For my Libertarian friends

stonebeard wrote: Did anyone actually vote for Bob Barr in 08?

You know what's spooky about Bobbar?  He has an editorial column that appears in the local paper.  Since he ceased being a politician, he's actually become a lot more reasonable.


Edited by Slartibartfast - July 01 2010 at 17:26

Dean wrote: Slartibartfast wrote: Well, the party part sounds good.  The tea however frightens me. As an Engishman I find the terms "tea" and "party" to most favourable - it's when you put the two words together I feel offended.

Contrary to popular belief, we never really wanted to start a war for independence with the Tea Party, we were just upset it wasn't the long overdue coffee shipment. 

Dean wrote: Padraic wrote: Dean wrote: Slartibartfast wrote: Well, the party part sounds good.  The tea however frightens me. As an Englishman I find the terms "tea" and "party" to be most favourable - it's when you put the two words together I feel offended. Still offended?  That was a long time ago.   So long ago it bearly gets a footnote in our history books... where is it in yours?

Prominently featured of course. 

I actually watched on live TV the entire Libertarian convention vote when Barr beat out the true Libertarian candidate (I forget her name). Not a good day for true Libertarians, many were pissed and vowed to drop out of the party. Kind of reminded me of when Nader usurped the Green Party. Previously the Green Party had wisely vowed to stay out of presidential politics and tried to work only on local levels where they could be more effective and true to their ideals.

Edited by Easy Money - July 01 2010 at 22:50

I was wondering if any of you guys get into Henry George influenced Libertarianism which espouses land ownership and taxes and has community needs paid for by use of the land?

To be fair Anton, I said the Tea Party scares me...not the protesters 
They all don't. Some of the crazy ones with racist/actually offensive signs kind of do because I wonder how many are doing it for attention and how many are serious.
But overall, no the protesters don't scare me....what are they really gunna do? Its these people running for office though...

Which also means, G20 protesters don't scare me
and neither would you if you joined a tea party protest.
Its all these people that running that scare me since, you know they'll be in power. Im not saying dont do whats right for the country overall all that, but considering the situation, Im just amazed at how little they seem to give a sh*t about people and just put $ before everything.

Meh, too tired. And now I can't stop thinking about Bob Barr's glorious moustache, and damn it Stoney....something about that avatar....


Edited by JJLehto - July 02 2010 at 00:54

Slartibartfast wrote: stonebeard wrote: Did anyone actually vote for Bob Barr in 08? You know what's spooky about Bobbar?  He has an editorial column that appears in the local paper.  Since he ceased being a politician, he's actually become a lot more reasonable.

Makes perfect sense. Regardless of ideology...I think being in politics will warp your mind, period!

Its actually amazing Robert Byrd was in Congress for 58 years. Have the news on for 58 minutes and I want to smash my head in. How anyone could put up with ANY politician for some amount of time, let alone 58 years, is mind boggling.

JJLehto wrote: Slartibartfast wrote: stonebeard wrote: Did anyone actually vote for Bob Barr in 08? You know what's spooky about Bobbar?  He has an editorial column that appears in the local paper.  Since he ceased being a politician, he's actually become a lot more reasonable. Makes perfect sense. Regardless of ideology...I think being in politics will warp your mind, period! Its actually amazing Robert Byrd was in Congress for 58 years. Have the news on for 58 minutes and I want to smash my head in. How anyone could put up with ANY politician for some amount of time, let alone 58 years, is mind boggling.

Byrd delivered the money to the state.  The puzzling thing is that he abandoned the KKK along time ago and still got re-elected many times after.

Dean wrote: Epignosis wrote: City lays off all city employees and relies on contractors...and things are better for them financially. How does that work exactly? Private companies are not charities, they have to make a profit. If they are providing the same services at the same manpower then their wage bill will be the same, the cost of materials and supplies will be the same and their overheads (management staff, support staff, vehicle maintenance, health & safety, buildings etc) will also be the same. So if their outlay is the same and their income is less (as implied in the article), then how do they turn that deficit into a profit?   If City Hall cannot get liability and compensation insurance cover then where are the private contractors getting it? Surely the risk to the insurer is the same regardless of who "owns" the police force, fire service, parks department, etc.   Also the staff levels at City Hall don't suddenly drop to zero, they now need departments to manage the contracts and contractors, to process bids, to negotiate contracts, to assess contractors, to check that the services provided meet required standards and to manage complaints and disputes against the contractors... these are not low-paid positions. If anything the bureaucracy increases, even if it is transfered to the neighbouring city...   Sounds like creative accounting to me.

Independent contractors do not receive benefits, unemployment compensation, and many other perks full employment requires by law (I myself am an IC).  This saves the city a mint.