🟡 Libertarian?

[KirtFalcon]

Ron Paul never had a chance to win the nomination, and Romney will be the Republican nominee, as much as I dislike Romney I think he is a closet if not outright RINO. The only congress I want to get rid of is the Senate democrats. Then I would run the Senate just as Reid has breaking all the protocols and senate traditions that republicans lived by while Bush was president. Libertarians while interesting couldn't get enough voters to poor pee out of a boot. Conservatives like Reagan will lead this country back not Libertarians.

 

The last thing we need is for the libertarians and the conservative republicans to split and not provide a united front against the liberal democrats. I agree, a third party dividing the republicans is not the way to go, unless you want to see Obama get reelected. The Ron Paul die-hards need to get on board whoever wins the republican nomination.

[SideTracker]

Big disappointment coming your way...

 

The biggest disappointment is what I witnessed of the crowd at the FOX debate last night in SC. Many debates have taken place in which the moderators established rules not only for those participating in the debate but the audience as well. FOX seems to have a classless cult following as evidenced by many in attendance last night. The lack of adhering to civility in an organized nationally televised event reminded me of old Roller Derby and professional wrestling events in which the audience is allowed to display it classlessness. I am curious if FOX was serving beer at this debate.

 

People criticize Ron Paul supporters yet the cult among the FOXhounds are just as arrogant if not more so in creating an atmosphere in a debate more indicative of a group of rowdy baboons than humans.

[SideTracker]

The last thing we need is for the libertarians and the conservative republicans to split and not provide a united front against the liberal democrats. I agree, a third party dividing the republicans is not the way to go, unless you want to see Obama get reelected. The Ron Paul die-hards need to get on board whoever wins the republican nomination.

 

Since the '08 election one of the biggest political jokes around is the wasted vote for John McCain. We see where that led.

 

Kirt, your boy said this:

 

If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals -- if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.

 

RONALD REAGAN, Reason Magazine, Jul. 1, 1975

 

Somehow your party has forgotten much of what Reagan said and has led the country down the wrong path many times. Am I to believe with improper leadership in your party anything will be different?

[DaveTV1]

Ron Paul never had a chance to win the nomination, and Romney will be the Republican nominee, as much as I dislike Romney I think he is a closet if not outright RINO. The only congress I want to get rid of is the Senate democrats. Then I would run the Senate just as Reid has breaking all the protocols and senate traditions that republicans lived by while Bush was president. Libertarians while interesting couldn't get enough voters to poor pee out of a boot. Conservatives like Reagan will lead this country back not Libertarians.

I honestly think many Republicans are Libertarians deep inside. They just won't acknowledge it. I often wonder what would have happened if John Anderson had been elected President, but I will say that Ronald Reagan took notes in many of his speeches. I can't say that the Libertarian Party won't ever catch on, because if you look back in history the Whig Party did become a viable third party winning four elections. There were many parties back in the early history of our Nation. We seem to only focus on the two prominent ones that are running today.

[parentofredheads]

The biggest disappointment is what I witnessed of the crowd at the FOX debate last night in SC. Many debates have taken place in which the moderators established rules not only for those participating in the debate but the audience as well. FOX seems to have a classless cult following as evidenced by many in attendance last night. The lack of adhering to civility in an organized nationally televised event reminded me of old Roller Derby and professional wrestling events in which the audience is allowed to display it classlessness. I am curious if FOX was serving beer at this debate.

 

People criticize Ron Paul supporters yet the cult among the FOXhounds are just as arrogant if not more so in creating an atmosphere in a debate more indicative of a group of rowdy baboons than humans.

I disagree. They clapped and yelled when he made good statements and then booed when they disagreed. Just as they did with other candidates.

[SideTracker]

^ FOX should discipline themselves in disallowing rowdy behavior in a presidential debate. And I was not simply referencing the rudeness displayed by this Roller Derby crowd toward Ron Paul. One may have thought they were at a football game where fans disagreeing with an official's call display their immaturity in overly raucous verbal expression.

[parentofredheads]

^ FOX should discipline themselves in disallowing rowdy behavior in a presidential debate. And I was not simply referencing the rudeness displayed by this Roller Derby crowd toward Ron Paul. One may have thought they were at a football game where fans disagreeing with an official's call display their immaturity in overly raucous verbal expression.

It happens every debate... good grief! Those Roller Derby crowds actually applauded Ron Paul on several subjects.

 

Somehow your party has forgotten much of what Reagan said and has led the country down the wrong path many times. Am I to believe with improper leadership in your party anything will be different?

Uh, you do remember that Paul is running as a Republican, right?

[SideTracker]

^ Well duh!

 

Am I to believe with improper leadership in your party anything will be different?

 

^ That means anyone but Paul in this primary race.

 

BTW, other debates have requested their audiences hold down the applause and of course the Roller Derby Queen mentality. These debates are after all not an event in the Roman Colosseum. "Good grief" what has become of the intellectual populous? It certainly has no manners any more and does not know how to conduct itself in public.

 

The FOXhounds allow the raucous behavior because they know the booing will persuade some viewers' decision making that have no clue about political issues.

[DLine06]

The last thing we need is for the libertarians and the conservative republicans to split and not provide a united front against the liberal democrats. I agree, a third party dividing the republicans is not the way to go, unless you want to see Obama get reelected. The Ron Paul die-hards need to get on board whoever wins the republican nomination.

 

Kirt I am willing to bet the simple majority of that Ron Paul population will go with Obama than Romney.

 

 

Quite honestly, I see no candidate to be goo-ga other than Ron Paul because at least he has some original answers.

[parentofredheads]

^ Well duh!

 

Am I to believe with improper leadership in your party anything will be different?

 

^ That means anyone but Paul in this primary race.

 

BTW, other debates have requested their audiences hold down the applause and of course the Roller Derby Queen mentality. These debates are after all not an event in the Roman Colosseum. "Good grief" what has become of the intellectual populous? It certainly has no manners any more and does not know how to conduct itself in public.

 

The FOXhounds allow the raucous behavior because they know the booing will persuade some viewers' decision making that have no clue about political issues.

LOL! Well, I just wanted to make sure that the "your party" is indeed the party of the Republicans also...which encompasses Paul. Not all Republicans are libertarians. And if Paul were indeed running as the party to which he belongs, he wouldn't be in the debate anyway.

 

As to your last statement... let's turn that around a bit... "The PAULhounds allow (and promote) the raucous behavior because they know the (belittling and name calling) will persuade some viewers' decision-making that have no clue about political issues."

 

You talk about freedoms granted to everyone by the Constitution and state's rights, but when you disagree with it, you're against it. Interesting....

[KirtFalcon]

Kirt I am willing to bet the simple majority of that Ron Paul population will go with Obama than Romney.

 

 

Quite honestly, I see no candidate to be goo-ga other than Ron Paul because at least he has some original answers.

 

 

I don't think they would be dumb enough to vote for Barry. Some will not vote at all in protest or pencil in RP or vote for some noname 3rd party candidate. All of which helps Obama get reelected. Ron Paul's "original answers" are out of this world, literaly!

[SideTracker]

LOL! Well, I just wanted to make sure that the "your party" is indeed the party of the Republicans also...which encompasses Paul. Not all Republicans are libertarians. And if Paul were indeed running as the party to which he belongs, he wouldn't be in the debate anyway.

 

Ron Paul is running on the Republican ticket because third parties get no traction. LSM is owned by the two party dupe and resulting corporatocracy. I thought you may have finally come to an understanding of this. I'm not "Republican" , "Libertarian", "Constitution Party" , "Democrat" , "Green" , "Communist", "American Party"...none of the above. To tie oneself to a party affiliation and vote blindly is exactly why we are where we are.

 

Can you please tell me what "Republicans" represent and give examples of what the "party" has accomplished after decades of poor leadership within the party both in the executive and legislative branches. Ron Paul indicated in the previous election the Republicans had lost their way. I believe that. We are broke, we have a horrendous monetary policy and as Jim DeMint has indicated in recent days we cannot continue the scale of our foreign interventions as a result.

 

As to your last statement... let's turn that around a bit... "The PAULhounds allow (and promote) the raucous behavior because they know the (belittling and name calling) will persuade some viewers' decision-making that have no clue about political issues."

 

Give specific examples of the PAULhounds' raucous behavior. What, erecting a hot air balloon along a major highway in South Carolina with a Ron Paul logo on it? My applause to the two young men from Louisiana for doing that. The event did not occur in a nationally televised debate in which raucous behavior should not be tolerated regardless who is doing it. It sort of falls along the same principle as Robert's Rules Of Order and those sponsoring debates should get a grip on the debate audience much the same way as the sign in a private establishment that indicates "We Reserve The Right To Refuse Service To Anyone". Debates are held by privately owned corporations or conglomerates thereof and promoters should conduct a debate in a civil manner regarding the audience behavior. Since you mentioned "belitting" and are a Rick Perry supporter explain the hypocrisy of Mr. Perry previously "belitting" Newt Gingrich in a debate for having multiple wives and IMO basically displaying trais of a womanizer. In regards to Gingrich Perry pointed out comparison of a person's character as related to fiduciary business relationships and how could someone be trusted in a business relationship which would include a publicly elected government office when that person could not maintain his/her marriage vows. Then Perry endorses the very one he criticized. Televison dramas don't get any better than that! But then this is America in 2012.

 

You talk about freedoms granted to everyone by the Constitution and state's rights, but when you disagree with it, you're against it. Interesting....

 

Quite the contrary. When raucous behavior is not controlled whether it be a nationally televised debate, a city council meeting or a county commissioners' meeting those very freedoms are jeopardized for everyone. Let's be glad debates on the national level are not carried "outside" like its done in Upshur County , Texas. That is an example of good government for sure. LMAO

[SideTracker]

I don't think they would be dumb enough to vote for Barry. Some will not vote at all in protest or pencil in RP or vote for some noname 3rd party candidate. All of which helps Obama get reelected. Ron Paul's "original answers" are out of this world, literaly!

 

And surely there are not enough "dumb" ones that favor continuation of a failed military industrial complex? Those that do are the "dumb" ones that jeopardize and endanger our Republic.

 

[SideTracker]

When Republicans like Rick Santorum and Mike Huckabee denounce libertarianism, it is no coincidence that they also had ridiculously big government records. Republicans who don’t care a whit about limiting government, don’t.

 

I don't think Jack Hunter watches Faux.

 

Questioning the cost or wisdom of waging perpetual war is considered unconscionable or even “unpatriotic” to neoconservatives, which is why they are so dismissive of libertarians and others who question foreign policy. Most neoconservatives instinctively realize that their ideology is incompatible with the libertarian’s pesky obsession with limited government, giving neocons reason to marginalize, or expel, any libertarian influence that threatens to expose the statist nature of today’s mainstream conservative movement.

 

^ That comment carries a lot of weight "my friend" despite what Kirt says.

[RETIREDFAN1]

According to President Reagan it is......

[Wild74]

I wouldn't think Libertarianism is conservative or liberal. I consider myself conservative on most issues but going by what Libertarians believe I would be violating the Constitution. :coolio:

[camuchs]

I wouldn't think Libertarianism is conservative or liberal. I consider myself conservative on most issues but going by what Libertarians believe I would be violating the Constitution. :coolio:

which part?

Maybe you just misunderstand what libertarians believe.

[RETIREDFAN1]

I wouldn't think Libertarianism is conservative or liberal. I consider myself conservative on most issues but going by what Libertarians believe I would be violating the Constitution. :coolio:

 

Libertarians believe in The Constitution only in government matters just like those of us in the church of Christ adhere to the Bible only in religious matters....please show me one thing that Libertarians believe in which is a violation of the Constitution......:P

[Wild74]

Libertarians believe in The Constitution only in government matters just like those of us in the church of Christ adhere to the Bible only in religious matters....please show me one thing that Libertarians believe in which is a violation of the Constitution......:P

 

I didn't say Libertarians violate the Constitution I said you would believe I would violate the Constitution, for instance I agree with the actions taken in Afghanistan and Iraq even though I believe Iraq was not well thought out and was a disaster after the fact but before the fact I wanted to remove the leadership there as did a majority in Congress. I also agree with parts of the patriot act and believe them to be legal though some seems to be out of line but over all needed for security reasons. I consider those to be a very conservative approach where Libertarians would side with the liberals on the patriot act but for very different reasons. Libertarians would believe it is a violation of constitutional rights.

[RETIREDFAN1]

I didn't say Libertarians violate the Constitution I said you would believe I would violate the Constitution, for instance I agree with the actions taken in Afghanistan and Iraq even though I believe Iraq was not well thought out and was a disaster after the fact but before the fact I wanted to remove the leadership there as did a majority in Congress. I also agree with parts of the patriot act and believe them to be legal though some seems to be out of line but over all needed for security reasons. I consider those to be a very conservative approach where Libertarians would side with the liberals on the patriot act but for very different reasons. Libertarians would believe it is a violation of constitutional rights.

 

War was not declared by Congress in Afghanistan and Iraq.....unConstitutional......

 

patriot act violates the 4th Amendment of the Constitution.....unConstitutional.....

 

The man who would trade liberty for security deserves neither....Benjamin Franklin.....

 

That's the Libertarian view....why even have a Constitution if we are not going to adhere to it strictly????

[Wild74]

War was not declared by Congress in Afghanistan and Iraq.....unConstitutional......

 

patriot act violates the 4th Amendment of the Constitution.....unConstitutional.....

 

The man who would trade liberty for security deserves neither....Benjamin Franklin.....

 

That's the Libertarian view....why even have a Constitution if we are not going to adhere to it strictly????

 

See I told you.

[RETIREDFAN1]

See I told you.

 

:lol: didn't want to disappoint you.....:P

 

BUT, I ask once again, why even bother HAVING a Constitution if we are not going to follow it?????

[Wild74]

:lol: didn't want to disappoint you.....:P

 

BUT, I ask once again, why even bother HAVING a Constitution if we are not going to follow it?????

 

The Constitution is being followed according to the Supreme Court who has the final say. I don't agree with the Supreme Court on their decisions such as abortion, I believe the states should have that say so but the only way to change the supreme court is to replace the justices with strict constitutionalist and have a solid majority or have a constitutional amendment to over turn their bad rulings.

[RETIREDFAN1]

The Constitution is being followed according to the Supreme Court who has the final say. I don't agree with the Supreme Court on their decisions such as abortion, I believe the states should have that say so but the only way to change the supreme court is to replace the justices with strict constitutionalist and have a solid majority or have a constitutional amendment to over turn their bad rulings.

 

Where in the Constitution does it give the Supreme Court the final say??? The court gave THEMSELVES that power in one of the first cases before it.....The Constitution makes all three branches of government equal.....Congress legislates....the president can veto that legislation....congress can override that veto....and congress can decide what the jurisdiction of the courts are....IF the representatives wanted to do something about the abortion issue for example...all they would have to do is pass a law saying that abortion cases were no longer under the jurisdiction of the courts.....and the president would have to sign it or veto it.....then the courts would no longer have a say in the matter.....THAT is Constitutional government.....

 

Article I, Section 8, Clause 9 of the United States Constitution (Powers of Congress)

 

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

 

CONGRESS creates the courts that are inferior to the supreme court, and CONGRESS can set what those courts jurisdictions are.....

 

 

Here are the powers delegated to the supreme court by the Constitution:

 

Article III - The Judicial Branch Note

 

Section 1 - Judicial powers

 

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

 

Section 2 - Trial by Jury, Original Jurisdiction, Jury Trials

 

(The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.) (This section in parentheses is modified by the 11th Amendment.)

 

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

 

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

 

Section 3 - Treason Note

 

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

 

The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

 

 

I don't read anything in there that says that the supreme court is the final say in anything......once again, why bother even having a Constitution if we are not going to follow it.....

[Wild74]

Where in the Constitution does it give the Supreme Court the final say??? The court gave THEMSELVES that power in one of the first cases before it.....The Constitution makes all three branches of government equal.....Congress legislates....the president can veto that legislation....congress can override that veto....and congress can decide what the jurisdiction of the courts are....IF the representatives wanted to do something about the abortion issue for example...all they would have to do is pass a law saying that abortion cases were no longer under the jurisdiction of the courts.....and the president would have to sign it or veto it.....then the courts would no longer have a say in the matter.....THAT is Constitutional government.....

 

Then once the court strikes down Obama care where do you go, congress has already said the law is valid along with the president, if the Supreme Court strikes it down then they have invalidated the other two branches of government.