Guard Dog

Just so long as I get to be Spock!

No argument there, that is not libertarian at all. But a bill to protect another bill from judicial scrutiny is like saying "ain't" is a word. Such a bill would be open to overturn itself, which leads to overturn of the fist bill. I think you might have misremembered that second one. But that

Pop, you started out good today and actually had me agreeing with something you posted, which is a big change for me. But you just shot off high and left of the target with this one. First of all Ron Paul is neither conservative nor republican despite his party affiliation. And judging by the amount of support he has gotten from rank and file Republicans I would think that would be self evident. He does appeal to the kook fringe and I assure you EVERY political faction in America (and everywhere else) has them and they never make common cause with the mainstream in any school of politcal thought. To paint repubs and libertarians with a broad brush because a handful of nuts exist within those two parties is at best disengenous, and worst out right B.S. By the same logic i could claim the democrats are all communists simply because the US Communist Party has endorsed the democrat candidate for president in the last 2 elections. It is true but it does not mean the dems are ALL communists. See what I'm getting at here? You are correct about one thing, the average libertarian party member shudders at the thought of RP attempting another presidential run with the LP because you are right, he does not represent the LP line. You posted earlier that libertrians run for govenment office in order to use the position to "destroy" government. That is completely inaccurate. The Libertairan ideal is to keep government reigned in to the scope of it's power as defined by law. Be it the US Constitution, the Constitutuon of a state, city charter, whatever. Here is an example. I ran for the Florida State House as a Libertarian. One of my campaign platforms was to propose and pass a law which made it illegal for the state to sanction governing bodies other than those of incorporated townships, municpalities, or counties. We have homeowners assosciations down here and not just in jointly owned properties such as condos or townhomes but single family homes. That state sanction gives associations the power to "tax" community residents and it allows them a terrible amount of power over residents including the power to lein homes. At the same time it protected the assosciations from lawsuits brought by residents for bad business practice, etc. I argued and still believe that State sanction is a violation of Article 2 sections 3-4 of the 1968 State Constitution. So I wanted to remove an oppressive local government by forcing the state government to behave within the constraints of it constitution. That is the essence of what modern libertarian thought is all about. It is not all kooks who think 9-11 was an inside job. Or that we must close all foreign bases and abrogate all treaties and build a wall around America. We understand that some government regulation of buisness is right and necassary and the constitution allows for that very thing. BTW, in 1911 the Republicans were led by Teddy Roosevelt and were quite liberal compared to the much more conservative democrats.

That may have been true for the last 20 years or so but it is absolutley trending away from that. For example, ballot intiatives banning same sex marriage and abortion have been soundly defeated in six southern and republican dominated states (FL, AR, AL, TX, GA, NC all old confederate states) in the last 4 election cycles. The current crop fo GOPers including the President have been tried and true on social conservatisim since the 2002 elections and have utterly abandoned economic conservatisim with the exception of tax cuts. And you will note that they are so out of favor with rank and file republicans that most stayed home in 2006 and allowed the dems to sweep into congress. The social conservatives are becoming a small albeit vocal minority without the votes to actually influence an election. It is economic conservatisim that motivates republican voters. That is why the repubs are so out of favor with their base. The average american conservative thinker does not give a damn who marries who but gets very agitated when the federal govenment begins to suffocate the economy with taxes and regulation or tries to commit economic suicide by cutting taxes without fiscal discipline. McCain has a very conservative voting record on most social issues including favoring banning PBA, flag burning, and gay marriage. But he is also a Rockafeller-esqe "government is here to help you" type. THAT is why he is out of favor with the base. And that is why those who will vote for him (like me) will do so only because the alternative is so much worse.

AMEN. Think abouth this, since 1980 there has been either a Bush or a Clinton running for President. 28 f'ing years with either a Bush or Clinton in power. Most of the posters on this board are younger than that. Enough is enough.

Not so fast. McCain is not poular in the Southern states and pro-business democrats can do well there. Contrary to what many people think (especially non-Ameicans I'm noticing) the south is not made up of "gun-totin, confederate flag wavin, beer-swillin, trailer dwellin, nascar lovin rednecks". The old confederate states have as a group the most rapidly growing poulation, the largest middle class by percentage of population, the lowest state tax rates, the largest by percentage contribution to the US GDP, and the lowest unemployment rates. It would be inaccurate to make statements like "The white republican will win the south because he's white" (not saying that is what you said Mes). LIBERAL candidates will do poorly in the south because by and large high tax big government policies are not popular here. The vast majority of voters no longer care what race you are, or what gender you are. The 1960s are over.

I did not disagree with his point about winner-take-all elections, just that third paty candidates can't win on a local level. It is fairly common for third party and indepedant candidates to win majority vote elections in state houses, and even state executive level offices such as Attorney General (in states where such are elected positions). It is extremely uncommon for them to win nationally because of the points I made and because he is right about our election system. I think it's safe to say I'm something of an expert when it comes to third party politics.

Well, the NFL season is over and we are all sad. The NHL holds my interest a little so long at the Panthers are playing. But today Major League Baseball (the sport we sort of follow between football seasons) begins it's spring training. Any thoughts of how YOUR team will do this year? Who is your team for that matter? Is base ball still relevant in the US and the world? Will the cloud of performance drug abuse affect the season? This year is the 100th year since the Cubs last won a championship, will the drought end? Discuss! http://mlb.mlb.com/spring_training/y2008/index.jsp?c_id=mlb

Pop you win this thread. Everything you said was completely correct except one thing: I would interject that third parties work ONLY at the State and Local levels. On a national stage they have no voice. There are two big reasons why third parties fail nationally: 1) As a rule they appeal only to single issue voters. That is voters who only care about one issue, environment, taxes, drug legalization, whatever, and nothing else. You cannot build a coalition around such people since there is no unity of purpose. 2)Since they are small, not well funded, and therefore advertise poorly if at all, most average people know nothing about them and have little inclination to learn. Now on a state and local level it requires much less effort (meaning money) to reach out to voters since there are fewer of them and chances are the name recognition will be greater for the candidates. Also some parties platforms (particularly the Libertarian Party) apply better to local issues than national ones. That is why there are over 400 Libertarians holding office in State and Local positions through out the country but not one in any national office like Congress.

The pigs are fueled and moving onto the landing strip! BTW, did anyone see Terry McAuliff (a Clinton operative) discussing Obama being Hillarys running mate on CBS News Sunday? How arrogant is that? Obama is winning. Mark my words, this will get seriously ugly. Hillary will not take losing gracefully. Watch for an attempt to peel off the super delegates despite election results.

2 Canadiens Players Arrested WTF? Does Montreal not pay their players enough?

More info on Zedniks injury. It was even worse than is sounded. Scary stuff. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/hock...ex.html?cnn=yes

You are right about clark now that I think of it, the Clintons own him. And now that I think about it, Richardson would be a wasted choice because McCain is going to win his home state. Vislak would be an olive branch to the center of the party that has consistently voted against Obama plus that would put Dean on his side in truth as well as name. Daschle would be a solid choice except he does not bring any electoral votes with him. Obama will not win South Dakota. Ditto for Sebelius, Obama will not win in Kansas. Plus I doubt he is bold enough to pick a woman as VP, even if she would be a solid candiate. What about Max Cleland?

I seriously doubt it will be Edwards. Obamas whole message is "change" and trotting out a tired and continual candidate like Edwards only undermines that. Elections are like chess games, you have to think tactics. He has lost to Hillary in both the northeast and southwest so his weaknesses are there. He will choose a running mate from one of those two areas. He is a Senator so his running mate will probably not be (A senator-senator combo has not won in over 100 years) so we are down to a US Rep, Governor, or political icon not in office. He will not concern himself with ideology since this is a "democrat year" so he will feel comfortable choosing another liberal. Since he is young he will probably take someone older with real stage presence. My guesses are: Bill Richardson, Wesley Clark, Tom Vislak, or possibly Michael Bloomberg (that would be a bold choice).

This was just awful. I was listening to this game on the radio, really sacry stuff. At least Zednik will be alright. Hockey can be a really f-----g danerous sport. Zednik Stable after Freak Injury

Too funny! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvQNu7QnQtY Not as funny as the last two Kelverin found, but still pretty good.

Sand.... umm.... Ok look, I usually enjoy debating with you and you are a smart guy even if you do post things that are a little nutty sometimes. But this entire post demonstrates a total lack of understanding of how the US Government works, how the US Economy works, and what the two have to do with each other. You also draw a line connecting the war in Iraq to the current economic problems when there simply is not one. I have a homework assignment for you. Pick up a current copy of US News and World Report, and The Wall Street Journal, or Forbes Magazine and the Washington Times and read both of them front to back. Then come back and reread your post. You'll realize whats wrong with it. I'd post here whats wrong with it but it would be long, off topic and begin with the phrase "What is Economics?"* *That is the first line of "Basic Economics" by Thomas Sowell, one of the most brilliant men of our time. I highly reccomend reading it to anyone with a higher than room tempreture IQ.

Just for laughs!

Romney has pulled out of the Republican race. He endorsed McCain. http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/07/rom...aign/index.html That means 2 things: 1) McCain no longer needs to make an aliiance with Huckabee so the Hucksters shot at being the VP has just been reduced to zero. Thats a good thing. 2) McCain can now begin to focus on the national race right away wheras Hillary and Obama still need expend a ton of blood and treasure fighting each other. That race is so tight it may go all the way to the convention and no matter who wins the losers supporters will be pissed off. And the winner will be facing Mccain who had a 3 month head start and will have more money. This makes McCain the most likely candidate to become the 44th President of the United States. There is a labored truisim in American politics, "Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line." You will begin the hear conservative criticisim of McCain fall mute.

Like what? We are wandering OT here but I'm really curious what you are driving at.

Teeth, Wall Street (although it is inaccurate in the extreme to refer to is as an actual entity) IS completely private. In the United States companies are ALL privately owned. Either by single owners, board of directors, employees, or stock holders. The federal government has VERY limited constitutional powers in regulating private business and it sounds like what you are calling for is expansion of government power beyond constitutional bounds. That is very dangerous road to go down. Or are you calling for the nationalization of private business? That my friend is communisim.

....... I'm speechless. Have you ever heard the phrase "cutting off your nose to spite your face"?

I still trade e-mails with some people I worked with back when I was involved in politics. One of them just stepped down at the treasurer of the Republican Party of Florida. He thinks (based on the buzz in Talahassee) the McCain running mate will be either former US Rep JC Watts from OK or Charlie Crist the Governor of Florida. JC Watts is an interesting choice. He is fiscally very conservative, almost libertarian. But socially he is more along McCain's mold. But he has been out of politics for a few years now so I doubt they will go that way, or that he would even be interested. I really like the man though, I'd vote for him alone. Charlie Crist makes a ton of sense. He is a very popular southern governor that is ideologically VERY much like McCain. He has created a real bi-partisan coalition in Florida and has succeeded in everything he has tried to do so far. I would hate to see him go but he would make an outstanding VP and would be a solid choice for President in 2016 if they win this year. And if they come up short he would be well positioned for 2012.

I found this picture in an old back up disk from two computers back. I thought you guys might get a kick out of it. I was a Panthers Season Ticket holder from 1999-2004 and I got to go to the All-Star Game in 2003. I took this during the national anthems. BTW, Panthers 8 Leafs 0. How about that!

Hillary is what we call a "machine politician". She will not go "Rambo" believe me. However, she will give this country a double barreled gut shot blast of big government that will certainly begin with massive tax increases. She will increase not only the scope and power of the federal government (that is a bad thing in the US) she will exponentially increase it's rate of growth. That will only accelerate the current trend of major corporations leaving the US for foreign shores because it has simply become too expensive and difficult to operate here. She will not consider privatization of any public service no matter how inefficiently it is run by government. She has shown utter disdain for the military and the men and women who serve in it, and she will ransack it's funding much like Bill did. At the same time she will not want to be perceived as "weak" so she will keep up the same operational schedule and tempo. In the judiciary she thinks Ruth Bader Ginsberg (who was HER choice, not Bills) is the ideal supreme court justice. So she will appoint judges who (like her) have utterly zero respect for the Constitution in both letter and intent. In short, a Hillary presidency would be an utter nightmare, the worst of all possible scenarios. Couple that with a democratic congress and I might have to move to Canada because the taxes will be less and they will have more personal freedom. Obama is Jimmy Carter take 2. People are comparing him to Kennedy but that makes no sense to me. Kennedy believed in strong national defense, measured confrontation is foreign policy, and smaller government intrusion in business. That is NOT Obama. He is a big government liberal who thinks all problems are solved by raising taxes and throwing money at it no matter how wasteful it is. In foreign policy he has said we would 1) Pull out of Iraq now no matter the consequences. That will of course leaves another war to fight 10 years later just like the gulf war did. 2) Negotiate with Iran and Al Qaeda (as if that were possible). 3) "Take our allies to task" were his exact words. He has even mentioned attacking Pakistan. So he wants to attack allies and make nice with sworn enemies? Yes, sounds like Carter to me. He has little business experience and will make at best an ineffective domestic policy executive. Since he is not a "machine politician" he may actually create some meaningful policy and reforms and he will not galvanize a natural opposition to everything he does like Hillary will. In the judiciary I expect him to show little regard to the Constitution and appoint judges in the mold of John Paul Stevens and David Souter. For the Republicans the primaries are now essentially over. Romney, well, he was a good candidate but after today he's done. Huckabee is a potential running mate for McCain but he's going nowhere by himself. And thats good because he has disguised himself as some kind of "southern preacher/politician/prophet" come to save the country from itself. He talks like a political conservative but he certainly did not govern Arkansas that way. I find people like him extremely disingenuous and I thin he's make a terrible president. McCain is the lesser of all evils. He is pretty moderate in all areas except national defense. He is a big proponent of developing and expanding defensive technologies such as missile defense systems. I believe he would reduce the size of the military while at the same time upgrade the weaponry and technology and move more in the direction of unmanned systems. Bush and Clinton before him believed defense spending was mainly Boots, Beans, and Bullets. That was true in the 20th Century but not now I think. In the judiciary he says he will appoint constructionists and points to John Roberts as his ideal so I like that about him. He will expand the scope and power of the Federal government and has shown a disturbing attitude towards the Constitution, particularly the 1st and 4th amendment issues like wire tapping and campaign finance reforms. But he would not be near so harmful as Obama or Hillary would. In domestic policy I believe he will increase personal income takes, that is a bad thing but he will moderate by reducing corporate taxes which will help keep unemployment and overall consumer costs a little lower than a Dem would. McCain is not a GREAT choice but given the current field, he is the BEST choice. I'm voting for him