Stuff Republicans say.

[sun rise]

I advocate environmental regulation precisely because of libertarian values.
Consider oil spills. What runs off of one person's property will flow onto & harm
another's. This violates our dictum that one's right to swing one's arms ends at a
neighbor's nose. It's all about making compromises which reach some optimal
libertarian society. Ain't nuthin practical which would be pure in the extreme.

There is one significant difference between small "l" & capital "L" libertarians.
The Libertarian Party explicitly supports libertarianism within the framework
of the Constitution. Thus, we are a subset of more general libertarianism.

I am in favor of reducing crony capitalism which is akin to the Chinese system where government and business live in the same "bed". The recent laws forbidding Tesla from selling cars in some states really irks me and shows how corrupt politics have become. So I'm automatically in favor of fighting that. But as I see it, the Republican party is even worse than the Democratic party as being the de facto, "we do what business tells us to do" party instead of standing for ideals and considering what is good for people. This does not mean government control of business but government action to restrain business overreach while keeping the free enterprise system functioning.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

But we prefer the view that ours is the sane reaction against the Big Two's vision of government.

I think we agree on a lot when it comes to government. For now we have the big two so I'm always interested in who will libertarians caucus with if their elected to office.

If libertarians do manage to become a viable third party then what is their vision for government. What will they cut and what will they keep. Many of the policies some libertarians support are right out of the republican play book...so I've always wondered how different they would be......

 

[sun rise]

I think we agree on a lot when it comes to government. For now we have the big two so I'm always interested in who will libertarians caucus with if their elected to office.

If libertarians do manage to become a viable third party then what is their vision for government. What will they cut and what will they keep. Many of the policies some libertarians support are right out of the republican play book...so I've always wondered how different they would be......

Most Democrats are social libertarians so I don't think it's correct to assert the Republican playbook is the source. That is unless you equate libertarianism to solely reducing government regulation of business

 

[Revoltingest]

If libertarians do manage to become a viable third party then what is their vision for government. What will they cut and what will they keep.

For a general approach, you can read the party platform.
For a specific approach, that would depend upon the individual candidate.

Many of the policies some libertarians support are right out of the republican play book...so I've always wondered how different they would be......

We don't go to any Republican literature to decide what we support.
We will have something in common with Pubs & Dems at times, but
this is coincidence rather than the intent to ape other parties.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

For a general approach, you can read the party platform.
For a specific approach, that would depend upon the individual candidate.

We don't go to any Republican literature to decide what we support.
We will have something in common with Pubs & Dems at times, but
this is coincidence rather than the intent to ape other parties.

Thanks....

I look forward to supporting a Libertarian but so far I haven't found one that wasn't backed by pub or dem money. As far as the issues go..I try to get a good bead on the ones that have run in my district. They're usually fine on many of the social issues but some of the economical and fiscal stances concerns me...but you're right.......it's usually on a case by case situation as no two people are exactly a like.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Michael Savage rails against PTSD sufferers: 'No wonder ISIS can defeat our military' - Washington Times

“I am so sick and tired of everyone with their complaints about PTSD, depression,” the host began. “Everyone wants their hand held, and a government check. What are you, the only generation that had PTSD? The only generation that’s depressed? I’m sick of it. I can’t take the celebration of weakness and depression.”


“See, I was raised a little differently,” he continued. “I was raised to fight weakness. I was raised to fight pain. I was raised to fight depression. Not to give into it. Not to cave into it and cry like a little baby in bed. ‘Boo-hoo-hoo. Boo-hoo-hoo.’ Everyone has depression in their life. Everyone has sickness and sadness and disease. And loss of relatives. And loss of career. … It’s a weak, sick, nation. A weak, sick, broken nation. And you need men like me to save the country. You need men to stand up and say stop crying like a baby over everything.”

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Michael Savage rails against PTSD sufferers: 'No wonder ISIS can defeat our military' - Washington Times

I really doubt he seen war. I also predict Rush Limbaugh will back him up.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Sen. Lindsey Graham: 'white men in male-only clubs are going to do great in my presidency.'

"I'm trying to help you with your tax status," Graham says in the recording. "I'm sorry the government's so f---ed up. If I get to be president, white men in male-only clubs are going to do great in my presidency." The crowd is then heard laughing.

 

[esmith]

Sen. Lindsey Graham: 'white men in male-only clubs are going to do great in my presidency.'

Well maybe you should have looked a little farther. This, as the below article says was said in a jokingly manner. Or course a politician should know that anything they say is taken as fact.
Lindsey Graham was joking about white men and male-only clubs. But he probably shouldn’t. - The Washington Post

 

[Renji]

I dunno. Maybe this one:

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Well maybe you should have looked a little farther. This, as the below article says was said in a jokingly manner. Or course a politician should know that anything they say is taken as fact.
Lindsey Graham was joking about white men and male-only clubs. But he probably shouldn’t. - The Washington Post

Oh, it's not that I took it as fact. I just took it as another thing republicans say......and for the record...I'm not in that man's head...could have been a joke, albeit not a very good one, could have been serious, which is a scary thought...or it could have been a mixture...Not sure. The fact of the matter is he said it so I posted it.....

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Oh, it's not that I took it as fact. I just took it as another thing republicans say......and for the record...I'm not in that man's head...could have been a joke, albeit not a very good one, could have been serious, which is a scary thought...or it could have been a mixture...Not sure. The fact of the matter is he said it so I posted it.....

To me, it seemed to be tongue-in-cheeck. Not that I'm the best at interpreting such things, but the crowd laughter seems to be a good indication.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Chris Christie tells a protester excercising his right to free speech to "Sit down and shut up"

Christie to Sandy heckler: 'Sit down and shut up!' (VIDEO) | NJ.com

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Chris Christie tells a protester excercising his right to free speech to "Sit down and shut up"

Christie to Sandy heckler: 'Sit down and shut up!' (VIDEO) | NJ.com

Now that was a pretty crappy thing to say, especially downplaying the efforts to protest.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

John Boehner jabs Obama: Bush 'would have punched [Putin] in the nose' - Washington Times

“Does anybody think that Vladimir Putin would have gone into Crimea had George W. Bush been president of the United States? No,” Mr. Boehner said during a campaign trail speech in Iowa and before a Republican crowd, CNN reported. “Even Putin is smart enough to know that Bush would have punched him in the nose in about 10 seconds.”

Wow...revisionist history much?....

I think he's forgetting that it was on Bush's watch when the very same Putin stormed into Georgia but nothing became of it because Bush, eight years prior, said he found Putin to be "straight forward and trustworthy"...because he peered into the man's "soul"......

 

[Shadow Wolf]

John Boehner jabs Obama: Bush 'would have punched [Putin] in the nose' - Washington Times



Wow...revisionist history much?....

I think he's forgetting that it was on Bush's watch when the very same Putin stormed into Georgia but nothing became of it because Bush, eight years prior, said he found Putin to be "straight forward and trustworthy"...because he peered into the man's "soul"......

From what I've been able to gather, which includes information from some NGO's, America simply does not have enough interests to get involved.
Which in an odd way seems to translate to "they won't cooperate and we can't force them into submission."

 

[Monk Of Reason]

For a general approach, you can read the party platform.
For a specific approach, that would depend upon the individual candidate.

While we are on it would a Libertarian ever support universal healthcare? At first glance it seems like mixing oil and water but if you really think about it the proposal would make sense. Getting a universal healthcare bill would free up a lot of regulation on businesses. The ACA and all its rules and regulations on how businesses would have to give insurance and the insurance can't exceed this much and such. So it would be far less constrictive. In fact the hoops you have to jump through IN the medical field would be depleted and there would be less regulation over all. You would no longer have to regulate businesses, providers and their acceptance of insurance, insurance company bullcrap, ect. It seems like am much free-er economic system afterwards. Like removing a cancerous tumor from business.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

While we are on it would a Libertarian ever support universal healthcare? At first glance it seems like mixing oil and water but if you really think about it the proposal would make sense. Getting a universal healthcare bill would free up a lot of regulation on businesses. The ACA and all its rules and regulations on how businesses would have to give insurance and the insurance can't exceed this much and such. So it would be far less constrictive. In fact the hoops you have to jump through IN the medical field would be depleted and there would be less regulation over all. You would no longer have to regulate businesses, providers and their acceptance of insurance, insurance company bullcrap, ect. It seems like am much free-er economic system afterwards. Like removing a cancerous tumor from business.

There may be some that do, but overall, no. Libertarianism is free market based, generally against government mandates, and would go again their views of liberty.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

There may be some that do, but overall, no. Libertarianism is free market based, generally against government mandates, and would go again their views of liberty.

I haven't seen a libertarian go against public schools in a while. At least not one that wanted to abolish them. Do they just like the idea of inelastic demand with no effective way to combat this?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I haven't seen a libertarian go against public schools in a while. At least not one that wanted to abolish them. Do they just like the idea of inelastic demand with no effective way to combat this?

It depends on the type of Libertarianism. Some of them believe the government should be so minimal that it does not provide education, health care, infrastructure, or defense. Some acknowledge such a position would harm society, and that the state does need to provide at least a few key services, such as primary education and defense. The Libertarianism promoted by the Koch brothers would inherently dissolve the government by eliminating taxes while Milton Friedman, by comparison, had some very generous positions.