Libertarians Are The True Political Moderates

Libertarians want to repeal/abolish the federal income tax, which amounts to 51% of the federal government's revenue,

and another 40% is payroll taxes, to SS and Medicare, which Libertarians also want to get rid of.

That leave the federal government with 9% of its current revenues to fund everything, including the military.
 
so what would libertologists do about 9/11?

as i keep saying, blast the crap out of al qaeda and the taliban and make them pay many times over. We would not nation build in afghanistan.
that's your plan? That sounds like bush's plan minus any effort to help them after bombing the shit out of them.

Do you even know who you're at war with?

pnac
 
OK, what's the moderate position on gun rights, compared to the libertarian position?

Are they essentially the same?

The moderate position states that you are allowed to carry a firearm but the same must be locked in a safe box. It must take you at least fifteen minutes to retrive the same.

The moderate position requires that before anyone can fire their weapon to psychoanalyze the perpetrator? Try to talk to him/her, appease him, determine if the weapon is an AR-15 or an AK47? Determine if he is just pissed off because he is 18 and still a virgin? Determine if he is a nut and forgot to take his medicine? Ask him if it would make him more comfortable for him to shoot you in the head or heart. Remember , it is your responsibility and your duty to make the criminal feel good and not guilty for what he is about to do.

Hallelujah.
 
Anyone who supports "As I keep saying, blast the crap out of Al Qaeda and the Taliban and make them pay many times over. We would not nation build in Afghanistan" is a neo-conservative, no ifs ands or buts.
 
Cuntumacious.....big GOV means a big IRS in everyone's life, high taxes, large regulatory agencies messing with people/companies, large GOV departments like Education wasting people's money, etc.

One doesn't need a large GOV to maintain a strong military, asswipe. The DoD is outlined in the US Constitution, the Dept of Education, etc aren't thus should be downsized to a point where the DoD gets the majority of funding from tax revenues.

Tax revenues are what drives the GOV, asswipe. High taxes is different than high tax revenues. If I stimulate the economy with a 5% tax rate and bring in more REVENUE than a 10% tax rate, that is what conservatives like me with an Economics degree and MBA push for compared to knuckle-dragging scum like you.

You see asswipe, grow the economy and jobs with a low tax RATE and generate enough tax REVENUE to support a strong national defense while downsizing the rest of GOV in DC that is not supported in the US CONSTITUTION....ever heard of that document?

You know what's scary, dude? Everything you said here is ... libertarian ...

That is conservative doctrine, which the so-called libertarians are trying to claim as their own policy and belief.

Gotcha Sparky, we can either be Republicans or Democrats or we can pick positions that are completely different than either side. We can't agree with either side on anything unless we want to agree with them on everything or we're trying to steal their policies and beliefs. I'll give that all due consideration. Flush. Done.

What do you mean "so-called" exactly? Did your hand say to say that?
 
Libertarians want to repeal/abolish the federal income tax, which amounts to 51% of the federal government's revenue,

and another 40% is payroll taxes, to SS and Medicare, which Libertarians also want to get rid of.

That leave the federal government with 9% of its current revenues to fund everything, including the military.

Yep.

Which would be just about enough to provide for sane national defense, and leave the rest of it to the people and the states, as intended.
 
You should try not telling me what I think, you never get it right.

You don't think, you post reactionary drivel which is why you constantly contradict yourself. You also can't read and process what you wrote, though in fairness you don't read and process what anyone else writes either.

You said corporations spend money to thwart competition.

That is true.

Yet you endlessly advocate endless growth in government, you're an authoritarian leftist.

Which means you are not only making it up as you go, you're a liar. No one would advocate growth in government if they believed government to be corrupt.

I do believe government is corrupt, so I want it smaller. For once, try to think about it.
Again, you should try not telling me what I think, you never get it right.

I keep confusing what you say with what you think, don't I? As if one has anything to do with the other...
 
OK, what's the moderate position on gun rights, compared to the libertarian position?

Are they essentially the same?

One says you have the right, within reason. The other says you have the right, and what's "reason"?

I can give you the Libertarian position straight from their platform:

We oppose all laws at any level of government requiring registration of, or restricting, the ownership, manufacture, or transfer or sale of firearms or ammunition.

That's moderate????

lol, that's more extreme than the positions of the NRA.

The OP is a fuckwit.
 
You know what's scary, dude? Everything you said here is ... libertarian ...

That is conservative doctrine, which the so-called libertarians are trying to claim as their own policy and belief.[/QUOTE]

Says the far left Obama drone..[/QUOTE]

The programmed far right reactionary droid avoids the points.

1. It is conservative doctrine.

2. The libertarians are not centrist.

3. Those who call themselves libertarians to formulate policy and doctrine that would satisfy even a half of them.
 
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.

Who would have thought Vladimir Putin's Russia was 'libertarian'...

Conservative Russia

People simply do not realize that Russia is a deeply conservative country.

Fiscal policy is buttressed on a low, flat rate of income tax (13%), and there is virtually no social safety net, with spending on unemployment security, medical provision, disability aid, infrastructure, the environment, and urban regeneration far lower, in both absolute terms and as a percentage of GDP, than its G8 contemporaries.

Similarly, military spending is high in comparison — and growing — medical care is available free in theory, but requires private insurance or additional cash payment in practice, and businesses are in reality pretty un-regulated.

If that doesnÂ’t sound to you like a set of policies Newt Gingrich or William F Buckley would support, then you donÂ’t know your dyed in the wool conservatives from your woolly jumper wearing liberals.

However, these government policies are generally matched by the views of Ivan Six-Pack. We had been led to believe by pinko sociology teachers in college that communism taught progressive views on gender, race, immigration and class, so it therefore came as a shock to find when I moved here that after 80 years of Marxist indoctrination, young ladies in Russia often reject feminism, men ooze with unrepentant machismo, and the population appears to generally support a penal code that could have been based on DostoyevskyÂ’s work.

Putin is libertarian? Out of the mind of an idiot...

LOOK at the reality pea brain...

1) Flat tax...CHECK

2) Little or no social programs...CHECK
 
So government abetting a terrorist attack isn't an attack? How does that make sense even in your pedestrian mind?
It makes sense if you blame the person who actually did the deed, not everyone who might have agreed with him, but didn't.

So that's what you call Al Qaeda being based in and supported by the Taliban, they "agreed" with them?

So the guy who drives a getaway car just "agreed" with the bank robber, they didn't commit a crime?

LOL, I love to keep you talking. Mommas, don't let your babies grow up to be Liberals...
The guy who "agreed" is the one who thought about robbing the bank, even planned to, even knew the guy next door might do just that when he loaned him his car, but didn't rob it himself. You don't arrest him as well, just the guys who did it.
 
Anyone who supports "As I keep saying, blast the crap out of Al Qaeda and the Taliban and make them pay many times over. We would not nation build in Afghanistan" is a neo-conservative, no ifs ands or buts.

:lmao:

Dude, you're on the freaking internet. If you don't know what words like "neo-conservative" mean, LOOK THEM UP!!!!

What you said is the opposite of the meaning of the word. A neo-conservative wants to attack someone without nation building? Someone who retaliates for being attacked is a neo-conservative? A neo-conservative would NOT want to nation build? Seriously Jake, what a dumb ass.
 
Last edited:
You don't think, you post reactionary drivel which is why you constantly contradict yourself. You also can't read and process what you wrote, though in fairness you don't read and process what anyone else writes either.

You said corporations spend money to thwart competition.

That is true.

Yet you endlessly advocate endless growth in government, you're an authoritarian leftist.

Which means you are not only making it up as you go, you're a liar. No one would advocate growth in government if they believed government to be corrupt.

I do believe government is corrupt, so I want it smaller. For once, try to think about it.
Again, you should try not telling me what I think, you never get it right.

I keep confusing what you say with what you think, don't I? As if one has anything to do with the other...
You don't know, or get right, either. Next time just ask, and I'll tell you. You can learn a lot that way.
 
Anyone who supports "As I keep saying, blast the crap out of Al Qaeda and the Taliban and make them pay many times over. We would not nation build in Afghanistan" is a neo-conservative, no ifs ands or buts.

"What you said is the opposite of the meaning of the word. What a dumb ass."

You, like Political Chic and other weirdoes, keep trying to redefine terms to move you toward the middle.

You are not middle but an extremist.

The neo-cons very much want to bomb the enemy in the ME, and like you, commit troops on the ground.
 
It makes sense if you blame the person who actually did the deed, not everyone who might have agreed with him, but didn't.

So that's what you call Al Qaeda being based in and supported by the Taliban, they "agreed" with them?

So the guy who drives a getaway car just "agreed" with the bank robber, they didn't commit a crime?

LOL, I love to keep you talking. Mommas, don't let your babies grow up to be Liberals...
The guy who "agreed" is the one who thought about robbing the bank, even planned to, even knew the guy next door might do just that when he loaned him his car, but didn't rob it himself. You don't arrest him as well, just the guys who did it.

No, you arrest everyone involved in the crime whether they participated in the actual robbery or not.
 
Anyone who supports "As I keep saying, blast the crap out of Al Qaeda and the Taliban and make them pay many times over. We would not nation build in Afghanistan" is a neo-conservative, no ifs ands or buts.

"What you said is the opposite of the meaning of the word. What a dumb ass."

You, like Political Chic and other weirdoes, keep trying to redefine terms to move you toward the middle.

You are not middle but an extremist.

The neo-cons very much want to bomb the enemy in the ME, and like you, commit troops on the ground.

neocon is an ideology. They do bomb, but they do it for a reason.

You seriously believe that attacking someone back who attacked you makes you a neocon. You are a moron, Jake. Words have meanings, learn them.
 
Cuntumacious.....big GOV means a big IRS in everyone's life, high taxes, large regulatory agencies messing with people/companies, large GOV departments like Education wasting people's money, etc.

Dingle Berry:

Are you aware that we are spending over THREE TRILLION $$$$$$ supporting the military?

Are you aware that the military is used as a cover for many welfare state policies?

Are you aware that the military is used nowadays for imperialism, nation building , supporting regimes which are allied with the US even though they may tyrannize their people, ie, the Shah of Iran, Salvador Allende, etc.

.
 
So that's what you call Al Qaeda being based in and supported by the Taliban, they "agreed" with them?

So the guy who drives a getaway car just "agreed" with the bank robber, they didn't commit a crime?

LOL, I love to keep you talking. Mommas, don't let your babies grow up to be Liberals...
The guy who "agreed" is the one who thought about robbing the bank, even planned to, even knew the guy next door might do just that when he loaned him his car, but didn't rob it himself. You don't arrest him as well, just the guys who did it.

No, you arrest everyone involved in the crime whether they participated in the actual robbery or not.

Aiding and Abetting in a Crime is a Crime. They allowed them to train there, and refused to give them up.

They gave safe refuge to our enemy and thus became our enemy.
 
Last edited:
The guy who "agreed" is the one who thought about robbing the bank, even planned to, even knew the guy next door might do just that when he loaned him his car, but didn't rob it himself. You don't arrest him as well, just the guys who did it.

No, you arrest everyone involved in the crime whether they participated in the actual robbery or not.

Aiding and Abetting in a Crime is a Crime. They allowed them to train there, and refused to give them up.

They gave safe refuge to our enemy and thus became our enemy.

They were our enemies, and we theirs, long before bin Laden was on the scene, and they didn't attack us. We don't bomb Mexico just because they refuse to deport someone.
 
Back
Top Bottom