The Libertarian Party

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

the iron horse

Rock n' Roll Doggie
Joined
Nov 23, 2004
Messages
3,266
Location
in a glass of CheerWine
"By the Web site standards mentioned, opposition to gun control laws and excessive taxation makes one a terrorist. Insisting that we adhere to the Constitution makes one a terrorist. Lawfully demanding that the federal government protect, as opposed to usurp, the individual rights outlined in the Bill of Rights makes one a terrorist. The two groups of people who most typify the description I just provided are our Founding Fathers and Libertarians. It seems that Alabama Homeland Security would incarcerate Madison, Washington and Jefferson at Guantanamo Bay, if they had that option."
-LP Political Director Stephen Gordon in the Birmingham News in response to a couple of Homeland Security Internet pages which painted terrorists with a very broad brush

"The country has devolved so much into a two-party system that many folks believe that if you abandon one party, you must necessarily take up common cause with the other one. Yet if you have a choice between two restaurants - one that serves food laced with rat poison and one that serves it laced with arsenic, you might want to eat somewhere else, even if it's a long drive until the next rest stop and even if the new restaurant hasn't gotten great reviews."
- columnist Steven Greenhut explaining his decision to join the LP in the Orange County Register, May 6, 2007


"If I could get this down to zero, I'd be happy."
- Montana LP Chairman Mike Fellows about a proposed state income tax cut, Billings Gazette, April 11, 2007

"...the Libertarian Party, among all of the parties out there, is the only one that is true to my core philosophy of working to minimize government power and maximize individual liberty. None of the other parties, and especially the Republican Party any longer, is at all committed to that philosophy. And secondly, my great concern, manifested especially since 9/11, is the assaults on our fundamental civil liberties by this administration. [That's] personified, for example, in the disregard for the rule of law as exhibited by the warrantless NSA [National Security Agency] electronic surveillance in violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. More recently, [there were] documented abuses at the FBI in carrying out certain of the expanded powers granted in the Patriot Act, namely, national security letters. And in January of this year, the testimony by the attorney general that this administration does not believe that the fundamental right to a writ of habeas corpus is an important, fundamental, constitutional guarantee. So what we have is a party, the Republican Party, to which I was very proud to belong for many, many years, no longer being committed to a core conservative philosophy. The Libertarian Party is so committed, and I felt that at the time that it was necessary to make a change because of the seriousness of the assaults on our civil liberties."
- former Congressman Bob Barr, Salon News, April 4, 2007

"For instance, most election bills are written in ways that help protect the power of the incumbency, ballot access laws being the most obvious example. They write laws that make it harder for them to have any third-party opposition. And [this recent call for public campaign financing] is yet another example; this is basically another ballot-access barrier."
- LP Political Director Stephen Gordon, The New Standard, April 2, 2007

"The problem is that we are a minority party in a winner-take-all voting system," said Mr. Redpath, urging party activists to support "electoral reform" aimed at creating a system of proportional representation.
- LNC Chairman William Redpath, The Washington Times, March 19, 2007

"We have to put our best faces forward in winnable races," said Shane Cory, who became executive director of the Libertarian Party last year. He emphasized the need to "build from the bottom up" by winning office at the state and local level, and agreed with Mr. Viguerie's stress on issue-oriented activism. "We need to diversify and be able to address a broad range of issues," Mr. Cory said.
- LP Executive Director Shane Cory, The Washington Times, March 19, 2007

"If they want there to be a viable libertarian alternative in the political process of the United States, they should support the Libertarian Party and vote for its candidates."
- LNC Chairman William Redpath, Reason Magazine, December 2006


"Libertarians are neither conservative nor liberal. Libertarians believe in liberty on all the issues. They believe in personal freedoms/civil liberties and economic freedoms, whereas the Republicans want to control many social freedoms, and Democrats want to control many economic freedoms."
- Corey Stern, The Minnesota Daily, March 16, 2006


"The primary process of the two older parties is driving them farther and farther to the extreme . . . they are abandoning their more moderate and their younger and their more innovative candidates.Obviously if one of those people were to step forward and look to an existing organization like ours, the Libertarian Party. . . they could achieve an awful lot of traction, an awful lot of support from the voters who are being left out of this entire equation."
- excerpt from the March 10, 2006 appearance of LP National Chair, Michael Dixon on the Fox News Show, "Your World with Neal Cavuto"

Political scientists will tell you that the almost natural result of that is two dominant parties running for the center, trying to offend as few people as possible, and that's what gives us situations where everybody avoids the issues when they're running for office, situations where you have groupthink to a certain extent in legislatures, such as the resounding vote in allowing President Bush to take us to war in Iraq."
-LNC Chairman William Redpath, HotSoup.com, December 18, 2006

"Dislodged voters are unhappy with the two-party system, that’s who we’re targeting."
- Chief of Staff of the Libertarian Party, Shane Cory quoted in MSNBC.com article on December 5, 2005

"Voters who want the government out of their wallets, their bedrooms, their businesses and their hair, who just want to be left alone, have their own party. It's called the Libertarian Party."
- Chuck Muth, United Press International, January 26, 2005


http://www.lp.org/
 
Though running under the Republican banner, it seems to me that Ron Paul is the best hope for libertarians in the 2008 Presidential Election, although his relatively tough stance on immigration seems out of step with other libertarians.
 
Last edited:
financeguy said:
Though running under the Republican banner, it seems to me that Ron Paul is the best hope for libertarians in the 2008 Presidential Election, although his relatively tough stance on immigration seems out of step with other libertarians.

It's the only way he could get elected where he is currently...
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:
It's the only way he could get elected where he is currently...

Perhaps, but I don't actually think he is faking any of his beliefs. I think he is actually a very genuine politician.

He happens to be 'on-board' with the Republican conservative mainstream with regard to his stances on immigration and abortion, but most of his other stances are miles apart from the other Republican so-called 'conservative' candidates.
 
financeguy said:


Perhaps, but I don't actually think he is faking any of his beliefs. I think he is actually a very genuine politician.


Doubt it. My family knows him personally, and although he goes against his adopted party on the war he changed a lot of his views in order to run on the Republican ticket and get their fundraising...
 
Although the Libertarian presidential candidates have been on the ballots in every state (for the past several decades), they have never been allowed to participate in the TV presidential debates.

Remember Ross Perot?

Why was he invited to the TV debates?????
And the Libertarian candidate excluded????
 
Last edited:
the iron horse said:


Remember Ross Perot?

Why was he invited to the TV debates?????
And the Libertarian candidate excluded????

He had the economic backing and actually had quite a following.

Do they normally invite those that really don't have a chance?

I don't think it's a conspiracy...
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:


He had the economic backing and actually had quite a following.

Do they normally invite those that really don't have a chance?

I don't think it's a conspiracy...


"Don't have a chance."

I have been voting Libertarian for a long time and I have heard over and over from my family/friends.....

"The Libertarians do not have a chance. You are wasting your vote."


My reply: I voted for freedom, what did you vote for? More of the same???
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:
Doubt it. My family knows him personally, and although he goes against his adopted party on the war he changed a lot of his views in order to run on the Republican ticket and get their fundraising...

So, which of his views have changed?
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:
I don't think it's a conspiracy...

Actually, I reckon it probably is a conspiracy. Though not necessarily a conspiracy targeted specifically against the Libertarian Party.

How many Green Party candidates have been given a fair hearing by the mainstream media, or for that matter how many GENUINELY left wing Democratic candidates have been given a fair hearing?

Are you really happy that someone like Hilary Clinton is probably now going to be the Democratic candidate?
 
"How many Green Party candidates have been given a fair hearing by the mainstream media, or for that matter how many GENUINELY left wing Democratic candidates have been given a fair hearing?"

I agree financeguy.

None


I"m not upset if we disagree, I'm just mad if we are muted (censored) in discussing our disagreements.
 
financeguy said:


Actually, I reckon it probably is a conspiracy. Though not necessarily a conspiracy targeted specifically against the Libertarian Party.

How many Green Party candidates have been given a fair hearing by the mainstream media, or for that matter how many GENUINELY left wing Democratic candidates have been given a fair hearing?

Are you really happy that someone like Hilary Clinton is probably now going to be the Democratic candidate?

I'm not saying I'm happy with the situation at all, but the truth is unless you are independently wealty or in one of the 2 major parties you aren't going to get your name out there for enough votes. Simple as that, no conspiracy.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:
Well he use to run on drug legalization and he's catered his stem cell stance...

That's a pretty weak response, dude. He's hardly sold out on his core principles, has he?
 
financeguy said:


That's a pretty weak response, dude. He's hardly sold out on his core principles, has he?

I don't think I ever claimed he was a sell out. I just know he had to drop a few of his "pet" stances in order to be on the Republican ticket, and the move to the Republican party. His move to the Republican party was obviously due to the fact that he recongnized he'd get elected with that title. I just think that's a questionable move...
 
the iron horse said:
"How many Green Party candidates have been given a fair hearing by the mainstream media, or for that matter how many GENUINELY left wing Democratic candidates have been given a fair hearing?"

I agree financeguy.

None


I"m not upset if we disagree, I'm just mad if we are muted (censored) in discussing our disagreements.

I don't think our disagreements would be particularly huge. My own opinions are formed by an amalgam of libertarian, green and conservative threads of thought, though I sometimes find it difficult to decide which is the more important to me. I have no time for the extremes of the green movement - the Eco-Marxist fraternity, as I call them.

I agree with a fair degree of the Libertarian Party's platform, and as I've stated before on here I think it is a pity that there is no Libertarian Party in Europe.

Having said that, I personally think that it is naive to allow all economic activity to be decided by the whims of the free market. For example, I'd be a strong advocate of publicly funded rail transport, and I wouldn't really agree with the libertarian perspective regarding the right to bear arms, although I understand that the right to bear arms is something that many people hold dear, for justifed reasons in many cases.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:
I don't think I ever claimed he was a sell out. I just know he had to drop a few of his "pet" stances in order to be on the Republican ticket, and the move to the Republican party. His move to the Republican party was obviously due to the fact that he recongnized he'd get elected with that title. I just think that's a questionable move...

I don't really understand what you're talking about with regard to 'move to the Republican party' Surely in Texas, he has always stood as a Republican representative, right back to the early 70's!

Frankly, I think you're just throwing a bit of muck around in the hope that some of it will stick, and you're now furiously backtracking as you can see that I'm not buying it.

Ron Paul has always been consistent. If he has ever changed a viewpoint, it is because of innate conviction, and not for reasons of short term political advantage, as you claim. I admit, his chances of becoming the next US President are not particularly high.
 
I think over the next few years the Libertarian Party could do quite well. Both major parties are suffering badly. Conservatives are mad at the spending and scandals of the Republicans, Liberals are mad because the Dems can't stop the war...
 
financeguy said:


I don't really understand what you're talking about with regard to 'move to the Republican party' Surely in Texas, he has always stood as a Republican representative, right back to the early 70's!

Frankly, I think you're just throwing a bit of muck around in the hope that some of it will stick, and you're now furiously backtracking as you can see that I'm not buying it.

Ron Paul has always been consistent. If he has ever changed a viewpoint, it is because of innate conviction, and not for reasons of short term political advantage, as you claim. I admit, his chances of becoming the next US President are not particularly high.

So you live in Texas and have followed his career?

He ran as the libertarian canidate in 1988 but when returning to Congress went back to the Republican ticket, and dropped a lot of the issues he was very adamant about during his run for president, he pissed off a lot of the libertarian party by doing that.

Look I actually agree with many of his views. I just don't think he's as sincere as you think, I think he's as oppurtunist as any other politician, and don't really care for him much personally.

That's all I'm saying about that...
 
It absolutely IS a conspiracy that 3rd, 4th, 5th parties are shut out of not only nationally televised debates but in some states have been left off of ballots.

It is entirely in the best interest of the Reps and Dems to have the two party system, it is entirely in the best interest of the lobbyists to have a two party system for which they can funnel money to both sides, ensuring their views are not only heard but basically endorsed on all sides.

You don't need cloak and dagger or black helicopters to have a conspiracy.

The conspiracy is to consolidate power. The Republican hold on the right side of the spectrum could not be tighter, the Democrat hold on the left side of the spectrum could not be tighter.

Ross Perot was an expection only because of money and the advent of 24 hour cable news programs who basically gave him so much free advertisement it probably shoud have been a crime (I'm not really saying it should be a crime, just saying it for emphasis).
 
Last edited:
Let's pretend for a moment that the U.S. elected the nominee from the Libertarian or Green Party.

Neither would be able to accomplish a damn thing that didn't directly coincide with a Dem/Rep lobbyist-bought agenda.

Could a Warren Buffet or Bill Gates run for President and get elected? Yes, I don't see why not. What would they accomplish? Whatever the congress allowed them to, they'd have to bend over for the corporate interests to get anything done.

I don't agree with Nader on several of his views but his ideas about how corporate interests completely own Washington are totally correct. The only way to fix the problem would be to build a lobbyist-free base of Independents consisting of liberals, conservatives and moderates all alike, call it whatever you want.

Then when you can start getting people elected to congress on a national level. Then, maybe you can make a dent. Until then, it is about the steepest hill you could imagine having to climb.

The system is broken, period.
 
Last edited:
AEON said:
I think over the next few years the Libertarian Party could do quite well. Both major parties are suffering badly. Conservatives are mad at the spending and scandals of the Republicans, Liberals are mad because the Dems can't stop the war...

I wish it were true, but really there'd have to be some kind of change in law for the two party system to stop at this point.
 
phillyfan26 said:
I wish it were true, but really there'd have to be some kind of change in law for the two party system to stop at this point.

The only way I see this ever happening is through ending the primary system, in favor of a one-day national runoff election, where any candidate can run, with any number of Democrats, Republicans, or third-party candidates being on completely equal footing. Many countries--and the state of Louisiana--currently do this with their elections. Let the top two candidates face off in the general election.

Right now, our electoral system is the main thing maintaining the two party system.
 
financeguy said:
My own opinions are formed by an amalgam of libertarian, green and conservative threads of thought, though I sometimes find it difficult to decide which is the more important to me.

In other words, a combination of this and this
 
I hate the way third party candidates are treated here. It's not fair. It's not democratic. We have a two-party monopoly on the political process. I'll end up voting for Hillary if she's the Democratic nominee because I don't want another Republican president. But I wish we could have a Green president, I really do.
 
Back
Top Bottom