Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 4/3/2006 2:31:39 PM EDT
I'm guessing things dont look to good for the republicans next election, a couple years ago the thought of hitlery in office seemed so far fetched, but for her to win all she would have to do is say she is bringing the troops home and she probably would have huge support.

I'm buying lots of mags just incase we cannot get them...
Link Posted: 4/3/2006 2:32:40 PM EDT
Pretty good; if the opponent is Shillary.
Link Posted: 4/3/2006 2:33:13 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/3/2006 2:34:17 PM EDT by LARRYG]
The sky is falling, the sky is falling.

End days are here.

Blah, blah, blah.

Are you basing any of this on any real FACTS? Is this just gloom and doom?
Link Posted: 4/3/2006 2:34:01 PM EDT
Slime > None
Link Posted: 4/3/2006 2:35:19 PM EDT
If so, then who? If anyone says McCain I might cry.
Link Posted: 4/3/2006 2:35:23 PM EDT
Just to clarify-- Do you mean anyone that puts an 'R' by their name like PRK gov arnold and current President GWB or do you mean an actual conservative? There is a world of difference.
Link Posted: 4/3/2006 2:35:30 PM EDT
the war is getting more and more unpopular by the day.

Most of the Marines I talk to dont even know what we are doing over their, they say the iraqis dont give a damn.
Link Posted: 4/3/2006 2:36:04 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Partisan:
Just to clarify-- Do you mean anyone that puts an 'R' by their name like PRK gov arnold and current President GWB or do you mean an actual conservative? There is a world of difference.



no rinos an actual republican.
Link Posted: 4/3/2006 2:36:47 PM EDT
How about Newt Gingrich? He's hinting...
Link Posted: 4/3/2006 2:38:48 PM EDT

Originally Posted By kissfan:
How about Newt Gingrich? He's hinting...




are you really a NRA recruiter? If I renew should I go thru u?


Link Posted: 4/3/2006 2:39:22 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/3/2006 2:42:31 PM EDT by LARRYG]

Originally Posted By 1911greg:
the war is getting more and more unpopular by the day.

Most of the Marines I talk to dont even know what we are doing over their, they say the iraqis dont give a damn.



Oooh, it's another Vietnam, it's a quagmire, and any other quotes you can cop from the dem websites.

ALL of the Marines I talk to say just the opposite.
Link Posted: 4/3/2006 2:39:25 PM EDT
Don't even worry if and when Clinton run's there will be such a negative turnout against her it will be a Reagan/Carter landslide all over again. She has to much baggage to win against anybody. If anything Pray she runs this will ensure Victory on the Right side of the isle.
Link Posted: 4/3/2006 2:39:48 PM EDT

Originally Posted By kissfan:
How about Newt Gingrich? He's hinting...



that would be nice, he'd certainly stopp a lot of people from protest voting Libertarian.
Link Posted: 4/3/2006 2:41:04 PM EDT
1 in 2..... unless Lyndon LaRouche, Gus Hall or some other fringe candidate runs then its 1 in whatever...
Link Posted: 4/3/2006 2:43:21 PM EDT
Link Posted: 4/3/2006 2:45:47 PM EDT
There will be a Republican in the white house for 2008.

The left has no plan what so ever, other than they hate President Bush...Hillary will run, but loose and McCain will run but will not get the nomination.

I think our next President will not be Sen. McCain or Frist, rather it will be a Republican Gov. that is not on the media's radar yet.

Iraq is not a mess like the media says it is. And the economy is doing great, unlike what the media says.
Link Posted: 4/3/2006 2:46:03 PM EDT
What are the chances of getting a republican El Presidente next election?
Link Posted: 4/3/2006 2:48:53 PM EDT
Link Posted: 4/3/2006 2:50:07 PM EDT

Originally Posted By 1911greg:

Originally Posted By kissfan:
How about Newt Gingrich? He's hinting...



are you really a NRA recruiter? If I renew should I go thru u?



Yes, please.

Use my link, save $10 on a 1-yr membership. $25 instead of $35.

My recruiter link (same as below, but a hotlink)
Link Posted: 4/3/2006 2:57:55 PM EDT
He's more than hinting, he'll run if he can get the support. I saw him at CPAC, and all weekend he passed out papers about his stance on issues paid for by PACs in NH and other primary states.

I'm voting Tancredo.

Newt may be a close second at this point.
Link Posted: 4/3/2006 3:01:47 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Gunner1X:
What are the chances of getting a republican El Presidente next election?



What are the chances that we can get rid of the infantile name calling libtard tactics?
Link Posted: 4/3/2006 3:08:15 PM EDT
Link Posted: 4/3/2006 3:11:21 PM EDT

Originally Posted By jp_72:
1 in 2..... unless Lyndon LaRouche, Gus Hall or some other fringe candidate runs then its 1 in whatever...




Larouche kicks ass. Anybody that campaigns from their prison cell
is alright in my book
Link Posted: 4/3/2006 3:11:24 PM EDT

Originally Posted By LARRYG:
The sky is falling, the sky is falling.

End days are here.

Blah, blah, blah.

Are you basing any of this on any real FACTS? Is this just gloom and doom?



Bush's approval rating is dropping like a rock and supposedly the polls indicate that the Republicans are going to lose seats in this years election.

Joe Sixpack seems to be discontented and that is never a good thing for the party in power. I have very little no faith in the average person's ability to do the right thing.
Link Posted: 4/3/2006 3:11:29 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/3/2006 3:13:04 PM EDT by LARRYG]

Originally Posted By The_Beer_Slayer:

Originally Posted By LARRYG:

Originally Posted By Gunner1X:
What are the chances of getting a republican El Presidente next election?



What are the chances that we can get rid of the infantile name calling libtard tactics?



want to explain that one larry? Bush has proven through his words and actions over and over and over again that dealing with illegal mexicans is NOT an issue to him. he welcomes them all.



It is pretty self-explanatory.

It has never been an issue with any President. This did not start on his watch, although one would think that it did.

He is not "El Presidente" nor is he "Jorge". He is George W. Bush, the President of the United States, whether you like him or not. That other shit is liberal infantile name calling bullshit.

I didn't even see Clinton get insulted like that.
Link Posted: 4/3/2006 3:12:23 PM EDT

Originally Posted By motown_steve:

Originally Posted By LARRYG:
The sky is falling, the sky is falling.

End days are here.

Blah, blah, blah.

Are you basing any of this on any real FACTS? Is this just gloom and doom?



Bush's approval rating is dropping like a rock and supposedly the polls indicate that the Republicans are going to lose seats in this years election.

Joe Sixpack seems to be discontented and that is never a good thing for the party in power. I have very little no faith in the average person's ability to do the right thing.



The polls? I can believe that you would pay attention to them.
Link Posted: 4/3/2006 3:14:09 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/3/2006 3:15:06 PM EDT by tekloid]

Originally Posted By Lord Bushies LARRYG:

Originally Posted By Gunner1X:
What are the chances of getting a republican El Presidente next election?



What are the chances that we can get rid of the infantile name calling libtard tactics?



What are the chances that we can get a reply from you in this thread without the hostile teen like angst?
Link Posted: 4/3/2006 3:15:28 PM EDT

Originally Posted By LARRYG:

Originally Posted By Gunner1X:
What are the chances of getting a republican El Presidente next election?



What are the chances that we can get rid of the infantile name calling libtard tactics?





Mr Pot, meet Mr Kettle
Link Posted: 4/3/2006 3:16:40 PM EDT

Originally Posted By spartacus2002:

Originally Posted By LARRYG:

Originally Posted By Gunner1X:
What are the chances of getting a republican El Presidente next election?



What are the chances that we can get rid of the infantile name calling libtard tactics?





Mr Pot, meet Mr Kettle



I didn't call him a libtard, I called the tactics libtard. Try reading comprehension 101.
Link Posted: 4/3/2006 3:18:32 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/3/2006 3:20:03 PM EDT by LARRYG]

Originally Posted By tekloid:

Originally Posted By Lord Bushies LARRYG:

Originally Posted By Gunner1X:
What are the chances of getting a republican El Presidente next election?



What are the chances that we can get rid of the infantile name calling libtard tactics?



What are the chances that we can get a reply from you in this thread without the hostile teen like angst?



I will reply in any manner I wish. Oh, you have been here an entire month and you have us all profiled, huh.

Yeah, the "jorge" bullshit is not "teen like", huh.

Teen like........... I guess your stupid ass "Lord Bushies" is very mature. Hell, you didn't even get the punctuation and spelling correct on that. What a joke.
Link Posted: 4/3/2006 3:18:38 PM EDT
I'm what one would call a Republitarian..

Probably vote Republican though. We DON'T need another 1992 with a Ross Perot type 3rd party candidate. Now, if some freak accident happens and there is an extremely conservative guy running that looks like he might have a chance of winning.. well thats a no brainer.

Lesser of two evils really. Republicans are bad, but Democrats are 10x worse. As it stands now, every vote for a conservative 3rd party candidate is one vote more towards victory for a Democrat candidate.
Link Posted: 4/3/2006 3:20:03 PM EDT

Originally Posted By LARRYG:

Originally Posted By spartacus2002:

Originally Posted By LARRYG:

Originally Posted By Gunner1X:
What are the chances of getting a republican El Presidente next election?



What are the chances that we can get rid of the infantile name calling libtard tactics?





Mr Pot, meet Mr Kettle



I didn't call him a libtard, I called the tactics libtard. Try reading comprehension 101.



Link Posted: 4/3/2006 3:20:50 PM EDT

Originally Posted By spartacus2002:

Originally Posted By LARRYG:

Originally Posted By spartacus2002:

Originally Posted By LARRYG:

Originally Posted By Gunner1X:
What are the chances of getting a republican El Presidente next election?



What are the chances that we can get rid of the infantile name calling libtard tactics?





Mr Pot, meet Mr Kettle



I didn't call him a libtard, I called the tactics libtard. Try reading comprehension 101.



www1.yatego.com/images/40bc6eb89fdf52.3/tapdance_fr_dd_170x240.jpg



Cute picture but totally irrelevant.
Link Posted: 4/3/2006 3:21:37 PM EDT

Originally Posted By LARRYG:

Originally Posted By motown_steve:

Originally Posted By LARRYG:
The sky is falling, the sky is falling.

End days are here.

Blah, blah, blah.

Are you basing any of this on any real FACTS? Is this just gloom and doom?



Bush's approval rating is dropping like a rock and supposedly the polls indicate that the Republicans are going to lose seats in this years election.

Joe Sixpack seems to be discontented and that is never a good thing for the party in power. I have very little no faith in the average person's ability to do the right thing.



The polls? I can believe that you would pay attention to them.



We'll have to wait and see what happens. I hold the average voter under great suspicion though. I think he's stupid, lazy and easily influenced by whoever promises him the most.
Link Posted: 4/3/2006 3:31:23 PM EDT

Originally Posted By motown_steve:

Originally Posted By LARRYG:

Originally Posted By motown_steve:

Originally Posted By LARRYG:
The sky is falling, the sky is falling.

End days are here.

Blah, blah, blah.

Are you basing any of this on any real FACTS? Is this just gloom and doom?



Bush's approval rating is dropping like a rock and supposedly the polls indicate that the Republicans are going to lose seats in this years election.

Joe Sixpack seems to be discontented and that is never a good thing for the party in power. I have very little no faith in the average person's ability to do the right thing.



The polls? I can believe that you would pay attention to them.



We'll have to wait and see what happens. I hold the average voter under great suspicion though. I think he's stupid, lazy and easily influenced by whoever promises him the most.



I will agree that we will have to wait and see. The polls mean exactly whatever the pollster wants them to mean.

The only people I meet that are discontented are people who voted for Kerry and were against the war. I have yet to meet anyone who supported us going into Iraq in the first place who now feel differently.
Link Posted: 4/3/2006 3:32:07 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/3/2006 3:37:28 PM EDT by AROptics]
12 million votes better a chance than we'll have in 2012.

Bush is so clueless and easily manipulated by Neocons that he has us nearly 9,000,000,000 in debt with NOTHING to show for it. We have than double the number of illegal immigrants than we had in 1986 when they passed the last amnesty. Why would an independent vote for another one like him?

If this amnesty dies and they build a wall, then they have heard those that elected them and it will still be a fight to win. If they pass amnesty and don't build a wall they MUST, and I believe will, pay. I will do all I can to make sure they do.

I saw California go from the Golden State to what you've all seen on the news lately. I moved to another state to get away from that s-hole and regain my gun rights. If the Republicans screw the base and especially gun owners again there will be nowhere to run.
Link Posted: 4/3/2006 9:17:39 PM EDT
Thread killer? Say it ain't so...
Link Posted: 4/3/2006 9:34:23 PM EDT
About 65% right now.
Link Posted: 4/3/2006 9:38:27 PM EDT

Originally Posted By jonathon:
I'm what one would call a Republitarian..

Probably vote Republican though. We DON'T need another 1992 with a Ross Perot type 3rd party candidate. Now, if some freak accident happens and there is an extremely conservative guy running that looks like he might have a chance of winning.. well thats a no brainer.

Lesser of two evils really. Republicans are bad, but Democrats are 10x worse. As it stands now, every vote for a conservative 3rd party candidate is one vote more towards victory for a Democrat candidate.



Libertarians are not "Conservative" by any wild stretch of the imagination.
Link Posted: 4/3/2006 9:48:24 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Tim84K10:

Originally Posted By jonathon:
I'm what one would call a Republitarian..

Probably vote Republican though. We DON'T need another 1992 with a Ross Perot type 3rd party candidate. Now, if some freak accident happens and there is an extremely conservative guy running that looks like he might have a chance of winning.. well thats a no brainer.

Lesser of two evils really. Republicans are bad, but Democrats are 10x worse. As it stands now, every vote for a conservative 3rd party candidate is one vote more towards victory for a Democrat candidate.



Libertarians are not "Conservative" by any wild stretch of the imagination.



Libertarians are both exceedingly liberal and conservative with no moderate views to speak of. Ask a Libertarian of their views on Gov spending and capitolism trhen say they are not conservative in the right areas. Thier is a signifigant difference between a "classic liberal" who believes the constitution steadfastly and adheres to it and a "Liberal Socialists" who thinks it is toilet paper. Liberal is no always a bad word. The border will not be fixed either way Dim/Soc or GOP so you lose nothing voting third party, and you will likely benefit from big tax and spending cuts.
Link Posted: 4/3/2006 11:24:20 PM EDT
Libertarians believe you should be free to do as you please so long as you do not infringe on the rights of others. That is what it means to be a libertarian, and that's all it means. There are many areas where libertarians disagree on issues (environmental issues, whether the unborn have rights, whether the states power regarding national defense extends to conscription, etc), they're no more a monolithic block than any other party.

Liberal and conservative don't even apply, because they're words used to differentiate one collectivist authoritarian ideology from another. The difference between a libertarian and a conservative is the libertarian believes the only proper role for government is to enforce the principle that one man or group cannot infringe upon the rights of another, that's the basis of all law and the source of all legitimate government power. Since the initiation of force is a criminal act, and government must initiate force to exist, it is by definition a necessary evil, and should be strictly limited to enforcing the principle. When government uses force of law for other purposes, uses tax money to pay for other programs, it becomes a criminal enterprise. The constitution is a very libertarian document, setting strict limitations on the powers granted the government by the people.

A conservative believes government has legitimate powers that extend into other areas, often different areas than a liberal, but the arguements are essentially the same "greater good" nonsense. The conservative believes the needs of the state outweigh the liberty of the individual, that the state has an inherent right to use force in many situations, which is why a "conservative" can never really be trusted to stand on any particular principle, they have no foundational principle on which to build. They end up argueing the merits of this prohibition or that, of one wealth transfer over another, whether or not the law is based on religion or whether they have the authority to regulate how contracts are written between consenting adults, whether it be who may write a marriage contract or what currency a business contract is enforcable in, because to them, like to the democrats, democracy is the source of their legitimacy.

Republicans are always saying we're one election away from having this right or that right taken away, that to vote for a third party is to help that process along.

I say if we're so vulnerable to the whims of the masses, propagandized and brainwashed and ignorant as they are, we've already lost the constitutional republic, and have become the pure democracy the founders so despised. In fact I'd say we're so far down that road the tyranny that inevitably follows has already begun to flourish.

I, for one, will never again lend it the legitimacy it claims my vote provides it.
Link Posted: 4/4/2006 12:10:40 AM EDT
30%

The cycle always turns, and it's coming due.
Link Posted: 4/4/2006 12:37:34 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Mattl:

Originally Posted By Tim84K10:

Originally Posted By jonathon:
I'm what one would call a Republitarian..

Probably vote Republican though. We DON'T need another 1992 with a Ross Perot type 3rd party candidate. Now, if some freak accident happens and there is an extremely conservative guy running that looks like he might have a chance of winning.. well thats a no brainer.

Lesser of two evils really. Republicans are bad, but Democrats are 10x worse. As it stands now, every vote for a conservative 3rd party candidate is one vote more towards victory for a Democrat candidate.



Libertarians are not "Conservative" by any wild stretch of the imagination.



Libertarians are both exceedingly liberal and conservative with no moderate views to speak of. Ask a Libertarian of their views on Gov spending and capitolism trhen say they are not conservative in the right areas. Thier is a signifigant difference between a "classic liberal" who believes the constitution steadfastly and adheres to it and a "Liberal Socialists" who thinks it is toilet paper. Liberal is no always a bad word. The border will not be fixed either way Dim/Soc or GOP so you lose nothing voting third party, and you will likely benefit from big tax and spending cuts.



Agreed on the economic conservatism, but the modern perversion of both liberalism and conservativism has no place in a discussion of libertarian values.
Link Posted: 4/4/2006 12:39:19 AM EDT

Originally Posted By K2QB3:
Libertarians believe you should be free to do as you please so long as you do not infringe on the rights of others. That is what it means to be a libertarian, and that's all it means. There are many areas where libertarians disagree on issues (environmental issues, whether the unborn have rights, whether the states power regarding national defense extends to conscription, etc), they're no more a monolithic block than any other party.

Liberal and conservative don't even apply, because they're words used to differentiate one collectivist authoritarian ideology from another. The difference between a libertarian and a conservative is the libertarian believes the only proper role for government is to enforce the principle that one man or group cannot infringe upon the rights of another, that's the basis of all law and the source of all legitimate government power. Since the initiation of force is a criminal act, and government must initiate force to exist, it is by definition a necessary evil, and should be strictly limited to enforcing the principle. When government uses force of law for other purposes, uses tax money to pay for other programs, it becomes a criminal enterprise. The constitution is a very libertarian document, setting strict limitations on the powers granted the government by the people.

A conservative believes government has legitimate powers that extend into other areas, often different areas than a liberal, but the arguements are essentially the same "greater good" nonsense. The conservative believes the needs of the state outweigh the liberty of the individual, that the state has an inherent right to use force in many situations, which is why a "conservative" can never really be trusted to stand on any particular principle, they have no foundational principle on which to build. They end up argueing the merits of this prohibition or that, of one wealth transfer over another, whether or not the law is based on religion or whether they have the authority to regulate how contracts are written between consenting adults, whether it be who may write a marriage contract or what currency a business contract is enforcable in, because to them, like to the democrats, democracy is the source of their legitimacy.

Republicans are always saying we're one election away from having this right or that right taken away, that to vote for a third party is to help that process along.

I say if we're so vulnerable to the whims of the masses, propagandized and brainwashed and ignorant as they are, we've already lost the constitutional republic, and have become the pure democracy the founders so despised. In fact I'd say we're so far down that road the tyranny that inevitably follows has already begun to flourish.

I, for one, will never again lend it the legitimacy it claims my vote provides it.



God damn, I wish I could write like that. Great post.
Link Posted: 4/4/2006 12:45:30 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/4/2006 12:47:18 AM EDT by MudBug]

Originally Posted By Fourays2:

Originally Posted By kissfan:
How about Newt Gingrich? He's hinting...



that would be nice, he'd certainly stopp a lot of people from protest voting Libertarian.




I'll never vote Libertarian, but if something doesn't change in the Grand Old party quick, I'm gonna write in Calvin Coolidge.
Link Posted: 4/4/2006 12:58:45 AM EDT

Originally Posted By K2QB3:
Libertarians believe you should be free to do as you please so long as you do not infringe on the rights of others. That is what it means to be a libertarian, and that's all it means. There are many areas where libertarians disagree on issues (environmental issues, whether the unborn have rights, whether the states power regarding national defense extends to conscription, etc), they're no more a monolithic block than any other party.

Liberal and conservative don't even apply, because they're words used to differentiate one collectivist authoritarian ideology from another. The difference between a libertarian and a conservative is the libertarian believes the only proper role for government is to enforce the principle that one man or group cannot infringe upon the rights of another, that's the basis of all law and the source of all legitimate government power. Since the initiation of force is a criminal act, and government must initiate force to exist, it is by definition a necessary evil, and should be strictly limited to enforcing the principle. When government uses force of law for other purposes, uses tax money to pay for other programs, it becomes a criminal enterprise. The constitution is a very libertarian document, setting strict limitations on the powers granted the government by the people.

A conservative believes government has legitimate powers that extend into other areas, often different areas than a liberal, but the arguements are essentially the same "greater good" nonsense. The conservative believes the needs of the state outweigh the liberty of the individual, that the state has an inherent right to use force in many situations, which is why a "conservative" can never really be trusted to stand on any particular principle, they have no foundational principle on which to build. They end up argueing the merits of this prohibition or that, of one wealth transfer over another, whether or not the law is based on religion or whether they have the authority to regulate how contracts are written between consenting adults, whether it be who may write a marriage contract or what currency a business contract is enforcable in, because to them, like to the democrats, democracy is the source of their legitimacy.

Republicans are always saying we're one election away from having this right or that right taken away, that to vote for a third party is to help that process along.

I say if we're so vulnerable to the whims of the masses, propagandized and brainwashed and ignorant as they are, we've already lost the constitutional republic, and have become the pure democracy the founders so despised. In fact I'd say we're so far down that road the tyranny that inevitably follows has already begun to flourish.

I, for one, will never again lend it the legitimacy it claims my vote provides it.



You are a god with the written word.

Link Posted: 4/4/2006 1:34:43 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/4/2006 1:36:41 AM EDT by Dave_A]
Depends on who we run...


Guliani, McCain, etc... Dems will win... We won't pick up any 'leaning demo' voters but there will be a loss on the right, as people 'sit it out'...

We have a good chance with Frist or Gingrich - Rice won't run 1st-ticket....

As for the media & the polls

The polls were sure Kerry was going to win... They were wrong

The polls were sure the Dems would make gains in congress last mid-term election... They were wrong...

Link Posted: 4/4/2006 1:45:18 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/4/2006 1:50:05 AM EDT by Dave_A]

Originally Posted By K2QB3:
Libertarians believe you should be free to do as you please so long as you do not infringe on the rights of others. That is what it means to be a libertarian, and that's all it means. There are many areas where libertarians disagree on issues (environmental issues, whether the unborn have rights, whether the states power regarding national defense extends to conscription, etc), they're no more a monolithic block than any other party.

Liberal and conservative don't even apply, because they're words used to differentiate one collectivist authoritarian ideology from another. The difference between a libertarian and a conservative is the libertarian believes the only proper role for government is to enforce the principle that one man or group cannot infringe upon the rights of another, that's the basis of all law and the source of all legitimate government power. Since the initiation of force is a criminal act, and government must initiate force to exist, it is by definition a necessary evil, and should be strictly limited to enforcing the principle. When government uses force of law for other purposes, uses tax money to pay for other programs, it becomes a criminal enterprise. The constitution is a very libertarian document, setting strict limitations on the powers granted the government by the people.

A conservative believes government has legitimate powers that extend into other areas, often different areas than a liberal, but the arguements are essentially the same "greater good" nonsense. The conservative believes the needs of the state outweigh the liberty of the individual, that the state has an inherent right to use force in many situations, which is why a "conservative" can never really be trusted to stand on any particular principle, they have no foundational principle on which to build. They end up argueing the merits of this prohibition or that, of one wealth transfer over another, whether or not the law is based on religion or whether they have the authority to regulate how contracts are written between consenting adults, whether it be who may write a marriage contract or what currency a business contract is enforcable in, because to them, like to the democrats, democracy is the source of their legitimacy.

Republicans are always saying we're one election away from having this right or that right taken away, that to vote for a third party is to help that process along.

I say if we're so vulnerable to the whims of the masses, propagandized and brainwashed and ignorant as they are, we've already lost the constitutional republic, and have become the pure democracy the founders so despised. In fact I'd say we're so far down that road the tyranny that inevitably follows has already begun to flourish.

I, for one, will never again lend it the legitimacy it claims my vote provides it.



And that is exactly why Libertarians can never be allowed to take any significant level of power

Libertarians are all a bunch of save-my-own-ass-fuck-the-world reactionaries... Every single plank the party holds seems to want to take us back to the bad-old-days, circa 1812, when we almost lost a war because members of the 'federalized militia' decided they could up and quit if ordered to fight in a foreign country (Canada) or even outside of their state...

Libertarianisim is 100% incompatible with global reach & power - 100% incompatible with the things the US *must* do to maintain it's independance in an increasingly socialist world... The libertarian answer seems to boil down to 'screw the world, I don't care as long as no one can tell me what to do back home'...

The problem is we will eventually be placed in a situation where we must either take over the world by proxy or be taken over by a foreign agenda... Libertarianisim cannot handle this task, it's core principles are at odds with any significant ability to project power & influence abroad... The libertarian answer is to turtle up behind indefensable borders (No matter what scheme you come up with, it is IMPOSSIBLE to actually build 'Fortress America' - too much land, too few troops - especially in the LP world where you can quit the military just like a civillian job) and dillude ourselves into thinking it will last... It won't...

The fact is, the only way to survive is to take on an offensive approach, and force the world to conform to our way. The alternative is that they will eventually force us into theirs... Yes, this is very anti-'liberty' for the rest of the world - well, the ROW has shown they are incapable of reaching/maintaining our present standard of freedom without outside help - how do you expect them to handle libertarian anarchy... Call me a neocon, imperialist, or whatever - some of that's pretty true...

I call myself a conservative realist... In today's world, you lead or you follow - it is impossible to get out of the way...
Link Posted: 4/4/2006 2:31:54 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/4/2006 2:32:56 AM EDT by swingset]

Originally Posted By Dave_A:

Originally Posted By K2QB3:
Libertarians believe you should be free to do as you please so long as you do not infringe on the rights of others. That is what it means to be a libertarian, and that's all it means. There are many areas where libertarians disagree on issues (environmental issues, whether the unborn have rights, whether the states power regarding national defense extends to conscription, etc), they're no more a monolithic block than any other party.

Liberal and conservative don't even apply, because they're words used to differentiate one collectivist authoritarian ideology from another. The difference between a libertarian and a conservative is the libertarian believes the only proper role for government is to enforce the principle that one man or group cannot infringe upon the rights of another, that's the basis of all law and the source of all legitimate government power. Since the initiation of force is a criminal act, and government must initiate force to exist, it is by definition a necessary evil, and should be strictly limited to enforcing the principle. When government uses force of law for other purposes, uses tax money to pay for other programs, it becomes a criminal enterprise. The constitution is a very libertarian document, setting strict limitations on the powers granted the government by the people.

A conservative believes government has legitimate powers that extend into other areas, often different areas than a liberal, but the arguements are essentially the same "greater good" nonsense. The conservative believes the needs of the state outweigh the liberty of the individual, that the state has an inherent right to use force in many situations, which is why a "conservative" can never really be trusted to stand on any particular principle, they have no foundational principle on which to build. They end up argueing the merits of this prohibition or that, of one wealth transfer over another, whether or not the law is based on religion or whether they have the authority to regulate how contracts are written between consenting adults, whether it be who may write a marriage contract or what currency a business contract is enforcable in, because to them, like to the democrats, democracy is the source of their legitimacy.

Republicans are always saying we're one election away from having this right or that right taken away, that to vote for a third party is to help that process along.

I say if we're so vulnerable to the whims of the masses, propagandized and brainwashed and ignorant as they are, we've already lost the constitutional republic, and have become the pure democracy the founders so despised. In fact I'd say we're so far down that road the tyranny that inevitably follows has already begun to flourish.

I, for one, will never again lend it the legitimacy it claims my vote provides it.



And that is exactly why Libertarians can never be allowed to take any significant level of power

Libertarians are all a bunch of save-my-own-ass-fuck-the-world reactionaries... Every single plank the party holds seems to want to take us back to the bad-old-days, circa 1812, when we almost lost a war because members of the 'federalized militia' decided they could up and quit if ordered to fight in a foreign country (Canada) or even outside of their state...

Libertarianisim is 100% incompatible with global reach & power - 100% incompatible with the things the US *must* do to maintain it's independance in an increasingly socialist world... The libertarian answer seems to boil down to 'screw the world, I don't care as long as no one can tell me what to do back home'...

The problem is we will eventually be placed in a situation where we must either take over the world by proxy or be taken over by a foreign agenda... Libertarianisim cannot handle this task, it's core principles are at odds with any significant ability to project power & influence abroad... The libertarian answer is to turtle up behind indefensable borders (No matter what scheme you come up with, it is IMPOSSIBLE to actually build 'Fortress America' - too much land, too few troops - especially in the LP world where you can quit the military just like a civillian job) and dillude ourselves into thinking it will last... It won't...

The fact is, the only way to survive is to take on an offensive approach, and force the world to conform to our way. The alternative is that they will eventually force us into theirs... Yes, this is very anti-'liberty' for the rest of the world - well, the ROW has shown they are incapable of reaching/maintaining our present standard of freedom without outside help - how do you expect them to handle libertarian anarchy... Call me a neocon, imperialist, or whatever - some of that's pretty true...

I call myself a conservative realist... In today's world, you lead or you follow - it is impossible to get out of the way...



Yup, there you have it.

Either you're a libertarian in philosophy, which is just & fair towards all mankind.

Or, you're a nationalist, seeking to uphold the empire, which is probably necessary for our survival....and that of democracy everywhere.

Stand on principle, and lose our country, or fight the world and warp it into something it was never meant to be.

Fuckin A.
Link Posted: 4/4/2006 8:28:51 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/4/2006 12:18:03 PM EDT by GunLvrPHD]
I recall circa 1996-1999 Al Gore being referred to as "Next President Gore".

Bush would have beat Gore in a landslide if not for the last minute "drunk driving" smear attack by the Democraps.

GunLvr
Link Posted: 4/4/2006 8:34:06 AM EDT

Originally Posted By UZI4you:
There will be a Republican in the white house for 2008.

The left has no plan what so ever, other than they hate President Bush...Hillary will run, but loose and McCain will run but will not get the nomination.

I think our next President will not be Sen. McCain or Frist, rather it will be a Republican Gov. that is not on the media's radar yet.

Iraq is not a mess like the media says it is. And the economy is doing great, unlike what the media says.



+1000

But I'm still buying ammo, mags and guns.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top