dough560 on April 16, 2010, 01:07:03 am
Politics evolve.  People change.  We hope to survive.  Leaving the world a better place for our kids.

The TransProg / Tranzi government is currently attempting to remove our options for the control of our lives.  What they didn't expect was the reaction by the population and the growing unrest.  People are getting pissed and organized.  Voices are getting louder and heard. 

Twenty years ago, flying a plane into an IRS Office would not have been considered a viable form of protest.  (Stupid.  Stupid.  Stupid.)  We're already seeing changes as various subjects are discussed.  The subject language has begun to change.  Government supported viewpoints are no longer blindly accepted.   Even as the government propaganda machine and it's supporters attempt to demonize opposition. 

It's not going to be "pretty" and people on both sides will not "play fair".

New opportunities to introduce Libertarian Ideas and Ideals.  To their surprise, people will begin to listen and think.  Change will happen as people are educated and begin to believe.  Every lasting societal change developed slowly, gaining acceptance, eventually enactment and empowerment.

It's late, I'm tired and not thinking as well as I would like.  But I still have hope, we'll leave a better world to our kids.

NeitherRuleNorBeRuled on April 16, 2010, 08:37:17 am
In the 2008 election I didn't vote for Bob Barr, the LP candidate.  I held my nose and voted for Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party.  I still suspect that Barr obtained the nomination just so he could do some payback to the political party that helped kick him out of congress in the first place and his having seen the "light of liberty" so to speak was just an act.  He sure didn't do much campaigning after his LP nomination win.  His statist roots (drug "warrior" and so on)  as far as I'm concerned just simply go too deep for him to change his stripes overnight like that.  >:(

This is certainly understandable; I debated the issue deeply as well.  I finally ended up voting Barr (or rather, his slate of electors) because Penn Gillette though that Bob's "conversion" was legitimate.

As for voting in general, I do so with the express goal of maximizing deadlock.  It doesn't really solve any problems, but at least it delays some of the more egregious attacks on freedom while folks catch on to what is happening.

Frank B. on April 16, 2010, 04:51:27 pm
I finally ended up voting Barr (or rather, his slate of electors) because Penn Gillette though that Bob's "conversion" was legitimate.

Penn Gillette supported Barr?  Must have been Bob's cheesy mustache.  ;)



Rocketman on April 16, 2010, 09:34:47 pm
I didn't know that Penn who is a well known Libertarian had supported Barr, but to me that really wouldn't have made a difference in my voting.  When you look at Bob Barr's long record as a Georgia congressman, the kind of legislation that he voted for and against and the fact that the Libertarian Party in Georgia successfully targeted him for defeat, I find it nearly impossible to believe that Barr had "switched sides".  My opinion, and I have nothing to support this, is that Barr wanted to "pay back" the LP for his congressional election defeat by pretending to join them, getting the nomination for president and then doing almost nothing during the campaign thus wasting an opportunity for the LP to grab some attention and support.  Add to that the disgraceful way that he snubbed Ron Paul, the one man that if he had treated respectfully might have given his endorsment (and later what came to be Tea Party support) and it fits, at least to me, that Barr is and was a wolf in sheep's clothing.   >:(
« Last Edit: April 16, 2010, 09:36:33 pm by Rocketman »

SandySandfort on April 16, 2010, 10:43:11 pm
I finally ended up voting Barr (or rather, his slate of electors) because Penn Gillette though that Bob's "conversion" was legitimate.

Penn Gillette supported Barr?  Must have been Bob's cheesy mustache.  ;)

I just asked Penn and he says he said some nice things and Barr visited him back state, but that he really didn't get on board. That seems consistent from what I know about Penn.

sams on April 17, 2010, 07:35:13 am
I finally ended up voting Barr (or rather, his slate of electors) because Penn Gillette though that Bob's "conversion" was legitimate.

Penn Gillette supported Barr?  Must have been Bob's cheesy mustache.  ;)

I just asked Penn and he says he said some nice things and Barr visited him back state, but that he really didn't get on board. That seems consistent from what I know about Penn.

Has a foreigner and not so biased like an actual American, I can only say that Penn ''Bull Shit'' have far more influence than Bob Barr would ever have ... so this is like Jordan endorsing me to play the All-Stars

From the few I can see through the internet, Glenn Beck, John Stossel, Penn and all the other media liberianish guys are having a far greater impact than any politicians. Than there is Cato, Mises, Reason and the like are the second contributors and giving the intellectual ammunitions

The only real contribution from libertarian politician are the one made by Ron Paul, who despite never winning, his able to project the ideas by taking advantage of his positions and electoral media coverage...

Political electoral victories are only secondary and consequences of effective change ... from the contributions of all the above and more, Libertarian politicians can be elected in almost all party .... but expecting a ''rise'' of the libertarian party is just playing the usual Blue/Red team game

Rocketman on April 17, 2010, 06:34:13 pm
It's starting to get interesting out there.  A survey just came out that shocked the establishment.  According to the poll a matchup between Obama and Ron Paul in 2012 would be Obama 42% and Paul 41%.  Needless to say that the poll has not only a lot of liberal democrats but alot of non-conservative republicans soiling themselves.  I think that in 2012 Ron Paul will decide not to run as president mainly because of his age, but his son Rand who is in the lead as Kentucky's next senator may indeed decide to run for president and may just win.

sams on April 18, 2010, 08:28:13 am
It's starting to get interesting out there.  A survey just came out that shocked the establishment.  According to the poll a matchup between Obama and Ron Paul in 2012 would be Obama 42% and Paul 41%.  Needless to say that the poll has not only a lot of liberal democrats but alot of non-conservative republicans soiling themselves.  I think that in 2012 Ron Paul will decide not to run as president mainly because of his age, but his son Rand who is in the lead as Kentucky's next senator may indeed decide to run for president and may just win.

I would doubt if the US had not elected a completly unquallified senator for POTUS  ;D

But like a comedian of the name of Caliendo said to Glenn Beck, people are just so sick of career politicians that they may elect a dude like Ron Paul ... But Rand is too fresh for this, maybe Gary Johnson will be the one to take this race by surprise

Heinlein Libertarian on April 18, 2010, 08:59:11 am
I'll say it once, because it has to be said:

If the Libertarians would give up the "no initiation of force" pledge and accept a military, they would have almost every member of the Tea Party and a goodly number of Republicans voting for them in a heartbeat.

There are a great number of furious Republicans out there who want to elect people who are determined to dramatically cut spending, regulation, and who want to appoint judges who believe that almost every act of Congress since Coolidge has been unconstitutional. People know the Libertarians are serious about this, but they are not going to vote for them if they are not serious about defending the country. "We'll all stay home and pretend tat people are not trying to kill us" is not a foreign policy, it is a suicidally stupid thing to do.

Call me a statist, but it's true: People will not vote for the Libertarians until they learn to love the Armed Forces.

sams on April 18, 2010, 01:05:42 pm
I'll say it once, because it has to be said:

If the Libertarians would give up the "no initiation of force" pledge and accept a military, they would have almost every member of the Tea Party and a goodly number of Republicans voting for them in a heartbeat.

There are a great number of furious Republicans out there who want to elect people who are determined to dramatically cut spending, regulation, and who want to appoint judges who believe that almost every act of Congress since Coolidge has been unconstitutional. People know the Libertarians are serious about this, but they are not going to vote for them if they are not serious about defending the country. "We'll all stay home and pretend tat people are not trying to kill us" is not a foreign policy, it is a suicidally stupid thing to do.

Call me a statist, but it's true: People will not vote for the Libertarians until they learn to love the Armed Forces.

I think you should take things under context : This is a completely theoretical discussion about principle of Libertarianism ... not a political declaration ... we are talking about hypothesis and trying to redefine the boundaries of the possible

so let me clarify in practical/political terms:

1- Libertarian doesn't hate the military, the just believe it should defend the country instead of patrolling the world, they ''love the military more than the wars''.

2- Libertarian believe in the right to response in case of attack

3- In all practical  purpose, no country in the world is able to even attempt an attack against the US and Libertarian with in charge would likely push for more Nuclear Deterrence, which means that any attacker is Nuclear ash before dinner.

4- Libertarian foreign policy is being slowly accepted and one of the sign is conversion of Glenn Beck to a Ron Paul style of foreign policy : Defence and not Offence

The non-interventionist policy is good, it just need a good selling and marketing

PS: don't be bothered by the ''You are Statist'' stuff, it is almost always the shouted by self-righteous immature people
« Last Edit: April 18, 2010, 01:16:25 pm by sams »

Rocketman on April 18, 2010, 01:23:38 pm
I would doubt if the US had not elected a completly unquallified senator for POTUS  ;D

But like a comedian of the name of Caliendo said to Glenn Beck, people are just so sick of career politicians that they may elect a dude like Ron Paul ... But Rand is too fresh for this, maybe Gary Johnson will be the one to take this race by surprise

Uh, Sams... I don't think that argument is in any way justified.  I'll be remiss if I didn't point out that Obama! spent what only a short time as a state representive in Illinois and I think just two years as a U.S. senator before he was elected President.  That may not be "completely unqualified senator" to you but it is to me.  I also believe that people are sick and tired of Washington insiders and what they stand for and it anyone can pull it off its Rand Paul.

sams on April 18, 2010, 03:23:39 pm
I would doubt if the US had not elected a completly unquallified senator for POTUS  ;D

But like a comedian of the name of Caliendo said to Glenn Beck, people are just so sick of career politicians that they may elect a dude like Ron Paul ... But Rand is too fresh for this, maybe Gary Johnson will be the one to take this race by surprise

Uh, Sams... I don't think that argument is in any way justified.  I'll be remiss if I didn't point out that Obama! spent what only a short time as a state representive in Illinois and I think just two years as a U.S. senator before he was elected President.  That may not be "completely unqualified senator" to you but it is to me.  I also believe that people are sick and tired of Washington insiders and what they stand for and it anyone can pull it off its Rand Paul.

My point is that the "completely unqualified senator" IS OBAMA

The dude got real political talent but we must understand that this is his first real assignement

About Rand, I don't know much about him, but he looks like his father to smart and on the issues ... and maybe with some training He could oust Obama ... but He doesn't look like He is going to do so

wdg3rd on April 18, 2010, 04:35:06 pm
I'll say it once, because it has to be said:

If the Libertarians would give up the "no initiation of force" pledge and accept a military, they would have almost every member of the Tea Party and a goodly number of Republicans voting for them in a heartbeat.


The Zero Aggression Principle comes first.  The Pee Party and their Republican butt-buddies can go home and do whatever they do behind closed doors.  (I neither want to watch nor report, unlike them).
Ward Griffiths        wdg3rd@aol.com

Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.  --  Denis Diderot

wdg3rd on April 18, 2010, 04:56:15 pm

Call me a statist, but it's true: People will not vote for the Libertarians until they learn to love the Armed Forces.

I spent my four in the USAF.  I have no love for the Armed Forces.  Deal with it.  La Esposa is probably a better shot than you are.

(She's better than me, and I'm damned good).

Yes, I will not hesitate to call you a statist.  And I don't give a rat's ass how the majority chooses, I'm not part of it (if they attack me and I need to defend myself, it's a target-rich scenario and I can only die once).  (La Esposa will be upstairs and I just mentioned she's better than I am, we'll have a bunch of escorts to Hell).
Ward Griffiths        wdg3rd@aol.com

Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.  --  Denis Diderot

Rocketman on April 19, 2010, 09:35:00 am
"My point is that the "completely unqualified senator" IS OBAMA"  
Sorry.  I should have noticed the smiley face, don't know why I didn't.  And your right of course.  If you have never read any articles by Doug Casey (International Spectulator) you need to.  He puts out a free e-mail usually about once a week called "Conversations with Casey"
He points out that Obama in his opinion isn't just doing the wrong thing regarding the economy of the United States, he doing the exact opposite of what's right.  As a community activest and organizer he has ZERO business experience yet he seem to think that the United States government can run insurance companies, car companies and the like.  I'm doing this from memory alone, but if I remember correctly in 1990 the federal government took over the opportunity of the Bunny Ranch in Nevada for non payment of taxes by the owner.  In just two years the Bunny Ranch went out of business.  Let me just point out that if the government can't run a business at a profit that sells nookie and cheap booze that it has no business being in charge of anything.   >:(