Why don't libertarians join the Tea Party?

[whitehall]

And where does the Constitution forbid people from using drugs?

Important point. The Constitution does not forbid people from using drugs. I know it and you know it. Too bad you phony libertarians are just too dishonest to let Americans know what your agenda really is. Tell us about it you sleazy cowards. Tell us that you are using a decent man who wouldn't dream of using drugs as a front. Be honest and I can tell you your phony agenda will shrivel to nothing while real Constitutionalists join the Tea Party.

You are making an absolutely bizarre argument. "Will shrivel to nothing?" The Libertarian Party isn't exactly a major party. There are no members of the Libertarian Party in the house or the senate. Their Presidential Nominee got about one percent of the vote nationally. There are very few Libertarian politicians in the Republican Party, one of whom (Ron Paul) just retired his seat. So what is their "phony agenda"? Why would someone who dreams of legalizing drugs use the Libertarian Party to bring that about? Why wouldn't a person whose sole agenda is drug legalization chose to infiltrate a major party to try to get that done? Why would someone chose to use a very fringe party as a front for some nefarious drug legalization ploy?

It's funny that you are focusing solely on the fact that Libertarians want drugs legalized. They also want legalization of gambling, prostitution and the removal of obscenity laws regarding pornography. They want to do away with all restrictions on people's personal lives that don't harm others. And they want an extreme decrease in the size and scope of the military. And many want a COMPLETE removal of all entitlements, including Medicare and Social Security. But I guess it's all just a lie to get drugs legalized.

Well, what is the real social agenda of the libertards? It isn't sissie marriage, and abortion might not be on the top of the list. All I ask is that the libertarian party be honest with the American people so we can make a logical choice and not throw our vote away. Is it about drugs?

 

[yinyang]

I'm not anti-libertarian. In fact I always thought libertarians were just a hair to the right of conservative republicans. Hell, most prominent libertards were republicans and I could never figure out why the libertards abandoned the republican party and actually purposely syphoned votes from a popular republican when they had no chance of winning. Is it really about drugs? I think that's just camouflage. I think the Libertards have been hijacked by the dirty tricksters.

So you could never figure out why the Libertarians abandoned the republican party. I'll spell it out for you.

The Republican Party has always said it is the party of fiscal responsibility and limited government. A Republican named George W. Bush was elected in 2000, with Republican majorities in each house of Congress. He proceeded to:

1. Turn record surpluses into huge deficits. His Vice President Dick Cheney responded to this by saying, "Deficits don't matter." Much of the reason for these huge deficits had to do with Bush expanding the size of government to record proportions, including record numbers of foreign aid to Africa, passing a very bad education bill, passing a Medicare prescription Drug Coverage Entitlement, a $700 billion dollar bank bailout, farm and housing stimulus bills in 2007, the bailout of AIG, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, etc.
Bill Clinton's eight years saw the Federal Budget increase by 11%; George Bush's saw the Federal Budget increase by 104%! This is the absolute opposite of fiscal conservatism. High spending, huge deficits, more entitlements, multiple bailouts: very anti-Libertarian.

2. Bush responded to an attack on American soil by launching two seperate wars, crafting legislation that allowed the federal government to wiretap and spy on US citizens without warrants, suspend Habeas Corpus and Posse Posse Comitatus, greatly expand Executive Power and use torture on anyone suspected of terrorism. In terms of Libertarians' views on both foriegn policy and civil liberties, these were gross offenses.

By the way, Libertarians had problems with the Republican Party before Bush. The influence of the Christian Right of social issues, the influence of the neocons of foreign policy, and the fact that the last Republican president with a balanced budget was Eisenhower back in '57, has made the Republican Party very unattractive to Libertarians.

 

[whitehall]

Why don't libertarians join the Tea Party?

We started it and you half-wits hijacked it...both times. get a clue.

I haven't got a clue. The Tea Party is just a political pressure group. They aren't on the ballot so they shouldn't be targets for the crazies but they are. Libertads are the political right of the Tea Party but their sinister agenda gives them a pass and the crazies don't attack them. That should give a clue. I thought we were on the same team until the Libertads got hijacked by the pot heads. I don't have a problem with pot-head politics as long as the choices are clear but that's where it gets testy. Pot heads are a chicken shit bunch who haven't got the brain cells or the intelligence or the honesty to tell us what they really want on election day. They hide behind a sad old idealist and pretend that his agenda is their's.

 

[yinyang]

Important point. The Constitution does not forbid people from using drugs. I know it and you know it. Too bad you phony libertarians are just too dishonest to let Americans know what your agenda really is. Tell us about it you sleazy cowards. Tell us that you are using a decent man who wouldn't dream of using drugs as a front. Be honest and I can tell you your phony agenda will shrivel to nothing while real Constitutionalists join the Tea Party.

You are making an absolutely bizarre argument. "Will shrivel to nothing?" The Libertarian Party isn't exactly a major party. There are no members of the Libertarian Party in the house or the senate. Their Presidential Nominee got about one percent of the vote nationally. There are very few Libertarian politicians in the Republican Party, one of whom (Ron Paul) just retired his seat. So what is their "phony agenda"? Why would someone who dreams of legalizing drugs use the Libertarian Party to bring that about? Why wouldn't a person whose sole agenda is drug legalization chose to infiltrate a major party to try to get that done? Why would someone chose to use a very fringe party as a front for some nefarious drug legalization ploy?

It's funny that you are focusing solely on the fact that Libertarians want drugs legalized. They also want legalization of gambling, prostitution and the removal of obscenity laws regarding pornography. They want to do away with all restrictions on people's personal lives that don't harm others. And they want an extreme decrease in the size and scope of the military. And many want a COMPLETE removal of all entitlements, including Medicare and Social Security. But I guess it's all just a lie to get drugs legalized.

Well, what is the real social agenda of the libertards? It isn't sissie marriage, and abortion might not be on the top of the list. All I ask is that the libertarian party be honest with the American people so we can make a logical choice and not throw our vote away. Is it about drugs?

The real social agenda of Libertarians is very simple and has been stated on this thread multiple times. You know how conservatives value free markets and economic liberty? How Conservatives hate the government putting lot's of regulations on their businesses and sticking their hands in it's citizens pockets to take their money? Libertarians feel the same way.

But they also feel that way about social issues. Just like you probably hate the tyranny of regulations on your economic liberty, Libertarians hate government regulations on their social liberty. If they want to pay a prostitute to have sex, what business is that of the government? If they want to smoke weed, how is that the government's business? If they want to gamble on sports, why should the government tell them that's not okay. If they want to make pornography, why should the government charge them with obscenity? If they want to get married, who is the government to tell them that they can't? They want FREEDOM aka LIBERTY, hence the name LIBERTARIAN.

 

[dblack]

Why don't libertarians join the Tea Party?

We started it and you half-wits hijacked it...both times. get a clue.

I haven't got a clue. The Tea Party is just a political pressure group. They aren't on the ballot so they shouldn't be targets for the crazies but they are. Libertads are the political right of the Tea Party but their sinister agenda gives them a pass and the crazies don't attack them. That should give a clue. I thought we were on the same team until the Libertads got hijacked by the pot heads. I don't have a problem with pot-head politics as long as the choices are clear but that's where it gets testy. Pot heads are a chicken shit bunch who haven't got the brain cells or the intelligence or the honesty to tell us what they really want on election day. They hide behind a sad old idealist and pretend that his agenda is their's.

Is this "projection"?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Why don't libertarians join the Tea Party?

We started it and you half-wits hijacked it...both times. get a clue.

I haven't got a clue. The Tea Party is just a political pressure group. They aren't on the ballot so they shouldn't be targets for the crazies but they are. Libertads are the political right of the Tea Party but their sinister agenda gives them a pass and the crazies don't attack them. That should give a clue. I thought we were on the same team until the Libertads got hijacked by the pot heads. I don't have a problem with pot-head politics as long as the choices are clear but that's where it gets testy. Pot heads are a chicken shit bunch who haven't got the brain cells or the intelligence or the honesty to tell us what they really want on election day. They hide behind a sad old idealist and pretend that his agenda is their's.

Is this "projection"?

I think it's clear that this guy is on drugs.

 

[whitehall]

I'm not anti-libertarian. In fact I always thought libertarians were just a hair to the right of conservative republicans. Hell, most prominent libertards were republicans and I could never figure out why the libertards abandoned the republican party and actually purposely syphoned votes from a popular republican when they had no chance of winning. Is it really about drugs? I think that's just camouflage. I think the Libertards have been hijacked by the dirty tricksters.

So you could never figure out why the Libertarians abandoned the republican party. I'll spell it out for you.

The Republican Party has always said it is the party of fiscal responsibility and limited government. A Republican named George W. Bush was elected in 2000, with Republican majorities in each house of Congress. He proceeded to:

1. Turn record surpluses into huge deficits. His Vice President Dick Cheney responded to this by saying, "Deficits don't matter." Much of the reason for these huge deficits had to do with Bush expanding the size of government to record proportions, including record numbers of foreign aid to Africa, passing a very bad education bill, passing a Medicare prescription Drug Coverage Entitlement, a $700 billion dollar bank bailout, farm and housing stimulus bills in 2007, the bailout of AIG, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, etc.
Bill Clinton's eight years saw the Federal Budget increase by 11%; George Bush's saw the Federal Budget increase by 104%! This is the absolute opposite of fiscal conservatism. High spending, huge deficits, more entitlements, multiple bailouts: very anti-Libertarian.

2. Bush responded to an attack on American soil by launching two seperate wars, crafting legislation that allowed the federal government to wiretap and spy on US citizens without warrants, suspend Habeas Corpus and Posse Posse Comitatus, greatly expand Executive Power and use torture on anyone suspected of terrorism. In terms of Libertarians' views on both foriegn policy and civil liberties, these were gross offenses.

By the way, Libertarians had problems with the Republican Party before Bush. The influence of the Christian Right of social issues, the influence of the neocons of foreign policy, and the fact that the last Republican president with a balanced budget was Eisenhower back in '57, has made the Republican Party very unattractive to Libertarians.

I rest my case that the libertarian party has been infiltrated by dirty tricks democrats. Modern radical Liberdads aren't conservative, they are left wing radicals.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I'm not anti-libertarian. In fact I always thought libertarians were just a hair to the right of conservative republicans. Hell, most prominent libertards were republicans and I could never figure out why the libertards abandoned the republican party and actually purposely syphoned votes from a popular republican when they had no chance of winning. Is it really about drugs? I think that's just camouflage. I think the Libertards have been hijacked by the dirty tricksters.

So you could never figure out why the Libertarians abandoned the republican party. I'll spell it out for you.

The Republican Party has always said it is the party of fiscal responsibility and limited government. A Republican named George W. Bush was elected in 2000, with Republican majorities in each house of Congress. He proceeded to:

1. Turn record surpluses into huge deficits. His Vice President Dick Cheney responded to this by saying, "Deficits don't matter." Much of the reason for these huge deficits had to do with Bush expanding the size of government to record proportions, including record numbers of foreign aid to Africa, passing a very bad education bill, passing a Medicare prescription Drug Coverage Entitlement, a $700 billion dollar bank bailout, farm and housing stimulus bills in 2007, the bailout of AIG, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, etc.
Bill Clinton's eight years saw the Federal Budget increase by 11%; George Bush's saw the Federal Budget increase by 104%! This is the absolute opposite of fiscal conservatism. High spending, huge deficits, more entitlements, multiple bailouts: very anti-Libertarian.

2. Bush responded to an attack on American soil by launching two seperate wars, crafting legislation that allowed the federal government to wiretap and spy on US citizens without warrants, suspend Habeas Corpus and Posse Posse Comitatus, greatly expand Executive Power and use torture on anyone suspected of terrorism. In terms of Libertarians' views on both foriegn policy and civil liberties, these were gross offenses.

By the way, Libertarians had problems with the Republican Party before Bush. The influence of the Christian Right of social issues, the influence of the neocons of foreign policy, and the fact that the last Republican president with a balanced budget was Eisenhower back in '57, has made the Republican Party very unattractive to Libertarians.

I rest my case that the libertarian party has been infiltrated by dirty tricks democrats. Modern radical Liberdads aren't conservative, they are left wing radicals.

Libertarians were never conservative to begin with.

 

[yinyang]

I'm not anti-libertarian. In fact I always thought libertarians were just a hair to the right of conservative republicans. Hell, most prominent libertards were republicans and I could never figure out why the libertards abandoned the republican party and actually purposely syphoned votes from a popular republican when they had no chance of winning. Is it really about drugs? I think that's just camouflage. I think the Libertards have been hijacked by the dirty tricksters.

So you could never figure out why the Libertarians abandoned the republican party. I'll spell it out for you.

The Republican Party has always said it is the party of fiscal responsibility and limited government. A Republican named George W. Bush was elected in 2000, with Republican majorities in each house of Congress. He proceeded to:

1. Turn record surpluses into huge deficits. His Vice President Dick Cheney responded to this by saying, "Deficits don't matter." Much of the reason for these huge deficits had to do with Bush expanding the size of government to record proportions, including record numbers of foreign aid to Africa, passing a very bad education bill, passing a Medicare prescription Drug Coverage Entitlement, a $700 billion dollar bank bailout, farm and housing stimulus bills in 2007, the bailout of AIG, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, etc.
Bill Clinton's eight years saw the Federal Budget increase by 11%; George Bush's saw the Federal Budget increase by 104%! This is the absolute opposite of fiscal conservatism. High spending, huge deficits, more entitlements, multiple bailouts: very anti-Libertarian.

2. Bush responded to an attack on American soil by launching two seperate wars, crafting legislation that allowed the federal government to wiretap and spy on US citizens without warrants, suspend Habeas Corpus and Posse Posse Comitatus, greatly expand Executive Power and use torture on anyone suspected of terrorism. In terms of Libertarians' views on both foriegn policy and civil liberties, these were gross offenses.

By the way, Libertarians had problems with the Republican Party before Bush. The influence of the Christian Right of social issues, the influence of the neocons of foreign policy, and the fact that the last Republican president with a balanced budget was Eisenhower back in '57, has made the Republican Party very unattractive to Libertarians.

I rest my case that the libertarian party has been infiltrated by dirty tricks democrats. Modern radical Liberdads aren't conservative, they are left wing radicals.

Hahahaha! Last time I checked the Left wasn't for no income taxes and the abolishment of the IRS, no bailouts, no stimulus, no debt ceilings,

Again, Libertarians aren't conservative. They are fiscally conservative, unlike "Conservatives" like yourself who were A-OKAY with Bush's deficits, rampant spending, bailouts and entitlements.

Democrats love Entitlements: Bush passed the Medicare Part D Bill
Democrats love increased Education spending: Bush passed No Child Left Behind
Democrats love Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac: Bush bailed them out
Democrats love foreign aid: Bush sent record amounts of aid to Africa

It looks like the Left have hijacked the Republican Party. And by the way, that great "Fiscal Conservative" Paul Ryan was in the House during all of Bush's terms. And guess what? He was voting for all of that spending and all of those budgets with massive deficits. Obama is worse, but Bush was awful.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

It's almost a political axiom that socialist politicians find a home in the democrat party and libertarians find a home in the republican party. Libertarians claim that the republican party isn't conservative enough and so does the Tea Party. There is no Tea Party ballot and libertarians have to know that it is a wasted vote to run as a libertarian so why not join up and try to remake the only party that is worth remaking instead of jousting at windmills?

Libertarians are more socially liberal.

Conservatives aren't.

No, libertarians are socially libertarian.

Semantics.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Libertarians are more socially liberal.

Conservatives aren't.

No, libertarians are socially libertarian.

Semantics.

Sort of, but not really. An example, social liberals, so called, generally support marriage equality, which means they want the state to sanction the marriage of gay couples. A libertarian probably isn't bothered by gay people getting married, however, we're far more interested in getting the government out of the marriage business all together. We don't want the government defining marriage at all. That's not "socially liberal."

 

[Triton]

social conservatives are going extinct.

 

[PredFan]

The Tea Party used to be all Libertarians. Then Republicans hijacked and perverted it.

Wow! You CAN make sense?

 

[yinyang]

Libertarians are more socially liberal.

Conservatives aren't.

No, libertarians are socially libertarian.

Semantics.

This isn't true.

Social liberals use social policies to create their view of an ideal society; they believe in gender quotas, hate crime legislation, smoking bans, diversity training, and as you probably saw during the whole anti-muslim film controversy, they can be against freedom of speech when it offends minorities. In many European countries it is illegal to make racist remarks or deny the Holocaust. An example; in England a pub singer was arrested for singing "Kung Fu Fighting" fighting at a bar because it offended some asian patrons. Again, like conservatives, liberals like to use laws to enforce their morals on others.

Social Libertarians are totally against the government invading their personal lives, whether it be conservatives telling them they can't gamble or have sex with a prostitute or liberals telling them that they can't smoke in a restaurant.

 

[Votto]

I think the bond conseratives and libertarians share is the desire for a limited government. Of course, some call themselves conservatives, like "W", and then proceed down the Big Government road, so not all conservatives are.....well.....conservative.

The most conservative man to hold the Executive office was Ronald Reagan, and even he increased the size of government along with government spending. In fact, I can't think of any politician in recent times that helped shrink government. I'm not even sure they exist.

The very nature of politics is to gain power, secure power, and then seek more power. How can conservatism survive in such an environment?

For conservatives, the Constituion is like their Bible. Conservatives can point to the passages in the Constitution all day long and say how it is being violated, but just like the Bible, statists will glibly interpret it a different way to favor their policies, like the General Welfare clause to justify the nanny state, or they will ignore the Constitution altogether.

Like it or not, conservatives are mere John the Baptists wondering in the wilderness. As they proclaim truth and warning of violating that truth they are marginalized or scofffed at. In the end, the statists may have their head on a platter, but the conservative will have the last laugh in the end.

To think that libertarians will ever attain political power I think is a pipe dream. After all, if they do they will probably have to become what they profess to oppose.

 

[Paulie]

I can't tell the difference but if the Libertarian party was more honest about their agenda and the presidential candidate wasn't such an old idealist fool we might separate the fakes from the real Constitutionalists.

Oh, so you have no idea what you're talking about, in other words.

"In other words" seems to say it all. I like the Libertarian concept but I think it has been hijacked by radical druggies. I have no way to separate the druggie agenda from Constitutionalist libertarians. Nobody does. Go radical if you want, the 1st Amendment gives you the right, but quit hiding behind an old idealist (nut case?).

You mean like how the crazy religious right hijacked the GOP?

You have way more fruit cakes to worry about in the GOP than libertarians do.

 

[Paulie]

No, libertarians are socially libertarian.

Semantics.

This isn't true.

Social liberals use social policies to create their view of an ideal society; they believe in gender quotas, hate crime legislation, smoking bans, diversity training, and as you probably saw during the whole anti-muslim film controversy, they can be against freedom of speech when it offends minorities. In many European countries it is illegal to make racist remarks or deny the Holocaust. An example; in England a pub singer was arrested for singing "Kung Fu Fighting" fighting at a bar because it offended some asian patrons. Again, like conservatives, liberals like to use laws to enforce their morals on others.

Social Libertarians are totally against the government invading their personal lives, whether it be conservatives telling them they can't gamble or have sex with a prostitute or liberals telling them that they can't smoke in a restaurant.

Smoking in a restaurant may very well be one of those areas where my freedom to smoke ends where your lungs begin.

 

[Paulie]

No, libertarians are socially libertarian.

Semantics.

Sort of, but not really. An example, social liberals, so called, generally support marriage equality, which means they want the state to sanction the marriage of gay couples. A libertarian probably isn't bothered by gay people getting married, however, we're far more interested in getting the government out of the marriage business all together. We don't want the government defining marriage at all. That's not "socially liberal."

This is Texas sized logic you're dealing with. This might be out of your league Kev

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Semantics.

Sort of, but not really. An example, social liberals, so called, generally support marriage equality, which means they want the state to sanction the marriage of gay couples. A libertarian probably isn't bothered by gay people getting married, however, we're far more interested in getting the government out of the marriage business all together. We don't want the government defining marriage at all. That's not "socially liberal."

This is Texas sized logic you're dealing with. This might be out of your league Kev

This whole board is out of my league.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

No, libertarians are socially libertarian.

Semantics.

Sort of, but not really. An example, social liberals, so called, generally support marriage equality, which means they want the state to sanction the marriage of gay couples. A libertarian probably isn't bothered by gay people getting married, however, we're far more interested in getting the government out of the marriage business all together. We don't want the government defining marriage at all. That's not "socially liberal."

No, they simply understand and follow equal protection jurisprudence, where same-sex couples are allowed access to marriage law.

And there is no such thing as ‘getting government out of marriage.’ Marriage is contract law, written by the states and administered by state courts.