Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
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.
.....because losertarians are closet liberals.
They are anti-military like liberals, they support legalizing drugs, they are anti-Israel, etc, etc.
Liberals are losertarians except they like big Govt and high taxes on certain groups......
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
Bush did a lot more to grow gov't and spending besides warmongering.
Obama is just Bush on steroids. I can't think of anything Obama has done that Bush either didn't do the same thing on the same scale or a slightly lesser scale.
Warmonger, expand entitlement programs, expand gov't spending, skyrocket debt, wipe his ass with the Constituion, etc.
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.
The Republican Party is not an empty vessell - it is populated with republicans.
And yes, I agree that the American culture promotes just holding onto the two existing parties. That American cultural principle is called LAZINESS.
It's an adversion to doing the hard work necessary to reap your rewards and a preference toward just taking the hard work someone ELSE has done and taking it for your own.
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.
The Republican Party is not an empty vessell - it is populated with republicans.
And yes, I agree that the American culture promotes just holding onto the two existing parties. That American cultural principle is called LAZINESS.
It's an adversion to doing the hard work necessary to reap your rewards and a preference toward just taking the hard work someone ELSE has done and taking it for your own.
Of course it is. To be a Republican essentially means nothing other than you're a member of the Republican Party. It doesn't mean you have to be a conservative. Your implication seems to be that we're essentially trying to steal the Republican Party, but you ignore the part where the Republican Party works in tandem with the Democratic Party to keep other parties down through abuse of electoral laws and you ignore the historical example I gave of the change in the Democratic Party. Is it wrong of us to want to work within the Republican Party, and so change it towards our principles, when the Republican Party has had a hand in making it impossible for us to do otherwise? Was it wrong of the progressives to take over the Democratic Party from the classical liberals?
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.
The Republican Party is not an empty vessell - it is populated with republicans.
And yes, I agree that the American culture promotes just holding onto the two existing parties. That American cultural principle is called LAZINESS.
It's an adversion to doing the hard work necessary to reap your rewards and a preference toward just taking the hard work someone ELSE has done and taking it for your own.
Of course it is. To be a Republican essentially means nothing other than you're a member of the Republican Party. It doesn't mean you have to be a conservative. Your implication seems to be that we're essentially trying to steal the Republican Party, but you ignore the part where the Republican Party works in tandem with the Democratic Party to keep other parties down through abuse of electoral laws and you ignore the historical example I gave of the change in the Democratic Party. Is it wrong of us to want to work within the Republican Party, and so change it towards our principles, when the Republican Party has had a hand in making it impossible for us to do otherwise? Was it wrong of the progressives to take over the Democratic Party from the classical liberals?
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
Bush did a lot more to grow gov't and spending besides warmongering.
Obama is just Bush on steroids. I can't think of anything Obama has done that Bush either didn't do the same thing on the same scale or a slightly lesser scale.
Warmonger, expand entitlement programs, expand gov't spending, skyrocket debt, wipe his ass with the Constituion, etc.
The Republican Party is not an empty vessell - it is populated with republicans.
And yes, I agree that the American culture promotes just holding onto the two existing parties. That American cultural principle is called LAZINESS.
It's an adversion to doing the hard work necessary to reap your rewards and a preference toward just taking the hard work someone ELSE has done and taking it for your own.
Of course it is. To be a Republican essentially means nothing other than you're a member of the Republican Party. It doesn't mean you have to be a conservative. Your implication seems to be that we're essentially trying to steal the Republican Party, but you ignore the part where the Republican Party works in tandem with the Democratic Party to keep other parties down through abuse of electoral laws and you ignore the historical example I gave of the change in the Democratic Party. Is it wrong of us to want to work within the Republican Party, and so change it towards our principles, when the Republican Party has had a hand in making it impossible for us to do otherwise? Was it wrong of the progressives to take over the Democratic Party from the classical liberals?
I'm not trying to imply that Libertarians are trying to steal the Republican Party. I'm saying it flat out.
You can whine and make excuses for why "you have to do it" and rationalize it any way you need to in order to feel good about yourself. I'm just calling a spade a spade. If you have fundamental differences with the majority of Republicans then you are not a Republican. Why are you trying to shift the Republican Party in any direction? You aren't a Republican so it's none of your business which direction the Republican Party sways. And I'm certainly not going to lament "how hard" it is to build up your own party. The Tories made it hard, the Whigs made it hard, it's not their job to make it easy for you and frankly, if your looking for "easy" you best just stay out of politics altogether.
Of course it is. To be a Republican essentially means nothing other than you're a member of the Republican Party. It doesn't mean you have to be a conservative. Your implication seems to be that we're essentially trying to steal the Republican Party, but you ignore the part where the Republican Party works in tandem with the Democratic Party to keep other parties down through abuse of electoral laws and you ignore the historical example I gave of the change in the Democratic Party. Is it wrong of us to want to work within the Republican Party, and so change it towards our principles, when the Republican Party has had a hand in making it impossible for us to do otherwise? Was it wrong of the progressives to take over the Democratic Party from the classical liberals?
You are making one fundamental flaw here....you are assuming that people know history....it is difficult to debate with people when they don't even have a historical context for their blabbering...
Of course it is. To be a Republican essentially means nothing other than you're a member of the Republican Party. It doesn't mean you have to be a conservative. Your implication seems to be that we're essentially trying to steal the Republican Party, but you ignore the part where the Republican Party works in tandem with the Democratic Party to keep other parties down through abuse of electoral laws and you ignore the historical example I gave of the change in the Democratic Party. Is it wrong of us to want to work within the Republican Party, and so change it towards our principles, when the Republican Party has had a hand in making it impossible for us to do otherwise? Was it wrong of the progressives to take over the Democratic Party from the classical liberals?
I'm not trying to imply that Libertarians are trying to steal the Republican Party. I'm saying it flat out.
You can whine and make excuses for why "you have to do it" and rationalize it any way you need to in order to feel good about yourself. I'm just calling a spade a spade. If you have fundamental differences with the majority of Republicans then you are not a Republican. Why are you trying to shift the Republican Party in any direction? You aren't a Republican so it's none of your business which direction the Republican Party sways. And I'm certainly not going to lament "how hard" it is to build up your own party. The Tories made it hard, the Whigs made it hard, it's not their job to make it easy for you and frankly, if your looking for "easy" you best just stay out of politics altogether.
Well changing the Republican Party isn't going to be easy. Actually, as of right now, I am a Republican. When one votes in an Ohio primary you have to declare your party, and since I wanted to vote for Ron Paul I had to declare as a Republican. So I am a Republican and a libertarian. You can whine and complain about us taking over the party, but that's what happens. Political parties don't remain static. If you have a problem with that you could always start a third party.
I'm not trying to imply that Libertarians are trying to steal the Republican Party. I'm saying it flat out.
You can whine and make excuses for why "you have to do it" and rationalize it any way you need to in order to feel good about yourself. I'm just calling a spade a spade. If you have fundamental differences with the majority of Republicans then you are not a Republican. Why are you trying to shift the Republican Party in any direction? You aren't a Republican so it's none of your business which direction the Republican Party sways. And I'm certainly not going to lament "how hard" it is to build up your own party. The Tories made it hard, the Whigs made it hard, it's not their job to make it easy for you and frankly, if your looking for "easy" you best just stay out of politics altogether.
Of course it is. To be a Republican essentially means nothing other than you're a member of the Republican Party. It doesn't mean you have to be a conservative. Your implication seems to be that we're essentially trying to steal the Republican Party, but you ignore the part where the Republican Party works in tandem with the Democratic Party to keep other parties down through abuse of electoral laws and you ignore the historical example I gave of the change in the Democratic Party. Is it wrong of us to want to work within the Republican Party, and so change it towards our principles, when the Republican Party has had a hand in making it impossible for us to do otherwise? Was it wrong of the progressives to take over the Democratic Party from the classical liberals?
You are making one fundamental flaw here....you are assuming that people know history....it is difficult to debate with people when they don't even have a historical context for their blabbering...
Ahhh yeah ... the old stand-by strategy of when you are losing an argument, just start throwing out insults and claiming better education...
Your time would probably be better spent hacking another online poll
I'm not trying to imply that Libertarians are trying to steal the Republican Party. I'm saying it flat out.
You can whine and make excuses for why "you have to do it" and rationalize it any way you need to in order to feel good about yourself. I'm just calling a spade a spade. If you have fundamental differences with the majority of Republicans then you are not a Republican. Why are you trying to shift the Republican Party in any direction? You aren't a Republican so it's none of your business which direction the Republican Party sways. And I'm certainly not going to lament "how hard" it is to build up your own party. The Tories made it hard, the Whigs made it hard, it's not their job to make it easy for you and frankly, if your looking for "easy" you best just stay out of politics altogether.
Well changing the Republican Party isn't going to be easy. Actually, as of right now, I am a Republican. When one votes in an Ohio primary you have to declare your party, and since I wanted to vote for Ron Paul I had to declare as a Republican. So I am a Republican and a libertarian. You can whine and complain about us taking over the party, but that's what happens. Political parties don't remain static. If you have a problem with that you could always start a third party.
I'd rather just steal someone else's ....
it's easier
I'm not trying to imply that Libertarians are trying to steal the Republican Party. I'm saying it flat out.
You can whine and make excuses for why "you have to do it" and rationalize it any way you need to in order to feel good about yourself. I'm just calling a spade a spade. If you have fundamental differences with the majority of Republicans then you are not a Republican. Why are you trying to shift the Republican Party in any direction? You aren't a Republican so it's none of your business which direction the Republican Party sways. And I'm certainly not going to lament "how hard" it is to build up your own party. The Tories made it hard, the Whigs made it hard, it's not their job to make it easy for you and frankly, if your looking for "easy" you best just stay out of politics altogether.
Simple question...Should the people do the bidding of the party, or should the party do the bidding of the people...There is no consensus with in the GOP over all the issues...Libertarian or no libertarians. Therefore parties constantly evolve. You think the GOP of today is the same GOP as in the 40's....If so you are wrong... Folks like Paul are just trying to salvage a burning house...if it burns up to much then i guess you are right, we will just go and build another house....
I'm not trying to imply that Libertarians are trying to steal the Republican Party. I'm saying it flat out.
You can whine and make excuses for why "you have to do it" and rationalize it any way you need to in order to feel good about yourself. I'm just calling a spade a spade. If you have fundamental differences with the majority of Republicans then you are not a Republican. Why are you trying to shift the Republican Party in any direction? You aren't a Republican so it's none of your business which direction the Republican Party sways. And I'm certainly not going to lament "how hard" it is to build up your own party. The Tories made it hard, the Whigs made it hard, it's not their job to make it easy for you and frankly, if your looking for "easy" you best just stay out of politics altogether.
Simple question...Should the people do the bidding of the party, or should the party do the bidding of the people...There is no consensus with in the GOP over all the issues...Libertarian or no libertarians. Therefore parties constantly evolve. You think the GOP of today is the same GOP as in the 40's....If so you are wrong... Folks like Paul are just trying to salvage a burning house...if it burns up to much then i guess you are right, we will just go and build another house....
I fully expect political parties to evolve. But by definition - you call your self Libertarian - but rather than do the work necessary to establish a Libertarian Party - you are just trying (very unsucessfully I might ad) to turn the Republican Party into your Libertarian Party.
It's just LAZY.
I fully expect political parties to evolve. But by definition - you call your self Libertarian - but rather than do the work necessary to establish a Libertarian Party - you are just trying (very unsucessfully I might add) to turn the Republican Party into your Libertarian Party.
It's just LAZY.
REASON: Governor Reagan, you have been quoted in the press as saying that youre doing a lot of speaking now on behalf of the philosophy of conservatism and libertarianism. Is there a difference between the two?
REAGAN: If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberalsif we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.
What makes you think I'm upset? I'm not a Republican. I used to be. But they lost me when they lost their credibility on fiscal responsibility. Now I'm an independent.
