• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

You're a Libertarian

A

Anonymous

Guest
HONOLULU, August 20, 2012 ― For weeks, former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson’s campaign has been releasing short, often humor filled PSA-like videos on YouTube highlighting the practical aspects of what a Johnson presidency would mean.

His latest ad, released today, explores the possibility that most Americans are in fact, Libertarian without even knowing it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvRfGrexFfA

“If you’d rather rebuild roads, schools, bridges and hospitals here at home instead of building them for others halfway around the world, you’re a Libertarian,” a narrator says as a sweaty, anxious and uncomfortable voter writhes on screen. “If you’re the kind of person that talks about ending warfare and welfare in the same sentence, you’re a Libertarian. If you think that your body, your love life and your private business are no business of the Federal government, you’re Libertarian. If you’d rather die than give another vote to the bloated, Constitution-trampling, over-taxing and over-spending members of both failed political parties, hate to break it to you, you’re not Democrat or Republican, you are Libertarian.”

The narrator concludes, “This year you don’t have to be a Libertarian to vote Libertarian. We’re not a party, we’re the people.”

Johnson’s ongoing ad campaign underlines the fact that a growing number of voters are increasingly identifying themselves as independents and, while their ideal policy points may not necessarily be textbook Murray Rothbard, Ludwig von Mises or Hans-Hermann Hoppe, America’s non-partisan masses are essentially looking for a form of practical, leave-me-alone, keep it-simple-stupid libertarianism.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Libertarian platform regarding abortion

Government should be kept out of the matter of abortion

Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.
Source: National platform adopted at Denver L.P. Convention , May 30, 2008
 

Tam

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Libertarian platform regarding abortion

Government should be kept out of the matter of abortion

Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.
Source: National platform adopted at Denver L.P. Convention , May 30, 2008

Do Libertarians believe the Government should be kept totally out of the matter as in NOT PAYING FOR ABORTIONS?
 

Mike

Well-known member
A Libertarian is someone who gets to pick and choose which Conservative cause they want to champion..

A Conservative stands behind all notions opposite of Socialism equally, because the Left will chip away at them one at a time until they are gone.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Tam said:
Oldtimer said:
Libertarian platform regarding abortion

Government should be kept out of the matter of abortion

Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.
Source: National platform adopted at Denver L.P. Convention , May 30, 2008

Do Libertarians believe the Government should be kept totally out of the matter as in NOT PAYING FOR ABORTIONS?

The Libertarian party platform does... Some have put forward the idea that health care facilities, doctors, or private welfare funds should pay for them with indigent women that need them.....
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Tam said:
Oldtimer said:
Libertarian platform regarding abortion

Do Libertarians believe the Government should be kept totally out of the matter as in NOT PAYING FOR ABORTIONS?

The Libertarian party platform does... Some have put forward the idea that health care facilities, doctors, or private welfare funds should pay for them with indigent women that need them.....


Ya but since your the "Libertarian" here :wink: :wink:

What do you think?
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
OT is a "Libertarian" but believes in the "big Government" of the Liberal Democrats, because he is now retired and wants his "freebies"


He won't vote for the Republicans, cause they are too "extreme"



Politicalscale.jpg
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Big Muddy rancher said:
Oldtimer said:
Tam said:
Do Libertarians believe the Government should be kept totally out of the matter as in NOT PAYING FOR ABORTIONS?

The Libertarian party platform does... Some have put forward the idea that health care facilities, doctors, or private welfare funds should pay for them with indigent women that need them.....


Ya but since your the "Libertarian" here :wink: :wink:

What do you think?

I think its a good idea in a perfect world-- but we don't live in a perfect world...
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Big Muddy rancher said:
Oldtimer said:
The Libertarian party platform does... Some have put forward the idea that health care facilities, doctors, or private welfare funds should pay for them with indigent women that need them.....


Ya but since your the "Libertarian" here :wink: :wink:

What do you think?

I think its a good idea in a perfect world-- but we don't live in a perfect world...

What's a good idea? The late term viable fetus abortion that the Democrats that you seem to support on this site want or the Libertarian platform of Charities providing abortions?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Big Muddy rancher said:
Oldtimer said:
Big Muddy rancher said:
Ya but since your the "Libertarian" here :wink: :wink:

What do you think?

I think its a good idea in a perfect world-- but we don't live in a perfect world...

What's a good idea? The late term viable fetus abortion that the Democrats that you seem to support on this site want or the Libertarian platform of Charities providing abortions?

Even tho the history of abortions go back to ancient Egypt-I don't like/approve of abortions -- but think keeping them legal is necessary in the world we live in today- and much safer than going back to the alternative of the backroom and Mexican abortions.. I also believe that it should not be a Federal Government issue at all... If any regulation at all is to be done it should be at the state levels...

I think the main decision should be left to a decision between the woman, her Doctor, and her God...

My answer was that I thought it was a good idea for charities to pay for the abortions of the indigent- but don't think the idea would work in todays world ...
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Martin Jr. said:
Abortions of today are the back-alley abortions of years ago, and do not prove to be much safer, just have better equipment.


true dat, but OT wants you to still pay for them even though:


Oldtimer said:
I think the main decision should be left to a decision between the woman, her Doctor, and her God...

My answer was that I thought it was a good idea for charities to pay for the abortions of the indigent- but don't think the idea would work in todays world ...


OT is a "true libertarian"....wants charities to pay for abortions, or the taxpayer, but when individual taxpayers like Romney gets tax deductions for charitable donations, accuses them of not paying taxes....




:roll:


Wasn't OT a "true conservative" also, at one time.

:roll:
 

Steve

Well-known member
Martin Jr. said:
Abortions of today are the back-alley abortions of years ago, and do not prove to be much safer, just have better equipment.

facts have shown that those charged with protecting the patients are to busy protecting their job while abortion "clinics" are unregulated cesspools

there have been several shut down around here and one was so horrific that all the staff and the doctor were arrested..

but the left would rather shout down anyone who wants to make sensible regulations that would try to protect the patients. and would only shut down the worst "clinics"
 

Steve

Well-known member
in reality today's libertarian candidates seem to have forgotten what the didn't stand for..

if you're a libertarian you brag about being a spoiler..


if you're a libertarian you file lawsuits and try to get the other candidates off the ballot..

if you're a libertarian you use tricks and try to subvert the process even after you lost every race

if you're a libertarian switch parties when you see you haven't got a chance in hell of winning..
 

Lonecowboy

Well-known member
Wait, isn't Dr. Ron Paul out of the presidential race? Isn't it all tied up nicely in a bow with the Romney/Ryan ticket?

No.

Why would the GOP be scared of Ron Paul but end up nominating him?

I'll explain.

Romney and the GOP have demonstrated both poor judgment and poor sportsmanship that might cost them by damaging Romney's electability among the Ron Paul supporters thus leading to a splitting of votes, which in turn, could cost the GOP the entire election.

Dr. Ron Paul is still in the race for president and is a strong contender for the 2012 GOP nomination.

To be on the GOP ballot Aug. 27, 2012 in Tampa and get a 15-minute speaking slot, a candidate must have won the plurality (majority) of delegates in at least 5 states.

Well, Ron Paul did win the plurality of delegates in 5 states, enough to be eligible for the nomination and a 15-minute speaking slot at the GOP convention. The states he won are Louisiana, Iowa, Minnesota, Maine and Nevada. Then Ron Paul went on to win the plurality in Massachusetts, Romney's home state and half the delegates in Oregon. Dr. Ron Paul also has around 500 delegates who support him. The exact number of delegates that Romney and Paul have is still a mystery but should be clarified at the convention.

So... Ron Paul won his 5-plus states, he's on the ballot and writing his speech, right? Not exactly.

What happened next is what may cost the Republicans and Romney the entire election. Instead of accepting that Ron Paul, the GOP underdog, had won enough delegates in enough states to be allowed his rightful place on the ballot and his 15-minute speaking slot, the GOP and Romney's people decided to try and take these legitimate wins away from Ron Paul and his supporters. Ron Paul supporters fought hard, played fair and won. Romney supporters didn't play fair and still lost those 5-plus states. These Ron Paul pluralities were won in spite of shenanigans and tricks tried by Romney supporters and the GOP to prevent or undermine Ron Paul wins. The Ron Paul supporters were well prepared and won the needed amount of states anyway.

So, how did Romney and his supporters handle their losses of five measly states to Ron Paul? Honorably? Graciously? With dignity? Maturely?

No. Quite the opposite.

Romney's people ran to Big Daddy GOP to rescue them from their defeats by trying to disqualify the valid Ron Paul delegates and to take away Ron Paul's right to speak and be on the ballot by reducing his states won to fewer than the five needed.

So far, Romney and the GOP have contested the Ron Paul wins in Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts and Oregon. They threw out the Massachusetts Ron Paul delegates after the GOP tried to force the delegates to sign a long legal document that required them to vote for Romney. This was not something that had ever been done before. The GOP allowed Romney, big lawyers and big bullying to invalidate Ron Paul's solid win in Massachusetts.

As in the other states, the Ron Paul delegates in Maine played by the rules and won. Even Governor LePage of Maine, a Republican, is appalled with GOP efforts to throw out the duly-elected Ron Paul delegates.

The entire plot to reduce Ron Paul wins to under five states to take his name off the ballot and take away his 15-minute speaking slot is well under way. If Romney/Ryan are so great, why can't they handle a little competition without whining and crying like sore losers?

Are they afraid of losing the 2012 nomination to Ron Paul if he speaks and is on the ballot?

Why not play fair and let the best man win?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/laura-trice/gop-scared-ron-paul_b_1814846.html
 
Top