To "Lane Myer" I don't see what the problem is with opposing the
legal recognition of gay marriage and wanting a small government. Explain
yourself. I don't want anarchy, I just want minimal government, and I want
marriage to be encouraged in a way that provides the absolutely best possible
conditions for raising the next generation.It depends on what you
want to use the marijuana for. Do you want to use is to get high, or is it for
an actual medicinal purpose or industrial purpose?Using marijuana
for recreation should be illegal. The number of accidents and accidental deaths
that occur by people that are high is enough to say that we should not legalize
the recreational use of marijuana.
Red Shirt: What about wanting a smaller government and believing that the
government should keep gays from marrying? Or the government should keep
marijuana from becoming legal? Aren't those diametrically
To "LDS Liberal" that is what I thought. You can't justify
hypocrisy. I can explain my point of view, but the fact that you can't
speaks volumes about you and your philosophies.All I know is this,
many of the modern Prophets and leaders within the LDS church have said quite
clearly that Socialism is wrong. They have also been quite clear that the world
is "All-or-Nothing, Black or White", which is confirmed by the
scriptures. Read "Truth and Tolerance" from 2011 by Elder Oaks. He
states that "We believe in absolute truth, including the existence of God
and the right and wrong established by His commandments." He then proceeds
to warn us on following the idea of moral relativism, which is what you
believe.So, the next question is why do you not follow the Prophets
and leaders of the church you claim membership in?
RedShirtUSS Enterprise, UTI can't -- because you only see
things in All-or-Nothing, Black or White, 2-dimensional flat0world thinking.And I do not.I see a little Capitalism, with a little Socialism as
being good.I see a Social Justice, with a little Mercy as being good.I see a little work, play, family, and community service time as good.I
see my time on an LDS Mission, U.S. Military service, and Working Father and
Husband as good.You can only see things as one way or the other.No middle ground, no compromise.Absolutism. Totalitarianism.I believe God who tells us to have moderation in ALL things.
To "LDS Liberal" that is nice, but that does not reconcile your belief
that government should be as small as possible at the same time you believe that
government should be intrusive and tell you how to run your life.Based on what you say, you can't reconcile your beliefs. You say that
you are for Socialism and Communism, but it is Socialism and Communism that
breed the "Plutocracies, Corporcracies and other Gadiantons who threaten
America, our people, our freedoms and our environment."Isn't deciding who you will and will not help with your money a private
issue that the government shouldn't have any say in, yet you want to use
Government to come into my home and force me to give money to people that have
learned how to use the welfare programs to avoid working.Plase
explain how you reconcile Libertarian (believe that there should be little
government in our lives) with Socialism or Communism (believe that there should
be a lot of government intervention, the more the better)?Please try
and actually explain that, and not just showing more how your beliefs are in
conflict with eachother.
RedShirtUSS Enterprise, UTTo "airnaut" how to do you
reconcile two opposing ideas.4:41 p.m. March 11, 2014=========== Very well...I don't think Government or other people should
be allowed in our homes or our bedrooms.I love and support our
Constitution, and am willing to die defending it to ALL Americans – even
for those I may disagree with, and particularly minorities without money or a
say-so.I’m against Republicans and their Patriot Acts, Wars, and
trampling of others rights – all in the pursuit of Money and Gain.I
put people and our planet ahead of business, Corporations and Governments.I’m against the Plutocracies, Corporcracies and other Gadiantons who
threaten America, our people, our freedoms and our environment. I whole
hearted believe that the love of money is the root of ALL evil, I believe
in establishing the Kingdom of God on the Earth. I believe in Liberty
& Justice for all. beit - Legal, Moral, Economic, and Social.andI believe that we are Free to either choose to live in America and get along
with others, or get out.
and how many CPAC "winners" have ever been elected President?
To "LDS Liberal" well, first of all, most of what you say is a lie about
me.First being pro-Death Penalty and Pro-War and being Pro-Life is
easy. The Death penalty and War protect society as a whole, being Pro-life
protects innocent life.I am Pro-business and pro-people, I
don't shun the poor, sick, or needy, I believe in Eternal Progression and I
believe in Progress (not all change is progress some is regression but sounds
new because it is called something different), I am Pro family, and do my best
to live up to the Law of Consecration (Consecration is not collectivist ideals),
I am not materialistic.I am against Progressivism which seeks to
force people to be good. Progressivism is just Satan's plan implemented on
earth. Being Anti-Socialist is just following the words of the First
presidency, President Kimball, President Benson, Brigham Young, Joseph Smith,
and other Prophets and church leaders.Ok, now it is your turn.
@RedShirtUSS Enterprise, UTPlease explain how you reconcile
Libertarian (believe that there should be little government in our lives) with
Socialism or Communism (believe that there should be a lot of government
intervention, the more the better)?4:41 p.m. March 11, 2014======= Sure, Right after you explain how you reconcile; being pro-Life, and pro-Death Penalty and Pro-War.Being pro-business, and anti-people.Being Christian, and shun the poor, sick and the needy.Believing in Eternal
Progression, and being against Progression.Being Pro-Family
and looking forward to the Law of Consecration, and being
Anti-Socialist and Materialistic.
To "airnaut" how to do you reconcile two opposing ideas.You
are like a Black Panther member who wants to join the KKK.Please
explain how you reconcile Libertarian (believe that there should be little
government in our lives) with Socialism or Communism (believe that there should
be a lot of government intervention, the more the better)?
I liked the comment of one poster (2 bits?) about us truly having two minority
parties rather than any majority party.I don't think that
either party's chosen presidential candidates, for example, gets fifty
percent of the vote or more. They seem to each get between thirty and forty
percent of the vote. The one that gets the most percentage points in the spread
between thirty and forty percent of the voters "wins" and the winner
takes all. That is true also for national polls on support for political
parties. Neither "popular" party is getting a majority of the people
saying "Yes!" but a lot saying "Whatever!" or "Here we go
again!".Polls show much popular consensus over many key issues,
like illegal immigration and a balanced budget amendment for example. A third
party that builds upon such consensus, if or when it gets off the ground, should
build on those consenses and the popular repudiation of both parties.Many nominal Republicans are actually 'liberals' not
'libertarians'. When I say liberal I do NOT mean Democrat, I mean
liberal in the Jeffersonian sense of the word, in the eighteenth century sense
of liberation from tyrannical political controls.
And that's why republicans will loose again. Libertarian-ism just
doesn't have the votes. Libertarian-ism is for a small group of
adults that want the equivalent of not having to eat their broccoli. They live here, but they don't want any rules or taxes. Eat your broccoli
and put up your toys.
2 bitsCottonwood Heights, UTairnaut,See... we are both
"libertarians" and we disagree on almost everything. That's what
I'm talking about. ========= Would it make you
"feel" any better to know that I registrured as a Republican, so I could
attend the silly "closed" cacuses?At my roots, ideologically
-- I'm mostly Libertarian, but I do not march lock step with any one
single group.IMHO - nor should anyone.I'm probably -- 50% Libertarian, 25% Democrat, 15% Green, and 10%
Republican. With a little Capitalism, and a lot of
Socialism/Communism stuck in there for good measure.I vote for the
person most in-line with ME, regadless of party. Never the person most
in-line with a Party, regadless of me.
airnaut,See... we are both "libertarians" and we disagree on
almost everything. That's what I'm talking about. We
aren't a party (like the Democrat or Republican party). We don't all
vote in lock-step (like Democrats and Republicans do in Washington).
Libertarianism is a philosophy... not a party... there's a difference.Democrats represent a partisan "party". They vote alike, they
talk alike, they walk alike, they seem to have a collective-brain (no
individualism allowed). Same goes for Republicans. When you really
join one of these partisan groups (with your whole sole as many have)... you
practically give up the right to have your own independent thoughts... you have
to support the party dogma. It becomes your job to defend the party... even
when it disagrees with your personal views.Libertarians aren't
like that. That's why they will never be a real "political party"
(like the Rs and Ds).
To "LDS Liberal" you make me laugh. The hypocrisy that you live is
amazing. You claim to be Libertarian, yet you support Socialism, Progressivism,
and Modern Liberalism. All that you supports is in direct contradiction to what
you claim membership in.You should realize that the difference
between Libertarian and libertian is like Communist and communist. That
capitalization matters because it can signifiy membership in a group with
similar ideals, or that you have tendencies towards support of the ideals. Yes
that is a fine line, but it is significant. As others have mentioned the hard
core Libertarian party is a mess because they have no cohesive message. What we
want are libertarian minded Republicans that have a cohesive message, as was
presented by many at CPAC.
2 bitsCottonwood Heights, UTLook at what we Libertarians stand
for, and then Compare that to what Republicans stand for.It's like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.The
GOP only let you in to be used as rubes to win elections, i.e., sit down
and be quiet.You are, never have been, and never will be Republicans.Own it.I said - I've been Libertarian for more than 20 years,
and unaffiliated off and on through out the last 12.Like so
many I disagree on these boards -- The Tea-Party has no clear
understanding of Politics, Parties, the proper role of the Military or the
intent of our Constitution.Just emotional reactionaries to the
mondless 24/7 parroting of the echo chamber of AM radio college drop out radio
talk show personalities.
I know there is a website and an organization. But Libertarians aren't
really a 3rd "Party".For one... they can't win
elections (not enough numbers).Secondly... they aren't
organizable, and party-loyal, like Democrats and Republicans. They don't
vote in an organized block. They are all over the place on everything
(marijuana, military, abortion, taxes, spying, foreign affairs, etc)... they are
all over the place. They aren't as homogenous as a real
"party".Organizing Libertarians is like herding cats
(because they are very diverse, free thinking, and don't share common
beliefs). Organizing Democrats and Republicans is like herding cattle or sheep
(they will do whatever the party boss tells them). If Harry Reid and Nancy
Pelosi tell them to vote this way... you can bet almost 100% of them are going
to vote that way... Libertarians would vote the other way just to show they
aren't under your control.Libertarians are about everybody
making their own decisions... political-parties are about organizing and
everybody making the SAME decisions. Libertarianism and party-politics
don't fit well together. But many libertarians can hold their nose and
vote with one real party or the other...
Funny, By these Tea-Partiers calling themselves Libertarians, I'm shocked to discover that the GOP has now embraced;Gay
marriage, legalizing marijuana, open immigration, Church and
State should be completely seperate, closing and withdrawing all U.S.
Military forces, and Pro-Choice.Is this a matter of going so
extreme and radical, that you end up morphing into and arriving at the
extreme opposite?======= FYI 2bits, you are wrong.The "Libertarian Party" is not only a "real party", but it is America's 3rd largest political party, bigger than the
"Green Party", "Constitution Party", and all others combined.
Clark: Actually, I liked the veiled inference in your original comment about
Legalization of marijuana is his goal.
"The straw poll at last week's CPAC illustrated that tea party
favorites are winning, according to the National Review's Tim
Cavanaugh."No. The straw poll illustrated that tea party
favorites are winning AT THE CPAC convention. Which, by nature are the right
wing of the GOP.Would this be a surprise to anyone?
We in the Libertarian Party should proofread better.That line should
be, "When asked to his face if he was a Libertarian, he replied, "No. I
am a Republican."We regret the error, but not as much as we
regret Rand Paul being identified as a Libertarian.
@2bits I think you missed a couple of the talking points from six
years ago but you did manage to get most of them.
Please don't call Rand Paul a liar. That is unbecoming of the Deseret
News.He is registered to vote, and was elected to the Senate, as a
Republican.When asked to his face if he was a Republican, he
replied, "No. I am a Republican."So, please, be honest.
Don't call him a Libertarian.We in the Libertarian Party
believe that everyone has a right to identify themselves as they see fit.
Senator Paul wishes to be known as a Republican - therefore he should be
identified as a Republican.And frankly, we have watched his votes in
the Senate, and we agree with his personal assessment. He is not a Libertarian,
he is a Republican. Don't blame him on us.
@2 bitsCottonwood Heights, UTGreat!Libertarians
are not a real party, so we have to find one we can work with. ========== Libertarian Party (United States)From Wikipedia,
the free encyclopedia ChairmanGeoff Neale FoundedDecember 11, 1971; 42 years ago Headquarters2600 Virginia Avenue NW, Suite 200Washington, D.C. 20037 IdeologyLibertarianism (American)Internal factions: •
Anarcho-capitalism • Paleolibertarianism • Classical
liberalism • Minarchism Political positionEconomic policy: Free market, Laissez-faireSocial policy: Civil
libertarianism, Cultural liberalismForeign policy: Non-interventionism,
Free trade International affiliationInterlibertarians Colors Gold, Yellow The Libertarian Party is an
American national political party that reflects, represents and promotes the
ideas and philosophies of libertarianism. The Libertarian Party was formed in
Colorado Springs, Colorado, in the home of David F. Nolan on December 11,
1971========== 42 Years, I've been a
registured Libertarian for over 20...[right after I left the GOP
back in 1988]Go get your OWN Party name, title.This one's
already been taken.
The information about the Libertarians found on the web,to me, describes the
culture of the American Indian prior to the time of the white people. I think
the fierce independence of the Indian gave a great deal freedom and self
respect, but I also think that it was a stark life of difficulties and dangers.
I don't think the Indian accomplished much beyond mere survival in a group
effort or did much to further the elevation of human beings.I am
proud that I might have a tiny bit of relation to the American Indian in my
makeup but I prefer the life in this age. As an individual I might have lots of
freedom but not too many ways to use that freedom. I have lots of dependencies
but they don't take away any of my self respect and even if I get more than
I give I don't feel guilty. Actually I don't keep score.
Libertarians could easily side with Democrats on civil liberties issues &
Another good thing about having more Libertarians in Washington would be... you
wouldn't have as much of this Republican VS Democrat grid-lock (because
they haven't sworn allegiance to either of them, so their votes can't
be automatically counted as automatic for either party).Then you
have a significant swing-vote you have to win (not just get one Democrat or one
Republican on your side). This would result in legislation that's not
just written for one side, and crammed down the minority's throat.
Because there's more than one minority, and when they come together YOU are
the minority. So each bill you have to put at least SOME "win" in it
for the other side or go down in flames.That would be refreshing.No party bosses running Washington. Some actual legislation that had to
have a win for all sides in it. Wow... wouldn't that be nice?
Great!Libertarians are not a real party, so we have to find one we
can work with. And we share some DNA with Republicans, but almost none with
Democrats. The Republican Party is the only party we have a chance of
influencing, so I'm with them, because there's no way Democrats would
even consider the libertarian philosophy. Too small-government for them.Republicans could win IF the include Libertarians. But they seem to
find a way to alienate them. Guess it's just the Republican way.Democrats have no diversity of thought today. They are too drunk on their
party-coolaid for any other ideas to have a chance of even being heard, much
less changing them. So this is a good development that more and more
Republicans are coming over to the dark-side where Libertarian views can be
heard.This is a good development IF you REALLY want to end
"politics as usual" in Washington.Establishment Democrats
and Republicans have been taking turns running Washington, and I really
don't see the difference when they take their turns. It's time for
something completely different. Maybe some Libertarian influence would work.
airnaut - Libertarians and the Tea Party are alike in one very important
respect: They are both completely out of touch with reality when it comes to the
issue of taxation. They are of the opinion, that "revenue is not
the problem," which of course, is wrong.The lack of revenue is a
@airnaut: It's important to remember the difference between those in the
Libertarian party and politicians who have libertarian viewpoints. Libertarian
(small "L") can encompass many different beliefs, and Paul's views,
as well as many views prominent in the tea party, are largely thought to be
libertarian. So just because they don't subscribe to all the same
viewpoints as the Libertarian party, doesn't mean it's deceptive to
refer to them as such.
Libertarians? The guys against things like drug laws, abortion restrictions and
attacks on foreign countries? That can't be the GOP I know.
‘Libertarian wave wins big at CPAC’The tea party and
especially Sen. Rand Paul won big over the weekend during the annual
Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC).=========== I think this HeadLine is very VERY decpetive [or flat out wrong] -- Libertarians are not Tea Partiersand visa versa.Unless
Tea-Partiers are now supporting Gay Marriage, Legalized marijuana, and U.S.
isolationism Foreign Policy.Perhaps the writer needs to look up and
use the proper definitions.