The trend is clear...

[Diogenes]

Will only solve the problem temporarily.

It only has to be done once if done right.

And what do you think the probabilities are of that occurring when the benefactors of destructive programs are the deciding factor in every election?

End the programs (you may have to adjust that - say for people over 45)

Politically impossible.

and pay for those still in them with the land. Sell enough every year to pay for the spending.

Pointless if you cannot end, or severely overhaul the programs.

BTW I'm open to reason. You just haven't presented ones that convince me.

That's because you can't get the big picture by looking at just a few puzzle pieces, you have to be able to see how they all fit together. Read some Edmund Burke.

I always work to improve my messaging. It is how I got Polywell refunded. I kept adjusting my message to handle comments and objections.

I operate on the principle that if my message is not getting through it is my fault.

You've been around long enough to know that there are some people who cannot be reasoned with because they lack sufficient (and of the right type) knowledge to comprehend the argument. Furthermore, they are resistant to being made acquainted with the necessary knowledge.

[MSimon]

As far as I know D it is the Libertarians who have consistently called for ending all the programs you object to. Harry Browne ran on a platform of doing that in 2000. It was Ron Paul's Platform in '88. Both got my vote.

And yet you have a great deal of difficulty allying with them.

===

I suppose that in 10 years or so when Prohibition is a moot question you will be able to. But the communists will be even more entrenched. It will be even more difficult.

You can see that Prohibition is dying. Like it or not we are doing the experiment in reverse. Relegalizing.

Why not work with them now on the issues you agree on? It is what I do with every political question. Why do you need 100% agreement to make alliances?

[MSimon]

You've been around long enough to know that there are some people who cannot be reasoned with because they lack sufficient (and of the right type) knowledge to comprehend the argument. Furthermore, they are resistant to being made acquainted with the necessary knowledge.

The only thing I'm willing to admit is that some are more difficult than others. But my take is that I don't need 100% popular agreement to push my agenda forward. In some cases all I need is 70% to 90% agreement. I can get that. In other cases 55% agreement is enough.

The Republicans as currently constituted can't even get to 55% Nationally. Pitiful. And they are unwilling to change enough to get that 55%. Stupid.

You keep saying that the fiscal question is the most critical. So why not drop everything else and work on that?

Let me point out three areas where the Republicans refuse to face political reality.

1. Drug Prohibition a. - Med Pot has 70% to 85% support (depending on the poll)
2. Drug Prohibition b. - Pot legalization has 48% to 56% support (depending on the poll) and the support has not peaked
3. Abortion - Americans are generally opposed - but not opposed enough to make it a government issue - Drug War style enforcement on the vaginas of America is not an attractive proposition

=============

The Republicans are getting beaten on these side issues and thus their main issue is not attended to. Every one of the above is - in the current situation - a distraction.

You would think that on Med Pot at least votes and morals would call for a different position from the Republicans. You would be wrong.

The smartest thing Republicans could do today is support this to take the issue off the table:

Rep. Jared Polis introduced legislation Tuesday that removes marijuana from the Controlled Substances Act and shifts it from the Drug Enforcement Agency to be regulated by the renamed Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Marijuana and Firearms.

Polis, along with Democrat Rep. Earl Blumenauer of Oregon, are seeking to have that new bureau regulate marijuana as it does alcohol. States and municipalities could still choose to prohibit marijuana production, and it would still be illegal to transport marijuana to a state where it is prohibited.

http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ ... rijuana-at

==============

Will they? Doubtful. This could very well lead to a drubbing at the polls in 2014 and there goes your last bulwark on the spending issue - the House.

And I have been warning of a 1932 in 2016 over the prohibition question. The only Republican who seems to take that seriously is Rand Paul. And you have a visceral dislike for him. As do more than a few of the "throw the Libertarians out of the Party" faction.

Ah. Well.

========

In 2004 I was of the opinion that we needed one more Bush term to institutionalize the war on jihad. I politiced and voted accordingly. I got my wish. And now the war is a two party war. Good.

========

Republicans will come around. But not until they get severely bashed.

Too bad. For the country.

[Diogenes]

As far as I know D it is the Libertarians who have consistently called for ending all the programs you object to. Harry Browne ran on a platform of doing that in 2000. It was Ron Paul's Platform in '88. Both got my vote.

And yet you have a great deal of difficulty allying with them.

It is like allying with Uruguay. They might be on the same side, but they have no muscle to back it up, and are therefore useless.

On the other hand, Given the Mighty Republicans tendency to sit on their muscles and do nothing, perhaps a little guy who's willing to fight is not such a bad idea, but the situation is exactly like France's commitment to the cause of the United States. Till the Americans showed that they even had a chance of victory, it was pointless to support them.

Paul needs a Battle of Saratoga to be taken seriously, and then you might get a preference cascade.

I suppose that in 10 years or so when Prohibition is a moot question you will be able to. But the communists will be even more entrenched. It will be even more difficult.

And obviously you think people's ability to use drugs is more important than keeping communism at bay. This is one reason why people think libertarians are loons. There is at least an order of magnitude difference in the level of importance.

You can see that Prohibition is dying. Like it or not we are doing the experiment in reverse. Relegalizing.

What I see is that EVERYTHING is dying. Society is coming apart and I think it's going to be ugly. The waxing of the drug legalization movement is but one more symptom of a society that will soon devolve into anarchy and bloodshed.

Why not work with them now on the issues you agree on? It is what I do with every political question. Why do you need 100% agreement to make alliances?

For a very brief time I flirted with Ross Perot. Then I learned more about him and decided he was the last thing we needed in government. I ended up working for George H.W. Bush (whom I disliked greatly and wanted to see fired.) because Clinton was such an utter piece of scum that I had to swallow my hatred of George H.W. Bush and try to get him elected.


As for any other Libertarian candidate; Battle of Saratoga.

[Diogenes]

You've been around long enough to know that there are some people who cannot be reasoned with because they lack sufficient (and of the right type) knowledge to comprehend the argument. Furthermore, they are resistant to being made acquainted with the necessary knowledge.

The only thing I'm willing to admit is that some are more difficult than others. But my take is that I don't need 100% popular agreement to push my agenda forward. In some cases all I need is 70% to 90% agreement. I can get that. In other cases 55% agreement is enough.

The Republicans as currently constituted can't even get to 55% Nationally. Pitiful. And they are unwilling to change enough to get that 55%. Stupid.

The Republicans have allowed their enemies to build the most advanced "Air" force in History. Their current demographic problems have nothing to do with their ideas.

Now you may think otherwise, but if the National Media and Entertainment industry started doing shows portraying pot smokers as Murderers and Thieves, and if the News Industries started highlighting all the examples of Drug users killing innocent people, and how much it costs to repair the damage caused by drug usage, your numbers would be in the dirt.


Your entire plurality could be wiped out with a sustained media campaign, and if you don't understand how this works, then you are in over your head. Your "movement" is the beneficiary of the fact that the media:

1. Doesn't HATE YOU WITH A BLUE PURPLE PASSION FROM H*LL!
2. Mostly ignores you.


You catch a stream of what Republicans have to deal with, and you are burnt toast.

You keep saying that the fiscal question is the most critical. So why not drop everything else and work on that?

Because without social stability you cannot fix any fiscal problem. Our current fiscal problems are the result of a deterioration in the previously ubiquitous concepts of personal responsibility and ethics.


Apart from that, I don't think it is any longer possible to solve this current systems financial problems. I think the only way forward is to tear down and destroy this existing system, and then incorporate the next system without all of the mistakes that killed this one.


Let it burn.

[ladajo]

The only thing I'm willing to admit is that some are more difficult than others. But my take is that I don't need 100% popular agreement to push my agenda forward. In some cases all I need is 70% to 90% agreement. I can get that. In other cases 55% agreement is enough

A lot of "I" in your perspective on things. If only we all were as powerful as you. It seems you have single handedly been saving all of us from certain doom every where you look.

Keep at it little hamster. Your wheel is spinning.

[MSimon]

You've been around long enough to know that there are some people who cannot be reasoned with because they lack sufficient (and of the right type) knowledge to comprehend the argument. Furthermore, they are resistant to being made acquainted with the necessary knowledge.

The only thing I'm willing to admit is that some are more difficult than others. But my take is that I don't need 100% popular agreement to push my agenda forward. In some cases all I need is 70% to 90% agreement. I can get that. In other cases 55% agreement is enough.

The Republicans as currently constituted can't even get to 55% Nationally. Pitiful. And they are unwilling to change enough to get that 55%. Stupid.

You keep saying that the fiscal question is the most critical. So why not drop everything else and work on that?

Let me point out three areas where the Republicans refuse to face political reality.

1. Drug Prohibition a. - Med Pot has 70% to 85% support (depending on the poll)
2. Drug Prohibition b. - Pot legalization has 48% to 56% support (depending on the poll) and the support has not peaked
3. Abortion - Americans are generally opposed - but not opposed enough to make it a government issue - Drug War style enforcement on the vaginas of America is not an attractive proposition

=============

The Republicans are getting beaten on these side issues and thus their main issue is not attended to. Every one of the above is - in the current situation - a distraction.

You would think that on Med Pot at least votes and morals would call for a different position from the Republicans. You would be wrong.

The smartest thing Republicans could do today is support this to take the issue off the table:

Rep. Jared Polis introduced legislation Tuesday that removes marijuana from the Controlled Substances Act and shifts it from the Drug Enforcement Agency to be regulated by the renamed Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Marijuana and Firearms.

Polis, along with Democrat Rep. Earl Blumenauer of Oregon, are seeking to have that new bureau regulate marijuana as it does alcohol. States and municipalities could still choose to prohibit marijuana production, and it would still be illegal to transport marijuana to a state where it is prohibited.

http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ ... rijuana-at

==============

Will they? Doubtful. This could very well lead to a drubbing at the polls in 2014 and there goes your last bulwark on the spending issue - the House.

And I have been warning of a 1932 in 2016 over the prohibition question. The only Republican who seems to take that seriously is Rand Paul. And you have a visceral dislike for him. As do more than a few of the "throw the Libertarians out of the Party" faction.

Ah. Well.

========

In 2004 I was of the opinion that we needed one more Bush term to institutionalize the war on jihad. I politiced and voted accordingly. I got my wish. And now the war is a two party war. Good.

========

Republicans will come around. But not until they get severely bashed.

Too bad. For the country.

Jeeze. I'm still making the same points to the same obtuse Republicans. How amusing. And you will note that anti-prohibition sentiment is even greater now than when I wrote this. As I predicted.