believer wrote:

BCSbunk wrote:If that is what people think then there is no hope for this country and people should stop whining about big government when you know damn well that the person you just voted for is a for big government.

It is down right hiliarious.

Yes it is....and it would be equally downright hilarious to believe that libertarians won't succumb to special interest groups and the temptation to spend taxpayer dollars to appease those special interest groups for purposes of political expediency... assuming they successfully form a viable third party of course.

Great then lets stop making threads about big government and big spending when we know that it will not cease.

It is outright lies then when someone complains about big govenment and then turns around and votes for big government.

Unless we do something about it bitching is useless especially when you bitch and then vote for more big government.

HitsRus wrote: BCSBunk wrote>>>

"I am liberal but will vote libertarian to reduce government because I want more liberty and not less."

WTF???. An oxymnoron if I've ever heard one.

Not an oxymoron at all. You need to be more learned in politics.

BCSbunk wrote:

HitsRus wrote: BCSBunk wrote>>>

"I am liberal but will vote libertarian to reduce government because I want more liberty and not less."

WTF???. An oxymnoron if I've ever heard one.

Not an oxymoron at all. You need to be more learned in politics.

Sooooooo being a liberal yet voting like a conservative (IE: wanting reduced government to preserve personal liberties) by voting libertarian is demonstrative of being "more learned in politics"? :dodgy:

Thread Bomber wrote:Eventually, the fat lazy fucks will all die off and Darwin will win.

To be replaced quickly by a whole new herd of "evolved" self-absorbed, tax & spend douche bags right?

believer wrote:

BCSbunk wrote:

HitsRus wrote: BCSBunk wrote>>>

"I am liberal but will vote libertarian to reduce government because I want more liberty and not less."

WTF???. An oxymnoron if I've ever heard one.

Not an oxymoron at all. You need to be more learned in politics.

Sooooooo being a liberal yet voting like a conservative (IE: wanting reduced government to preserve personal liberties) by voting libertarian is demonstrative of being "more learned in politics"? :dodgy:

In political theory, "Classic Liberalism" has the same ideology as today's Conservatives/Tea Party movement. It served as the basis for the founding principles of this country.

Modern Liberalism is what is often referred to when people say "liberals". It is a newer wave of ideology that grew out of FDR in the 30's.

BCSBunk was making a play on words saying he would be liberal by voting what is today considered conservative, but what he said was entirely consistent with the tenets of classic liberalism.

It tells me he paid good attention in political science class, hence the comment about being more "learned" in politics. Academically, what he said would theoretically be correct, not an oxymoron.

BCSBunk feel free to correct me if that was not what you were trying to get at with your original post.

IggyPride00 wrote: BCSBunk was making a play on words saying he would be liberal by voting what is today considered conservative, but what he said was entirely consistent with the tenets of classic liberalism.

It tells me he paid good attention in political science class, hence the comment about being more "learned" in politics. Academically, what he said would theoretically be correct, not an oxymoron.

I minored in political science a few thousand years ago and understand the tenets of classic liberalism and the point of BCSBunk's post. I was imply making my own play on words....and apparently failed miserably at it!

IggyPride00 wrote:

believer wrote:

BCSbunk wrote:

HitsRus wrote: BCSBunk wrote>>>

"I am liberal but will vote libertarian to reduce government because I want more liberty and not less."

WTF???. An oxymnoron if I've ever heard one.

Not an oxymoron at all. You need to be more learned in politics.

Sooooooo being a liberal yet voting like a conservative (IE: wanting reduced government to preserve personal liberties) by voting libertarian is demonstrative of being "more learned in politics"? :dodgy:

In political theory, "Classic Liberalism" has the same ideology as today's Conservatives/Tea Party movement. It served as the basis for the founding principles of this country.

Modern Liberalism is what is often referred to when people say "liberals". It is a newer wave of ideology that grew out of FDR in the 30's.

BCSBunk was making a play on words saying he would be liberal by voting what is today considered conservative, but what he said was entirely consistent with the tenets of classic liberalism.

It tells me he paid good attention in political science class, hence the comment about being more "learned" in politics. Academically, what he said would theoretically be correct, not an oxymoron.

BCSBunk feel free to correct me if that was not what you were trying to get at with your original post.

No correction needed.

OHHHHHH I see now...'classically liberal'.
I never occurred to me that BCS was a tea partyer....my bad for not reading between the lines. I just didn't realize that we were playing a sematics game here. Funny. He meant 'classically liberal'.

HitsRus wrote: OHHHHHH I see now...'classically liberal'.
I never occurred to me that BCS was a tea partyer....my bad for not reading between the lines. I just didn't realize that we were playing a sematics game here. Funny. He meant 'classically liberal'.

I am no tea partier.

LOL

^^^^
Believer wrote>>>
"In political theory, "Classic Liberalism" has the same ideology as today's Conservatives/Tea Party movement. It served as the basis for the founding principles of this country."


so what are you? You said you are liberal....so which? "modern liberal" or "classic liberal" ? I'm just trying to get clarity.

HitsRus wrote:so what are you? You said you are liberal....so which? "modern liberal" or "classic liberal" ? I'm just trying to get clarity.

I think BCS is a classic modern liberal.

lol

This is one of those things that I wonder why we ever switched it around. Who said "lets call liberals conservative and conservatives liberal from now on"?

I Wear Pants wrote: This is one of those things that I wonder why we ever switched it around. Who said "lets call liberals conservative and conservatives liberal from now on"?

Probably a liberal. What's right is wrong and what's wrong is right.

HitsRus wrote: ^^^^
Believer wrote>>>
"In political theory, "Classic Liberalism" has the same ideology as today's Conservatives/Tea Party movement. It served as the basis for the founding principles of this country."


so what are you? You said you are liberal....so which? "modern liberal" or "classic liberal" ? I'm just trying to get clarity.

You tell me. What is a liberal? What is conservative? How do you know when someone is one of those labels?

I want clarity too I have been asking people what they mean by these terms.

Tell me I am a liberal or a conservative.

I am pro-gun.

I am pro-choice

I would like to see all "illegals" get amnesty.

I want a small federal government.

That is just a sampling and it shows that right/left liberal/conservative are nonsensical meaningless terms and it depends from where you stand to what someone else is. Which in turn makes no sense.

There has been a false dichotomy presented with the L/R Liberal/conservative nonsense.

believer wrote:

HitsRus wrote:so what are you? You said you are liberal....so which? "modern liberal" or "classic liberal" ? I'm just trying to get clarity.

I think BCS is a classic modern liberal.

+1 LMAO!

BCSbunk wrote:

HitsRus wrote: ^^^^
Believer wrote>>>
"In political theory, "Classic Liberalism" has the same ideology as today's Conservatives/Tea Party movement. It served as the basis for the founding principles of this country."


so what are you? You said you are liberal....so which? "modern liberal" or "classic liberal" ? I'm just trying to get clarity.

You tell me. What is a liberal? What is conservative? How do you know when someone is one of those labels?

I want clarity too I have been asking people what they mean by these terms.

Tell me I am a liberal or a conservative.

I am pro-gun.

I am pro-choice

I would like to see all "illegals" get amnesty.

I want a small federal government.

Anarchist? Most of those issues listed involve little or no government interference on any level.

jhay78 wrote:

BCSbunk wrote:

HitsRus wrote: ^^^^
Believer wrote>>>
"In political theory, "Classic Liberalism" has the same ideology as today's Conservatives/Tea Party movement. It served as the basis for the founding principles of this country."


so what are you? You said you are liberal....so which? "modern liberal" or "classic liberal" ? I'm just trying to get clarity.

You tell me. What is a liberal? What is conservative? How do you know when someone is one of those labels?

I want clarity too I have been asking people what they mean by these terms.

Tell me I am a liberal or a conservative.

I am pro-gun.

I am pro-choice

I would like to see all "illegals" get amnesty.

I want a small federal government.

Anarchist? Most of those issues listed involve little or no government interference on any level.

Anarchist means without rulers or without government.

I want a small federal government that covers the bare minimums.

Not bloated waste like say.
Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Border Patrol

That is filthy waste of money that is not needed and if you want small government (which I am trying to tell people they really don't it is just lip service) these are what you take out to make the country stronger.

I Wear Pants wrote: This is one of those things that I wonder why we ever switched it around. Who said "lets call liberals conservative and conservatives liberal from now on"?

I don't think they changed the names, I think the political parties ideologies switched.

BCS:
You were the one who said you were a liberal.
Sounds like you are a libertarian for the most part. There is a lot of them on this site, but when it comes to running for office, or for voting for them no one steps up to the plate. I think the rise of a party like that would be good.. If nothing else it would force the Republicans back to conservative fiscal policy. The Dems are hopelessly elitist. The thought of people actually having being responsible for themselves without the help of their all knowing and all controlling government is anathema.

^^^^ I have voted for Libertarians and Constitutionalists in previous elections.

I agree though that people, the majority, don't step up to the plate. They'd rather vote for the "lesser of two evils", when in fact, that just keeps us within the status quo.

dwccrew wrote:I agree though that people, the majority, don't step up to the plate. They'd rather vote for the "lesser of two evils", when in fact, that just keeps us within the status quo.

I would have to disagree with the assessment that voting for the lesser of two evils is not "stepping up to the plate."

Most of us are just pragmatic about it. In other words our two-party system is so entrenched and so well funded by special interest groups that hoping for a viable third-party alternative is a moot point.

So why waste your vote?

It may give you a momentary sense of power and some moral satisfaction to cast your vote for someone who has a snowball's chance in hell of taking office, but in the end you screw yourself.

How? Take a look at what's going on in DC right now. The leftist twits in power want us to believe that they were handed a mandate by the voters to grow Big Government....and they are doing it with glee.

The truth of the matter is they were elected [a] because of Bush Fatigue, because the idiot Republicans blew a golden opportunity to effect true change in DC by behaving like Democrats, and [c] because millions of votes which would most likely have been cast for McCain went to candidates like Ron Paul which, in effect, were indirect votes for Obama.

So now the same folks who were pissed off at the Republicans and who voted for Ron Paul are at the heart of the Tea Party movement and - ironically enough - protesting the insanity going on in the Beltway.

Do I think the absurdity and irresponsibility we see in DC would not have occurred had McCain been elected? Hell no...but I have a good hunch it wouldn't be anywhere near the degree we're currently experiencing.

And I'd take that in a heartbeat over what's going on now....hence the lesser of two evils.

HitsRus wrote: BCS:
You were the one who said you were a liberal.
Sounds like you are a libertarian for the most part. There is a lot of them on this site, but when it comes to running for office, or for voting for them no one steps up to the plate. I think the rise of a party like that would be good.. If nothing else it would force the Republicans back to conservative fiscal policy. The Dems are hopelessly elitist. The thought of people actually having being responsible for themselves without the help of their all knowing and all controlling government is anathema.

Oh I am certainly liberal whatever that means. I am conservative too. LMAO check my thread on the false dichotomy of those terms.

http://www.ohiochatter.com/Thread-The-falso-dichotomy-between-left-right-liberal-conservative

They are meaningless garble meant for the superfluous of our society. The only thing that really matters is small government vs big government the problem lies in that most people really do not want small government they just want the big government of their choice.

believer wrote:

dwccrew wrote:I agree though that people, the majority, don't step up to the plate. They'd rather vote for the "lesser of two evils", when in fact, that just keeps us within the status quo.

I would have to disagree with the assessment that voting for the lesser of two evils is not "stepping up to the plate."

Most of us are just pragmatic about it. In other words our two-party system is so entrenched and so well funded by special interest groups that hoping for a viable third-party alternative is a moot point.

So why waste your vote?

It may give you a momentary sense of power and some moral satisfaction to cast your vote for someone who has a snowball's chance in hell of taking office, but in the end you screw yourself.

How? Take a look at what's going on in DC right now. The leftist twits in power want us to believe that they were handed a mandate by the voters to grow Big Government....and they are doing it with glee.

The truth of the matter is they were elected [a] because of Bush Fatigue, because the idiot Republicans blew a golden opportunity to effect true change in DC by behaving like Democrats, and [c] because millions of votes which would most likely have been cast for McCain went to candidates like Ron Paul which, in effect, were indirect votes for Obama.

So now the same folks who were pissed off at the Republicans and who voted for Ron Paul are at the heart of the Tea Party movement and - ironically enough - protesting the insanity going on in the Beltway.

Do I think the absurdity and irresponsibility we see in DC would not have occurred had McCain been elected? Hell no...but I have a good hunch it wouldn't be anywhere near the degree we're currently experiencing.

And I'd take that in a heartbeat over what's going on now....hence the lesser of two evils.

There is no lesser of two evils that is were you have been fooled by the greatest liars of all time AKA the GOP. You can think there are all you want the facts are they have not reduced government at all they just keep repeating that mantra.

The dems tell you like it is they want big government and they go for it. The GOP are lying dogs with their we want small government nonsense.

They also steal liberty and are the most against the libertarian party trying to circumvent it with thier tyrant anti-liberty stances.

They have invaded the Libertarian party with their nonsense and authoritarian behavior.

Only ONE way to smaller government and that is that we understand the false dichotomy and vote for the Libertarians that way both social liberals and economic liberals are happy.

The only thing that I completely disagree with is the way you presented your argument...taking two threads and playing cat and mouse semantics to reveal your actual stance.

believer wrote:

dwccrew wrote:I agree though that people, the majority, don't step up to the plate. They'd rather vote for the "lesser of two evils", when in fact, that just keeps us within the status quo.

I would have to disagree with the assessment that voting for the lesser of two evils is not "stepping up to the plate."

Most of us are just pragmatic about it. In other words our two-party system is so entrenched and so well funded by special interest groups that hoping for a viable third-party alternative is a moot point.

So why waste your vote?

It may give you a momentary sense of power and some moral satisfaction to cast your vote for someone who has a snowball's chance in hell of taking office, but in the end you screw yourself.

How? Take a look at what's going on in DC right now. The leftist twits in power want us to believe that they were handed a mandate by the voters to grow Big Government....and they are doing it with glee.

The truth of the matter is they were elected [a] because of Bush Fatigue, because the idiot Republicans blew a golden opportunity to effect true change in DC by behaving like Democrats, and [c] because millions of votes which would most likely have been cast for McCain went to candidates like Ron Paul which, in effect, were indirect votes for Obama.

So now the same folks who were pissed off at the Republicans and who voted for Ron Paul are at the heart of the Tea Party movement and - ironically enough - protesting the insanity going on in the Beltway.

Do I think the absurdity and irresponsibility we see in DC would not have occurred had McCain been elected? Hell no...but I have a good hunch it wouldn't be anywhere near the degree we're currently experiencing.

And I'd take that in a heartbeat over what's going on now....hence the lesser of two evils.

I respectfully disagree. I don't believe it is a wasted vote to vote 3rd party if I agree with them more than any other canidate, I think it's a wasted vote to vote for someone that I don't agree with the most.

Secondly, while I agree that the spending may not be quite as much under the GOP as it is under the Dems currently, I still don't believe they (GOP) would limit the size of government.

Under Bush, we had the implementation of the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act and Homeland Security. Both of these expanded the size and power of the government. The P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act has been revised many times and has been deemed unconstitutional in certain sections, hence the revision. Homeland Security has been an utter failure. The creation of it was just an expansion of other agencies (CIA, Customs) IMO.

Finally, it is my opinion that without people stepping up to the plate and voting 3rd party, no real change will ever happen. We will have wasteful government spending and expansion under both major parties right now. I also believe that every generation or so, the major political party in power should be ousted by the voters. We can not allow major parties to accumulate too much power, otherwise they abuse it and crave more, which to me is evident as to what the Dems and Repubs are doing now. Different agendas by both parties, but they use the same avenues to get their agendas accomplished; tax and abuse the citizens.