FrankForum (Frankness IS Forum)

No ads, no mods, Frankly Anonymous (you can join w/fake name/email, are not tracked)!
It is currently 19 Oct 2019, 05:08

All times are UTC


Forum rules


GUESTS AND MEMBERS CAN VOTE AND POST HERE. Not moderated, so you are on your own. Spambots and stalkers and anti-semites will be deleted and banned without notice. Else, try to be thoughtful, protect your own privacy, don't swear much (makes one appear infantile), but I won't censor. POLICE YOURSELF.



Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 64 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 Next
Author Message
 Post subject: What about Libertarian?
PostPosted: 27 Apr 2016, 03:31 
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 10 Aug 2015, 16:03
Posts: 1831
With fully half of the Democrats wanting Bernie not Hillary, and over half of the GOP not wanting Donald Trump, there's a real possibility that the Libertarian Party can win big, this year.

So what's 'Libertarian?' Think of it as the HANDS OFF! party:

Hands off your wallet,
Hands off your bed;
Hands off the foreigners,
YOU rule you, instead!


So they're like the best of the Republicans, in that they want small or no taxes, small or no gov't programs.
So they're like the best of the Democrats, in that they don't want to rule on ANY aspect of your social life.
They're ISOLATIONIST with respect to foreign countries, so don't want to be involved nor give aid.

I have a problem with that last bit: God will kill US if we're not Israel's best friend, Genesis 12, 15, 17. It's a fact of history that those Bible chapters prove out: befriend Israel, and you prosper; don't, and you are wiped out. Supposedly Austin Petersen among the Libertarian candidates is most pro-Israel, but if Isolationist, what good is it? We can't afford to be isolationist. We were, and Europe's wars sucked us in. Like China, we wanted to be on our own, but the European warring and traveling sucked in China, too -- to her detriment. So she and therefore we, should be PREPARED to defend ourselves.. by a global stationing (her foreign policy is thus based).

Else, Libertarian is very attractive. Not too many folks are in that party, and not too many have much experience. But if you want to 'shake up Washington' then this is your best bet.

If Trump is the #GOP nominee, I'll vote Libertarian. He's flat evil.

Your thoughts?


Report this post
Top
   
PostPosted: 27 Apr 2016, 04:03 
User avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2015, 22:51
Posts: 880
I am about as libertarian as it gets. If you know someone who is more libertarian than me, then I'd like to meet that person. :grin: I'm also moderately Isolationist, but not across the board. I think real threats to US and Israel should be completely eradicated, and the rest of the world can live in trembling fear of our overwhelmingly strong military...But that's just a pipe dream...if Anonynomenon where king of Americaland....

But practically speaking, I don't believe elections can fix our government. The only solution in my eye beyond a growing pivot is by dismantling tyrannical laws via Judicial Review. So America needs to be cleaned up through the courts. But who has the money to do that? Do we have enough objectivity to produce a functioning jury? Would our judges honor the due process of law???? Nope. I don't believe it for a second.

So again, the only real solution is a growing pivot.

_________________
HEB 4:12
The word of God is alive and powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of the soul and the spirit, of the joints and marrow, and is a critic of the thoughts and intents of the heart.


Last edited by Anonynomenon on 27 Apr 2016, 04:14, edited 1 time in total.

Report this post
Top
   
PostPosted: 27 Apr 2016, 04:07 
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 10 Aug 2015, 16:03
Posts: 1831
Agreed, but I don't understand this sentence: "I think real treats to US and Israel should be completely eradicated". Care to elaborate?

PS: I did send the topic link to John Stossel of FBN, since he hosted the Libertarian debates. Hopefully more Libertarians will come here and talk. I really do believe what I posted.


Report this post
Top
   
PostPosted: 27 Apr 2016, 04:14 
User avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2015, 22:51
Posts: 880
brainout wrote:
Agreed, but I don't understand this sentence: "I think real treats to US and Israel should be completely eradicated". Care to elaborate?


I meant real threats.

What I mean is Saudi Arabia, Iran, Turkey. They all go down, and they become American territory under American BIll of Rights. I'm not opposed at all to Imperialism. I just don't like the half-cocked decisions that our government is famous for. But we are way too far in debt to execute those maneuvers, and our military is way too weak.

So I'm a Domestic Libertarian and a Foreign Imperialist I suppose. Any nation that threatens us gets taken over.

_________________
HEB 4:12
The word of God is alive and powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of the soul and the spirit, of the joints and marrow, and is a critic of the thoughts and intents of the heart.


Last edited by Anonynomenon on 27 Apr 2016, 04:25, edited 1 time in total.

Report this post
Top
   
PostPosted: 27 Apr 2016, 04:24 
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 10 Aug 2015, 16:03
Posts: 1831
Oh, OK. I'm with you there, too. That to me IS the 'Bush Doctrine' except he didn't carry it that far.


Report this post
Top
   
PostPosted: 27 Apr 2016, 04:32 
User avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2015, 22:51
Posts: 880
brainout wrote:
Oh, OK. I'm with you there, too. That to me IS the 'Bush Doctrine' except he didn't carry it that far.


I supported Bush all throughout High School. I was literally one of a handful of his supporters in a school full of socialists. What changed my opinion of Bush Jr was Medicare Part D, the questions that I still have about 9/11 (but those questions didn't arise until 2009), and the fact that Iraq and Afghanistan where "military conflicts" in the "war on terror" when it should have been WWIII. Back then, America was strong enough to fight WWIII. Today we are not. We missed our opportunity to secure our prosperity and Israel's safety.

With that said, I do realize that most of my expectations are unrealistic, and I'm gradually moving away from my political polarity. We don't need good president for God to do His work.

_________________
HEB 4:12
The word of God is alive and powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of the soul and the spirit, of the joints and marrow, and is a critic of the thoughts and intents of the heart.


Last edited by Anonynomenon on 27 Apr 2016, 04:44, edited 1 time in total.

Report this post
Top
   
PostPosted: 27 Apr 2016, 04:43 
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 10 Aug 2015, 16:03
Posts: 1831
Okay, agreed there, too. I wasn't a fan of Bush Sr. for refusing Israel the loan she wanted. Was and still am a fan of Dubya and wish Jeb were running. But you're right, America doesn't have the strength or stomach for WWIII now. But we are in it. Phony war phase. So we need to know that POTUS will be hawkish if need be, and if enough terrorism occurs, I think the people will get behind it, this time.

Remember the Colonel explaining how we trained for WWII with wooden tanks and wooden guns?


Report this post
Top
   
PostPosted: 27 Apr 2016, 04:50 
User avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2015, 22:51
Posts: 880
As much as I hate to say it, Cruz might be what we need. The Dominionism is bad, but we need someone to lead us into war and stick with those decisions. Cruz has his Crusader attitude to motivate his war. It might be for the wrong personal reasons, but God can still direct Cruz's fury to the right place.

This is with the understanding that no matter what, America will live under Tyranny for the next 8 years (whether its Hillary, Sanders, Cruz, or Trump). But Cruz has it in for Islam, and Israel might benefit from that.

I've heard the Colonel tell some amazing war stories, but not about wooden tanks. We really need the Colonel for president. It's just too bad it can't happen.

_________________
HEB 4:12
The word of God is alive and powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of the soul and the spirit, of the joints and marrow, and is a critic of the thoughts and intents of the heart.


Report this post
Top
   
PostPosted: 27 Apr 2016, 05:15 
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 10 Aug 2015, 16:03
Posts: 1831
Yeah, I keep on wondering if Cruz realizes that Dominionism is anti-semitic (Replacement theology in one of the many permutations since Constantine). I don't think he's lying when he says he's pro-Israel, but not sure he can't be manipulated by all those 'teachers' he lauds (and they are astonishingly apostate, esp. his dad). So I'd rather he be VP for 4-8 years and God use the time to straighten him out.

LOL the Colonel would never have wanted to be Pres. But he's home now, and doesn't have that burden anymore!


Report this post
Top
   
PostPosted: 04 May 2016, 12:14 
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 10 Aug 2015, 16:03
Posts: 1831
Audio of four related Libertarian commercials, click here. Right click on the audio, to download it (under 10 mins). Or, go to http://www.brainout.net/downloads and search for 'LibertarianCommercials.MP3' to download.


Report this post
Top
   
PostPosted: 22 May 2016, 09:22 
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 10 Aug 2015, 16:03
Posts: 1831
I'm torn between these candidates. Each has something to offer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ethTIGmblYo


Report this post
Top
   
PostPosted: 22 May 2016, 19:28 
User avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2015, 22:51
Posts: 880
Watching the debate, so far, I think McAfee is the most well rounded of the three. He has the business angle, and as a result seems to respect the freedom that allowed for his prosperity to grow, and more importantly, he doesn't seem overly concerned with what the media thinks about him.

Petersen seems too scripted, as though he has pre-designated a specific response for each political issue, and sugar-coated it for the masses. I get the impression that he is in the game for the power, not to fulfill responsibilities.

Johnson acts like he's walking on egg shells. Like he's afraid to say something that might sound unpopular.

Edit:
McAfee has an excellent closing statement. He knows how to play the crowd, and he seems very calculated in his responses. Of the three, McAfee is the obvious choice for me.

_________________
HEB 4:12
The word of God is alive and powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of the soul and the spirit, of the joints and marrow, and is a critic of the thoughts and intents of the heart.


Report this post
Top
   
PostPosted: 22 May 2016, 23:26 
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 10 Aug 2015, 16:03
Posts: 1831
Well, you might want to watch the John Stossel debates, they are very different.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQPWiCgAjDo


Report this post
Top
   
PostPosted: 23 May 2016, 03:35 
User avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2015, 22:51
Posts: 880
Only got through half of the debate for now, but I see what you mean. Petersen looks much better now, and McAfee much more reckless and irresponsible.

McAfee has some very unrealistic views about peace and war, which is definitely a deal breaker. He seems to rely on personality and reputation, much like Trump. In fact, he seems like the Libertarian version of Trump. He's good at identifying the problems and solutions in principle, but offers no practical way to solve these problems.

Peterson is pro-life, but recognizes that the President has no authority to stop abortions. Or maybe he's really pro-choice, and is trying to water down his position for the Republicans. That is a possibility. I also like his incremental approach to getting this country off of welfare. More importantly, he understands that war is an inevitable reality, and that we should be prepared for it. I like his Constitutional approach to war as well.

Johnson, seems very mediocre to me, like he's still walking on egg shells. I'm not too impressed with him.

They're all against the death penalty, which I think is idiotic, but a law respecting President can't stop the death penalty either.

So now, I'm in favor of Petersen. This debate really brings out more important issues than the one moderated by Penn Jillette.

_________________
HEB 4:12
The word of God is alive and powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of the soul and the spirit, of the joints and marrow, and is a critic of the thoughts and intents of the heart.


Report this post
Top
   
PostPosted: 23 May 2016, 04:32 
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 10 Aug 2015, 16:03
Posts: 1831
Yeah, I'm torn like you. I really like Bill Weld. Libertarians don't bundle their Pres/VP, each has to be separately approved for nomination. Weld is pals with Johnson, but they aren't a package.

I've not revisited Weld yet, might change my mind, but my memories of him are favorable. We need centrists, and we need to kick the #prolife pro-Caesar Rev17 harlots out of politics, once and for all.

Oddly enough, maybe that's what Matt25:11 augurs.


Report this post
Top
   
PostPosted: 23 May 2016, 17:52 
User avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2015, 22:51
Posts: 880
Sadly, I don't see prolife leaving politics as long as WW3 is a pending threat. The Republicans are more likely to protect this nation than the Democrats and Libertarians. With the Republican party comes the fundy prolifers. As long as American Christians remain apostate, prolife will remain a political issue and war will be a continuous problem.

We need a cetrist, but Americans are raised with polar attitudes. My generation is almost pure Socialist. I think Libertarians are a minority. Of course that won't stop me from voting Libertarian.

_________________
HEB 4:12
The word of God is alive and powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of the soul and the spirit, of the joints and marrow, and is a critic of the thoughts and intents of the heart.


Report this post
Top
   
PostPosted: 24 May 2016, 14:52 
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 10 Aug 2015, 16:03
Posts: 1831
Well, if the GOP is in charge, we lose any wars we fight, since God must judge us, Lev 26 and Deut 28. I'm thinking that if GOP loses, then the other side wins and wins in military too (it's happened before), then that chastises us Christians without chastising US wholly.

Guilt is in all houses. Our house, however, carries the name of Christ so must be judged more severely. Don't want the less guilty being punnished along with us.


Report this post
Top
   
PostPosted: 29 May 2016, 11:46 
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 10 Aug 2015, 16:03
Posts: 1831
Libertarian debate in their nominating convention,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOGple27Jo0

If you'd rather watch it on CSPAN, here's the link: http://www.c-span.org/video/?409916-1/l ... ial-debate

At about an hour and nine minutes in the debate, the question was asked about the Iran deal and Israel. NONE OF THE CANDIDATES STOOD UP FOR ISRAEL, none acknowledged how Iran is out to kill Israel, which means God doesn't favor any of them.

So now I am untethered from Libertarian, too. SMALL GOVERNMENT is what I want, hands-off all social, but not anti-Israel.

There are many other related debates in the convention, including a whopping 8 hours of the first convention day in the Libertarian channel, https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCTG1Td ... haL7ztVQbQ


Report this post
Top
   
PostPosted: 29 May 2016, 19:35 
User avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2015, 22:51
Posts: 880
So none of the potentials have any respect for Israel? That doesn't put us in a good place. Back to square one again. Who to vote for?

_________________
HEB 4:12
The word of God is alive and powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of the soul and the spirit, of the joints and marrow, and is a critic of the thoughts and intents of the heart.


Report this post
Top
   
PostPosted: 30 May 2016, 02:04 
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 10 Aug 2015, 16:03
Posts: 1831
Well, the nominee is Johnson/Weld (P/VP). I twittered them to ask their position on Israel. May not get an answer or not one for awhile.


Report this post
Top
   
PostPosted: 31 May 2016, 20:51 
User avatar
Hey guys, I think you may have a bit of a misunderstanding as far as the libertarian (small "l" meaning the ideology, not the party, think "conservative" vs "Republican") position on foreign policy. Libertarians believe that it is not our duty to interfere in the affairs of other countries. That doesn't make us anti-Israel any more than it makes us anti-North Korea or anti-Sweeden. We can still be allies with a foreign nation without fighting a war for them in spite of their very capable military, or funding their weapons despite our rising debt.

We also don't believe in engaging any entity in hostility unless they become aggressive. It's right there in the Non-Agression Principle: "it shall be legal for anyone to do anything he wants, provided only that he not initiate (or threaten) violence against the person or legitimately owned property of another." If you take the questionable events of 9/11 out of the equation, did any Islamic entity initiate violence against the American people prior to the use of force against Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan? I would contend that they did not. So, then, how can we justify the use of force against those Islamic entities? We cannot.

Tangentially related is the question of imperialism. The libertarian ideology is in fierce opposition to the idea of forcefully acquiring another entity's property, people, goods, services, etc. as occurs when imperialism takes place. It directly violates the Non-Agression Principle as stated above!

Also, regarding isolationism: Isolationism is the principle that we should not engage with other nations in any way. Isolationism is not a libertarian principle. We believe in free trade with any and all who will do business with us; the free transfer of goods, services, ideas, and people from place to place encouraged by true free trade is the farthest thing possible from isolationism. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that creating war on another country to eradicate a people, a religion, a belief, an idea, etc. is a far more isolationist action than NOT creating that war, because you show that you aren't willing to allow free movement of that people, religion, belief, or idea. Not sending troops or giving aid (most of which is military in nature) is simply a way of recognizing that we have no business telling others what to do or who to follow. And our foreign involvement over the last 30 years has done far more to create terrorist threats and destabilize other people's and nations than any other actions during that time. Entanglement in foreign affairs clearly has not worked to stabilize the world, and has actively sent the Middle East into violent disarray; so why not try a foreign policy of non-involvement in foreign affairs beyond trade? That way, if a country acts contrary to how you like, you could use the free market to make your voice heard, and not buy goods from or sell goods to that country, rather than using military force to eradicate the people who live there.

Oh, and I noticed that you guys mentioned God a good bit. That's all well and fine, I support your right to belief in a deity just as I support the right of Muslims, Jews, Hindus, believers in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and atheists to believe what they choose to believe. A core tenant of the libertarian ideology is that one's mind belongs only to oneself. However, those beliefs have no place when signing, vetoing, or proposing legislation that will affect people of many different backgrounds and beliefs, as a president does. If we wish to be allies wit a foreign nation, we should become (or remain) so based on the merits and demerits of that country's current situation, not on what one group's holy book recommends. And we should never initiate conflict, certainly not over a difference of belief, as attempted eradication of an idea or belief is completely contrary to the free exchange of ideas or beliefs central to a working model of free trade.

Finally, I'd like to say welcome aboard the liberty train! As much as it might seem that I disagree with you two on issues of foreign policy, I both agree wholeheartedly with your domestic beliefs (as far as you've talked about them; the focus has certainly been on foreign policy here), as well as your choice of political party. I stand with Gary Johnson, although I don't find him to be the perfect candidate, because he's the only candidate who even pays a passing thought to personal liberty in an election season dominated by talk of walls and police/military patrols in areas where people predominantly hold different ideas and beliefs to those of the majority. I support Gary because he fights for you, me, and every single other resident of this country.


Report this post
Top
   
PostPosted: 31 May 2016, 21:27 
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 10 Aug 2015, 16:03
Posts: 1831
Thank you, Doyle! Did you see the great interview with Gary and Bill on MTP Daily? It just ended. They came off real well. As for talking about God, bear in mind that most of my followers are Christian, so I need to explain things in the same terms.

No problem if you're not, and no pressure, either.


Report this post
Top
   
PostPosted: 31 May 2016, 22:34 
User avatar
No I wasn't able to catch the interview, although I wanted to, as I had to help mow my yard. I definitely appreciate you bringing it to my attention though, I look forward to watching it if it gets uploaded somewhere!

With regards to religion, I don't honestly believe my personal beliefs matter as this is, of course, your forum and I am merely a guest! However, if I'm honest, I'm agnostic, in that I don't see enough reason anywhere that proves that one belief is correct over another. I respect Christians just as I respect any other group of people; I live with Christians daily and get along swimmingly, and I hope for no difference here! :)

The thing I disagree with, though, is using those beliefs to decide the future and alter the present of 300+ million people, a very significant number of whom don't share those beliefs. Using Biblical knowledge and lessons to govern a church? Wonderful, as those affected by the rules you create are not only followers of the same beliefs, but also completely voluntarily members of that church (in that one can leave a congregation at any time for any reason without enduring any undue hardship)! To govern a less voluntary group, even one so small as a neighborhood, however, should require a consensus of all residents, and a consent to be governed by such rules. Millions of Americans actively or passively object to rule by way of Biblical knowledge and lessons, meaning that consensus and consent on this issue are highly improbable, if not impossible, to achieve. Therefore, we should not only be tolerant of other religious groups, but we should give their members the reins to let them practice as they choose (as long as no individual violates the NAP, in which case that individual should be charged and judged as an individual with his or her own motivations). This means not instituting laws or policies that are exclusive to the free practice of one or more religious groups!


Report this post
Top
   
PostPosted: 01 Jun 2016, 01:31 
User avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2015, 22:51
Posts: 880
Hey Doyle.

We do talk a lot about God in this forum, but for the most part, we also realize that America was founded on a principle that separates church from state. I firmly believe that all governments should have the same attitude. Therefore I have a live and let live attitude up to the point that one's actions intrude upon or threaten the freedom of another individual or group. Again, this is nothing new. Our Bill of Rights makes that clear.

I believe in free trade with nations that respect the rights of individuals. So nations like Cuba, North Korea, Iran, China, Russia, Turkey and (most of all), Saudi Arabia should be blacklisted/boycotted, in my opinion. But the fact remains, that USA has very strong ties with many of these nations in one form or another. At this point, a withdrawal in trade from some of these nations (cough, Saudi Arabia, cough, cough) would probably open the floodgates to the world war that has been brewing for quite some time.

For that very reason, I am interested in a candidate who understands that any change in our current foreign policy will likely move us from Proxy-War status to World-War. When that shift happens, I want a President and Congress that will stick by our allies in Europe and Israel. Europe is being filled with immigrants who hate the Western culture, and Israel is surrounded by theocratic nations who believe in the destruction of the West and Israel. If you don't believe me, read the Quran. Look into the state sponsored flavors of Islam upheld by Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey. The only thing keeping us from war is our unstable position in the oil market.

Libertarianism is the way to go in my opinion. But remember that the nations of the world are run by MOBSTERS, especially in America (IMO). If we switch to Libertarianism, the MOBSTERS lose control. When those MOBSTERS lose control, they will fight for power and we will be their boots on the ground. Freedom comes at a hefty price, and so far, I don't see any candidate that really has an idea of what that price is. So at this point, I have little faith in any of these candidates (Republican, Democrat, or 3rd Party).

_________________
HEB 4:12
The word of God is alive and powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of the soul and the spirit, of the joints and marrow, and is a critic of the thoughts and intents of the heart.


Report this post
Top
   
PostPosted: 01 Jun 2016, 02:27 
User avatar

Joined: 31 May 2016, 23:03
Posts: 2
Hey anon!

You know what? I completely agree with your position here. I fully respect anybody who believes that their particular religion or belief set shouldn't be state-sponsored. I also agree on an embargo on goods to or from countries that violate basic human rights; however, I believe that this shouldn't be a federal embargo. The free market is far more effective at boycotting products than the government is, and a free market boycott wouldn't have the problematic government control over what goods we can buy, a large step toward totalitarianism.

Regarding Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey, didn't we work some puppetmaster magic shit to get "Western-friendly" leaders in two of those countries? That is why we shouldn't involve ourselves in the private affairs of other nations.


Report this post
Top
   
PostPosted: 01 Jun 2016, 03:06 
User avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2015, 22:51
Posts: 880
To be honest, I'm kind of torn on the Federal embargo issue. I can see why you wouldn't want the Feds to dictate embargos, but at the same time, I feel that it would be irresponsible to contribute to the economies of totalitarian nations. We would basically be encouraging and contributing to tyranny (accessory after the fact). If it should become a federal issue, I think it should remain in the hands of Congress.

I agree with you on the Middle East problems too. The West essentially created the problems in the Middle East by playing Puppet Master (all the way down to ISIS). We never should have involved ourselves. Most of these decisions were made before my time, but now the situation has been slowly back-firing on us. I want it stopped now. Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Turkey all have to go (in that order). ISIS will fall apart once the Saudi's and Turks are out of power.

The thing is, once you take out the Saudi Oil Gang, that places Russia, China, and the West in direct competition. So we can fix our problems for now, but it will require war...or we can keep kicking the can down the road, and USA will fall by war. Either way, there will not be any lasting world peace where nations seek to dominate the world markets, so war will always be a reality, since human nature always lusts for power.

Libertarianism can be a means to restore America, but we have to keep our teeth sharp. I don't really believe in preemptive strike, unless there is a clear threat to our existence as a nation. I think Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Iran have made their intentions clear, the problem is, that our government has participated in those very same endeavors (ISIS). So we need new people in the government who will respect the Bill of Rights, and I think we need to investigate and prosecute those who have been engaging in treasonous activities with the Saudi terror network.

But first we need liberty minded representatives in the government with teeth. I see some good libertarian idealists, but no one with sharp teeth.

Anyways, I'm still a bit of an idealist myself, to if it sounds like I'm ranting, just ignore me.

Its nice to have you on the forum.

_________________
HEB 4:12
The word of God is alive and powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of the soul and the spirit, of the joints and marrow, and is a critic of the thoughts and intents of the heart.


Report this post
Top
   
PostPosted: 01 Jun 2016, 03:30 
User avatar

Joined: 31 May 2016, 23:03
Posts: 2
That's what John McAfee would have provided. He's a libertarian with teeth if I've ever seen one. He also is the only candidate this election cycle to recognize the cybersecurity threat that China and Russia pose to us, a fix to which could prevent, postpone, or at the very least allow us to win an all out 21st century war against them if it were to come to that.

As it is, Gary Johnson lacks those teeth and the cybersecurity perspective, but he is at the very least a liberty-minded man who will seek to empower us individuals at the expense of the government's power. In an election where only one candidate isn't an authoritarian statist, such as this year whether the Democratic nominee is Sanders or Clinton, the choice is clear. We can't allow another statist figurehead to continue systematically demolishing our power as individual private citizens, as has been done since the 1830s.

Oh, and regarding war: it is a defeatist attitude to say that there will always be war, and especially that it must always involve the United States. Sure conflict is human nature, but if we work together as a people, world peace could be achieved. And even if it isn't, the US doesn't need to commit aggression toward a group that never aggressed us, assuming a World War type scenario where diplomatic entanglements draw the entire world into the conflict.


Report this post
Top
   
PostPosted: 01 Jun 2016, 03:47 
User avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2015, 22:51
Posts: 880
McAfee looked really good to me, until he started talking about war. I don't share his vision of world peace. World peace is a check that none of us can cash as long as there are people who hold disregard for the liberty of others. There are at least two things that no man can guarantee in this world without taking away freedom; world peace and equality. It just will not work. That's my personal opinion.

I dislike Johnson/Weld for that very same reason, and because they seem like statists. Weld is fond of the UN, I am not.

Petersen seemed like the best choice, though, I don't like his pro-life non-sense, and I personally just don't like the way he presents himself. Nevertheless, I think he would have been the best choice for us.

I believe war will be an ongoing problem. It might enter into remission from time to time, but it will always flare-up again in this age. I do not believe that America has to always be involved, but this coming war will involve America whether we like it or not. We have spent trillions investing in this war, there is no way we can side-step it. The question is how are we going to handle it?

_________________
HEB 4:12
The word of God is alive and powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of the soul and the spirit, of the joints and marrow, and is a critic of the thoughts and intents of the heart.


Report this post
Top
   
PostPosted: 05 Jun 2016, 08:51 
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 10 Aug 2015, 16:03
Posts: 1831
I agree with you, Anonynomenon, but frankly we're stuck with big involvement overseas, so not even the #Libertarian traditional stances can be deployed. But getting into future brouhahas will be less likely, if they are in WH.

My latest assessment of why a conservative should vote #Libertarian rather than for an Independent Conservative, http://www.brainout.net/downloads/wma/W ... tarian.MP3 . Also search Twitter for #Libertarian and #GovTicket to get links for what @GovGaryJohnson and @BillWeld are saying, as the press attention now is heating up.

SMALL GOV'T is something we all should want, so whatever our personal agendas, we are most free to pursue. #GOP and #Dems have all gone Big Gov't, so we'll forever be polarized if we don't shrink Washington.


Report this post
Top
   
PostPosted: 06 Jun 2016, 05:32 
User avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2015, 22:51
Posts: 880
Yeah, you're right about that. America's problems will have to be tackled one step at a time, and that first step is shrinking government, but that will come with a lot of dangers too. If shrinking government means shrinking military or cutting DOD funding, then that leaves us vulnerable.

I went from Republican to Libertarian in 2008 (John McCain was the last straw for me), but the public has this notion that 3rd party will act as a spoiler. As long as the majority thinks that way, it will remain so. Kind of a mass psychosomatic cycle. So really, its a matter of people waking up, which is on my prayer list.

_________________
HEB 4:12
The word of God is alive and powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of the soul and the spirit, of the joints and marrow, and is a critic of the thoughts and intents of the heart.


Report this post
Top
   
PostPosted: 07 Jun 2016, 05:16 
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 10 Aug 2015, 16:03
Posts: 1831
Well, the good thing with Gary is that he's strong on an 'impenetrable defense' (his term). So while he thinks he can slash 20% off the milit budget, once in office he'd quickly realize it needs enhancement, not cuts.

He's a spunky guy. Doesn't come off well on camera. He and Austin would make a great team. Austin is a Spitfire. Weld brings a good foreign sense to the table. So hopefully Austin will have some high role in the Administration.

They really can win. They don't seem aware of that.


Report this post
Top
   
 Post subject: Hillary
PostPosted: 07 Jun 2016, 05:47 
User avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2015, 22:51
Posts: 880
I guess Hillary is the official Democratic nominee.

_________________
HEB 4:12
The word of God is alive and powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of the soul and the spirit, of the joints and marrow, and is a critic of the thoughts and intents of the heart.


Report this post
Top
   
PostPosted: 08 Jun 2016, 08:03 
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 10 Aug 2015, 16:03
Posts: 1831
Yeah, considering Dem votes are 2:1 GOP, she'll have an electoral college landslide, winning nearly every state with as low as 35% of the vote, since Libertarian will get about half from #FeelTheBern folk and about half or more from #GOP who are #NeverTrump . In other words, they would win, but there are too many Dems and not enough #GOP who leave #GOP to go Libertarian.

And that, ONLY because electoral college is winner-take-all. Something SERIOUSLY WRONG with a winner-take-all rule for the electoral college. Exactly what the Framers wanted to prevent, a minority candidate winning or a demagogue winning. They didn't take into account, fractured parties.

So next four years:
*immigration increases and illegal immigration in particular, as employers seek a way around the new $12 min wage required for Amer. citizens.
*more outsourcing of jobs, more robotization, as to pay the $12 min requires a higher skill set and fewer workers if more automated.
* pension and welfare limits will increase a lot to try and ease the retirement burden the gov't knows it cannot pay (I should be happy about that, but am not, I make more money this way).
* income taxes will increase a lot, esp. on middle class but won't necessarily seem that way, as most will be PRICE pass-throughs from companies whose taxes are raised,
* more tax loopholes will be passed to modify behavior (the role of tax policy from the getgo), increase jobs;
*Estate and gift tax rules will be redone in a bad way, so die before Jan 20.
* Credit will dry up.
* Recession will resume and get worse.
* ISIS and other military dealings will increase, which as with FDR, seems to make the economy stimulate;
*infrastructure programs will increase, same reason;
*Deficits and debt will burgeon, given what we've already committed to,
*and of course SS will go bankrupt in 2019 and we won't know (see 2019 crossover chart at bottom of https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v75n1/v75n1p1.html ).

Good news? Tea Party is done for. GOP is dead. It will have a 20-30% share of the electorate, max. Libertarian will take the excess, but since both end up minority parties, the Dems stay in power for the forseeable future. All thanks to the vile #prolife rs.

The second 40 years ends 2041 (syll 2006 or so in amen legw humin). If I say that the prolife thingy started 1971, that would be 30 years to 2001, then 40, equals a sub 70, but I'm not sure the right starting point is 1971. I remember the Colonel excoriating those folks earlier.


Report this post
Top
   
PostPosted: 17 Jun 2016, 04:51 
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 10 Aug 2015, 16:03
Posts: 1831
Austin Petersen started a new mag at http://www.libertarianrepublic.com . Costs $55 per year (but you can read it free, with ads). I signed up.

Updated audios on why vote #Libertarian , as a STRATEGIC preparation for 2020

If you're a conservative, esp. a Ted Cruz conservative, 27 mins:
http://www.brainout.net/downloads/wma/W ... onserv.MP3

If you're a Liberal, 23 mins:
http://www.brainout.net/downloads/wma/WhyLiberLib.MP3


Report this post
Top
   
PostPosted: 22 Jun 2016, 06:45 
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 10 Aug 2015, 16:03
Posts: 1831
Cross thread on why only #Libertarian is Biblical prolife, viewtopic.php?f=2&t=71&p=2690#p2690


Report this post
Top
   
PostPosted: 29 Jun 2016, 20:20 
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 10 Aug 2015, 16:03
Posts: 1831
Click here for a long and useful diagnostic article on how US politics has become so wacky. Of particular interest is the rise of the Tea Party in 2009 (parthenoi in Matt25:11 and year Thieme died) as the major cause of the problems.

But really, if Government were SMALL, people wouldn't fight over it. So the better answer is not to restore the middlemen per se, but to SHRINK GOVT so there is less incentive to fight over its big bucks. Because...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Xg2v_T2XH8


Report this post
Top
   
 Post subject: New Commercial
PostPosted: 30 Jun 2016, 17:32 
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 10 Aug 2015, 16:03
Posts: 1831
If they get rid of the white circle, this will be one first-class commercial,

https://twitter.com/GovGaryJohnson/stat ... 3754165249

Video I just did to show #1 reason to vote for these guys (spoiler: TAXES):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IiGqUZBRglQ


Report this post
Top
   
PostPosted: 08 Jul 2016, 02:32 
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 10 Aug 2015, 16:03
Posts: 1831
Latest live video very frank showing chemistry between Gary and Bill, https://twitter.com/GovGaryJohnson/stat ... 6477067264

I'm collecting their vids in Youtube (scattered throughout), here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCS6Pbt ... V&index=70


Report this post
Top
   
PostPosted: 01 Aug 2016, 23:03 
User avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2015, 22:51
Posts: 880
I've been thinking for a while now, then today this link reminded me of what I dislike about Gary Johnson.

http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/5-mos ... johnson/5/

Most of these things are issues raised in the debates, but I kinda set them aside for a while.

1) The NAZI cake issue is a BIG problem for me. Anti-Discrimination laws are a violation of the Bill of Rights. To further expand such legislation would potentially endanger our rights as christians, since so many christians are offensive little Donald Trumps. LGBT rights are already an issue now, and it will take center stage as time progresses.

2) The Coal mine issue shows that Johnson is more of a Democrat than Libertarian. Capitalism does not kill industry, regulation does (like the EPA). I feel like I have to use 1John1:9 every time I says EPA, DEA, FDA, IRS, ATF, etc.

3) Johnson is only for legalization of Marijuana. I want the War on Drugs ENDED once and for all. And I want the DEA abolished and a very tight choke collar on the FDA. I don't say this because I'm pro-drug use. Im not. I say this because it causes more harm than good.

People think the War on Drugs controls crime. It doesn't. Black markets breed criminals. People go to pain clinics for opiates. Suboxone and Subutex are a big problem in the medical industry because doctors write Rx's and the drugs wind up on the streets. Then the DEA cracks down on Pharmacists for doing their jobs. Its ridiculous how difficult it is for legit patients to get the therapy they need because of three specific agencies: DEA, FDA, and EPA. THEY FORM THE UNHOLY TRINITY OF HEALTH AND WELLNESS.


Petersen is a Libertarian. He's pro-life personally, but ultimately leaves the choice to the states. That takes objectivity. But Johnson does not represent my beliefs. I don't see why he got the nomination.

Unless Johnson starts changing his tune, Im considering not voting at all again. When I can't distinguish one candidate's policy from another's, I don't feel the need to choose. I consider it a boycott. I still haven't made up my mind.

_________________
HEB 4:12
The word of God is alive and powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of the soul and the spirit, of the joints and marrow, and is a critic of the thoughts and intents of the heart.


Report this post
Top
   
PostPosted: 02 Aug 2016, 07:46 
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 10 Aug 2015, 16:03
Posts: 1831
Yeah, I read that article too. Here's more fuel for your fire, http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editoria ... story.html

VERY long transcript of interview, covers much more on the topics in that top-5 article.

I disagree with GJ on a number of issues, but frankly I think he's not that informed. Bill Weld, by contrast, is. GJ is willing to rethink positions, he listens to advice and thinks outside the box. So although I disagree with him, such thinking skills are really helpful right now. So I'm still voting for him. If you're not, I fully understand.

I'll vote Clinton if the race in Texas is close but Gary's not near to beating DT, who must be defeated at all costs.


Report this post
Top
   
PostPosted: 02 Aug 2016, 08:21 
User avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2015, 22:51
Posts: 880
I watched the CNN Libertarian town hall Q&A. I have to agree, that Johnson is either uninformed, or worse, he's avoiding certain issues. That's what worries me the most about him.

Johnson has 3 main hooks.

1)Legalization of marijuana for the millennial generation. That's really all they care about, getting high and playing 'pokemon go'.

2)Ending the ME proxy wars. This reassures the millennials that they wont have to fight any wars, and tells their parents that their children wont become soldiers. Its mainly a hook for Democrats.

3)Restructuring the tax system. This is the hook for Republicans.

Beyond those three hooks, I really can't nail Weld or Johnson down to any consistent position. Johnson is too vague in his replies, and Weld tends to flip-flop a lot. He's already stated that he wants the UN to handle foreign issues. I guess that's his idea of non-interventionism. But the way they want to handle abortion, war on drugs, and social equality...its like they favor big government.

I have serious doubts that a Third Party has any shot at winning in this election. They will probably act as a spoiler, and I have my doubts that Trump will win. To be honest, I really don't see a huge difference between Clinton and Trump.

_________________
HEB 4:12
The word of God is alive and powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of the soul and the spirit, of the joints and marrow, and is a critic of the thoughts and intents of the heart.


Report this post
Top
   
PostPosted: 03 Aug 2016, 02:44 
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 10 Aug 2015, 16:03
Posts: 1831
Well, the big hook is that they intend to decrease the size of government, privatize as much as possible (especially entitlements), and if possible, replace the income tax with a consumption tax (best idea in decades). Weld is heavily involved with foreign policy, having been attending CFR for decades as the standin for Bill Clinton; advised Dubya on how to answer in his debates, is very pro-Israel. So where Gary is short on fp, Weld shines.

Gary's ability to think outside the box shines when he talks specifics about his term as Governor. But you have to listen to many hours of his videos in Youtube, to hear those specifics. Else, for the short interviews, he stays on a script that yes, is often vague.


Report this post
Top
   
PostPosted: 04 Aug 2016, 02:01 
User avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2015, 22:51
Posts: 880
I saw some older clips of Johnson he isn't horrible, but not what I would call Libertarian. It sounds like he supports a melding of private sector with govt for drug issues. I dont like that one bit. With my experience with Medicare B&D and Medicaid, the result is not good.

http://libertyviral.com/6817-2/#axzz4G0sGvOuJ

The link above is an interview with Weld. The more he talks, the less I like the man. He advocates taking away gun rights based on "terrorist watch lists" which is entirely in the hands of government. I call that fascism, and it isn't justifiable in my opinion. The handful of terror attacks that we have experienced are propagandized by the media and become the political fuel for this kind of talk. To be honest I'm more afraid of the police (because of multiple personal experiences) than I am of gun violence at the hand of criminals and terrorists.

Weld is still being very vague in his answers which fuels my mistrust. I'll be watching JohnsonWeld very closely as campaign progresses.

Trump doesn't bother me so much. I've learned to tune out loud mouth idiots. What really frustrates me are smooth talkers that tell you what you think you want to hear veiled in vague explanations.

I hope Weld proves me wrong before voting time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71xRO8I0UgA

_________________
HEB 4:12
The word of God is alive and powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of the soul and the spirit, of the joints and marrow, and is a critic of the thoughts and intents of the heart.


Report this post
Top
   
PostPosted: 06 Aug 2016, 06:18 
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 10 Aug 2015, 16:03
Posts: 1831
Well, you need to watch latest videos. He and Gary have changed their positions over the past few months. They no longer hold some positions, i.e., Gary doesn't believe in abortion but wouldn't want it to be a law either, wouldn't want to tell any woman what to choose; Bill doesn't want to ban weapons but does think discussion should be had on how to keep them out of the hands of the mentally-ill, a position Gary also holds.

I don't agree with a lot of their foreign policy positions, but frankly until you get in office positions taken 'now' don't mean much.

Not that I'm trying to get you to vote for them. Just trying to straighten out some of the material, cuz positions change.

It's important to hear them talk for long periods themselves. Youtube videos of longer than 15 minutes, current and prior, help.


Report this post
Top
   
PostPosted: 06 Aug 2016, 07:10 
User avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2015, 22:51
Posts: 880
Yeah, I've seen their most recent interviews. I've decided I'll probably vote for them, but I'm not the least bit happy about it. Its Weld that I mistrust the most. Maybe he really did change his positions, but I won't believe it till I see it in action.

I really don't have anything supportive or constructive to say about them, so I think I'll just leave it at that. I'm a bit of a hardliner libertarian, and 8 years of watching the GOP folding under Obama has just added to my frustration. I'm sure you have a similar sentiment.

_________________
HEB 4:12
The word of God is alive and powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of the soul and the spirit, of the joints and marrow, and is a critic of the thoughts and intents of the heart.


Report this post
Top
   
PostPosted: 07 Aug 2016, 19:40 
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 10 Aug 2015, 16:03
Posts: 1831
Yeah, I have some concerns. My chief reason for voting for them, is that they are good at reducing Federal power. That's their biggest hot button, and the most likely thing they can do in 4 years. Weld in particular has a bent for zero-based budgeting, which would cut costs by 40%, more than the 20% they keep talking about. Entitlements are another big hot button for them, and frankly they want to privatize it; they can, partly, within the 4 years.

I figure that's about all they can accomplish within 4 years. But that's more than the others can do.


Report this post
Top
   
PostPosted: 17 Aug 2016, 11:04 
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 10 Aug 2015, 16:03
Posts: 1831
Here's a shocking comparison between Weld and Goldwater I thought you'd want to read, assuming you've heard the Col in the 1960's, http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/weld-goldwater/


Report this post
Top
   
PostPosted: 20 Aug 2016, 03:06 
User avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2015, 22:51
Posts: 880
I listened to the 1963 basics years ago, but I don't remember much of his political comments. Did he talk about Goldwater often?

_________________
HEB 4:12
The word of God is alive and powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of the soul and the spirit, of the joints and marrow, and is a critic of the thoughts and intents of the heart.


Report this post
Top
   
PostPosted: 20 Aug 2016, 05:25 
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 10 Aug 2015, 16:03
Posts: 1831
Yeah, he did. Even in the 1970's he was still talking about Goldwater, who surprisingly resembles Thieme's pic, as does Sam Walton (and, shudder, the now deceased Peter Ruckman, maybe they were from the same basic stock).

I don't remember much of what he said, would have to go through my notes. I tended to gloss over the political stuff, only wanting to hear Bible. Thieme moderated a LOT after 1985, stopped being so political.


Report this post
Top
   
PostPosted: 20 Aug 2016, 15:44 
User avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2015, 22:51
Posts: 880
Lol. His political digressions used to bug me too, but I find that a lot of it is relevant to the Matt 25 meter, so God even used his rants to teach us something.

_________________
HEB 4:12
The word of God is alive and powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of the soul and the spirit, of the joints and marrow, and is a critic of the thoughts and intents of the heart.


Report this post
Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 64 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 Next

All times are UTC


You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited