Libertarians issue warning to Tea Partiers Which do the tea partiers hate more ?

[Duncan]

Libertarians issue warning to Tea Partiers | Libertarian Party


Which do the tea partiers hate more ?
Big government or democrats ?

 

[Joe Williams]

I was planning, until just now, on voting for Sink-Burris for Senate. However, that press release from the Libertarian Party once again drove home to me the stupidity and ignorance that party displays in their refusal to properly defend this nation, and their institutional hatred of the military.

Thank you for posting that. It has made clear to me that there is indeed a greater difference between Sink-Burris' beliefs and mine than I can reconcile enough to cast a vote for a Libertarian candidate.

 

[christman]

"While our nation is declining dangerously right now, a turnaround could be straightforward and simple with Libertarian steps like these: 1. Bring our troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan; 2. Stop rewarding failed companies with bailouts; 3. Cut taxes and spending and let the free market work."

Sounds good to me.

 

[bigus_D]

I was planning, until just now, on voting for Sink-Burris for Senate. However, that press release from the Libertarian Party once again drove home to me the stupidity and ignorance that party displays in their refusal to properly defend this nation, and their institutional hatred of the military.

There IS something about stupidity in this thread... I just don't think it was the press release.

 

[Joe Williams]

There IS something about stupidity in this thread... I just don't think it was the press release.

That's all you got? Don't care to discuss the issues, just personal attacks? Reckon that means you CAN'T discuss the facts, so all that's left is to act like a thug or frustrated child.

 

[bigus_D]

That's all you got? Don't care to discuss the issues, just personal attacks? Reckon that means you CAN'T discuss the facts, so all that's left is to act like a thug or frustrated child.

NOWHERE in the press release was there ANY comments REMOTELY expressing ANY "institutional hatred of the military" OR their unwillingness to "properly defend the nation".

So... if you want to discuss the FACTS, please present some actually truthful statements worthy of discussion.

 

[U.S. Patriot]

I hate big Government, Democrats and Republicans. Let me rephrase that: I hate anyone who is not willing to abide by and defend the Constitution.

 

[Ogre]

NOWHERE in the press release was there ANY comments REMOTELY expressing ANY "institutional hatred of the military" OR their unwillingness to "properly defend the nation".

So... if you want to discuss the FACTS, please present some actually truthful statements worthy of discussion.

THIS^^^^^^

 

[ATOMonkey]

I was planning, until just now, on voting for Sink-Burris for Senate. However, that press release from the Libertarian Party once again drove home to me the stupidity and ignorance that party displays in their refusal to properly defend this nation, and their institutional hatred of the military.

Thank you for posting that. It has made clear to me that there is indeed a greater difference between Sink-Burris' beliefs and mine than I can reconcile enough to cast a vote for a Libertarian candidate.

I don't think any Libertarian candidate hates the military. They just don't agree with current foreign wars we're conducting.

I think if you talk to a lot of service members, they don't agree with the wars and the way they're being conducted either.

If you were to sit down and have a calm, rational conversation with a Libertarian about National Defense, you'd find you have more in common with them than with a hawkish Republican or Democrat.

Don't throw out the baby with the bath water.

 

[Joe Williams]

NOWHERE in the press release was there ANY comments REMOTELY expressing ANY "institutional hatred of the military" OR their unwillingness to "properly defend the nation".

So... if you want to discuss the FACTS, please present some actually truthful statements worthy of discussion.

Yes, there were. Their comparison of military funding, one of the actual valid functions of the federal government, to entitlements is an example of the way Libertarians tend to denigrate the military, in this press release and other statements. Further, isolationism and a refusal to take to the war to our enemies is a blatant example of a refusal to properly defend this nation. It is stupidity, and a dereliction of duty.

Your decision to try to white wash such things, and a baseless and deliberately dishonest claim that I lied, shows fanatacism, and yet again demonstrates what I said: You cannot argue facts, so you resort to personal attacks and distortions of reality. Perhaps you are so brainwashed and unable to think on your own that you cannot distinguish reality, but that does not change the basic truth.

 

[CombatVet]

I was planning, until just now, on voting for Sink-Burris for Senate. However, that press release from the Libertarian Party once again drove home to me the stupidity and ignorance that party displays in their refusal to properly defend this nation, and their institutional hatred of the military.

Thank you for posting that. It has made clear to me that there is indeed a greater difference between Sink-Burris' beliefs and mine than I can reconcile enough to cast a vote for a Libertarian candidate.

That's to bad. I agree we're doing some good over seas, but is it our job? Should we be playing police to the world on our dollar? Yes, we needed to out the Taliban and remove the threat that was left over to America. After outing the Taliban we needed to assist in making a stable government. We did that. We're still there. The Afghan government isn't taking care of business and expecting us to do it. We need to get out of that situation like yesterday. So I agree we need to bring the troops home.

I don't agree with everything the Libertarian candidates are saying, but I agree with most of it. They're mostly people like you and I, not some corporate sell out or former lobbyists. I think they have our (the common people) best interest at heart.

I apologize if I'm off base here. I feel very strongly about this particular race. I'm tired of seeing the same two parties muck up our country.

 

[ATOMonkey]

Yes, there were. Their comparison of military funding, one of the actual valid functions of the federal government, to entitlements is an example of the way Libertarians tend to denigrate the military, in this press release and other statements. Further, isolationism and a refusal to take to the war to our enemies is a blatant example of a refusal to properly defend this nation. It is stupidity, and a dereliction of duty.

Your decision to try to white wash such things, and a baseless and deliberately dishonest claim that I lied, shows fanatacism, and yet again demonstrates what I said: You cannot argue facts, so you resort to personal attacks and distortions of reality. Perhaps you are so brainwashed and unable to think on your own that you cannot distinguish reality, but that does not change the basic truth.

They merely pointed out what the 3 biggest Federal expenses are. The Constitution gives authority to defend the nation, but also explicity states that there should not be a standing army, only a standing Navy. So, which part of the constitution do you agree with?

Who are our enemies? It is paramount that we correctly identify the enemy and coordinate a plan to fight them accordingly. It is not big secret that the Afghan and Iraq wars, in their current state, were the result of lets say, "enthusiastic" brass and politicians. Mostly cold war relics that like big tanks, big planes, and big armies.

It's just as irresponsible to conduct a war in a wasteful manner as it is to neglect the fact that we do have enemies abroad. We have shown how to properly conduct these wars through the use of special forces and special operations forces, but time and again, the top brass feels the need to send in the big army. And when they get there they are told to act more like mall security than soldiers. It's unconsionable, IMO, and we either need to start kicking ass, and accept the price for that action, or get out. This touchy feely walking on eggshells crap just isn't going to cut it.

 

[ATOMonkey]

Let's also be realistic and admit that we spend "Defense" money on a lot more than just defense, and the structure has become VERY top heavy.

It would be naive to say there is nothing that can possibly be cut from the defense budget.

 

[awatarius]

I was planning, until just now, on voting for Sink-Burris for Senate. However, that press release from the Libertarian Party once again drove home to me the stupidity and ignorance that party displays in their refusal to properly defend this nation, and their institutional hatred of the military.

Thank you for posting that. It has made clear to me that there is indeed a greater difference between Sink-Burris' beliefs and mine than I can reconcile enough to cast a vote for a Libertarian candidate.

LOL Hatred!!! what did you see in there that said hatred? I think it makes perfect sense. I think that party has it more right then anyone else. I am NOT anti military by any means. But leaving Iraq and Afghanistan sooner then later just makes sense. So does smaller Govt and less taxes.

Thanks,
Matthew

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Yes, there were. Their comparison of military funding, one of the actual valid functions of the federal government, to entitlements is an example of the way Libertarians tend to denigrate the military, in this press release and other statements. Further, isolationism and a refusal to take to the war to our enemies is a blatant example of a refusal to properly defend this nation. It is stupidity, and a dereliction of duty.

Your decision to try to white wash such things, and a baseless and deliberately dishonest claim that I lied, shows fanatacism, and yet again demonstrates what I said: You cannot argue facts, so you resort to personal attacks and distortions of reality. Perhaps you are so brainwashed and unable to think on your own that you cannot distinguish reality, but that does not change the basic truth.

+1

The Libertarian Party platform is utopia thru anarchy, as opposed to the progressive platform of utopia thru nannyism. I'll take neither thank you.

The unfortunate reality is that the world is a dangerous place. I would rather our military be destroying villages and killing bad guys in Afganistan than Kansas. The thing libtards of all persuasions fail to understand is that we will execute a war. Not by our choice, but the choice of our enemy. There are two ways this war will end. One is our unconditional surrender. The other is by employing tactics, weapons, and carnage so ruthless that our enemies beg us go home and never return. Sadly this will never be the case because our political class lacks the courage needed to protect this country in the way it deserves to be protected.

I am baffled by the laissez-faire open border philosophy of the Libertarian Party. Regardless of whether you like the law or not, we should all agree it is the law and it is either to be followed or changed. The idea that illegal aliens should be rewarded by allowing them to stay is so patently offensive this alone prevents me from voting for anyone running under this party's moniker.

The federal government has one mission - protect us from all enemies, foreign and domestic. I don't see that the Libertarian Party gets that basic concept. Until then they are nothing but a debate club.

 

[ATOMonkey]

The Libertain platform is that only the industrious will immigrate if we stop giving away money to the non-industrious.

I do agree with border enforcement, as a country without borders isn't a country at all. However, there is more than one way to curtail the influx of moochers.

 

[bigus_D]

Let's also be realistic and admit that we spend "Defense" money on a lot more than just defense, and the structure has become VERY top heavy.

It would be naive to say there is nothing that can possibly be cut from the defense budget.

OH!!!! You are sooo anti-american! Where is your patriotism??? How dare you criticize!

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

They merely pointed out what the 3 biggest Federal expenses are. The Constitution gives authority to defend the nation, but also explicity states that there should not be a standing army, only a standing Navy. So, which part of the constitution do you agree with?

Who are our enemies? It is paramount that we correctly identify the enemy and coordinate a plan to fight them accordingly. It is not big secret that the Afghan and Iraq wars, in their current state, were the result of lets say, "enthusiastic" brass and politicians. Mostly cold war relics that like big tanks, big planes, and big armies.

It's just as irresponsible to conduct a war in a wasteful manner as it is to neglect the fact that we do have enemies abroad. We have shown how to properly conduct these wars through the use of special forces and special operations forces, but time and again, the top brass feels the need to send in the big army. And when they get there they are told to act more like mall security than soldiers. It's unconsionable, IMO, and we either need to start kicking ass, and accept the price for that action, or get out. This touchy feely walking on eggshells crap just isn't going to cut it.

I've studied the Constitution extensively. I missed the part where it "explicity states that there should not be a standing army". Can you cite that for me please?

Our enemies are anyone that would mean to do us harm. That includes the people, nations and governments that support them, whether actively or passively, wherever and whomever they are. Our allies are those people, nations and governments that would stand shoulder to shoulder with us to destroy our enemy. The Afgan and Iraq wars as initially equiped and fought were a result of the wars we had previously fought. That's always the case. We've done a pretty good job of developing new strategies, tactics and systems to adapt to the new warfare brought against us.

Air, navy, special forces are all effective ways to destroy you enemy's will to fight, but to win a war you have to have boots on the ground. It's been that way for thousands of years. It will be that way for thousands more.

 

[awatarius]

The Libertain platform is that only the industrious will immigrate if we stop giving away money to the non-industrious.

I do agree with border enforcement, as a country without borders isn't a country at all. However, there is more than one way to curtail the influx of moochers.

Well said!

I would also like to question the need to go "after" the enemy. What enemy? In WW1 WW2, most wars in between and even Desert Storm it was clear to me who the enemy was. This.. this is hard for me to gather. If you mean that the enemy is a mind-set or culture how do you make war against that? Not with guns. Afghanistan made sense, and Iraq didn't to me. You want to end Saddam for whatever reason.. fine send a sniper team in and clean it up. But we are still there. Maybe the experiment will work, and maybe not I hope it does. By saying make war against our enemies.. there will always be enemies you can't stomp out all dissent that is dangerous. You can't rightfully blow up a village or camp because they "might" do something to you later. This will keep us there forever as a occupying force with NO END in sight. Our presence and constant war will make more. It's so many weeds and a lawnmower alone will not solve the problem. The root is so much deeper.

Thanks,
Matthew

 

[ATOMonkey]

Article one section 8 gives power "to raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to the Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years."

Immediately followed by..

"To provide and maintain a Navy"

It's quite obvious that a standing Federal Army was never the intention.