Comments on: So Much for “Pro-Choice”

By: Ed Myers

Ed Myers — Mon, 10 Sep 2012 19:04:34 +0000

Having an opinion that something is a fact doesn’t make it so.

By: ACTivist

ACTivist — Mon, 10 Sep 2012 18:28:13 +0000

Taser, I, personally, don’t like Obama. How can I do this? Because his words and actions have shown lies, contempt, partisanship, less freedoms, back room dealings, positioning individuals and promoting thuggery, changing America to a socialistic society, disregard for the Constitution he was sworn to uphold, and on and on and on. All these things directly affect ME. Virginia had a Dem monopoly. How did that work out for us? Badly. If you want to stop party monopolies then I suggest you start a campaign to bring back conservatism to the Democrats because THAT is what is needed in all parties to adhere to our Constitution and form of government. All the rest you espouse just makes you drift farther from the truth and more into la-la land.

By: jack

jack — Mon, 10 Sep 2012 18:22:35 +0000

No — I stated FACT (that their policies have never produced the results stated as the intention of the policies). From that fact, I make a CONCLUSION, that they are either willfully ignorant or willfully deceptive.

By: Ed Myers

Ed Myers — Mon, 10 Sep 2012 18:07:32 +0000

..Because you are stating an opinion and not fact.

By: jack

jack — Mon, 10 Sep 2012 18:00:12 +0000

What is interesting is that you simply cannot argue that my premise or conclusions are wrong.

By: jack

jack — Mon, 10 Sep 2012 17:59:40 +0000

What’s to compromise on, Special Ed. When have the Demorats EVER compromised to achieve a conservative objective? There was no compromise on ACA because every amendment put forward by the Republicans was killed by the Demonrats.

By: Ed Myers

Ed Myers — Mon, 10 Sep 2012 17:24:15 +0000

Misspelling Democratic Party and Obama in a derogatory way and claiming everyone in an opposition party in positions of power are either ignorant or liars is pretty personal. If your party does not prevail in the election you have burned any bridges to compromise. That’s how we got ACA instead of bipartisan legislation. Independents do not find this political gamesmanship appealing.

By: jack

jack — Mon, 10 Sep 2012 16:43:09 +0000

I have no personal dislike of 0bama — I have never met the man. His policies, and those of the Demonrat Party, are simply bad. They do not accomplish their stated objectives. They have NEVER accomplished their stated objectives. Thus, we must either conclude that he and the rest of the Demonrats in power are either willfully ignorant, or are willfully misstating the intentions of their policies.

By: Ed Myers

Ed Myers — Mon, 10 Sep 2012 16:06:48 +0000

That’s a self-serving definition of political monopoly. Current party in power and the ability to use that position to bar competition (e.g. Redistricting, passing laws to reduce opposition votes, using government projects …military bases…to buy votes, passing legislation that favors constituents) is my definition of monopoly. Toggling between polarized political monopolies is not a stable political system and it is very expensive restructuring a government every 4 years. You have to have a reason bigger than a personal dislike for Obama to want to tear it all apart and start over. Good reform will occur with bipartisan support when parties accept that neither side is going to get all the marbles.

By: The Bulletproof Monk

The Bulletproof Monk — Mon, 10 Sep 2012 14:30:37 +0000

“Where’s the balance in the force?”

Indeed. Where has the balance in the force gotten us in the first two years of the Usurper’s term? Democrats in control of both Houses and the Presidency. We all know how that worked out. ONLY when the adults took one of those chambers back did the runaway train even attempt to hit the brakes. We’re about to witness a full brake application when the Senate elections are over and done.

By: jack

jack — Mon, 10 Sep 2012 13:51:46 +0000

Monopoly means that they cannot be disposed, Special Ed, such as the Communist Party in China.

By: Ed Myers

Ed Myers — Mon, 10 Sep 2012 12:28:13 +0000

Where’s the defense of one party monopoly control of government, jack?

You might try explaining how the combination of big business fuel by economies of scale and barriers to entry colluding with a government that thinks half the population has a mental illness is going to expand choices and freedom for everyone in the country.

By: jack

jack — Mon, 10 Sep 2012 00:37:07 +0000

> Capitalism leads to monopoly unless government intervenes….

It’s a nice theory, Special Ed, but one without merit.

You seem to know as much about capitalism as you do digestion — nothing.

By: Ed Myers

Ed Myers — Sun, 09 Sep 2012 16:22:32 +0000

Capitalism leads to monopoly unless government intervenes to prevent consolidation or collusion. With monopoly there is no choice. Big government and Big business are both enemies of individual freedom.

My approach is to try to keep a balance between the party that aligns with big government and the party that aligns with big business. Maximum personal freedom comes from neither side getting too much power.

So explain why independent Loudouners with a unanimous GOP board and a GOP state government should give the GOP power of the federal government too. Where’s the balance in the force?

By: jack

jack — Sun, 09 Sep 2012 01:03:58 +0000

> Which political philosophy provides the most personal freedom of choice?

Conservatism.

> And who do we trust to have our best interests in mind: government or corporations?

False choice. The answer is INDIVIDUALS.

But, between the two false choices, I would have to say corporations. If the corporations do not cater to their customers, they go out of business. Governments, not so much. They tend to call their unhappy people “dissidents” and put THEM “out of business.”