Libertarian leader and thinker, Noam Chomsky seems to be more of a traditional purist on libertarianism and truer to it's European roots.
Posted on 11/20/2012 7:21:32 PM PST by Absolutely Nobama
An error ended.
Jew hater Ron Paul gave his farewell address to CONgress.
To Ron Paul, the patron saint of malcontents, druggies, and weirdos, I say this: good riddance and thanks for a whole lotta nuthin'.
Now I know that sounds harsh, but let's face it gang, one of the reasons why we have another four years of of the Hope and Che Guy is Ron Paul. Yeah, I'm going to come right out and say it and I don't give a hoot who calls me a "neocon" for saying so. The truth must be told, consequences be damned.
Now, before you call me nuts, really sit and think about it: Did RuPaul (H/T Mark Levin) or his Stormfront troopers attack Mitt Romney and his RINO-riffic campaign during the Republican primaries ? No. They attacked Conservatives like Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum, and Newt Gingrich, forcing them to waste valuable time and valuable resources defending themselves from baseless attack after baseless attack. (In other words, Cut and Run Paul was Romney's wing man.) To be fair, there's no way of knowing of whether or not one of them would have beaten our Dear Leader (and his dead and imaginary voters), but I'm willing to go out on a limb and say they had a better chance than Romney ever did. At least they stood for something, which is something Romney really can't say with a straight face.
After the primaries ended, and Red Skull Ron was handed yet another predictable loss, did he rally his troops and say, "Look, we lost. But now is not the time to dwell on that. Get out there and support Romney before the country is destroyed by Obama, and that goes for you folks in the Gary Johnson and Virgil Goode camps as well" ? Nope. We got none of that. Instead, we got silence or "Buy my swag! Half-off!" Would this have made a difference ? I don't know, but I'm fairly certain that it wouldn't have hurt. (Yes, I know I lambasted Romney in the previous paragraph, but he did win. Shrimpy should have done the right thing and got behind the primary winner. Bachmann did it, Santorum did it, and so did Gingrich.)
The funny thing about this is the fact that I agree with the Surrender Monkey on several issues. I'm all for auditing the Federal Reserve. I'm all for repealing the 16th and 17th Amendments. I'm all for the US giving the UN the social finger. I am, after all, a hard right winger and I make no apologies for that whatsoever. When Ron Paul isn't blaming the US for 9/11, attacking the military, pushing the homosexual agenda, calling the infanticide known as abortion a "states rights issue", calling the OWS barbarians "victims", or coddling America's Islamonazi enemies, the man almost makes sense. (Cue up the tired "broken clock" analogy.) I can't and won't deny it. But at the same time I couldn't be happier watching Ron Paul become a meaningless footnote in American history. As far as I'm concerned, another career politician is gone, and last time I checked, that's always a good thing.
Why do you think those two people have anything to do with libertarians or liberty leaning Republicans? Did either of them endorse Ron Paul? Who do you think they voted for in the general election?
You clearly don't like the liberty oriented folks that often vote Republican, which is your prerogative, but politically speaking why alienate them as voters? In order to win any candidate has to get a majority of the voters, and alienating voters who agree with you on many issues is not a path to winning elections.
Thanks for the list.
It’s an evil cult to be sure.
“I want a leader who puts the American people first, second, and third.”
If you’ll recall, 3000 Americans were murdered that day by Islamonazi terrorists. RuPaul says that was America’s fault.
How that’s putting Americans “first, second, and third” ?
He sure did.
And for what ?
To massage his massive ego ? To stab Conservatives in the back ? To make the $oros minions at Code Pinko happy ? What did Ron Paul seek to accomplish with his failed run, precisely ?
For those who have missed it, here is Ron Paul on Iranian TV apologizing for terrorists and comparing Gaza to a concentration camp:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_Y3-Cn5vIk
Get over it RINOs. If you run another RINO like Jeb you will lose again. Now is the time to draft Palin or DeMint. Heck, even Rand Paul stands heads and shoulders above any of the GOPe candidates.
Ron Paul lost the primary because he ran far left on some issues. Mittens lost the general election because he ran far left on most issues.
Maybe it's time to run a REAL Conservative.
I’m all in.
How about....Scott Walker ? Or, perhaps Mary Fallin, the governor of Oklahoma, who seems to be very Conservative ?
Libertarian leader and thinker, Noam Chomsky seems to be more of a traditional purist on libertarianism and truer to it's European roots.
That’s just RuPaul being RuPaul.
Where have I lied, precisely ?
“And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” —John 8:32
I like Governor Walker. And we know he's a fighter.
We certainly do.
My list of acceptable nominees in 2016 reads something like this:
1. Scott Walker
2. Mary Fallin
3. Rand Paul
4. Michele Bachmann
5. Sarah Palin
6. Susana Martinez
Any of the above will do....
Obama is the worst President of our lifetime. I’m not asking you to change your views one bit. But I am asking you to stop the insults and ally with me and mine long enough to save this country.
Neither libertarians nor conservatives have the votes to do this alone.
If you and those like you fail to honor this reasonable offer of alliance two things will happen. More will permanently abandon the Republican Party as unfriendly. Also the Republicans will become a permanent minority party.
I am asking you to put aside our differences to confront and vote out an existential threat to our liberty.
Listen up, because this is important:
Libertarians ARE conservatives. An alliance to the Republicans by the libertarians won't come if the principles they believe in are not supported.
'Letting them climb on the bus and sit in the back' is not a way to promote alliance. You must serve them what they need, and that is a permanent adoption (really a rediscovery) of libertarian principles. Without that, they have no need of alliance (as what they want is not going to happen anyway), and you don't deserve alliance.
Reagan came from the Goldwater wing.. The libertarian wing of the Republican Party... So naturally, he had a lot in common with libertarians, and Reaganites still hold that commonality. But it is based upon principles and defending principles, not marriages of convenience.
“I am asking you to put aside our differences to confront and vote out an existential threat to our liberty.”
Ummm....That time has passed. If you’ll note, President Urkel is still in the White Hut.
“Also the Republicans will become a permanent minority party.”
You must mean like how the Dims became a permanent minority after their disastrous 2004 election elections, huh ?
I will NOT compromise on any of my values, just as I would imagine my fellow Conservatives won’t, either. Illegal immigration is an act that deserves long prison sentences, not amnesty. Homosexual “marriage” is evil. Abortion is genocide. There’s no way on God’s green and cooling earth I’d ever consider allying myself with anyone who has those views, regardless of whatever short term political gain is involved.
The libs never seem to “moderate” their views, why should we ? No matter how many elections they lose, they maintain their death grips on their Little Red Books.
Like I said, it isn’t Conservatism that lost. It was limp wristed RINO-ism that lost. Tearing a page out of the liberaltarian Cultural Marxism Playbook isn’t going to change a blessed thing.
Economic libertarianism is fine. Social libertarianism (rampant atheism, homosexual “marriage”, abortion, amnesty, just to name a few things I despise liberaltarians for) is Cultural Marxism. I, like the vast majority Conservatives, aren’t going to “moderate” our views, since we’re in the right. Abortion is wrong. Amnesty is wrong. Homosexual “marriage” is wrong. Two and two never make five, no matter what.
It isn't about economics at all. It is about structure. The root principle of libertarianism is about suppressing the power of government so that it cannot coerce individuals.
They tend to believe in Federalism because it hobbles an overweening common state. They tend to be Constructionists wrt Constitutional matters. In most cases, the things you fear of them comes from an insistence (albeit sometimes misplaced) upon great power and sovereignty granted to the states respectively by the Constitution.
Social libertarianism (rampant atheism, homosexual “marriage”, abortion, amnesty, just to name a few things I despise liberaltarians for) is Cultural Marxism.
The 'social libertarianism' you describe is more simply described as liberalism - A thing which the Republicans (as the oft proclaimed home of Conservatism) are just as guilty of, as demonstrated by the full-on liberal that just lost the election.
That absolutely does *nothing* to disqualify the very Conservative roots of American Libertarianism. And it also does nothing to the one thing that stands at that root, which all libertarians hear as a clarion call: Big government is coercive government. And there is nothing, FRiend, more Conservative than that.
I, like the vast majority Conservatives, aren’t going to “moderate” our views, since we’re in the right. Abortion is wrong. Amnesty is wrong. Homosexual “marriage” is wrong. Two and two never make five, no matter what.
As a Reaganite Conservative whose tap root is deeply embedded in Social Conservatism, I am all for the Constitutional protection of LIFE (as an enumerated right in the DoI, Granted us from God above and no one else). I am *NOT* for an amendment thus defining it (as that is a needless redundancy).
I am profoundly against homo marriage (secondarily because of the damage it does to state reciprocity as ordained in the Constitution, which btw, libertarians should rightly understand).
I am also four-sqare against illegal aliens and any sort of amnesty (as being against the rule of law, counter to survival as a country, and as being downright dumb).
That does not cause any more impasse between me and my libertarian FRiends than the same issues do with my fiscally conservative FRiends (many of whom could care less about such things)... In fact, I find more common ground with the libertarians because they are speaking from principle on the matter and care about the issues - to many purely fiscal conservatives, the issues are not important.
And for the most part, it has been libertarianism that has been treated as a read-headed step-child ever since Reagan's right foot stepped over the White House threshold for the last time. It is long past time to listen to them, and give them back the seat they once had at their own table.
Preach against giving power to the government (even for the right reasons), and you will be astounded as to how many will easily be convinced to join you. Confine yourself to concepts which fit within the enumerated powers granted to the federal government and they will cheer you on, even if they don't agree with you entirely.
That is where unity can be found, and with unity of purpose comes alliance.
Best wishes all. Dialogue isn’t working. I’m going to try prayer. It’s all that’s left.
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.