As for foreign policy, most of the terrorists don’t hate us for our freedom; some do, but the majority are motivated by our foreign policy.

1. The overthrow of the Iranian government in 1953.
2. Unwavering support for Israel.
3. The propping up of dictatorships across the middle east that Muslims view as oppressive, and are also Israel’s enemies.
4. The blockade of Iraq that killed a lot of people.
5. Saudi Arabia’s use of American troops in Iraq 1 instead of Arab fighters.
5. Bases on what they consider to be holy land.

But according to you neocons, their primary motivation is they hate us for our freedom……right..

I guess we can do whatever we want around the world, and it doesn’t have consequences.

You guys will never see the truth, our empire will come to end because of financial reasons, and we will be forced to bring our troops home. Lets hope that a nuke isn’t detonated in a major city before then, because unlike the cold war, who do we strike back? Using letters of Marque, which is the constitutional way of dealing with threats that don’t have country is the only way to take away the recruitment tool of the terrorists.

Ron Paul received more money from the troops than all the other republicans combined including Obama, but he’s soft on defense….right.

Next generation Republicans will already accept some version of Obamacare as a moderate position.

That is, I left out the “I” in: “He nodded and I suggested that that’s what primaries are for.”

I hate typos. Made an even worse one Yesterday. I wrote a comment that there is a real case to be made for women not having the vote since single women are biologically driven to try to turn government into their husband. Some can overcome that liability with their reason, just as men have biological liabilities they have to overcome with reason, but there is an argument that women’s particular biological liabilities are especially hostile to liberty, and democracy is only valuable to the extent that it serves liberty. (Tyranny of the majority was just as wrong in the eyes of the founders as tyranny by an autocrat.)

Nevertheless, I came down on the side that voting equality has to be given priority in this case, except I left out a “not” and it came out the opposite. Women should be stripped of their voting rights! What fun.

The fellow said “the lesser of two evils is evil,” and started to walk away, as if he had just said “checkmate.” “But he is the LESSER evil,” I replied. “Isn’t it better to have the lesser evil than the greater evil?”

Amazingly, the guy stopped in his tracks and seemed stunned, as if he had never considered before what the idea of choosing the lesser of two evils means. He tried to formulate a reply but could only repeat that the lesser of two evils is still evil, prompting me to repeat that the lesser of two evils is not as evil as the greater of two evils.

Finally he said the Cloward-Pivin type thing: “Its better to have things collapse and have to start over.” “THAT,” I said, “is evil. That is the greatest evil, to not try to stave off destruction from a liberty-hater like Obama.”

But I don’t think this libertarian really believed in the destruction thing. That only came out after he was stumped by the lesser-of-two-evils thing, which indicates a profound insularity to the Libertarian movement.

I have heard their “the lesser of two evils is evil” line before but it never dawned on me that they would talk to so few people outside of libertarian circles that they would not have ever had it pointed out to them that their rebuttal is completely rebutted by the saying they think they are rebutting. The guy was actually stone stumped, like he had never thought before about the logic of choosing the lesser of two evils. He only had this nonsensical little Libertarian mantra that had, despite its total illogic, had been all the shield he had so far needed for his illogical position.

Responses to your points above. First, taxes.

Since WW II tax revenues have fluctuated between 15% and 23% of GDP regardless of the actual tax rates inposed. In fact the 60 year average has been 18.8%. Thus, no matter what one does to tax rates, the expected revenue will historically be ~18.8% of the GDP. beyond that, money moves out of taxable positions (apologies, I have a link for that, can not find it as I write, but this information is based upon govt statistics, not partisan statistics).

The GDP.

Everyone agonizes about the deficit and the national debt. Well they should, but one also must look at both sides of the equation. Paying down the debt and creating balanced budgets are essential, but expanding the GDP is an equally important solution. Imagine a person with an income of $50K who has $50K in consumer debt (credit cards). that person is in a world of hurt. Now imagine that s/he can triple his/her income to $150K/yr (perhaps by getting a second or third job). The $50K debt instantly becomes a smaller proportion of their economic life and, thus, more manageable for them. Doing that nationwide is increasing our GDP by getting the economy moving again so that moderate rates generate more revenue. Now some might respond “. . . but 16 TRILLION dollars?” remember there was a time when a BILLION dollars was viewed with the same jaw-dropping amazement and there was also a time when a beer cost a nickel. This is not to diminish the imact of $16T, but to set it within a current perspective; a perspective that will change just like the price of that beer has risen.

When one speaks of more revenue to the left, their first response is always to raise taxes; they see no other alternative because they’re not particularly savvy when it comes to economic ideas. Give a leftist the choice between 50% of $100,000 and 10% of $1,000,000 and most will automatically go for the 50% because it’s a larger percentage.

Furthermore, the left refuses to accept the fact that the economic pie is infinite. To them itis finite; to gain here one must take away there. In order to create a Bill Gates, other people must be paupers. This is a naive and absurd position which reflects a naive and ignorant view of economics; it’s based on the social dicta that drives the left, i.e. that “haves” v the “have nots.” Who did Bill gates rob or cheat to gain his wealth (or Steve Jobs for that matter)? Answer: No one. They created and provided a product that people wanted because it improved their lives.

To a leftist a finite (zero-sum) economic pie is a reality because the policies they want to implement focus on social goals at the expense of the economy; in fact, they create a finite economic pie as a self-fulfilling prophecy (just look at what the Obama administration has failed to achieve by focusing on Obamacare’s social equity v job creation).

Romney has already indicated that his goal is to get the economy moving again. In doing so he will wield an important economic sword to help control the deficit; i.e., make it a smaller part of the economic whole. I repeat, paying down the debt and establishing a balanced budget is important, but so is increasing the GDP in order to reduce the impact of the debt itself.

As for gun control and your claim that you’ve seen no indication that Obama wants to restrict gun rights. Surely you must be aware that there is at least suspicion that the entire “Fast and Furious” debacle was executed in part to justify greater U.S. gun control. No proof yet, but do you really trust Obama’s apparent ignoring of gun issues when he is willing to tell Putin that they’ll be more flexibility after the election? And do you trust someone who promised to reduce the deficit by half or have a one-term proposition, who, then increased the deficit by 33% and then ran for re-election anyway?

Remember, an Obama victory today means no holds barred for the next four years.

“You are arguing that we need to remove the Bush tax cuts? As a libertarian, you want to raise taxes? I’m shocked as much of “our” (R/libt/Tea) literature and studies indicate that tax increases decrease tax ‘revenue’.”
I don’t disagree with the premise that raising taxes past a certain point decreases revenue. I don’t know what point that is, as many smarter folks than myself have run the numbers on that one. And in a vacuum, I completely agree with you. The problem is, in reality, we have a staggering debt, and spending money is clearly something that both parties can get behind. My philosophy is simple; if you have a budget that runs a deficit, you should not lower taxes at the same time. It’s just bad news, on so many levels. Since we have been running a deficit since the Bush tax cuts have been in effect, that means that I don’t think that they should have been introduced. Starving the beast, as much as I would love it to work, has not done the trick. Having said that, I don’t know the economic effects of repealing them, particularly in a recession; so I’ll not chime in on that issue. I’m all on board with lower taxes…. as a result of a government that’s been reduced in size and scope.

“Are you pro-gun? The SC could destroy our rights quite easily since O will NOT nominate anyone remotely friendly to our interests. This will have a direct impact on people losing their lives/general safety because GUNS SAVE LIVES.”
I am, and I’ve seen no inclination on the part of the White House up to now to restrict gun rights. As a matter of fact, I get the impression Obama doesn’t want to touch that topic with a ten foot pole. It’s not particularly a concern with me vis-a-vis the Supreme Court, either. My concerns with potential Obama supreme court nominations would be more with regard to property rights vs. imminent domain issues before it would be with any 2nd amendment transgressions.

I was thinking specifically about the U.S. Navy during the 3rd debate when Obama was justifying a reduced number of ships. The fact he clearly does not understand, as evinced by his snide response, is that one can have the most indomitable juggernaut in the world, but a single ship can still only be in one place at one point in time. As you point out, is has been the U.S. Navy’s presence that has allowed the entire world to take open sea lanes for granted.

http://neoneocon.com/2012/11/05/the-cloward-pivens-of-the-right/#comment-451019

The post I responded to was right above:
http://neoneocon.com/2012/11/05/the-cloward-pivens-of-the-right/#comment-451016

I will only move forward in conversations with people if we can hear each other. My intent was to hear from you what you needed to hear from Romney. That’s all!

What conclusion did I jump to?

Thanks.

I personally don’t know what happened here. I asked a question respectfully.

You can answer the question respectfully – or not. (however one way will cease future conversation because I’m not interested in disrespect)

Thank you for voting Romney.