interesting points about virginia election..

[Straw Man]

You don't get it do you? He barley won and almost lost. Thats not a good sign for you libs but I'm sure you'll buy another election just to deteriorate the country even more.

You don't get it

Repubs gave the office to the Dems by running a teabagger

Repubs in the state knew (and stated publicly) that their hopes of winning were predicated upon low voter turnout

That's the only way a teabagger has any chance of winning (other than a gerrymandered district)

Think about this for a second

Harry Reid said (more or less) that he would like it if Ted Cruz were the Republican candidate in 2016

Why do you think he would say that?

[tu_holmes]

No I don't like those things.  That is not insurance in the sense of what insurance is - but welfare.   If you have a house and carry no insurance and have a fire, can you call Allstate the day after and be like "Hey I had a house fire yesterday - I need a policy" ?  No.  Its welfare and the best the thing to do is separate those people into high risk pools and deal w them alone so that those who are young healthy and fit don't keep getting fucked

Well then you are in the minority of people.

Most people believe those things are good.


Also. You know exit polls showed that Sarvis took more dem voted than republican votes.

But whose things don't count....

Some other info for you.

Hands free. Taken from Joe Enroughty's facebook page, I'm done typing to you idiots.

For those who are believing the GOP LIE that Robert C. Sarvis was funded by a Democratic "bundler," please see this message from Richard Conrow. And then go get a life.

Joe Liemandt has given to Democrats and Libertarians and he was a major Gary Johnson contributor in 2012.

He donated to a LIBERTARIAN PAC which focuses the majority of its attention on Texas. Of the $150,000 he donated, $10,000 went to Sarvis.

Tons of Republicans have donated to Sarvis' campaign, but when a guy with a democratic background INDIRECTLY contributes to Sarvis, it becomes a conspiracy.

The Libertarian Booster PAC has supported various other libertarian candidates in the state of Virginia.

The donor in question donated $150,000 dollars to the Libertarian booster PAC. Of that $150,000, less than $15,000 was spent in the state of Virginia.

Here are lists of every candidate the PAC donated to in 2012 and 2013:
http://www.libertarianboosterpac.org/2012-candidates.html
http://www.libertarianboosterpac.org/2013-candidates.html

Liemandt and his wife have donated BOTH to Democrats AND to Libertarians. $130,000 to the libertarian party since 2009. This is an indicator that they are civil Libertarians.

The Reality is that if he had not donated such a substantial sum, Sarvis or ANY other Libertarian in VA would not have received these donations, and those in Texas would be in the same boat. Large Republican donors, particularly the Kochs, have been noted to make large donations like this.

Just because a guy who donates on a bi-partisan basis donated to a PAC with a TRACK RECORD of supporting Libertarians, it does not mean that this is a democratic conspiracy.

2012 Candidates
www.libertarianboosterpa c.org

[Soul Crusher]

So? Most people are stupid.    Covering pre-existing conditions is not insurance.  Its welfare. 

Well then you are in the minority of people.

Most people believe those things are good.


Also. You know exit polls showed that Sarvis took more dem voted than republican votes.

But whose things don't count....

Some other info for you.

Hands free. Taken from Joe Enroughty's facebook page, I'm done typing to you idiots.

For those who are believing the GOP LIE that Robert C. Sarvis was funded by a Democratic "bundler," please see this message from Richard Conrow. And then go get a life.

Joe Liemandt has given to Democrats and Libertarians and he was a major Gary Johnson contributor in 2012.

He donated to a LIBERTARIAN PAC which focuses the majority of its attention on Texas. Of the $150,000 he donated, $10,000 went to Sarvis.

Tons of Republicans have donated to Sarvis' campaign, but when a guy with a democratic background INDIRECTLY contributes to Sarvis, it becomes a conspiracy.

The Libertarian Booster PAC has supported various other libertarian candidates in the state of Virginia.

The donor in question donated $150,000 dollars to the Libertarian booster PAC. Of that $150,000, less than $15,000 was spent in the state of Virginia.

Here are lists of every candidate the PAC donated to in 2012 and 2013:
http://www.libertarianboosterpac.org/2012-candidates.html
http://www.libertarianboosterpac.org/2013-candidates.html

Liemandt and his wife have donated BOTH to Democrats AND to Libertarians. $130,000 to the libertarian party since 2009. This is an indicator that they are civil Libertarians.

The Reality is that if he had not donated such a substantial sum, Sarvis or ANY other Libertarian in VA would not have received these donations, and those in Texas would be in the same boat. Large Republican donors, particularly the Kochs, have been noted to make large donations like this.

Just because a guy who donates on a bi-partisan basis donated to a PAC with a TRACK RECORD of supporting Libertarians, it does not mean that this is a democratic conspiracy.

2012 Candidates
www.libertarianboosterpa c.org

[tu_holmes]

http://thefederalist.com/2013/11/06/no-robert-sarvis-did-not-cost-ken-cuccinelli-the-virginia-election/


Also.

I'm sorry, but then so is Medicare and everything else.

I understand the want for smaller government. But you don't think the richest country on earth can take care of the elderly and the babies?

If you don't then you're a cold ass guy.

[Soul Crusher]

http://thefederalist.com/2013/11/06/no-robert-sarvis-did-not-cost-ken-cuccinelli-the-virginia-election/


Also.

I'm sorry, but then so is Medicare and everything else.

I understand the want for smaller government. But you don't think the richest country on earth can take care of the elderly and the babies?

If you don't then you're a cold ass guy.

How can you call yourself a libertarian ?  Not being a dick - being consistent? 

[tu_holmes]

How can you call yourself a libertarian ?  Not being a dick - being consistent? 

Libertarians believe in free market and so do I.

I also believe in social freedom and fiscal conservatism, but that doesn't mean I'm heartless and don't think we as a society should at least offer basic services to our extreme old and extreme young.

I don't think people of working age should be afforded the same courtesy.

[Soul Crusher]

Libertarians believe in free market and so do I.

I also believe in social freedom and fiscal conservatism, but that doesn't mean I'm heartless and don't think we as a society should at least offer basic services to our extreme old and extreme young.

I don't think people of working age should be afforded the same courtesy.

Most libertarians are against mediacare, ss, etc. 

[tu_holmes]

Most libertarians are against mediacare, ss, etc. 

actually. That's the problems with libertarians and why they will not make a dent.

They are unwilling to admit that some things are good for America.

Those are 2 of them.

They should be fixed. Not stolen from. You stop taking from them and you do some smart things about welfare. Then you reduce the cost of them. Also reduce some of our military spending and the budget will be set.

Part of the problem is that you have some libertarians who want to just get rid of everything.

Others just want to be sensible. Like me.

There is no common ideal for libertarians and that's part of the problem.


I don't see any of your republicans doing anything to cut spending of course. They just keep talking about gay marriage.

No comment on the fact that Sarvis took more democrats 2-1 than e took from Cuccinelli?

[Soul Crusher]

Ill just speak locally.  The gOP county exec in my county has held the line on taxes, fought back Obama land use grab, and has kept spending in line.  The democrats are just outright Marxists.    There is a difference, at least locally. 

actually. That's the problems with libertarians and why they will not make a dent.

They are unwilling to admit that some things are good for America.

Those are 2 of them.

They should be fixed. Not stolen from. You stop taking from them and you do some smart things about welfare. Then you reduce the cost of them. Also reduce some of our military spending and the budget will be set.

Part of the problem is that you have some libertarians who want to just get rid of everything.

Others just want to be sensible. Like me.

There is no common ideal for libertarians and that's part of the problem.


I don't see any of your republicans doing anything to cut spending of course. They just keep talking about gay marriage.

No comment on the fact that Sarvis took more democrats 2-1 than e took from Cuccinelli?

[tonymctones]

I can't believe you guys are still talking about ObamaCare.

Let's be clear... It sucks, but it's the law of the land and it ain't going NOWHERE.

And do you know why?

It's the Republicans own damn fault... They had YEARS to come up with a good healthcare plan after they shot down Clinton in the 90s and never did shit.

So now, when Obama has all the cards, they want to fight against it without any real alternative... Yeah... that makes sense.

Look, ObamaCare sucks ass, but it's something... which is more than the Republicans did for years!

Now you want to blame Obama for your loss in Va? Let me be clear... if the Republican didn't suck, there wouldn't have been an alternative to worry about.

But noooo... Your bud Cuccinelli is a complete Uber Right Wing Shill and loses... You can try to blame libertarians, but really, it's the Republicans own damn fault and you full well know it.

I dont blame you for not knowing this as the media would never admit it

BUT.....

bush actually had a health care plan that covered more ppl and costed less per the CBO. The dems declared it dead on arrival and it was never able to get traction.

The reps have had plenty of ideas for health care reform, do a little research

[tu_holmes]

I dont blame you for not knowing this as the media would never admit it

BUT.....

bush actually had a health care plan that covered more ppl and costed less per the CBO. The dems declared it dead on arrival and it was never able to get traction.

The reps have had plenty of ideas for health care reform, do a little research

Bush had time of having the house and the senate.


So if he couldn't get it done he has only himself and his party to blame.

Also. Link please. You're right. I haven't seen it. So if you would show me the documents on it. I will be happy to look.

In my mind. He spent more time worry about how to get Saddam and not enough time on that. But that's just because I never saw anything from the Republicans on healthcare UNTIL the Dems had their plan out to the masses.

No one still replying to my fact that exit polls show 2-1 votes being taken from Dems and not Repubs in Va.

Ok the. 

[tonymctones]

Bush had Tim

tim?

[tu_holmes]

Ill just speak locally.  The gOP county exec in my county has held the line on taxes, fought back Obama land use grab, and has kept spending in line.  The democrats are just outright Marxists.    There is a difference, at least locally. 

I can see that. Local politicians are often not corrupted. It's when they move into bigger political positions they get corrupted.

[tonymctones]

Bush had time of having the house and the senate.


So if he couldn't get it done he has only himself and his party to blame.

Also. Link please. You're right. I haven't seen it. So if you would show me the documents on it. I will be happy to look.

In my mind. He spent more time worry about how to get Saddam and not enough time on that. But that's just because I never saw anything from the Republicans on healthcare UNTIL the Dems had their plan out to the masses.

No one still replying to my fact that exit polls show 2-1 votes being taken from Dems and not Repubs in Va.

Ok the. 

it was just after his 2nd election if I remember correctly and yea during the first term he was a tad pre-occupied with other ish right or wrong

I started a thread on it let me see if I can find it.

I dont know anything about this election, i have been real busy lately i just saw your post and decided to respond

[tonymctones]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/08/28/seriously-the-republicans-have-no-health-plan/

were some of these during the bush admin???

Comprehensive Republican health reform plans introduced in Congress

Let’s start with 5 comprehensive health reform proposals that have actually been introduced in Congress—some well before President Obama even was nominated for president, and all months before the House (11/7/09) or Senate (12/24/09) voted on what eventually became Obamacare.
•Ten Steps to Transform Health Care in America Act (S. 1783) introduced by Senator Mike Enzi (R-WY) July 12, 2007.
•Every American Insured Health Act introduced by Senators Richard Burr (R-NC) and Bob Corker (R-TN) with co-sponsors Tom Coburn (R-OK), Mel Martinez (formerly R-FL) and Elizabeth Dole (formerly R-NC) on July 26, 2007.
•Senators Bob Bennett (R-UT) and Ron Wyden (D-OR) introduced the Healthy Americans Act on January 18, 2007 and re-introduced the same bill on February 5, 2009.
•Patients’ Choice Act of 2009 introduced by Senators Tom Coburn (R-OK) and Richard Burr (R-NC) and Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) and Devin Nunes (R-CA) on May 20, 2009.
•H.R. 2300, Empowering Patients First Act introduced July 30, 2009 by Rep. Tom Price (R-GA).

Comprehensive conservative Obamacare replacement plans

Likewise, conservative market-oriented health policy scholars have developed a rich menu of potential replacement plans for Obamacare:
•Individual Pay or Play proposed in 2005 by John Goodman; this is a minimalist version of a broader reform envisaged by Goodman built on converting the tax exclusion into universal tax credits.
•Health Status Insurance originally proposed by John Cochrane in 1995.
•Universal Health Savings Accounts proposed by John Goodman and Peter Ferrara in 2012. This combines fixed tax credits with individual pay or play and health status insurance concepts along with Roth-style Health Savings Accounts.
•Fixed tax credits. A variety of proposals have centered on using fix tax credits to replace the current inefficient and unfair tax exclusion for employer-provided health benefits. Two good explanations of how that would work are here: •James C. Capretta and Robert E. Moffit, “How to Replace Obamacare,” National Affairs, no. 11 (Spring 2012).
•James C. Capretta. Constructing an Alternative to Obamacare: Key Details for a Practical Replacement Program. American Enterprise Institute, December 2012.
 
•Income-Related Tax Credits proposed by Mark Pauly and John Hoff in Responsible Tax Credits (2002) and endorsed by the American Medical Association. More recently, 8 scholars from Harvard, University of Chicago, and USC–Jay Bhattacharya, Amitabh Chandra, Michael Chernew, Dana Goldman, Anupam Jena, Darius Lakdawalla,Anup Malani and Tomas Philipson—released Best of Both Worlds: Uniting Universal Coverage and Personal Choice in Health Care (2013) which also is built around a model of individual health insurance subsidized with income-related tax credits.
•Flexible Benefits Tax Credit For Health Insurance by Lynn Etheredge in 2001.
•Near-Universal Health Insurance Exchanges proposed in 2001 by Sara Singer, Alan Garber and Alain Enthoven (covers only non-elderly).
•Universal Health Insurance Exchanges proposed in 2013 by former CBO director Douglas Holtz-Eakin and Avik Roy (covers Medicare and Medicaid in addition to privately insured).

and just to kick you in the libtard nuts, which nancy pelosi no doubt keeps in her purse...

The forgotten history of George W. Bush’s comprehensive health reform plan

Too many people conveniently ignore that in his 2007 State of the Union message President Bush proposed a sweeping health reform plan that would have replaced the current tax exclusion for employer-provided coverage with standard tax deductions for all individuals and families. The Bush plan called for a tax deduction that would have applied to payroll taxes as well as income taxes. Moreover, if one were worried about non-filers, the subsidy could easily have instead been structured as a refundable tax credit in which case even those without any income taxes would have gotten an additional amount. This is the kind of policy detail that easily could have been negotiated had the Democrats been in a cooperative mood in 2007. They were not. On the contrary, President Bush’s health plan was declared “dead on arrival” by Democrats in 2007. Yet it is Republicans who were tagged as being uncooperative and intransigent when they resisted the misguided direction that Obamacare seemed to be headed.

What’s sad is that the Bush plan actually was superior to Obamacare when it comes to providing universal coverage. Remember, Obamacare actually does not provided universal coverage. The latest figures from CBO says that when it is fully implemented in 2016, Obamacare will cut the number of uninsured by only 45%, covering 89% of the non-elderly. Even if illegal immigrants are excluded, this percentage rises to only 92%. In contrast, the Bush plan (without a mandate!) would have cut the number of uninsured by 65%. But that’s ancient history. Consider one of the newest market-oriented health reform plans put on the table by Jim Capretta and Douglas Holtz-Eakin. Compared to Obamacare, this plan would cost roughly the same amount yet cover 22% more (8 million!) uninsured. If there’s a superior alternative to the slow-motion train wreck now being implemented, why wouldn’t the President and Democrats in Congress want to seriously consider it as a replacement?

Of course even those willing to acknowledge Bush’s health reform plan then tend to counter with the claim that he wasn’t “serious” about his proposal. It was just a defensive move to defend Republicans in 2008 against the charge that the Republicans didn’t have a plan because they didn’t care about the issue (sound familiar). Those dubious about GWB’s “seriousness” about health reform should do the following thought experiment. Imagine that the Democrats in Congress had passed a bill containing the Bush administration’s health plan–no more, no less. Does anyone seriously believe GWB would have vetoed that bill? If not, I would argue his proposal was a serious one.

[RRKore]

Perhaps, but when you look at the most recent political climate, the fact is that you will get less people telling you how to live your life if you vote for a Democrat over a Republican these days.

The old school Republican... The ones who didn't care about telling you what to do, they WOULD have gotten my vote, but now... No.

What was it I recently read?

"Liberals believe that the government knows best and should control what you MUST do. Conservatives believe that the government knows best and should control what you MUST NOT do."

They are both shit... but at least they aren't sitting around wasting money on who should or shouldn't get married.

Conservatives are just as far from Libertarians as Democrats are.

You should post more.  Some really interesting ideas here.  What I take from this is that our 2-party system just sucks.  Anyone here know much about those multi-party systems that countries like Germany have?  Does that end up working better?  Maybe I'll give wikipedia a workout about this...

[tu_holmes]

You should post more.  Some really interesting ideas here.  What I take from this is that our 2-party system just sucks.  Anyone here know much about those multi-party systems that countries like Germany have?  Does that end up working better?  Maybe I'll give wikipedia a workout about this...

I used to post here quite a bit, but I quit... Almost everyone here is a shill... you are either with them or against them.

Most people are unwilling to admit that their party isn't perfect... So they just keep on going with the system presented to them.

It's kind of a shame.

I mean, in this thread alone, we've got people blaming a 3rd party for giving an election to one party, even though facts don't agree.

I got tired of arguing with everyone.

[JOHN MATRIX]

Perhaps, but when you look at the most recent political climate, the fact is that you will get less people telling you how to live your life if you vote for a Democrat over a Republican these days.


Conservatives are just as far from Libertarians as Democrats are.

Wtf...lol...you can't be serious? This is completely opposite of the truth

[Soul Crusher]

TU is dead wrong.  ObamaCare alone is telling and forcing me how to love my life by forcing me to spend over 300 more a month in insurance.  Sorry - nothing remotely the GOP is close. 

[dario73]

I can't believe you guys are still talking about ObamaCare.

Let's be clear... It sucks, but it's the law of the land and it ain't going NOWHERE.

And do you know why?

It's the Republicans own damn fault... They had YEARS to come up with a good healthcare plan after they shot down Clinton in the 90s and never did shit.

So now, when Obama has all the cards, they want to fight against it without any real alternative... Yeah... that makes sense.

Look, ObamaCare sucks ass, but it's something... which is more than the Republicans did for years!

Now you want to blame Obama for your loss in Va? Let me be clear... if the Republican didn't suck, there wouldn't have been an alternative to worry about.

But noooo... Your bud Cuccinelli is a complete Uber Right Wing Shill and loses... You can try to blame libertarians, but really, it's the Republicans own damn fault and you full well know it.

How can you blame the GOP for the current disaster that is obamacare and yet act as if Dems are not liars? How can you pretend that it shouldn't be an issue that should be brought up in every midterm election where a democrat supported the reform and claimed that people could keep their coverage and doctors?

You are not a libertarian. There is no way a libertarian would defend or take the side of the democratic party on this issue and blame solely the GOP.

You are another imbecilic liberal.

[dario73]

Conservatives are just as far from Libertarians as Democrats are.

EHEHEHEHEEHEE!!

This poster is a clown. A nitwit.

[JOHN MATRIX]

Yea sounds like just another liberal dem to me...nothing else makes sense

[Soul Crusher]

EHEHEHEHEEHEE!!

This poster is a clown. A nitwit.

No - he just bought into sarvis' bs who was there to help McCauliffe.


I am libertarian in most of my views - but at certain times you have to be realistic when it comes to elections.  


VA can now suck it now that they have Fast Terry who is as corrupt as it gets and promised gun laws just like NYS and CO and black boxes in cars.

But oh yeah - Cooch who fought obamacare tooth and nail and has a A rating w the NRA and Terry an F was worse.  Whatever.    

 

[whork]

Wtf...lol...you can't be serious? This is completely opposite of the truth

Gay rights.

Womans rights.

Religion.

[Soul Crusher]

Gay rights.

Womans rights.

Religion.

LOL - as if that is all that matters