So you wanna claim to be a Libertarian do ya?

[LibertyForAll]

Romney said he would have signed NDAA as written and is in favor of individual mandates.
Santorum hates libertarians and wants to legislate his morality and war with Iran and he is a lobbyist.
Gingrich was for individual mandates, wants war with CUBA and Iran and took bailout money to line his own pockets.

None of these men will increase my individual liberty and all of them are a threat to it.
For me it doesn't matter whether it's a (D) or (R) that's POTUS, none of them are on my side.

 

[kaz]

If you're lumping me in with the Libertarian Party, which is about as libertarian as the Cato Institute or Reason Foundation (which is to say not at all), then yes, you're questioning my libertarian bonafides.

OK, my mistake, sorry. I thought you were defending the party. You're certainly parroting their points in this discussion.

Also, I don't understand your usage of "litmus test." Are you claiming that I'm trying to litmus test you, or that you're trying to litmus test me?

I was referring to the party so with the above point you're not defending the party, this is moot.

As for Santorum you're missing my point, I think. As I said, Santorum might, emphasis on might, do something about ObamaCare if he were elected. That might, again emphasis on might, make him better than Obama when it comes to welfare programs. However, his foreign policy might be worse than Obama's, and I think we can at the least say it won't be any better. So there is no ground, from the libertarian point of view, to say that Rick Santorum would be preferable to Barack Obama.

The Democrats are actively fighting to enslave us. If you are a libertarian because you believe in maximizing personal liberty, which I think is the definition of a libertarian, then you would fear government giving people checks and controlling their access to health care more then anything else they can do because there is no better way to enslave people then to...enslave them. If you compare wars on the other side of the world to that or that the Republicans being completely useless and pathetic (they are) to the malignancy of the Democrat's war of control over our bodies and our wallets then I can't help you no matter what you call yourself. I'm talking reality, it's indisputable.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

If you're lumping me in with the Libertarian Party, which is about as libertarian as the Cato Institute or Reason Foundation (which is to say not at all), then yes, you're questioning my libertarian bonafides.

OK, my mistake, sorry. I thought you were defending the party. You're certainly parroting their points in this discussion.

Also, I don't understand your usage of "litmus test." Are you claiming that I'm trying to litmus test you, or that you're trying to litmus test me?

I was referring to the party so with the above point you're not defending the party, this is moot.

As for Santorum you're missing my point, I think. As I said, Santorum might, emphasis on might, do something about ObamaCare if he were elected. That might, again emphasis on might, make him better than Obama when it comes to welfare programs. However, his foreign policy might be worse than Obama's, and I think we can at the least say it won't be any better. So there is no ground, from the libertarian point of view, to say that Rick Santorum would be preferable to Barack Obama.

The Democrats are actively fighting to enslave us. If you are a libertarian because you believe in maximizing personal liberty, which I think is the definition of a libertarian, then you would fear government giving people checks and controlling their access to health care more then anything else they can do because there is no better way to enslave people then to...enslave them. If you compare wars on the other side of the world to that or that the Republicans being completely useless and pathetic (they are) to the malignancy of the Democrat's war of control over our bodies and our wallets then I can't help you no matter what you call yourself. I'm talking reality, it's indisputable.

I fail to see how I'm parroting Libertarian Party talking points. Because I say there's no difference between the Republican and Democratic parties and won't vote for either in November? Hardly just an LP talking point.

Here's indisputable reality for you.

Republicans - Pro-war, pro-welfare
Democrats - Pro-welfare, pro-war

That's the difference.

 

[Contumacious]

I disagree. They're both pretty bad, but I'd consider Obama, if only slightly, less dangerous than Santorum.

I don't see how you could rationalize that statement. Unless you are a one-issue type Libertarian. you are irrationally afraid of Santorum's Theocratic Political beliefs. .

"Irrationally" ?!? - theocratic scumbags take a "holier than thou attitude" who will - "with good intentions" - impose all kinds of ecclesiastical laws on the populace in the name of Jeus H Christ.

.

.

 

[LibertyForAll]

The real question here is about the role of government.

Republicans seem to see it as a purveyor of morality and a means to implement their imperialist agenda.

Democrats seem to see it as means to ensure equality and redistribute wealth.

Libertarians see it as means to protect an individuals freedom.

The first two ideologies require increasingly oppressive laws to implement their agendas and therefore they are antithetical to the Libertarian philosophy. A principled libertarian need only ask the question,"Will this candidate grow government?". If the answer is "yes" ,then it doesn't matter in which way government is grown for the candidate to be ruled out. Murder, whether it be by knife or by gun is still murder.

 

[Contumacious]

The real question here is about the role of government.

Republicans seem to see it as a purveyor of morality and a means to implement their imperialist agenda.

Democrats seem to see it as means to ensure equality and redistribute wealth.

Libertarians see it as means to protect an individuals freedom.

The first two ideologies require increasingly oppressive laws to implement their agendas and therefore they are antithetical to the Libertarian philosophy. A principled libertarian need only ask the question,"Will this candidate grow government?". If the answer is "yes" ,then it doesn't matter in which way government is grown for the candidate to be ruled out. Murder, whether it be by knife or by gun is still murder.

That is correct.

The democrats wants to screw us in the name of Karl Marx and the "conservatives" in the name of god.

.

 

[kaz]

I fail to see how I'm parroting Libertarian Party talking points. Because I say there's no difference between the Republican and Democratic parties and won't vote for either in November? Hardly just an LP talking point.

Here's indisputable reality for you.

Republicans - Pro-war, pro-welfare
Democrats - Pro-welfare, pro-war

That's the difference.

I'm a short putt for that argument. I left the Republican party circa 1990 because there wasn't a difference. However, as I keep pointing out regarding pro-welfare there because the Democrats fell on a sword in the midterm elections to get Obama care in place and control access to health care. The ones who paid the highest price for that bit of socialism were the so called blue dogs who were in more conservative districts and went down in droves. The liberal ideologues tended to be safe in liberal districts. However, I left the party, I didn't stop paying attention. Obamacare was in all the news. If you can seriously look at that and say that Obamacare and what the left did to get it is "the same" then you are a lost cause for your own liberty.

 

[dblack]

If you can seriously look at that and say that Obamacare and what the left did to get it is "the same" then you are a lost cause for your own liberty.

If you can seriously look at Romney, the original proponent of Obamacare, and pretend he is in any way a friend to liberty - well, then I can only echo your accusation.

I remember when Romney first entered my field of vision back in 2005. I was livid that the insurance companies were making a push for mandatory health insurance in Massachusetts. It didn't surprise me a great deal that Republican was facilitating it because in general, as we've been pointing out, there's precious little difference between Ds and Rs. My concern was that the insurance companies would take this as a cue and, as they'd done with mandating auto insurance, campaign for mandates in most or all of the states. I had no idea they'd go for the jugular and push it through at a national level.

Anyway, I suppose I've never really forgiven Romney for paving the way for that shit. And now in the cruelest possible irony, he's being held up to us as the "alternative" to Obama.

No.

Fuck no.

 

[kaz]

If you can seriously look at that and say that Obamacare and what the left did to get it is "the same" then you are a lost cause for your own liberty.

If you can seriously look at Romney, the original proponent of Obamacare, and pretend he is in any way a friend to liberty - well, then I can only echo your accusation.

I remember when Romney first entered my field of vision back in 2005. I was livid that the insurance companies were making a push for mandatory health insurance in Massachusetts. It didn't surprise me a great deal that Republican was facilitating it because in general, as we've been pointing out, there's precious little difference between Ds and Rs. My concern was that the insurance companies would take this as a cue and, as they'd done with mandating auto insurance, campaign for mandates in most or all of the states. I had no idea they'd go for the jugular and push it through at a national level.

Anyway, I suppose I've never really forgiven Romney for paving the way for that shit. And now in the cruelest possible irony, he's being held up to us as the "alternative" to Obama.

No.

Fuck no.

Not a fan of State rights? Fair enough. I totally oppose socialized medicine at any level. But if you can in your mind equate a State doing it and the Federal government doing it...again...hopeless...

 

[dblack]

Not a fan of State rights? Fair enough. I totally oppose socialized medicine at any level. But if you can in your mind equate a State doing it and the Federal government doing it...again...hopeless...

I'm not a fan of any government mandating the purchase of insurance. And I'll be damned if I vote for the son-of-bitch who introduced it, regardless if it was 'only' on the state level. You can keeping calling that hopeless, and I'll keep telling you that I won't sellout the cause to the people actively engaged in fighting against us. Apparently, you will.

 

[kaz]

Not a fan of State rights? Fair enough. I totally oppose socialized medicine at any level. But if you can in your mind equate a State doing it and the Federal government doing it...again...hopeless...

I'm not a fan of any government mandating the purchase of insurance. And I'll be damned if I vote for the son-of-bitch who introduced it, regardless if it was 'only' on the state level. You can keeping calling that hopeless, and I'll keep telling you that I won't sellout the cause to the people actively engaged in fighting against us. Apparently, you will.

So you'll not vote for the opponent of a Marxist, which is me selling out. Got it, duly noted...

 

[PredFan]

In short, if you can say that you prefer Obama to the GOP nom, then we can only surmise one or more of the following:

1. You are a one-issue Libertarian.
2. You don't know much about how the government works.
3. You don't know much about Libertarianism.
4. You don't know much about the DNC and Obama.
5. You don't know much about the GOP candidates.

It has been said that the Libertarian Party and Ron Paul's worst enemies are some of his supporters, and I see many of that kind right here in this thread.

 

[dblack]

So you'll not vote for the opponent of a Marxist, which is me selling out. Got it, duly noted...

Obama is not a Marxist. And Romney opposes nothing of substance in Obama policies - they're two sides of the same coin.

 

[dblack]

In short, if you can say that you prefer Obama to the GOP nom ...

The mistaken assumption of this thread is that refusing to vote for Romney (or Gingrich or Santorum) is the same as preferring Obama. Obama supporters can make the opposite claim with equal validity (none). They can say that by refusing to vote for Obama I'm supporting Romney (or Gingrich or Santorum). Both views are nothing more than blind partisan idiocy.

I'm not going to play your stupid games. I'll vote for the candidate I think is the best.

 

[Contumacious]

Obama is not a Marxist. .

HUH?

"Seven years before Barack Obama’s “spread the wealth” comment to Joe the Plumber became a GOP campaign theme, the Democratic presidential candidate said in a radio interview the U.S. has suffered from a fundamentally flawed Constitution that does not mandate or allow for redistribution of wealth."

.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

In short, if you can say that you prefer Obama to the GOP nom, then we can only surmise one or more of the following:

1. You are a one-issue Libertarian.
2. You don't know much about how the government works.
3. You don't know much about Libertarianism.
4. You don't know much about the DNC and Obama.
5. You don't know much about the GOP candidates.

It has been said that the Libertarian Party and Ron Paul's worst enemies are some of his supporters, and I see many of that kind right here in this thread.

It's funny that the litmus test for being a libertarian is whether you'll vote for Romney and Santorum in November, and not voting for them is somehow the un-libertarian thing to do.

 

[editec]

NONE of you are mere LABELS.

 

[dblack]

Obama is not a Marxist. .

HUH?

That's right. Obama is no more a Marxist than Romney is a libertarian. When you look at what they do, and not what they say, they're both thoroughgoing corporatists - and virtually indistinguishable.

 

[LibertyForAll]

I am a one issue libertarian and that issue is LIBERTY!

I will not compromise on that!

 

[Paulie]

Obama, Romney...

They're authoritarians. They both have plenty pf issues they think the government should remove personal liberty to achieve.

The only truly libertarian thing to do is vote for NEITHER.