So you wanna claim to be a Libertarian do ya?

[Too Tall]

Obama has not stopped nation-building.
Obama did not close Gittmo.
Obama did not reduce our military presence.
Obama did not reverse the Patriot Act.
Obama did not stop the subsidizing of businesses and industries.
Obama has increased the size of government.
Obama does end-arounds of the Constitution.

Well, I understand the gitmo situation.
The goal of it is to not bring them to the US because if we did, they would be entitled to rights. So he tried to see if he could get any allied nations to take the prisoners, and they declined. So, gitmo is here to stay since they don't want to give the prisoners rights in any way.

He reduced military presence in Iraq while we shifted more focus to Afghanistan in hopes of pulling out soon.

You and I understand the Gitmo situation, but apparently Obama didn't when he was running for election.

Obama reduced the military presence in Iraq EXACTLY as agreed to in the US_Iraq Status of Force Agreement that was enacted under George Bush.

 

[bripat9643]

Probably not. But I don't CARE if the Republican candidate can beat Obama. If all the Republicans can offer is to change the name of the corporatist/neo-con/statist asshat in the White House from Obama to Romney (or Gingrich or Santorum), then I'm not going to reward them with a vote.

The claim that there's no difference between the Democrat and Republican parties is idiotic. We wouldn't have Obamacare if a Republican had been elected in 2008.

Republicans are clueless, but Democrats are positively evil.

 

[bripat9643]

Once the Republican nominee is selected, you only help the Democrat by not voting Republican. Voting for a third party candidate is throwing your vote away. Fighting for a libertarian during the primaries is fine. That's where it needs to be done. After that, you if you don't vote for the Republican nominee, you are as good as supporting the Democrat.

A libertarian would understand that it doesn't matter either way. It's a false choice.[/QUOTE]

Wrong, it does matter. The Republicans aren't angels, but they are 1000 times better than Democrats.

 

[dblack]

Probably not. But I don't CARE if the Republican candidate can beat Obama. If all the Republicans can offer is to change the name of the corporatist/neo-con/statist asshat in the White House from Obama to Romney (or Gingrich or Santorum), then I'm not going to reward them with a vote.

The claim that there's no difference between the Democrat and Republican parties is idiotic. We wouldn't have Obamacare if a Republican had been elected in 2008.

Republicans are clueless, but Democrats are positively evil.

That's especially ripe, given that the presumptive nominee was the pioneer of Obamacare.

 

[dblack]

Wrong, it does matter. The Republicans aren't angels, but they are 1000 times better than Democrats.

And that's just where we disagree. If I agreed that they were significantly better, I might buy into the lesser-of-two-evils crap. But since I don't, I don't.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

This thread starts off reading like a political; "my dicks bigger than yours." type of thread.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Wrong, it does matter. The Republicans aren't angels, but they are 1000 times better than Democrats.

It really doesn't. And as for not having ObamaCare under a Republican, you must be joking. Medicare Part D under Bush, and RomneyCare under Romney. Not to mention Newt supporting the mandate for how many years before he conveniently saw the light during this election?

 

[chikenwing]

And liberals, especially progressives, are the MOST authoritarian.

The very root!!,and they can't see it.one of the biggest lies to ever come down the pike.They blather on ad on how conservatism will take your rights away,when in fact its the complete opposite.

 

[Mr.Nick]

Truth is an individual is either for limited government or against it..

Realistically and literally that makes an individual or person an anarchist or an authoritarian..

 

[Montrovant]

Truth is an individual is either for limited government or against it..

Realistically and literally that makes an individual or person an anarchist or an authoritarian..

I want to be clear here. Are you saying that everyone is either an anarchist or an authoritarian? Those are the only two options?

 

[Mr.Nick]

Truth is an individual is either for limited government or against it..

Realistically and literally that makes an individual or person an anarchist or an authoritarian..

I want to be clear here. Are you saying that everyone is either an anarchist or an authoritarian? Those are the only two options?

Literally yes...

Hell, politically yes..

At least in the United States...

You either embrace the Bill of Rights or you don't...

Few of us are true classical liberals...

 

[PredFan]

One big difference in a real libertarian and and a fake one is their support of the Iraq invasion and the US being the police force of the world and forcible nation building in other countries.

I don't know anyone who claims to be a Libertarian and supports any of the current wars and believes that we should police the world.

 

[PredFan]

Then why don't you explain exactly what it is he's trying to say?

I'm not saying Rick Santorum is a bigger threat to liberty than Obama. I'm saying he's an equal threat to liberty.

You're obviously dead wrong about that. Obamacare creates a hug bureacracy that can never be repealed once it's established, and it will be constant threat to our liberty until doomsay. What is the worst that a law against birth control can do? It can easily be repealed by the next Administration.

You ared exactly correct. In addition, Rick Santorum wouldn't even come close to p0assing such idiotic legislation.

I just think that there are a few here who will say any silly thing just to argue and avoid having to admit that they are wrong.

 

[PredFan]

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.

That anyone would vote for him simply because he's "less" of a threat to liberty, is in itself a threat to liberty.

I'm not willing to give up one more tiny bit of liberty. I'm going to vote for the only person that I've ever known I could trust. At least I can say I didn't vote for totalitarianism.

But what I'm trying to tell you is that you will, you will give up a huge part of your liberty if you don't attempt to stop Obama.

When your liberties are taken away, is "I held on to my principles" going to get them back for you?

 

[PredFan]

That anyone would vote for him simply because he's "less" of a threat to liberty, is in itself a threat to liberty.

I'm not willing to give up one more tiny bit of liberty. I'm going to vote for the only person that I've ever known I could trust. At least I can say I didn't vote for totalitarianism.

Then you're helping Obama to get reelected.

No, the GOP is. The only one they got that can beat Obama is Romney or Paul. Romney is going to face the impossible task of debating Obama on many of the issues he himself supported in one way or another. At least Paul can debate Obama and call him out. The GOP knows it needs Paul supporters to win this thing, but they prefer to put Romney up against Obama. They do so at their own peril. I don't like Romney anymore than I like Obama, besides the fact that I don't see how Romney can beat him anyway.

Cop out.

 

[PredFan]

You haven't the foggiest idea what I was talking about as evidenced by that statement. What exactly is it that the newbies are trying to change in the Libertarian party? most of them have no idea what other policies the LP supports besides drug laws. THAT's what I was complaining about.

You were complaining about young people calling themselves libertarians when they only like part of what the Libertarian Party campaigns on.

I think this would be a good time to remind you that the party does not own the term.

Fine. You didn't explain to me how they were trying to change the other policies of the LP.

 

[kaz]

One big difference in a real libertarian and and a fake one is their support of the Iraq invasion and the US being the police force of the world and forcible nation building in other countries.

I don't know anyone who claims to be a Libertarian and supports any of the current wars and believes that we should police the world.

You blew it there. A libertarian who supports the wars believes it's defense, not to police the world. Neil Boortz for example is a libertarian, supports the wars, but doesn't want to police the world. They aren't wrong, but they are thinking short term. If we don't change our current policy of having the military secure oil supplies then we are going to have to take the war to the terrorists rather then wait for them to attack. But if we think long term we'd realize our government should not be securing oil supplies, which means we wouldn't be attracting them as an enemy.

 

[PredFan]

Then you're helping Obama to get reelected.

Wrong on many counts.

But the most important would be the GOP COULD NOT GAIN ENOUGH SUPPORT.

True story for the losing side in any election.

This is how I see it...

Paul supporters make up around ~20% of support the GOP is going to desperately need to have any chance at beating Obama. This may even be a conservative estimate when you factor in independents and Dem crossovers that can't necessarily be counted into that number. The GOP's mantra is "anyone but Obama", so we already know they'll vote overwhelmingly for Paul if he was the nominee. The problem is that the Paul supporters will only vote for Paul...so the GOP has a conundrum that they need to face. They're only going to get the maximum amount of support from all demographics in the electorate if they nominate Paul. Nominating Romney is knowingly and WILLINGLY shooting themselves in the foot.

That's not my fault, and it's not my problem. I know EXACTLY who I want to be my president, unlike the rest of the GOP who changes candidates like underwear. Maybe they should have gotten their act together and chosen none of the above this primary season instead of swallowing the choices they were given.

Nice spin.

The GOP cannot simply pick whomever they wat. The voters chose. YOU are a voter. You ared chosing to allow someone who is a big-times statist to continue to take away our liberties by refusing to vote against Obama.

 

[dblack]

You ared chosing to allow someone who is a big-times statist to continue to take away our liberties by refusing to vote against Obama.

I'll be voting against both big time statists, Obama, and Romney. Thanks for the false dilemma though.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Then why don't you explain exactly what it is he's trying to say?

I'm not saying Rick Santorum is a bigger threat to liberty than Obama. I'm saying he's an equal threat to liberty.

You're obviously dead wrong about that. Obamacare creates a hug bureacracy that can never be repealed once it's established, and it will be constant threat to our liberty until doomsay. What is the worst that a law against birth control can do? It can easily be repealed by the next Administration.

You ared exactly correct. In addition, Rick Santorum wouldn't even come close to p0assing such idiotic legislation.

I just think that there are a few here who will say any silly thing just to argue and avoid having to admit that they are wrong.

Umm... he voted for Medicare Part D. What we might call BushCare. You'd have to be delusional to actually believe he wouldn't "pass such idiotic legislation."