Jump to content
The Smoakhouse Forums
Sign in to follow this  
chase.colston

🟡 Libertarian?

Which one are you???  

9 members have voted

  1. 1. Which philosophy to you believe yourself to be a follower of?

    • Authoritarian Collectivist
    • Libertarian Individualist


Recommended Posts

^ you left out "overwhelming" and apparently you do not know the definition of "Curmudgeon". But thank you for noticing!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Now, now, Camuchs... LOL.... it was expressing an OBVIOUS distinction between libertarian and conservative views.

 

Amazes me, that you cannot fathom, understand, even attempt to understand anyone else's opinion but your own, and that if anyone's opinion is different than yours then we're..... what's the words ...."an overwhelmingly idiot jerk."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish I knew who voted for Perry, Not one single person that I know personally will admit to voting for him - even the ones that I am fairly sure did, in fact, vote for him - or maybe they just liked to adorn their lawn with his signs.

 

I think it is similar to the scenario of people admitting they voted for Obama. As for Perry I thought he was everyone's Texas hero!

 

My sister voted for Perry but when times got rough with the education budget she wrote him a personal letter. She would not stoop to writing anything hateful. If she had to vote for him right now today however in a gubernatorial race I would be very surprised she give him a thumbs up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Now, now, Camuchs... LOL.... it was expressing an OBVIOUS distinction between libertarian and conservative views.

 

How's that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Had enough yet? Still clinging to illusionary "hope". Republicans gonna save us? How many more times do people allow a slap in the face? I guess forever I'm not sure.

 

LMAcompletely off!

 

Somehow I "fear" there are still way too many "Tea Party" puppets that want to cling to that "hope" thing represented by the "Republican" party.

 

Grow a pair!

 

Why doesnt Ron Paul go ahead and renounce the Republican party?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Why should he? I guess he thought he could implement sound political policy in Republicrats...no nation building, smaller government , less government intervention, less spending, stop trying to police the world. All I can say as evidenced in recent times those ideas are not what the "Republican" party is about.

 

Party politics with its special interests is detrimental to the country. Obama is a blooming idiot yet when I hear Hannity talk about Obama refusing to abandon the Keynesian economics model I just think gee, Hannity, where have you been? It's Ron Paul that has been saying this for thirty years. Hannity admitted it is not just Obama that refused to see the light but prior administrations as well yet it is like he is saying economic destruction is something new. And of course the unfortunate thing those that know no better will take it that way. Ah , the beauty of the spin factor. After Obama the anointed one will continue to lead us down the road to serfdom I feel certain.

 

We have been selling this country out in earnest since the early 90's with NFATA and increased cooperation with the U.N.

 

Has public education introduced Chinese language classes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Now, now, Camuchs... LOL.... it was expressing an OBVIOUS distinction between libertarian and conservative views.

 

Amazes me, that you cannot fathom, understand, even attempt to understand anyone else's opinion but your own, and that if anyone's opinion is different than yours then we're..... what's the words ...."an overwhelmingly idiot jerk."

 

I was just using your terminology [that hares never said but in your mind hinted at] I was being a bit facetious, when I made that remark. It doesn't amaze me that you think that I cannot fathom, understand, even attempt to understand anyone else's opinion. I understand more than you think. Been there, done that. I was once the person saying that very type of thing to others who had woke up much earlier than me. I was once like you and walked like cattle in a line behind anyone that waved the GOP banner and said the things I liked to hear and as long as they could potentially beat a dem they had my vote. But I woke up and started to think for myself rather than in lockstep with the Republicans and I realized that the Republicans are no different from the Democrats - they just tell different lies and both may as well have used the COTUS to wipe with - for that would have been better than the way they have abused, sidestepped and sometimes violated it. I feel sad for those who do not see that the 2-party system is not what the founders had in mind. It is not fun to be played for a fool. I remember the 'soma' days of my Grand Old Party faithfulness.

 

 

I am open to hear more about these OBVIOUS distinctions as you perceive them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was just using your terminology [that hares never said but in your mind hinted at] I was being a bit facetious, when I made that remark. It doesn't amaze me that you think that I cannot fathom, understand, even attempt to understand anyone else's opinion. I understand more than you think. Been there, done that. I was once the person saying that very type of thing to others who had woke up much earlier than me. I was once like you and walked like cattle in a line behind anyone that waved the GOP banner and said the things I liked to hear and as long as they could potentially beat a dem they had my vote. But I woke up and started to think for myself rather than in lockstep with the Republicans and I realized that the Republicans are no different from the Democrats - they just tell different lies and both may as well have used the COTUS to wipe with - for that would have been better than the way they have abused, sidestepped and sometimes violated it. I feel sad for those who do not see that the 2-party system is not what the founders had in mind. It is not fun to be played for a fool. I remember the 'soma' days of my Grand Old Party faithfulness.

 

 

I am open to hear more about these OBVIOUS distinctions as you perceive them.

One problem is, you're lumping them all into one category. Just because there's a 2-party system, doesn't mean that each individual of those 2 parties think alike. As OldSchool mentioned, Ron Paul is a Republican, but he's actually a Libertarian. If he felt so strong about his "party", then he should change, but he won't....The same with the Tea Parties that Hares always talks about... just because we agree with certain opinions of the R party and the Tea Party folks, doesn't make US BAD or that we all believe the same thing. A lot of us don't vote the party, we vote the person.

 

And just because some folks pulled the lever for Perry, whether it be the lesser of three evils, or because they actually liked him, doesn't mean they're in Wonderland. We're not going to agree all the time with whoever....but seriously, you and Hares go into this attack mode ... and if we're going to attack or go on the offensive, it needs to go TOWARDS THE OTHER SIDE...i.e., Liberals.

 

After the first presidential debate, someone after the fact, on TV made the point of, think it was Jim DeMint, there was a clear difference between libertarians and conservatives, and there is... and as you and Hares make pretty well known of your libertarian views, there is a VERY stark difference...same with the topic of marijuana.

 

We need to join and agree together on certain topics so that we can actually fight the real problem... liberals destroying America not bicker among ourselves on libertarian versus conservative or on marijuana or not, or etc., etc....there's bigger fish to fry, literally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Neither hares nor I ever said you or anyone else on SDC was a bad person or that everyone should think the same, it is the 2 major parties who promote that sentiment - he and I disagree on many things but I respect him because he thinks for himself and doesn't parrot verbatim along party lines. If being offended by the farce that our government has become means I am on the offensive then heck yes. News Flash: Liberals are not the only one's destroying this country. That is what we are trying to convey. The enemy of my enemy is my friend theory is flawed. I quoted one of our founders in an earlier post who clearly explained why partial emotions have no place in a republic such as we once had. So which is the circumstance in your case regarding the election of our Governor? Did you vote for the party or the person?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After the first presidential debate, someone after the fact, on TV made the point of, think it was Jim DeMint, there was a clear difference between libertarians and conservatives, and there is... and as you and Hares make pretty well known of your libertarian views, there is a VERY stark difference...same with the topic of marijuana.

 

Just because we have some seemingly libertarian views doesn't mean we are libertarians just the same as just because a Republican has some conservative views doesn't make him a conservative. There is always a constitutional reason for any of my libertarian views about government. Please explain in your own words these differences as you perceive them - I'm not talking about the marijuana issue so aside from that. I am willing to hear you out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Give me a break parent. You won't vote for a Democrat in most cases because you lump all of them together.

 

How did marijuana get in this thread until you mentioned it? Yes there are big(ger) fish to fry and the problems that persist along our border with Mexico is one of them. We are spending a lot of money for the results we are getting containing marijuana traffic into the country.

 

This is not an issue of condoning the use of marijuana to get "high" as once again my points:

 

1) Hemp could be a better alternative to corn for ethanol production. Hemp was grown in this country for years. It has many uses and let's face it GMO corn altered for maximum results in ethanol production may not be the best source of corn for human and livestock consumption. I would say the price of corn for those two purposes has risen as farmers have jumped on the subsidized ethanol industries. Hemp is "illegal" to grow in the U.S. yet the U.S. imports it for use in more products than some are aware. It is used in cosmetics. In a time of increasing transfer of industry to other countries it seems the conservative thing to do is to consider alternative industries.

 

2) The "War on Drugs" IS a failure. Don't live in denial the so called "conservative" does not create a demand for marijuana as well. Give me a break. I would prefer to believe there are "conservatives" that have or do smoke marijuana just as they too drink alcohol and the political "conservatives" take donations from the alcohol lobbies. The "conservative" approach to lessening the criminal element of marijuana smuggling is to repeal the 1937 Federal act that focused on marijuana alone. Please enlighten us with an account of what "conservative" is in this day and time. Do you know of any "conservatives" that voted in 2005 to require all gas sold in Minnesota to contain at least 20 percent ethanol by August 2013?" And is Sarah Palin a "conservative"...horrors she has smoked marijuana.

 

I think one of the big problems is the hypocrisy of others that seem to want to object to something they do not approve when it does not impact them. Yes, I "complain" the fact it seems every City Council in the country wants to make the argument for alcohol sales in their cities towns or precincts what ever the case may be in order to generate revenue. Personally I don't see the need for a liquor store or beer and wine sales on every corner and I'm opposed to how the B&W and liquor industries "bribe" IMO politicians into supporting the expansion of alcohol consumption. People are allowed to vote the matter however regardles how opposed I may be. So, booze, "conservative" ( booze generates revenue and that is number one , right?) or "libertarian" or , lol, "liberal"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just because we have some seemingly libertarian views doesn't mean we are libertarians just the same as just because a Republican has some conservative views doesn't make him a conservative. There is always a constitutional reason for any of my libertarian views about government. Please explain in your own words these differences as you perceive them - I'm not talking about the marijuana issue so aside from that. I am willing to hear you out.

 

I think libertarians if we must place a "label" are far more constitutionally inclined. And it makes me sick to hear people talk about Perry being a "conservative". Let's see, I have not found details yet, he signed into law yesterday a Public/Private agreement for development of natural gas filling stations for large trucks in which there will be grants for conversions on these vehicles. I'm all for beefing up natural gas production. I am however in no way going to say Public/Private partnerships are "conservative". If anything they are more socialist and once again we place the public on the hook for backing any failure. Same goes for the toll systems We the People are totally helpless in preventing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why doesnt Ron Paul go ahead and renounce the Republican party?

 

You would have to ask Ron Paul actually. Here is a bit more thorough observation IMO:

 

"The descent to Hell is easy and those who begin by worshipping power soon worship evil." - C.S. Lewis

 

and "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely"...something along those lines.

 

Perhaps I should point out the two party system has created a monopoly in order to protect their self interests IMO and they have created an environment so other parties are not allowed to hold a primary as the two headed monster is allowed to do. No other "party" is allowed to conduct a primary in order to generate national exposure. Why is that? Does someone fear the results? Are we afraid there might actually be a hint of true representation by the populous? It is a tragedy that less than 20% of registered voters participate in the process. That alone tells me something is out of place. Imagine the sweat on the brow of two party hacks that go out of their way to create ballot access laws that monopolize the two party system if they knew another kid was in town conducting a primary race as well? If voters were participating in a primary for another political party and not that of the two major parties I'm curious if maybe government could somehow be returned to the people? But people are allowed to vote in the general election for third party one might say. Correct but only if meeting particular states ballot access laws and by that time the other parties are so marginalized , have no media recognition seeing as how so many make their political voting decisions watching TV and by design I might add no one thinks the others "have a chance" or even worse do they even "think" at all there is another choice as most have been duped by the process. Not all third parties even have ballot access in every state for general elections. Why not allow third parties to conduct a primary at the same time the "Republicans" and "Democrats" conduct theirs? How convenient to make the rules that control the voting process. Indeed it is good to be the king.

 

Interesting to me is the story of the Chrysler BAILOUT in the 70's. As with all other BAILOUTS the "argument" presented Congress is if "rescue" does not take place the global economy will collapse, the people will be served a grave injustice, the people will "melt" or something...all excuses of course for a handout to the corporate welfare system. In the case of Chrysler in the 70's one argument besides "impacting" the global economy was if Chrysler was allowed to fold the injustice to the people would be they would then ONLY HAVE TWO CHOICES for an American made auto. How tragic. If only that argument could be persuaded in giving the people viable choices in the election process. Are the two major parties fearing a loss of "power"? What exactly is it?

 

Ron Paul has been a Republican Congressman for many years. Perhaps it is a matter of seeing as how there really is a monopoly of the two headed kind the only way a concerned politician wishing to put the idea of serving the people above that of self interest can even begin to gain traction is to succumb to running in one party or the other.

 

The only difference in our political system and that of a communist country is here we are so fortunate with two choices. All the while representation outside the two party system is kept at bay much like that of communists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/1192556659001#/v/1191500417001/could-america-survive-as-a-libertarian-nation/?playlist_id=87247

 

Interesting... listen for the word "faction" and "factions"..."to be run by factions"...Factions as in the unions, socialists, communists, shades of Mexico's drug cartels, mob rules, or just bringing back the hey days of Al Capone...what factions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

America prospered during a somewhat Libertarian existence in the early days of our Country's growth. While it wasn't perfect, and no government is, it worked. Since the Federal Government has decided to reach out it's tentacles into every facet of American Society, that is when they have shown that even a larger Government presence can not correct the ill's of America. What they have done, and will continue to do is bring down The United States of America. With those actions they have taken away liberties and freedoms that people loved about this Country in the past. Today, more complain because they would rather have security than Freedom or Liberty. They will continue to complain, because of the lack of Freedom and Liberty that they will experience by substituting Security instead of Freedom. America is allowing their own poor choices to make their bed of thorns, instead of roses. Personally, I think a person has greater satisfaction by the triumph of their own work, sweat, blood, and tears than to be given it by laws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/1192556659001#/v/1191500417001/could-america-survive-as-a-libertarian-nation/?playlist_id=87247

 

Interesting... listen for the word "faction" and "factions"..."to be run by factions"...Factions as in the unions, socialists, communists, shades of Mexico's drug cartels, mob rules, or just bringing back the hey days of Al Capone...what factions?

 

The first factions that come to mind that are in present control are the crips and the bloods - you know, the reds and the blues.

 

 

The Ideas of America's Founders: Controlling the Violence of Faction Through an Extended Republic

 

G. Stolyarov,II - May 29, 2007

 

In drafting the U. S. Constitution, the Founding Fathers engaged in debates regarding the possibility of the country's breakup due to tensions among various political factions. Their solution was an innovative and hitherto unprecedented one: create an extended republic and mitigate the problem of faction by allowing factions to multiply beyond all precedent. This insight, paradoxical at first glance, helped form one of the sustaining principles of the American constitutional order.

 

The Framers sought to extend the sphere of the American republic so as to "break and control the violence of faction" (Federalist 10). Publius defines a faction as a "number of individuals, whether a majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some passion or interest adverse to the rights of other citizens and the permanent interests of the community" (Federalist 10).

 

The causes of faction are liberty, which is to faction what air is to fire, and diversity of individual opinions, tastes, and interests. Eliminating neither cause is practicable or desirable: liberty is also as essential to political life as air is to animal life, while it is from diverse human faculties that all property rights stem, and from them society's division into various interests. Publius writes that "the causes of faction are sown into the nature of man," and thus we must control its effects.

 

In an extended republic, there will be more people composing the society-spread out over a larger territory. There will thus be a greater number of distinct factions and less of a chance that this multitude will coalesce into a majority faction-the greatest threat to individual liberty.

 

Furthermore, an extended republic presents a larger pool of virtuous and able persons to choose representatives and other civic officials from; meanwhile, the factions, even if they take over one state or locality can be repulsed in their oppressive designs by the other states and localities. Thus, "in the extended republic of the United States, and among the great variety of interests, parties, and sects, which it embraces, a coalition of a majority of the whole society could seldom take place upon any principles than those of justice and the general good" (Federalist 51).

 

With the threat of majority faction mitigated, the competition among thousands of small factions ceases to be a problem. No one faction can take power and oppress the populace, which allows freedom to flourish. Indeed, this is what happened during the first decades of American history.

 

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/257763/the_ideas_of_americas_founders_controlling.html?cat=37

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This election is going to be a disaster. I like a lot of Paul's libertarian stances, but he's a loon. I don't like the rest of the party's offerings and Obama is a complete tool. I may vote for Ben Franklin this go around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People thought ol' Ben was a "kook" and a "loon" in his day too!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People thought ol' Ben was a "kook" and a "loon" in his day too!

He was a very smart man, with very low morals. I've always said there's a reason that Bawdy Ben is on the $100 bill, it's easier to pay your mistress with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The day of reckoning will not be pretty. And remember loons are found further north like Minnesota , not Lake Jackson. It is good to know, Hawaii Five Oh , at least you will not be voting establishment. That in itself is a revelation (a dramatic disclosure of something not previously known ). :)

Maybe you should check out page 25 of the Texas Parks and Wildlife's "Learn about Texas Birds" Loons and Grebes live in the Lake Jackson area. Texas is also the winter home for Whooping Cranes. http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/publications/pwdpubs/media/pwd_bk_p4000_0038.pdf

 

With all this being said, this is just a scratch of the surface on Ron Paul. I've stated in the other thread why I think most of the candidates for the Republican Party do not look good on paper. I'm not on the bandwagon even 75% with Ron Paul, but he's the only candidate without the baggage that the others have. He's a threat to the front runners, and we'll hear more stories like this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, in other words, you're okay with this, if it is, in fact, true:

 

Based on countless “arguments/discussions” with Paul over the years, Dondero claims that no matter how hard the candidate denies it “Ron Paul is most assuredly an isolationist.”

 

“For example, he strenuously does not believe the United States had any business getting involved in fighting Hitler in WWII. He expressed to me countless times, that ‘saving the Jews,’ was absolutely none of our business. When pressed, he often times brings up conspiracy theories like FDR knew about the attacks of Pearl Harbor weeks before hand, or that WWII was just ‘blowback,’ for Woodrow Wilson’s foreign policy errors, and such. ”

 

Moving to more contemporary subjects, Dondero states “with absolute certainty” that Paul was opposed to the War in Afghanistan and to any military reaction to the 9/11 attacks.

 

“He immediately stated to us staffers, me in particular, that Bush/Cheney were going to use the attacks as a precursor for ‘invading’ Iraq. He engaged in conspiracy theories including perhaps the attacks were coordinated with the CIA, and that the Bush administration might have known about the attacks ahead of time. He expressed no sympathies whatsoever for those who died on 9/11, and pretty much forbade us staffers from engaging in any sort of memorial expressions, or openly asserting pro-military statements in support of the Bush administration.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^Well, all righty....that was a long yes or no...

 

So if Paul indeed did say it, you agree with it; because YOU know otherwise, because YOU know what's in Paul's mind.

 

And I'm not stating whether Paul said it or not, but IF he did, you agree with him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, we have enough insane people in America that Ron Paul could get elected... See "hares". You get fed enough, eventually you get full. And shoving all of your Ron Paul articles down our throat does nothing to change the stance against the guy. Make him fix his hair and take a bath and he may gain a bit more respect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...