• B Balz says:

      This pledge, in particular, is a silly and anyone signing it is gonna get screwed by voters.

      Virtually every Bill has some sort of ‘tack-on’ rider. Some riders are like a last chance ‘Hail Mary’ for a good piece of legislation. Other riders are plain old porkulus. (And remember it is only pork if it ends up in a District other than your own…) Riders, with a material spending provision, ought to be limited by Rules, or some other means within the House/Senate.

      This will turn out to be the same type of butt-biter that soon-to-be Sen. Millar signed. I think anyone naive enough to sign this, really has no clue how pork sausage is made.

  1. LoyaltyIsMyHonor says:

    OH CRAP. For a moment, I thought this was Wild Bill Donovan. Oh well. 🙁

    Who’s this guy? I almost miss the Handelistas.

  2. Hank Reardan says:

    Who is this guy . He is the guy who believes in small government unlike the two democrats he is running against.
    He is the guy who was a fighter pilot in the Marines. He is the guy who did not vote for bigger government like Isakson.
    If you are looking for a guy to support who believes in limited govrnment then he is your only choice in the Senate race

  3. Hank Reardan says:

    Rugby you might be right but then who do you vote for. Big Government Isakson or the bigger government democrat. The Libertarians are having some the highest polling ever in Georgia and this is because the Georgia GOP has put up such bad candidates this year ( and last year and the year before that)
    People wonder what made the Tea party pop up. it is because of the people who keep telling us that people like Johnny are good for our country and people know that Johnny is not the answer.
    If you want the best person to win this year then you need to vote Chuck Donovan the Libertarian candidate for US Senate

    • rugby says:

      A lot of ways but I’ll say this.

      You (and really just about every other LP member) say “the best” candidate is the one who, coincidentally, shares your outlook on politics, disregarding the fact that other people have different priorities and desires for what their government should do. Those views do not line up with yours and you dismiss them out of hand and continue on blithely as if there is one correct philosophy for governing. Again, this correct form of governance is the one you hold.

      Following that fallacy, there’s really not much ground for you to stand on anything.

      There is much more I could say about this but I have a meeting to go to.

      • “Following that fallacy, there’s really not much ground for you to stand on anything.”

        rugby – I notice you certainly like the word fallacy. In the above are you saying that the LP’s beliefs are incorrect / false or are you saying that the reasoning is unsound? Perhaps if you’re going to say there’s no ground for someone to stand on a better explanation would be in order than using a word with multiple meanings. 🙂


        For instance, I could say that the Christian belief is a fallacy. Do I mean that they falsely believe in a god or am I saying that they correctly believe in the right god but their arguments as to why they believe what they do are unsound?

  4. Hank Reardan says:

    Much ground for me to stand on ?
    I believe small government is the best way go and you can argue against that but if you believe like I do that freedom and Liberty and small government is the way to go then Chuck is the man.
    If you believe something else than our guy may not be for you. If you like big government then yes johnny isakson is your anawer and Chuck is not.
    So rugby what candidate do think would be the best ?

      • “And liberty is not a proper noun.”

        Nor should there be two “a”s between on and fallacy.

        While you may not agree with Hank, I believe his arguments above are based on his opinion, not on a fallacy. Most of his reasoning is sound – “If you are looking for a guy to support who believes in limited govrnment then he is your only choice in the Senate race http://www.donovanforsenate.com” although his grammar and spelling may not be. There are some areas that the word choice could be improved such as “If you want the best person to win this year then you need to vote Chuck Donovan the Libertarian candidate for US Senate”. It doesn’t really tell why he is the best person. I know Hank is a small business owner and would imagine that the line of business he is in requires more verbal communications than written so I tend to try and overlook the grammatical errors. I don’t think I’d go to him to proofread anything, but if I ever need metal gutters on a commercial building, he’s the one I’d call.

          • polisavvy says:

            Sorry, but if he is using the definition as “power to do as one pleases” then it can be a noun, in my opinion. Isn’t it funny the debates that we sometimes end up having on here? I mean we either have debates over the spelling police and the grammar police, or something else crazy like that. I love being on here. It’s therapeutic.

            • Haha, yes, the debates to get funny sometimes.

              As for the usage, yes, it can be a noun… just not necessarily a proper noun. For instance, a map is a noun. But you don’t really see it capitalized anywhere unless you’re talking about it being the name of something like “Rand McNally Map Of America” or something along those lines.

    • rugby says:

      I already did. If you can’t read you should refrain from making philosophical claims about the role of government and other such complex matters.

      • Hank Reardan says:

        Oh Rugby you got me damn it. You are such a stud. Man I just dont know what to say.I guess I willi just got back to my small busineess and make me some more money using the free market

  5. MSBassSinger says:

    If I were to vote today for Ga Senator, I would not select any of them.

    Isakson voted for TARP. He supported the Democrat’s “Serve America Act”, which, as Erick once wrote, many see as a compulsory service bill. I could go through my MegaVote emails and find numerous other big government, non-conservative votes.

    Isakson is a big government, Rockefeller Republican. He is not conservative. I am sure he will get elected, but I cannot in good conscience give him my vote.

    I urge those of you who vote: If an office does not have a candidate you can enthusiastically support, leave that office unselected. That is the closest thing we have to “None of the above”. I’d love to see the Tea Partiers and other conservatives push the idea of “None of the above”.

  6. joe says:

    After reading all of the above, I think I understand. Donovan is a Libertarian, therefore Donovan has cooties, therefore you cannot discuss any good ideas (like signing a no pork pledge) that he might have.

    • MSBassSinger says:

      The “no pork” pledge is a good idea, and Isakson is wrong not to sign it. But, Isakson is a Rockefeller Republican, so it is not in his mindset to sign it.

      Donovan didn’t come up with the idea – he just was smart enough to take advantage of it.

      No one is refusing to discuss the idea of the “no pork” pledge. It is the idea of voting for Donovan that some of us are not interested in. I am sure a reasonable person would be interested in any concrete, specific reasons why Donovan is a good candidate to vote for. I just haven’t seen any yet.

  7. seenbetrdayz, Ph.D. says:

    In order to prove or disprove that the libertarians believe in fallacies, we’d actually have to try their ideas, wouldn’t we? Otherwise, what you have is a theory. That’s fine, everyone is entitled to form their own theories, but that’s all they are—theories.

    The status-quo party leaders would like to have everyone believe (theorize) that the libertarians—who have never held office at either the level of government and/or numbers necessary to make any effective policy changes (IOW, bear responsibility)—are wrong.

    But how can we be sure that the libertarians are wrong?

    If anything, the only parties which have provided us with evidence as to whether or not their policies are wrong happen to be the ones who have actually held offices and proven their *ahem* worth . . . Democrats and Republicans.

    • seenbetrdayz, Ph.D. says:

      In fairness, I cannot be sure that the libertarians are wrong or right, without trying their ideas first, correct?

      If it were to take 2 to 6 bad years of libertarian ‘leadership’ to realize that their ideas sucked too, I think this country could endure that. This country has invested a whole lot more time than 6 years on the D’s and R’s. In fact, with the debt we’ve racked up under both Democratic and Republican leadership, we’ve also invested the time of generations to come.

      So, could I endure 6 years of Chuck Donovan to find out whether or not he’s a total wash? Can I endure 6 more years of Isakson to find out something I already know the answer to?

      • AubieTurtle says:

        The voters seem to have indicated in election after election how the feel about Libertarian policies. It’s not like the party hasn’t been around for quite a while so most at least know that it does exist and have a general idea of what LP stands for.

        • I talk to people every day who have never heard of the Libertarian Party. I would suggest that no, most people that see the ballot have no idea what the L stands for beside our candidates’ names.

          • Doug Grammer says:

            That means you aren’t getting your message out or that it isn’t resonating. Most people don’t want to vote for a group that wants to “decriminalize” drugs. LP = fringe, not LP = majority.

            • It also means we don’t have insurance CEOs pumping $120k into our campaigns. You might be surprised at the number of people that are in favor of decriminalizing marijuana within the GOP. (But the GOP doesn’t do drugs, right? I’m sure when Bush admitted that he’s smoked marijuana, that he wasn’t really talking about marijuana… right?)

              GOP = Big GOvernment Party Hypocrites, not GOP = smaller government.

              • Doug Grammer says:

                I dont think there’s ever been a LP statewide candidate that’s raised 120K. W does/did not = the GOP. I disagreed with him on plenty of things.

                • You’re probably right. Lobbyists tend to go after candidates they can buy. I doubt many Libertarians are willing to be have their puppet strings pulled by someone else.

                  If Bush didn’t = the GOP why the hell did so many Republicans vote for him? I thought the President of the United States was supposed to pretty well represent the party that they were elected as.

                  • Doug Grammer says:

                    Individuals give money to people who can win. There are not that many individals giving to the LP because they don’t like the message.

                    They voted for President Bush over V.P. Gore and Sen. Kerry. That doesn’t mean that W. followed the platform all of the time. I still agreed with him more than I disagreed with him.

                    • If the Libertarians can’t win anyways, why not give us the same full ballot access that the Republicans and Democrats have? The only reason people give money to the R’s and D’s much more than the L’s due to the “people who can win” idea is because you guys keep touting that wasted vote theory. It’s been working pretty well for you thus far… but I don’t think it’s going to play forever.

                • joe says:

                  It is not that W=GOP, it is that W represented a large percentage of GOP. Way back when I took Logic 101, they taught Venn diagrams. If you don’t understand simple logic, perhaps you should run for office again. You would make a very typical candidate for either D or R.

  8. AubieTurtle says:

    Reminds me of the kids in school who have never been kissed taking a virginity pledge. It’s easy to pledge against spending that you’re never going to have a chance at deciding on anyway.

    • seenbetrdayz, Ph.D. says:

      Indeed, but which is worse, if you step out of the box and take an objective look at things?:

      Both parties claim to make spending an issue, but repeatedly demonstrate that they cannot cut spending. Everyone gets what everyone wants at the end of the day, until they have to pay for it (we won’t ever have to pay for it, as we have a no-limit credit-card and fortunately we’ll all die before the bills come due).

      The voters claim they want people to cut spending, but refuse to vote for the party that claims to have the desire to cut spending, but has never been given a fair chance. Somehow this constitutes an automatic disqualification before the libertarians have even entered the ring.

      Then you have people within both D&R parties who keep others in line and lockstep by making the claim that a third party will never change anything.

      Where’s the logical sense in this?

      • MSBassSinger says:

        So get a FPP to start a thread where Libertarians can give us some solid, concrete reasons why we should vote Libertarian.

        I am a conservative who is NOT for open borders, against the Bush & Obama bailouts, believes in free trade only among equivalent economies, believes in prosecuting employers of illegals, believes in using our military to protect the nation overseas when he have been attacked, and is not for legalization of dangerous drugs that can be shown to have a negative impact on society (I make an exception for marijuana being treated like alcohol is treated now).

        So, let’s have some good reasons why we should consider the Libertarian Party.

        • MSBassSinger – As a Libertarian, I’m not for open borders either. You’ll find that there’s disagreement within the party over that issue. I think we need very strict and defined borders. People who don’t want borders should move to an island.

          I was against the Bush Obama McCain Bailouts (BOMB) as well. I’m not sold on legalization of all drugs, but I don’t classify marijuana as a dangerous drug either. I consider alcohol to be more dangerous than marijuana. Along with marijuana, I’d like to see the legalization of industrial hemp. It’s legal in plenty of industrialized countries throughout the world and it’s time we joined them in the next century. I think I saw an open thread just posted if you want to discuss it further. 🙂

            • LT – was it on the side of a black Ford Excursion? I have a Kira Willis magnet on the side of my Excursion and travel 400 daily. I haven’t seen any others on 400. (The back doors of the Excursion actually aren’t metal, so the only place it would stick is the side. Weird, but whatever.)

              No, I’m not working with Kira… I’m focused solely on the Monds campaign at the moment. I’d love to work on her campaign too, but I’m currently just stretched a little too thin to do more than one.

              • Lady Thinker says:

                No, it was on a black Mercedes E Class, tinted windows, with a Forsyth County tag that was on 400 northbound and got off on 141. Couldn’t see where it went from there. It was on the left side of the rear bumper and was a red looking bumper sticker.

Comments are closed.