Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 44

Thread: The reason to Vote Libertarian.

  1. #1
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Battle Creek, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    396

    Post imported post

    Ok...

    One, a vote should be for your principles. I think that many of us find the most familiarity with with the Libertarian Party. If you are not familiar with what they stand for, check it out.

    http://www.lp.org/platform


    Second, a vote for McCain is a long shot. Not saying it can't happen, just not likely...

    However, a vote for Barr actually can do some good. The Libertarian Party gets a real foot into the door if they reach a 5% vote. It becomes much easier to get ballot access, federal election rules kick in, etc.

    I would love to see a real third-party choice one day... This is a chance for it to happen.


    Regardless, however you decide to vote, be sure to do so. Choices are made by the ones who show up.

    Long Live The Republic!

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    If you are seeking a conservative third party then beware, be aware, that the LP maintains its pro-drug plank very similarly to the dominant progressive party.

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Battle Creek, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    396

    Post imported post

    I suppose it depends on what your definition of "conservative" is.


    I consider the idea that government has no right to regulate what I put into MY body a very conservative idea.


  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Battle Creek, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    396

    Post imported post

    mark edward marchiafava wrote:
    If you truly possess libertarian principles, then vote for the only actual libertarian candidate, Chuck Baldwin !!!
    I don't see how anyone with half a brain, who professes to believe in the concept of liberty, could vote for an ex-US attorney with Barr's history of statism.
    The republic is in serious trouble.
    People change.

    For example, I used to support most of the Democratic ideas on social policy, excluding the RTKBA.

    Healthcare, Affirmative Action, etc.

    Then I took the time to study the concept of a truly free society. Where a national government serves a limited role, and people accept individual responsibility for themselves, their families, and their community.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Shenandoah Valley, Virginia
    Posts
    3,806

    Post imported post

    Huh, Bob Barr was on the ticket here in Harrisonburg.
    Why open carry? Because 1911 > 911.

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Battle Creek, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    396

    Post imported post

    Chuck Baldwin is the Constitution Party candidate.

    The Constitution Party is a bit to religious for my personal taste, but that is just me...

    I am a strong supporter of the separation of religion from government. Religion is a personal thing, and should not be used to create oppressive law.


    Edit: ok.....

    I guess the platform has changed? Or I missed something?

    Gotta' back up on the above... There was something I conflicted with, thought it was religion.... Will update again.


    Edit 2: Found it...

    Gambling.... Again, not the government's business to regulate what I do with the money I earn.

    Also, narcotics laws. I don't think the government should be there, either.



  7. #7
    Regular Member IanB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Northern VA
    Posts
    1,896

    Post imported post

    Surely you meant to say "vote Lautenberg" not vote libertarian. I mean c'mon, babar would approve of a Lautenberg vote, wouldn't he?

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Battle Creek, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    396

    Post imported post

    nakedshoplifter wrote:
    Surely you meant to say "vote Lautenberg" not vote libertarian. I mean c'mon, babar would approve of a Lautenberg vote, wouldn't he?
    What the hell are you talking about?

    What does a Democratic Senator and a French elephant have to do with the Libertarian Party?

    I am not saying Barr is the perfect candidate. Barr is not the Libertarian Party. If you want to nit-pick him, fine. You can do that to any candidate. However, I will take him over the other two clowns any day.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    460

    Post imported post

    Barr supported the Lautenburg amendment. Big Deal. If you want a candidate that believes exactly as you do on every issue, RUN YOURSELF.

    Here are the other choices:
    Obama: Marxist
    McCain: Liberal Statist
    Baldwin: Religious nut-case that would rip the establishment clause from the 1st amendment. (Also, isn't on the Arizona ballot, anyway)

    I won't even consider Nader, or any of the other wackos.

    Read the GOA's review on Barr and guns. He has shown excellent ability to learn and grow when shown how his previous views were against the constitution. I read one article that pointed out that while most Congressmen's voting record gets worse as they spend time in Washington, his got MUCH better as he went along. I can identify with him, because like just about everyone else, I wasn't always a Libertarian, either. People learn, and they grow, and that is exactly what has happened, and continues to happen, to Bob Barr.

    In the grand scheme of gun control measures that exist or could exist in this country, the Lautenburg amendment is trivial. As he continues to develop into a better Libertarian, he will eventually come to the realization that NO gun control is consititutional. I have no doubt of that.

    I just can't reconcile with the Constitution party's willingness to use the Federal government as a blunt instrument to push their religious views. It's WRONG, it's absolutely unconstitutional, and it's no different that Barack Obama's plan to use the Federal government to take away my money and give it to someone who didn't work for it. It is extremely important to me that I be allowed to worship who, where when, how and even not to if I want, without the government sticking it's nose in. Thomas Jefferson worked HARD to ensure that for all Americans, and I'll be damned if I let it be destroyed by some religious wing-nut that clains to support the consitution. MANY of the constitution party's views are in direct violation of the establishment clause of the first amendment. I won't allow my country to become a Theocracy, any more than I would allow it to become socialist.

  10. #10
    Regular Member IanB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Northern VA
    Posts
    1,896

    Post imported post

    Phoenixphire wrote:
    What the hell are you talking about?

    What does a Democratic Senator and a French elephant have to do with the Libertarian Party?
    Two words: EPIC FAIL. You need to ask yourself what a Libertarian party candidate and gun bans have to do with each other.


  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Shenandoah Valley, Virginia
    Posts
    3,806

    Post imported post

    Since you keep repeating about something I've never heard of, and have yet to define it....

    http://patricksperry.wordpress.com/2...autenberg-law/
    WHAT DOES THE LAUTENBERG LAW DO?

    The Lautenberg Domestic Confiscation provision was signed into law on September 30, 1996, as section 658 of the Treasury-Postal portion of the omnibus appropriations bill. It adds to the list of “prohibited persons” persons convicted of a “… misdemeanor involving domestic violence.”

    There's plenty of other pertinent info, but FF3 dumps all the formatting when I use the quotes button. It's a good, concise read.
    Why open carry? Because 1911 > 911.

  12. #12
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Battle Creek, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    396

    Post imported post

    nakedshoplifter wrote:
    Phoenixphire wrote:
    What the hell are you talking about?

    What does a Democratic Senator and a French elephant have to do with the Libertarian Party?
    Two words: EPIC FAIL. You need to ask yourself what a Libertarian party candidate and gun bans have to do with each other.
    The real epic fail:

    Just totally ignoring the THIRD SENTENCE OF MY POST.

    Way to selectively quote.

    Dishonestly for the lose.

  13. #13
    Regular Member MetalChris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    SW Ohio
    Posts
    1,215

    Post imported post

    Phoenixphire wrote:
    Dishonestly for the lose.
    But I thought dishonesty WON races...

  14. #14
    Regular Member sraacke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Saint Gabriel, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    1,222

    Post imported post

    Doesn't matter here. While the Green Party, the Independent Part, the La Taxpayers Partyand even the Socialists were able to get on the ballot the Libertarians were unable to file in time. They waited until the last minute,Hurricane Gustav caused them some confusion andthey sued to be able toget on the ballot after the deadline. In the end the court told them,"Tough Tittie" and they were leftwith their d***s flapping in the breeze. It doesn't look good when the "Third Party" can'tget on the ticket.
    President/ Founding Member
    Louisiana Open Carry Awareness League
    www.laopencarry.org

  15. #15
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958

    Post imported post

    'Reckon y'all really Do want a Marxist in the White House. You'll throw your vote away. Hope yer warm fuzzies comfort you, knowing you've done NOTHING to prevent that disasterous possibility. Fools!

  16. #16
    Founder's Club Member Skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Goochland, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    585

    Post imported post

    Sonora Rebel wrote:
    'Reckon y'all really Do want a Marxist in the White House. You'll throw your vote away. Hope yer warm fuzzies comfort you, knowing you've done NOTHING to prevent that disasterous possibility. Fools!
    Exactly. It is not like they won't regulate Libertarian political speech the same they plan to regulate all other conservative political speech

    Apparently now in the eyes of the democrats, political speech is the same as porn and the 1st amendment was never meant to protect political speech in their eyes.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htD_-A7pDhw

    Libertarians, Constitutionalists, Republicans, Conservatives - anyone who is not a total socialist - they are coming after you as surely as the Reds slaughtered the Whites after the Tsar was defeated.

    And then they went and slaughtered those who were not the right kind of Red.

  17. #17
    Regular Member Huck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Evanston, Wyoming, USA
    Posts
    647

    Post imported post

    Sonora Rebel wrote:
    'Reckon y'all really Do want a Marxist in the White House. You'll throw your vote away. Hope yer warm fuzzies comfort you, knowing you've done NOTHING to prevent that disasterous possibility. Fools!
    I agree! McCain's the only candidate that has a chance of beating der Fuhrer Obama. I dont care a whole lot for McCain but he's a much better choice than nObama. If there was ever a case of choosing a lesser evil this is it and nObama's the greater evil.

    I'd like to see a third party candidate win too but it just aint going to happen today.
    "You can teach 'em, but you cant learn 'em."

  18. #18
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Battle Creek, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    396

    Post imported post

    Sonora Rebel wrote:
    'Reckon y'all really Do want a Marxist in the White House. You'll throw your vote away. Hope yer warm fuzzies comfort you, knowing you've done NOTHING to prevent that disasterous possibility. Fools!
    I see.


    So, when it gets down to the nitty-gritty, Sonora, what you are saying is that voting for your principles is a foolish idea.

    Instead, one should roll over, and vote like a good doggy for the candidate that the Republicans or the Democrats tell you to?

    No thanks.

    And, no, I don't want Obama in the White House. And my vote for Bob Barr does not cause that.

    What causes Obama to win the White House is that more people vote for him than vote for Obama, or McCain.

    You sound just like the anti-gun fools. Instead of recognizing that people commit crimes, they blame guns. Instead of recognizing that Obama voters will elect him, you blame Barr voters.

    How about standing up for your principles, and vote for you who think will best serve this country? If you think that is Obama, or McCain, or any other candidate, fine.

    But when you vote for one person not because you support him, but because he has the "best chance" to beat another person, that is just a displacement of responsibility.

  19. #19
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Battle Creek, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    396

    Post imported post

    Huck wrote:
    Sonora Rebel wrote:
    'Reckon y'all really Do want a Marxist in the White House. You'll throw your vote away. Hope yer warm fuzzies comfort you, knowing you've done NOTHING to prevent that disasterous possibility. Fools!
    I agree! McCain's the only candidate that has a chance of beating der Fuhrer Obama. I dont care a whole lot for McCain but he's a much better choice than nObama. If there was ever a case of choosing a lesser evil this is it and nObama's the greater evil.

    I'd like to see a third party candidate win too but it just aint going to happen today.
    See the above post.

  20. #20
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Battle Creek, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    396

    Post imported post

    MetalChris wrote:
    Phoenixphire wrote:
    Dishonestly for the lose.
    But I thought dishonesty WON races...
    Only if we idly stand by, and let those who lie do so without consequence.


    Edit: Grammer

  21. #21
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958

    Post imported post

    Principles schminziples... When yer inna war... you muster all availaible forces to defeat the enemy. This isn't academic rhetoric... it's FACT. I voted for Fred Thomson in the primaries. He lost. McCain ain't my ideal... but he's no commie. Apparently you'd prefer the alternative idiology... 'cause that's what you may get. You cannot always choose your weapons... but the objective remains the same. You've thrown away your best weapon... 'rode awayfrom the battle on yer high horseand refused to fight.

  22. #22
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Battle Creek, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    396

    Post imported post

    "Throwing away my best weapon" would consist of stepping away from those things I believe are best for our nation, and choosing to settle for the lesser of two evils.

    A person has to stand for something. To believe in something. When you are willing to set aside what you stand for, just so you can "win", what were you fighting for in the first damn place?

    You say that I have "rode awayfrom the battle on yer high horseand refused to fight."? I say the exact opposite. I am standing in the middle of the fight, outnumbered and well-aware that I most likely will lose.

    But, I don't care. I had much rather fight the fight I believe in and lose, than fight the fight for something I don't believe in and "win".

    Patrick Henry said it best: "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"

    Nothing else is acceptable.




  23. #23
    Founder's Club Member Skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Goochland, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    585

    Post imported post

    Phoenixphire wrote:

    Patrick Henry said it best: Give me Liberty, or give me Death.

    Nothing else is acceptable.


    Ever put gasoline with ethanol into your car? Ethanol has socialist price support. If you have, you have supported socialism. If you were truly interested in only Liberty or Death, you would not use gasoline with ethanol in it, ever.

    How about your food. Do you produce all your own food? Are you aware of the socialist price supports and subsidies at work in the US agricultural system? Or do you compromise and accept a little socialism so you can eat?



  24. #24
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Battle Creek, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    396

    Post imported post

    Do you really think that my point is that every man should be a rock, an island unto themselves?

    Do you think that Patrick Henry meant that he would starve before purchasing food, if he didn't agree with the source of any food available?

    Or, do you think that he was saying that he would rather die, than be told what to think, what God he could worship, whether he could be taxed without representation?

    Do you truly think that Liberty consists of buying food that is "pure", or gasoline that has no "taint"?

    Do you really want to trivialize the idea of a person choosing to be able to stand up for what they believe in; to bring it down to buying subsidized food? Liberty has nothing to do with your examples. Liberty is being able to express free thought. Liberty is being able to participate in free worship. Liberty is about being willing to stand up for the things you believe in, free of fear.

    Read it again: "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"

    Nothing in there is talking about food, or gasoline, or if trees from a National Forest are being used by private businesses to make paper, or whatever petty example you are talking about.

    His question is: What oppressions are you willing to suffer, so you can be "safe"? What Liberty will you concede, what fundamental principals of a free society will you surrender, in order to find "peace"?

    For him, and me, none. I will always speak my mind. I will always worship what God I choose, or none at all. I will not suffer my principles to be set aside, to please others.

    My vote will always be for the person who I believe has the best interest of this country, and its founding principles of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, at heart.

    My point is yours should be to.

  25. #25
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958

    Post imported post

    Your 'fight' is ineffectual posturing. 'Contributing nothing. It's your vote... like a bullet, thatdoes the work. 'Reminds me of the Campbell's at Culloden.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •