The republican party will soon be gone...

[jdmack79]

Again, you're making the mistake of thinking I'm a republican and support the republican party. I don't.

The point is, Tea Party candidates are using the Republican party as a platform to actually get elected, so they can have a real effect on policy.

Even the Libertarian darling Ron Paul used the Republican Party because he knew that the Libertarian Party was a wasted effort with zero chance of electing anyone.

So, you can continue to waste your vote on a failed party, or you can work to get people like Ron Paul elected.

In the meantime, enjoy the welfare/police state your wasted vote has helped bring about.

What you're saying is borderline ridiculous. The tea party is not some pillar of virtue like you make it out to be. Many tea partiers that have been elected are simply folding and voting however their statist republican overlords tell them.

 

[Liberty1911]

What you're saying is borderline ridiculous. The tea party is not some pillar of virtue like you make it out to be. Many tea partiers that have been elected are simply folding and voting however their statist republican overlords tell them.

Yep. Some have. Marco Rubio for instance. Some haven't. Rand Paul, Ted Cruz for example.

The whole system is broken and the only sane people in congress are Tea Party people.

So, what do you want then? I'm confident that throwing away your vote on Libertarian candidates can't be the right answer, so why don't you tell be what your answer is?

 

[jbombelli]

Again, you're making the mistake of thinking I'm a republican and support the republican party. I don't.

The point is, Tea Party candidates are using the Republican party as a platform to actually get elected, so they can have a real effect on policy.

Even the Libertarian darling Ron Paul used the Republican Party because he knew that the Libertarian Party was a wasted effort with zero chance of electing anyone.

So, you can continue to waste your vote on a failed party, or you can work to get people like Ron Paul elected.

In the meantime, enjoy the welfare/police state your wasted vote has helped bring about.

Ron Paul was ineligible for the ballot in Indiana. Any write-in vote for him was not counted. Or I would have voted for him. Ron Paul was a Republican, sure. But the Republican party did everything they could do, complete with rule changes, to lock him out and to prevent people like him from succeeding in the future. And if you're voting for Tea Partiers, you're voting for Republicans. The few Tea Partiers who stuck to their principles have been marginalized and aren't accomplishing anything, either.

At least I can look myself in the mirror and know that my vote, even though it doesn't matter to most people, was the right decision. I voted against the welfare and police state you vote for. You vote between an elephant **** sandwich with mustard and a donkey **** sandwich with mayonnaise, and when you get a **** sandwich you blame the few people like me, who vote for bacon.

 

[steveh_131]

Generally though, the people who scream freedom the loudest, ARE talking about those things.

They think freedom means smoking a joint, then getting an abortion.

When the libertarians start talking about repealing the welfare state, returning power to the states under 10A, then I'll listen to speeches about freedom.

Currently though, all we get are diatribes about legalizing drugs and homosexual marriage.

You've been here all of a couple months, and you've decided that the libertarians here aren't against the welfare state or federal government over-reach?

Have you ever heard the expression 'Preaching to the Choir'? Ranting on INGO against a welfare state is boring. It leads to no interesting discussion and offers nothing to be learned. Because we all agree. And it will ultimately accomplish nothing. Almost nobody here would vote for Obama, why bother posting long diatribes against him?

Most libertarians on INGO like to debate the finer points. The points that make us think. The points that make us challenge our worldview, and sometimes force us to modify it. For example, an argument with Rambone about Martin Luther King Jr. forced me to adjust my opinion of him. Arguing with Fletch and Dross (if I remember correctly) caused me to reconsider my thoughts on capital punishment. It has taken me years, but I have literally zero people convinced that intellectual property is a farce

The fact that I don't bother participating in threads with titles like 'Oblahblah wants to take my money and give it to the black gay muslims' is not evidence that I am pro-Obama or pro-anything else. It is evidence that those threads are boring.

I am pro-states rights. I am anti-welfare state, to an extreme that would probably make you cringe. I am against almost all government involvement in our lives, and my vote reflects that as much as it possibly can. A disagreement on the practical side of how the tyrannical status quo should best be managed is not indicative of support for said tyranny.

 

[Liberty1911]

You've been here all of a couple months, and you've decided that the libertarians here aren't against the welfare state or federal government over-reach?

Have you ever heard the expression 'Preaching to the Choir'? Ranting on INGO against a welfare state is boring. It leads to no interesting discussion and offers nothing to be learned. Because we all agree. And it will ultimately accomplish nothing. Almost nobody here would vote for Obama, why bother posting long diatribes against him?

Most libertarians on INGO like to debate the finer points. The points that make us think. The points that make us challenge our worldview, and sometimes force us to modify it. For example, an argument with Rambone about Martin Luther King Jr. forced me to adjust my opinion of him. Arguing with Fletch and Dross (if I remember correctly) caused me to reconsider my thoughts on capital punishment. It has taken me years, but I have literally zero people convinced that intellectual property is a farce

The fact that I don't bother participating in threads with titles like 'Oblahblah wants to take my money and give it to the black gay muslims' is not evidence that I am pro-Obama or pro-anything else. It is evidence that those threads are boring.

I am pro-states rights. I am anti-welfare state, to an extreme that would probably make you cringe. I am against almost all government involvement in our lives, and my vote reflects that as much as it possibly can. A disagreement on the practical side of how the tyrannical status quo should best be managed is not indicative of support for said tyranny.

Good post, and I think we generally do debate the finer points. And I think we generally agree on most issues.

However, what's odd to me, on the two issues we've clashed about, homosexual marriage and legalization, I don't think the libertarians are being very libertarian. That is to say, you and others espouse as your greatest ideal, that the government should be reduced and diminished in all capacities, but then argue for it's expansion as a matter of pragmatism.

If you really want the government out of the marriage certification business, then I think your argument would be to get government out of it altogether, not expand it to other classes of people.

That would be like saying in 1850 - "I'm opposed to slavery", but then instead of trying to abolish slavery, you say "Well, we'll never get the government out of the slavery business, so if people in free states want to own slaves, then they should be allowed to as well. After all, it's equal protection".

Your arguments about homosexual marriage just aren't consistent with true libertarianism.

 

[danielson]

And this is why the democrats will continue winning everything, and holding all the power.

While their party is made up of different groups with different beliefs, they come together, and unify their forces to attack our party, which meanwhile is TOO BUSY FIGHTING EACH OTHER to pose any kind of threat.

Were all acting like a bunch of bull headed idiots. As long as we keep fighting each other, we will keep watching every liberal agenda come to fruition.

 

[Liberty1911]

Ron Paul was ineligible for the ballot in Indiana. Any write-in vote for him was not counted. Or I would have voted for him. Ron Paul was a Republican, sure. But the Republican party did everything they could do, complete with rule changes, to lock him out and to prevent people like him from succeeding in the future. And if you're voting for Tea Partiers, you're voting for Republicans. The few Tea Partiers who stuck to their principles have been marginalized and aren't accomplishing anything, either.

At least I can look myself in the mirror and know that my vote, even though it doesn't matter to most people, was the right decision. I voted against the welfare and police state you vote for. You vote between an elephant **** sandwich with mustard and a donkey **** sandwich with mayonnaise, and when you get a **** sandwich you blame the few people like me, who vote for bacon.

It's funny that you can't see that a vote for Ron Paul as a republican is the same as voting for a Tea Party candidate as a republican. Any Tea Party republicans that turn will lose my support. The marginalization of the ones who stuck to their principles is the same thing that happened to Ron Paul, again a direct parallel that you seem to be missing. These are the Tea Party candidates that I support.

 

[jbombelli]

It's funny that you can't see that a vote for Ron Paul as a republican is the same as voting for a Tea Party candidate as a republican. Any Tea Party republicans that turn will lose my support. The marginalization of the ones who stuck to their principles is the same thing that happened to Ron Paul, again a direct parallel that you seem to be missing. These are the Tea Party candidates that I support.

Exactly why I no longer vote for people with an (R) after their name, no matter what they pretend to be. Ron Paul ran as a Republican so he could get on the ballot. Nothing more. He took everybody's advice to fight his battle from within the Republican Party (you know, try to change it from within, like so many Republicans harp about), and got shut out as a result. And the GOP changed their rules regarding primaries so they could never be embarrassed by someone like him again.

A Republican by any other name smells just as bad. One day hopefully you'll wake up and see (smell) that.

Most Tea Party Republicans voted for NDAA, by the way.

 

[steveh_131]

However, what's odd to me, on the two issues we've clashed about, homosexual marriage and legalization, I don't think the libertarians are being very libertarian. That is to say, you and others espouse as your greatest ideal, that the government should be reduced and diminished in all capacities, but then argue for it's expansion as a matter of pragmatism.

Then we disagree primarily on the definition of government expansion.

You apparently measure it by how many marriage certificates get mailed out. But this has absolutely no practical implications in my life, or in yours.

I think a more valid indicator is how many 'moral' issues the government gets involved in. The government is already involved in certifying marriages. I'd love to change that. But as long as that remains in existence, the government distinguishing between a 'moral' marriage and an 'immoral' marriage is not something I'd like to see. It is a dangerous and slippery slope. Beyond that, I don't really care how many people get a piece of paper from the government that says they are married.

 

[Liberty1911]

Then we disagree primarily on the definition of government expansion.

You apparently measure it by how many marriage certificates get mailed out. But this has absolutely no practical implications in my life, or in yours.

I think a more valid indicator is how many 'moral' issues the government gets involved in. The government is already involved in certifying marriages. I'd love to change that. But as long as that remains in existence, the government distinguishing between a 'moral' marriage and an 'immoral' marriage is not something I'd like to see. It is a dangerous and slippery slope. Beyond that, I don't really care how many people get a piece of paper from the government that says they are married.

If then you think the government shouldn't make a distinction between moral and immoral marriages, what definition of marriage should the government use so that they can issue their certificates?

 

[SERparacord]

Republicans should go away. Till they learn to be Americans and not just a party. That goes for both sides of the aisle.

 

[ziggy]

Battle for control of the (R) party. Going 3rd party is unlikely to get us anywhere. The Rinos act like they own the R party but the do not. We have to take control back.
Constitution party - yea! Libertarian party - yea! But how many people have they elected to office? Getting control of the republican party is more likely to lead to success than going to a third party. That could change, but IMHO as it stands today, taking control of the republican party is more probabal than electing new party candidates.

 

[AtTheMurph]

If the Republican Party were really to disappear, the Democrats would fracture over internal issues.

The GOP will rebrand, and in eight years we'll hear stories about how the Democrat Party is disappearing (heard those during the Reagan years, didn't happen).

I wish I could believe this but it ain't going to happen.

The Dems are nothing more than the Communist Party of America. Don't believe me? Look at who is in all the positions of power and who is being "elected".

The Communists have captured the media, education and the bureaucracy. We live in a communist country now but they haven't changed the name yet. Kids today are taught in school all the hallmarks of communism as being the goals of society, that the greater good is more important than personal liberty.

They are taught not one iota of the civics we learned 40 or 50 yrs ago. Nothing about why this country was founded and the ideals behind it's creation.

They are taught that Marx's 10 pillars of Communism are shared goals of all people only they would never attach Marx's name to it. That's too obvious.

 

[AtTheMurph]

Battle for control of the (R) party. Going 3rd party is unlikely to get us anywhere. The Rinos act like they own the R party but the do not. We have to take control back.
Constitution party - yea! Libertarian party - yea! But how many people have they elected to office? Getting control of the republican party is more likely to lead to success than going to a third party. That could change, but IMHO as it stands today, taking control of the republican party is more probabal than electing new party candidates.

The Libertarians **** me off. If there is one party that would be a majority it is the Libertarians but I suspect that they have been infiltrated. How else to explain the rash of whacky, nutt-jobs they nominate to run for too many positions?

And of course there is a total media blackout whenever a Libertarian other than a whack-job says something. The libertarians have the answer but nobody knows the question.

 

[Classic]

The republican party will soon be gone...

then the Demorats can pass all the gun control they want.

 

[ziggy]

I went to a Libertarian party meeting one time. It was full of self-important people wanting others to treat them as important because they thought of themselves as important even though most of you would consider them just a little whacky and as no more important than your are. I cannot say that this is representative of the entire Libertarian Party, but it was enough to keep me from going back. I do not believe the Libertarians can save us and I believe there is a good reason the party has never taken off even though many of us would agree with many of their ideas. That reason is because the party lacks strong, effective leadership. At least that was my impression based on my limitled observation.

 

[danielson]

I went to a Libertarian party meeting one time. It was full of self-important people wanting others to treat them as important because they thought of themselves as important even though most of you would consider them just a little whacky and as no more important than your are. I cannot say that this is representative of the entire Libertarian Party, but it was enough to keep me from going back. I do not believe the Libertarians can save us and I believe there is a good reason the party has never taken off even though many of us would agree with many of their ideas. That reason is because the party lacks strong, effective leadership. At least that was my impression based on my limitled observation.

Ive worked in several libertarian homes, and the ones I saw were EXACTLY like your description. That kind of feeling of self importance is a trait they share with the liberal's whos homes Ive worked in.

The republican party is still very working class, thats why I relate to it. But, look around. The working class person is not respected nowadays, and neither is their party. Were all seen as a bunch of gun crazy rednecks who are stupid and inferior.

 

[mydoghasfleas]

Battle for control of the (R) party. Going 3rd party is unlikely to get us anywhere. The Rinos act like they own the R party but the do not. We have to take control back.
Constitution party - yea! Libertarian party - yea! But how many people have they elected to office? Getting control of the republican party is more likely to lead to success than going to a third party. That could change, but IMHO as it stands today, taking control of the republican party is more probabal than electing new party candidates.

What would you recomend as the best way to "take control back"?

#1 Keep voting for whomever they offer up (because we cant let the democrats win)

#2 Writing them letters letting them know about how upset you are.

#3 Wait until next election and vote for the next McRomneyBush just to give the republican party a little more time to get themselves strait. (Rome wasnt built in a day after all, plus we cant let the dems win)

#4 Vote elsewhere or even not at all, costing them seats.

Which one do you believe will have the greatest effect?

We are all being manipulated by both parties to slowly loose our soverengty. Looking for answers from one of the parties is kinda like suffering from Stockholm syndrome.

They make up the election rules, which kinda gives their 2 party system an edge. About the FEC

Do you want republicans to adapt to you, or will you adapt to them instead?
If you keep voting for them while pinching your nose, which one of these scenarios are true?

 

[Mos Eisley]

Ive worked in several libertarian homes, and the ones I saw were EXACTLY like your description. That kind of feeling of self importance is a trait they share with the liberal's whos homes Ive worked in.

The republican party is still very working class, thats why I relate to it. But, look around. The working class person is not respected nowadays, and neither is their party. Were all seen as a bunch of gun crazy rednecks who are stupid and inferior.

I've honestly never seen the Republican party referred to as the party of the working class, until your post. Republicans are widely viewed as the party of the rich, although I suppose that "rich" is a matter of perspective. A working class guy who makes $30 an hour might seem rich to the guy who flips burgers. Republicans have certainly been the party of conservatism in the past, but this does not necessarily correlate with "working class."

 

[danielson]

Are you rich? how many people here are rich?

I am aware of the "belief" that the republican party is for the rich.

But the reality is, most of the common folk. The middle class, the upper lower class, the rural people from farms and factories, they are CONSERVATIVE by nature. The only party wich is supposedly conservative, are republicans, and thus, most of those people are republican. Now if you want to talk about where all the money is, lets see. DAMN NEAR ALL of the owners of big business, all the actors, they are all liberal.

Whos the party of the rich again?