The Romney Tapes - the Missing 2 Minutes: Libertarians...

[JWBooth]

Most libertarians here only care that Paul lost so your op will fall on def ears

They also aren't fond of the neo-con foreign policy as well as the civil liberties issues.

Why do you assume it is new conservatives making the policy decisions????? Or do you really mean Republican when saying neo con???? I personally find your ignorance about what neo means quite sad.

Awfully funny coming from the most ignorant shitstain on the board.

 

[Pheonixops]

Most libertarians here only care that Paul lost so your op will fall on def ears

They also aren't fond of the neo-con foreign policy as well as the civil liberties issues.

Why do you assume it is new conservatives making the policy decisions????? Or do you really mean Republican when saying neo con???? I personally find your ignorance about what neo means quite sad.

Well, with a few exceptions like Ron Paul, the term is pretty much synonymous. Bill Crystal, limbaugh, hannity, cheney, boner, MCain, and the rest of the crew all pretty much have the same foreign policy.

 

[Pheonixops]

They also aren't fond of the neo-con foreign policy as well as the civil liberties issues.

Why do you assume it is new conservatives making the policy decisions????? Or do you really mean Republican when saying neo con???? I personally find your ignorance about what neo means quite sad.

Awfully funny coming from the most ignorant shitstain on the board.

LOL, awesome!! So very true!!! That's why I laugh when I hear those dolts criticize Obama's foreign policy when it's so close to their own except that they won't admit it because they are biased partisans. Foreign policy and Civil Liberties (amongst other things) is why I am disappointed with the current Administration because it's so much the same as the foreign policy and Civil Liberties policy as the previous Administration and the neo-con assholes.

 

[thanatos144]

There you have it. "Vote the way I want you to or your vote is meaningless and awful!"

Do you think you are not voting for Obama when you dont vote or write in the old nuts name? LOL Reality must be hard for you.

Why not vote for Gary Johnson? Some libertarians might prefer to do that and not write in Ron Paul.

Then those libertarians wish Obama to win.....Thats a fact....Any vote not for Romney is a vote for Obama

 

[thanatos144]

They also aren't fond of the neo-con foreign policy as well as the civil liberties issues.

Why do you assume it is new conservatives making the policy decisions????? Or do you really mean Republican when saying neo con???? I personally find your ignorance about what neo means quite sad.

Awfully funny coming from the most ignorant shitstain on the board.

..............Doesnt mean much coming from you or actually any idiot who refuses to see reality.

 

[thanatos144]

They also aren't fond of the neo-con foreign policy as well as the civil liberties issues.

Why do you assume it is new conservatives making the policy decisions????? Or do you really mean Republican when saying neo con???? I personally find your ignorance about what neo means quite sad.

Well, with a few exceptions like Ron Paul, the term is pretty much synonymous. Bill Crystal, limbaugh, hannity, cheney, boner, MCain, and the rest of the crew all pretty much have the same foreign policy.

In other words you dont what it means.

 

[philosophstar]

Do you think you are not voting for Obama when you dont vote or write in the old nuts name? LOL Reality must be hard for you.

Why not vote for Gary Johnson? Some libertarians might prefer to do that and not write in Ron Paul.

Then those libertarians wish Obama to win.....Thats a fact....Any vote not for Romney is a vote for Obama

Why do you think Obama is so much worse than Romney? Why do you think that Libertarians actually hate Obama as much as you do?

 

[thanatos144]

Why not vote for Gary Johnson? Some libertarians might prefer to do that and not write in Ron Paul.

Then those libertarians wish Obama to win.....Thats a fact....Any vote not for Romney is a vote for Obama

Why do you think Obama is so much worse than Romney? Why do you think that Libertarians actually hate Obama as much as you do?

The last 4 years is why Obama is worse then Romney...

 

[Pheonixops]

Why do you assume it is new conservatives making the policy decisions????? Or do you really mean Republican when saying neo con???? I personally find your ignorance about what neo means quite sad.

Well, with a few exceptions like Ron Paul, the term is pretty much synonymous. Bill Crystal, limbaugh, hannity, cheney, boner, MCain, and the rest of the crew all pretty much have the same foreign policy.

In other words you dont what it means.

Please demonstrate how I am allegedly "wrong". Maybe you prefer to hurl accusations and inferences instead of actually being substantive?

 

[thanatos144]

Well, with a few exceptions like Ron Paul, the term is pretty much synonymous. Bill Crystal, limbaugh, hannity, cheney, boner, MCain, and the rest of the crew all pretty much have the same foreign policy.

In other words you dont what it means.

Please demonstrate how I am allegedly "wrong". Maybe you prefer to hurl accusations and inferences instead of actually being substantive?

Neo means new.....

 

[JWBooth]

Why do you assume it is new conservatives making the policy decisions????? Or do you really mean Republican when saying neo con???? I personally find your ignorance about what neo means quite sad.

Awfully funny coming from the most ignorant shitstain on the board.

..............Doesnt mean much coming from you or actually any idiot who refuses to see reality.

Reality? Reality is a dolt of a store clerk who doesnt know his ass from an excavation with the audacity to assume he can school his betters.

 

[JWBooth]

In other words you dont what it means.

Please demonstrate how I am allegedly "wrong". Maybe you prefer to hurl accusations and inferences instead of actually being substantive?

Neo means new.....

See, dullard can work google.

 

[thanatos144]

Please demonstrate how I am allegedly "wrong". Maybe you prefer to hurl accusations and inferences instead of actually being substantive?

Neo means new.....

See, dullard can work google.

Unlike you child I don't need Google ....

 

[Soulless65]

Why do you assume it is new conservatives making the policy decisions????? Or do you really mean Republican when saying neo con???? I personally find your ignorance about what neo means quite sad.

Awfully funny coming from the most ignorant shitstain on the board.

LOL, awesome!! So very true!!! That's why I laugh when I hear those dolts criticize Obama's foreign policy when it's so close to their own except that they won't admit it because they are biased partisans. Foreign policy and Civil Liberties (amongst other things) is why I am disappointed with the current Administration because it's so much the same as the foreign policy and Civil Liberties policy as the previous Administration and the neo-con assholes.

At this point all I see when thanatos144 posts is Derp derp derp

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Were there to many words for you?

"To many" he says.

You have to forgive Corky. He spent too much time on beef jerky ingredient pronouncement. Little time left for proper grammar and such.

Hey, Cork. How was the shift?
Didja stock the beer cooler before you left the "office"?

 

[Pheonixops]

In other words you dont what it means.

Please demonstrate how I am allegedly "wrong". Maybe you prefer to hurl accusations and inferences instead of actually being substantive?

Neo means new.....

Aaaand? Is the foreign policy of Chystal, hannity, limaugh, McCain, the same as Robert Taft's?

Taft’s Libertarian Foreign-Policy Vision

Because of his leadership role within the Republican Party (which was no less real during those periods in which he did not occupy a formal leadership position within the party), Taft felt compelled to master a broad range of issues outside his normal interests and committee responsibilities. In particular, although his primary interests lay in domestic policy, he felt an obligation to take a leadership role on foreign policy as well, given the importance of such issues as U.S. involvement in World War II, the shape of the postwar order, and the Korean War. As Taft said in a speech to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in 1951, “People have accused me of moving into foreign policy. The fact is that foreign policy moved in on me” (qtd. in Patterson 1972, 474).

When forced by events to deal with international problems, Taft brought with him the deeply held and carefully formulated political philosophy reviewed in the preceding discussion. He believed that the primary purpose of U.S. foreign policy, in light of which all specific policies must be considered, must always be “to protect the liberty of the people of the United States” (Taft 1951, 11). For example, he opposed new military outlays or international commitments when he believed they would increase the overall level of government expenditures enough to threaten the viability of the free economy.

The secondary purpose of foreign policy, subordinate for Taft only to the defense of liberty, was the maintenance of peace (Taft 1951, 11–12). He abhorred war and consistently sought to avoid U.S. involvement in war if possible. He also questioned policies (such as the Truman Doctrine and the development of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization [NATO]) that he believed might provoke a war with the Soviet Union that otherwise might be avoided. Taft doubted that wars accomplished much in the end, noting that the two world wars fought in the twentieth century had produced millions of casualties while leaving in their wake dictatorships and totalitarian governments. He believed that the degree of economic mobilization and centralized planning that wars require is antithetical to a free economy and thus to liberty (Taft 1951, 11–12). Throughout his career, he regarded proposals for increased military outlays as threatening the development of a “garrison state” at home and as potentially provoking war or arms races abroad (Berger 1967, 133).

Although Taft accepted the need to go to war whenever the liberty of the American people was directly threatened, he believed war should never be undertaken to advance any other purpose. He especially opposed resort to war to advance moral crusades of any sort—for example, Roosevelt’s depiction of World War II as a crusade to establish the “four freedoms” around the world:
Nor do I believe we can justify war by our natural desire to bring freedom to others throughout the world, although it is perfectly proper to encourage and promote freedom. In 1941 President Roosevelt announced that we were going to establish a moral order throughout the world: freedom of speech and expression, “everywhere in the world”; freedom to worship God “everywhere in the world”; freedom from want, and freedom from fear “everywhere in the world.” I pointed out then that the forcing of any special brand of freedom and democracy on a people, whether they want it or not, by the brute force of war will be a denial of those very democratic principles which we are striving to advance. (1951, 16)[5]

 

[JWBooth]

Neo means new.....

See, dullard can work google.

Unlike you child I don't need Google ....

Bing... Details details

 

[dblack]

Do you think you are not voting for Obama when you dont vote or write in the old nuts name? LOL Reality must be hard for you.

Why not vote for Gary Johnson? Some libertarians might prefer to do that and not write in Ron Paul.

Then those libertarians wish Obama to win.....Thats a fact....Any vote not for Romney is a vote for Obama

By the same "logic", any vote not for Obama is a vote for Romney. Curiouser adn curiouser...

 

[JWBooth]

Please demonstrate how I am allegedly "wrong". Maybe you prefer to hurl accusations and inferences instead of actually being substantive?

Neo means new.....

Aaaand? Is the foreign policy of Chystal, hannity, limaugh, McCain, the same as Robert Taft's?

Taft’s Libertarian Foreign-Policy Vision

Because of his leadership role within the Republican Party (which was no less real during those periods in which he did not occupy a formal leadership position within the party), Taft felt compelled to master a broad range of issues outside his normal interests and committee responsibilities. In particular, although his primary interests lay in domestic policy, he felt an obligation to take a leadership role on foreign policy as well, given the importance of such issues as U.S. involvement in World War II, the shape of the postwar order, and the Korean War. As Taft said in a speech to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in 1951, “People have accused me of moving into foreign policy. The fact is that foreign policy moved in on me” (qtd. in Patterson 1972, 474).

When forced by events to deal with international problems, Taft brought with him the deeply held and carefully formulated political philosophy reviewed in the preceding discussion. He believed that the primary purpose of U.S. foreign policy, in light of which all specific policies must be considered, must always be “to protect the liberty of the people of the United States” (Taft 1951, 11). For example, he opposed new military outlays or international commitments when he believed they would increase the overall level of government expenditures enough to threaten the viability of the free economy.

The secondary purpose of foreign policy, subordinate for Taft only to the defense of liberty, was the maintenance of peace (Taft 1951, 11–12). He abhorred war and consistently sought to avoid U.S. involvement in war if possible. He also questioned policies (such as the Truman Doctrine and the development of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization [NATO]) that he believed might provoke a war with the Soviet Union that otherwise might be avoided. Taft doubted that wars accomplished much in the end, noting that the two world wars fought in the twentieth century had produced millions of casualties while leaving in their wake dictatorships and totalitarian governments. He believed that the degree of economic mobilization and centralized planning that wars require is antithetical to a free economy and thus to liberty (Taft 1951, 11–12). Throughout his career, he regarded proposals for increased military outlays as threatening the development of a “garrison state” at home and as potentially provoking war or arms races abroad (Berger 1967, 133).

Although Taft accepted the need to go to war whenever the liberty of the American people was directly threatened, he believed war should never be undertaken to advance any other purpose. He especially opposed resort to war to advance moral crusades of any sort—for example, Roosevelt’s depiction of World War II as a crusade to establish the “four freedoms” around the world:
Nor do I believe we can justify war by our natural desire to bring freedom to others throughout the world, although it is perfectly proper to encourage and promote freedom. In 1941 President Roosevelt announced that we were going to establish a moral order throughout the world: freedom of speech and expression, “everywhere in the world”; freedom to worship God “everywhere in the world”; freedom from want, and freedom from fear “everywhere in the world.” I pointed out then that the forcing of any special brand of freedom and democracy on a people, whether they want it or not, by the brute force of war will be a denial of those very democratic principles which we are striving to advance. (1951, 16)[5]

Taft? Dullard believes that history stretches back no farther than when he hitched his ride out of the Ozarks.

 

[Pheonixops]

Neo means new.....

Aaaand? Is the foreign policy of Chystal, hannity, limaugh, McCain, the same as Robert Taft's?

Taft’s Libertarian Foreign-Policy Vision

Because of his leadership role within the Republican Party (which was no less real during those periods in which he did not occupy a formal leadership position within the party), Taft felt compelled to master a broad range of issues outside his normal interests and committee responsibilities. In particular, although his primary interests lay in domestic policy, he felt an obligation to take a leadership role on foreign policy as well, given the importance of such issues as U.S. involvement in World War II, the shape of the postwar order, and the Korean War. As Taft said in a speech to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in 1951, “People have accused me of moving into foreign policy. The fact is that foreign policy moved in on me” (qtd. in Patterson 1972, 474).

When forced by events to deal with international problems, Taft brought with him the deeply held and carefully formulated political philosophy reviewed in the preceding discussion. He believed that the primary purpose of U.S. foreign policy, in light of which all specific policies must be considered, must always be “to protect the liberty of the people of the United States” (Taft 1951, 11). For example, he opposed new military outlays or international commitments when he believed they would increase the overall level of government expenditures enough to threaten the viability of the free economy.

The secondary purpose of foreign policy, subordinate for Taft only to the defense of liberty, was the maintenance of peace (Taft 1951, 11–12). He abhorred war and consistently sought to avoid U.S. involvement in war if possible. He also questioned policies (such as the Truman Doctrine and the development of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization [NATO]) that he believed might provoke a war with the Soviet Union that otherwise might be avoided. Taft doubted that wars accomplished much in the end, noting that the two world wars fought in the twentieth century had produced millions of casualties while leaving in their wake dictatorships and totalitarian governments. He believed that the degree of economic mobilization and centralized planning that wars require is antithetical to a free economy and thus to liberty (Taft 1951, 11–12). Throughout his career, he regarded proposals for increased military outlays as threatening the development of a “garrison state” at home and as potentially provoking war or arms races abroad (Berger 1967, 133).

Although Taft accepted the need to go to war whenever the liberty of the American people was directly threatened, he believed war should never be undertaken to advance any other purpose. He especially opposed resort to war to advance moral crusades of any sort—for example, Roosevelt’s depiction of World War II as a crusade to establish the “four freedoms” around the world:
Nor do I believe we can justify war by our natural desire to bring freedom to others throughout the world, although it is perfectly proper to encourage and promote freedom. In 1941 President Roosevelt announced that we were going to establish a moral order throughout the world: freedom of speech and expression, “everywhere in the world”; freedom to worship God “everywhere in the world”; freedom from want, and freedom from fear “everywhere in the world.” I pointed out then that the forcing of any special brand of freedom and democracy on a people, whether they want it or not, by the brute force of war will be a denial of those very democratic principles which we are striving to advance. (1951, 16)[5]

Taft? Dullard believes that history stretches back no farther than when he hitched his ride out of the Ozarks.