Libertarianism

[Foxfyre]

But how we choose to tax and spend is as much a component of liberty as is the value our culture puts on life and protection of the children, born and unborn. And just as the people will usually choose wisely and competently in all other matters as they form a society they want to have, left alone, they will choose wisely and competently in matters of abortion.

I want abortion to remain legal for those who MUST have one, but as a culture so rare that it is no longer an issue for anybody.

What would you think as a libertarian, Foxfyre, of the common practice in China and India and other places, of sex-selective abortion? Apparently this is the most common reason for abortion in those countries: they only want boys.

This is not a practice that has come to our shores much, except (I have read) among some Oriental populations in the West.

It could easily come here, and may, soon. It seems to me that many strange new cultural practices present a problem for libertarians (men marrying men is certainly one of those!); some things seem a bridge too far, but how can you draw a line against freedom?

It is already here Circe. It is almost a mathematical certainty in a culture in which abortion is passionately defended that many of the 1.2 to 1.5 million babies aborted each and every year in the USA are aborted because the parent(s) wanted a different sex. It is only in recent years that we have had the capability to tell the parents early on what gender the baby is.

Left alone to govern themselves and work out the details for the society they wish to have, people usually form a culture beneficial to all. Everybody doesn't want to live in a Mayberry, USA and everybody doesn't want to live in a Philadelphia or New York City. But the Founders intended that people be able to form whatever sort of environment they preferred.

We either trust the people to govern themselves or we don't.

But we can't call ourselves libertarian if we think the people cannot be trusted to govern themselves and want the federal government to force them to form a 'proper' society.

 

[FA_Q2]

Certainly! Several. Anyone who decides that the law should protect fetuses from "murder," and protect concepti, sperm just united with ovum, or even a hopeful sparkle in some man's eye by piling a lot of laws onto women is obviously in favor of taking away abortion rights.

Duh.

Yes, that was established but can you quote anyone that has said they support that? Are you lumping my belief in limiting the gestational period under that concept?

I would find it rather disconcerting if you are behind abortion to the point that it should be allowed all the way up to and during the birthing process at 9 months. If not, then please link one other poster in this thread that is libertarian and holds a view that you find disconcerting.

Great Gatsby. I think there are a few others, too. RKMBrown; see his post just above.

Hmm…
To be honest, I can’t find a single post where GG mentions what he believes in personally. All the statements that I have seen him make are on the same lines as my original argument – that there are pro-life libertarians and it is not against the core principals in libertarianism. I could be incorrect in his meaning though, I’ll leave that to him to clarify if he so chooses.

RMK made a similar statement to mine as well, that there should be regulations in gestational periods. He bases it off another metric (heart/brain action) that I think would place that at a far to short a period but the gist of that is the same. As you did not state that you were lumping my personal stance into the ‘disillusioning’ category, I will assume for now that you are not so opposed to that approach. What is it about RMK’s statement that is so different from my own then?

 

[FA_Q2]

Agree 100%. Well said.

Odd that you and I disagree on the taxing and spending parts of our federal government yet agree 100% on issues of liberty.

It’s not really odd at all. Fox and you have very similar concepts of what liberty truly is. Like MANY libertarian views, the core concept is centered on maximized liberty and freedom but there are always different views on how to get to that liberty. On social issues, that is a simple exercise – less government intrusion is better. Most libertarians are going to agree with those processes/policies. Tax policy is another ball of wax as the government is intruding – that what taxing is – and that leads to several different views. In the end, we are all working to the same goals so most fundamentals will be the same but tax policy is not so cut and dry. That is guaranteed to lead to different concepts on what intrusion is the lesser one and that is a good thing. More ideas means more things to try and the best way will show itself as long as we are all working to the same goals – in this case liberty.

Well said... odd was the wrong term. Perhaps, frustrating or disconcerting

LOL

Now THAT I can agree with! You were VERY frustrating in that thread

I am sure you were saying the EXACT same thing though!

 

[RKMBrown]

But how we choose to tax and spend is as much a component of liberty as is the value our culture puts on life and protection of the children, born and unborn. And just as the people will usually choose wisely and competently in all other matters as they form a society they want to have, left alone, they will choose wisely and competently in matters of abortion.

I want abortion to remain legal for those who MUST have one, but as a culture so rare that it is no longer an issue for anybody.

What would you think as a libertarian, Foxfyre, of the common practice in China and India and other places, of sex-selective abortion? Apparently this is the most common reason for abortion in those countries: they only want boys.

This is not a practice that has come to our shores much, except (I have read) among some Oriental populations in the West.

It could easily come here, and may, soon. It seems to me that many strange new cultural practices present a problem for libertarians (men marrying men is certainly one of those!); some things seem a bridge too far, but how can you draw a line against freedom?

It is already here Circe. It is almost a mathematical certainty in a culture in which abortion is passionately defended that many of the 1.2 to 1.5 million babies aborted each and every year in the USA are aborted because the parent(s) wanted a different sex. It is only in recent years that we have had the capability to tell the parents early on what gender the baby is.

Left alone to govern themselves and work out the details for the society they wish to have, people usually form a culture beneficial to all. Everybody doesn't want to live in a Mayberry, USA and everybody doesn't want to live in a Philadelphia or New York City. But the Founders intended that people be able to form whatever sort of environment they preferred.

We either trust the people to govern themselves or we don't.

But we can't call ourselves libertarian if we think the people cannot be trusted to govern themselves and want the federal government to force them to form a 'proper' society.

True, but liberty does not extend to the right to take someone eles's liberty away from them. Surely the killing of another human being (abortion in this case), for no other reason than convenience, is an act that takes away the liberty of the un-born child.

 

[FA_Q2]

If the federal government would stay out of it and ALL reproductive processes, as the Founders would have intended, society will decide on the issue of abortion. Just as culturally we don't endorse public nudity except in very controlled environments. . . .just as culturally we don't condone butchering and eating dogs, cats, horses. . . .we as a culture will come to our own decisions about abortion.

The statists, of whatever party, do not trust the people with such decisions.

True libertarians do.

I find the philosophical implications of this post fascinating. Do you see, Foxfyre, that you are assuming that the whole people will make ONE decision about a given issue? That is, the great majority will decide not to eat horsemeat, not to have abortions in X circumstances, not to go naked in public, etc.

However, even in this statist culture, there are nude bathing beaches and a whole area in San Francisco (I read) where homosexual men normally walk around quite nude. (I believe the city fathers are trying to stop that, but there have been protests.)

In a libertarian culture wouldn't there be even more diversity? The culture wouldn't make just one decision, but many. People would experiment wildly. Like in the '60s! I was reading a sci-fi by Charles Stross that had a lot of that -- people joining a group that did tissue culture of exotic animals to eat, people who grew horns and wings by using DNA transplants, people who became unisex --- Unsex, they called it.

I don't see a libertarian society as making one common consensus culture, but wild experimentalism so that lots more possibilities open up. If a person doesn't like all this confrontational change, and wants laws against it, isn't that rather a traditionalist conservative position rather than libertarian?

Absolutely!

And that is what would happen too – there would be many different ‘experiments’ in different ways of exercising government. That is a good thing. Not only that, but the most successful means of governing would quickly spread. While consensus is not the correct word there, you would see much similarity as the best ways of running government were spread around and adopted.

It is worth noting though that in a libertarian system there would be fewer controls and laws taking your rights than there is now even with the diversity in ideas/governing.

 

[RKMBrown]

It’s not really odd at all. Fox and you have very similar concepts of what liberty truly is. Like MANY libertarian views, the core concept is centered on maximized liberty and freedom but there are always different views on how to get to that liberty. On social issues, that is a simple exercise – less government intrusion is better. Most libertarians are going to agree with those processes/policies. Tax policy is another ball of wax as the government is intruding – that what taxing is – and that leads to several different views. In the end, we are all working to the same goals so most fundamentals will be the same but tax policy is not so cut and dry. That is guaranteed to lead to different concepts on what intrusion is the lesser one and that is a good thing. More ideas means more things to try and the best way will show itself as long as we are all working to the same goals – in this case liberty.

Well said... odd was the wrong term. Perhaps, frustrating or disconcerting

LOL

Now THAT I can agree with! You were VERY frustrating in that thread

I am sure you were saying the EXACT same thing though!

Yeah in my mind, involuntary personal income tax crosses the line into a form of indentured slavery. I just can't come up with a valid reason to excuse it. Thus any discussion of it, and the folks on the other side are gonna see me as being angry, antagonistic, etc. It's not the case.. but it will be read that way. I suppose I need to find better terms that are less abrasive and perhaps even expiatory.

 

[Circe]

What part of my view on advocating for the life of a child was disconcerting?

This:

Yeah on the matter of abortion, I think the child needs an advocate to argue to a judge to spare the life of the child in cases where the abortion is done late term and / or just for convenience. Convenience as a choice, IMO, should end when the child's heart is beating and/or some level of brain wave activity is present.

Your ideas here assume laws to force all this and stop abortions. So much for Roe v. Wade.....

"Convenience" is heavily subjective: if a horrible disgusting violent rapist jumped out of an alley in Boston and raped me when I was young -- this happened to a college friend of mine and I don't know if she ever recovered, it was all she could think about three years later, I know -- and I got pregnant and was forced to carry the fetus to term and decide whether to raise it because people said that was just an issue of "convenience," wow, that would be a true horror story. I'd rather other people, like some men somewhere who like to mind other peoples' business, not decide things like that for me. Let's let people decide that sort of thing for themselves.

As for the brain wave/heart beating business, that sets a very early threshold that would stop abortions by law -- laws, laws, laws: aren't libertarians supposed to be against all these oppressive laws? Or is that just laws against guns that men don't like? There's a real problem about severely impaired fetuses close to birth. Trust me: you do NOT want to know the possibilities. I could tell you stories, but luckily for you, I won't.

Best to leave it all to decision by the woman and her husband, if any, and her doctor. Doctors have seen accidents of nature before and they know what they are doing.

 

[Circe]

Yes, that was established but can you quote anyone that has said they support that? Are you lumping my belief in limiting the gestational period under that concept?

I would find it rather disconcerting if you are behind abortion to the point that it should be allowed all the way up to and during the birthing process at 9 months. If not, then please link one other poster in this thread that is libertarian and holds a view that you find disconcerting.

Great Gatsby. I think there are a few others, too. RKMBrown; see his post just above.

Hmm…
To be honest, I can’t find a single post where GG mentions what he believes in personally. All the statements that I have seen him make are on the same lines as my original argument – that there are pro-life libertarians and it is not against the core principals in libertarianism. I could be incorrect in his meaning though, I’ll leave that to him to clarify if he so chooses.

RMK made a similar statement to mine as well, that there should be regulations in gestational periods. He bases it off another metric (heart/brain action) that I think would place that at a far to short a period but the gist of that is the same. As you did not state that you were lumping my personal stance into the ‘disillusioning’ category, I will assume for now that you are not so opposed to that approach. What is it about RMK’s statement that is so different from my own then?

He wants specific laws that would outlaw most abortions. That seems to me the very antithesis of libertarianism.

You hate the idea of abortion (as is very emotionally appropriate for young parents; I especially never argue this issue with young women; I actually think it's probably bad for them. Really.) but if I understand you correctly, you would not make laws against it. That's classic libertarianism, I believe ---- we don't have to approve of everything that's out there! Shouldn't, really.

 

[RKMBrown]

What part of my view on advocating for the life of a child was disconcerting?

This:

Yeah on the matter of abortion, I think the child needs an advocate to argue to a judge to spare the life of the child in cases where the abortion is done late term and / or just for convenience. Convenience as a choice, IMO, should end when the child's heart is beating and/or some level of brain wave activity is present.

Your ideas here assume laws to force all this and stop abortions. So much for Roe v. Wade.....

"Convenience" is heavily subjective: if a horrible disgusting violent rapist jumped out of an alley in Boston and raped me when I was young -- this happened to a college friend of mine and I don't know if she ever recovered, it was all she could think about three years later, I know -- and I got pregnant and was forced to carry the fetus to term and decide whether to raise it because people said that was just an issue of "convenience," wow, that would be a true horror story. I'd rather other people, like some men somewhere who like to mind other peoples' business, not decide things like that for me. Let's let people decide that sort of thing for themselves.

As for the brain wave/heart beating business, that sets a very early threshold that would stop abortions by law -- laws, laws, laws: aren't libertarians supposed to be against all these oppressive laws? Or is that just laws against guns that men don't like? There's a real problem about severely impaired fetuses close to birth. Trust me: you do NOT want to know the possibilities. I could tell you stories, but luckily for you, I won't.

Best to leave it all to decision by the woman and her husband, if any, and her doctor. Doctors have seen accidents of nature before and they know what they are doing.

Thanks for the response Circe. My apologies. My use of the term convenience was not intended to include rape victims.

We already have laws that define a living human being as a person with a heart beat and/or brain wave activity. No additional laws would be required for my proposal.

We already have laws that require an advocate be provided in a case against a person who cannot speak for themselves. No additional laws would be required for this proposal either.

>>> severely impaired fetuses close to birth, accidents of nature etc.
Why would the advocate for a severely impaired fetus argue for that child to endure undue pain and suffering?

Again I'm not sure why you are including rape and severely impaired fetuses in my use of the term convenience. My example for convenience would be someone deciding at 5months along that they can't afford a baby right now.

 

[Circe]

Again I'm not sure why you are including rape and severely impaired fetuses in my use of the term convenience. My example for convenience would be someone deciding at 5months along that they can't afford a baby right now.

If it happens to you I'll be glad to decide you have to gestate and raise the baby anyway, even if you don't want to. But everyone else should decide on their own without your help --- or mine.

We already have laws that define a living human being as a person with a heart beat and/or brain wave activity. No additional laws would be required for my proposal.

We already have laws that require an advocate be provided in a case against a person who cannot speak for themselves. No additional laws would be required for this proposal either.

Very nice; the end of life laws. [ I never heard that argument before!

I could argue that it's not the same because the fetus is attached to and dependent on the biological subtrate of the mother; but you could come back with the point that the dying person is also attached to and dependent on ICU equipment.

It does not persuade me, of course, but I think you have a keeper there.

 

[Foxfyre]

What would you think as a libertarian, Foxfyre, of the common practice in China and India and other places, of sex-selective abortion? Apparently this is the most common reason for abortion in those countries: they only want boys.

This is not a practice that has come to our shores much, except (I have read) among some Oriental populations in the West.

It could easily come here, and may, soon. It seems to me that many strange new cultural practices present a problem for libertarians (men marrying men is certainly one of those!); some things seem a bridge too far, but how can you draw a line against freedom?

It is already here Circe. It is almost a mathematical certainty in a culture in which abortion is passionately defended that many of the 1.2 to 1.5 million babies aborted each and every year in the USA are aborted because the parent(s) wanted a different sex. It is only in recent years that we have had the capability to tell the parents early on what gender the baby is.

Left alone to govern themselves and work out the details for the society they wish to have, people usually form a culture beneficial to all. Everybody doesn't want to live in a Mayberry, USA and everybody doesn't want to live in a Philadelphia or New York City. But the Founders intended that people be able to form whatever sort of environment they preferred.

We either trust the people to govern themselves or we don't.

But we can't call ourselves libertarian if we think the people cannot be trusted to govern themselves and want the federal government to force them to form a 'proper' society.

True, but liberty does not extend to the right to take someone eles's liberty away from them. Surely the killing of another human being (abortion in this case), for no other reason than convenience, is an act that takes away the liberty of the un-born child.

Most of the pro-abortion crowd, whether libertarian or not, refuses to acknowledge that the unborn child is a human life. They refer to it as zygote, embryo, clump of cells, parasite. . . .anything other than a baby. And they put all the value on a woman's right to do anything to it or with it that she wants to do.

Most of the pro life crowd, whether libertarian or not, sees each stage of human life, even from the zygote and embrionic phases, as no less critical to a human life than is any stage outside the womb is critical to a human life. And if it comes to viability, that new born baby is no more viable without somebody else providing it warmth, nutrition, and other attendance to its needs than is the unborn child still within the womb.

So it all comes down to the value somebody puts on the life. If you can convince yourself that it is not a human life, then it is okay to kill it. But if it is a human life, no true libertarian could justify taking away that person's right to life unless the person voluntarily forfeits his/her right to life via his/her own choices/actions.

What libertarian objects to laws intended to protect our unalienable right to life and pursuit of happiness; i.e. laws that prevent others from commiting assault or murder with impunity, or from destroying or stealing our property with impunity, etc? And yet what moral libertarian does not believe in relieving suffering of a dumb animal, even if that relief is via destroying it? And should not the same compassion be extended to the unborn who has little or no chance for a happy, productive life; i.e. the severely damaged fetus, etc.?

But the paradox comes with those who are severely handicapped but who live happy, productive lives regardless.

No easy answers.

 

[FA_Q2]

Most of the pro life crowd, whether libertarian or not, sees each stage of human life, even from the zygote and embrionic phases, as no less critical to a human life than is any stage outside the womb is critical to a human life. And if it comes to viability, that new born baby is no more viable without somebody else providing it warmth, nutrition, and other attendance to its needs than is the unborn child still within the womb.

This, more than anything, really pisses me the fuck off. I have argued against pro-choice people here many times about abortion because the majority of them take absolutely asinine positions on what a fetus is. I support the right to choose BUT as the same time I look at that right and acknowledge that what I am supporting is the voluntary decision to kill another human for convenience. I support the right not because I think it is a ‘medical procedure’ or because I think that there is no value in the fetus. Those positions are not only wrong but they exist solely for the comfort of those that make that choice without any moral fortitude. I support it because I support rights and because the alternative is worse than the ‘solution.’

Those that try and muddy the waters by morally justifying the act through bullshit terms though are low and anger me greatly. If you have the balls to KILL your child, as that is exactly what you are doing, then at least have the balls to admit to yourself what you are doing. You have the right and you have the means – at least be honest.

No easy answers.

Not when you are talking about life and death coupled with rights over your own body. Those answers are never easy and if they become easy – watch out, you might have become a monster.

 

[thanatos144]

Most of the pro life crowd, whether libertarian or not, sees each stage of human life, even from the zygote and embrionic phases, as no less critical to a human life than is any stage outside the womb is critical to a human life. And if it comes to viability, that new born baby is no more viable without somebody else providing it warmth, nutrition, and other attendance to its needs than is the unborn child still within the womb.

This, more than anything, really pisses me the fuck off. I have argued against pro-life people here many times about abortion because the majority of them take absolutely asinine positions on what a fetus is. I support the right to choose BUT as the same time I look at that right and acknowledge that what I am supporting is the voluntary decision to kill another human for convenience. I support the right not because I think it is a ‘medical procedure’ or because I think that there is no value in the fetus. Those positions are not only wrong but they exist solely for the comfort of those that make that choice without any moral fortitude. I support it because I support rights and because the alternative is worse than the ‘solution.’

Those that try and muddy the waters by morally justifying the act through bullshit terms though are low and anger me greatly. If you have the balls to KILL your child, as that is exactly what you are doing, then at least have the balls to admit to yourself what you are doing. You have the right and you have the means – at least be honest.

No easy answers.

Not when you are talking about life and death coupled with rights over your own body. Those answers are never easy and if they become easy – watch out, you might have become a monster.

you talk of moral outrage is it something bad and uet you can't bring yourself to call it s human life. what's pathetic is the cowardice of the pro-abortion crowd inition cludes the Libertarian Party. . who in its platform speaks of just trying to ignore it and hopes it goes away

 

[FA_Q2]

you talk of moral outrage is it something bad enjoy it you can you can bring yourself to College human life. what's pathetic is the cowardice of the pro-abortion crowd inition cludes the Libertarian Party. . who in its platform speaks of just trying to ignore it and hopes it goes away

….
You’re going to have to try that again. That is completely incoherent.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Yes, that was established but can you quote anyone that has said they support that? Are you lumping my belief in limiting the gestational period under that concept?

I would find it rather disconcerting if you are behind abortion to the point that it should be allowed all the way up to and during the birthing process at 9 months. If not, then please link one other poster in this thread that is libertarian and holds a view that you find disconcerting.

Great Gatsby. I think there are a few others, too. RKMBrown; see his post just above.

Hmm…
To be honest, I can’t find a single post where GG mentions what he believes in personally. All the statements that I have seen him make are on the same lines as my original argument – that there are pro-life libertarians and it is not against the core principals in libertarianism. I could be incorrect in his meaning though, I’ll leave that to him to clarify if he so chooses.

RMK made a similar statement to mine as well, that there should be regulations in gestational periods. He bases it off another metric (heart/brain action) that I think would place that at a far to short a period but the gist of that is the same. As you did not state that you were lumping my personal stance into the ‘disillusioning’ category, I will assume for now that you are not so opposed to that approach. What is it about RMK’s statement that is so different from my own then?

I've made the case that being pro-life is not a means to invalidate people's rights as circe was claiming. Circe was aruging that the pro-life position was so diametrically not libertarian. And I said that's a load of crap. In fact, the libertarian platform allows for people on both sides of the issue.

A fetus has a heartbeat for f's sake. If anybody is anti-libertarian; it's the pro-choice side. Are we not for protecting everyone's right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness? The argument was, well it affects the woman's body. So? The woman has the choice to not get pregnant in the first place. If I were saying that I was advocating on who could get pregnant and when, then that would be anti-libertarian. But, I'm not. I'm saying that the fetus is a living organism and a life. The fact that it is dependent upon the mother or whatever is inconsequential. Newborns are totally dependent on guardians also. Does that mean they don't get rights? Of course not. Fetuses should have less rights based upon the magic placenta?

 

[FA_Q2]

Great Gatsby. I think there are a few others, too. RKMBrown; see his post just above.

Hmm…
To be honest, I can’t find a single post where GG mentions what he believes in personally. All the statements that I have seen him make are on the same lines as my original argument – that there are pro-life libertarians and it is not against the core principals in libertarianism. I could be incorrect in his meaning though, I’ll leave that to him to clarify if he so chooses.

RMK made a similar statement to mine as well, that there should be regulations in gestational periods. He bases it off another metric (heart/brain action) that I think would place that at a far to short a period but the gist of that is the same. As you did not state that you were lumping my personal stance into the ‘disillusioning’ category, I will assume for now that you are not so opposed to that approach. What is it about RMK’s statement that is so different from my own then?

I've made the case that being pro-life is not a means to invalidate people's rights as circe was claiming. Circe was aruging that the pro-life position was so diametrically not libertarian. And I said that's a load of crap. In fact, the libertarian platform allows for people on both sides of the issue.

A fetus has a heartbeat for f's sake. If anybody is anti-libertarian; it's the pro-choice side. Are we not for protecting everyone's right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness? The argument was, well it affects the woman's body. So? The woman has the choice to not get pregnant in the first place. If I were saying that I was advocating on who could get pregnant and when, then that would be anti-libertarian. But, I'm not. I'm saying that the fetus is a living organism and a life. The fact that it is dependent upon the mother or whatever is inconsequential. Newborns are totally dependent on guardians also. Does that mean they don't get rights? Of course not. Fetuses should have less rights based upon the magic placenta?

Thank you for the clarification. I seen your arguments but was not sure that you actually ascribed to what you were talking about as we are discussing libertarianism. Like I stated, many of my arguments earlier in this thread were of objective substance in relation to libertarianism, not personally held views.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What is it you are trying to say here? You have listed a catalogue of Monroe Doctrine interventions, short lived imperial notions, corporate security duty, national hubris, the suppression of anything perceived as against US business or geopolitical interests, and also the resultant suppression of the predictable backlash to such- with a few exceptions.

The US military, as in other similar countries, is at the mercy of contemporary political sentiments, and has been used shamelessly for such ends, in the case of the US, from the displacement of aboriginal inhabitants of the country, to the present miscalculation in Afghanistan. Glorifing these events is a complete whitewash of history.

The original claim was “the GOP who believe that the use of force is the only approach to every problem no matter what it might be.” The list and the presidential dates tell me that claim is false as the GOP and Democrats are not much different in the use of the military. Both like to bomb now and ask question later.

This false thought that somehow the GOP is pro war and the liberals antiwar is pretty pervasive in today’s politics. It ignores reality wholesale though. The only reason that I can see for the continuation of this claim is because Bush screwed up recently and he was GOP. That has given the liberals the chance to foist this on the GOP.

The historical record is irrelevant to the CURRENT status quo. Yes, the CURRENT GOP is pro war. Senators Graham and McCain openly advocate for a preemptive war against Iran. That is on the record. The Bush Doctrine is still very much a part of the GOP mindset.

Kerry has been pretty vocal about supporting intervention in Syria yet you continue to insist the the GOP is the problem.

 

[RKMBrown]

The original claim was “the GOP who believe that the use of force is the only approach to every problem no matter what it might be.” The list and the presidential dates tell me that claim is false as the GOP and Democrats are not much different in the use of the military. Both like to bomb now and ask question later.

This false thought that somehow the GOP is pro war and the liberals antiwar is pretty pervasive in today’s politics. It ignores reality wholesale though. The only reason that I can see for the continuation of this claim is because Bush screwed up recently and he was GOP. That has given the liberals the chance to foist this on the GOP.

The historical record is irrelevant to the CURRENT status quo. Yes, the CURRENT GOP is pro war. Senators Graham and McCain openly advocate for a preemptive war against Iran. That is on the record. The Bush Doctrine is still very much a part of the GOP mindset.

Kerry has been pretty vocal about supporting intervention in Syria yet you continue to insist the the GOP is the problem.

Maybe the problem is authoritarianism in both parties? Just sayin.

 

[thanatos144]

The historical record is irrelevant to the CURRENT status quo. Yes, the CURRENT GOP is pro war. Senators Graham and McCain openly advocate for a preemptive war against Iran. That is on the record. The Bush Doctrine is still very much a part of the GOP mindset.

Kerry has been pretty vocal about supporting intervention in Syria yet you continue to insist the the GOP is the problem.

Maybe the problem is authoritarianism in both parties? Just sayin.

do you honestly think libertarians be different? it isn't the ideology it's the people in power. in ideology Republicans are for equal opportunity for all races and sexes and a strong respect for the Republic government from which this was founded to be. and yet when you look at many other Republicans in office they do not embody anything of the ideology

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Kerry has been pretty vocal about supporting intervention in Syria yet you continue to insist the the GOP is the problem.

Maybe the problem is authoritarianism in both parties? Just sayin.

do you honestly think libertarians be different? it isn't the ideology it's the people in power. in ideology Republicans are for equal opportunity for all races and sexes and a strong respect for the Republic government from which this was founded to be. and yet when you look at many other Republicans in office they do not embody anything of the ideology

The GOP platform is Democrat Lite. The sooner you realize that, the sooner you'll realize they aren't the answer.