It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

2008: Should I support a Libertarian Candiadate?

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 9 2005 @ 04:46 PM
link   
Libertarian's aren't radical, they are traditionalists.

We are in the traditional middle of the road.

This is a good thing because the other big parties have strayed from american's very core.


the liberarian party platform is based on principles of the delcaration of independence and the bill or rights.

What could be more traditional than that?

edit: If you want more holes poked in these very things make this country so great and give people more power over government , then continue voting the big two, while your voting the big two you are also telling them that you are in favour of a two party dictatorship, they are basically one in the same.



[edit on 9-10-2005 by TrueLies]




posted on Oct, 9 2005 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueLies
What could be more traditional than that?


Nothing. And if I were going to start a country in the 1700's it'd be just like that.

But if you want to continue to poke holes in every advancement of the twentieth century, continue not voting Democratic.

Shortly after you vote yourself out of the middle class, you might even vote yourself to a time when you can't even vote.

How's them apples?



posted on Oct, 20 2005 @ 03:50 AM
link   
Flinx, you should support who you think is best for the Nation.

Do some research, on the different groups running for power in the 2008 election, find one which you agree with the most and then take up the flag. Begin to help them, organise meetings with their members and the public, go door to door with them and slowly help them build up support.

---

P.S: Why isn't this in:
Other Ideologies
Review and discuss the platforms of other positions such as anarchy, green party, etc.

Can someone have a look and move it please?



posted on Oct, 24 2005 @ 09:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by RANT

Originally posted by TrueLies
What could be more traditional than that?


Nothing. And if I were going to start a country in the 1700's it'd be just like that.


That's a weak argument. People who lived in the 1700s were more in a democracy then we are now, not to mention it wasn't even termed democracy, it was a 'free republic' based on self sufficiency.

now we want to call america democratic? since when did this happen, and why do you think if you vote democrats your going to get progression? Sure you will progression in the social sense, making gay marriage legal, possibly legalizing marijuana, and thats what libertarians agree w/ also.
Progression of social issues. Your party the democrats carry a sense of elitism, personally I get the sense that those politician's think we're all to stupid to take care of ourselves, and that they need to nanny us w/ more red tape. What about high taxes? god damn take new jersey for instance, it's ILLEGAL to pump your own gas! In America, talk about thinking people are too inept or slow or whatever the reasons are for making pumping your own gas illegal, jesus christ. Please explain to me how you think higher taxation and living in demoracy mesh? cuz thats what demoracts support, all to fund their need to create more programs for the people, of whom those demoracts carry pity for. nice attitude.

A self succifient country is one of freedom, freedom of choice. Demoracts yearn for a tiered medical system, one where the less fortuneate folks can walk in and get taken care of without worrying about how much it's going to cost. That is understandable, if america had a single-payer system, those 43 million uninsured folks could still walk away with cash on hand. In the mean time there is just too much red tape around the health system.


But if you want to continue to poke holes in every advancement of the twentieth century, continue not voting Democratic.


What advancements? Democrats take us back. Back to a time where we might as well have the boston tea party all over again. Back to a time where governments could seize your property because they felt it would benefit others. When it comes to personal, private matters, democrats suck at making sure people maintain those rights to care for themselves and their property. Democrats want to take care of everything and everyone, they want to tax the rich (steal) and give to the poor. How is that ideology even democratic?

Today's democrats need to get back to their roots. They have strayed too far, democratic ideas are at the bottom of their list, i hate to say it but they carry more of a socialist ideology, where everybody is the same, everybody is helpless, and those that aren't should be taxed higher as punishment for being self sufficient.. That's not america imo.

We need a free market, less red tape, lower taxes, get rid of those stupid laws like the one in new jersey, legalize marijuana and gay marraige, as those are personal choices that don't affect anybody but that one person who made that choice, remove the red tape on gun laws, and don't treat that person who just killed the robber who was going to rape your wife WORSE then then the criminal...


Shortly after you vote yourself out of the middle class, you might even vote yourself to a time when you can't even vote.


Libertarian's weren't around back then, sadly the democrats and republicans were though and I didn't hear them make any noise about that issue for 150 years until women had to do it themselves.




How's them apples?


Mushy.


[edit on 24-10-2005 by TrueLies]



posted on Oct, 24 2005 @ 11:57 AM
link   
We don't disagree TL except in your dated characterization of the Democratic Party. I agree it should get back to it's libertarian roots. Problem is, it already has. The disinformation campaign carries on though.

The "western platform" created by Dean is as libertarian as mainstream America is willing to get. And half of what you were just accusing modern Democrats of doing are uniquely Republican enterprises now. The minority party doesn't run anything. So blaming them for anything is a fool's mission, or the job of the King's cake purveyors on AM radio and cable news. But you know they're still effective against total tyranny even in their limited role otherwise there wouldn't be RNC run churches smearing their "obstructionism."


On the tax thing though (probably the only place we disagree)... The fact is (assuming you're like 98% of us) your tax bill would have been significantly lower under Kerry than Bush and the deficit lower still. That's what's so damned funny about the whole thing to me. Yet Dems are the "tax and spend" guys, right?

Just because some retard married to Dick Cheney calls a $3,000 tax credit for the middle class to be used toward private insurance Nationalized Healthcare doesn't make it communism.

What I further take issue with is calling a progressive tax on the 2 percenters (I'll call them for the purpose of this) "stealing from the rich" (or whatever you said since I can't see it in the reply window).

If what you said was true and the government existed to "give to the poor" then you're absolutely right. That would suck for Paris Hilton. I still wouldn't give a damn though (and frankly would be surprised if 98% of us did), but the truth as most eloquently laid out by self professed LIBERTARIAN mainstream commentator Neal Boortz is that government exists at the pleasure and for the benefit of the rich FIRST.

Get over welfare already. The angry white man movement overdosed on oxycontin years ago. It's a joke. It's nothing. A drop in the bucket. It is not why your tax bill is so high, and (as Georgie Porgie proved) it's never going anywhere anyway.

You know what costs money? Missiles cost money. Roads, not leaving children behind, open border low cost immigrant work forces, liberating people we don't even know, funding religion, trips to Mars, hurricanes, and the flu. In the great scheme of things government cheese is free. I wish I could convey how much people that still think any problem facing this country is a poor person's fault needs a slap. Hopefully I just did.

So while I expect a libertarian to respond well we shouldn't be paying for any of that... Again, in an idealized 1700's world, I totally agree.

But missiles cost money. And we like missiles. We are all socialists when it comes to things we want. The difference is Democrats (for the most part) are honest about it.

Though I do believe libertarians will get what they want. One day. About 5 minutes after we run out of energy. Be prepared to kill a lot of preachers though.



posted on Oct, 24 2005 @ 12:08 PM
link   
OTS, the CP is not going aginst the consitution, it goes against what some people have been taught to think is constitutional. We have been taught to think in a particular way about particular things so that further degeneration of society will occur, making it easier for takeover. This has been clearly stated by several members of the ones who have been in control for decades, yet we still try and have our degenerated cake and eat it, too. It doesn't work that way. Either the society becomes strong and healthy and protects the nation again, or it will be lost.



posted on Oct, 24 2005 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by RANT
We don't disagree TL except in your dated characterization of the Democratic Party. I agree it should get back to it's libertarian roots. Problem is, it already has. The disinformation campaign carries on though.


Could explain how that party has become organized over the past year or two since the elections? It appears every democrat has a different idea and they blow which ever the way the popular culture sways..

I didn't think dean was libertarian like with his ideas on socialized health care, and I didn't think that most democrats support tax cuts for EVERYBODY, and I didn't think democrats agreed w/ legalizing drugs, removing red tape from gun laws, and I recall a few democrats not wanting to legalize gay marriage.. Are you telling me that democrats aren't tax and spend and inject more bureaucracy into all ready made laws to complicate things? It's not april fools yet rant..

I'd like to know democratic party you belong to.




And half of what you were just accusing modern Democrats of doing are uniquely Republican enterprises now.


I realise that, which is shocking and very disappointing, it's just democrats have been notorious for those actions and ideas in the past, now the republicans seem to be jumping on the bandwagon. But the discussion is about the democrats right now and the libertarians as you've pooh pooh'ed them in your prior post.



The minority party doesn't run anything. So blaming them for anything is a fool's mission, or the job of the King's cake purveyors on AM radio and cable news


Which minority party is this?? Are you talking about the ones that didn't get to debate in the elections? Or are you referring to something else?




your tax bill would have been significantly lower under Kerry than Bush and the deficit lower still. That's what's so damned funny about the whole thing to me. Yet Dems are the "tax and spend" guys, right?



Hindsight is 20/20 isn't it.. Who would of known the administration wasn't going to hold true to the fiscally conservative ideology? If they would have it would of been lower then kerry's. Kerry had all these big bright ideas that would of cost taxpayer's billions of dollars, I don't see how they would of gotten a better tax break, i'll have to go back and recall what these ideas were, but I remember listening to him with my eyes popping out of my head and wondering 'how the fk are we going to afford all this?' MORE TAXES! That's how! Anyway, both parties are not who I thought they were.

When Democrats become fiscally responsible (conservative) maybe i'll consider them, until they can stand by their rhetoric (like dean claiming libertarian's are today's democrats) i'm going to have my doubts.




What I further take issue with is calling a progressive tax on the 2 percenters (I'll call them for the purpose of this) "stealing from the rich" (or whatever you said since I can't see it in the reply window).


Democrats were gloating about that when it was news, democrats got wind of that, democratic voters rather, and they were all for it, saying it was deserved and they should be taxed more cuz they make more... That mentality is fked. If they wouldn't of gloated over it and if I wouldn't of heard people talking about it like they were getting over on the rich dudes I wouldn't even of had an opinion of it. But they said it and it's just another strike on the democrats, it's little things like this that add up and turn one off to the democratic party... There is nothing democratic about that.



If what you said was true and the government existed to "give to the poor" then you're absolutely right. That would suck for Paris Hilton.


It would suck for those hard working men and women who have worked their whole lives on their career's made millions if not billions and because they worked hard were penalized for it... Paris Hilton is lucky she came out of that women, she hasn't worked for anything and thats like all the other skinny flat chested pretty faced chicks in hollywood - born w/ a silver spoon in their mouths.. But her family has worked hard to get where they are today and they get burned for taking advantage of the free market system and then people like you have the nerve to say so what? Ignorant, and thats why I don't vote democrat.. That mentality tells me you don't care if hard working people who become rich because thats what they wanted to be their whole lives, get sht on for making their dreams come true.


I still wouldn't give a damn though (and frankly would be surprised if 98% of us did), but the truth as most eloquently laid out by self professed LIBERTARIAN mainstream commentator Neal Boortz is that government exists at the pleasure and for the benefit of the rich FIRST.


Obviously you don't give a damn and thats a shame. And now your using a comment from a mainstream libertarian to futher your point when you just poo pooh'ed them in your prior post? According to true libertarian ideology not just one man who claims he's a libertarian, government is there to protect the homeland from foreign threat. Libertarian's believe in a small federal government where states have more rights then the fed.

Perhaps Neal Boortz is talking about today's government, because it does appear that they are in a 'business' / profit making industry with their oil and defense contracts, lobbyists, congressmen and women on the dole, as well as prominent men like cheney, bush, bush sr, and rumsfeld...
Like one thread says, congress and the senate seem to be run like an auction house.. I'll give boortz the benefit of the doubt.




Get over welfare already. The angry white man movement overdosed on oxycontin years ago. It's a joke. It's nothing. A drop in the bucket.


Get over it cuz you don't want to talk about it?? Can you explain to me why democrats always seem to be pandering to these kinds of people? Spewing bs about how they need new programs for them, and how they promise if they are elected the health care system will be one of which won't cost them anything.. Why do these welfare people get treated like royalty and have their asses smooched??? Is there that many of them in this country that they would be a large percentage of their vote??




It is not why your tax bill is so high, and (as Georgie Porgie proved) it's never going anywhere anyway.


We all know why the tax bill is so high, people were lied to and thats #ty, as I said earlier, kerry would of been just as bad if not worse... Like the saying goes, vote lesser of the two evils, but you still get evil... Don't be telling me that the democrats would of been better.




You know what costs money? Missiles cost money. Roads, not leaving children behind, open border low cost immigrant work forces, liberating people we don't even know, funding religion, trips to Mars, hurricanes, and the flu. In the great scheme of things government cheese is free.


Government cheese isn't free, it's not the government money it's your money, and it's my money, and I would rather have money spent of road repairs, border protection, and defense if this terror thing is really a threat, flu vaccines, and space exploration, science and technologies to better our lives and health, like stem cell research.. Important issues such as those.



I wish I could convey how much people that still think any problem facing this country is a poor person's fault needs a slap. Hopefully I just did.


I didn't say that, don't put words into my mouth... You just turned this discussion into class warfare... Another reason why I won't vote for a democrat.. I don't see poor, middle class, rich, I see hard worker's, and those that don't care to work hard. Those that work hard will get by and be fine, if they are responsible, there is no excuse to be poor. I've been poor, i've been rich, i've lived with poor, and i've lived with rich. I've been on both sides of the fence, and the only difference between the two is choices... I could go on about how my father got screwed by my mom and had to pay 50,000 in back support over a lie. Now there are many unfortunate stories like that to go around a million times over, but he doesn't have to keep being poor, he just doesn't want to get off his ass and do alittle more work to make sure he has alittle more cashflow..
So anyway, i'm not putting blame on poor people at all... But they do have choices like all of us.. Nobody is born poor, they are born people with freedom to choose.



But missiles cost money. And we like missiles. We are all socialists when it comes to things we want. The difference is Democrats (for the most part) are honest about it.


That's a good point, not sure if I totally agree w/ that yet or not though.

Though I do believe libertarians will get what they want. One day. About 5 minutes after we run out of energy. Be prepared to kill a lot of preachers though.



posted on Oct, 24 2005 @ 06:43 PM
link   
So much of the disconnect in our conversation is just that (disconnect), I don't know that further point by point reduction helps at all.

I copied your post this time though to at least look at while I respond.



Originally posted by TrueLies
Could explain how that party has become organized over the past year or two since the elections? It appears every democrat has a different idea and they blow which ever the way the popular culture sways..


Like most people, every democrat does have different ideas (though I'm not sure everyone in ear range you ascribe with the quality of being a "democrat" actually qualifies). But the principle grounding never changes as the party of the people (not fat cats, corporations and invisible authority). And yes, that's populist and changes over time or 'sways.' The party of rural electrification becomes the party of police action becomes the party of space exploration and American supremacy becomes the party of choice and civil liberties becomes the party of fiscal responsibility and medical advancement becomes the party of what else needs fixing?

And I'm really not trying to convert you. Just inform you your ideas are unpopular.

Not to say that Democrats have been much better at getting their ideas across the past few years, but people seem to want their liberalism from cowboys calling themselves 'conservatives' right now. Or at least they thought they did.


I didn't think dean was libertarian like with his ideas on socialized health care, and I didn't think that most democrats support tax cuts for EVERYBODY, and I didn't think democrats agreed w/ legalizing drugs, removing red tape from gun laws, and I recall a few democrats not wanting to legalize gay marriage.. Are you telling me that democrats aren't tax and spend and inject more bureaucracy into all ready made laws to complicate things? It's not april fools yet rant..

I'd like to know democratic party you belong to.


Don't be so black & white in your thinking. Well, you can be if you like but that unbending philosophical imperative is why libertarians scare people. I mean, I wanted to kick someone's ass after 9/11 and didn't really care who (I used to watch a lot of Fox News) and would have personally strung a hypothetical President Michael Badnarick up by his testicles if he had said now hold on here, let's no go crazy. Let me check the Constitution. Afghanistan didn't do anything to us. Let's not get entangled in that can o' worms. It was Osama. I think. Let's send a bounty hunter to get him. Like $5 grand tops. I know somebody.

No. Howard Dean and the Democratic Party are NOT Libertarians. They're libertarianish!
More than the RNC anyway. And getting more every day. But there's a problem. The people. You know why the DNC won't come out and say "free bazookas!" The people want some gun restrictions. Just like they want welfare and missiles and invasions and moon shots.

It's a fine line though and the DNC will lose an election on principle if the people are wrong (getting good at it actually). But you pick your battles. Mike Badnarick or death? I'm not leading that charge against the grain.

I don't think I need to quote all of this.

A progressive tax? You bet. Best thing since some guy invented sliced bread then had the patent swindled out from under him by a multinational corporation who made all the money on it pushing Paris Hilton's bread stock up in the process while the US Government deployed armed forces to protect her international wheat interests abroad.

The top 2% probably get more "welfare" every day of the week then the welfare state gets all year. They have lobbyists they pay millions to get their billions and favorable legislation for practically anything they want. Drilling in national parks? Sure! Pipeline in an unfriendly dictatorship? We'll get right on that. Anything else the government can do for you today Miss Hilton? Bail out your drinking buddy Neal Bush? Sure! What's another $153 billion to Texas Savings & Loans at this point...

You can't compare that to Food Stamps. Well you can. But it's kind of a silly thing to get mad about.

8.2 million households with kids ate today.
God damnit!


I mean the whole US Department of Agriculture budget is $19.4 freaking billion dollars.

And they don't even get around to "Supporting a Compassionate Society" by...


Providing important nutrition programs, including the Food Stamp, School Lunch, School Breakfast, and Child and Adult Care Food programs, and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children. And Helping tenants displaced from traditional rural multifamily housing units.


...Until they're done paying off Monsanto and running broadband out to 'conservative' red state America on my dime.


Originally posted by RANT
Get over welfare already. The angry white man movement overdosed on oxycontin years ago. It's a joke. It's nothing. A drop in the bucket.



Originally posted by TrueLies
Get over it cuz you don't want to talk about it??


No. I love talking about the facts. You need to get over it though because every angry white man (and woman) in this country has been full of # ever since Reagan fed it to them with a spoon. Your outrage is a planted diversion from the real culprits. FAT CATS and lobbyists. You know, those "hard workers" you're protecting so. Why even hire lobbyists when the lower middle class (that think they're rich because they watch Fox) lobbies for them?

Here's another thing about the top 2%. Only 2% of us can get there. That's true no matter what you read on a lottery ticket.


Can you explain to me why democrats always seem to be pandering to these kinds of people?


Children and the middle class? 98% of America? Cause they're cute? WTF?


Spewing bs about how they need new programs for them, and how they promise if they are elected the health care system will be one of which won't cost them anything.


I would vote for that guy, but he never ran. Where the hell do you get the democratic platform from anyway? Mike Savage?

It was a TAX CUT!
A tax... CUT!


Why do these welfare people get treated like royalty and have their asses smooched??? Is there that many of them in this country that they would be a large percentage of their vote??


Children can't vote. Last page I just had open said it was 19 million Americans total (51% children, 10% elderly).

That Cadillac driving welfare queen making $50K a year still bugging ya is it? News flash: Reagan was a liar. He waged class (and race) warfare by sticking that bunk in your brain. That's why you people
are so angry. That and conservatives had absolute power the past 5 years and raised welfare instead of cut it.


I don't know. I've lost the plot and interest in this now.

Executive conclusion: I'm right, you're wrong. Conservatives are easily fooled by people on the TV. And Libertarians suck eggs.

Now. If you'd like to win me over, tell me how the Libertarian Party would have handled the space race? Oh that's right, we'd still be working on the car.


I know, I know. Free market. We'd rent rides from the Soviets. Super!


But not a SuperPower.

[edit on 24-10-2005 by RANT]



posted on Oct, 25 2005 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by RANT
So much of the disconnect in our conversation is just that (disconnect), I don't know that further point by point reduction helps at all.

I copied your post this time though to at least look at while I respond.


Now your going to pooh pooh my thought process and label it as disconnected?? I took your points and added on to them, my own kind of view, perhaps maybe that is disconnect from your angle, i'm just letting you know where I come from.



Originally posted by Rant
Like most people, every democrat does have different ideas (though I'm not sure everyone in ear range you ascribe with the quality of being a "democrat" actually qualifies). But the principle grounding never changes as the party of the people (not fat cats, corporations and invisible authority).


Principles exhuberating liberal social views and liberal fiscial views?
The party of progression? I have alot to say on that... While they do claim they are the party of american rights and liberties there is always a catch, and some red tape attached to it, like gun laws, drug use, religious/occult views (waco), it's their own kind of unique branding on what 'rights and liberties' are/should be... Not cool, not a good idea, and not well thought out. And Unconstiutional...



And yes, that's populist and changes over time or 'sways.' The party of rural electrification becomes the party of police action becomes the party of space exploration and American supremacy becomes the party of choice and civil liberties becomes the party of fiscal responsibility and medical advancement becomes the party of what else needs fixing?



Populist voter's are for the people and give power to the people moreso then the government, your giving political parties the power to make decisions for the american people because they think thats what they want, and/or sometimes don't even care but impose new laws on us anyway for the benefit of some corporate conglomerate or lobbyists... You see, democrats are also guilty of this too, not just conservatives... conservatives have the spot light on them at the moment so it's more noticeable on that side, democrats accuse them of the very thing they partake in also. Don't tell me no, there are quite a few names I can donate to my point but i'll give you one to chew on for now like one infamous prick -freaking Daschle jackass sellout butt punk corporate gravy train rider of a 'democrat', allowing his palms to get greased and introducing legislation that was written by major banks and the credit-card industry to tighten the screws on debt ridden american families who could barely afford to pay their maxed out credit card bills and on the brink of a chapter 7, and only 16 democrats voted against the bill. Indeed, party of the people...
Let me know if you want me to continue out democratic lobbyists and fat cats who influence your democratic elected...





And I'm really not trying to convert you. Just inform you your ideas are unpopular.


Then that would mean that the majority of Americans have forgotten their roots, their history, the meaning of this country, and their constitutional education... That would be really unfortunate. If I was back in the founder's time I would of signed and fought to enact that peice of paper to ensure every american had those rights locked in and almost impossible to change... I can't believe your saying those who hold strong to those principles today are viewed as un popular...

I'd like to believe your just blowing smoke... Perhaps i'll give you the benefit of the doubt.




Not to say that Democrats have been much better at getting their ideas across the past few years, but people seem to want their liberalism from cowboys calling themselves 'conservatives' right now. Or at least they thought they did.


Perhaps your referring to republican's, the problem w/ this country is it's present state in politics... People hold their political parties flag above the american flag first, and they know not what they do or what that can cost them in terms of constitutional freedoms, privately, socially and financially.




Don't be so black & white in your thinking. Well, you can be if you like but that unbending philosophical imperative is why libertarians scare people.


How is asking you a questions about dean claiming to be libertarian black and white thinking? I don't know his whole platform but I know a few thing of what he said about health care and tax reform was totally un libertarian.
He hold quasi-socialist views and exhibits a liberal agenda... Sure is is libertarian-ISH when it comes to the social issues but when it comes to tax reform, health care, education, gun laws, and drug use, he's not libertarian -ISH... he quasi socialist. And that isn't holding true to the classical American standards...



I mean, I wanted to kick someone's ass after 9/11 and didn't really care who (I used to watch a lot of Fox News) and would have personally strung a hypothetical President Michael Badnarick up by his testicles if he had said now hold on here, let's no go crazy. Let me check the Constitution.


If you would of known the libertarian stance back then you would of known that they were for kicking someone's ass... BIN LADEN'S, and al qaida's, NOT IRAQ'S or Saddam.

As it's well known or should be well known, Libertarianism is all for the protection and maintaning America's homeland (isolationism) UNTIL we are attacked... Then yes, it's time to kick someone's ass ... Not the wrong guy, and not the wrong countries...

Current day foreign policy is unconstitutional, I think we can both agree on that note. We can also agree that to meddle in foreign entaglements will get into trouble down the road, as we are witnessing today.

Both democrats and republicans are guilty of that. To blame your oppositional party is just arrogant and makes you blind to your own parties guilty actions..

I've been to a libertarian rally/dinner party where badnarik even said he was for going after bin laden and al qaida, because tha twas a blatant attack on american soil... But before then, america was aleady occupying countries and meddling in foreign affairs, and that cost 3500 innocent american lives... You don't that.



Afghanistan didn't do anything to us. Let's not get entangled in that can o' worms. It was Osama. I think. Let's send a bounty hunter to get him. Like $5 grand tops. I know somebody.


Yes, exactly, they didn't do anything, while they were hunting the taliban in Afganistan because they were oppressive to those people, why didn't they meddle in Africa's affairs also? There were and still are oppressive governments in that country, there are oppressive governments in south america and there was an oppressive government in Haiti (Aristide) but the difference is there is a special interest over there, American government is helping Israel, and they are slowly working on various countries to tone down the hostility, create more then one democratic country in that region, and make some money while they're at it... That is unconstitutional and I don't know why republicans don't see this..




No. Howard Dean and the Democratic Party are NOT Libertarians. They're libertarianish!
More than the RNC anyway. And getting more every day. But there's a problem. The people. You know why the DNC won't come out and say "free bazookas!" The people want some gun restrictions. Just like they want welfare and missiles and invasions and moon shots.


Is the constitution not the supremem law of the land rant? Or do we just it whenever it's convenient for us? That's the problem w/ modern day politics, they want to have their cake and eat it too. People want some gun restrictions?? People want welfare??? People understandably want things all the time, they want their free speech, they want their freedom of press, they want seperation of church and state, they want those amendments in the constitution but they want to pick and and choose when and what should be kept and what should be changed.. I'm talking about individuals and politicians on both sides... YOu can't have it both ways... This is why the constitution has so many holes in it, and is continuously being perverted, this why government can now enforce eminent domain w/ out just compensation... You can't pick and choose. Gun restrictions, please don't get me started on that, i think you know what i'm going to say about that - gun restrictions don't stop the criminals from buying on the black market, criminals don't use safety locks. Law abiding citizens do, why restrict them even more? jesus christ.

Everybody wants welfare? perhaps those that vote democrat do. A personal story - my sister had twins, wanted to leave her husband because he has a problem w/ foot dragging and bs'ing/excuse making, she wanted to go back to canada, get the social assistance (for a good reason) to pay for day care, so she can work, go back to school to be able to support herself. Now libertarians are very black and white when it comes to this, they want to oust welfare for various reasons ranging from it being unconstitutional to the idea of welfare recipients having cognitive/behavioural problems. I do agree that it isn't anywhere in the constitution because this is a country that was built on self sufficiency- no handouts (FROM THE GOVERNMENT/TAXPAYER), and I do also agree w/ the fact that there are many non governmental agencies and non profits, and charities/philanthropists that help these people out, and are willing to help up and coming people who need financial assistance..

What is the problem with that again?? It's not government cheese aka our tax dollars so your going to have a beef w/ it??



It's a fine line though and the DNC will lose an election on principle if the people are wrong (getting good at it actually). But you pick your battles. Mike Badnarick or death? I'm not leading that charge against the grain.


Mike Badnarik or death eh? well, not so much in the physical sense more in the constitutional sense which is america's whole identity, why is it you wave the flag? what does it represent? current day politics or the rich history of this country and what those people fought for, attained, and made it almost impossible for current day politicians to change??

It all goes back to the consitution.. Isn't that document known for the great experiment? We'ren't you you told it's the people's responsibilty to preserve it, and if you can't do that then you don't deserve it?

It appears it's going through the process of a slow and painful death, and it's affecting everybody. Democrats and republicans want to pick through the amendments, change them to suit their agenda's and watch how it affects people in this nation. Patriot Act? Free speech zones? The Brady law? The over regulation of free speech on the air waves (fcc)? Media bias, control, and propaganda, not having to tell the truth to the people? Making the people believe that the federal government is the more powerful force in the country, not the states and not the people. Legislating morality, enforcing it through military might, take waco for example, that was total and utter bs what happened there, democrats across the board justified those actions of the clinton administration, that was the biggest slap in the face to american principles and the people, let's not forget about ruby ridge, holy sht balls, if you go back through the years and see all the unconstitutional/criminal acts this government has commited on both sides of the political spectrum I don't know how anybody could continue voting both parties. It's like it all gets swept under the rug, there is no three strikes your out, it's continuous head bashing against the wall hoping for a different outcome... It's insanity!




A progressive tax? You bet. Best thing since some guy invented sliced bread then had the patent swindled out from under him by a multinational corporation who made all the money on it pushing Paris Hilton's bread stock up in the process while the US Government deployed armed forces to protect her international wheat interests abroad.


Most income taxes are considered progressive, thats a nice way to white wash what it really is. Another wound in my side. We already have 3 taxes on our paychecks (fed, state, and fica), the more you make the higher the taxes get, hell we should just be low rents and have mediocre jobs that way the government can't get over on us. I can't believe your in favor of that. You keep using Paris Hilton to back your argument up, why don't you try using somebody who has WORKED all their lives to get to where they are today, or would that weaken your argument, and then you would feel bad for taking from somebody who has taken advantage of the free market and worked it over to the point where they could actually build their dream home in the mountains and have bedrooms for all three of their children, go on vacations, and perhaps even travel the world twice over? That's not well deserved? That bastard should be taxed more so then middle class and lower class all because his income is better? I'm sorry I just don't see the logic in that.. That idea is the same as in canada, you get your shoes shined if your poor, and if your well off and worked hard your penalized for it. not cool.



The top 2% probably get more "welfare" every day of the week



Probably?? You don't know for sure? How about ever two weeks if not every week their fica,fed, and state are half of their pay check, that's welfare? thats well-un-fair. That boils ones blood. Paris Hilton doesn't even get a pay check, and if she does get one, it's because she wore a top that exposed her flat chest and happened to have a hamburger in her mouth... She's lucky she doesn't have to work hard.
Common folks do, and common folks who work hard to gain wealth should not be penalized for making more then poor or middle class all those classes have made choices, some who are poor or middle are still working hard to attain their wealth, some of them are having problems, but you cannot just focus all your attention on the ones who are having problems and penalize the ones that aren't to help those poor folks out... middle upper class and upper class are still people, they too have families, they just happened to go to school longer, and they just happened to invent something that made them lot's of money or they run their own businesses which takes alot of work and time out of their day... again thats not fair to just ASSUME taxes don't affect them or wouldn't cheese them off...



They have lobbyists they pay millions to get their billions and favorable legislation for practically anything they want. Drilling in national parks? Sure! Pipeline in an unfriendly dictatorship? We'll get right on that. Anything else the government can do for you today Miss Hilton? Bail out your drinking buddy Neal Bush? Sure! What's another $153 billion to Texas Savings & Loans at this point...


Your talking about one extreme i'm talking about the common folks who've made a life for themself. Those people you are talking about are criminals, money launderer's, gambler's, and dirty businessmen, they don't need to be taxed to death, they need to go to jail, get heavy fines, and have everything taken away from them. And quit using Hilton, she hasn't done SHT!




8.2 million households with kids ate today.
God damnit!

I mean the whole US Department of Agriculture budget is $19.4 freaking billion dollars.


You just blame that one of cirumstance... There are various reasons for that, government isn't and shouldn't be at the helm for that. This is where your logic is flawed.. Your mad because the department of Agriculture's budget is $19.4 billions dollars, so only 8.2 million households w/ kids ate today... How is that the government fault?? Did the government pop those kids out of it's over sized crotch? Blaming doesn't do anything, why aren't the parents self sufficient? Why aren't the parents doing all that they can to ensure their children get their vitamins and minerals? What's the hold up?




And they don't even get around to "Supporting a Compassionate Society" by...


They??? The government? The government isn't there for that kind of thing, at least it wasn't mean to be in the beginning.. We've given this government to much power over the people, American's individually are compassionate, American's help out w/ homeless people, w/ poor people, donating clothes, money, canned good, to housing projects, ect... Why is it the government always gets blamed for not being compassionate enough? It's not their job! Stop giving them so much credence.




Providing important nutrition programs, including the Food Stamp, School Lunch, School Breakfast, and Child and Adult Care Food programs, and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children. And Helping tenants displaced from traditional rural multifamily housing units.


Look at all these programs... I'd seriously like to know how much money goes to those programs and how much money gets paid to the government workers of those programs, and administrative costs and overhead...

Right now the pentagon is overspending your tax dollars, a few years ago ice cube trays cost .80 cents, today those same ice cubes are $18, coffee maker's a few years back ( i dont even know why you need new coffee makers if you just purchased them a couple years ago) cost $20, the same ones today cost $40 dollars... So this is the kind of spending governments do. And I wouldn't be surprised if the same kind of horsesht goes on w/ those gov't programs...

Government cannot budget responsibly, they see the tax dollars come rolling in and they have a hay day w/ it, people get over payed, administrative costs go up, they put themselves in debt from over spending, ect.. It's a circular problem and it won't go away until we cut government spending through our tax dollars. The government has created one too many programs, if we hired auditer's in every government agency we would all have heart attacks to see how much money they've wasted.

Shouldn't local and state government set up those programs so you can at least see where your tax money is being spent, if you going to enforce programs at all?


Originally posted by RANT
No. I love talking about the facts. You need to get over it though because every angry white man (and woman) in this country has been full of # ever since Reagan fed it to them with a spoon. Your outrage is a planted diversion from the real culprits. FAT CATS and lobbyists.


I know about the fat cats and the lobbyists, but your generalizing, these fat cats and lobbyists aren't the kind of common folks i'm talking about.
Your talking about corporate America and the jackasses who don't give a sht about america, american's, and the consitution, i'd like throw tennis balls at the crotch of every single one of those aholes. Another reason why I wouldn't vote democrat is because people like you who divide american's into black and white like you just did create more social warfare and strife, more of a mess and alot more resources to clean it up.


You know, those "hard workers" you're protecting so. Why even hire lobbyists when the lower middle class (that think they're rich because they watch Fox) lobbies for them?


They do do they? That's odd, haven't heard that one before... I thought those people were called yuppied back in the 80s before fox even came out? Not to mention i'm pretty sure those that are middle class are aware of their financial situation more so then yourself and know they aren't making their millions because they have mouths to feed, bills to pay, and necessities to buy, and not that much money left over for trips and basketball games.




Here's another thing about the top 2%. Only 2% of us can get there. That's true no matter what you read on a lottery ticket.


That's a pretty negative comment, and i'm sorry you think that way, acquiring wealth is pretty simple if you have the persistence, long term goals, right frame of mind, and basic investing skills. Many folks partake in the art of Compounding, if you can't start there, you can start small, with small deals ie/ portfolio income/real estate which will eventually allow you to move onto bigger deals, Bigger portfolio's, bigger real estate deals, various business purchases, which will give you enough passive income to allow that money to work for you, not the other way around. There are so many outlet's when it comes to investing I could go on, but 2% of american's can only get there according to you? That is horsesht, and I find that very short sighted thinking, your telling me I think black and white?


Can you explain to me why democrats always seem to be pandering to these kinds of people?



Children and the middle class? 98% of America? Cause they're cute? WTF?


So your saying 98% of American's are poor or on welfare?



Spewing bs about how they need new programs for them, and how they promise if they are elected the health care system will be one of which won't cost them anything.



I would vote for that guy, but he never ran. Where the hell do you get the democratic platform from anyway? Mike Savage?


John Kerry, that who... And most of all the other democratic presidential candidates that ran. They promise all these wonderful things such as free health care, and prgorams for this, and programs for that, but they never say where tha tmoney's going ot come from...
And then Kerry talked about a tax cut, a tax cut?! Oh, thats cute, we're all going to get tax cuts, free health care, and programs to ensure every American is taken care of! That's rich... Maybe if Tersea Hines was going to pay for all of us it could work out that way like it did for him, but I doubt that. He has no real grasp on reality that dude.




That Cadillac driving welfare queen making $50K a year still bugging ya is it? News flash: Reagan was a liar. He waged class (and race) warfare by sticking that bunk in your brain. That's why you people
are so angry. That and conservatives had absolute power the past 5 years and raised welfare instead of cut it.


It appears you are the one that is angry that conservatives have had power for the last 5 years, I don't know enough about Reagan as I was still in diapers and in canada, so I can't be mad or agree w/ your fact that you think he was a liar. You think he waged class and race warfare? You could be right, I noticed in your posts that you are guilty of the same thing you accuse him of and at the same time I can make the argument that Carter and Johnson both were guilty of that same thing as well...




Executive conclusion: I'm right, you're wrong. Conservatives are easily fooled by people on the TV. And Libertarians suck eggs.


Well Democrats suck rotten eggs and look like cottage cheese, if any party is going to bring america back from the ruins, corruption, and over spending of tax payer money it's going to be the libertarians. They're going to have to make lot's cuts, go over so much paper work, shut down certain government agencies that are unconstitutional to have in the first place, they're going to have to withdraw military from various countries, they're going to have to re enact any law that was taken away that was based on american's freedom, and many people will be released from prison on drug charges like carrying 2 joints on them, or dealing, much money will be saved because the war on drugs will be no more, our relationship with other countries around the world will be mended and we'll start over and learn to leave everybody alone and NOT PUSH FOR A UNI-POLAR WORLD w/ America at the top of every decision making process, power to the states will be re-instated as well at the local level, federal/centralized government will be cut so low people will have faith in their country again and realise they have more power then the government, criminals will still be treated as criminals, but the ones who were making personal choices that only affected their person will be set free. Need I go on?

Both dominant parties suck, the above is the way America is supposed to be, if you don't like that way and think it sucks you should move to canada.


Now. If you'd like to win me over, tell me how the Libertarian Party would have handled the space race? Oh that's right, we'd still be working on the car.


The space race?
How immature was that...

First off, the private sector and the government are two totally different things, if people wanted to go into space it would happen, the car wouldn't of been invented as it's not the federal government's job to create and invent objects such as that. The private sector is what created cars, but thats the democratic train of thought shining through once again, thinking thats all the government doing...



I know, I know. Free market. We'd rent rides from the Soviets. Super!



You can't have and hold a strong argument based off an element of pre-supposition due to mis-information.

Nowadays people put too much stock into their government when it comes time to create,innovate, maintain, and show it off to the world to gain supremacy over other countries. The people in that former government shouldn't of been so immature and aggressive...

Who's to say that situation would of even happened at all if a different brand of government would of been in washington? Any government that is willing to flex their arm on another country wouldn't hesitate to flex it on you. And I can honestly say that a libertarian styled government wouldn't of even been in that situation, they would tried to avoid it, not meet it head on and gamble with the possibility of a full fledged nuclear war.
Back then the soviet's were threatening america I understand that, and Libertarian's would of done everything they could of to protect you, and I, the homeland, they would tried different constitutional avenue's to make piece. Apart from that, the soviet union would of fallen anyway because they had no incoming monies, trade, ect, it was continuous circulation, and they wouldn't of been able to maintain the kind of stature they were trying to acquire to show off to the world. That place was a mess, the only thing that made tha tcountry look good was the military, and even then they could barely afford to keep it running. They would of used up all their resources if a war would of broke out and they would of had to surrender to a free and open marketed country... So don't be bashing the free market.


Apart from that, your pretty much agreeing w/ that former 'conservative' administration, you should go wash your mouth out with soap.



posted on Oct, 25 2005 @ 10:15 PM
link   
I'm not saying we have a disconnect to be mean. I'm saying you aren't understanding anything I say. I get you. I understand the libertarians position; I just don't agree with it. And it's fine you don't agree with my position, but you're misrepresenting it.

What you disagree with isn't even what I'm saying half the time.

I'm not mad 8 million kids ate today. I'm saying it's ridiculous for you to be mad they did. I'm not mad about the agriculture budget either (which is where food stamps come from). I'm showing you how small it is. That's a fraction of our budget and one fifth of 1% of our debt. That's 0.0025 parts of $8 trillion dollars.

And the overwhelming majority of it goes to things NOT "compassionate" which was my point. And I'm not mad about that either. I'm glad farmers get secured federal loans and guaranteed sorghum prices and electricity in the middle of nowhere. All liberal values.

But my point is the thing you're so mad about is NOTHING. A fraction of that fraction of that fraction. I worked it our for a co-worker a few years back when I had the breakouts you were asking for in front of me (foodstamps, etc.). Not an easy task given government accounting. Blew his ever lovin' Limbaugh listening mind to learn it cost something like him 12 cents every two weeks (I think it was) to feed starving Americans. Considering Neal Bush's Savings & Loan bail out alone cost each American over $500. This is what you're not getting.

I get what you're saying. Why pay for any of it?

Because we want to when it comes to some stuff. That's on behalf of 99% of the country that didn't vote Libertarian.

The diversion I keep trying to point out though is "the welfare state" portion is a Reagan waged ruse. It's the conservative diversion for the real pork I keep pointing out. I'm sure you're mad about that too, but your outrage is so out of whack.

The Democratic Party is FOR the middle class sunshine. It invented it. Get over the poor people thing. Screw them and Paris Hilton. When I say 98% I mean 98%. 98% of America would have gotten lower taxes under Kerry. 2% would have had it re-adjusted to the same rate from solvent years. And half of those people voted for Kerry! It's the totally duped angry white middle class that went Retardican. The ones that would have got the tax cut I keep trying to tell you was the "free healthcare." It's not free healthcare, Jesus Christ and you never heard it was from John Kerry.

A tax credit, that's money back to spend on private insurance. Gah!

My mind to your mind. My thoughts to your thoughts. This isn't working.



posted on Oct, 25 2005 @ 10:34 PM
link   
This is what "libertarian roots" America looked like before the Democratic Party fixed it.



There was no middle class. It was unionized and regulated into existence.

Enjoy your freedom to criticize the results. But know where you came from.



posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by RANT
I'm not saying we have a disconnect to be mean. I'm saying you aren't understanding anything I say.


You don't like what im saying, i am not being disconnected...



What you disagree with isn't even what I'm saying half the time.


well thats odd... i thought i was disagreeing w/ something you said in your previous post.. Perhaps you need to be clearer, instead of leaving me to guess what your trying to say.


I'm not mad 8 million kids ate today. I'm saying it's ridiculous for you to be mad they did. I'm not mad about the agriculture budget either (which is where food stamps come from). I'm showing you how small it is.


I'm not mad that they ate lol, i wish more could of been it's not the governments job to feed people, unless of course you live in a socialist country where the government takes care of everybody.

There are other organizations and charities out there that can take care of that... and there are many and i dont have a qualm w/ that because thats the beauty of have a free market and a compassionate society.
It's just not the gov'ts job.




That's a fraction of our budget and one fifth of 1% of our debt. That's 0.0025 parts of $8 trillion dollars.


ok, but the point is, on principle it's not right, because thats now what the us government was set up for.


And the overwhelming majority of it goes to things NOT "compassionate" which was my point.


Which is why your a liberal... And that's good, i'm compassionate to, and if i had a bazillion dollars i'd open up charities and organizations and try to fix everything, but it's not the gov't job to be compassionate, the government is there for certain things, not to nanny or be santa claus.



And I'm not mad about that either. I'm glad farmers get secured federal loans and guaranteed sorghum prices and electricity in the middle of nowhere. All liberal values.


no comment.



But my point is the thing you're so mad about is NOTHING. A fraction of that fraction of that fraction.


I'm mad about alot of things going on in current day government, we're only talking about a fraction of a fraction of a fraction... I'm very peeved, at both sides, for good reasons, you want a liberal style government, that has nothing to do w/ america's founding principles, and yet people pick and choose what htey want to hold on to from those principles when it's convenient for them, and i'm saying you cannot be that way, it will fck literally this whole country up... We are still in and living in the 'great' experiment.. If it gets fcked up, this country will become the next canada, or the next spain, russia, or uk...





Because we want to when it comes to some stuff. That's on behalf of 99% of the country that didn't vote Libertarian.


It just goes to show how far people have strayed from their roots...


The diversion I keep trying to point out though is "the welfare state" portion is a Reagan waged ruse. It's the conservative diversion for the real pork I keep pointing out. I'm sure you're mad about that too, but your outrage is so out of whack.


no comment, ill go on about this forever... you place blame on reagen yet you vote for those who would still encourage it... how out of whack is that?




The Democratic Party is FOR the middle class sunshine. It invented it.


Therefore it created class warfare, and eventually racial warfare..
Not only does it support the middle class, it also poo pooh's on those who move out of the middle class and up the rung... If you live the american dream and you a liberal government your sht on for it.



Get over the poor people thing. Screw them and Paris Hilton.


??? screw all those who aren't middle class?? I can't get over the poor people thing because it's just not about poor people, it's about wealthy pepole too... you create class warfare but then you say well screw those who aren't middle class?? you post that black and white picture about america before liberals came along? your logic doesn't make sense.


And i'm not going to respond anymore to your comments below because we're just going to go around and around... you poo poo the libertarian's yet you dont see the non-sequiter's in your own thinking...




posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by RANT
This is what "libertarian roots" America looked like before the Democratic Party fixed it.



There was no middle class. It was unionized and regulated into existence.

Enjoy your freedom to criticize the results. But know where you came from.


And here's a picture depicting the truth about how life was for some during the dominant democrat/republican political arena...




posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 11:55 AM
link   
Why would going back to the routes be a good thing though?

No limit on the press? In the modern World? We nearly have a system where One-Man owns the whole of the press industry, if he wasn't limited the amount of power he got would double over-night.

Many amendments to the constitution are needed, if you look at it from a logical view-point for a moment.



posted on Nov, 2 2005 @ 09:58 AM
link   
Rant

I don't think it has to be that way. Because we call for smaller government does not mean we are looking for less responcible government, or even a government that does not reflect the will of the people.

I am wondering, though, what "advances" are you talking about? Because most of it would include the subvertion of state governments by the Fed to centralize money and remove more and more free money from this country.

Just a thought.



posted on Nov, 2 2005 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Flinx
2008: Should I support a Libertarian Candiadate?

If you want to help the republican's win, sure.

The best way to undue the work of the 'evil corporations that control both parties' thru a presidential election is to control who the party's candidate is by being involved in the primary process, not by voting for a third party candidate.

3rd parties need to give up the lunatic goal of winning a presidential election, its not going to happen anytime soon. Rather, a group like the libertarians, who have a fundamental ideological difference in terms of how government is supposed to work, should demonstrate that it works by seeking a governorship, or even getting a hard core libertarian in as the mayor of a large metropolitan city (heck they may've done this already, anyone know?)

But they are simply not going to sweep the presidential elections up outta no where. The whigs were'nt done in because of loosing a presidential election, for example.


I do have a quite a problem with Hillary Clinton.

Lots of democrats do, for lots of reasons. Thats why she isn't going to get the backing of the party. Besides, you don't need a big name like Clinton to beat, well who exactly, Frist? Santorum?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join