Can you give one reason why you would NOT vote for a Libertarian?

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Because I vote for candidates not parties?

This is a good call, especially considering some of the candidates put up by the Libertarian Party aren't exactly Libertarians.

 

[JBeukema]

oh, and the LP supports the slaughter of the unborn...

hell, let me quote myself:

This, too, has come up. It is true that many of my views are in agreement with the Libertarian platform. However, it is the litmus test issues that seperate us.

1.4 Abortion

Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.

If I take my child and I do not want to continue to provide for this child and surrender my personal life, and I kill my child- am I not a murderer? If I kill my child an hour or a year after her birth? Why not half-an-hour? or just before my child sees the light of the outside world? Why is it that if I assault s pregnant woman, and her child dies, I am a murderer- yet if she does the job herself, it is her right? Do not our children have rights? Are they not men and women (boys and girls?) with the same basic human rights as any other? What if it is the day before she is due? or week? Two days before or an hour before that? What changed the week or the month before that? For long before the last two months her child's heart beats. The month before, during the sonogram, she had the hiccups.... and two months before, when she finally asked what color to paint the room- after debating so long whether to ask, she would have sworn she were waving... Is it not murder if i then kill this child? Two weeks ago, she began to ponder the world around her- building 250,000 new neurons every minute as she got ready for the outside world... Last week, she started to move around- she still has trouble with the vulcan hand sign, though. It'll be a while...Three weeks from now I would be a murder; what about today? tomorrow? two days from then? another 48 hours? the day after that? Why not yesterday?

for those keeping tack, we're at 9 weeks...


suffice to say I am- dare i say it- a 'right-to-lifer'. Our founding fathers realized that life is the first thing we must defend. Depriving a man of his life is the single greatest violation of rights possible. If we fail to protect to the lives of our children, how can we be expected to protect any other of a man's right?


(I've been known to go minute-by-minute until a month and second-by-second until conception before, but that'd be a a LOT of repetitive text, and I think you get the idea)

1.5 Crime and Justice

Government exists to protect the rights of every individual including life, liberty and property

Yet they refuse to enforce the right of a child to live... they condone murder of our most defenseless while daring to claim to defend life.

2.4 Government Finance and Spending

All persons are entitled to keep the fruits of their labor. We call for the repeal of the income tax...

Anyone with common sense can reason that in order for the Federal government to perform its duties, it must have funding. Taxation is the only viable means of achieving this. The only other means with any chance of success if the government takeover of business- the results of which have been seen around the world.

3.4 Free Trade and Migration

We support the removal of governmental impediments to free trade.

define which impediments are unacceptable. After the Opium Wars, China was forced to allow imports of cheap goods from the British. This detroyed their economy and the livelihoods of their people. We are stupid if we allow ourselves to do the same thing... with the Chinese, to boot...

as a Nationalist, I recognize the need to secure our interests.

Though the violence (in Iraq and Afghanistan) may be in decline, this is no excuse to keep troops in the region for longer than it takes to begin a withdraw without undue delay—something the Libertarian Party has called for repeatedly.

I was against going in. We are their, however. If we leave, we create a power vacuum as we have in Central and South America in the past. Due to our meddling, the shit has hit the fan. Our only option is to take responsibility and stay aide the Iraqis until they are able to take the reins. Reality, not politics, must define determine the timeline.

Immigration Law Should Reflect Our Dynamic Labor Market

This is the title of their section on Immigration. It is blatant catering. Immigration and security policies should reflect our sovereignty and be determined by our best interests.

This is the title of their section on Immigration. It is blatant catering. Immigration and security policies should reflect our sovereignty and be determined by our best interests.

Then the market must adapt and dynamically evolve with the changing American market.

Yet our system offers no legal channel for anywhere near a sufficient number of peaceful, hardworking immigrants to legally enter the United States even temporarily to fill this growing gap. The predictable result is illegal immigration.

Each year our economy creates hundreds of thousands of net new jobs — in such sectors as retail, cleaning, food preparation, construction and tourism — that require only short-term, on-the-job training.

At the same time, the supply of Americans who have traditionally filled many of those jobs — those without a high school diploma — continues to shrink.

... what?@! What about Temporary Employment Visas (or Temporary Work Permits)?

H-2A classification applies to temporary or seasonal agricultural workers

H-2B classification applies to temporary or seasonal nonagricultural workers. This classification requires a temporary labor certification issued by the Secretary of Labor (66,000);

(MORE)

Crossing an international border to support your family and pursue dreams of a better life is not an inherently criminal act like rape or robbery

Legally, it's a civil offense. In reality, it is at best trespassing and at worst a blatant sign that one has no intentions of obeying our laws.

We've faced this choice on immigration before. In the early 1950s, federal agents were making a million arrests a year along the Mexican border. In response, Congress ramped up enforcement, but it also dramatically increased the number of visas available through the Bracero guest worker program. As a result, apprehensions at the border dropped 95 percent. By changing the law, we transformed an illegal inflow of workers into a legal flow.

Yes.. by making rape legal, I can drastically reduce the arrests for rape, as well. One not call surrender victory

For those workers already in the United States illegally, we can avoid "amnesty" and still offer a pathway out of the underground economy. Newly legalized workers can be assessed fines and back taxes and serve probation befitting the misdemeanor they've committed.

ICE: How long have you live here illegally?
Pablo: I just got here, esse
ICE: You just said you've worked here for two years
Pablo: No, Senor
ICE: Do you want to stay hee?
Pablo: Yes, Senor
ICE: You've been here at least the mandatory two years?
Pablo: yes, Senor.
ICE: How long?
Pablo: I just get here, Senor...

Am I getting the problem across?

The fatal flaw of the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act was not that it offered legal status to workers already here but that it made no provision for future workers to enter legally.

The fatal flaw with the pardon of Weinberger is that it fails to protect future arms dealers, traitors, international criminals, and crooks...

the problem with the pardon on Nixon is that- well, you get the idea...



everything else I like, though...


sources
Libertarian Party | Smaller Government | Lower Taxes | More Freedom
Fetal development: What happens during the first trimester? - MayoClinic.com
Temporary Workers

 

[Agnapostate]

When you actually debate instead of argue, let us know, until then ... stop trying to bait people ... mmkay? Makes you look like a child.

The problem is that you haven't got a chance in hell of defending that statement. Every time you've attempted to "debate" me, you've lost. Remember this?

We estimate the effects of Wal-Mart stores on county-level retail employment and earnings, accounting for endogeneity of the location and timing of Wal-Mart openings that most likely biases the evidence against finding adverse effects of Wal-Mart stores. We address the endogeneity problem using a natural instrumental variables approach that arises from the geographic and time pattern of the opening of Wal-Mart stores, which slowly spread out from the first stores in Arkansas. The employment results indicate that a Wal-Mart store opening reduces county-level retail employment by about 150 workers, implying that each Wal-Mart worker replaces approximately 1.4 retail workers. This represents a 2.7 percent reduction in average retail employment. The payroll results indicate that Wal-Mart store openings lead to declines in county-level retail earnings of about $1.4 million, or 1.5 percent. Of course, these effects occurred against a backdrop of rising retail employment, and only imply lower retail employment growth than would have occurred absent the effects of Wal-Mart.

You had absolutely no reply except some feeble mumbling about causation and correlation, which had absolutely no relevance to the empirical research in question.

 

[KittenKoder]

When you actually debate instead of argue, let us know, until then ... stop trying to bait people ... mmkay? Makes you look like a child.

The problem is that you haven't got a chance in hell of defending that statement. Every time you've attempted to "debate" me, you've lost. Remember this?

We estimate the effects of Wal-Mart stores on county-level retail employment and earnings, accounting for endogeneity of the location and timing of Wal-Mart openings that most likely biases the evidence against finding adverse effects of Wal-Mart stores. We address the endogeneity problem using a natural instrumental variables approach that arises from the geographic and time pattern of the opening of Wal-Mart stores, which slowly spread out from the first stores in Arkansas. The employment results indicate that a Wal-Mart store opening reduces county-level retail employment by about 150 workers, implying that each Wal-Mart worker replaces approximately 1.4 retail workers. This represents a 2.7 percent reduction in average retail employment. The payroll results indicate that Wal-Mart store openings lead to declines in county-level retail earnings of about $1.4 million, or 1.5 percent. Of course, these effects occurred against a backdrop of rising retail employment, and only imply lower retail employment growth than would have occurred absent the effects of Wal-Mart.

You had absolutely no reply except some feeble mumbling about causation and correlation, which had absolutely no relevance to the empirical research in question.

Thanks for proving my point.

 

[Agnapostate]

According to you.

And according to Joseph Dejacque.

Joseph Déjacque (December 1821, Paris – 1864, Paris) was a French anarcho-communist poet and writer. He sought to abolish "personal property, property in land, buildings, workshops, shops, property in anything that is an instrument of work, production or consumption." Déjacque was the first to employ the term libertarian in a political sense, in a letter written in 1857 criticizing Proudhon for an alleged attack on feminism and his support of individual ownership of the product of labor, and of a market economy, saying: "it is not the product of his or her labor that the worker has a right to, but to the satisfaction of his or her needs, whatever may be their nature."

 

[Agnapostate]

Thanks for proving my point.

And you mine. Instead of any rebuttal or counter, you stick with the irrelevant inanity that makes some of us wonder if you even know how to read. Well, as they say...

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

According to you.

And according to Joseph Dejacque.

Joseph Déjacque (December 1821, Paris – 1864, Paris) was a French anarcho-communist poet and writer. He sought to abolish "personal property, property in land, buildings, workshops, shops, property in anything that is an instrument of work, production or consumption." Déjacque was the first to employ the term libertarian in a political sense, in a letter written in 1857 criticizing Proudhon for an alleged attack on feminism and his support of individual ownership of the product of labor, and of a market economy, saying: "it is not the product of his or her labor that the worker has a right to, but to the satisfaction of his or her needs, whatever may be their nature."

Regardless of who used the term first there are obviously free market libertarians just as there are socialist libertarians. You don't have to accept it, but it's a reality.

 

[Oddball]

Only in the never-never land of your incomprehensibly fucked up mind.

If you were to face me in a one-on-one debate, I would crush you and your idiocy beyond comprehension, just as I've smashed your bullshit into the ground every time you've come puttering up to me with it. But of course, you're too pathetic and cowardly to step up.

Whatever, junior.

Self-declarations of victory still don't make them so, and your adolescent schoolyard chest-puffing "oh yeah?" bullshit doesn't intimidate me.

 

[KittenKoder]

Thanks for proving my point.

And you mine. Instead of any rebuttal or counter, you stick with the irrelevant inanity that makes some of us wonder if you even know how to read. Well, as they say...

Do you only have one string and strut? Because you only play the same out of tune note every time and it's getting rather boring as hell. A kids opinion of a kid ... I just don't give a fuck, there I said it, my response to you continually posting that. It probably won't make you stop being an idiot, that seems incurable, but yeah. You wanted a reaction, there it is, now ... try staying on topic the rest of your posts ... mmkay?

 

[Agnapostate]

Regardless of who used the term first there are obviously free market libertarians just as there are socialist libertarians. You don't have to accept it, but it's a reality.

To assert that there are "free market libertarians" would rely on the inaccurate assumption that free markets exist. Since they don't, we instead have propertarians who support a state of affairs that effectively amounts to or degenerates into capitalism and its authoritarian institutions.

Whatever, junior.

Self-declarations of victory still don't make them so.

As you say yourself, junior. Of course, having the gonads to actually confront me here, for instance, would validate your statement that much more, but we all know that one ain't happening.

 

[Oddball]

Thanks for proving my point.

And you mine. Instead of any rebuttal or counter, you stick with the irrelevant inanity that makes some of us wonder if you even know how to read. Well, as they say...

Look at that, Kit...He saves your posts!!!....If that makes you feel any better.

 

[Political Junky]

They're too liberal socially.

A Libertarian is a Republican who wants to smoke dope and get laid.

 

[Agnapostate]

Do you only have one string and strut? Because you only play the same out of tune note every time and it's getting rather boring as hell. A kids opinion of a kid ... I just don't give a fuck, there I said it, my response to you continually posting that. It probably won't make you stop being an idiot, that seems incurable, but yeah. You wanted a reaction, there it is, now ... try staying on topic the rest of your posts ... mmkay?

Nah...you need to tell Dud that, as well as follow your own advice. I'm here prepared to describe precisely why the Libertarian Party is anti-libertarian, and you choose to barge in with "[w]hen you actually debate instead of argue, let us know," which has no conceivable relation to the topic. So try again next time, dink.

 

[KittenKoder]

Regardless of who used the term first there are obviously free market libertarians just as there are socialist libertarians. You don't have to accept it, but it's a reality.

To assert that there are "free market libertarians" would rely on the inaccurate assumption that free markets exist. Since they don't, we instead have propertarians who support a state of affairs that effectively amounts to or degenerates into capitalism and its authoritarian institutions.

Whatever, junior.

Self-declarations of victory still don't make them so.

As you say yourself, junior. Of course, having the gonads to actually confront me here, for instance, would validate your statement that much more, but we all know that one ain't happening.

The fact that you hold onto shit for soooooo long betrays your childishness, seriously dude, grow up.

 

[Agnapostate]

Look at that, Kit...He saves your posts!!!....If that makes you feel any better.

Really? Please point out the saved post of KK to me.

 

[Oddball]

Whatever, junior.

Self-declarations of victory still don't make them so.

As you say yourself, junior. Of course, having the gonads to actually confront me here, for instance, would validate your statement that much more, but we all know that one ain't happening.

What's in it for me??

 

[JBeukema]

To assert that there are "free market libertarians" would rely on the inaccurate assumption that free markets exist. Since they don't, [/quopte]

they don't? So what does that m,ake your calls for a federated system of Democracies with a free market?

 

[KittenKoder]

Look at that, Kit...He saves your posts!!!....If that makes you feel any better.

Really? Please point out the saved post of KK to me.

Denial is spreading ... like a disease.

 

[Agnapostate]

The fact that you hold onto shit for soooooo long betrays your childishness, seriously dude, grow up.

Damn, girl, that glaucoma must have set in hard.

If you're either too blind or stupid to realize that I answered the OP's question, while Dud derailed the thread with his idiotic bullshit, you best try upping your dosage.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

They're too liberal socially.

A Libertarian is a Republican who wants to smoke dope and get laid.

This is not correct.