Why not extremism?

sturg33 said:
LOL at Sav. You are the exact same at the folks you are constantly bashing, just on the other side.

And it seems to me that you know what's on Fox news moreso than anyone here. You're always talking about it. Are you a regular viewer?
Click to expand...

Political junkies unfortunately have to watch both sides most of the time to see what the other side is up to...

I still have my own political beliefs as do you. Unfortunately for you the libertarians don't have their own network... well judge nep got canned.
 
The fact that you can't see that your boys are just as corrupt and in for the rich as the Rs is laughable... How's Wall Street doing under Obama?
 
sturg33 said:
The fact that you can't see that your boys are just as corrupt and in for the rich as the Rs is laughable... How's Wall Street doing under Obama?
Click to expand...

Elizabeth Warren gives me hope.

Hoping she runs in 2016 and beats Hilldog and Joe.

Meanwhile, you instating libertarian policies would only legalize corruption and give companies and corporations a chance to really really dilute the market.
 
No, the corruption is in the government. A libertarian would undo the government, and thus, all of the corporate wellfare, subsidies, etc.
 
sturg33 said:
No, the corruption is in the government. A libertarian would undo the government, and thus, all of the corporate wellfare, subsidies, etc.
Click to expand...

It would also ensure that those already at the top, could make it easier for themselves to stay at the top.

Be an even worse oligarchy than we are now.
 
KeithLockhart said:
Elizabeth Warren gives me hope.

Hoping she runs in 2016 and beats Hilldog and Joe.
Click to expand...

It would be interesting to see if "you guys just hate Obama's policies because you're racist against blacks" would be replaced with "you guys just hate Warren's policies because you're racist against white people who pretend to be Native American."
 
zitothebrave said:
We're doomed because of corruption in the system.
Click to expand...

Corruption is a consequence not a cause. The country is doomed because of debt. More money is owed than actual currency in circulation. That about it. All of the great empires, throughout history, imploded for this reason.
 
Knucksie said:
Corruption is a consequence not a cause. The country is doomed because of debt. More money is owed than actual currency in circulation. That about it. All of the great empires, throughout history, imploded for this reason.
Click to expand...

I would disagree. The rabid spending and not collecting is a blatant case for corruption. How else do you let them get this bad? Crony capitalism at it's finest.
 
KeithLockhart said:
It would also ensure that those already at the top, could make it easier for themselves to stay at the top.

Be an even worse oligarchy than we are now.
Click to expand...

This is what I don't understand about the people who bash the rich and blame all of societal issues on the rich

In every kind of society whether it be a democracy, a monarchy, communism, socialism etc. the rich have power. Every system is corrupted. How can the rich be a problem here when it's the same thing in every country? This country was founded on people working hard and contributing not sitting back and collecting welfare.
 
zitothebrave said:
I would disagree. The rabid spending and not collecting is a blatant case for corruption. How else do you let them get this bad? Crony capitalism at it's finest.
Click to expand...

Money corrupts. Debt is accumulated and compounded. Out of control spending isn't a recent phenomenon.

Think of it this way: the Sun used to never set on the British Empire. In less recent times, the Roman Empire extended through most of the known world. What was the main cause of their collapses? Debt.
 
Knucksie said:
Money corrupts. Debt is accumulated and compounded. Out of control spending isn't a recent phenomenon.

Think of it this way: the Sun used to never set on the British Empire. In less recent times, the Roman Empire extended through most of the known world. What was the main cause of their collapses? Debt.
Click to expand...

Whch is brought upon by greed, through corruption they're able to get money.
 
As a libertarian I obviously think extreme libertarianism would be great but I want to contest the idea that Ron Paul is extreme. Its really a sad day when not wanting to invade and occupy countries that didn't attack us is extreme. When not using the constitution for toilet paper is extreme.

That said what I would like to see is let the states govern themselves. What we would end up with are 50 unique states that are a better representation of what people want. We would have varying degrees of several philosophies.
 
cajunrevenge said:
As a libertarian I obviously think extreme libertarianism would be great but I want to contest the idea that Ron Paul is extreme. Its really a sad day when not wanting to invade and occupy countries that didn't attack us is extreme. When not using the constitution for toilet paper is extreme.

That said what I would like to see is let the states govern themselves. What we would end up with are 50 unique states that are a better representation of what people want. We would have varying degrees of several philosophies.
Click to expand...

That worked out really well. See Articles of Confederacy(1781-1790) and Confederate States of America (1861-1865)

For real you should realize that without a strong central government of some sort **** will fall apart. I'm libertarian in many rights ways, but the idea that the states can handle everything better is dumb too.
 
I fail to see what would be so bad about it. The central governments role would be to run the military, foreign policy, settle disputes between states, and ensure states arent violating the constitution. Thats really all they are supposed to do in the first place.
 
cajunrevenge said:
I fail to see what would be so bad about it. The central governments role would be to run the military, foreign policy, settle disputes between states, and ensure states arent violating the constitution. Thats really all they are supposed to do in the first place.
Click to expand...

ANd how would that central government function? How would they force the sovereign states to comply with their needs for military supplies? WHat would draw it money? What you're describing in the ideal libertarian state was what we had under the Articles of Confederation. Which failed.

No idealist system can succeed, the real world needs a blending of ideals, and more importantly, change. As stagnation leads to the ****storm we're in now.
 
AerchAngel said:
I got you beat in spades and done it longer.
Click to expand...

No, you think people in charge should believe what you want to believe. I think people in charge should be cast out and the mold should be broken. I think that the FDA and other government agencies are inherently good, but given enough time become corrupt and should be nuked. I also don't think appointments to it should be handled by the POTUS or executive branch and should be voted upon by the people or at least Congress.
 
cajunrevenge said:
I fail to see what would be so bad about it. The central governments role would be to run the military, foreign policy, settle disputes between states, and ensure states arent violating the constitution. Thats really all they are supposed to do in the first place.
Click to expand...

Be careful what you wish for. Red States make out like bandits when it comes to the ratio of what they pay into the federal government and what they get back.

Table: http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/08/americas-fiscal-union

Per the original question, this is a center-right country that periodically has center-left hiccups. The problem we have had over the past decade is that the extremes have instituted purity tests for candidates and that has produced a Congress that simply cannot make decisions. It would be one thing if this inability was focused on a small set of issues, but it has become difficult to get agreement on much of anything.

Sticking to one's guns is important, because compromise simply for the sake of compromise leads to drift. But what is going on in the US House now pretty much borders on the ridiculous. When Eric Cantor gets booed by Tea Party activists, it should be clear to Cantor that he's dealing with a bunch of extremists who really don't give a f*ck about much of anything except being obstructionists. Instead, he'll probably just continue to tack right and let a handful of Reps dictate the entire direction of his caucus.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top