Conservatives and Libertarians need to be allies

[TakeAStepBack]

Rabbi likes these threads because it allows him to play into his paranoid delusions about someone, or some group hating Jews. He fucking thrives off it like blacks over slavery today.

 

[Contumacious]

Because narco-libertarians come with other baggage, like isolationism

How is that interventionism working out for you? Lost any relatives on 09/11? Love them TSA agents handling your junk at the nation's airports?

and a healthy dose of anti semitism.

Identify one single Libertarian website which is "anti-semite?

Also radical views on social issues.

Why is maximum liberty wrong?

This is why they lose every time.

Isn't the reason we lose every time the fact that Libertarians have never promised to use US Treasury funds to BUY votes from parasites and war profiteers?


.

 

[Pete7469]

No, it is not "principled." It is stupid. Mr Brown has zero effect on anything but his own ego. The adults in the room know that nationally we have two parties. You can either engage one or the other of them and try to influence how they work or you can remain irrelevant. Mr Brown has chosen to remain irrelevant.
To me that is irresponsible. He might as well not vote at all.

That's pretty much what I'm thinking. Though I agree with RKMB a lot of the time, his startegy marginalizes him.

If you don't defeat the biggest evil, it will win everytime.

The biggest evil is the democrook party. We had a good chance at defeating them this last go around, but just enough people apparently wanted 4 more years of the moonbat messiah as opposed to a guy who would fuck them a little less, and could also be unseated in 2016.

They've also damaged their standing in the GOP. Libertarians could influence the narative a lot more by backing people who are much closer to their line of thinking, than backing people who no one else has ever heard of. For me it's a choice between Right vs. Wrong. Democrooks are always wrong, and in whatever areas they're close to right on, their motivation isn't to promote what's best for the country. Just like all commies, once they've defeated their opponets, they'll reverse course on those few things anyway.

So the next time around, we'll be faced with:

A) A candidate that will work tirelessly to undermine all of your freedom, and take away any chance you have to enhance your standard of living.

B) A candidate that will at least hamper the leftist agenda.

C) A candidate that will try and roll back the left's agenda, but has absolutely no chance to win.

I'll once again go with (B). Not because I like it, but defeating (A) is a paramount strategy to incrimentally changing future candidate (B)'s into (C)'s and eventually marginalizing (A)'s to the point where they're the ones with no chance for electoral success.

That's how I see it, because far too many people are scared to death of suddenly being free. They don't seem to look at liberty as an asset or virtue because their either scarred of the responsibility and/or what some other idiots might do with an abundance of liberty.

There's a lot wrong with this post.

The Democratic Party in particular is not "the biggest evil." Statists are the biggest evil, and they're happily infesting both parties. There's no objective evidence that Romney would "fuck them a little less," and what do you mean he could be unseated in 2016? Obama is gone in 2016 period. If Romney had won there would have been no Republican primary, or the party would have squashed any attempt to primary him, and the incumbent generally has the advantage. Are you saying that it's not 100% guaranteed that Republicans would have said that we have to hold our noses and vote Romney again in 2016 because whoever the Democrat is is just too terrible to let anywhere near the Presidency? It's the same narrative every four years, and it wouldn't have changed in 2016.

No, you see, the conservatives don't want libertarians to have any effect on the narrative of the Republican Party. It's always "Get in line and do what we say." If their only contribution to the Republican Party can be to take orders from conservatives then there's no reason to be a part of the Republican Party.

A.) No, we'll have two candidates like that. A Democrat and a Republican. Just like in 2012, 2008, 2004, 2000, 1996, etc.. etc..

B.) No, not really.

C.) So vote for them.

I think it's a matter of semantics, but in my mind's eye the democrook party is consumed with statists, "prog" statists that is, which are the worst kind, therefore they're the greatest evil. The republicrat party has plenty of them too, I can't dispute that, one is actually too many. Some GOP statist are focused on religious morality that I don't always disagree with, but I don't want religious morality to be backed by federal laws either.

You have a point about Romney, and getting him out in 2016 though... I suppose it would be more difficult than hopefully dragging a decent candidate through the nomination process going forward. I hope libertarian ideas are pushed more strongly within the GOP this go around though. I hope Chris Christie gets his ass handed too him in the primary.

If he ends up the nominee I may join you in voting (C).

 

[Pete7469]

With all due respect, people aren't exactly lining up to buy your product either.

How about giving real freedom and free enterprise and real cuts in spending and bureaucracy a fair hearing in the arena of ideas, rather than smearing and lying about libertarians like liberoidals do?

Because narco-libertarians come with other baggage, like isolationism and a healthy dose of anti semitism. Also radical views on social issues. This is why they lose every time.
How about giving up the social crap and join the GOP to push out the statists in the party and move towards more free enterprise?

It'll probably be difficult to get them to join us when we belittle them, and misrepresent their platforms. Not that I'm even disagreeing with your pretense, but the delivery isn't helping promote a discussion between the differnces we have.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

That's pretty much what I'm thinking. Though I agree with RKMB a lot of the time, his startegy marginalizes him.

If you don't defeat the biggest evil, it will win everytime.

The biggest evil is the democrook party. We had a good chance at defeating them this last go around, but just enough people apparently wanted 4 more years of the moonbat messiah as opposed to a guy who would fuck them a little less, and could also be unseated in 2016.

They've also damaged their standing in the GOP. Libertarians could influence the narative a lot more by backing people who are much closer to their line of thinking, than backing people who no one else has ever heard of. For me it's a choice between Right vs. Wrong. Democrooks are always wrong, and in whatever areas they're close to right on, their motivation isn't to promote what's best for the country. Just like all commies, once they've defeated their opponets, they'll reverse course on those few things anyway.

So the next time around, we'll be faced with:

A) A candidate that will work tirelessly to undermine all of your freedom, and take away any chance you have to enhance your standard of living.

B) A candidate that will at least hamper the leftist agenda.

C) A candidate that will try and roll back the left's agenda, but has absolutely no chance to win.

I'll once again go with (B). Not because I like it, but defeating (A) is a paramount strategy to incrimentally changing future candidate (B)'s into (C)'s and eventually marginalizing (A)'s to the point where they're the ones with no chance for electoral success.

That's how I see it, because far too many people are scared to death of suddenly being free. They don't seem to look at liberty as an asset or virtue because their either scarred of the responsibility and/or what some other idiots might do with an abundance of liberty.

There's a lot wrong with this post.

The Democratic Party in particular is not "the biggest evil." Statists are the biggest evil, and they're happily infesting both parties. There's no objective evidence that Romney would "fuck them a little less," and what do you mean he could be unseated in 2016? Obama is gone in 2016 period. If Romney had won there would have been no Republican primary, or the party would have squashed any attempt to primary him, and the incumbent generally has the advantage. Are you saying that it's not 100% guaranteed that Republicans would have said that we have to hold our noses and vote Romney again in 2016 because whoever the Democrat is is just too terrible to let anywhere near the Presidency? It's the same narrative every four years, and it wouldn't have changed in 2016.

No, you see, the conservatives don't want libertarians to have any effect on the narrative of the Republican Party. It's always "Get in line and do what we say." If their only contribution to the Republican Party can be to take orders from conservatives then there's no reason to be a part of the Republican Party.

A.) No, we'll have two candidates like that. A Democrat and a Republican. Just like in 2012, 2008, 2004, 2000, 1996, etc.. etc..

B.) No, not really.

C.) So vote for them.

I think it's a matter of semantics, but in my mind's eye the democrook party is consumed with statists, "prog" statists that is, which are the worst kind, therefore they're the greatest evil. The republicrat party has plenty of them too, I can't dispute that, one is actually too many. Some GOP statist are focused on religious morality that I don't always disagree with, but I don't want religious morality to be backed by federal laws either.

You have a point about Romney, and getting him out in 2016 though... I suppose it would be more difficult than hopefully dragging a decent candidate through the nomination process going forward. I hope libertarian ideas are pushed more strongly within the GOP this go around though. I hope Chris Christie gets his ass handed too him in the primary.

If he ends up the nominee I may join you in voting (C).

That seems unlikely, as I don't plan on voting in 2016 unless Rand recants some of the positions he's taken or some unforeseen candidate gets into the race.

 

[The Rabbi]

How about giving real freedom and free enterprise and real cuts in spending and bureaucracy a fair hearing in the arena of ideas, rather than smearing and lying about libertarians like liberoidals do?

Because narco-libertarians come with other baggage, like isolationism and a healthy dose of anti semitism. Also radical views on social issues. This is why they lose every time.
How about giving up the social crap and join the GOP to push out the statists in the party and move towards more free enterprise?

It'll probably be difficult to get them to join us when we belittle them, and misrepresent their platforms. Not that I'm even disagreeing with your pretense, but the delivery isn't helping promote a discussion between the differnces we have.

The differences on those issues are unbridgeable. Real conservatives believe in a strong engaged America. The narcos basically follow the Obama agenda. This is part of why real conservatives hate Obama. So they will hate the narcos for the same reason.
Fortunately the narcos represent about 2% of voters (and 40% of internet posters), so they are pretty marginal at best. Add in that most of them vote for known losers and they might as well stay home on election day.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

How about giving real freedom and free enterprise and real cuts in spending and bureaucracy a fair hearing in the arena of ideas, rather than smearing and lying about libertarians like liberoidals do?

Because narco-libertarians come with other baggage, like isolationism and a healthy dose of anti semitism. Also radical views on social issues. This is why they lose every time.
How about giving up the social crap and join the GOP to push out the statists in the party and move towards more free enterprise?

It'll probably be difficult to get them to join us when we belittle them, and misrepresent their platforms. Not that I'm even disagreeing with your pretense, but the delivery isn't helping promote a discussion between the differnces we have.

You're missing his point. Rabbi doesn't want libertarians at all. He'd like our votes sure, but if that means actually compromising he's not interested.

 

[The Rabbi]

Because narco-libertarians come with other baggage, like isolationism and a healthy dose of anti semitism. Also radical views on social issues. This is why they lose every time.
How about giving up the social crap and join the GOP to push out the statists in the party and move towards more free enterprise?

It'll probably be difficult to get them to join us when we belittle them, and misrepresent their platforms. Not that I'm even disagreeing with your pretense, but the delivery isn't helping promote a discussion between the differnces we have.

You're missing his point. Rabbi doesn't want libertarians at all. He'd like our votes sure, but if that means actually compromising he's not interested.

I dont see any compromise from the narcos. Hell, they'll kick their own out at the first whiff of compromise. You've already indicated you wouldn't vote for Rand Paul.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

The differences on those issues are unbridgeable. Real conservatives believe in a strong engaged America.

Yes. Such as nation building in the middle east and police State building at home. Engaged in several proxy wars, aiding the enemy, flipping international law the bird and a host of other "strong engagements" that people like Rabbi love so dearly. Which makes one wonder why he's not an Obama supporter except that partisan log jammed in the eye....

He's correct. GOP "conservatives" and libertarians have unbridgeable differences. That's why we can not unite. Libertarians stand on principles, while the so called "conservatives" are just another special interest group vote bloc. Much like welfare recipients. Just a different kind of welfare.

 

[Edgetho]

Ayn Rand on Libertarians and Libertarianism.... (are you listening 'Rand' Paul?)

She felt about the same way toward Libertarians as I do. Contempt

Ayn Rand Q&A on Libertarianism - The Ayn Rand Institute

Q: Why don’t you approve of libertarians, thousands of whom are loyal readers of your works?

AR: Because libertarians are a monstrous, disgusting bunch of people: they plagiarize my ideas when that fits their purpose, and denounce me in a more vicious manner than any communist publication when that fits their purpose. They’re lower than any pragmatists, and what they hold against Objectivism is morality. They want an amoral political program.

For the record, I shall repeat what I have said many times before: I do not join or endorse any political group or movement. More specifically, I disapprove of, disagree with, and have no connection with, the latest aberration of some conservatives, the so-called “hippies of the right,” who attempt to snare the younger or more careless ones of my readers by claiming simultanteously to be followers of my philosophy and advocates of anarchism. Anyone offering such a combination confesses his inability to understand either. Anarchism is the most irrational, anti-intellectual notion ever spun by the concrete-bound, context-dropping, whim-worshiping fringe of the collectivist movement, where it properly belongs.

Q:What do you think of the libertarian movement?

AR: All kinds of people today call themselves “libertarians,” especially something calling itself the New Right, which consists of hippies who are anarchists instead of leftist collectivists; but anarchists are collectivists. Capitalism is the one system that requires absolute objective law, yet libertarians combine capitalism and anarchism. That’s worse than anything the New Left has proposed. It’s a mockery of philosophy and ideology. They sling slogans and try to ride on two bandwagons. They want to be hippies, but don’t want to preach collectivism because those jobs are already taken. But anarchism is a logical outgrowth of the anti-intellectual side of collectivism. I could deal with a Marxist with a greater chance of reaching some kind of understanding, and with much greater respect. Anarchists are the scum of the intellectual world of the Left, which has given them up. So the Right picks up another leftist discard. That’s the libertarian movement.

Q: What do you think of the Libertarian Party?

AR: I’d rather vote for Bob Hope, the Marx Brothers, or Jerry Lewis—they’re not as funny as John Hospers and the Libertarian Party. If Hospers takes ten votes away from Nixon (which I doubt he’ll do), it would be a moral crime. I don’t care about Nixon, and I care even less about Hospers; but this is no time to engage in publicity seeking, which all these crank political parties are doing. (George Wallace is no great thinker—he’s a demagogue, though with some courage—but even he had the sense to stay home this time.) If you want to spread your ideas, do it through education. But don’t run for president—or even dogcatcher—if you’re going to help McGovern.

Q: Libertarians advocate the politics you do, so why are you opposed to the Libertarian Party?

AR: They’re not defenders of capitalism. They’re a group of publicity seekers who rush into politics prematurely, because they allegedly want to educate people through a political campaign, which can’t be done. Further, their leadership consists of men of every persuasion, from religious conservatives to anarchists. Most of them are my enemies: they spend their time denouncing me, while plagiarizing my ideas. Now it’s a bad sign for an allegedly pro-capitalist party to start by stealing ideas.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

It'll probably be difficult to get them to join us when we belittle them, and misrepresent their platforms. Not that I'm even disagreeing with your pretense, but the delivery isn't helping promote a discussion between the differnces we have.

You're missing his point. Rabbi doesn't want libertarians at all. He'd like our votes sure, but if that means actually compromising he's not interested.

I dont see any compromise from the narcos. Hell, they'll kick their own out at the first whiff of compromise. You've already indicated you wouldn't vote for Rand Paul.

I'd be willing to compromise and vote for Rand Paul if he recanted on one issue. There would still be plenty I disagreed with him on, but that one issue is a deal-breaker.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Ayn Rand on Libertarians and Libertarianism.... (are you listening 'Rand' Paul?)

She felt about the same way toward Libertarians as I do. Contempt

Ayn Rand Q&A on Libertarianism - The Ayn Rand Institute

Q: Why don’t you approve of libertarians, thousands of whom are loyal readers of your works?

AR: Because libertarians are a monstrous, disgusting bunch of people: they plagiarize my ideas when that fits their purpose, and denounce me in a more vicious manner than any communist publication when that fits their purpose. They’re lower than any pragmatists, and what they hold against Objectivism is morality. They want an amoral political program.

For the record, I shall repeat what I have said many times before: I do not join or endorse any political group or movement. More specifically, I disapprove of, disagree with, and have no connection with, the latest aberration of some conservatives, the so-called “hippies of the right,” who attempt to snare the younger or more careless ones of my readers by claiming simultanteously to be followers of my philosophy and advocates of anarchism. Anyone offering such a combination confesses his inability to understand either. Anarchism is the most irrational, anti-intellectual notion ever spun by the concrete-bound, context-dropping, whim-worshiping fringe of the collectivist movement, where it properly belongs.

Q:What do you think of the libertarian movement?

AR: All kinds of people today call themselves “libertarians,” especially something calling itself the New Right, which consists of hippies who are anarchists instead of leftist collectivists; but anarchists are collectivists. Capitalism is the one system that requires absolute objective law, yet libertarians combine capitalism and anarchism. That’s worse than anything the New Left has proposed. It’s a mockery of philosophy and ideology. They sling slogans and try to ride on two bandwagons. They want to be hippies, but don’t want to preach collectivism because those jobs are already taken. But anarchism is a logical outgrowth of the anti-intellectual side of collectivism. I could deal with a Marxist with a greater chance of reaching some kind of understanding, and with much greater respect. Anarchists are the scum of the intellectual world of the Left, which has given them up. So the Right picks up another leftist discard. That’s the libertarian movement.

Q: What do you think of the Libertarian Party?

AR: I’d rather vote for Bob Hope, the Marx Brothers, or Jerry Lewis—they’re not as funny as John Hospers and the Libertarian Party. If Hospers takes ten votes away from Nixon (which I doubt he’ll do), it would be a moral crime. I don’t care about Nixon, and I care even less about Hospers; but this is no time to engage in publicity seeking, which all these crank political parties are doing. (George Wallace is no great thinker—he’s a demagogue, though with some courage—but even he had the sense to stay home this time.) If you want to spread your ideas, do it through education. But don’t run for president—or even dogcatcher—if you’re going to help McGovern.

Q: Libertarians advocate the politics you do, so why are you opposed to the Libertarian Party?

AR: They’re not defenders of capitalism. They’re a group of publicity seekers who rush into politics prematurely, because they allegedly want to educate people through a political campaign, which can’t be done. Further, their leadership consists of men of every persuasion, from religious conservatives to anarchists. Most of them are my enemies: they spend their time denouncing me, while plagiarizing my ideas. Now it’s a bad sign for an allegedly pro-capitalist party to start by stealing ideas.

You mean Ayn Rand the plagiarist?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

 

[Pete7469]

Because narco-libertarians come with other baggage, like isolationism and a healthy dose of anti semitism. Also radical views on social issues. This is why they lose every time.
How about giving up the social crap and join the GOP to push out the statists in the party and move towards more free enterprise?

It'll probably be difficult to get them to join us when we belittle them, and misrepresent their platforms. Not that I'm even disagreeing with your pretense, but the delivery isn't helping promote a discussion between the differnces we have.

The differences on those issues are unbridgeable. Real conservatives believe in a strong engaged America. The narcos basically follow the Obama agenda. This is part of why real conservatives hate Obama. So they will hate the narcos for the same reason.
Fortunately the narcos represent about 2% of voters (and 40% of internet posters), so they are pretty marginal at best. Add in that most of them vote for known losers and they might as well stay home on election day.

We can have a strong engaged America and withdraw some of our military bootprint. The biggest problem we have is that we don't have consistency. We go from balls to the wall, to complacent incompetence.

I don't think that withdrawing from the world will stabilize anything, but if we aren't stable, we can't stabilize anything anyway. Libertarians beleive in a more extreme sort of "non-intervention", some call it "isolationism". I think we need to get the hell out of the middle east, africa and europe. The euroweenies can handle their continent, and they're the ones who fucked up africa and the middle east. Keeping China in check should be our concern. So I partly agree with libertarians, and conservatives.

There, bridge in place.

 

[thanatos144]

Interestingly, in the wake of Snowden/NSA surveillance programs, it’s liberals and libertarians who have become allies.

ROFLMAO!!!!, thanks for the laugh, much appreciated.

Libertarians and "liberals" becoming "allies" is about as feasible as The Pope publicly agreeing to dine in hell with Satan. When "liberals" disavow all the methods, practices and purpose of the leviathan authoritarian state then maybe an alliance can be formed, but that ain't happened yet, not even close.

Really? Who do you think they are more like? Other then taxes and state government vs federal government you cant differentiate the two. Both want large government just a different local. Both want abortion on demand Libertarians just like to say it is a state issue, Both want legal drugs so it can be TAXED, Both hate money of any kind spent on defense, Both would rather capitulate to a outside force instead of standing their ground, Both blame the corporations for the loss of manufacturing jobs, Both ignorantly believe the first amendment is a something to protect the people FROM religion, ect ect ect.... They have more in common with progressives then with conservatives....

 

[thanatos144]

Conservatives made it very clear in the last election that they want nothing to do with libertarians as they went on to lose in spectacular fashion.

We made it clear we didn't want Ron Paul.

 

[kwc57]

That's very noble and I'm sure you sleep well at night congratulating yourself on how principled you are.
In the adult world though such actions make you irrelevant to the political process.

Wow, such silly and cynical notions you harbor, criticizing somebody for sticking to their principles? You understand that your statement indicates that you are UNPRINCIPLED? You might want to stop and think about it since it would indicate that you are no different than those that game the system to steal tax dollars from honest people because "everybody does it so why shouldn't I?".

The fact of the matter is what the Republic needs is MORE people like RKMBrown, people that are willing to do what they believe is right instead of what they believe is popular. The principled person is FAR more relevant than the unprincipled sheep will ever be because he is setting the example that people should be following if we have any hope of saving the Republic that we inherited from our principled predecessors.

No, it is not "principled." It is stupid. Mr Brown has zero effect on anything but his own ego. The adults in the room know that nationally we have two parties. You can either engage one or the other of them and try to influence how they work or you can remain irrelevant. Mr Brown has chosen to remain irrelevant.
To me that is irresponsible. He might as well not vote at all.

And you're satisfied with a choice between a shit sandwich or a vomit shake. We need more citizen sheeple like you!

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Conservatives made it very clear in the last election that they want nothing to do with libertarians as they went on to lose in spectacular fashion.

We made it clear we didn't want Ron Paul.

So you nominated Obama.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Interestingly, in the wake of Snowden/NSA surveillance programs, it’s liberals and libertarians who have become allies.

ROFLMAO!!!!, thanks for the laugh, much appreciated.

Libertarians and "liberals" becoming "allies" is about as feasible as The Pope publicly agreeing to dine in hell with Satan. When "liberals" disavow all the methods, practices and purpose of the leviathan authoritarian state then maybe an alliance can be formed, but that ain't happened yet, not even close.

Really? Who do you think they are more like? Other then taxes and state government vs federal government you cant differentiate the two. Both want large government just a different local. Both want abortion on demand Libertarians just like to say it is a state issue, Both want legal drugs so it can be TAXED, Both hate money of any kind spent on defense, Both would rather capitulate to a outside force instead of standing their ground, Both blame the corporations for the loss of manufacturing jobs, Both ignorantly believe the first amendment is a something to protect the people FROM religion, ect ect ect.... They have more in common with progressives then with conservatives....

Hey, Cork! How's the beer cooler?

Anyway, you never seize to impress with your incredible lack of knowledge regarding libertarians. Even after you are corrected, you come right back and fuck it up all over again. If one didn't know you work at a convenience store, one might be inclined to think you do it on purpose. But alas, it is obvious that you lack the mental fortitude to allow the ingress of correct knowledge on this subject.

Thanks for the laughs though. Always worth reading for that.

 

[Rocko]

Tough fucking titties.

Quit blaming the customer for your horseshit neocon product.

With all due respect, people aren't exactly lining up to buy your product either.

How about giving real freedom and free enterprise and real cuts in spending and bureaucracy a fair hearing in the arena of ideas, rather than smearing and lying about libertarians like liberoidals do?

This is where we disagree, Oddball, libertarians have their voices heard, just like liberals and conservatives, it's just that people aren't buying. That's a fact.