Retrospective approval rating

[SPC]

Disapprove of all of them. Sic Semper Tyrannis.

[SPC]

Disapprove of all of them. Sic Semper Tyrannis.

I'm surprised you didn't approve of Reagan.

This is the second thing I've seen in the past 20 seconds that proves the LP will never be a serious, mainstream party.

Why should I approve of someone who jacked up the national debt, escalated the Drug War, and intervened in Grenada, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Lebanon, and a ton of other countries, among his crimes?

[SPC]

Clinton talked a lot about reforming welfare, but essentially dragged his feet until he was forced to accept the GOP's (toned down) proposals. In fact one of his original budget proposals actually would have increased overall spending by about $15 billion by 1999 (check CBO figures for his initial plan if you don't believe me). Besides that there's also the issue of his tax hikes on just about everything from the top marginal rate to social security... blah blah blah.

So what? The fact remains that the budget was balanced on his watch. I don't see Saint Ronnie having balanced it, or Bush the Elder. But Clinton did, and regardless of the political pressures on him at the time, he gets a pass just for it.

So mass murdering civilians (domestic and foreign) is excusable because he balanced the budget? You sound like those neoconservatives that you always foam at the mouth at.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Uh, yes, because the Voting Rights' Act single-handedly negates all of that. Of course you support a "States' right" to a poll tax, so I shouldn't be surprised. It would be asking too much of you not to be a massive hypocrite in any area that might make your theofascist masters uncomfortable. [/quote]

Again, killing millions of Indochinese and tens of thousands of Americans, socializing education, health care, and many other sectors, and using the draft is excusable because he let some black people pretend they have a voice in this system?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sort of the way you worship at the altar of St. Ronnie of Raygun despite his massive escalation of the War on Drugs, his ruthless support of death squads (and interventionism generally), and his tax hikes? Or how you seem to slather over Tricky "Price Controls" Dick?

Please, do yourself and all of us a favor and move that social score into the positive percentages. Stop lying to us and doing us the discourtesy of your false pretensions.
[/quote]

You didn't respond to the statement, you just made an ad hominem attack.

[SPC]

I didn't say they were. I said low taxes and spending were a basic libertarian principle, and earlier implied Reagan really didn't do enough in that area (among many other things I have called him out on). You're straw manning right now.

No, I'm correcting your insane misconceptions of libertarianism.

You may find this as a shock, but most (ideological) libertarians don't care about taxes.

That is the biggest load of crap I've ever heard. All libertarians I've heard want to at minimum lower taxes.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Returning to the gold standard wouldn't spark a massive tax spike, it would force the government not to spend so much money. And, even without the gold standard, the government still taxes us for that, they just do it indirectly via inflation rather than sending you a bill.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Who cares? The bugdet isn't my problem, it's the government's problem. If a thief has trouble paying his bills, is it justified for him to steal the money from me? Of course not!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As soon as you show me that the Republican plan would have worked, I'll concede. But - and here's the thing - I don't think it would have. It's clear to me that the insane Reagan deficits had to be taxed out of existence; and the dollar had to be saved from Alan "Cut The Margins!!!!" Greenspan's insane fiscal policies. Stability is the watchword of economic libertarianism.[/quote]

Obviously Reagan's plan was bad because those deficits would mean future tax hikes or inflation. The proper plan would be to lower taxes and lower spending.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Better than the opposition.
[/quote]

How could it be better than the opposition if IT'S THE SAME POSITION?!

[SPC]

I didn't say they were. I said low taxes and spending were a basic libertarian principle, and earlier implied Reagan really didn't do enough in that area (among many other things I have called him out on). You're straw manning right now.

No, I'm correcting your insane misconceptions of libertarianism.

You may find this as a shock, but most (ideological) libertarians don't care about taxes.

That is the biggest load of crap I've ever heard. All libertarians I've heard want to at minimum lower taxes.

Those aren't libertarians, dipsh**t. Those are supply-siders. I understand that you, in your propaganda-induced addle-brained mindset, might be ignorant enough to confuse the two. I am not so unfortunate.

Oh really, now?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.theadvocates.org/library/issues-taxes.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.lp.org/issues/taxes

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://voluntaryist.com/taxation/hessmytaxes.php

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote/lysander_spooner_quote_b8f9

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_within_libertarianism (Notice that the controversy is whether we should lower taxes or abolish taxes, not whether or not we should lower taxes)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hey, boy genius, I've got a question for you: how is the government supposed to pay for the gold bullion to re-align the dollar with if we go back on the gold standard?

I'll give you a hint: it's a three letter word.[/quote]

They have plenty of gold at Fort Knox. Plus, I never said that I supported a government-sanctioned gold standard. I think they shouldn't regulate money at all.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, the government doesn't have to be the one exchanging the gold. All they would have to do is get rid of the Federal Reserve and legal tender laws, and private banks could take care of the rest.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It would force the government to spend many times more than what it already does, to buy the massive amounts of bullion to peg each dollar to. Or are you too stupid to realize that there are literally hundreds of times as many dollars in circulation today as there was when we went off the gold standard?

*snip*[/quote]

Even if the government was the one who exchanged gold, who said that we would have to go back to the same exchange rate that we were on when we left the gold standard?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

ROFFLE-f'ing-LOFFLE. Yeah man, when you start paying twenty-five hundred dollars for your imported video game consoles, don't cry to me about it, moron.

[snip non-thinking Paulbot asininity]
[/quote]

Complete non-sequitor.

[SPC]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

lol

I can't imagine what it's like to be that ignorant.

What's wrong with people not being coerced into giving away over a third of their income?

[SPC]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

lol

I can't imagine what it's like to be that ignorant.

What's wrong with people not being coerced into giving away over a third of their income?

Oh you libertarians are so adorable.

One day, when you get in touch with reality instead of being stuck in your utopian dreams, you'll realize that the roads you drive on are *gasp* built by the government with those tax dollars. You'll realize that the education you got so you can read was *gasp* paid for by the government with those tax dollars. Shockingly, it turns out that those guys who put out forest fires are *gasp* paid for and employed by the government.

And if I were not forced to pay taxes, I could pay for roads, education, and fire protection on the market for a cheaper and higher quality service.

[SPC]

SPC has openly called for privatizing all those services. He also supports allowing "competing currencies".

How cute. You know what, I want a pet libertarian this Christmas.

You haven't bothered to offer a refutation, all you've offered are ad hominem attacks.

[SPC]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

lol

I can't imagine what it's like to be that ignorant.

What's wrong with people not being coerced into giving away over a third of their income?

Oh you libertarians are so adorable.

One day, when you get in touch with reality instead of being stuck in your utopian dreams, you'll realize that the roads you drive on are *gasp* built by the government with those tax dollars. You'll realize that the education you got so you can read was *gasp* paid for by the government with those tax dollars. Shockingly, it turns out that those guys who put out forest fires are *gasp* paid for and employed by the government.

And if I were not forced to pay taxes, I could pay for roads, education, and fire protection on the market for a cheaper and higher quality service.

Because our roads are so bad. I don't want to pay a fee to a corporation to use the roads, nor have the poor be unprotected from fires or barred from a decent education.

I suppose that all of those potholes are a sign of good roads? You already pay a "fee" to use the roads through taxes, privatization would just allow you to pay for the roads directly, and since there would be competition, you would be paying less for higher quality roads. This would allow the poor to use the roads, although they might have to use them less often, thus reducing traffic.

Again, without a government monopoly, there would be competition in the fire protection sector, so it would be cheaper and higher quality. I doubt many of the people whose homes burned down in the California wildfires think that fire protection was good enough for them.

And, have you been to a public school in a poor neighborhood lately? I doubt anyone would describe it as "decent".

[SPC]

Specifically concerning roads.....how, may I ask, are corporations supposed to compete? If there's only a limited amount of space, how do you expect 2 or more sets of roads to be built?

We do live in 3 dimensions. You could build a road next to another road, above another road, below another road, or on a completely different path. Plus, it's possible for companies or people to rent and buy roads from other companies or people.

[SPC]

Specifically concerning roads.....how, may I ask, are corporations supposed to compete? If there's only a limited amount of space, how do you expect 2 or more sets of roads to be built?

We do live in 3 dimensions. You could build a road next to another road, above another road, below another road, or on a completely different path. Plus, it's possible for companies or people to rent and buy roads from other companies or people.

That is impractical, a waste of natural resources, and destructive to the environment.

Actually, since people would have to pay directly for driving on roads and how many miles they drive, it would discourage driving more than necessary, and thus help the environment.

[SPC]

Specifically concerning roads.....how, may I ask, are corporations supposed to compete? If there's only a limited amount of space, how do you expect 2 or more sets of roads to be built?

We do live in 3 dimensions. You could build a road next to another road, above another road, below another road, or on a completely different path. Plus, it's possible for companies or people to rent and buy roads from other companies or people.

That is impractical, a waste of natural resources, and destructive to the environment.

Actually, since people would have to pay directly for driving on roads and how many miles they drive, it would discourage driving more than necessary, and thus help the environment.

But you've contradicted yourself. If people chose to drive less, and get from one place to another as quickly as possible, they'd simply pick the road that gets them there in the shortest amount of time, not the road made by the best company.

I think you've oversimplified things. Choosing between two different products is based on multiple factors: price, convenience, quality, etc., and everyone has their different preference and criteria.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You could just as easily ask 'Why have 3 soda companies selling similar flavors and when you can have one that handles that amount of customers desiring it?'. But, of course, competition keeps the companies providing the services in a constant battle to improve quality, increase convenience, and lower prices. Such incentive is not provided in a monopoly.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I frequently take the semi-private toll road, which I notice is of higher quality than other roads.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It would seem that you have never been in traffic.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Mayoral elections are usually about every 2 years, meaning that if your mayor refuses to do anything about the roads, you're stuck with them for another two years. If they were privately operated, any poorly-managed road would instantly lose customers. Plus, privately operated roads would be able to increase fees if traffic became more of a problem. With government roads, you just have to deal with traffic.


BTW, I love how Einzige didn't bother to refute any of the links I provided showing that his view of libertarians supporting tax hikes is ridiculous.

[SPC]

You could just as easily ask 'Why have 3 soda companies selling similar flavors and when you can have one that handles that amount of customers desiring it?'. But, of course, competition keeps the companies providing the services in a constant battle to improve quality, increase convenience, and lower prices. Such incentive is not provided in a monopoly.

You buy sodas at a store. A road is quite different. You would be forced to use the road of a company that got you to where you wanted to go, not necessarily the cheapest or highest quality one, thus eliminating a lot of the competition. It's not practical to build 3 roads that connect the exact same places.

What's impractical of building roads with similar destinations? Don't they have that already to a certain extent in the government road system?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

While a business would have the freedom to not let you use their road, such a decision would be very unwise. Unless you were a safety hazard, I doubt business would turn down money like that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Gasoline and other taxes also add up over a period of time. The difference is that with private roads, you could always choose a cheaper competitor if you don't like the price of the tolls.

[SPC]

Disapprove of all of them. Sic Semper Tyrannis.

I'm surprised you didn't approve of Reagan.

This is the second thing I've seen in the past 20 seconds that proves the LP will never be a serious, mainstream party.

Why should I approve of someone who jacked up the national debt, escalated the Drug War, and intervened in Grenada, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Lebanon, and a ton of other countries, among his crimes?

your crazy.

Do you dispute any of my claims?