So you wanna claim to be a Libertarian do ya?

[uscitizen]

I thought we were talking about Libertarians?

 

[PredFan]

Obama has not stopped nation-building.
Obama did not close Gittmo.
Obama did not reduce our military presence.
Obama did not reverse the Patriot Act.
Obama did not stop the subsidizing of businesses and industries.
Obama has increased the size of government.
Obama does end-arounds of the Constitution.

Well, I understand the gitmo situation.
The goal of it is to not bring them to the US because if we did, they would be entitled to rights. So he tried to see if he could get any allied nations to take the prisoners, and they declined. So, gitmo is here to stay since they don't want to give the prisoners rights in any way.

He reduced military presence in Iraq while we shifted more focus to Afghanistan in hopes of pulling out soon.

The point was that the poster claimed that obama is more akin to Libertarians than the GOP, I pointed out that he wasn't, and far from it.

Reducing the military presence one place and increasing it in another, actually he added Libya and Pakistan as well, is not in any stretch of the imagination, a reduction.

 

[PredFan]

The reason I can't cast my libertarian vote for Romney or Santorum is that either one of them will put the interests of their respective religions ahead of the interests of the American people if push ever came to shove.

Aren't Santorum and Romney trying to do that?

Thats why they shouldn't be in politics.

And I'll ask you the same question; What are you afraid of? Stop and think about it. What will they do, based on their religion and what makes you think that the House and the senate will go along with it?

We don't have to imagine what obama will do, he's doing it right now.

 

[PredFan]

I also love how alot of this hate for the unconstitutional laws is going to Obama. Shouldn't we direct that anger to Congress aswell? They are the ones who pass the damn laws!

you know, as soon as you mention "hate" you take yourslef out of the conversation. Simply calling it hate is intellectually lazy. What's next? Are we all racists as well?

 

[nitroz]

Obama has not stopped nation-building.
Obama did not close Gittmo.
Obama did not reduce our military presence.
Obama did not reverse the Patriot Act.
Obama did not stop the subsidizing of businesses and industries.
Obama has increased the size of government.
Obama does end-arounds of the Constitution.

Well, I understand the gitmo situation.
The goal of it is to not bring them to the US because if we did, they would be entitled to rights. So he tried to see if he could get any allied nations to take the prisoners, and they declined. So, gitmo is here to stay since they don't want to give the prisoners rights in any way.

He reduced military presence in Iraq while we shifted more focus to Afghanistan in hopes of pulling out soon.

The point was that the poster claimed that obama is more akin to Libertarians than the GOP, I pointed out that he wasn't, and far from it.

Reducing the military presence one place and increasing it in another, actually he added Libya and Pakistan as well, is not in any stretch of the imagination, a reduction.

Well, he did it in a way.

But yeah, this is what happens when you don't tackle problems head on due to "Human Rights".

 

[PredFan]

Many started claiming to be libertarians around the second Bush term.
Just embaressed republicans mostly.

Partisan hackery at it's finest, but not entirely untrue.

During the first and second Bush term was when Ron Paul recognized what Bush was doing, and doing in the name of conservatism. It was that time that he pushed to get his message out, and his message began to resonate with people. Yes, some in the GOP, those who were unhappy with Bush's un-conservative actions, went to Dr.Paul.

No Libertarian was happy with Bush, but compared to obama, Bush is a saint.

And yet Paul runs as a Republican?

Paul runs as a republican because he knows that the GOP most closely (of the two parties) represents what the ibertarians stand for. thanks for helping me make my point.

 

[PredFan]

I also love how alot of this hate for the unconstitutional laws is going to Obama. Shouldn't we direct that anger to Congress aswell? They are the ones who pass the damn laws!

Naah those laws have to be passed by the republican controlled house.

More partisan hackery on your part. They also have to be passed by the Democrat controlled Senate.

 

[PredFan]

Naah those laws have to be passed by the republican controlled house.

Doesn't matter. We need to hold those accountable responsible for their actions.

some of we less partisan ones do.
I blame most of our current woes on past congresses.
Many just blame it all on one party in congress or the current president.

You less partisan???

 

[PredFan]

The reason I can't cast my libertarian vote for Romney or Santorum is that either one of them will put the interests of their respective religions ahead of the interests of the American people if push ever came to shove.

Ive heard this a couple of times from Libertarians and I always ask them a question that they cannot answer. What is it you think that they will do as potus? What are you afraid of? Do you think that the potus has the power all by himself to end Roe vs Wade? Do you think that the potus all by himself will be able to ban contraceptives? Tell me what you think that Romney or Santorum will do as potus that is based on his religion and tell me why you think that the Democrats and the Republicans in the House and Senate will follow along with it.

Otoh, Obama is doing things RIGHT NOW that are infringing on our personal and fiscal liberties. We do not have to imagine it. It is happening and will only get worse in a 2nd term.

Turn the table there, Bro'.

What are you afraid of? Do you think that the potus has the power all by himself?

The President has the power to set the agenda, and the absolute LAST thing I want to see on our national agenda is more social conservatism to bring national behavior in compliance to religious tradition.

Power to set the agenda....yeah and? What makes you think that the GOP and the Democrats in Congress will go along with it?

I'll tell you what I'm afraid of, Obamacare, the one single bill that will do more damage to both personal and fiscal freedom that any one bill, even more than medicare and medicaid. Also, Obama's single-minded determination to get around the constitution as much as possible. I don't have to wonder whether the GOP and the Democrats in Congress will go along with Obama on this stuff, it's already been done. You claim to be a lIbertarian yet you are willing to accept government control and government intrusion into your life as long as you agree with it.

So you want to call yourself a Libertarian eh?

 

[PredFan]

I thought we were talking about Libertarians?

And we are. Please try to pay attention.

 

[konradv]

Get the money out of politics with public financing of elections and many problems disappear without having to try an untested philosophy of government. We all want to be left alone, but you can't run a society of 100s of millions on handshakes between individuals.

 

[PredFan]

Well, I understand the gitmo situation.
The goal of it is to not bring them to the US because if we did, they would be entitled to rights. So he tried to see if he could get any allied nations to take the prisoners, and they declined. So, gitmo is here to stay since they don't want to give the prisoners rights in any way.

He reduced military presence in Iraq while we shifted more focus to Afghanistan in hopes of pulling out soon.

The point was that the poster claimed that obama is more akin to Libertarians than the GOP, I pointed out that he wasn't, and far from it.

Reducing the military presence one place and increasing it in another, actually he added Libya and Pakistan as well, is not in any stretch of the imagination, a reduction.

Well, he did it in a way.

But yeah, this is what happens when you don't tackle problems head on due to "Human Rights".

??? In what way is stopping war in one place and adding it in three other places, a reduction?

 

[PredFan]

Get the money out of politics with public financing of elections and many problems disappear without having to try an untested philosophy of government. We all want to be left alone, but you can't run a society of 100s of millions on handshakes between individuals.

You have a good point but really, that's for another thread don't you think?

 

[editec]

STOP COMPARING POLS and just look at the facts, kids.

These debates where you are essantially trying to support your TEAM by showing how: while they are bad they aren't as bad as the other guy's, make you look like village idiots.

These villians ALL have names and they have looooooooooong voting records, too.

But still you partisans only want to talk about parties and your goofy political science theories and seldom are you interested in what people actually do and how they actually vote.

Why?

Because you all know if you really look at the records of national politicians, they are, to a greater or lesser extent, pretty much all (USING YOUR your definitions, not mine) PROGRESSIVES/SOCIALISTS/STATISTS/AUTHORITARIANS who will grow government and slowly but surely turn our nation into a corporate lead police state.

There isn't a candidate out there with any national name recognition that any of us can really trust, kids.

I suspect many of you sense that in your heart of hearts, but that truth is SO DISCOURAGING that you cling to your foolish partisanship rather than admit the truth to yourselves.

We Americans have been consistently and systematically duped by the masters.

The masters control every party of any note, and no candidate without their support has even a remote change of reaching high office.

They control the money, the media, the corporations, Congress, and pretty much every so called think-tank, foundation and university in this land.

And yet some of you STILL think that the POTUS controls national outcomes?

It is simply amazing to me how deeply some of you have your heads buried in the sand.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Partisan hackery at it's finest, but not entirely untrue.

During the first and second Bush term was when Ron Paul recognized what Bush was doing, and doing in the name of conservatism. It was that time that he pushed to get his message out, and his message began to resonate with people. Yes, some in the GOP, those who were unhappy with Bush's un-conservative actions, went to Dr.Paul.

No Libertarian was happy with Bush, but compared to obama, Bush is a saint.

I disagree. Bush was a total sell out - willing to do anything for the social conservatives who want total control of our lives outside of work, and working hard to find more ways for his friends to raid the treasury with his war and medicare spending, especially on tax favoritism for the wealthy.

Obama is ineffectual as a leader - the prime example being a call for an end to tax favoritism in one industry while promoting tax favoritism in another, when fair and simple taxes for all with no favoritism is the answer - but at least he continues to call 'bullshit!' on the corporate bullshitters when he speaks.

So tell me what Bush did for the SoCons?

Your attacks on Bush are irrelevant. we are talking about Obama here. We don't have to imagine what Obama will do, he has already grown government, spent recklessly, raided the treasury, borrowed bazillions, taken over private business, infringed on our personal, private and Constitutionally protected liberties. You can only speculate, with suspension of dis-blief I might add, what the horribvle things the GOP might do, but we don't have to imagine that with obama.

Dude... you're the one who brought Bush in to the conversation - besides, the worst part of the Obama Administration is it's continuation of the Bush policies of war and out of control spending, especially on tax favoritism for the wealthy.

 

[Paulie]

Not exactly sure what you're intent is for this thread, but I think I might be one of the people you're addressing, despite the fact that I'm not a recent adopter of the libertarian ideology. In fact, I do see greater hope for the libertarian cause among self-described liberals than with conservatives. Setting aside the actual policies of the Democrats and the Republicans, the most important difference between liberals and conservatives is in their attitude toward authoritarianism.

While people of both leanings will support authoritarian policies, liberals will at least find some discomfort in the idea. Their problem is one of misunderstanding, in not realizing how their good intent is being used against them by unscrupulous leaders. Conservatives, on the other hand, will cheer for overbearing government when it suits their needs, or placates their fears. The reaction to 9/11 should have proven this to us if nothing else.

You're exactly the kind of person he's talking about. Liberals are bootlicking servile toadies. The idea that they make better libertarians than conservatives is absurd. I've read your stuff, and you don't come off as any libertarian. You come off as a liberal. You're fan of big government. You support Obamacare. No one who supports Obama care has any justification to call himself a libertarian.

You must be thinking of someone else. dblack has never said he supports Obamacare.

In my view, conservatives are willing to play along with libertarian proposals when they add up to lower taxes or oppose social reform they don't like. But when it comes to real freedom, they don't really like it much. With liberals, the challenge is showing them that economic freedom is fundamental. Once they get that, they essentially ARE libertarians for the most part.

ROFL. No they aren't. Liberals don't believe in economic or social freedom. Any claim that they do is utterly pretentious.

He didn't say liberals BELIEVE in economic freedom. He said theres a challenge in showing them the idea of it. What he said is that once they get the idea, they lean libertarian.

 

[dblack]

Hmm...I am not as familiar with his posts. It does seem suspicious that some one who claims to have been a Libertarian for that long could not possibly believe the crap he was spouting.

I hope it doesn't seem like spiteful tit-for-tat, but I feel exactly the same about comments like this:

No Libertarian was happy with Bush, but compared to obama, Bush is a saint.

 

[dblack]

...I've read your stuff, and you don't come off as any libertarian. You come off as a liberal. You're fan of big government. You support Obamacare. No one who supports Obama care has any justification to call himself a libertarian....

No, I'm pretty sure you haven't.

 

[Greenbeard]

Barack hussein Obama is the polar opposite of everything that the Libertarian Party stands for. no rational thinking libertarian can say that Rick Santorum is in the same category.

Obama has not stopped nation-building.
Obama did not close Gittmo.
Obama did not reduce our military presence.
Obama did not reverse the Patriot Act.
Obama did not stop the subsidizing of businesses and industries.
Obama has increased the size of government.
Obama does end-arounds of the Constitution.

If these are your issues, then, yes, Santorum is in the same category. Indeed, it's pretty clear he's significantly more hawkish and itchy for extended overseas adventures than Obama, not to mention being very publicly and ardently opposed to any sort of personal right to privacy.

 

[Paulie]

...I've read your stuff, and you don't come off as any libertarian. You come off as a liberal. You're fan of big government. You support Obamacare. No one who supports Obama care has any justification to call himself a libertarian....

No, I'm pretty sure you haven't.

Not only has he not read your "stuff", he apparently didn't even read the post he quoted you on there.