The Texas Unmiracle

[Socrates]

[quote name='Marie-Therese' timestamp='1313709511' post='2290927']

OK, I can concede that point. For the record, though, I never stated any opposition to secession as a philosophical stance. It's a perfectly legitimate option and well within the purview of the people of Texas (or any state) to choose that option, if circumstances warrant. My point was that the appearance of a candidate for office advocating a position that seemed to run counter to the point of that office made for bad public relations. However, I can agree that there are merits to the bigger argument in terms of the presentation of the idea as a possibility.[/quote]
Sorry if I misinterpreted your posts. You just seemed pretty adamantly opposed to the whole succession thing.

If his speech was bad pr, that only hurts Perry, whom you don't appear to be much of a fan of to begin with, so I'm not sure why this is a big issue.



[quote]That was my entire point. Perry is just one more pop-up in a giant political game of whack-a-mole. You could throw a dart, hit one, and get pretty much the same result from any of them. They just have different routes to the same end. Eventually the lure of power will be one too potent for the vast majority of candidates for that office to withstand. That had nothing to do with Perry specifically at all.[/quote]
I guess I'm just not quite as cynical as you on this (which is ironic, because most people who know me consider me extremely cynical). I'm as frustrated with the political scene as anyone, but wouldn't go so far as to say it makes absolutely no difference who is elected to office. I think the agenda of the Obama administration will prove absolutely disastrous for this country in the long run, and must be opposed. Whether Perry is the best man to do that is a whole other debate. I think it does make a difference who is elected, even if the difference is not as great as it should be. Sometimes the best we can do in the end is limit the damage done, but that's better than nothing. If all good Catholics and conservatives drop out of the political process altogether, out political leadership will be left to the absolutely worst people. All that it takes for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing.

But I must say that for one who believes it makes no difference who people vote for or don't vote for, you've spent a lot of time on political debate.
No need to work so hard at drumming up apathy.

[Marie-Therese]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1313798464' post='2291614']
Sorry if I misinterpreted your posts. You just seemed pretty adamantly opposed to the whole succession thing.

If his speech was bad pr, that only hurts Perry, whom you don't appear to be much of a fan of to begin with, so I'm not sure why this is a big issue.




I guess I'm just not quite as cynical as you on this (which is ironic, because most people who know me consider me extremely cynical). I'm as frustrated with the political scene as anyone, but wouldn't go so far as to say it makes absolutely no difference who is elected to office. I think the agenda of the Obama administration will prove absolutely disastrous for this country in the long run, and must be opposed. Whether Perry is the best man to do that is a whole other debate. I think it does make a difference who is elected, even if the difference is not as great as it should be. Sometimes the best we can do in the end is limit the damage done, but that's better than nothing. If all good Catholics and conservatives drop out of the political process altogether, out political leadership will be left to the absolutely worst people. All that it takes for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing.

But I must say that for one who believes it makes no difference who people vote for or don't vote for, you've spent a lot of time on political debate.
No need to work so hard at drumming up apathy.
[/quote]

You misconstrue. I am not apathetic in the slightest. Don't misread disenchantment with the current political establishment with apathy, because they are not the same.

Apathetic about one candidate over another? You might call it apathy, I suppose, but solely in that regard. Our current system is so rife with corruption that, in my most humble opinion, it is at the point where it is irredeemable in its present construct. To patronize one party or another with a vote is simply to perpetuate the same basic problems, to prop up the same power players. What is needed is a radical reinvention of the way politics is dealt with in this country, to return it to its most foundation level where people determine the extent to which they are governed, and not the present system where we're ruled at gunpoint and have no say in what happens. I just don't think that settling for the "lesser of two evils" choice is a feasible one any more. To use a blunt descriptor, our choices right now are to choose which party's candidate is going to try to shove ten pounds of cr[acronym=''][/acronym]ap into our five pound bag. Neither of those choices really work. In the end, it's all still cr[acronym=''][/acronym]ap.

Being reticent to participate in the reindeer games of the current political establishment isn't apathetic. I simply have come to a point where I feel morally compelled to refuse to give support to candidates supporting the ideals of either party. The individual party planks no longer matter; the issues aren't the issue. The real issue is money, and who's going to bring more of it, and where special interests determine that it gets spent. Not being willing to lend my assent to that system isn't apathetic, it's the only way I can assuage my conscience and sleep at night. What I do support, vigorously, is a discussion that leads to a radical reformation of American politics. That's why I am involved in the present discussion.

[Jesus_lol]

im just gonna repost this part of my post since it seems everyone only paid attention to the pictures under it

Rick Perry had an innocent man executed when he refused to stay the execution of Cameron Todd Willingham when new forensic evidence exonerated him.
[url="http://articles.cnn.com/2009-10-01/justice/texas.execution.probe_1_willingham-case-cameron-todd-willingham-execution?_s=PM:CRIME"]http://articles.cnn....ion?_s=PM:CRIME[/url]

He then squashed the investigation into it, replacing everyone on it
[url="http://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/04/14/texas.arson.review/index.html"]http://www.cnn.com/2...view/index.html[/url]

after raising 11 million dollars from oil and gas companies, he then said that climate scientists are lying to increase their cashflow.

sounds like an amesome guy

[dominicansoul]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1313943081' post='2292590']
im just gonna repost this part of my post since it seems everyone only paid attention to the pictures under it

Rick Perry had an innocent man executed when he refused to stay the execution of Cameron Todd Willingham when new forensic evidence exonerated him.
[url="http://articles.cnn.com/2009-10-01/justice/texas.execution.probe_1_willingham-case-cameron-todd-willingham-execution?_s=PM:CRIME"]http://articles.cnn....ion?_s=PM:CRIME[/url]

He then squashed the investigation into it, replacing everyone on it
[url="http://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/04/14/texas.arson.review/index.html"]http://www.cnn.com/2...view/index.html[/url]

after raising 11 million dollars from oil and gas companies, he then said that climate scientists are lying to increase their cashflow.

sounds like an amesome guy
[/quote]

that's disappointing

[Jaime]

He also has accused the fed chair of treason and said that Obama didn't love the US. It only took a week for me to go from hopefully intrigued to disgusted.

[dominicansoul]

i still like him more than obama, though

[MIKolbe]

not sure if that says more about you or Obama.... lol

[dominicansoul]

idgi

[MIKolbe]

those are the smallest words i have.. so sry.

[Winchester]

[quote name='jaime (the artist formerly known as hot stuff)' timestamp='1313943752' post='2292597']
He also has accused the fed chair of treason and said that Obama didn't love the US. It only took a week for me to go from hopefully intrigued to disgusted.
[/quote]
I don't think debasing the currency is treason, but it is an assault upon the citizens. Perry's opposition to the Federal government is hopefully sincere, but I don't think it is.

[Jaime]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1313961609' post='2292876']
I don't think debasing the currency is treason, but it is an assault upon the citizens. Perry's opposition to the Federal government is hopefully sincere, but I don't think it is.
[/quote]

I agree completely. I've also heard some very disappointing things from people who have worked on his campaigns in the past. When Obama (who's approval ratings stink) gives you a mulligan, you must be really saying some stupid things.

[Jesus_lol]

well, if Rick Perry and George W. Bush were brothers (would anyone be surprised?) they would have grown up with people referring to George as "the smart one"

[Winchester]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1313976920' post='2293081']
well, if Rick Perry and George W. Bush were brothers (would anyone be surprised?) they would have grown up with people referring to George as "the smart one"
[/quote]
It's a mistake to view someone as stupid because he does things that you don't deem intelligent. Perry appears to be doing quite well for himself, as did Bush. That both have upset people who don't understand that they want by their political beliefs the very things both have done in their political careers.

[Marie-Therese]

This is the sum total of my position.

[img]http://26.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lnfpiq5h7t1qgbuj7o1_500.jpg[/img]

[Socrates]

[quote name='jaime (the artist formerly known as hot stuff)' timestamp='1313943752' post='2292597']
He also has accused the fed chair of treason and said that Obama didn't love the US. It only took a week for me to go from hopefully intrigued to disgusted.
[/quote]
I'm disgusted at the Fed and Obama too.

I'm with Governor Perry on this.

Barrack Obama loves Barrack Obama, and political power. If he loved his country, he'd resign.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Marie-Therese' timestamp='1313810595' post='2291695']

You misconstrue. I am not apathetic in the slightest. Don't misread disenchantment with the current political establishment with apathy, because they are not the same.

Apathetic about one candidate over another? You might call it apathy, I suppose, but solely in that regard. Our current system is so rife with corruption that, in my most humble opinion, it is at the point where it is irredeemable in its present construct. To patronize one party or another with a vote is simply to perpetuate the same basic problems, to prop up the same power players. What is needed is a radical reinvention of the way politics is dealt with in this country, to return it to its most foundation level where people determine the extent to which they are governed, and not the present system where we're ruled at gunpoint and have no say in what happens. I just don't think that settling for the "lesser of two evils" choice is a feasible one any more. To use a blunt descriptor, our choices right now are to choose which party's candidate is going to try to shove ten pounds of cr[acronym=''][/acronym]ap into our five pound bag. Neither of those choices really work. In the end, it's all still cr[acronym=''][/acronym]ap.

Being reticent to participate in the reindeer games of the current political establishment isn't apathetic. I simply have come to a point where I feel morally compelled to refuse to give support to candidates supporting the ideals of either party. The individual party planks no longer matter; the issues aren't the issue. The real issue is money, and who's going to bring more of it, and where special interests determine that it gets spent. Not being willing to lend my assent to that system isn't apathetic, it's the only way I can assuage my conscience and sleep at night. What I do support, vigorously, is a discussion that leads to a radical reformation of American politics. That's why I am involved in the present discussion.
[/quote]
Are you a libertarian?

If you want political change, you're going to have to work on uniting people behind a serious third-party candidate or such, and do a lot of campaigning at the grass-roots level.

Generally, I vote for the candidate I most agree with on principles if I get a chance to vote in a primary, then vote against the greater evil in the presidential vote.

Not voting for anybody or partaking at all in the political process and speaking with an unpleasant disposition a lot on the internet about how all the candidates smell of elderberries doesn't do squat to make government any smaller or less oppressive.

(And yes, I'm something of a hypocrite in that regard.)

[Socrates]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1314042006' post='2293320']
It's a mistake to view someone as stupid because he does things that you don't deem intelligent. Perry appears to be doing quite well for himself, as did Bush. That both have upset people who don't understand that they want by their political beliefs the very things both have done in their political careers.
[/quote]
Listen up. it's extremely simple.

Everybody and anybody anywhere to the right of Nancy Pelosi is an idiot and/or insane.

Didn't you get the memo?

[Amppax]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1314140066' post='2293923']
Listen up. it's extremely simple.

Everybody and anybody anywhere to the right of Nancy Pelosi is an idiot and/or insane.

Didn't you get the memo?
[/quote]

If you didn't remind me all the time I wouldn't believe it.

[Marie-Therese]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1314139885' post='2293920']
Are you a libertarian?

If you want political change, you're going to have to work on uniting people behind a serious third-party candidate or such, and do a lot of campaigning at the grass-roots level.

Generally, I vote for the candidate I most agree with on principles if I get a chance to vote in a primary, then vote against the greater evil in the presidential vote.

Not voting for anybody or partaking at all in the political process and speaking with an unpleasant disposition a lot on the internet about how all the candidates smell of elderberries doesn't do squat to make government any smaller or less oppressive.

(And yes, I'm something of a hypocrite in that regard.)
[/quote]

1. Am I a libertarian? I would say that the libertarian platform most closely resembles the sort of government I envision. If you want to assign qualifiers to where my positions are in terms of politics, I would say that socially I am libertarian and economically I have an anarcho-capitalist perspective with some distributist/anarcho-syndicalist leanings, but more on the emphasis on the rights of the wage earner and not on the nouveau communist associations. I am completely opposed to Keynesian economic thought and favour a school of thought which more closely resembles the Austrian school (von Mises, etc.). I think that the capitalist system presently employed in the United States does not reflect a real fair-market environment and, thus, has acquired some of the moral deficiencies that socialism/communism demonstrate.

2. I agree. Third party (and more) candidacies are completely necessary to alter contemporary American politics. The two party system we presently have only serves to promote radicalism from both the right and the left. The moderate position is completely a non-starter because the only voices that get play are those shrieking from the crazies on the furthest sides of the aisles. The biggest challenge is that the MSM simply gives zero attention to the candidacy of a third party or (as in the case of Ron Paul) one who has chosen to run within the framework of an established party but whose candidacy does not reflect the typical views of the mainstream of that party. Again, that goes back to cash. Those candidates get no attention because the radical reformation of American politics does not earn them (here I refer to the media) a red cent.

3. Don't presume my "speaking with an unpleasant disposition a lot on the internet about how all the candidates s[acronym=''][/acronym]uck" is the end of my involvement. I just don't discuss what activities I participate in. I do partake in the political process and, if there is a candidate whose views reflect mine, I would vote for that candidate. However, I won't vote for the sake of voting. I don't think that casting a ballot is worth anything inherently. If there were a viable candidate who seriously championed the sort of radical reinvention of government that is needed, and their views reflected mine, I would patronize that candidate with my vote.

4.
[quote] Not voting for anybody or partaking at all in the political process and speaking with an unpleasant disposition a lot on the internet about how all the candidates smell of elderberries doesn't do squat to make government any smaller or less oppressive.[/quote]

True. And continuing to vote for the same cronies and perpetuating the same system doesn't make government any smaller or less oppressive either. It's actually the opposite. Better to abstain from participation until there is a better option than to compromise my personal integrity.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Marie-Therese' timestamp='1314149853' post='2294003']

1. Am I a libertarian? I would say that the libertarian platform most closely resembles the sort of government I envision. If you want to assign qualifiers to where my positions are in terms of politics, I would say that socially I am libertarian and economically I have an anarcho-capitalist perspective with some distributist/anarcho-syndicalist leanings, but more on the emphasis on the rights of the wage earner and not on the nouveau communist associations. I am completely opposed to Keynesian economic thought and favour a school of thought which more closely resembles the Austrian school (von Mises, etc.). I think that the capitalist system presently employed in the United States does not reflect a real fair-market environment and, thus, has acquired some of the moral deficiencies that socialism/communism demonstrate.

2. I agree. Third party (and more) candidacies are completely necessary to alter contemporary American politics. The two party system we presently have only serves to promote radicalism from both the right and the left. The moderate position is completely a non-starter because the only voices that get play are those shrieking from the crazies on the furthest sides of the aisles. The biggest challenge is that the MSM simply gives zero attention to the candidacy of a third party or (as in the case of Ron Paul) one who has chosen to run within the framework of an established party but whose candidacy does not reflect the typical views of the mainstream of that party. Again, that goes back to cash. Those candidates get no attention because the radical reformation of American politics does not earn them (here I refer to the media) a red cent.

3. Don't presume my "speaking with an unpleasant disposition a lot on the internet about how all the candidates s[acronym=''][/acronym]uck" is the end of my involvement. I just don't discuss what activities I participate in. I do partake in the political process and, if there is a candidate whose views reflect mine, I would vote for that candidate. However, I won't vote for the sake of voting. I don't think that casting a ballot is worth anything inherently. If there were a viable candidate who seriously championed the sort of radical reinvention of government that is needed, and their views reflected mine, I would patronize that candidate with my vote.

4.


True. And continuing to vote for the same cronies and perpetuating the same system doesn't make government any smaller or less oppressive either. It's actually the opposite. Better to abstain from participation until there is a better option than to compromise my personal integrity.
[/quote]
1. Cool. I was just curious. I hadn't read enough from you to really know where you stand.

I consider myself primarily conservative rather than libertarian, though I generally agree with the Austrian school of economics, and my economic views tend to be more free-market/libertarian


2. I'm afraid I must totally disagree with you on this one, at least as pertains to your claims of "radicalism" from the "right." While I'd agree that a left-wing radicalism (neo-Marxist socialism) unfortunately has infected the thought of much of the national Democratic Party leadership, I honestly have no idea what this alleged right-wing radicalism is you are talking about (which you appear to believe dominates the mainstream Republican Party).

I say that far from being dominated by "radicalism" from "the furthest sides of the aisles," the main problem with Republican Party leadership in recent years is that it has too little to distinguish itself from the liberal Democrats, and that it has not been truly conservative enough - the problems with the Bush administration were not because Bush was a "right-wing extremist," but because he spent money like a Donkey. I certainly don't see a "moderate" position (if you mean some kind of midway compromise between conservative and liberal positions) as being desirable. Political "moderates" are invariably spineless liberals-in-all-but-name

In fact, whenever I see whining about Republican "right-wing radicalism" and "extremism," it's always some liberal unhappy that there are actually people who disagree with left-wing positions. It's a cheap rhetorical trick to dismiss opposing political views as crazy without having to actually engage arguments.

I'm actually quite surprised to see a libertarian type like yourself engaging in that sort of rhetoric. Most of the people who like to complain about "extremism" on the right would most certainly regard Ron Paul's views as "extremist," "radical," or "crazy."

(I don't agree with Ron Paul on all things, but I give him credit for actually sticking to his principles, a rare thing in today's political climate. I voted for him in the 2008 GOP primary.)

Exactly what are these "radical" right-wing positions that you think are predominant in the GOP?
Are Republican politicians too fiscally conservative? Too opposed to big government spending? Too supportive of traditional moral values? Too adamant about constitutional limitations on government power?
How do you think they would benefit from becoming more "moderate," or moving towards the "center of the aisle"?

Where's all this "radicalism" and "extremism" on the right?

I honestly don't see it.


3-4. Pardon the phunny phatmass ph[font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]ilt[/font]er.
Call me a godless pragmatist, but I think there's simply too much at stake to simply sit this one out until Jesus returns, and we have a completely perfect candidate to vote for. The reign of Obama is absolutely disastrous to the direction of this country, and must be opposed. How many more trillions of dollars of debt do we wish to lay on our children? How much more destruction of our country are we willing to stomach?
If substantial numbers of conservatives/libertarians sit this out, we'll simply get . . . four more years of Obama, nothing more, nothing less. I think the damage will simply be to great to be worth preserving one's pristine personal ideological purity in the voting booth. But I know that's where we disagree.