[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Libertarians = Muslims (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 7/15/2004 4:06:37 AM EDT
|
Wisconsin LP reaches out to Muslim community "The Muslim professionals I spoke with have a deep love for this country and a deep love of freedom," he said. "But they want their voice heard. They were excited that the Libertarians are reaching out to their community and feel that we may become their voice in politics. "If we as a party can help empower the Muslim community through the political process, we can build a foundation for reaching out to other constituencies, such as small business owners, that are politically active and believe in Libertarian ideals." Article from Official Libertarian Party web page here comment : maybe some of you guys who claim to be Libertarian might want to look further into the party's official "Libertarian ideals" |
|
Think about it this way... If the muslims can support the Lib party and draw votes away from Bush, it helps further their cause. They know they can control Kerry, and if they can appear to "mainstream" with a party, it will further enable their agenda. Either way, they win in this scenario. The further they can get in the political process here, the easier it will be for them to do their thing when the day comes... |
|
The problem is in reality. There are not enough voters to put in a Libertarian. We have two electable choices. Which one will take fewer of our freedoms and which one will act in more of our best interests? People who vote Libertarian would most likely otherwise vote for GWB. Thus, any Libertarian votes cast - however good it may be or feel to stand on a principle - take away from the man who would do less harm than Kerry. |
ditto TXL |
|
I just personally find it funny how some put Mr. Bush on such a high pedastal or "sainthood" as one Arfcom member so eloquently put it while other Republicrats call Libertarians "dumbasses". Why do we ignore or forget that Mr. Bush during his 2000 campaign, voiced his support of the assault weapons ban that was passed during the Clinton administration. This federal law is scheduled to expire on Sept. 13, 2004, and Bush, as president, has already stated that he supports its reauthorization. As a Libertarian I will probably be voting for him only if the AWB does indeed sunset and because I suspect that Kerry would probably executive order something to restore it. But that does not mean that I will forget what he has said in regards to the AWB. |
|
Lawsec, I see two problems with this. First By simply "not encouraging it", or, "Ordering those of his party" how can you be certain of his future actions when he starts his "lame duck" 2nd term. Faith? I can not count on that. Cheney has already made public that he has no desire to run after Bush and unless there is a Guliani/Clinton race who knows who will be next. Second, if we are in a state of affairs that we have to wait and see what our "Republican President" does on our 2nd amendment rights. We are not in a good place right now. Would the Republicans here still vote for Mr. Bush if he did reauthorize the ban? |
|
We can't be certain of his future actions, but we can be certain of those of Mr. Kerry. I keep a photo of him, Kennedy, Feinswine, and Scumbum on my desk, giving the thumbs up to the AWB. I am not saying that GWB is perfect. He is far from it. But of the truly electable choices out there, he is the least damaging to the country and our liberties. |
|
In the spirit of ar15.com--I accuse Mr. Renotse of being a here The way to peace is by building bridges with diverse groups and trading with them freely. War, particularly the Iraq war, is nothing but a scheme to rob people with no political power of their wealth. War has never achieved a lasting peace anywhere. The state is not capable of dictating what is best for people and we all know that it can't and never has. Time to try something else. |
|
thelibertarian, Look at the war in Iraq as opening up markets. Iraq before GWII was a closed oil market for the UN, France, Russia, Germany and Hussein through the "Oil for Palaces Program". We (The US) opened up this market. Thats this Libertarians view on the war.. GunLvr, While that is absolutly true... Here in the Good ol' USA they are free to become "former" muslims... |
thelibertarian, I the spirit of truth why don't you follow the link to the official Libertarin Party website and read the original text. Then call the author a troll. In the mean time slink back to DU and have a nice cup of STFU 
|
and baiting libertarians. There really is no need to defend against his absurd claim.| The Libertarian party has taken the Isolationist position for the U.S., which is a farking asinine approach to deal with issues in the World!!! That approach just tells countries like Iran, Libya, Syria, North Korea, Iraq (Saddam era), and Afganistan (Taliban era) that they are free to play and we won't do anything until D.C, LA, or NYC goes up in a mushroom cloud! |
Rick Santorum (R-PA). After hearing him debating on the Senate floor, I would give him some very strong consideration. |
uhhh, what HAS ever produced a lasting peace anywhere?? I'm unaware of a place in this world that has ever achieved this degree of nirvana. I think that the only way to achieve "peace" is through strength. We've got to have the military might to crush our enemies. But also we must have will to do so - maybe even a slight hint of a yearning to do it. Only in this way will, we convince bullies to leave us alone. Do you think that "trading with diverse people" kept the Soviets from launching missiles at us? Or do you think that it was the assurance of a swift and massive retaliation that kept them in check? The simple fact of the matter with this "war" is that either the islamofacists will kill us and our children or we will kill them and their children. I agree with a general policy of not putting our troops overseas (heck, I'd privatize most of our military), but you've got to understand that we didn't initiate this violence. These islamic states around the world make cozy arragements with the terrorist types. "We'll let you train here, just don't set your car bombs off in OUR cities." In my opinion we have to get these countries to recognize that it's not in their best interests to have these arrangements. So... I say the most humane remedy for this problem is to make a devastating example out of some of these countries. Then the others will be more likely to say "No, we will not coddle you terrorists, because we fear the USA more than we fear you." In the long run, it would save lives, IMHO. So in closing, they've been killing us for decades. It's not "anti-libertarian" to defend ourselves. I don't think we've got to wait until they nuke us before we kill them. If someone wheeled up a cannon in front of your house, aimed it at your house, loaded it, and prepared to fire ... I think that constitutes an initation of force upon you. You wouldn't be any more libertarian if you avoided taking action at this point. You'd just be stupid, and dead. |
|
I usually agree with Libertarian domestic policy, I don't agree with their foreign policy. And yes, the way 3rd parties exercise political strength is by taking away votes from major party canidates so the issues pertinant to them may be paid more attention to the next time around. |
Trying pulling your head out and take a notice of what else is going on in the World and Nation, and maybe you'll realize Bush is the best of a crappy lot. The Libertarian stand is stupid, childish, and woefully short-sighted. They would consign this Nation to a moron like Kerry out of shear SPITE. |
Your second sentence is why people call you nuts...if you actually believe what you said, you sound nuts. |
It always amuses me how when someone objects to mindless flaming and conspiracy theory nutbugering about President Bush, they are said to be "putting him on a pedastal." |
Yes, because everyone knows Bin Ladin just wants a McDonalds on the corner and the newest Britney Spears CD ... if he thinks he can get that, he'll be happy to sit down at the negotiating table. That has to be the stupidest, rankest, most illogical, out of touch, steaming pile of horseshit The Neutral Observer has ever read. The Neutral Observer is not pining for a return to the days of Carter. The day people with those insane, naive beliefs get any political power at all will be the day this great Republic begins to collapse. |
Yeah, because that's always worked in the past, right?  In REALITY, where the rest of us have to live, free trade and national alliances have ALWAYS had to be guarded with military force. |
|
So far Losertarians have "reached out" to drug-pushing junkies, illegal immigrants, pedophiles, military deserters, drunk-drivers and radical American Indian militants so this latest round of irrational lunacy comes as no surprise at all. They're just plain idiots. |
Just fucking IGNORE the fact that they're "Muslims" and just treat them like anybody else. I don't see Losertarians "reaching out" to Catholics, Jews or Buddhists. |
ACtually Mac, if we ignore them they will just attack us again. I said it before and I will say it again. There will never be peace in the middle east (or anywhere else for that matter) as long as there is Islam. It is NOT a religions, it is a belief system written in blood. SGtar15 |
I was just trying to be "nice". |
But the real question is how many Libertarians does it take to screw in a suicide bomber? |
The real question is how soon they will openly ally themselves with the terrorists and start conducting suicide bombings of their own here in the U.S. |
Well then does a suicide bomber have a Constitutional right to light up a joint before they blow themselves up. |
| Anyone who is a die-hard believer in the Libertarian platform (not a lot of the pseudo-Libertarians on this site) has to be motivated by either a very strong hatred or fear of the government (any government) to cause them to completely reject any sort of authority or benefit (and in some cases necessary benefit) given by said government. That's a volatile and dangerous situation; notice that the same hard-core Libertarians who bitched about Clinton still bitch about Bush, and would probably bitch about anyone who was elected. The "evils of the government" rhetoric hasn't changed an iota since the 1970s. |
Not *all* libertarians. Meanwhile the Republicans have given us the 89 Import Ban (which has no sunset), the Immigration Proposal and a bunch of other shit. So nobodys perfect ok. |
I try to stick up for you bigots, but often I fail. You know little or nothing of Libertarianism. |
|
Let's see if I understand this right. Richard Nixon created the BATF in 1972 and in the early 1990s told reporters he wanted far more oppressive anti-gun laws enacted. Gerald Ford endorsed the Brady Bill and the AWB. In 1980, candidate Ronald Reagan promised to abolish the BATF if elected. President Ronald Reagan expanded the size of the BATF, signed a law in 1986 which banned the manufacture and sale of new full-autos to private citizens, and in 1994 wrote members of Congress urging them to support the Clinton Crime Bill (with its AWB). In 1993, Robert Dole claimed to oppose the Brady Bill then congratulated Sarah Brady when it passed. In 1994, Robert Dole claimed to oppose the AWB; in 1995 he told reporters he supported the AWB. In 1996, every Republican senator (including NRA Director Larry Craig) voted for the Lautenberg Amendment. In 1989, Bush I signed an executive order banning the importation of military-style semiautos. Bush II supports the AWB, GCA-68, and NFA-34. For years, the Republican Party platform has supported GCA-68 and NFA-34. Oh, yeah. I can't wait to rush out and vote Republican. Curse those godless Libertarians and their stupid principles. __________________________________________________________________________________ When it comes to freedom, Republicans are fakes, Democrats are clueless. |
How many new federal firearms laws have been enacted in the last 3.5 years? |
Dark Horse on the Third Ballot By now, most libertarians know that the Libertarian Party chose as its presidential nominee Michael Badnarik, the darkest of dark horses, and a figure hardly known within the party and virtually unknown to non-LP libertarians. Badnarik is a self-taught constitutional scholar whose views were scarcely known to most LP members and delegates prior to the nomination. <snip> Badnarik believes that the federal income tax has no legal authority and that people are justified in refusing to file a tax return until such time as the IRS provides them with an explanation of its authority to collect the tax. He hadn't filed income tax returns for several years. He moved from California to Texas because of Texas' more liberal gun laws, but he refused to obtain a Texas driver's license because the state requires drivers to provide their fingerprints and Social Security numbers. He has been ticketed several times for driving without a license; sometimes he has gotten off for various technical legal reasons, but on three occasions he has been convicted and paid a fine. He also refused to use postal ZIP codes, seeing them as "federal territories." He proposed that convicted felons serve the first month of their sentence in bed so that their muscles would atrophy and they'd be less trouble for prison guards and to blow up the U.N. building on the eighth day of his administration, after giving the building's occupants a chance to evacuate. In one especially picturesque proposal, he wrote: I would announce a special one-week session of Congress where all 535 members would be required to sit through a special version of my Constitution class. Once I was convinced that every member of Congress understood my interpretation of their very limited powers, I would insist that they restate their oath of office while being videotaped. One assumes, although one cannot prove, that none of this is an exercise in irony. At any rate, these opinions were removed from the website shortly after he won the nomination, and they didn't come up when he visited state party conventions. Nor did his refusal to file tax returns, thereby risking federal indictment and felony arrest. While many of his closest supporters were aware of these issues, they were unknown to most LP members. Link Here comment : This friggin guy Badnarik is nuts and anyone than would vote for him needs to be closely scrutinized. |