All of you who said there was no difference b/w D &R...

4

416Rigby

New member
.....You were darn right.

As much as I had rooted for Bush, even sending him some of my hard-earned money in the form of contributions, I am now finding myself very unexcited.

While discussing politics with friends and co-workers, I find myself as having drawn a very crisp line between the status quo (in its many but nonetheless too similar variations) and my ideal - the Libertarian ideal.

And I raise a lot of eyebrows. I come across as "radical". "Radical" for thinking that we are overlawed and overgoverned and that I am unexcited about anyone who proposes anything else than a "radical" downsizing of the Federal leviathan.

I am unexcited about John Ashcroft. He pledged to turn on the heat on the Federal war on drugs - and I have come to consider every "Federal war" as a war the government wages against its citizens.

I am unexcited about Bush, and his pussy-footing around trying to please everybody. I am scared when I hear phrases like "vigorous law-enforcement" or "aggresive law-enforcement". The victims of these "aggressions" always turn out to be the "little guys", more often than not guilty only of victimless crimes - crimes against far-fetched interpretations of musty codes that some pale-faced bureaucrat penned in the bowels of an "agency" in Washington.

I am unexcited to see my wages being plundered in the name of "services" that I either don't use or out of which I would gleefully opt; unexcited about seeing my property tax go towards indoctrinating somebody else's children; unexcited aobut paying more in local and state taxes, unexcited at the thought that as a producer I am being whacked in the name of "compassion" or "fairness", while more and more "services" are being promised by and for non-producers.

To all of you with whom the pre-November me disagreed about D and R being two very similar shades of the same color (red comes to mind), I have only one thing to say:

You were dead right.

And I am now a staunch, no-compromise Libertarian.

[Edited by 416Rigby on 02-13-2001 at 11:29 AM]
 
Welcome to the club

I've been disappointed in the Repubs since '92. They just don't get it. Even here in conservative Idaho we have a supposedly "conservative" governor that's proposing the largest increase in state government since the early 80's when Andrus (of Carter administration fame) screwed us.

When I see a significant difference, I'll vote Repub. 'Til then, save your breath on "throwing away my vote" (which is truly what happens when millions of us compromise and vote for the lesser of two evils).
 
So...

...you'd like to change your vote?

Help Al Gore get elected?

If you're going to elect a Libertarian as president in 2004, you better get to work...or you'll be the functional equivalent of a Green Party member.

My advice is to control your anger and disappointment at what you perceive might happen and do something that will really matter: pressure the Bush Administration to drop consideration of a single new gun control law. There's no mistaking what effect Charlton Heston & Co. had in our state, Tennessee, and you'll get no argument from ol' "No Controlling Legal Authority" either.

Work from the local level up...if the House and Senate don't send anything for Bush to sign, what's a Texan to do?

Most importantly: Don't let up!...kick the gun-control fascists while they're down and before the Dems have another of their stupid reversions.
 
a Libertarian President would find both the Republicans and the Democrats conspiring to make him/her totally ineffective.

First we need Libertarian Mayors and councilmen, then State Congress critters & senators. Then Libertarian Federal Representatives i9n DC.
The local party HQs will make that road very difficult.

Here in socalist Montgomery county the largest voter polling place is the Leisure World retirement center

How are we gonna get Gramma to vote for a 3rd Party?

I heard the Jesse Jackson showed up at the Whitehouse after Bill Clinton was first elected, Clinton's response was "who else would your people have voted for?"

dZ
registered Libertarian
 
Last summer I offered a challenge along these lines. I'll bring it back up now.

"R" supporters can name issues on which the "D"'s and "R"'s disagree, and I'll name the issues on which they do agree. Whoever runs out of issues first loses.

Any takers?
 
DZ has a good point their.
I sent the Libertairans a few hundred now but
I waited till after the presidential elections.
None of us are saying wed want Gore in his place
but were certainly most of us dissappointed with the
REpublican part that they relied so heavily on.
No we likely wont be able to have a libertarian predident
in 2004 but we can certainly stop the rolls of dough going
to the pussy footed republicrats and we CAN double and triple the number of libertarian candidates on a state
and federal level instead of the RNC and the NRA
yep I said lets start putting out money into the Libertarian
party and the constitution party not to mention even
displaying their stickers Ive loved seeing the one
'I vote LP find out why http://www.lp.org'
soon as their slowly replaced the republicrats theyll get the message.
Were probaly going to have to vote for Bush again in
2004 over someone like HIllary but before that many congressmen will have to run for re-election we now have the opprotunity to decide who will have the money to run.
More of the NRA's compromising republicrats and democrats
because unless your blind youve seen that they give money openly to both parties NOT just specific ones.
If their are particurally pro-gun republicans thats what we should do like GOA.
Im so poor all the money I have goes to GOA and the hardcore pro-gun candidates the work to get elect like
Ron Paul and Rep.Chennoeth-Hage and a few other
no compromise groups like JPFO,CCOPS and KABA I dont have thousands to send to my favs like Ron Paul and I certainly have no reason to contribute to my local NRA B+ rated
republicrats.
Lets wake these trickersters up give the libertarians
and the constitution party the money to get more
governors,congressmen and even senators elected so that no matter whos president victim disarmament will meet a stone wall and such legislation will have no legs to walk on
only hot aired liberals no matter what party they call themselves getting hotter.
OH and support orgs that give to uncompromising pro-gunners
like GOA look at the record of candidates they support
and compare them to the NRA's.
 
Yup, I'm a card carrying member of the Libertarian Party.

Personally, I think our primary goal, #1 on the agenda, should be reforming the election system so as to allow more third - party access.

(article on exactly what I think we should do on that issue here: http://www.anotherpundit.com/IRV.htm )

Otherwise, yes. .build on a state and local level, organize and grow. It may take another fifty years, but if we Don't do our damnedest, this country could all too easily end up fascist/socialist in 25.



----------------------------

http://www.AnotherPundit.com
 
I suppose that Bush has made me the maddest when he broke his first promise the other day vowing to submit President Clinton's 2002 military budget instead of working up a new proposal. He campaigned on rebuilding our military, but now has sold out and broke his promises. I suppose he doesn't remember that "Read my lips..." thing his father stepped on. I flatly refuse to support a moron like that.

That being said, I love Gale Norton (director of EPA), and Dick Cheney, and many of his picks for cabinet members. I'll hold my opinion until a few more months have passed.

For those of you who don't have a lot of money to give to favorite candidates, you can contact them and find an address to donate to throughout the next 2 years. I try to give $10.00 - $20.00 to Ron Paul each month. I will contact Dr. Pauls office today to find out if there is a place we can send donations to him starting right now. Dr. Paul and a few other libertarian Congressmen are national treasures. Support these men and women no matter what their political parties. I'll get back to you soon with an address and info from Dr. Paul.
 
Here it is:

Make checks payable to:

Committee to reelect Ron Paul

Mail them to:

837 w. plantation dr.
Clute, TX 77531

You may contact his office (for reelection) at 1 800 Ron Paul.

I talked to the lady there, and she said most donations are welcomed, but checks for fifty cents kinda hurt (costs them more to process than the donation ammount.

I send ten bucks each time I do bills, and if it is a good month, I send twenty. I encourage all of you to find a good Rep. and send them money. There is a website called the liberty caucus. Look it up, and there are many (l)libertarian congressmen there you may send money to. This is how you save our rights. When other congressmen see these guys start to recieve money, they will take notice and maybe defend liberty too.
 
Listen Fellas,

Maybe I'm looking at this with an outsider's perspective, but I just don't see it. Everything I've read here sounds like rhetoric. Now rhetoric isn't necessarily a bad thing, but I have to be honest I don't see it being supported by many facts here.

Part of it is the extremity of your claims. Of course there are some similiraties between Dems and Republicans. And of course there are some differences between Republicans and Libertarians. But to say there is _no_ difference (or even no _meaningful_ difference) between Democrats and Republicans appears to me to be unsupportable. Taxes, Abortion, and yes, gun rights spring to mind. You may not like how GW handles gun rights, but can you honestly say there is no difference in how he handles it and how Clinton did?

Can you provide any evidence that there is no meanigful difference?

Respectfully,
Matt Wallis
 
I'm with Matt Wallis. There are significant differences between the two parties. I never thought GWB was perfect, but he is far better in every area than Gore. The Libertarian stand on the moral issues prevents me from even considering them. We have to keep the pressure on this administration and the Congress. Anyone who thinks we would be as well off in the area of gun control under Gore is ignoring all the evidence. Jerry
 
What really gets me down is the fact that while a Government holds the strings of its citizens' purse, there is no limit to what it can promise in order to maintain power.

It's a vicious circle out of which only a seriously committed reformer, unconcerned of his own reelection, can get us. And, for some reason, I don't see that happening.

Bush is not that reformer. Perhaps Keyes would have been, but his stern, sober austerity proved way too unpalatable to the very Republicans on whose ticket he ran.

Browne definitely is. He would get in "power" just so he could scuttle the system. But how do you convince a nation ripe with free-loaders, soccer moms, bed-wetting libs and indoctrinated young automatons to give up their "free services" (if they only new how not free and how not services these "free services" are!)?
 
Matt, I have to disagree, only because I think the underlying assumptions of the Dems and Repubs are too similar

taxes - Republicans may admit it's our money more readily, but they don't seem to have any problem with taking it, they are just willing to give back what they can't spend

abortion - Neither seems to admit there is nothing about abortion in the Constitution so it is a State matter.

gun control - neither seems to view firearm ownership as an inalienable right, though more Republicans seem to be less willing to infringe the right than most Democrats. But it appears to be a matter of degree.

JerryM, I'm not sure which moral issues you disagree with the Libertarians on, but, since you call them moral issues I'm not sure what authority government has there anyway.
 
Jerry M.

The libertarian principle on morality is that ones life is ones own, to do with as one pleases, as long as one does not infringe upon the rights of others with force or fraud.

Where this becomes problematic is over the issue of whether or not a fetus ought to enjoy the same rights as an extra-uterine individual. Many libertarians have opinions on both sides of this issue, as their own morality dictates. The party, however, has agreed that this is a decision that is better left to the people involved, and ought not be legislated.

On other moral issues, they advocate a distinct separation between church and state. Furthermore, they recognize that certain acts might be seen by some as moral terpitude, but that those victimless or consensual acts should not be crimes, since they involve no force or fraud.

The LP positions differs essentially from the D&R position in that those latter two parties think that the state owns the individuals who inhabit it, and that their elected officials are duty bound to decide for the people what is right or wrong. What we end up with is morality legislated by compromise and consensus. "We'll agree to outlaw gay marriage if you agree to outlaw assault weapons," and things of this nature. Many of us find this stance on morality heinous, and that is why we are Libertarians.
 
DZ is correct. The Libertarian Party is merely wasting valuable campaign dollars by hoisting a Presidential candidate every four years.

Those dollars would be better placed in the coffers of those who are running at the local and state level where they can build a base that will eventually propel them to federal office (Congressional Representative, Senator, etc).

There is no way that there will be a great influx of reps or senators to Washington until the Libs prove themselves to the local yokels; and glean their votes based on that confidence. To do otherwise is foolish. You can't (even though it is the most desireable) start at the top. You have to start at the bottom and work your way up just like we all have (except the Kennedys) in all aspects of our own lives.

We need Libs at the state level to establish the state's powers over the federal government, not have them in the federal government trying to tear down that which will be resisted by the R or D majorities. There is only one -- count 'em -- ONE non R or D rep in the Congress; and that is the Socialist candidate from Vermont Bernie Sanders -- who votes with the Democrats if that tells you anything.

Tell your party leaders to stop wasting the valuable funds that could catapult a Lib into a position of power and start using those funds to support realistic, viable candidates.

[Edited by jimpeel on 02-09-2001 at 05:04 PM]
 
Politically Incorrect, I believe that politicians should be moral individuals and support the moral values upon which this nation was formed; the Judeo/Christian ethic. A person who wants to lead this nation and is for the right of a woman to murder her unborn child is not fit to lead. That is just one issue. So, yes, I think they should set the example and be leaders in proper morality.

ChrisR246 and justice4all, There are few things that only affect one person or two persons. The fact is that "No man is an island." An attitude that prostitution should be legal, for example, is an attitude that ignores the fact that our Creator says that it is wrong/sin. It ignores the fact that the availability of prostitutes and the acceptance of society of prostitution encourage people to either become prostitutes or frequent prostitutes who would not otherwise do so. I recognize that a law against prostitution won't stop it. However, such laws show society's disapproval of sex outside of marriage. I suspect we disagree on this as we would on such moral issues as homosexuality. History has shown that when "every man does that which is right in his own eyes" there is chaos. In a society someone's views are made the law and imposed upon that society. I am for separation of church and state, but I am not for keeping God out of government. We are the nation we are because we were founded on Biblical morality. I would have our nation be a nation under God. You have the right to vote and try to convince the politicians that Biblical morality has no place in government. Your statement; "We'll
agree to outlaw gay marriage if you agree to outlaw assault weapons," and things of this nature. Many of us find this stance on morality heinous," is a statement with which I agree. I won't compromise on my moral stance. Jerry
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top