paykey

Thank you for your candid opinion.

paykey

The only thing I can think of that would help direct this country back to being the best and loved one is, we need to get new blood in and that would mean getting all of congress out and put not the rich in, but people that would do their comunities right. We might then get rid of the pork barrel spending, the oversight of earmarked dollars for families employment, health care for all and not just the rich or the ones in Washington, veterns care, food for the poor, housing for the poor, and laws that will be for all. That is the only way the goverment will not beable to buy their power

savoir-faire

Thanks-great find!

Curious George

This post is a perfect example of why I think the Libertarian Party struggles to be relevant in politics. Libertarians are some of the brightest, wisest and best informed political minds. Unfortunately, they know it.

I mean, holy cow, you can cut that arrogance with a knife.

Granted, the other dude started it, but how do you really expect to win over anyone with that kind of attitude? The minute you begin insulting someone or making fun of them, they immediately turn off to your argument.

You might as well be yelling down an empty well at that point.

ARealConservative

There is history behind it though.

But you are right - those are the types of posts I regret.

ronpaulvoter

After compiling the data from this site and selecting the 9 top issues and one very important additional one this site missed, each candidate has received a score and a grade point average (GPA). Without looking any farther, would you like to guess how many would graduate?

Here are the issues:

1. Education - No child left behind: 10 points for a NO.
2. Energy - Kyoto: 10 points for a NO.
3. Guns - Assault weapon ban: 10 points for a NO.
4. Guns - Background checks: 10 points for a NO.
5. Patriot act: 10 points for a NO.
6. Immigration - Citizenship for illegals: 10 points for a NO.
7. Prolonged Iraq War: 10 points for a NO.
8. Minimum wage increase: 10 points for a NO.
9. Universal Health Care: 10 points for a NO.
10. Legalize industrial hemp and medical marijuana; repeal RICO: (not mentioned on the site but a key issue): 10 points for a YES.

I am a little generous here: An uncertain answer on any question is 5 points.

A perfect score is 100. A perfect GPA is 4.0. A barely passing score is 70 and corresponds with a barely passing GPA of 2.0. It works the same way it does in college.

Now let's look at our candidates--beginning at the top and going down:

RON PAUL -- A perfect 100%. Clearly the valedictorian.

Tancredo -- 70% -- Good on everything except 5, 7, and 10. Barely enough to graduate but still well ahead of the others.

The remaining candidates would flunk out -- even in a government-run school:

Gravel -- 55% -- Misses 2, 9, 10. Unclear on 3, 4, 8.

Cox -- 50% --Misses 4, 5, 7 and 10. Unclear on 5, 6.

Hunter -- 50% -- Misses 1, 5, 6, 7, 10.

Romney -- 35% -- Misses 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 10. Unclear on 8.

Giuliani -- 30% -- Misses 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10. Unclear on 1, 2.

The remaining candidates are lower still. I'm not going to bother with them except...

...the five at the bottom of the barrel:

Clinton -- 10% -- Right only on 7.
Dodd -- 10% -- Right only on 7.
Obama -- 20% -- Right on 7. Unclear on 1, 2.
Edwards -- 20% -- Right on 7. Unclear on 2, 6.
Huckabee -- 25% -- Right on 5, 9. Unclear on 2.

Now who would YOU hire as our country's top executive?

Zyphlin

I would've never imagined that Ron Paul would score 100% based on whether a guy named RonPaulVoter agrees with his views. I figured you would be grading hillary at 100%

RightinNYC

I was thinking about this today as I drove past one of the Ron Paul billboards that have sprouted up in my hometown. I could never put my finger on what bothered me about people who actively classify themselves as "Libertarians" (with a big L), especially because they're the kind of people who I would normally like and respect - educated individualists. I think you're right on target.

There are people like this through all of politics, but it seems like Libertarians have an extremely high concentration of people who are convinced that:

a) They're smarter than everyone else
b) Their "far-outside-the-mainstream" opinions on a particular topic are the only reasonable ones
c) The people holding the mainstream view are all idiots

It's an attractive philosophy, because you can never be wrong and are always the voice of reason and logic, even if only in your own mind. It's just frustrating to be one of the people trying to convince them that there are valid alternate opinions.

__________________
People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

Panache

And thats the real issue isn't it? Why should we go straight to opening the door to government regulation of the internet by asking the government to step in and tell providers what they can and can't controll, when we haven't explored the venue of telling our government not to stop providers from competing with each other?

Wouldn't it be better to fight for Cox's right to compete with Comcast, rather than just let a government enforced monopoly slide while asking the government to regulate them?

Panache

a) Thats the trouble with being smarter than everyone else; is you are generally smart enough to figure out that you are smarter than everyone else. Then what do you do? Pretend to be modest about it?

b) Thats because Libertarian opinions are if nothing else, at least consistent. I find it rather frustrating when a far out liberal is bringing the whole "Those who would give up an essential liberty for temporary saftey deserve neither" business when talking about the PATRIOT act, but then start talking about how dangerous it is to let people freely excersize their 2nd amendement rights.

The Libertarian philosphy may be far out, but it at least makes sense and is consistent. The Stateist philosphy, though completely opposed is also consistent and makes sense.

Saying that the government has no business telling you what you can and can't do with your own money, and then turning around and saying that the government has every right to tell you what substances you can and can't put in your own body is just plain dumb, regardless of how mainstream it is.

If someone is a complete collectivist, and thinks government should have control over both what you put in your body and what you do with your money, I will tend to disagree on both counts, but at least aknowledge that their view is a reasonable and reasoned one, (although clearly also not mainstream) but when folks are passionate about a principle on one topic and abandon it on the next, no I don't think its reasonable, even if it is mainstream.

c) I don't think they're all idiots. I just think they are all wrong.