NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm just wondering, do you personally think the US Republican party would be more successful as a pure libertarian or right wing-libertarian party? Neo-conservatism did not work out very well for them in 2008 elections, yet Ron Paul still has a loyal following. Just wanting to hear everyone's ideas/thoughts...

Republicans love to talk about small government, especially when they're out of power. Yet every time they are elected, they do everything they can to expand the size and scope of the government, especially in the areas of "defense" and corporate welfare. To them, "big government" is only evil when it's implemented by Democrats. No matter how much you expand the size of the government, if you have an (R) after your name, that's fine in their book.

no it would leave them without the religious nutcase portion of their base and probably not attract many new fiscal conservatives.

plus they would have to ditch all the crazy libertarian ideas (going back to the gold standard, for example) for it to have a chance to work at all.

no it would leave them without the religious nutcase portion of their base

^ This.

Republicans love to talk about small government, especially when they're out of power. Yet every time they are elected, they do everything they can to expand the size and scope of the government, especially in the areas of "defense" and corporate welfare. To them, "big government" is only evil when it's implemented by Democrats. No matter how much you expand the size of the government, if you have an (R) after your name, that's fine in their book.
So true, I don't like the US 2 party system myself, I think both parties are pro- big government, just in slightly different ways

depends. how will they signal to the authoritarian follower base that its all a scam?

So true, I don't like the US 2 party system myself, I think both parties are pro- big government, just in slightly different ways

Correct. I would rather have no government at all, but if we have to have one, we should implement much-needed reforms to end the Democrat-Republican duopoly. Adopting proportional representation, reforming ballot access laws, and maybe even adopting a parliamentary or semi-presidential system, for starters.

depends. how will they signal to the authoritarian follower base that its all a scam?

That would be tricky. Authoritarianism is the key plank that holds the GOP platform together. (Not the Democrats are much better, but at least many Democrats are in favor of increased civil liberties, such as gay rights, etc.)

A Libertarian-Republican party could mop-up, and that scares me.

Depends what you mean by libertarians. A long time ago, the Christian right used to treat libertarians as the same as liberals, they didn't know there was a difference, they just saw them as nutty liberal hippies who want to give kids drugs and pull out of the holy wars.

A Libertarian-Republican party could mop-up, and that scares me.

Which part? The "Republican' part, the 'Libertarian' part, or the 'Party' part?:p

nah I figure a softer conservative government might do the trick nobody is going to vote libertarian not even if you spam the internet to fuck with it

or drastically ramp up the control you have on immigrants under the guise of border controls and start using these controls to literally shape whole communities in the states to your whims (through forced movements and such)...then start exploiting everyday soldiers complaints quickly gaining allegiance of a soon to be disaffected military

then we will see a new GOP born one of complete and utter control where the state can enforce an unbreakable will etc etc

So true, I don't like the US 2 party system myself, I think both parties are pro- big government, just in slightly different ways

then vote for some crazy 3rd party

I'm just wondering, do you personally think the US Republican party would be more successful as a pure libertarian or right wing-libertarian party?

Maybe? Are we talking about the current political use of the word where they focus pretty much exclusively on far-right-wing economics while still pushing for authoritarianism in other areas? If so, no, we already have that party - it's called the Libertarian Party, and it's probably got all the following it will get.

If we're talking about a party that actually pushes for increases in individual liberty in addition to (or even instead of) focusing on economics, maybe. But they'd need something to differentiate them clearly from the Democrats.

Neo-conservatism did not work out very well for them in 2008 elections, yet Ron Paul still has a loyal following. Just wanting to hear everyone's ideas/thoughts...

Cult phenomena typically invoke loyalty. I don't know that the loyalty to Ron Paul specifically shows much - especially since most of his followers think he supports more liberty than he actually does (since he says so and all). Paul is really more of a "states' rights" type than an actual libertarian. He's perfectly fine with incredibly intrusive and authoritarian government - right down to protecting the "right" of said government to be intrusive and authoritarian - so long as it happens to be the state government we're talking about.

Maybe? Are we talking about the current political use of the word where they focus pretty much exclusively on far-right-wing economics while still pushing for authoritarianism in other areas? If so, no, we already have that party - it's called the Libertarian Party, and it's probably got all the following it will get.

Damn Paleo-Cons, polluting the original purpose of the Libertarian Party.

Cult phenomena typically invoke loyalty. I don't know that the loyalty to Ron Paul specifically shows much - especially since most of his followers think he supports more liberty than he actually does (since he says so and all). Paul is really more of a "states' rights" type than an actual libertarian. He's perfectly fine with incredibly intrusive and authoritarian government - right down to protecting the "right" of said government to be intrusive and authoritarian - so long as it happens to be the state government we're talking about.
^ I agree completely.

Maybe? Are we talking about the current political use of the word where they focus pretty much exclusively on far-right-wing economics while still pushing for authoritarianism in other areas? If so, no, we already have that party - it's called the Libertarian Party, and it's probably got all the following it will get.

Please don't confuse the capital "L" libertarianism of the GOP Lite (sorry, "Libertarian" Party) with lower-case "L" libertarianism.

Which part? The "Republican' part, the 'Libertarian' part, or the 'Party' part?:p

It would be just reasonable enough to get votes, but it would conservative enough to still hold the religious wackos. So it would mean an extremist could be elected easier.

It would be just reasonable enough to get votes, but it would conservative enough to still hold the religious wackos. So it would mean an extremist could be elected easier.

When you put it that way, instead of making me laugh, it does send a certain chill down my spine...

When you put it that way, instead of making me laugh, it does send a certain chill down my spine...

I am sorry to tell you this, CM, but believe there would be no way to have a major Libertarian party, unless:

A: It frequently lost votes to the Republicans, so the Democrats would consistently win, or

B: It merged with the Republicans, became a real shit-kicking party, and one day nominates a fundy, who would win just because the U.S. would love this party so much.

This makes me sad, because such party would initially crank-out plenty of candidates who would cut military spending and ends wars. I could be wrong, of course.

Even though I don't like the 2 party system, I would absolutely love it if the Republican party went in that direction. I feel that libertarianism is a very reasonable, flexible, and progressive ideology to have. I am sure that while risky, it would attract independents and moderates.

I am sorry to tell you this, CM, but believe there would be no way to have a major Libertarian party, unless:

A: It frequently lost votes to the Republicans, so the Democrats would consistently win, or

B: It merged with the Republicans, became a real shit-kicking party, and one day nominates a fundy, who would win just because the U.S. would love this party so much.

This makes me sad, because such party would initially crank-out plenty of candidates who would cut military spending and ends wars. I could be wrong, of course.
Mmm. I think the kind of thinking that the GOP has been advocating is on it's way out. Or, at least, I hope it is. If not, you're right. If I'm right, the Libertarian party just might have a chance. Call it misguided optimism, if you wish.:p

Mmm. I think the kind of thinking that the GOP has been advocating is on it's way out. Or, at least, I hope it is. If not, you're right. If I'm right, the Libertarian party just might have a chance. Call it misguided optimism, if you wish.:p

Optimism is always misguided. The Libertarian party might have a chance, with all the young persons joining it today, but I am still convinced that it would lead to one or the other of the two events I mentioned.

Anyway, I would not exactly call myself Libertarian, since I favor more economic regulation than they do; still, I voted for them in the last election, because their candidate was less of a fuckhead than those of the major two parties.

Democrats and Republicans are all the same, they all favor larger government. They just disagree on where the government should be involved. Kinda retarded actually.

Democrats and Republicans are all the same, they all favor larger government. They just disagree on where the government should be involved. Kinda retarded actually.

I like you.

Democrats and Republicans are all the same, they all favor larger government. They just disagree on where the government should be involved. Kinda retarded actually.

an excellent first post. I agree The republicans shouldn't say they are for small government and then try to impose laws prohibiting rights. I don't know if the democrats claim to be for small government.

Democrats and Republicans are all the same, they all favor larger government. They just disagree on where the government should be involved. Kinda retarded actually.

^ This.

They would need a major reconstitution.
They would also need to shift the religious groups out,
and bring the freedom democrats(their libertarian wing) in.
Not certain it could do any of those.

I voted for the last two options, but really, this is basically where I've been saying the GOP should go for months. Let's have the Democrats move a little left on some issues, the Republicans become a libertarian party, and then we can have a big government party that maintains essential government services, a small government/civil liberties watchdog party that provides checks and balances and an alternative voice, and keep the fucking theocrats and neocons marginalized while avoiding either civil war or a one party system.

What is so wrong with a one party state, as long as the right people are in charge?

What is so wrong with a one party state, as long as the right people are in charge?

Do you mean to ask "what is wrong with having only one view point in government, as long as its mine"?

Anyway, how can you garuntee that the Democrats, for example, will stay free of coruption? That they'll always be right? Once they screw up, in a one-party state, their's no alternative.

Its like asking "what's wrong with a dictator if he's perfect?" One, people disagree on what's right, and they all are entitled to a voice in government. Two, the idea of a perfectly wise and benevolent leader who does not need outside comptetition and criticism is a delusional fantasy which has llittle to no basis in actual human nature as we see it today.

No, actually I'm expecting the Republican party to realign more towards it's socially conservative religious base.

It probably would be a massive boon. There are a lot of people who are economically in favor of the free-market but also in favor of social freedom, like myself; however, by default the vast majority of them would benefit little from additional tax cuts or fewer restrictions on business so they default to the Democratic Party due to its more liberal policies on social issues. That's why I voted for Obama even though McCain would have been superior from a fiscal standpoint; social issues impact me a lot more than economic ones, at least for the time being.

So, if the Republicans made moves towards becoming a libertarian party, they'd benefit massively. The loss of some religious-right voters would pale in comparison to their gains among people who like freedom on all sides and would likely do a good job of finally silencing the nefarious influence of the authoritarian right in this country.

I'm just wondering, do you personally think the US Republican party would be more successful as a pure libertarian or right wing-libertarian party? Neo-conservatism did not work out very well for them in 2008 elections, yet Ron Paul still has a loyal following. Just wanting to hear everyone's ideas/thoughts...

Even if the Republicans managed to garner every single one of Ron Paul's followers, the sudden influx of those 8 people wouldn't make a big difference.

Is this a trap poll?

Cause seriously, I feel the Neocons hijacked my party.
Rush is a moron. He doesn't speak for me and he sure as hell does not speak for most Republicans.

If Reps want to win, they need to go back to being the anti tax party, the party of personal responsibility, the party of federalism (vs the Dems being the party of Centralism). Most important, the party needs to go back to being the party of tolerance.
When the Neocons were put in charge, the party went way off the reservation.

I am seriously miffed at the party's Rush Limbaugh's. They screwed up everything.

:mad:

It probably would be a massive boon. There are a lot of people who are economically in favor of the free-market but also in favor of social freedom, like myself; however, by default the vast majority of them would benefit little from additional tax cuts or fewer restrictions on business so they default to the Democratic Party due to its more liberal policies on social issues. That's why I voted for Obama even though McCain would have been superior from a fiscal standpoint; social issues impact me a lot more than economic ones, at least for the time being.

So, if the Republicans made moves towards becoming a libertarian party, they'd benefit massively. The loss of some religious-right voters would pale in comparison to their gains among people who like freedom on all sides and would likely do a good job of finally silencing the nefarious influence of the authoritarian right in this country.
This.


I have long called for a pro-freedom Republican party, both in economic freedom, fiscal conservatism and social freedom. . . not legislating against gay marriage, abortion etc etc etc . . .

I truley beleive the party could do this and would benefit from it.

Andddd to lead this Republican Revolution, I'd call, from the grave . . .


http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_4GKtaAr8CwQ/SRKQI4uEwJI/AAAAAAAABTk/_2n9rd-BbnM/s400/square-large-goldwater.jpg

No, because while getting rid of the social conservative loons would only help them, their economic policies would only get crazier.

This.


I have long called for a pro-freedom Republican party, both in economic freedom, fiscal conservatism and social freedom. . . not legislating against gay marriage, abortion etc etc etc . . .

I truley beleive the party could do this and would benefit from it.

Andddd to lead this Republican Revolution, I'd call, from the grave . . .


http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_4GKtaAr8CwQ/SRKQI4uEwJI/AAAAAAAABTk/_2n9rd-BbnM/s400/square-large-goldwater.jpg

Zombies aren't known for their charisma, TAI. And such a radical change to the Republican party would require a change in name... So...

No, because while getting rid of the social conservative loons would only help them, their economic policies would only get crazier.
Actually, I would say that most Americans are economically conservative and socially liberal in the sense that they don't favor other people (or the government) telling them what to do and how to live their life . . .

Zombies aren't known for their charisma, TAI. And such a radical change to the Republican party would require a change in name... So...
Hmm...what about when they, in a very fashionalbe and high-brow manner, request, rather politely, to be fed brains?

Also...the party wouldn't need a name change . . . both parties have reformed/evolved before without the need of a name change.

no it would leave them without the religious nutcase portion of their base and probably not attract many new fiscal conservatives.

plus they would have to ditch all the crazy libertarian ideas (going back to the gold standard, for example) for it to have a chance to work at all.

Whats wrong with the Gold Standard?

No, because while getting rid of the social conservative loons would only help them, their economic policies would only get crazier.

"Let's cut taxes.... AND INCREASE DEFENSE SPENDING!"
"Well, that's one out of two. Let's go with it."
"And in the name of a balanced budget!"
"Now, that's the kind of talk that will get us re-elected! Good thinking!"

If the republican leadership was smart, they'd head back towards a centrist position to regain the moderate republicans Dubya drove away. I somehow doubt that'll happen, though.

Democrats and Republicans are all the same, they all favor larger government. They just disagree on where the government should be involved. Kinda retarded actually.

Actually, they have virtually nothing in common; republicans feel that social stuff should be be regulated while business is relatively unrestrained, while democrats feel that business should be regulated while social stuff is unrestrained.

Hmm...what about when they, in a very fashionalbe and high-brow manner, request, rather politely, to be fed brains?

That might work.:p

Actually, they have virtually nothing in common; republicans feel that social stuff should be be regulated while business is relatively unrestrained, while democrats feel that business should be regulated while social stuff is unrestrained.

That's what they say anyway, the Federal Regulatory Register increased exponentially during Bush's 8 years, even more so than in Clinton's.

Democrats haven't done a whole lot for social issues, apart from abortion legislation, they're a long way off a gay marriage or gun control bill.

That's what they say anyway, the Federal Regulatory Register increased exponentially during Bush's 8 years, even more so than in Clinton's.

That deosn't mean that republicans support big government, merely than Dubya fails at math. Most repuyblicans prattle nonstop about lowering taxes and cutting spending.

Democrats haven't done a whole lot for social issues, apart from abortion legislation, they're a long way off a gay marriage or gun control bill.

Democrats are responsible for gay marriage being in a few states (including NY, if Paterson's bill makes it), and they're so far ahead of the republicans on gun control that the NRA panicked and donated $10 million to mccain's campaign.

and they're so far ahead of the republicans on gun control that the NRA panicked and donated $10 million to mccain's campaign.
Doesn't the NRA, like, always donate large sums to the Republican party/candidate? Don't read into it too much.

Doesn't the NRA, like, always donate large sums to the Republican party/candidate? Don't read into it too much.

Wouldn't that prove they, like, always think the republicans are more gun-friendly?

Whats wrong with the Gold Standard?
it doesnt work with modern economies.

Wouldn't that prove they, like, always think the republicans are more gun-friendly?
The Republicans tend to be more pro-gun than the Democrats, correct.

Though that has nothing to do with your false point that the Democrats are "so far ahead of the republicans on gun control that the NRA panicked and donated $10 million to mccain's campaign" . . . though.

The NRA always donates to the Republican party and Republican candidate, and to point that out does not mean the Democrats are so far ahead in their quest for gun control anymore than promonent gays pumping the Obama campaign full of of dolla dolla billz means that the Republicans are so far ahead of the Democrats on outlawing gay marriage that gay people panicked . . .

It's just a false argument to take.

Whats wrong with the Gold Standard?

http://img.skitch.com/20090325-ek36xkmmrrf3d3dhjugtwfdagh.render.png
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2009/03/lessons-from-the-great-depression-i.html

Even if the Republicans managed to garner every single one of Ron Paul's followers, the sudden influx of those 8 people wouldn't make a big difference.

I'm sure there are a lot more than 8 followers.

That deosn't mean that republicans support big government, merely than Dubya fails at math.

Then why does the size of government always increase when a Republican is in office?

I'm sure there are a lot more than 8 followers.

Not that are old enough to vote.

Then why does the size of government always increase when a Republican is in office?
Well, under Reagan defense spending increased but government services, government employees and taxes were all cut. For example, amount of people on welfare were cut.

The gold standard is a bad idea.

Well, under Reagan defense spending increased but government services, government employees and taxes were all cut. For example, amount of people on welfare were cut.

Reagan actually increased the size of government in almost all areas. He excelled at minarchist rhetoric, but unfortunately, he never put any of that rhetoric into practice.

Reagan actually increased the size of government in almost all areas. He excelled at minarchist rhetoric, but unfortunately, he never put any of that rhetoric into practice.

http://angrybear.blogspot.com/spending_growth7.jpg


Like, I said, defense spending. And even that started going down once the Cold War was going our way and Reagan and Gorby had their special relationship. Everything else stayed around the same, decreased or in the case of Medicare and medicaid, increased by a miniscule amount.

btw, I'm not claiming him to be a Minarchist, lol . . .

http://angrybear.blogspot.com/spending_growth7.jpg


Like, I said, defense spending. And even that started going down once the Cold War was going our way and Reagan and Gorby had their special relationship. Everything else stayed around the same, decreased or in the case of Medicare and medicaid, increased by a miniscule amount.

btw, I'm not claiming him to be a Minarchist, lol . . .

I know I linked to this before, but it's worth repeating (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard60.html).

I know I linked to this before, but it's worth repeating (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard60.html).
I'm not gonna read that long novel, who do you think I am? :p

This.


I have long called for a pro-freedom Republican party, both in economic freedom, fiscal conservatism and social freedom. . . not legislating against gay marriage, abortion etc etc etc . . .

I truley beleive the party could do this and would benefit from it.

Andddd to lead this Republican Revolution, I'd call, from the grave . . .


http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_4GKtaAr8CwQ/SRKQI4uEwJI/AAAAAAAABTk/_2n9rd-BbnM/s400/square-large-goldwater.jpg

Yeah, because we all know how popular he was during his day...

Yeah, because we all know how popular he was during his day...

He would have been a lot better than LBJ. Both were interventionists in foreign affairs, but Goldwater was generally laissez faire in domestic policy.

Yeah, because we all know how popular he was during his day...

Barry was pretty popular, actually. Not enough to win the presidency but definitely a major player in the Senate.

Of course, Johnson really only won because of Kennedy's assassination and then rewarded us with a 10-year war in Vietnam and a bloated, ineffective "war on poverty" that only started to succeed after it was reformed...had JFK not been gunned down, chances are Goldwater would have won the election and we'd be far better off. Whether or not there would've been a Vietnam, I don't know, but I doubt we would have seen the same bloating of the government and M-I complex like we saw with Johnson.

Barry was pretty popular, actually. Not enough to win the presidency but definitely a major player in the Senate.

Of course, Johnson really only won because of Kennedy's assassination and then rewarded us with a 10-year war in Vietnam and a bloated, ineffective "war on poverty" that only started to succeed after it was reformed...had JFK not been gunned down, chances are Goldwater would have won the election and we'd be far better off. Whether or not there would've been a Vietnam, I don't know, but I doubt we would have seen the same bloating of the government and M-I complex like we saw with Johnson.

Don't forget Johnson's scaremongering television ad.

Reagan actually increased the size of government in almost all areas. He excelled at minarchist rhetoric, but unfortunately, he never put any of that rhetoric into practice.

Most would blame democrats in congress for refusing to budge on domestic spending for that, but I guess that politics so...

Agree with Vetalia above.

Barry was pretty popular, actually. Not enough to win the presidency but definitely a major player in the Senate.

Of course, Johnson really only won because of Kennedy's assassination and then rewarded us with a 10-year war in Vietnam and a bloated, ineffective "war on poverty" that only started to succeed after it was reformed...had JFK not been gunned down, chances are Goldwater would have won the election and we'd be far better off. Whether or not there would've been a Vietnam, I don't know, but I doubt we would have seen the same bloating of the government and M-I complex like we saw with Johnson.

Sorry, but no.

Maybe if you're white business man, you'd be better off. But if you're poor, or black or hispanic, than Goldwater is going to fuck you, turn you over and fuck you again.

Sorry, but no.

Maybe if you're white business man, you'd be better off. But if you're poor, or black or hispanic, than Goldwater is going to fuck you, turn you over and fuck you again.

How does that make Goldwater different from other politicians, then?

Which part? The "Republican' part, the 'Libertarian' part, or the 'Party' part?:p

No, I think it was the hyphen. I just don't trust those things.

The gold standard is a bad idea.

Which is why Nixon took us off of it.












*is not trying to cause another Nixon threadjack*
http://im1.shutterfly.com/media/47b9da03b3127ccec6b9db158b5b00000040O00IYsmrNo2csQe3nwI/cC/f%3D0/ps%3D50/r%3D0/rx%3D550/ry%3D400/

How does that make Goldwater different from other politicians, then?

At least Johnson threw them a bone. A lot of the Great Society programs we still take for granted. Most of us wouldn't be in college if it weren't for them, and the kind of crushing poverty that Michael Harrington described in The Other America (the book that spurred on the war on poverty) has at least been mitigated.

At least Johnson threw them a bone. A lot of the Great Society programs we still take for granted. Most of us wouldn't be in college if it weren't for them, and the kind of crushing poverty that Michael Harrington described in The Other America (the book that spurred on the war on poverty) has at least been mitigated.

The Great Society has had, at best, negligible effects at fighting poverty.

Which is why Nixon took us off of it.

Roosevelt did. Nixon just finished the job.

Roosevelt did. Nixon just finished the job.

Not really, since we had the Bretton Woods system.

Sorry, but no.

Maybe if you're white business man, you'd be better off. But if you're poor, or black or hispanic, than Goldwater is going to fuck you, turn you over and fuck you again.

I am a white businessman.

not legislating against gay marriage,

You previously said you are against same-sex marriage because it is not "real marriage".

Has your opinion changed?

Not really, since we had the Bretton Woods system.

Um, yes, really. The U.S. had fiat currency. Foreign countries were allowed to redeem their dollars in gold, but U.S. citizens weren't.

Um, yes, really. The U.S. had fiat currency. Foreign countries were allowed to redeem their dollars in gold, but U.S. citizens weren't.

But was not the value of our currency still based on the gold standard?

FDR removed gold from general circulation and disconnected it from internal trade. Silver was last used in coins at the old 90% alloy in 1964, and was only offered in 40% proof-grade coins after that. There was still a tenuous link between gold and the dollar in international trade, however, thanks to Bretton-woods IIRC. The trade treaty fixed gold at x USD, but inflation soon made buying US gold extremely profitable due to the fixed ratio and non-stop inflation. Nixon just snapped that slender thread when it became obvious that gold was being drained from the national reserves since the agreed gold/dollar ratio had shifted so dramatically.

The 1 oz. Gold American Eagle is still stamped at $50 on the obverse. With gold at about $890/oz right now (updates at http://www.kitco.com/) it's obvious what profit there would be if other nations could pay US$50 and immediately make a sale for 18 times that amount. Inflation and the unstable nature of the fiat dollar did that to our money.

parkus: There is no gold or silver in Fort Knox, any Federal Reserve bank, or anywhere else in the world backing the US dollar. The Euro is allegedly backed 7% by metals, but I doubt that will last even if it is true now.

I am for a Republican Libertarian Party. I am also in favor of third partys in general.

i don't think it needs to be more successful until it starts being more honest with itself.
a dollar bill has no more conscience then a hard on, and there's still a world out there real people really have to live in.

Sorry, but no.

Maybe if you're white business man, you'd be better off. But if you're poor, or black or hispanic, than Goldwater is going to fuck you, turn you over and fuck you again.
Annndddd cue the anti-Republican talk points.

"Republicans are only a party for white rich men!" "rabble rabble rabble!" :rolleyes:
Yeah, because we all know how popular he was during his day...
Uh, he was? Just because he didn't win doesn't mean he wasn't popular in his day.
Barry was pretty popular, actually. Not enough to win the presidency but definitely a major player in the Senate.

Of course, Johnson really only won because of Kennedy's assassination and then rewarded us with a 10-year war in Vietnam and a bloated, ineffective "war on poverty" that only started to succeed after it was reformed...had JFK not been gunned down, chances are Goldwater would have won the election and we'd be far better off. Whether or not there would've been a Vietnam, I don't know, but I doubt we would have seen the same bloating of the government and M-I complex like we saw with Johnson.
This^, except that Goldwater was known as a staunch anti-Communist (God bless him), so I don't really if he would have done things differently in Vietnam. There is no way to be sure, though. . .
You previously said you are against same-sex marriage because it is not "real marriage".

Has your opinion changed?
Same-sex marriage is not real marriage, as marriage is defined as a man and a woman. However, I also don't wish to impose my opinion on others and don't give a shit if two dudes wannt to live together. It doesn't harm me, it's two consenting adults doing what they want to do. In a perfect world, this would be purely a union, with all the same legal and recognized benefits as marriage, while at the same time not being called a marriage because, in my opinion, it's not.

That is in a perfect world, though, and in reality it doesn't work that way. . . so I don't really care, and certainly think there are much more important things to legislate/for or against. You won't see me wasting my time promoting 'gay rights', but you also won't find me wasting my time opposing those who do.

In a perfect world, this would be purely a union, with all the same legal and recognized benefits as marriage,


Yes. There's a name for that. Marriage.

Same-sex marriage is not real marriage, as marriage is defined as a man and a woman.

By...whom, exactly? It seems that there are a good handful of states out there who define it quite differently. More and more every year, it seems.

I don't really care, you two. You're trying to get me to argue an issue which you both clearly care about and I clearly don't give a shit about.

I've stated that. I don't know why you are persuing this.

Poll on Glenn Beck's website (http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/24376/) about this topic.

I'd really like to see an end to the "51% of the nation can do anything it wants to the other 49% of the nation if our guy wins" attitude held by adherents to both parties.

Both the Republican Party and the party calling itself the Libertarian Party (which basically consists of neocons more zealous about economic nonintervention than their Republican counterparts) need to die. The Republicans will always pander to the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Jerry Falwell, so they have to go. If were to take any Libertarian Party seriously, they would actually have to be libertarian (more like Ledgersia and less like state-level neocon statists like Ron Paul). With proportional representation replacing winner-take-all, we may see a party with libertarian socialist views (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Socialism). I'd like that.

Both the Republican Party and the party calling itself the Libertarian Party (which basically consists of neocons more zealous about economic nonintervention than their Republican counterparts) need to die. The Republicans will always pander to the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Jerry Falwell, so they have to go. If were to take any Libertarian Party seriously, they would actually have to be libertarian (more like Ledgersia and less like state-level neocon statists like Ron Paul). With proportional representation replacing winner-take-all, we may see a party with libertarian socialist views (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Socialism). I'd like that.
1. Do you even know what neo-conservative means? How the fuck is Ron Paul a neo-conservative!?!? :rolleyes:

2. Libertarian Socialism is absolute garbage and is totally against the point of libertarianism.

1. Do you even know what neo-conservative means? How the fuck is Ron Paul a neo-conservative!?!? :rolleyes:

As long as it's the state governments implementing neocon policies, it's AOK with him. That's how.

As long as it's the state governments implementing neocon policies, it's AOK with him. That's how.

I respectfully disagree - his point is that any powers not explicitly granted to the Federal gov't by the Constitution are denied to it, particularly by amendments 9 and 10 in the bill of rights and other clauses in the Constitution itself. It should be up to the citizens of the several states to decide how much authority to centralize at the state level, and the states should be able to compete to satisfy the extremely varied viewpoints in this nation. Let California lean socialist and Idaho lean laissez faire capitalist, for example, and let the people freely live and work as they wish.

Furthermore, the basic principle of libertarian philosophy is that no one has a right to interfere with the life, liberty, or property of anyone else - and no collective group (city, county, state, nation, etc.) can overrule the individual right. Ron Paul has frequently stated this in his books and speeches.

As long as it's the state governments implementing neocon policies, it's AOK with him. That's how.
So by calling Ron Paul a neo-conservative you prove that you don't actually know what neo-conservative means AND you prove that you like to just simply toss out left-wing buzzwords without meaning.

So by calling Ron Paul a neo-conservative you prove that you don't actually know what neo-conservative means AND you prove that you like to just simply toss out left-wing buzzwords without meaning.

The neocon domestic civil policy stances is what I'm getting at. Being in favor of the (state-level, in his case) government banhammer to abortion (which, by the way, stands 0 chance of actually reducing how many happen) and same sex marriage (which an actual civil libertarian would likely oppose as unfairly interfering in the lives of people who have done nothing wrong, barring opposition to marriage in general).

I'm just wondering, do you personally think the US Republican party would be more successful as a pure libertarian or right wing-libertarian party? Neo-conservatism did not work out very well for them in 2008 elections, yet Ron Paul still has a loyal following. Just wanting to hear everyone's ideas/thoughts...
There are a couple things Republicans need to do in order to become viable again...
First is to quit pandering to the anti-abortion, religious zealots.

Second, forget Saint Ron. Reagan politics were for Reagan years. Times have changed and folks don't care about liberty and economic freedom anymore. Someone needs to step forward with the eloquence and charisma needed to convince our young people that true fulfillment will come from personal achievement realized through interaction with others in a free society, not from government dependence and eventual enslavement.

Third, quit pandering to the anti-abortion, religious zealots.

Just calling themselves libertarians isn't going to do it.

The neocon domestic civil policy stances is what I'm getting at. Being in favor of the (state-level, in his case) government banhammer to abortion (which, by the way, stands 0 chance of actually reducing how many happen) and same sex marriage (which an actual civil libertarian would likely oppose as unfairly interfering in the lives of people who have done nothing wrong, barring opposition to marriage in general).
Ok, so we've moved from 'Ron Paul is a neo-con!" to Ron Paul opposes abortion and gay marriage. Something I can work with.

On gay marriage, Ron Paul neither supports it nor opposes it. He just opposes the Federal government supporting or opposing it, leaving it up to individual states to decide. In other words, he doesn't care, and doesn't think its up to the federal government to decide.

On Paul's personal opinion towards gay marriage (largely irrelevant though):

"Paul has also stated he doesn't want to interfere in the free association of two individuals in a social, sexual, and religious sense.[203][204] Additionally, when asked if he was supportive of gay marriage Paul responded "I am supportive of all voluntary associations and people can call it whatever they want."[203]


As for abortion, well I personally think abortion should be legal but I certainly see both sides of the argument, and if you chose to actually read into things a bit more instead of just troll "RON PAUL IS A NEO-CON!" you'd see why Ron Paul is personally against abortion. In my opinion, it's a far better reason than most of us have for being for or against it:

Paul refers to his background as an obstetrician as being influential on his view, recalling inadvertently witnessing a late-term abortion performed by one of his instructors during his residency, “It was pretty dramatic for me to see a two-and-a-half-pound baby taken out crying and breathing and put in a bucket.”[178]

So by calling Ron Paul a neo-conservative you prove that you don't actually know what neo-conservative means AND you prove that you like to just simply toss out left-wing buzzwords without meaning.
Haven't you figured out that anyone using the word 'neocon' doesn't have a clue?

Actually, I would say that most Americans are economically conservative and socially liberal in the sense that they don't favor other people (or the government) telling them what to do and how to live their life . . .

The problem is that, while most people don't want the government telling them how to live their own lives, far too many are perfectly happy to use the government to dictate how others will live their lives. That's what we really need to move away from.

Haven't you figured out that anyone using the word 'neocon' doesn't have a clue?

Post Cold war the term neocon is really just a you are evil and a republican term.

Haven't you figured out that anyone using the word 'neocon' doesn't have a clue?
Including folks like (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Neo-conservatism-Irwin-Stelzer/dp/1843543516/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1240514996&sr=8-1) Henry Kissinger, Gordon Brown, Tony Blair, Robert Kagan, Condoleezza Rice, Irving and Bill Kristol, Margaret Thatcher, etc.?

Though the term 'neoconservatism' is certainly bandied about too much, it's an actual position espoused by many.

(Great collection of article, btw.)

I don't really care, you two. You're trying to get me to argue an issue which you both clearly care about and I clearly don't give a shit about.


I'm not trying to get you 'to argue' about anything.

You made a nonsensical comment, that is obviously bullshit. So I pointed out that your nonsensical comment was obviously bullshit.

If you don't want people to tell you your nonsensical comments are bullshit, stop making nonsensical bullshit comments.

There. Then we can all be happy.

Furthermore, the basic principle of libertarian philosophy is that no one has a right to interfere with the life, liberty, or property of anyone else - and no collective group (city, county, state, nation, etc.) can overrule the individual right. Ron Paul has frequently stated this in his books and speeches.

Then Ron Paul is a hypocrite.

I'm not trying to get you 'to argue' about anything.

You made a nonsensical comment, that is obviously bullshit. So I pointed out that your nonsensical comment was obviously bullshit.

If you don't want people to tell you your nonsensical comments are bullshit, stop making nonsensical bullshit comments.

There. Then we can all be happy.

Look, my opinion is that marriage is defined as one man and one woman. That is what I beleive and that is what I know. However, I don't beleive in pushing that view onto anyone, as it is my personal view, and it doesn't hurt me if two guys/girls decide to live together. I don't care and wouldn't try to stop them. If some states (or all states) vote to allow gay marriage, it wouldn't effect me in any way and I don't care. I'm not the kind of guy to report my neighbors if they were being gay. I'm the kind of guy who would award my neighbors the same amount of privacy and freedom that I'd like them to award me. If you have a problem with that, go untwist your panties somewhere else.

Simply because this is a big issue for you doesn't mean my comment is bullshit. You just don't like it because of a reason that isn't particularly important to me.

Including folks like (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Neo-conservatism-Irwin-Stelzer/dp/1843543516/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1240514996&sr=8-1) Henry Kissinger, Gordon Brown, Tony Blair, Robert Kagan, Condoleezza Rice, Irving and Bill Kristol, Margaret Thatcher, etc.?

Though the term 'neoconservatism' is certainly bandied about too much, it's an actual position espoused by many.

(Great collection of article, btw.)
Oh, you're absolutely correct. It is a legit term, and I don't beleive anyone was arguing against that. What I/we were arguing against was that, often people tend to use the term neocon as an insult, totally disregarding what it actually means.

Because the national debt has gotten so bad, I feel it will eventually be necessary for the nation to significantly raise taxes while cutting spending. It would make sense to pay off our debt without adding much more and from there on out run on budget.

But unfortunately both parties seem to only ever be bankrupting the country. So if a 3rd party could manage to change a main party from within, I'd be for it. That would finally pave the way for a new and truly different direction.

Look, my opinion is that marriage is defined as one man and one woman.

I know. You said that, already. And it was nonsensical bullshit.

'Marriage' has existed for many thousands of years as a term to describe unions between two or more people, as well as a means of describing unions between NON-people-y things. Thus, to try to push some post-Christian bullshit is not just ridiculous, but nonsensical. And to try to claim that such a revisionist intent has ANY significance on the actual reality of relationships, is bullshit.

For someone who doesn't want to argue, there doesn't seem to be any way of stopping you.

I respectfully disagree - his point is that any powers not explicitly granted to the Federal gov't by the Constitution are denied to it, particularly by amendments 9 and 10 in the bill of rights and other clauses in the Constitution itself.

Actually, he seems to rather ignore the 9th Amendment and go straight to the 10th, leaving no possibility for unenumerated individual rights (and even trying to grant the states "rights" to violate some that are enumerated).

It should be up to the citizens of the several states to decide how much authority to centralize at the state level, and the states should be able to compete to satisfy the extremely varied viewpoints in this nation.

And here is where Paul gets too authoritarian. Because he would allow citizens to give their states powers that no government should have - where said powers violate individual rights.

Let California lean socialist and Idaho lean laissez faire capitalist, for example, and let the people freely live and work as they wish.

Paul supporters always seem to focus exclusively on tax and economic matters, while ignoring the fact that he's perfectly alright with the government deciding who you sleep with, what religion you follow, and numerous other intrusions into one's personal life.

Furthermore, the basic principle of libertarian philosophy is that no one has a right to interfere with the life, liberty, or property of anyone else - and no collective group (city, county, state, nation, etc.) can overrule the individual right. Ron Paul has frequently stated this in his books and speeches.

He may state it, but then he also states that your state government should be able to interfere quite a bit.

He claims to be for individual liberty, but then argues against it at every turn - so long as the entity infringing on it happens to be more localized than the federal government.

I know.
Good, then we're clear.:)

On gay marriage, Ron Paul neither supports it nor opposes it. He just opposes the Federal government supporting or opposing it, leaving it up to individual states to decide. In other words, he doesn't care, and doesn't think its up to the federal government to decide.

In other words, he places authoritarian power - specifically the power to deny equal protection under the law to a subset of the population - in the hands of the state governments. In other words, he places state authority above individual rights.

Incidentally, he also believes that the authority to decide who you sleep with and what birth control you use lies with the state government, rather than with the individual.

As for abortion, well I personally think abortion should be legal but I certainly see both sides of the argument, and if you chose to actually read into things a bit more instead of just troll "RON PAUL IS A NEO-CON!" you'd see why Ron Paul is personally against abortion. In my opinion, it's a far better reason than most of us have for being for or against it:

Sounds like a load of bullshit to me. If what he described is what he saw, it wasn't a late-term abortion, it was birth and then infanticide. At absolute best, it was a horribly botched abortion attempt. Thus, it really has no bearing whatsoever on the legality of abortion.

Sounds like a load of bullshit to me. If what he described is what he saw, it wasn't a late-term abortion, it was birth and then infanticide. At absolute best, it was a horribly botched abortion attempt. Thus, it really has no bearing whatsoever on the legality of abortion.

Plus, virtually nobody supports elective partial-birth abortion...it's used solely as a straw-man to attack other forms of abortion even though the difference between them is as massive as apples and oranges. These days, it's probably pretty rare for anyone to decide to terminate their pregnancy that late; I have a feeling it was more of a product of desperation than anything.

Of course, providing ample resources for the proper use of contraceptives would probably eliminate abortion in general but that would make too much sense.

Plus, virtually nobody supports elective partial-birth abortion...it's used solely as a straw-man to attack other forms of abortion even though the difference between them is as massive as apples and oranges. These days, it's probably pretty rare for anyone to decide to terminate their pregnancy that late; I have a feeling it was more of a product of desperation than anything.



So in essence it is the republicans assault weapons ban ?

So in essence it is the republicans assault weapons ban ?

Basically. If you can find some extreme, rare or completely different and unrelated example and then use it to attack the actual reasonable points of the issue, you're set.

Basically. If you can find some extreme, rare or completely different and unrelated example and then use it to attack the actual reasonable points of the issue, you're set.

I was just thinking a ban on something that really doesn't change anything but looks good to those you vote for.

Of course, providing ample resources for the proper use of contraceptives would probably eliminate abortion in general but that would make too much sense.

Add comprehensive sex education an the abortion rate could be as low as western europe's, but sex outside of marriage is evil.

Ron Paul still has a loyal following.
Yeah of a minority of the scared-shitless lower middle class white people in the US.

This^, except that Goldwater was known as a staunch anti-Communist (God bless him), so I don't really if he would have done things differently in Vietnam. There is no way to be sure, though. . .

Goldwater would have probably limited our involvement to military aid, advisors, financial aid, etc., albeit on a massively increased scale. Or, if he did get us involved militarily, he probably would've given the military more leeway (i.e., mine Haiphong harbor, bomb Hanoi, invade the North, etc.).

I'm not saying either of these would have been good - only that they're what he would have been likely to do.

I am a white businessman.

Well then carry on.

At least you're not a victim of false-consciousness.

Poll on Glenn Beck's website (http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/24376/) about this topic.

Interesting results. It's basically a tie between Ron Paul types and Sarah Palin types. Since these are diametrically opposed positions, it seems the GOP can't go anywhere without alienating a large chunk of their support base. Ouch, I wouldn't want to be in the Republican leadership right about now.

Right now, the Republican party is only managing to hang on to 25% of voters by tying together the libertarians and the religious nuts. This is accomplished by using homophobia, sexism, and racism, which are basically the only three core values shared by everyone on the "right wing" in America at the moment. To be perfectly frank, I think the GOP has been harping on those three elements for so long, in their efforts to keep their base, that they've lost track of whether or not they even HAVE other values.

Plus, virtually nobody supports elective partial-birth abortion...it's used solely as a straw-man to attack other forms of abortion even though the difference between them is as massive as apples and oranges. These days, it's probably pretty rare for anyone to decide to terminate their pregnancy that late; I have a feeling it was more of a product of desperation than anything.

Isn't it weird:

There seems to be a subset of the population who believe that if abortion is legal then women will choose to carry to term and then kill the born infant, yet these are the exact same people who advocate women being kept in the home so they can care for the children. This subset of people seems to believe there is an epidemic of heartless/stupid/careless women who slut around, get pregnant, and seek abortions for fun...and their solution is that more women should be married and taking care of babies.

How awesome is it, that this very insanity is one of those shared values that can bring Ron Paul supporters together with Rush Limbaugh Republicans?

Ouch, I wouldn't want to be in the Republican leadership right about now.

Apparently, neither does anyone else. :D

It would require them knowing what "libertarianism" is.

It would require them knowing what "libertarianism" is.

the part of the republican aprty that hasn't represented in congress in a decade ?

To paraphrase Olof Palme:

"The GOP cannot be reformed. It has to be eliminated."