Mitt Romney's failure was inevitable

[spartan]

You are making distinctions that do not exist, spartan. You are trying to rationalize in a way that preserves your conservatism on stances that are typically viewed as liberal. If someone discriminates against an individual for being gay, they are not discriminating against a gay individual, they are discriminating against the state of being gay. The individual is merely the representation of what is being descriminated against. If you oppose descrimination of an individual based on race, sex, etc, then you oppose descrimination against that group.

If you support the individual's right to form or join a Union, then you support the existence of Unions. You are trying to say you oppose collectivism, yet support the individual's right to join a collective. By proxy, spartan, you are saying that you support collectivism. There is no other way to interpret it.

Incorrect. Just because I support someones right to do something, it does not mean I support them doing it. A person has a right to be an ass, I wouldn't recommend or support it though.

Let's take a look at Unions. As I said I support a workers right to join a Union. I also support a workers right NOT to join a union. That is something that the "collective" does not take kindly too and end up discriminating against. Unfortunately when you wage identity politics that is the inevitable result. I believe there is a place for Unions but not in their current form. I do not support the manner in which they currently operate or their current activities.

You consider me to be extreme when in reality all I do for the most part is disagree in what you believe. That does not make me out of the "mainstream," especially when half the country consider themselves to be conservative. For example you think I am extreme because I do not support gay marriage. I'm Catholic and to Catholics marriage is a sacrament.  I have not even disagreed with gays being bestowed with certain rights and privileges that is akin to those provided by marriage. In fact I am on record in supporting that. How is that extreme?

I take your point about the individual being representative of a group, but after that we go down different paths. My answer is to protect the rights of the individual, like the manner in which the 19th Amendment was implement. Instead of saying women can vote, you say it cannot be denied based on sex.

The type of governance I advocate is one that is currently being practiced in one form or another by the majority of industrialized nations.

Last I checked that doesn't seem to be working out too well.

The definition of extreme is something that extends far beyond the norm. If the majority of industrialized nations practice it, then it's not extreme. The truth is that American conservatism is extreme when compared to conservatism in the rest of the world.

So when half the worlds population were subjected to Communist dictatorships, being a democracy was "extreme?"

[Dolorous Jason]

You are making distinctions that do not exist, spartan. You are trying to rationalize in a way that preserves your conservatism on stances that are typically viewed as liberal. If someone discriminates against an individual for being gay, they are not discriminating against a gay individual, they are discriminating against the state of being gay. The individual is merely the representation of what is being descriminated against. If you oppose descrimination of an individual based on race, sex, etc, then you oppose descrimination against that group.

If you support the individual's right to form or join a Union, then you support the existence of Unions. You are trying to say you oppose collectivism, yet support the individual's right to join a collective. By proxy, spartan, you are saying that you support collectivism. There is no other way to interpret it.

Incorrect. Just because I support someones right to do something, it does not mean I support them doing it. A person has a right to be an ass, I wouldn't recommend or support it though.

Let's take a look at Unions. As I said I support a workers right to join a Union. I also support a workers right NOT to join a union. That is something that the "collective" does not take kindly too and end up discriminating against. Unfortunately when you wage identity politics that is the inevitable result. I believe there is a place for Unions but not in their current form. I do not support the manner in which they currently operate or their current activities.

You consider me to be extreme when in reality all I do for the most part is disagree in what you believe. That does not make me out of the "mainstream," especially when half the country consider themselves to be conservative. For example you think I am extreme because I do not support gay marriage. I'm Catholic and to Catholics marriage is a sacrament.  I have not even disagreed with gays being bestowed with certain rights and privileges that is akin to those provided by marriage. In fact I am on record in supporting that. How is that extreme?

I take your point about the individual being representative of a group, but after that we go down different paths. My answer is to protect the rights of the individual, like the manner in which the 19th Amendment was implement. Instead of saying women can vote, you say it cannot be denied based on sex.

The type of governance I advocate is one that is currently being practiced in one form or another by the majority of industrialized nations.

Last I checked that doesn't seem to be working out too well.

LOL ,no it hasn't . In fact it's been an utter failure . You'd have to be pretty extreme to want to continue down that same path.

The definition of extreme is something that extends far beyond the norm. If the majority of industrialized nations practice it, then it's not extreme. The truth is that American conservatism is extreme when compared to conservatism in the rest of the world.

At the time of the American Revolution the majority of industrialized nations still had forms of monarchy.  What we did could definitely be considered "extreme" at the time. Maybe being "extreme" in the pursuit of liberty isn't such a bad thing...

[CBWx2]

Specifically name the cuts you'd make that would get us there. None of you lefties can , becuase there is nothing of significance you'd be willing to actually cut . Saying "increase revenue" is a cop out because we are so astronomically over budget that no realistic revenue increase can even put a dent in it. It all comes down to how much you are willing to scale back. The truth is , you aren't.

Extremists tend to create false dichotomies. When you have a deficit, raising revenue addresses at the very least, part of the deficit. It's not my opinion. It's basic math.

I said that they support the allowance of discrimination and pollution, skippy. I am more than aware of what Libertarianism is. You may very well be opposed to those things, but by eliminating all federal mandates

Of course , because nothing can get done without a federal mandate. It's not an act folks , he really is this stupid.

Discrimination for most sub-groups is illegal by federal mandate, and because of this, those who are discriminated against have legal recourse against those who impede on their civil liberties. How do you suppose Jim Crow, for example, would have been eliminated without a higher authority than state governments for those affected to appeal to, smart guy?

Extremists tend to view the world through a black and white lens.

I think you speak from expierence on this one  ( the guy who can't possibly imagine how a society could function without an over-bearing nanny state ). All liberty orginates at the individual , corky.  Laughable that you think freedom is extreme.  Educate yourself , you sound like a jack ass.

You Libertarians toss words like "liberty" and "freedom" around as though you own them. What if the majority wants freedom and liberation from being Libertarian? What then? The government didn't create things like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the EPA, the FDA, Labor laws, ect. autonomously. They created these things because the public wanted them created. The truth of the matter is that all Libertarianism is is a minority philosophy that wishes to impose their value system onto the majority. You are no different than the left-wing extremists that you despise so much. You are just the opposite side of the same coin.

[VinBucFan]

Specifically name the cuts you'd make that would get us there. None of you lefties can , becuase there is nothing of significance you'd be willing to actually cut . Saying "increase revenue" is a cop out because we are so astronomically over budget that no realistic revenue increase can even put a dent in it. It all comes down to how much you are willing to scale back. The truth is , you aren't.

Extremists tend to create false dichotomies. When you have a deficit, raising revenue addresses at the very least, part of the deficit. It's not my opinion. It's basic math.

sometimes if you just let CBW go he will prove your point for you

[VinBucFan]

If you support the individual's right to form or join a Union, then you support the existence of Unions. You are trying to say you oppose collectivism, yet support the individual's right to join a collective. By proxy, spartan, you are saying that you support collectivism. There is no other way to interpret it.

If anyone takes a moment and reads that comment above^^^^ and you think about it a bit . . . you should see why you are wasting your time exchanging comments with CBW, a guy who ADMITS  his intellectual dishonesty:

The intellectual dishonesty goes further than just me on this MB

[CBWx2]

Lastly I would like to say something to CBWx2.  I recall you saying that libertarianisim is some antiquated idea that will take us back to a pastoral plutocricy or some kind of new age slavery and that it's an idea that would take us back to the 1800's.  You've insinuated that it wasn't up to date or modern but I argue that it's you who's living in the past.  We don't live in the 1800's and we have information at our fingertips. Add to that a century of public education and you'll find even the poorest Americans are likely not far from a keyboard.  I think it's you who's living in the past by not accepting that we've come a lot farther than many people would like to think.  We have a lot more work to do but I don't see any reason why that work must be done in the fashison you invision.

Libertarianism is not an antiquated ideology. I never claimed that it was. It is based on neoliberalism, which is a fairly new concept in the world of political ideology. What I said was that Libertarianism would lead to a society similar to what we had during the Gilded Age, and that's because even though new, the similarities between Libertarian economic principles and the laissez-faire economic principles that ruled the day during the Gilded Age are not all that different. That's not my opinion. That's reality. And access to information, or the lack thereof, was not what created the inequities of the Gilded Age. The lack of advocacy on behalf of workers by their representative government was. The lack of rules and standards placed on the private sector by government was. It wasn't until that changed that the standard of living among the working class changed.

To summarize:

1. There is no such thing as a "free market". Markets are the creation of governments. Governments provide the currency that make markets possible, and the legal infrastructure and court systems to enforce contracts. What Libertarianism advocates is a government that creates the market, yet allows the private sector to police the market that it created. That's essentially akin to the NFL allowing football teams to make their own rules and referee their own games.

2. The middle class in America and Europe was not created by "free markets". They were created by government intervention in the market place. It was the result of government policing the private sector, and setting minimum standards that the private sector had refused to set on it's own. Allowing the private sector to police itself again will ultimately lead us back to what America looked when the private sector last policed itself. To suggest that there is any other possible outcome is to live in a fantasy land.

[VinBucFan]

The intellectual dishonesty goes further than just me on this MB

[Dolorous Jason]

Extremists tend to create false dichotomies. When you have a deficit, raising revenue addresses at the very least, part of the deficit. It's not my opinion. It's basic math.

  You can't possibly raise enough revenue to put a dent in it , dumb ass. Even if you tax millionares at 100% . It's basic math.  SO I will ask you again , since you keep dodging the question : What specific programs would you be willing to cut in order to actually balance the budget ?? You can combine your totals with the miniscule increase you'd recieve in a tax hike. Let's hear the numbers. After all , it's basic math...

Discrimination for most sub-groups is illegal by federal mandate, and because of this, those who are discriminated against have legal recourse against those who impede on their civil liberties. How do you suppose Jim Crow, for example, would have been eliminated without a higher authority than state governments for those affected to appeal to, smart guy?

Once again you seem to be confusing libertarians with anarchists. One of the proper functions of government is to protect people's liberties from being infringed on by others. I don't think any libertarian has a problem with laws to prevent discrimination. The thing is you wouldn't necessarily need the feds to mandate it. It could be handled at the state level also  , and if a state continued to be ass-backwards , then they would eventually see the consequences as people voted with thier feet and continued to leave for more tolerant , and thereby more prosperous states. I'm not completely opposed to certain federal mandates if they protect liberty. There is a fine line however to granting the feds extra powers. When it progresses from simple safe quards to One Size Fits All Hiring Quota's , and things of that nature , passed down from a centralized authority 2,000 miles away , it can be an infringement also , and makes any libertarian wary.

You Libertarians toss words like "liberty" and "freedom" around as though you own them. What if the majority wants freedom and liberation from being Libertarian? What then? The government didn't create things like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the EPA, the FDA, Labor laws, ect. autonomously. They created these things because the public wanted them created. The truth of the matter is that all Libertarianism is is a minority philosophy that wishes to impose their value system onto the majority. You are no different than the left-wing extremists that you despise so much. You are just the opposite side of the same coin.

Seriously ?? .... A majority wanted social security and medicaid , because a majority will usually accept what they view as a hand-out. That does not mean the majority has the right to impose thier will on a minority . That is immoral.

Libertarianism imposes nothing on anyone. You are free to socialize every part of society with other willing partcipants . I simply ask to be left out of the things I don't like or don't voluntarily want to contribute to . I also simply ask that if you do want a social program you actually PAY for it , instead of adding it to a never ending pile of debt my grandkids will be stuck with and which devalues my current property. .
I'll gladly pay my share  for roads , fire dept , police , etc. Why is it that you won't allow me to opt out of the social security ponzi scheme ?? I'll tell you why. It's because you're part of a thieving mob, and you demand that money in order to pay for other entitlements.

[Dolorous Jason]

Specifically name the cuts you'd make that would get us there. None of you lefties can , becuase there is nothing of significance you'd be willing to actually cut . Saying "increase revenue" is a cop out because we are so astronomically over budget that no realistic revenue increase can even put a dent in it. It all comes down to how much you are willing to scale back. The truth is , you aren't.

Extremists tend to create false dichotomies. When you have a deficit, raising revenue addresses at the very least, part of the deficit. It's not my opinion. It's basic math.

sometimes if you just let CBW go he will prove your point for you

lol , so true...

[dbucfan]

Hell, a huge step would be the elimination of baseline budgeting.  Take away the automatic increases....

[VinBucFan]

Hell, a huge step would be the elimination of baseline budgeting.  Take away the automatic increases....

amen.  a common sense step, but that is probably why it will not get done.  Can you imagine running a business the way washington runs the government? Who says with a straight face  that the solution to massive debt abd deficits is to spend more? I can imagine the reaction I would have gotten from my bankers with that plan. lol

[dbucfan]

How accurate do you think this statement is?  comes from here http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2756858/posts

Now, the best, most accurate illustration of where we are with the current baseline in the United States federal budget, I was sent a note from a legislative director of a member of the House of Representatives. I'm not gonna mention the name nor am I gonna mention the state. But trust me, it is a real person and of course it's a real state and it's a real legislative director.

And here's the note: "One final thought to illustrate the absurdity of our baseline, and I'll leave you alone. If Speaker Boehner --" now, listen to me very carefully, folks "-- if Speaker Boehner were to propose that we simply freeze all government spending immediately, including mandatory and discretionary, meaning including the entitlements, if we just freeze everything and spend no more this year than we spent last year, the Congressional Budget Office would score that as a nine and a half trillion-dollar cut."

That's how out of whack the baseline is: A $9.5 trillion cut. Remember the $9 trillion figure we used at the end of the program yesterday. That is the cumulative total of automatic baseline increases for the next ten years. But if there's a simple budget freeze -- and of course there's not going to be. This is just an educational exercise. Again, now, this is not what is. It is how it is scored.

If the Boehner plan were a simple freeze -- we're not going to spend another dime next year beyond what we spent this year -- it would equal a nine and a $9.5 trillion cut because the baseline in our budget obviously includes $9.5 trillion of new spending, minimum, over the next ten years.

[VinBucFan]

depressing

[dbucfan]

Yes, but do you think it is accurate?  Note the source - it is Limbaugh and he a prince of overstatement

[VinBucFan]

Yes, but do you think it is accurate?  Note the source - it is Limbaugh and he a prince of overstatement

It's hard to imagine and he is the prince of overstatement.  Conceptually he is right, but could the numbers be that significant? What is the national spend this year, if you apply a 3-10% increase how much is that and then take it out each year for a decade, compounded.  Could be right . . . ugh . . .  depressing