[lnkForumImage]
TotalShareware - Download Free Software
Confronta i prezzi di migliaia di prodotti.
Asp Forum
 Home | Login | Register | Search 


 

Forums >

comp.lang.ruby

Re: About class methods visibility (public/private

John Joyce

3/23/2007 2:52:00 AM

wow. Good interpretation!
Explicitly typing names of things helps too.
14 Answers

Cruz is a Cuban anchor baby

11/7/2013 9:15:00 PM

0

Which essentially means you are a lazy fuck who voted for Obama!!!
Thanks for clearing that mystery up.

And now you sit alone at your computer believing conspiracy ko0oks and wishing for the days of 1950 's when racism was open and white was all that mattered.

Boo.

bigdog

11/7/2013 10:20:00 PM

0

On Thursday, November 7, 2013 4:06:37 PM UTC-5, deep wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Nov 2013 12:05:13 -0800 (PST), bigdog
>
> What would have been his motive to murder Kennedy?

Having verbally sparred with conspiracy theorists over the years, it never surprises me when one tries to make their case by raising questions rather than answering them.

> He had none.

He had a motive. We just don't know what it was. He never confessed to the crime so naturally wouldn't tell anyone why he did it. He left behind no manifesto or any other clues. Whatever his motive was, he took it to his grave and left us to guess as to what it was. Here's my guesss which is no better or worse than anybody else's. Oswald was a pathetic little loser who was pissed off at the world for his miserable lot in life. He never fit in anywhere or achieved anything, other than a Sharpshooter rating from the USMC. Then random chance dealt him a once in a lifetime opportunity to do something that would not only make him famous but deal an extreme emotional blow to a country he hated. He seized that opportunity and for what may have been the first time in his life, he actually succeeded at something. The irony is he didn't live long enough to enjoy it. Ever since then the conspiracy theorists have been trying to deny Oswald the credit for the one thing in his life he succeeded at.

> What
> would the central banks motive been to murder Kennedy? Federal
> Reserve Notes were worth TRILLIONS of dollars a year to the central
> banks. You don't think a banker would hire a hit man to murder
> Kennedy for trillions of dollars a year?
>
Lots of people and groups had motives. That doesn't mean they acted on it. The evidence tells us only one guy acted on it. That guy was Oswald.
>
>
> Kennedy was a commoner wealthy from booze money and a progressive who
> messed around with hot chicks. The conservative aristocracy
> establishment hated him anyway.

You don't think the conservative aristocracy messes around with hot chicks?

> Then he tried to abolish Federal
> Reserve Notes. The bankers were facing losing total control of our
> money supply and trillions a year.
>
> Occam's Razor applies.

Be careful you don't cut your throat with it. On second thought....

JohnJohnsn

11/8/2013 11:23:00 PM

0

In article <66535404-0abd-4eb4-9aba-b5f1f883b16c@googlegroups.com>, JE
Corbett, a/k/a bigdog <jecorbett1951@yahoo.com> says...
>
> On Thursday, November 7, 2013 4:06:37 PM UTC-5, deep shit wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 7 Nov 2013 12:05:13 -0800 (PST), bigdog
>>
>> What would have been his motive to murder Kennedy?
>
> Having verbally sparred with conspiracy theorists over the years,
> it never surprises me when one tries to make their case by raising
> questions rather than answering them.
>
>> He had none.
>
> He had a motive.
> We just don't know what it was.
> He never confessed to the crime so naturally wouldn't tell anyone why he did it.
> He left behind no manifesto or any other clues.
> Whatever his motive was, he took it to his grave and left us to guess as to what it was.
>
Nor do we know why, seven months earlier (on April 10, 1963), Oswald
attempted to assassinate the life-long Texan and retired U.S. Army General
Edwin "Ted" Walker; who lived in Dallas after his retirement from the
U.S.Army.

After all, Kennedy was a conservative Democrat (as viewed today), while
General Walker was a "hard-right" Conservative political activist.

BTW: Oswald purchased the 6.5mm Carcano Model 91/38 rifle on March 12, 1963
from Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago (then located @ 227 W. Washington St.
6060d) a month before he used it in the attempted Walker assassination.

deep

11/8/2013 11:38:00 PM

0

On Fri, 8 Nov 2013 17:22:50 -0600, Johnny Johnson
<TopCop1988@yahoo.com> wrote:

>In article <66535404-0abd-4eb4-9aba-b5f1f883b16c@googlegroups.com>, JE
>Corbett, a/k/a bigdog <jecorbett1951@yahoo.com> says...
>>
>> On Thursday, November 7, 2013 4:06:37 PM UTC-5, deep shit wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 7 Nov 2013 12:05:13 -0800 (PST), bigdog
>>>
>>> What would have been his motive to murder Kennedy?
>>
>> Having verbally sparred with conspiracy theorists over the years,
>> it never surprises me when one tries to make their case by raising
>> questions rather than answering them.
>>
>>> He had none.
>>
>> He had a motive.
>> We just don't know what it was.
>> He never confessed to the crime so naturally wouldn't tell anyone why he did it.
>> He left behind no manifesto or any other clues.
>> Whatever his motive was, he took it to his grave and left us to guess as to what it was.
>>
>Nor do we know why, seven months earlier (on April 10, 1963), Oswald
>attempted to assassinate the life-long Texan and retired U.S. Army General
>Edwin "Ted" Walker; who lived in Dallas after his retirement from the
>U.S.Army.
>
>After all, Kennedy was a conservative Democrat (as viewed today), while
>General Walker was a "hard-right" Conservative political activist.

Kennedy was very much a progressive, who took on the powerful
establishment for the sake of The People.

And they killed him for it.

You know damn well they would do it without hestitation. Not only
that they probably celebrated with Dom and Cubans afterwards.

>
>BTW: Oswald purchased the 6.5mm Carcano Model 91/38 rifle on March 12, 1963
>from Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago (then located @ 227 W. Washington St.
>6060d) a month before he used it in the attempted Walker assassination.

JohnJohnsn

11/9/2013 5:19:00 AM

0

In article <n6tq799v1e8qc2h8sqs1ivvbuc9pl4lgq2@4ax.com>, deep shit (Tiefe
Scheiße) <dudu@propagandists.dnc.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 8 Nov 2013 17:22:50 -0600, Johnny Johnson
> <TopCop1988@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <66535404-0abd-4eb4-9aba-b5f1f883b16c@googlegroups.com>,
>> JE Corbett, a/k/a bigdog <jecorbett1951@yahoo.com> says...
>>
>>> On Thursday, November 7, 2013 4:06:37 PM UTC-5, deep shit wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 7 Nov 2013 12:05:13 -0800 (PST), bigdog
>>>>
>>>> What would have been his motive to murder Kennedy?
>>>
>>> Having verbally sparred with conspiracy theorists over the years,
>>> it never surprises me when one tries to make their case by raising
>>> questions rather than answering them.
>>>
>>>> He had none.
>>>
>>> He had a motive.
>>> We just don't know what it was.
>>> He never confessed to the crime so naturally wouldn't tell anyone why he
did it.
>>> He left behind no manifesto or any other clues.
>>> Whatever his motive was, he took it to his grave and left us to guess as
to what it was.
>>
>> Nor do we know why, seven months earlier (on April 10, 1963), Oswald
>> attempted to assassinate the life-long Texan and retired U.S. Army General
>> Edwin "Ted" Walker; who lived in Dallas after his retirement from the
>> U.S.Army.
>>
>> After all, Kennedy was a conservative Democrat (as viewed today),
>> while General Walker was a "hard-right" Conservative political activist.
>
> Kennedy was very much a progressive, who took on the powerful
> establishment for the sake of The People.
>
Really, Dipshit?

Seems as though history, and The Boston Globe, disagrees with that claim:

Would JFK, never a Liberal, still find a home in the Democrat Party?

Would Democrats embrace JFK now?
By Jeff Jacoby | Globe Columnist
October 20, 2013

As Democrats begin maneuvering for the 2016 presidential race, there isn't
one who would think of disparaging John F. Kennedy's stature as a Democratic
Party hero. Yet it's a pretty safe bet that none would dream of running on
Kennedy's approach to government or embrace his political beliefs.

Today's Democratic Party --- the home of Barack Obama, John Kerry, and Al
Gore --- wouldn't give the time of day to a candidate like JFK.

The 35th president was an ardent tax-cutter who championed across-the-board,
top-to-bottom reductions in personal and corporate tax rates, slashed tariffs
to promote free trade, and even spoke out against the "confiscatory" property
taxes being levied in too many cities.

He was anything but a big-spending, welfare-state liberal. "I do not believe
that Washington should do for the people what they can do for themselves
through local and private effort," Kennedy bluntly avowed during the 1960
campaign. One of his first acts as president was to institute a pay cut for
top White House staffers, and that was only the start of his budgetary
austerity. "To the surprise of many of his appointees," longtime aide Ted
Sorensen would later write, he "personally scrutinized every agency request
with a cold eye and encouraged his budget director to say ?no.' "

On the other hand, he was a Cold War anticommunist who aggressively increased
military spending. He faulted his Republican predecessor for tailoring the
nation's military strategy to fit the budget, rather than the other way
around. "We must refuse to accept a cheap, second-best defense," JFK said
during his run for the White House. He made good on that pledge, pushing
defense spending to 50 percent of federal expenditures and 9 percent of GDP,
both far higher than today's levels. Speaking in Texas just hours before his
death, he proudly took credit for building the US military into "a defense
system second to none."

Since that terrible day in Dallas 50 years ago, popular mythology has turned
Kennedy into a liberal hero. Some of that mythmaking, as journalist and
historian Ira Stoll argues in a new book, "JFK, Conservative," was driven by
Kennedy aides, such as Sorensen and Arthur Schlesinger Jr., who had always
wanted their boss to be more left-leaning than he was. Some of it was fueled
by the Democratic Party's emotional connection to the memory of a martyred
president, and its understandable desire to link their priorities to his
legacy.

But Kennedy was no liberal. By any reasonable definition, he was a
conservative --- and not just by the standards of our era, but by those of
his era as well.

Stoll draws on an embarrassment of riches to make his case.

When the young JFK launched his first political campaign for the US House in
1946, a profile in Look magazine homed in on his conservatism:

"When young, wealthy, and conservative John Fitzgerald Kennedy announced for
Congress, many people wondered why," it began. "Hardly a liberal even by his
own standards, Kennedy is mainly concerned by what appears to him as the
coming struggle between collectivism and capitalism. In speech after speech
he charges his audience ?to battle for the old ideas with the same enthusiasm
that people have for new ideas.' "

He hadn't changed his political stripes by the time he ran for the Senate in
1952, challenging incumbent Henry Cabot Lodge Jr. Stoll notes that
Massachusetts newspapers wanting to back a liberal in that race came out for
the Republican --- the Berkshire Eagle, for example, endorsed Lodge as "an
invaluable voice for liberalism." When his reelection in 1958 made it clear
that Kennedy would be running for the Democratic presidential nomination,
Eleanor Roosevelt was asked in a TV interview whom she would support if
forced to choose "between a conservative Democrat like Kennedy and a liberal
Republican [like] Rockefeller." FDR's widow, then as now a progressive icon,
answered that she would do all she could to make sure Kennedy wouldn't be the
party's nominee.

Many on the left felt that way about JFK. When he decided to resume nuclear
testing in 1962, Bertrand Russell attacked him as "much more wicked than
Hitler," and Linus Pauling, who would receive that year's Nobel Peace Prize,
predicted that he would "go down in history as . . . one of the greatest
enemies of the human race." Left-wing intellectuals raged against Kennedy's
failed attempt to topple Fidel Castro (the renowned sociologist C. Wright
Mills said the administration had "returned us to barbarism"). Liberals
within the administration expressed dismay for Kennedy's unwavering support
for tax cuts. Schlesinger called one of Kennedy's exhortations "the worst
speech the president had ever given."

Nearly 30 years ago, an essay in Mother Jones magazine asked: "Would JFK Be a
Hero Now?" If the answer wasn't obvious then, it certainly is now. In today's
political environment, a candidate like JFK --- a conservative champion of
economic growth, tax cuts, limited government, peace through strength ---
plainly would be a hero. Whether he would be a Democrat is a different matter
altogether.

Jeff Jacoby can be reached at jacoby@globe.com.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2...
>
> And they killed him for it.
>
"They"???

Who was "They"???
>
> You know damn well they would do it without hestitation. Not only
> that they probably celebrated with Dom and Cubans afterwards.
>
>> BTW: Oswald purchased the 6.5mm Carcano Model 91/38 rifle on March 12,
1963
>> from Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago (then located @ 227 W. Washington
St.
>> 6060d) a month before he used it in the attempted Walker assassination.





Would JFK, never a Liberal, still find a home in the Democrat Party?

Would Democrats embrace JFK now?
By Jeff Jacoby | Globe Columnist
October 20, 2013

As Democrats begin maneuvering for the 2016 presidential race, there isn't
one who would think of disparaging John F. Kennedy's stature as a Democratic
Party hero. Yet it's a pretty safe bet that none would dream of running on
Kennedy's approach to government or embrace his political beliefs.

Today's Democratic Party --- the home of Barack Obama, John Kerry, and Al
Gore --- wouldn't give the time of day to a candidate like JFK.

The 35th president was an ardent tax-cutter who championed across-the-board,
top-to-bottom reductions in personal and corporate tax rates, slashed tariffs
to promote free trade, and even spoke out against the "confiscatory" property
taxes being levied in too many cities.

He was anything but a big-spending, welfare-state liberal. "I do not believe
that Washington should do for the people what they can do for themselves
through local and private effort," Kennedy bluntly avowed during the 1960
campaign. One of his first acts as president was to institute a pay cut for
top White House staffers, and that was only the start of his budgetary
austerity. "To the surprise of many of his appointees," longtime aide Ted
Sorensen would later write, he "personally scrutinized every agency request
with a cold eye and encouraged his budget director to say ?no.' "

On the other hand, he was a Cold War anticommunist who aggressively increased
military spending. He faulted his Republican predecessor for tailoring the
nation's military strategy to fit the budget, rather than the other way
around. "We must refuse to accept a cheap, second-best defense," JFK said
during his run for the White House. He made good on that pledge, pushing
defense spending to 50 percent of federal expenditures and 9 percent of GDP,
both far higher than today's levels. Speaking in Texas just hours before his
death, he proudly took credit for building the US military into "a defense
system second to none."

Since that terrible day in Dallas 50 years ago, popular mythology has turned
Kennedy into a liberal hero. Some of that mythmaking, as journalist and
historian Ira Stoll argues in a new book, "JFK, Conservative," was driven by
Kennedy aides, such as Sorensen and Arthur Schlesinger Jr., who had always
wanted their boss to be more left-leaning than he was. Some of it was fueled
by the Democratic Party's emotional connection to the memory of a martyred
president, and its understandable desire to link their priorities to his
legacy.

But Kennedy was no liberal. By any reasonable definition, he was a
conservative --- and not just by the standards of our era, but by those of
his era as well.

Stoll draws on an embarrassment of riches to make his case.

When the young JFK launched his first political campaign for the US House in
1946, a profile in Look magazine homed in on his conservatism:

"When young, wealthy, and conservative John Fitzgerald Kennedy announced for
Congress, many people wondered why," it began. "Hardly a liberal even by his
own standards, Kennedy is mainly concerned by what appears to him as the
coming struggle between collectivism and capitalism. In speech after speech
he charges his audience ?to battle for the old ideas with the same enthusiasm
that people have for new ideas.' "

He hadn't changed his political stripes by the time he ran for the Senate in
1952, challenging incumbent Henry Cabot Lodge Jr. Stoll notes that
Massachusetts newspapers wanting to back a liberal in that race came out for
the Republican --- the Berkshire Eagle, for example, endorsed Lodge as "an
invaluable voice for liberalism." When his reelection in 1958 made it clear
that Kennedy would be running for the Democratic presidential nomination,
Eleanor Roosevelt was asked in a TV interview whom she would support if
forced to choose "between a conservative Democrat like Kennedy and a liberal
Republican [like] Rockefeller." FDR's widow, then as now a progressive icon,
answered that she would do all she could to make sure Kennedy wouldn't be the
party's nominee.

Many on the left felt that way about JFK. When he decided to resume nuclear
testing in 1962, Bertrand Russell attacked him as "much more wicked than
Hitler," and Linus Pauling, who would receive that year's Nobel Peace Prize,
predicted that he would "go down in history as . . . one of the greatest
enemies of the human race." Left-wing intellectuals raged against Kennedy's
failed attempt to topple Fidel Castro (the renowned sociologist C. Wright
Mills said the administration had "returned us to barbarism"). Liberals
within the administration expressed dismay for Kennedy's unwavering support
for tax cuts. Schlesinger called one of Kennedy's exhortations "the worst
speech the president had ever given."

Nearly 30 years ago, an essay in Mother Jones magazine asked: "Would JFK Be a
Hero Now?" If the answer wasn't obvious then, it certainly is now. In today's
political environment, a candidate like JFK --- a conservative champion of
economic growth, tax cuts, limited government, peace through strength ---
plainly would be a hero. Whether he would be a Democrat is a different matter
altogether.

Jeff Jacoby can be reached at jacoby@globe.com.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2...would-jfk-never-liberal-still-
find-home-democratic-party/ZrxV7lJYHrvWxOjXItAuZJ/story.html

pyotr filipivich

11/16/2013 11:24:00 PM

0

Let the Record show that Johnny Johnson <TopCop1988@yahoo.com> on or
about Thu, 7 Nov 2013 09:09:51 -0600 did write, type or otherwise
cause to appear in talk.politics.guns the following:
>In article <229f2737-5035-4e6e-9d38-7141a79d8eb7@googlegroups.com>, the
>VLILLLDM who is so stupid he believes that Cruz is a Cuban anchor baby
><loonkiller@gmail.com> says...
>>
>> You are so gullible.
>> I bet you voted for a Mexican born Polygamist...
>>
>False ad hominems don't aid in your gaining credibility, Loon.
>>
>>... believing he would be your savior too.
>>
>Actually, Loon; I'm one of the many thousands who stayed home on Election Day
>because he knew there wasn't a single candidate on the presidential ballot
>worth the gas to drive to the polls.

Fnord.

Forgot the mission, eh? Remember that - to keep the progressive
out of office?

That, is the main issue I have with the doctrinally pure,
especially the Libertarians. They'd rather sit out the general
election, than vote to keep the leftist out of the office. I didn't
say "vote for the most doctrinally pure candidate" I said "vote to
keep the leftist out."
What is the mission for conservatives? In the primaries - to get
the most conservative candidate on the ballot for November. After the
primaries? To keep the more progressive candidate out of office.
AKA "taking a stiff drink and voting for prohibition", to use an
old phrase.
It also means, "Operation Counterweight". Don't just vote for the
Presidential candidate, vote down ticket. If the TEA Party had won
bigger in the House and Senate in 2012, it would not have mattered if
the President Elect was on our left, or on our far left. But that is
another (and more local) issue.

Remember, the primary issue is always to get the most conservative
candidate selected for the November election. In November (and the
run up to it) the mission is to keep the progressive out of office,
and vote a more conservative Congress for whomever to deal with.
All applied game theory, real-politik. And yes, that is the ideal
situation. Heck, in the ideal world, ... this would not be an issue.
We could elect the village idiot and it wouldn't matter, because of
the lack of ability for them to screw up our lives.

But this is the real world, and there are certain objective
realities, comrade, which we must consider.


tschus
pyotr
.
--
pyotr filipivich
TV NEWS: Yesterday's newspaper read to the illiterate.

bigdog

11/17/2013 1:38:00 PM

0

On Saturday, November 16, 2013 6:23:30 PM UTC-5, pyotr filipivich wrote:
>
> That, is the main issue I have with the doctrinally pure,
> especially the Libertarians. They'd rather sit out the general
> election, than vote to keep the leftist out of the office. I didn't
> say "vote for the most doctrinally pure candidate" I said "vote to
> keep the leftist out."

I don't pretend to speak for all Libertarians but I can speak for myself. The reason I rarely vote Republican any more is because I don't want the GOP to think they can take my vote for granted. If they think they can get my vote by doing no more than paying lip service to the things I believe in while at the same time working hand in hand with the Democrats to expand the role of government in our lives, what reason do they have to move even slightly toward what I believe. Sometimes you have to accept short term pain for long term gain.

I also part company with the social conservatives. As Libertarian, I don't believe government should tell people how they should live their lives as long as they aren't infringing upon the rights of others to do likewise. I support drug legalization. I'm OK with gay marriage.

Then we get things from so called conservatives such as the Patriot Act, a complete abomination. So there is much for me not to like about the GOP base conservatives.

In this past election, I did hold my nose and vote for Romney. It was the first time since 1992 I voted for the GOP candidate for President and even my vote for Bush41 was less than enthusiastic. I did it because in this case the short term pain was too great for one simple reason. SCOTUS. Obama has already appointed two justices but has only been able to replace liberals with liberals so the balance of the court has not been upset. That will not be the case if he gets to replace Scalia and/or Thomas. Ginsburg is also getting up in years and is not in the best of health, so it is not beyond the realm of possibility that Obama could appoint three more justices, giving us an Obama majority on the court for the next generation and that is too bitter to contemplate.

If the GOP wants me back on a regular basis, they are going to have to do better than offer up the buckets of shit we have gotten recently. Bob Dole was a good man and probably would have been an OK President. I certainly wouldn't say the same about Bush43 or McCain. Especially McCain. I would love to see the Tea Party gain control of the GOP and start giving us candidates like Goldwater and Reagan. I would enthusiastically come back to them if that were to happen. But as long as the middle-of-the-road big government Republicans are in the driver's seat, they will rarely get my vote.

Klaus Schadenfreude

11/17/2013 3:01:00 PM

0

On Sun, 17 Nov 2013 05:37:33 -0800 (PST), bigdog
<jecorbett1951@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, November 16, 2013 6:23:30 PM UTC-5, pyotr filipivich wrote:
>>
>> That, is the main issue I have with the doctrinally pure,
>> especially the Libertarians. They'd rather sit out the general
>> election, than vote to keep the leftist out of the office. I didn't
>> say "vote for the most doctrinally pure candidate" I said "vote to
>> keep the leftist out."
>
>I don't pretend to speak for all Libertarians but I can speak for myself. The reason I rarely vote Republican any more is because I don't want the GOP to think they can take my vote for granted. If they think they can get my vote by doing no more than paying lip service to the things I believe in while at the same time working hand in hand with the Democrats to expand the role of government in our lives, what reason do they have to move even slightly toward what I believe. Sometimes you have to accept short term pain for long term gain.
>
>I also part company with the social conservatives. As Libertarian, I don't believe government should tell people how they should live their lives as long as they aren't infringing upon the rights of others to do likewise. I support drug legalization. I'm OK with gay marriage.
>
>Then we get things from so called conservatives such as the Patriot Act, a complete abomination. So there is much for me not to like about the GOP base conservatives.
>
>In this past election, I did hold my nose and vote for Romney. It was the first time since 1992 I voted for the GOP candidate for President and even my vote for Bush41 was less than enthusiastic. I did it because in this case the short term pain was too great for one simple reason. SCOTUS. Obama has already appointed two justices but has only been able to replace liberals with liberals so the balance of the court has not been upset. That will not be the case if he gets to replace Scalia and/or Thomas. Ginsburg is also getting up in years and is not in the best of health, so it is not beyond the realm of possibility that Obama could appoint three more justices, giving us an Obama majority on the court for the next generation and that is too bitter to contemplate.
>
>If the GOP wants me back on a regular basis, they are going to have to do better than offer up the buckets of shit we have gotten recently. Bob Dole was a good man and probably would have been an OK President. I certainly wouldn't say the same about Bush43 or McCain. Especially McCain. I would love to see the Tea Party gain control of the GOP and start giving us candidates like Goldwater and Reagan. I would enthusiastically come back to them if that were to happen. But as long as the middle-of-the-road big government Republicans are in the driver's seat, they will rarely get my vote.

I vote for the best guy, regardless of party-- if there is one.

I'm tired of voting to "keep people out."

I find Democrats AND Republicans generally embarrassing.

Gray Guest

11/17/2013 7:10:00 PM

0

bigdog <jecorbett1951@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:2dd46889-3935-4c93-b275-4205d0a41782@googlegroups.com:

> On Saturday, November 16, 2013 6:23:30 PM UTC-5, pyotr filipivich wrote:
>>
>> That, is the main issue I have with the doctrinally pure,
>> especially the Libertarians. They'd rather sit out the general
>> election, than vote to keep the leftist out of the office. I didn't
>> say "vote for the most doctrinally pure candidate" I said "vote to
>> keep the leftist out."
>
> I don't pretend to speak for all Libertarians but I can speak for
> myself. The reason I rarely vote Republican any more is because I don't
> want the GOP to think they can take my vote for granted. If they think
> they can get my vote by doing no more than paying lip service to the
> things I believe in while at the same time working hand in hand with the
> Democrats to expand the role of government in our lives, what reason do
> they have to move even slightly toward what I believe. Sometimes you
> have to accept short term pain for long term gain.
>
> I also part company with the social conservatives. As Libertarian, I
> don't believe government should tell people how they should live their
> lives as long as they aren't infringing upon the rights of others to do
> likewise. I support drug legalization. I'm OK with gay marriage.
>
> Then we get things from so called conservatives such as the Patriot Act,
> a complete abomination. So there is much for me not to like about the
> GOP base conservatives.
>
> In this past election, I did hold my nose and vote for Romney. It was
> the first time since 1992 I voted for the GOP candidate for President
> and even my vote for Bush41 was less than enthusiastic. I did it because
> in this case the short term pain was too great for one simple reason.
> SCOTUS. Obama has already appointed two justices but has only been able
> to replace liberals with liberals so the balance of the court has not
> been upset. That will not be the case if he gets to replace Scalia
> and/or Thomas. Ginsburg is also getting up in years and is not in the
> best of health, so it is not beyond the realm of possibility that Obama
> could appoint three more justices, giving us an Obama majority on the
> court for the next generation and that is too bitter to contemplate.
>
> If the GOP wants me back on a regular basis, they are going to have to
> do better than offer up the buckets of shit we have gotten recently. Bob
> Dole was a good man and probably would have been an OK President. I
> certainly wouldn't say the same about Bush43 or McCain. Especially
> McCain. I would love to see the Tea Party gain control of the GOP and
> start giving us candidates like Goldwater and Reagan. I would
> enthusiastically come back to them if that were to happen. But as long
> as the middle-of-the-road big government Republicans are in the driver's
> seat, they will rarely get my vote.
>

Robert Sarvis.

Yeah, how did that work out for you?

You want to keep throwing elections to the Democrats, than as far as I'm
concerned you are just another enemy.

--
Republicans really aren't human beings, so there is no harm, no foul.

Kirby Grant - Nov 3, 2013

Telling us his views of the world.

bigdog

11/17/2013 10:12:00 PM

0

On Sunday, November 17, 2013 2:10:01 PM UTC-5, Guy Fawkes wrote:
>
> Yeah, how did that work out for you?
>
Like it would have worked out well if I continued to vote for the big government GOP. I don't know where the Republicans got the idea that they are more attractive to Libertarians than the Democrats are. There are good people in the GOP, such as Rand Paul, but they are the outliers. When the GOP does more than just pay lip service to cutting the size of government, I'll continue to vote for minor party candidates. I don't want to waste my vote on people who don't believe what I do.
>
> You want to keep throwing elections to the Democrats, than as far as I'm
> concerned you are just another enemy.
>
I can live with that. One major party is as bad as the other. Sometimes the individuals who are on the ballot will give me a reason to vote for or against them, but as a party, I don't find either of them attractive options.