Libertarian Party ... How I Wish....

[Oh Shoot]

Most folks here are specifically worried about firearms rights ... which makes perfect sense, given the nature of the forum.

I see firearms rights as being essentially equally in danger regardless of whether the old fart or the young whippersnapper is elected.

Your liberties are equally at risk, whether from left leaning "do-gooders", or right leaning "patriots".

Perhaps in extended ways you haven't considered, this Patriot Act tendency is perhaps the most dangerous single threat to your liberty and privacy. In ways Bin Laden never considered, it may be the Jihad's biggest victory in the long run.

"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel."

- Samuel Johnson

Edited August 26, 2008 by OhShoot

[Marswolf]

I certainly can not agree that our gun right are equally at risk from both candidates. McCain is certainly not strong on gun rights but Obama is openly and overtly hostile to those rights.

I wonder where we would have been today with our guns if Gore had won rather than Bush eight years ago.

As far as having a protest vote in favor of the Libertarian Party and that leading to the masses throwing down the liberalism of the Republicans and nutso-liberalism of the Democrats - I don't think that will ever happen. The public has learned they can raid the national coffers and the question is just how much they choose to loot. And both parties know they will lose if they try to shut down the "entitlement" pipeline.

[G27]

As far as having a protest vote in favor of the Libertarian Party and that leading to the masses throwing down the liberalism of the Republicans and nutso-liberalism of the Democrats - I don't think that will ever happen. The public has learned they can raid the national coffers and the question is just how much they choose to loot. And both parties know they will lose if they try to shut down the "entitlement" pipeline.

You may well be correct, but the colonies didn't stand a chance against the King, either.

I simply choose to vote and fight for my rights instead of laying down and saying "we can't win".

[Marswolf]

If the King had been giving entitlements (paid for by the colonies) we never would have had a revolution.

[Guest gunslinger707]

If the King had been giving entitlements (paid for by the colonies) we never would have had a revolution.

+1

[Warbird]

This thread is pretty funny. Libertarian candidates can afford to be hardcore, they have nothing, nada. Once they had some people in office and some sort of influence, especially in leadership they would have huge numbers of them squish out too. It's the nature of the beast, most office become squishes and they usually squish once they have positions of leadership, it has nothing to do with length of time in office.

England is a great example, tons of parties, lots of so-called hardliner parties, yet there are essentially only two parties in England as they all line up on one side or the other almost the same people, almost all of the time. There are two major philosophical ways to look at government, the rest is just details. Why do we have parties at all? Because it is human nature, it is a natural part of our governmental process. And I am thankful for parties, I am thankful for partisanship. Not all officeholders suck, just many of them. There are principled people in office, you just have to get more and get them more powerful roles in the party. Parties do change, it has happened and it will happen in the future too.

Vote how you like, but if you think your vote for some other party would lead to that other party getting power and being the be all end all, you will be vastly disappointed. you are better off working and local and state levels throughout the country to take control of the major party which represents the majority of your beliefs.

[Marswolf]

You are wise grasshopper.

[Guest unreconstructed1]

Can you show any proof that what was done is worse that what might have been?

and again, why does this have to be a screw up contest? why do you feel the need to Justify "W" by how his actions ain't "as bad" as the other guys?

here is the way I look at it.

Bush was a crappy president. Gore would have been as well, as would Kerry.

Clinton was a crappy president, as Dole would have been

Bush Sr. was a crappy president as well.

now that it is understood that I equally despise both parties, let me say this. while not intended as such, POTUS is one of the most important elected offices on this planet. the man has more power and more influence upon the world stage than arguably any other person in the world. why is it that we can only find rejects to be candidates for teh position?

would you have the kid that failed drivers Ed hauling a rig full of dynamite for a living?

as for McCain not being as hard on our gun rights as Obama, the man is a weasel. If he thinks it will get him re-elected, he would replace "in god we trust" with "allahu ackbar" tommorow. the man would throw his own granny under the bus for a nickel, and you don't think that he would throw us under it as well? McCain is a snake, plain and simple. Obama is a snake as well. look at all of his "change" BS, and then who he chooses as his running mate?!?!?

I refuse to vote for the candidate who will "do the least damage", and opt to support one who would actually work to reverse that damage.

If the govt wants to take your guns... you're pretty much crap out of luck. Sorry. They'll either a) take them, kill you for being stupid and trying to stand them off, c) arrest you if they find out you are still in possession of illegal contraband. All scenarios ending with you having no guns and them doing what they set out to do.

Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

~Patrick Henry

yes, they may take my guns, and yes I may not come out of it alive, but simply put, a life in chains is no life at all.

.If that means they have to "illegally tap" Abed Al Hamid's phone then so be it.Thats better then having him plow another plane into a building.

"They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

thank you Crimson, you took the words right out of my mouth.

as for your remarks Strick, maybe you can tolerate it right now that it is only happening to middle Easterners, but do you really believe it'll stop there? let me relate to you a little history:

In 1933, the German Reichstag ( house of parliament) burned to the ground in an obvious arson incident. in the aftermath of this terrorist attack, the German Chancellor asked the president to pass emergency legislation. what he got was the Reichstag Fire decree. this decree was just the first step in a series of legislation designed to better equip the German government to more effectively combat the terrorist threat. the climax of this string of new laws was the "enabling act", a piece of legislation quite similar to the "PATRIOT act". with the new found powers of this law at his disposal, Chancellor Adolph Hitler pursued the terrorists responsible, Dutch Communists, with the full might of his new found power. in order to house these "enemy combatants", he built concentration camps. The German peole didn't worry about all of this, for they were assured that it would only be used against "terrorists", and "enemies of the State".

after awhile, the government suddenly realized that Dutch Communists weren't the only dangerous people in the fatherland. soon he added Gyspsies to the list. then Homosexuals. then Jhovah's witnesses, then the jews, etc. etc.

Pastor Martin Niemoler summed it up best"

First they came for the Communists,

- but I was not a communist so I did not speak out.

Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists,

- but I was neither, so I did not speak out.

Then they came for the Jews,

- but I was not a Jew so I did not speak out.

And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me.

but I know what you're thinking "That was Germany, not the U.S. ... something like that couldn't happen here"

think again:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-1955&tab=summary

[strickj]

If a little wire taping gets your undies in a wad then you had better not even begin to think about the stuff that they do not tell you about

Edited August 26, 2008 by strickj

[Guest unreconstructed1]

If a little wire taping gets your undies in a wad then you had better not even begin to think about the stuff that they do not tell you about

and you find that acceptable from a govt "of the people, for the people, and by the people"?

[Marswolf]

Oh my goodness. I'll have to sober up before I can interpret all of that. Just kidding.

But as one of my friend's said, drunken stumblings generally mean more that which are accepted as wisdom on internet.

Basically,I expect the Libertarians to be around as an unimportant irritant for quite a while.

[Guest unreconstructed1]

Oh my goodness. I'll have to sober up before I can interpret all of that. Just kidding.

But as one of my friend's said, drunken stumblings generally mean more that which are accepted as wisdom on internet.

Basically,I expect the Libertarians to be around as an unimportant irritant for quite a while.

actually, I was completely sober when I wrote that. I just had a lot to say and a very small soapbox to say it on...

[Marswolf]

actually, I was completely sober when I wrote that. I just had a lot to say and a very small soapbox to say it on...

Sorry, I didn't mean to slight you, but it still doesn't make any sense.

Projection is not a logical construct without significant evidence.

[Guest Abominable_Hillbilly]

Now if you decide which major party to vote for depending on who you most agree with, then the parties may listen.

Actually, they'll plainly see they've got you by the short hairs and then they'll really not give a damn what you think. "We may suck, but look at Obama!"

However, personally, my conscience will be less encumbered by a vote for him than a failed vote for an unelectable candidate that probably helped put Obama into office.

As long as people continue with this line of logic, you're right. A constitutionalist will never be elected. It's your vote that's achieving this end.

The problem is that if you don't vote for the lesser of two evils, the greater of two evils has a much better chance of being elected.

Forever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever.

Do you all think that the two parties will ever change their ways without some threat of destruction from the electorate? When I read these supposedly pragmatic, prudent sentiments, I'm always struck by the cynicism and fear. When will they finally shove you in the chest hard enough to get you to fight back, and to do so at all hazard?

[Marswolf]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkyAsbuXrLk[/ame]

"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkyAsbuXrLk"

Edited August 27, 2008 by Marswolf

[Guest SUNTZU]

Your link...its missing.

[strickj]

and you find that acceptable from a govt "of the people, for the people, and by the people"?

Well that depends! If they're raping,and pillaging children,and innocence to obtain useless intel then no I dont agree.If they're taping Kwik's cell to keep me safe from Rabs then yes I do agree!

[Guest unreconstructed1]

Well that depends! If they're raping,and pillaging children,and innocence to obtain useless intel then no I dont agree.If they're taping Kwik's cell to keep me safe from Rabs then yes I do agree!

well, then don't complain when they begin tapping your cell with the misbegotten excuse that it is to keep so-and-so safe from someone else

[Marswolf]

Your link...its missing.

Not missing, just won't play as a redirect.

"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkyAsbuXrLk"

[Guest AeroEngrSoftDevMBA]

Well that depends! If they're raping,and pillaging children,and innocence to obtain useless intel then no I dont agree.If they're taping Kwik's cell to keep me safe from Rabs then yes I do agree!

"U.S. Killed 90, Including 60 Children, in Afghan Village, U.N. Finds"

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/27/world/asia/27herat.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

[TGO David]

"U.S. Killed 90, Including 60 Children, in Afghan Village, U.N. Finds"

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/27/world/asia/27herat.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

Two dead giveaways it's a bull**** claim...

1. United Nations

2. New York Times

[Guest AeroEngrSoftDevMBA]

Two dead giveaways it's a bull**** claim...

1. United Nations

2. New York Times

Two simple questions...

1. Are you a Christian?

2. Do you support the slaughter of innocent persons?

[TGO David]

Two simple questions...

1. Are you a Christian?

2. Do you support the slaughter of innocent persons?

Two answers...

1. None of your business and completely irrelevant

2. Define innocent

[Guest AeroEngrSoftDevMBA]

Two answers...

1. None of your business and completely irrelevant

2. Define innocent

1. You are right. My apologies. I was trying to make a point about the general hypocrisy of those who would preach peace but wage war (like GWB and others).

2. Innocent:

-adjective

a) free from moral wrong; without sin; pure: innocent children.

free from legal or specific wrong; guiltless: innocent of the crime.

c) not involving evil intent or motive: an innocent misrepresentation.

e) not causing physical or moral injury; harmless: innocent fun.

f) devoid (usually fol. by of): a law innocent of merit.

g) having or showing the simplicity or naiveté of an unworldly person; guileless; ingenuous.

h) uninformed or unaware; ignorant.

–noun

a) an innocent person.

a young child.

c) a guileless person.

e) a simpleton or idiot.

This is not the first time in the last few years that civilians have been killed by American gunfire, missiles, and bombs. It may help you sleep better at night believing that events didn't happen because you don't agree with those who reported them. If you vote for those who wish to continue a policy of aggression, then the blood of civilians is on your hands as well.

Sure sure they struck first with 9/11 and other attacks. Who struck first? Afghan women and children? Iraqi women and children? We cannot use the evil of others to justify our own evil.

[TGO David]

I've got news for you... there has been collateral damage since the inception of warfare. I firmly believe that the United States does not actively engage civilian targets and makes every conceivable effort to avoid collateral damage, not just because of the bad press it gets but because it is morally and ethically reprehensible to accept less than that.

That being said, **** happens. As the saying goes, "Freedom isn't free. Peace isn't pretty."

I'm not being flippant, I'm just stating that the harsh fact of life is that mistakes sometimes get made despite our best efforts. And that isn't even considering the entirely plausible scenario that civilians were put into harms way by the forces we're fighting against purely for the negative media impact it would have. It's been done plenty of times before.

I'm also one of those people who thinks that embedded reporters ought to get life preservers instead of flak jackets. The public has no need to know what happens on the battlefield and often lacks the stomach to accept that war IS hell, then makes the mistake of trying to come onto an Internet message board (like this one) and Monday Morning Quarterback the situation.