So you wanna claim to be a Libertarian do ya?

[PredFan]

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.

let's not confuse the Democrats with liberals

There is no confusion, they are one in the same, they even astroturfed in protestors to out the moderates in the party.

real liberals, not progressives or Democrats, don't exists anymore. they are classical liberals or they are libertarians and have nothing much to do with Obama.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Which makes sense given the fact Santorum advocates greater government involvement in our personal lives and a conjoining of church and State, among other positions that would undermine our civil liberties.

 

[bripat9643]

Hmm...I am not as familiar with his posts. It does seem suspicious that some one who claims to have been a Libertarian for that long could not possibly believe the crap he was spouting.

I hope it doesn't seem like spiteful tit-for-tat, but I feel exactly the same about comments like this:

No Libertarian was happy with Bush, but compared to obama, Bush is a saint.

If you don't understand that, then you aren't a libertarian.

 

[bripat9643]

...I've read your stuff, and you don't come off as any libertarian. You come off as a liberal. You're fan of big government. You support Obamacare. No one who supports Obama care has any justification to call himself a libertarian....

No, I'm pretty sure you haven't.

I have, but my memory is faulty. I went back and reread some of your posts and you come off as a libertarian. Apparently I'm confusing you with someone else. My apologies.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Hmm...I am not as familiar with his posts. It does seem suspicious that some one who claims to have been a Libertarian for that long could not possibly believe the crap he was spouting.

I hope it doesn't seem like spiteful tit-for-tat, but I feel exactly the same about comments like this:

No Libertarian was happy with Bush, but compared to obama, Bush is a saint.

If you don't understand that, then you aren't a libertarian.

More non-libertarians telling libertarians what it is to be a libertarian.

 

[PredFan]

And after the people listen to their favorite political pundits?
Heck 53% still think that Iraq was involved in 911.

Picture Paul presenting a simple bill to congress that's maybe a few pages long, that simply seeks to eliminate any redundant agencies.

Now picture the GOP not supporting this bill.

How does Hannity spin that against Paul?

How? Many different angles depending on the circumstances and details.
I cannot say how from that generalized hypothetical situation.

I thought Hannity claimed to be a libertarian?

Hannity has never claimed that.

 

[PredFan]

The president gets face time. He has the bully pulpit. If he sends a proposal to Congress that makes 100% sense for fiscal conservatism, and the GOP doesn't support it, then he can expose the GOP as the fiscal frauds that they really are and what happens is people awaken to the bullshit.

He can hold a press conference. He can call them out in the state of the union address. And the media can't ignore it.

Legislation is more complicated than that....

Anyone could manifest a bill that makes fiscal sense, but then put a trillion dollars of authorized spending on the back end of the bill which wipes out the bills "face value intent."

That is what the congress has been doing for almost 2 years... The House proposes a bill and the Senate says "fuck you we wont approve that unless you authorize our billions spending."

That is the beauty of politics - it's a dirty game.

I'm not talking about dems not supporting Paul, we already know they wouldn't support him fiscally. I'm talking about if the GOP were to retake the senate and have a majority in both houses, and congress still doesn't support a president Paul.

This is what people are trying to claim...that if Paul was president, neither party in congress would support him.

I don't buy it, only because I know the GOP knows they would truly be exposed as frauds if they didn't. This is probably why they fight tooth and nail to keep him from ever having a shot.

100% correct. the GOP will glom onto whatever is winning. that is what they did to the tea party.

 

[PredFan]

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.

Wow you're facebooking?

That's impressive. I mean, there's people all over the country who are getting involved actively in their local GOP and working their way through the ranks, getting elected as delegates, getting platforms and rules changed in the favor of a more libertarian platform...

but you're FACEBOOKING.

That's something. What are you doing eh? What elected office do you hold?

 

[PredFan]

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.

All I see is somebody claiming to be a libertarian, but complaining about people interested in libertarian issues.

I guess it's a reading comprehension problem for you then. Sorry, I can be of no further help to you.

 

[PredFan]

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?

What changes? Many of the tea party candidates that got elected in 2010 have already sold out.

But it is a change isn't it? What do you expect? to wake up on the day after the swearing in of Ron Paul and seeing a Libertarian utopia all around you? Changes have been made, the rise of the Libertarian party cannot be ignored any longer, Ron Paul is getting GOP votes. We will only change the GOP gradually and from within. We have absolutely no hope of changing the DNC. That is why Paul is running as a Republican and has never run as a Democrat.

 

[bripat9643]

STOP COMPARING POLS and just look at the facts, kids.

These debates where you are essantially trying to support your TEAM by showing how: while they are bad they aren't as bad as the other guy's, make you look like village idiots.

These villians ALL have names and they have looooooooooong voting records, too.

But still you partisans only want to talk about parties and your goofy political science theories and seldom are you interested in what people actually do and how they actually vote.

Why?

Because you all know if you really look at the records of national politicians, they are, to a greater or lesser extent, pretty much all (USING YOUR your definitions, not mine) PROGRESSIVES/SOCIALISTS/STATISTS/AUTHORITARIANS who will grow government and slowly but surely turn our nation into a corporate lead police state.

There isn't a candidate out there with any national name recognition that any of us can really trust, kids.

I suspect many of you sense that in your heart of hearts, but that truth is SO DISCOURAGING that you cling to your foolish partisanship rather than admit the truth to yourselves.

We Americans have been consistently and systematically duped by the masters.

The masters control every party of any note, and no candidate without their support has even a remote change of reaching high office.

They control the money, the media, the corporations, Congress, and pretty much every so called think-tank, foundation and university in this land.

And yet some of you STILL think that the POTUS controls national outcomes?

It is simply amazing to me how deeply some of you have your heads buried in the sand.

Ok, ignoring the fact that your post is irrelevant to this thread, and since I'm bored today i'll answer you.

So we should do nothing then? What the hell, we're all fucked so let's just smoke dope and wait for everything to fall apart. Heck we can worry about it later right? Is your aluminum foil hat too tight?

I have to agree that trying to achieve libertarian society through electoral politics is a hopeless task. Anyone who gets elected invariably gets coopted by the statists who run the government.

If you're interested in a real solution, I suggest you read Hans-Hermann Hoppe. You can find some articles by him here:

Hans-Hermann Hoppe: Archives

He'll have to converted to being a dedicated anarchist after you read a few of his articles.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

All I see is somebody claiming to be a libertarian, but complaining about people interested in libertarian issues.

I guess it's a reading comprehension problem for you then. Sorry, I can be of no further help to you.

I don't think that's it. I just think you have no idea what you're talking about. I think you have cursory knowledge of libertarianism at best, and that this thread is regarding your perceptions of libertarianism rather than what libertarianism actually is.

 

[PredFan]

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.

Santorum - voting to fund planned parenthood, voting against right to work, voting to increase the debt ceiling 5 times...his list is practically endless.

You keep ignoreing the fact that I'm not claiming Santorum is not a big government Republican SoCon. I'm saying that he's less of an enemy of liberty than Obama is. that doesn't mean he is not a threat to liberty.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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?

What changes? Many of the tea party candidates that got elected in 2010 have already sold out.

But it is a change isn't it? What do you expect? to wake up on the day after the swearing in of Ron Paul and seeing a Libertarian utopia all around you? Changes have been made, the rise of the Libertarian party cannot be ignored any longer, Ron Paul is getting GOP votes. We will only change the GOP gradually and from within. We have absolutely no hope of changing the DNC. That is why Paul is running as a Republican and has never run as a Democrat.

The rise of the Libertarian Party? When and where was this?

 

[PredFan]

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.

Which makes sense given the fact Santorum advocates greater government involvement in our personal lives and a conjoining of church and State, among other positions that would undermine our civil liberties.

It only makes sense if you ignore obama's affront to liberties and the constitution. obama is a bigger threat to our liberties than Rick Santorum could ever dream to be.

 

[PredFan]

All I see is somebody claiming to be a libertarian, but complaining about people interested in libertarian issues.

I guess it's a reading comprehension problem for you then. Sorry, I can be of no further help to you.

I don't think that's it. I just think you have no idea what you're talking about. I think you have cursory knowledge of libertarianism at best, and that this thread is regarding your perceptions of libertarianism rather than what libertarianism actually is.

Well, that's because you either cannot understand what you read or you just are so desperate to avoid admitting you are wrong that you will say any silly thing to avoid it. I honestly can't figure out which it is.

Oh well have fun with it. Thanks for playing.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I guess it's a reading comprehension problem for you then. Sorry, I can be of no further help to you.

I don't think that's it. I just think you have no idea what you're talking about. I think you have cursory knowledge of libertarianism at best, and that this thread is regarding your perceptions of libertarianism rather than what libertarianism actually is.

Well, that's because you either cannot understand what you read or you just are so desperate to avoid admitting you are wrong that you will say any silly thing to avoid it. I honestly can't figure out which it is.

Oh well have fun with it. Thanks for playing.

Well we can't know that until you explain exactly what it is you were trying to say now can we? Since you're unable or unwilling to do so I'm forced to assume that my analysis is correct.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

clueless pride strikes again!

 

[uscitizen]

Rick Santorum not a threat to liberty?

I prefer to keep religion out of govt it threatens my liberty to not have religion.

 

[bripat9643]

Well, that's because you either cannot understand what you read or you just are so desperate to avoid admitting you are wrong that you will say any silly thing to avoid it. I honestly can't figure out which it is.

Oh well have fun with it. Thanks for playing.

Well we can't know that until you explain exactly what it is you were trying to say now can we? Since you're unable or unwilling to do so I'm forced to assume that my analysis is correct.

I have no trouble understanding what he is saying. Perhaps you do have trouble because you're not a genuine libertarian. You haven't shown yourself to be one in this thread, certainly.

Anyone who thinks Rick Santorum is a bigger threat to liberty than Obama can't be a genuine libertarian.