Posted on 11/07/2013 4:59:55 AM PST by Kaslin
So, you like being a Nanny and to hell with individual responsibility and freedom.
It’s ok to be concise.
So it’s ok for you to differentiate, but not for libertarians.
Got it.
As small as the LP is, at least they’re on the ballot in almost every State. Can’t say that for any other Third Party.
At least, until the TEA Party gets organized. Hopefully, they won’t eff things up with their Platform the way the GOP and LP have...
No, no, it’s fine.
But when I hear the term RINO, I know everything I need to know about the positions of the said individual, and that he’s not in any way a conservative.
When I hear the word “libertarian” it sounds exactly like “Libertarian”.
By the way, this thread refers to Libertarians...had I mentioned that? So you are sort of way off topic.
Got it?
So it’s not ok for a libertarian to point out where criticisms of the political Party don’t extend to the philosophy?
Must have missed that in the Rule book.
Okay: libertarianism is selfishness.
And that’s bad? If i don’t look out for my own interests first, how can i possibly look out for anyone else’s?
I hope they don't get organized, I think that is an important part of their strategy, they have no leadership for the RATagandists to focus on and attack.
The TEA party is part of the Republican caucus. The opposite of a RINO is a TEApublican.
Hopefully, they won’t eff things up with their Platform the way the GOP and LP have...
I think their platform is simple enough:
T-axed
E-nough
A-lready
That and of course the Constitution.
>> Okay: libertarianism is selfishness.
No, it’s simply not statist. And we’re not talking about the idiotic LP platform.
If society were to take libertarian’s extreme idea of “personal responsibility” to its logical extreme, as SCOTUS has already done with First Amendment abuses and anti-religious abuses, and inflict it on a populace where the clear majority won’t or can’t use it responsibly, all that is accomplished is inflicting chaos and anarchy on the nation.
If you say so....what's a "libertarian"?
Must have missed that in the Rule book.
The libertarians have a rule book? Or is it the Libertarians that have one?
Are you sure you're not an Anarchist? (not a small "a" anarchist but a real one)
I find it ironic that Libertarians need more controls and regulations on their definition and ideology.
So not only do you want government to be the morality police, you want them to take stuff away from those who have earned it because they are “selfish”, you somehow think the SCOTUS’ idiotic rulings granting “freedom FROM religion” where no such Right exists is somehow the libertarians fault...
Is there anything else you want to be wrong about in this thread?
The Libertarians have a Party Platform.
No “rule” book for libertarians, although several people have written books on how the principles of individual liberty work in a free Society. Including lots of praise for what TJ and his playmates did when they tried to pen that Constitution thingie we haven’t really been using for the last few Decades...
Define “anarchy”? Seattle Socialist anarchy? Or radical self governing “no formal government” anarchy?
Because, seeing what you shaved apes do with government makes me think y’all shouldn’t be allowed to have one any more.
Yes, that's the one I was referring to, which proclaims them to be drug-crazed, baby-killing packophiles.
Define “anarchy”? Seattle Socialist anarchy? Or radical self governing “no formal government” anarchy?
Well, the Occupackers and Seattle "anarchists" are just communist thugs and street riff-raff.
The “no formal government” anarchists are the real Anarchists I was referring to.
seeing what you shaved apes do with government makes me think y’all shouldn’t be allowed to have one any more.
I have nothing whatsoever to do with that, other than to criticize it.
Do you endorse the corollary to that quote - that a non-religious people cannot be governed by Constitutional means??
Either they will be wound down gradually or we will run them until the wheels fall off.
I prefer to align myself with a political party associated with the former, and that is neither the Democrats nor, at this time, the Republicans.
If your belief is that “libertarian” effectively equals “liberal”, then your theory that the Sarvis vote would have gone to Cuccinelli does not hold much water.
I also blame the idiots who voted for the thug.
Defeating the Soviets was his Constitutional duty.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.