Harris Poll: Atlanta a less desirable place to live, but... (Savannah: transplants, houses)

[AcidSnake]

Agreed.

It seems though whenever I tune every once in a while to Neal Boortz or Sean Hannity's respective radio programs, it gives me an idea for what's going to be the latest outrage for the "libertarians" here on city-data to be riled up about. And boy, are they consistent to a "T" on this stuff unfortunately.

Just once I would like to either see people here truly live up to their moniker of being truly "less-government" on EVERY issue...or back off on claiming that motto.

Originally Posted by K-SawDude

That's my question every time an election rolls around and they tend to vote Republican (or not vote at all). It's odd to me how often libertarians sort of throw the "no government intervention" stance out the window whenever social issues are on the table, but then they seem uber-passionate whenever anti-tax issues pop up.

Or at least that's been my experience with most libertarians I've known, especially in Georgia.

[K-SawDude]

Originally Posted by AcidSnake

Agreed.

It seems though whenever I tune every once in a while to Neal Boortz or Sean Hannity's respective radio programs, it gives me an idea for what's going to be the latest outrage for the "libertarians" here on city-data to be riled up about. And boy, are they consistent to a "T" on this stuff unfortunately.

Just once I would like to either see people here truly live up to their moniker of being truly "less-government" on EVERY issue...or back off on claiming that motto.

Boortz is a good example. He used to be more truly libertarian, I think. But I listen to his show most days, and his focus has to be 95% anti-Obama/anti-tax/anti-corporate regulation and, at most, 5% liberal stances on social issues. Most of the Republican candidates he props up, in fact, have social policy stances that should be horrifying for liberals and libertarians. (How many of the Republican candidates this year are flirting with a constitutional amendment proposal to define marriage, for example?) And yet you rarely hear a peep about this, since Boortz is obsessed with Obama being a "socialist." A man who signed a market-exchange based health care plan, who didn't nationalize the banks (like actual socialist countries have), who put off environmental regulations of pollution, and who took significant amounts of campaign dollars from Wall Street. Right... he's SUCH a SOCIALIST.

I honestly think we'd have a better political system if libertarians would get real about their principles and start running viable candidates that could draw in fiscal conservatives AND social liberals. I think there are far more libertarian-leaning individuals in this country than people realize, but they don't have presence because they sell themselves out to the Republican party constantly. I'd love to see a viable 3rd party, as I think it would improve the debate in Congress immensely. (And I'm one of those voters who, at present, could never vote for a Republican because of their awful social policy stances. The current Republican party has just gone far, far too far to the right. But I'd be persuadable towards a truly libertarian candidate.)

[testa50]

I'm pretty solidly libertarian and will be 100% voting for Obama.

The Republicans are theoretically in favor of less intervention in the economy, but they are a stone cold lock to have the government intrude more in your private life. At least the Democrats perform well in that one area.

Also, the fixation on marginal tax rates is completely absurd. If the anti-tax people were actually coming up with clever ways to decrease the scope of services of government I would be intrigued by them, but anybody can sit there and say taxes need to be lower without offering any actual ideas for decreasing the liabilities of the government. Meanwhile, they bash immigrants and gays and so forth, which I find disgusting.

[K-SawDude]

Originally Posted by roku

Bortz is extremely socially liberal. I've heard callers arguing with him over his agreements to gay rights and the guy just owns them every-time because he doesn't think sexuality is his or the government business. He has never been conservative on any social issue unless it's a personal opinion about something like tattoos or something. He is also a entertainer. So if social issue are the hot button he will express his non care or how stupid he feels people are for wanting the government to control people then like he has done with abortion.


We don't need libertarians to get real, we need people who aren't libertarian to quit sullying the name. Ron Paul is the most viable Libertarian candidate but people aren't ready. The only reason Ron Paul run Republican is because people aren't smart enough yet to look outside two parties.

Huh? Ron Paul isn't socially liberal. There's a lot of info out there on this:

I thought Ron Paul was a social liberal? | R3publican: Restore * Reenergize * Reignite

He's against *federal* dictation of social policy, but he has much less of a problem with state control of social issues.

[testa50]

Originally Posted by roku

You are voting for Obama over Ron Paul? You are the type or fake Libertarian this other guys are talking about.

lol Ron Raul. Tell me about how his views on abortion or immigration are libertarian and get back to me.

[testa50]

Originally Posted by roku

1.Letting states decide instead of the federal government on abortion drops the size of the federal government and allows more freedom.

Nope. The states currently do not have right to prohibit abortion. He wants them to be able to prohibit abortion. Would it be libertarian to give states the right to restrict free speech?

2. Letting people invade the borders just to collect more tax to take care of them is not libertarian.

This is a bunch of garbage, of course. Simply admit that you're opposed to a free labor market, or else you would be in favor of allowing unlimited immigration without access to welfare benefits. The fixation on benefits is particularly humorous considering illegal immigrants get very, very little in the way of state assistance if anything as it is. I don't really blame Ron Paul for thinking these things--he has a bunch of xenophobic constituents in Texas to pander to, after all--but calling these ideas libertarian is beyond absurd.

[K-SawDude]

Originally Posted by roku

Right, Ron Paul doesn't think the Federal government should control those issues. How is that not socially liberal? You gotta take baby steps. If he tried to do this any other way it would fail , but AT LEAST, if states control these issues people have more power to move or change them.

Maybe I'm crazy here, but I don't think a true libertarian would be a fan of encouraging any government system--be it federal, state, or local--to dictate who you can and can't marry, what you put into your body, and your right to abort a fetus.

Ron Paul has not been opposed to such government intrusion on a state and local level.

This gets back to my larger point here. Some people who claim to be libertarian are really just anti-federal government--especially on the tax front--more than anything else.

[testa50]

Originally Posted by K-SawDude

Maybe I'm crazy here, but I don't think a true libertarian would be a fan of encouraging any government system--be it federal, state, or local--to dictate who you can and can't marry, what you put into your body, and your right to abort a fetus.

Ron Paul has not been opposed to such government intrusion on a state and local level.

This gets back to my larger point here. Some people who claim to be libertarian are really just anti-federal government--especially on the tax front--more than anything else.

Normally I'd have something to add here about code words and dog whistles and stuff, but Rand's previous attacks on the Civil Rights Act pretty much make the point for me.

So yeah, once more, no way I'm voting for anyone named Paul. They have decent libertarian ideas, but it comes laced with some pretty horrifying right-wing stuff.

[AcidSnake]

Tell that to the millions of African Americans, poor whites, native Americans, and Hispanics who have existed in the whole entire history of this country up until this very present.

The "States Rights" stuff is simply taking oligarchy and dictatorship from a national level and bringing it down to the local level. And the state leadership especially in the south unfortunately have historically governed more like Somalian warlords over their fiefdoms.

So really as African Americans we had no choice but to choose the lesser of the two evils...the Federal Government said "hey let those guys vote and integrate into the larger society". And wisely we went with the Feds seeing as how far too many states were content with letting their militia/death squad groups run roughshod over the freedoms of African Americans.

Nice try sneaking that "States Rights" stuff under our nose, but sorry charlie, that dog ain't huntin' here.

Originally Posted by roku

Right, Ron Paul doesn't think the Federal government should control those issues. How is that not socially liberal? You gotta take baby steps. If he tried to do this any other way it would fail , but AT LEAST, if states control these issues people have more power to move or change them.

[testa50]

Originally Posted by roku

The civil rights movement was fine but the issue Rand Paul had was with the LAWS that REQUIRED a private business to serve blacks. That is not freedom or libertarian.

Interesting stuff. Does this somehow involve state's rights too? Or are those issues separate?