Who should you support in the primaries

[Trollbait]

Oh please, you are hardly King Shit of Libertarians to pass judgement on any of us. You seem to think it's just another branch of the Republicans apparently. Maybe if it were the Old School Repubs, but that is hardly the case anymore. Many of us so-called libertarians are mostly concerned about our personal liberties - which have been vastly unprotected, and in fact raped by the current administration. This president is absolutely in opposition to libertarian principals with regard to personal liberties. He is socially intolerant. Ron Paul is also not a great proponent of personal liberties, so I hardly think he's our MUST VOTE for candidate.

Remember...the dog that yelps is the one who got hit....

Sniping aside...if you answered the questions of the quiz with as any libertarian would answer them (That is to say with a "live and let live" philosophy) then Ron Paul comes out at the top of the list. That is not even arguable.

I did not claim you had to vote for the man in order to be libertarian.

I am simply saying that if you are claiming to be a libertarian on this board then you must have answered the quiz questions in a libertarian manner and if so then Ron Paul would be at the top of your list. If he is not then you may wish to re examine your politics and consider changing what you call yourself.

[Mukik]

I just want fair taxes (consumption) with the govt using the shit for something other than someone's business needs. maybe I should move to aus..

[Harlowe]

That's your standard response any time you get taken to task for your bombastic claims. I'm just sick to death of your attitude as if you are the libertarian know-it-all, come to think of it, you claim to have personal experience with like every topic that comes up rather than argue a point philosophically. You do this all the time.

It's like a petulant child. I don't see Democrats going "well if you don't think this then you aren't reeeeally a Democrat" or Republican's doing that either. Like Tim, I don't consider myself a big "L" libertarian anyway, but it most closely touches on what is important to me so that is what I consider myself. I don't consistently vote with any party. Your constant sniping about what we should be and how we should vote is fucking childish. LIke you are insecure about your own position and need to have everyone that labels themself libertarian to fit into your concept of it.

It's like telling someone they aren't Christian enough to call themselves a Christian. It's bullshit.

Sorry, but Ron Paul is hardly "live and let live". He might have come out high on my list, but he's not someone I would in reality vote for.

[Garrdor]

Dodd 32.0

[Ddrak]

I differed with Ron Paul (and the classic "libertarian model") in a few notable cases:

i) Iraq. I think his "GTFO right the hell now" policy is flawed. Sure, it's nice to be right in hindsight that the whole Iraq thing was a bad idea in the beginning (at least the way it was "planned"), but pulling out right away isn't going to help things either. I am still in favor of splitting the region into separate entities and letting those fall whichever way they go, with strong US support for whichever ones request it and are willing to put political capital behind it.

ii) Health Care. I do believe it is the responsibility of a collective government to provide for a basic level of health care. How that is done is an interesting question, but I advocate a system where the government pays a fixed fee for essential services and the gap between the fixed fee and the actual cost is the patient's responsibility. This would be available to everyone regardless of income.

iii) Education. I support some form of voucher system, but like heath care I believe it's in society's best interests for a government to offer education. Without an educated public, the basic principles of a democratic system cannot exist.


I think a lot of the issues with Paul are false dichotomies as well, where he's voting "No" for a completely different reason to the typical "No" answer, and a reason that while noble isn't entirely practical given the political climate. For example:

a) Privatization of SS. Paul votes "no" because he disagrees with SS entirely. Removing the option of disagreeing with SS, a libertarian would vote "yes".

b) Stem Cell Research. Paul votes "no" because he opposes government funding, but the question was framed as an ethical one and not a funding one. A libertarian would say that stem cell research should be permitted, but private investment is preferred to government funding.

c) Abortion. The survey gets Paul wrong - he's pro-choice at a federal level but anti-abortion on an ethical level, which is perfectly reasonable for a libertarian. The correct libertarian response is that this is a personal ethical issue and not one the federal government should be involved in.


In all, I think it's a poor survey for a libertarian as it's designed to distinguish between the two major party platforms and not a third position.

Dd

[Trollbait]

LOL,

Harlowe has gone completely off her rocker.

Nice little tantrum there, toots.

[Lurker]

Hardly.

You do use the 'dog that yelps' line a lot when a comment you make gets challenged, and then you, to use your word, start yelping. You might not understand how message boards work if you feel the need to pat yourself on the back every time someone responds to one of your comments, and nobody throws a hissy fit (OMG you called me a denier and hurt my feelings!) quite as well as you do.

[Trollbait]

And here is Lurker right on cue. lol


You two should get a room.

But for the love of God, Lurker, put away your cavaliers shield and take off your shining armor before plying your damsel in distress with your "charms" Someone could get damaged otherwise

I haven't seen posters here rush to each others defense so fast since Select and what'shisface were dating

[Garrdor]

You do use the 'dog that yelps' line a lot when a comment you make gets challenged, and then you, to use your word, start yelping. You might not understand how message boards work if you feel the need to pat yourself on the back every time someone responds to one of your comments, and nobody throws a hissy fit (OMG you called me a denier and hurt my feelings!) quite as well as you do.

[Select]

You might not understand how message boards work

WTF is the rulebook?!

[Embar Angylwrath]

I consider myself a libertarian, however, I don't think the "poll" accurately captures and weighs data in a way that makes it any more reliable than some "Is your Zodiac Sign Compatible With Your Lover" type quiz found in People magazine.

The questions were loaded, biased and out of context. It also didn't allow for splits within the libertarian party (notably along the death penalty and abortion). Those are HUGE issues that divide libertarians. Its also quite useless to assign any person to a libertarian position who aligns themselves in a 2-party system. If a person is pursuing a Republican nomination, he or she is going to add planks to their platform that appeals most to the party demographics.

Give me a candidate that registers and runs as a libertarian.. actually, give me two, so I have choice. And personally, I'm all for abolishing a "party" system, and moving forward towards a parliamentary system, where coalitions have to be built and maintained.

But that's a discussion for another day...

[Trollbait]

Embar,

You are fucking it up for everyone with actual analysis.

Stop it.

[Partha]

Give me a candidate that registers and runs as a libertarian.. actually, give me two, so I have choice.

Actually, we can do that. Generally, though, it's not called an 'election', but 'gang warfare'.

Just be sure and hang your stuff on the left side. That's the Crip side.

[Trollbait]

Ron Paul is also not a great proponent of personal liberties, so I hardly think he's our MUST VOTE for candidate.

Perhaps you should educate yourself before you go off at the mouth.

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/priva ... l-liberty/

The biggest threat to your privacy is the government. We must drastically limit the ability of government to collect and store data regarding citizens’ personal matters.

We must stop the move toward a national ID card system. All states are preparing to issue new driver’s licenses embedded with “standard identifier” data — a national ID. A national ID with new tracking technologies means we’re heading into an Orwellian world of no privacy. I voted against the Real ID Act in March of 2005.

To date, the privacy focus has been on identity theft. It was Congress that created this danger by mandating use of the standard identifier (currently your SSN) in the private sector. For example, banks use SSNs as customer account identifiers because the government requires it.

We must also protect medical privacy. Right now, you’re vulnerable. Under so-called “medical privacy protection” rules, insurance companies and other entities have access to your personal medical information.

Financial privacy? Right now depositing $10,000 or more in cash in your local bank account will generate a federally-mandated report to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network at the United States Department of the Treasury.

And then there’s the so-called Patriot Act. As originally proposed, it:

Expanded the federal government's ability to use wiretaps without judicial oversight;
Allowed nationwide search warrants non-specific to any given location, nor subject to any local judicial oversight;
Made it far easier for the government to monitor private internet usage;
Authorized “sneak and peek” warrants enabling federal authorities to search a person’s home, office, or personal property without that person’s knowledge; and
Required libraries and bookstores to turn over records of books read by their patrons.
I have fought this fight for many years. I sponsored a bill to overturn the Patriot Act and have won some victories, but today the threat to your liberty and privacy is very real. We need leadership at the top that will prevent Washington from centralizing power and private data about our lives.

He voted against the Patriot Act and spoke VERY strongly on the House floor against it. I would argue that Ron paul is the strongest proponent of civil liberties running for President.

I would like to see a nice old school Republican

Well...if you had actually taken the time to look at Ron Paul's positions and voting record you would find that he is a "nice old school Republican" advocating fiscal responsibility even in his own affairs.

As a Congressman he voted against every Congressional pay raise and returned a portion of his Congressional Office Budget to the Treasury every year.

As an OB/GYN he refused to accept Medicaid or Medicare from his patients and instead worked pro-bono or on a reduced payment plan. In his own words he "took care of them".

I don't consider myself a big "L" libertarian anyway

That is good because neither does Ron Paul

When I read up on Ron Paul I said to myself "now here is a man who walks the walk".

Privatization of SS. Paul votes "no" because he disagrees with SS entirely. Removing the option of disagreeing with SS, a libertarian would vote "yes".

According to his own site that is not true at all. He does NOT disagree with SS entirely. In point of fact he wants to save it.

Our nation’s promise to its seniors, once considered a sacred trust, has become little more than a tool for politicians to scare retirees while robbing them of their promised benefits. Today, the Social Security system is broke and broken.

Those in the system are seeing their benefits dwindle due to higher taxes, increasing inflation, and irresponsible public spending.

The proposed solutions, ranging from lower benefits to higher taxes to increasing the age of eligibility, are NOT solutions; they are betrayals.

Imposing any tax on Social Security benefits is unfair and illogical. In Congress, I have introduced the Senior Citizens Tax Elimination Act (H.R. 191), which repeals ALL taxes on Social Security benefits, to eliminate political theft of our seniors’ income and raise their standard of living.

Solvency is the key to keeping our promise to our seniors, and I have introduced the Social Security Preservation Act (H.R. 219) to ensure that money paid into the system is only used for Social Security.

It is fundamentally unfair to give benefits to anyone who has not paid into the system. The Social Security for Americans Only Act (H.R. 190) ends the drain on Social Security caused by illegal aliens seeking the fruits of your labor.

We must also address the desire of younger workers to save and invest on their own. We should cut payroll taxes and give workers the opportunity to seek better returns in the private market.

Excessive government spending has created the insolvency crisis in Social Security. We must significantly reduce spending so that our nation can keep its promise to our seniors.

After taking this poll and finding him at the top of my list I have read and researched to find out what this guy is about. This guy is the real deal.

When you read his bio you discover that he came from very humble beginnings and knows what it is like to work for a living.

[Partha]

Wonder how Jecks can support a guy whose newsletter read:

"By far the most powerful lobby in Washington of the bad sort is the Israeli government and that the goal of the Zionist movement is to stifle criticism."

[Trollbait]

I know that I said I would ignore Partha and I apologize for breaking that vow but I cannot allow his blatant dishonesty and attempted swiftboating to stand unchallenged. Ron Paul did not write the newsletter and has taken moral responsibility for the contents.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/22/magaz ... wanted=all

In the 1996 general election, Paul’s Democratic opponent Lefty Morris held a press conference to air several shocking quotes from a newsletter that Paul published during his decade away from Washington. Passages described the black male population of Washington as “semi-criminal or entirely criminal” and stated that “by far the most powerful lobby in Washington of the bad sort is the Israeli government.” Morris noted that a Canadian neo-Nazi Web site had listed Paul’s newsletter as a laudably “racialist” publication.

Paul survived these revelations. He later explained that he had not written the passages himself — quite believably, since the style diverges widely from his own. But his response to the accusations was not transparent. When Morris called on him to release the rest of his newsletters, he would not. He remains touchy about it. “Even the fact that you’re asking this question infers, ‘Oh, you’re an anti-Semite,’ ” he told me in June. Actually, it doesn’t. Paul was in Congress when Israel bombed Iraq’s Osirak nuclear plant in 1981 and — unlike the United Nations and the Reagan administration — defended its right to do so. He says Saudi Arabia has an influence on Washington equal to Israel’s. His votes against support for Israel follow quite naturally from his opposition to all foreign aid. There is no sign that they reflect any special animus against the Jewish state.

http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=41822

Ron Paul Race Smear Erased?
Tuesday, May 22, 2007 - FreeMarketNews.com

Internet information claiming that presidential candidate Ron Paul (R-TX) is a racist – and made derogatory comments about African Americans - has been making the rounds within the blogosphere. But sources close to the editorial group that published the newsletter (or newsletters) that supposedly carried the comments claim that Ron Paul never had anything to do with them, and wasn’t even aware of them.

These sources say that editorial operation in question was a fairly large one, and profitable for its time - focused in large part on measures that one could take to generate a lifestyle independent of government influence and intervention.

The publication, or publications, comprised a business venture to which Ron Paul lent his name. Headquarters were “60 miles away” from Ron Paul’s personal Texas offices. At the time that the publications were being disseminated, primarily in the 1980s, Ron Paul was involved in numerous activities including Libertarian politics. He eventually ran for U.S. president as a Libertarian.

“This was a big operation,” says one source. “And Ron Paul was a busy man. He was doctor, a politician and free-market commentator. A publication had to go out at a certain time and Ron Paul often was not around to oversee the lay out, printing or mailing. Many times he did not participate in the composition, either.”

This source and others add that publications utilized guest writers and editors on a regular basis. Often these guest writers and editors would write a “Ron Paul” column, under which the derogatory comments might have been issued.

Says one source, “Ron Paul didn’t know about those comments, or know they were written under his name until much later when they were brought to his attention. There were several issues that went out with comments that he would not ordinarily make. He was angry when he saw them.”

Ron Paul has said that he did not write the comments in question, but, nonetheless, has taken "moral" responsibility for them.

An excerpt from an apparent interview with Texas Monthly as quoted on the blog Everything2.com clarifies the above information as follows:

"In spite of calls from Gary Bledsoe, the president of the Texas State Conference of the NAACP, and other civil rights leaders for an apology for such obvious racial typecasting, Paul stood his ground. He said only that his remarks about Barbara Jordan related to her stands on affirmative action and that his written comments about blacks were in the context of 'current events and statistical reports of the time.' He denied any racist intent. What made the statements in the publication even more puzzling was that, in four terms as a U. S. congressman and one presidential race, Paul had never uttered anything remotely like this.

"When I ask him why, he pauses for a moment, then says, 'I could never say this in the campaign, but those words weren't really written by me. It wasn't my language at all. Other people help me with my newsletter as I travel around. I think the one on Barbara Jordan was the saddest thing, because Barbara and I served together and actually she was a delightful lady.' ...

"His reasons for keeping this a secret are harder to understand: 'They were never my words, but I had some moral responsibility for them . . . I actually really wanted to try to explain that it doesn't come from me directly, but they campaign aides said that's too confusing. "It appeared in your letter and your name was on that letter and therefore you have to live with it." ' It is a measure of his stubbornness, determination, and ultimately his contrarian nature that, until this surprising volte-face in our interview, he had never shared this secret. It seems, in retrospect, that it would have been far, far easier to have told the truth at the time."

The operative sentence in the above would seem to be: “What made the statements in the publication even more puzzling was that, in four terms as a U. S. congressman and one presidential race, Paul had never uttered anything remotely like this.” The remarks may well have been seen as out of character because they were not written by Ron Paul, and he had no knowledge of them and no input into their composition, even though he eventually took responsibility for them.

Adds a source aware of the current tempest over these remarks, “Anybody who claims that Ron Paul made the comments in question is deliberately mis-stating what occurred to make political points. It is a measure of [his opponents] desperation that they are dredging this up again. Anybody who reads all that he has written – and there’s lots of it – could see that right away.”

You are a scumbag, Partha. And you proved it once again.

[Klast Brell]

So why won't he release the newsletters?

[Harlowe]

Why is someone stating their opinion "running off at the mouth". You start off with your finger shaking and name-calling and it's really hard to have an open discussion with you. Seriously dude, you resort to calling Partha a "scumbag"? I mean come on...

I have no doubt Ron Paul may meet the criteria fiscally, but for me that is only half the picture. I've read a bit on Ron Paul and he doesn't seem to be very open with regard to personal liberties. I'll dig deeper of course over the next year, but right off the bat that guy is prolife & anti-gay marriage which I don't think bode well for personal choice. I don't care if a candidate isn't gung-ho about legalizing gay marriage, but I do care if they are gung-ho about creating laws against it.

With that said, I wouldn't write off any candidate at this time, so I'm keeping an open mind about him. Although he's near the top of my list (according to OH SO accurate online testing), I have some reservations about him on the social front.

[Trollbait]

Why is someone stating their opinion "running off at the mouth".

Because you did not state it as opinion you stated it as fact. And you were wrong. That is the definition of running off at the mouth.

Seriously dude, you resort to calling Partha a "scumbag"? I mean come on...

I did not "resort" to anything. Anyone who posts something that deliberately misleading is obviously a scumbag. I simply pointed that out.

I've read a bit on Ron Paul and he doesn't seem to be very open with regard to personal liberties.

Don't lie to me. You have either been reading anti Ron Paul propaganda or you have not read anything. His stances on personal liberties are well established.

but right off the bat that guy is prolife & anti-gay marriage

Wrong again. While he is PERSONALLY Pro-Life he says it should be up to the individual states and not the federal government. That happens to be my stance as well. If you feel your personal liberties are not served by your local and state government then you have the freedom to make choices.

His stance is similar with regards to gay marriage. He is PERSONALLY against recognizing gay marriage but he is even more against a Constitutional Marriage Amendment outlawing gay marriage. He feels that it should be up to the states and that the federal government should stay out of it.

From a personal liberties standpoint he is right on both counts.

I don't care if a candidate isn't gung-ho about legalizing gay marriage, but I do care if they are gung-ho about creating laws against it.

He is definitely AGAINST creating federal law banning gay marriage or forcing states to accept gay marriage. His support for the Marriage Protection Act is in line with that belief.

For example if Florida passed a law recognizing same sex marriage there is nothing in the Marriage Protection Act which prevents that. What it does is protect the rights of the citizens of Georgia to to not have the laws of Florida imposed on them without their electoral consent.

Therefore, while I am sympathetic to those who feel only a constitutional amendment will sufficiently address this issue, I respectfully disagree. I also am concerned that the proposed amendment, by telling the individual states how their state constitutions are to be interpreted, is a major usurpation of the states’ power. The division of power between the federal government and the states is one of the virtues of the American political system. Altering that balance endangers self-government and individual liberty. However, if federal judges wrongly interfere and attempt to compel a state to recognize the marriage licenses of another state, that would be the proper time for me to consider new legislative or constitutional approaches.

Conservatives in particular should be leery of anything that increases federal power, since centralized government power is traditionally the enemy of conservative values. I agree with the assessment of former Congressman Bob Barr, who authored the Defense of Marriage Act:

“The very fact that the FMA [Federal Marriage Amendment] was introduced said that conservatives believed it was okay to amend the Constitution to take power from the states and give it to Washington. That is hardly a basic principle of conservatism as we used to know it. It is entirely likely the left will boomerang that assertion into a future proposed amendment that would weaken gun rights or mandate income redistribution."

<snip>

Ironically, liberal social engineers who wish to use federal government power to redefine marriage will be able to point to the constitutional marriage amendment as proof that the definition of marriage is indeed a federal matter! I am unwilling either to cede to federal courts the authority to redefine marriage, or to deny a state’s ability to preserve the traditional definition of marriage. Instead, I believe it is time for Congress and state legislatures to reassert their authority by refusing to enforce judicial usurpations of power.

In contrast to a constitutional amendment, the Marriage Protection Act requires only a majority vote of both houses of Congress and the president’s signature to become law. The bill already has passed the House of Representatives; at least 51 senators would vote for it; and the president would sign this legislation given his commitment to protecting the traditional definition of marriage. Therefore, those who believe Congress needs to take immediate action to protect marriage this year should focus on passing the Marriage Protection Act.

Because of the dangers to liberty and traditional values posed by the unexpected consequences of amending the Constitution to strip power from the states and the people and further empower Washington, I cannot in good conscience support the marriage amendment to the United States Constitution. Instead, I plan to continue working to enact the Marriage Protection Act and protect each state’s right not to be forced to recognize a same sex marriage

Personally I could give two shits about whether gay people get married. It does not bother me in the slightest and I would vote for any state law that recognized gay marriage.

On top of all that with the Patriot Act and Executive Branch power grabs you think gay marriage and abortion would be the least of your worries and as far as those types of civil liberties issues goes Ron Paul is without question on the side of liberty.

[Harlowe]

Partha is the only one that tosses around propaganda eh?