Anyone else switiching parties this election?

[Eupher]

Which is why I have no fear of the "constitution" party but when people say thing like:


Its like when all the Paultards claim how much better the US would be if we would just elect Ron Paul.

It has no chance of happening but I just feel compelled to point out the crazies.

Well, I say "reign supreme" because, in my view, the Republican party has long since forgotten what conservatism is. It's yet another tax and spend political party and with the exception of a few notables, it isn't all that much different than the Dems.

Do not misunderstand -- I elevate NO politician to God-like status, unlike the Paultards. I simply think the Constitution party platform speaks loudest to me, above and beyond any other political party.

The party has no hope or prayer of ever getting anywhere, which is a rotten shame -- so I have to go with the least of several evils.

Mitt Romney is a liar and he routinely takes credit for other's works, IMHO. I've seen it with my own eyes.

But he's the least of two evils -- Obama being, by far, the worst. So when it's time, I'll pull the handle for good ol' lyin' Mitt.

[Kyle Ricky]

The only time I change my affiliation is during the primaries so I can vote for that particular party member. I then change it back to Independent for the general. The reason for that is because Pa is a closed party voting state.

[Zeus]

3^rd party or otherwise will never achieve any kind of national prominence as long as their followers keep abandoning them at the ballot box. Ballot placement, Federal matching dollars etc are all predicated upon achieving a certain percentage of votes in previous elections.  Doesn't matter if your candidate won or not they just need votes otherwise why waste time & money on them.  The deck isn't stacked against 3^rd parties,they are their own worse enemy.

[Big Dog]

Well I love Boortz but Im also definitely a Reagan conservative. I also like Ron Paul. At least I now know where things stand on this forum. Ill have to restrain my libertarian ideas here it seems

You are not at a hive mind site like DU or FR. There are libertarians here, classical liberals, and conservatives of all stripes; social, fiscal, religious, and secular. We don't agree on everything.

I agree with most of the people here about most things, but I don't agree with anyone about everything. I am an ethical Stoic with strong objectivist principles. I am a fiscal conservative (Friedman/Austrian School), and a social I-don't-care-atarian (my motto is, "If you don 't start no shit, there won't be no shit.") I expend my energy and moral capital as a father, not as an Internet crusader.  I'm not here to change anyone's mind; I'm here to have fun, but I'm not shy about speaking my mind.

So, don't hold back.  Be prepared to discuss and defend your opinion, and have fun like the rest of us.

So once more are liberals banned here?

Not for merely being liberal. But if a liberal shows disrespect for pie, boobiez, beer, or bacon, he's gone! Them's the rules.

[Duke Nukum]

Not me.

I voted libertarian when I was young and stupid in my third presidential election which was Clinton v. Bush. The only good thing about that is I learned a lot.

[BigTex]

Well, I say "reign supreme" because, in my view, the Republican party has long since forgotten what conservatism is. It's yet another tax and spend political party and with the exception of a few notables, it isn't all that much different than the Dems.

Do not misunderstand -- I elevate NO politician to God-like status, unlike the Paultards. I simply think the Constitution party platform speaks loudest to me, above and beyond any other political party.

The party has no hope or prayer of ever getting anywhere, which is a rotten shame -- so I have to go with the least of several evils.

Mitt Romney is a liar and he routinely takes credit for other's works, IMHO. I've seen it with my own eyes.

But he's the least of two evils -- Obama being, by far, the worst. So when it's time, I'll pull the handle for good ol' lyin' Mitt.

Its cute that you think having the constitution party instead of the republican party would make a difference. It is easy to be an idealist when you will never have to follow through on those ideals. How many of those promises in their platform do you think they could pass without a 60 vote majority senate? almost none. They would get nothing done and then you would be whining and calling them liars just like you are about Romney and the GOP.

[obumazombie]

The libs/dems/socialists are the real obstructionists, they make the GOPers  look like pikers.

[CG6468]

Anyone else switiching parties this election?

Not me. I've been a conservative Republican all of my life.

[Penrod]

Not me.

I've been a conservative Republican all of my life

.

The two dont always go together.

I find many Republicans so called conservative stances a very liberal reading of the constitution

[NHSparky]

Well I love Boortz but Im also definitely a Reagan conservative. I also like Ron Paul. At least I now know where things stand on this forum. Ill have to restrain my libertarian ideas here it seems Conservatism first before any man or party. Though my conservatism may be far different from yours. So once more are liberals banned here? Oh and im no Ron Paul cultist thats for sure.

I think you'll find that a lot of people hold libertarian beliefs to some degree.

Take me, for instance--I'm of the mind that there should NOT be a federal law or amendment banning same-sex marriage, just as there shouldn't be hate crimes legislation--both in a sense legislate morality.

But while I'm relatively liberal on social issues (if you want an abortion, I feel it's morally wrong, and you are going to have to answer to your God in your way, and you shouldn't be using anyone else's--read taxpayer--money to fund your "choice") and have no issue with gays/lesbians having civil unions (but marriage is a RELIGIOUS issue--you want to get "married", be part of a religion that recognizes same-sex marriage) I'm pretty damned conservative/Constitutional purist when it comes to the scope of especially the federal government.

But neither am I one of those idiotic "Free State Project" dipshits who think "freedom" is doing whatever the **** you want, either.

[BigTex]

I think you'll find that a lot of people hold libertarian beliefs to some degree.

Take me, for instance--I'm of the mind that there should NOT be a federal law or amendment banning same-sex marriage, just as there shouldn't be hate crimes legislation--both in a sense legislate morality.

But while I'm relatively liberal on social issues (if you want an abortion, I feel it's morally wrong, and you are going to have to answer to your God in your way, and you shouldn't be using anyone else's--read taxpayer--money to fund your "choice") and have no issue with gays/lesbians having civil unions (but marriage is a RELIGIOUS issue--you want to get "married", be part of a religion that recognizes same-sex marriage) I'm pretty damned conservative/Constitutional purist when it comes to the scope of especially the federal government.

But neither am I one of those idiotic "Free State Project" dipshits who think "freedom" is doing whatever the **** you want, either.

I dont think you can be "part" libertarian. If you advocate liberty in one area but restrict it in another, thats not libertarianism or a degree of libertarianism. Conservatives might agree with some of the same issues that libertarians agree with but they arent anywhere near the same IMO

[Penrod]

I would say the anti Federalists were Libertarians. Jefferson being a good example

[Penrod]

“I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism,” Reagan said in 1975.

“The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.”

He continued, “Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are travelling the same path.”

Were not that far apart.

[RightCoast]

I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism

libertarianism

not

Libertarianism

pretty significant distinction.

[Penrod]

You mean like how in the DOI were called the united States of America? Not the United States of America?

[NHSparky]

I dont think you can be "part" libertarian. If you advocate liberty in one area but restrict it in another, thats not libertarianism or a degree of libertarianism. Conservatives might agree with some of the same issues that libertarians agree with but they arent anywhere near the same IMO

Bullshit--"pure" libertarians aren't much different from anarchists.  There are those who hold libertarian beliefs but who recognize they can't just do whatever the **** they want without any check on their actions.

[RightCoast]

Bullshit--"pure" libertarians aren't much different from anarchists.  There are those who hold libertarian beliefs but who recognize they can't just do whatever the **** they want without any check on their actions.

Hence the difference between Big L and little l libertarians - there were a few posters back on CU that would argue you could anything you wanted as long as you were in your house, car or other property.

[CG6468]

.


The two dont always go together.

I find many Republicans so called conservative stances a very liberal reading of the constitution

They go together for me.

[JohnnyReb]

As for me, if Romney is elected, I'm joining the party of JohnnyReb at my house and get drunk.....JohnnyReb hasn't been "DRUNK" in 28 years.

[BigTex]

Bullshit--"pure" libertarians aren't much different from anarchists.  There are those who hold libertarian beliefs but who recognize they can't just do whatever the **** they want without any check on their actions.

My point was the the "pure" libertarians are the only libertarians, every one else are just plain old conservatives.

[Danglars]

I dont think you can be "part" libertarian. If you advocate liberty in one area but restrict it in another, thats not libertarianism or a degree of libertarianism. Conservatives might agree with some of the same issues that libertarians agree with but they arent anywhere near the same IMO

Even libertarians don't believe in no restrictions at all, BT. I'll give you an example; libertarians think non-prescription, currently illegal drugs should be fully legalized. I agree with this to a point (see second paragraph below).

But first, note the adjective "non-prescription" in that sentence. In the case of prescription drugs, there aren't any libertarians who would say these medications should be dispensed except under a doctor's supervision (except that there always extremists).

Second, at some point a "drug" becomes a poison. I'm not sure I'd legalize cocaine, because even one use could be deadly, and that efect might be considered to place it in the poison category. But to take it further, where there's no grey area, libertarians would never advocate for the legal sales and purchase of actual poisons, like cyanide and azide.

[Big Dog]

Even libertarians don't believe in no restrictions at all, BT. I'll give you an example; libertarians think non-prescription, currently illegal drugs should be fully legalized. I agree with this to a point (see second paragraph below).

But first, note the adjective "non-prescription" in that sentence. In the case of prescription drugs, there aren't any libertarians who would say these medications should be dispensed except under a doctor's supervision (except that there always extremists).

Second, at some point a "drug" becomes a poison. I'm not sure I'd legalize cocaine, because even one use could be deadly, and that efect might be considered to place it in the poison category. But to take it further, where there's no grey area, libertarians would never advocate for the legal sales and purchase of actual poisons, like cyanide and azide.

Cyanide compounds are legal to buy, sell, and possess.

Sodium azide is the principle propellant in air bags, and is available for sale from Fisher Scientific.

Why do you believe libertarians don't support the private ownership, sale, or purchase of industrial chemicals?

[freedumb2003]

Ronkonkoma on Long Island.

I would consider moving there just to have that on my return address :)

[Penrod]

Even libertarians don't believe in no restrictions at all, BT. I'll give you an example; libertarians think non-prescription, currently illegal drugs should be fully legalized. I agree with this to a point (see second paragraph below).

But first, note the adjective "non-prescription" in that sentence. In the case of prescription drugs, there aren't any libertarians who would say these medications should be dispensed except under a doctor's supervision (except that there always extremists).

Second, at some point a "drug" becomes a poison. I'm not sure I'd legalize cocaine, because even one use could be deadly, and that efect might be considered to place it in the poison category. But to take it further, where there's no grey area, libertarians would never advocate for the legal sales and purchase of actual poisons, like cyanide and azide.

You can buy all sorts of poisons over the counter right now. Rat poison for one. I cant believe they havent made the cigarette companies put a skull and crossbones on their packages yet.

There is nothing in the constitution giving the federal government the power to tell you what you can eat or consume. State laws are another matter.

Heres my solution to the crack cocaine problem. A reality show called The crack motel. Where people check in but they only check out permanently. Let everyone see how paranoid and ridiculous people look when smoking that crap never mind all the deaths they would see. Education is the answer to the drug problem just as weve been doing with tobacco not stupid unconstitutional laws. Also there was no drug problem until the government made drugs illegal and put the profit in it.

[obumazombie]

There is profit in drugs including alcohol because drugs are a product people want.