How Libertarians think

[Liberty]

Congress: it ain't authorized in the Constitution, don't fucking do it.

Corporatism is the problem, capitalism is the solution.

Your freedom to be you includes my freedom to be free from you.

You want free health care? Free education? Free pie? Get a Constitutional amendment for it, assclown.

You want to go invade other countries? If it is a truly just proposal then a declaration should be EASY to get. If not, maybe you shouldn't be invading other countries. Derp.

Respect the checks and balances. The executive is supposed to be the weakest branch.

 

[snjmom]

I find it ironic that a thread is started about Libertarians with an avatar coercing collectivism.

 

[Liberty]

I find it ironic that a thread is started about Libertarians with an avatar coercing collectivism.

 

[konradv]

Congress: it ain't authorized in the Constitution, don't fucking do it.

Corporatism is the problem, capitalism is the solution.

Your freedom to be you includes my freedom to be free from you.

You want free health care? Free education? Free pie? Get a Constitutional amendment for it, assclown.

You want to go invade other countries? If it is a truly just proposal then a declaration should be EASY to get. If not, maybe you shouldn't be invading other countries. Derp.

Respect the checks and balances. The executive is supposed to be the weakest branch.

This points out a big FAIL in the libertarian viewpoint. We'll NEVER be rid of each other.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

...

It isn't how Libertarians think that is such a thread to the republic, it is how they act.

When a powerful elite group takes it's mental masturbations and attempts to enact them in the physical world we get things like Alan Greenspan apologizing for imagining that markets self regulate, and we get purists in ideology demanding the rest of society rethink who is a free market lunatic and who is a true libertarian

 

[ThinkCritically]

...

It isn't how Libertarians think that is such a thread to the republic, it is how they act.

When a powerful elite group takes it's mental masturbations and attempts to enact them in the physical world we get things like Alan Greenspan apologizing for imagining that markets self regulate, and we get purists in ideology demanding the rest of society rethink who is a free market lunatic and who is a true libertarian

I'm pretty sure most libertarians oppose the idea of central banks....

TRY AGAIN!

 

[ThinkCritically]

Congress: it ain't authorized in the Constitution, don't fucking do it.

Corporatism is the problem, capitalism is the solution.

Your freedom to be you includes my freedom to be free from you.

You want free health care? Free education? Free pie? Get a Constitutional amendment for it, assclown.

You want to go invade other countries? If it is a truly just proposal then a declaration should be EASY to get. If not, maybe you shouldn't be invading other countries. Derp.

Respect the checks and balances. The executive is supposed to be the weakest branch.

This points out a big FAIL in the libertarian viewpoint. We'll NEVER be rid of each other.

what part of this is even suggesting that we rid each other.

FAIL

 

[The Rabbi]

"Libertarian" and think don't belong in the same sentence.

 

[editec]

Do you believe in the idea of nations?

Yes?

Then you cannot be a radical fringe Libertraian.

Why?

Because ALL governments infringe on your freedoms.


So clearly there is a range of libertraian-type thinkers in the USA.

MOst Libertarians I've met were basically Republicans who object to the amount of government infringing in their lives.

Some were Democrats with basically the same complaint.

Where they GOPers v DEMs differ is mostly which infringements on personal freedoms they're willing to tolerate.

But both seem to me to be authentically libertarian.

 

[SniperFire]

Looking forward to when old Ron Paul retires and Libertarians return to their normal obscurity and stop humping the legs of Republicans for attention.

 

[SniperFire]

You want to go invade other countries? If it is a truly just proposal then a declaration should be EASY to get.

The language used for such 'declaration' is not specified in the Constitution.

Congressional authorization of force is defacto declaration.

Now you know what the fuck you are talking about.

 

[konradv]

Congress: it ain't authorized in the Constitution, don't fucking do it.

Corporatism is the problem, capitalism is the solution.

Your freedom to be you includes my freedom to be free from you.You want free health care? Free education? Free pie? Get a Constitutional amendment for it, assclown.

You want to go invade other countries? If it is a truly just proposal then a declaration should be EASY to get. If not, maybe you shouldn't be invading other countries. Derp.

Respect the checks and balances. The executive is supposed to be the weakest branch.

This points out a big FAIL in the libertarian viewpoint. We'll NEVER be rid of each other.

what part of this is even suggesting that we rid each other.

FAIL

Sorry, we'll never be FREE of each other.

 

[Liberty]

You want to go invade other countries? If it is a truly just proposal then a declaration should be EASY to get.

The language used for such 'declaration' is not specified in the Constitution.

Congressional authorization of force is defacto declaration.

Now you know what the fuck you are talking about.

de facto? Seriously? Are you on drugs? Since when did authorization = declaration? Why can't it just be called a declaration then? (Hint: It's because it is different!) Give me a break...you are a beyond stupid.

 

[SniperFire]

You want to go invade other countries? If it is a truly just proposal then a declaration should be EASY to get.

The language used for such 'declaration' is not specified in the Constitution.

Congressional authorization of force is defacto declaration.

Now you know what the fuck you are talking about.

de facto? Seriously? Are you on drugs? Since when did authorization = declaration? Why can't it just be called a declaration then? (Hint: It's because it is different!) Give me a break...you are a beyond stupid.

Let your butthurt flow.

Congress in fact authorized and FUNDED the invasion. The Constitution says nothing about how such declarations are to be worded.

That makes you mad,

 

[Liberty]

You are clearly talking out your ass. Congress has the power to declare war. In no other part of the constitution does it mention war. Therefore, if congress does not declare war, then war is unlawful. To authorize war does not mean the same as declaration. If that were the case, they would continue to use the word declaration rather than authorization. These two words are different. Your logic does not pan out.

So...come up with something else because you're an idiot.

 

[Dragon]

You want to go invade other countries? If it is a truly just proposal then a declaration should be EASY to get.

The language used for such 'declaration' is not specified in the Constitution.

Congressional authorization of force is defacto declaration.

Now you know what the fuck you are talking about.

de facto? Seriously? Are you on drugs? Since when did authorization = declaration? Why can't it just be called a declaration then? (Hint: It's because it is different!) Give me a break...you are a beyond stupid.

Actually, he's right. If Congress authorizes the use of force, then it has declared war. The fact that it doesn't use those particular words is irrelevant. The last time Congress used those words was in 1941, but Congress declared war in Korea, Vietnam, the Persian Gulf, Afghanistan, and Iraq. I may have missed a few but those I'm sure of. Congress having the right to declare war means that Congress, not the president, can determine when and where we fight. If you want to find instances when that has been violated, you need to look for military actions Congress didn't approve, not just ones where its approval used language other than "declare war."

 

[Liberty]

A declaration of war means that a war is already occurring...not that the USA can go willy nilly and bomb places that have not bombed us...

http://www.lawandfreedom.com/site/historical/Japan1941.pdf

DECLARING means to proclaim that something is happening. AUTHORIZING means giving the OK to preemptive action. Its completely different, the latter being grossly unlawful.

Every other past declaration of war by the United States government follows exactly this format. The president presents evidence. The Congress votes on the validity of that evidence. It declares that war already exists. It then directs the president to use the military to end the war. That's how it is done.

Not to mention that to fight war for anything other than self defense is also war on the taxpayer.

 

[Oddball]

You want to go invade other countries? If it is a truly just proposal then a declaration should be EASY to get.

The language used for such 'declaration' is not specified in the Constitution.

Congressional authorization of force is defacto declaration.

Now you know what the fuck you are talking about.

Bullshit neocon yapping point.

If "authorization for the use of force" and "declaration of war" are the same thing, why all the extra semantic padding?...That's how socialists debauch the language.

Maybe when you dry out behind the ears, you'll figure that one out.

 

[Oddball]

A declaration of war means that a war is already occurring...not that the USA can go willy nilly and bomb places that have not bombed us...

http://www.lawandfreedom.com/site/historical/Japan1941.pdf

DECLARING means to proclaim that something is happening. AUTHORIZING means giving the OK to preemptive action. Its completely different, the latter being grossly unlawful.

Every other past declaration of war by the United States government follows exactly this format. The president presents evidence. The Congress votes on the validity of that evidence. It declares that war already exists. It then directs the president to use the military to end the war. That's how it is done.

Not to mention that to fight war for anything other than self defense is also war on the taxpayer.

The real tragicomic part of this is that the same GOP party man tools who (rightly) chortle and roll ther eyes at chicken shit semantics like "overseas contingency operation" and "man-caused disaster", turn around and toss around Orwellian claptrap like "authorization for the use of force" and "enhanced interrogation techniques" with a straight face.

Truly frightening.

 

[SniperFire]

DECLARING means to proclaim that something is happening. AUTHORIZING means giving the OK to preemptive action.

That is your opinion, and it is rhetorical.