Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I totally agree with that scenario...
If Republicans obtained a super majority and did nothing with it they would look like frauds.
I don't see them doing nothing tho if they did have a super majority.... There are at least 35 members of congress that could be classified as "libertarian."
They had both houses and the oval office for 2 full years and did NOTHING with it to advance the cause of small government conservatism.
They've ALREADY been exposed. The difference between Paul and Bush though, is that Paul would present small government proposals to congress where Bush didn't.
RINO's had it from like 96-98 I believe...
Few of those in congress were "real" republicans, they were Republicans In Name Only (RINO)..
That ilk is no better than present day progressives....
Well if he turns out to be that good, then there's nothing to worry about. But if turns out to be another Bush, then we start all over again.
If Obama is Bush 3, which essentially means we're saying he's just as bad as Bush...and Romney turns out to be Bush 4, that would mean we're essentially saying he's just as bad as Bush and Obama.
How does that work out well for us? I'm confused.
You asked me what I would do, now you are asking something else. but it's a good question.
It doesn't work well for the country as a whole, but unless we can figure out a way to get Ron Paul elected then we are stuck with obama or the GOP nom. The lesser of the two evils in that choice is most definitely the GOP nom. As long as we can keep the GOP focussed on the Constitution, and fiscal responsibility, we have a chance. Re-elect obama and we might as well hang it up. We will have no further chance.
Guess it depends on your assessment of "how much lesser evil" we'd get. Specifically, whether it's worth the cost of continued support of the status quo - when, instead, you could be helping to build momentum for a real alternative.
You asked me what I would do, now you are asking something else. but it's a good question.
It doesn't work well for the country as a whole, but unless we can figure out a way to get Ron Paul elected then we are stuck with obama or the GOP nom. The lesser of the two evils in that choice is most definitely the GOP nom. As long as we can keep the GOP focussed on the Constitution, and fiscal responsibility, we have a chance. Re-elect obama and we might as well hang it up. We will have no further chance.
Guess it depends on your assessment of "how much lesser evil" we'd get. Specifically, whether it's worth the cost of continued support of the status quo - when, instead, you could be helping to build momentum for a real alternative.
The problem is that he thinks we can somehow steer the GOP to the right on issues they've moved left on, AFTER they get elected back into power.
The whole problem here is that it needs to be done BEFORE they get the power, because once they get the power they ignore anything else but their status quo.
Wow you're facebooking?You asked me what I would do, now you are asking something else. but it's a good question.
It doesn't work well for the country as a whole, but unless we can figure out a way to get Ron Paul elected then we are stuck with obama or the GOP nom. The lesser of the two evils in that choice is most definitely the GOP nom. As long as we can keep the GOP focussed on the Constitution, and fiscal responsibility, we have a chance. Re-elect obama and we might as well hang it up. We will have no further chance.
Guess it depends on your assessment of "how much lesser evil" we'd get. Specifically, whether it's worth the cost of continued support of the status quo - when, instead, you could be helping to build momentum for a real alternative.
I'm already doing that. here, on FaceBoook, and amongst my firends and co-workers. I just don't see how anyone can justify that having obama get another 4 years advances our cause in any way shape or form. people don't explain that, they just bash the GOP instead.
Of course it does. If he voted for Obama, which he didn't, he's voting for statism and there is no irony in my pointing that out.
True, but when you're going to vote for Romney or Santorum you're also voting for statism. Thus the irony.
Ok sure, here you go:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/4939360-post1.html
If you need more than that then you have a problem i can't help you with.
Guess it depends on your assessment of "how much lesser evil" we'd get. Specifically, whether it's worth the cost of continued support of the status quo - when, instead, you could be helping to build momentum for a real alternative.
The problem is that he thinks we can somehow steer the GOP to the right on issues they've moved left on, AFTER they get elected back into power.
The whole problem here is that it needs to be done BEFORE they get the power, because once they get the power they ignore anything else but their status quo.
Can you deny the changes that have already occurred in the GOP?
How is allowing obama to get 4 more years going to advance our cause any?
GOP voters who choose Romney in the general, if Romney wins and turns out to be another Bush, are simply going to avoid buyers remorse at all costs and find whatever reason why he's better than Obama.
That'll be good enough for most people. And that's what I'm afraid of with giving this to Romney. Everything we've worked so hard for to get the GOP to move back to the right, will be lost.
True, but when you're going to vote for Romney or Santorum you're also voting for statism. Thus the irony.
it would only be ironic if I claimed that I wasn't. I have always stated that I'm voting for less statism with the GOP than with Obama. if you'd done some reading, you'd know.
No, it's still ironic.
And we will still have statism if Paul was elected president.
Remember that silly little thing called congress that makes the laws and spends the money?
True. The difference is that Santorum, Romney and Obama are statists, whereas Ron Paul is not.
Except for his belief that industry should be free to regulate itself I like and agree with most of RP's ideas.
He will not however make an effective president considering the rest of our govt.
True, but when you're going to vote for Romney or Santorum you're also voting for statism. Thus the irony.
it would only be ironic if I claimed that I wasn't. I have always stated that I'm voting for less statism with the GOP than with Obama. if you'd done some reading, you'd know.
The point he's making is that there's no difference in the amount of statism you're going to get.
What's weird to me is that you admit the paradigm of an illusion of choice, but then say that somehow one of the choices would be better. This is contradictory.
it would only be ironic if I claimed that I wasn't. I have always stated that I'm voting for less statism with the GOP than with Obama. if you'd done some reading, you'd know.
No, it's still ironic.
You must have some other definition of irony that the rest of the world is unaware of. have fun with that.
it would only be ironic if I claimed that I wasn't. I have always stated that I'm voting for less statism with the GOP than with Obama. if you'd done some reading, you'd know.
The point he's making is that there's no difference in the amount of statism you're going to get.
What's weird to me is that you admit the paradigm of an illusion of choice, but then say that somehow one of the choices would be better. This is contradictory.
well if that is his point then he'd have to prove that assertion. Only if you acceopt that there is no difference between Obama and the GOP nom can you imagine that the choice is an illusion. You are trying to dictate the terms of the argument so that my only choice is your conclusion. Not going to happen here.
The President has the power to set the agenda, and the absolute LAST thing I want to see on our national agenda is more social conservatism to bring national behavior in compliance to religious tradition.
but people impacted by a polluted environment have rights.
Or do you want a hog farm next door to you?
A chemical plant?
A baskin Robbins?
Do they? And what rights are those?
The right to not be negatively impacted by the waste, etc of others.
Or should your children play in a creek polluted by industrial wastes and such?
The point he's making is that there's no difference in the amount of statism you're going to get.
What's weird to me is that you admit the paradigm of an illusion of choice, but then say that somehow one of the choices would be better. This is contradictory.
well if that is his point then he'd have to prove that assertion. Only if you acceopt that there is no difference between Obama and the GOP nom can you imagine that the choice is an illusion. You are trying to dictate the terms of the argument so that my only choice is your conclusion. Not going to happen here.
Romney - RomneyCare
Santorum - Medicare Part D, No Child Left Behind
Point proved.
Having been unaffiliated with any political parry since the reagan years it is my observation that both major parties as well as the minor parties all seek control through larger government and more legislation. The present libertarian party is no exception.
The different names is just a grand ruse as every politician out there seeks the same thing.
Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk
I have been a Libertarian for at least 25 years. Longer, if you count the time I was a Libertarian without knowing there was such a thing.
In the past 10 years I have seen tremendous growth in the party's ranks. especially among the young. At first, this was very encouraging. However, the more I talked to these people and the more I observed their actions, the more disappointed I've become. 90% of these new, young, libertarians are only here because they think that Ron paul is going to let them do drugs legally. the extent of their knowledge of the economy, and fiscal issues is that the stopping the war on drugs will reduce government spending.
Many of the new Libertarians, also are aware that the LP promotes non-interventionalism, they like this idea too. "Don't die in a war, and you live to smoke more pot" sounds pretty good to them. They also love to point out how much money will be saved when we aren't fighting "over there".
Too many times I see these people doing and saying the stupidest things in the name of the Libertarian Party. Throwing things at Sean hannity during the 2008 GOP convention is a prime example. It has been said many times and it's true, that sometimes Ron Paul's worst enemy is his supporters.
The worst, in my opinion is their preference for the democrats over the GOP if they have to make the choice. I heard just last week, a person on a local libertarian talk show state that he's rather have Obama than rick Santorum. That's an exmaple of a person who is only a libertarian because of one or two issues, and listening to him, I'll bet he just wants to smoke pot unmolested. There is no way that a knowledgeable and rational libertarian would say such a thing. I have heard this same sentiment a few times before, and it's rediculous. Barack hussein Obama is the polar opposite of everything that the Libertarian Party stands for. no rational thinking libertarian can say that Rick Santorum is in the same category.
It's great that our political clout is slowly increasing and although Ron Paul will never be POTUS, I hope I live to see a Libertarian in the White House. but you people need to really look at the Libertarian Party's platform and payattention to the WHOLE thing.
And btw, Ron Paul, if he were to somehow get elected, would not be able to make drugs legal, not in any way shape or form. The POTUS is not Ceasar and he cannot just do whatever he wants to.
A lot of them are anarchists as well - they're only libertarians because the philosophy sounds cool. Most are anything BUT libertarians - Most are authoritarian lunatics that misguidedly believe they're libertarians.
Personally, for myself I prefer the term "classical liberal" when describing my philosophy.
If newby libertarians support libertarian ideas in respect to personal liberty from laws like the drug laws, and an end to empire abroad, then they support libertarian ideas exactly where those ideas are right, and reject them where they make mistakes.
At the end of the day it's about rejecting authoritarianism. Both parties infringe upon individual liberties in an extremely authoritarian way. It's almost inevitable that whoever rejects that would align with libertarians.
While changing the policies advocated by libertarians where they make no sense, which is exactly what PredFan was complaining about.
But please, let's not confuse the Democrats with liberals. For the most part, they're not. Both parties are corporate-captured defenders of privilege, and that's as anti-liberal as you can get without bringing back the Inquisition.
Except for his belief that industry should be free to regulate itself I like and agree with most of RP's ideas.
He will not however make an effective president considering the rest of our govt.
Depends how we're defining effective. He won't be able to get much of his platform through Congress. Ending the Fed is just not going to happen, and we all know it. He might be able to get a better audit, but that would be the extent of it. However, he would be fairly effective at stopping the growth of government in general. He could end the wars we have, not enter into any new wars, and veto any nonsense the Congress wants to pass. Those would all be good things.
Not only that, but he could appoint a cabinet that has sanity. Maybe he couldn't end the Fed, but he could appoint a successor to Bernanke that treats the USD with respect.
Whether or not Congress confirms these appointments is up to them. At least he would have a bully pulpit to take them to task and expose them for the frauds they are.
