If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NPR)   Republican college students spell doom for the GOP: Many are leaning Libertarian because the GOP is medieval on social issues, and even those who parrot Fox News talking points admit the party may have lost voters for the next 50 years   (npr.org) divider line 467
    More: Obvious, Fox News, GOP, Republican, talking points, lecture hall, political parties in the United States, students  
•       •       •

3760 clicks; posted to Politics » on 01 Mar 2013 at 11:39 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



467 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-01 05:27:50 PM

Wadded Beef: slayer199: Wadded Beef: It's libertarian obfuscation. "Look, we're happy to give to charities of our choice for society! I just don't want the government to make us do it" translates to "I'm not going to do shiat. Let somebody else contribute. F-you...I got mine." That they bring up everyone having to contribute and pooling funds (re: healthcare) "by gunpoint" is the real culprit in an appeal to emotion.

Ok, using the term by gunpoint was probably not a good choice of words, but the point remains.  The government takes money from one group to give to another by force (or threat of force) is against a principle of individual liberty.  Rather than one individual infringing on another individual's liberty a majority uses the government to do so.

So, in other words, "F-you. I got mine."


So we are trying to decide between "F-you, I got mine" and "F-you, I want yours."
 
2013-03-01 05:31:29 PM

HairBolus: Libertarians - Fiscally conservative


But what the heck is fiscally conservative anyway? I don't think it means anything much,
 
2013-03-01 05:32:30 PM

skullkrusher: if the framework is largely minarchistic people are free to form their own associations, collectives, etc within that framework giving a greater variety of options. It is certainly "freedom enhancing" to have a bare bones socio-political infrastructure within which people can find and/or create groups that are more to their tastes. Just not terribly practical.


Sure, I'm not recommending that as way to structure a society, of course, but for an individual, it's definitely an option.

I met people who had been traveling from country to country and working in the gray economy for 20+ years... They weren't limiting themselves by borders and their only ideology was if they didn't like where they were, they went somewhere else. It's entirely possible to do, if one has the will and the brains to do it.

I wasn't one of those people, at any rate... I was just a kid from a shiatty little mill town in MA, who wanted to travel around and get stoned and laid. Those activities took money, which I didn't have, so I had to work whatever shiatty job I could get. Looking back now as a 41 year old man, with a house, family and career, it was probably the best time in my life. Don't get me wrong, I'm quite happy being a freelance designer/art teacher living back in that same shiatty mill town, but those years opened me up to a lot of things I probably wouldn't have experienced if I stayed put in the States.

Anyway, CSB, I know, but when I hear people biatching about big, intrusive government and how their freedoms are being impeded, I like to offer them a solution.
 
2013-03-01 05:43:35 PM

Snarfangel: Wadded Beef: slayer199: Wadded Beef: It's libertarian obfuscation. "Look, we're happy to give to charities of our choice for society! I just don't want the government to make us do it" translates to "I'm not going to do shiat. Let somebody else contribute. F-you...I got mine." That they bring up everyone having to contribute and pooling funds (re: healthcare) "by gunpoint" is the real culprit in an appeal to emotion.

Ok, using the term by gunpoint was probably not a good choice of words, but the point remains.  The government takes money from one group to give to another by force (or threat of force) is against a principle of individual liberty.  Rather than one individual infringing on another individual's liberty a majority uses the government to do so.

So, in other words, "F-you. I got mine."

So we are trying to decide between "F-you, I got mine" and "F-you, I want yours."


No F-you about it. Want to party it up in the world's VIP Lounge that is America? Go nuts. No one is suggesting that one prevents another from pursuing life, liberty and happiness. Just pay the cover charge.
 
2013-03-01 05:44:09 PM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: I especially love "Well, once you turn 27, you have to pay for that." as an argument against Obamacare.  Because without it, you'd have to pay for that much earlier than 27.


Also, insurance is a win-win idea. I don't see why that's so hard for people to grasp.

Opposing Obamacare is like opposing the rule that everyone drive on the right.Sure it's an arbitrary rule that infringes on my right to drive every which way, and it isn't in the Constitution, but if we didn't have it, we couldn't drive.
 
2013-03-01 05:47:21 PM

hubiestubert: Not that a lot Libertarians are any better. The typical Libertarian candidate today promotes an agenda that is naught but a brand of NeoFeudalism that is even worse than their Republican counterparts.


I wouldn't go quite that far; the Republican counterparts mostly seem to be all aboard with the NeoFeudalism, they just want the role of religion to be as strong as in the last round of Feudalism.

Libertarians seem to lean high-SDO, low-RWA; it's not much of an improvement over GOP double-highs, but it's something.
 
2013-03-01 05:50:36 PM

Snarfangel: Wadded Beef: slayer199: Wadded Beef: It's libertarian obfuscation. "Look, we're happy to give to charities of our choice for society! I just don't want the government to make us do it" translates to "I'm not going to do shiat. Let somebody else contribute. F-you...I got mine." That they bring up everyone having to contribute and pooling funds (re: healthcare) "by gunpoint" is the real culprit in an appeal to emotion.

Ok, using the term by gunpoint was probably not a good choice of words, but the point remains.  The government takes money from one group to give to another by force (or threat of force) is against a principle of individual liberty.  Rather than one individual infringing on another individual's liberty a majority uses the government to do so.

So, in other words, "F-you. I got mine."

So we are trying to decide between "F-you, I got mine" and "F-you, I want yours pay your goddam tab for the services you receive."

 
2013-03-01 06:02:17 PM
Shame on those above who used the reductio ad somalium argument.
 
2013-03-01 06:02:57 PM
I have never met a female Libertarian. Ever.

I am puzzled why this never seems to concern the Libertarians I talk to.
 
2013-03-01 06:04:54 PM
Libertarianism is a phony ideology espoused from positions of comfort. It is an accessory worn by the well-off.
 
2013-03-01 06:06:26 PM

m00: anfrind: The problem isn't the two dominant parties, or even the media conglomerates.  There will never be a viable third party as long as America uses a "Weeners the post" election system, because that system inevitably leads to a state where two parties dominate and supporting a third party only increases the odds that someone from the major party you more disagree with will win (the spoiler effect).

I'm assuming "Weeners the post" means "Winner-takes-all" and you got farked :D

Well, it's not necessarily winner-takes-all that is the problem. It's because every candidate isn't guaranteed to win against every other candidate. There's a mathematical proof for this I could dig up. But basically you want a series of runoffs, that can still produce a single winner, but it means there is no spoiler.

So if there were 3 candidates Alex, Bob, and Charlie... your ticket would be:

(0) v (1)
Alex v Bob
Alex v Charlie
Bob v Charlie

For the ticket to be valid, a voter would have to make a choice in each selection.
Potential outcomes:

0,0,0 - Alex wins
0,0,1 - Alex wins
0,1,0 - runoff
1,0,0 - Bob wins
1,1,0 - bob wins
1,0,1 - runoff
0,1,1 - charlie wins
1,1,1 - charlie wins


Not sure if I misspelled "Weeners" (with an "a", not an "o") or if the filter is being overzealous.  I guess I'll find out...

The math looks good on paper, but the fact is that most people don't like to support a loser, and if a party fails to win elections, most people won't support them no matter how much they agree with their platform.  You might have lots of people who agree with the Green party platform, for example, but the Democratic party is much more likely to win elections, and their platform is close enough to the Green platform that most would-be Green voters will vote Democratic instead.  And even worse, if the number of people still willing to vote Green is too small to force a runoff election, they just make it that much more likely that a major party with an opposed agenda (i.e. the Republican party) will win--which is why in 2004 and 2008 there were Republican PAC's clandestinely supporting Ralph Nader in swing states.

In the end, you end up where we are now: two major parties that dominate at nearly every level of politics, and a bunch of third parties that only appeal to their respective "true believers".  And, no, this isn't some conspiracy of the two major parties (although they'd certainly like to maintain the status quo in this regard); it's an unfortunate side-effect of how elections work in the U.S.  If we had a parliamentary system, or an instant-runoff system (mark your ballot with a first choice, second choice, etc.), things wouldn't necessarily narrow to two large political parties.

/and don't get me started on the ridiculous way in which the U.S. resolves ties in the presidential election...
 
2013-03-01 06:06:46 PM

Satan's Bunny Slippers: welcome to FARK


You'll get no snark from me. (hugs)

I had something similar in my spine that they were able to scoop out without taking too much else. Scary shiat. It sounds like you are getting some good care. Courage.
 
2013-03-01 06:09:02 PM

Dubya's_Coke_Dealer: Snarfangel: Wadded Beef: slayer199: Wadded Beef: It's libertarian obfuscation. "Look, we're happy to give to charities of our choice for society! I just don't want the government to make us do it" translates to "I'm not going to do shiat. Let somebody else contribute. F-you...I got mine." That they bring up everyone having to contribute and pooling funds (re: healthcare) "by gunpoint" is the real culprit in an appeal to emotion.

Ok, using the term by gunpoint was probably not a good choice of words, but the point remains.  The government takes money from one group to give to another by force (or threat of force) is against a principle of individual liberty.  Rather than one individual infringing on another individual's liberty a majority uses the government to do so.

So, in other words, "F-you. I got mine."

So we are trying to decide between "F-you, I got mine" and "F-you, I want yours pay your goddam tab for the services you receive."


That won't fit on a bumper sticker.
 
2013-03-01 06:10:11 PM

anfrind: Not sure if I misspelled "Weeners" (with an "a", not an "o") or if the filter is being overzealous.  I guess I'll find out...


picardfacepalm.com

Really, Drew?
 
2013-03-01 06:10:15 PM

slayer199: Ah, good to see all the Fark libs and conservatives hating on the LP.  Republicans hate us because of our social liberalism and Democrats hate us because of our fiscal conservatism.     Both sides do everything they can to exclude the LP (and the Green Party) from the process.  Why?  Fear.  A party that promotes social liberalism, fiscal conservatism, personal responsibility and smaller government will resonate with voters.


Bull.

Small government resonates right up to the moment you explain that you'll be cutting the part of the government that they happen to like and/or depend upon. No one wants to shrink  those programs. It's only ever the nebulous programs used by "cheats and parasites" that people want cut.

By and large people prefer the reality of having social safety nets, in spite of all the attempts to anger them with talk of welfare queens and what have you. And that makes sense, since if you can prevent someone from falling through the cracks, you have an chance to restoring them to a position of being a productive and contributing member of society. Without those safety nets, those people are simply lost and that represents a loss to the whole.

So yeah, it's easy to get people excited about "fiscal conservatism", right up until the point where they begin to appreciate what, precisely, that entails. Once that epiphany kicks in, the Libertarian message loses a lot of its luster, which is why the party can never get any traction in spite of the fact that every Libertarian insists that the logic of the party is self-evident. 

/ As for "personal responsibility", I think that the word's out that this is basically code for a lack of corporate liability.
 
2013-03-01 06:19:07 PM

m00: Wasteland: I don't believe in inalienable rights at all, frankly.  [...]  So yeah... different (and in my case, admittedly odd) underlying perspective here.

(Having to snip quite a bit of this, we're both getting fairly wordy...)

You know how when sometimes people say "Bob did X, and X is illegal. Therefore he is a criminal and deserves the proscribed punishment."? I have a big problem with this, because absent some higher truth than what government dictates, there is no room for arguing that X shouldn't be illegal, or the punishment shouldn't be as severe as it is, or Bob didn't deserve his fate. It's the same circular logic as "There is nothing wrong with Blanks being slaves, because slavery is legal."

There's no need for any kind of  final arbiter of truth whatsoever, when it comes to making these sorts of changes.  Practical grounds- X shouldn't be illegal because it's relatively harmless, the punishment shouldn't be so severe because it's overcrowding our prisons and costing us too much- are all that's required to start a perfectly valid argument over whether it's time to change the rules.  Hell, a simple consensus of purely emotional opinion is often enough.  Absent some higher standard for the rules themselves, there's also no higher standard to say that you aren't allowed to make changes to them.  Saying that there's no room to do so is to place an artificial limit on the process, for no obvious reason.  There may be limits in place on how you get to go about trying to make those changes...  but again, those are just another subset of the rules themselves.


I think especially in this day and age, when governments are doing all sorts of terrible things that there needs to be some sort of moral truths that we can claim they are violating. Whereas you have a functional perspective, and I can see the merit of this -- but slavery was a very functionally useful institution. How does one end it, absent a concept of inalienable rights?

The way it ended in our own country, here in the real world: enough people decided that its downsides had begun to outweigh the benefits it produced, they eventually decided it was enough of a point to be worth fighting and even killing over in conjunction with related issues, and they then squelched the dissenting opinion through main force.  Inalienable rights didn't free the slaves, and the now ex-slaves didn't suddenly find themselves equal citizens under the law.  God and/or the universe didn't do, or endorse, or support any of that.  Humans did- just as humans enslaved one another and declared some be unequal in the first place.  We, as a society, changed our collective average mind.

We're undergoing a similar process with gay rights, right now.  Was there some great Universal Truth that came shining through, all of a sudden?  Or did enough years of seeing gay men and women living openly, and for the most part seeming just like everyone else, slowly break down the sense of otherness about homosexuality until the most recent generations reached a kind of consensus tipping point?  My money's on the latter.

Throw society into enough chaos, or rattle the consensus of society the right way, and it could all come crashing back down tomorrow.  How many airplanes, do you suppose, would have to hit how many office buildings, in order to convince a controlling majority of Americans that it's time to round up all o' them damn Muzzies and run them out of the country; or just say to hell with it and start shooting them outright?

And if I truly believe that that's a bad idea, and that religious freedom and an open society are much better and nicer things to have, even if it's difficult or uncomfortable sometimes... should I wait around for universal law or angels from on high to tell me I'm right, or just go ahead and try to at least talk down some of my fellow citizens?

It's not always pretty; but as near as I can tell, it does seem to be how things actually work around here.  We have as much justice as we're willing to work at, and in whatever form we're willing to make it, and that's it.  That's all she wrote.
 
2013-03-01 06:21:22 PM
Elvis Presleys Death Throne:

I'm a Junior in college, pay for my school, work for my healthcare, live on my own, have purchased my own means of protection and don't draw from any social services, and I'm a Libertarian but have always hated Republicans. There's a lot of people like me. I don't think you know what you're talking about


I disagree. As someone who has already put themselves through college, I am still able to realize the benefits the United States gave to me as a healthy, white, male.

Your protection is partially paid by me so you can have access to medical, police and fire departments within a reasonable distance.
Your health care is probably the cheapest in the nation as a "healthy, white, male" that is apart of a collective pool.
Your education was when I helped pay for you to go from K-12 grades, with electricity, heating/cooling, technology, food and having other supplies available.
Your infrastructure is the roads, power-lines, Internet, telephone, sewage/water lines and that I help pay.
Your money probably came from a business that requested federal/state grants and/or loans; and additionally has to keep you safe through various regulations like OSHA.

So get off you survivalist soapbox, kiddo.
 
2013-03-01 06:34:31 PM

quickdraw: Satan's Bunny Slippers: welcome to FARK

You'll get no snark from me. (hugs)

I had something similar in my spine that they were able to scoop out without taking too much else. Scary shiat. It sounds like you are getting some good care. Courage.


That's great!  I heartily do NOT recommend keeping it long enough to give it a name.  :)  Thanks for the hug too.  At least Larry doesn't interfere with my drinking.

/and yeah, I I've got some great docs.
 
2013-03-01 06:37:23 PM
All these posts and no Andrew Ryan reference...
fc05.deviantart.net
 
2013-03-01 06:41:45 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: hubiestubert: It wasn't Romney.

In other words you voted for Obama.


Like most of us.
 
2013-03-01 06:48:51 PM

dittybopper: So remind me again why I shouldn't vote libertarian?


Because someday, you will be old and sick.
 
2013-03-01 06:53:28 PM

dittybopper: So remind me again why I shouldn't vote libertarian?


Because most of us would rather live in a first world country.
 
2013-03-01 06:56:11 PM

Rwa2play: Muta: Conservatism, Real Conservatism, is strong in our nation's colleges and universities but the liberal media skewing the polls to make it seem like conservatism isn't strong.  In the 3 years I've been at Liberty University , not once has anyone asked what my political feelings are.  I bet the students at Stanford or the University of Michigan get asked all the time.

Uh, right.  Keep telling yourself that.  Liberty (aka Jerry Falwell U)...right, keep telling yourself that.


Dude.


/obvious troll should be obvious
 
2013-03-01 07:14:04 PM

Via Infinito: Satan's Bunny Slippers:

Blacked out driving home from work.  Was lucky as all fark that I just went straight off the road into a field and rolled, and didn't hit anyone else.  Until that day, I had no idea, no headaches, blurred vision, nothing.

Oh, and to be honest, I'm just dealing.  I have more days than I'd like to admit of wine induced why the fark me crapattitude.

But the cats are less than truly sympathetic, so I give up after a few hours.  :)

That's scary as shiat. I'm really sorry. Do you still have blackouts? Can you still drive?
I'm not going to lie, that situation is all kinds of suck. My heart goes out to you.
Most of us have pity parties when our f*cking jeans get a little tight.
You're absolutely entitled to your "why me?" days since you actually have a good farking reason.

I hope you get plenty of kitty purrs. It's true that cats aren't particularly "sympathetic" but I always seem to feel better when my kitty is purring on me.


WOW! Thank you for the Total Fark! You're far too kind, really. :)
 
2013-03-01 07:30:16 PM

Satan's Bunny Slippers: Via Infinito: Satan's Bunny Slippers:

Blacked out driving home from work.  Was lucky as all fark that I just went straight off the road into a field and rolled, and didn't hit anyone else.  Until that day, I had no idea, no headaches, blurred vision, nothing.

Oh, and to be honest, I'm just dealing.  I have more days than I'd like to admit of wine induced why the fark me crapattitude.

But the cats are less than truly sympathetic, so I give up after a few hours.  :)

That's scary as shiat. I'm really sorry. Do you still have blackouts? Can you still drive?
I'm not going to lie, that situation is all kinds of suck. My heart goes out to you.
Most of us have pity parties when our f*cking jeans get a little tight.
You're absolutely entitled to your "why me?" days since you actually have a good farking reason.

I hope you get plenty of kitty purrs. It's true that cats aren't particularly "sympathetic" but I always seem to feel better when my kitty is purring on me.

WOW! Thank you for the Total Fark! You're far too kind, really. :)


You're very welcome. I'm not magical and I can't reach through the computer and give you hugs or make tumors disappear, but at least I can gift some TF!!
 
2013-03-01 07:32:25 PM

Via Infinito: Satan's Bunny Slippers: 

WOW! Thank you for the Total Fark! You're far too kind, really. :)

You're very welcome. I'm not magical and I can't reach through the computer and give you hugs or make tumors disappear, but at least I can gift some TF!!


And now you can see the Caturday threads before they hit the main page! Kitties FTW!
 
2013-03-01 07:37:04 PM

Snarfangel: Wadded Beef: slayer199: Wadded Beef: It's libertarian obfuscation. "Look, we're happy to give to charities of our choice for society! I just don't want the government to make us do it" translates to "I'm not going to do shiat. Let somebody else contribute. F-you...I got mine." That they bring up everyone having to contribute and pooling funds (re: healthcare) "by gunpoint" is the real culprit in an appeal to emotion.

Ok, using the term by gunpoint was probably not a good choice of words, but the point remains.  The government takes money from one group to give to another by force (or threat of force) is against a principle of individual liberty.  Rather than one individual infringing on another individual's liberty a majority uses the government to do so.

So, in other words, "F-you. I got mine."

So we are trying to decide between "F-you, I got mine" and "F-you, I want yours."


No, we are trying to decide between "F-you, I got mine", and "Here's your bill. Cash or credit?"
 
2013-03-01 07:42:34 PM

Via Infinito: Via Infinito: Satan's Bunny Slippers: 

WOW! Thank you for the Total Fark! You're far too kind, really. :)

You're very welcome. I'm not magical and I can't reach through the computer and give you hugs or make tumors disappear, but at least I can gift some TF!!

And now you can see the Caturday threads before they hit the main page! Kitties FTW!


Awesome. :) I'm currently feeding a stray in addition to my 3. I'll be in early!
 
2013-03-01 09:00:06 PM
www.bitlogic.com
 
2013-03-01 09:09:52 PM

50 years?


2.bp.blogspot.com
media.salon.com
media.salon.com
media.salon.com
www.freewoodpost.com
media.salon.com
media.salon.com
media.salon.com
media.salon.com
watchseries24.com
1.bp.blogspot.com
media.salon.com
media.salon.com
media.salon.com

election.princeton.edu

www.wired.com

50 if it were 1.
 
2013-03-01 09:42:09 PM

El Dudereno: Rwa2play: Muta: Conservatism, Real Conservatism, is strong in our nation's colleges and universities but the liberal media skewing the polls to make it seem like conservatism isn't strong.  In the 3 years I've been at Liberty University , not once has anyone asked what my political feelings are.  I bet the students at Stanford or the University of Michigan get asked all the time.

Uh, right.  Keep telling yourself that.  Liberty (aka Jerry Falwell U)...right, keep telling yourself that.

Dude.


/obvious troll should be obvious


Well yeah...thing is guys like him get bites.
 
2013-03-01 09:52:12 PM

TofuTheAlmighty: The GOP is really caught in a bind. The elite care for nothing but shoveling more money to rich people. They've used racial and cultural resentment and tribalism to scare up votes for 40 years. But demographic changes and the universe's long moral arc are slowly evaporating the majority they once commanded.


That's a beautiful phrase, there.
 
2013-03-01 11:04:51 PM

Some 'Splainin' To Do: Bull.

Small government resonates right up to the moment you explain that you'll be cutting the part of the government that they happen to like and/or depend upon. No one wants to shrink those programs. It's only ever the nebulous programs used by "cheats and parasites" that people want cut.

By and large people prefer the reality of having social safety nets, in spite of all the attempts to anger them with talk of welfare queens and what have you. And that makes sense, since if you can prevent someone from falling through the cracks, you have an chance to restoring them to a position of being a productive and contributing member of society. Without those safety nets, those people are simply lost and that represents a loss to the whole.

So yeah, it's easy to get people excited about "fiscal conservatism", right up until the point where they begin to appreciate what, precisely, that entails. Once that epiphany kicks in, the Libertarian message loses a lot of its luster, which is why the party can never get any traction in spite of the fact that every Libertarian insists that the logic of the party is self-evident.

/ As for "personal responsibility", I think that the word's out that this is basically code for a lack of corporate liability.


I already explained that libertarians are against corporatism and corporations in general for the simple reason that the corporate management is NOT head criminally liable for negligence.  They're willing to take a risk on putting out a dangerous product because even with lawsuits and fines, they'll come out ahead.  We were philosophically against the bailouts (banks and automotive).  I hate the idea that my tax dollars went to bail out businesses with a failing business model because of corporate cronyism.  When libertarians say they're in favor of a laissez-faire economy, that means survival of the fittest...not survival because the government will save your ass when you fail.

Both parties play the corporate game...and the LP doesn't.  That hurts us in the long run.
 
2013-03-01 11:29:34 PM

keylock71: Here's the thing that keeps me from voting for Libertarians.

I do like what a lot of Libertarians say, but there's also a lot of their platform that just strikes me as having a total disregard for those who, for whatever reason, aren't able to "pull themselves up by their boot straps" and "take care of themselves". Their ideology never seems to address that in any detail.

Also, the idea that we can trust the private sector to regulate themselves and not put their own profit over the greater good of the citizens strikes me as extremely naive and ideologically based. We've seen time and time again what happens when the private sector is left to their own devices. The idea that poor people, the disabled and the elderly can be provided for by private sector and the "free market" is also extremely naive... One need only look at how the poor were "cared for" prior to and during the industrial revolution to see the end result of that kind of ideology.

It just strikes me as too ideological... very similar to Communism. They just aren't that concerned with the reality that exists and what to focus on the ideal world they want to create.

My Libertarian friends get all bent out of shape when they can barely managed to get double digit numbers of support for their candidates, but they fail to see that they are the ones who have to convince the voters why they should support the LP. They spout platitudes and ideals, but hardly ever explain how these ideals will be achieved in the real world.

It also doesn't help that half the time "Libertarian" Candidates are either former GOP politicians or complete loons.

My opinion, of course, but I've yet to be convinced by any Libertarian why I should vote for their party or candidates. It's their job to convince me if the want my vote. So far, they haven't.


American Libertarians have the same problems as American Liberal Christians; we're too quiet.

The Santorums and the Pauls, for example, are holding themselves up as representatives of their respective ideologies, at the expense of those of us less ideologically congruent. The onus is on those who dissent to say so. To a lesser extent, the "Noblesse Oblige" or "Rockefeller" Republicans are developing a similar problem.

The Christians at least have those liberal nuns; we (Libertarians) have no real analog, and nobody but ourselves to blame.
 
2013-03-01 11:34:19 PM
the gop is done

republicanism


left libertarian. voluntary charity. co-operatism, mutual aid. not mandated, but instead at the choice of the individual. hide assets to feed your families. localize. is this shiat crazy:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEe_eraFWWs ?

a necessity, build your communities. the national parties are done. go to state county neighborhood. the feds lost once they gave up control of the currency to private banks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewRjZoRtu0Y

there is no reason for discussion. it is done.

love your family, help them live. however you define it.
 
2013-03-01 11:34:35 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: hubiestubert: It wasn't Romney.

In other words you voted for Obama.


It's going to get very lonely for people like you in America, as the rest of the nation slowly pulls its head out of its collective, Reagan-scented ass and leaves you behind.

Not that you'll care much, since you've already "got yours", right?
 
2013-03-01 11:48:27 PM

GAT_00: industrial feudalism


Can you sum up "Industrial Feudalism"? I tried google but just came up with some libertarian nonsense I couldn't follow.
 
2013-03-02 12:04:26 AM
What happened to the good ol' days when college kids joined fringe political cults like LaRouche or Ron Paul? Did their brainwashing camps go bankrupt or something?
 
2013-03-02 12:17:01 AM

knowless: the gop is done

republicanism

left libertarian. voluntary charity. co-operatism, mutual aid. not mandated, but instead at the choice of the individual. hide assets to feed your families. localize. is this shiat crazy:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEe_eraFWWs ?

a necessity, build your communities. the national parties are done. go to state county neighborhood. the feds lost once they gave up control of the currency to private banks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewRjZoRtu0Y

there is no reason for discussion. it is done.

love your family, help them live. however you define it.


left libertarianism is dead from the get go

at least the right libs have a hope.. until it collapses
 
2013-03-02 12:49:44 AM
Yep. The only thing the GOP has going for it is that the democrats are still the democrats.
 
2013-03-02 01:34:35 AM

tripleseven: palelizard: tripleseven: skullkrusher: tripleseven: Oh, yeah, I had another libertarian tell me that he 100% believed that "the poor" should be able to sell their organs.

and you presumably don't think people should be allowed to do this? Someone can volunteer to donate an organ but they cannot be compensated for it?

No, they should not, because it means the organ goes to the highest bidder.  Thereby skewing the recipients based on wealth.

Did you really need that explained to you?

Why should anyone but the donor or the recipient have any say in the matter?  If you want to donate your organs upon death, you can.  If someone else wishes to sell a kidney to pay for college, they should be allowed to as well.

Or do you think everyone should be forced to donate their organs into a shared pool?

Buying an organ from someone because they "need the money" is also exploitative of the less fortunate.
It's not like they're selling a car or a piece of jewelry to make rent or something, it's irreplaceable.
If you cannot see the problem in that, you may be a "libertarian"

Goes along with the "I got mines, fark you" mantra.


it is legal to sell your hair, blood, sperm, or eggs, participate in clinical trials for unapproved pharmaceuticals, carry to term a stranger's baby, and if you know the right people, you can sell your organs.

you can sell your wedding ring, you can empty your kids' college funds, you can sell your prescriptions instead of taking them. you can go to a check-cashing business and pay them money to give you your money. you can stiff a waitress, you can work a triple shift and leave your kids home alone, you can take uppers and drive your 18-wheeler for 24 hours straight.

if you're desperate for money, you WILL submit yourself to some sort of exploitation. organ sales are not, in this regard, unique.

/yep, I'm 8 pages late and reading the whole thread
 
2013-03-02 01:45:11 AM
College Republicans have been claiming to be libertarians for decades.  They parrot preach the drivel gospel of Ayn Rand because they're mindless corporatist drones edgy and courageous lovers of liberty
 
2013-03-02 01:45:52 AM

dittybopper: So remind me again why I shouldn't vote libertarian?


because you're not a corporate shill?
 
2013-03-02 02:02:54 AM

slayer199: A Dark Evil Omen: "Libertarians" are a bunch of authoritarian corporatist gasbags who pay lipservice to social issues as a vote-getting strategy.

Citation please, otherwise, you're just coming off as an ignorant gasbag with zero understanding of the LP.

We're about as anti-authoritarian as you can get without being an anarchist.


He's needs a citation for his own opinion? Riiiiiiight.
 
2013-03-02 06:35:59 AM

winterbraid: American Libertarians have the same problems as American Liberal Christians; we're too quiet.


No offense, but they also seem to share another trait... A certain smugness that their ideology is the only correct path and anyone who doesn't subscribe to it is lost, or blinded by the media, or dependent on the state or any number of criticisms why we haven't seen the light. With Libertarians, it doesn't seem to occur to them that maybe their ideas aren't fully thought out or that their ideas are just not attractive to enough Americans to make them a viable option at the national level. The fault is always with the person you're trying to convince and never the ideology you're peddling.

Like I've said, I've heard nothing from any Libertarian that is convincing enough for me vote for their candidates. I listen to the sales pitch, which consists of a lot of pie in the sky idealism, but then I look at the candidates they put forth. It's either some failed/disgruntled Republican politician or some nut job. Then when their candidate is lucky to get 5% support, the narrative turns to either people are too ignorant or blinded by the Big Two or the media is conspiring to keep the Libertarian Party down.

Let the Libertarians start from scratch... Get elected in large numbers as city councilors, selectmen, alderman, mayors, state legislators, treasurers, etc. at the state and local level. Let's see some real world applications of their political, social and financial policies. If they are as successful and good for the country as the LP says they are, then they will start gaining more support and eventually be able to challenge at the national level.

Until then, I'm not really interested, nor am I going to vote for someone who is essentially a Republican without all the social conservative nonsense.
 
2013-03-02 06:39:17 AM

Ow! That was my feelings!: Says all you need to know about the Libertarian Party.


Hey fark you too buddy

Ain't you ever read "Bob Barr Saves the Day?"
 
2013-03-02 07:34:31 AM
winterbraid:
American Libertarians have the same problems as American Liberal Christians; we're too quiet.


Libertarians have not managed to move the needle in the popular vote in 30 years, despite being the loudest minority on the internet. I think that's not your problem.
 
2013-03-02 08:33:17 AM

Bucky Katt: College Republicans have been claiming to be libertarians for decades.  They parrot preach the drivel gospel of Ayn Rand because they're mindless corporatist drones edgy and courageous lovers of liberty


Ayn Rand, author of Mine! Mine! Mine Kamph.
 
2013-03-02 08:38:08 AM

slayer199: Ah, good to see all the Fark libs and conservatives hating on the LP.  Republicans hate us because of our social liberalism and Democrats hate us because of our fiscal conservatism.     Both sides do everything they can to exclude the LP (and the Green Party) from the process.  Why?  Fear.  A party that promotes social liberalism, fiscal conservatism, personal responsibility and smaller government will resonate with voters.


Except it doesn't because you don't have anyone in your little Party yet that is A) worth a shiat and that B) people would want to vote for.
 
2013-03-02 08:46:05 AM

Muta: Conservatism, Real Conservatism, is strong in our nation's colleges and universities but the liberal media skewing the polls to make it seem like conservatism isn't strong.  In the 3 years I've been at Liberty University , not once has anyone asked what my political feelings are.  I bet the students at Stanford or the University of Michigan get asked all the time.


Conservatism is strong at your college kiddo, not everywhere. Most colleges are not fundamentalist Christian schools like yours is (thank whatever gods exist). And there are conservatives everywhere, but they are few and far between at most schools. I have been on the campuses of many large and small universities - your statement is not factually correct. And you proved it by stating your "3 years at Liberty" in such a way that you are still that young, and still attending. Doesn't mean that you don't have an opinion, but in this case, your opinion is misguided and false.
 
Displayed 50 of 467 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report