So you wanna claim to be a Libertarian do ya?

[Paulie]

Libertarian ideology is a mess, kind of hard to deride people for not being purists when the whole thing is contradictory.

That hilarious! Libertarianism is pretty much the only modern political ideology that comes close to logical consistency. Shall we discuss the contradictions found in liberalism? or conservatism? or progressivism?

It's far to say it's not as clear cut as some like to pretend, but to call it 'mess' or 'contradictory' - I can only ask "compared to what??"

The main problem I have with libertarians or at least people who call themselves libertarians is their devotion to individual rights and their seeming revulsion and hostility for collective rights.

The only "collective" is humanity as a whole. Why you want people in different groups is beyond me.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Yes, but that isn't the entire premise of the thread as you said it was, and I said that given the choice between the GOP and the DNC and obama, the choice has to be the GOP. So, no, you don't really have it.

Then please tell me what the point of this thread is.

READ THE OP!

Please.

I already read the op, and according to you I didn't get the point. So I'm going to need you to explain it.

 

[PredFan]

Criticizing someone for voting for statism or against the Constitution when you have every intention of voting for Romney or Santorum in November is irony.

Again, you didn't read the whole conversation. he didn't vote for Obama and statism and I admitted that I was mistaken. please read before you post. I've had a very good discussion this morning and would not like to have it ruined by your laziness.

I did read the whole conversation, actually. The fact that you incorrectly identified dblack as an Obama voter doesn't change the irony of the post in question.

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.

 

[PredFan]

Then please tell me what the point of this thread is.

READ THE OP!

Please.

I already read the op, and according to you I didn't get the point. So I'm going to need you to explain it.

You read it and you still claim that this whole thread is based only on two things? And more to the point, so what?

 

[PredFan]

Nope. Why would I claim to be libertarian? Most of them are bat shit crazy.

You too can find people who think like you do....in the Romper Room====>

 

[uscitizen]

We have no hostility toward collective rights at all. Unless they infringe on the individual or collective rights of someone else. No one has a right to a "living wage", no one has a right to healthcare, no one has a right to any piece of another persons life and no one has any right to control over another person's life.

If you are self centered enough to exploit people or the environment, collective rights always infringe on individual rights.

No one is exploiting anyone and the environment has no rights.

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?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Again, you didn't read the whole conversation. he didn't vote for Obama and statism and I admitted that I was mistaken. please read before you post. I've had a very good discussion this morning and would not like to have it ruined by your laziness.

I did read the whole conversation, actually. The fact that you incorrectly identified dblack as an Obama voter doesn't change the irony of the post in question.

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.

 

[Avorysuds]

Fine. I have seen and heard of plenty.

Why would I lie? Why would I post that if it wasn't true? I'm a Libertarian and a Ron Paul supporter.To what purpose would it serve for me to lie about it?

Not bull shit, not even in the least.

You have seen and heard plenty? Where??? the News or when you're hanging out in your back yard? It's hard enough to overhear someone just talking about politics let alone RP and drugs, that's pretty specific.

You're full of shit.

Whatever pal. you ignore my very important questions. Why would I lie? To what purpose?

I call bull shit on you. You're probably smoking a fat one right now. There, now we're even. You want to answer my question or play childish games?

Then answer mine, you said 90%... How many people do yo base this of and where do you meet them? I don't even see it on the news, sure they like to claim it now and then but I never see Paul supporters on TV saying they "we want drugs legalized!"

How do you see so much of something that I and no other Paul supporter on these boards ever seems to come across?

 

[PredFan]

Im not here to tell you you're not a Ron Paul supporter, I just honestly don't see how it's possible that I have never ever run into what you claim yet you seem to meet 1 out of 10 "Paul supporters" that like him for other reasosns than the hope of getting drugs legalized. It just sounds made up, I don't know what to tell you.

Believe what you want. I don't care. If all you can do is keep saying I'm lying then you aren't worth having a discussion with.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

READ THE OP!

Please.

I already read the op, and according to you I didn't get the point. So I'm going to need you to explain it.

You read it and you still claim that this whole thread is based only on two things? And more to the point, so what?

Are you unable to explain the point of your own thread?

 

[uscitizen]

I did read the whole conversation, actually. The fact that you incorrectly identified dblack as an Obama voter doesn't change the irony of the post in question.

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.

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?

 

[dblack]

It doesn't matter to me, even IF Romney is the best GOP potus of all time. Even if he tops Ronald Reagan in the minds of the GOP, I'll still fight for Libertarain ideas and Libertarian candidates. I am very familiar with the paradigm thanks, but I'm not so thick-headed as to throw the baby out with the bath water.

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.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

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.

 

[Avorysuds]

If you are self centered enough to exploit people or the environment, collective rights always infringe on individual rights.

No one is exploiting anyone and the environment has no rights.

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?

Yes and that's why it's illegal, because of property rights... There is no libertarian belief that you can just run around and pollute... In fact we live in a massively over regulated Progressive America and we pollute un-godly amounts... So what happened UScitizen? Are liberals environment hating shit bags that want to destroy the world?

This is another instance that I talk about where “small government” gets the blame for what massive Government fails to do. Tell me more about the island of trash in the Ocean, or global warming….

 

[PredFan]

That hilarious! Libertarianism is pretty much the only modern political ideology that comes close to logical consistency. Shall we discuss the contradictions found in liberalism? or conservatism? or progressivism?

It's far to say it's not as clear cut as some like to pretend, but to call it 'mess' or 'contradictory' - I can only ask "compared to what??"

The main problem I have with libertarians or at least people who call themselves libertarians is their devotion to individual rights and their seeming revulsion and hostility for collective rights.

The only "collective" is humanity as a whole. Why you want people in different groups is beyond me.

To pit one group against the other of course.

 

[Paulie]

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.

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.

 

[PredFan]

If you are self centered enough to exploit people or the environment, collective rights always infringe on individual rights.

No one is exploiting anyone and the environment has no rights.

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?

 

[Paulie]

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.

 

[PredFan]

I did read the whole conversation, actually. The fact that you incorrectly identified dblack as an Obama voter doesn't change the irony of the post in question.

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.

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.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

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.