# Why don't libertarians join the Tea Party?



## whitehall (Nov 7, 2012)

It's almost a political axiom that socialist politicians find a home in the democrat party and libertarians find a home in the republican party. Libertarians claim that the republican party isn't conservative enough and so does the Tea Party. There is no Tea Party ballot and libertarians have to know that it is a wasted vote to run as a libertarian so why not join up and try to remake the only party that is worth remaking instead of jousting at windmills?


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Nov 7, 2012)

whitehall said:


> It's almost a political axiom that socialist politicians find a home in the democrat party and libertarians find a home in the republican party. Libertarians claim that the republican party isn't conservative enough and so does the Tea Party. There is no Tea Party ballot and libertarians have to know that it is a wasted vote to run as a libertarian so why not join up and try to remake the only party that is worth remaking instead of jousting at windmills?



Libertarians are more socially liberal.

Conservatives aren't.


----------



## whitehall (Nov 7, 2012)

Lonestar_logic said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > It's almost a political axiom that socialist politicians find a home in the democrat party and libertarians find a home in the republican party. Libertarians claim that the republican party isn't conservative enough and so does the Tea Party. There is no Tea Party ballot and libertarians have to know that it is a wasted vote to run as a libertarian so why not join up and try to remake the only party that is worth remaking instead of jousting at windmills?
> ...



Are all libertarians focused on sissie marriage, condoms for coeds and killin the unborn to avoid responsibility? I thought it was about the Constitution.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Nov 7, 2012)

whitehall said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...



Not all but most.


----------



## whitehall (Nov 7, 2012)

Lonestar_logic said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



I noted the confederate flag. I thought those people were relitively socially conservative. Are you speaking as a libertarian or a dirty trickster or a fake libertarian.


----------



## yinyang (Nov 7, 2012)

Libertarians are against the government taking freedom away from their private lives.  Hence, they tend to be for gay marriage, against restrictions on abortions, for the legalization of ALL drugs, for the legalization of prostitution, and are against any kind of censorship including any on pornography, etc.  Most Libertarians are totally against the Patriot Act and find it unconstitutional.  They also tend to despise any mention of religion in relation to any law.  They hate someone enforcing their morals on another individual.  They are also against any restrictions on immigration, except in the cases where the individuals pose a threat to national security.

Militarily, Libertarians are to the LEFT of Liberals.  They are generally anti-war, and believe that military spending is way too high.  An example; this years' Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson said he would cut military spending by 43% in his FIRST YEAR.  Ron Paul, essentially the head of the Libertarian movement, has gone as far as blaming 9/11 on our policies overseas, while also chiding the CIA for creating "mischief" internationally.  Ron Paul has said that if he was elected President, he would end the IRS, the CIA, the FBI, the Federal Reserve, the Department off Homeland Security, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, all forms of welfare including unemployment benefits and a slew of other things.   Paul also said that he would bring back ever US troop overseas immediately after being sworn in as president if he was elected.  Libertarians believe in NO intervention in the affairs of other countries.  I have yet to meet one Libertarian who supported the Iraq war.  The majority of Libertarians I know refer to both Bush and Obama as war criminals.

So, there are many major differences between most Tea Partiers and Libertarians.


----------



## dblack (Nov 7, 2012)

whitehall said:


> It's almost a political axiom that socialist politicians find a home in the democrat party and libertarians find a home in the republican party.


Nonetheless, it's wrong.


----------



## kiwiman127 (Nov 7, 2012)

I pointed this out on a couple of other threads.  Romney gained significant ground on Obama when he shifted his campaign to being less far right and more to the center.  His climb in the polls verify what I'm pointing out.
The GOP needs to move towards the center, somewhere closer to where Ronald Reagan stood. In todays GOP, Reagan's position would be associated as being a RINO.
A majority of Americans aren't far right, nor are they far left, they are in the middle.  GOP, get a clue, re-invent yourself and appeal to a much larger base.


----------



## bobcollum (Nov 7, 2012)

The Tea Party used to be all Libertarians. Then Republicans hijacked and perverted it.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Nov 7, 2012)

whitehall said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...



I'm speaking as an observer having lived in these United States for the past 50 years. I'm a conservative just to the right of Rush Limbaugh.


----------



## whitehall (Nov 7, 2012)

yinyang said:


> Libertarians are against the government taking freedom away from their private lives.  Hence, they tend to be for gay marriage, against restrictions on abortions, for the legalization of ALL drugs, for the legalization of prostitution, and are against any kind of censorship including any on pornography, etc.  Most Libertarians are totally against the Patriot Act and find it unconstitutional.  They also tend to despise any mention of religion in relation to any law.  They hate someone enforcing their morals on another individual.  They are also against any restrictions on immigration, except in the cases where the individuals pose a threat to national security.
> 
> Militarily, Libertarians are to the LEFT of Liberals.  They are generally anti-war, and believe that military spending is way too high.  An example; this years' Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson said he would cut military spending by 43% in his FIRST YEAR.  Ron Paul, essentially the head of the Libertarian movement, has gone as far as blaming 9/11 on our policies overseas, while also chiding the CIA for creating "mischief" internationally.  Ron Paul has said that if he was elected President, he would end the IRS, the CIA, the FBI, the Federal Reserve, the Department off Homeland Security, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, all forms of welfare including unemployment benefits and a slew of other things.   Paul also said that he would bring back ever US troop overseas immediately after being sworn in as president if he was elected.  Libertarians believe in NO intervention in the affairs of other countries.  I have yet to meet one Libertarian who supported the Iraq war.  The majority of Libertarians I know refer to both Bush and Obama as war criminals.
> 
> So, there are many major differences between most Tea Partiers and Libertarians.



Frankly I'm shocked. Is it true that libertarians are really about sex, drugs and rock and roll?


----------



## cereal_killer (Nov 7, 2012)

bobcollum FTW....as usual  smart bastard he is


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Nov 7, 2012)

whitehall said:


> It's almost a political axiom that socialist politicians find a home in the democrat party and libertarians find a home in the republican party. Libertarians claim that the republican party isn't conservative enough and so does the Tea Party. There is no Tea Party ballot and libertarians have to know that it is a wasted vote to run as a libertarian so why not join up and try to remake the only party that is worth remaking instead of jousting at windmills?



Not a day ago you were calling us Democratic sympathizers or some such nonsense, now you want us to rejoin the Republican Party and try to "remake" it? As for the Tea Party, it's full of warmongers, just like the rest of the Republican Party.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Nov 7, 2012)

Lonestar_logic said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > It's almost a political axiom that socialist politicians find a home in the democrat party and libertarians find a home in the republican party. Libertarians claim that the republican party isn't conservative enough and so does the Tea Party. There is no Tea Party ballot and libertarians have to know that it is a wasted vote to run as a libertarian so why not join up and try to remake the only party that is worth remaking instead of jousting at windmills?
> ...



No, libertarians are socially libertarian.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Nov 7, 2012)

whitehall said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...



That's why we don't rejoin the Republican Party. We don't want to be in the same party as somebody who would use the term "sissie marriage."


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Nov 7, 2012)

kiwiman127 said:


> I pointed this out on a couple of other threads.  Romney gained significant ground on Obama when he shifted his campaign to being less far right and more to the center.  His climb in the polls verify what I'm pointing out.
> The GOP needs to move towards the center, somewhere closer to where Ronald Reagan stood. In todays GOP, Reagan's position would be associated as being a RINO.
> A majority of Americans aren't far right, nor are they far left, they are in the middle.  GOP, get a clue, re-invent yourself and appeal to a much larger base.



McCain and Romney were attempts to go to the center. They both got crushed.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Nov 7, 2012)

whitehall said:


> yinyang said:
> 
> 
> > Libertarians are against the government taking freedom away from their private lives.  Hence, they tend to be for gay marriage, against restrictions on abortions, for the legalization of ALL drugs, for the legalization of prostitution, and are against any kind of censorship including any on pornography, etc.  Most Libertarians are totally against the Patriot Act and find it unconstitutional.  They also tend to despise any mention of religion in relation to any law.  They hate someone enforcing their morals on another individual.  They are also against any restrictions on immigration, except in the cases where the individuals pose a threat to national security.
> ...



I'm more into folk music, honestly.


----------



## whitehall (Nov 7, 2012)

I checked the Libertarian 2012 platform ratified in Vegas and it seems to advocate the rights we enjoy today courtesy of the Bill of Rights.  It's interesting that the Libertarian platform rejects government licensing of human relationships so I guess sissie marriage is off the table. Nowhere does the Libertarian platform advocate the legalization of marijuana but I guess the pot heads see the fantasy of a Libertarian election as a open door for drug use. Say it you freaking cowards. Tell Americans that the only agenda on the libertarian platform is drug use and see how many votes you get.


----------



## yinyang (Nov 7, 2012)

whitehall said:


> I checked the Libertarian 2012 platform ratified in Vegas and it seems to advocate the rights we enjoy today courtesy of the Bill of Rights.  It's interesting that the Libertarian platform rejects government licensing of human relationships so I guess sissie marriage is off the table. Nowhere does the Libertarian platform advocate the legalization of marijuana but I guess the pot heads see the fantasy of a Libertarian election as a open door for drug use. Say it you freaking cowards. Tell Americans that the only agenda on the libertarian platform is drug use and see how many votes you get.




From The Libertarian Platform
1.2 Personal Privacy

Libertarians support the rights recognized by the Fourth Amendment to be secure in our persons, homes, and property. Protection from unreasonable search and seizure should include records held by third parties, such as email, medical, and library records. Only actions that infringe on the rights of others can properly be termed crimes. *We favor the repeal of all laws creating crimes without victims, such as the use of drugs for medicinal or recreational purposes*



1.3 Personal Relationships

Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government's treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships.

1.4 Abortion

Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Nov 7, 2012)

whitehall said:


> I checked the Libertarian 2012 platform ratified in Vegas and it seems to advocate the rights we enjoy today courtesy of the Bill of Rights.  It's interesting that the Libertarian platform rejects government licensing of human relationships so I guess sissie marriage is off the table. Nowhere does the Libertarian platform advocate the legalization of marijuana but I guess the pot heads see the fantasy of a Libertarian election as a open door for drug use. Say it you freaking cowards. Tell Americans that the only agenda on the libertarian platform is drug use and see how many votes you get.



Now we're cowards.


----------



## yinyang (Nov 7, 2012)

Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Party's Nominee for President this year, on marijuana legalization:


Johnson: I completely agree. In 1999, I said, Lets legalize marijuana, lets adopt harm reduction. Would the world be better off tomorrow if drugs were legalized? Absolutely. Ninety percent of the drug problem is prohibition-related, not use-related. Thats not to discount the problems with use and abuse, but that ought to be the focus.

Raw Story: Where do you think were headed as a country on drug policy?

Johnson: I think were at a tipping point on marijuana. I think were going to legalize it. I think Colorado is going to lead the charge. I think theyre going to vote yes this fall. I think thats going to be the first to 50 state dominos that fall. As you point out, 50 percent of Americans now support legalizing marijuana. Why is the number so high? Its because people are talking about it, and yet no politicians are talking about it. None. Zero. And there are a handful now that are, but lets see, why did I get elected? Why did I run for office? To be a leader?


----------



## whitehall (Nov 7, 2012)

yinyang said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > I checked the Libertarian 2012 platform ratified in Vegas and it seems to advocate the rights we enjoy today courtesy of the Bill of Rights.  It's interesting that the Libertarian platform rejects government licensing of human relationships so I guess sissie marriage is off the table. Nowhere does the Libertarian platform advocate the legalization of marijuana but I guess the pot heads see the fantasy of a Libertarian election as a open door for drug use. Say it you freaking cowards. Tell Americans that the only agenda on the libertarian platform is drug use and see how many votes you get.
> ...



It seems that Libertarians advocate a strict adherence to the US Constitution. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships (except when a libertarian abandons his pregnant wife?) Abortion seems to be a sticky issue and republicans agree that abortion should be legal but rare. What's left? Selling marijuana to our kids? I doubt if Ron Paul even knows what the libertarian radicals see in their pipe dreams. Make it a National issue you freaking cowards. Tell Americans that you want to sell marijuana to their kids and see how long the modern incarnation of the libertarian party lasts. The real libertarian Constitutionalists need to stop wasting their votes in order to feed a druggie pipe dream and support the Tea Party.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Nov 7, 2012)

whitehall said:


> yinyang said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...



Can you clue us into the difference between the fake libertarian radicals, and the real libertarian constitutionalists? I know you've studied the topic of libertarianism extensively.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Nov 7, 2012)

whitehall said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...



Privacy, due process, and equal protection rights _are_ about the Constitution. 

Constitutional cluelessness is something libertarians and conservatives have in common.


----------



## yinyang (Nov 7, 2012)

whitehall said:


> yinyang said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...



Aside from a whole host of differences on social issues, Libertarians tend to HATE the foreign policy opinions of Conservatives.  If the Tea Party is for a drastic (around 50%) reduction in military spending, the abolishment of the Department of Homeland Security, the repeal of the Patriot Act, a drastic reduction of nuclear weapons, the withdrawal of all US military personnel stationed abroad, then maybe the Tea Party and Libertarians have some common ground there.  I doubt it.  Most Libertarians I know consider the foreign policies of both the Republican and Democratic Parties to be full of war mongering and imperialism.


----------



## whitehall (Nov 7, 2012)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > yinyang said:
> ...



I can't tell the difference but if the Libertarian party was more honest about their agenda and the presidential candidate wasn't such an old idealist fool we might separate the fakes from the real Constitutionalists.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Nov 7, 2012)

whitehall said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...



Oh, so you have no idea what you're talking about, in other words.


----------



## uscitizen (Nov 7, 2012)

whitehall said:


> It's almost a political axiom that socialist politicians find a home in the democrat party and libertarians find a home in the republican party. Libertarians claim that the republican party isn't conservative enough and so does the Tea Party. There is no Tea Party ballot and libertarians have to know that it is a wasted vote to run as a libertarian so why not join up and try to remake the only party that is worth remaking instead of jousting at windmills?



The Tea Party's members are just republicans and no more conservative than any other republican.


----------



## whitehall (Nov 7, 2012)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...



"In other words" seems to say it all. I like the Libertarian concept but I think it has been hijacked by radical druggies. I have no way to separate the druggie agenda from Constitutionalist libertarians. Nobody does. Go radical if you want, the 1st Amendment gives you the right, but quit hiding behind an old idealist (nut case?).


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Nov 7, 2012)

whitehall said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...



And where does the Constitution forbid people from using drugs?


----------



## whitehall (Nov 7, 2012)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...



Important point. The Constitution does not forbid people from using drugs. I know it and you know it. Too bad you phony libertarians are just too dishonest to let Americans know what your agenda really is. Tell us about it you sleazy cowards. Tell us that you are using a decent man who wouldn't dream of using drugs as a front. Be honest and I can tell you your phony agenda will shrivel to nothing while real Constitutionalists join the Tea Party.


----------



## AmyNation (Nov 7, 2012)

kiwiman127 said:


> I pointed this out on a couple of other threads.  Romney gained significant ground on Obama when he shifted his campaign to being less far right and more to the center.  His climb in the polls verify what I'm pointing out.
> The GOP needs to move towards the center, somewhere closer to where Ronald Reagan stood. In todays GOP, Reagan's position would be associated as being a RINO.
> A majority of Americans aren't far right, nor are they far left, they are in the middle.  GOP, get a clue, re-invent yourself and appeal to a much larger base.



Some republicans would rather see their party die off, rather than to compromise and bring in new blood.

At this point, I'm honestly wondering if the better bet is that the GOP will break up into two groups, the socially conservative and the fiscally conservative.


----------



## AmyNation (Nov 7, 2012)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> kiwiman127 said:
> 
> 
> > I pointed this out on a couple of other threads.  Romney gained significant ground on Obama when he shifted his campaign to being less far right and more to the center.  His climb in the polls verify what I'm pointing out.
> ...



They moved to the center on the wrong issues.


----------



## whitehall (Nov 7, 2012)

I'm not anti-libertarian. In fact I always thought libertarians were just a hair to the right of conservative republicans. Hell, most prominent libertards were republicans and I could never figure out why the libertards abandoned the republican party and actually purposely syphoned votes from a popular republican when they had no chance of winning. Is it really about drugs? I think that's just camouflage. I think the Libertards have been hijacked by the dirty tricksters.


----------



## yinyang (Nov 7, 2012)

whitehall said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...



You are making an absolutely bizarre argument.  "Will shrivel to nothing?"  The Libertarian Party isn't exactly a major party.  There are no members of the Libertarian Party in the house or the senate.  Their Presidential Nominee got about one percent of the vote nationally.  There are very few Libertarian politicians in the Republican Party, one of whom (Ron Paul) just retired his seat.  So what is their "phony agenda"? Why would someone who dreams of legalizing drugs use the Libertarian Party to bring that about?  Why wouldn't a person whose sole agenda is drug legalization chose to infiltrate a major party to try to get that done?  Why would someone chose to use a very fringe party as a front for some nefarious drug legalization ploy?

It's funny that you are focusing solely on the fact that Libertarians want drugs legalized.  They also want legalization of gambling, prostitution and the removal of obscenity laws regarding pornography.  They want to do away with all restrictions on people's personal lives that don't harm others.  And they want an extreme decrease in the size and scope of the military.  And many want a COMPLETE removal of all entitlements, including Medicare and Social Security.  But I guess it's all just a lie to get drugs legalized.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Nov 7, 2012)

whitehall said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...



You're all over the map here.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Nov 7, 2012)

AmyNation said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > kiwiman127 said:
> ...



No, they were in the center to begin with. What they did was run to the right during their primaries, and because everybody knew they were frauds they were soundly rejected in the general election. Now, to be fair, in 2008 I don't care who the Republican nominee was, they were going to lose. However, if 1996, 2008, and 2012 show us anything, it's that the Republican that the media is pushing as "electable," probably isn't.

Regardless, the Republican Party doesn't need to move to the mythical "center." What they need to do is look to the wing of the party that is actually growing, that would be the libertarian wing, and realize that the old warmongering, corporatist, nanny-state politics are no longer winners on the national stage. What is getting people excited? Peace, free markets, and the idea that government just needs to go away.


----------



## yinyang (Nov 7, 2012)

whitehall said:


> I'm not anti-libertarian. In fact I always thought libertarians were just a hair to the right of conservative republicans. Hell, most prominent libertards were republicans and I could never figure out why the libertards abandoned the republican party and actually purposely syphoned votes from a popular republican when they had no chance of winning. Is it really about drugs? I think that's just camouflage. I think the Libertards have been hijacked by the dirty tricksters.



Libertarians are only to the right of Conservatives on Economic issues.  They have always been to the left of Conservatives on Social and Foreign Policy.  Barry Goldwater, the Republican Presidential nominee of 1964, was essentially a Libertarian-ish guy except for the fact that he believed in a strong national defense.  This is what he had to say about the religous right:

"The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both.  I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in "A," "B," "C" and "D." Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me?  And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of "conservatism.""

As this quote shows, Libertarians haven't been recently "hijacked" by "dirty tricksters."  They've always been at odds with Conservatives on a number of social and foreign policies.  If they weren't, they wouldn't be called Libertarians, they'd be called Conservatives.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Nov 7, 2012)

whitehall said:


> I'm not anti-libertarian. In fact I always thought libertarians were just a hair to the right of conservative republicans. Hell, most prominent libertards were republicans and I could never figure out why the libertards abandoned the republican party and actually purposely syphoned votes from a popular republican when they had no chance of winning. Is it really about drugs? I think that's just camouflage. I think the Libertards have been hijacked by the dirty tricksters.



I think somebody's projecting on the issue of drugs.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Nov 7, 2012)

*Why don't libertarians join the Tea Party?*

We started it and you half-wits hijacked it...both times. get a clue.


----------



## whitehall (Nov 7, 2012)

yinyang said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...



Well, what is the real social agenda of the libertards? It isn't sissie marriage, and abortion might not be on the top of the list. All I ask is that the libertarian party be honest with the American people so we can make a logical choice and not throw our vote away. Is it about drugs?


----------



## yinyang (Nov 7, 2012)

whitehall said:


> I'm not anti-libertarian. In fact I always thought libertarians were just a hair to the right of conservative republicans. Hell, most prominent libertards were republicans and I could never figure out why the libertards abandoned the republican party and actually purposely syphoned votes from a popular republican when they had no chance of winning. Is it really about drugs? I think that's just camouflage. I think the Libertards have been hijacked by the dirty tricksters.




So you could never figure out why the Libertarians abandoned the republican party.  I'll spell it out for you.

The Republican Party has always said it is the party of fiscal responsibility and limited government.  A Republican named George W. Bush was elected in 2000, with Republican majorities in each house of Congress.  He proceeded to:

1.  Turn record surpluses into huge deficits.  His Vice President Dick Cheney responded to this by saying, "Deficits don't matter."  Much of the reason for these huge deficits had to do with Bush expanding the size of government to record proportions, including record numbers of foreign aid to Africa, passing a very bad education bill, passing a Medicare prescription Drug Coverage Entitlement, a $700 billion dollar bank bailout, farm and housing stimulus bills in 2007, the bailout of AIG, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, etc.
Bill Clinton's eight years saw the Federal Budget increase by 11%; George Bush's saw the Federal Budget increase by 104%!  This is the absolute opposite of fiscal conservatism.  High spending, huge deficits, more entitlements, multiple bailouts: very anti-Libertarian.

2.  Bush responded to an attack on American soil by launching two seperate wars, crafting legislation that allowed the federal government to wiretap and spy on US citizens without warrants, suspend Habeas Corpus and Posse Posse Comitatus, greatly expand Executive Power and use torture on anyone suspected of terrorism.  In terms of Libertarians' views on both foriegn policy and civil liberties, these were gross offenses.

By the way, Libertarians had problems with the Republican Party before Bush.  The influence of the Christian Right of social issues, the influence of the neocons of foreign policy, and the fact that the last Republican president with a balanced budget was Eisenhower back in '57, has made the Republican Party very unattractive to Libertarians.


----------



## whitehall (Nov 7, 2012)

TakeAStepBack said:


> *Why don't libertarians join the Tea Party?*
> 
> We started it and you half-wits hijacked it...both times. get a clue.



I haven't got a clue. The Tea Party is just a political pressure group. They aren't on the ballot so they shouldn't be targets for the crazies but they are. Libertads are the political right of the Tea Party but their sinister agenda gives them a pass and the crazies don't attack them. That should give a clue. I thought we were on the same team until the Libertads got hijacked by the pot heads. I don't have a problem with pot-head politics as long as the choices are clear but that's where it gets testy. Pot heads are a chicken shit bunch who haven't got the brain cells or the intelligence or the honesty to tell us what they really want on election day. They hide behind a sad old idealist and pretend that his agenda is their's.


----------



## yinyang (Nov 7, 2012)

whitehall said:


> yinyang said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...



The real social agenda of Libertarians is very simple and has been stated on this thread multiple times.  You know how conservatives value free markets and economic liberty?  How Conservatives hate the government putting lot's of regulations on their businesses and sticking their hands in it's citizens pockets to take their money?  Libertarians feel the same way.

But they also feel that way about social issues.  Just like you probably hate the tyranny of regulations on your economic liberty, Libertarians hate government regulations on their social liberty.  If they want to pay a prostitute to have sex, what business is that of the government?  If they want to smoke weed, how is that the government's business?  If they want to gamble on sports, why should the government tell them that's not okay.  If they want to make pornography, why should the government charge them with obscenity?  If they want to get married, who is the government to tell them that they can't?  They want FREEDOM aka LIBERTY, hence the name LIBERTARIAN.


----------



## dblack (Nov 7, 2012)

whitehall said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> > *Why don't libertarians join the Tea Party?*
> ...



Is this "projection"?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Nov 7, 2012)

dblack said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > TakeAStepBack said:
> ...



I think it's clear that this guy is on drugs.


----------



## whitehall (Nov 7, 2012)

yinyang said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not anti-libertarian. In fact I always thought libertarians were just a hair to the right of conservative republicans. Hell, most prominent libertards were republicans and I could never figure out why the libertards abandoned the republican party and actually purposely syphoned votes from a popular republican when they had no chance of winning. Is it really about drugs? I think that's just camouflage. I think the Libertards have been hijacked by the dirty tricksters.
> ...





 I rest my case that the libertarian party has been infiltrated by dirty tricks democrats. Modern radical Liberdads aren't conservative, they are left wing radicals.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Nov 7, 2012)

whitehall said:


> yinyang said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...



Libertarians were never conservative to begin with.


----------



## yinyang (Nov 7, 2012)

whitehall said:


> yinyang said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...



Hahahaha!  Last time I checked the Left wasn't for no income taxes and the abolishment of the IRS, no bailouts, no stimulus, no debt ceilings, 

Again, Libertarians aren't conservative.  They are fiscally conservative, unlike "Conservatives" like yourself who were A-OKAY with Bush's deficits, rampant spending, bailouts and entitlements.

Democrats love Entitlements:  Bush passed the Medicare Part D Bill
Democrats love increased Education spending: Bush passed No Child Left Behind
Democrats love Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac:  Bush bailed them out
Democrats love foreign aid: Bush sent record amounts of aid to Africa

It looks like the Left have hijacked the Republican Party.  And by the way, that great "Fiscal Conservative" Paul Ryan was in the House during all of Bush's terms.  And guess what?  He was voting for all of that spending and all of those budgets with massive deficits.  Obama is worse, but Bush was awful.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Nov 8, 2012)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...



Semantics.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Nov 8, 2012)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



Sort of, but not really. An example, social liberals, so called, generally support marriage equality, which means they want the state to sanction the marriage of gay couples. A libertarian probably isn't bothered by gay people getting married, however, we're far more interested in getting the government out of the marriage business all together. We don't want the government defining marriage at all. That's not "socially liberal."


----------



## Triton (Nov 8, 2012)

social conservatives are going extinct.


----------



## PredFan (Nov 8, 2012)

bobcollum said:


> The Tea Party used to be all Libertarians. Then Republicans hijacked and perverted it.



Wow! You CAN make sense?


----------



## yinyang (Nov 8, 2012)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



This isn't true.

Social liberals use social policies to create their view of an ideal society; they believe in gender quotas, hate crime legislation, smoking bans, diversity training, and as you probably saw during the whole anti-muslim film controversy, they can be against freedom of speech when it offends minorities.  In many European countries it is illegal to make racist remarks or deny the Holocaust.  An example; in England a pub singer was arrested for singing "Kung Fu Fighting" fighting at a bar because it offended some asian patrons.  Again, like conservatives, liberals like to use laws to enforce their morals on others.

Social Libertarians are totally against the government invading their personal lives, whether it be conservatives telling them they can't gamble or have sex with a prostitute or liberals telling them that they can't smoke in a restaurant.


----------



## Votto (Nov 18, 2012)

I think the bond conseratives and libertarians share is the desire for a limited government.  Of course, some call themselves conservatives, like "W", and then proceed down the Big Government road, so not all conservatives are.....well.....conservative.

The most conservative man to hold the Executive office was Ronald Reagan, and even he increased the size of government along with government spending.  In fact, I can't think of any politician in recent times that helped shrink government.  I'm not even sure they exist.

The very nature of politics is to gain power, secure power, and then seek more power.  How can conservatism survive in such an environment?

For conservatives, the Constituion is like their Bible.  Conservatives can point to the passages in the Constitution all day long and say how it is being violated, but just like the Bible, statists will glibly interpret it a different way to favor their policies, like the General Welfare clause to justify the nanny state, or they will ignore the Constitution altogether.

Like it or not, conservatives are mere John the Baptists wondering in the wilderness.  As they proclaim truth and warning of violating that truth they are marginalized or scofffed at.  In the end, the statists may have their head on a platter, but the conservative will have the last laugh in the end.

To think that libertarians will ever attain political power I think is a pipe dream.  After all, if they do they will probably have to become what they profess to oppose.


----------



## Paulie (Nov 18, 2012)

whitehall said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...



You mean like how the crazy religious right hijacked the GOP?

You have way more fruit cakes to worry about in the GOP than libertarians do.


----------



## Paulie (Nov 18, 2012)

yinyang said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...


Smoking in a restaurant may very well be one of those areas where my freedom to smoke ends where your lungs begin.


----------



## Paulie (Nov 18, 2012)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...



This is Texas sized logic you're dealing with.  This might be out of your league Kev


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Nov 18, 2012)

Paulie said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



This whole board is out of my league.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Nov 18, 2012)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...



No, they simply understand and follow equal protection jurisprudence, where same-sex couples are allowed access to marriage law. 

And there is no such thing as getting government out of marriage. Marriage is contract law, written by the states and administered by state courts.


----------



## geauxtohell (Nov 18, 2012)

Because the tea party is full of dick heads.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Nov 18, 2012)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



So, like I said.


----------



## YoungRepublican (Dec 22, 2012)

bobcollum said:


> The Tea Party used to be all Libertarians. Then Republicans hijacked and perverted it.



How the Hell did you come to that conclusion? The Tea Party hijacked the republican Party and made us all sound like gay hating fools. The Tea Party is doing everything in their power to demolish the GOP and handed the general to Obama. no one wants to vote for a person who conforms their relatively sane views to those of people who believe the world is four thousand years old. Please just understand that in no way do us Republicans want anything to do with you.


----------



## YoungRepublican (Dec 22, 2012)

whitehall said:


> I checked the Libertarian 2012 platform ratified in Vegas and it seems to advocate the rights we enjoy today courtesy of the Bill of Rights.  It's interesting that the Libertarian platform rejects government licensing of human relationships so I guess sissie marriage is off the table. Nowhere does the Libertarian platform advocate the legalization of marijuana but I guess the pot heads see the fantasy of a Libertarian election as a open door for drug use. Say it you freaking cowards. Tell Americans that the only agenda on the libertarian platform is drug use and see how many votes you get.



Dude Sissy Marriage and Pot? I envy those who have the time to worry about what two men do in the privacy of their own home and if some guy gets high every now and then. Who gives a shit? Thats why no one will take the Tea Party seriously and why us actual Republicans want nothing to do with you. start concerning yourself with actual problems and not some homoerotic infatuation with banning gay marriage. get with our economic problems and add something productive or go back to shooting Coors cans off of a fance.


----------



## eflatminor (Dec 22, 2012)

whitehall said:


> ...why not join up and try to remake the only party that is worth remaking instead of jousting at windmills?



If Rand Paul plays his cards right, that just might happen.


----------



## PretentiousGuy (Dec 22, 2012)

The Tea Party is really just a more fundamentalist republican group. Civil libertarians and liberals rightly shun them for what they are.


----------



## Votto (Dec 22, 2012)

I remember watching the debates and a woman asking Romney how we can be sure that he is not another "W".  The idiot tried to make nice and not throw him under the bus, big mistake.  "W" spent like an idiot, started wars abroad, and created one of the biggest entitlements in US history.  Why they called this man a conservative is a mystery to me.  

All this talk about the GOP needing to move towards the center is baffling to me.  You hear it every year and the more they do it the more they lose elections.  If the democrat party is so enticing then join it.  

From my vantage point, the libertarians appeal to both parties but also repel them at the same time.  For example, some in the GOP are enticed by the talk of fiscal restraint and limited government, but are fearful of talk of decreased spending miltarily and withdrawing militarily from the world stage.  They are also fearful of the legalization of drugs and gay marriage and lax immigration laws.  I think abortion is split 50/50 within the Libertarian camp and is still an issue up for grabs.

Conversely, the democrats like the idea of legalized pot and other drugs and gay marriage and inwardly like the idea of military constraint.  However, the nanny state reigns supreme and anything that threatens it will be crushed accordingly.  There is no compromise because they view the nanny state as a Constitutional right and the ultimate purpose of a government.

So how must the libertarian approach these dilemmas?  To start of with, gay marriage should not even be an issue.  Just support a position that government should not be involved in marriage at all.  There will be some push back from the GOP, but if they are for the limited government they claim to support then they must conceed the point.  Likewise, the democrats will fight the limitation of government in any capacity and see this as a way to bypass the gay lifestyle being endorsed by the state.  However to argue why people should be given benefits merely for a monogomous sexual union would ultimately be indefensible and would be entertaining to watch in a debate.  Ultimately the gay marriage issue could be a slam dunk and actually gain support for the movement.

The legalization of drugs would be a harder sell I think, but could also be overcome.  
In terms of abortion, just shrug your shoulders and say that the nation is divided on the issue because it is.  Then add that the primary role of government is being overlooked here which is tending to immediate threats to the survival of the Republic.  Then say that the primary threat is the mounting debt.

Now this is where it gets ugly.  I think Americans have been sold on the idea of the Nanny state.  The libertarians will be demonized much in the same way the GOP is being demonized now for wanting to reduce spending and people will buy into just as they are now.  Unfortunately, for this reason I think the movement is doomed.  Then again, crisis is the catalyst for change, so when, not if, the nation faces a crisis because of the out of control spending it will be time to pounce.  I think this the only way to convince people that Dick Cheney was wrong, deficits do actually matter.


----------



## YoungRepublican (Dec 24, 2012)

Votto said:


> I remember watching the debates and a woman asking Romney how we can be sure that he is not another "W".  The idiot tried to make nice and not throw him under the bus, big mistake.  "W" spent like an idiot, started wars abroad, and created one of the biggest entitlements in US history.  Why they called this man a conservative is a mystery to me.
> 
> All this talk about the GOP needing to move towards the center is baffling to me.  You hear it every year and the more they do it the more they lose elections.  If the democrat party is so enticing then join it.
> 
> ...



The problem is that we make issues out of things that should be simple fixes.
-Military spending: We outspend the next 25 nations on the list of military expenses and most of them are allies. Cutting it back a little is a fiscally responsible thing to do.
-Gay marriage: A civil issue that the bible and religon have no place in. We have bigger problems to deal with without having to hold hearings on basic human equality. it is an indefensable point to revoke gay marriage because it is a civil issue.
-Drugs: I am guessing you are talking about pot. We need to seriously consider the details of its legalization and enforce strict guidelines, but besides for that its going to occur whether hard line conservatives want it or not.
The economy: The only valid issue to argue over. We will be able to demonize the nanny state and I dont believe Americans are as sold on it as the Dems believe they are. Conservative economic values still have a very strong following in this country. We dont want to continue spending, but we need to first appear credible. Lets attack the economic issue from the ground up. providing jobs is the only way the majority of Americans will see Repub ideas as viable because the deficit just isnt as important to people as their next meal, even though it has serious long term consequences. We can attract people with sensible economic responsibility, sensible tax cuts and funding cuts where we can afford them.


----------

