Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

[youtube][/youtube]

[youtube][/youtube]

How can Republicans support this whack job? Seriously I just don't get it.

A Santorum nomination guarantees an easy Obama win in November.

It’s amazing how the Repubs have squandered the opportunity presented to them in a waffling and clueless Obama administration coupled with a flat economy. Amazing. More amazing and bewildering than squandering a 19 point halftime lead for a national championship…just sayin’…

Isn't looking like a republican will get my vote this year for the presidency I an damn tired of voting against people. I have done that every year except for 1984.

This is pretty damn interesting. It seems like Santorum is at least consistent. And there are a number of examples where traditional conkism clashes with libertarian ideas.

kalm wrote:This is pretty damn interesting. It seems like Santorum is at least consistent. And there are a number of examples where traditional conkism clashes with libertarian ideas.

Traditional republicans are part of the problem

How can Republicans support this whack job? Seriously I just don't get it.

Republicans aren't Libertarians. A Libertarian who wants to vote for somebody with a chance to win has to choose between Republicans, who attack liberty in some areas, and Democrats, who attack liberty in other areas. And of course both attack liberty in some areas. On balance, I think Democrats attack liberty more. Democrats are more responsible than Republicans are, I think, for the overwhelming oppressive weight of the Federal government right now.

Santorum's right about earmarks though. Attacking earmarks is demagoguery. The fundamenal source of this country's debt problems is the entitlement State programs. Earmarks account for less than one half of one percent of Federal spending.

In fiscal year 2010, according to the U.S. Treasury, the federal government spent $3.46 trillion while running a deficit of $1.29 trillion. Meanwhile, CAGW says earmarks accounted for $16.5 billion in federal spending, and OMB says they accounted for $11.1 billion.

From http://cnsnews.com/news/article/elimina ... 05-percent" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; .

Railing on about earmarks is just a way to make noise while doing little or nothing to solve the real problem and make people think you're doing something.

x

BTW Santorum makes the common error of conflating Libertarianism and Anarchy. Libertarianism does include the idea of a society with no government. Government would still be there building roads and bridges, providing police, firefighters, etc. Government would still say it's illegal to do things like murder people and buglarize homes. It just wouldn't be doing things like telling people they can't do recreational drugs if they want, telling people they can't engage in prostitution, taking money from some in order to give direct benefits specifically to others, etc. Also the country wouldn't be as aggressive militarily. National defense would really be that and that alone: Defense.

But there would be government. Wouldn't be Anarchy.

JohnStOnge wrote:BTW Santorum makes the common error of conflating Libertarianism and Anarchy. Libertarianism does include the idea of a society with no government. Government would still be there building roads and bridges, providing police, firefighters, etc. Government would still say it's illegal to do things like murder people and buglarize homes. It just wouldn't be doing things like telling people they can't do recreational drugs if they want, telling people they can't engage in prostitution, taking money from some in order to give direct benefits specifically to others, and telling people who they can and can't marry.

jso pulled his comment - i'll pull my response.

JohnStOnge wrote:BTW Santorum makes the common error of conflating Libertarianism and Anarchy. Libertarianism does include the idea of a society with no government. Government would still be there building roads and bridges, providing police, firefighters, etc. Government would still say it's illegal to do things like murder people and buglarize homes. It just wouldn't be doing things like telling people they can't do recreational drugs if they want, telling people they can't engage in prostitution, taking money from some in order to give direct benefits specifically to others, etc. Also the country wouldn't be as aggressive militarily. National defense would really be that and that alone: Defense.

But there would be government. Wouldn't be Anarchy.

just because there would be government - doesn't mean there wouldn't be anarchy to some degree.

let's take your comment about recreational drugs - in libertarian land, the big-bad government doesn't make heroin illegal... and, since we're a libertarian society - we also don't regulate it, control it, or tax it (as that would be counter to liberty) we also then have no mechanism to help those who become addicted - so one of three things happens: 1. they turn to crime to support their habit - get arrested - and end up in prison for being an addict (ironic given libertarian railings about the folly of the drug war) 2. they are gunned down by a homeowner/shopkeeper for said crime... in essence, returning America to somewhere around 1885 Deadwood, SD... 3. addict turns to prostitution (now also legal) and ends up a cog (as if they weren't already as an addict) in a world of organized crime... which in a libertarian world, would be RAMPANT.

so those are our options, in a nutshell: in the name of liberty you end up either creating a massive prison population because we lack any kind of social services to create upward mobility and opportunity, the wild west, and/or a MASSIVE underclass of the impoverished desperate and exploited.

It strikes me frequently that the ONLY people who ever seem to advocate for libertarianism are white dudes of a certain level of privilege who don't seem to grasp just how much society has already invested in their success and as a result have concluded they got where they are on their own merits...

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:BTW Santorum makes the common error of conflating Libertarianism and Anarchy. Libertarianism does include the idea of a society with no government. Government would still be there building roads and bridges, providing police, firefighters, etc. Government would still say it's illegal to do things like murder people and buglarize homes. It just wouldn't be doing things like telling people they can't do recreational drugs if they want, telling people they can't engage in prostitution, taking money from some in order to give direct benefits specifically to others, etc. Also the country wouldn't be as aggressive militarily. National defense would really be that and that alone: Defense.

But there would be government. Wouldn't be Anarchy.

just because there would be government - doesn't mean there wouldn't be anarchy to some degree.

let's take your comment about recreational drugs - in libertarian land, the big-bad government doesn't make heroin illegal... and, since we're a libertarian society - we also don't regulate it, control it, or tax it (as that would be counter to liberty) we also then have no mechanism to help those who become addicted - so one of three things happens: 1. they turn to crime to support their habit - get arrested - and end up in prison for being an addict (ironic given libertarian railings about the folly of the drug war) 2. they are gunned down by a homeowner/shopkeeper for said crime... in essence, returning America to somewhere around 1885 Deadwood, SD... 3. addict turns to prostitution (now also legal) and ends up a cog (as if they weren't already as an addict) in a world of organized crime... which in a libertarian world, would be RAMPANT.

so those are our options, in a nutshell: in the name of liberty you end up either creating a massive prison population because we lack any kind of social services to create upward mobility and opportunity, the wild west, and/or a MASSIVE underclass of the impoverished desperate and exploited.

It strikes me frequently that the ONLY people who ever seem to advocate for libertarianism are white dudes of a certain level of privilege who don't seem to grasp just how much society has already invested in their success and as a result have concluded they got where they are on their own merits...

1. they turn to crime to support their habit - get arrested - and end up in prison for being an addict (ironic given libertarian railings about the folly of the drug war) 2. they are gunned down by a homeowner/shopkeeper for said crime... in essence, returning America to somewhere around 1885 Deadwood, SD... 3. addict turns to prostitution (now also legal) and ends up a cog (as if they weren't already as an addict) in a world of organized crime...

We are far from a libertarian world now and that is exactly what goes on now. I suppose the counter would be the drugs would be cheap so crime would not be as necessary. Additionally, legalized prostitution would not be a cog in organized crime since the job would be legal. On the other hand, drugs would be cheap so more people would do them. On and on and on. Obviously the war on drugs has failed and we need to look at a different perspective. I am far from knowledgeable enough to know what it is but de-criminalizing the relatively harmless ones (like pot) would be a damn good start.

The above is also one of the reasons I don't consider myself a die hard libertarian. Although I lean that way more than most.

OL FU wrote:

1. they turn to crime to support their habit - get arrested - and end up in prison for being an addict (ironic given libertarian railings about the folly of the drug war) 2. they are gunned down by a homeowner/shopkeeper for said crime... in essence, returning America to somewhere around 1885 Deadwood, SD... 3. addict turns to prostitution (now also legal) and ends up a cog (as if they weren't already as an addict) in a world of organized crime...

We are far from a libertarian world now and that is exactly what goes on now. I suppose the counter would be the drugs would be cheap so crime would not be as necessary. Additionally, legalized prostitution would not be a cog in organized crime since the job would be legal. On the other hand, drugs would be cheap so more people would do them. On and on and on. Obviously the war on drugs has failed and we need to look at a different perspective. I am far from knowledgeable enough to know what it is but de-criminalizing the relatively harmless ones (like pot) would be a damn good start.

The above is also one of the reasons I don't consider myself a die hard libertarian. Although I lean that way more than most.

Spot on post OL FU...I'm right there with you. See, there can be agreement between Mountaineers and Christian Knigh...err, Paladins.

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote: It strikes me frequently that the ONLY people who ever seem to advocate for libertarianism are white dudes of a certain level of privilege who don't seem to grasp just how much society has already invested in their success and as a result have concluded they got where they are on their own merits...

Interesting way of looking at it. White dudes with a certain level of privilege. I assume I would fall into that category and as I said, I certainly am not a full fledged libertarian since I don't think we should legalize all drugs and I certainly don't think we should eliminate the social safety nets. But I do believe that people of all races when given the ability and opportunity can succeed in this country. Do you? It doesn't sound like it from the above.

I am also always amazed that no one who succeeds in any way contributed to their own success. I guess there are two points. One, society is much larger than the federal goverment. Two, I suppose I should write a thank you note to someone in Washington for making me what I am today

OL FU wrote:

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:

Interesting way of looking at it. White dudes with a certain level of privilege. I assume I would fall into that category and as I said, I certainly am not a full fledged libertarian since I don't think we should legalize all drugs and I certainly don't think we should eliminate the social safety nets. But I do believe that people of all races when given the ability and opportunity can suceed in this country. Do you? It doesn't sound like it from the above.

I am also always amazed that no one who suceeds in any way contributed to their own succuess. I guess there are two points. One, society is much larger than the federal goverment. Two, I suppose I should write a thank you note to someone in Washington for making me what I am today

And God for making you white

You and TTBF are both right and the answer is somewhere in the middle like it normally is. Most of us are successful because we work hard AND were born Americans in a land of plenty.

TwinTownBisonFan wrote: It strikes me frequently that the ONLY people who ever seem to advocate for libertarianism are white dudes of a certain level of privilege who don't seem to grasp just how much society has already invested in their success and as a result have concluded they got where they are on their own merits...

Please explain to me how Steve Jobs and Bill Gates were able achieve their success only with "investment" from society.

ASUMountaineer wrote:

OL FU wrote:
We are far from a libertarian world now and that is exactly what goes on now. I suppose the counter would be the drugs would be cheap so crime would not be as necessary. Additionally, legalized prostitution would not be a cog in organized crime since the job would be legal. On the other hand, drugs would be cheap so more people would do them. On and on and on. Obviously the war on drugs has failed and we need to look at a different perspective. I am far from knowledgeable enough to know what it is but de-criminalizing the relatively harmless ones (like pot) would be a damn good start.

The above is also one of the reasons I don't consider myself a die hard libertarian. Although I lean that way more than most.

Spot on post OL FU...I'm right there with you. See, there can be agreement between Mountaineers and Christian Knigh...err, Paladins.

As long as we leave sports out of the discussion

kalm wrote: And God for making you white

You and TTBF are both right and the answer is somewhere in the middle like it normally is. Most of us are successful because we work hard AND were born Americans in a land of plenty.

On this issue I think I am in the middle I certainly understand and agree that SOCIETY (which the government is part of) aided whatever success I have had. But when it comes to the government, I am thankful for the one we have (most of the time), but we created it. After 200+ years of representative democracy I am more inclined to believe that it is the job of the government, the responsibility of the government to create that environment for all of us. I don't think I should be have to give an over reaching amount of credit to the government for something that we should EXPECT the government to do for all of us.



and thank God for making me white in America. Wouldn't have worked out so well elsewhere. And thank God for slowly making it where the color of my skin won't make a damn bit of difference in America. We have along way to go but day by day we are a little bit closer.

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:BTW Santorum makes the common error of conflating Libertarianism and Anarchy. Libertarianism does include the idea of a society with no government. Government would still be there building roads and bridges, providing police, firefighters, etc. Government would still say it's illegal to do things like murder people and buglarize homes. It just wouldn't be doing things like telling people they can't do recreational drugs if they want, telling people they can't engage in prostitution, taking money from some in order to give direct benefits specifically to others, etc. Also the country wouldn't be as aggressive militarily. National defense would really be that and that alone: Defense.

But there would be government. Wouldn't be Anarchy.

just because there would be government - doesn't mean there wouldn't be anarchy to some degree.

let's take your comment about recreational drugs - in libertarian land, the big-bad government doesn't make heroin illegal... and, since we're a libertarian society - we also don't regulate it, control it, or tax it (as that would be counter to liberty) we also then have no mechanism to help those who become addicted - so one of three things happens: 1. they turn to crime to support their habit - get arrested - and end up in prison for being an addict (ironic given libertarian railings about the folly of the drug war) 2. they are gunned down by a homeowner/shopkeeper for said crime... in essence, returning America to somewhere around 1885 Deadwood, SD... 3. addict turns to prostitution (now also legal) and ends up a cog (as if they weren't already as an addict) in a world of organized crime... which in a libertarian world, would be RAMPANT.

so those are our options, in a nutshell: in the name of liberty you end up either creating a massive prison population because we lack any kind of social services to create upward mobility and opportunity, the wild west, and/or a MASSIVE underclass of the impoverished desperate and exploited.

It strikes me frequently that the ONLY people who ever seem to advocate for libertarianism are white dudes of a certain level of privilege who don't seem to grasp just how much society has already invested in their success and as a result have concluded they got where they are on their own merits...

Saying that someone who has libertarian leanings wants anarchy is like saying someone who has liberal leanings wants a soviet style state. It's hyperbole. If I'm an anarchist than you're a commie pinko.

Does the government help create the environment in which I was able to work for and find success? Yes. Was the government responsible for my success? No.

I'm a libertarian (small l) and I'm all for a smaller government providing for defense, police, infrastructure, and a basic safety net. IMO, infrastructure doesn't just include highways, bridges, etc. but also includes education because an education is a key to giving people the opportunity to improve their lot in life as well as providing the workforce this country needs to compete and win in the global economy. How can I be for a safety-net? Because short-term unemployment, health insurance, etc. is a key factor in giving people the ability to take the risks that drive innovation and this country needs innovation & hard work to succeed.

I'm a libertarian because I want the government to stop trying to engineer results and focus on putting in place the infrastructure so people will have the opportunity to compete & succeed.

FargoBison wrote:

I think this pretty much sums it up. Well played.

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:It strikes me frequently that the ONLY people who ever seem to advocate for libertarianism are white dudes of a certain level of privilege who don't seem to grasp just how much society has already invested in their success and as a result have concluded they got where they are on their own merits...

And it strikes me that the only white dudes railing AGAINST libertarianism are the ones who weren't smart enough to take advantage of that assistance and better their lot in life.

AZGrizFan wrote:

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:It strikes me frequently that the ONLY people who ever seem to advocate for libertarianism are white dudes of a certain level of privilege who don't seem to grasp just how much society has already invested in their success and as a result have concluded they got where they are on their own merits...

And it strikes me that the only white dudes railing AGAINST libertarianism are the ones who weren't smart enough to take advantage of that assistance and better their lot in life.

Libertarians are the ultimate whack jobs. No sense of balance.

AZGrizFan wrote:

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:It strikes me frequently that the ONLY people who ever seem to advocate for libertarianism are white dudes of a certain level of privilege who don't seem to grasp just how much society has already invested in their success and as a result have concluded they got where they are on their own merits...

And it strikes me that the only white dudes railing AGAINST libertarianism are the ones who weren't smart enough to take advantage of that assistance and better their lot in life.

Take Rick Santorum for instance...