Sarah Palin is ready to leave GOP...

[GodFearinGunTotin]

...over immigration. I guess that means she'll not look to the LP then...

Sarah Palin Bashes GOP Establishment Over Immigration, Suggests Leaving Republican Party | TheBlaze.com

 

[jdmack79]

...over immigration. I guess that means she'll not look to the LP then...

Sarah Palin Bashes GOP Establishment Over Immigration, Suggests Leaving Republican Party | TheBlaze.com

Nope. She is far closer to the Democrats than Libertarians with her politics.

 

[mrjarrell]

http://youtu.be/T575Pbo4eWM

Ya'll can have her. We don't want her.

 

[pudly]

Nope. She is far closer to the Democrats than Libertarians with her politics.

Being against the Senate immigration bill (the one that got 100% Democrat support) makes her politics far closer to the Democrats?

 

[Denny347]

 

[Jludo]

Being against the Senate immigration bill (the one that got 100% Democrat support) makes her politics far closer to the Democrats?

Being a pro war statist makes her far closer to the democrats than libertarians.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

The LP's platform supporting the free movement of people across borders makes tgem appear indiscernible from the dems and gop in yet one more area.

 

[jdmack79]

The LP's platform supporting the free movement of people across borders makes tgem appear indiscernible from the dems and gop in yet one more area.

You can come up with as many little areas as you want, but there is one HUGE difference...Liberty.

 

[Jludo]

Though most libertarians recognize you cant have open boarders until you abolish the welfare state.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Though most libertarians recognize you cant have open boarders until you abolish the welfare state.

There's no such disclaimer in their party platform.

 

[Jludo]

There's no such disclaimer in their party platform.

A good thing I didn't make such a claim then isn't it?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

You can come up with as many little areas as you want, but there is one HUGE difference...Liberty.

From what I've read from some of you folks here and your presidential candidate last year, you're quite content contorting the Constitution and using the might of the .gov to impose your version of "liberty" the states and the people.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

A good thing I didn't make such a claim then isn't it?

As long as you're aware of all the positions your party assumes.

 

[Jludo]

From what I've read from some of you folks here and your presidential candidate last year, you're quite content contorting the Constitution and using the might of the .gov to impose your version of "liberty" the states and the people.

Examples?

 

[jdmack79]

Examples?

I really don't understand why he actively cheers for the defeat of a party that pledges to restore or freedom. It's downright ridiculous.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Examples?

I'm not going to call out individual members. Take off your Libertarian blinders and think Constitution when some of them post, you'll see what I'm talking about.

There's the example of Johnson mentioning the fact that gay marriage was protected by the Constitution. Which technically it is under the 9th and 10th amendments--from the federal government. But then again any conceivable form of "marriage" is. But he went on to say something to the effect about using the 14th amendment to force gay marriage acceptance. Which the 14th amendment only provides that all people of the state be treated equally under the laws of that state. And that clearly shows to me, he has a little statist in him too.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.[1]

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I really don't understand why he actively cheers for the defeat of a party that pledges to restore or freedom. It's downright ridiculous.

Like die-hards of every party, you fail to see the inconsistencies and progressiveness in yours.

I think my posts here will support the fact that I'm in agreement with many of the libertarians. I just don't see the LP as the answer.

 

[jdmack79]

Like die-hards of every party, you fail to see the inconsistencies and progressiveness in yours.

You fail to realize or care that it is still the best we have at the moment. There is absolutely no comparison between the motives of republicans, democrats, and libertarians.

 

[Jludo]

I'm not going to call out individual members. Take off your Libertarian blinders and think Constitution when some of them post, you'll see what I'm talking about.

There's the example of Johnson mentioning the fact that gay marriage was protected by the Constitution. Which technically it is under the 9th and 10th amendments--from the federal government. But then again any conceivable form of "marriage" is. But he went on to say something to the effect about using the 14th amendment to force gay marriage acceptance. Which the 14th amendment only provides that all people of the state be treated equally under the laws of that state.

Have anything more substantial than that? Libertarians are pro freedom, that includes gay marriage.
The constitution was shredded long ago by both democrats and republicans. Appealing to it is no more effective than appealing to its principles. That is individual freedom and the rule of law. I believe Spooner was more correct than most people are willing to admit.

 

[Jludo]

Like die-hards of every party, you fail to see the inconsistencies and progressiveness in yours.

I think my posts here will support the fact that I'm in agreement with many of the libertarians. I just don't see the LP as the answer.

Please enlighten us to the answer then, as its surely not republicans or democrats.