Libertarians issue warning to Tea Partiers Which do the tea partiers hate more ?

[88GT]

you certainly don't get unit cohesiveness and esprit de corps

Thanks. Those were the phrases I was looking for.

Keep voting in ***clowns like Coats & Ellsworth and you won't even have a border left to defend. We are bankrupt! We can't have a guy who lobbied for Cap & Trade, and we can't have a guy who voted for Socialized Medicine.

Have you checked the Libertarian position on borders lately? Securing them by all possible means isn't exactly high on their list of to-dos if they ever occupied the White House.

 

[ATOMonkey]

The world works off of incentives.

Let's look at a couple of incentives at play involving illegal border crossing, using the Socratic method.

Let's start out with the $64k question.

Why do people cross the border illegally?

There is something across the border that they want that is worth the risk of illegally crossing.

What is it that people want across the border?

Well, a couple of things. Work. Illegal Drugs. Free medical care, welfare, and education.

We'll tackle them in order.

Why do people cross the border for work?

People in the US are willing to employ them at a rate that is better than they were receiving. Is this a bad thing? No, I don't think so. It lowers the cost of production, and all downward pressure on prices and wages benefit society. Our current minimum wage laws prohibit hiring US citizen at the market wage, so we're effectively putting our own people out of work. How do we fix this? Remove minimum wage laws.

Why can't people find work in their own country even though we've "sent all our jobs to Mexico" ? The drug cartels control much of the government which is corrupt. How do we fix this? See below.

Illegal Drugs - People cross the southern border to sell illegal drugs, because it is illegal for companies to sell drugs in the US. That means there is a $200B market with no competition or regulation. How do we fix this? Remove all drug laws. The increased competition will put most cartels out of the work. The ones that remain will be legitimized and will no longer need to use force to stay in business. The exact same thing that happened with prohibition.

Social freebies - well, I think this is self explanatory.

In all instances, government is the cause of illegal border crossing. What makes us think that government would be the solution to illegal border crossing?

 

[rhino]

Just in case, I should remind us that not all libertarians are Libertarians (the political party), nor do all support the party's positions on all issues.

 

[Fletch]

I disagree with the LP's attempts to bring people "into the fold" as it were. That's one reason I'm not a member. Libertarianism is not about group-think, and attempting to compete with Republicans and Democrats in the group-think arena is about like trying to beat the house in Vegas. You might win a few hands, but chances are you're going to get cleaned out.

 

[Joe Williams]

Special Forces and Special Operations Forces are boots on the ground. The best and most effective boots we have to deal with insurgent wars in fact. When coordinated with other clandestine operations that can effectively communicate with the locals you get a winning strategy.

The big army is good for fighting countries, not random people with a vendetta.

You fail to understand the purpose and limitations of Special Forces, and the nature of our enemy.

Further, you fail when it comes to reading the Constitution. The section you sited does not prohibit standing armies.

 

[Security122]

The good in all of this, is at least we all still care enough to speak our mind (and are allowed to do so) for what we believe to be the best for this great country moving forward. I see it from another angle. When power and money are involved who can be trusted? Sure a new person my have the intent to "change things", but once elected and the promise of that golden ticket is laid in front of you, people change.

I believe we can all agree on one thing regardless of party seperations. We need alot of Mr. Smiths right now and to get rid of all the Mr. Paines.

Finally something I can openly agree with! Actually, I have agreed with several of the previous posts, I'm just not revealing which ones.

 

[ATOMonkey]

You fail to understand the purpose and limitations of Special Forces, and the nature of our enemy.

Further, you fail when it comes to reading the Constitution. The section you sited does not prohibit standing armies.

Fascinating. I am intrigued by your post and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

 

[rambone]

Have you checked the Libertarian position on borders lately? Securing them by all possible means isn't exactly high on their list of to-dos if they ever occupied the White House.

And the R's & D's have done exactly what about it? Each taking their turn granting mass amnesty?

I don't know who exactly has the money to pay for this Great Wall of America anyways. And what decade was it when the Federal Government last funded a project that worked as promised?

The only way the Feds will ever secure the borders is when things are getting so chaotic that American citizens are trying to flee the country.

 

[mrjarrell]

The only way the Feds will ever secure the borders is when things are getting so chaotic that American citizens are trying to flee the country.

They already steal massive amounts of your money when you try to flee the USSA. That's a barrier to many who would choose to leave.

 

[Ogre]

Fascinating. I am intrigued by your post and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

 

[photoshooter]

The section you sited does not prohibit standing armies.

Those pesky 9th and 10th amendments don't mean anything any more. Why would they limit the power of the federal govt to only that which is contained in the official Constitution for the United States.

 

[Joe Williams]

Those pesky 9th and 10th amendments don't mean anything any more. Why would they limit the power of the federal govt to only that which is contained in the official Constitution for the United States.

Show me the quote from either of those articles that prohibits standing armies.

 

[CombatVet]

Those pesky 9th and 10th amendments don't mean anything any more. Why would they limit the power of the federal govt to only that which is contained in the official Constitution for the United States.

Are you sure you're not getting confused with the Articles of Confederation? the 9th and 10th amendments are about Unenumerated Rights and Powers of the States and the People. I'm not trying to be a dick, just trying to find what you're talking about. I'm a Political Science student after all.

 

[photoshooter]

Really? All this time I thought the Marine Corps was born at Tun Tavern in Philadelphia on November 10, 1775, which predates the revolution, the Continental Army, and the navy. Oh, and the Marine Corps has been in continuous service since then. Kinda shoots that whole no standing Army thing.

I'll have to let the Marine historian know they've been giving bad scoop for about 235 years.

United States Marine Corps. A Department of the Navy. The Men's Department.

I was in err... and will now set the record straight. I had forgotten about the Tun Tavern, and the quasi-war with France under Adams.

The Continental Marines were indeed begun in the Tun Tavern. Their official existence came about by an act of the Continental Congress on November 10, 1775. They served through the War for Independence until they were disbanded in 1783. However, individual marines remained on active duty aboard naval ships under the command of the Navy.

This is where the confusion usually lies: the Corps was disbanded, but individual marines were allow to remain serving within the Navy. They were moved under command of the Continental Navy and the Captains of the ships they served on.

The US Marine Corps came into existence on 1798 via an act of Congress under President Adams for service in the Quasi-War with France. Even though the corps was not re-created until Congress acted in 1798, enlistment of individual marines was occurring in 1797 under the act to provide a Naval Armament (March 1794) again under command of the US Navy.

If I'm reading this correctly, Congress granted the authority in 1794 for the navy to recruit marines (basically snipers for their ships to take out opposing ship's officers and gunners) to staff upcoming ships.

THEN, in 1797, in preparation for a potential war with France, the Navy begins recruiting such individuals. Finally, Congress acts in 1798 to create (remember, it was technically a different US Govt in 1775 - Continental Congress instead of the 1798 US Congress) The US Marine Corps.

This creates a technical gap in the history of the Corps from 1783 to 1794 (some would say 1798). But, the actual birth of the Marine Corps is regarded as 10 Nov 1775 - disregarding the 10 to 14 year gap in it's history - which is similar in the tradition of the British and Netherlands Royal marines which also have gaps in their history.

Since the Quasi-War never amounted to much in the way of Action, the US Marine's first major action since their (re)activation was under President Jefferson against the Barbary Pirates.

For the record, the Commandant of the Marine Corps reports to the Secretary of the Navy, just as the Chief of Naval Operations does.

Hopefully I've cleared things up, and made amends to all Marines that I may inadvertently insulted through my mangling of the facts. Just like the guys on Mythbusters, I don't want to make any Marine Snipers mad at me!

Please return to the regularly scheduled bashing of the Libertarian Party.

 

[NordicHeathenVinlander]

RSB would've had my vote hands down,until I recently learned of the traitious support to give illegals work visa's and her willingness to compromise America's future with the likes of a vice such as homosexuality.


Vote lost, RSB.


To the point, I see no single decent cannidate to be elected in Indiana. WTF, Hoosiers? Cant we put up someone decent? Who wont compromise? Who will defend America?
Next vote, should be to remove every elected official and blast they're butts off to the moon, exactly where they're logic resides.

 

[awatarius]

I will join you in this!!!

 

[Lucas156]

RSB would've had my vote hands down,until I recently learned of the traitious support to give illegals work visa's and her willingness to compromise America's future with the likes of a vice such as homosexuality.


Vote lost, RSB.


To the point, I see no single decent cannidate to be elected in Indiana. WTF, Hoosiers? Cant we put up someone decent? Who wont compromise? Who will defend America?
Next vote, should be to remove every elected official and blast they're butts off to the moon, exactly where they're logic resides.

The truth is most likely no one will agree with everything that a candidate believes in. The problem lies in the fact that we never have enough options. You can choose-crap, crap or.....crap. Not very good choices IMO

 

[Pocketman]

... To the point, I see no single decent cannidate to be elected in Indiana. WTF, Hoosiers? Cant we put up someone decent? Who wont compromise? Who will defend America?
Next vote, should be to remove every elected official and blast they're butts off to the moon, exactly where they're logic resides.

Not more than 10 minutes ago my wife and I had this same discussion.

 

[dross]

Yes, I'm so pure there's no one I can vote for.

If no one is ever good enough, you're actually making an argument AGAINST representative government. Think about it.

 

[Joe Williams]

Yes, I'm so pure there's no one I can vote for.

If no one is ever good enough, you're actually making an argument AGAINST representative government. Think about it.

It's not been a matter of "no one good enough" until the last couple elections. I held my nose and voted for McCain last election because he added Palin to the ticket. And he wasn't bin Obama.

This election? I'm just flat out disgusted with two of the three candidates, and disagree quite heavily on a number of issues important to me with the remaining candidate. Who, at what could be a golden moment for third party candidates, hasn't managed to get her name out to the voters in any case.

In the Senate race, for the first time since I've started voting, there's not a person on the ticket I want to vote for. I honestly don't know what I'm going to do, and that is REALLY unusual for me this close to an election. In fact, it's another first.