So you wanna claim to be a Libertarian do ya?

[bripat9643]

Rick Santorum not a threat to liberty?

I prefer to keep religion out of govt it threatens my liberty to not have religion.

It doesn't threaten liberty one hundreth as much as Obamacare.

 

[uscitizen]

Well, that's because you either cannot understand what you read or you just are so desperate to avoid admitting you are wrong that you will say any silly thing to avoid it. I honestly can't figure out which it is.

Oh well have fun with it. Thanks for playing.

Well we can't know that until you explain exactly what it is you were trying to say now can we? Since you're unable or unwilling to do so I'm forced to assume that my analysis is correct.

I have no trouble understanding what he is saying. Perhaps you don't becuase you're not a genuine libertarian. You haven't shown yourself to be one in this thread, certainly.

Anyone who thinks Rick Santorum is a bigger threat to liberty than Obama can't be a genuine libertarian.

Anyone who supported Bush cannot be a true conservative either.

 

[kaz]

The worst, in my opinion is their preference for the democrats over the GOP if they have to make the choice

That's a big part of the reason a lot of us call ourselves libertarians rather then Libertarians. We sometimes support the Republican but almost never the Democrat. Another is their endless list of idiotic litmus tests. They generally have Republican ideology (except they mean it) and Liberal elitism. The Libertarian Party doesn't want to get more then 1% support because then they couldn't look down their arrogant noses at the rest of us. They don't want to rule, they want to be snobs. If people started joining the party, they'd leave and start a new one that was more extreme until it got back down to 1% support. I agree with them on most issues, but they make sure everything they do is done in a way to make it completely ineffective.

 

[uscitizen]

One big difference in a real libertarian and and a fake one is their support of the Iraq invasion and the US being the police force of the world and forcible nation building in other countries.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Well, that's because you either cannot understand what you read or you just are so desperate to avoid admitting you are wrong that you will say any silly thing to avoid it. I honestly can't figure out which it is.

Oh well have fun with it. Thanks for playing.

Well we can't know that until you explain exactly what it is you were trying to say now can we? Since you're unable or unwilling to do so I'm forced to assume that my analysis is correct.

I have no trouble understanding what he is saying. Perhaps you don't becuase you're not a genuine libertarian. You haven't shown yourself to be one in this thread, certainly.

Anyone who thinks Rick Santorum is a bigger threat to liberty than Obama can't be a genuine libertarian.

Then why don't you explain exactly what it is he's trying to say?

I'm not saying Rick Santorum is a bigger threat to liberty than Obama. I'm saying he's an equal threat to liberty.

 

[kaz]

One big difference in a real libertarian and and a fake one is their support of the Iraq invasion and the US being the police force of the world and forcible nation building in other countries.

A far better test is Obamacare. No one who supports that is remotely libertarian. Like Bill Maher. But you can support Iraq and be libertarian. Sorry. And I say that as a libertarian who does NOT support the invasions of Iraq or Afghanistan or our presence in the Middle East at all. But Neal Boortz is a great example of someone who is clearly libertarian but does support the wars. Though I think he's wrong on his support and here's why.

A libertarian wants to maximize the liberty of the individual. We consider the ideal size of government to be that which protects the most liberty while sacrificing the least. If there were no government, bands of marauders would enslave us. Without eminent domain, we would have for example no roads and be free in our homes but have nowhere to go.

Where Boortz is right is that "if" we are going to be in the middle east, "then" we need to take the war to the terrorists. The Democrat's solution of being there then tying the military's hands is idiotic.

Where Boorts is wrong is that he doesn't take it to the next step and ask why we need to be there at all. We don't. Government should not be securing oil supplies. Government should untie their hands but not help them. I don't know why he doesn't get that.

 

[kaz]

Well we can't know that until you explain exactly what it is you were trying to say now can we? Since you're unable or unwilling to do so I'm forced to assume that my analysis is correct.

I have no trouble understanding what he is saying. Perhaps you don't becuase you're not a genuine libertarian. You haven't shown yourself to be one in this thread, certainly.

Anyone who thinks Rick Santorum is a bigger threat to liberty than Obama can't be a genuine libertarian.

Then why don't you explain exactly what it is he's trying to say?

I'm not saying Rick Santorum is a bigger threat to liberty than Obama. I'm saying he's an equal threat to liberty.

That argument is the Titanic on the bottom of the ocean after it struck the "Obamacare" iceberg... The biggest threat to liberty is government dependence. If you don't see Social Security, Medicare and Obamacare as the greatest threats to a free country, then you need to take the blinders off.

 

[bripat9643]

One big difference in a real libertarian and and a fake one is their support of the Iraq invasion and the US being the police force of the world and forcible nation building in other countries.

The first claim is bogus. The second one is true. No libertarian wants to be the policeman of the world. For instance, every libertarian I know wants to pull all our troops out of Europe, Japan, Korea and any other location where they are stationed. We need a few naval bases and Air Force bases overseas, but that's about it. We don't need the hundreds of bases we now maintain.

Of course, liberals love these bases because many of them serve as a form of welfare to their favorite socialist welfare states.

I also don't support "nation building." After toppling Saddam and the Taliban, we should have got out of there forthwith.

 

[bripat9643]

Then why don't you explain exactly what it is he's trying to say?

I'm not saying Rick Santorum is a bigger threat to liberty than Obama. I'm saying he's an equal threat to liberty.

You're obviously dead wrong about that. Obamacare creates a hug bureacracy that can never be repealed once it's established, and it will be constant threat to our liberty until doomsay. What is the worst that a law against birth control can do? It can easily be repealed by the next Administration.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I have no trouble understanding what he is saying. Perhaps you don't becuase you're not a genuine libertarian. You haven't shown yourself to be one in this thread, certainly.

Anyone who thinks Rick Santorum is a bigger threat to liberty than Obama can't be a genuine libertarian.

Then why don't you explain exactly what it is he's trying to say?

I'm not saying Rick Santorum is a bigger threat to liberty than Obama. I'm saying he's an equal threat to liberty.

That argument is the Titanic on the bottom of the ocean after it struck the "Obamacare" iceberg... The biggest threat to liberty is government dependence. If you don't see Social Security, Medicare and Obamacare as the greatest threats to a free country, then you need to take the blinders off.

"War is the health of the state." - Randolph Bourne

War is the greatest threat to liberty, in my opinion, and on that front Rick Santorum and Barack Obama are squarely in the same camp.

As for welfare programs, if you think the guy who voted for Medicare Part D is going to do something about them then you're delusional.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Then why don't you explain exactly what it is he's trying to say?

I'm not saying Rick Santorum is a bigger threat to liberty than Obama. I'm saying he's an equal threat to liberty.

You're obviously dead wrong about that. Obamacare creates a hug bureacracy that can never be repealed once it's established, and it will be constant threat to our liberty until doomsay. What is the worst that a law against birth control can do? It can easily be repealed by the next Administration.

I'm not "obviously dead wrong" about anything. That you want to narrowly focus on ObamaCare and the non-issue of birth control exclusively has nothing to do with my analysis.

I note, however, that you don't seem eager to explain PredFan's point which you claim to understand.

 

[kaz]

Then why don't you explain exactly what it is he's trying to say?

I'm not saying Rick Santorum is a bigger threat to liberty than Obama. I'm saying he's an equal threat to liberty.

That argument is the Titanic on the bottom of the ocean after it struck the "Obamacare" iceberg... The biggest threat to liberty is government dependence. If you don't see Social Security, Medicare and Obamacare as the greatest threats to a free country, then you need to take the blinders off.

"War is the health of the state." - Randolph Bourne

War is the greatest threat to liberty, in my opinion, and on that front Rick Santorum and Barack Obama are squarely in the same camp.

As for welfare programs, if you think the guy who voted for Medicare Part D is going to do something about them then you're delusional.

The point of those programs is they make everyone dependent on government. Seriously, compare:

1) A war on the other side of the world that only people who volunteer for are going to fight

2) A check in the mailbox of every American every month.

And you think the war is the bigger threat to your freedom. You are a fool. A perfect fit for the Libertarian Party, which is far less libertarian then libertarians who are turned off by it. I won't belong to any political party, the Libertarian Party is a perfect example of why. I oppose government, but I'm going to join a Political Party that's going to litmus test me to death. Pass, and you're showing why.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

That argument is the Titanic on the bottom of the ocean after it struck the "Obamacare" iceberg... The biggest threat to liberty is government dependence. If you don't see Social Security, Medicare and Obamacare as the greatest threats to a free country, then you need to take the blinders off.

"War is the health of the state." - Randolph Bourne

War is the greatest threat to liberty, in my opinion, and on that front Rick Santorum and Barack Obama are squarely in the same camp.

As for welfare programs, if you think the guy who voted for Medicare Part D is going to do something about them then you're delusional.

The point of those programs is they make everyone dependent on government. Seriously, compare:

1) A war on the other side of the world that only people who volunteer for are going to fight

2) A check in the mailbox of every American every month.

And you think the war is the bigger threat to your freedom. You are a fool. A perfect fit for the Libertarian Party, which is far less libertarian then libertarians who are turned off by it. I won't belong to any political party, the Libertarian Party is a perfect example of why. I oppose government, but I'm going to join a Political Party that's going to litmus test me to death. Pass, and you're showing why.

There's not many that would question my libertarian bonafides, but that's alright. One can't be familiar with everybody on this message board, after all.

Regardless, war is what allows the passage of such liberty destroying bills as the Patriot Act, the FISA amendments, and the recent NDAA. Not to mention such liberty destroying acts as torture, indefinite detention, suspension of habeas corpus, and assassination. It's during war that we see the greatest increase in the size and scope of the state.

However, the point is that Rick Santorum is not going to be any better than Obama on welfare. He may do something about ObamaCare if the Supreme Court doesn't beat him to it, assuming of course he even gets elected which I would say there's a 0% chance of. However, he wouldn't touch Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security. Not to mention his foreign policy may even be worse than Obama's. So as I said, Rick Santorum is no better than Obama.

 

[bripat9643]

There's not many that would question my libertarian bonafides, but that's alright. One can't be familiar with everybody on this message board, after all.

We're questioning them right now.

Regardless, war is what allows the passage of such liberty destroying bills as the Patriot Act, the FISA amendments, and the recent NDAA. Not to mention such liberty destroying acts as torture, indefinite detention, suspension of habeas corpus, and assassination. It's during war that we see the greatest increase in the size and scope of the state.

However, the point is that Rick Santorum is not going to be any better than Obama on welfare. He may do something about ObamaCare if the Supreme Court doesn't beat him to it, assuming of course he even gets elected which I would say there's a 0% chance of. However, he wouldn't touch Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security. Not to mention his foreign policy may even be worse than Obama's. So as I said, Rick Santorum is no better than Obama.

The fact that a Republican wouldn't touch Medicare, Medicaid or Social Security shows why Obamacare is so dangerous. Once it's established, it will be with us forever. The things you complain about can all be easily overturned by a change in the composition of Congress.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

There's not many that would question my libertarian bonafides, but that's alright. One can't be familiar with everybody on this message board, after all.

We're questioning them right now.

Regardless, war is what allows the passage of such liberty destroying bills as the Patriot Act, the FISA amendments, and the recent NDAA. Not to mention such liberty destroying acts as torture, indefinite detention, suspension of habeas corpus, and assassination. It's during war that we see the greatest increase in the size and scope of the state.

However, the point is that Rick Santorum is not going to be any better than Obama on welfare. He may do something about ObamaCare if the Supreme Court doesn't beat him to it, assuming of course he even gets elected which I would say there's a 0% chance of. However, he wouldn't touch Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security. Not to mention his foreign policy may even be worse than Obama's. So as I said, Rick Santorum is no better than Obama.

The fact that a Republican wouldn't touch Medicare, Medicaid or Social Security shows why Obamacare is so dangerous. Once it's established, it will be with us forever. The things you complain about can all be easily overturned by a change in the composition of Congress.

Well you feel free to question them. Anyone who knows me on this board knows that I'm a consistent libertarian across the board. I don't need to bother defending myself.

The things I complained about have about as much chance of being overturned as any welfare program. In other words, no chance at all.

 

[kaz]

There's not many that would question my libertarian bonafides, but that's alright. One can't be familiar with everybody on this message board, after all.

Keep your panties on. We agree we are against the war. We agree we are against Obamacare and other socialist programs. I'm saying your prioritization is wrong. I didn't say you're not libertarian. But for me to even disagree with your prioritization much less your position in your mind means I questioned your libertarian bonafides. This is a perfect example again of my point. You're beyond litmus test. Even to challenge you on your priority is a litmus test.

Regardless, war is what allows the passage of such liberty destroying bills as the Patriot Act, the FISA amendments, and the recent NDAA. Not to mention such liberty destroying acts as torture, indefinite detention, suspension of habeas corpus, and assassination. It's during war that we see the greatest increase in the size and scope of the state.

We agree on all that, I was talking about priority.

However, the point is that Rick Santorum is not going to be any better than Obama on welfare. He may do something about ObamaCare if the Supreme Court doesn't beat him to it, assuming of course he even gets elected which I would say there's a 0% chance of. However, he wouldn't touch Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security. Not to mention his foreign policy may even be worse than Obama's. So as I said, Rick Santorum is no better than Obama.

The left were willing to fall on a sword to get Obamacare through. They were pounded in droves in the midterm election. The ones who suffered the most were the so called "moderates" who showed they weren't by voting for the most socialist program since Medicare. That's far beyond the Republican tax and spend politics.

The real issue with the Libertarian Party is the Democrats call them Republicans. They do that because they are stupid. But it still works. Libertarians aren't Republicans. But they aren't secure in that. They come up with idiotic arguments like you just did that Sentorum is as fiscally left as a Marxist. He's not. Yeah, he's pathetic. No, I don't trust him. But as big a threat as Obama? Please.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

There's not many that would question my libertarian bonafides, but that's alright. One can't be familiar with everybody on this message board, after all.

Keep your panties on. We agree we are against the war. We agree we are against Obamacare and other socialist programs. I'm saying your prioritization is wrong. I didn't say you're not libertarian. But for me to even disagree with your prioritization much less your position in your mind means I questioned your libertarian bonafides. This is a perfect example again of my point. You're beyond litmus test. Even to challenge you on your priority is a litmus test.

Regardless, war is what allows the passage of such liberty destroying bills as the Patriot Act, the FISA amendments, and the recent NDAA. Not to mention such liberty destroying acts as torture, indefinite detention, suspension of habeas corpus, and assassination. It's during war that we see the greatest increase in the size and scope of the state.

We agree on all that, I was talking about priority.

However, the point is that Rick Santorum is not going to be any better than Obama on welfare. He may do something about ObamaCare if the Supreme Court doesn't beat him to it, assuming of course he even gets elected which I would say there's a 0% chance of. However, he wouldn't touch Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security. Not to mention his foreign policy may even be worse than Obama's. So as I said, Rick Santorum is no better than Obama.

The left were willing to fall on a sword to get Obamacare through. They were pounded in droves in the midterm election. The ones who suffered the most were the so called "moderates" who showed they weren't by voting for the most socialist program since Medicare. That's far beyond the Republican tax and spend politics.

The real issue with the Libertarian Party is the Democrats call them Republicans. They do that because they are stupid. But it still works. Libertarians aren't Republicans. But they aren't secure in that. They come up with idiotic arguments like you just did that Sentorum is as fiscally left as a Marxist. He's not. Yeah, he's pathetic. No, I don't trust him. But as big a threat as Obama? Please.

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.

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?

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.

 

[Paulie]

Romney - RomneyCare
Santorum - Medicare Part D, No Child Left Behind

Point proved.

Santorum - voting to fund planned parenthood, voting against right to work, voting to increase the debt ceiling 5 times...his list is practically endless.

You keep ignoreing the fact that I'm not claiming Santorum is not a big government Republican SoCon. I'm saying that he's less of an enemy of liberty than Obama is. that doesn't mean he is not a threat to liberty.

That anyone would vote for him simply because he's "less" of a threat to liberty, is in itself a threat to liberty.

I'm not willing to give up one more tiny bit of liberty. I'm going to vote for the only person that I've ever known I could trust. At least I can say I didn't vote for totalitarianism.

 

[bripat9643]

Santorum - voting to fund planned parenthood, voting against right to work, voting to increase the debt ceiling 5 times...his list is practically endless.

You keep ignoreing the fact that I'm not claiming Santorum is not a big government Republican SoCon. I'm saying that he's less of an enemy of liberty than Obama is. that doesn't mean he is not a threat to liberty.

That anyone would vote for him simply because he's "less" of a threat to liberty, is in itself a threat to liberty.

I'm not willing to give up one more tiny bit of liberty. I'm going to vote for the only person that I've ever known I could trust. At least I can say I didn't vote for totalitarianism.

Then you're helping Obama to get reelected.

 

[Paulie]

You keep ignoreing the fact that I'm not claiming Santorum is not a big government Republican SoCon. I'm saying that he's less of an enemy of liberty than Obama is. that doesn't mean he is not a threat to liberty.

That anyone would vote for him simply because he's "less" of a threat to liberty, is in itself a threat to liberty.

I'm not willing to give up one more tiny bit of liberty. I'm going to vote for the only person that I've ever known I could trust. At least I can say I didn't vote for totalitarianism.

Then you're helping Obama to get reelected.

No, the GOP is. The only one they got that can beat Obama is Romney or Paul. Romney is going to face the impossible task of debating Obama on many of the issues he himself supported in one way or another. At least Paul can debate Obama and call him out. The GOP knows it needs Paul supporters to win this thing, but they prefer to put Romney up against Obama. They do so at their own peril. I don't like Romney anymore than I like Obama, besides the fact that I don't see how Romney can beat him anyway.