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.
Time for you to be gobsmacked with the truth.
Libertarians, and conservatives are essentially one and the same.
For example...
Do you love freedom?
Do you love Liberty?
Do you love the free market?
The GoP routinely supports polices that restrict freedom and the free market. A good example would be the Republicans support for tax loopholes that are designed to favor specific companies over their competition. If you don't support closing tax loopholes, which Grover Norquist dismisses as a tax increase, you are anti free market.
Like TARP and bailouts of favored companies that was proposed by Bush?
I don't despise anything, I oppose abortion because I see it is taking a human life, but I see no reason to use the government to impose my views on others. After all, I might be wrong.
If the GOP wanted to decrease the size of the federal government they wouldn't keep putting up budget plans that expanded it every year, they would actually cut it.
I have no idea what the fuck reasonably equal opportunity is.
If you agree with any of these, you should vote for GoP!
It is precisely because I believe in those things that I will never vote for a party that has repeatedly demonstrated their contempt for them.
Remind me what effective opposition narco-libertarians have ever mounted to any of those things. Yeah, thought so. Oops.
The GOP has blocked some of the worst crap out of the Obama Administration. But the party is a big party. Saying "The GOP supported this or that" is a canard. Yes, some did. But others didnt. Jeff Flake consistently opposed Bush's bailouts under TARP and other gov't intrusions.
Of course if the narcos would work within the party to elect conservative candidates instead of running their mouths about free dope and unilateral disarmament the GOP would look a whole lot different.
How, exactly, do you feel the media has smeared Rand Paul for libertarianism?
As for the Tea Party, it was never a non-partisan movement except in some elemental stage when it had no supporters and was a calling card for Ron Paul supporters and the like. By the time it actually hit the scene in early 2009, it was just a megaphone for typical Republican policies.
How, exactly, do you feel the media has smeared Rand Paul for libertarianism?
I already gave an example of this and I chose that example because it was a perfect example of the strategy which has obviously been employed. In a nutshell, the argument the MSM is making about "Libertarianism" is that it actually results in people having fewer rights, less freedom, and endangers their lives because "libertarians" don't honor any social contract. Then they make sure that Paul is associated with "libertarianism" by referring to him as libertarian, libertarian-leaning, having libertarian ideals, etc. You don't go to those lengths to control someone else's image and message unless you fear them. This is pretty common so instead of posting a link and asking you to focus on that I'll just say that you can Google this on your own and pick one of the many examples which will pop up.
As for the Tea Party, it was never a non-partisan movement except in some elemental stage when it had no supporters and was a calling card for Ron Paul supporters and the like. By the time it actually hit the scene in early 2009, it was just a megaphone for typical Republican policies.
It's true that the non-partisan phase didn't last very long, one year maybe, but that doesn't change the fact that it started out as non-partisan and you just agreed with me that it did so you shouldn't have called me out on that earlier. The problem now is that the TP movement did decide to focus on running candidates for the GOP and ignored the Dems which resulted in a lot of people not wanting to be associated with the TP anymore. There are also others who don't want to be associated with the TP because they are afraid that they will be automatically considered to be a whack-job by people who believe what the MSM is saying about the TP.
I personally think the TP made a mistake by focusing on the GOP because I think the Dems are actually the Party most vulnerable to a grass-roots takeover movement but I'm not in charge so oh well.
Had Obama and Clinton bundlers not sandbagged the race with a fake libertarian, Sarvis wouldn't have garnered 1%.Show us the numbers stating that he took more from the Republican than the Democrat.
Cuccinelli lost by 2.5% of the vote. Sarvis got 6% of the vote. Had Sarvis not been in the race Cuccinelli would have won.
Oops.
Other than existing, the LP had almost nothing to do with the result.
I see it as exactly the opposite.
Assuming you put the most weight on the economic questions (which I feel is generally true of libertarians; certainly true of the ones I know in real life), wouldn't his statement be true? Is it really reasonable to believe the Democrats are more likely to enact policies you prefer?
No it wouldnt. Why dont you point out what economic issues are the republicans aligned closer to the libertarians than the democrats? Actions btw, not slogans. Current politicians do NOT mirror their slogans anymore.
How, exactly, do you feel the media has smeared Rand Paul for libertarianism?
I already gave an example of this and I chose that example because it was a perfect example of the strategy which has obviously been employed. In a nutshell, the argument the MSM is making about "Libertarianism" is that it actually results in people having fewer rights, less freedom, and endangers their lives because "libertarians" don't honor any social contract. Then they make sure that Paul is associated with "libertarianism" by referring to him as libertarian, libertarian-leaning, having libertarian ideals, etc. You don't go to those lengths to control someone else's image and message unless you fear them. This is pretty common so instead of posting a link and asking you to focus on that I'll just say that you can Google this on your own and pick one of the many examples which will pop up.
As for the Tea Party, it was never a non-partisan movement except in some elemental stage when it had no supporters and was a calling card for Ron Paul supporters and the like. By the time it actually hit the scene in early 2009, it was just a megaphone for typical Republican policies.
It's true that the non-partisan phase didn't last very long, one year maybe, but that doesn't change the fact that it started out as non-partisan and you just agreed with me that it did so you shouldn't have called me out on that earlier. The problem now is that the TP movement did decide to focus on running candidates for the GOP and ignored the Dems which resulted in a lot of people not wanting to be associated with the TP anymore. There are also others who don't want to be associated with the TP because they are afraid that they will be automatically considered to be a whack-job by people who believe what the MSM is saying about the TP.
I personally think the TP made a mistake by focusing on the GOP because I think the Dems are actually the Party most vulnerable to a grass-roots takeover movement but I'm not in charge so oh well.
Assuming you put the most weight on the economic questions (which I feel is generally true of libertarians; certainly true of the ones I know in real life), wouldn't his statement be true? Is it really reasonable to believe the Democrats are more likely to enact policies you prefer?
No it wouldnt. Why dont you point out what economic issues are the republicans aligned closer to the libertarians than the democrats? Actions btw, not slogans. Current politicians do NOT mirror their slogans anymore.
Cutting government spending and a preference for deflationary currency.
I called out the statement because what I said has been true the entire time the "Tea Party" has been in the public eye. It wasn't meant to be personally insulting to you.
Yes, they had a hand in it by existing.Had Obama and Clinton bundlers not sandbagged the race with a fake libertarian, Sarvis wouldn't have garnered 1%.Cuccinelli lost by 2.5% of the vote. Sarvis got 6% of the vote. Had Sarvis not been in the race Cuccinelli would have won.
Oops.
Other than existing, the LP had almost nothing to do with the result.
Well, presumably, the LP had a hand in nominating him. It's just another example of why the Libertarian Party really has nothing to do with libertarianism in general.
Assuming you put the most weight on the economic questions (which I feel is generally true of libertarians; certainly true of the ones I know in real life), wouldn't his statement be true? Is it really reasonable to believe the Democrats are more likely to enact policies you prefer?
No it wouldnt. Why dont you point out what economic issues are the republicans aligned closer to the libertarians than the democrats? Actions btw, not slogans. Current politicians do NOT mirror their slogans anymore.
Cutting government spending and a preference for deflationary currency.
Fuck Republicans and Democrats. I'll never vote for either party ever again. I'm forever done with all the party douche bags.
Fuck Republicans and Democrats. I'll never vote for either party ever again. I'm forever done with all the party douche bags.
Fuck Republicans and Democrats. I'll never vote for either party ever again. I'm forever done with all the party douche bags.
What's the matter? obama hurt your feelings
Maybe I should not speak on behalf of Libertarians, but as a person who cares and loves freedom, free market, capitalism, liberty, justice and equal rights, I must say that GOP does not represent me at all, it represents international bankers, and before you try to argue my point, first see if you can even answer a simple question that no one else could:Libertarians, and conservatives are essentially one and the same.
For example...
Do you love freedom?
Do you love Liberty?
Do you love the free market?
Do you hate Obama's tax and spend failonomics?
Do you despise abortion as the aberration it is?
Do you love capitalism?
Do you want to decrease the size of the federal government?
Do you believe in reasonably equal opportunity, instead of equal outcome?
If you agree with any of these, you should vote for GoP!
http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...tter-health-care-than-us-who-supports-it.html
Before you answer this question, there is one catch: you can not mention the word Jews, anti Semite, or racist. these words are not allowed in this thread. please stay on topic and answer the question if you can.
Maybe I should not speak on behalf of Libertarians, but as a person who cares and loves freedom, free market, capitalism, liberty, justice and equal rights, I must say that GOP does not represent me at all, it represents international bankers, and before you try to argue my point, first see if you can even answer a simple question that no one else could:Libertarians, and conservatives are essentially one and the same.
For example...
Do you love freedom?
Do you love Liberty?
Do you love the free market?
Do you hate Obama's tax and spend failonomics?
Do you despise abortion as the aberration it is?
Do you love capitalism?
Do you want to decrease the size of the federal government?
Do you believe in reasonably equal opportunity, instead of equal outcome?
If you agree with any of these, you should vote for GoP!
http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...tter-health-care-than-us-who-supports-it.html
Before you answer this question, there is one catch: you can not mention the word Jews, anti Semite, or racist. these words are not allowed in this thread. please stay on topic and answer the question if you can.
No it wouldnt. Why dont you point out what economic issues are the republicans aligned closer to the libertarians than the democrats? Actions btw, not slogans. Current politicians do NOT mirror their slogans anymore.
Cutting government spending and a preference for deflationary currency.
Since there maybe only a handful of Republicans who actually support that I think his point stands.
No it wouldnt. Why dont you point out what economic issues are the republicans aligned closer to the libertarians than the democrats? Actions btw, not slogans. Current politicians do NOT mirror their slogans anymore.
Cutting government spending and a preference for deflationary currency.
The Republicans do not want to cut spending, they want to slow down the increase.
When did libertarians suddenly adopt the principle that economics is a zero sum game? Did I miss the memo? Or did you get confused about terms again?
When any of the fake cuts cross that threshold, you be sure and let us all know about it."Slow[ing] the rate of increase" to below inflation is a cut in real terms.
And why do you think libertarian bloviate about the gold standard all the time? It's an active preference for deflation.
