Libertarians Are The True Political Moderates

[R.D.]

I don't see NYCarbineers posts because I have him on ignore. He is the only poster on any message board I post on who is on ignore, and he will be until he stops putting words in my mouth and saying, "oh, you're saying" and then making up a bunch of ridiculous shit that no would could possibly think that what I said meant that. Obviously I don't put people on ignore for being liberal moon bats.

Well you're plenty good at making up my words for me little buddy. My actual words you can't be bothered with, they don't fit your agenda.

And the Ignore button is for pussies BTW.

In your case that would be true. You're a p**** that should be ignored

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I don't see NYCarbineers posts because I have him on ignore. He is the only poster on any message board I post on who is on ignore, and he will be until he stops putting words in my mouth and saying, "oh, you're saying" and then making up a bunch of ridiculous shit that no would could possibly think that what I said meant that. Obviously I don't put people on ignore for being liberal moon bats.

Well you're plenty good at making up my words for me little buddy. My actual words you can't be bothered with, they don't fit your agenda.

And the Ignore button is for pussies BTW.

In your case that would be true. You're a p**** that should be ignored

Children run away from what they disagree with. Feel free. It's allowed here, just not in the real world but you do it there as well I bet.

 

[kaz]

Well you're plenty good at making up my words for me little buddy. My actual words you can't be bothered with, they don't fit your agenda.

You wont stand behind anything you write. How can someone take that seriously?

I stand behind everything I write, everything. What I don't stand behind is what you believe I said, which is nearly always wrong.

Really, you have no ability for critical thought. You said this.

That's because the Libertarian message boils down to "You're on your own and I don't give a fuck"

We say people should help themselves first, then rely on their family, friends, community, churches, charities and go to government last. You say that's saying "you're on your own and I don't give a fuck."

We think we should help ourselves and others first before going to government. You are saying that is not giving a fuck.

You clearly said exactly that, you just don't have the gonads to stand behind it. You just evade and flame and troll.

 

[Contumacious]

can you distinguish "small government libertarians" from others? I am referring to the internet variety of narco libertarians seen. They are among the most radical political movements out there. Which is why their standard bearer, Ron Paul, never won an election outside of his district.

Sure. Here's the OP post which is exactly that question.

Libertarians want government limited to those functions which only government can do. Most of us would generally agree with police, military, civil and criminal courts, roads, management of limited resources and recognition of property rights. I am not referring to anarchists who want no government here who like calling themselves libertarians, I am referring to the masses of us who want government limited, not eliminated.

Fiscal polices. We want taxes, but we want them low, flat and for the good of the people as a whole and not used for income redistribution. The left are the extremists here not only punishing success and harming employers, but even using tax COLLECTION as a welfare program with refundable tax credits. We are moderates, taxes should be reasonable and to fund the government, not implement social policy. And spending should be within our means.

Social policies. Socons go to church (or other religious institutions) then go to government to implement morality by force. Clearly they are the extremists. Libertarians believe they should have the right to persuade people to live moral lives, they should not have the right to force their morality on them. We are, the moderates.

NeoCons. We want the military used for the defense of the United States. We don't want to be policeman to the world like the right, we also don't blame our troops for the failures of our politicians like the left. And we don't want them in everyone's back yard, like both sides do. We are moderates, protect and defend, don't use force to make other's decisions just like we don't want government making our decisions here.

Republicans and Democrats are just so deep into the question of what government can do to impose their social and fiscal wills on us, they have stopped even asking the question, should government even do that? Do we have the right to make that choice for everyone and use force to impose it on all our citizens? Libertarians are the moderates, that is the first question we ask, that is the right question to answer before proceeding any further.

Do narco-libertarians support ending the Federal Reserve, in existence since 1912?
Do narco-libertarians support withdrawing US forces from around the world, where we have stationed troops and intervened for nearly 200 years?
Do narco-libertarians support ending all government prohibition on private conduct, which has been the law in states and municipalities since before the Declaration of Independence?

The answer to all these is yes. That is the essence of a radical agenda.

And of course the Rabid neo-cons forget that

- a central bank was fully supported by Karl Marx.

- there is no Constitutional authority for stationing troops all over the globe

- the reason for adopting a Constitution was a REJECTION of previous doctrines which limit individual rights to bureaucratic discretion.

.

 

[kaz]

Well you're plenty good at making up my words for me little buddy. My actual words you can't be bothered with, they don't fit your agenda.

And the Ignore button is for pussies BTW.

In your case that would be true. You're a p**** that should be ignored

Children run away from what they disagree with. Feel free. It's allowed here, just not in the real world but you do it there as well I bet.

You bombard them with vacuous posts, it's not much work, is it?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

You wont stand behind anything you write. How can someone take that seriously?

I stand behind everything I write, everything. What I don't stand behind is what you believe I said, which is nearly always wrong.

Really, you have no ability for critical thought. You said this.

That's because the Libertarian message boils down to "You're on your own and I don't give a fuck"

We say people should help themselves first, then rely on their family, friends, community, churches, charities and go to government last. You say that's saying "you're on your own and I don't give a fuck."

We think we should help ourselves and others first before going to government. You are saying that is not giving a fuck.

You clearly said exactly that, you just don't have the gonads to stand behind it. You just evade and flame and troll.

That summary of Libertarianism is why Libertarians can't win elections. That's all that I said. All the rest you made up yourself, as usual.

 

[kaz]

Well you're plenty good at making up my words for me little buddy. My actual words you can't be bothered with, they don't fit your agenda.

You wont stand behind anything you write. How can someone take that seriously?

I stand behind everything I write, everything. What I don't stand behind is what you believe I said, which is nearly always wrong.

You don't "stand" behind what you write, you run around in circles. Like when I say government should be the last solution, not the first, you call that not giving a fuck, but you're not saying government is the only solution. You write post after post without ever addressing how that makes any sense at all.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

In your case that would be true. You're a p**** that should be ignored

Children run away from what they disagree with. Feel free. It's allowed here, just not in the real world but you do it there as well I bet.

You bombard them with vacuous posts, it's not much work, is it?

I hand out the truths, which they, and you, reject. Carry on...

 

[The Rabbi]

Sure. Here's the OP post which is exactly that question.

Do narco-libertarians support ending the Federal Reserve, in existence since 1912?
Do narco-libertarians support withdrawing US forces from around the world, where we have stationed troops and intervened for nearly 200 years?
Do narco-libertarians support ending all government prohibition on private conduct, which has been the law in states and municipalities since before the Declaration of Independence?

The answer to all these is yes. That is the essence of a radical agenda.

And of course the Rabid neo-cons forget that

- a central bank was fully supported by Karl Marx.

- there is no Constitutional authority for stationing troops all over the globe

- the reason for adopting a Constitution was a REJECTION of previous doctrines which limit individual rights to bureaucratic discretion.

.

Thank you for showing that in fact libertarians do believe in these things.
Additionally you demonstrate that libertarianism provides a welcoming home for jew-haters like yourself. Obviously not every libertarian is a jew hater--a tiny minority I am sure-- but they find a welcoming home in the party.

 

[Contumacious]

Also utter nonsense, but entirely expected. It's why I didn't bother with you. You need to be rational first and that will be a while, obviously.

And of course and individual is "rational" when he/she has accepted Communism as the ONLY valid socioeconomic system.

.

And another one who isn't rational. Carry on...

I understand that as scumbag you prefer to hide behind such subterfuges as "progressivism", liberalism, or working for the common good.

It is not yet politically acceptable to label your dogma as COMMUNISM.

.

.

 

[kaz]

I stand behind everything I write, everything. What I don't stand behind is what you believe I said, which is nearly always wrong.

Really, you have no ability for critical thought. You said this.

That's because the Libertarian message boils down to "You're on your own and I don't give a fuck"

We say people should help themselves first, then rely on their family, friends, community, churches, charities and go to government last. You say that's saying "you're on your own and I don't give a fuck."

We think we should help ourselves and others first before going to government. You are saying that is not giving a fuck.

You clearly said exactly that, you just don't have the gonads to stand behind it. You just evade and flame and troll.

That summary of Libertarianism is why Libertarians can't win elections. That's all that I said. All the rest you made up yourself, as usual.

That is true, when the majority of the country are moochers as Obama's election proved we now have, telling people they are better off doing things themselves isn't going to win elections. I don't believe I said anything about libertarians winning elections in the OP though, I said we are the true moderates. We are. You advocate ubiquitous government. You want it, the majority wants it, it's still the extreme position not the moderate one.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

You wont stand behind anything you write. How can someone take that seriously?

I stand behind everything I write, everything. What I don't stand behind is what you believe I said, which is nearly always wrong.

You don't "stand" behind what you write, you run around in circles. Like when I say government should be the last solution, not the first, you call that not giving a fuck, but you're not saying government is the only solution. You write post after post without ever addressing how that makes any sense at all.

You need to learn to read "in context". It's an adult skill. Go back and look at the original "Don't give a fuck..." post and you might just see what I mean.

 

[eagle1462010]

BUMP

 

[kaz]

I stand behind everything I write, everything. What I don't stand behind is what you believe I said, which is nearly always wrong.

You don't "stand" behind what you write, you run around in circles. Like when I say government should be the last solution, not the first, you call that not giving a fuck, but you're not saying government is the only solution. You write post after post without ever addressing how that makes any sense at all.

You need to learn to read "in context". It's an adult skill. Go back and look at the original "Don't give a fuck..." post and you might just see what I mean.

So seriously, you think "for teenage boys who think Ayn Rand was a God" explains your position? That's all I cut, I didn't see the point in it, it was just snarky trolling.

So that I think government should be the last resort after oneself, one's family, friends, community, church and charities means I "don't give a fuck" and you think government should be the first and only solution is all explained by that libertarianism is for "for teenage boys who think Ayn Rand was a God."

I like to keep you talking, anyone on the left who is still reachable with reason will be greatly shaken by that they are trying to wrap their head around agreeing with your crap.

 

[Contumacious]

Do narco-libertarians support ending the Federal Reserve, in existence since 1912?
Do narco-libertarians support withdrawing US forces from around the world, where we have stationed troops and intervened for nearly 200 years?
Do narco-libertarians support ending all government prohibition on private conduct, which has been the law in states and municipalities since before the Declaration of Independence?

The answer to all these is yes. That is the essence of a radical agenda.

And of course the Rabid neo-cons forget that

- a central bank was fully supported by Karl Marx.

- there is no Constitutional authority for stationing troops all over the globe

- the reason for adopting a Constitution was a REJECTION of previous doctrines which limit individual rights to bureaucratic discretion.

.

Thank you for showing that in fact libertarians do believe in these things.
Additionally you demonstrate that libertarianism provides a welcoming home for jew-haters like yourself. Obviously not every libertarian is a jew hater--a tiny minority I am sure-- but they find a welcoming home in the party.

Let me ask you dingle berry,

Was it a good idea to allow the nazis the DISCRETIONARY AUTHORITY to determine who was an enemy of the state?

Was it a good idea for nazi Germany to allow Hitler to try to invade Europe and Asia?

Iff you agree that the nazis should have not have the authority to kill , maim and dispossess Jews then why is it a bad idea to prevent Zionists from killing, maiming and dispossessing Palestinian Arabs?

.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

You don't "stand" behind what you write, you run around in circles. Like when I say government should be the last solution, not the first, you call that not giving a fuck, but you're not saying government is the only solution. You write post after post without ever addressing how that makes any sense at all.

You need to learn to read "in context". It's an adult skill. Go back and look at the original "Don't give a fuck..." post and you might just see what I mean.

So seriously, you think "for teenage boys who think Ayn Rand was a God" explains your position? That's all I cut, I didn't see the point in it, it was just snarky trolling.

So that I think government should be the last resort after oneself, one's family, friends, community, church and charities means I "don't give a fuck" and you think government should be the first and only solution is all explained by that libertarianism is for "for teenage boys who think Ayn Rand was a God."

I like to keep you talking, anyone on the left who is still reachable with reason will be greatly shaken by that they are trying to wrap their head around agreeing with your crap.

You still aren't reading in context, and you are still trying to tell me what I think.

And Libertarianism being for teenage boys is close enough to my position to leave at just that.

 

[The Rabbi]

And of course the Rabid neo-cons forget that

- a central bank was fully supported by Karl Marx.

- there is no Constitutional authority for stationing troops all over the globe

- the reason for adopting a Constitution was a REJECTION of previous doctrines which limit individual rights to bureaucratic discretion.

.

Thank you for showing that in fact libertarians do believe in these things.
Additionally you demonstrate that libertarianism provides a welcoming home for jew-haters like yourself. Obviously not every libertarian is a jew hater--a tiny minority I am sure-- but they find a welcoming home in the party.

Let me ask you dingle berry,

Was it a good idea to allow the nazis the DISCRETIONARY AUTHORITY to determine who was an enemy of the state?

Was it a good idea for nazi Germany to allow Hitler to try to invade Europe and Asia?

Iff you agree that the nazis should have not have the authority to kill , maim and dispossess Jews then why is it a bad idea to prevent Zionists from killing, maiming and dispossessing Palestinian Arabs?

.

Thank you for proving my point, Heinrich. Goose-step on.

 

[Contumacious]

Sure. Here's the OP post which is exactly that question.

Do narco-libertarians support ending the Federal Reserve, in existence since 1912?
Do narco-libertarians support withdrawing US forces from around the world, where we have stationed troops and intervened for nearly 200 years?
Do narco-libertarians support ending all government prohibition on private conduct, which has been the law in states and municipalities since before the Declaration of Independence?

The answer to all these is yes. That is the essence of a radical agenda.

First 2 are correct things to do. Last one depends on what you mean by private conduct.

Rabid neocrazies believe that free people should not be allowed to jerk off, smoke a joint, buy alcohol on Sundays, blow jobs are a no-no, no abortions, etc, etc.

.

 

[kaz]

Do narco-libertarians support ending the Federal Reserve, in existence since 1912?
Do narco-libertarians support withdrawing US forces from around the world, where we have stationed troops and intervened for nearly 200 years?
Do narco-libertarians support ending all government prohibition on private conduct, which has been the law in states and municipalities since before the Declaration of Independence?

The answer to all these is yes. That is the essence of a radical agenda.

And of course the Rabid neo-cons forget that

- a central bank was fully supported by Karl Marx.

- there is no Constitutional authority for stationing troops all over the globe

- the reason for adopting a Constitution was a REJECTION of previous doctrines which limit individual rights to bureaucratic discretion.

.

Thank you for showing that in fact libertarians do believe in these things.
Additionally you demonstrate that libertarianism provides a welcoming home for jew-haters like yourself. Obviously not every libertarian is a jew hater--a tiny minority I am sure-- but they find a welcoming home in the party.

Now you're trying an end around the OP by getting an anarchist to confirm your views of anarchists. This isn't to insult anarchists, this thread just isn't about them. It's about small government libertarians, not no government anarchists. It's just the subject.

 

[Contumacious]

Thank you for showing that in fact libertarians do believe in these things.
Additionally you demonstrate that libertarianism provides a welcoming home for jew-haters like yourself. Obviously not every libertarian is a jew hater--a tiny minority I am sure-- but they find a welcoming home in the party.

Let me ask you dingle berry,

Was it a good idea to allow the nazis the DISCRETIONARY AUTHORITY to determine who was an enemy of the state?

Was it a good idea for nazi Germany to allow Hitler to try to invade Europe and Asia?

Iff you agree that the nazis should have not have the authority to kill , maim and dispossess Jews then why is it a bad idea to prevent Zionists from killing, maiming and dispossessing Palestinian Arabs?

.

Thank you for proving my point, Heinrich. Goose-step on.

Yes, indeed, a dingle berry you are.