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

[Im Neero]

Was Saddam a communist? I thought he was more of a fascist than anything. Apparently at some point communist lost it's meaning and just started meaning "bad."

[strickj]

Whoops,did I say that!I meant dictator

[Mark@Sea]

Hussein was a tyrant, and a bit mad. He continually violated the terms of the cease-fire (which, by the way, sort of highlights the fact we were still 'at war', from Gulfwar1, just in a ceasefire, as peace terms were never reached between Hussein and the coalition). He provided support to Al Queda, he used chemical weapons against his own citizens and the citizens of neighbor states - Iran and the Kurds (yes, I know the Kurds are considered part of Iraq, but from a historical/cultural viewpoint, they are as much a part of Iraq as Georgia is part of the former soviet union), WMD's were found (and totally ignored by the libtard media). He was, in fact, pursuing materiel required for nukes.

The "troofers", conspiricy idiots, peaceniks - well, you have three choices. Educate, ignore, or laugh your arse off. Just highlights one of the worst things about our culture today - we've made it possible for stupid to prosper.

[fury2neon]

Was Saddam a communist? I thought he was more of a fascist than anything. Apparently at some point communist lost it's meaning and just started meaning "bad."

He claimed to be a socialist, but there is no real economic difference in a Communist, Socialist or Fascist. He was a dictator, but that in an of its self does not make him evil. What made him evil was the slaughter of thousands of his own people, and continued planning to cause more death and destruction throughout the middle east (not to mention his plans for our country, and yes they were a little far fetched)

Before Hitler invaded Russia in WWII the fascist and communist/socialist in this country were working together for their common goal of a socialist utopia. Once Hitler invaded Russia they split into their own separate groups and claimed they never associated with each other.

[Guest unreconstructed1]

while I said that I wouldn't post any longer in this thread, I just figured I'd say this. due to recent events ( http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11407) I MAY have actually decided to vote Republican after all.

[Marswolf]

due to recent events ... I MAY have actually decided to vote Republican after all.

I suspect there are a lot of folks in your position.

[G27]

Not sure why Palin would change things very much, but I know very little about her. Who know? Given time, I may decide to follow suit, though I doubt it.

[Guest GUTTERbOY]

Not sure why Palin would change things very much, but I know very little about her. Who know? Given time, I may decide to follow suit, though I doubt it.

Well, FWIW, my brother is a pretty staunch Libertarian. We had a discussion about the election a couple months ago, during which he said something along the lines of "There is no way I'll vote for McCain". But he actually seems very interested in Palin. It helps that, from what I understand, she was thought highly of by Ron Paul, and I think he ay have mentioned her as a possible VP pick had he (by some miracle) gotten the Repub nomination.

In short, she seems to have a good rep among the libertarian front, and I've read a fair number of people who were lukewarm at best on McCain. but have been hooked by the Palin pick.

Me? As I believe I've detailed here, I was already about 99% sure I was gonna hold my nose and vote McCain. But Palin makes it a lot easier for me to do that.

[fury2neon]

I like Palin on the GOP ticket. She moderates McCain's socialism. There is no way I could vote for McCain due to his big government proposals and his idea that government is the solution to our problems. Palin form her record appears to believe that individuals are the solutions to their own problems if we can get government out of the way.

She did attempt to save the Alaskan government run milk company, but then again the government business could not compet on a level playing filed with a priviate company and she allowed that government bunisess to fail rather than subsidize it.

[Guest unreconstructed1]

Not sure why Palin would change things very much, but I know very little about her. Who know? Given time, I may decide to follow suit, though I doubt it.

to sum it up best, she is basically what most would now consider a Ron Paul Republican. she is a constitutionalist above and beyond her own agenda.

her first use of the veto power as Alaskas governor was to veto a bill which she herself supported, but which was deemed to be unconstitutional.

she is also a true conservative, and a friend of gun owners.

[GLOCKMEISTER]

you vote anything but GOP this time around and you will be part of a Socialist state in three years.

[Oh Shoot]

you vote anything but GOP this time around and you will be part of a Socialist state in three years.

Too late already.

Dubya has had the rare knack of using Republicanism to not only ruin the economy, damage our credence and influence world wide, further eradicate the middle class that our country has depended on since WWII, make a mockery of national security by allowing and abetting the Mexican invasion, but to also strip away more of our individual rights that any Democratic administration in memory, maybe period.

The SCOTUS 2nd amendment decision was the only good thing to happen during his reign that I can recall which Dubya had even remotely a hand in, since he nominated two of the current justices.

- OS

[Marswolf]

Shall we quit whining about the past and move into the future?

[Guest canynracer]

naaahhh...we are told to look back to history...thats why we still listen to old folks....hahahahah

no flaming, it was a joke people

[GLOCKMEISTER]

Too late already.

Dubya has had the rare knack of using Republicanism to not only ruin the economy, damage our credence and influence world wide, further eradicate the middle class that our country has depended on since WWII, make a mockery of national security by allowing and abetting the Mexican invasion, but to also strip away more of our individual rights that any Democratic administration in memory, maybe period.

The SCOTUS 2nd amendment decision was the only good thing to happen during his reign that I can recall which Dubya had even remotely a hand in, since he nominated two of the current justices.

- OS

so Obama's going to be better with two liberal justices minimum retireing in the next 4? Sorry im not voting for a baby killing, same sex marriage loving, gun grabbing, tax me to death liberal.

[Oh Shoot]

so Obama's going to be better with two liberal justices minimum retireing in the next 4? Sorry im not voting for a baby killing, same sex marriage loving, gun grabbing, tax me to death liberal.

"Baby killing": Whether "life begins" at conception or later is a biological and philosophical argument. Philosophically, birth control of any kind is "denial of life". Morning after pill can also be "baby killing". I leave it up to the moral discretion of the mother; if she can live with it, so can I.

"same sex marriage": Doesn't bother me. Doesn't threaten me. If I were gay, I'd really care. I'm not, so I don't.

"gun grabbing": agree. Gun ownership, beyond the practical aspect of actually HAVING guns, is a cornerstone freedom; it that is taken, all freedoms can be taken. (of course, we just had some taken in the last 8 years anyway).

"tax me to death": agree, but not really sure in long run that Dems actually are more tax happy than Repubs. If you are raking in the dough, you are traditionally better off under Repubs, otherwise, I think it's a wash.

- OS

[NuTcAsE]

"Baby killing": Whether "life begins" at conception or later is a biological and philosophical argument. Philosophically, birth control of any kind is "denial of life". Morning after pill can also be "baby killing". I leave it up to the moral discretion of the mother; if she can live with it, so can I.

No biological or philosophical argument about it, if you don't want to get pregnant don't go drinkin out of the creek.

I'm Pro-Choice here, and the choices are:

1) Don't be Ho'in around. That's easy enough ain't it?

2) If you're gonna go Ho'in around get fixed. Especially if you're goin to a bar. (If your stupid enough to to get drunk and go home with whatever you don't need to be breeding any way.) Refer back to #1.

3) If you can't afford to get fixed, take precautions with you. You can find precautions in most public bathrooms they come in a little pack, and cost about 50 or 75 cents. (some places may have 10 cent recaps if you're really poor. but at this point you may want to seriously consider some gainful employment. And again you probably don't need to be breeding anyway.) Refer back to #1.

Seriously though I won't buy into "The Woman's right to her body" nonsense. What about that baby's rights? Women & Men have a duty to responsibility, and the Government has more important things it should be doing.

"same sex marriage": Doesn't bother me. Doesn't threaten me. If I were gay, I'd really care. I'm not, so I don't.

I'm against it, What two consenting adults do in their house is fine by me. It doesn't threaten me, but it does threaten my children. And again the Government has more important things it should be doing, than worrying if Mr. Sulu and, Ellen Degenerate feel good about their relationships.

"gun grabbing": agree. Gun ownership, beyond the practical aspect of actually HAVING guns, is a cornerstone freedom; it that is taken, all freedoms can be taken. (of course, we just had some taken in the last 8 years anyway).

Yep, and I don't know why the dems. aren't turning cartwheels, unless it's because W. doesn't have a "D." after his name.

"tax me to death": agree, but not really sure in long run that Dems actually are more tax happy than Repubs. If you are raking in the dough, you are traditionally better off under Repubs, otherwise, I think it's a wash.- OS

They'll more blow more than than they can print.

[strickj]

No biological or philosophical argument about it, if you don't want to get pregnant don't go drinkin out of the creek.

I'm Pro-Choice here, and the choices are:

1) Don't be Ho'in around. That's easy enough ain't it?

2) If you're gonna go Ho'in around get fixed. Especially if you're goin to a bar. (If your stupid enough to to get drunk and go home with whatever you don't need to be breeding any way.) Refer back to #1.

3) If you can't afford to get fixed, take precautions with you. You can find precautions in most public bathrooms they come in a little pack, and cost about 50 or 75 cents. (some places may have 10 cent recaps if you're really poor. but at this point you may want to seriously consider some gainful employment. And again you probably don't need to be breeding anyway.) Refer back to #1.

Seriously though I won't buy into "The Woman's right to her body" nonsense. What about that baby's rights? Women & Men have a duty to responsibility, and the Government has more important things it should be doing.

It easy to only think about things in one way

Forget about all those rapes,and I'm not really sure how the government has anything to do with Susie's rape child.

I'm against it, What two consenting adults do in their house is fine by me. It doesn't threaten me, but it does threaten my children. And again the Government has more important things it should be doing, than worrying if Mr. Sulu and, Ellen Degenerate feel good about their relationships.

Once again I'm not sure why the government has anything to do with making sure their relationship is good

[NuTcAsE]

It easy to only think about things in one way

Forget about all those rapes,and I'm not really sure how the government has anything to do with Susie's rape child.

Yes, that is one way I think about it. As far as rape is concerned, I think that is a decision the woman has to make herself, get some counseling. I also think that a percentage of rapes are false. Be it guilt, drunk, or whatever, refer back to said choices above. I know sh*t happens the best you can do, but if Susie had prepared a little better, packed some heat, avoid situations. Then maybe she wouldn't have a pregnancy to worry about. But either way the only thing the Gov. needs to do is determine if a crime has been committed, and throw one of the two of them in jail.

Once again I'm not sure why the government has anything to do with making sure their relationship is good

Exactly.

[Im Neero]

I'm against it, What two consenting adults do in their house is fine by me. It doesn't threaten me, but it does threaten my children. And again the Government has more important things it should be doing, than worrying if Mr. Sulu and, Ellen Degenerate feel good about their relationships.

How exactly does it threaten your children?

Also, the government is much more worried about gays right now than it would be if they legalized same sex marriage. They proposed amending the constitution to prohibit it for god's sake.

[NuTcAsE]

How exactly does it threaten your children?

Also, the government is much more worried about gays right now than it would be if they legalized same sex marriage. They proposed amending the constitution to prohibit it for god's sake.

It threatens the way I'm trying to raise them. I think it's wrong and I view it as a threat to morals an values I'm trying to teach them. I don't want them thinking it's O.K. because it's legal to marry your fishin buddy. Like I said above, "What two consenting adults do in their house is fine by me." keep it there. I don't even like to see a man and a woman kissing in public, get a room. Right now I can't see banning "gay marriage" until an amendment is passed. Even then if you want to cuddle up to your fishin buddy's hairy, mole filled back. Great!, I'm happy for you! Still, it's not an issue, pass an amendment a be done with it.

[Marswolf]

You mean a National amendment? It ain't gonna happen. And I wouldn't count on SCOTUS letting state amendments stand.

[Im Neero]

I fail to see how that's any more of a threat than interracial marriage, rock and roll music, or freedom of religion.

[Mike.357]

As far as rape is concerned, I think that is a decision the woman has to make herself, get some counseling.

Okay, now let me get this straight. It is okay to abort a child concieved in a rape?

But not okay to abort a child concieved in the back seat of a car?

I really do not see the moral difference here.

Let the lesbos and fags get married, it does not effect anything.

[Guest GUTTERbOY]

If'n you ask me, the government either ought to recognize all unions, or none of them. My personal preference would be the latter- marriage ought to be a matter between a man and a woman, or two men, or what have you, but there's absolutely no reason the government should be getting involved in the first place. With the current system of the government endorsing heterosexual unions but not those slimy homos, there's a pretty clear argument IMO for unfairness.

I don't give two craps what a couple of consenting adults, plus maybe a barnyard animal if they swing that way, do in their bedroom. Their relationship is none of my business... but I don't think it's crazy for them to want the same recognizance as other couples.