Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think what you were struggling to say is, "How often do you beat your wife?" And you're misapplying it.
I said what I meant and I meant what I said. If you can proscribe actions you think I should take and wonder why I do not I can ask you why you do not do things.
The answer is simple but as you can see from my reply above, simple answers are even missed by some.
Quote:
That's fine. If I'm being honest, in reading this thread, I don't get the slightest impression you have an understanding of what libertarians believe and their philosophy, in general. Consequently, I don't think you are in a position to judge the value of my salt.
LOL, does everyone who considers themselves a "liberal" hold to the exact same unwavering beliefs? There are liberals that are extremely upset with Obama when he claims he can kill American citizens with no explanation as to why and others that cheer him on.
No, what we have here is because you can not argue against beliefs that the government should not be spying on it's citizens you feel you have to demand that those who hold those beliefs must accept other beliefs that you feel you can argue against.
Libertarians do not believe that there should be no government, just that it should be limited from what it is today. But yet, argument after argument from those who can't defend the bloated mess the government has become continue to argue that libertarians do or should believe in no government.
The shortcoming is with you.
Quote:
A terrific one-sentence bit of babble. I've explained, in contrast to this bit of dreck, quite clearly what libertarians believe of the state and the superiority of the private sector in providing services. Given that there is no requirement in the Constitution that the state provide a public military, it makes no sense for a libertarian to advocate a socialized military. One sentence of babble is a particularly poor way of attempting to avoid responding to the substance of this point.
I believe cometclears beat their dogs.
Quote:
And this is where you reveal a profound lack understanding of American libertarianism.
I will grant that you are the utmost expert on your opinion but I also know that nobody died and made you the expert here.
It's not who carries out or refrains from doing things that is important. I do not support private entities spying on us any more than the government. That is what throws you. You are unable to make a sane rational argument why they should be.
Can anyone explain why or why not a President of the Libertarian Party would be better or worse than a Republican or Democrat? I personally think Libertarianism is the perfect compromise for both parties. Any thoughts?
You shouldn't use Republicans or Democrats because those aren't ideologies. Generally these days, although Republicans are conservative not all Democrats are liberals. There are a number of conservative Democrats.
Thus, the presumption that Libertarianism is a compromise between liberals and conservatives is false. Libertarianism is a more extreme version of conservatism that rejects the almost all use of government. So, if a Republican presidential candidate, such as Romney and McCain, who embraced the policies of lowering taxes and cutting programs for the poor, couldn't get elected, what makes one think that a Libertarian candidate that advocated more conservative policies like cutting taxes; cutting programs for the poor; eliminating Social Security and Medicare, etc., would get elected?
Social Security and Medicare are very popular programs -- especially among the elderly and they vote.
On environmental protection, this is from the LP website:
Quote:
We support a clean and healthy environment and sensible use of our natural resources. Private landowners and conservation groups have a vested interest in maintaining natural resources. Pollution and misuse of resources cause damage to our ecosystem. Governments, unlike private businesses, are unaccountable for such damage done to our environment and have a terrible track record when it comes to environmental protection. Protecting the environment requires a clear definition and enforcement of individual rights in resources like land, water, air, and wildlife. Free markets and property rights stimulate the technological innovations and behavioral changes required to protect our environment and ecosystems. We realize that our planet's climate is constantly changing, but environmental advocates and social pressure are the most effective means of changing public behavior.
The libertarian theory of environmental protection is that the free market will protect the environment. That goes against the lessons of history. When left to their own means, the free market polluted the water, land and air. It was only after intervention of government did this improve.
On environmental protection, this is from the LP website:
The libertarian theory of environmental protection is that the free market will protect the environment. That goes against the lessons of history. When left to their own means, the free market polluted the water, land and air. It was only after intervention of government did this improve.
That is the Libertarian theory of civil rights as well, e.g. when left to their own means, business owners will not discriminate against blacks (or others) b/c it would be bad for business. Again, history proves them wrong. Again, it took government intervention.
So you will vote for someone you disagree with because that is what the pack does?
Must be what you do. Your words, not mine. Please apply your phony thoughts to your own actions instead of projecting them onto others. That's a losing proposition.
You shouldn't use Republicans or Democrats because those aren't ideologies. Generally these days, although Republicans are conservative not all Democrats are liberals. There are a number of conservative Democrats.
Thus, the presumption that Libertarianism is a compromise between liberals and conservatives is false. Libertarianism is a more extreme version of conservatism that rejects the almost all use of government.
Libertarians argue that the government should not be spying on it's citizens or targeting them for death without due process. This was once the arguments of liberals. Luckily there are still a few that hold to their beliefs like the ACLU.
Quote:
So, if a Republican presidential candidate, such as Romney and McCain, who embraced the policies of lowering taxes and cutting programs for the poor, couldn't get elected, what makes one think that a Libertarian candidate that advocated more conservative policies like cutting taxes; cutting programs for the poor; eliminating Social Security and Medicare, etc., would get elected?
Getting elected and being right are obviously two different things. Our elected leaders are doing very few things right.
Quote:
Social Security and Medicare are very popular programs -- especially among the elderly and they vote.
And both are far more complicated things than "end them".
Quote:
On environmental protection, this is from the LP website:
The libertarian theory of environmental protection is that the free market will protect the environment. That goes against the lessons of history. When left to their own means, the free market polluted the water, land and air. It was only after intervention of government did this improve.
I grew up in Cleveland Ohio. When I was young the lake front was a big mess. I still can recall the graffiti on a break wall. "Help me I'm dying". It was there for years.
The government did not clean this mess up. The government nearly ran the city into bankruptcy. Individuals cleaned it up. Those who wanted a vibrant lake front cleaned it up. Those who wanted a nice area for the R&R HOF, Science Museum and new stadium cleaned it up.
Why vote for someone who will most likely damage the country instead of someone who could try to change the country in a better way? That makes zero sense to me...
Makes zero sense to anyone. Must be why you fabricate this nonsense and then accuse others of committing such an act.
Stop being a phony, please.
Quote:
And every vote counts so if you decide not to "waste" a vote on a Libertarian candidate then its still not doing any good for anyone besides people like Obama.
I voted for Obama. My vote was not wasted. He won, btw.
Two men on an island are hungry. One man catches five fish and gives two to his companion. Liberals complain inequality has increased.
The man with two fish eats one of his fish before his companion even begins to eat. Liberals complain inequality has doubled.
We could do this all day.
If there is a liberal around he has to get a fishing license first, which mean he needs a job. Since he has a job he must get a social security number and pay into the system. The poor bastard is bad at math and messes up his taxes so the IRS shows up at his house to confiscate his belongings. Along with a bunch of other stuff they take his fishing pole which means he was never able to catch the fish in the first place.
Libertarians argue that the government should not be spying on it's citizens or targeting them for death without due process. This was once the arguments of liberals. Luckily there are still a few that hold to their beliefs like the ACLU.
A very good example of why the rant that Obama is a radical leftist is wrong. Michael Moore is a radical leftist and he road the Capital in a van proclaiming why the Parriot Act was anti-democratic. Most liberals are against government spying. Mr. Obama is a center-right president.
If there is a liberal around he has to get a fishing license first, which mean he needs a job. Since he has a job he must get a social security number and pay into the system. The poor bastard is bad at math and messes up his taxes so the IRS shows up at his house to confiscate his belongings. Along with a bunch of other stuff they take his fishing pole which means he was never able to catch the fish in the first place.
Nice story, because that's what it is. The IRS doesn't show up to confiscate one's home at the first step if taxes are computed wrong. The IRS will send a notice billing the taxpayer who computed their taxes wrong. Only after a long period of the taxpayer not responding will the IRS take other steps and I doubt the IRS would confiscate real estate for an underpayment of taxes.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
