More Democrats Turn on Obama

[Marshall]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

That isn't Marshall speaking.............it is an imposter.

I SEE A LITTLE EXPLANATION IS IN ORDER.....LIBERAL FILTH HAVE THEIR UTOPIA, BUT SO DO LIBERTARIANS......THEY WANT A COUNTRY WITHOUT GOVERNMENT..........CONSERVATI VES DON'T WANT "NO GOVERNMENT"....CONSERVATIVES WANT LIMITED GOVERNMENT....LIMITED TO THE UNEMERATED POWERS AND LIMITED IN SCOPE.....CONSERVATIVES FEEL GOVERNMENT IS A NECESSARY EVIL..........

CONSERVATIVES LIKE CAUTIOUS, MEASURED AND THOUGHT OUT CHANGE....PREFERABLY INCREMENTALLY..........WE LIKE TO KEEP WHAT WORKS AND WORK ON WHAT DOESN'T WORK.......

CuteOldGay WANTS TO THROW THE BABY OUT WITH THE BATHWATER.....HE'S ADVOCATING TOTAL REVOLUTIONARY CHANGE, JUST LIKE THE LIBERAL FILTH........

HIS 3RD PARTY BULLSHIT WILL ONLY GET ODUMBO REELECTED.......HE DOESN'T BELIEVE THE REPUBLICANS ARE BETTER THAN DUMBOCRAPS.....I'LL BE THE FIRST TO ADMIT THE REPUBS ARE BAD, BUT AT LEAST WE CAN USE THEM EVERY NOW AND THEN TO GET OUR CONSERVATIVE AGENDA THROUGH.......NOTICE HOW THE TEA PARTY USES THE REPUBS? HMMMMMMMMMMM.......

I BELIEVE IN WORKING THROUGH THE CURRENT SYSTEM.....THE TEA PARTY EFFECTED A LOT OF POSITIVE CHANGE, ESPECIALLY IN THE 2010 ELECTIONS.......

SO WHIRL, WHAT SAY YOU?

[CuteOldGuy]

Libertarians want LIMITED government, not no government, Arshole. We want to get back to the vision of the Founders, where the main activities of government were to protect the citizen's life, liberty and property from being taken by force or fraud. You can make up your own facts and then shoot them down and then congratulate yourself, but you are wrong. Conservatives want to control the population just as much as the liberals. I believe in Freedom, which is why I am neither liberal or conservative.

And how's that working through the current system going for you? We haven't been a free country on over 100 years. How will changing the makeup on the clowns in power effect any real change? You are supporting a police state. Neither major party is going to change direction, the end result from either one is the same.

[Marshall]

Libertarians want LIMITED government, not no government, Arshole. We want to get back to the vision of the Founders, where the main activities of government were to protect the citizen's life, liberty and property from being taken by force or fraud. You can make up your own facts and then shoot them down and then congratulate yourself, but you are wrong. Conservatives want to control the population just as much as the liberals. I believe in Freedom, which is why I am neither liberal or conservative.

And how's that working through the current system going for you? We haven't been a free country on over 100 years. How will changing the makeup on the clowns in power effect any real change? You are supporting a police state. Neither major party is going to change direction, the end result from either one is the same.

CuteOldGay, Tea Party and Ronald Reagan made a difference..........





Libertarian schools of thought differ over the degree to which the state should be reduced. Anarchists advocate complete elimination of the state. Minarchists advocate a state which is limited to protecting its citizens from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud. Some libertarians go further, such as by supporting minimal public assistance for the poor.[4] Additionally, some schools are supportive of private property rights in the ownership of unappropriated land and natural resources while others reject such private ownership and often support common ownership instead.[5][6][7] Another distinction can be made among libertarians who support private ownership and those that support common ownership of the means of production; the former generally supporting a capitalist economy, the latter a libertarian socialist economic system. In some parts of the world, the term "libertarianism" is synonymous with Left anarchism.[8][9][10]
Libertarians can broadly be characterized as holding four ethical views: consequentialism, deontological theories, contractarianism, and class-struggle normative beliefs. The main divide is between consequentialist libertarianism—which is support for a large degree of "liberty" because it leads to favorable consequences, such as prosperity or efficiency—and deontological libertarianism (also known as "rights-theorist libertarianism," "natural rights libertarianism," or "libertarian moralism"), which is a philosophy based on belief in moral self-ownership and opposition to "initiation of force" and fraud.[citation needed] Others combine a hybrid of consequentialist and deontologist thinking.[11][Full citation needed] Another view, contractarian libertarianism, holds that any legitimate authority of government derives not from the consent of the governed, but from contract or mutual agreement,[12][Full citation needed][13][14][page needed] though this can be seen as reductible to consequentialism or deontologism depending on what grounds contracts are justified. Some Libertarian Socialists with backgrounds influenced by Marxism reject deontological and consequential approaches and use normative class-struggle methodologies rooted in Hegelian thought to justify direct action in pursuit of liberty.[15]

[CuteOldGuy]

The Tea Party was making a difference before the Republicans polluted it. Ronald Reagan expanded government spending and set the stage for the tax mess we currently have. He spoke well, and said a lot of good things, but his actions continued the march to tyranny and against freedom.

[Marshall]

The Tea Party was making a difference before the Republicans polluted it. Ronald Reagan expanded government spending and set the stage for the tax mess we currently have. He spoke well, and said a lot of good things, but his actions continued the march to tyranny and against freedom.

YOU SEE CuteOldGay, IF YOU CAN'T EVEN ACKNOWLEDGE REAGAN'S ACCOMPLISHMENTS, YOU CAN'T BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY......REAGAN HAD A DUMBOCRAP HOUSE AND SENATE FOR 6 OF HIS 8 YEARS.....HE HAD TO COMPROMISE AND SETTLE FOR INCREMENTAL CHANGES AS WELL AS BREAK THE SOVIETS.......

MY POINTS ABOUT INCREMENTAL CHANGE, WORKING INSIDE THE SYSTEM AND THE NON-EXISTENCE OF UTOPIA ARE LOST ON YOU.......

[Iaintliein]

Bullshit.

The only ones who say Libertarians are anarchists are the socons who want their own little "utopia" of government enforced "morality" (as they define it), and the game players who don't give a shit who's elected as long as there's an (R) by their name. This isn't about hero worship. Regan did some things right, did some things wrong, and failed to do some needed things. Remember the first amnesty? And why, during those two years when he had a comparatively free hand didn't he undo what Carter did vis a vie Fanny and the sub-prime mortgages? Why did he leave the department of Education in tact? Why did he lay the foundations for the police state by launching the utterly stupid "War on That Which We Can Not Discuss Here"?

The Libertarian party has some serious problems with their platform, primarily concerning the border. But make no mistake, more people are gravitating to a point of view more in line with Libertarianism (which Regan said was, "the soul of conservatism"), than the socon world view of a police state. Which, by the way, is far, far more similar to the goal of the Marxists than what Libertarians and Constitutionalists are aiming for.

The third party in the future will be the failed GOP if they don't stop trying to invade people's private lives and continue to facilitate more and more government bureaucracy.

[Whirlaway]

I am all for incrementalism; as long as it keeps moving towards the goal of a constitutionally conservative Republic.

[Whirlaway]

Libertarians are uptopists. It is nice to think about but it will never happen.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=utopist

[Iaintliein]

Earth to Whirlaway,
Libertarians want precisely what the Constitution says, not what the socons wish it said. Again, I think the "Libertarian Party" is off base on it's border plank, but otherwise it's closer to the Constitution than the "Constitution Party" that inserts religion into every talking point. And a hell of a lot closer to the Constitution than the republicans who did things like TARP and the "war powers act".

[Marshall]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

I am all for incrementalism; as long as it keeps moving towards the goal of a constitutionally conservative Republic.

AGREE........THE INFORMATION REVOLUTION IS A BLESSING TO CONSERVATIVES.....THE LAME-STREAM MEDIA'S STRANGLE-HOLD ON INFORMATION IS BROKEN AND THE FREE-FLOW OF INFORMATION WILL KEEP IMPROVEMENTS MOVING FORWARD.....AS YOU KNOW, THEY HAVEN'T BEEN MOVING FORWARD, BUT INCREMENTALISM ALSO RECOGNIZES YOU HAVE AN UN-AMERICAN DUMBOCRAP PARTY TO DEAL WITH......CONSERVATISM WILL RULE BECAUSE MOST PEOPLE ARE CONSERVATIVE.......

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

LOL! Hardly. You obviously have no idea what Marxism is. Look it up.

Do you wish the demise of the political system or the USA in Toto

[Whirlaway]

I have all fours firmly footed on terra nova Iaintliein; my comment was about Libertarians as a political philosphy, not the Libertarian Party....you can't take religion out of the Constitution, or the nation.

Originally Posted by Iaintliein

Earth to Whirlaway,
Libertarians want precisely what the Constitution says, not what the socons wish it said. Again, I think the "Libertarian Party" is off base on it's border plank, but otherwise it's closer to the Constitution than the "Constitution Party" that inserts religion into every talking point. And a hell of a lot closer to the Constitution than the republicans who did things like TARP and the "war powers act".

[Iaintliein]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

I have all fours firmly footed on terra nova Iaintliein; my comment was about Libertarians as a political philosphy, not the Libertarian Party....you can't take religion out of the Constitution, or the nation.

There's no need, as the only mention of religion in the Constitution is the establishment clause aside from the use of the term "in the year of our Lord" in the date.

As I said, we want the Constitution to stand as written, not as socons wish it was written.

[Marshall]

Originally Posted by Iaintliein

There's no need, as the only mention of religion in the Constitution is the establishment clause aside from the use of the term "in the year of our Lord" in the date.

As I said, we want the Constitution to stand as written, not as socons wish it was written.

OUR FOUNDING DOCUMENTS SAYS WE ARE ENDOWED BY OUR CREATOR WITH CERTAIN INALIENABLE RIGHTS TO LIFE, LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS......IF THEY WANT TO SAY MY RIGHTS COME FROM GOD, I'M NOT GONNA ARGUE WITH THEM BECAUSE THERE'S NOT A BETTER ALTERNATIVE FOR THE ORIGINATION.....PRETTY FUCKING RELIGIOUS OF THEM.......

[Iaintliein]

Originally Posted by Marshall

OUR FOUNDING DOCUMENTS SAYS WE ARE ENDOWED BY OUR CREATOR WITH CERTAIN INALIENABLE RIGHTS TO LIFE, LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS......IF THEY WANT TO SAY MY RIGHTS COME FROM GOD, I'M NOT GONNA ARGUE WITH THEM BECAUSE THERE'S NOT A BETTER ALTERNATIVE FOR THE ORIGINATION.....PRETTY FUCKING RELIGIOUS OF THEM.......

The Declaration of Independence, which you quote, is not the Constitution and does not carry the weight of law. Of course many of the framers were religious, they wrote a lot about religion, hell, for all I know some of them also wrote nasty limerics, but nothing they wrote carries the weight of law except the Constitution. And there, they left religion where it's supposed to be, out of the federal government.

Nobody cares what you believe vis a vie religion. My point is that hollier than thou do gooders who use the federal government to deprive citizens of liberty for things they think are "immoral" are in no way different than the socialists like Obama. You want to control who marries who, what people eat, drink or smoke, they want to force the whole "brother's keeper" angle by wealth redistribution. Peas in a fucking pod.

Every one of the so called "social issues" existed when the Constitution was written, drugs, abortion, homosexuality etc., yet not a single one is mentioned. Therefore, since the document excludes all rights of the federal government not specifically granted to it, none of this shit is any of the federal government's business.

Remember that "civilian security force" Obama wanted? The socons had already created it, all he had to do was re-task it. DEA and ATF are nothing short of para military thugs ready to do whatever the guy signing the check says. The socons created this mess with a combined budget in excess of $3B. And nothing they do, not one damned thing is covered by the Constitution.

Amen.