The Ghost of Ronald Reagan... lives in Obama's head.

Now, I am done with personal attacks. If you want to question my stance on something, then do it. But I won't sit back and let you insult my intelligence, nor my patriotism. I served six years in the US Navy and was honorably discharged.

Originally Posted by wake77

Sam, I am going to be a little blunt here but, YOU DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT ME. I will put my knowledge of US History (well any subject for that matter) against yours any day. You pay thousands for an online education for Mises, when you could get it free from Google and the public library. You read some author's opinion piece that happens to coincide with your kooky beliefs and you think that is etched in stone. Why not take an hour or two and form your own opinion? It will make you seem more informed and less like a Glen Beck clone. I think it is hypocrytical of you to comment on someone's ignorance (for the simple fact they don't agree with you) when you haven't had one genuine idea of your own since I have been reading your mindless drivel for the past three years. "I am a politician", "I am an oil tycoon", "I have a PhD in US History", blah, blah, blah. In case you haven't realized it, the only person you are impressing is yourself. No one else gives a sheet. The truly amazing thing about guys like you is if you would step back and look at yourself, you could see how douchie you rhetoric is.

NOR DO I CARE!!

I'm glad I'm in your head...

"The rights of the individual are protected; otherwise, the majority would always have their way."

Then what about the attack on gay marriage, and the people you look up to wanting a constituional ammendment defining marriage between a man and woman. How is a gay man/woman's rights protected in that case? Is this not a case of the "majority having their way"?

Originally Posted by wake77

"The rights of the individual are protected; otherwise, the majority would always have their way."

Then what about the attack on gay marriage, and the people you look up to wanting a constituional ammendment defining marriage between a man and woman. How is a gay man/woman's rights protected in that case? Is this not a case of the "majority having their way"?

I don't look up to any "people". The federal government should not have anything to do with marriage, not the licensing, approval, or the giving of special benefits to married people. Marriage is a contract between two people, not two people and the government. This is yet another example where we have allowed our system to be bastardized.

You know so much about me, don't you remember, I'm a conservative libertarian.

Every Republican has become a conservative; it no longer distinguishes you to use the title. If I recall correctly, are you not a fan of Bachmann?

The only rational for government in marriage is to provide a stable base to have 2.1 kids per two adults. That is the only reason for the government to be in the marriage game. Without the 2.1 kids, the American population will fall and you will not have the ability to pay for the government ran social programs. Gay marriage is not that. Also, gay people can get married right now. There is no law against it. They can get married to people they don't like and have kids like the rest of us. Why are they not willing to do their civic duty? Besides, it is not an attack on gay marriage. Never been such a thing, it is an attack on straight marriage.

^I guess you have never been to TN or NC. And if what you say is true, why are some states inacting laws to prevent gay couples from adopting kids?

Apparently that's the only rationale that's in your head. Govt is in the marriage business to ensure the security of the less capable person. It's gives large tax deductions for a working person that takes care of people that don't work. Both wives and kids. There is absolutely no policy at all that the govt implements to ensure or even encourage people to have children. Unless you count the poor who get assistance. And even then that's for the security of the children, not to make more kids.

Jeremy you are now talking using government to shape the social aspects of society.

John, the government can not mandate you have kids, but it can create policy that shapes it so you will have relationships that will or give treatment that will facilitate it. Kind of the like the national democrats constant share the wealth policies that make it so doing business out of the country is more appealing. They can not mandate companies move, but they sure can create policies that make it easier to do so.

Originally Posted by wake77

Every Republican has become a conservative; it no longer distinguishes you to use the title. If I recall correctly, are you not a fan of Bachmann?

BS. I am far from conservative.

The funny thing is that even though Tucker calls me a Marxist I think my philosophies are conservative.

- I don't believe in using tax policy to fund private markets. AKA health insurance being the worst. But also mortgages and even possibly pensions.
- I believe that tax rules should be simpler.
- I don't believe that defined benefit plans are fiscally responsible, and retirement accounts should be in a individuals name.
- I believe that if we are going to have SS, that the contributions should be in the name of the contributor.
- I don't believe in nation rebuilding.
- I believe that the trade deficit needs to be cut back.
- I believe food assistance (food stamps) should have stricter limitations.
- I don't believe in subsidies to corps.
- I don't believe that corps should be taxed on money that's paid in dividends, and the recipient of those dividends should be taxed the same as earned income.
- I believe that govt should be smaller.
- I believe that the Constitution straight forward enough that the supposed top scholars and members of the SC should nearly always reach unanimous decisions.
- I believe Congress should place more value in not making laws than it does in making them.

You are a closet republican.

Too many things on that list that Republicans differ. I'm more of a Libertarian. But Libertarians seem to fall short and tend to be knee jerk reactionaries. They want to scale back govt, but don't want to scale back on tax deductions or do anything to restrict the flow of money from our country. Also I believe that a flat tax is not workable and that the tax must be progressive.

John! I'm sooo proud!

it's posts like this that bewilder me as to why you defend Obama so much

I'm not all that new, I like to read the political threads, but more often than not my head explodes and in the interest of my own health a choose not to get involved. I certainly haven't memorized your username or read your thousands of posts. Anyway, I'm not sure that gives you any real credibilty, no offense, because just like me you are just another talking head hiding behind a computer. Its all good

Originally Posted by deltahoosier

You don't feel like you need the government then you feel wrong. you are using the government developed internet right now to argue with me in regards to your feelings of weather or not you need the government. The government by itself, did not create the internet. It did it with the help of private industry. Do you honestly believe that the internet would have never coming to fruition without the federal government? You know the government funded an attept to invent a flying machine. That didn't work out. You take your fire protection and police for granted? No I do not. However that is a local issue that the federal gov. should have no dealings with. My fed income/medicare/medicaid taxes don't go to fund my local fire dept.You take the national energy policy for granted? Is that a joke? you mean the national energy policy that forces me to put corn in my fuel tank and buy their approved light bulbs? I guess you got me there, I take that one for granted. How about that national currency? The national currency that has been printed into worthlessness? The one that before 1913 had to be backed by something of value and now stands on only "the full faith and credit of the federal government?" You got me there too. How about the United States Navy, Army, Marines, or Air Force? Called for in the constitution for the defense of individual liberties by protecting the nation as a whole. I doubt the Founders intended to have military bases in 150+ countries and to attack soverign nations that do not pose an imminent threat. Maybe I'm wrong. How about laws that keep me from taking what I feel is mine that you may own? To say you do not need the government is completely ignorant. I think the point you are missing is I don't need the government involved in the daily affairs of my life. Do I need it there for protection of my individual liberites? Yes absolutely! But the reach of the current federal govenment is now imposing on the very liberties it intends to protect

Let me ask you this. Do you like having big market and housing crashes or did you support Clinton's easing of the money supply to low income people that ultimately lead to normal people getting priced out of the housing market and then the ultimate collapse?I'm confused by your question. You are asking me to choose between the same thing. The "easing of the money suppy" (see print more money) caused exactly what you claim "monetary policy" is designed to "smooth out". If neither the easy money provided by the FED and/or the housing policy legislated by congress to allow anyone with a pulse to buy a home, have come to pass, we would not have had either the market/housing bubbles or the crashes. It seems to me you are arguing my point. Should the government completely deregulate all markets so companies like Enron could make fake outages so they could charge more for energy from consumers?Right, so if we pass enough regulations, we can eliminate the existence of bad people that take advantage of others. How many more regualtions do we have to go before we reach that utopian goal? Bernie Madoff was able to keep his scam going long after Enron How about allowing monopolies? Should be allow one big company not allow smaller companies to compete what so ever because they own the politicians and squash the little guys? This exists now even with your so called regualtion. The "corporatism" that plagues our economy now creates large powerful companies that are in bed with the government who give said companies subsidies and exemptions (i.e. Obamacare waivers)designed to choke out the smaller players. Free markets do not exist in this county.

You obviously don't understand how the government works because they have been doing it way before any of our grandfathers were alive. They have been the keepers of monetary policy since invented. So if you are just now learning that, you must of went to school in some back country holler...Who is the government exatly? Are you telling me that the people that run Washington up there have been doing this far longer than my grandfather has been alive! Geez they must all be over 100 years old! No wonder they want Obamacare! In all seriousness, monetary policy was not difficult before the instituion of the Federal Reserve System was created. A silver dollar was an ounce of silver. Simple. Easy. The silver dollar I have in my desk drawer can easily be exchanged for 30 of those paper dollars we all use. What is your dollar bill worth? Oh, and thanks for the personal attack/insult.

Sounds to me that you cannot seem to comprehend that the common good can mean individual liberty. "CAN MEAN"? No I can't comprehend that. Meaning is or isn't. I could say "hey can I come over so we can talk politics" but maybe I really mean "hey I'm gonna come over there and rape and pillage your family"? Reminds me of Clintons response "that depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is." I don't want someone else telling me what is "good" for me or the "common". At the end of the day, its just one dudes option on what is best for everybody. No thanks. You must have some sort of hangup. I personally believe that my rights are common good. Now with that said, if you are approaching it from the childish liberatarian view, then it is a absolute view and that would never stand in a civil society because there is no such thing as a lack of cause and effect. Your absolute rights are not absolute all the time. So "unalienable" doesnt mean all the time? Please explain.

Now on your last argument, Why does the government limiting power mean limiting the freedom of an individual when my whole discussion was about federal monitary policy. You obviously are trying to move around the meaning of my words to try and fit your definition and they trying to argue that point. Is that the definition of a straw man argument?I'm not quite following you here but i think you have it backwards. I'm not talking about the government limiting MY power, I'm talking about limiting the GOVERNMENT's power. Thats what the constitution does. In regard to monetary policy, printing of money devalues my savings and is a threat to my personl liberties. It is a hidden tax and exists without representation. Didn't we have some ancestors that went to war over that?

I defend Obama because I don't think the accusations are justified in light of what the accusers are for. Obama has plenty to accuse him of, but mainly the worst accusation is that he is the same as the rest.