tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6144408548910691939.comments2024-02-07T03:13:33.370-05:00Gakkery: The Thoughts of Gregory KochUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger24125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6144408548910691939.post-8189775368625112932013-06-27T07:11:33.144-04:002013-06-27T07:11:33.144-04:00Headline at The Hill this morning: Gays now big na...Headline at The Hill this morning: Gays now big nationwide push for benefits.<br /><br />Libertarians got played bigtime. This was all about the almighty $$$. Never had anything to do with the "freedom to marry." Just more moocherism off of the taxpayers, those of us still too stupid to work for a living. <br /><br />Get some rest working America. Millions on welfare, and now millions more gays on welfare, depend on you.Eric Donderohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02763399145451696076noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6144408548910691939.post-58862085533815839442012-12-27T06:13:55.820-05:002012-12-27T06:13:55.820-05:00Nice article..Thanks for your information...:)Nice article..Thanks for your information...:)Liquid Latexhttp://www.liquidlatexonline.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6144408548910691939.post-33305484989769563772012-10-22T07:41:31.389-04:002012-10-22T07:41:31.389-04:00I understand. While I do differ with you in my vie...I understand. While I do differ with you in my views on how to fix the economy, I'm happy to see an informed actual Libertarian. Over the past few years, I've seen an emergence of essentially anarchists and over-reactive,uninformed, people that have branded themselves as "Libertarians", which they very clearly are not. Its nice to see someone who knows what they're talking about.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6144408548910691939.post-77115491263224805022012-10-18T14:12:05.812-04:002012-10-18T14:12:05.812-04:00There are multiple libertarian perspectives on the...There are multiple libertarian perspectives on the economy, not just one. I am a libertarian so my views naturally are based off multiple other perspectives, mainly some sort of libertarianism. But that's why I call myself a libertarian without labels, so I'm not bound to classical liberalism, or objectivism, or voluntarism, or any of those things. Gregory Kochhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09329228700718085786noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6144408548910691939.post-90004772321472349542012-10-18T14:02:55.062-04:002012-10-18T14:02:55.062-04:00Would you say this is the libertarian idea for eco...Would you say this is the libertarian idea for economic healing or is this your own view based off of a mix of view points? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6144408548910691939.post-5946775203244233232012-10-17T13:05:20.973-04:002012-10-17T13:05:20.973-04:00First, this isn't a poorly written comment, so...First, this isn't a poorly written comment, so don't worry about it.<br /><br />To answer your question, the Keynesian idea of spending our way out of a recession is doomed to fail. We need to scale back spending and cut taxes.<br /><br />Good government doesn't create jobs. It creates the opportunity for jobs by cutting taxes on businesses and individuals and decreasing unnecessary regulations. <br /><br />These new jobs will boost the economy, both in terms of new production by the jobs (thus creating new goods and services) and more jobs meaning they can spend more. Gregory Kochhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09329228700718085786noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6144408548910691939.post-45992515812356333042012-10-17T12:35:51.041-04:002012-10-17T12:35:51.041-04:00Sorry about my poorly written comment. Im a bit ti...Sorry about my poorly written comment. Im a bit tired....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6144408548910691939.post-81652705114616211122012-10-17T12:34:04.235-04:002012-10-17T12:34:04.235-04:00Out of curiosity, what is your view on how you thi...Out of curiosity, what is your view on how you think we should handle the current economy? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6144408548910691939.post-59667631208676473272012-05-18T15:23:21.722-04:002012-05-18T15:23:21.722-04:00Couldn't agree more with what you've writt...Couldn't agree more with what you've written here. Good work!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6144408548910691939.post-92182595342951164922012-05-18T14:03:34.945-04:002012-05-18T14:03:34.945-04:00Excellent post and I believe it's spot on on t...Excellent post and I believe it's spot on on this issue.Kreationzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04248679283423834937noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6144408548910691939.post-80149766994506748682012-03-10T23:10:11.327-05:002012-03-10T23:10:11.327-05:00Thank you for posting this article. The "was...Thank you for posting this article. The "wasted vote" mentality will most likely be the biggest hurdle this fall. It's time to equate a "wasted vote" with voting for someone you truly don't want in the White House.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6144408548910691939.post-5628853872784964972012-02-14T18:41:27.254-05:002012-02-14T18:41:27.254-05:00What citation do you have for proposing the death ...What citation do you have for proposing the death penalty for proposing that slavery had to end? I've never heard of anything like that. Especially since such a thing would be Unconstitutional.... Oh wait, Lincoln did stuff that was Unconstitutional. So I suppose it's possible, though I haven't heard of it.<br /><br />With regards to Dred Scott and the Kansas-Nebraska Act, I never argued in favor of those. I don't think they were right. But that's not what I'm saying here. I'm saying Lincoln wasn't right either.<br /><br />The problem is that people tend to think in absolutes. You're saying slavery was wrong. I agree. You're saying Dred Scott and the Kansas-Nebraska Act were wrong. I agree. You are therefore concluding, that Lincoln, who opposed slavery and the Kansas-Nebraska Act, was 100% right in everything he ever did as President. I disagree. Just because one side is wrong doesn't mean the other side is right. Or as my mom always told me when I quarreled with my sister, "Two wrongs don't make a right". There doesn't always has to be one clear side of "good guys" and one clear side of "bad guys". In fact, I challenge you to name a single war where one side didn't do a single think immoral, unjust, or otherwise wrong. It's impossible.Gregory Kochhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09329228700718085786noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6144408548910691939.post-81354473991437355672012-02-14T18:35:47.507-05:002012-02-14T18:35:47.507-05:00Seeker,
Thank you for reading and replying to my p...Seeker,<br />Thank you for reading and replying to my post. However, if you read my post more closely, my point was not that Lincoln didn't care about the plight of the slaves. It was that his goal in the Civil war had absolutely nothing to do with the slaves other than what the South made of it. He didn't fight the Civil War for the slaves. He fought it for the Union.<br /><br />Of Lincoln's rhetoric, that's very interesting. However, could you please put the specific quotes I mentioned in context? I really can't reply to what you're saying until I see that. The specific examples you show validate your point, but they can't necessarily be applied to the specific quotes I used. <br /><br />You also mention Lincoln and colonization. However, I do not. So I'm not really sure what your point was with that. <br /><br />Either way, it still does not excuse the suspension of habeus corpus and multiple obliterations of Constitutional rights. That cannot be attributed to misquoting Lincoln. There are documented cases. Why did Lincoln do this? To preserve the Union, of course. The Union that was created by the states and which some states voluntarily decided to leave. I'm not supporting slavery, and I'm not saying ending it was wrong. Far from it. But that doesn't excuse what Lincoln did.Gregory Kochhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09329228700718085786noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6144408548910691939.post-83885620466840903982012-02-14T18:31:39.884-05:002012-02-14T18:31:39.884-05:00There is another thing you don't know, and yo...There is another thing you don't know, and you have no clue you don't know it.<br /><br />You have no idea what Lincoln was up against. A lot of people trash Lincoln on this goofy idea that he didn't care about slavery, it was just a union thing, and slavery was an excuse.<br /><br />Bull f-ing crap. Yes, Lincoln had to speak that way. He had to finese it. You can cherry pick quotes there too.<br /><br />But what was LIncoln up against. You have NO CLUE that Congressmen in the NORTH were calling for the arrest and execution of ANYONE who said the war had to end slavery. Got that? These where CONGRESSMEN, saying on the floor of the House, let's arrest and execute anyone who says slavery has to end for the war to end.<br /><br />And it was not just this Congressmen. There was a HUGE part of the country, in fact, probably the overwhelming majority, who would have gladly put blacks on reservations in the desert. They did NOT want fifty cents spent to end slavery. Hell, a lot Northern people were related or had financial interest in slavery.<br /><br />Lincoln had to deal with the Congressmen who were calling for the death of anyone who said slavery had to end. You didn't know that did you? HELL NO. ANd just cause now you know, that stupid wrong impression you already have will probably remain.<br /><br />Learn what was going on -- the war was about the South's insane demands to SPREAD slavery. Everything in US history from 1800-1861 was about that monster effort to SPREAD slavery. Lincoln was the leader, who came back into politics because of Kansas Nebraska and Dred Scott, which essentially mandated the SPREAD of slavery, against the wishes of the people, and against any effort by Congress to stop it. <br /><br />You probably have no clue about THAT. And if you don't understand that, you can't understand anything about Lincoln.Seekerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10206503506011763393noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6144408548910691939.post-63573796240541164422012-02-14T18:23:49.380-05:002012-02-14T18:23:49.380-05:00A little knowledge is a terrible thing.
YOu hav...A little knowledge is a terrible thing. <br /><br />YOu have the classic, smug, condescending, and wrong, view of Lincoln. <br /><br />First of all, you clearly believe the distorted quotes that are attributed to Lincoln. And you ignore what he did, against what circumstances. <br /><br />Yes, can find quotes from Lincoln that say this and that about blacks, about slavery, and colonization. YOu can cherry pick them all you want.<br /><br />Many do.<br /><br />Those who hated Lincoln at the time, however, hated him for OTHER parts of his speeches -- the parts you apparently don't know about. The parts where he said -- in language so bold it changed American history -- that blacks are equal UNDER GOD AN UNDER ALL THE RIGHTS OF THE DECLARATION of Independence.<br /><br />Lincoln would use a specific linguistic technique --he used it so often, and to such good effect, that it really should be called the Lincoln shuffle.<br /><br />Again, and again, and again, and AGAIN, Lincoln would speak at first in ways that SEEMED to validate the prejudices of the day. (Lincoln's enemies today always cherry pick from those parts of his speeches.)<br /><br />But read on -- read the next sentence, read the next paragraph. Go on, READ IT. He soon switches backs, revisits the topic, and obliterates the sentiment, or shows it to be impossible, flawed, unwise, unjust -- whatever.<br /><br />Remember -- he was trying to get votes, talking to people, most of whom had never seen a black person, and wouldn't piss on a black if they were on fire. IT wasn't quite as bad as talking to a KKK convention, but close. And he was trying to WIN THEIR VOTE, not piss them off and get lynched.<br /><br />So he FIRST validated, or seemed to, but then flipped the other way. In his Peoria speech is a good example as any. He seems to agree with colonization (voluntarily) of freed blacks. So naturally Lincoln haters, and smug people like you, get that quote, run to your momma or whoever you are trying to impress, and claim Lincoln was for colonization.<br /><br />But you leave out two things. In a few minutes after he says this--- he does the Lincoln "thing". He revisits the sentiment he just sorta validated. He then says it's unjust and unworkable. He isnt for it.<br /><br />And you miss something else -- regarding colonization, you are clueless that Southerners, including some of their governors, were saying they would have to KILL their slaves if they freed them. Did you know that? HELL NO. So Lincoln was saying, in effect, oh, no need to kill them. How about colonization -- then he would as I showed, even refute that.<br /><br />There is a video on youtube with a short clip, from a 1939 movie, of Lincoln. He is debating Douglas in the clip. Short, but still valid example of what I am talking about. You can, as Lincoln haters do, quote him from that clip as saying blacks are INFERIOR. But in the NEXT SENTENCE he obliterates that. In some ways, blacks and whites are NOT equal, he says, but IN ALL WAYS UNDER GOD and Under the declaration every black person is equal to ANY white person.<br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKfNMel5dug<br />STrong, unequivocal, radical for its day, profoundly radical. But haters will take that same speech, and use the part where he says they are NOT equal.<br /><br />So learn what the hell you are talking about.<br /><br />One more thing -- learn what Frederick Douglass said about Lincoln. YOu act like you know more than Douglass does - fat chance. He was not only there, he knew the tricks and lies used by scum sucking pigs against Lincoln. Go find out what Douglass said about Lincoln. As soon as you know more than Frederick Douglass, or even 1/1000 as much, let me know. And go watch the video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKfNMel5dugSeekerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10206503506011763393noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6144408548910691939.post-9028523015035633702012-02-06T12:31:57.062-05:002012-02-06T12:31:57.062-05:00Thanks, Derek. I already knew that but if any othe...Thanks, Derek. I already knew that but if any other readers want to, go ahead.Gregory Kochhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09329228700718085786noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6144408548910691939.post-31585710526469662772012-02-06T12:26:19.136-05:002012-02-06T12:26:19.136-05:00Gary's hosting another online townhall Monday ...Gary's hosting another online townhall Monday evening. 8pm eastern, 5 pacific. www.GaryJohnson2012.comDereknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6144408548910691939.post-29284069342414065212011-12-06T17:56:42.742-05:002011-12-06T17:56:42.742-05:00@Anonymous You're probably right. Johnson neve...@Anonymous You're probably right. Johnson never did strike me as an overly bold, bashful guy. I'm going to post a follow-up to this tomorrow, and unless I hear something to the contrary, it's probably going to say what you said. Until I start seeing Johnson and Stone playing dirty tricks, Gary will have my support, as a GOP or LP candidate.Gregory Kochhttp://gakkery.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6144408548910691939.post-77460559259232413752011-12-06T17:34:39.170-05:002011-12-06T17:34:39.170-05:00Johnson is too humble to go glad handing or beggin...Johnson is too humble to go glad handing or begging for endorsements. This is the same guy who was almost too abashed to announce he was running for president in a New Hampshire bike shop. This is the same guy who said, "I screwed up," regarding his last minute application for the New Hampshire ballot though he had others in charge to do the application by proxy for him. Most politicians I would share your paranoia about allying with Stone, but Johnson is the most guileless politician (WHAT AN OXYMORON!) I have seen. I think Stone just picked Johnson with no request for his endorsement.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6144408548910691939.post-45968087029574726752011-11-13T17:00:49.902-05:002011-11-13T17:00:49.902-05:00Great point about the national debt. I hope that ...Great point about the national debt. I hope that some of the candidates read it and listen to your ideas.steven Knoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6144408548910691939.post-66575351100222764562011-08-20T14:07:41.009-04:002011-08-20T14:07:41.009-04:00In addition, we who agree need to get together and...In addition, we who agree need to get together and do something about the voting system. By executing voting using preferred voting system (aka. Instant-Runoff Voting) in our elections to take an ideal belief that there is no wasted vote and turn that belief into a reality.<br /><br />http://www.facebook.com/pages/Instant-runoff-voting/113912975286031<br /><br />Sincerely,<br />A Loyal Ron Paul & Gary Johnson supporterAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6144408548910691939.post-34103693660640951172011-08-06T22:14:27.606-04:002011-08-06T22:14:27.606-04:00Rick, you are indeed correct. I was mistaken and w...Rick, you are indeed correct. I was mistaken and was thinking of the related bill which Paul did in fact co-sponsor: the Marriage Protection Act. I apologize for the confusion and the article has been corrected.Gregory Kochhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08163471991148770801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6144408548910691939.post-86014086175802223662011-08-06T21:53:16.034-04:002011-08-06T21:53:16.034-04:00I'm a Gary Johnson supporter, but I have to po...I'm a Gary Johnson supporter, but I have to point out one thing that's factually wrong in your article.<br /><br />You say that Ron Paul was a sponsor of the Defense of Marriage Act. Not so.<br /><br />Ron Paul was not a Member of Congress in 1996 when the Defense of Marriage Act was passed. He was not a cosponsor of it, nor did he vote for it.<br /><br />Bob Barr, however, was the principal sponsor of DOMA in 1996. He later repudiated the law when he was running for president as a Libertarian in 2008, and had previous to that election year testified against a Federal Marriage Amendment to the Constitution.Rick Sincerehttp://www.ricksincere.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6144408548910691939.post-88375533686412340372011-06-16T20:37:18.604-04:002011-06-16T20:37:18.604-04:00Just a clarification of a point you made:
"To...Just a clarification of a point you made:<br />"To assuage religious leaders, the measure introduced by Cuomo on Tuesday would excuse their institutions from any obligation to solemnize or provide facilities for same-sex weddings."<br />http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-new-york-gay-marriage-20110617,0,650747.storyNancy Kochnoreply@blogger.com