Posted on 08/07/2004 10:17:15 AM PDT by The Libertarian Dude
The GOP knows that some Wisconsin voters are willing to vote Libertarian. Does that justify using Democrat-style tactics?
Oh yes it is. Don't run from the real problem. Trying to get people to cast "masturbatory votes" [makes you feel good and gets zero accomplished] is the whole point.
The original point of this thread was to show how a legitimate candidate for public office is being harrassed and jacked around by another party, one who claims to be the fount of all virtue and honesty.
This isn't about some Sorosian plot to subvert the voting public. That's what Dems do. Don't be like them.
Jesus. I said I'm voting for Bush, and my "circle-jerk" party won't cost Bush the election anyway, so why are you beating this dead horse?
Besides, isn't YOUR party trying to "steal" votes from Kerry? Hell, I sent Nader a campaign contribution! Not because I want him to win, and thank God he won't; it's because he is right about one thing - the prez debates need to stop being a two-man-only, good ol' boy prick-waving exercise.
Kerry needs to debate Nader, because Nader will propose things that will make Kerry uncomfortable. Same for Bush and the LP candidate, sad as he is.
But the REAL issue is, you're in the "votes are entitlements" camp. All that whining from Gore's "Nader put Bush in the White House" goose-steppers is as asinine as "you damnable Libertarians will cost Bush the election".
In the long run, both you and the liberals believe those votes are yours by default, which implies ownership. Well, guess what, Spunky... you don't own them, and neither do the libs own "their" votes.
Let's put it this way:
If a GOP candidate had used the word "bill" instead of "law" on a website, and a Libertarian had gone to the election commission to complain, you'd be livid. If a GOP candidate said that "state politicians receive fat pensions... and are supposed to be public servants, not hogs at the trough", and someone complained to election authorities about it being a "personal attack" when no names were used in the statement, you'd be angry about the misuse of that election commission complaint, wouldn't you?
Well, it's the other way around, and you should still be livid. Complaints to election commissions should be VALID ones, no matter who's making the complaint or who the target is.
Hell, if the target were a Democrat, and the charges were false, wouldn't you still say "now, that's just dirty fighting", even if you despise Democrats?
Operation Iraqi Freedom?
WOT?
WOD?
Patriot Act?
Drug prohibition?
"We welcome all refugees to our country and condemn the efforts of U.S. officials to create a new "Berlin Wall"
"No individual, group, or government may initiate force against any other individual, group, or government."
"Only actions that infringe on the rights of others can properly be termed crimes."
"The War on Drugs is a grave threat to individual liberty, to domestic order, and to peace in the world."
"We favor all-volunteer juries to judge not only the facts but also the justice of the law."
"We condemn the government's use of secret classifications to keep from the public information"
"We hold that human rights should not be denied or abridged on the basis of nationality and welcome all refugees to our country"
"We believe that adults have the right to private choice in consensual sexual activity"
"We oppose all government activity that consists of the forcible collection of money or goods from individuals"
"Regulation of financial and capital markets represses capital ventures"
"Government control over money and banking is the primary cause of inflation and depression"
"We advocate a strict separation of business and State."
"Individuals should have the right to use drugs, whether for medical or recreational purposes"
"Farmers and consumers should be free to grow, sell, and buy what they want." [including coca plants, marijuana Poppy fields etc, etc.]
"We recognize the right to political secession by political entities, private groups, or individuals."
"The United States government should abstaining totally from foreign quarrels" [See: Abondon Israel]
"The principle in foreign policy should be the elimination of intervention by the United States government in the affairs of other nations"
"We call upon the United States government to adhere rigidly to the principle that all U.S. citizens travel, live, and own property abroad at their own risk."
"We support the elimination of tax-supported military, economic, technical, and scientific aid to foreign governments"
"We would end the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention, including military and economic aid, and diplomatic meddling. We make no exceptions."
"We oppose any form of national service"
Okay, I'll go down the list:
WOT - Check. I'm for it. And let's liberate Cuba next.
WOD - Some of it. I'd rather see law resources go after meth labs and crack dealers than pot smokers.
Patriot Act - Long as it can't be MISused. Just think what President Hildabeast could do with the Patriot Act...
Drug prohibition - see above.
I don't "welcome all refugees"; however, I don't see that many Republicans being serious about border tighness.
Initiation of force: Only when absolutely necessary.
War on Drugs: The U.N. is also big on this topic, and I'll be damned if I agree with them.
"justice of the law" - I'm not up on this. Have to admit.
Government secrets - only when absolutely necessary; otherwise, tell us what's going on.
Sex - Why should government be involved in consensual, adult sexual activities?
I'm not a fan of a rigidly-controlled economy. SOME regulation is necessary.
I'll have to get to the rest of this later, but bear in mind this: My personal beliefs and my party affiliation are not one and the same. Don't confuse the two.
That's exactly the tactic his supporters are now claiming John Kerry was applying when he joined the anti-war movement to "moderate it".
If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.
- Samuel Adams
Continued:
Farming - While I'm not in favor of farmers growing poppy or coca, I do think they should be able to farm hemp and marijuana. And while we're at it, let's get rid of the Soviet-style farm-price supports.
Forcible collection - I'm in favor of the national retail sales tax, but it'll have to be collected.
Regulation - is it absolutely necessary to control all financial activity?
Foreign quarrels - I think we DO stick our noses into too many disputes over worthless parcels of land and third-world dictatorship squabbles, but we can't abandon Israel.
Aid to foreign governments - I'd get rid of most of it.
Let me ask you something. What is the point of this? No member of ANY political party is going to be fully on board with EVERY part of that partys' platform.
BTW, that Wisconsin Republican candidate who was "attacked"? She's in favor of some tripe called "Smart Growth". Republicans who aren't in favor of property rights don't have any business calling themselves Republicans.
BTW, I notice you left abortion out of this.
I've stated elsewhere that I consider myself to be 99.9995% anti-abortion.
If your party can ever make abortion illegal again, I'd be surprised. In fact, I'd consider re-changing my party affiliation if that happens.
I am wounded.
One way or another most idiots are.
I don't get high anymore. Nice of you to automatically go there, though. Thanks for the kind words.
I'm not gonna ask what a "cakeboy" is, but if it has something to do with sex... well, you know that I don't think it's the government's place to regulate sex between consenting adults.
Which leads into why I'm a libertarian. Note the correct spelling.
It's because I believe the government should be whittled down to its bare minimum. And contrary to what you think, I believe people should be held accountable for their actions, as long as those actions are the kind that lead directly to harm to another person.
In short, we need laws. Murder, rape, arson, theft, fraud, and most acts of Congress need to be regulated. Since I have never said we should get rid of ALL laws, that means I am not an anarchist.
What about you? How much do you want your life, my life, and the lives of people you'll never meet, to be regulated by hired apes in a city on the east coast?
Since I am not allowed to form opinions based on 2004 reality, did Sam Adams say anything about jetliners flying into 110 story buildings?
Please by all means give us the keys to the kingdom. What exactly did our founding fathers say concerning crack cocaine, high speed auto chases, crazed Islamist suicide bombers, Arabs using the internet to coordinate their activities, men inserting other men's penis' in their mouths, women murdering their unborn children.
C'mon oh great oracle. What did they say?
/smirk
So basically you do not agree with anything I have listen that Loserdopians stand for save the right for cakeboys to ride one another [and of course you wanna get high...I'm surprised].
So how is it that you claim Loserdopianism?
If you do not even agree with the platform of the Loserdopian party how is it that you're a member of the party?
If you want to call it that, yes, that's what got me into the Libertarian Party. Again, note the correct spelling. I don't go around spelling your party "Republitheocrats" or "Biblethumpublicans", so let's stick with the nomenclature.
But another thing that got me into the LP was the quaint, dusty concept of property rights, and with politicians of all stripes looking the other way on eminent domain abuse, I figure I'll just stay put, because my party gives a damn about property rights.
Short answer:
Statists piss me off. I don't care what their party affiliation is; if their goal in life is to micromanage our very existences, they're authority-worshipping fools.
Most of them are liberals, but not exclusively.
A Libertarian is like a homeowner who wants to burn the house down because the paint job came out poorly. Unofrtunately is it our nation which is being burned down by the Left, with the detached assistance of Libertarians. I would like a single Libertarian to tell me how their cause is served better by having Tim Johnson in the Senate instead of John Thune.
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.