Blazers & Timbers endorse same sex marriage

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
Denny Crane said:
If you follow politics, you'd know that Rand, Cruz, Lee, and the others are battling it out with the establishment republicans McCain, Graham, et al.

The establishment republicans are the ones that seem to want war as much as Obama does (Syria!).
Click to expand...

The point is that the "non establishment" politicians quickly turn about face when elected. Obama is a prime example.
 
hoojacks said:
The point is that the "non establishment" politicians quickly turn about face when elected. Obama is a prime example.
Click to expand...

I think it's an issue of competence. I don't think he gets much of anything done; not since ObamaCare.

Notice the proper use if "it's" ;-)
 
Denny Crane said:
I think it's an issue of competence. I don't think he gets much of anything done; not since ObamaCare.
Click to expand...

I think Obama is plenty competent, honestly. He is just a politician, and he makes promises he can't/won't keep. Your libertarian idols are no different.


Notice the proper use if "it's" ;-)
Click to expand...

I will not notice that. I'm not at work, dammit.
 
hoojacks said:
I think Obama is plenty competent, honestly. He is just a politician, and he makes promises he can't/won't keep. Your libertarian idols are no different.
Click to expand...

We can compare his ability to get his agenda passed with... Clinton. The republicans were so stuck on ousting him that they impeached him. Yet he was competent enough to get pretty much what he wanted passed.

So, where's the competence? Like how he built a coalition to militarily disarm Syria? Again, Clinton had no problem building a coalition to save Muslims in Kosovo.
 
Also, I think we've seen enough of the liberal democrats and neocon republicans to realize they both are awful when governing.

Time to try something different. What's the saying about repeating something expecting a different result?
 
Denny Crane said:
Also, I think we've seen enough of the liberal democrats and neocon republicans to realize they both are awful when governing.

Time to try something different. What's the saying about repeating something expecting a different result?
Click to expand...

So, Denny, are you proud of what your 'libertarians' have accomplished the last few weeks? Is Ted Cruz your new hero?

barfo
 
barfo said:
So, Denny, are you proud of what your 'libertarians' have accomplished the last few weeks? Is Ted Cruz your new hero?

barfo
Click to expand...

If you want smaller government and responsible management of finances, do you:

a) allow bigger government, allow the printing of money based on nothing, allow the government to borrow whatever it wants
b) don't allow these things

I vote b.

I've posted way more times than once that I'm a big fan of gridlock.

Is Cruz my new hero? No. Haven't seen enough of him.
 
Denny, I am not sure how this became a libertarian thread or why you accused me of hating libertarians. I knew several members of the Libertarian Party in Portland. We disagreed on a lot of things - gains won in long and bitter struggle, like civil rights legislation, minimum wage, social security. I did not and do not think that a person who is sick, old, disabled or impoverished should to told "suck it up, buddy, you're on your own", even if the person is 3 years old. Not surprising they were all white, male, and not really part of the work force (usually students with casual jobs). But we agreed on many things. In fact I met them while protesting U.S. military involvement abroad. We approached from a different place; theirs was isolationism and mine was solidarity, but we agreed on the issue. And on getting rid of bloated military budget. On many social issues we totally agreed. Women's reproductive rights. Gay rights. The right to assisted suicide when a person was incurably and painfully ill. Separation of church and state. And they were all big supporters of science.

The so called "libertarians" in the Senate and House are nothing more than extreme right Republicans. Look at your pal Rand Paul. He supported the Blunt Amendment which would allow employers to veto an employee's birth control. He supports the "personhood" amendment, which would outlaw abortion in all cases and outlaw most forms of birth control. (Ironically, his namesake Ayn Rand, while explicitly anti-feminist, also strongly supported access to birth control and abortion.) Incidentally, it would also redefine rape in such a way as to make the majority of rapes "non-rape". He supports Christian prayer in school, rejects global warming, rejects evolution, supports teaching creationism in schools, opposes marriage equality, opposed repeal of "don't ask don't tell". He has yet, so far as I know, to call for reducing the military budget that was doubled in the first Reagan administration, although the U.S. was not at war - and then doubled again. How's that for big government and deficity spending? He has been a regular speaker at the far right "Values Voter Summit" which absolutely supports government intervention into private lives, especially women's (or don't we count?)

Rand Paul is a far right Republican who opposes NSA spying - now. Would he oppose it if a Republican, especially himself, was president? He may or may not support legalizing marijuana; I will not give up all my rights for being able to smoke a joint.
 
crandc said:
Denny, I am not sure how this became a libertarian thread or why you accused me of hating libertarians. I knew several members of the Libertarian Party in Portland. We disagreed on a lot of things - gains won in long and bitter struggle, like civil rights legislation, minimum wage, social security. I did not and do not think that a person who is sick, old, disabled or impoverished should to told "suck it up, buddy, you're on your own", even if the person is 3 years old. Not surprising they were all white, male, and not really part of the work force (usually students with casual jobs). But we agreed on many things. In fact I met them while protesting U.S. military involvement abroad. We approached from a different place; theirs was isolationism and mine was solidarity, but we agreed on the issue. And on getting rid of bloated military budget. On many social issues we totally agreed. Women's reproductive rights. Gay rights. The right to assisted suicide when a person was incurably and painfully ill. Separation of church and state. And they were all big supporters of science.

The so called "libertarians" in the Senate and House are nothing more than extreme right Republicans. Look at your pal Rand Paul. He supported the Blunt Amendment which would allow employers to veto an employee's birth control. He supports the "personhood" amendment, which would outlaw abortion in all cases and outlaw most forms of birth control. (Ironically, his namesake Ayn Rand, while explicitly anti-feminist, also strongly supported access to birth control and abortion.) Incidentally, it would also redefine rape in such a way as to make the majority of rapes "non-rape". He supports Christian prayer in school, rejects global warming, rejects evolution, supports teaching creationism in schools, opposes marriage equality, opposed repeal of "don't ask don't tell". He has yet, so far as I know, to call for reducing the military budget that was doubled in the first Reagan administration, although the U.S. was not at war - and then doubled again. How's that for big government and deficity spending? He has been a regular speaker at the far right "Values Voter Summit" which absolutely supports government intervention into private lives, especially women's (or don't we count?)

Rand Paul is a far right Republican who opposes NSA spying - now. Would he oppose it if a Republican, especially himself, was president? He may or may not support legalizing marijuana; I will not give up all my rights for being able to smoke a joint.
Click to expand...

You complain about my libertarian views, even though they are the source of my civil rights views.

The libertarians in the house and senate are the most libertarian congressmen in modern history, regardless of their personal views on religion or abortion or whatever. Being Libertarian does not preclude you from being religious, anti-abortion, etc.

Rand Paul is not named after Ayn Rand. Sheesh.

As for the poor, sick, etc? There's nothing about Libertarianism that tells them they're on their own. That's your own invention, or something. People are encouraged to form voluntary associations. Some of those associations are charities. Oddly, the govt. handout scheme hasn't worked (the % of people in poverty now is the same as before LBJ), and the level of taxation by govt. hurts peoples' ability to give to charity.

I also recommend you beware of bogus claims. Like Paul refused to answer a question about the age of the earth, so left leaning journalists twisted that to mean he's a creationist.
 
I said namesake, not named for. I was not attacking your personal views, I was attacking the views of those in Congress. As for "your on your own", that is pretty much what I have heard. BTW, do you know that seniors used to be the poorest age group? They are not any more because of social security. BTW again, taxes are the lowest they have been since what, 1930s?

I simply do not see how someone can say they are for "individual liberties" and at the same time force every woman to carry every pregnancy to term against her will no matter what. After denying her birth control! How do you enforce that? Monitor every woman's menstrual cycle? If a person is prohibited from making the most basic decisions about her life that is not liberty!

For an educated person to say he/she really doesn't know the approximate age of the earth is either incomprehensible ignorance or pandering to religious right.

Rand Paul is for individual rights for well off straight white men. As long as they don't get sick.
 
talking points :)

A Libertarian world would be a small government protecting one another from physical violence and enforcing contracts made freely between free people (of all races, genders, religions, etc.). In a contract, there are at least two individuals, so there is no "you're on your own" to it.

The elderly make up the richest people in our society and they're getting a lot of government benefits that (if we're going to do it) should go to the needy.

I think he was dodging a trap. Someone asked the question looking for a gotcha, and there's no win in it for him, no matter the answer.

Menstrual cycles? You made that up, too :)
 
Denny Crane said:
If you want smaller government and responsible management of finances, do you:

a) allow bigger government, allow the printing of money based on nothing, allow the government to borrow whatever it wants
b) don't allow these things

I vote b.

I've posted way more times than once that I'm a big fan of gridlock.

Is Cruz my new hero? No. Haven't seen enough of him.
Click to expand...

So, according to S&P, the gridlock caused by your libertarians reduced GDP by $24b over the last 2 weeks. Besides that, what did your team accomplish exactly?

barfo
 
Abby Wambach @AbbyWambach
Sarah and I wanted to thank everyone for all the love and support. We couldn't be happier. What an amazing week it's been. #honeymoon
 
barfo said:
So, according to S&P, the gridlock caused by your libertarians reduced GDP by $24b over the last 2 weeks. Besides that, what did your team accomplish exactly?

barfo
Click to expand...

Don't worry, barfo. They'll borrow $24B the first two weeks after the debt ceiling is raised. Pretty neat how the real voodoo economics works.

Borrowing to pay your bills is insanity. That's what you "won." We're spending $400B+ on interest on the debt now. Imagine all the compost you could make with that kind of money.

Debt-GDP-Ratios-042513-2.jpg
 
Denny Crane said:
Don't worry, barfo. They'll borrow $24B the first two weeks after the debt ceiling is raised. Pretty neat how the real voodoo economics works.
Click to expand...

Well, it is the case that the government will be borrowing even more money now to pay for what your team wasted the past couple of weeks. So what exactly did you win again?

Borrowing to pay your bills is insanity.
Click to expand...

Right, it's better to just default on your bills? That's your idea of fiscal responsibility?

That's what you "won."
Click to expand...

That's a lot more than you "won" (to quote Nate).
Seems like Team Tea Party got the big goose-egg on its face.
But I'm glad they had the chance to remind everyone once again why "Libertarians" shouldn't ever be in charge of anything.

barfo
 
barfo said:
Well, it is the case that the government will be borrowing even more money now to pay for what your team wasted the past couple of weeks. So what exactly did you win again?
Click to expand...

It is the case that the government will borrow even more money, no matter what. Otherwise they wouldn't need to raise the borrowing limit. Duh.

http://www.nber.org/digest/apr10/w15639.html

The median growth of the 20 advanced nations in this study fell by half as their debt levels moved from less than 30 percent of GDP to 90 percent or more.
Click to expand...

$24B out of a ~$16T economy, generated by excessive borrowing. Boo hoo.

1/2 GDP growth lost due to policies you keep hyping, yay!

That's 1.5% instead of 3% of a ~$16T economy. Real money.

Right, it's better to just default on your bills? That's your idea of fiscal responsibility?
Click to expand...

My idea of fiscal responsibility is to turn off cable TV if I can't afford to pay the bill. Democrats' is to charge the payment on the credit card and order more channels. Once cable TV is cancelled, you don't get the bills anymore, so you aren't defaulting by not paying them.


That's a lot more than you "won" (to quote Nate).
Seems like Team Tea Party got the big goose-egg on its face.
But I'm glad they had the chance to remind everyone once again why "Libertarians" shouldn't ever be in charge of anything.

barfo
Click to expand...

You "lost" but don't realize it yet.

And all this is proving Libertarians should be in charge of everything.
 
I don't know if anyone noticed, but the little red arrows change direction before the little blue arrows, so really, the title should be "Retarded GDP Growth Causes Rising Debt-to-GDP Levels Which No Shit Because Tax Revenue Is Reduced".

That chart is like saying Cancer causes Tanning Beds.
 
This has gotten so far from original topic I really don't know what is being discussed. So I'm out.
 
Denny Crane said:
And all this is proving Libertarians should be in charge of everything.
Click to expand...

This has nothing to do with this thread, but it's a bit of history I didn't know. Apparently libertarians have been making shit up for a long time...

barfo
 
barfo said:
This has nothing to do with this thread, but it's a bit of history I didn't know. Apparently libertarians have been making shit up for a long time...

barfo
Click to expand...

I liked the part about libertarianism becoming more and more mainstream. Thanks!.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Denny Crane
Same Sex Marriage at SCOTUS
2
Replies
31
Views
998
Denny Crane
Denny Crane
Wheels
Calling Timbers Fans!
Replies
18
Views
1K
Wheels
Wheels
RR7
WA Passing Same Sex Marriage?
Replies
7
Views
640
EL PRESIDENTE
EL PRESIDENTE
Fez Hammersticks
Avid Timbers Army (Re: MLB and Portland)
Replies
10
Views
1K
MickZagger
MickZagger
GriLtCheeZ
Jeld-Wen Field has been renamed to "Providence Park"
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
blue32
blue32

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top