Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 9/8/2004 10:35:40 AM EST
I've used to believe that a true Republican was really a Libertarian Lite. But I no longer believe this myth. With the government now at record size and with it more and more intrusion into our daily lives, why should I continue to affilate with a party which no longer cares about small government? How many ex-Republicans here are now Libertarians?

Link Posted: 9/8/2004 10:36:38 AM EST
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 10:38:43 AM EST
Why won't the Libertarians just go away. I don't agree with 90% of the platform. They don't do anything as a party to be taken seriously. So just go pester someone else. As the above picture says, jeez not this shit again!
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 10:38:54 AM EST
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 10:41:01 AM EST
Noone has yet to address the issue of big government. Who here is happy about that?
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 10:41:11 AM EST

Originally Posted By SWIRE:
Why won't the Libertarians just go away. I don't agree with 90% of the platform. They don't do anything as a party to be taken seriously. So just go pester someone else. As the above picture says, jeez not this shit again!



So you don't agree with freedom ? I guess you are a Kerry voter.
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 10:44:02 AM EST
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 10:45:01 AM EST

Originally Posted By VTHOKIESHOOTER:

Originally Posted By SWIRE:
Why won't the Libertarians just go away. I don't agree with 90% of the platform. They don't do anything as a party to be taken seriously. So just go pester someone else. As the above picture says, jeez not this shit again!



So you don't agree with freedom ? I guess you are a Kerry voter.



Telling everyone they can do whatever they want and pay no taxes might sound like freedom...until someone who is "free" does something bad to you and there are no laws or functioning government to deal with the situation. You'll just be screwed and completely out of luck. That is not freedom to me.
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 10:51:40 AM EST
there'll still be government and police, but instead of taking our money to give out as intitlements to other private citizens, our low taxes would fund just the basic governement services. Like defense and the police amount other things. No NEA to spend thousands of our tax dollars for "modern" art which no one would buy anyway.

Link Posted: 9/8/2004 10:51:44 AM EST

Originally Posted By SWIRE:
...until someone who is "free" does something bad to you and there are no laws or functioning government to deal with the situation.



This sounds like you are dependent upon government to take care of you.

Link Posted: 9/8/2004 10:54:39 AM EST
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 10:55:42 AM EST
it's a fight!
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 10:58:23 AM EST
Why don't you libertarians focus on getting experience as dog catcher before you even THINk about running someone for Pres.


Regardless of what you think or stand for you have no chance of ever getting your man in office.

So the point is mute./


SGatr15
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 10:59:15 AM EST

Originally Posted By SWIRE:

Originally Posted By VTHOKIESHOOTER:

Originally Posted By SWIRE:
Why won't the Libertarians just go away. I don't agree with 90% of the platform. They don't do anything as a party to be taken seriously. So just go pester someone else. As the above picture says, jeez not this shit again!



So you don't agree with freedom ? I guess you are a Kerry voter.



Telling everyone they can do whatever they want and pay no taxes might sound like freedom...until someone who is "free" does something bad to you and there are no laws or functioning government to deal with the situation. You'll just be screwed and completely out of luck. That is not freedom to me.



The Libertarian part and the libertarian ideology is not about anarchy. Libertarians do not want to disband government.....

You are a victim of miss-information. The Republican party is in line with about 60% of the Libertarian philisophy so if you are against libertarians 90% then you are probably a socialists democrat

www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html take the quiz here
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 11:00:08 AM EST

Originally Posted By blackrifle51:
there'll still be government and police, but instead of taking our money to give out as intitlements to other private citizens, our low taxes would fund just the basic governement services. Like defense and the police amount other things. No NEA to spend thousands of our tax dollars for "modern" art which no one would buy anyway.



So after you take away everyones medicare, welfare, SSI, and foodstamps...and you have millions of people with nothing...who then take it upon themselves to survive by stealing, robbing, assaulting, kidnapping or any other means possible, how are you 1. going to controll them with a limited government and 2. protect and provide security for everyone else?

"cutting lose" millions of people might lower taxes initially but the fall out will cost more in the long run.
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 11:00:36 AM EST
keep in mind guys that I am voting for Bush...because Kerry is far worse.....you need to make small changes and because of the war on terror.
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 11:01:27 AM EST

Originally Posted By SWIRE:

Originally Posted By blackrifle51:
there'll still be government and police, but instead of taking our money to give out as intitlements to other private citizens, our low taxes would fund just the basic governement services. Like defense and the police amount other things. No NEA to spend thousands of our tax dollars for "modern" art which no one would buy anyway.



So after you take away everyones medicare, welfare, SSI, and foodstamps...and you have millions of people with nothing...who then take it upon themselves to survive by stealing, robbing, assaulting, kidnapping or any other means possible, how are you 1. going to controll them with a limited government and 2. protect and provide security for everyone else?

"cutting lose" millions of people might lower taxes initially but the fall out will cost more in the long run.



Spoken like a true LIBERAL DEMOCRAT
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 11:04:07 AM EST
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 11:05:20 AM EST
with few regulations impeding small businesses, more people will have jobs. with low tax rates more people will keep more of what they have. Why do you think only government can help the poor? Haven't you ever heard of private charities and organizations dedicated to helping those in need? Our society would be a much better place if we were to replace government assistance with private charity.

Link Posted: 9/8/2004 11:06:07 AM EST

Originally Posted By thebeekeeper1:

Originally Posted By Palo_Duro:

Originally Posted By SWIRE:
...until someone who is "free" does something bad to you and there are no laws or functioning government to deal with the situation.



This sounds like you are dependent upon government to take care of you.




It sounds to me as though he's thought through the situation and realizes NOT EVERYONE can take care of themselves. The silly tenets of the LIBertarian party just WILL NOT work in the real world with 6 billion people. Geez, this isn't rocket science--IT WON'T WORK.



Are we talking Libertarian or Anarchy? Does the Libertarian party have a platform that would abolish the police force?

Link Posted: 9/8/2004 11:06:15 AM EST

Originally Posted By SWIRE:
Why won't the Libertarians just go away. I don't agree with 90% of the platform. They don't do anything as a party to be taken seriously. So just go pester someone else. As the above picture says, jeez not this shit again!



+1
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 11:06:55 AM EST
Damn people can't even use proper punctuation and they want me to vote for their party?

I don't think so.


SGatr15
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 11:07:29 AM EST

Originally Posted By VTHOKIESHOOTER:

Originally Posted By SWIRE:

Originally Posted By blackrifle51:
there'll still be government and police, but instead of taking our money to give out as intitlements to other private citizens, our low taxes would fund just the basic governement services. Like defense and the police amount other things. No NEA to spend thousands of our tax dollars for "modern" art which no one would buy anyway.



So after you take away everyones medicare, welfare, SSI, and foodstamps...and you have millions of people with nothing...who then take it upon themselves to survive by stealing, robbing, assaulting, kidnapping or any other means possible, how are you 1. going to controll them with a limited government and 2. protect and provide security for everyone else?

"cutting lose" millions of people might lower taxes initially but the fall out will cost more in the long run.



Spoken like a true LIBERAL DEMOCRAT




I was thinking the SAME thing!

Link Posted: 9/8/2004 11:08:54 AM EST
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 11:09:50 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/8/2004 11:11:37 AM EST by G-Rated]
I've been enjoying the banter back and forth for a while. Every party has its problems, including the libertarian party.

What I find interesting, is that the libertarian party has they only real solid platform out there:
Government that is small, responsible, and accountable. Freedom for all (you can do whatever you want as long as it doesn't harm others)


Republicans and democrats stand for all kinds of things this way and that, but nearly all the libertarians stand for the above. You can COUNT on a libertarian for that.


Just an observation and not an endorsement for the libertarian party by any means.
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 11:10:32 AM EST

Originally Posted By VTHOKIESHOOTER:

Originally Posted By SWIRE:

Originally Posted By blackrifle51:
there'll still be government and police, but instead of taking our money to give out as intitlements to other private citizens, our low taxes would fund just the basic governement services. Like defense and the police amount other things. No NEA to spend thousands of our tax dollars for "modern" art which no one would buy anyway.



So after you take away everyones medicare, welfare, SSI, and foodstamps...and you have millions of people with nothing...who then take it upon themselves to survive by stealing, robbing, assaulting, kidnapping or any other means possible, how are you 1. going to controll them with a limited government and 2. protect and provide security for everyone else?

"cutting lose" millions of people might lower taxes initially but the fall out will cost more in the long run.



Spoken like a true LIBERAL DEMOCRAT




Yeah whatever. I gave you the scenario that would happen. Do you have any real answers or do you just spout crap and avoid the issues?
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 11:10:46 AM EST
Me. I'm a Libertarian who used to be a Republican. I switched in '86 after Reagan signed the machinegun ban.
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 11:12:14 AM EST

Originally Posted By SOF1:
Me. I'm a Libertarian who used to be a Republican. I switched in '86 after Reagan signed the machinegun ban.



Yeah, you people are good for being willing to allow the total collapse of society so that you can have a machine gun.

Link Posted: 9/8/2004 11:12:29 AM EST

Originally Posted By Sweep:

Originally Posted By SWIRE:

Originally Posted By blackrifle51:
there'll still be government and police, but instead of taking our money to give out as intitlements to other private citizens, our low taxes would fund just the basic governement services. Like defense and the police amount other things. No NEA to spend thousands of our tax dollars for "modern" art which no one would buy anyway.



So after you take away everyones medicare, welfare, SSI, and foodstamps...and you have millions of people with nothing...who then take it upon themselves to survive by stealing, robbing, assaulting, kidnapping or any other means possible, how are you 1. going to controll them with a limited government and 2. protect and provide security for everyone else?

"cutting lose" millions of people might lower taxes initially but the fall out will cost more in the long run.



This was my argument against Harry Browne. He wanted to do allthose things at once. You can't. It has to be done over a long period of time. You don't stop a speeding train and reverse it in the blink of an eye. Even if it was possible, it's going to make a mess with the people on the train and create all kinds of mechanical problems!

It would have to be done over a period of years!



Oh I agree, you can't just fix the problem of big government overnight. However, instead of coming up with more and more programs, we need to start doing away and phasing out more programs. I wish Bush would talk more about his idea of letting individuals manage their own social security account.
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 11:12:29 AM EST

Originally Posted By Palo_Duro:
Are we talking Libertarian or Anarchy? Does the Libertarian party have a platform that would abolish the police force?



The Libertarian party abolishes most of the laws and government agencies, so while they still might maintain a police force the result of what they want to do would result in anarchy in the streets.
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 11:15:35 AM EST

Originally Posted By SWIRE:

Originally Posted By blackrifle51:
there'll still be government and police, but instead of taking our money to give out as intitlements to other private citizens, our low taxes would fund just the basic governement services. Like defense and the police amount other things. No NEA to spend thousands of our tax dollars for "modern" art which no one would buy anyway.



So after you take away everyones medicare, welfare, SSI, and foodstamps...and you have millions of people with nothing...who then take it upon themselves to survive by stealing, robbing, assaulting, kidnapping or any other means possible, how are you 1. going to controll them with a limited government and 2. protect and provide security for everyone else?

"cutting lose" millions of people might lower taxes initially but the fall out will cost more in the long run.




You sound like a Democrap.....
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 11:15:40 AM EST

Originally Posted By SWIRE:

Originally Posted By Palo_Duro:
Are we talking Libertarian or Anarchy? Does the Libertarian party have a platform that would abolish the police force?



The Libertarian party abolishes most of the laws and government agencies, so while they still might maintain a police force the result of what they want to do would result in anarchy in the streets.



Actually, under the libertarian vision of uthopia, the police and courts would be privately funded, while drugs, pornography and immigration would be completely unrestricted.

The result would be dope peddling porno barons having the money to fund the police and courts, thereby controlling the police and courts. It would rapidly become the most hellish version of a feudal system that anyone could possibly imagine!
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 11:16:56 AM EST

Originally Posted By motown_steve:

Originally Posted By SOF1:
Me. I'm a Libertarian who used to be a Republican. I switched in '86 after Reagan signed the machinegun ban.



Yeah, you people are good for being willing to allow the total collapse of society so that you can have a machine gun.




SOCIETY IS NOT DEPENDENT ON GOVERNMENT!. Through much of our history we managed quite well with little or no government. Interesting to note that in the year 1700, the American Colonies had the world's highest standard of living, despite the fact of a lack of government.
I'm not saying no government, I'm saying small government, let it do just the basics, and no more.
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 11:16:57 AM EST

Originally Posted By SWIRE:

Originally Posted By VTHOKIESHOOTER:

Originally Posted By SWIRE:

Originally Posted By blackrifle51:
there'll still be government and police, but instead of taking our money to give out as intitlements to other private citizens, our low taxes would fund just the basic governement services. Like defense and the police amount other things. No NEA to spend thousands of our tax dollars for "modern" art which no one would buy anyway.



So after you take away everyones medicare, welfare, SSI, and foodstamps...and you have millions of people with nothing...who then take it upon themselves to survive by stealing, robbing, assaulting, kidnapping or any other means possible, how are you 1. going to controll them with a limited government and 2. protect and provide security for everyone else?

"cutting lose" millions of people might lower taxes initially but the fall out will cost more in the long run.



Spoken like a true LIBERAL DEMOCRAT




Yeah whatever. I gave you the scenario that would happen. Do you have any real answers or do you just spout crap and avoid the issues?



Here is my answer. Let people over 45 years old stay in the old social security program. However, phase it out and let us younger people keep OUR MONEY THAT WE HAVE EARNED. It is amazing how much money I have paid into my account. If I could invest it I would double what I have paid.

Welfare) Why take MY DAMN money and give it to some crack whore because she is "unfortunate" Tell her to get off her ass, quit having babies and jet a job.

Shesh....
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 11:18:09 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/8/2004 11:20:32 AM EST by motown_steve]

Originally Posted By blackrifle51:

Originally Posted By motown_steve:

Originally Posted By SOF1:
Me. I'm a Libertarian who used to be a Republican. I switched in '86 after Reagan signed the machinegun ban.



Yeah, you people are good for being willing to allow the total collapse of society so that you can have a machine gun.




SOCIETY IS NOT DEPENDENT ON GOVERNMENT!. Through much of our history we managed quite well with little or no government. Interesting to note that in the year 1700, the American Colonies had the world's highest standard of living, despite the fact of a lack of government.
I'm not saying no government, I'm saying small government, let it do just the basics, and no more.



It ain't 1700 no more Chuck! In case you haven't noticed we have an entire religion out to kill us! We are going to need to be able to defend ourselves by presenting a strong offense, and we need to be able to hunt down the enemy infiltrators that have burrowed themselves into our communities.

We need the Department of Homeland Security, we need our professional military and we need our President to have the ability to detroy the enemy. The libertarians are against all 3!
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 11:18:22 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/8/2004 11:21:08 AM EST by WaWaTuSi]

Originally Posted By sgtar15:
Damn people can't even use proper punctuation and they want me to vote for their party?

I don't think so.


SGatr15





Are you saying "damn people" as in "those damn people" or are you saying "Damn, some people can't even..."


Just checking..... ;)
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 11:19:53 AM EST

Originally Posted By motown_steve:

Originally Posted By SWIRE:

Originally Posted By Palo_Duro:
Are we talking Libertarian or Anarchy? Does the Libertarian party have a platform that would abolish the police force?



The Libertarian party abolishes most of the laws and government agencies, so while they still might maintain a police force the result of what they want to do would result in anarchy in the streets.



Actually, under the libertarian vision of uthopia, the police and courts would be privately funded, while drugs, pornography and immigration would be completely unrestricted.

The result would be dope peddling porno barons having the money to fund the police and courts, thereby controlling the police and courts. It would rapidly become the most hellish version of a feudal system that anyone could possibly imagine!



That is bull shit! I know of no libertarian that supports ending government courts.

BTW...don't like porn....then don't look at it.
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 11:20:24 AM EST

Originally Posted By SWIRE:

Originally Posted By Palo_Duro:
Are we talking Libertarian or Anarchy? Does the Libertarian party have a platform that would abolish the police force?



The Libertarian party abolishes most of the laws and government agencies, so while they still might maintain a police force the result of what they want to do would result in anarchy in the streets.



And with assault weapons in the hands of the public and private citizens being allowed to carry weapons concealed, there will be shoot-outs on every street corner too, right?

Pure banter. Just like what we're hearing on the floor from the Dems.

Take a peak back one page at G-Rated's post. A smaller, non-intrusive, government - one that 's held accountable (in accordance with our Fore Fathers' visions) and universal freedoms that do not threaten the safety of others.

There is no GRAND scheme to do away with all laws and police forces. You're attempt to paint the Libertarian party as Anarchists is laughable at best.

Link Posted: 9/8/2004 11:20:43 AM EST

Originally Posted By motown_steve:

Originally Posted By blackrifle51:

Originally Posted By motown_steve:

Originally Posted By SOF1:
Me. I'm a Libertarian who used to be a Republican. I switched in '86 after Reagan signed the machinegun ban.



Yeah, you people are good for being willing to allow the total collapse of society so that you can have a machine gun.




SOCIETY IS NOT DEPENDENT ON GOVERNMENT!. Through much of our history we managed quite well with little or no government. Interesting to note that in the year 1700, the American Colonies had the world's highest standard of living, despite the fact of a lack of government.
I'm not saying no government, I'm saying small government, let it do just the basics, and no more.



It ain't 1700 no more Chuck! In case you haven't noticed we have an entire religion out to kill us!



lol, NOTHING compared to our ancestors had to put up with! Disease, hostile injuns ect...

Link Posted: 9/8/2004 11:21:18 AM EST

Originally Posted By motown_steve:

Originally Posted By blackrifle51:

Originally Posted By motown_steve:

Originally Posted By SOF1:
Me. I'm a Libertarian who used to be a Republican. I switched in '86 after Reagan signed the machinegun ban.



Yeah, you people are good for being willing to allow the total collapse of society so that you can have a machine gun.




SOCIETY IS NOT DEPENDENT ON GOVERNMENT!. Through much of our history we managed quite well with little or no government. Interesting to note that in the year 1700, the American Colonies had the world's highest standard of living, despite the fact of a lack of government.
I'm not saying no government, I'm saying small government, let it do just the basics, and no more.



It ain't 1700 no more Chuck! In case you haven't noticed we have an entire religion out to kill us!



Right....that is why I am voting for Bush! The Libertarian platform is on the wrong side on the war on terrorism
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 11:22:19 AM EST

Originally Posted By thebeekeeper1:

Originally Posted By blackrifle51:
Noone has yet to address the issue of big government. Who here is happy about that?



Not me--I HATE 90% of all things government. It's just much more pragmatic to work within the Republican party for incremental decreases--which is the same way the Socialists have grown government to become its present behemoth state.



Too bad they aren't giving you your incremental decreases. Just talk, no action.

I know you don't like me, but my advice is for you to use those feet and walk. Not next year, not tomorrow, but today. We the people have not been in control of our government for quite some time and the sooner you cease denying that fact, the sooner things can change.
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 11:24:37 AM EST

but today. We the people have not been in control of our government for quite some time and the sooner you cease denying that fact, the sooner things can change.





+1
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 11:25:12 AM EST

Originally Posted By VTHOKIESHOOTER:

Originally Posted By motown_steve:

Originally Posted By SWIRE:

Originally Posted By Palo_Duro:
Are we talking Libertarian or Anarchy? Does the Libertarian party have a platform that would abolish the police force?



The Libertarian party abolishes most of the laws and government agencies, so while they still might maintain a police force the result of what they want to do would result in anarchy in the streets.



Actually, under the libertarian vision of uthopia, the police and courts would be privately funded, while drugs, pornography and immigration would be completely unrestricted.

The result would be dope peddling porno barons having the money to fund the police and courts, thereby controlling the police and courts. It would rapidly become the most hellish version of a feudal system that anyone could possibly imagine!



That is bull shit! I know of no libertarian that supports ending government courts.

BTW...don't like porn....then don't look at it.



I'll do some investigating and find you the quote from one of the leaders in the Libertarian party that advoactes the privitization of the police and courts. It is a plank in their dogma.

As for porn, it isn't about looking at it, it is about unrestricted production and distribution. I'm worried about the influx of Child Pornography. They can barely control it now, wait until they deregulate the porn industry. Libertarians say "it would never happen" but I don't see how you could stop it.

Link Posted: 9/8/2004 11:27:25 AM EST

Originally Posted By VTHOKIESHOOTER:

Originally Posted By motown_steve:

Originally Posted By SWIRE:

Originally Posted By Palo_Duro:
Are we talking Libertarian or Anarchy? Does the Libertarian party have a platform that would abolish the police force?



The Libertarian party abolishes most of the laws and government agencies, so while they still might maintain a police force the result of what they want to do would result in anarchy in the streets.



Actually, under the libertarian vision of uthopia, the police and courts would be privately funded, while drugs, pornography and immigration would be completely unrestricted.

The result would be dope peddling porno barons having the money to fund the police and courts, thereby controlling the police and courts. It would rapidly become the most hellish version of a feudal system that anyone could possibly imagine!



That is bull shit! I know of no libertarian that supports ending government courts.

BTW...don't like porn....then don't look at it.


Some one reads a website and takes it as the views of every one affiliated with the party.
And we are for goverment, we just don't want the goverment so involved.
And war yes war would still exist and the fight on terrorism, hmm yeah we all just want to die
SS, its a good thing if you already payed for it and are getting it but your taking the money from those of us who haven't. So the next gen will be left in the shitter. It simply doesn't work any longer.
As far as giving the goverment less money, why the fuck not? How much is wasted on bs. When your on a budget you'll be a little more careful how you spend it.
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 11:27:26 AM EST

Originally Posted By WaWaTuSi:
but today. We the people have not been in control of our government for quite some time and the sooner you cease denying that fact, the sooner things can change.





Actually you are wrong......we have been in control. That is the problem. People have found out that they can start voting to take the fruits of someones elses labor and redistribute it to themselves
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 11:30:31 AM EST
The difficulty with libertarianism isn't that the platform is unworkable, it's how to get from here to there.

Politically it's impossible for a democracy to voluntarily dismantle the welfare/warfare state. It's necessary to unwind all the malinvestment, fraud, bad debt, etc. built up over a century of central planning before a free market economy can benefit the citizenry, and nearly everybody in the society is dependent on the socialist/fascist systems. Most of the population still believes the current system is solvent, so they don't even recognize the nature of the choice.

Additionally our infrastructure is not designed for a free market society, and would need to be totally restructured.

In order for libertarianism to function it must be implemented in its entirety, which means among other things eliminating the entire current monetary system and replacing it with free market capitalism. That's largely why people have such a hard time understanding the positions, they only make sense in their entirety.

So the implementation of a libertarian platform essentially requires the entire nation be put into some form of bankruptcy reorganization.

That isn't going to happen voluntarily.

If (when) the current socialist/fascist, welfare/warfare system fails utterly then libertarianism will have a slim chance of defeating totalitarianism, until then all we can do is try to point out the nature of the problems.
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 11:32:56 AM EST
I'm a Libertarian but almost always vote the lessor of two evils.
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 11:34:42 AM EST

Right....that is why I am voting for Bush! The Libertarian platform is on the wrong side on the war on terrorism


You saw what happened in Russia. They have been fighting their war on terrorism for over a dozen years. It's a sham, just as ours is a sham. Killing people is not the only way to resolve conflicts. In fact, it's the worst possible way.

If you have ever read John Lott's book "More Guns, Less Crime" you know that statistics have disproven conventional wisdom. What if the conventional wisdom on how to defend our nation and our lives is as dead wrong as the gun-banners idea that disarming everyone makes everyone safer?

We have a $500Billion / year addiction to the military/industrial complex. $450B before 9/11. That money, didn't prevent 9/11 and all we hear are excuses about it. It didn't do a damn thing, but it was taken from the people and paid out in the interest of national security. It failed utterly. How much more should we give up? A Trillion? How much is enough to ensure security? All the war on terror is is another excuse to take from us and give nothing in return. I saw nothing because security is not theirs to give. Are you comfortable paying 80% of your income in taxes? That means fewer choices for you and yours and if you live outside of DC or NYC, your chances of being killed by terrorists are next to nothing---the same as being struck by a meteor! What a huge misallocation of resources thanks to central planning.

And even if you don't agree there, you have to agree that there must be cheaper and better solutions if only the political will existed to exercise them. Instead, we get these big money giveways to tight-knight interests. And then we wonder why there are not enough jobs and no prosperity?

Not to get off subject, but the biggest impediment to finding honest work in America today is the minimum wage. Yup, another counterintuitive dilemma! One would think that setting a minimum standard would help people make a living, but instead, it limits everyone's choices.

Freedom means having choices. Americans are currently too uncomfortable with having so many choices to make.


Link Posted: 9/8/2004 11:37:04 AM EST
If a police state were really safer prisons would be the safest places on earth.
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 11:39:25 AM EST

Originally Posted By thelibertarian:

Right....that is why I am voting for Bush! The Libertarian platform is on the wrong side on the war on terrorism


You saw what happened in Russia. They have been fighting their war on terrorism for over a dozen years. It's a sham, just as ours is a sham. Killing people is not the only way to resolve conflicts. In fact, it's the worst possible way.

If you have ever read John Lott's book "More Guns, Less Crime" you know that statistics have disproven conventional wisdom. What if the conventional wisdom on how to defend our nation and our lives is as dead wrong as the gun-banners idea that disarming everyone makes everyone safer?

We have a $500Billion / year addiction to the military/industrial complex. $450B before 9/11. That money, didn't prevent 9/11 and all we hear are excuses about it. It didn't do a damn thing, but it was taken from the people and paid out in the interest of national security. It failed utterly. How much more should we give up? A Trillion? How much is enough to ensure security? All the war on terror is is another excuse to take from us and give nothing in return. I saw nothing because security is not theirs to give. Are you comfortable paying 80% of your income in taxes? That means fewer choices for you and yours and if you live outside of DC or NYC, your chances of being killed by terrorists are next to nothing---the same as being struck by a meteor! What a huge misallocation of resources thanks to central planning.

And even if you don't agree there, you have to agree that there must be cheaper and better solutions if only the political will existed to exercise them. Instead, we get these big money giveways to tight-knight interests. And then we wonder why there are not enough jobs and no prosperity?

Not to get off subject, but the biggest impediment to finding honest work in America today is the minimum wage. Yup, another counterintuitive dilemma! One would think that setting a minimum standard would help people make a living, but instead, it limits everyone's choices.

Freedom means having choices. Americans are currently too uncomfortable with having so many choices to make.





I disagree about terrorism. The islamic radicals will not be happy until the globe is 100% muslim. They can not be negotiated with and they can not be pandered to. They can only be killed. I am sorry, you and I agree on many things but you are wrong about terrorism.

You are right about the minimum wage though. The government should not dictate what someone is worth or compensated.
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 12:05:56 PM EST

Originally Posted By sgtar15:
Why don't you libertarians focus on getting experience as dog catcher before you even THINk about running someone for Pres.


Regardless of what you think or stand for you have no chance of ever getting your man in office.

So the point is mute./


SGatr15



mute adj. mut·er, mut·est

1. Refraining from producing speech or vocal sound.
2.
1. Often Offensive. Unable to speak.
2. Unable to vocalize, as certain animals.
3. Expressed without speech; unspoken: a mute appeal.
4. Law. Refusing to plead when under arraignment.
5. Linguistics.
1. Not pronounced; silent, as the e in the word house.
2. Pronounced with a temporary stoppage of breath, as the sounds (p) and (b); plosive;
stopped.

moot n.

1. Law. A hypothetical case argued by law students as an exercise.
2. An ancient English meeting, especially a representative meeting of the freemen of a shire.


tr.v. moot·ed, moot·ing, moots

1.
1. To bring up as a subject for discussion or debate.
2. To discuss or debate. See Synonyms at broach1.
2. Law. To plead or argue (a case) in a moot court.


adj.

1. Subject to debate; arguable: a moot question.
2.
1. Law. Without legal significance, through having been previously decided or settled.
2. Of no practical importance; irrelevant.

Somebody had to be the nazi.

Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top