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.

 

Libertarians-Isn't it annoying to see neo-cons trying to co opt your ethos?

page: 2
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by incrediblelousminds
 


How?

I know quite a few libertarian republicans. Personally I consider myself a conservative libertarian.

Your whole "if it's not one thing it MUST be another" mentality is frustratingly annoying.


Republicans calling themselves libertarian is as logical as Democrats calling themselves anti-war.

You are more than welcome to call yourself whatever you want. I, personally find it a contradiction to support a party that consistently supports more and bigger government while calling yourself a libertarian. Maybe not frustratingly annoying, but noteworthy as far as political contradictions go.




posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by macman
 


Facts don't matter here mac. only snide accusation and a feeling self-aggrandizing the OP gets from trying to put down anyone who doesn't agree with his rigidly binary and accusatory definitions.
edit on 25-6-2011 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by projectvxn
 


You seem upset that I dare challenge you to come to terms with the dissonance created by claiming to be both a Republican and a libertarian. Im sorry if such direct reasoning offends your sense of decorum.

Again, I fail to see how someone can champion the pro-big-gov approach of the Republican party with the small government claims of libertarians. Despite what you claim, one can not be both at the same time. Just like one cant vote for Obama and claim to be ant-war.



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 02:19 PM
link   
reply to post by incrediblelousminds
 


Where's the contradiction?

A republican can't be libertarian? What about conservative democrats? They do exists.

What about liberal republicans? Yes, they do exist.

Politics are more complex than the box you wish to put everyone in.



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by incrediblelousminds
 


Where's the contradiction?

A republican can't be libertarian? What about conservative democrats? They do exists.

What about liberal republicans? Yes, they do exist.

Politics are more complex than the box you wish to put everyone in.


Yes, it is a contradiction. Why you fail to see this is beyond me, but you are in good company. Many Republicans apparently believe they can support a party who has led to more debt, more foreign wars,bigger government and less personal freedom while claiming to believe in a philosophy that believes the exact opposite.

But it doesnt make it true.



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by incrediblelousminds
 


I never claimed to be a republican.



You seem upset that I dare challenge you to come to terms with the dissonance created by claiming to be both a Republican and a libertarian. Im sorry if such direct reasoning offends your sense of decorum.


Hey mac if you're paying attention to this crap still...here's the "I'm better than you" attitude I was talking about. He isn't worth it.

I'm done with this guy.
edit on 25-6-2011 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-6-2011 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by projectvxn


Hey mac if you're paying attention to this crap still...here's the "I'm better than you" attitude I was talking about. He isn't worth it.

I'm done with this guy.


I'm sorry that you are incapable of defending your claims that one can support big government and big military while claiming to be a Libertarian. But I appreciate your contribution to the thread nonetheless because you are highlighting the kind of hypocrisy and contradiction that I am trying to address in this thread. So, thanks for playing, be well

edit on 25-6-2011 by incrediblelousminds because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by incrediblelousminds
 





You seem upset that I dare challenge you to come to terms with the dissonance created by claiming to be both a Republican and a libertarian. Im sorry if such direct reasoning offends your sense of decorum.


Hey mac if you're paying attention to this crap still...he's the "I'm better than you" attitude I was talking about. He isn't worth it.

I'm done with this guy.


Not only that, the fact that he states one can't mix with the other, and Neo-Cons have an all or none mentality, yet this is how he postulates in the "My way or the Highway" idea it very much like Obama himself.
Say one thing, do another and expect everyone to do something completely different.


I say Ron Paul 2012.



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by macman


Not only that, the fact that he states one can't mix with the other, and Neo-Cons have an all or none mentality, yet this is how he postulates in the "My way or the Highway" idea it very much like Obama himself.
Say one thing, do another and expect everyone to do something completely different.



What? How have I contradicted myself?
I'm asking how someone can say they can support a party that believes in BIGGER government while claiming they believe in a philosophy that supports smaller government.

But if you just want to attack me, instead of discussing the topic, that appears to be within your rights. Maybe you should call me an Obamabot, too. I notice you do that when backed into a corner.


edit on 25-6-2011 by incrediblelousminds because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by incrediblelousminds
 


You weren't asking anything. You were busy accusing people of being neocons just because they may be republicans. And then saying if they are a republican, there is NO WAY IN HELL they can believe in personal freedom, economic liberty. Or if they believe in a strong national defense, that it really means they wanna invade every country in the world..

Believe me, I've had this conversation with your kind of "logic" a million times before. You're not original.



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by incrediblelousminds
 


You weren't asking anything. You were busy accusing people of being neocons just because they may be republicans. And then saying if they are a republican, there is NO WAY IN HELL they can believe in personal freedom, economic liberty. Or if they believe in a strong national defense, that it really means they wanna invade every country in the world..

Believe me, I've had this conversation with your kind of "logic" a million times before. You're not original.


Thanks for returning!

So you think someone can be a Republican, a party that believes in bigger government, while claiming to a be a libertarian, a philosophy that espouses smaller government. I think it's a contradiction, but you seem to disagree. Can you defend your claims? I'm a bit confused how someone can be both big government and little government at the same time. Thanks in advance!

As for 'accusing' people of being neo-cons, I'm curious why you keep getting stuck on that point. anyone who supported the previous Republican administration was, by definition, a neo-con.You seem to think it is merely an epithet, and not a political definition. Feel free to look it up before yo get offended.
So, again, how can you support a political party that encourages MORE debt, MORE spending, and more wars, while claiming to be a libertarian? If it's not a contradiction, explain it.
edit on 25-6-2011 by incrediblelousminds because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds

Originally posted by macman


Not only that, the fact that he states one can't mix with the other, and Neo-Cons have an all or none mentality, yet this is how he postulates in the "My way or the Highway" idea it very much like Obama himself.
Say one thing, do another and expect everyone to do something completely different.



What? How have I contradicted myself?
I'm asking how someone can say they can support a party that believes in BIGGER government while claiming they believe in a philosophy that supports smaller government.

But if you just want to attack me, instead of discussing the topic, that appears to be within your rights. Maybe you should call me an Obamabot, too. I notice you do that when backed into a corner.


edit on 25-6-2011 by incrediblelousminds because: (no reason given)


Please show me where I have used "Obamabot"...

Please please please.

If you want to retort in the Alinsky way, you will be treated as such.

If you want to ask viable questions and get truths, then act accordingly.

I support any party or representative that is for smaller and less intrusive Govt. Less Public dependency on Govt. No nation building crap, if we go to war, scorched earth.
Abolish the Fed reserve, IRS and Department of Education. Flat tax.
Remove all troops from the ME, let them hash it out on their own. Secure the border, and I mean SECURE the border.

Anything else left open for speculation as to where I stand?



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 02:40 PM
link   
"Annoying" isn't the right word.

Maybe "disheartening" would be more accurate. I think we have to accept that most Americans are so gullible and impressionable that they can't tell an apple from an orange, if you call the apple an orange. Mix in some racism, and other elements of ignorant "populism" ("I like him, he's one of us" thinking) and we have the modern tea party. Very easy folks to manipulate, nothing at all like Dr. Paul's original supporters. And yes, the leaders of this movement are nothing more than re-branded neo-cons, practically fascists in their ideology. And the followers are largely authoritarian types that eat it up.

That's one reason labels are so difficult to manage politically. The larger number of us tend to accept the label as identical to the thing labeled. And most people have neither the time nor the inclination to do their research into candidates pasts. You can never "take back" your movement...it's gone, the new folks don't even believe in the fundamentals that started it. Here's an excellent article about Michele Bachmann if anyone cares:
www.rollingstone.com...

A great example of who the new leaders of the tea party really are.

I'm still voting for Dr. Paul, but I wish he would loudly, clearly denounce this "tea party" and distance himself from it. It doesn't even vaguely resemble his ideals.



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 02:41 PM
link   

edit on 25-6-2011 by incrediblelousminds because: off topic



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by incrediblelousminds
 


Being in the republican party, or even in the democratic party, does not automatically mean you're for big government.

For instance, not all democrats are for gun control.. Without those pro-gun democrats things would look very different in the US for the American gun owner.

Not all republicans agree with going to war. Not all republicans are pro-life.

Not all democrats like Obama and approve of his war in Libya.

But you seem to want to lump everyone together. You seem to refuse to acknowledge that in every party or group of people there are individuals who think for themselves and don't always follow the party line. And if it doesn't jive with your idea of what it all means...Well...We must ALL be neocons then right?



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 02:44 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 02:45 PM
link   

edit on 25-6-2011 by incrediblelousminds because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by incrediblelousminds
 


Being in the republican party, or even in the democratic party, does not automatically mean you're for big government.

For instance, not all democrats are for gun control.. Without those pro-gun democrats things would look very different in the US for the American gun owner.

Not all republicans agree with going to war. Not all republicans are pro-life.

Not all democrats like Obama and approve of his war in Libya.

But you seem to want to lump everyone together. You seem to refuse to acknowledge that in every party or group of people there are individuals who think for themselves and don't always follow the party line. And if it doesn't jive with your idea of what it all means...Well...We must ALL be neocons then right?


I'm not sure if you are intentionally obfuscating the point or not.

My only point is that one can not be supportive of the GOP while claiming to be a libertarian. You can do it, but it wont be true. Just like you cant claim to be anti-war while supporting the Democrats. Everything esle you are rambling on about seems to be in an attempt to distort this reality.



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 02:53 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join