Have the Republican Gone Too Far in Criticizing Obama

I find it amazingly full of **** that the GOP is aligning itself with many of the pillars of Ron Paul's '08 campaign, even after they tried to make light of all that he stands for.

Suddenly taxes, spending, health care, personal freedom, and constitutional abuse are important.... Wow:roll:

Goldenboy219 said:

Suddenly taxes, spending, health care, personal freedom, and constitutional abuse are important.... Wow:roll:

Click to expand...

Funny, none of them were when Bush was in power, huh?

Cephus said:

Funny, none of them were when Bush was in power, huh?

Click to expand...

Some of us beeched about it when Bush was Prez just as much as we do now. I don't care who is doing it, I don't like it.

Did Liberals go too far in criticizing Bush?

DrunkenAsparagus said:

Did Liberals go too far in criticizing Bush?

Click to expand...

Perhaps you should start a thread about that?

Seems too be a hot topic for those on the right looking for ways to excuse their loons actions and motives.

Goshin said:

Some of us beeched about it when Bush was Prez just as much as we do now. I don't care who is doing it, I don't like it.

Click to expand...

I meant, you didn't hear Republicans complaining that Bush was violating what are supposed to be core Republican values while he was in office, but as soon as it's not their guy anymore, they bring them up as if they've supported them steadfastly all along.

Hypocrisy, your name is Republican.

I voted that it won't have much effect. It will take a while before the GOP will gain any credible significance in what they they think or say. But, as sure as the pendulum swings both ways, that will have their day in the sun again. Eventually.

The hard right who has, as of late, seemed to define the GOP gets more laughs and/or thoughts of disdain these days. Noboday cares. Wah, wah, wah....

Sure, the goofball ideals do make for great entertainment, ie; Limbaugh, O'reilly, Coulter, etc., but when it comes down to the nut-cut, MOST Americans are just too smart for that silly propaganda. (How can we help ourselves? Most Americans, deep down are very good people.) Unfortunantly, those that are not, do tend to shout the loudest. It's lake a baby crying. What ya gonna do? Just feed 'em, fan 'em and give 'em a town hall to whine at. That's the American way.

Onward through the fog America....

Cephus said:

I meant, you didn't hear Republicans complaining that Bush was violating what are supposed to be core Republican values while he was in office, but as soon as it's not their guy anymore, they bring them up as if they've supported them steadfastly all along.

Hypocrisy, your name is Republican.

Click to expand...

Beg to differ. I heard plenty of Republicans complaining about Bush 2001-2008. Some of us left the party in large part because of the way things were run 01 to 08.

Frankly I see vast amounts of hypocrisy and deceit from both parties.

Republicans went too far in criticizing their own. McCain's 'illegitimate' black daughter anyone?

Libertarians are better at criticizing Obama than the "republicans".

Libertarians are also better at criticizing Bush than the "democrats".

You can't expect one arm of the same tyrannical beast to fight another!

Alex Libman said:

Libertarians are better at criticizing Obama than the "republicans".

Libertarians are also better at criticizing Bush than the "democrats".

You can't expect one arm of the same tyrannical beast to fight another!

Click to expand...

Seems to me that a good number of Libertarians are really just Repubs who are now to embarrassed to admit it.:lol:


(last admitted Repub below)

Show me a "republican" who wants to phase out all restrictions on immigration, phase out the military, get all government regulation out of marriage (i.e. ten men and ten women could all sign mutually-binding contracts and call themselves a family), get rid of all victimless crimes (prostitution, drugs, consensual cannibalism, whatever), allow contract-based polycentric law (ex Islamic sharia), legalize every possible combination of 1's and 0's (including kiddy porn), and so on, all in accordance to a consistent rational philosophy of individual self-ownership?

Alex Libman said:

Show me a "republican" who wants to phase out all restrictions on immigration, phase out the military, get all government regulation out of marriage (i.e. ten men and ten women could all sign mutually-binding contracts and call themselves a family), get rid of all victimless crimes (prostitution, drugs, consensual cannibalism, whatever), allow contract-based polycentric law (ex Islamic sharia), legalize every possible combination of 1's and 0's (including kiddy porn), and so on, all in accordance to a consistent rational philosophy of individual self-ownership?

Click to expand...

Who's going to inspect the chicken?

Don't buy chicken unless it was certified by a reputable quality assurance agency. Since in a free-market capitalist society no one can take a single penny from you without you consent (unless you initiate aggression against them first), this creates an incentive on the seller to compete to prove the quality of his products. It's probable that most stores won't even carry any uncertified products out of fear for their reputation.

With centralized government force you get a single one-size-fits-all solution with a single point of failure. With a polycentric system you get many competing solutions, and thus transparency - everybody is watching everybody else, and anybody is incentivized to be a whistle-blower. Given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow.

Competition also creates an incentive for innovation: one meat certification agency may do things cheaper than the rest, while another would be so paranoid you'd be able to download that chicken's whole life story on high-def video, including its genealogy and the names of every person who've handled it, and a nutrition label that's ten pages long.

Alex Libman said:

Show me a "republican" who wants to phase out all restrictions on immigration, phase out the military, get all government regulation out of marriage (i.e. ten men and ten women could all sign mutually-binding contracts and call themselves a family), get rid of all victimless crimes (prostitution, drugs, consensual cannibalism, whatever), allow contract-based polycentric law (ex Islamic sharia), legalize every possible combination of 1's and 0's (including kiddy porn), and so on, all in accordance to a consistent rational philosophy of individual self-ownership?

Click to expand...

I'm strongly inclined towards libertarianism...but I have some reservations and you've brought a couple of them up.

phase out all restrictions on immigration

Click to expand...

A nation that doesn't exercise some control of its borders and of immigration is likely to not stay a nation long. What's to stop a "third column" invasion of alleged immigrants from forming a majority and taking over the country, warping it away from its existing structure and imposing a new structure? Or if not the whole country, a large chunk of it? With unrestricted immigration, Texas NM and Ok could break away and become "Aztlan" within a generation. That's not paranoid fantasy; google "Reconquista".

legalize every possible combination of 1's and 0's (including kiddy porn)

Click to expand...

More radical than I've even heard most die-hard Libertarians talk, and arguably not a libertarian position even: wouldn't the exploitation of children in this manner constitute an "initiation of fraud"? The problem with kiddie porn is that it involves the exploitation of minors in ways they may well be too young to really understand, and to comprehend the implications and personal effects. I've said I'd prefer a Libertarian state to what we have now, but NOT if it doesn't protect young children from exploitation. You can't allow a six-year-old to freely contract with adults, they don't understand what they're getting into.

You're not helping Libertarianism with stuff like that, Alex.

Alex Libman said:

Don't buy chicken unless it was certified by a reputable quality assurance agency. Since in a free-market capitalist society no one can take a single penny from you without you consent (unless you initiate aggression against them first), this creates an incentive on the seller to compete to prove the quality of his products. It's probable that most stores won't even carry any uncertified products out of fear for their reputation.

With centralized government force you get a single one-size-fits-all solution with a single point of failure. With a polycentric system you get many competing solutions, and thus transparency - everybody is watching everybody else, and anybody is incentivized to be a whistle-blower. Given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow.

Competition also creates an incentive for innovation: one meat certification agency may do things cheaper than the rest, while another would be so paranoid you'd be able to download that chicken's whole life story on high-def video, including its genealogy and the names of every person who've handled it, and a nutrition label that's ten pages long.

Click to expand...

By free market theory that is true, unfortuantly when many of those regulations were created the free market didn't go fast enough to supply those regulation services to people.

For instance, when regulations on meat products were made people were always afraid that when they bought meat it had strange ingredients.


The market may be able to correct that today, but the period of going from government regulations to private companies would be painful for many people. Maybe there is some report out there about getting rid of consumer protection regulations.

nerv14 said:

By free market theory that is true, unfortuantly when many of those regulations were created the free market didn't go fast enough to supply those regulation services to people.

Click to expand...

I agree. There simply did not exist, an efficient means of communication in which to convey relevant information. Even with technological gains, the case of a "free market" induced information industry emerging to manage such demand for quality assurance is arbitrary at best. IMHO, many governmental regulations and the lot (consumer protection) are essential due to network externalities, where the use of said communication becomes even more productive with the increase in total users.

For instance, when regulations on meat products were made people were always afraid that when they bought meat it had strange ingredients.

Click to expand...

Courts have seemed to side with the consumer when they use a given product in a manner of which it was not intended. This has led to the over labeling of products under the pretense of lawsuits, although the existence of such product warnings probably has more to do with companies losing frivolous lawsuits. Have the warnings reduced accidental death or injury?

Network externalities exist as a barrier to provide accurate information for the consumer in food markets. Consider the restaurant industry. It is only recently that nutrition facts have been available, almost in an exponential fashion given popular apps on I-Phones and Blackberry's. This is a disservice to some restaurants like Outback Steack house. There are nearly 3,000 calories in their Aussie Cheese Fries :shock:

The market may be able to correct that today, but the period of going from government regulations to private companies would be painful for many people. Maybe there is some report out there about getting rid of consumer protection regulations.

Click to expand...

The transaction costs that would arise without our basic consumer protection agencies would have most likely trumped the nominal/social costs of supporting them via taxation and regulation. Is a private market a viable alternative? Possibly. Yet the anti government crowd tends to shy away from talk of externalities (social cost > private benefit) and transactional cost even though they are essential to the basic libertarian foundations.

nerv14 said:

By free market theory that is true, unfortuantly when many of those regulations were created the free market didn't go fast enough to supply those regulation services to people.

Click to expand...

You are comparing what is to what could have been. The government has the luxury of using force to jump in front of any parade and take all credit. Free market solutions must come about organically, and when they do, they're always better than government force, because each solution is individually chosen by each participant in a reality-based economic environment.

Goshin said:

A nation that doesn't exercise some control of its borders and of immigration is likely to not stay a nation long. What's to stop a "third column" invasion of alleged immigrants from forming a majority and taking over the country, warping it away from its existing structure and imposing a new structure? Or if not the whole country, a large chunk of it? With unrestricted immigration, Texas NM and Ok could break away and become "Aztlan" within a generation. That's not paranoid fantasy; google "Reconquista".

Click to expand...

I said phase out all limits to immigration, which means increasing legal immigration gradually. (Here's a thread with me debating non-gradualist libertarians on this issue.) Most immigration-related problems come from democracy and the welfare state, not the immigrants themselves.

Since there'll initially be far more applicants than spots, it makes perfect sense to choose entry privileges based on merit: why should some Mexican plumber find it easier to enter this country than a Chinese PhD? And anyone wearing an Osama bin Laden or a Che Guevara t-shirt should definitely be turned back.

Goshin said:

More radical than I've even heard most die-hard Libertarians talk, and arguably not a libertarian position even: wouldn't the exploitation of children in this manner constitute an "initiation of fraud"? The problem with kiddie porn is that it involves the exploitation of minors in ways they may well be too young to really understand, and to comprehend the implications and personal effects. I've said I'd prefer a Libertarian state to what we have now, but NOT if it doesn't protect young children from exploitation. You can't allow a six-year-old to freely contract with adults, they don't understand what they're getting into.

Click to expand...

Let's not hijack this thread with this divisive worst-case scenario. You can read some of my arguments on this issue elsewhere.

Goshin said:

You're not helping Libertarianism with stuff like that, Alex.

Click to expand...

I'm not here to sell anything. My only allegiance is to the truth.

Redress said:

The idea is this: Any party out of power is going to be critical of those in power. This is the natural order, and simply put, it's easier to get a negative message out, and often more effective. What I wonder these days is if the natural tendency to do this has not escalated to the point where it will end up hurting the republicans. For some examples:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-political-scandal-du-jour/47470-first-lady-michelle-obama-steps-out-lanvin-sneakers-theyre-only-540-a.html

http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaking-news/49268-obamas-date-night-new-york-city-draws-criticism-edited.html

http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-political-scandal-du-jour/46201-obama-disgrace-bows-another-leader-wtf.html

http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaking-news/55529-president-obama-s-address-students-across-america-september-8-2009-a.html

http://www.debatepolitics.com/conspiracy-theories/38541-53-reasons-obama-ineligable-election-fraud-mccain-too-old.html

http://www.debatepolitics.com/conspiracy-theories/51755-so-where-obama-born-again-hosp.html

http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-partisan-politics-political-platforms/49510-emergence-president-obamas-muslim-roots.html

Stepping away from our liberal or conservatives ideologies, how do you think the independents and middle of the road types view these types of attacks? Is making attacks on these type of issues the right thing to do for republicans, is it going too far and going to hurt republicans, or won't it have any effect?

Edit: poll added.

Click to expand...

It's no where near as bad as the criticism that been thrown at Republicans. Obama's kids haven't been called whores. His wife hasn't been accused of any crimes. Faked info about Obama hasn't been pastered all over the internet and television. Right wing criticism of Obama has been tame by comparison, so I don't think the Righties have anything to worry about.

Alex Libman said:

I said phase out all limits to immigration, which means increasing legal immigration gradually. (Here's a thread with me debating non-gradualist libertarians on this issue.) Most immigration-related problems come from democracy and the welfare state, not the immigrants themselves.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

Since there'll initially be far more applicants than spots, it makes perfect sense to choose entry privileges based on merit: why should some Mexican plumber find it easier to enter this country than a Chinese PhD? And anyone wearing an Osama bin Laden or a Che Guevara t-shirt should definitely be turned back.

Click to expand...

Why stop there? An increasing population is one of, if not, the best path to economic growth. Having an open immigration policy combined with a specific grace period to receive even basic welfare benefits sounds like a great idea. There will be those who say that is not fair, but why should it only be the American taxpayers who bare all sacrifices?

apdst said:

It's no where near as bad as the criticism that been thrown at Republicans. Obama's kids haven't been called whores. His wife hasn't been accused of any crimes. Faked info about Obama hasn't been pastered all over the internet and television. Right wing criticism of Obama has been tame by comparison, so I don't think the Righties have anything to worry about.

Click to expand...

:rofl wingers are so forgetful about their "team's" past actions and words ... they went full on crazy in the Clinton years, then upped it when Obama won the primaries .

Alex Libman said:

Let's not hijack this thread with this divisive worst-case scenario. You can read some of my arguments on this issue elsewhere.

Click to expand...

Thank you, intresting thread. Also intresting that you're listed as "banned" there in the James Randi forum....how hard is it to get banned there btw?

I read that thread, and imo those arguing against your child-porn position pretty much cleaned your clock. (I'm going to pull a few examples from that thread and post them here, and I'm only doing so since you provided the link and invited me to consider your position based on that thread. )

When you take positions like this:

It is up to the victim (i.e. the child OR the parents / guardians) to decide if the crime has taken place, not the government.

Click to expand...

Children are not capable of giving informed consent
Yes, and if children were materializing from the sky and dropping into international waters, the law would have a very difficult time establishing the chain of custody. I don't want to spoil your innocence by telling you where babies come from, but it's usually pretty easy to tell at least who the mommy is, and family law procedures (or, in a free market, "sex contracts") can usually find the daddy as well.

That's why children's self-ownership rights cannot be recognized in full (i.e. no rights to liberty and property) until they reach the "age of reason" (say 18) or are emancipated by a jury. You're in effect saying that this gap in rights should be filled by the government - effectively giving the government control of all children. I'm saying that this gap should be filled by the parents (or guardians to whom they've transfered this privilege).

Click to expand...

...is why people have trouble taking you seriously.

So you're saying that if a 5 year old stars in a child-porn flick, and his parents signed the consent contract, and the kid doesn't complain (probably because he's been brainwashed not to) that you're ok with that because the parents are ok with it?? That's just wrong.

I'm not here to sell anything. My only allegiance is to the truth.

Click to expand...

Yeah well, lotsa luck with that. I'm glad most Libertarians recognize that there is a need to protect children from exploitation.

Alex Libman said:

You are comparing what is to what could have been. The government has the luxury of using force to jump in front of any parade and take all credit. Free market solutions must come about organically, and when they do, they're always better than government force, because each solution is individually chosen by each participant in a reality-based economic environment.

Click to expand...

That is very true, I was not comparing the government today with what could have been, I was comparing it to what it was.

If you have any information of a place like Hong Kong or Singapore having an effective free market solution to food regulations, then that would be some "what is" evidence for you.

Goshin said:

Thank you, intresting thread. Also intresting that you're listed as "banned" there in the James Randi forum....how hard is it to get banned there btw?

Click to expand...

If you're an outspoken libertarian like me - very easy.

Goshin said:

So you're saying that if a 5 year old stars in a child-porn flick, and his parents signed the consent contract, and the kid doesn't complain (probably because he's been brainwashed not to) that you're ok with that because the parents are ok with it?? That's just wrong.

Click to expand...

I agree, that's wrong, but it shouldn't be illegal. You are free to ostracize those people, I know I definitely would, but you cannot initiate aggression against them.

Goshin said:

Yeah well, lotsa luck with that. I'm glad most Libertarians recognize that there is a need to protect children from exploitation.

Click to expand...

There is a need to protect everyone from aggression, but sexual morality is subjective.