The reason to Vote Libertarian.

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!

imported post

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.

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.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

imported post

Huh, Bob Barr was on the ticket here in Harrisonburg.

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.

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?

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?

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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?

Click to expand...

Two words: EPIC FAIL. You need to ask yourself what a Libertarian party candidate and gun bans have to do with each other.

imported post

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

http://patricksperry.wordpress.com/2006/08/06/the-lautenberg-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.”

Click to expand...

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.

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?

Click to expand...

Two words: EPIC FAIL. You need to ask yourself what a Libertarian party candidate and gun bans have to do with each other.

Click to expand...

The real epic fail:

Just totally ignoring the THIRD SENTENCE OF MY POST.

Way to selectively quote.

Dishonestly for the lose.

imported post

Phoenixphire wrote:

Dishonestly for the lose.

Click to expand...

But I thought dishonesty WON races...

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.

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!

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!

Click to expand...

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.

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!

Click to expand...

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.

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!

Click to expand...

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.

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!

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

See the above post.