]

Our sovereignty as a nation is being eroded away right in front of us and the people are doing nothing about it.

I think the above statement applies to all nations to a greater or lesser extent. Still, can 'we the people' legitimately rail against the failures of Government? After all, as you rightly note, it's no more nor less than our own unwillingness to take a stand against, increasingly, blatant injustice that allows and no doubt encourages polititians to continue getting away with it.

 

[Alamar]

Libertarian=almost as far to the left as possible. Any farther left would be anarchy.
Republicans like GWB would love nothing more than to see the Bill of Rights abolished and to do away with personal freedom. Republicans persecute those who they see as having the "wrong" religion (eg Muslims), the "wrong" lifestyle (eg gays, drug users), etc. They also want to tell women what they can or can't do with their own bodies.

Hmmm .... the phrase "like GWB" is interesting. What percentage of republican voters are "like GWB"??

****************************************************

I would say that my personal breed of Libertarian can not be categorized as either pure liberal OR pure conservative.

Libertarians tend to, socially, be very liberal in that they believe that you should leave people alone as long as they aren't hurting others. Personal freedom is the rule of thumb here.

Libertarians, fiscally, tend to be very conservative. Personal responsibility is the rule of thumb here.

**********************************************

To remark about other posts I still maintain that "we the people" are our own worst enemy ...

 

[aberkowitz]

Libertarian=almost as far to the left as possible. Any farther left would be anarchy.

Disagree... libertarianism takes the extreme ends of both sides and smushes them together- Personal Freedom (left) and Fiscal Conservatism (right). You cannot generally classify them as far left b/c they tend to be against government run social welfare programs on the belief that an economic efficient society should be able to take care of its own without the intervention and spending of the government. Libertarians also generally tend to be against many types of taxes on the grounds that they create deadweight loss. You'll find many economists to be bastions of libertarianism b/c they'd like to run the world as it works in their graphs and models.

 

[aberkowitz]

To remark about other posts I still maintain that "we the people" are our own worst enemy ...

What was the Winston Churchill quote- "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

 

[stratman]

Libertarian=almost as far to the left as possible. Any farther left would be anarchy.
Republicans like GWB would love nothing more than to see the Bill of Rights abolished and to do away with personal freedom. Republicans persecute those who they see as having the "wrong" religion (eg Muslims), the "wrong" lifestyle (eg gays, drug users), etc. They also want to tell women what they can or can't do with their own bodies, and to tell people in general what kinds of books they can read, sex they can have, art they can look at, and so on. George Orwell's "Thought Police" are exactly what would-be dictators like GWB would love to have.

Joe,

Though you and I are on opposite poles politically, this statement makes no sense what so ever, zero.

You don't seem to understand conservatism at all, man all you post is vitriolic hate toward Republicans and go berserk when someone questions the left. I understand you don't like Buck and you freaked when he linked Hillary and Hitler, but by the same token you love to pool Republicans and reactionists in the same pot, if you call someone an fascist for being conservative you my friend are doing the same as Buck by your comments. I have no beef with anyone on this site, I try to be courteous and polite to all no matter what political affiliation or religious belief.

 

[Rickster71]

The closest we've ever come to a viable independent, or Libertarian candidate,is when I voted for Ross Perot.

A little about Libertarians:

Instead of a "left–right" spectrum, libertarians use a two-dimensional space, with Personal Freedom on one axis and Economic Freedom on the other, which is called the Nolan chart.
Named after David Nolan, who designed the chart and also founded the United States Libertarian Party.

 

[Joe Schmoe]

I have no beef with anyone on this site, I try to be courteous and polite to all no matter what political affiliation or religious belief.

If all republicans were more like you and less like Buckeye and/or GWB, I would probably get along with them just fine.

 

[aberkowitz]

The closest we've ever come to a viable independent, or Libertarian candidate,is when I voted for Ross Perot.

And calling Perot viable is a bit of a stretch... I think he was more of a curiosity than anything else- that combined with an economy that was still recovering and two other candidates who were less than impressive (Clinton got better with time) helped drive his popularity. I personally believe he would have been an awful president.

 

[aberkowitz]

If all republicans were more like you and less like Buckeye and/or GWB, I would probably get along with them just fine.

But what do you say about the democrats/liberals who are the left-wing equivalent of this country's far right? Do you decry their views as immoral and "wrong" or are you willing to accept them because they label themselves "democrats"? I would argue they do as much harm as their right-wing counterparts and are just as polarizing. Neither party can claim they've been non-partisan unifiers.

My biggest problem with our country's political system is that the moderates of both parties let themselves get pulled apart by the fringes all in the name of "party unity". There are pro-choice republicans and pro-gun democrats, fiscally conservative liberals and pro-environment conservatives. I consider myself to fall among them as I share values from both parties. If those of us in the middle could finally band together and find our own candidate instead of having to deal with the BS that both parties put out- and let me tell you, there is not ONE candidate in this election that I've found worth supporting (Bill Richardson is as close as it gets for me)- then we'd all be better off.

 

[annunaki]

If all republicans were more like you and less like Buckeye and/or GWB, I would probably get along with them just fine.

Saying GWB is a conservative or remotely represents the real conservative base after all the crap he has pulled is like saying Hillary is a Republican.

 

[Mort Corey]

Saying GWB is a conservative or remotely represents the real conservative base after all the crap he has pulled is like saying Hillary is a Republican.

In many respects she is....since there isn't really that much difference anyway

 

[Buckeye_Nut]

GWB has turned into a leftist.....whoda thunk?

It seems that President "Amnesty" now has plans for government intervention where it has no business getting involved.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071206/ap_on_bi_ge/mortgage_crisis

The Republican who becomes our new president in 2009 will hopefully reverse GWBs ongoing leftist agenda instituted at the tail end of his presidency.

I find it interesting that this entire thread evolved from such a simple observation.

 

[Alex2507]

I just now figured out that Gypsum Wall Board was not the topic.

 

[Rickster71]

And calling Perot viable is a bit of a stretch... I think he was more of a curiosity than anything else- that combined with an economy that was still recovering and two other candidates who were less than impressive (Clinton got better with time) helped drive his popularity. I personally believe he would have been an awful president.

I said "The closest we've ever come to a viable independent"
Maybe to better explain my point, would be to ask the question.
Who is an Independent candidate you remember, other than Ross Perot?
Perot got 19% of the presidential vote. He was the most successful Independent presidential candidate in terms of the popular vote since Theodore Roosevelt in the 1912 election.

 

[Joe Schmoe]

Who is an Independent candidate you remember, other than Ross Perot?

Ralph Nader.

 

[stratman]

And calling Perot viable is a bit of a stretch... I think he was more of a curiosity than anything else- that combined with an economy that was still recovering and two other candidates who were less than impressive (Clinton got better with time) helped drive his popularity. I personally believe he would have been an awful president.

The dilemma that faces our system is simple: we vote for someone we really don't know, we take it all at face value based on speeches written by professional speech writers and media favoritism. You said Clinton got better with time, how? He was just as enigmatic from the beginning to the end, so was Perot, neither had a clear political track that you could follow, Clinton came into the race with tons of baggage from his years as governor, Perot's claim to fame : billionaire-CEO, besides that, he said he would run the country as a corporation (ridiculous.) People now vote on the spin not on the substance of the candidate, I thought GWB would make a terrible president, he did. Same for Clinton. It's up to us to weed through the layers of spin, but how many people really care or perceive that they don't have the time (priority)? I think I can sum up the malady that's been plaguing our country, both socially and politically: lax-apathy (I didn't make it up) or more famously the Don't Rock The Boat Syndrome." Lax-apathy can be applied to child rearing, politics, morals, just about any malady, if you look deep enough you'll see it lurking there along with his sister greed.

 

[annunaki]

I just now figured out that Gypsum Wall Board was not the topic.

LOL. This was entertaining.

 

[aberkowitz]

The dilemma that faces our system is simple: we vote for someone we really don't know, we take it all at face value based on speeches written by professional speech writers and media favoritism. You said Clinton got better with time, how? He was just as enigmatic from the beginning to the end, so was Perot, neither had a clear political track that you could follow, Clinton came into the race with tons of baggage from his years as governor, Perot's claim to fame : billionaire-CEO, besides that, he said he would run the country as a corporation (ridiculous.) People now vote on the spin not on the substance of the candidate, I thought GWB would make a terrible president, he did. Same for Clinton. It's up to us to weed through the layers of spin, but how many people really care or perceive that they don't have the time (priority)? I think I can sum up the malady that's been plaguing our country, both socially and politically: lax-apathy (I didn't make it up) or more famously the Don't Rock The Boat Syndrome." Lax-apathy can be applied to child rearing, politics, morals, just about any malady, if you look deep enough you'll see it lurking there along with his sister greed.

I should clarify- I think Clinton became a better communicator with time, not necessarily a better leader.

 

[aberkowitz]

I said "The closest we've ever come to a viable independent"
Maybe to better explain my point, would be to ask the question.
Who is an Independent candidate you remember, other than Ross Perot?
Perot got 19% of the presidential vote. He was the most successful Independent presidential candidate in terms of the popular vote since Theodore Roosevelt in the 1912 election.

John Anderson in 1980 is the main one that comes to mind.