Libertarians for Romney

[Uncensored2008]

Even if it means violating citizens’ civil liberties to achieve their authoritarian goal.

Oh shut the fuck up.

You're a full blown authoritarian. You advocate for totalitarian overlords and attack civil liberties at every chance.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Vile and filthy creatures.

Go fuck yourself.

 

[dblack]

So lets say that you buy some very special water, from a rare spring in France. You vow to only drink it on special occasions,

One night, the couch is on fire. If something isn't done to douse the flames, the house WILL burn down. You can throw the water on it, but that will break your vow, and someone on the internet might say you were never a Libertarian. Or you can watch the house burn and congratulate yourself on how oh-so-wise you are...

Put the fucking fire out, dumbass.

I'm not yet dumb enough to believe Romney would put the fire out. In fact, I suspect he would fan the flames. I'm voting against both Romney and Obama.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The question is what kind of person who enjoy killing people? I'd say psychopaths would

Yes, but you're mentally retarded - it's why you vote Obama.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Yet you will not refute a word of it because it is absolutely true.

The average Liberal is less of a sick twist than one of you freaks.

You're an Obamabot, aren't you? Here trying to drive support away from Romney...

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The crackpots posting here might want that, but the party establishment wants us to fall in line and vote for their puppets. We have to learn to refuse.

Paul Supporters: Beware the Third Party Trap by Ron Holland

Good article. I'm not necessarily suggesting a third party effort. And I'm not saying we should stop trying to change the Republican party from the inside (though we should also be doing the same thing to the Democrats, fwiw). But we should steadfastly refuse to cooperate with a Republican establishment that contradicts our values.

The qoute from the article sums up my views fairly nicely - if a tad over-dramatically:

We are not afraid to lose if losing means our integrity and principles remain with us. Our numbers have tripled in this election and we have already won. We have spread the message of individual liberty far and wide. Ron Paul has inspired the liberty movement in Africa, in Europe, even in Korea. Only a third of American colonists believed that the Revolutionary War was necessary and they changed the course of history forever.

It is our turn now to do the same. An election outcome will not change that. We are willing to lay down our lives for the cause of liberty if it is required of us and it may be. I welcome losing if the winning team is not supporting the principles this country was founded on.

But I will not go as a lamb to the slaughter and vote for someone who my heart, my gut and my reason tell me are not right for this country. Like Patrick Henry said, "I know not what course others will take but as for me, give me liberty or give me death"

Well I'm in agreement with you then. We certainly can't change the GOP by going along to get along.

 

[ThinkCritically]

Well I'm in agreement with you then. We certainly can't change the GOP by going along to get along.

It would be all bark, no bite. Then what would happen next election cycle...same thing....I'm thinking long term these days. The simple fact of the matter is that we are going to have another establishment president come next year. Two sides of the same coin. Pick your poison. The only waisted vote is an insincere vote.

 

[nodoginnafight]

I'm wondering why folks would align themselves with a political party they disagree with.
Is it because they just don't want to do the hard work of building their own party and would rather steal the hard work that others have done to establish their own party?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

What are you babbling about?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I'm wondering why folks would align themselves with a political party they disagree with.
Is it because they just don't want to do the hard work of building their own party and would rather steal the hard work that others have done to establish their own party?

A political party, such as it is, is an empty vessel. It's the people involved that give it its identity. Look at the shift of the Democratic Party from Cleveland to Wilson, as an example. It moved from classical liberalism to progressivism. Why shouldn't we try to move the Republican Party towards our principles? Especially considering how the Republicans and Democrats work together to keep the third parties down, and simply the American system and culture which seems to promote having only two major parties at a time.

 

[LibertyForAll]

I'm wondering why folks would align themselves with a political party they disagree with.
Is it because they just don't want to do the hard work of building their own party and would rather steal the hard work that others have done to establish their own party?

How can someone steal a political party? The party is a collective of people with a similiar political ideology. If enough of the party likes an idea then it is adopted into the platform. If the GOP is changing then it is because people are fed up with the status quo not because someone is stealing the party. If you are a big government statist who hates liberty then feel free to spread your message and if you get a majority of the party to listen to you then you will have the party you want.

 

[ThinkCritically]

I'm wondering why folks would align themselves with a political party they disagree with.
Is it because they just don't want to do the hard work of building their own party and would rather steal the hard work that others have done to establish their own party?

I think a lot of people who support Paul are a little old school in their conservative thinking. Since we have a two party system, one conservative one liberal, we have to try and work with the conservative base that is there. Most Paul supporters think that the conservative base has lost touch with what it means to be a Classic Liberal. They are hoping to revitalize the message of Classic Liberalism which most of today's conservatives still fundamentally agree with.

 

[clevergirl]

Real Libertarians won't vote for Romeny, however the "embaressed republican" libertarians will.

A "real libertarian" would not have run on a GOP ticket in the first place~

 

[imbalance]

I consider myself a libertarian and I will vote for Romney. I think other libertarians who say they won't really should just take a hard look at Obama and the fact that his global socialist agenda is the polar opposite of libertarianism. It's ridiculously unprecedented for the US and his reelection could set economic liberty back to pre-Revolution British mercantilism. To say that Obama and Romney are one in the same is imo simply not accurate and so I feel that a vote for Romeny is appropriate for me as a libertarian. My primary vote went to Ron Paul but I'm not going to disenfranchise myself in the general election simply because I didn't get to hand pick the candidate.

 

[amrchaos]

There are some fundemental difference between liberals versus libertarians

Libertarians are economically right to far right.

They border on open hostility towards big government in all its forms.

They prefer low taxes and privatization.

Some even question the need of government beyond the issue of security.

Libertarians looks like liberals on issues of human rights and civil rights, but, at times, they may differ on the approach on how to obtain maximum freedoms for the citizenry even in these overlapping subject matters. For instance, Liberals may look for government interaction such as in the case of affirmation action Libertarians will disagree since this infringe on the right of the employer to hire whomever s/he wants.

The two are not the same.

 

[Dr.Drock]

I consider myself a libertarian and I will vote for Romney. I think other libertarians who say they won't really should just take a hard look at Obama and the fact that his global socialist agenda is the polar opposite of libertarianism. It's ridiculously unprecedented for the US and his reelection could set economic liberty back to pre-Revolution British mercantilism. To say that Obama and Romney are one in the same is imo simply not accurate and so I feel that a vote for Romeny is appropriate for me as a libertarian. My primary vote went to Ron Paul but I'm not going to disenfranchise myself in the general election simply because I didn't get to hand pick the candidate.

I heard all this same reasoning as to why voting for Bush would lower the level of liberalism in gov't that Clinton brought.


The opposite was true, even though he had almost nothing but republicans in office with him. I won't fall for it again, hence why I won't vote for any fiscally liberal big gov't fascist regardless of the party they're in.

 

[Oddball]

Libertarians looks like liberals on issues of human rights and civil rights, but, at times, they may differ on the approach on how to obtain maximum freedoms for the citizenry even in these overlapping subject matters.

Precisely.

Most libertarians look upon so-called "civil rights" as special privileges and dispensation for favored political identity groups, doled out from on high by Big Daddy Big Gubmint.

All that is really necessary is for the unalienable rights of every man and woman to be respected and enforced in a uniform and consistent basis.

 

[imbalance]

I consider myself a libertarian and I will vote for Romney. I think other libertarians who say they won't really should just take a hard look at Obama and the fact that his global socialist agenda is the polar opposite of libertarianism. It's ridiculously unprecedented for the US and his reelection could set economic liberty back to pre-Revolution British mercantilism. To say that Obama and Romney are one in the same is imo simply not accurate and so I feel that a vote for Romeny is appropriate for me as a libertarian. My primary vote went to Ron Paul but I'm not going to disenfranchise myself in the general election simply because I didn't get to hand pick the candidate.

I heard all this same reasoning as to why voting for Bush would lower the level of liberalism in gov't that Clinton brought.


The opposite was true, even though he had almost nothing but republicans in office with him. I won't fall for it again, hence why I won't for any fiscally liberal big gov't fascist regardless of the party they're in.

I don't think you can compare Clinton/Gore to Obama. Or Bush to Romney, really. Everyone knew ahead of time Bush was beholden to petrodollar interests so his Middle East misadventurism shouldn't have come as much of a surprise to anyone. Just as Obama's global socialism shouldn't catch anyone off guard. Just take a look at Obama's H.I.R.E. Act HR 2487 -- especially Title V Subtitle A Foreign Account Tax Compliance -- set to fully kick in 1/1/13 if you want an idea of what Obama's second term will look like:

It's Official - America Now Enforces Capital Controls | ZeroHedge

 

[LibertyForAll]

I honestly believe that Romney will advance the same agenda as Obama even though he says he won't now. He is an etch a sketch remember? I think putting him in office will actually set us back 4 years because we won't be able to run anyone that has a chance against him in 2016. It would be at least 2020 before we had another shot and by then what will be left of the country after 8 more years of unchecked progressive policies looting our freedoms and treasure? Since we have been in a cyclical trend the next POTUS would probably be a Dem anyway. At least with an Obama re-election there is an end in sight and we would have 4 more years to gain ground in the GOP.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Real Libertarians won't vote for Romeny, however the "embaressed republican" libertarians will.

A "real libertarian" would not have run on a GOP ticket in the first place~

There's no reason not to.