• 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!

John Bush Arrested For Protesting Outside Free Speech Zone At U.T. Austin

Some cops are douchebags; not all are.

The last time I checked, it's the university's, public or not, property.

The last time I check it is funded primarily through the stolen capital of individuals, are you going to assert that the state has the right to steal from the individual to pay for a University and then ban that same individual from expressing his first amendment rights on that very same university which he payed for? If it was private you would have a point, but it's public so you don't.

No, he recognizes that you can't just trespass on property and be an ass there. I can't stand in the middle of the street and do this.

That's because it's a safety concern, sidewalks are a different story.
 
I call myself a libertarian...and a realist...not an asshole that thinks somehow the constitution gives you carte blanche to not follow the laws.

Laws which violate the 1st amendment should be violated every step of the way.

Oh...I work with LOTS of cops...they are just people. Some have the kind of mentality that you moronically ascribe to ALL. But most? Nah...good men and women. And they have to tolerate dickheads like that moron on a regular basis. And like those that were in this video, most of those cops do it with class.

So...consider the alternative. No cops. No laws.

That's a false dichotomy. A) Cops don't write the laws and B) public police forces are not needed to enforce the laws.

How you liking that? Seriously...think about that for a second. Great concept providing everyone treats people with dignity and respect. Of course...THAT happens ALL THE TIME...right? See...that kind of stupid mindless comment you made is WHY Libertarians have preciseluy ZERO representation in government. Oh...but MY mindset makes Libertarians look bad. Riiiiiight.

I don't know what your mindset is, but it certainly isn't libertarian.

Every day you are proving yourself more and more to be the dumbass people have told me you are. No wonder you routinely get bitch slapped in the basement. You are every bit a mindless ideologue. Hell...at least the democrat and republican ideologues have SOMETHING to hang their hat on...you have nothing but empty headed rhetoric.

Meh meh. I just love the statists posing as Libertarians.
 
Vance, I would say you are further from libertarian than you think. You may posess a few believes (fiscal conservative and some certain liberal social beliefs) but you don't ring, 'libertarian' to me. You're right to say whatever you want about your lean though, I suppose.
 
Vance, I would say you are further from libertarian than you think. You may posess a few believes (fiscal conservative and some certain liberal social beliefs) but you don't ring, 'libertarian' to me. You're right to say whatever you want about your lean though, I suppose.

Oh its fine...Ive been to liberatarian party meetings...platform planning meetings. I get the same response when I recommend they drop the idiotic platform proposals that ensure the libertarians are and will always be a joke as a party.

In order for anyone to have a say in the game you have to have a seat at the table. Libertarians dont...and never will. Might want to consider what exactly those values are and positions are that ensure they remain a laughing stock on the ploitical scale. Or not I suppose. No one says you HAVE to actually have a single elected representative. Its telling though that the Tea Party as a relative new movement has greater pwer and sway than the Libertarian 'party'...dont you think?

The constitution provides for freedoms but doesnt excuse disobedience to state and federal law. If the party wants relevance they will stick to the themes that are by and large commonly accepted by MOST Americans. Smaller more responsible federal government. The role of the fed in both government and individual lives limited to those enumerated in the constitution. Strong individual and states rights.

Id rather not be one of those libertarians that embody the saying "being a libertarian is like pissing your pants ina dark suit. It gives you a warm feeling for a while, no one really notices, and eventually you just end up cold, wet, and stinky."
 
The last time I check it is funded primarily through the stolen capital of individuals, are you going to assert that the state has the right to steal from the individual to pay for a University and then ban that same individual from expressing his first amendment rights on that very same university which he payed for? If it was private you would have a point, but it's public so you don't.


That's because it's a safety concern, sidewalks are a different story.

Public universities are a whole other issue, but your tax dollars don't make it yours. Again, I can't just mozy into someone's Section 8 housing.
 
Oh its fine...Ive been to liberatarian party meetings...platform planning meetings. I get the same response when I recommend they drop the idiotic platform proposals that ensure the libertarians are and will always be a joke as a party.

In order for anyone to have a say in the game you have to have a seat at the table. Libertarians dont...and never will. Might want to consider what exactly those values are and positions are that ensure they remain a laughing stock on the ploitical scale. Or not I suppose. No one says you HAVE to actually have a single elected representative. Its telling though that the Tea Party as a relative new movement has greater pwer and sway than the Libertarian 'party'...dont you think?

The constitution provides for freedoms but doesnt excuse disobedience to state and federal law. If the party wants relevance they will stick to the themes that are by and large commonly accepted by MOST Americans. Smaller more responsible federal government. The role of the fed in both government and individual lives limited to those enumerated in the constitution. Strong individual and states rights.

Id rather not be one of those libertarians that embody the saying "being a libertarian is like pissing your pants ina dark suit. It gives you a warm feeling for a while, no one really notices, and eventually you just end up cold, wet, and stinky."

The thing is if you don't share those beliefs doesn't that put you outside the libertarian party? Maybe you're just a 'moderate' libertarian :p
 
The thing is if you don't share those beliefs doesn't that put you outside the libertarian party? Maybe you're just a 'moderate' libertarian :p

ok, you tell us what every self-identified libertarian is supposed to believe ... and why
this needs to be comprehensive, so that we can be informed about the official libertarian position on every potential issue
also, let us know your source of these official positions
ready, set, go ...
 
Last edited:
ok, you tell us what every self-identified libertarian is supposed to believe ... and why
this needs to be comprehensive, so that we can be informed about the official libertarian position on every potential issue
also, let us know your source of these official positions
ready, set, go ...

Not sure why you care or why you even think you should be involved in this discussion. I'm not going to cater to your haughty request either. I'll say that if he finds he doesn't identify with libertarians at libertarian gatherings repeatedly and doesn't support the 1st ammendment on all public property then he probably doesn't identify with libertarians that much.

Take your baiting elsewhere, and let Vance speak for himself.
 
Public universities are a whole other issue, but your tax dollars don't make it yours. Again, I can't just mozy into someone's Section 8 housing.

Section 8 Housing is a voucher program, the state gives subsidies to the individual and the individual uses these subsidies to purchase privately owned apartment complexes or houses. The apartments and houses are still privately leased or owned by the individual albeit through the aid of government subsidy; whereas, there is no private ownership of public universities to speak of.
 
Section 8 Housing is a voucher program, the state gives subsidies to the individual and the individual uses these subsidies to purchase privately owned apartment complexes or houses. The apartments and houses are still privately leased or owned by the individual albeit through the aid of government subsidy; whereas, there is no private ownership of public universities to speak of.

But my money is used.
 
Not sure why you care or why you even think you should be involved in this discussion. I'm not going to cater to your haughty request either. I'll say that if he finds he doesn't identify with libertarians at libertarian gatherings repeatedly and doesn't support the 1st ammendment on all public property then he probably doesn't identify with libertarians that much.

Take your baiting elsewhere, and let Vance speak for himself.

no baiting
you posted as if you could divine whether someone was libertarian-worthy; to use that term as a self-identifier of political lean
clearly you are unable to identify what barometers of political opinion one must possess to classify oneself as a libertarian ... instead insisting anyone with an opinion different from your own is thus ineligible to share the libertarian identifier

and you should recognize this is a public forum. if you do not want outside opinions on these posted topics, you may want to instead communicate your debate via PM
otherwise you can look forward to my posts where i will attempt to disabuse you of your consistently ignorant notions
 
Section 8 Housing is a voucher program, the state gives subsidies to the individual and the individual uses these subsidies to purchase privately owned apartment complexes or houses. The apartments and houses are still privately leased or owned by the individual albeit through the aid of government subsidy; whereas, there is no private ownership of public universities to speak of.

then you would have us believe, that within those government-owned public housing complexes, we should be free to meander in and out of them at will, since they are publicly owned
or maybe the publicly owned military installations ... try conducting your own business there without following the administrative regulations imposed. i would be especially delighted to hear of your experience doing that at the delta force facility at fort bragg
no doubt you could walk into any public high school campus unannounced, uninvited, and without following the visitor protocol and engage in your soap box activities without being subject to arrest [/sarcasm]
 
no baiting
you posted as if you could divine whether someone was libertarian-worthy; to use that term as a self-identifier of political lean
clearly you are unable to identify what barometers of political opinion one must possess to classify oneself as a libertarian ... instead insisting anyone with an opinion different from your own is thus ineligible to share the libertarian identifier

and you should recognize this is a public forum. if you do not want outside opinions on these posted topics, you may want to instead communicate your debate via PM
otherwise you can look forward to my posts where i will attempt to disabuse you of your consistently ignorant notions

I didn't 'divine' (define, right?) anything. He, himself, stated that he was at odds with libertarians fairly often. If he disagrees with the vast majority of libertarians consistently, why would he believe he is (or want to be) a libertarian?

Further, I said nothing about his worthiness as a libertarian. This is your own "ignorant notion" that I would like to "disabuse" you of.

I have not said anyone with a different opinion is ineligible to share the political identifier, either.

Clearly I'm not trying to act as a barometer for the libertarian party and their beliefs.

My consistently ignorant notions... hm. Perhaps we should move on to your consistently ungrounded notions with regards to what I have and have not stated. :doh
 
then you would have us believe, that within those government-owned public housing complexes, we should be free to meander in and out of them at will, since they are publicly owned

All public housing in the U.S. comes in the form of government subsidization for the purchase or lease of private homes and/or apartments.

or maybe the publicly owned military installations ... try conducting your own business there without following the administrative regulations imposed. i would be especially delighted to hear of your experience doing that at the delta force facility at fort bragg

I don't believe in a public military, I think security and defense should be privatized. But obviously under the current system security concerns exist for military installations that do not for public universities.

no doubt you could walk into any public high school campus unannounced, uninvited, and without following the visitor protocol and engage in your soap box activities without being subject to arrest [/sarcasm]

Yes you would be arrested but again I don't believe in public schools either, but since they are public they should be open to the public to use the facilities; such as, gyms and basketball courts etc. And if they aren't disrupting classes then I see no problem whatsoever, with political speech on highschool campuses.
 
Last edited:
The thing is if you don't share those beliefs doesn't that put you outside the libertarian party? Maybe you're just a 'moderate' libertarian :p

That might be the nicest thing anyone has ever said about me. I am a thinking person not bound to some narrow minded ideological perspective...not a party politik muppet. Geez doood...thank you!!! I mean that!

Like I said...before 'real' liberatarians run around chest bumpin, 'real' libertarians might want to grab a mirror when it comes to the reason why the libertarian party lacks relevance. And you also might want to consider just how much that makes you like the party bound ideologues from both the republican and democrat party.
 
ok, you tell us what every self-identified libertarian is supposed to believe ... and why
this needs to be comprehensive, so that we can be informed about the official libertarian position on every potential issue
also, let us know your source of these official positions
ready, set, go ...

Why...dont you know...its the same "if you arent wit us yer agin us' mentality displayed by EVERY party group. Independent thought frightens the **** out of them. They must be UNITED in their differences (which makes them the same as the rest).

I didnt fit with the republican party...I left it because of their lack of fiscal responsibility among other things. And even though i am very liberal in some areas I simply wouldnt fit at ALL with the democrats. The core of my political beliefs are based on the constitution. Individual rights first, then state, then federal. The role of the fed should be limited to the constitution. the role of the state should be dictated by the people. PEOPLE should be responsible for their involvement in local and state politics. At the end of the day, though...we are a nation of law and order and if you dont follow the laws, then you face consequences.

'Real' libertarians like to pretend they have a right to do anything that doesnt harm others. Great...Im cool with that...as a philosophy. Now...drive 105 mph on a highway and see if you dont get a ticket. yell fire in a theatre or announce you have a bomb on an airplane. The CONCEPT is great...but the reality is the concept comes with responsibility.

Heres the really sad part...I dont GIVE a **** abbout what 'real' libertarians think. The last thing I EVER want to be is some mindless muppet parroting unthinking ideology and presenting themselves as an assclown on a daily basis. God knows we have enough 'agents' running around doing that.
 
That might be the nicest thing anyone has ever said about me. I am a thinking person not bound to some narrow minded ideological perspective...not a party politik muppet. Geez doood...thank you!!! I mean that!

Like I said...before 'real' liberatarians run around chest bumpin, 'real' libertarians might want to grab a mirror when it comes to the reason why the libertarian party lacks relevance. And you also might want to consider just how much that makes you like the party bound ideologues from both the republican and democrat party.

I don't really think I'm a 100% bound to any platform, but feel I identify most with the libertarian party. My beliefs are simple and can be summed up as follows: Everyone should have the right to do whatever the hell they want so long as they don't infringe on another's life, liberty or property. Sure there's details that define certain words in the phrase, but that's the best summary I can give.

I didn't mean it to be an insult when I said said maybe you didn't identify with the libertarian party that much and maybe you were a moderate libertarian. Sorry if that was misunderstood. Certainly seemed to whistle through Bubba's ears, anyway.
 
I didn't 'divine' (define, right?) anything.
go to dictionary.com and look it up:
DIVINE ... 15. to perceive by intuition or insight; conjecture.
He, himself, stated that he was at odds with libertarians fairly often. If he disagrees with the vast majority of libertarians consistently, why would he believe he is (or want to be) a libertarian?
to make that statement, one can only conclude that you believe all political affiliations require monolithic belief; that all adherents think in rigid unison, that there is no room for one to identify with a particular political flavor without subscribing to all things that party advocates. yes, that ignorant notion
Further, I said nothing about his worthiness as a libertarian. This is your own "ignorant notion" that I would like to "disabuse" you of.
and yet you questioned why he would hold that out as his political identifier. you confuse my "observation" with your "ignorant notion"
I have not said anyone with a different opinion is ineligible to share the political identifier, either.
yet you challenge one who does use that political label while also being "at odds with libertarians fairly often"
Clearly I'm not trying to act as a barometer for the libertarian party and their beliefs.
no way one would think that since you only questioned why a forum member would indicate they possess a libertarian political lean after being "at odds with libertarians fairly often" [/sarcasm]
My consistently ignorant notions... hm. Perhaps we should move on to your consistently ungrounded notions with regards to what I have and have not stated. :doh
as you can see above, i have used your own words to hi-lite why i came to conclude your insistence that one cannot legitimately identify himself as having a libertarian political lean while they are "at odds with libertarians fairly often" should be found to be an ignorant notion
 
'Real' libertarians like to pretend they have a right to do anything that doesnt harm others. Great...Im cool with that...as a philosophy. Now...drive 105 mph on a highway and see if you dont get a ticket. yell fire in a theatre or announce you have a bomb on an airplane. The CONCEPT is great...but the reality is the concept comes with responsibility.

See this is where my, "infringes on another's life, liberty, or property," clause comes in.
 
go to dictionary.com and look it up:

to make that statement, one can only conclude that you believe all political affiliations require monolithic belief; that all adherents think in rigid unison, that there is no room for one to identify with a particular political flavor without subscribing to all things that party advocates. yes, that ignorant notion
and yet you questioned why he would hold that out as his political identifier. you confuse my "observation" with your "ignorant notion"
yet you challenge one who does use that political label while also being "at odds with libertarians fairly often"
no way one would think that since you only questioned why a forum member would indicate they possess a libertarian political lean after being "at odds with libertarians fairly often" [/sarcasm]
as you can see above, i have used your own words to hi-lite why i came to conclude your insistence that one cannot legitimately identify himself as having a libertarian political lean while they are "at odds with libertarians fairly often" should be found to be an ignorant notion

So your saying if you usually or often don't agree with one set of beliefs, then you can still be a believer in those same beliefs? Color me confused.

It sounds like he doesn't identify with a lot of beliefs in all the parties and that he's rather sprinkled throughout. If that were the case for myself, I would call myself an independent. However, >95% of the time I have libertarian justifications for my beliefs.
 
Last edited:
I don't really think I'm a 100% bound to any platform, but feel I identify most with the libertarian party. My beliefs are simple and can be summed up as follows: Everyone should have the right to do whatever the hell they want so long as they don't infringe on another's life, liberty or property. Sure there's details that define certain words in the phrase, but that's the best summary I can give.

I didn't mean it to be an insult when I said said maybe you didn't identify with the libertarian party that much and maybe you were a moderate libertarian. Sorry if that was misunderstood. Certainly seemed to whistle through Bubba's ears, anyway.

I wasnt at all insulted. I meant what I said...I take that as a compliment. I (pity isnt the right word...loathe is too harsh...but somewhere in between there...insert here) ANYONE that is so beholden to a political ideology they lack the ability to think for themselves.

I agree pretty much with the whole whatever whenever thing provided that the WHEREever is on my own private property. And Ive said...Im even fine with the disagreeing with the arrest or considering it an unlawful abridgement of his rights. But just because you THINk it should be legal doesnt MAKE it legal. And thats what this comes down to.
 
See this is where my, "infringes on another's life, liberty, or property," clause comes in.

Fine...and APPARENTLY...whether people like it or not...the law is such that Jebbie Bush violated that principle.

Saying UT is a 'public' institution and therefore people can do whatever they like wherever and however is just simple minded. They have entry requirements. They charge tuition. They have rules and laws. Sorry...but thats the reality.
 
So your saying if you usually or often don't agree with one set of beliefs, then you can still be a believer in those same beliefs? Color me confused.

It sounds like he doesn't identify with a lot of beliefs in all the parties and that he's rather sprinkled throughout. If that were the case for myself, I would call myself an independent. However, >95% of the time I have libertarian justifications for my beliefs.

I dont believe in legalizing drugs. I believe in removing the federal restrictions on drugs and allowing the states to create laws (as well as pay for the consequences of those laws). To me that is a much more tenable position for the Libertarian Party to take.

I dont believe you can say whatever you want wherver and however. I believe you have to follow the laws...even if you dont agree with them...or face consequences and thats fine if tyou are willing to face those consequences). How is that anti-libertarian?

So basically...because I disagree with you and the REAL rightwing nut job that UT is owned by the people and people can say whatever whenever and however...because I DISAGREE with you...that makes me NOT a Libertarian. Gooooooooood Lord.
 
All public housing in the U.S. comes in the form of government subsidization for the purchase or lease of private homes and/or apartments.
I don't believe in a public military, I think security and defense should be privatized. But obviously under the current system security concerns exist for military installations that do not for public universities.
Yes you would be arrested but again I don't believe in public schools either, but since they are public they should be open to the public to use the facilities; such as, gyms and basketball courts etc. And if they aren't disrupting classes then I see no problem whatsoever, with political speech on highschool campuses.

Dont BELIEVE in them or disagree with HAVING them? Night and day two different things. One is a platform position you could even work on to change...one is an expression of complete disconnection with anything resembling this little thing we call 'reality'.
 
Back
Top Bottom