• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A third choice for Virginia governor?

John Liberty

Banned
Joined
Jun 30, 2013
Messages
275
Reaction score
72
Location
Ask the NSA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Anybody who's following the Virginia Gubernatorial election this year is probably aware of the lack of good candidates this year. Virginians have a choice between:

Democrat McAulliffe who wants to raise taxes even more, ban guns and push other extreme Liberal agendas onto Virginia(see his website for more details).

or

Republican Cuccinelli who is pushing a religious agenda onto Virginia. While he wants to lower taxes and he is pro gun...he wants to ban oral sex(because it might lead to homosexualty...THE HORROR) and he wants to ban gay marriage. Now before I go on, let's get this straight...I have no issue with religion, people should practice whatever they believe. But when they start trying to force their beliefs onto other people, that's where our problems are.

Personally I don't subscribe to the "lesser of two evils" concept. The lesser of two evils is still EVIL. So for a while it was looking like I would not be supporting anyone this year. Then I found out about Robert Sarvis who is running on the Libertarian ticket this year. While some might explain his political principles as "complex", I think his principles exercise basic common sense.

He is:
-Pro gun
-Pro gay marriage
-Lower taxes
-Limited government
-Property rights advocate
-States rights advocate
-Pro life (but like most Libertarians he believes there are some circumstances where abortion is necessary.)

and overall just a good candidate....the kind of candidate I was looking for. I am posting this here because I want other people to be aware of this third choice. He is the moderate of two extremes...the Democratic extremist that wants higher taxes and more government or the religious extremist that wants to ban homosexuality because of his religion.

His campaign website is: Robert Sarvis for Governor of Virginia 2013. I encourage everyone reading this post to at least research him a bit before you write him off. And whether you agree with him or not, help him get into the debates! You cannot talk a good game about your candidate if he refuses to debate with someone!
 
Assuming that you are posting this for comment purposes and not as an advertisement, I don't think it will work to try to combine bedrock issues from both parties and then expect to "Have a little something for everybody."

The voters are too polarized, everyone has chosen a side and certain issues from the other side those polarized voters off completely. People are looking for strong advocates for their side, not moderation and compromise. Politics in America has reached a non-compromise status.

The failed left leaning Romney and McCain campaigns showed that voters will stay home before they will moderate their bedrock positions.
 
Last edited:
Assuming that you are posting this for comment purposes and not as an advertisement, I don't think it will work to try to combine bedrock issues from both parties and then expect to "Have a little something for everybody."

The voters are too polarized, everyone has chosen a side and certain issues from the other side those polarized voters off completely. People are looking for strong advocates for their side, not moderation and compromise. Politics in America has reached a non-compromise status.

The failed left leaning Romney and McCain campaigns showed that voters will stay home before they will moderate their bedrock positions.

The Virginia Senate is fairly squarely conservative, be they republicans or democrats in charge, and it has been that way since the former Constitution Party nominee guy ran as a democrat and voted with the GOP to force power sharing, which set up the further move to the right. The Virginia Governor is typically considered one of, if not the weakest governors in the US. It is a Walmart Greeter job that comes with a house. Even Tim Kaine who is a flaming liberal in his positions was pushed to the right during his time as Governor.
 
The Virginia Senate is fairly squarely conservative, be they republicans or democrats in charge, and it has been that way since the former Constitution Party nominee guy ran as a democrat and voted with the GOP to force power sharing, which set up the further move to the right. The Virginia Governor is typically considered one of, if not the weakest governors in the US. It is a Walmart Greeter job that comes with a house. Even Tim Kaine who is a flaming liberal in his positions was pushed to the right during his time as Governor.


Yeah but the bennies are real good - at least until some big mouth blabs about them

Virginia governor scandal: 'That's not the guy we know' - CNN.com

Governor McDonnell lawyers meet with prosecutors | WJLA.com

Poll: McDonnell Scandals Harming Virginia GOP Governor Candidate
 
-Pro life (but like most Libertarians he believes there are some circumstances where abortion is necessary.)

pro-removal of women's rights to their bodies. Sounds like you are actually going for the less of three evils considering that is a fascist religious imposition on the people. Way to abandon your own ideals like many LINOs.
 
pro-removal of women's rights to their bodies. Sounds like you are actually going for the less of three evils considering that is a fascist religious imposition on the people. Way to abandon your own ideals like many LINOs.

Pro life stances have nothing to do with religion. God did not put "Thou shall not abort" in his commandments. -____-
 
Pro life stances have nothing to do with religion. God did not put "Thou shall not abort" in his commandments. -____-

Yes, they have everything to do with religion. This idea that the church has absolutely no presence in the anti-choice crowd is laughable. Without the church they would not even exist.
 
Yes, they have everything to do with religion. This idea that the church has absolutely no presence in the anti-choice crowd is laughable. Without the church they would not even exist.

Actually it has nothing to do with religion. Just because Pro-Life is the common Republican platform, doesn't make it religious. I know very religious pro-choice people and I know pro life atheists. Just because you live in a Black and White world, doesn't mean we all do.

Also good job on the whole "anti-choice" comeback, you should really consider a career in journalism. The amount of unrequited bias in your posts would make you a definite candidate for a big news station like CNN or Fox.
 
Actually it has nothing to do with religion. Just because Pro-Life is the common Republican platform, doesn't make it religious. I know very religious pro-choice people and I know pro life atheists. Just because you live in a Black and White world, doesn't mean we all do.

Also good job on the whole "anti-choice" comeback, you should really consider a career in journalism. The amount of unrequited bias in your posts would make you a definite candidate for a big news station like CNN or Fox.


First off, ity is anti-choice. There is no life there. It is all about taking away people's choices. Second it is a primarily religious view that abortion is evil. It is an imposition of religious beliefs that a chunk of cells has it's own soul and must be protected. If it does not have a soul then it is part of the mother's flesh until it is separate. Without the soul it is just a growing part of the mother's body. once you add the religious idea of a soul into the mix tyhen you get the argument that it might be another being at that point. Without the religious basis an abortion is just an operation to remove an unwanted mass of cells from the body.

Still, that should completely remove Mr. Religious fascism from the libertarian group. It is called liberty and that includes the liberty to do what you wish with your body and it's parts. An abortuion is not harmful tot he mother, and therefor should not have any influence by the government as that is her choice. I will give the guy that he is closer to libertarian than say libertarian heroes like Ron Paul, but he is really just a liberal republican. Yes, i am aware neo-libertarians have completely warped the ideals and meaning of the party. But like liberal nannies and conservative money wasters the neo-libs are not actual libertarians, and your choice is still the lesser of three evils considering your claim to be libertarian and your support of pro-religious fascism of the anti-choice crowd.
 
First off, ity is anti-choice. There is no life there. It is all about taking away people's choices. Second it is a primarily religious view that abortion is evil. It is an imposition of religious beliefs that a chunk of cells has it's own soul and must be protected. If it does not have a soul then it is part of the mother's flesh until it is separate. Without the soul it is just a growing part of the mother's body. once you add the religious idea of a soul into the mix tyhen you get the argument that it might be another being at that point. Without the religious basis an abortion is just an operation to remove an unwanted mass of cells from the body.

Still, that should completely remove Mr. Religious fascism from the libertarian group. It is called liberty and that includes the liberty to do what you wish with your body and it's parts. An abortuion is not harmful tot he mother, and therefor should not have any influence by the government as that is her choice. I will give the guy that he is closer to libertarian than say libertarian heroes like Ron Paul, but he is really just a liberal republican. Yes, i am aware neo-libertarians have completely warped the ideals and meaning of the party. But like liberal nannies and conservative money wasters the neo-libs are not actual libertarians, and your choice is still the lesser of three evils considering your claim to be libertarian and your support of pro-religious fascism of the anti-choice crowd.

Wow...I actually don't even know where to start. There's so much fluff and bias in your statement to pick out. I'm not even sure if there's any facts to debate.

1). I am sick of saying this, but it NOT a religious belief. Go get a bible and tell me exactly where it says "Thou shalt not abort". A Pro-Life stance is not a "religious fascist" stance. I'm not a very religious person, I consider myself agnostic. However I am leaning towards pro-life. I say leaning because I don't believe it is a concrete issue. There are different situations that need to be taken into account. Abortion has a very huge grey area, and both Republicans and Democrats refuse to acknowledge it.

2). If Ron Paul were a "religious fascist" he would not call on the topic to be a states' decision. Fascists are typically against states' rights since fascism calls for a large central government Also Ron Paul identifies with Pro-Choice people, saying that he understands where they are coming from however as a doctor he has seen abortions taken place...he literally saw someone birth a baby and throw it in a bucket and just forget about it. That tends to color someones judgement just a bit.

3). Why is it that Liberals are all "women have a right to their body and freedom" when it comes to abortion and then for everything else they say: "it's a danger to society, we MUST ban it." It's a disturbing partisan enigma.

4). You REEEAAAALLLLYYYY need to crack open an anatomy book, your ignorance about the reproductive system would be funny if it weren't actually concerning me. A baby is not a "mass of cells" after the first trimester :doh.

5). Could you tone down the partisan hackery just a tad, you're going to end up getting this thread moved to the basement. :lol:. You are stereotyping the crap out of Libertarianism and Conservatism and especially stereotyping religion.
 
Wow...I actually don't even know where to start. There's so much fluff and bias in your statement to pick out. I'm not even sure if there's any facts to debate.

If by fluff you mean things you don't want to agree with, then I guess i would imagine there would be for you.
1). I am sick of saying this, but it NOT a religious belief. Go get a bible and tell me exactly where it says "Thou shalt not abort". A Pro-Life stance is not a "religious fascist" stance. I'm not a very religious person, I consider myself agnostic. However I am leaning towards pro-life. I say leaning because I don't believe it is a concrete issue. There are different situations that need to be taken into account. Abortion has a very huge grey area, and both Republicans and Democrats refuse to acknowledge it.

I am not really concerned with how many times you have tried to say the wrong thing and no one bought it. The anti-choice argument in abortion is based on religious theology regarding souls. The idea is still that the fetus has a soul the moment it is conceived. Without that theology it is based on science which does not feel such ways. You can keep saying the wrong thing, but it does not make it right.
2). If Ron Paul were a "religious fascist" he would not call on the topic to be a states' decision. Fascists are typically against states' rights since fascism calls for a large central government Also Ron Paul identifies with Pro-Choice people, saying that he understands where they are coming from however as a doctor he has seen abortions taken place...he literally saw someone birth a baby and throw it in a bucket and just forget about it. That tends to color someones judgement just a bit.

No, ron paul is a racist fascist who wants states rights so he can take away the rights of minorities without having to worry about the supreme court stepping in and stopping him from messing with brown people. Not terribly libertarian of him. That is not libertarianism, that is just recognizing the reality that he has to make a smaller place for himself to lynch the black folks like he would enjoy doing because the fed gets in his way. Please, let us not pretend Ron does not have religious beliefs behind his anti-choice stance. if he could make a totalitarian fascist christian state with only white people and get away with it he would. People like him are the prime examples of why libertarianism fails. Simply you have to have protection from people like him or else they will take away the freedoms of those who he doesn't like. if you want a good world where people can be trusted to handle themselves responsibly without hurting others needlessly you would need to be rid of people like Ron Paul.
3). Why is it that Liberals are all "women have a right to their body and freedom" when it comes to abortion and then for everything else they say: "it's a danger to society, we MUST ban it." It's a disturbing partisan enigma.

I am not really sure what you are talking about, but if you think i am part of the liberals you might want to think again. I do not endorse nannyism. But I do notice the attempt to blame shift and avoid your failings. Liberals could be some of the most corrupt people in the world, but it does not make you a libertarian if you promote religious fascism in preventing voluntary and safe medical procedures that hurt no one.
4). You REEEAAAALLLLYYYY need to crack open an anatomy book, your ignorance about the reproductive system would be funny if it weren't actually concerning me. A baby is not a "mass of cells" after the first trimester :doh.

You really need to stop making religious arguments and pretending they are not. The more we get into this the more i see you are a religious fascist who wants desperately not to be classified as one. Without a soul it is just a mass of cells. though some of them are specialized, it still does not have consciousness or it's own individual life. It is a part of the physical structure of the mother and is therefor part of her body until you bring the soul into it. Yes, that is based on science and anatomy and not on emotional religious arguments which you use to impose your views on people who should have liberty over their own bodies. If you want to make those arguments that is your choice to do so, but you are not for liberty or a follower of libertarianism because you endorse the removal of those liberties and the imposing of your religious values on those who do not share them. the libertarian POV is choice. If you are religious you have every freedom to carry the child to term and no one should stop you. If you are not religious you have every right to have a part of your body you do not want removed and to chose to avoid giving birth in whatever way you chose. That is liberty, and making that choice for others is anti-choice and fascist.
5). Could you tone down the partisan hackery just a tad, you're going to end up getting this thread moved to the basement. :lol:. You are stereotyping the crap out of Libertarianism and Conservatism and especially stereotyping religion.

now that is just sad. You cannot deal with the argument so you complain about me making it. What is worse is you are denying the reality that the anti-choice crowd is overwhelmingly religious, and their entire argument is based on the spiritual and religious ideas regarding the soul. Do not get mad at my argument because it threatens the illusions you have that you are a full supporter of liberty for all and that you want to think you would be above imposing religious beliefs on those who do not share them. You did that. You could have just come out and said you do not agree with his anti-choice stance but the rest of his ideas were within your beliefs. Instead you have argued for the removal of choice from people, and the imposition of religious values on those who do not share them. It is not my fault you cannot keep up with your own high ideals.
 
First off, ity is anti-choice. There is no life there. It is all about taking away people's choices. Second it is a primarily religious view that abortion is evil. It is an imposition of religious beliefs that a chunk of cells has it's own soul and must be protected. If it does not have a soul then it is part of the mother's flesh until it is separate. Without the soul it is just a growing part of the mother's body. once you add the religious idea of a soul into the mix tyhen you get the argument that it might be another being at that point. Without the religious basis an abortion is just an operation to remove an unwanted mass of cells from the body.

Still, that should completely remove Mr. Religious fascism from the libertarian group. It is called liberty and that includes the liberty to do what you wish with your body and it's parts. An abortuion is not harmful tot he mother, and therefor should not have any influence by the government as that is her choice. I will give the guy that he is closer to libertarian than say libertarian heroes like Ron Paul, but he is really just a liberal republican. Yes, i am aware neo-libertarians have completely warped the ideals and meaning of the party. But like liberal nannies and conservative money wasters the neo-libs are not actual libertarians, and your choice is still the lesser of three evils considering your claim to be libertarian and your support of pro-religious fascism of the anti-choice crowd.

Way to derail this thread and make this your personal crusade. Stop with the fascism stuff, you've already ruined your reputation enough that no one takes you seriously.
 
Way to derail this thread and make this your personal crusade. Stop with the fascism stuff, you've already ruined your reputation enough that no one takes you seriously.

As a conservative i expect the argument from you in regards to social fascism, but libertarians whould not be claiming they are the lesser of three evils when they are selling out their own values. As for your opinion of me, well thanks. I always like to know i annoy people like yourself.
 
Moderator's Warning:
theres a topic here. I suggest people stop it rather than trying to derail the thread
 
If by fluff you mean things you don't want to agree with, then I guess i would imagine there would be for you.


I am not really concerned with how many times you have tried to say the wrong thing and no one bought it. The anti-choice argument in abortion is based on religious theology regarding souls. The idea is still that the fetus has a soul the moment it is conceived. Without that theology it is based on science which does not feel such ways. You can keep saying the wrong thing, but it does not make it right.


No, ron paul is a racist fascist who wants states rights so he can take away the rights of minorities without having to worry about the supreme court stepping in and stopping him from messing with brown people. Not terribly libertarian of him. That is not libertarianism, that is just recognizing the reality that he has to make a smaller place for himself to lynch the black folks like he would enjoy doing because the fed gets in his way. Please, let us not pretend Ron does not have religious beliefs behind his anti-choice stance. if he could make a totalitarian fascist christian state with only white people and get away with it he would. People like him are the prime examples of why libertarianism fails. Simply you have to have protection from people like him or else they will take away the freedoms of those who he doesn't like. if you want a good world where people can be trusted to handle themselves responsibly without hurting others needlessly you would need to be rid of people like Ron Paul.


I am not really sure what you are talking about, but if you think i am part of the liberals you might want to think again. I do not endorse nannyism. But I do notice the attempt to blame shift and avoid your failings. Liberals could be some of the most corrupt people in the world, but it does not make you a libertarian if you promote religious fascism in preventing voluntary and safe medical procedures that hurt no one.


You really need to stop making religious arguments and pretending they are not. The more we get into this the more i see you are a religious fascist who wants desperately not to be classified as one. Without a soul it is just a mass of cells. though some of them are specialized, it still does not have consciousness or it's own individual life. It is a part of the physical structure of the mother and is therefor part of her body until you bring the soul into it. Yes, that is based on science and anatomy and not on emotional religious arguments which you use to impose your views on people who should have liberty over their own bodies. If you want to make those arguments that is your choice to do so, but you are not for liberty or a follower of libertarianism because you endorse the removal of those liberties and the imposing of your religious values on those who do not share them. the libertarian POV is choice. If you are religious you have every freedom to carry the child to term and no one should stop you. If you are not religious you have every right to have a part of your body you do not want removed and to chose to avoid giving birth in whatever way you chose. That is liberty, and making that choice for others is anti-choice and fascist.


now that is just sad. You cannot deal with the argument so you complain about me making it. What is worse is you are denying the reality that the anti-choice crowd is overwhelmingly religious, and their entire argument is based on the spiritual and religious ideas regarding the soul. Do not get mad at my argument because it threatens the illusions you have that you are a full supporter of liberty for all and that you want to think you would be above imposing religious beliefs on those who do not share them. You did that. You could have just come out and said you do not agree with his anti-choice stance but the rest of his ideas were within your beliefs. Instead you have argued for the removal of choice from people, and the imposition of religious values on those who do not share them. It is not my fault you cannot keep up with your own high ideals.

1). What I'm saying isn't wrong, you just happen to not agree with them. I'm getting the vibe you desperately want to be right so you lash out and call people fascists whenever you happen to disagree with them...

2.) Okay, lemme get this straight. Ron Paul is not a religious fascist anymore, he's a RASCIST fascist. Wow....:lamo. Okay, you have officially cracked me up by going off the deep end. You say your not a liberal, but like most Liberals you use the racist card to make people feel bad in an argument. Ron Paul is not a racist for advocating states rights, he's a constitutionilist. Under the constitution the states' are supposed to have certain powers in lawmaking disputes, the argument for states' rights are that state officials are closer to the people they represent and the laws they make affect them too as they live in the state they are running.

3). I'm not f**king religious!! I don't understand why you wish to label all Libertarians and Republicans as religious, well I have news for you...even though the majority are religious not ALL are religious. You can't be a religious fascist if you're not religious!!! Also I am a big supporter of marriage equality. And I am one of the few Republicans/Libertarians left trying to keep the separation of church and state alive.

4). I never said I'm completely Pro-Life, perhaps I made the mistake of debating someone who sees everything in Black and White. There are always things to take into account. How about the fact that teenagers can receive abortions without parental consent and FOR FREE ON THE TAXPAYERS DIME. That's not abortion anymore that's birth control. It's a huge grey area, abortions should be allowed for a number of circumstances like for rape victims or medical emergencies. But generally it's typically used as birth control. The couple didn't have enough sense to use a pill or a condom...or didn't feel like it. The argument for Pro-Life, is not necessarily that they are alive in the womb...which some could say. But that those babies would be alive, they had a life ahead of them. And while there are a lot of situations where abortions should be a choice or necessary, most of the time people are using it as birth control!

6). By fluff I mean ad hominem attacks that are not backed up by actual fact, partisan stereotypes that may apply to some members of that partisan but not all, and basically random insults hurled at me to disguise the fact that you don't have any actual facts in your statements(i.e racist and religious fascist)
 
1). What I'm saying isn't wrong, you just happen to not agree with them. I'm getting the vibe you desperately want to be right so you lash out and call people fascists whenever you happen to disagree with them...

it is very possible for me to disagree with something that is wrong. the two are not mutually exclusive as you have implied with this poor logic.
2.) Okay, lemme get this straight. Ron Paul is not a religious fascist anymore, he's a RASCIST fascist. Wow....:lamo. Okay, you have officially cracked me up by going off the deep end. You say your not a liberal, but like most Liberals you use the racist card to make people feel bad in an argument. Ron Paul is not a racist for advocating states rights, he's a constitutionilist. Under the constitution the states' are supposed to have certain powers in lawmaking disputes, the argument for states' rights are that state officials are closer to the people they represent and the laws they make affect them too as they live in the state they are running.

So you are a paul fanboy and you make excuses for him and ignore his blatant racism and attempts at state level fascism. I am getting a pretty clear picture that you are a neo-lib and are one of the people I am talking about who have corrupted their party into what it is now. The reality is you are a republican with some socially liberal ideas except where it comes to religion. True libertarians are pro-choice. It is a direct part of the philosophy.
3). I'm not f**king religious!! I don't understand why you wish to label all Libertarians and Republicans as religious, well I have news for you...even though the majority are religious not ALL are religious. You can't be a religious fascist if you're not religious!!! Also I am a big supporter of marriage equality. And I am one of the few Republicans/Libertarians left trying to keep the separation of church and state alive.

Please do not lump yourself in my vision of real libertarians. I am very aware that real libertarians often stray down the atheist and agnostic roads, or are very unimposing about their faith. You fall into the neo lib category the more you talk and try to push this idea. What you are not getting is that you are going against one of the primary ideals of libertarianism which is choice and self determination and responsibility. That is probably their core belief and philosophy. The view that you can take a person's choice and self determination for their life away simply because of a moral and very religious idea is you failing at their core belief, and the guy you mentioned. It is like claiming to be a christian and thinking god is against the bible. A libertarian may not like abortion, but they are pro-choice. That liberty to chose is that important to them.

4). I never said I'm completely Pro-Life, perhaps I made the mistake of debating someone who sees everything in Black and White. There are always things to take into account. How about the fact that teenagers can receive abortions without parental consent and FOR FREE ON THE TAXPAYERS DIME. That's not abortion anymore that's birth control. It's a huge grey area, abortions should be allowed for a number of circumstances like for rape victims or medical emergencies. But generally it's typically used as birth control. The couple didn't have enough sense to use a pill or a condom...or didn't feel like it. The argument for Pro-Life, is not necessarily that they are alive in the womb...which some could say. But that those babies would be alive, they had a life ahead of them. And while there are a lot of situations where abortions should be a choice or necessary, most of the time people are using it as birth control!

I am not a libertarian. The reason I do not identify as a libertarian is because i personally see where the law needs to regulate sometimes, and the hands off approach they support is not right. I am telling you that you are not following the core beliefs of the movement. Seriously, had you claimed that that person was a good dem or republican candidate I would have agreed with you. that person violates the core beliefs of libertarians. That is not voting for the perfect libertarian candidate like you were boasting. That is voting for a LINO who is the lesser of three evils. I do not even disagree with that stance. he seems pretty pro-freedom for me, and I would probably vote for him over the other two if I could. I do not believe his abortion stance is correct, but he is the least evil of the three and it is even possible he falls on the good side. he just simply is not a libertarian because he should be pro-choice and it is a clearly religious and pointless moral argument to be anti-choice.

6). By fluff I mean ad hominem attacks that are not backed up by actual fact, partisan stereotypes that may apply to some members of that partisan but not all, and basically random insults hurled at me to disguise the fact that you don't have any actual facts in your statements(i.e racist and religious fascist)

What happened to five? i just wanted to quote spaceballs. Those words are descriptors of a certain behavioral pattern. Fascist has a meaning. if you find that meaning offensive then you need to not act like it in that instance. I am trying to be specific for a reason because it seems that in other areas you are liberal. In the abortion area the denial of choice is fascist. The argument boils down to a moral POV which is based upon religious philosophy that a fetus has a soul. From a logical and unemotional scientific viewpoint an abortion is simply the removal of cells. It does not harm the mother at all, and the cells were not able to be a human being on their own. In a simple logical sense the mother does not want to raise the child and is choosing to be childless. though I disagree with the anti-choice argument i am cool it is there. It just violates the core beliefs of libertarianism.
 
Personally I don't subscribe to the "lesser of two evils" concept. The lesser of two evils is still EVIL. So for a while it was looking like I would not be supporting anyone this year. Then I found out about Robert Sarvis who is running on the Libertarian ticket this year. While some might explain his political principles as "complex", I think his principles exercise basic common sense.

I see, so a self-identifying 'Libertarian', such as yourself just, "found out about Robert Sarvis"? You mean you weren't aware that your own ideological comrades were participating in the election until you had become disillusioned with the Dem and Rep already standing? Forgive me if I'm a bit sceptical. I have a strong suspicion you may be involved in running his campaign, which is fine, but why not be honest about it, instead of playing like an actor in a TV commercial?
 
it is very possible for me to disagree with something that is wrong. the two are not mutually exclusive as you have implied with this poor logic.


So you are a paul fanboy and you make excuses for him and ignore his blatant racism and attempts at state level fascism. I am getting a pretty clear picture that you are a neo-lib and are one of the people I am talking about who have corrupted their party into what it is now. The reality is you are a republican with some socially liberal ideas except where it comes to religion. True libertarians are pro-choice. It is a direct part of the philosophy.


Please do not lump yourself in my vision of real libertarians. I am very aware that real libertarians often stray down the atheist and agnostic roads, or are very unimposing about their faith. You fall into the neo lib category the more you talk and try to push this idea. What you are not getting is that you are going against one of the primary ideals of libertarianism which is choice and self determination and responsibility. That is probably their core belief and philosophy. The view that you can take a person's choice and self determination for their life away simply because of a moral and very religious idea is you failing at their core belief, and the guy you mentioned. It is like claiming to be a christian and thinking god is against the bible. A libertarian may not like abortion, but they are pro-choice. That liberty to chose is that important to them.



I am not a libertarian. The reason I do not identify as a libertarian is because i personally see where the law needs to regulate sometimes, and the hands off approach they support is not right. I am telling you that you are not following the core beliefs of the movement. Seriously, had you claimed that that person was a good dem or republican candidate I would have agreed with you. that person violates the core beliefs of libertarians. That is not voting for the perfect libertarian candidate like you were boasting. That is voting for a LINO who is the lesser of three evils. I do not even disagree with that stance. he seems pretty pro-freedom for me, and I would probably vote for him over the other two if I could. I do not believe his abortion stance is correct, but he is the least evil of the three and it is even possible he falls on the good side. he just simply is not a libertarian because he should be pro-choice and it is a clearly religious and pointless moral argument to be anti-choice.



What happened to five? i just wanted to quote spaceballs. Those words are descriptors of a certain behavioral pattern. Fascist has a meaning. if you find that meaning offensive then you need to not act like it in that instance. I am trying to be specific for a reason because it seems that in other areas you are liberal. In the abortion area the denial of choice is fascist. The argument boils down to a moral POV which is based upon religious philosophy that a fetus has a soul. From a logical and unemotional scientific viewpoint an abortion is simply the removal of cells. It does not harm the mother at all, and the cells were not able to be a human being on their own. In a simple logical sense the mother does not want to raise the child and is choosing to be childless. though I disagree with the anti-choice argument i am cool it is there. It just violates the core beliefs of libertarianism.

Well I see you completely refused to acknowledge my reasoning for my stance on abortion, well that's okay...

Okay, first off. Yes the core principle of Libertarianism is choice. But my stance on abortion does not make me a "neo-lib" it depends on your definition of life!! Pro-Life people believe a baby is alive after the first trimester, it has nothing to do with "hating women" or what "god said". Yes there are actually many Pro-Life people that don't know what the f*ck they are talking about and are only pro-life because they were told to be by their party.

Disagreeing with the majority of your party on one issue doesn't make you a "neo-lib" or a "fake". It makes you a free thinker. I vote for policy not party. I have actually voted for Democratic candidate over a Libertarian candidate, simply because I liked the Democratic candidate better. He was a classic liberal(as in social liberal, economic conservative).

I will repeat AGAIN for you, saying that a baby is still a mass of cells after the first trimester is deeply ignorant. I really suggest you do a little bit more research on the topic.

Also, I would like to point out that you can't tell me who the lesser of three evils is...I choose that for myself. I am not voting for the lesser of three evils because I do not believe he is the lesser of three evils. I believe he is an ideal candidate for governor, and I have actually met the man in person and spoke to him in depth about his political belief structure. He spoke at a lecture of mine, and he did an excellent job explaining how federal bureaucracies work. He was well-spoken and knew what he was talking about. He is distinguished among other candidates I have spoken to in the way that he holds himself. He doesn't walk around like he's some important man in office, and I'm just a lowly citizen. No, he identifies with me as a person...and he identifies himself with Virginians in general. I have met very few candidates who act like that.

Also, I would also like to correct you on your definition of libertarianism AGAIN to tell you that Libertarians are all for choice as long as it does not harm others. Citizens carry guns? Of course, as long as they don't murder innocent people! Citizens do drugs? Of course, it only harms them! Gays marrying? Of course! It's their choice! Pro-Life libertarians are not "neo-libertarians" because they believe that that baby is a human being, and an abortion is a choice...but it affects other people(i.e. the baby). Whether or not you agree with that definition of life, you cannot sit here and call me a "neo-libertarian" because I still hold the core principles of libertarianism...I just happen to have a different definition of life than you.

Yes I am a Paul Fanboy, and I'm proud to be one. He sat there taking abuse from both parties for standing up for his beliefs....for FORTY YEARS. If you watch speeches from when he was first running for congressman, and speeches now...they are absolutely identical. Whether or not you agree with him, that is a very honorable thing to do. I agree with him on a lot of things. Ron Paul is many things, but one thing he is not is racist. Just because he supports states' rights does not make him a f*cking racist. Just because he is a Republican does NOT MAKE HIM RACIST. It is 2013, we should be over this by now! But we aren't because anytime someone disagrees with someone they are called racist! Actually you wanna know something? OBAMA is the racist one. And don't give me that "blacks can't be racist" horsesh*t. It's called racism, not blackism for a reason. Obama is constantly talking about helping "the black community thrive". If a white person were to say that he wants to help the white community thrive he'd be impeached!!!
 
I see, so a self-identifying 'Libertarian', such as yourself just, "found out about Robert Sarvis"? You mean you weren't aware that your own ideological comrades were participating in the election until you had become disillusioned with the Dem and Rep already standing? Forgive me if I'm a bit sceptical. I have a strong suspicion you may be involved in running his campaign, which is fine, but why not be honest about it, instead of playing like an actor in a TV commercial?

I acknowledge your observation, and I don't mind one bit that you brought this up. However I would like to confirm that I did indeed find out about Robert Sarvis. A very good friend of mine posted an article about him up on facebook and I was ecstatic that I found a candidate for governor that I could identify with. I am not an employee on his campaign, though I am starting to do some volunteer work. I am not selling an ad, I am simply using this forum for what it was meant for. To talk about state issues and elections. I know many people who are dissatisfied with the Republican and Democrat candidates this year, but did not know about Robert Sarvis. I was simply posting this here, to help those people find out about Sarvis and hopefully vote for him in November!
 
I acknowledge your observation, and I don't mind one bit that you brought this up. However I would like to confirm that I did indeed find out about Robert Sarvis. A very good friend of mine posted an article about him up on facebook and I was ecstatic that I found a candidate for governor that I could identify with. I am not an employee on his campaign, though I am starting to do some volunteer work. I am not selling an ad, I am simply using this forum for what it was meant for. To talk about state issues and elections. I know many people who are dissatisfied with the Republican and Democrat candidates this year, but did not know about Robert Sarvis. I was simply posting this here, to help those people find out about Sarvis and hopefully vote for him in November!

I've got no issue with you talking up a favoured candidate, even one for whom you are volunteering, and spreading the word. Why should I? I just thought that perhaps you were pretending to be a convinced objective voice, like those ads you see which go, "I couldn't believe it when I found Supalax, and it really did get me to s*** 3 times better than any other brand of laxative!" Yeah sure, we really buy it that you're a genuine astounded and ecstatic customer!

So, cards on the table, you are volunteering for Sarvis and you are pitching for votes on DP. Best of luck to you and your candidate. :peace
 
I've got no issue with you talking up a favoured candidate, even one for whom you are volunteering, and spreading the word. Why should I? I just thought that perhaps you were pretending to be a convinced objective voice, like those ads you see which go, "I couldn't believe it when I found Supalax, and it really did get me to s*** 3 times better than any other brand of laxative!" Yeah sure, we really buy it that you're a genuine astounded and ecstatic customer!

So, cards on the table, you are volunteering for Sarvis and you are pitching for votes on DP. Best of luck to you and your candidate. :peace

Thank you, and good luck to the candidate you are supporting for governor(if any) :)
 
Back
Top Bottom