T Nation

'The Election is Over.'

We Need Federal Gov’t on This Page

“We have to show the world we’re adults. The election is over. Get them in the room. And that’s what representative governments should be about. No one gets all-- all they want. If Reagan and O’Neill could do it, Boehner and Obama should be able to do it.”

“And that’s what representative governments should be about. No one gets all-- all they want.”

quote edited for brevity

[quote]treco wrote:
We Need Federal Gov’t on This Page

“We have to show the world we’re adults. The election is over. Get them in the room. And that’s what representative governments should be about. No one gets all-- all they want. If Reagan and O’Neill could do it, Boehner and Obama should be able to do it.”
“And that’s what representative governments should be about. No one gets all-- all they want.”
quote edited for brevity[/quote]

Good sentiment but we’ve never had such an idealogue as Obama in the White House. While Reagan was willing to compromise with the democrats I find it difficult to believe that Obama will do the same thing with republicans.

If memory serves me correctly Obama is the first President in our history who wants to raise taxes in the middle of a (very weak) economic recovery. It’s in his blood he is being guided by very strong core beliefs. I give him credit on the one hand for having such a strong center. It’s just a shame that he happens to be completely wrong.

We are at a very polarized moment in American history. Compromise has been and always will be necessary for solving tough issues. Compromise was necessary to form our government after all. But you have a left and a right that hates each other right now. Hell look at the Republicans flipping out over Chris Christie for saying anything positive about the President. The Democrats have branded Republicans as the party of no. Our airwaves and internets are flooded with the cheerleaders for both sides talking about how wrong the other team is and how right they are. It’s why the need for another voice is so important. And why both parties fight tooth and nail against it.

[quote]H factor wrote:
We are at a very polarized moment in American history. Compromise has been and always will be necessary for solving tough issues. Compromise was necessary to form our government after all. But you have a left and a right that hates each other right now. Hell look at the Republicans flipping out over Chris Christie for saying anything positive about the President. The Democrats have branded Republicans as the party of no. Our airwaves and internets are flooded with the cheerleaders for both sides talking about how wrong the other team is and how right they are. It’s why the need for another voice is so important. And why both parties fight tooth and nail against it. [/quote]

First of all I don’t think most republicans would be “flipping out” as you say over the Christie remarks if it were done differently. Christie’s comments came a week or so before the election and were very self serving. If he had given Obama a simple one sentence compliment and left it at that and then reiterated his support for Mitt Romney nothing would have been said. After all he is the Governor of a state that was, and is, in need of federal help. But what Christie did was well over the top and also very obvious. In doing what he did he proved himself to be just another pandering politician.

Secondly, I am not against a third party. and in fact would support it. I agree with you that the time is probably right for such a thing to occur. But, obviously I wouldn’t be for any libertarian nonsense. It doesn’t work and never has anywhere in the history of the world. It is a bunch of patched together ideas based on a good concept, freedom, but with a potential execution of complete failure.

ZEB
Be more specific in what you think the planks of a 3rd party should be

[quote]treco wrote:
ZEB
Be more specific in what you think the planks of a 3rd party should be[/quote]

I would build it based upon removing what people do not like about both parties. Not unlike a good marketing campaign where you strike at your competitions weakness.

For example, while Obama may have won he only did it by a few million votes which isn’t much based upon the voter turnout. So, what don’t people like about Obama and the democratic party? Obviously, they are not happy with the debt, obviously both parties are responsible for this. However, Obama has raised it more in four years than from Washington the Ronald Reagan! And his fellow democrats applaud it.

So the first plank in the third party would be to remove the debt. Then we’d move along with other things that neither party seem to be able to give us like lower taxes.

Over all I like the idea if there were a charismatic candidate who could carry the flag. Because in the end, as I’ve said many times, there are a large body of people who simply vote for the person without knowing too much about what they or their party stand for.

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
We are at a very polarized moment in American history. Compromise has been and always will be necessary for solving tough issues. Compromise was necessary to form our government after all. But you have a left and a right that hates each other right now. Hell look at the Republicans flipping out over Chris Christie for saying anything positive about the President. The Democrats have branded Republicans as the party of no. Our airwaves and internets are flooded with the cheerleaders for both sides talking about how wrong the other team is and how right they are. It’s why the need for another voice is so important. And why both parties fight tooth and nail against it. [/quote]

First of all I don’t think most republicans would be “flipping out” as you say over the Christie remarks if it were done differently. Christie’s comments came a week or so before the election and were very self serving. If he had given Obama a simple one sentence compliment and left it at that and then reiterated his support for Mitt Romney nothing would have been said. After all he is the Governor of a state that was, and is, in need of federal help. But what Christie did was well over the top and also very obvious. In doing what he did he proved himself to be just another pandering politician.

Secondly, I am not against a third party. and in fact would support it. I agree with you that the time is probably right for such a thing to occur. But, obviously I wouldn’t be for any libertarian nonsense. It doesn’t work and never has anywhere in the history of the world. It is a bunch of patched together ideas based on a good concept, freedom, but with a potential execution of complete failure.

[/quote]

Can you point out where libertarianism has failed with specific examples? Far as I can tell we have moved away from libertarianism as the country has progressed. The libertarianism I champion is not anarchy, but of limited government. Government where necessary in the most limited form possible. It’s the type of government Republicans like to talk about, but quickly dismiss as they want to play world police, expand medicare, bail out companies, and legislate morality through laws which repress those who don’t believe as they do. It’s the type of government Democrats like on social issues, but want to be able to spend, spend, spend with no limits and interfere in the market place as much as possible.

I’d like to see specific examples of a large populace that has never worked in the history of the world based on Hayek principles. As far as I know one doesn’t exist. I’m not a Rothbard. I’m not an ACist. Please don’t trot out the tired Somalia line that so many liberals use as evidence against limited government. It isn’t what MOST of us are talking about. It doesn’t represent what we think society would work best as.

Again, as best I can tell the country largely started like this and has moved away from it ever since as the government has reached more and more into our lives. I believe this has been largely negative, with some exceptions where government may have needed to play a bigger role. You support this reaching into our lives on the specific stuff you don’t like. I also support the government, but in a much more limited role than both parties give lip service to.

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

[quote]H factor wrote:

It’s the type of government Republicans like to talk about, but quickly dismiss as they want to play world police, expand medicare, bail out companies, and legislate morality through laws which repress those who don’t believe as they do. It’s the type of government Democrats like on social issues, but want to be able to spend, spend, spend with no limits and interfere in the market place as much as possible. [/quote]

I’d like to add that I sure haven’t seen the D’s champion the bill of rights like they at least claimed they used to. Gitmo’s still open and the Patriot Act has only been strengthened. Fucking unrestrained drone strikes/assassinations are a big problem for me as well. IMO, any reason I had to vote for a Democrat has largely disappeared because if they are not going to attack the Patriot Act, what the fuck are they good for other than spending money we don’t have? I don’t agree with Push on a few issues, but, like him, I voted for Gary Johnson and no R or D is going to get my vote unless I see some substantial change from one of the parties.

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Your problem, H, is that I don’t see you espousing this much on this site. I see a Big Government Guy when I read your posts (except now). You need to tighten up your game as a communicative libertarian, bud.[/quote]

Lefties don’t exist on this site as far as I can tell. Far righties are in droves. And the hypocrisy of the far right needs to be called out if those types are to ever open their eyes in my opinion. I don’t talk about these types of things when I’m on the lefty leaning boards I visit like 2p2. You gotta treat lefties different than righties, but they are cut from the same hypocritical cloth when you tie them down with reason. They will commit the same fallacies of thought over and over again. Sadly the best way to point out the hypocrisies of either big government party (R’s and D’s) is to use the OTHER side’s lines. You can trap righties in terms of Obama by pointing at Reagan when he does the same thing. You can do it with lefties in pointing out just how much Obama has been like GWB.

That view is the type of view I’d love to present all the time as I truly think it’s the winning argument (if I didn’t I wouldn’t be an Libertarian!)

“The right to freedom is the gift of God Almighty…The rights of the Colonists as Christians may be best understood by reading, and carefully studying the institutes of the great Lawgiver and head of the Christian Church: which are to be found clearly written and promulgated in the New Testament.” <<<>>>
“No people will tamely surrender their Liberties, nor can any be easily subdued, when knowledge is diffused and virtue is preserved. On the Contrary, when People are universally ignorant, and debauched in their Manners, they will sink under their own weight without the Aid of foreign Invaders.” [/quote] There’s a million of em.

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

It’s the type of government Republicans like to talk about, but quickly dismiss as they want to play world police, expand medicare, bail out companies, and legislate morality through laws which repress those who don’t believe as they do. It’s the type of government Democrats like on social issues, but want to be able to spend, spend, spend with no limits and interfere in the market place as much as possible. [/quote]

I’d like to add that I sure haven’t seen the D’s champion the bill of rights like they at least claimed they used to. Gitmo’s still open and the Patriot Act has only been strengthened. Fucking unrestrained drone strikes/assassinations are a big problem for me as well. IMO, any reason I had to vote for a Democrat has largely disappeared because if they are not going to attack the Patriot Act, what the fuck are they good for other than spending money we don’t have? I don’t agree with Push on a few issues, but, like him, I voted for Gary Johnson and no R or D is going to get my vote unless I see some substantial change from one of the parties.
[/quote]

Honestly it’s really striking when you go back and look at some of this stuff even from the exact same people. I got a few left leaning boards I frequent and it’s insane the amount of stuff they HAMMERED Bush over that they now apologize for Obama with. Go back and look at righties thoughts on the role of government under Bush. Did they give a fuck about the debt then? Hell no man, we got attacked we gots to go to Iraq. And expand medicare. And send out stimulus checks. And the Patriot Act. Bailouts.

Which is why the party cheerleader system is monumentally fucked. When you treat politics like football and you’re always yay go R’s or yay go D’s you’re going to lose. You’ll apologize for your team all day long and attack the other team over and over again. And good lord it’s all over the internet man. Clinton only did good because of Republican control! Look at the surpluses under Clinton, he reduced the deficit! When righties are in charge this happened. When lefties are in charge they do this! Horseshit. Both sides are big government through and through and have proven this.

@Trib: Not the change in our system I was talking about, but I’m really not looking for another religious debate here. As best I can tell it’s going on in about 55 other threads right now and I don’t think we need to make it 56.

[quote]H factor wrote:<<< @Trib: Not the change in our system I was talking about, >>>[/quote]I didn’t think it was because it’s THE one that really matters, but carry on.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

“The right to freedom is the gift of God Almighty…The rights of the Colonists as Christians may be best understood by reading, and carefully studying the institutes of the great Lawgiver and head of the Christian Church: which are to be found clearly written and promulgated in the New Testament.” <<<>>>
“No people will tamely surrender their Liberties, nor can any be easily subdued, when knowledge is diffused and virtue is preserved. On the Contrary, when People are universally ignorant, and debauched in their Manners, they will sink under their own weight without the Aid of foreign Invaders.” [/quote] There’s a million of em.[/quote]

There are also some that you conspicuously never reproduce. I refer to the Treaty of Tripoli, the so-called Jefferson Bible, Adams on the Cross as an “engine of grief” producing “calamities,” Adams’ assertion that this “would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it,” Adams on the fact that “God is an essence that we know nothing of,” etc. etc.

I’m sure you’ve heard all of these before, many times. What I can’t figure out is why you insist that this country was founded as a Christian one when many of its founders were not Christians (certainly not by your standards, anyway) and at times explicitly spoke ill of Christianity.

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

There are also some that you conspicuously never reproduce. I refer to the Treaty of Tripoli…

[/quote]

Be careful with this, bud, it will snag you. You are making a huge mistake citing it. It is NOT what you’ve been led to believe.

Do your research or you will need a brillo pad to get the egg off your face. Seriously, I’m doing this because I like ya. Take this arrow out of your quiver - it’s crooked and will not fly straight when you release it. Trust me.
[/quote]

Well I like you too Push.

At this point I’m curious, though. Do you refer only to the Treaty of Tripoli, or to the entire sentiment I’ve expressed here?

If the latter, I know with absolute certainty that Tirib would not consider Jefferson or Adams or probably Washington a Christian.

[quote]smh23 wrote:
…Adams’ assertion that this “would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it,”
[/quote]

You’re quoting out of context and thoroughly misrepresenting the meaning. Here’s the rest of the quote:

“But in this exclamatic I should have been as fanatical as (Parson) Bryant or (Pedagogue) Cleverly. Without religion this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company, I mean Hell.”

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.