Buchanan, a Libertarian! Oh, that is rich!
Libertarian case for Romney over Johnson
- Thread starter Dixie - In Memoriam
- Start date
Buchanan, a Libertarian! Oh, that is rich!
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Wow, now if anyone wants a prime example of why the Libertarian party will garner less than 2% of the vote, here it is! What a way to win me over, calling me names and insulting the living fuck out of me! That really makes me want to run out there and join the Libertarian party! You could have tried to sway my opinion with legitimate facts and arguments, but instead, you run to the well of personal insults and denigration. That just doesn't play well to people you need to win over to your side. In fact, it tends to completely turn them off and make them reject your party. This is a clear indicator of what is wrong with the Libertarian movement, you are too ideologically driven and think that "no compromise" is a path to victory, and you are dead wrong. Most Americans aren't extremist ideologues, they believe in bipartisan compromise and coming together to find real solutions we can ALL live with, not just marching in lockstep with whatever bird-brained idea the libertarians espouse.
Again, I believe very strongly in personal individual liberty and freedom and oppose federal government encroaching in my life. I believe in smaller government, and more power to the people at the state level. This is a cornerstone of libertarian philosophy. You believe in an idealism that is never going to fly, a "my way or the highway" attitude that ignores those who fundamentally disagree with your principles and reject them. I believe we have to try and get along, we have to work together for reasonable solutions which everyone can live with and accept. I don't have to have everything go my way, I don't insist that everything be done the way I think it should, I am reasonable and rational enough to understand we don't live in an oligarchy or libertarian dictatorship, where everything has to follow the libertarian philosophy to be suitable. I can accept that not everyone agrees with me all the time, and sometimes I have to compromise to get things done. That doesn't mean I have to abandon my beliefs or principles, it just means I am reasonable and rational, as opposed to ideological and extreme.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
No one claimed that, bitch!
Who wants to win you over? You are a cancer. The GOP would probably like to put a muzzle on you. Hell, you even embarass yurt.
You do not support personal freedom or individual liberty. You support forcing your views on others. That's why you want more Republican justices, so that they can undo the incorporation of the bill of rights.
The fact that you are tolerant of homophobes, mysoginist and racists is not a sign of your tolerance. It's a sign that you are too chicken shit to put your hood on.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Well I should think true Libertarians would want to win my vote. How else do you figure they will become a viable political force in America, by insulting and denigrating those who might believe in libertarianism? How's that working out for ya? I don't belong to the GOP, I'm a registered Independent, and have supported both Democrats and Republicans, as well as Indy and Libertarian candidates in my lifetime.
I only embarrass Yurt when he gets out of bed on the LEFT side, if he happens to get out of bed on the RIGHT side, he most often agrees with me. It's either that, or Yurt agrees with me and his liberal-assed wife who posts frequently under his name, hates me. I can't figure out which is the case, but Yurt is not a good barometer for anything, really.
I am tolerant of free speech, and I try to not judge and label people with derogatory names because they disagree with me politically. You, on the other hand, know of no other way to be except hate-filled. If someone doesn't march in lockstep with your ideas, you seek to destroy them and assassinate their character, because you lack the intellectual wattage to have an honest debate. You've been doing this for as long as I've known you, and you're not going to ever change. I think YOU are the dinosaur who has more in common with the sheet-wearers than I ever have. As evidenced by your continued insults and hate-filled tirades about me personally, without ANY basis whatsoever.
I DON'T support or condone forcing my beliefs on you, I reject YOUR attempts to force your beliefs on me at the federal level. I believe the hot button issues like abortion and gay marriage, should be left to the states and people respectively, as is outlined in our Constitution. It is YOU, the closet LIBERAL who believes in forcing YOUR views on me through judicial fiat. It is YOU who is too much of a coward to come out and admit you are a LIBERAL who wants to shove your LIBERAL ideas down my throat any way you can, and WILL do so if allowed to. YOU are a disgrace to the Libertarian movement, and they should ban YOU from their midst, if they EVER expect to gain prominence in American politics. Now go think up some more hate-filled derogatory LIES to spew about me personally, I can take it!
SmarterthanYou
rebel
and what do you think you did in this thread?
I know who you are and you obviously don't believe in libertarianism. Members like you drive legitimate libertarians away. You are not an independent either.
It's a good barometer of what an embarassment you are. You're just an old fool that does not seems capable of learning.
Please. You fly off the handle more often than I do. You have done nothing but try to attack me personally and I am far more exposed here then you are. You just got done attacking me and without any basis for the attack. I am what I say I am and I have been nothing but straightforward.
This entire thread is you attempting to trash anyone that does not tow YOUR party line, but yeah your so tolerant of other voices. You are full of shit.
You frequently lie about yourself in order to bolster your argument. You lied about where you live, you claimed to be serving/working in Iraq, now you claim to hold libertarian views. You do this to make it seem like you are some sort of authority. When you do that you make yourself part of the issue and become fair game. You are a liar and I don't appreciate your deceit.
I keep trying to go back to your tripe about the judges, though. I really don't want to talk about you. You make me sick. But you keep pretending you are something you're not so...
The 14th amendment is a part of the Consitution and you have always ignored the 9th. The only thing you support is forcing your views on others.
You want to outlaw abortion, your opposed to marriage equality, supported DOMA (a clear violation of States and individual rights), medical marijuana and you oppose them even when passed by the states. There is nothing being forced on you through judicial fiat. The constitution is the highest law of the land and it trumps your Jim Crow laws.
desh i enjoy your misery. if you are miserable then he is a very good candidate. I live for your suffering. sorry :/
libertarians are the hipsters of politics.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
I posted an article from a libertarian making valid points about why you should not waste your vote on Johnson. Then I endured a bunch of insults and name calling from other libertarians before responding with the opinion they were idiots who didn't comprehend the OP. But I'm not trying to win over voters to my relatively small portion of market share like a libertarian, my party has about half the voters already.
I merely pointed out that it's probably not a great idea to be insulting and denigrating those you wish to convert. It usually doesn't work. But Libertarians are so much smarter than the rest of us, so maybe all that stuff I learned from Zig Ziglar was wrong? Who knows?
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Well, I say I am. So there.
I don't learn much from people who insult me and call me names for no reason.
Nope, if you read back, you'll see that you threw out the first round of insults and I responded in kind. I merely pointed out that libertarians who live in swing states are dumb if they don't support Romney, and I gave valid reasons for that, which you didn't bother acknowledging. The more you have insulted and attacked me, the more you've received from me, because that's how I roll. If you think you'd like to have civil discourse with me, attempt having civil discourse, and that's likely what you'll get in return.
Not true. I stated very clearly, if you live in a state where Obama or Romney are sure to win, it doesn't matter and you should vote your conscience. I didn't tell you that you had to vote my way or tow my party line. In fact, I've never said that. In this thread, it seems to be you and other die-hard libertarians who are intolerant of other voices.
I've never lied about anything here.
But you're not going back to the valid point I made about liberal leftist SCOTUS judges. You continue to talk about me, accuse me of lying, call me names and make fun of me because of where I live or interject your denigrations and false perceptions of southerners. I've not pretended to be something I'm not, and I don't know why you continue to accuse me of that. Do you know me personally? So how do you know that I haven't been truthful and honest?
I understand the 14th Amendment is part of the Constitution but so is the 10th Amendment. So are the various articles and preamble, and the other Amendments. Again, I do NOT believe in forcing my personal beliefs on others, and never have. You can not find a single solitary post on this forum or any forum I've ever been on, where I have said that my views should be forced on the rest of society. I believe we have established constitutional views that are inalienable and can't be taken away by others. I believe that what isn't inalienable should be, as the Constitution stipulates, left to the states and people respectively. But that also means that if the states and people do something you don't approve or or I don't approve of, we have to live with that. We can't force them, through judicial fiat, to do what we want. That is forcing our beliefs on others, which you say you are opposed to.
I've never said I wanted to "outlaw abortion." We already have marriage equality, we just don't have something that is not marriage, redefined as marriage because that's your viewpoint and it has to be forced onto others. That's what I am opposed to. I am an advocate of medical marijuana, and a strong supporter of decriminalization. I do not favor legalization because I feel it's detrimental to society, but again, if my state were to vote to legalize marijuana, I wouldn't protest. I've never supported Jim Crow laws, in fact, I think they were overthrown long before I was ever born. But again, you are smart enough to have known this before you said it, so I can only assume you said it to be derisive and derogatory toward me personally. It always comes back to you not being able to have a civil conversation, and having to resort to personal attacks and insults. That says a lot about YOU... not ME!
Liberty
Libertarian Minded
Yahoo.com
BOULDER, Colorado—Dressed in a sports jacket, a faded peace-symbol T-shirt and blue jeans, the Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson was playing to a rapturous overflow crowd at the University of Colorado. The man who could be the Ralph Nader of 2012 beguiled his largely male, mostly student audience with his views on the second-biggest issue on the Colorado ballot this year: Amendment 64, which would legalize marijuana.
“I’m the only candidate running for president of the United States who wants to end the drug war now,” Johnson, a former Republican governor of New Mexico, said Monday night to cheers. “Colorado has the opportunity to change worldwide drug policy by voting for Issue 64.”
Johnson, who first endorsed marijuana legalization in 1999, is a Ron Paul libertarian with a deep toke of social permissiveness. Even though he was an asterisk in the 2012 Republican presidential primaries, Johnson and his pro-pot stance could be a surprise factor in a swing state where all the polls point to a tie. As Jeff Orrok, the Colorado chairman of the Libertarian Party, puts it, “We’re getting a fair amount of synergy around Amendment 64.”
Like Nader in Florida’s hanging-chad 2000 election, Johnson will draw only a small percentage of the presidential vote in Colorado. A new CNN/ORC poll gives Johnson 4 percent of the vote in Colorado. But many other Obama-vs-Romney poll questionnaires in Colorado do not mention Johnson by name, instead lumping him with other minor-party candidates (including comedian Roseanne Barr) under a vague designation called “Other.”
But it’s not blowing smoke to believe that Johnson could corral enough support from tepidly pro-Obama younger voters to make an electoral difference in a state as evenly divided as Colorado.
Confronting the curse that haunts all third-party candidates, Johnson stressed to his supporters that they’re not disenfranchising themselves by voting him. “Wasting your vote is voting for someone you don’t believe in,” Johnson said Monday night as his acolytes demonstrated a libertarian disdain for fire-marshal rules about blocking the aisles in the college auditorium where he spoke.
In an interview backstage after the speech, as fans clamored for autographs, Johnson impatiently waved off any comparisons to the third-party candidacy of Nader, who Democrats blame for costing Al Gore the 2000 election in Florida.“I think that voting one’s conscience is how you change the system,” he said. “If I get a certain number of votes it affects Romney in ways that he…”
Here, Johnson broke off the thought to mention the pressure that his “hero” Ron Paul is already putting on the Republican nominee. “Romney pays a bit of lip service [to libertarian principles],” Johnson said, “but maybe he goes beyond paying lip service.”
At moments like this, Johnson’s Republican roots are showing. But in both his speech and the interview, Johnson claimed to have been beguiled by Obama’s rhetoric, even though he voted for the Constitution Party presidential candidate in 2008. “I was very optimistic on gay rights, very optimistic on the war and I was very optimistic on the drug war,” Johnson told me. “Those were three categories that definitely were going to improve under Obama. And they haven’t.”
Johnson is, by no means, a one-issue candidate, and his supporters in Boulder roared when he proclaimed, “I would have vetoed the Patriot Act.” But even if Johnson waffled a little on the immediate legalization of cocaine (“We will not go from A-to-Z overnight”), this is a candidate firmly on the side of the stoners. If Colorado passes Amendment 64, Johnson said in his stump speech, pumping for the allure of reefer-madness Colorado vacations, “it will send a message when everyone in the country wants to go Denver for the weekend to chill out.”
Polls suggest that Amendment 64 is likely to pass. Introducing Johnson in Boulder on Monday night, Denver shock jock Uncle Nasty (a.k.a. Gregg Stone) said, “I truly believe 64 will pass and we’ll go to war with the feds.”
While war is undoubtedly an exaggeration, the Obama administration (and, needless to say, a potential Romney presidency) has shown scant sympathy for the medical marijuana programs that are legal in some form in Colorado and 16 other states.
Coupled with a deadlocked presidential race in Colorado, Amendment 64 adds a dazed and confused element to Campaign 2012. “What Gary Johnson does is make the winning margin for president in Colorado 48.5 percent,” said Democratic political consultant Rick Ridder, who has advised the Amendment 64 campaign. “It’s unclear at this point who Johnson takes votes from. Traditionally, the Libertarian candidate draws from Republicans. But this year, it’s uncertain because of 64.”
It seems ludicrous that a state referendum on marijuana could influence who gets the codes to America’s nuclear weapons next Jan. 20. But it once seemed unfathomable that Jewish voters in Florida’s Palm Beach County mistakenly punching Pat Buchanan’s name could, in effect, elect George W. Bush president in 2000. That’s the hallucinogenic wonder of American politics—anything can happen, and all too frequently does.
BOULDER, Colorado—Dressed in a sports jacket, a faded peace-symbol T-shirt and blue jeans, the Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson was playing to a rapturous overflow crowd at the University of Colorado. The man who could be the Ralph Nader of 2012 beguiled his largely male, mostly student audience with his views on the second-biggest issue on the Colorado ballot this year: Amendment 64, which would legalize marijuana.
“I’m the only candidate running for president of the United States who wants to end the drug war now,” Johnson, a former Republican governor of New Mexico, said Monday night to cheers. “Colorado has the opportunity to change worldwide drug policy by voting for Issue 64.”
Johnson, who first endorsed marijuana legalization in 1999, is a Ron Paul libertarian with a deep toke of social permissiveness. Even though he was an asterisk in the 2012 Republican presidential primaries, Johnson and his pro-pot stance could be a surprise factor in a swing state where all the polls point to a tie. As Jeff Orrok, the Colorado chairman of the Libertarian Party, puts it, “We’re getting a fair amount of synergy around Amendment 64.”
Like Nader in Florida’s hanging-chad 2000 election, Johnson will draw only a small percentage of the presidential vote in Colorado. A new CNN/ORC poll gives Johnson 4 percent of the vote in Colorado. But many other Obama-vs-Romney poll questionnaires in Colorado do not mention Johnson by name, instead lumping him with other minor-party candidates (including comedian Roseanne Barr) under a vague designation called “Other.”
But it’s not blowing smoke to believe that Johnson could corral enough support from tepidly pro-Obama younger voters to make an electoral difference in a state as evenly divided as Colorado.
Confronting the curse that haunts all third-party candidates, Johnson stressed to his supporters that they’re not disenfranchising themselves by voting him. “Wasting your vote is voting for someone you don’t believe in,” Johnson said Monday night as his acolytes demonstrated a libertarian disdain for fire-marshal rules about blocking the aisles in the college auditorium where he spoke.
In an interview backstage after the speech, as fans clamored for autographs, Johnson impatiently waved off any comparisons to the third-party candidacy of Nader, who Democrats blame for costing Al Gore the 2000 election in Florida.“I think that voting one’s conscience is how you change the system,” he said. “If I get a certain number of votes it affects Romney in ways that he…”
Here, Johnson broke off the thought to mention the pressure that his “hero” Ron Paul is already putting on the Republican nominee. “Romney pays a bit of lip service [to libertarian principles],” Johnson said, “but maybe he goes beyond paying lip service.”
At moments like this, Johnson’s Republican roots are showing. But in both his speech and the interview, Johnson claimed to have been beguiled by Obama’s rhetoric, even though he voted for the Constitution Party presidential candidate in 2008. “I was very optimistic on gay rights, very optimistic on the war and I was very optimistic on the drug war,” Johnson told me. “Those were three categories that definitely were going to improve under Obama. And they haven’t.”
Johnson is, by no means, a one-issue candidate, and his supporters in Boulder roared when he proclaimed, “I would have vetoed the Patriot Act.” But even if Johnson waffled a little on the immediate legalization of cocaine (“We will not go from A-to-Z overnight”), this is a candidate firmly on the side of the stoners. If Colorado passes Amendment 64, Johnson said in his stump speech, pumping for the allure of reefer-madness Colorado vacations, “it will send a message when everyone in the country wants to go Denver for the weekend to chill out.”
Polls suggest that Amendment 64 is likely to pass. Introducing Johnson in Boulder on Monday night, Denver shock jock Uncle Nasty (a.k.a. Gregg Stone) said, “I truly believe 64 will pass and we’ll go to war with the feds.”
While war is undoubtedly an exaggeration, the Obama administration (and, needless to say, a potential Romney presidency) has shown scant sympathy for the medical marijuana programs that are legal in some form in Colorado and 16 other states.
Coupled with a deadlocked presidential race in Colorado, Amendment 64 adds a dazed and confused element to Campaign 2012. “What Gary Johnson does is make the winning margin for president in Colorado 48.5 percent,” said Democratic political consultant Rick Ridder, who has advised the Amendment 64 campaign. “It’s unclear at this point who Johnson takes votes from. Traditionally, the Libertarian candidate draws from Republicans. But this year, it’s uncertain because of 64.”
It seems ludicrous that a state referendum on marijuana could influence who gets the codes to America’s nuclear weapons next Jan. 20. But it once seemed unfathomable that Jewish voters in Florida’s Palm Beach County mistakenly punching Pat Buchanan’s name could, in effect, elect George W. Bush president in 2000. That’s the hallucinogenic wonder of American politics—anything can happen, and all too frequently does.
Bullshit, you whining little liar. You called libertarian voters blithering morons.
I thought you were an independent now your party has half the voters? You need to work on keeping your lies straight.
Those who wish to convert? Stick with your Nazi cult. Nobody wants you.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
LOL.. Well, I am a registered Independent (that's what I said) but I plan to vote for the Republican this time. That's what I meant by "my" party, the party I plan to vote for this time.
And AGAIN with the name calling and denigration? The Nazi party was pretty much eradicated before I was born, like the Jim Crow laws. Why do you keep harking back to a time before I was born, and accusing me of being part of something I wasn't even around for? Is it because you lack the mental capacity to form a coherent argument, or are you just that full of venom and hate for your fellow man?
You don't have an argument you whining little liar.
There's no reason for a libertarian to prefer Romney over Obama.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
The OP begs to differ, and so do I. The problem seems to be your response. You can't seem to formulate a proper one. It keeps devolving into you ranting a bunch of hate-filled tripe about me personally, and you're not really offering anything to refute the arguments made. You insist there is no reason, but you haven't refuted the reasons presented. If nothing else, the judges Obama will appoint to the SCOTUS is reason enough. Sotomayor and Kagen are certainly not libertarians, or supporting of libertarian philosophy. What they support is pretty much the antithesis of libertarianism, and if you give Obama a couple more picks, you can stick a fork in libertarian ideology for the next few decades, conservative ideology as well. These people are radical statists who want the federal government involved in every aspect of your life.
In addition, my argument still stands, unrefuted by you, that a republican administration committed to smaller federal government is going to pose less problems for libertarian initiatives at the state level. No, they won't push forward libertarian ideals at the federal level, but they also won't roadblock libertarians at the state level, and democrats certainly will. Now, if I lived in a fantasy land where a libertarian might get elected president, I could see how your support of a libertarian would be warranted, but then, if I lived in such a fantasy land, I could just as easily accept the whole Socialist Utopian dream. I am more of a realist, and understand we aren't going to have a libertarian government at the federal level anytime soon. That being the case, I have to look at what is best for libertarian ideals, a republican or democrat president, and I think it's a republican. My points are valid and legitimate, and you can't really offer any repudiation, so you bow up and hurl insults at me and continue to denigrate and hate. That's not winning the argument, that's not solving any problem here.
It strikes me as laughable that republicans who praise freedom along with libertarians, who have the same belief system, debate Romney over Johnson. If freedom is your bag, you can only vote Johnson for he is the presumed banner boy for freedom. Of course no one ever really knows what 'freedom' is or defines it without qualification built atop qualification. Romney surely loves you 47% so long as you too are for Freedumb.
"Through all the flip-flops, there has been one consistency in the campaign of Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney: a contempt for the electorate.
How else to explain his refusal to disclose essential information? Defying recent bipartisan tradition, he failed to release the names of his bundlers — the high rollers who collected hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations. He never provided sufficient tax returns to show voters how he became rich.
How, other than an assumption that voters are too dim to remember what Mr. Romney has said across the years and months, to account for his breathtaking ideological shifts? He was a friend of immigrants, then a scourge of immigrants, then again a friend. He was a Kissingerian foreign policy realist, then a McCain-like hawk, then a purveyor of peace. He pioneered Obamacare, he detested Obamacare, then he found elements in it to cherish. Assault weapons were bad, then good. Abortion was okay, then bad. Climate change was an urgent problem; then, not so much. Hurricane cleanup was a job for the states, until it was once again a job for the feds." http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...fcc1fc-2428-11e2-9313-3c7f59038d93_story.html
A vote for Romney/Ryan is a vote against the fundamental idea of America, the right of the individual to lead their life privately without the government interfering.
.
"Through all the flip-flops, there has been one consistency in the campaign of Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney: a contempt for the electorate.
How else to explain his refusal to disclose essential information? Defying recent bipartisan tradition, he failed to release the names of his bundlers — the high rollers who collected hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations. He never provided sufficient tax returns to show voters how he became rich.
How, other than an assumption that voters are too dim to remember what Mr. Romney has said across the years and months, to account for his breathtaking ideological shifts? He was a friend of immigrants, then a scourge of immigrants, then again a friend. He was a Kissingerian foreign policy realist, then a McCain-like hawk, then a purveyor of peace. He pioneered Obamacare, he detested Obamacare, then he found elements in it to cherish. Assault weapons were bad, then good. Abortion was okay, then bad. Climate change was an urgent problem; then, not so much. Hurricane cleanup was a job for the states, until it was once again a job for the feds." http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...fcc1fc-2428-11e2-9313-3c7f59038d93_story.html
A vote for Romney/Ryan is a vote against the fundamental idea of America, the right of the individual to lead their life privately without the government interfering.
.
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
The funny thing is that however good the article actually is to this topic, the fact that Dixie posted it and commented on it means it will be received in a much worse manner than if we had happened upon it in some other way. 
You do live in a fantasy world. I have already responded to all your points. There is no problem to solve.
A Republican administration is not going to commit to a smaller federal government. Romney promised to increase spending.
Kagen and Sotomayor are not a threat to any part of our liberty. At worst they are going to fail to prevent some other part of the government from violating our rights. But they are unlikely to allow bans on abortion and may expand marriage equality. If anything the issues of judges is a reason to vote for Obama.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Romney simply has not proposed an increase in spending. I don't even know how you can possibly spin what he has said into that. So your "rebuttal" begins with a blatant lie, and moves on from there. Kagen and Sotomayor are most certainly a threat to liberty, unless you think more governmental control of our lives is liberty. As far as abortion and gay marriage, you indicate a very LIBERAL viewpoint, not a libertarian one. As I said in another thread, Libertarians are very often confused Liberals. I think you are not confused at all, you are just a liberal who is too inept at arguing your principles to call yourself liberal. To avoid such awkward embarrassment, you call yourself a Libertarian. You're fine and dandy with government taking our freedoms and liberties, as long as they are upholding left-wing liberal ideas, like gay marriage and abortion. So-called "Libertarians" such as yourself, need to realize, not everyone agrees with your Liberal philosophies. Some Libertarians don't believe government should be deciding that abortion and gay marriage are morally acceptable, that should be left to the individual and their community to decide, not the federal government.
The one revealing redemption we can take from your commentary, as well as mudcan's interjections, is that a vote for Johnson is most certainly one less vote for Obama, and does't affect Romney.