Reagan Warned Us About OBAMA!

[wkmac]

True. I do find it funny though that people throw around such terms but don't really know what they mean. I bet Hoaxster thought it was demeaning though. But then again, I would have thought he would know the meaning.

I wouldn't sweat it. Considering the source, do you really feel insulted or that the term means anything at the end of the day?

Something tells me you don't. Besides, when it comes to reduction of the state and absolute free markets, I'm as far out there as you can get and I don't consider you in any way a "lefty loon", a "marxists" or even a "socialist" at least in the sense they portray it.

 

[bbsam]

I wouldn't sweat it. Considering the source, do you really feel insulted or that the term means anything at the end of the day?

Something tells me you don't. Besides, when it comes to reduction of the state and absolute free markets, I'm as far out there as you can get and I don't consider you in any way a "lefty loon", a "marxists" or even a "socialist" at least in the sense they portray it.

nope. Doesn't matter a bit. Just interesting.

 

[wkmac]

nope. Doesn't matter a bit. Just interesting.

Learn something did ya?

 

[bbsam]

Nothing I hadn't surmised.

 

[Catatonic]

True. I do find it funny though that people throw around such terms but don't really know what they mean. I bet Hoaxster thought it was demeaning though. But then again, I would have thought he would know the meaning.

As a matter of fact, I did look up the word immediately before I posted. In fact, three different sources.

I definitely am not as smug in my knowledge as wkmac and you so I double-checked it to make sure.
I do that quite a bit.

The good thing about the internet, one can search around until they find a definition that suits their purposes and reflects their prism on the world.

And I did not mean it in a demeaning manner.
As wkmac posted, there are levels of statism.
I prefer less government intervention than apparently you do and that was my point.
Your world view obviously meant that my post had a different meaning than what I intended.
My intention was that Obama would like to have the National Government more involved in people's lives.
Your reply seemed to have a different meaning since Romney/Ryan will most assuredly result in less centralized government control in the individual's life.

 

[bbsam]

As a matter of fact, I did look up the word immediately before I posted. In fact, three different sources.

I definitely am not as smug in my knowledge as wkmac and you so I double-checked it to make sure.
I do that quite a bit.

The good thing about the internet, one can search around until they find a definition that suits their purposes and reflects their prism on the world.

Then I will ask you. How am I a statist and you are not? Or are you? What source do you use and what is the meaning?

 

[Catatonic]

Then I will ask you. How am I a statist and you are not? Or are you? What source do you use and what is the meaning?

And I did not mean it in a demeaning manner.
As wkmac posted, there are levels of statism.
I prefer less government intervention than apparently you do and that was my point.
Your world view obviously meant that my post had a different meaning than what I intended.
My intention was that Obama would like to have the National Government more involved in people's lives.
Your reply seemed to have a different meaning since Romney/Ryan will most assuredly result in less centralized government control in the individual's life.

​

 

[bbsam]

Not less. Different.

 

[wkmac]

I like smudge. I pay big taxes for that privilege.

 

[Catatonic]

Not less. Different.

Possibly ... that is why I will continue to vote Libertarian every chance I get.

 

[bbsam]

Possibly ... that is why I will continue to vote Libertarian every chance I get.

Gary Johnson? The president thanks you.

 

[Catatonic]

Gary Johnson? The president thanks you.

I'm in Georgia which Romney will win.
My vote for Gary sends a message and hopefully some Federal government funding for the Libertarian party.
I don't vote for Libertarians every time they are on the ballot.
If it is a close race, I vote for the candidate that I think has a chance and is not Libertarian.
In other words, I'll stand on principle until it makes a difference!

As for Obama's "thanks", it is a thanks for nothing because he does not stand a chance in Georgia which he lost last time and has already written it off for 2012.

 

[MenInBrown]

He can write off NC this year too.

 

[bbsam]

Maybe. Maybe not.

 

[wkmac]

I'm in Georgia which Romney will win.
My vote for Gary sends a message and hopefully some Federal government funding for the Libertarian party.
I don't vote for Libertarians every time they are on the ballot.
If it is a close race, I vote for the candidate that I think has a chance and is not Libertarian.
In other words, I'll stand on principle until it makes a difference!

As for Obama's "thanks", it is a thanks for nothing because he does not stand a chance in Georgia which he lost last time and has already written it off for 2012.

Reason has this which might be of interest.

 

[Buddybrown]

You are. You use terms like "socialism" when they clearly don't apply because you know the term holds negative connotation...or because you heard it on Fox News.--- yeah that's more likely.

Not only do I not watch Fox News but the MSNBC news you watch is misinforming you by simply not telling you that Obama has a true socialist agenda....peace, love, Hope and Change!-----

 

[MrFedEx]

He can write off NC this year too.

No problem. Mitt can write-off Michigan and Pennsylvania. Florida too...

 

[MrFedEx]

Not only do I not watch Fox News but the MSNBC news you watch is misinforming you by simply not telling you that Obama has a true socialist agenda....peace, love, Hope and Change!-----

My Hope and Change for you is that you get a clue.

 

[Catatonic]

Reason has this which might be of interest.

Hope springs eternal!

 

[wkmac]

How soon we forget.