just as you have the freedom to continuously hold the same bullshit opinion about how libertarians are just disaffected republicans, they all supported bush, cheney, the war, lived on the death star, wore imperial stormtrooper uniforms, and attacked all liberals.
It doesn't go without notice that you had to invent things in your rant that I never said.
Obviously truth is just too difficult. Your can't make a sane argument out of what I actually said.
And given my propensity to throw evidence into the argument, can't say I blame you for making shit up.
Because if you had actually said what I said about libertarians being disaffected republicans, shit, I might have tossed Ron Paul into the argument .. a disaffected republican the Libertarian Party salivates over and tried to court him to be their presidential candidate.
Backfist to your nose with Bob Barr.
Then, while you were wheeling from those well-timed blows to the head, I would deliver a front kick to the groin with a comment from the current Secretary of the Knox, Tennesee Area Libertarian Party.
.. excerpt
"Some of the republicans who came into the party in the last 12 years were not just republican voters but were republican activists and politicians as well. They came into the LP recognizing the opportunities that a small and relatively weak but established minor political party could offer. In the 90’s, fearing the possibility of a Republican or Democratic coup type takeover, rules were enacted in most states to prevent a sudden takeover at a state convention. We don’t know if that actually prevented a quick takeover, but those rules could not prevent a concerted and patient takeover.
The former republican activists and politicians knew that with careful planning they could get enough control over our small party to start moving it in a more conservative direction and ultimately to make it what the Republican Party should have been. They have already begun the transformation by altering some of the principles the LP has always stood on, discarding other principles, redefining what the LP really is, trying to remove all specifics from our Platform, and distancing the LP from the greater libertarian movement as much as possible.
These former Republican activists have already accomplished many of their goals. They have effective majorities on the LNC and in many of the most influential states in the LP. They are poised to solidify their hold and to make real changes. They will claim that it is to win votes and make the LP successful in the political arena, and that really is their goal, to win at all costs. But, they do not care if they destroy Libertarian principles and cause a political upheaval in the libertarian movement in the process."
Understanding the History Behind the Current Leadership of the Libertarian Party
http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2009/04/current-leadership-of-the-lp/comment-page-1/
That's just one of the voices from within the Libertarian Party who spoken at length about the struggle for direction from within the party .. which by the way if you are a libertarian you should already know about.
How do I know? .. because I talk to libertarians.
And to validate not only what this guy said, but also validates what I said about pro-war libertarians .. I'd deliver the killing blow to your Adam's Apple with a piece from Lew Rockwell, the uber-guru of liberarianism ..
Liberventionists: The Nationalist Internationalists
Liberventionism is saturated by contradictions: using government to bring about liberty, bombing cities to bring about peace, occupying countries for the sake of liberation, initiating force to combat aggression, and so forth.
One peculiar contradiction is the notion that anti-war libertarians – a redundancy, when the terms are properly understood – are uncaring about our fellow Americans, and yet are simultaneously also apathetic about the plight of foreigners, thus we real libertarians oppose sending the first group to kill and be killed by the second.
The muddled reasoning goes like this: In opposing US wars after 9/11, we libertarians supposedly turn our backs on our fellow countrymen. In opposing the US warfare state, we allegedly disgrace our country. In waiting for a foreign enemy to attack before retaliating, we would let Americans die before tolerating the necessary collateral damage of innocent foreign men, women and children. To sum up, we don’t seem to care as much about American lives as foreign lives, and, in fact, we don’t feel adequately connected to the US state as some sort of extension of ourselves. In other words, we are insufficiently nationalist.
On the other hand, so think many of the liberventionists, we real libertarians also couldn’t care less about the oppression of foreigners. If we oppose Gulf War II, it’s because we prefer Saddam Hussein to a life of liberty for the Iraqi people. If we oppose the Cold War, we are turning our backs to the victims of Communism. If we question World War II, we are Nazi sympathizers who care nothing about those that Hitler oppressed and mass-murdered. To sum up, we are insufficiently internationalist.
From the liberventionist viewpoint, war is a positive good. It is good for America and saves Americans lives – and so to oppose it is to not care about one’s fellow Americans – and it liberates and saves the lives of foreigners, and so to oppose it is to support tyranny abroad.
Liberventionists have to wonder why the US helped put Saddam in power in the first place. Some more questions: Why did the US back Saddam in a war with Iran, which killed one million Middle Easterners? Why did the US support Saddam during his worst human rights abuses against the Kurds, providing him with chemical weapons after it became clear he was a monster, and shielding him from UN censure in the 1980s? Why did the US give him the green light to attack Kuwait? Why did the US impose sanctions on Iraq that killed a million Iraqis by depriving them of their basic human right to trade and import food and medicine freely? Why did the US initially support the Oil-for-Food Program, and demand that Saddam stop all trade outside its parameters, only to turn around and condemn the program and pretend that the UN alone bears responsibility for the corruption and suffering Iraq has endured in recent years, and that somehow all of this justifies the Iraq war?
-- more at link
http://www.lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory51.html
I'll ask again, did you support the war?
How is it that you are so unaware of these conflicts and contradictions that have been raging within the Libertarian Party?
All I can say is that it's a good thing you made some shit up because if you had stated what I actually said .. I would have said all the stuff I just said.
