Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • 11
    Posted by tprikryl 5 years ago
    I look at this site daily, and I am getting the feeling that there is a belief system on display among the participants that if we cannot get all of the positive change we want, then we don't want anything. In a representative democracy one is never going to get everything they want, and there is no politician who is going to be perfectly aligned with your thinking...unless you run for office yourself. While I fully understand the need to be strong in one's principles, I even more understand the need to achieve some substantive change. And this seemingly pure "all or nothing" approach has not worked...nor will it ever. Just remember this, if more libertarians and other Republicans would have not stayed home in November 2012, we would have not suffered under 4 more years of Barack Obama. Was Mitt Romney the end all/be all of conservative politics? Absolutely not! But he would have been far, far better than the buffoon who now resides in the White House.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by tprikryl 5 years ago
      And while I will take small victories over no victories at any time, that does not mean I will be satisfied with the small victories. However, progress has to start somewhere, and more often than not, progress is incremental.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Suzanne43 5 years ago
        Yes! Wasn't is a terrorist who said that Americans have the watches but we have the time. This all or nothing approach is not going to give us the "small victories" that we need. Change is going to take time. We need to do it one senator and one representative at a time.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by term2 5 years ago
        I think that socialism needs to be made accountable for its terrible performances in the world. This will stop letting socialism get away with making grandiose claims with no performance
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 5 years ago
          Read Atlas Shrugged.

          Socialist will always claim it was because it was not big enough, and people wouldn't participate as they should. Rand illustrates it very well and I think its an excellent read, you may like it and even learn something from it.

          You cannot make something that by its nature is never responsible for anything responsible. To win it, we have to stop focusing on fighting it and have an alternate plan, well thought out and openly discussed.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by term2 5 years ago
            Actually I have read AS several times. What I am frustrated by is the failure of rational thinking to gain enough traction to halt the spread of socialism. Even in AS what got halt some traction was the complete failure of socialism. What I was suggesting is pointing out the failures of socialism would help to show people in practical terms how it doesn't work.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ jlc 5 years ago
      I agree with you on the incremental improvements approach. While purists will point out, not inaccurately, that such a technique has not resulted in a country of capitalism, freedom, and personal independence, my answer is simple: I am a scientist. Give me a base line.

      We do not have an 'alternate reality' against which we can compare our current achievements (or lack thereof). We cannot answer the questions: Better than what? Worse than what?

      I suspect that the world we are in is a lot better than if people who cared about freedom had stopped voting for the best person available...but then...I don't have a base line either and that is only my opinion.

      Jan
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by 5 years ago
        Jan,

        Thanks. In my view it took 100 years of incremental nonsense to get us here, to reverse it we will need to take some years of focused incremental movement back to freedom, and in my view we have someone that will at least move that direction. Grab the opportunity they seem few and far between.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ jlc 5 years ago
          I have not given up (though there is sometimes the temptation). So far, what we are terming a 'failure' is still better than any other country on Earth. I do not think it will take us 100 years to get back to freedom because we still have a map to it.

          Jan
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by 5 years ago
            Agreed. It wont take 100 years, we have the constitution on our side.

            You look at what the two presidents who had a brain about it did in there times and they prove it wont take so long as that, but it will take more than the 8 years of one good president. It will take 3 good presidents leading towards smaller government over about 20-25 years to set us on the right course, and cement in the ideas of a constitutional self rule for everyone by the rule of law.

            A culture shift from a nation of men back to a nation of law will take a generation to make last.

            Always a pleasure to chat with you.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by blackswan 5 years ago
        You can look at the achievements of the leftists. They started with the Clayton Act, which was driven by envy, followed by antitrust, which was also driven by envy, followed by the Fed and the income tax, also driven by envy. By that time, there was enough momentum that Hoover and FDR could go hog wild for the better part of 20 years, implementing all sorts of leftist ideas, driven by, not envy (on the surface), but by a host of new "rights." Once those "rights" were accepted, then all kinds of crap could be enacted. If it took 130 years to get where we are today, it's likely to take at least that long to get rid of it and possibly restore 75 or 80 percent of the ideal. The point is, if you're not as committed enough to be willing to wage a 130 year war, then you'd better go sit quietly in a corner, suck your thumb, and assume the position.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 5 years ago
      So True, Mitt is very centrist and even a bit big government, but so much better than someone who hates and wants to destroy America by turning into a totalitarian socialist state.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 5 years ago
      You may live in a representative democracy AKA Peoples Democracy by another name. I live in a Republic. We have some pretty neat things one is called the Constitution. Features such items as The Bill of Rights. Something not found in representative democracies but what you do find is ...cross partisanship, bi partisan ship and a one party system of government with free and open and honest elections.

      In representative democracies you get Bernies and Obeyme''s and welcome to them.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by DeanStriker 5 years ago
    Rand Paul showed his non-libertarian stuff when he dumped his dad Ron and turned to support Romney. Had he remained on the right track (along with Ron), there was a chance to put the L.P. on the map at along last.

    Which leaves only Gary Johnson, who is on-track but it all seems that collectivism now clearly rules the roost.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ cz85b 5 years ago
    Ladies and Gentlemen, on March 19, at the Renaissance Hotel near the Philly Airport, there will be a Libertarian Party Candidate's debate. The Libertarian Party of Pennsylvania, as part of its convention will be hosting. There will be a live stream, and the event will be recorded, but anyone even somewhat local, there will be a VIP Cocktail hour, a dinner, the debate/forum, and a hospitality suite. Events to begin after the business meeting.

    This debate will feature Gary Johnson, Steve Kerbel, Darryl Perry, Shawna Sterling, John McAffee is still a maybe, though his campaign said that it would move heaven and earth to get him there, Marc Allen Feldman is also still a maybe, and I am in contact with Jesse Ventura's Publicist, though he is still on the fence as to whether or not he will actually run... (I would never give anyone a hard time on that particular decision, I know what is involved just for local offices, let alone running all around the nation..)

    Sincerely,

    Steve Scheetz
    steve@stevefor8.com

    P.S. I am co-chairing the convention committee since I am the Immediate Past Chair of the LPPA and SOMEBODY had to do it! LOL
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 5 years ago
    I think of Gary Johnson, a Libertarian running for president. I like him. I'd like to vote for him. And then I think of the very real possibility of a criminal such as Clinton as president, or worse yet, Sanders who hasn't an inkling of how freedom works, and I realize that the only way to get instant gratification would be revolution and that won't happen until the country is stripped of its freedom by the socialists, progressives, crypto Nazis and all the rest take away every freedom and make a nation of slaves come true.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 5 years ago
      A revolution would walk right into the hands of the Clinton's and the Obama's. Its exactly what they need to declare martial law and take what freedoms we have left.

      if we are to fix this it will only happen through constant and slow incremental process. Gary would be great, but he has no chance of winning today. He has no chance of winning, likely in his life time.

      You have someone running who will move us towards are world where a true small government constitutionalism could be put in, but unless you will fight for the incremental steps you wont win the war, or even get in the fight.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 5 years ago
        They don't want to do that. Martial Law puts the military squarely in charge and by using some of the Freedom Act 'suspicion of' provision they would be in a stockade awaiting a military tribunal.

        Remember the military does not swear allegiance to the any individual or even the country by name. Only the Constitution is mentioned.

        Martial law would mean zippo for the above mentioned and all the lawyers in the world wouldn't help. Except to get them a pair of handcuffs as well.

        You really ought to d a bit more research. Combining the Suspicion of arrest powers with Martial Law would be a wonderful thing since the military are not friends of Bill, Hillary, Kerry, Bernie,

        Best of all it would be a legal and required counter revolution.

        Any time the military chooses to do it. They are the sole judge of when.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 5 years ago
          Michael,

          Check out how many military contractors work directly for the white house. Also the national and state guard can be called up by the white house and fema is well armed.

          It wont be the military. Civil defense is not the preview of the military but the local national guard chapter and fema. They would bring the 150,000+ contractors home and send more military out to deal with things abroad.

          Fema's purchased armored vehicles, tons of .223 ammunition and stock piled it over the last few years.

          I would agree with you if it would be the military in charge, more than half would refuse to do it, but if you go to california national gaurd and tell them how bad those small government red necks are in Utah, they will go and pin us down.

          The military only would get involved if they refuse to follow orders (many would take this route) or if the tyrant in charge knew he had them in his pocket.

          Obama said, when first campaigning for office. We need a civil defense force at least as strong as our military. he has gone a long way to make that happen and they answer only to the white house.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 5 years ago
            National and State guard are the same thing. States can have militias very few do. military contractors? Wow! that's scary. Not. FEMAS purchases....where did you get that information?
            They wouldn't be "California National Guard they would be US Army Reservists called to active duty. Same oath of office.

            The military can get involved any time they want. Now getting them in his pocket is quite likely...But if the Generals join the dark side it's the duty of the Colonels to remove them ...oath of office. makes no mention of exemption for Commanders-In-Chief or uniformed commissioned or non-commissioned officers. There oat says the same thing.

            You don't have enough military time to be making up stuff. stick to what you know. Just as I also must do .... .
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by 5 years ago
              Oaths have little to do with anything in today's world.

              What I was getting at is this: If you call up guard from California or some other liberal place, and you call them up under a divisive guise people will follow it.

              If you call up the California guard to go put down the rebellion against the empire in Utah they are likely to go do it. It wont matter if the rebellion is legit, it will only mater that the progressive culture of California does not much care for the conservative culture of Utah. You can use racial lines, or religious lines as well, anything that separates people into groups can an will be used to get one group to suppress the other.

              They all ready do that socially and its naive to think they wont take the same approach physically if military law were put in place.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
              • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 5 years ago
                That is true if it's placed in a proper and believable five paragraph field order. Nor would being told in the same manner to participate in upholding their oath of office. the one place where it matters.Meaningless to a civilian however who have no honor. The President for example.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 5 years ago
            I thought I was the only one who had read all of that and applied it. Depending on which battle plan was used and they have been war gamed to an inch the Guard once activated goes under the military and takes the same oath. FEMA doesn't have the troops most have active duty time working with the regulars. The others are quite often former or present military. FEMA is m mostly HQ and hire people when needed for disasters. they manage emergencies.
            the strongest force DOHS has is Border Patrol, Secret Service and FBI.. the politicians are smart enough to see it coming.....until it's too late....all war gamed out in the sixties and seventies..we were preparing for a Carter removal back then. thought it was a n exercise in planning.
            Didn't need to do so.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 5 years ago
      So your conclusion is vote for the other left wing candidate? You didn't quite finish. I give you thumbs up for finishing the statement......
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Herb7734 5 years ago
        If it's not possible to make a U turn, at least drive away from the edge of the cliff.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 5 years ago
          That would be Cruz...at this point but it's still a support of staying on the same path to the same conclusion just going off the edge a little bit later.

          can't argue with it. i'm still for keeping the pressure on so he and he RNC know we aren't taking any more shit from then anymore......
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Zin7272 5 years ago
    Ted Cruz 100%!!!
    We all must work hard to get out the votes of older people. I live in Jacksonville, FL and am working with a team that concentrates on actually calling and going to retirement centers, nursing homes and places where people may need help to request an absent ballot and reminding and/or visiting them to mail their absentee ballot. This is the Most Important Presidential Election in the history of the the Greatest Nation on Earth. Work smart and hard to make sure everyone votes to get the USA back on track before it is too late.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by term2 5 years ago
      Cruz is a religious zealot driven by what he thinks HIS version of God tells him
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by 5 years ago
        If you believe that you do not know the man. Is he religious. Yes, and so is every person on this plannet. Some have god as a person, other have god as money, and others have god as a philosophy, and yet others have a god that simply says there is no god. The best of of us use our mind as our god in combination with one of those listed above.

        There is no room for bigotry against anything in a rational world. Can you push past your disdain for "HIS version of god" and can you accept that not everyone agrees with "YOUR version of god."

        Term2, you likely are atheist based of your comments and have a real problem with a belief in god. If I am wrong I apologize, but if I am right get over it.

        I personally think Atheists are irrational as much so as Scientologist are on the wacky religion spectrum. Someone who god is that there is no god, or there god is an alien race from some other world can be just fine by me. If they want freedom, do not wish to tell me to live my life for them and deny the initiation of any kind of force in society, I can get along with you.

        I personally do not know any scientoligest, but know a few athiests. I have met some that I consider friend, even brother. I have met some that wish to force their godlessness on me, and those I lump in the Muslims who think it OK to force me to be Muslim. I see no difference between the two religions if they believe they have the right to force there belief's on me.

        I again may be wrong, but your posts show you to be one that believes that athiesm, or at lest some form of godlessness should be forced on everyone. I hope I am wrong, I would rather call you friend.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by term2 5 years ago
          I definitely don't want to force anyone to believe in anything. I don't feel comfortable however having a president professing to use governmental powers to enforce the beliefs handed down by a mystical being that infringe on my right to live my own life. We need true separation of church and state for a change, that's all
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ WilliamShipley 5 years ago
        So? It doesn't really matter to me what the source of a person's political philosophy is. It matters what they are going to do. Cruz is probably the one closest to a limited constitutional government advocate we have left in the race.

        Now, I'm currently intrigued by rolling the dice with Trump because I'm not actually sure that anyone else can change the socialist trend. Of course I'm not all that sure which way he would really go, only that he seems to be able to rally the "troops".
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 5 years ago
          Trump has made that clear.

          He has said:

          we will have universal health care, only it will be good.

          I will use executive order to get things done, but I will do good things.

          Eminent domain is OK, when some single house is stopping a project that would create thousands of jobs, its OK. We have to think of the thousands of jobs.

          If you want to give that a chance, something is not right with your thinking. He would be worse for the course of America than any one else on either side of the isle. he pretends to be for small government and conservative but has those kinds of beliefs. What happens when the economy takes a hard crash and we get another fool who says basically "I had to take more power it was the only way to save capitalism" liek Bush did. What will that reinforce again?

          No Trump would be the worst possible outcome for freedom.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by term2 5 years ago
          Trump is one to question and make accountable the socialist assumptions. He would be the one to say their programs arent working and rally people around that. Just take a look at Obamacare. Unless you are getting free medical care from the goverment (medicaid) you are paying much more now than you ever did for medical care. BUT, Obama isnt being held accountable for its failure to reduce costs.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by blackswan 5 years ago
            Obama CAN'T cut costs. The doctors and other professionals in the health care industry are the only ones who can do that. Obama probably can't even draw blood. How the hell can he restructure the medical establishment!?!? ANY politician who claims that he or she can "fix" anything is a liar.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ WilliamShipley 5 years ago
              The only real way to reduce costs is to take a fresh look at healthcare in the 21st century and get away from the "Doctor with the black bag" paradigm.

              We need to allow new ways of caring for people's health that don't funnel through a doctor. Software could certainly help if laws controlling practicing medicine without a license were changed.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by term2 5 years ago
              But people seem to let him and the politicians who supported it and so many dumb policies off the hook. My medical costs doubled at least under ObamaCare, as did millions of others
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 5 years ago
    Nobody Paul left Libertarian and became first a Republican then as we've seen a RINO. After all th possibilities quit or were or are being forced out and Carson is angling to bring in the black votes VP settling to be a Biden.

    Will Cruz be true to his roots? Not if his Got any dice?

    Who is next only one that is doing anything but talking.....the rest range from socialist corporatist fascist Trump to ....Johnson?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Thoritsu 5 years ago
    Should've left Sadam in charge of Iraq. He was a tyrant, but the Iraqis need and deserve no more than that until THEY take care of it, not are handed a freedom they really don't know what to do with.
    With respect to Cruz, Rand and Ron are not in the running. We are here, and I want to be there. Cruz is the next best, period. Although as FFA has noted I could throw away my general election vote without consequence here in MA on an even stronger message.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 5 years ago
      Another reason to vote against the left wing extremists like Bernie and Billary...Democrats only know how start wars...six months later their on the other side. and their historical death rate of US service personnel is something they do not want a picked scab to uncover. Better those clowns just shut up....Military rule is never go to war under a Democrat....the odds of survival are none to good.....
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by 5 years ago
        Michael,

        I agree that we should vote against the big government types. however in this election the worst person to get it will be trump. Why do I say that? If the shit hits the fan in the next term and I think it will. Whomever is in is going to get blamed for it. Those three will all make matters worse because they will all attempt to control the situation and fail. If Trump is there, his claim to be for small government will mark a failure on capitalism and small government and we will not see it again in 5 generations at least.

        That being said if the choice is either of those two and trump, I will write in Cruz or Gary anyway. I cannot vote for or support those who would destroy what freedom still exists.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 5 years ago
      What happened to the very loud chants of stop the genocide all of a sudden no one remembers that. OK he was stopped. The problem then becomes one of a pretend country set up by the Brits after WWI which could have become Kurdistan among other needed changes...

      Why are we denying these people their national birth right???? AND compounding the problem.

      Point is they were handed a second chance what they did with it is their business.

      Insofar as the chants of stop the genocide from the left one only has to look at the stained purple standard of Kosovo to remember what a crock of crap that left wing, temporary, stance was.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ WilliamShipley 5 years ago
      Hell, we should have left the Shah in charge of Iran.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ Thoritsu 5 years ago
        We shouldn't have put him in charge.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ WilliamShipley 5 years ago
          Whatever the case, he was in charge when Carter took office and making a modern educated society. Yes there was oppression but it certainly didn't get better without him.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ Thoritsu 5 years ago
            WE, did not take the Shah out of office. The people of Iran did. I agree with your statement, but the action by the west precipitating the overthrow of the Shah started after WWI, splitting the Ottoman Empire and then exacerbated by setting up the original Shah. I agree Iran was better under the Shah, but the events leading to present day Iran are different.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ WilliamShipley 5 years ago
              We did remove support which allowed it to happen. It was a big part of Jimmy Carter's agenda that the U.S. would no longer support people who didn't respect human rights.

              It's certainly something that sounds good but you have to take into account what will happen as a result of that decision. As a result, we had the Iranian Revolution. If we had not withdrawn support, it's possible that it would not have been overthrown.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by term2 5 years ago
      Trump tells it like it is and we need this for 4 years. Except for Sanders, who is basically honest, all the rest of the candidates lie and manipulate. Sanders is a wacko and needs to live in Venezuela to understand his policies
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ Thoritsu 5 years ago
        Trump is an embarrassing narcissistic clown. He is not a real businessman. Not even equally the S&P in his endeavors, paying off politicians to employ various tactics including eminent domain. He isn't a Washington insider, but make no mistake, he is an insider (means lie and manipulate). He tells it like he thinks people will respond ("is" is another question), and better than Hillary or Bernie, but he will embarrass this country.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo