Posted on 11/06/2002 5:34:44 AM PST by logic101.net
Yup. He said government isn't the solution, but rather the problem. Then he presided over a 55% increase in federal spending over 8 years with $100 to $200 billion in deficits during each of those 8 years. He promised to abolish the Dept. of Education and then signed re-appropriations.
...didn't Bush (this one) pass a tax cut, a small one, but still a cut.
Any tax cut is meaningless unless it is accompanied by a corresponding reduction in government spending. We have a $165 billion budget deficit for 2002. We all pay for that through inflation. Bush's tax cut simply rearranged the burden of government. We all pay for big government either via taxes or inflation.
...if Al Whore would have been in the White House, do you think we'd have gotten ANY tax cut? If Al Whore was in the White House, would he have repealed gun control measures, or added to them?
Bifurcation. The notion that the only two alternatives available to us are either more gun-control or stricter enforcement of existing gun-control is nonsense.
...we are dealing with 2 diferent branches, Exec and Legislative. Bush had a split in the Senate, with the VP as a tie breaker. However, on "his" side, he also had Jumpin Jim, Lincoln Chaffe, and the Mcaniac (a swarn enemy). With what he had to work with, he did pretty good.
Presidents can influence legislative policy with vetos. Bush has neglected to use his veto since taking office.
...let's not forget what kind of judges Socialists put on the bench; that can do damage for many decades to come.
Give me a break. The idea that Republican appointed judges are upholding the Constitution is insulting.
Congress requires a 2/3 majority to override a president's veto. No party has held a 2/3 majority in Congress since Reagan was president and even then Congress overrode less than 10 of Reagan's vetos.
Neither Republicans or Libertarians can get anything done without the power to combat the Socialists.
It's amusing how you talk about Republicans as though they're fighting against "the socialists." I used to think like you do.
Say what?!!!! That would mean that we must have at least 25 Senators, and how many members of the house as the Republicans...for your family's financial future; never gamble. You seem to have no concept of odds.
Let me elaborate so you understand. Carla Howell was the Libertarian candidate for governor in Massachusetts. Her name appeared on exactly the same number of ballots as her opponents. Everyone who voted had the opportunity to pick Carla Howell. No one was precluded from doing so. She had the same chance to win as the other candidates.
Now, let's suppose that Carla Howell appeared on only 50% of the ballots. Then I would agree with you that she had virtually no chance of winning.
While were on the subject of "chance" let me ask you this. What do you believe your chances are of reducing government while voting for candidates who contribute to the growth of government?
hey, the blaming game is over...
the new game now is.....encourage the Liberaltarians and help them appeal to their true base....
that true base, in all reality...is the legalization of drugs, porno, prostitution, etc....
I know it sounds good to you to say that the Liberaltarians really just want smaller govt...less taxes.....but the real drawing card for a lot of the votes your candidates receive have more to do with legalizing drugs than taxes....
so no more blame....if the stupid party would just smarten up for a minute or two, and start pushing your Liberaltarian candidates where they can steal votes from the Democrats....on the college campusese where apparently drug legalization is a big draw....then I see no reason for any body to worry about you "stealing" votes from the Republicans.....
Your message will ultimaltely steal votes from the Democrats.....especially on the drugs and the porno....those ideas are truely Democratic ....
I can never understand, nor forgive, any adult in this country of ours not adamantly and thorougly condeming child pornagraphy....even the virtual stuff....
You should ask Republican voters.
By your logic, every one of those horses has exactly the same chance to win. Yet, some horses are faster, some are in a better gate position, some have lighter riders, some have more skilled riders.
Your analogy is flawed. Betting on horses in no way influences the outcome of races. Voting does.
This is the lesson of the '94 election - you have to move slowly to get the population used to the direction you are going.
Republicans controlled both Houses of Congress from 1995 through 2001 during which time the federal budget increased from $1.4 trillion to $2.1 trillion. Federal expenditures increased roughly $100 billion annually. Is that the direction you want to continue going?
This is why it is better to work from within the power structure of the Republicans.
Why not work within the ranks of the Democratic party and change them instead?
Name recognition is one of the biggest problems LP candidates have, they are almost all virtual unknowns.
Third parties (not just Libertarians) have legislative obstacles to overcome just to get on the ballot and raise money, let alone get any kind of media attention. Republicans and Democrats have used the force of government to rig the electoral process in their favor. For example, in many states only candidates from the Republican and Democratic parties are allowed to be listed on ballots as Republicans and Democrats. Everyone else must be listed as "independent." This discourages third-party voters from voting at all since they can't even pick candidates from their own party unless they make a list ahead of time before entering the voting booth.
To make things worse, they tend to run for the higher offices making thier job even harder.
Huh? How does this make things worse? (Worse than what?)
...if LP candidates begin to infultrate the RP, and start running under the Republican banner for offices like state assembly and senate they will become more known.
Libertarians and Republicans disagree on practically everything. Quit pretending they're alike. Libertarians don't need help from Republicans to win State Assembly seats. Libertarians have won State Assembly races since 1979.
Plus, they'll have more money because they can tap into the reserves of the Republicans...
The Republican party isn't going to finance candidates calling for an end to the War on Drugs.
There is no limitation on the number of bills a president can veto. The president can veto every bill if he chooses. Only a 2/3 majority in Congress can override a president's veto.
The purpose of the president is to act as a check against Congress and not act as a rubber stamp. The president can repeatedly veto legislation until Congress changes the legislation to his satisfaction.
There is no limitation on the number of times a president may veto legislation. A president can repeatedely veto legislation until Congress changes it to his satisfaction or overrides his veto with a 2/3 majority vote.
He had a very liberal congress that were spending like drunken sailors on leave.
Kind of like we had from 1995 through 2001 and like we have now.
With outcomes such as these, it will be interesting to see if the Republicans start to court the Libertarian voting block. The real actors to blame are those who vote for socialist Democrats. It's easy to scapegoat Libertarians, but why not for instance, direct that ire on those who aren't committed to any political position, the non-voters. They are far more responsible for bad representatives than principled Libertarians.
Thank you for your explanation.
I will indeed try to be more attentive when I read these threads.
Best regards,
No, Ed is Tommy's brother.
Without reposting the vote totals we've all seen about a dozen times, answer this:
How does someone who votes Libertarian help elect a Democrat?
Do you assume someone who votes Libertarian would vote Republican if their only choice is between Republican and Democrat?
If so, then why did you contend earlier that Libertarians would vote Democrat "if given a choice" (as if they didn't have a choice)? It would seem by that logic, Doyle would have received about 985,000 votes to McCallum's 732,000. The Democrat still wins, with or with the Libertarian voters.
These discrepancies in your logic are creating a fatal flaw in your argument. I'm sure you'd like to take this opportunity to clarify this logical discrepancy so we can all be enlightened by your wisdom.
I do hope you can recognize arrogant fascism when you see it, because it just showed up in your post.
Your biased sophistry notwithstanding, this country is still guided by the principle of 'one man, one vote' and each person is charged by their conscience and principle to vote for the candidate who best represents their beliefs, not the lesser of two evils.
When you propose in seriousness that a person's vote should go to candidate A instead of candidate B, despite the voter's wishes, because the stakes are so high, you are a fascist and your character is just as sullied as your fellow fascists, among them, Hillary Clinton, Charles Schumer, Barbera Boxer, Robert Reisch, and the list goes on.
The only difference is whether you're a right-leaning or left-leaning fascist.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.