• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

The reason to Vote Libertarian.

Sonora Rebel

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2008
Messages
3,956
Location
Gone
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.
 

Phoenixphire

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2008
Messages
396
Location
Battle Creek, Michigan, USA
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.
 

Skeptic

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2007
Messages
585
Location
Goochland, Virginia, USA
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?
 

Phoenixphire

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2008
Messages
396
Location
Battle Creek, Michigan, USA
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.
 

Sonora Rebel

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2008
Messages
3,956
Location
Gone
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.
 

Skeptic

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2007
Messages
585
Location
Goochland, Virginia, USA
imported post

Phoenixphire wrote:
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.
You are willing to suffer the regulation of our food economy and pay higher prices than we should have to for food. That is certainly a form of oppression. Food is life. At least for most humans.

I am willing to take a tactical retreat rather than to charge headlong at the enemy with grenades in a suicide charge without hope of success.

I know with the overly powerful government we have now, we cannot be safe. but we will be at severe peril when a man who allows himself to be called MESSIAH and has worshipers has the tools of a corrupt state at the beck and call of he and his worshipers.

The democrats consider political speech to be equivalent to pornography now. We will NOT have free speech in a very short period of time.

If I had had a choice to vote against FDR and vote for the meddling tinkerer Herbert hoover, rather than be saddled with decades of socialist policies, with the theft of America's gold and with insane socialist government policies that wer are still stuck with today, I would have gladly voted for Hoover. Were I given the choice to vote SPD to defeat the Nazis, I would have voted SPD.

Yeah I am just one of those crazies who would prefer a President who has been marinated in Marxist ideology and mentorships throughout his life not come to power , with a throng of worshipful followers who base their entire existance upon his commands behind him.
 

Huck

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2008
Messages
646
Location
Evanston, Wyoming, USA
imported post

I'm sure most, if not all of you, have voted by now. To put this in a nutshell if nObama wins and is screwing us over a year or two from now you people who voted for third party candidatesbetter not snivil about it because you threw away your chance to help keep the cull out of the white House!

I dont like the 2 parties either and would love to see someone who dos'nt have a (R) or (D) after their name as POTUS but I damn suresee someone with a (R) as preferable to nObama. Maybe in '12 we'll have a better chance to elect a third party, assuming that nObama and the democrap domintated Congress dos't do like mayer Bloomberg and the NYC city councel and extend the terms in office. And I would'nt put it past them to try it.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
imported post

Phoenixphire wrote:
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.
Conservative = classically liberal

The anti-prohibition plank of the LP is very conservative.

At any rate, I guess we can thank Bush and the rest of the GOP for the rather unfortunate results today. Nothing to turn people away in mass numbers like a little Bush, eh?
 

Panos1296

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2008
Messages
78
Location
Charlotte, North Carolina, USA
imported post

Continually voting for the "R" for a purely defensive vote perpetuates the 2 party system. Both parties suck massively. I havent voted for a "R" or "D" in a long time and I didnt start this year either. The lesser of 2 evils is still evil.

Disclaimer: I am not counting Ron Paul as an "R" although that is exactly what he is. I dont look at the badge, I look at the issues. Looking at the issues, Dr. Paul is a libertarian. I voted forhim in the primary and Iwrote him inlast Tuesday.

And to all those whosay voting 3rd party is throwing your vote away: As it turns out, a vote for McCain was also a thrown away vote.And in the long run, it only keeps the next "R"candidate in power to run 4 years from now. If the LP or another party gotsome 5% or soof the popular vote, that would putthe candidate in more debates and more press coverage.
 

Overtaxed

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
221
Location
, ,
imported post

Panos1296 wrote:
Continually voting for the "R" for a purely defensive vote perpetuates the 2 party system...
And to all those who say voting 3rd party is throwing your vote away:  As it turns out, a vote for McCain was also a thrown away vote. 

I could hardly have said it better. I've always felt that when you step up to the ballot box, that is your opportunity to vote for "the person you want to hold that office" not "the lesser of two evils" or "one of the two people the Dem-Repub. duopoly have anointed."
 

Panos1296

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2008
Messages
78
Location
Charlotte, North Carolina, USA
imported post

Logically speaking, the enemy of your enemy is your friend.

However, the Dems and the Repubs are not enemies. They are co-conspirators in the maintenance of the 2 party system. They alwayswork together and pass more laws making it more and more difficult for 3rd parties. Thats why Ron Paul always said he wouldnt run as an independent or 3rd party, he pretty much concluded it would be a waste of time.
 

Flintlock

Regular Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
1,224
Location
Alaska, USA
imported post

Huck wrote:
I'm sure most, if not all of you, have voted by now. To put this in a nutshell if nObama wins and is screwing us over a year or two from now you people who voted for third party candidatesbetter not snivil about it because you threw away your chance to help keep the cull out of the white House!

It's a nutshell alright... I find it interesting how people always like to put the blame where it doesn't belong, instead of focusing on the garbage candidates out there that there are to choose from.

All the third-party candidates combined received under 2 million votes and less than 2% of the total vote in the nation. Obama won by 8 million votes and by 7 or8 percentage points. I am sorry, but McCain is going to have to accept responsibility for his defeat and I think his supporters should do so as well.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/president/allcandidates/

I voted for Chuck Baldwin. Despite that, McCain won my state61% to 35%. So you can't blame me or anyone else for what occured on Tuesday. McCain did it to himself and the republicans have been in a state of deteriorationfor the last 25 years (the last 8 more specifically). They got throttled and they deserved it.
 

Panos1296

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2008
Messages
78
Location
Charlotte, North Carolina, USA
imported post

Exactly right.

And the outcome was done when the Repubs nominated McCain. He never had ANY shot, especially against the cult of personality of Obama. People are in love with this man for some reason. They go to his speeches and cry. I dont understand it.
 

Phoenixphire

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2008
Messages
396
Location
Battle Creek, Michigan, USA
imported post

Panos1296 wrote:
Exactly right.

And the outcome was done when the Repubs nominated McCain. He never had ANY shot, especially against the cult of personality of Obama. People are in love with this man for some reason. They go to his speeches and cry. I dont understand it.

Zombies.

Don't believe me?

Listen carefully....


(Hoooooppeee... Chhhhhaaaaaaaannnngggeeee.... HHHOOOOOPPPPEEEEE....)

*very scary*
 

Gator5713

Lone Star Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
591
Location
Aggieland, Texas, USA
imported post

Sadly, the problem isn't so much with the available choices as it is with the uneducated public! I would venture to say that most of the people that voted don't really know what they were voting for! All they knew was that this young black guy spoke soothingly about change and promised that it would be better than it has been... Versus a political vetran that LOOKS like all the other politicians...
We had record voter turnout, and that is good, except that all those votes were essentially 'paid for' by the Obama campaign through 'promises' of greater wealth to the lower incomes... Now already we are being told that the 'sweeping changes' aren't going to take place in the first 'year, or even 2 years...' and that we are likely to be paying more in consumer goods and taxes for a while while we are 'fixing' the economy...
All these people that voted for Obama thinking that he was going to be able to 'fix' our national economy failed to look at Chicago and see that it has one of the (if not THE) worst economys in the country!
I don't think that McCain was the best person for the job, but he was certainly a better choice than Obama. If you truly want to make a difference, start watching NOW for who you want in the house and senate in 2010 and who you want for president in 2012 and start supporting them NOW and start educating the populous NOW! People should know who they want to vote for Months before an election, not 'eenie, meenie, miney, moe' when they are at the poll!
 

bignflnut

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2008
Messages
69
Location
, ,
imported post

Gator5713 wrote:
Sadly, the problem isn't so much with the available choices as it is with the uneducated public! I would venture to say that most of the people that voted don't really know what they were voting for!
What were the top three issues debated in the campaign and where did the candidates stand on those issues?

I contend that there were no issues even discussed seriously in this campaign (as we're about to fall off a financial cliff).

The choices are out there, but (in your best zombie voice) "people must vote two party system. It's the only way to stop the status quo."
 

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,946
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
imported post

bignflnut wrote:
The choices are out there, but (in your best zombie voice) "people must vote two party system. It's the only way to stop the status quo."

The choices are out there, but (in your best zombie voice) "people must vote two party system. It's the only way topreserve the status quo."
 
Top