User Panel
Ummm, I posted quotes from the Libertarian Platform.... the 2004 Libetarian Platform. 1970s and 1980s? Are you sure you haven't been indulging in a little of the Platform yourself? www.lp.org/issues/platform/platform_all.html#warondru |
|
|
|
|
|
Bednarik will not win. Why bother? [Ross Perot]It's That Simple![/Ross Perot] |
|
|
Oh gawd, I have *got* to get back to my work after this.
Secure, stable and safe does not equal "free and happy" No isolationism. But no imperialism, either. The middle ground is free trade without government intervention (which we currently have plenty of and I would go as far as saying "free trade" to neocons is really centrally controlled). Killing foreigners is not going to lead to stable and safe, btw. As I recall, there is pretty good evidence that FDR knew Pearl would be attacked and chose not to alert them. Yes or no?
There is nothing wrong with my education in history. I have a very good background in military history, in fact. Just because you don't agree with me is no reason to attack my education.
Something has changed though--the two parties are now representing basically the same thing: Big Government. There is no dissent on that matter. There are just a lot of preconceived notions about what the stolen money should be spent upon, but no consideration for the matter of it being extracted by force in the first place.
Flying fighters stateside was a heck of a lot more cushy than flying them over Vietnam. But yes, training is dangerous, I concede that point. |
||||
|
If you recall this, you are as big a nutcase as Badnarik. FDR had no advance warning of Pearl Harbor. Only tinfoil hat types EVER believed that crazy one. |
|
|
The place to vote for Libertarian candidates is at the local and state level. Votes for federal-level candidates ARE mostly wasted, unfortunately, as they only possible thing they can do is to help guide the two existing parties.
Now, if Bush was polling 75%, THEN a Libertarian protest vote would be okay. But when the vote is so close, the only smart thing is to vote the candidate, of the two who have the potential to win, that is closest to your beliefs. -Troy |
|
So what is your plan to protect the country from terrorists? So far, it sounds like you (and your party) want to gut the military, remove what little protection we have at the borders, and stop domestic intelligence gathering. Therefore, the only way to stop terrorist acts inside the US is if a CCWing citizen happens to spot it in time, and happens to have enough firepower to deal with a dozen terrorists. Have you been listening to the terrorists? They don't want to be left alone, they want the entire world to either convert to Islam or die. Pulling out of the Middle East will only tell them that we are weak, and we won't hurt them if they come after us, thus encouraging them to attack more. These guys are out there, they want to kill us, and they're not going to just go away. |
|
|
Well--I can see you know nothing about LIBertarian philosophy--we will just dissolve all country borders, eliminate national sovereignty, move freely around the world doing "our own thing," smoke dope, get mellow and sing "Kumbaya." It's all about freedom and "liberty." No hate, man, that would infringe upon the rights of others--so it would just not exist. We wouldn't force it upon anyone, they will just decide to respect the liberty of others (for reasons that have never been addressed). Edit: Lest I be taken seriously, this post was in jest--but reflects real LIBertarian doctrine. |
||
|
This is my philosophy due to the ballot access laws we have here in GA which are the worst in the country. However, even if Bush wasolling way ahead I would not vote this guy because of his stance on the War on Terror among pther things. Now had it been Russo, it might be different. |
|
|
No one can win the presidential election by garnering only 30-40% of the electoral vote which is what would happen if there were ever MORE THAN TWO major political parties. |
||
|
|
Not really an accurate statement. The Constitution stipulates that if no one candidate receives a majority of electoral votes, the House of Representatives, voting by states with each state getting one vote, selects the President. See Amendment XII. |
|||
|
Having three or more dominant parties would realistically make the Electoral College system obsolete and turn EVERY presidential election into a House vote - and that doesn't seem to be what the FFs wanted (even though they did make an allowance for the possibility of a less-than-majority EC result as you pointed out). If the FFs had expected and anticipated that there'd be three or more dominant parties/figures with each presidential election, they would not have created the Electoral College system (with its +50% requirement to win) to be the FIRST and main system to elect a President. The FFs could have just as easily required a simply plurality of the EC vote, rather than a majority of the EC vote to become President. If they would have done that (and made any "ties" go to the House) then THAT would indicate that the FFs anticipated and expected a splintering of votes among 3 or 4 or more candidates/parties, IMO. But they didn't which, to me, indicates they anticipated presidential elections to be mainly a two-man election (with possible third candidates included but who would have very little ability to pick up even a single Electoral Vote a la Ross Perot.) EDITED several times. |
||||
|
I can't forgive Reagan and Bush 41 for their '86 and '89 gun bans, I guess my long term memory is better than most! The Republicans have a long way to go to earn my vote again, and GW is not helping at all. I'll be voting for Badnarik in November. I'll vote for the Republicans again when they run a real conservative, not a liberal who calls himself a conservative. Let Kerry have the White House, he can't do too much worse than Bush. This is an unfortunate reality........
|
|
The Founding Fathers hoped there would be NO parties. Madison specifically argued that the best protection for freedom was a constantly changing coalition of temporary factional alignments. The idea of permanent parties was anathema to many, if not most, of the Founders. Read their repeated protests against the rising spirit of party during the early Republic. Your argument that the Electoral College mandates a dominant political figure, or at most two parties, is an anachronism. It may have turned out to work that way, but that was never the intent. |
|||||
|
For the point I was trying to make, it wasn't terribly important to address how a split of the Electoral College among three dominant figures was due to political "parties" - I was simply trying to show that there seems to be a built in dichotomous selection process in the Electoral College rather than relying on simple plurality. To me, the Electoral College seems "designed" for a two-dominant-candidate presidential race, whether or not political parties are behind those two dominant candidates or not. |
||||||
|
Again, very anachronistic. Remember that under the original method, the top vote getter in the EC became President, and the second highest vote got VP. IN the very first election in which George Washington was not a candidate, we ended up with two bitter political rivals filling the top two posistions: Adams as President and Jefferson as VP. This problem the Founders quickly recognized and rectified by passing the XII Amendment. The Electoral College was "designed" to filter the rough political opinions of the masses through a body of learned men, and to assure that even small states had a say in electing the President. Nothing more, nothing less. |
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
||
|
Correct. Libertarianisim is Anarcho-Socialisim resurrected... It's the ultimate hippie philosophy - belief in the nobility of man, if only we can get rid of government everyone will be good to each other and we can all live together in harmonious paradise... It's another theory which leads to the same place as communisim (Marx & Lenin called it 'Pure Communisim'), just by a different route and with a different version of the same 'evil' to be avoided... If you look at the two philosophies, they are both built on guarding against the same thing. The difference is that the Commies thought it came from private industry & capitalisim. The Libertarians believe it came from Government. (Oh, and yes, I've heard the 'neoconservatives are marxists' line before, and I can assure you we are not) |
|||
|
No, I am saying your view is an anachronism. You are projecting what happened much later onto a historical event. |
|||
|
Still....people....COME TO YOUR SENSES.
I keep hearing some of you claim that it's OK to vote Libertarian at the "local level", or if your state will overwhelmingly go for Bush, or that the reason NOT to vote Libertarian is because they have no chance of winning. This suggests that it would somehow be a good idea to vote Libertarian if they could win? Are you people insane? The reason to NOT vote Libertarian, is that they advocate ideas that would be a death sentence to our Country. It doesn't matter that they have a great stance on RKBA. That is myopic and suicidal. When you vote Libertarian, the only message you send is that you are a fool. |
|
On 3rd parties, period:
The biggest problem with a more-then-2-party system is not how the Presidency is decided. It is the organization of the House and Senate. Right now, you KNOW FOR A FACT that even if you put a RINO in Congress, they will vote with the (R)s for the organization of the Congress, and put men like Hastert, Armey, and DeLay in power. IF WE HAD 3+ PARTIES REPRESENTED, THIS WOULD NOT BE TRUE! We would have European-style 'coalition government'. Let's say that in a hypothetical election, the Libertarians give up their pipe dream of getting the Presidency first, and get 10% of Congress. Now, all of you 'conservative' Libertarians have a Big Problem!!! Why? Because you have no clue who you just put in power! You see, the (L)s will have to form a coalition with the (D)s or (R)s, and the leadership of the Congress will still be (D)s or (R)s, not (L)s... Now, which party is 'your' party going to side with? They agree with the Dems on the war/defense & abortion The Republicans on guns & (partially) taxes How do you know, when you cast a vote, who you are putting in power? Right now, as above, voting for a (R) is voting for the House to be run by a bunch of Southern & Western Conservatives, even if you are putting Rudy 'The RINO' Guliani in office up in NY... But if we start seeing mass 3rd-party representation, we will no longer know for sure who will take over, or what a party may do to stay in power (eg Flip\|/Flop over to the other side to keep power for the members).... |
|
Badnarik still has my vote. I might vote Republican when Reagans '86 and Bushs '89 bans go away. The Republicans issues are not my issues. Don't get angry at me, that accomplishes nothing. Bitch to the Republicans for not being real conservatives!
|
|
So because the republicans aren't conservative enough for you, you'll cast your vote for a guy who endorses:
1) "The elimination of ALL restrictions on immigration, the ABOLITION of the Immigration and Naturalization Service AND the Border Patrol" 2) "Members of the military should have the same RIGHT TO QUIT their jobs as other persons" 3) "the REPEAL of the Uniform Code of Military Justice" 4) "End the incorporation of foreign nations into the U.S. defense perimeter. Cease the creation and maintenance of U.S. bases and sites for the pre-positioning of military material in other countries. End the practice of stationing American military troops overseas. We make no exceptions to the above." (...in other words, our defense starts at our border. See above {#1 } for how the Libertarians intend to defend the borders) That's not very intelligent. How could I be angry with you? It's not your fault. You're just a little slow. |
|
I am not angry with you. I do pity you. |
|
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.