I'll keep my Freedom, my Guns, my Religion, and my Money....... You can keep "The Change"!

There is a time and a place to be idealistic for sure. I fully understand that. I was much idealistic when I was younger. Heck, I was a Democrat. But there is a time when you do have to be a realist. In my opinion a vote for Barr is a vote for Obama. And Obama's beliefs are much, much more contrary to a libertarian's than McCain's are. And if Obama gets elected, due in part as a result of libertarians voting for Barr, you shouldn't be complaining in two years at all about Obama moving this country towards socialism because you will have had a role in making that happen. That's realism.

 

And if I'm being condescending (again) I apologize. I won't deny that I generally feel that younger people don't have the life experiences necessary to have informed positions on a lot of issues facing this country. No doubt about that and I'm sure that comes across in my posts and irritates younger people. But hey, I'm honest about how I feel.

 

First, let it sink in that you were a Democrat. :lol:

 

When Obama wins KY you can tell me I had a part in it and I won't disagree. Until then, I will have to respectfully disagree with your statement. Though, I know it irks some, I see both candidates as equally "bad" POTUS. Realism is realizing McCain isn't a candidate who comes close to matching your beliefs. Realism is, realizing it is time to get up and do something about it. A lot don't know this, but besides my libertarian advocacy on here, I'm also involved with the Louisville chapter of Libertarians and am currently forming a campus group with some other students. To me it's very pacifistic to complain over and over about the lack of good candidates, but continue to vote for one of those (though, LN, if I remember correctly you are someone who has given numerous reasons to "why McCain" instead of "he isn't Obama").

 

I may not, though I'm not as young as some (25). I apologize if sometimes I come across as condescending. A lot of times I think the "older" people's refusal to change is what has us in this situation and maybe they should step aside and let us young'uns who are willing to change take a stab at it. I think "older" people can be to stubborn to change when it comes to politics. Check out voter registrations in this state, last I checked there are a majority Democrats who haven't changed their registrations, but vote a straight Republican ticket except for local elections. I don't mean to generalize because I know there are a lot of older people who are trying to advocate a change (HHS for instance and his "no incumbent" voting strategy). I hope you take none of this as disrespect, because none is meant at all, just how I feel.

Let's say that enough people vote for Barr (or McKinney, or Nader) and it pulls the election away from McCain. Do you think that this could be a "wake up call" for the Republican party that the majority of America, while not necessarily supportive of Obama, are disenchanted enough with the Republican party as it is today, that it could effect real change? Let's suppose Obama's hypothetical presidency is as horrific as many are predicitng. Would the Republican party be willing to look within itself and realize that the disenfrancised are willing to take a stand on principle versus continue to put up with a party that represents them in in name only?

 

 

I've heard that line of thinking in the past and understand it. I just don't subscribe to it. That to me is akin to cutting off your nose just to spite your face. Honest question: if you were disappointed in a Democratic candidate, could you see yourself voting for a third party party candidate to "teach the Democrats a lesson" if you felt your vote could play a role in a Republican, whose beliefs you disagreed with, getting elected?

 

And like I said, while I understand the "wake up call" philosophy, given the situation in America today and the threats and issues facing this country, I'm not of the opinion that its the right time for "wake up call" votes.

First, let it sink in that you were a Democrat. :lol:

 

When Obama wins KY you can tell me I had a part in it and I won't disagree. Until then, I will have to respectfully disagree with your statement. Though, I know it irks some, I see both candidates as equally "bad" POTUS. Realism is realizing McCain isn't a candidate who comes close to matching your beliefs. Realism is, realizing it is time to get up and do something about it. A lot don't know this, but besides my libertarian advocacy on here, I'm also involved with the Louisville chapter of Libertarians and am currently forming a campus group with some other students. To me it's very pacifistic to complain over and over about the lack of good candidates, but continue to vote for one of those (though, LN, if I remember correctly you are someone who has given numerous reasons to "why McCain" instead of "he isn't Obama").

 

I may not, though I'm not as young as some (25). I apologize if sometimes I come across as condescending. A lot of times I think the "older" people's refusal to change is what has us in this situation and maybe they should step aside and let us young'uns who are willing to change take a stab at it. I think "older" people can be to stubborn to change when it comes to politics. Check out voter registrations in this state, last I checked there are a majority Democrats who haven't changed their registrations, but vote a straight Republican ticket except for local elections. I don't mean to generalize because I know there are a lot of older people who are trying to advocate a change (HHS for instance and his "no incumbent" voting strategy). I hope you take none of this as disrespect, because none is meant at all, just how I feel.

 

No disrespect taken at all. Very thoughtful post by you. And you are right, I believe there are many reasons why I support McCain. I don't agree with him on all issues for sure. But of the two men with a real chance of winning, he's the right person for the job at this time in our history.

 

As for the comments by you about if Obama winning Ky and Mr. Fundamental's comment about the electoral college, my comments about how libertarians could be responsible for an Obama presidency were not intended to be limited to just Ky voters. McCain should win Ky pretty easily. But in other states, their votes very well could swing the election.

 

When you get past the fact that I was once a Democrat and get back off the floor, ponder this one: I actually voted for Jimmy Carter. :scared: He was and is a very nice man; just wasn't a good Presidential choice. He actually helped me become more of a realist.

you're my hero. Because of your stance and because you articulate it well.

 

Thanks but I think you've set your "hero bar" way too low.

The Republican Party is broken. The only way I see to fix it is to throw it out of power with such force that the episode forces a deep self-reflection and reinvention.

There is a time and a place to be idealistic for sure. I fully understand that. I was much idealistic when I was younger. Heck, I was a Democrat. But there is a time when you do have to be a realist. In my opinion a vote for Barr is a vote for Obama. And Obama's beliefs are much, much more contrary to a libertarian's than McCain's are. And if Obama gets elected, due in part as a result of libertarians voting for Barr, you shouldn't be complaining in two years at all about Obama moving this country towards socialism because you will have had a role in making that happen. That's realism.

 

And if I'm being condescending (again) I apologize. I won't deny that I generally feel that younger people don't have the life experiences necessary to have informed positions on a lot of issues facing this country. No doubt about that and I'm sure that comes across in my posts and irritates younger people. But hey, I'm honest about how I feel.

No offense taken. I realize that I lack the experience to really know a lot of things. There are two issues that really, really matter to me- abortion and small government. The R's have been decent on abortion, but since Reagan (and FWIW, spending during Reagan was out of control) have been abysmal in terms of small government. I know I am no Democrat, but I can't gauge how much closer they are to my beliefs.

 

 

rockmom and H say it better than me:

Let's say that enough people vote for Barr (or McKinney, or Nader) and it pulls the election away from McCain. Do you think that this could be a "wake up call" for the Republican party that the majority of America, while not necessarily supportive of Obama, are disenchanted enough with the Republican party as it is today, that it could effect real change? Let's suppose Obama's hypothetical presidency is as horrific as many are predicitng. Would the Republican party be willing to look within itself and realize that the disenfrancised are willing to take a stand on principle versus continue to put up with a party that represents them in in name only?

 

The Republican Party is broken. The only way I see to fix it is to throw it out of power with such force that the episode forces a deep self-reflection and reinvention.

The Republican Party is broken. The only way I see to fix it is to throw it out of power with such force that the episode forces a deep self-reflection and reinvention.

 

I'm sure you and other Democrats feel that way, because by throwing "it" out, it throws the Democrats in. And frankly, from my vantage point, a broken Republican Party is still one heck of a lot better than the other option.

No offense taken. I realize that I lack the experience to really know a lot of things. There are two issues that really, really matter to me- abortion and small government. The R's have been decent on abortion, but since Reagan (and FWIW, spending during Reagan was out of control) have been abysmal in terms of small government. I know I am no Democrat, but I can't gauge how much closer they are to my beliefs.

 

Okay on one of your key issues (abortion), its a no brainer which party is closer to your beliefs. On the other issue, there is no doubt that R's have not been as fiscally responsible as you'd like. I think spending to break the Soviet Union and to accomplish our mission in Iraq justify the increased spending, but even if you disagree with me, do you honestly think the Democrats are going to limit spending? In the two last years that that the Dems have controlled Congress, have you seen Congress make any attempt to control spending? Do you think a Congress led by Pelosi and Reid, with Obama in the White House is going to control spending? Ask yourself which Presidential candidate has the better track record in fighting excessive spending. McCain's not perfect I realize, but he's a lot better than Obama. And make no doubt about it, he will be much better at dealing with the Pelosi Reid Congress than Obama. Heck, all that change that Obama wants to bring (which will be very, very expensive don't forget) means he's going to have to cut deals left and right with Congress. Just what do you think Pelosi and Reid are going to want in return for their support of Obama's agenda? It doesn't take a rocket scientist or even Joe the Plumber (had to get that one in) to figure out they are going to have their far liberal agenda they want passed.

 

You may think it is fine to allow that to happen in order to straighten out the Republican Party. Me, I think that would be a great mistake.

No offense taken. I realize that I lack the experience to really know a lot of things. There are two issues that really, really matter to me- abortion and small government. The R's have been decent on abortion, but since Reagan (and FWIW, spending during Reagan was out of control) have been abysmal in terms of small government. I know I am no Democrat, but I can't gauge how much closer they are to my beliefs.

 

 

rockmom and H say it better than me:

 

On abortion there is no doubt the Reps are closer to your beliefs. But to be honest, the Reps have been terrible at controlling spending in the White House and Dems have been terrible on the hill. Both parties have increased the size of government no matter which branch they have had control of since Reagan. Most of the Reagan spending was to beef up the military and win the cold war, so I will give him a pass on that era. But since, the Reps have been just as bad as the Dems on the growth in government.

 

If the Reps would show they would actually be willing to act on reducing the size of the government and show some testicular fortitude, we might see a shift back to the right. However, given their recent history, the Dems are gaining a real advantage, ... all the while proposing to grow government even more than it already is. But the Reps have sadly given in to pressure from groups who will paint them as uncaring, coldhearted savages if the eliminate or even cut back the programs currently on the books. Even worse, they will be painted with that same brush if they don't approve even more spending.

 

I do like McCain's idea of freezing government spending, and while Obama says it is using a hatchet when we should be using a scalpel, ... with our current financial situation, I think a hatchet may be necessary. However, I am not sure that with a democratic controlled house and senate, McCain could even get a budget passed without being painted with that broad cruel brush.

 

Mark this down, ... if McCain is elected, the budget fight will be public, nasty and brutal. If Obama is elected, the budget will be the biggest in US history.

I'm sure you and other Democrats feel that way, because by throwing "it" out, it throws the Democrats in. And frankly, from my vantage point, a broken Republican Party is still one heck of a lot better than the other option.

 

 

News flash: I'm a registered Republican and have been for almost 20 years. I voted for Dole in '96 and Bush in 2000. I'd start voting for them again if they stopped pandering to nutcases, spending like drunken sailors, and starting unnecessary wars.

 

And I guess we just differ on how to straighten out the party. I subscribe to the belief that the GOP has no incentive to change if people keep rewarding them with their vote.

On abortion there is no doubt the Reps are closer to your beliefs. But to be honest, the Reps have been terrible at controlling spending in the White House and Dems have been terrible on the hill. Both parties have increased the size of government no matter which branch they have had control of since Reagan. Most of the Reagan spending was to beef up the military and win the cold war, so I will give him a pass on that era. But since, the Reps have been just as bad as the Dems on the growth in government.

 

If the Reps would show they would actually be willing to act on reducing the size of the government and show some testicular fortitude, we might see a shift back to the right. However, given their recent history, the Dems are gaining a real advantage, ... all the while proposing to grow government even more than it already is. But the Reps have sadly given in to pressure from groups who will paint them as uncaring, coldhearted savages if the eliminate or even cut back the programs currently on the books. Even worse, they will be painted with that same brush if they don't approve even more spending.

 

I do like McCain's idea of freezing government spending, and while Obama says it is using a hatchet when we should be using a scalpel, ... with our current financial situation, I think a hatchet may be necessary. However, I am not sure that with a democratic controlled house and senate, McCain could even get a budget passed without being painted with that broad cruel brush.

 

Mark this down, ... if McCain is elected, the budget fight will be public, nasty and brutal. If Obama is elected, the budget will be the biggest in US history.

 

If recent history is any indication, that will be the case regardless of who is elected:

 

2009 United States federal budget - $3.10 trillion (submitted 2008 by President Bush)

2008 United States federal budget - $2.90 trillion (submitted 2007 by President Bush)

2007 United States federal budget - $2.77 trillion (submitted 2006 by President Bush)

2006 United States federal budget - $2.7 trillion (submitted 2005 by President Bush)

2005 United States federal budget - $2.4 trillion (submitted 2004 by President Bush)

2004 United States federal budget - $2.3 trillion (submitted 2003 by President Bush)

2003 United States federal budget - $2.2 trillion (submitted 2002 by President Bush)

2002 United States federal budget - $2.0 trillion (submitted 2001 by President Bush)

2001 United States federal budget - $1.9 trillion (submitted 2000 by President Clinton)

2000 United States federal budget - $1.8 trillion (submitted 1999 by President Clinton)

1999 United States federal budget - $1.7 trillion (submitted 1998 by President Clinton)

1998 United States federal budget - $1.7 trillion (submitted 1997 by President Clinton)

1997 United States federal budget - $1.6 trillion (submitted 1996 by President Clinton)

1996 United States federal budget - $1.6 trillion (submitted 1995 by President Clinton

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget

Of course, Wiki could be wrong...

I have basically regretted every vote I've made for POTUS, even the ones that won. I guess I expect too much from them, in terms of honesty, integrity and morals. What was I thinking?!?

 

What everyone sees as success, I can see as a failure. Take Reagan for example. Reagan gets credit for ending the cold war, and whether true or not, most see it that way. That was a horrible thing IMO, that led to all the rogue nations we have today. Plus, it's where their nukes came from. Did anyone die from the cold war? Sure, we had to hide under our desk occasionally, but I never for once feared WWIII. The world was safer with two superpowers than it is today with one.

 

I'm an old dude and I will vote Libertarian. Insanity is desribed as doing the same thing over and over, yet expecting different results. Isn't that pretty much how you desribe an election if you vote D or R? Yes, Obama will be change from Bush, but not change from normal, everyday politics. Having said that, McCain would be a change as well. But not enough. Look at who their biggest financial contributors are - they are basically the same. People who donate money expect something in return. Which is why voting for a party with no money doesn't bother me. I trust them more for it.

 

It may be idealistic, but I don't see it as throwing a vote away, as most of my family claims. What I'm doing is much harder to do than what they will do - vote the same party they have voted for their entire lives. Plus, now I won't take the blame for a lousy Presidency, no matter who wins.

I have basically regretted every vote I've made for POTUS, even the ones that won. I guess I expect too much from them, in terms of honesty, integrity and morals. What was I thinking?!?

 

What everyone sees as success, I can see as a failure. Take Reagan for example. Reagan gets credit for ending the cold war, and whether true or not, most see it that way. That was a horrible thing IMO, that led to all the rogue nations we have today. Plus, it's where their nukes came from. Did anyone die from the cold war? Sure, we had to hide under our desk occasionally, but I never for once feared WWIII. The world was safer with two superpowers than it is today with one.

 

I'm an old dude and I will vote Libertarian. Insanity is desribed as doing the same thing over and over, yet expecting different results. Isn't that pretty much how you desribe an election if you vote D or R? Yes, Obama will be change from Bush, but not change from normal, everyday politics. Having said that, McCain would be a change as well. But not enough. Look at who their biggest financial contributors are - they are basically the same. People who donate money expect something in return. Which is why voting for a party with no money doesn't bother me. I trust them more for it.

 

It may be idealistic, but I don't see it as throwing a vote away, as most of my family claims. What I'm doing is much harder to do than what they will do - vote the same party they have voted for their entire lives. Plus, now I won't take the blame for a lousy Presidency, no matter who wins.

 

How many of us are old enough to remember this? When I was in elementary school, we had the occasional bomb drill. I can't say that I was altogether comforted by having a 3/4-inch thick sheet of maple between my head and whatever was supposed to be dropping out of the sky.