T1B

Would like to get a head count here. I think the vast majority of you (smackaholic, Papa Willie, among others) are nothing more than self-loathing Republicans, evidenced by the fact that you never dare knock Republican policy. The "Libertarian" facade is just a convenient hedging tactic to knock Obama while also trying to distance yourselves from the morons who embarrassingly represent the Republican party. But behind that curtain you don't actually vote Libertarian. Admit it.

And let's face it, hot chicks don't dig Conservatives. At least "hot" chicks under the age of 50.

I'm on to you simpletons.

This self loathing Republican votes, fwiw.

Papa Willie wrote:1. Republicans. 6 foot (in diameter) turds.
2. Democrats. 12 foot (in diameter) turds.

See? One group of turds is certainly more tolerable, but in the end - you're still stuck with turds.

I used to be a Libertine. Now I think I'm more of a Libertarian. Unlike mvscal, who I'm told is a Librarian.

I am a conservative, both fiscally and socially, but recognize that on social issues those things that matter most to me cannot be legislated, but come from within yourself. As a conservative there are many things that appeal to me about libertarianism, but I am not quite ready to cede all choice to people with no boundaries. For instance, I would be semi-comfortable with letting people do whatever they wish as long as it does not affect anyone else. You could do heroin, but when your actions hurt another you forfeit your life. There is a simplicity in that that is attractive, but the reality is if this person is supporting a family while being a functional addict, yes, they are likely denying them a full and healthy family life, but the financial burden on a parent-less family would do more harm than good. It also does not allow for different levels of maturity. We all understand teenagers do stupid things because they are teenagers. But when do you begin making them bear full responsibility for their actions? It is different for each and every person.

As a rule, the old ways are best, thus that makes me a conservative. However, a goodly portion of individual choice and responsibility free from governmental regulation place me somewhere in between full conservativism and libertarianism.

Conservative here (no shit). I am only registered Republican down here because there is no viable Conservative Party in Florida. I was active in the Conservative Party of New York. At least in New York then, a party could endorse candidates from another party and the votes added up and your vote wasn't just wasted. That gave smaller political parties some leverage in policy of the two major parties. We actually had a Conservative senator once, Jim Buckley. We were a major influence in George Pataki's first win over the late Mario Cuomo. I don't know if that is still the case in New York, but think it would be a good thing for all the other states. Gives minor parties some power. To me, most "liberal" actions simply fill the pockets of others with tax payers money, and make Bernie Madoff look like a piker. It's all about the money.

I am about where rooster is. My personal feeling involving how someone should behave are just that, personal. I could give two fukks if someone wants to marry his uncle. Infact, when it comes to the topic of marriage, I think gov should but out completely, particularly regarding taxes. Everyone should pay a fair tax rate and his marital status should have fukk all to do with it. The same goes with deductions. You make X, your tax is Y% of X. I would make it somewhat progressive, but, no one would go above 25%. All of these deduction removals would cause a DC lobbyist exodus, but fukk that place, it is long overdue for a recession of its own.

Drugs?

I am with spray. Do what you want, let Darwin sort it out.

And to mgooo, who fancies himself a libertarian, i suspect you are more of what goobs claims he was, back in the 30s, a libertine, because any libertarian would have serious problems with Obama.

As for how I vote, I will admit to a pragmatic side. I have generally voted for the guy I least disliked, knowing that the libertarian had zero chance. I hope some day we will do what many other countries do and require majorities to win rather than pluralities. Then have runoffs. This would allow many of us to vote the way we really want to the first time around.

Papa Willie wrote:Tell me - what's so wrong in thinking that somebody might actually come along that 3/4 of Americans could agree on? What would be so bad about that?

Because such a person would be viewed as too liberal by republicans & too conservative by democrats to win either party's nomination. And even if someone won as an independent they'd be unable to garner enough support for their legislation in order to be effective.

diego, you are right, concerning the dems, they have swung pretty much full on socialist, but, there is hope for the repblicans. I think enough of us are tired of candidates who suck up to the social conservatives, then try to show the dems that they are just as caring to poor folks as they are.

Hopefully a libertarian leaning guy like Rand Paul can get past the religious whack jobs and get the nomination. I think he would beat Hillary like a rented mule.

smackaholic wrote:And to mgooo, who fancies himself a libertarian, i suspect you are more of what goobs claims he was, back in his 30s, a libertine, because any libertarian would have serious problems with Obama.

Just so you know, I am no fan of Obama.

didn't think so.

magoooo appears to be the barry fan here, which is what i was getting at. i suspect you and i aren't that far apart politically and might both get behind someone that was a true libertarian, even though we go separate ways given the current crop of republicrat choices.

the republicrats are scared shitless of such a dude

How does the "Libertarian" supposedly view U.S. foreign policy?

Is his view different from the "Conservative" foreign policy view?


It seems to me that "Conservative" foreign policy can vary quite a lot, depending on who the "Conservative" is.

"Liberals" seem more uniform in their view on foreign policy.
Don't start shit, and stay out of shit -- is what I get from them.


Maybe I should go back to being liberal, like I was in 1978.

The lib policy on foreign affairs is quite simple. They are for butting their nose into other's business, so long as it is their guy in charge. The conservative policy is kind of all over the place.

The hardcore libertarian policy of staying the fukk out of foreign affairs is where I have a problem with them. Of course our current policy of half assing it is the worst possible policy. I could get behind the libertarian policy if it included telling the rest of the world, "play nice and we will leave you be, but, if shit goes badly enough and we have to jump in, we will, with a vengeance and we will make you sorry fukks rue the day your daddy chose not to pull out" Basically make it clear to the muzzie shitstains in the middle east that if we come in, we will make the crusades look like nothing. As for dealing with the chinese, there really is a simple solution. Stop fukking us everywhere in the world or we will stop ALL imports right fukking now.

Unfortunately, the defense contractors and wally mart execs wouldn't like any of this, so getting it done will be difficult.

smackaholic wrote:magoooo appears to be the barry fan here, which is what i was getting at.

Wrong. How did you glean that based on me calling you a fake a libertarian?

poptart wrote: It seems to me that "Conservative" foreign policy can vary quite a lot, depending on who the "Conservative" is.

The so called "neo-conservative" foreign policy is more accurately described as neo-Wilsonian and is clearly progressive in agenda rather than conservative. The political conservative is primarily non-interventionist in foreign policy.

My own political leaning is Classical Liberal.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:Would like to get a head count here. I think the vast majority of you (smackaholic, Papa Willie, among others) are nothing more than self-loathing Republicans, evidenced by the fact that you never dare knock Republican policy.

This is a horseshit take for a number of reasons. The first being that Libertarians have more in common with Republicans than they do with Democrats and the second being that most everyone on your list there criticizes Republicans from time to time.

I actually don't know what I would label myself as anymore.

I reserve my blind allegiance to sports teams.

There is no such thing as a libertarian who is not also an anarchist.

Moving Sale wrote:There is no such thing as a libertarian who is not also an anarchist.

Hmmmmmmm

Moving Sale wrote:There is no such thing as a libertarian who is not also an anarchist.

There is no such thing as a lawyer who is not also a lying scumbag.

mvscal wrote:

Moving Sale wrote:There is no such thing as a libertarian who is not also an anarchist.

There is no such thing as a lawyer who is not also a lying scumbag.

I think he's referring to the Austrian School definition of "anarcho-capitalism"...

...which is a misnomer, if one were being generous...

mvscal wrote:

Moving Sale wrote:There is no such thing as a libertarian who is not also an anarchist.

There is no such thing as a lawyer who is not also a lying scumbag.

Nice white flag

Libertarians are NOT anarcho-capitalists by any definition. They are laissez-faire capitalists.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:

smackaholic wrote:magoooo appears to be the barry fan here, which is what i was getting at.

Wrong. How did you glean that based on me calling you a fake a libertarian?

I gleaned it because a main part of your post was pointing out our contempt for the idiot running the show. To be honest, I don't get anyone from any political bent being a fan of him due to his breathtaking level of incompetence. He is an utter failure who surrounds himself with more failures, then throws them under the bus when they inevitably fail.

smackaholic wrote:He is an utter failure who surrounds himself with more failures, then throws them under the bus when they inevitably fail.

You got that right.

Gotta love the way libtard tries to smear libertarians with the anarchist tag. Libertarians are without a doubt, very law abiding people. They just think that the law should be very limited, mainly to the area of property rights.

Anarchists, at least what pass as anarchists today are pretty much spoiled brats who don't want to be told they should behave. The commies use them as useful idiots to try to upset society to the point where we need authoritarian rule to get things under control.

smackaholic wrote:Anarchists, at least what pass as anarchists today are pretty much spoiled brats who don't want to be told they should behave. The commies use them as useful idiots to try to upset society to the point where we need authoritarian rule to get things under control.

My experience has been that the number of true anarchists has always been too small to have a meaningful effect on anything other than a few balck neighborhoods. The real commies spend most of their time selling revolution to impressionable college kids.

I'm in the middle and it depends on the issue. Registered Republican. I don't hate Obama, but I am disappointed because I actually was foolish in thinking he would be more in the middle and he hasn't been that at all. I thought he would bring both sides closer together, but he has done the opposite. Far right and far left, I have no patience for. They are both extreme and a joke. I might be liberatarian. I don't know.

I'll let Mgo assess me further.

Sudden Sam wrote:

Moving Sale wrote:There is no such thing as a libertarian who is not also an anarchist.

Bullshit.

If everybody gets to do what they want how is that not anarchy?

I think what you all mean is Constitutional Libertarian, which is way different.

mvscal wrote:This is a horseshit take for a number of reasons. The first being that Libertarians have more in common with Republicans than they do with Democrats...

Right. So they should call themselves Republicans not Libertarians. I'm not talking Libertarians in general but the fake ones on this board who feel shame associating with Republicans even though they vote Republican (you know who you are).

trev wrote:I'll let Mgo assess me further.

This is going to take some time...

...quite possibly in a penthouse suite...

over a couple bottles of wine...

I do consider myself Republican with very strong libertarian leanings. The problem with just abandoning the Rep party is it assures democrat victory. It is a fucked up system, but it is the system we have.

smackaholic wrote:The problem with just abandoning the Rep party is it assures democrat victory.

I got over that a long time ago. When the Republican party wants my vote, they will nominate a genuinely conservative candidate. A vote for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil.

I haven't quite come to that point yet. I still hold out hope that the reps will swing in a libertarian direction. But, if they nominate Jeb or Mitt, again, I think I will just say fuggit.