So I hopped over to Radley Balko’s blog and, as expected, found some great posts. In particular, he address Howard

“I’m only saying that voting for the libertarian party will have a bigger real-world positive political impact than voting for Howard freaking Dean.”

What positive impact would it have? Give an example for me to consider. Here’s an argument for my case from Cato Chairman William Niskanen on divided government. What is your response to that?

Right now I call voting Lib in ‘04 a wasted vote. Who the hell is even running for the Libertarians? How do I know I’d like him?

How’s this for a symbolic gesture:
Bush and the GOP losing in ‘04 for all of their very unlibertarian actions during their first term.

To me, allowing a dirtbag like Bush to be re-elected is the most shameful thing that we can do.

“Because I’m getting pretty tired of seeing this libertarians-for-Dean crap.”

Sorry, but I’m tired of seeing Dubya and crew on television representing America.

Since might doesn’t make right why do you want to implement a monopoly of might?

The form of anarchy you espouse is the exact opposite of civilization. It would reduce the status of homo sapiens to that of animals (i.e. survival of the fittest/Might makes right).

Fortunately the majority of individuals will always recognize that in order to ensure their own rights and liberties (existence) then they MUST be willing to accept a minimal standard of behavior (i.e. laws or common moral code).

Complete anarchy is only a utopia when solipsism is true.

Solipsism = the notion that the self is all that exist (i.e. the person reading this post is the only thing to exist, and the universe and everyone else in it are simply figments of your imagination).

Reagan offered his huge and controversial tax restructuring in his first term; Clinton offered his bold if fatally flawed health care proposal; Nixon turned the old missile-gap mentality on its head with the first SALT talks, and unexpectedly reversed his own fiery anti-communist past with a willingness to “do business” with China.

If you’re waiting for the second term for Bush to get down to nutcutting, you’ll likely be disappointed.

dumber than promoting a blue-skinned druid as a libertarian candiate!

In my experience, second term president’s are lame ducks under seige from scandal. Name one second term president since the 1960’s for whom this was not the case. Nixon? (Watergate), Reagan? (Iran-Contra), Clinton? (Monica-gate et al.). A Bush second term will see a deluge of accusations and recriminations over the War in Iraq among others. And the rank and file will desert him. Repubs looking to 2008 elections will distance themselves from him as his popularity plummets and then stab him in the back.

Not a bad idea. I never thought of it that way.

One thing’s for sure, however, either plan is better than the one we currently endure.

I love the your idea of some of these schmucks periodically joining us in the working world. It just may shock a few of them back into reality…

I have no crayons! I am too poor!

Will President Dean buy me new crayons with all the money he saves by bringin’ the troops back home?

Hopefully,
J “deprived” S

Put down the crayons and write up an argument if you have one. Juvenile name-calling makes you look much more foolish than it does anyone else.

“Any libertarian that would vote for another party just to get the lesser of 2 evils should be ashamed…”

Actually, the innovative “Libertarians for Dean” strategy is to vote for the greater of two evils. Twice the shame and twice the ineffectual stupidity, in a new, improved package of self-deluding lameness!

Progress is a beautiful thing.

“The time has clearly come for term limits to make career politicians extinct.”

Yeah, and the limit on the number of terms should be zero.

Who cares if Bush wants to reform SS? I say the faster it collapses, the sooner we get rid of it completely.

[i]There is no magical privatization bullet that will fix social security.[/i]

Sure there is, one right between the eyes.

I think an even better solution than term limits is an amendment that would prohibit a politician from succeeding himself in the same branch of government for more than a single term. Although after skipping a term in office they could re-run again at a later time.

In other words, if you were a congressman or senator you could not run for congress or the senate in the next election (although you would be eligible to run for president).

I have a problem with term limits in that they are anti-democratic. If you like a particular individual then why shouldnâ??t you be able to elect him or her to office more than once?

The real problem is that once a politician gets into office they spend our money (taxpayer money (just think of the â??Franking privilegesâ?)) ensuring that they keep their position forever â?? like a modern day aristocracy. They also refrain from any good-for-the-country decisions which conflict with their selfish desire to be re-elected and remain in power.

I also believe that the original (justified) intent of the Constitution was to ensure that there was no true â??political classâ?, in that all of our representatives would be drawn from ordinary citizens who actually held jobs and paid taxes.

If you institute term limits then the guys runs for congress (serves 6 years or 8 or 10), then he jumps to the senate (and serves another 12), and then he comes home and runs for governor (8 years) and then he runs for President (8 years).

Under my scenario the guy could serve as a Congressman, and then he would be out of office with a real job for at least 2 years. After that if his fellow citizens wanted to elect him again they could.