So you wanna claim to be a Libertarian do ya?

[Full-Auto]

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.

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.

 

[Dragon]

There is no confusion, they are one in the same

Obviously, if that's what you think, there IS confusion. You've just demonstrated either that you don't know what the Democratic Party advocates, or that you don't know what liberalism is. My money's on the latter.

 

[Paulie]

If Ron stuck to his guns you would see record numbers of presidential veto overrides by congress.

It would be interesting to watch though.

They couldn't override them all though. Probably not even a majority of them.

yes they can. I expect both parties would turn on him and he would become the most ineffective president ever, beating out Carter and others in the past.

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.

 

[Mr.Nick]

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.

There are libertarian anarchists, however. Murray Rothbard, for example.

There are many forms of libertarian, which is why I call myself a "classical liberal."

Besides, anarchism is absolutely impossible - you would think anarchists would figure that out.

 

[uscitizen]

There is no confusion, they are one in the same

Obviously, if that's what you think, there IS confusion. You've just demonstrated either that you don't know what the Democratic Party advocates, or that you don't know what liberalism is. My money's on the latter.

Not confusion, he is just victimized by his absolutist thought process. He can only envision 2 choices.

 

[uscitizen]

They couldn't override them all though. Probably not even a majority of them.

yes they can. I expect both parties would turn on him and he would become the most ineffective president ever, beating out Carter and others in the past.

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.

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

 

[Paulie]

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.

There are libertarian anarchists, however. Murray Rothbard, for example.

There are many forms of libertarian, which is why I call myself a "classical liberal."

Besides, anarchism is absolutely impossible - you would think anarchists would figure that out.

Nothing's IMPOSSIBLE. There's off the grid societies in this country that operate independent of government. There's one that was chronicled by the mainsteam media a couple years ago out in the southwest. Is it utopia? No. But they make it work for what it is.

It's not that it's impossible, it's just impractical. On a larger scale than those small communities, it would lead to a lot of loss of freedom for a lot of people. Government is still necessary to protect people's rights to life and liberty.

 

[Full-Auto]

There is no confusion, they are one in the same

Obviously, if that's what you think, there IS confusion. You've just demonstrated either that you don't know what the Democratic Party advocates, or that you don't know what liberalism is. My money's on the latter.

I am aware of all the definitions.

I also know what you attempt to claim was true in the past.

Did you get that......In the past......................

 

[Paulie]

yes they can. I expect both parties would turn on him and he would become the most ineffective president ever, beating out Carter and others in the past.

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.

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?

 

[Mr.Nick]

They couldn't override them all though. Probably not even a majority of them.

yes they can. I expect both parties would turn on him and he would become the most ineffective president ever, beating out Carter and others in the past.

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.

 

[uscitizen]

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.

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?

 

[Paulie]

yes they can. I expect both parties would turn on him and he would become the most ineffective president ever, beating out Carter and others in the past.

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.

 

[Paulie]

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?

Well I used redundant agencies as an example because essentially you're not taking anything away from society if you remove something that already exists in that form. You're simply cutting right down to the meat and potatoes of reducing the size of government and cutting true waste.

And I only used Hannity as an example of a conservative pundit. Take your pick, really.

 

[Mr.Nick]

There are libertarian anarchists, however. Murray Rothbard, for example.

There are many forms of libertarian, which is why I call myself a "classical liberal."

Besides, anarchism is absolutely impossible - you would think anarchists would figure that out.

Nothing's IMPOSSIBLE. There's off the grid societies in this country that operate independent of government. There's one that was chronicled by the mainsteam media a couple years ago out in the southwest. Is it utopia? No. But they make it work for what it is.

It's not that it's impossible, it's just impractical. On a larger scale than those small communities, it would lead to a lot of loss of freedom for a lot of people. Government is still necessary to protect people's rights to life and liberty.

Sure there are communities that operate independent from government but they have their own form of hierarchy (and/or government) which violates the whole idea of anarchy (no leader, no class structure, no government).

In every group there will always be some sort of structure or leader, hence anarchy is impossible to achieve for any length of time.

 

[Mr.Nick]

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.

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."

 

[Paulie]

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.

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.

 

[PredFan]

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?

You refuse to answer my questions but demand i answer yours? that's not how it works but thanks for playing.

 

[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.

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.

 

[Mr.Nick]

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.

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 2006-2008 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....

 

[PredFan]

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?

Ah, real change takes time and that would be a great start. Paul would be much less of a Statist than Romney or Santorum, who both would be less of a Statist than obama.