Libertarians are becoming the new Republican party. Out with the Good `ol Boys. (drug, accuse)

[momonkey]

Originally Posted by banjomike

What is a position of the collection?-- oh- wait; I see you changed the word to 'collective'. So what is a position in the collective? What collective are you talking about? The only one I'm familiar with is the local farmer's co-op I like to buy my truck tires from. I know there's a local book collective, but I've never visited that store.


Bent- watch your commas, bro. You scattered so many in there that it is very hard to understand what you're trying to say.
Are you saying 'the good old boys', whoever they are, are not as conservative as the new old boys?
Or are you trying to say the Constitutionalists are going to be more pure in soul and un-corruptible than the mainstream members of both parties? if that's the point of your scramble, I don't think so. Newbies to government are always the first with their hands out- they always have big election bills to pay off.

I live in a state chock full of Libertarians, and not a single one of them has been elected to any state position. Half of the ones I know still lean Democratic. After 30 years of fringe, the Libertarian Party is still just as fringy as it was in the 70's when it first began. Not to worry, though. You can count on a very solid 2% of the vote in every election. That 2% sure gives me a bad case of the night sweats.

You're missing the point.

Sure, it's easy enough for a political organization or candidate to win elections if they sell out to interest groups, corporations, unions and anyone else who wants to pimp the system and **** all over the Constitution, but those of us in the Tea Party movement don't want to compete for the votes of the uninformed and self-serving.

We already have two parties doing that.

The strategy is to gradually take over the Republican Party from within.

Of course this will take time, and there will definitely be some squealing before it's all done, but that's the only practical solution.

[geofra]

Originally Posted by momonkey

You're missing the point.

Sure, it's easy enough for a political organization or candidate to win elections if they sell out to interest groups, corporations, unions and anyone else who wants to pimp the system and **** all over the Constitution, but those of us in the Tea Party movement don't want to compete for the votes of the uninformed and self-serving.

We already have two parties doing that.

The strategy is to gradually take over the Republican Party from within.

Of course this will take time, and there will definitely be some squealing before it's all done, but that's the only practical solution.

This is <*big L*> Libertarianism: branding, infiltration, usurpation, banishment of opposing ideas. And the strategy is described as "practical".

Once you go to <*big L*> can you ever go home to <*small l*> again?

[BentBow]

Originally Posted by momonkey

You're missing the point.

Sure, it's easy enough for a political organization or candidate to win elections if they sell out to interest groups, corporations, unions and anyone else who wants to pimp the system and **** all over the Constitution, but those of us in the Tea Party movement don't want to compete for the votes of the uninformed and self-serving.

We already have two parties doing that.

The strategy is to gradually take over the Republican Party from within.

Of course this will take time, and there will definitely be some squealing before it's all done, but that's the only practical solution.

If the Progressives are squealing, we are headed in the correct direction away from collective socialism, and back to individual liberties.

[Greg_IA]

A big government Republican is still part of the problem.

We need a smaller federal government. What we have now is destroying us.

If the Republicans nominate someone like Chris Christie, I will be voting for someone else.

[NHartphotog]

Originally Posted by Mr. Mon

That's all well and good, but the reality is the pursuit of ideological purity and "Constitutional views" is that every candidate now falls prey to the No True Scotsman fallacy. One person's definition of what a Constituional view is is not going to be the same as another's, and what constitutes a libertarian these days could range from an anarcho-capitalist, to a pie in the sky Randian, to the most liberal lib to ever lib a lib.

Libertarians would probably affect more change in the Democratic Party since there's no insistence on ideological purity, and a lot more openness to social freedoms. But for some reason they've thrown their lot in with the party of ultra wealthy and the theocratic. Which makes me think that the basis of many self-professed libertarians is financial greed, lack of empathy and dislike of "the other" instead of actual liberty.

Libertarians should support the Democratic Party? The party of even more taxes (which hit the working class, not the truly rich), paying for a gigantic Big Government sending checks to everyone who doesn't want to work--including terrorists like the Boston Bombers? The party for endless government oversight and regulations that kill small and mid-sized business, while allowing Big Business to thrive? The party that believes the insane financial irresponsibility of Big Government racking up unsupportable debt and devaluing the dollar must continue right up until hyperinflation or Greece-style collapse?

So if I am a Libertarian, you think I am "greedy" because when my spouse and I work incredibly hard and pay for advanced education, sacrifice endless hours at work instead of enjoying life, desperately try to save for retirement, and drive 10-year old beat-up cars, I object to sending the financial equivalent of a luxury SUV to Washington every year...to pay for foreign wars, a massive bureaucracy, "stimulus" and "bailouts" that serve only the ultra-rich, as well as a power structure that threatens the very survival of our nation?

So you think I "lack empathy" if I would rather give money directly to worthy charities that have very low overhead costs, rather than sending $1,000 to a Big Government bureaucracy in the hope that a single penny eventually makes it back to someone who actually needs help?

You think somehow the idea of small and limited government, and people being free to live their lives so long as they do not harm others, has nothing to do with personal liberty--but simply means I'm a racist?
A Libertarian who would not promote welfare dependency, who would not destroy African-American communities by putting most of their male population in jail due to drug use, who would not give jobs and promotions to people solely because of their race...in other words, someone who supports a color-blind society that does not give any race special preference over any other, is the racist here? Do you not see the irony?

The fact is, the two party system is a facade that gives Americans the false idea that they have representation in their government. We are give two parties to choose from, and elections almost uniformly end up almost exactly in a 50-50 tie. But how can this be, when polls consistently show that 40% of Americans describe their views as conservative, 35% as moderate, and 21% as liberal? Conservatives Remain the Largest Ideological Group in U.S. With twice as many conservatives as liberals, why doesn't the party that represents conservatives always win?

Why? Because the Republican Party is designed to alienate a significant number of voters. First of all, they do lip service to fiscal responsibility, and then continue to grow government size and spending when in power (Reagan being the best example). Next, they absolutely infuriate Libertarians by voting for "a strong military"--which is government-speak for a massive Military Industrial Complex that keeps the world at constant war and is the power base of centralized Big Government. Third, they cater to religious fanatics on the abortion issue, which is totally inconsistent with non-intrusive government. By doing these three things, the Republican Party takes their numerical advantage and throws it away. I do not think this is an error, or a miscalculation, or anything but the product of intent and design.

The Republican Party will never represent Libertarian ideals, because if they did, they would win--every time--making it impossible to hide the fact that Washington's actions are way, way to the left of the average American. With the constant flip between parties, citizens inevitably blame the opposite party--and Obama leads the parade, pretending we'd have utopia if he got his way in everything. News flash, people, he got his way in everything. And we'll be paying the price for a very long time.

When the Republicans joined the Democrat Party in dismissing Ron Paul, and desperately trying to convince gullible citizens that Libertarians are crazy and radical, we all knew this was a huge charade where both parties worked together to ensure that nothing ever changes in Washington. We had a guy who outright stated that he was going to FIX the critical problems of our massive oversized military; the $1 trillion Drug War that has destroyed the African American family and communities; the vast amounts of worker's wages going to a grossly inefficient, corrupt, centralized government; and the federal over spending and fiscal policies so damaging to the economy that total economic collapse approaches. But were we allowed to vote for him? Of course not.

[bUU]

Originally Posted by momonkey

Right-wing religious reactionaries wrote and ratified the Constitution.

False. Many of the founders of this country were members of my religion, not yours, and they and their contemporaries were generally the religious liberals of their day.

Originally Posted by momonkey

Oh, and they were anti-government ... too.

This much was true.

Originally Posted by HappyTexan

Wake up. Government ISN'T serving the people.

You wake up: Government isn't serving you (or so you need to claim, to rationalize your objections).

Government is serving the people.

Originally Posted by HappyTexan

Just look at who benefits and who ends up being dependent or taxed.

No system is perfect, but you support a political party that advocates for religious subjugation, reckless exploitation, and immoral neglect of society's responsibility to justice.

Originally Posted by momonkey

but those of us in the Tea Party movement don't want to compete for the votes of the uninformed and self-serving.

The Tea Party movement wants to covert more Americans into self-centered avaricious greed-mongers, washed of any sense of compassion and moral obligation to one's neighbors and society.

Originally Posted by momonkey

The strategy is to gradually take over the Republican Party from within.

I suspect what will eventually happen is either (a) that the Tea Party movement will fail; or (b) in its effort to take over the GOP it will succeed in splitting it into two parties. To the Tea Party's credit, it will likely have converted about two-thirds of Republicans over to its immorally selfish demeanor by then, and so will be very firmly the second party, while the religious reactionaries with a conscience, who repudiate the Tea Party, will be very firmly a third party, utterly marginalized. Time will tell.

Originally Posted by BentBow

If the Progressives are squealing, we are headed in the correct direction away from collective socialism, and back to individual liberties.

And the ACA is step one in that direction. Uh huh.

Originally Posted by Greg_IA

If the Republicans nominate someone like Chris Christie, I will be voting for someone else.

The problem that the GOP has is that it can only win reliably with someone like Chris Christie. A hardcore Koch Brothers sycophant cannot win, because it shows the corrupted nature of Republican perspective far to baldly. That's how the Republicans ended up nominating Romney (a.k.a. the guy who presided over the initial implementation of Romneycare) and McCain (someone that Democrats have been known to work with in the past).

[BentBow]

Hilarious! A Progressive telling the suppose to be Conservative party, they need to run a Progressive guy to win.
The Conservatives stay home and don't go vote and you lose the election. Happened in 2008 and it happened in 2012.
Where do they come up with this crap?

They have been there and done that, the last 2 election cycles.

[bUU]

Originally Posted by BentBow

Hilarious! A Progressive telling the suppose to be Conservative party, they need to run a Progressive guy to win.

To reliably win. Chris Christie almost surely could beat anyone the Democrats put up, even Hillary Clinton.

If you have someone only mildly progressive, then it is a craps-shoot. If you have a right-winger, then even more-so. The right-winger has to essentially lie and lie and lie to get most Americans to support a rabidly self-serving greed-monger for President.

Originally Posted by BentBow

The [right-wingers] stay home and don't go vote and you lose the election. Happened in 2008 and it happened in 2012.

So either the right-wingers stay home, or the moderates vote for the other guy. Pick your poison.

Originally Posted by BentBow

Where do they come up with this crap?

It's called reality. You can see it in action in 2008 and 2012... oh but wait... you think you're smarter than the entirety of the GOP leadership. (No wonder why they lost. )

[no1brownsfan]

Originally Posted by NHartphotog

Libertarians should support the Democratic Party? The party of even more taxes (which hit the working class, not the truly rich), paying for a gigantic Big Government sending checks to everyone who doesn't want to work--including terrorists like the Boston Bombers? The party for endless government oversight and regulations that kill small and mid-sized business, while allowing Big Business to thrive? The party that believes the insane financial irresponsibility of Big Government racking up unsupportable debt and devaluing the dollar must continue right up until hyperinflation or Greece-style collapse?

So if I am a Libertarian, you think I am "greedy" because when my spouse and I work incredibly hard and pay for advanced education, sacrifice endless hours at work instead of enjoying life, desperately try to save for retirement, and drive 10-year old beat-up cars, I object to sending the financial equivalent of a luxury SUV to Washington every year...to pay for foreign wars, a massive bureaucracy, "stimulus" and "bailouts" that serve only the ultra-rich, as well as a power structure that threatens the very survival of our nation?

So you think I "lack empathy" if I would rather give money directly to worthy charities that have very low overhead costs, rather than sending $1,000 to a Big Government bureaucracy in the hope that a single penny eventually makes it back to someone who actually needs help?

You think somehow the idea of small and limited government, and people being free to live their lives so long as they do not harm others, has nothing to do with personal liberty--but simply means I'm a racist?
A Libertarian who would not promote welfare dependency, who would not destroy African-American communities by putting most of their male population in jail due to drug use, who would not give jobs and promotions to people solely because of their race...in other words, someone who supports a color-blind society that does not give any race special preference over any other, is the racist here? Do you not see the irony?

The fact is, the two party system is a facade that gives Americans the false idea that they have representation in their government. We are give two parties to choose from, and elections almost uniformly end up almost exactly in a 50-50 tie. But how can this be, when polls consistently show that 40% of Americans describe their views as conservative, 35% as moderate, and 21% as liberal? Conservatives Remain the Largest Ideological Group in U.S. With twice as many conservatives as liberals, why doesn't the party that represents conservatives always win?

Why? Because the Republican Party is designed to alienate a significant number of voters. First of all, they do lip service to fiscal responsibility, and then continue to grow government size and spending when in power (Reagan being the best example). Next, they absolutely infuriate Libertarians by voting for "a strong military"--which is government-speak for a massive Military Industrial Complex that keeps the world at constant war and is the power base of centralized Big Government. Third, they cater to religious fanatics on the abortion issue, which is totally inconsistent with non-intrusive government. By doing these three things, the Republican Party takes their numerical advantage and throws it away. I do not think this is an error, or a miscalculation, or anything but the product of intent and design.

The Republican Party will never represent Libertarian ideals, because if they did, they would win--every time--making it impossible to hide the fact that Washington's actions are way, way to the left of the average American. With the constant flip between parties, citizens inevitably blame the opposite party--and Obama leads the parade, pretending we'd have utopia if he got his way in everything. News flash, people, he got his way in everything. And we'll be paying the price for a very long time.

When the Republicans joined the Democrat Party in dismissing Ron Paul, and desperately trying to convince gullible citizens that Libertarians are crazy and radical, we all knew this was a huge charade where both parties worked together to ensure that nothing ever changes in Washington. We had a guy who outright stated that he was going to FIX the critical problems of our massive oversized military; the $1 trillion Drug War that has destroyed the African American family and communities; the vast amounts of worker's wages going to a grossly inefficient, corrupt, centralized government; and the federal over spending and fiscal policies so damaging to the economy that total economic collapse approaches. But were we allowed to vote for him? Of course not.

Nothing more needs to be said. You summed it up quite nicely.

[k.smith904]

The Republicans have no sensible leadership.

They churn out flavors of the month, like Rick Santorum or Michelle Bachmann, faster than Ben and Jerrys. Moderates are already fleeing your party in droves and you want an ever farther right candidate? Ok.