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.
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.
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.
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:
PredFan said:No Libertarian was happy with Bush, but compared to obama, Bush is a saint.
And yet Paul runs as a Republican?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.
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.
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?
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.
No, I didn't. You left off the post I responded to where Bush was brought into the discussion.
And i agree that obama continued Bush's bad policies. Another great reason why Libertarians cannot support obama, no matter who the GOP nom is. How can you say obama is different in one post and them claim he's the same in another.
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.
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?
Not if you're putting libertarianism up as a goal. You're begging the question of whether it deserves that position. While we may all be libertarians at heart, expecting it to be an effective way for modern society to run is wrong. Without some regulation we'd have a society none of us would want. The question is where to draw the line, not strict adherence to some "ism's" principles.
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.
No, I didn't. You left off the post I responded to where Bush was brought into the discussion.
And i agree that obama continued Bush's bad policies. Another great reason why Libertarians cannot support obama, no matter who the GOP nom is. How can you say obama is different in one post and them claim he's the same in another.
Because he has to appear different on certain issues to perpetuate the myth that there's actually choices in our elections. At the end of the day, Obama serves big business interests just like Bush did. But as long as he throws a bone to the left every once in a while, it appears that he's the liberal everyone voted for.
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.
also makes my point.
he did run as a Libertarian though.
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?
Not if you're putting libertarianism up as a goal. You're begging the question of whether it deserves that position. While we may all be libertarians at heart, expecting it to be an effective way for modern society to run is wrong. Without some regulation we'd have a society none of us would want. The question is where to draw the line, not strict adherence to some "ism's" principles.
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.
also makes my point.
he did run as a Libertarian though.
Huh? What exactly is your point and how does it relate to the tread?
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.
No, I didn't. You left off the post I responded to where Bush was brought into the discussion.
And i agree that obama continued Bush's bad policies. Another great reason why Libertarians cannot support obama, no matter who the GOP nom is. How can you say obama is different in one post and them claim he's the same in another.
Because he has to appear different on certain issues to perpetuate the myth that there's actually choices in our elections. At the end of the day, Obama serves big business interests just like Bush did. But as long as he throws a bone to the left every once in a while, it appears that he's the liberal everyone voted for.
You have a good point but really, that's for another thread don't you think?
Not if you're putting libertarianism up as a goal. You're begging the question of whether it deserves that position. While we may all be libertarians at heart, expecting it to be an effective way for modern society to run is wrong. Without some regulation we'd have a society none of us would want. The question is where to draw the line, not strict adherence to some "ism's" principles.
I understand but the thread is about how some Libertarians claim to be that but really know very little more about being a Libertarian that being able to smoke pot without being arrested. it has also spun off into a discussion of the totally absurd notion that to Libertarains, obama is preferable to Romney or Santorum.
No, I didn't. You left off the post I responded to where Bush was brought into the discussion.
And i agree that obama continued Bush's bad policies. Another great reason why Libertarians cannot support obama, no matter who the GOP nom is. How can you say obama is different in one post and them claim he's the same in another.
Because he has to appear different on certain issues to perpetuate the myth that there's actually choices in our elections. At the end of the day, Obama serves big business interests just like Bush did. But as long as he throws a bone to the left every once in a while, it appears that he's the liberal everyone voted for.
Yep same as the last president, just fooling the other party.
this IS a third Bush term.
Paul ran as a republican because he knew he had no chance at all running on the libertarian ticket.
I know this, but if we count those things as a wash, there is plenty of other things that obama does that are apalling to libertarians. This is what separates obama from the eventual GOP nom. I agree, that it is a sad choice for us to have to make, and I will have to hold my nose in November and vote for the GOP candidate and continue to put my support behind Libertarian candidates and Libertarian ideas. Like I'm doing right now.
I don't buy this notion that the Paul movement is just a bunch of stoners looking for decriminalization or legalization or whatever.
....but what's wrong with pro-marijuana people looking to the libertarians for a home?
Everyone's got political issues that are important to them. There's a huge problem in this country when people are having their futures ruined over getting caught with a bag of weed. That's serious to a lot of people. I'm one of them. It's not exactly issue number one to me at the moment, but I don't see anywhere else where that issue is ever going to get anywhere other than with the libertarians.
Paul ran as a republican because he knew he had no chance at all running on the libertarian ticket.
You say that like there's something WRONG with that. It's obvious that the only way any real changes are going to occur is to work within the 2 party system. The time is not right for a 3rd party. Social cons aligned with the republicans, ex-dems that were hawkish on war aligned with the repubs (neocons).
It's what people do in this country because that's the political system we have to work with.
You may not LIKE it, but it's the only way to get anything done.
I have been a Libertarian for at least 25 years. Longer, if you count the time I was a Libertarian without knowing there was such a thing.
In the past 10 years I have seen tremendous growth in the party's ranks. especially among the young. At first, this was very encouraging. However, the more I talked to these people and the more I observed their actions, the more disappointed I've become. 90% of these new, young, libertarians are only here because they think that Ron paul is going to let them do drugs legally. the extent of their knowledge of the economy, and fiscal issues is that the stopping the war on drugs will reduce government spending.
Many of the new Libertarians, also are aware that the LP promotes non-interventionalism, they like this idea too. "Don't die in a war, and you live to smoke more pot" sounds pretty good to them. They also love to point out how much money will be saved when we aren't fighting "over there".
Too many times I see these people doing and saying the stupidest things in the name of the Libertarian Party. Throwing things at Sean hannity during the 2008 GOP convention is a prime example. It has been said many times and it's true, that sometimes Ron Paul's worst enemy is his supporters.
The worst, in my opinion is their preference for the democrats over the GOP if they have to make the choice. I heard just last week, a person on a local libertarian talk show state that he's rather have Obama than rick Santorum. That's an exmaple of a person who is only a libertarian because of one or two issues, and listening to him, I'll bet he just wants to smoke pot unmolested. There is no way that a knowledgeable and rational libertarian would say such a thing. I have heard this same sentiment a few times before, and it's rediculous. 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.
It's great that our political clout is slowly increasing and although Ron Paul will never be POTUS, I hope I live to see a Libertarian in the White House. but you people need to really look at the Libertarian Party's platform and payattention to the WHOLE thing.
And btw, Ron Paul, if he were to somehow get elected, would not be able to make drugs legal, not in any way shape or form. The POTUS is not Ceasar and he cannot just do whatever he wants to.
