any libertarians here?
 

just wondering....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

It depends on what mood I am in - Seriously...

I'm here.

Yes indeed

Libertarians: Diligently plotting to take over the world to leave everyone alone.

Here, here.

What a horrible idea huh?

had a talk with my cousin about politics... he tells me I'm a libertarian... had no idea

and when you're not?

I'm a follower of George Washington and don't believe in political parties - and what's going on in Washington right now disgusts me. But if I had to choose, I'd be a Libertarian. Basically, minimal Federal Gov't and keep out of other countries' affairs.

Present.

Libertarian = Embarrassed Republican.

Tom Hartmann says a Libertarian is a Republican that who wants to smoke pot and get laid.

Kind of. I believe in limited government. Some regulation is good. I'm so tired of politics though.

And a Libertarian is also a person who wants ALL drugs legalized.
Is PRO CHOICE for women.
Wants the military reduced and an end to invading other countries.
Unlike Dems and Republicans...they are on the side of the porn industry (the vice pres. candidate for 2012 spoke at a dinner at Internext...you will NEVER find a Democrat or Republican doing that)

That sound like a Republican to you guys?
Pro choice, legalization of all drugs, ending wars?

Doesn't sound like a Republican...it sounds like the worst nightmare possible for the Republican Party and Democrat Party. Libertarians want to do what both of the old parties claim they want to do. But neither one of them really wants anything but power.

Think about that for a minute.

There's a reason that both the Democrat Party and Republican Party hacks constantly put out the propaganda that you guys are spouting.

Republicans claim that Libertarians are "crazy".

Democrats try to say that Libertarians are really some form of Republican.

Well...use your own brains and tell me if it's "crazy" to want to stop invading other countries, bring all our troops home, allow people to make their own decisions (drugs, prostitution, gambling, porn, etc.) without the govt. dictating to them.

Then tell me if Libertarians are some kind of "Republican" when they want to stop invading other countries, bring all our troops home, allow people to make their own decisions (drugs, prostitution, gambling, porn, etc.) without the govt. dictating to them.

It comes down to whether or not you believe a man should be free to live his life and pursue his dreams without being treated like a child by the govt.

I think we all want the same things in life.
But we have been sold a marketing package from the Dems and Repubs. And look at what a fantastic job they've done over the last 100 years all leading up to NOW.

There is a reason that they have locked down the Pres. debates and won't allow third party candidates to participate.
And we all go along with it as a society.

Just think about it for a minute by stepping back and mentally disassociating yourselves from your Democrat party loyalties.
Don't YOU want to bring ALL the troops home from occupying other countries?
Don't YOU want to see an end to the war on drugs and the imprisoning of more of our citizens than any other country on Earth?
Don't YOU want to see women have the ability to make decisions for their own bodies?
Don't YOU want to be able to make more decisions for YOURSELF without the govt. telling you what to do?
Don't YOU want to be able to work in the adult industry without having to worry every day that your door could be kicked in, you could be "raided" and have all your computer files destroyed by "accident" by the cops while your bank accounts are frozen?

Just think about it for a minute.
Do you want freedom? Or do you like things just the way they are?

I'm here, now leave me alone ok ……..

Sheepishly raises hand.


I man-love you. I would gay-marry the shit out of you. If the government is gracious enough to grant us permission to gay-marry, that is.

First question...I think I know what your definition of "occupying" is...so no.
Second question...No to ending it...I would like to see the strategy changed.
Third question...If you are speaking about abortion...yes.
Fourth question...The question is to expansive for me to answer.
Fifth question...I am retired.
Sixth question...I have freedom.
Seventh question...No I do not like things just the way they are.

AKA: "Sounds Legit"

I have long identified as Libertarian most Americans actually do tend to be more Libertarian than either republican or Democrat but they have been so brainwashed by the "Its a wasted vote" crowd that they just vote against theor own beliefs...its sad really because if everyone who said I would vote Libertarian but its a wasted vote actually voted Libertarian we wouldnt be in many of the messes we are in....even if the libertarian didnt win the numbers of Libertarian votes would pull both parties to adopt more Libertarian ideals.

Sad really but typical....

thunderballs = nuts twisted in panties :2 cents:

Go move to Sudan where there is basically no govt and spout your idiotic shit over there.

My definition of "occupying" is the same one you would have if another govt. had military bases and troops inside of the U.S.A.
How would you think of that? If another country invaded us, beat us in a war...and then just stayed for decades.
THAT is what I call occupying another country.
What would you call it?

Ever think about it from the other countries perspective?

Why would he have to move to Sudan to have the freedoms that our country was originally founded on?

Without the gov there would of been no internet.

http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/b...ibertarian.jpg

I celebrate our common ground... :smokin

:stoned

ADG

I said I thought I knew and I was correct. I would call it having a military base/bases in a country and that is not occupying a country...period...and especially when it is by mutual agreement.

Libertarians live in a fairy tale land..

They always claim they are for doing away with this or that, then they vote right along side Republicans just about every time. This is why everyone looks at them as a joke. They are for the most part inseparable from republicans when it comes time to votes they always vote for the Republican agenda unless it's clear that it won't pass or that their vote won't matter.

Added to this they have pretty much no power to get anything done, because everyone looks at them as the fat kid that gets picked last.. If they weren't in lala land they would just say they were fiscal republicans and try to rejumpstart that movement inside the GOP.

Why would there be "no govt"?

Libertarians just want the govt. to be as inconsequential to your life as is possible while still doing the actual mechanisms of govt.

What is so hard for people to understand about that?

The amount of propaganda that the 2 ruling parties put out about anything that threatens their monopoly is astounding.

Again I say:
Do YOU want Pro-Choice for women?
Do YOU want to bring our troops home and stop invading and interfering with other countries (at a cost of trillions of dollars in overbloated military)?
Do YOU want to stop the "War On Drugs" and the accompanying multi-billion dollar prison industry that shamefully has more or our citizens in prison than any other country on Earth?
Do YOU, as a full grown man...think you should be able to pay and have sex with a woman of legal age?
Do YOU think that you are capable of running your own life?

I think you would answer yes to those questions when you step back and think about it.

Who decided that a bunch of career/lifetime politicians and bureaucrats should tell you that you can't pay a woman to have sex? Who decided that they could tell you that you can't get high on Friday night? Who decided to spend all this money on military while people are sick and starving in our own country?

I'm a full grown man. So are you. Yes, we need the govt. to govern. No, we do not need them to tell me in Las Vegas that I am not allowed to have a liquor drink in a full nude strip club with only adults in it.

It's downright ridiculous what the govt. does. (local, state, and federal)

And I certainly don't need them to tell me that I can't create or watch 2 consenting adults of legal age performing sex acts on a video or picture.

That is bullshit.

There are no Libertarians in Congress or the Senate to vote with Republicans. So how the hell you can make THAT story up that you just told is kind of amazing.

Not one Libertarian in the Federal Govt. and somehow YOU come up with a fairytale about how those non-existant Libertarians are voting. :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

mutual agreement :1orglaugh:1orglaugh

now i know you're having a good time :1orglaugh:1orglaugh

is that mutual agreement before or after the nuclear attack/absolute surrender?

You aren't a Libertarian obviously.

And again I ask YOU...if WE lost a war and the other country never left. And kept military bases in our country because our govt. would be a puppet govt to them...would you say we were being "occupied"?

Or would you be just fine and dandy with say... Chinese troops stationed in your town and flying jets overhead?

:stoned

ADG

and what exactly did I spout?

To the best of my knowledge we do not have any military bases in any country other than by mutual agreement...between the respective governments...which is not an occupation force.

without war there would have been almost nothing that there is now... 500 years of peaceful existence in Switzerland=cuckoo clock, 30 years bloody revolution in Italy=the renaissance :2 cents:

good point

unlike anyone that thinks everyone is equal and we should just get along and share everything equally?

Okay. Whatever you say man.

As I said pretty clearly...when you invade and conquer another country and set up a puppet govt. and that govt. makes a "mutual agreement" I don't think that it really is a true "mutual agreement".

Right now in Germany and Japan they make so much money off of our military being there that they probably no longer want us to go.
But what if they did?

What IF the German chancellor was to demand that the U.S. leave Germany.
Do you think we would just pack up and go home?

I don't.

But it doesn't matter...I'm a Libertarian and I DO think we should LEAVE those countries. I'm tired of seeing our govt. spend all this money on a military that is too big and is not being used for defense anymore.

Nobody has invaded the U.S. since the War Of 1812.
We aren't "defending" ourselves. We are trying to rule the world and boss everybody around.

Nothing I say will lead to you thinking that over and maybe changing your thinking on it.

And nothing you are saying sounds any different than the nationalistic propaganda that is used everyday to convince us that it's cool to keep doing what we do to "defend freedom".

So let's just drop it. We are derailing the thread.

I agree with everything you said here. But I also believe in regulation and don't think the free market is the answer for everything. Look at prisons, we privatized them and now they only take contracts where the states can guarantee 95 percent occupancy which is what causing the growing prison pop we have. They were paying off a judge to send kids of jail for bullshit.
A big reason for the crash was the constant deregulating Wall St, Greenspan said himself he thought they would self regulate.

I dont think there is a simple answer for any of this. Thats why a guy goes in with dark hair as President and comes out an old man.

Tony, I'm not talking about regulation of business either.

Gary Johnson isn't against the kind of gov. regs that you are talking about either.
But he does believe that govt. gets involved in things it should not be involved in.

And no, a "big reason for the crash" was not the deregulation of Wall St.
Stocks and bonds had nothing to do with it.

It was THE HOUSING MARKET crashing. Had nothing to do with Bush's dumb ass. It was Congress over the decades.

Doesn't it seem fucked up to you that we are discussing whether or not a bunch of bureaucrats are giving us too much freedom to do things?
Oh...they didn't "regulate" us enough.
It's kind of fucked up when you think about it.

Not saying that some oversight isn't needed...but it is kind of fucked up to think that we are at a point in society where we feel we are just too damn stupid to do things without the govt. telling us how to do it.

Greenspans words and it did happen because of wall st, mortgages were packaged as securities with bullshit ratings.
"But on Thursday, almost three years after stepping down as chairman of the Federal Reserve, a humbled Mr. Greenspan admitted that he had put too much faith in the self-correcting power of free markets and had failed to anticipate the self-destructive power of wanton mortgage lending.

Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholders’ equity, myself included, are in a state of shocked disbelief,” he told the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/bu...y/24panel.html
I will take another look at Johnsons platform, I sat out the last election it bothered me but there was no one worth voting for.

I was referring to what Wall Street does as far as the Stock Market is concerned. Not what banks did in buying and selling mortgages.

As for what Greenspan says...it doesn't really interest me that much.
As the head of the Federal Reserve he shouldn't ever have been in a "state of disbelief"

If he was, then that is incompetence on his part.

And he had no power over what Congress did for their cronies with the laws and regs of banks anyway.
It was the Housing Market crashing...and the big part of that is because lifetime/career politicians are for sale every day in Washington D.C.

You can't buy a vote that isn't for sale to begin with. :(

That's why I think the Republicans and Democrats need to have their monopoly on power ended.

We just keep voting them in over and over and over and expecting something different will happen. :(

pancho via :2 cents:

Attack on New Mexico[edit]





Ruins of Columbus, New Mexico after being raided by Pancho Villa
On 9 March 1916, General Villa ordered nearly 100 Mexican members of his revolutionary group to make a cross-border attack against Columbus, New Mexico. While some believed the raid was conducted because of the U.S. government's official recognition of the Carranza regime and for the loss of lives in battle due to defective bullets purchased from the United States,[25] it was accepted from a military standpoint that Villa carried out the raid because he needed more military equipment and supplies in order to continue his fight against Carranza.[25] They attacked a detachment of the 13th Cavalry Regiment (United States), burned the town[3] and seized 100 horses and mules and other military supplies.[3] Eighteen Americans and about 80 Villistas were killed.[26][27] There are other attacks in US territory that have been said to be done by Villa, however, none of these attacks were ever confirmed to be performed by Villistas. These unconfirmed attacks are:[28]
1) On 15 May, it is claimed that they attacked Glenn Springs, Texas, killing a civilian and wounding three American soldiers. Two Mexicans were estimated killed.
2) on 15 June, bandits killed four soldiers at San Ygnacio, Texas and wounded 5 soldiers; 6 Mexcians killed.
3) on 31 July, one American soldier and a U.S. customs inspector were killed at Fort Hancock Texas.[29] One American was wounded and three Mexicans were reported killed, plus three Mexicans captured by Mexican government troops. {The two dead Americans included a soldier from the 8th US Cavalry and Customs Inspector Robert Wood}.[30]

Whoa...you're right I missed that one!

We better spend a few more trillion dollars to make sure that 100 Mexicans don't ever "invade" us again.

Hell, we've spent that much just "defending" ourselves against a dozen already dead "terrorists" with box cutters. :(

thx for the link, i read this.

honest question/observation-

according to that wiki, john locke is the the modern day father of libertarianism:

John Locke greatly influenced both libertarianism and the modern world in his writings published before and after the English Revolution of 1688, especially A Letter Concerning Toleration (1667), Two Treatises of Government (1689) and An Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1690).
In the latter he established the basis of liberal political theory: that people's rights existed before government; that the purpose of government is to protect personal and property rights; that people may dissolve governments that do not do so; and that representative government is the best form to protect rights.[70]

then the article continues:

The United States Declaration of Independence was inspired by Locke in its statement: "to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it?"[71]


elsewhere, googling top 5 examples of libertarianism, i come up with articles that claim the usa is a top example of it.
http://libertarianmoney.wordpress.co...arian-country/

wouldn't this suggest that libertarianism doesn't work?

I lean libertarian, but wouldn't consider myself a hardcore libertarian. Some of the more hardliners have some pretty crazy ideas. Personally I am for fiscal responsibility, cutting government spending and spending money wisely. On the social front I think people should be allowed to do pretty much whatever they want so long as they aren't hurting others.

I have no idea about any of it... no real interest in politics... busy just trying to feed the kids etc..

Take a test and find out for yourself:

http://www.politicalcompass.org/test

Im shocked im a social libertarian lol