Neo-Confederate libertarians are not conservatives.

Wrong again. You're batting a thousand. You dont even know what a libertarian is, Berk (Im giving you the name Berk because Dullard and Corky are taken already by other board members).

There are libertarians in congress. They have been named already and there are others too.

Regardless of that fact, you are now trying to move the goal posts because your initial assertion was shown to be as ridiculous and stupid as you. It's a classic Authoritarian Progressive Loser tactic.
There are no Libertarians in Congress. Amash and Massie are Republicans! Apparantly, although they lack the courage of their convictions, such as you have, they make up for it by having more political sense.

Berk, party affiliation doesn't mean anything when it comes to ideology. Ron Paul was a republican too. The reason? Simple. There is a two party paradigm in the US. Only the two parties receive any media atttention and therefore, outside of this paradigm one is left with very little hope of gripping the national audience.

Furthering your lack of understanding, you accused Pauul of hijacking the libertairan party. Meanwhile, he was a republican party affiliate. Though, known for his libertarian views.

C'mon, Berk. Find a narrative and stick to it. You're all over the place. Furthering the argument that someone who is ignorant should remain quiet and make people wonder, rather than remove all doubt.

So a good Libertarian is one who swallows his pride, and puts the (R) after his name, thus assuring himself of that RNC money (as opposed to the non-existent L money) and the guarantee of not having a pesky R opponent. I'm learning!
 
Last edited:
There are no Libertarians in Congress. Amash and Massie are Republicans! Apparantly, although they lack the courage of their convictions, such as you have, they make up for it by having more political sense.

Berk, party affiliation doesn't mean anything when it comes to ideology. Ron Paul was a republican too. The reason? Simple. There is a two party paradigm in the US. Only the two parties receive any media atttention and therefore, outside of this paradigm one is left with very little hope of gripping the national audience.

Furthering your lack of understanding, you accused Pauul of hijacking the libertairan party. Meanwhile, he was a republican party affiliate. Though, known for his libertarian views.

C'mon, Berk. Find a narrative and stick to it. You're all over the place. Furthering the argument that someone who is ignorant should remain quiet and make people wonder, rather than remove all doubt.

So a good Libertarian is one who swallows his pride, and puts the (R) after his name, thus assuring himself of that RNC money (as opposed to the non-existant L money) and the guarantee of not having a pesky R opponent. I'm learning!

Moving the goal posts again, I see, Berk.
 
I have no doubt that bright, articulate Libertarians do exist, yet they seem to be conspicuously absent from both houses of Congress, and this thread.

Obviously George Soros has sent the ThinkProgress legion out with orders to try and smear Libertarians with the acts of the Antebellum South. On the face of this, it is so absurd that most of us just ignore it. But given that several of you are engaging in the same attack, this is clearly an organized effort, carried out by all of Soros's little Goebbels.

That maybe - but if that is the case, then Libertarians like Rand Paul are certainly adding fuel to the fire by hiring neo-confederates like Jack Hunter - "The Southern Avenger."
 
Nope. Following your lead. How else can a noob broaden his horizons, if not to attach himself to a shooting-star?
 
Rand Paul isn't libertarian. Do any of you clowns even know what you're talking about? It's like a fucking "who can say the dumbest shit" fest in here.
 
Rand Paul isn't libertarian. Do any of you clowns even know what you're talking about? It's like a fucking "who can say the dumbest shit" fest in here.

Yeah, still waiting for the OP or others to show how Neocons/Progressives like John Boehner and Mitch McConnel are more Conservative than me. But i'm a patient person. I'll give em a little more time.
 
I don't blame you for trying to disassociate yourself from Paul.

But he's your poster boy.

Like it or not.
 
I have no doubt that bright, articulate Libertarians do exist, yet they seem to be conspicuously absent from both houses of Congress, and this thread.

Wrong again. You're batting a thousand. You dont even know what a libertarian is, Berk (Im giving you the name Berk because Dullard and Corky are taken already by other board members).

There are libertarians in congress. They have been named already and there are others too.

Regardless of that fact, you are now trying to move the goal posts because your initial assertion was shown to be as ridiculous and stupid as you. It's a classic Authoritarian Progressive Loser tactic.
There are no Libertarians in Congress. Amash and Massie are Republicans! Apparently, although they lack the courage of their convictions, such as you have, they make up for it by having more political sense.

Libertarian is more than a political party, it's also a political ideology like liberalism or conservatism. In that respect, Amash and Massie are libertarians, rather than conservatives, who happen to be members of the Republican Party. Anybody who doesn't understand that simple concept should not be discussing libertarianism at all.
 
You can track the name back to Jesus, if you want, but that doesn't change the date of the founding, or the reasons for it.

The founding of the Libertarian Party is not the founding of libertarianism. And I doubt you could trace the word back to Jesus.

But you can trace it back to the birth of Judas Iscariot, who was delivered by the Roman obstetrician Ronus Paulus.

Unless I'm much mistaken it was the government who paid Judas in the first place.
 
I believe H.L. Mencken coined the term in the 1920s

I don't know that he coined it, but he certainly used it.

He is widely credited for coining the term. I think I've even read the editorial where he first used it.

It's entirely possible that he was the first to use the term as it is understood today, but I don't believe he was the first to have ever used it. I believe some brand of socialists originally referred to themselves as libertarians in the 1800's.
 
There are no Libertarians in Congress. Amash and Massie are Republicans! Apparantly, although they lack the courage of their convictions, such as you have, they make up for it by having more political sense.

Berk, party affiliation doesn't mean anything when it comes to ideology. Ron Paul was a republican too. The reason? Simple. There is a two party paradigm in the US. Only the two parties receive any media atttention and therefore, outside of this paradigm one is left with very little hope of gripping the national audience.

Furthering your lack of understanding, you accused Pauul of hijacking the libertairan party. Meanwhile, he was a republican party affiliate. Though, known for his libertarian views.

C'mon, Berk. Find a narrative and stick to it. You're all over the place. Furthering the argument that someone who is ignorant should remain quiet and make people wonder, rather than remove all doubt.

So a good Libertarian is one who swallows his pride, and puts the (R) after his name, thus assuring himself of that RNC money (as opposed to the non-existent L money) and the guarantee of not having a pesky R opponent. I'm learning!

I believe Lindsey Graham's Democratic opponent in 2008 was running as a "Ron Paul Democrat." In other words, a libertarian running as a Democrat. It really wouldn't matter which party a libertarian chose to run as.
 
Wrong again. You're batting a thousand. You dont even know what a libertarian is, Berk (Im giving you the name Berk because Dullard and Corky are taken already by other board members).

There are libertarians in congress. They have been named already and there are others too.

Regardless of that fact, you are now trying to move the goal posts because your initial assertion was shown to be as ridiculous and stupid as you. It's a classic Authoritarian Progressive Loser tactic.
There are no Libertarians in Congress. Amash and Massie are Republicans! Apparently, although they lack the courage of their convictions, such as you have, they make up for it by having more political sense.

Libertarian is more than a political party, it's also a political ideology like liberalism or conservatism. In that respect, Amash and Massie are libertarians, rather than conservatives, who happen to be members of the Republican Party. Anybody who doesn't understand that simple concept should not be discussing libertarianism at all.

Does that make everyone a libertarian that has just one viewpoint that intersects with the libertarian party plank?
 
I don't blame you for trying to disassociate yourself from Paul.

But he's your poster boy.

Like it or not.

I disassociate myself from Rand because he supports keeping Guantanamo Bay Prison open, does not support a noninterventionist foreign policy, and does not seem interested in getting rid of the Federal Reserve. That being said, he's probably the best Senator in terms of issues libertarians support, but that doesn't make him a libertarian. One has to actually support libertarian positions to be a libertarian. Simply being the son of Ron Paul doesn't make it so.
 
There are no Libertarians in Congress. Amash and Massie are Republicans! Apparently, although they lack the courage of their convictions, such as you have, they make up for it by having more political sense.

Libertarian is more than a political party, it's also a political ideology like liberalism or conservatism. In that respect, Amash and Massie are libertarians, rather than conservatives, who happen to be members of the Republican Party. Anybody who doesn't understand that simple concept should not be discussing libertarianism at all.

Does that make everyone a libertarian that has just one viewpoint that intersects with the libertarian party plank?

I wouldn't think so. That'd be like saying that I'm a conservative or a progressive because there is some overlap on this or that issue. Obviously I'm neither. Murray Rothbard had a rule that you're allowed three deviations from the libertarian position before you're not considered a libertarian anymore. Of course that merely begs the question of what the libertarian position is in the first place. Not every issue is cut and dry.

At any rate, I think there has to be some kind of baseline, I just couldn't say where it is.
 
Well, gotta go. Not one Neocon/Progressive on this thread has sufficiently shown how they are 'Real' Conservatives. And that pretty much explains why the Republican Party is run by corrupt frauds. With friends like Boehner and McConnel, who needs enemies?
 
Libertarian is more than a political party, it's also a political ideology like liberalism or conservatism. In that respect, Amash and Massie are libertarians, rather than conservatives, who happen to be members of the Republican Party. Anybody who doesn't understand that simple concept should not be discussing libertarianism at all.

Does that make everyone a libertarian that has just one viewpoint that intersects with the libertarian party plank?

I wouldn't think so. That'd be like saying that I'm a conservative or a progressive because there is some overlap on this or that issue. Obviously I'm neither. Murray Rothbard had a rule that you're allowed three deviations from the libertarian position before you're not considered a libertarian anymore. Of course that merely begs the question of what the libertarian position is in the first place. Not every issue is cut and dry.

At any rate, I think there has to be some kind of baseline, I just couldn't say where it is.

Same... and those "three" would be different for everyone and would be 2 for some and 4 for others... the dreaded "litmus" tests.

Are you christian yes/no?
Are you for or against abortions?
Are you for or against guns?
Are you for or against debt?
Are you for or against education?
Are you for or against the children and elderly?
Are you for or against gay people?

ROFL you just can't make this stuff up.

IMO the baseline would be your political manifesto, from where do your political views originate.

Save the planet... (democrats)
Save yourself/your family... (republicans)
Save everyone from republicans & democrats (libertarian) :) nudge
 
Last edited:
Does that make everyone a libertarian that has just one viewpoint that intersects with the libertarian party plank?

I wouldn't think so. That'd be like saying that I'm a conservative or a progressive because there is some overlap on this or that issue. Obviously I'm neither. Murray Rothbard had a rule that you're allowed three deviations from the libertarian position before you're not considered a libertarian anymore. Of course that merely begs the question of what the libertarian position is in the first place. Not every issue is cut and dry.

At any rate, I think there has to be some kind of baseline, I just couldn't say where it is.

Same... and those "three" would be different for everyone and would be 2 for some and 4 for others... the dreaded "litmus" tests.

Are you christian yes/no?
Are you for or against abortions?
Are you for or against guns?
Are you for or against debt?
Are you for or against education?
Are you for or against the children and elderly?
Are you for or against gay people?

ROFL you just can't make this stuff up.

Well there are some issues that make it obvious. Anybody who claims to be a libertarian but says they support the Iraq War is lying about being a libertarian, for example.
 

Forum List

Back
Top