To The Libertarians [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : To The Libertarians


concretefuzzynuts
10-25-2012, 21:11
This is an open letter to the Libertarians here on GT. I know I will draw fire and I know the other parties will respond unkindly, however I hope I reach the heart and minds of my fellow Libertarians. I am not posting this to debate, I am more interested in planting a seed of thought.


I would never call myself a republican, there was a time I might, but not now. A conservative? Closer but too constrictive.

For close to 30 years I have classified myself proudly as a Constitutional Libertarian. Now, after this new generation of people who call themselves Libertarians, who care less about the country but more about their principals and morals, I am thinking maybe they have tainted the term Libertarian to the point I don't want to be associated with them.

You see, back in the late 70's and early 80's, we Libertarians knew we were a small party and needed to make an impact in the party closest to our beliefs. That's why Ron Paul is in the Republican party. He tried to change from within, knowing an outside third party stood no chance, YET. Now these younger Libertarians think it's all or nothing, and have the attitude that they don't care if Obama gets voted back in, their pride and morals are clear because they voted for Gary Johnson (another Republican until a few months ago).

The process took over 200 years to get this f'ed up. It a'int gonna change in a few elections. I've been part of a movement for almost 30 years that is starting to finally take hold. The country is learning and the proof is all you new Libertarians. But to expect change by a dissenting vote to stand your ground is foolish. To allow things to go farther left to prove a point is pointless.

The point is, You don't jump out of a hole that's been dug, you climb. Letting Obama have another 4 years because you held your principals doesn't help our country. If Mitt is elected and things don't change to the positive, at least it wasn't a change to more extreme socialism. It will take steps, not leaps.

certifiedfunds
10-25-2012, 21:20
edited

concretefuzzynuts
10-25-2012, 21:23
There's no bye involved. I am in. The younger Libertarians just need to wake up.

Did you even read what I wrote? Try reading it again.

certifiedfunds
10-25-2012, 21:27
edited

concretefuzzynuts
10-25-2012, 21:31
I have always respected you opinions and posts. I will still do the same.

certifiedfunds
10-25-2012, 21:34
I have always respected you opinions and posts. I will still do the same.

Bah. Apologies. I'm grumpy.

countrygun
10-25-2012, 21:37
Having been wrestling with it since I first voted "out of the box" decades ago, I understand what you are saying and I feel the same way. I hear a lot of talk. When you pin them down they know it won't change anything and then they start talking, selfishly, about their "conscience", as is assuaging that was more important than letting that wreck back in the White House. It is amazing that they talk as if they were at Valley Forge and fighting a nobel fight, but the fact is, we remember Valley Forge for the sacrifice those men made, not for how good they felt about themselves. Sometimes you have to sacrifice a bit of your warm fuzzy highground for the good of the Country in the political arena.

I am not seeing the mindset of decades ago when the motive was the good of the Country as a whole, I am seeing the "me" generation slipping in and talking about their self image and "How their decision makes them feel about themselves?. Yah, that's the spirit that built america and won wars alright, don't jump in that foxhole to fight a common threat until you are sure of the political affiliation of the guy already there.

It isn't a step in the right direction and it is leaving the rational folks with only the choice of reforming the Republican party. either way, the Libertarian movement has done nothing to better this election for America. They have already claimed the position of biggest loser, and it has nothing to do with number of votes.

Gunnut 45/454
10-25-2012, 21:39
concretefuzzynuts
Well atleast one Liberterian got the message! It's about the Country as a whole not the party. :supergrin:

concretefuzzynuts
10-25-2012, 21:41
My point is not to discredit the new Libertarian Party, more to point out the subtle flaws in the philosophy of all or nothing.

certifiedfunds
10-25-2012, 21:41
Having been wrestling with it since I first voted "out of the box" decades ago, i understand what you are saying and I feel the same way. I hear a lot of talk. When you pin them down they know it won't change anything and then they start talking, selfishly, about their "conscience", as is assuaging that was more important than letting that wreck back in the White House. It is amazing that they talk as if they were at Valley Forge and fighting a nobel fight, but the fact is, we remeber Valley Forge for the sacrifice those men made, not for how good they felt about themselves. Sometimes you have to sacrifice a bit of your warm fuzzy highground for the good of the Country in the political arena.

I am not seeing the mindset of decades ago when the motive was the good of the Country as a whole, I am seeing the "me" generation slipping in and talking about their self image and "How their decision makes them feel about themselves?. Yah, that's the spirit that built america and won wars alright, don't jump in that foxhole to fight a common threat until you are sure of the political affiliation of the guy already there.

It isn't a step in the right direction and it is leaving the rational folks with only the choice of reforming the Republican party. either way, the Libertarian movement has done nothing to better this election for America. They have already claimed the position of biggest loser, and it has nothing to do with number of votes.


I believe the "me" thing is a reaction to the daily forces pushing us into the collective.

The nation was founded upon the principle of individual liberty. When the collectivists start pushing, it becomes very personal. When someone believes that a citizen should give a full financial accounting to the government each year, it becomes personal. When an someone believes it is acceptable for government bureaucrats to have access to a citizen's medical records, it becomes personal. It becomes about me.

certifiedfunds
10-25-2012, 21:42
concretefuzzynuts
Well atleast one Liberterian got the message! It's about the Country as a whole not the party. :supergrin:

Gunnut - you aren't Libertarian are you? Am I confusing you with someone else?

concretefuzzynuts
10-25-2012, 21:43
Bah. Apologies. I'm grumpy.

*****. I don't know if that will post but believe me, it was posted in humor friend.

ETA: Yeah, it didn't post. Humor lost, timing is everything.

countrygun
10-25-2012, 21:54
I believe the "me" thing is a reaction to the daily forces pushing us into the collective.

The nation was founded upon the principle of individual liberty. When the collectivists start pushing, it becomes very personal. When someone believes that a citizen should give a full financial accounting to the government each year, it becomes personal. When an someone believes it is acceptable for government bureaucrats to have access to a citizen's medical records, it becomes personal. It becomes about me.

The Libertarians had the greatest chance ever to have a POSITIVE effect on American politics in this election that they have ever had, Instead of using it they let their egos get in the way.

If you are happy with Obama why have your own party and try to usurp the party running against him? why not just vote for him and be done with it?

When you declare that you won't work with over 90% of the rest of the voters in the Country, Democrats or Republicans, Good luck with that.

certifiedfunds
10-25-2012, 21:59
The Libertarians had the greatest chance ever to have a POSITIVE effect on American politics in this election that they have ever had, Instead of using it they let their egos get in the way.

If you are happy with Obama why have your own party and try to usurp the party running against him? why not just vote for him and be done with it?

When you declare that you won't work with over 90% of the rest of the voters in the Country, Democrats or Republicans, Good luck with that.

Then a couple of factors come into play.

1. By working that way the overton window has steadily shifted to the left. Futile. It will continue to shift left with Romney, perhaps just a little more slowly. Had McCain won, it would have continued left.

2. The die is cast (seriously, reference our SS exchanges). At least be good with one's conscience. Don't contribute any longer. Don't be used.

Syclone538
10-25-2012, 22:36
I will not vote for more government.

countrygun
10-25-2012, 22:48
2. The die is cast (seriously, reference our SS exchanges). At least be good with one's conscience. Don't contribute any longer. Don't be used.

Exactly the self-serving attitude I expect.

Set off down a path that leads nowhere and you never have to feel guilty for never getting anywhere.

Chronos
10-26-2012, 02:34
Exactly the self-serving attitude I expect.

Set off down a path that leads nowhere and you never have to feel guilty for never getting anywhere.

The younger generation of libertarians are more likely taking a look at the path that playing party politics has blazed, and noticing that it leads straight to hell.

Chronos
10-26-2012, 02:38
If you want young libertarians to play ball, you've got to show them something other than catastrophic failure. The following track record is not what they are interested in signing up for:

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/Govt%20spending.JPG

JBnTX
10-26-2012, 04:12
... Letting Obama have another 4 years because you held your principals doesn't help our country. If Mitt is elected and things don't change to the positive, at least it wasn't a change to more extreme socialism. It will take steps, not leaps.

:agree:

FINALLY a libertarian with a little bit of common sense.
You people need to listen to concretefuzzynuts.

Your personal libertarian principles and political beliefs will not change a damn thing in this country.

Only votes that are cast count. Refusing to vote accomplishes nothing.

It's NOT about more or less government, it's about changing the direction of this country.

You make a change in this country by voting for Romney.
Nothing else matters.

..

certifiedfunds
10-26-2012, 05:52
Exactly the self-serving attitude I expect.

Set off down a path that leads nowhere and you never have to feel guilty for never getting anywhere.


Unfortunately for you folks, you're in no position to lecture about this stuff.

Besides, you aren't libertarian. Why did you jump in?

certifiedfunds
10-26-2012, 05:53
:agree:

FINALLY a libertarian with a little bit of common sense.
You people need to listen to concretefuzzynuts.

Your personal libertarian principles and political beliefs will not change a damn thing in this country.

Only votes that are cast count. Refusing to vote accomplishes nothing.

It's NOT about more or less government, it's about changing the direction of this country.

You make a change in this country by voting for Romney.
Nothing else matters.

..

Sure. One will shoot you in the face. The other will shoot you in the balls. Choose.

eracer
10-26-2012, 06:02
There is a broad spectrum of beliefs (and actions) within any group that uses a label to define themselves.

I am also a constitutional libertarian, and I see a wide variety of people who use the term 'libertarian' to describe themselves, if for no other reason than to distinguish themselves from the 'democratic' or 'republican' parties.

And I'm OK with that.

Just as I'm OK with some republicans and some democrats (far fewer of those, however.) We live in a country that protects the rights of people to believe in whatever political ideals they choose to believe in.

That is the essence of liberty, and why libertarianism will always fight an uphill battle against the entrenched major parties in this country, each of which has a goal the control of thought and behavior - either as moralism, regulation of personal behavior, or control of economic freedoms.

Our forefathers knew what they were doing when they wrote the Bill of Rights. It saddens me to see the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of our government chip away at the rights guaranteed by that document. Rights that are being eroded by democrats and republicans alike.

Rights that libertarians to want to protect.

The Machinist
10-26-2012, 07:07
...this new generation of people who call themselves Libertarians, who care less about the country but more about their principals and morals...
What does this even mean? Is it more honorable to vote for candidates that you know will increase spending, grow the debt, and drive us to ruin? That's what you call putting the country ahead of yourself? By participating in its demise?

I'm sorry, but I'll pass on that. I won't give these predators my sanction. And when these people that you vote for finally crush the life from this great country, my conscience will be clear.

jlavallee
10-26-2012, 07:17
I have tried to play ball with the Republicans my whole life. When we had Reagan in office we thought we'd finally have a shot at shrinking government but he grew it by leaps and bounds. Every election it was time to hold the nose and support some idiot because the Dems were so bad, we just couldn't let that happen. Eventually with Bush Sr. and Jr. the Republicans became every bit as bad as Democrats and totally abandoned their smaller government talk (cause that is all it was) and any notion of fiscal responsibility.

Now the party is truly more of a mess than ever. Rule changes forced through and railroading the delegate process when they were still likely to win has convinced this person that they really are nothing that I want to be associated with. Screw the GOP and especially the bible thumping, war monger pricks inside it who cry about abortion but have no ethical issue with selling future generations into slavery or getting ourselves involved in the police role for the world.

Any notion I had of holding my nose for the GOP like I had in the past was destroyed by the way Ron Paul, Gary Johnson and the people value the Constitution were treated and if some of the folks on here don't like it or Obama gets re-elected because of it, then to hell with it and a big middle finger to all of you that don't like it. The current Republican party isn't really a step up anymore is it?

debbert
10-26-2012, 07:17
Now, after this new generation of people who call themselves Libertarians, who care less about the country but more about their principals and morals, I am thinking maybe they have tainted the term Libertarian to the point I don't want to be associated with them.


What are you talking about, here?

Here are the official Libertarian Party issues: http://www.lp.org/issues

Sure, there will be Libertarian folks that have different opinions, and may be more extreme but you'll have that in any party.

certifiedfunds
10-26-2012, 07:18
Exactly the self-serving attitude I expect.

Set off down a path that leads nowhere and you never have to feel guilty for never getting anywhere.

Funny. In our SS exchanges you seemed to take issue with me pointing out that "they" voted to perpetuate the scam. I excluded myself and younger workers from that mix but you said it was "we" who voted for the people who stole the money and so "we" must pay it back to the retirees.

So here, when it is highlighted that some of us won't vote for the lesser of two evils -- and perpetuate atrocities like Social Security -- you take exception to that too.

Show me Romney's plan for ending the largest welfare program on the budget and I'll vote for him. Deal? If he doesn't have one then, like I said, the die is cast. I won't be party to it since you will point at me and say, "you're responsible too, now pay up".

Your political philosophy reminds me of the mafia.

certifiedfunds
10-26-2012, 07:21
When will people who will vote for any Republican offered finally admit they are indeed the problem and perpetuate the corrupt two party system?

G19G20
10-26-2012, 07:25
:agree:

FINALLY a libertarian with a little bit of common sense.
You people need to listen to concretefuzzynuts.

Your personal libertarian principles and political beliefs will not change a damn thing in this country.

Only votes that are cast count. Refusing to vote accomplishes nothing.

It's NOT about more or less government, it's about changing the direction of this country.

You make a change in this country by voting for Romney.
Nothing else matters.

..

Well, I guess voting for a fascist instead of a socialist is technically changing the direction of the country. Problem is that neither direction is acceptable to me and neither direction should be acceptable to anyone that values fiscal sanity, respect for the Bill of Rights and respect for human life around the world.

To the OP: You are missing one key point. Many libertarians and constitutional conservatives are working on taking over party positions to enact a new direction from the inside. Just because you don't see it occurring (and you never will unless you get involved at that level) doesn't mean people are sitting it out. Voting for Romney won't change anything near as much as taking over party positions. YOU should run for office if you want to turn things in a different direction. No banker-owned politician will change anything.

walt cowan
10-26-2012, 07:47
This is an open letter to the Libertarians here on GT. I know I will draw fire and I know the other parties will respond unkindly, however I hope I reach the heart and minds of my fellow Libertarians. I am not posting this to debate, I am more interested in planting a seed of thought.


I would never call myself a republican, there was a time I might, but not now. A conservative? Closer but too constrictive.

For close to 30 years I have classified myself proudly as a Constitutional Libertarian. Now, after this new generation of people who call themselves Libertarians, who care less about the country but more about their principals and morals, I am thinking maybe they have tainted the term Libertarian to the point I don't want to be associated with them.

You see, back in the late 70's and early 80's, we Libertarians knew we were a small party and needed to make an impact in the party closest to our beliefs. That's why Ron Paul is in the Republican party. He tried to change from within, knowing an outside third party stood no chance, YET. Now these younger Libertarians think it's all or nothing, and have the attitude that they don't care if Obama gets voted back in, their pride and morals are clear because they voted for Gary Johnson (another Republican until a few months ago).

The process took over 200 years to get this f'ed up. It a'int gonna change in a few elections. I've been part of a movement for almost 30 years that is starting to finally take hold. The country is learning and the proof is all you new Libertarians. But to expect change by a dissenting vote to stand your ground is foolish. To allow things to go farther left to prove a point is pointless.

The point is, You don't jump out of a hole that's been dug, you climb. Letting Obama have another 4 years because you held your principals doesn't help our country. If Mitt is elected and things don't change to the positive, at least it wasn't a change to more extreme socialism. It wi.ll take steps, not leaps.

i'm waiting for you to say...."i have black friends." :upeyes:

JBnTX
10-26-2012, 07:51
I will not vote for more government.

Sure. One will shoot you in the face. The other will shoot you in the balls. Choose.

Well, I guess voting for a fascist instead of a socialist is technically changing the direction of the country...

Just more negativism and pessimism from the libertarian wannabes.

If voting for Romney won't change anything, then what will?

certifiedfunds
10-26-2012, 07:55
Just more negativism and pessimism from the libertarian wannabes.

If voting for Romney won't change anything, then what will?

Nothing. That's the point.

Syclone538
10-26-2012, 08:03
...
It's NOT about more or less government,
...

I disagree completely.

...
it's about changing the direction of this country.
...

I agree with this.

...
You make a change in this country by voting for Romney.
...

I disagree completely.

Syclone538
10-26-2012, 08:04
Just more negativism and pessimism from the libertarian wannabes.

If voting for Romney won't change anything, then what will?

Nothing, because 90%+ of the country is voting for more government.

G19G20
10-26-2012, 08:05
Just more negativism and pessimism from the libertarian wannabes.

If voting for Romney won't change anything, then what will?

Did you even read my post? I told you how to change direction. The Republican party apparatus has no interest in changing direction. You must become the party apparatus and change things from the inside. Voting for an owned politician, supported by the same party apparatus, advised by the same retreads from previous administrations, etc will never change anything.

evlbruce
10-26-2012, 08:10
What victories in policy can you as a self-identified libertarian attribute to the GOP in the last 20 years?

certifiedfunds
10-26-2012, 08:13
When conservatives start walking away from your teet on the sow ill vote with you.

G19G20
10-26-2012, 08:15
What victories in policy can you as a self-identified libertarian attribute to the GOP in the last 20 years?

Not much. Seems I spend all my time arguing with fellow Republicans instead of being allowed to take the reins for a while and trying out some fresh ideas. The Republican party won't allow any libertarian policy to be enacted. You welcome our votes but nothing in our platform. Why would I ever vote for that?

Gundude
10-26-2012, 08:34
You see, back in the late 70's and early 80's, we Libertarians knew we were a small party and needed to make an impact in the party closest to our beliefs.So it's been over 30 years of doing it your way. How did that work out for the country?

I've been part of a movement for almost 30 years that is starting to finally take hold.The "taking hold" stuff is exactly the stuff you're complaining about now. After 30 years of things getting worse, some libertarians are finally starting to do things differently. The other way didn't work.

certifiedfunds
10-26-2012, 08:48
Not much. Seems I spend all my time arguing with fellow Republicans instead of being allowed to take the reins for a while and trying out some fresh ideas. The Republican party won't allow any libertarian policy to be enacted. You welcome our votes but nothing in our platform. Why would I ever vote for that?

Libertarian platform would stop the kleptocracy

Sam Spade
10-26-2012, 09:03
Libertarian platform would stop the kleptocracy

What evidence do you have for this?

Certainly not the state of shrimp subsidies, nor any historical evidence about (L) success in the matter.

concretefuzzynuts
10-26-2012, 09:09
So it's been over 30 years of doing it your way. How did that work out for the country?

The "taking hold" stuff is exactly the stuff you're complaining about now. After 30 years of things getting worse, some libertarians are finally starting to do things differently. The other way didn't work.

I voted Ron Paul in 1988 and 2008. For Harry Browne in 1996.
But I have voted republican when I felt the threat of a Democratic/Socialist win. I didn't in 2008 and regret it.

BTW, I have also voted for Democrats in local elections. I tend to vote what I feel is better for my city, county, state and country rather than my party.

JBnTX
10-26-2012, 09:11
Did you even read my post? I told you how to change direction. The Republican party apparatus has no interest in changing direction. You must become the party apparatus and change things from the inside. Voting for an owned politician, supported by the same party apparatus, advised by the same retreads from previous administrations, etc will never change anything.

How do you "become the party apparatus and change things from the inside" if you don't vote?

certifiedfunds
10-26-2012, 09:18
What evidence do you have for this?

Certainly not the state of shrimp subsidies, nor any historical evidence about (L) success in the matter.

KLEPTOCRACY

Section 2.4 of the LP platform:

All persons are entitled to keep the fruits of their labor. We call for the repeal of the income tax, the abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service and all federal programs and services not required under the U.S. Constitution. We oppose any legal requirements forcing employers to serve as tax collectors. Government should not incur debt, which burdens future generations without their consent. We support the passage of a "Balanced Budget Amendment" to the U.S. Constitution, provided that the budget is balanced exclusively by cutting expenditures, and not by raising taxes.

Section 2.5 of the LP platform:

We favor free-market banking, with unrestricted competition among banks and depository institutions of all types. Individuals engaged in voluntary exchange should be free to use as money any mutually agreeable commodity or item. We support a halt to inflationary monetary policies and unconstitutional legal tender laws.

Section 2.6 of the LP platform:

We defend the right of individuals to form corporations, cooperatives and other types of companies based on voluntary association. We seek to divest government of all functions that can be provided by non-governmental organizations or private individuals. We oppose government subsidies to business, labor, or any other special interest. Industries should be governed by free markets.



Section 2.7 of the LP platform:

We support repeal of all laws which impede the ability of any person to find employment. We oppose government-fostered forced retirement. We support the right of free persons to associate or not associate in labor unions, and an employer should have the right to recognize or refuse to recognize a union. We oppose government interference in bargaining, such as compulsory arbitration or imposing an obligation to bargain.

Section 2.8 of the LP platform:

Education is best provided by the free market, achieving greater quality, accountability and efficiency with more diversity of choice. Recognizing that the education of children is a parental responsibility, we would restore authority to parents to determine the education of their children, without interference from government. Parents should have control of and responsibility for all funds expended for their children's education.

Section 2.9 of the LP platform:

We favor restoring and reviving a free market health care system. We recognize the freedom of individuals to determine the level of health insurance they want (if any), the level of health care they want, the care providers they want, the medicines and treatments they will use and all other aspects of their medical care, including end-of-life decisions. People should be free to purchase health insurance across state lines.



Section 2.10 of the LP platform:

Retirement planning is the responsibility of the individual, not the government. Libertarians would phase out the current government-sponsored Social Security system and transition to a private voluntary system. The proper and most effective source of help for the poor is the voluntary efforts of private groups and individuals. We believe members of society will become more charitable and civil society will be strengthened as government reduces its activity in this realm.



More Sam?

Gundude
10-26-2012, 09:19
I voted Ron Paul in 1988 and 2008. For Harry Brown in 1996.
But I have voted republican when I felt the threat of a Democratic/Socialist win. I didn't in 2008 and regret it.Why do you regret it? Do you think the movement you descibed would still be starting to take hold had McCain won? What do you think made all those libertarians wake up?

certifiedfunds
10-26-2012, 09:21
I voted Ron Paul in 1988 and 2008. For Harry Browne in 1996.
But I have voted republican when I felt the threat of a Democratic/Socialist win. I didn't in 2008 and regret it.



Don't beat yourself up over 2008. Had you voted republican you would have been voting for a Progressive. Had you voted democrat you would have been voting for a Progressive.

The Machinist
10-26-2012, 09:36
But I have voted republican when I felt the threat of a Democratic/Socialist win. I didn't in 2008 and regret it.
What reason is there to regret your vote? Your single vote would not have changed the outcome. You voted for liberty, not more authoritarian government in your life. There's no cause for regret.

OctoberRust
10-26-2012, 10:02
i'm waiting for you to say...."i have black friends." :upeyes:



Zing :rofl:

concretefuzzynuts
10-26-2012, 10:06
Zing :rofl:

Actually his post made no sense, which is why I din't respond. But now I guess I just did.

OctoberRust
10-26-2012, 10:11
Actually his post made no sense, which is why I din't respond. But now I guess I just did.


It's referring to your post. It's the analogy of when someone is about to say something racist but they start with
"but I have black friends". Hope that points out the analogy you missed. It was quite funny, and a bit true. I'll leave it at that though.

concretefuzzynuts
10-26-2012, 10:12
What reason is there to regret your vote? Your single vote would not have changed the outcome. You voted for liberty, not more authoritarian government in your life. There's no cause for regret.

I look at what is in office now and I'm part of a collective regret. All of the people who abstained from voting, those who voted for Obama who regret it and those who voted third party and helped get Obama in by voting for a candidate who had no chance of winning.

Would McCain have been as bad as Obama? I don't like John McCain but he is better than Obama.

concretefuzzynuts
10-26-2012, 10:13
It's referring to your post. It's the analogy of when someone is about to say something racist but they start with
"but I have black friends". Hope that points out the analogy you missed. It was quite funny, and a bit true. I'll leave it at that though.

Still makes no sense. I am a Libertarian.

JBnTX
10-26-2012, 10:20
... I am a Libertarian.


Tell certifiedfunds and G19G20 why they need to vote for Romney.

They're lost in the bushes in Ron Paul's backyard.

The Machinist
10-26-2012, 10:20
I look at what is in office now and I'm part of a collective regret. All of the people who abstained from voting, those who voted for Obama who regret it and those who voted third party and helped get Obama in by voting for a candidate who had no chance of winning.

Would McCain have been as bad as Obama? I don't like John McCain but he is better than Obama.
Such is life. Rarely does anything go our way, but I don't think you should beat yourself up. We've had disastrous presidents before, and we'll have more before our time is up. It's not our job to prop up the maggot-ridden, bloated corpse of the GOP. It's their job to start earning our respect and our votes by fighting for more liberty, not more of the same.

chickenwing
10-26-2012, 10:47
The is no reason for a libertarian to vote for the Mitt or Barry. Both represent big-government Keynesian economics, and authoritarianism. And foreign policy wise, a complete wash. They couldn't agree more with each other. I'll pass on voting for either.

concretefuzzynuts
10-26-2012, 10:50
Tell certifiedfunds and G19G20 why they need to vote for Romney.

They're lost in the bushes in Ron Paul's backyard.

I think the purpose of my thread is to plant seeds of thought in that regards. My point is not to vote party line but to think more of what is better for your country- 4 more years of this president or to get him out of office. And how to best use your vote to accomplish that mission.

certifiedfunds
10-26-2012, 10:51
If Obama wins, his friends get paid.

If Romney wins, his friends get paid.

That's the difference.

Problem is, for the most part, they have the same friends.

MartinRiggs1987
10-26-2012, 10:58
The is no reason for a libertarian to vote for the Mitt or Barry. Both represent big-government Keynesian economics, and authoritarianism. And foreign policy wise, a complete wash. They couldn't agree more with each other. I'll pass on voting for either.If you believe that, then there's no hope for you. As Glenn Beck said, "One will ruin the country, and the other might save it." Yet they're both the same? Sir, you are emotion acting without benefit of intellect.

chickenwing
10-26-2012, 11:21
If you believe that, then there's no hope for you. As Glenn Beck said, "One will ruin the country, and the other might save it." Yet they're both the same? Sir, you are emotion acting without benefit of intellect.

I'm not acting out of emotion. Acting out of emotion is being convinced one guy will ruin the country, or one guy will save it. Not going to happen.

Barry is not going to destroy the USA, nor is Mitt going to save it.



And yes, Mitt and Barry are very similar in governing and economic philosophy.

Both believe in deficit spending and government influence over a free-market.

And foreign policy, just watch the last debate.

Syclone538
10-26-2012, 11:21
If everyone that wants less government would vote for less government, and only for less government, we might actually get it.

The Machinist
10-26-2012, 11:35
If you believe that, then there's no hope for you. As Glenn Beck said, "One will ruin the country, and the other might save it." Yet they're both the same? Sir, you are emotion acting without benefit of intellect.
Did you hear Glenn Beck make any mention of how Romney is a Keynesian and will run up more debt and spending? Did he mention that this country can't be saved from economic collapse by spending our way out of it? You shouldn't lecture anyone on intellect, when you let your emotions cloud your judgment so badly, that you actually believe Romney can save a single penny, let alone the country.

JBnTX
10-26-2012, 12:01
If you refuse to exercise your constitutional right to vote, then STFU! We no longer need to hear your pessimistic whining about how bad things are in this country.

Since you refuse to participate in the only system that has any chance of changing things, you should no longer have any say in how that system operates.

Many people in other countries don't even get to vote, and you just flush yours down the toilet like it was poop.

:steamed:

jlavallee
10-26-2012, 12:38
If you refuse to exercise your constitutional right to vote, then STFU! We no longer need to hear your pessimistic whining about how bad things are in this country.

Since you refuse to participate in the only system that has any chance of changing things, you should no longer have any say in how that system operates.

Many people in other countries don't even get to vote, and you just flush yours down the toilet like it was poop.

:steamed:

Play by our system and elect our puppet he said. If you can't vote for anyone but the two party system then it is just the illusion of freedom. But if you weren't a friggin idiot you'd know that already.:rofl:

countrygun
10-26-2012, 12:47
The bus is heading towards the cliff

47% of the passengers are trynig to keep the driver in the seat with his foot on the throttle

47% of the passengers are trying to put a new driver in to try the brakes


6% of the passenger are explaining why they are licking the windows.

JBnTX
10-26-2012, 13:17
Play by our system and elect our puppet he said. If you can't vote for anyone but the two party system then it is just the illusion of freedom. But if you weren't a friggin idiot you'd know that already.



All this whining is starting to make you guys sound like Obama supporters
that are scared to death Romney might be elected.

That's got to be it!


..

countrygun
10-26-2012, 13:25
Play by our system and elect our puppet he said. If you can't vote for anyone but the two party system then it is just the illusion of freedom. But if you weren't a friggin idiot you'd know that already.:rofl:

You had every chance to put you candidate into the finals, it was called THE PRIMARY. you lost, get over it.

How much "freedom" would there be if the general election were split among 5 parties, fo 80% of the voters if the POTUS was elected by a 20% plurality?

The libertarians didn't get enough votes to turn up a viable candidate in the general election, get over it.

jlavallee
10-26-2012, 13:28
You had every chance to put you candidate into the finals, it was called THE PRIMARY. you lost, get over it.

How much "freedom" would there be if the general election were split among 5 parties, fo 80% of the voters if the POTUS was elected by a 20% plurality?

The libertarians didn't get enough votes to turn up a viable candidate in the general election, get over it.

Yes, you GOP party line types screwed us. Now, stop asking for our votes, we told you you wouldn't get them so if you were too damn stupid to listen, that is your fault.

Morons.

certifiedfunds
10-26-2012, 13:32
If you refuse to exercise your constitutional right to vote, then STFU! We no longer need to hear your pessimistic whining about how bad things are in this country.

Since you refuse to participate in the only system that has any chance of changing things, you should no longer have any say in how that system operates.

Many people in other countries don't even get to vote, and you just flush yours down the toilet like it was poop.

:steamed:

So can you back off the IRS then? We'll call it even.

certifiedfunds
10-26-2012, 13:35
I look at what is in office now and I'm part of a collective regret. All of the people who abstained from voting, those who voted for Obama who regret it and those who voted third party and helped get Obama in by voting for a candidate who had no chance of winning.

Would McCain have been as bad as Obama? I don't like John McCain but he is better than Obama.

Syphillis is better than genital herpes.

Syclone538
10-26-2012, 13:38
The bus is heading towards the cliff

47% of the passengers are trynig to keep the driver in the seat with his foot on the throttle

47% of the passengers are trying to put a new driver in to try the brakes


6% of the passenger are explaining why they are licking the windows.

You've mistaken the brakes with slightly less throttle.

JBnTX
10-26-2012, 13:53
So can you back off the IRS then? We'll call it even.

I don't even know what that means?

JBnTX
10-26-2012, 13:59
Yes, you GOP party line types screwed us. Now, stop asking for our votes, we told you you wouldn't get them so if you were too damn stupid to listen, that is your fault.

Morons.

That's right, blame the customer because your product is defective and undesirable.

MartinRiggs1987
10-26-2012, 13:59
Senator Rand Paul on the difference,

" To me itís more a general philosophic difference in the sense that President Obama truly believes that the answer to making the economy grow is to grow government and I think Governor Romney believes the opposite. That you have to grow the private sector to have a government sector at all. That itís paid for by the private sector. Those are just two opposite philosophies. Now is my father right sometimes on foreign policy?

Do both of them believe in intervening everywhere all the time? I think our foreign policy has been too much everywhere all the time. I think we should moderate where we are and keep in mind the national defense of our country is very important and being everywhere all the time is sometimes counter-productive."

That is different than your stance, by QUITE a lot...

http://www.glennbeck.com/2012/10/25/are-romney-and-obama-really-the-same-rand-paul-weighs-in-with-his-views-on-the-election-libya-and-foreign-policy/

countrygun
10-26-2012, 13:59
Yes, you GOP party line types screwed us. Now, stop asking for our votes, we told you you wouldn't get them so if you were too damn stupid to listen, that is your fault.

Morons.

And the latest excerpt from the new book "Dreams of My Relevance"

"......... as the amorous ant crawled up the elephant's leg he was screaming "Brace yourself Baby"."

MartinRiggs1987
10-26-2012, 14:04
Did you hear Glenn Beck make any mention of how Romney is a Keynesian and will run up more debt and spending? Did he mention that this country can't be saved from economic collapse by spending our way out of it? You shouldn't lecture anyone on intellect, when you let your emotions cloud your judgment so badly, that you actually believe Romney can save a single penny, let alone the country.I'm not the one who uses you, as a bludgeon. For the record, have you listened to Beck lately? Beck has changed his mind. Perhaps one needs to listen besides talking. Something both Obama and some libertarians could learn.

MartinRiggs1987
10-26-2012, 14:11
"If I didn’t have faith, I would have thrown myself off the top of a building a long time ago,” Glenn said on radio this morning.

“If I didn’t know the history of our country, if George Washington were just, you know, a cartoon figure like he is for most people, if Abraham Lincoln, if I didn’t really know who Abraham Lincoln was and I didn’t know how the Republic came to be and all the times that we had been in these kinds of jams and how God played a role, I would just have no faith ‑‑ I would have absolutely no faith.”

“Somebody said to me the other day, ‘So why do you think Romney’s going to win?’ I said God. They’re like, okay, I got it. But, like, why do you think? And I said, uh, God.’Well…”‘ and I said, look, you’ve got to go back to ‑‑ I’m sorry, but you’ve got to go back to the times when people said in documents, with firm reliance on the protection of divine providence. I know that phrase. I believe that phrase. My only question is whether we have done enough to be on his side. God’s never on man’s side. He’s never on anybody’s side. He’s always on man in the general sense, he’s always on man’s side. But he’s on freedom’s side. He’s on the truth side. Now, have we restored enough truth in our own lives to be able to afford to ask him for that divine providence? Have we done that? That’s the only thing that remains out there.”

“I keep going back to people like Ralph Reed and all the pastors and the preachers. I mean, look what just happened with Billy Graham. Billy Graham took the cult status of the Mormons off of his website. Billy Graham. That is ‑‑ I mean, a few years ago Billy Graham didn’t want to meet with me. Then we meet and we have a heartfelt conversation about Christ, and he really questions me on it. Sounds to me like you understand Christ. Now, that wasn’t endorsement of my religion, but we had an open conversation about it. A good conversation. I mean, I like ‑‑ I mean, like how many times in the last six months, in the last six months I’ve corresponded with Billy or his daughters, you know, just in, ‘How’s your dad?’ ‘Hey, Dad was talking about you today,’ things like that. I mean, it’s bizarre. And then Mitt Romney comes in and meets with Billy Graham. And Billy Graham takes that off of his website. I’m sorry, but I think that’s pretty miraculous. That’s pretty miraculous to show how people have changed.”

“I’ve had people in all faiths say, and Graham included, ‘Look, I don’t agree with your faith, but it’s time we come together not to merge our faiths but to stand together and to stand with him.’ This is what happened in the American Revolution. I can’t tell you how many preachers and pastors and rabbis have said something’s happening. God is absolutely involved. And we’ve never seen people of faith act like this before. I know I haven’t. I’ve seen ‑‑ in five years I’ve seen a massive change in people of faith. Massive.”

“Now the question is, ‘Is that enough?’ I’m like, I have no idea. Does he believe us this time? We don’t have a good track record of saying, ‘No, this time’s going to be different, God.’ But there are millions crying out to him. Millions. We’re going to have to pay for the mistakes of the past. He’s not going to punish us. We punish ourselves. Our actions punish ourselves.”

“You know, people will cry out, why are ‑‑ why don’t we have enough food? Why can’t I afford this? Because that’s the choice we made as a society. You know, how many Americans now will listen and dismiss the warnings of inflation, real true, frightening inflation? And they will mock and ridicule anybody who says ‘Food storage’” Well, God’s not going to punish you for that.”

“But your actions will punish you and your family down the line. And then they’ll cry out, ‘Where is…’ what are you talking about? He’s been here the whole time. You can turn to Him and He’ll help ease your heart but it may not ease your pain. We’ve got pain coming in front of us.”

In this time of crisis, we must stand together against the tide. If Billy Graham can learn this, why can't Libertarians?

http://www.glennbeck.com/2012/10/24/faith-and-the-future/

G19G20
10-26-2012, 14:16
How do you "become the party apparatus and change things from the inside" if you don't vote?

Considering I never said anything about "not voting", not sure what your question is but Ill take a shot at it. Im not voting for the R or the D.

Voting is the absolute lowest form of participation possible. Your vote alone says you endorse whatever the party apparatus has deemed acceptable. In this case a liberal from Massachusetts. Party apparatus meaning the actual PARTY, the people that control and operate the party at the local, state and federal levels, not the esoteric idea of what a "Republican" is. Winning positions within the party structure (county chairman, committee member, etc) and within the various levels of government (city council, Congress, etc) is how you enact a change in direction. You become the apparatus, not a follower of the apparatus. Voting alone serves only to rubber stamp what the apparatus is doing and like anything else when you subsidize something you get more of it.

Syclone538
10-26-2012, 14:19
I don't even know what that means?

:rofl:

walt cowan
10-26-2012, 14:26
Yes, you GOP party line types screwed us. Now, stop asking for our votes, we told you you wouldn't get them so if you were too damn stupid to listen, that is your fault.

Morons.

i don't understand how if mittens is such a sure thing?...why are his supporters begging for us to vote for him? :dunno::supergrin:

countrygun
10-26-2012, 14:28
Considering I never said anything about "not voting", not sure what your question is but Ill take a shot at it. Im not voting for the R or the D.

Voting is the absolute lowest form of participation possible.

Yes tell that to the Iraqi's with the purple fingers after their first election.

Tell that to the Blacks who fought for the Right. Tell that to the spirits of the suffragettes, Tell that to the WWII veteran who, this week, made voting one his last acts on this earth. Japanese by biology he joined the Army to prove he was an American , was decorated and voted in every election since.


YES FOLKS, HERE IS G19G20's "POLITICAL ACUMEN" SUMMED UP IN ONE SENTENCE


(Quote)

"Voting is the absolute lowest form of participation possible."






I hope I never see anything dumber EVER posted in a Forum.

MartinRiggs1987
10-26-2012, 14:32
i don't understand how if mittens is such a sure thing?...why are his supporters begging for us to vote for him? :dunno::supergrin:Do as you wish. I merely tried to convey what's at stake. As a friend once said, "I can't complain if I don't vote."

For me, I couldn't keep carping if I didn't do what was in my best interests. To me, that's country first. Do as you like Walt, but none us can have our cake and eat it too. How else can you explain Obama?

The Machinist
10-26-2012, 14:47
I'm not the one who uses you, as a bludgeon. For the record, have you listened to Beck lately? Beck has changed his mind. Perhaps one needs to listen besides talking. Something both Obama and some libertarians could learn.
The last time I listened to Glenn was about three months ago. He and his crew were in the tank for Romney. They were even giving the Paulite/Paulista/Paulbots the same kind of grief typically seen in this forum. No facts, mind you, just poking fun for the sake of it.

So are you saying Glenn is no longer a Romney supporter?

certifiedfunds
10-26-2012, 14:54
The last time I listened to Glenn was about three months ago. He and his crew were in the tank for Romney. They were even giving the Paulite/Paulista/Paulbots the same kind of grief typically seen in this forum. No facts, mind you, just poking fun for the sake of it.

So are you saying Glenn is no longer a Romney supporter?

Church elders

G19G20
10-26-2012, 14:57
Yes tell that to the Iraqi's with the purple fingers after their first election.

Tell that to the Blacks who fought for the Right. Tell that to the spirits of the suffragettes, Tell that to the WWII veteran who, this week, made voting one his last acts on this earth. Japanese by biology he joined the Army to prove he was an American , was decorated and voted in every election since.


YES FOLKS, HERE IS G19G20's "POLITICAL ACUMEN" SUMMED UP IN ONE SENTENCE


(Quote)

"Voting is the absolute lowest form of participation possible."






I hope I never see anything dumber EVER posted in a Forum.



I must have missed the part where the thread became about an Iraqi election or America in 1865.

This thread is about an election taking place in 9 days in modern day America. Nice diversionary appeal to emotion though.

Let me be so clear that you can't possibly misinterpret again. In today's America, voting is the lowest form of participation possible. Is that better? Do I literally have to spell everything out for you so you don't find some way to twist my words into a personal attack?

countrygun
10-26-2012, 15:10
I must have missed the part where the thread became about an Iraqi election or America in 1865.

This thread is about an election taking place in 9 days in modern day America. Nice diversionary appeal to emotion though.

Let me be so clear that you can't possibly misinterpret again. In today's America, voting is the lowest form of participation possible. Is that better? Do I literally have to spell everything out for you so you don't find some way to twist my words into a personal attack?

You wrote it.

It was a complete stand-alone sentence by your own hand.

And, yes, I absolutely believe you are capable of such dense thoughts all on your own. I have no reason to think you didn't mean it exactly as you wrote it.

Gundude
10-26-2012, 15:26
That's right, blame the customer because your product is defective and undesirable.If the GOP doesn't want small-government, they don't have to have it, and we don't have to vote for them. Fair enough?

It's the Republicans whining about how we're "throwing away" our votes simply because we're not voting for them. They don't deserve any votes from anybody. Talk about blaming the customer because your product is defective, look at the Republican product and look at all the whining they do because people aren't voting for them.

JBnTX
10-26-2012, 15:56
Let me be so clear that you can't possibly misinterpret again. In today's America, voting is the lowest form of participation possible. Is that better? Do I literally have to spell everything out for you so you don't find some way to twist my words into a personal attack?

You're just digging yourself in deeper.:rofl:

Snowman92D
10-26-2012, 16:09
Let me be so clear that you can't possibly misinterpret again. In today's America, voting is the lowest form of participation possible.

You seem to enjoy participating in the process, though, even if only hitting on the unattached chicks in the hotel hospitality room. Did you ever come clean with the wife on that one? :whistling:

certifiedfunds
10-26-2012, 16:09
Voting certainly is the lowest form of participation possible. It takes very little effort, can be done without any care or thought, in most cities you can even get a free ride, some cigarettes and a meal out of it.

We certainly don't need more voting in this country, we have too many people voting now.

countrygun
10-26-2012, 16:19
Voting certainly is the lowest form of participation possible. It takes very little effort, can be done without any care or thought, in most cities you can even get a free ride, some cigarettes and a meal out of it.

We certainly don't need more voting in this country, we have too many people voting now.

As much as I figure I belong in the "Those who should be able to vote" category you are "out there" for a couple of reasons.

It is too late for ANYONE to decide who should and who shouldn't from a realistic standpoint. It could only be changed by a coup de etat, or by popular vote (which is slightly oxymoronic) ergo you are complaining about something that cannot change that leaves only the conclusion you do not intend to do anything politically productive until the Country has reshaped it's system to suit your fantasy.

Good luck with that

certifiedfunds
10-26-2012, 16:22
As much as I figure I belong in the "Those who should be able to vote" category you are "out there" for a couple of reasons.

It is too late for ANYONE to decide who should and who shouldn't from a realistic standpoint. It could only be changed by a coup de etat, or by popular vote (which is slightly oxymoronic) ergo you are complaining about something that cannot change that leaves only the conclusion you do not intend to do anything politically productive until the Country has reshaped it's system to suit your fantasy.

Good luck with that

From a guy who's moral compass is so screwed up he believes it is right to steal money from one man to give it to another, I'll take all of that as a compliment.

concretefuzzynuts
10-26-2012, 17:12
Back to topic.

I was a big fan of Harry Browne. I followed his advice and teachings for many, many years. You younger Libertarians may not remember or know of him. He makes Ron Paul look .... well I'm not gonna go there. But if you want to learn more about your party search youtube and watch some of his many speeches.

He is the reason I always tried to keep my votes toward the Libertarian thought. When there was no Libertarian running I tried to find the most compatible candidate, because I think your vote does count.

In this Presidential election I see things for the first time from a different light. Harry died in 2006. He didn't get to see this horrid example of a statist President. I can't imagine he would have been able to conceive the thought of a president like this running the country.

I am still at odds with my choice to cast a vote for someone who will bring in more government control. But less than the other. Harry forgive me, I can't let another Obama term happen if I can help it.

Before you judge me, read my post closely.

Harry Browne on voting the lesser of two evils:

Harry Browne on voting for the lesser of 2 evils - YouTube

countrygun
10-26-2012, 17:17
From a guy who's moral compass is so screwed up he believes it is right to steal money from one man to give it to another, I'll take all of that as a compliment.

Your morale compass is so screwed up you are trying to justify the thefts from Social Security because "they alrready happened and are history" with no thought that the system that stole it should pay it back. You've got no room to talk

Providence
10-26-2012, 17:24
Back to topic.

I was a big fan of Harry Browne. I followed his advice and teachings for many, many years. You younger Libertarians may not remember or know of him. He makes Ron Paul look .... well I'm not gonna go there. But if you want to learn more about your party search youtube and watch some of his many speeches.

He is the reason I always tried to keep my votes toward the Libertarian thought. When there was no Libertarian running I tried to find the most compatible candidate, because I think your vote does count.

In this Presidential election I see things for the first time from a different light. Harry died in 2006. He didn't get to see this horrid example of a statist President. I can't imagine he would have been able to conceive the thought of a president like this running the country.

I am still at odds with my choice to cast a vote for someone who will bring in more government control. But less than the other. Harry forgive me, I can't let another Obama term happen if I can help it.

Before you judge me, read my post closely.

Harry Browne on voting the lesser of two evils:

Harry Browne on voting for the lesser of 2 evils - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=euckWFonKaU&feature=related)i wasn't a Harry Browne follower. I've actually come be more Libertarian as I've gotten older. But I really relate to your thinking about this election. I'm voting Libertarian in the statewide election, but I'm voting for Romney.

certifiedfunds
10-26-2012, 17:25
Your morale compass is so screwed up you are trying to justify the thefts from Social Security because "they alrready happened and are history" with no thought that the system that stole it should pay it back. You've got no room to talk

Newsflash: Systems don't steal things. People do.

But to your point, you're wrong. I think what happened is terrible. I also think the people who are collecting Social Security irrisputably had the most to do with perpetuating the system. Most of all, I know that theft under any circumstances is immoral and that just because one person was stolen from does not justify that person stealing from another.

Ruble Noon
10-26-2012, 17:28
This is an open letter to the Libertarians here on GT. I know I will draw fire and I know the other parties will respond unkindly, however I hope I reach the heart and minds of my fellow Libertarians. I am not posting this to debate, I am more interested in planting a seed of thought.


I would never call myself a republican, there was a time I might, but not now. A conservative? Closer but too constrictive.

For close to 30 years I have classified myself proudly as a Constitutional Libertarian. Now, after this new generation of people who call themselves Libertarians, who care less about the country but more about their principals and morals, I am thinking maybe they have tainted the term Libertarian to the point I don't want to be associated with them.

You see, back in the late 70's and early 80's, we Libertarians knew we were a small party and needed to make an impact in the party closest to our beliefs. That's why Ron Paul is in the Republican party. He tried to change from within, knowing an outside third party stood no chance, YET. Now these younger Libertarians think it's all or nothing, and have the attitude that they don't care if Obama gets voted back in, their pride and morals are clear because they voted for Gary Johnson (another Republican until a few months ago).

The process took over 200 years to get this f'ed up. It a'int gonna change in a few elections. I've been part of a movement for almost 30 years that is starting to finally take hold. The country is learning and the proof is all you new Libertarians. But to expect change by a dissenting vote to stand your ground is foolish. To allow things to go farther left to prove a point is pointless.

The point is, You don't jump out of a hole that's been dug, you climb. Letting Obama have another 4 years because you held your principals doesn't help our country. If Mitt is elected and things don't change to the positive, at least it wasn't a change to more extreme socialism. It will take steps, not leaps.

Alright, you've convinced me. I'll vote for Romney.

Actually, Rand Paul offered up a very good reason to vote for Romney, and that is obamacare. According to Rand there are many Republicans that want to keep obamacare. I think I will vote for Romney and give these people a chance to surface.

certifiedfunds
10-26-2012, 17:30
According to Rand there are many Republicans that want to keep obamacare.

You better believe it. Obamacare will never be repealed. Hell, they didn't even have to fund it.

Ruble Noon
10-26-2012, 17:35
You better believe it. Obamacare will never be repealed. Hell, they didn't even have to fund it.

Very true and that is why I think they need to have the opportunity to repeal it. It will be exquisite watching them justify their decision to keep it.

concretefuzzynuts
10-26-2012, 17:41
Alright, you've convinced me. I'll vote for Romney.

Actually, Rand Paul offered up a very good reason to vote for Romney, and that is obamacare. According to Rand there are many Republicans that want to keep obamacare. I think I will vote for Romney and give these people a chance to surface.

I would like to see Rand run for President. He offers a more modern view of the Libertarian party. The core principals remain with adjustments to the ever changing world.

It has been a long struggle fur us. Year after year voting third party, watching this get to this point. I can't, in good conscience, vote for a third party candidate and watch King Obama change my beloved country to what his vision is.

Gundude
10-26-2012, 17:54
It has been a long struggle fur us. Year after year voting third party, watching this get to this point. I can't, in good conscience, vote for a third party candidate and watch King Obama change my beloved country to what his vision is.Do you think we would've been at a better point today if you voted Republican year after year instead of third party?

Republicans didn't get dragged kicking and screaming to where we are today. They are just as culpable as the Democrats. To pretend that they are now the solution is the ultimate in self-delusion.

concretefuzzynuts
10-26-2012, 17:58
Do you think we would've been at a better point today if you voted Republican year after year instead of third party?

Republicans didn't get dragged kicking and screaming to where we are today. They are just as culpable as the Democrats. To pretend that they are now the solution is the ultimate in self-delusion.

No I don't. As I've stated, I vote issue, not party line.

ETA: Though I try to keep the Libertarian ideals close.

concretefuzzynuts
10-26-2012, 18:05
Vote how you want.... the purpose of this thread was to encourage thought. To point to a different path.

We have been in a long struggle. Our base goes back to our founding fathers, they were the first Libertarians. Fast forward to modern times and the whole structure is different. Since we cannot overthrow this mess, our option is to dig our way out.

Gundude
10-26-2012, 18:24
Vote how you want.... the purpose of this thread was to encourage thought. To point to a different path.

We have been in a long struggle. Our base goes back to our founding fathers, they were the first Libertarians. Fast forward to modern times and the whole structure is different. Since we cannot overthrow this mess, our option is to dig our way out.I'm not sure that voting for one of the mainstream candidates instead of third party qualifies as a "different path". By definition, it's what the vast majority already do. Getting the remaining stragglers to do likewise won't solve the underlying problems.

Chronos
10-27-2012, 01:46
I hope I never see anything dumber EVER posted in a Forum.


So I guess this means you've never heard of the paradox of voting (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_voting) before (the topic in political science), and certainly have no answer for it.

For a youtube primer: Election 2012: The Paradox of Voting - YouTube

concretefuzzynuts
10-27-2012, 03:05
I'm not sure that voting for one of the mainstream candidates instead of third party qualifies as a "different path". By definition, it's what the vast majority already do. Getting the remaining stragglers to do likewise won't solve the underlying problems.

You are right in context, but since voting hard line third party has had little to no effect and the fact that this election is so crucial to remove a sitting dictator perhaps it is an "alternative" path.

barbedwiresmile
10-27-2012, 05:01
Going back to page one, I find the premise of the thread faulty: that somehow newer or younger libertarians care less about the nation and more about - I don't know, principal? I would suggest the opposite is true. A five page thread on modern libertarianism that quotes Rand Paul but not Murray Rothbard. Today's political libertarians are mild, timid, and delicate in how they articulate the failure of the state. In seeking office, they have been dumbed down for mass appeal. Rand is a great example. As such, we have no meaningful resistance to the Total State, and no meaningful dialogue as to where we went wrong. The libertarian party is irrelevant and is, as we see here, bleated down on a daily basis by the banality of modern political participants and their inanities.

One of the main reasons is that the party has lost direction and lacks a rational philosophical foundation. It focuses on outcomes rather than drivers. It avoids discussing the real issues and the deconstruction of the Leviathan state that is a necessary precursor of individual and economic liberty. Even Barry Goldwater had more guts than today's meek and mild political libertarians. It's like Libertarian lite, watered down and sanitized.

That said, as more and more young people look forward to a bleak future within a rigged, blatantly corrupt system, more and more are reading and discovering - learning that this is not 'new'. And learning that not too long ago, great minds spoke to this very issue. Unfortunately the lack of a political alternative representing libertarian philosophy often means that frustration leads them ultimately to give up their minds to one of the state parties. Still others, finding no actionable outlet for their observations on the nature of the state will be tempted by the Siren song of collectivist political and economic pseudo philosophies, mistaking their popularity in the academy for a true bunker of dissent.

So yes, the libertarians are lost, but for the opposite reasons offered by the OP. The suggestion that libertarians should vote for Romney (whom self-styles conservatives themselves were not willing to vote for just months ago) stands on its own as a testament to the failure of the libertarians as a political force, let alone a bastion of dissent. Like everything else in modern America, present day libertarians are a shadow of their former selves.

In short, the problem with the modern libertarian party isn't that they don't identify with the state enough. Rather, it's that they identify with the state at all. To paraphrase an article that some of you may have read this morning, the state, after all, is just a gang with a flag...

Snowman92D
10-27-2012, 05:34
In short, the problem with the modern libertarian party isn't that they don't identify with the state enough. Rather, it's that they identify with the state at all. To paraphrase an article that some of you may have read this morning, the state, after all, is just a gang with a flag...

Anarchy is the only answer. We'll never have drug legalization until we have anarchy. :smoking:

certifiedfunds
10-27-2012, 06:39
Anarchy is the only answer. We'll never have drug legalization until we have anarchy. :smoking:

Relax. Your beloved jack-booted thugs will be around for a good while longer.

walt cowan
10-27-2012, 06:46
You are right in context, but since voting hard line third party has had little to no effect and the fact that this election is so crucial to remove a sitting dictator perhaps it is an "alternative" path.

slow at the rnc today hun?

walt cowan
10-27-2012, 06:56
Do as you wish. I merely tried to convey what's at stake. As a friend once said, "I can't complain if I don't vote."

For me, I couldn't keep carping if I didn't do what was in my best interests. To me, that's country first. Do as you like Walt, but none us can have our cake and eat it too. How else can you explain Obama?

yeah, it was mccains turn too. thats how i explain obama. hey, while were at it....that'll explains the wins for carter and clinton too. it was also fords, bush sr's and doyles turn too. my point is...win or lose...you did it too yourselfs.

certifiedfunds
10-27-2012, 08:08
yeah, it was mccains turn too. thats how i explain obama. hey, while were at it....that'll explains the wins for carter and clinton too. it was also fords, bush sr's and doyles turn too. my point is...win or lose...you did it too yourselfs.

But that can't be. The republicans here will tell you with certainty that thePEOPLE choose the candidate.

I mean who WOULDN'T choose Bob Dole?

concretefuzzynuts
10-27-2012, 10:43
slow at the rnc today hun?



I've always respected you views, Walt but I don't think you've read mine. I am not a republican.

G29Reload
10-27-2012, 10:48
What does this even mean? Is it more honorable to vote for candidates that you know will increase spending, grow the debt, and drive us to ruin? That's what you call putting the country ahead of yourself? By participating in its demise?

If this meant anything to you, you wouldnt help Obama by voting for him or anyone other than the one guy that can defeat him.

He's clearly the best at spending.

Theres a chance R will actually put the brakes on.

But you're hellbent to see he doesn't get in.

Because you like it when the opposite of what you preach, happens.

A more confused person never inhabited this board.

Ruble Noon
10-27-2012, 12:09
Going back to page one, I find the premise of the thread faulty: that somehow newer or younger libertarians care less about the nation and more about - I don't know, principal? I would suggest the opposite is true. A five page thread on modern libertarianism that quotes Rand Paul but not Murray Rothbard. Today's political libertarians are mild, timid, and delicate in how they articulate the failure of the state. In seeking office, they have been dumbed down for mass appeal. Rand is a great example. As such, we have no meaningful resistance to the Total State, and no meaningful dialogue as to where we went wrong. The libertarian party is irrelevant and is, as we see here, bleated down on a daily basis by the banality of modern political participants and their inanities.

One of the main reasons is that the party has lost direction and lacks a rational philosophical foundation. It focuses on outcomes rather than drivers. It avoids discussing the real issues and the deconstruction of the Leviathan state that is a necessary precursor of individual and economic liberty. Even Barry Goldwater had more guts than today's meek and mild political libertarians. It's like Libertarian lite, watered down and sanitized.

That said, as more and more young people look forward to a bleak future within a rigged, blatantly corrupt system, more and more are reading and discovering - learning that this is not 'new'. And learning that not too long ago, great minds spoke to this very issue. Unfortunately the lack of a political alternative representing libertarian philosophy often means that frustration leads them ultimately to give up their minds to one of the state parties. Still others, finding no actionable outlet for their observations on the nature of the state will be tempted by the Siren song of collectivist political and economic pseudo philosophies, mistaking their popularity in the academy for a true bunker of dissent.

So yes, the libertarians are lost, but for the opposite reasons offered by the OP. The suggestion that libertarians should vote for Romney (whom self-styles conservatives themselves were not willing to vote for just months ago) stands on its own as a testament to the failure of the libertarians as a political force, let alone a bastion of dissent. Like everything else in modern America, present day libertarians are a shadow of their former selves.

In short, the problem with the modern libertarian party isn't that they don't identify with the state enough. Rather, it's that they identify with the state at all. To paraphrase an article that some of you may have read this morning, the state, after all, is just a gang with a flag...

What you describe is true but it is also true of republicans and democrats. I don't know what the proper terminology is, the party's evolve, devolve or simply move on in the political spectrum. Why? Because, as you noted in your first paragraph, it revolves around principles. Look at the democrat party. Did they start out as communists and socialists? No, but there is no doubt that their party embraces these ism's today. Did the republican party start out as the big government progressives that they are today? The answer is no. They have morphed over time. They have morphed because people have forsaken their principles.
Look at GTPI and all the people, so called conservatives, that lambast the libertarians or independents for not voting against their principles by voting Romney. These people claim that I and others will be the downfall of this nation because we will not vote for someone that we have nothing in common with. In reality it is these people that are destroying their party and our country along with it because they refuse to vote on principle.

countrygun
10-27-2012, 12:31
So I guess this means you've never heard of the paradox of voting (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_voting) before (the topic in political science), and certainly have no answer for it.

For a youtube primer: Election 2012: The Paradox of Voting - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbkIbIZehMM&feature=plcp)

Ah, academics..... like monkeys, if you leave enough of them in a room with enough typewriters one of them will type "Gone with the Wind" or in the case of political science monkeys they will concoct a new theorum to argue over.

The most common question asked by Political Scientists today is, "Do you want fries with that?"


I am allowed to say that because it was my major, although I stayed away from the navel-gazing, circlejerk side of the discipline.

The Machinist
10-27-2012, 12:37
Theres a chance R will actually put the brakes on.
No there's not. You're full of crap, don't know jack about the way our fiat currency works, the role the Federal Reserve plays in our debt, and are completely ignorant of American history.

The debt will do nothing but go up under either empty suit.

countrygun
10-27-2012, 12:46
No there's not. You're full of crap, don't know jack about the way our fiat currency works, the role the Federal Reserve plays in our debt, and are completely ignorant of American history.

The debt will do nothing but go up under either empty suit.

Spoken like a true Zealot.

"All Politicians are bad except for the one I vote for"

Chronos
10-27-2012, 12:54
Spoken like a true Zealot.

"All Politicians are bad except for the one I vote for"

All you'd have to do to start making a compelling case would be to break out some basic arithmetic and show us how Romney won't continue to run up the debt (otherwise known as selling the value of my children's future labor to China).

certifiedfunds
10-27-2012, 14:10
Spoken like a true Zealot.

"All Politicians are bad except for the one I vote for"

I'd like to see your math too.

Social security
DOD
Medicare

These are the big 3. No meaningful change can occur without drastic cuts or outright elimination of one or all. What exactly will Romney cut?

Otherwise it's all electioneering bull****.

certifiedfunds
10-27-2012, 14:13
The tea party Handed over congress to the republicans with a mandate.

What did they do?

Raise the debt ceiling and fund obamacare.

jlavallee
10-27-2012, 14:16
Ah, academics..... like monkeys, if you leave enough of them in a room with enough typewriters one of them will type "Gone with the Wind" or in the case of political science monkeys they will concoct a new theorum to argue over.

The most common question asked by Political Scientists today is, "Do you want fries with that?"


I am allowed to say that because it was my major, although I stayed away from the navel-gazing, circlejerk side of the discipline.

Yes, we all marvel at the mind of Countrygun. :rofl:

Ruble Noon
10-27-2012, 14:26
The tea party Handed over congress to the republicans with a mandate.

What did they do?

Raise the debt ceiling and fund obamacare.

Yeah, and that is irrisputable. :winkie:

Gundude
10-27-2012, 14:54
Anarchy is the only answer. We'll never have drug legalization until we have anarchy. :smoking:
Even drug addicts aren't as obsessed with drugs as Snowman92D is.

I think we found a person who would be able to make a discussion of boxers vs briefs somehow about drugs.

certifiedfunds
10-27-2012, 14:59
Anarchy is the only answer. We'll never have drug legalization until we have anarchy. :smoking:

As long as you tolerate the government seizing power in an area you agree with, you have to be prepared to endure it seizing power in areas you don't agree with.

So enjoy your WOD and your Obamacare. They walk hand in hand.

certifiedfunds
10-27-2012, 15:00
Going back to page one, I find the premise of the thread faulty: that somehow newer or younger libertarians care less about the nation and more about - I don't know, principal? I would suggest the opposite is true. A five page thread on modern libertarianism that quotes Rand Paul but not Murray Rothbard. Today's political libertarians are mild, timid, and delicate in how they articulate the failure of the state. In seeking office, they have been dumbed down for mass appeal. Rand is a great example. As such, we have no meaningful resistance to the Total State, and no meaningful dialogue as to where we went wrong. The libertarian party is irrelevant and is, as we see here, bleated down on a daily basis by the banality of modern political participants and their inanities.

One of the main reasons is that the party has lost direction and lacks a rational philosophical foundation. It focuses on outcomes rather than drivers. It avoids discussing the real issues and the deconstruction of the Leviathan state that is a necessary precursor of individual and economic liberty. Even Barry Goldwater had more guts than today's meek and mild political libertarians. It's like Libertarian lite, watered down and sanitized.

That said, as more and more young people look forward to a bleak future within a rigged, blatantly corrupt system, more and more are reading and discovering - learning that this is not 'new'. And learning that not too long ago, great minds spoke to this very issue. Unfortunately the lack of a political alternative representing libertarian philosophy often means that frustration leads them ultimately to give up their minds to one of the state parties. Still others, finding no actionable outlet for their observations on the nature of the state will be tempted by the Siren song of collectivist political and economic pseudo philosophies, mistaking their popularity in the academy for a true bunker of dissent.

So yes, the libertarians are lost, but for the opposite reasons offered by the OP. The suggestion that libertarians should vote for Romney (whom self-styles conservatives themselves were not willing to vote for just months ago) stands on its own as a testament to the failure of the libertarians as a political force, let alone a bastion of dissent. Like everything else in modern America, present day libertarians are a shadow of their former selves.

In short, the problem with the modern libertarian party isn't that they don't identify with the state enough. Rather, it's that they identify with the state at all. To paraphrase an article that some of you may have read this morning, the state, after all, is just a gang with a flag...


Thanks for adding to the thread. Always a good read.

countrygun
10-27-2012, 15:23
Yes, we all marvel at the mind of Countrygun. :rofl:

Yes, and like it or not, countrygun's candidate stands a very good chance of having an effect on American politics unlike the libertardian candidates

Gundude
10-27-2012, 15:30
Yes, and like it or not, countrygun's candidate stands a very good chance of having an effect on American politics unlike the libertardian candidatesSo does every "DU troll's" candidate. At least you have some common ground there (a lot more than you'd like to believe).

certifiedfunds
10-27-2012, 16:25
Yes, and like it or not, countrygun's candidate stands a very good chance of having an effect on American politics unlike the libertardian candidates

Your mother must be very proud

Stubudd
10-27-2012, 21:13
This is an open letter to the Libertarians here on GT. I know I will draw fire and I know the other parties will respond unkindly, however I hope I reach the heart and minds of my fellow Libertarians. I am not posting this to debate, I am more interested in planting a seed of thought.


I would never call myself a republican, there was a time I might, but not now. A conservative? Closer but too constrictive.

For close to 30 years I have classified myself proudly as a Constitutional Libertarian. Now, after this new generation of people who call themselves Libertarians, who care less about the country but more about their principals and morals, I am thinking maybe they have tainted the term Libertarian to the point I don't want to be associated with them.



Right, don't want to be associated with libertarians- you'd rather be associated with the parties that have been busy destroying the greatest country in the world for the last 30 years instead. That makes sense.

"tainted libertarians", lol. Check your own candidate, a lying liberal that will say absolutely anything at any time to you. A breathtakingly shameless liar, literally- it stuns me sometimes to watch him speak. That's what i'd call a tainted party- to say the very least.

Not with a gun to my head would i vote for more of this insanity and thievery and abuse of power. You can have these crooks.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

countrygun
10-27-2012, 21:39
So does every "DU troll's" candidate. At least you have some common ground there (a lot more than you'd like to believe).

One way otr the other, win or lose, the Obama and Romney supporters will each have had more effect on the political system than the Libertarians. Even better, with their vitriol and sourgrapes the Libertarians are certainly driving people away from the Libertarian concept, even some of us who have voted "L" probably longer than the noisy malcontents.

Good work fellas, I knew you were liberal trolls trying to kill the movement by the battle cry of "Let the Marxist win, we won't compromise". Sharp political thinking there it will stay in people's memory.

Ruble Noon
10-28-2012, 08:10
One way otr the other, win or lose, the Obama and Romney supporters will each have had more effect on the political system than the Libertarians. Even better, with their vitriol and sourgrapes the Libertarians are certainly driving people away from the Libertarian concept, even some of us who have voted "L" probably longer than the noisy malcontents.

Good work fellas, I knew you were liberal trolls trying to kill the movement by the battle cry of "Let the Marxist win, we won't compromise". Sharp political thinking there it will stay in people's memory.


No doubt about that, unfortunately.

The Machinist
10-28-2012, 09:04
"Let the Marxist win, we won't compromise"
That was never the battle cry. You're just making up crap, trying to obfuscate. You have no principles, no moral compass, and no free will. After all, you are voting for a liberal in a couple of weeks.