Libertarians ought to completely divorce themselves from conservatives.

[Velvet Elvis]

Absolutely not. Today's conservatism is about Big Government control, Big Government spending, Big Government surveillance, Big Government War, Big Government debt, etc. It has nothing to do with CONSTRAINED and LIMITED government, which is what libertarians tend to push for. There is very little similarity between liberatarianism and either side of the main party.

I don't think you understand what I'm saying. I'm saying "real" conservatives aren't about Big Government, surveillance, etc. Conservative politicians are.

Today's Republicans aren't conservative. Don't take the drivel that sits in Capitol Hill as the example.

 

[Slyhunter]

So? What's the difference. The Republocrats are single party rule and "liberals" and "conservatives" are still pushing for the same end, fascist government control and power. So the "liberals" will win every election. Huzzah, it's not like putting in "conservatives" would have made any difference.

And perhaps if the GOP consistently loses elections, it will be forced to push its platform towards libertarian idealism in order to reclaim lost votes. That's how it is supposed to be. The lesser of two evils is still evil, and continually voting for evil only pushes you towards hell.

If the Republicans won we wouldn't have Obama care. If the Republicans won Apple would be investing it's billions in America because Romney would've given them a tax holiday for bringing in income made in other countries. Other Companies as well. It makes a huge difference whether the liberals win vs the Republicans. The areas where the two parties agree with one another are few and don't bother normal voters like myself.

 

[AngryOldGuy]

Libertarians Lunatic Fringe we all know you're out there

 

[TiredOfLife]

Libertarians Lunatic Fringe we all know you're out there

Ain't that the truth. Selfish kids snorting Ayn Rand.

 

[AngryOldGuy]

none of that pansy snortin' for me
I shoot her up
The Unknown Ideal

 

[Ikari]

If the Republicans won we wouldn't have Obama care. If the Republicans won Apple would be investing it's billions in America because Romney would've given them a tax holiday for bringing in income made in other countries. Other Companies as well. It makes a huge difference whether the liberals win vs the Republicans. The areas where the two parties agree with one another are few and don't bother normal voters like myself.

Oh no, we wouldn't have Obama's give away to insurance companies! Well Bush had Medicade Part D, so it wouldn't really matter, some big business would be getting a nice giveaway. And Romney would have taxed whomever he wanted, and companies would get the privilege they share now. All our wars would still be the same, the size and scope of government would be the same, the same warrantless searches and drones and super spying on the citizens, all of it.

So yes, we may get some mild differences in which corporation gets the giveaway or slight variants in tax structure, but all the big stuff will still be the same and still serve the same machine.

 

[Ikari]

you have the mentality of a loser. No major disrespect intended, I mean your outlook is simply that of one that sees defeat forever and resistance is futile.

I disagree. The fight alone is worthwhile to me.

And you have the mentality of a mindless conformist. No major disrespect intended, I mean your outlook is simply that of one that does not actually want to do anything to change the way things are and would rather take up a moniker to make one seem cool and different from the rest of the sheep, but they baaaaa and get in line when the party dog comes to round them up.

I disagree. The fight alone is worthwhile to me.

 

[Ikari]

I don't think you understand what I'm saying. I'm saying "real" conservatives aren't about Big Government, surveillance, etc. Conservative politicians are.

Today's Republicans aren't conservative. Don't take the drivel that sits in Capitol Hill as the example.

I don't know, old conservatism may have been about that. The new brand of conservatism that everyone seemingly adopted is a Party Rule philosophy. But even if we talk more of traditional conservatism and liberalism, libertarianism is closest to classic liberalism which puts them about equidistant from traditional conservatism and liberalism.

 

[ttwtt78640]

The conservative mouths the word 'freedom'; what he really means by it is "you are free - to be as I am, to value the same things as me."

That, in a nutshell, is what happened there. A much more purely libertarian movement will be called 'anarchism' (I see no reason to object to the label) and denounced as Satanic, as corrupting of the youth (we'll be led to our hemlock), and the conservative apparatchiks will see to it that we are denounced as heretics.

Any libertarian with the slightest inkling of historical understanding realizes that at no point in time has American history made contact with anything approaching libertarian ideals. Consequentially, there is no history, no tradition, for an American libertarian to 'conserve'.

Is the bolded not precisely what representative democracy is all about? You as a voter are free to choose a representative, or even to try to become one, yet once elected those "majority" representatives make law/policy. If your wishes do not mesh with those elected by the majority then your only recourse is to sue based on constitutional rights violations or hope to unseat those "bad" representatives, hopefully replacing them with those more to your liking.

Your desire to form a third party is noted, feel free to try to do so, yet more chance for change exists in attempting to steer an existing party (as the Tea "Party" is now trying) than to split off and hope that an even worse (opposing) party does not get into power as a result of successfully splitting the vote.

 

[AngryOldGuy]

and in other news the Libertarians are still flinging poo from the sidelines

 

[ARealConservative]

And you have the mentality of a mindless conformist. No major disrespect intended, I mean your outlook is simply that of one that does not actually want to do anything to change the way things are and would rather take up a moniker to make one seem cool and different from the rest of the sheep, but they baaaaa and get in line when the party dog comes to round them up.

I disagree. The fight alone is worthwhile to me.

you aren't making any sense though.

Ron Paul "republicans" took over local parties. The so called status quo corporate whores proceeded to lie and cheat to prevent such a takeover, and they had mixed results.

That they had to lie and cheat in the open is an improvement over how they lie and cheat in back rooms dealing to keep the Libertarian Party from making any inroads.

The game plan of taking over one of the major parties is simply a better strategy for this reason alone. It takes a special kind of fool to continue to pretend a third party is the better option for change. That is exactly what those in power want.

 

[Ikari]

you aren't making any sense though.

Ron Paul "republicans" took over local parties. The so called status quo corporate whores proceeded to lie and cheat to prevent such a takeover, and they had mixed results.

That they had to lie and cheat in the open is an improvement over how they lie and cheat in back rooms dealing to keep the Libertarian Party from making any inroads.

The game plan of taking over one of the major parties is simply a better strategy for this reason alone. It takes a special kind of fool to continue to pretend a third party is the better option for change. That is exactly what those in power want.

Took over local parties eh? What are the stats and results of that? Of course party management lied and cheated, and they'll do their best to relegate the "reformers" to nonfactors within the party structure itself. As I said, let me know when it pans out.

Third party is a viable alternative, not only does it break the support of the status quo but it can be used to directly threaten the power of one of the main parties. It's not what those in power want, those in power want you to either vote for the Republocrats or for no one at all. The power of the third party revolves around are neigh equally split support of the main party. Each election is essentially a 50/50 split with some noise and it's the noise that determines the outcome. A third party doesn't need 50% + 1 of the votes, it just needs to capture out of the noise predominately from one branch of the main party. If you can make it so that one of the main party heads cannot win, they will have to quickly and dramatically shift focus to regain lost votes.

So long as you support their power, they're not going to be concerned with you. The only way to make the Republocrats do anything is to threaten their power. It's the only thing they truly care about.

 

[ARealConservative]

Took over local parties eh? What are the stats and results of that? Of course party management lied and cheated, and they'll do their best to relegate the "reformers" to nonfactors within the party structure itself. As I said, let me know when it pans out.

Third party is a viable alternative, not only does it break the support of the status quo but it can be used to directly threaten the power of one of the main parties. It's not what those in power want, those in power want you to either vote for the Republocrats or for no one at all. The power of the third party revolves around are neigh equally split support of the main party. Each election is essentially a 50/50 split with some noise and it's the noise that determines the outcome. A third party doesn't need 50% + 1 of the votes, it just needs to capture out of the noise predominately from one branch of the main party. If you can make it so that one of the main party heads cannot win, they will have to quickly and dramatically shift focus to regain lost votes.

So long as you support their power, they're not going to be concerned with you. The only way to make the Republocrats do anything is to threaten their power. It's the only thing they truly care about.

taking over local parties does threaten their power. your just ignorant of what happened because you cling to an idiotic viewpoint of how fighting from within the party supports the party.

Ron Paul Backers Outmaneuver Nevada GOP Establishment

 

[Ikari]

taking over local parties does threaten their power. your just ignorant of what happened because you cling to an idiotic viewpoint of how fighting from within the party supports the party.

Ron Paul Backers Outmaneuver Nevada GOP Establishment

Whatever, good to see you can't argue without insulting people. That's a good tactic :roll:

So all you have as support for your claims is one incident that caused the GOP party establishment to reschedule. Nice. But it's far from the statistics and results I asked for...guess your "change the status quo by supporting the status quo" ain't really working out for ya, is it Republican?

 

[ARealConservative]

Whatever, good to see you can't argue without insulting people. That's a good tactic :roll:

So all you have as support for your claims is one incident that caused the GOP party establishment to reschedule. Nice. But it's far from the statistics and results I asked for...guess your "change the status quo by supporting the status quo" ain't really working out for ya, is it Republican?

Plenty of examples exist to show that Ron Paul had a bigger impact running as a Republican then as a Libertarian. your position is a joke. You have brought nothing to the discussion but idiocy

Here is another example of how he make bigger inroads doing it this way then the way you recommend: How We Became The Party of Paul | The Iowa Republican

 

[Ikari]

Plenty of examples exist to show that Ron Paul had a bigger impact running as a Republican then as a Libertarian. your position is a joke. You have brought nothing to the discussion but idiocy

Here is another example of how he make bigger inroads doing it this way then the way you recommend: How We Became The Party of Paul | The Iowa Republican

OK, so mostly an opinion piece instead of facts, statistics, and results. OK. One claiming that Iowa was a Paul State, and certainly ended up going that was by plurality of delegates and convention call. But Santorum won the popular vote in that State. So...anything of substance? A little hope and a dream that will soon be crushed by party overlords, but you're already changing things yes? Local level and jive.

So how about it? Results and statistics please. They work better than little puff pieces.

 

[ARealConservative]

OK, so mostly an opinion piece instead of facts, statistics, and results. OK. One claiming that Iowa was a Paul State, and certainly ended up going that was by plurality of delegates and convention call. But Santorum won the popular vote in that State. So...anything of substance? A little hope and a dream that will soon be crushed by party overlords, but you're already changing things yes? Local level and jive.

So how about it? Results and statistics please. They work better than little puff pieces.

you are hopeless.

the status quo, as you call it, cheats. Iowa replaced those in charge of the party with people that won't cheat. that is a very small victory, but compared to what the Libertarian Party has achieved, it is an enormous victory.

so rather then just blathering on, how about you post something...anything, to back up your claim that the Libertarian Party is better positioned to fight the status quo. so far you have offered nothing.

 

[Ikari]

you are hopeless.

the status quo, as you call it, cheats. Iowa replaced those in charge of the party with people that won't cheat. that is a very small victory, but compared to what the Libertarian Party has achieved, it is an enormous victory.

so rather then just blathering on, how about you post something...anything, to back up your claim that the Libertarian Party is better positioned to fight the status quo. so far you have offered nothing.

I know the status quo cheats, it's why I don't support them. You'll get nowhere trying to play with cheaters. You claim they are "replaced" but there's really no true proof of that either, nor if such replacement is even true how long it will last before the party overlords come down. You just keep claiming how you're strategy is working and making inroads and blah, and I'm just trying to get you to give me some results of that. You're doing a great job deflecting and NOT posting any proof.

 

[ARealConservative]

I know the status quo cheats, it's why I don't support them. You'll get nowhere trying to play with cheaters. You claim they are "replaced" but there's really no true proof of that either, nor if such replacement is even true how long it will last before the party overlords come down. You just keep claiming how you're strategy is working and making inroads and blah, and I'm just trying to get you to give me some results of that. You're doing a great job deflecting and NOT posting any proof.

more idiocy. when you fight someone, you aren't playing with them. you are fighting with them.

we fought the cheaters. the cheaters are gone, and normal citizens also saw them cheat. taking the fight to someone is the non-cowardly way to go. maybe you should try it.

 

[Ikari]

more idiocy. when you fight someone, you aren't playing with them. you are fighting with them.

we fought the cheaters. the cheaters are gone, and normal citizens also saw them cheat. taking the fight to someone is the non-cowardly way to go. maybe you should try it.

Blah blah blah blah, insult and unsubstantiated assertion.

Stats and results please.

 

[ARealConservative]

Blah blah blah blah, insult and unsubstantiated assertion.

Stats and results please.

unsubstantiated?

fighting someone is not playing with them.

you lose.

 

[Ikari]

unsubstantiated?

fighting someone is not playing with them.

you lose.

Unsubstantiated indeed. You keep saying inroads and that you've replaced blah blah blah, but you've offered no data to back it up. Nothing to demonstrate any significant and long standing shift against the party elite. And now you're reduced to this pathetic aside, "fighting someone is not playing with them"; well in this case you don't seem to be putting up much of a fight and it is playing with them as you are playing within the party structure. A structure you've claimed inroads against. I only asked for proof and all you give me is insult and unsubstantiated claim.

Stats and results

 

[ARealConservative]

Unsubstantiated indeed. You keep saying inroads and that you've replaced blah blah blah, but you've offered no data to back it up. Nothing to demonstrate any significant and long standing shift against the party elite. And now you're reduced to this pathetic aside, "fighting someone is not playing with them"; well in this case you don't seem to be putting up much of a fight and it is playing with them as you are playing within the party structure. A structure you've claimed inroads against. I only asked for proof and all you give me is insult and unsubstantiated claim.

Stats and results

you already lost, you can stop playing with me now.

 

[Ikari]

you already lost, you can stop playing with me now.

I'm not playing with you, I'm fighting you.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

So no to the stats and results then? Thought so.

 

[ARealConservative]

I'm not playing with you, I'm fighting you.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

So no to the stats and results then? Thought so.

I have already produced so much more in the way of actual facts....such as taking over the Iowa GOP apparatus

you have produced jack and ****.