Posted on 10/17/2012 9:20:50 AM PDT by GraceG
The one that that stood out for me was the fact that even in the RNC primary we had at least 1 or 2 Libertarian questions a debate from the "peanut gallery". We never even got ONE question like:
"What do you think the role of the Federal Government should be?"
"What percentage of taxes on ANYONE is too much?"
"If the question in tax policy is fairness, and the same percentage of a tax being mathmatically fair, why isn't a FLAT TAX an option in your opinion?"
"We talk about the war on terror, what about the war on drugs and it's failure?"
"At what point if the government telling us what to eat going to far?"
Nothing, of cource "Candy Cruller" did nothing but pick questions that were left leaning...
Granted I am a small L libertarian conservative, but no good questions about the PHILOSOPHY of government, of course someone put it in good contaxt today that all the "undecided" voters at the debate were nothing more than mere liberals that were pissed off Obana didn't go far enough LEFT in his first term....
Probably because that "tiny percentage" of people makes up more than 10 percent of the electorate, and in battleground states right now the percentage of voters responding to polls who say they will vote for a 3rd party libertarian candidate is larger than the difference between the two leading candidates. If only the "tiny percentage" of people who consider themselves hard core libertarian all voted for Mitt Romney, he'd pick up quite a few states. If Mitt Romney can't capture the broader group of liberty oriented voters he'll lose to President Obama.
Successful Republican candidates know that they must get the support of the liberty oriented voters, and they usually do, even without much effort due to the statist nature of the Democratic party. But in a close election getting the votes of the liberty oriented voters is essential to any conservative or Republican victory.
I have seen no evidence that Libertarians understand the Constitution at all.
There is a huge difference in these candidates.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Heh heh. As I see it, libertarians hide behind the constitution as they push their pro-dope agenda.
When reminded that marijuana laws and issues with no-knock raids are local and state issues, they call you a nanny-stater and generally make fools of themseelves as they align themselves with Ron Paul, Barney Frank and other such losers.
Oh... You are one of those... Ok, I will be sure to use small words then.
Both Romney and Obama have clear records of thinking government is the cure for any particular problem. This is false. 5000+ years of human history proves this out time and again.
Libertarians think that whole Article 1 Section 8 thing isn't being adhered to. Neither is that whole Bill of Rights thing. They are pretty much the ONLY group talking about paring back our collective State and Federal governments to fit back within those limits...
Still with me? A few of those words have more than three vowels in them so I want to be sure your eyes haven't glazed over in incomprehension. Incomprehension; means you don't understand.
Obama wants more gun control. Romney has passed more gun control than Obama and thought it was a "good thing".
Obama wants more government spending. Romney wants to restructure government taxation so they can keep spending.
Obama wants more government control over certain areas of your life. Romney wants control over other areas of your life.
Both apparently think government is the answer to producing more private sector jobs despite the fact that this is never the case. Unless you think Solyndra and Konarka Technologies are examples of "winning" companies.
A real contrast would be someone who wanted to repeal all gun laws that infringe on mere possession and carry of any armament.
A real contrast would be someone who not only doesn't want government subsidies going to businesses, they don't want the government engaging in ANY activity that falls outside of Art 1 Sec 8 or that is expressly prohibited by the Bill of Rights.
A real contrast would be someone who doesn't want to make "government work right"... A real contrast would be someone who wants to make government do the absolute letter of what it is supposed to do and not one jot more...
Of course, that isn't what you are interested in. You are stuck in a "Big Two Party"/"Us versus Them" mindset and anything that falls outside that isn't worth consideration.
Consideration; means to think about it.
Tough job for you... I know. But give it a try some time.
Reigning in multi-trillion dollar deficits, stopping the expansion of the various levels of government into every aspect of our lives in complete contravention of every Founding principle?
Nope. Just pass the wacky-tabacky and we'll be set...
:-\
It’s more than your pro-dope agenda that sets libertarians apart from the crowd as weird Ron Paul-Occupier types.
I use the pro-dope agenda you guys have because it’s a passion of yours. You people are obsessed by it.
But be that as it may, there are still a great deal of other reasons to smirk at you liberals. Look at your (lack of) leader/heroes. Look at the damage you’ve done to the TEA Party. Look at how the Ron Paul/Mitt Romeny alliance drove away real conservatives like Cain, Newt, Bachmann, Palin and Perry earlier this year.
And the whole theme of this thread whining about why there were no libertarian questions at last night’s debate? Priceless!
Face it. You losertarians are inconsequential in American politics.
Nope. My main obsession these days is the growing police State and the Jupiter sized debt load our various levels of government are raking up.
Once again, "it's the freedom, stupid."
Damage to the TEA Party? How so? We're (those of us who do more than just give lip service to the various TEA Party groups) fielding more TEA Party backed candidates this election cycle than ever before. And winning... It was RINO insiders that torpedoed far superior candidates like Cain and Bachmann. Had less to do with Paul-bots and more to do with it being "Willard's turn".
You losertarians are inconsequential in American politics.
You just keep telling yourself that little RINO... You sure expend a lot of energy trying to convince everyone else. Heck, I'm not even a "L"ibertarian. They even, finally, stopped sending me junk mail. ;-)
Article I, Sec. 8? Could you be a little more vague?
Apparently you know nothing about the 5000 yrs of history. It in NO WAY supports your conclusions.
The “limits” you believe are being ignored are nothing as clear as you think. The common libertarian belief is that the Constitution was written to limit the federal government. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The Constitution was written SPECIFICALLY to greatly EXPAND federal powers. It was also written to greatly limit STATE powers. It was never intended to prevent government from taking necessary and proper actions for the good of the nation.
Read Hamilton’s Essay on the National Bank if you want a clear understanding of constitutionality. As one would expect from our most brilliant founder, it is one of the most brilliant state papers ever written.
Apparently you don’t understand WHY the 2d amendment is in the constitution, so I will help you out. It was put in the constitution to reassure STATES that their militias would not be disarmed. Not to protect the home or control criminals but to maintain the armed forces of the STATES. Read the damned thing.
There is no parliamentarian form of government here that would make a Turd Party viable or important. So we have a two party system LIKE IT OR NOT. We have a Turd Party, a Fourth Party and even a Tenth party. Add them all together and they don’t amount to a bucket of warm piss and never will.
“Heh heh. As I see it, libertarians hide behind the constitution as they push their pro-dope agenda.”
And that is their BEST feature.
Should there have been Green questions, Marxist questions and Fascist questions for “intellectual honesty” as well?
Art 6 and the Tenth Amendment frown upon your fallacious statement...
"For the good of the Nation"... Now you sound just like a Democrat. What you Socialists fail to understand is that there can be no common good if the Individual Good isn't recognized and protected.
You even managed the old liberal canard of the Second Amendment being about a "State Right" to a Militia rather than protecting an individual Right to arms...
Those interests were already represented by the Two candidates present. More Marxists and Fascists would have only been redundant...
In the eyes of the elites,”liberty”, as you quaintly call it, is no longer an issue of interest to the public, and the Parties certainly aren’t interested.
The Founders worded it more elegantly “...promote the General Welfare...” nothing radical here.
I only take the document for what it says. “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Hence, the justification for the amendment is clearly stated to be “the security of a free State...” Does this say that the right of an INDIVIDUAL shall not be infringed? No, it does not. It refers to the right of the PEOPLE. Note I did not make up “militia” the amendment itself brings it up, not me.
Article 6, now?
The tenth amendment has been the ugly stepchild in Constitutional law and no one really knows what it means.
Tires go on cars, the Right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Trees are a source of wood, the Right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
You fail at understanding the difference between a Prefatory clause verses an Operative clause.
Grammatic study of the Second Amendment
You are just a typical liberal...
Ignored by central planning Socialists in both Parties to further the expansion of the government.
But you knew that. You just aren't honest enough to admit it.
I am unaware that Sowell claims to be a Libertarian rather than a conservative.
Have YOU read “Money and Credit”?
Rothbard is an economist not a political scientist.
If you believe the People do not have the right to disarm criminals, the mentally ill or the too young you are a fool.
What your idiotic pronouncement means is that "gun control is ok because all of you gun owners are criminals and we can punish you without a trial".
Or did you fail Logic 101 along with American History?
There are no “socialists” in the GOP.
Obviously the 10th amendment has had no impact on fed/state relations. Is this my desire? Not particularly but I don’t trust the states anymore than the feds particularly since their legislatures are hot beds of idiocy. Perhaps it will enter into constitutional law in the future but so for it has not. No shyster lawyer has come up with a way to make money suing under its auspices.
In fact, it was largely to protect private property from the states that the constitution was called for and written.
Libertarians would never see the need for a constitution in any case, it would be far too restrictive for their fantasies.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.