Lindsey Graham - Bob Conley debate to be on national TV!!!

[gaazn]

Debate for U.S. Senate representing South Carolina
October 11, 2008
8PM EST
CSPAN

Bailout issue might be the game changer that makes this race a tossup.

 

[Flash]

IT's going to be great. Hopefully Ron Paul will soon endorse Bob Conley and ask for a money bomb for him. The same thing he did with BJ Lawson.

 

[RJB]

I'd pay to have someone beat Graham just to avoid hearing his annoying lying voice.

 

[RSLudlum]

IT's going to be great. Hopefully Ron Paul will soon endorse Bob Conley and ask for a money bomb for him. The same thing he did with BJ Lawson.

Won't be done...Conley is a 'democrat', practically a DINO though. That's why his own party isn't supporting him even though he's only 10 points behind Graham with no campaign advertising....Conley has actually doing ALOT of speaking around the state, and has appeared on the local news radio station WTMA countless times...I think Graham has only been appeared once this year. Probably because he gets grilled on his amnesty views amoung other things, and will definitely catch some heat now that he voted for the Bailout, which all the WTMA hosts dissaproved of.

Conley has a hell of a chance. There's alot of disgruntled Repubs. that are seriously considering voting for him. I personally know of 2 McCain supporters that will be voting for Conley.

 

[Flash]

Won't be done...Conley is a 'democrat'

I don't understand this though. Ron Paul endorsed someone from the Constitutionalist Party yet refuses to endorse a Libertarian in the Democratic Party? Who cares if Graham is a Republican, he's a Neo-Conservative.

 

[Mini-Me]

I don't understand this though. Ron Paul endorsed someone from the Constitutionalist Party yet refuses to endorse a Libertarian in the Democratic Party? Who cares if Graham is a Republican, he's a Neo-Conservative.

That's why I'm hoping Ron Paul surprises RSLudlum in this instance.

 

[RSLudlum]

That's why I'm hoping Ron Paul surprises RSLudlum in this instance.

LOL...It'd be nice to be proved wrong in this particular instance

 

[MRoCkEd]

He endorsed Baldwin even though Mccain is running. Why not Conley? Just say he considers him more republican than grahamnesty.

 

[kombayn]

I agree. I hope Bob Conley pulls off the upset. It would be nice to have another libertarian-minded politician in office.

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I don't understand this though. Ron Paul endorsed someone from the Constitutionalist Party yet refuses to endorse a Libertarian in the Democratic Party? Who cares if Graham is a Republican, he's a Neo-Conservative.

Constitutionalist Party? lol. First off, it's the CONSTITUTION party. But that's a lie, they're really the theocratic party. Homophobia is rampant in that party, and that's no understatement, ever listen to cp podcasts? I have. gay bashing fest
Secondly, Bob Conley is not a "Libertarian" or a "libertarian," you need to be an LP member for the former to be true, you either never did your research on Conley, or you don't know what libertarianism is. He's one of the protectionists that got confused on Ron Paul's stance on trade.

That being said, I'd vote for Bob Conley.

 

[MRoCkEd]

Constitutionalist Party? lol. First off, it's the CONSTITUTION party. But that's a lie, they're really the theocratic party. Homophobia is rampant in that party, and that's no understatement, ever listen to cp podcasts? I have. gay bashing fest
Secondly, Bob Conley is not a "Libertarian" or a "libertarian," you need to be an LP member for the former to be true, you either never did your research on Conley, or you don't know about libertarianism is.

They are quite theocratic, but Baldwin probably to a lesser degree. I agree that Conley is not a libertarian. A conservative maybe (includes "social conservatism" unfortunately), but still an overall great candidate in my opinion and worth supporting.

 

[Flash]

That's why I'm hoping Ron Paul surprises RSLudlum in this instance.

RSL is right though, Ron Paul said a month ago he won't endorse a Democrat against a Republican Incumbent. It's against his policy, he says.

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

They are quite theocratic, but Baldwin probably to a lesser degree. I agree that Conley is not a libertarian. A conservative maybe (includes "social conservatism" unfortunately), but still an overall great candidate in my opinion and worth supporting.

Yeah, I edited my post to reflect that. Baldwin is my second choice, but sometimes his supporters piss me off.

 

[Flash]

Constitutionalist Party? lol. First off, it's the CONSTITUTION party. But that's a lie, they're really the theocratic party. Homophobia is rampant in that party, and that's no understatement, ever listen to cp podcasts? I have. gay bashing fest
Secondly, Bob Conley is not a "Libertarian" or a "libertarian," you need to be an LP member for the former to be true, you either never did your research on Conley, or you don't know what libertarianism is. He's one of the protectionists that got confused on Ron Paul's stance on trade.

That being said, I'd vote for Bob Conley.

Well may be he is not a Libertarian, but at least he is a Conservative that likes Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan, and that's enough for me. He's the best thing the Democratic Party has.

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Well may be he is not a Libertarian, but at least he is a Conservative that likes Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan, and that's enough for me.

He's a mixture of different things imo. Yeah, he's not a "upper case" Libertarian, otherwise he would be running with an "(L) next to his name. Agreed. I like Pat, he has many articles on LRW you know, but I just dislike his position on trade.

 

[MRoCkEd]

I wasn't exactly sure what a protectionist was, so I just checked and it's someone who wants to restrict trade. I guess the point is self-sufficiency, but as far as I know, trade makes everyone better off with specialization.

 

[angelatc]

I wasn't exactly sure what a protectionist was, so I just checked and it's someone who wants to restrict trade. I guess the point is self-sufficiency, but as far as I know, trade makes everyone better off with specialization.

All 4 presidents on Mount Rushmore were protectionists.

Free trade is a theory that only works on paper, much like socialism.

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I wasn't exactly sure what a protectionist was, so I just checked and it's someone who wants to restrict trade. I guess the point is self-sufficiency, but as far as I know, trade makes everyone better off with specialization.

It's an "America first" type of policy in regards to international trade. It's really just counterproductive, you can read more about it here: http://mises.org/rothbard/protectionism.asp

 

[MRoCkEd]

All 4 presidents on Mount Rushmore were protectionists.

Free trade is a theory that only works on paper, much like socialism.

Well I'm no expert on trade so I'll let the "free-traders" and the "fair-traders" duke it out

 

[Mini-Me]

All 4 presidents on Mount Rushmore were protectionists.

Free trade is a theory that only works on paper, much like socialism.

I'd have to vehemently disagree with your comparison between free trade and socialism: Personally, I think socialism is just as much of an epic fail on paper as it is in practice. It's just that it's proponents made a buttload of huge mistakes in their paper justifications!

In terms of Mount Rushmore, one of the Presidents was also a guy who thought all power should be centralized in the federal government. Plus, a lot of work has been done in economics since the time of Washington and Jefferson, so their endorsement of protectionism doesn't necessarily mean it's the right course of action.

As far as free trade goes:
I certainly disagree with all of the managed trade legislation passed off as "free trade." On principle, I tend to feel that no government should restrict who you are allowed to buy from or sell to...

In practice, it's a tough call, but I'm still willing to give real free trade a chance. On one hand, prior experience has shown us that what we know as "free trade" has pretty much only resulted in our manufacturing base going overseas, due to the fact that much of the world is still developing and different countries are not even in the same ballpark in terms of wealth. On the other hand, prior experience has also told us that "capitalism" is the devil, yet we here at RPF know damn well that the system we're under is not actually free market capitalism. Also, even this not-so-free trade we have now has allowed us to buy crap we don't need for dirt cheap - and it's tough to determine how much more expensive things would be otherwise if we didn't benefit from the added efficiency trade and specialization offers. In any case, just like we haven't really seen the unhampered free market in action, we haven't really seen unhampered free trade in action, either. I'm personally willing to give it a fair chance, but only after we fix our own failed domestic economic policies, which would interfere and skew the results if left unchanged.

Besides, our manufacturing base would probably not have gone overseas anyway were it not for massive levels of taxation and regulation and our inflationary monetary policies. Manufacturing products offshore and selling them back to US customers is extremely inefficient for companies compared to manufacturing them in the market where they're sold, and the only reason dirt-cheap foreign wages compensate for the shipping costs and other costs is that taxes and regulations make it unreasonably expensive to manufacture in the US. Nevertheless, I've heard that even now, some industries have reversed their trend toward outsourcing, since it's still not always worth it.