Thread: "Class Warfare"

Originally Posted by mpg

Anyone in these forums? Any data showing a nationwide pattern? If you're just talking about your circle of friends, you realize that that's meaningless.

Those names were not from my circle of friends. They were a rhetorical slap-in-the-face for the silliness of the original question. If you are meanwhile not aware of a massive increase iin the numbers of people claiming all of a sudden to be libertarians, you haven't been paying any attention.

Originally Posted by mpg

Even if that was true, how would that make them phonies?

What makes them phony is the fact that they are not now and never have been libertarians. They are mere right-wing rubes who were cheerleaders for all nine yards of the neocon agenda, but after seeing a dismally failed economy piled on top of dismally failed wars, they are not willing to face the music or endure any of the we told you so's that they so richly deserve. So the smarmy little cowards try to hide out behind the best nearby cover they can find, and that's where 100% of their latter-day libertarianism comes from. Never came across any of those folks?

Originally Posted by ARealConservative

I believe his point is Bush drove many conservative minded people towards libertarianism,, but that in of itself does not make them phonies.

Au contraire. It merely adds neocons to the phoniness list. They weren't real neocons then, and they aren't real libertarians now. Cheerleader-bots they could rightfully claim to be. But not much else.

Originally Posted by TurtleDude

then there are people like you who try to pretend that the rich should pay more because they use more

Have you noticed any correlation between the posting of such arguments and the incidence of your own false claims that the rich derive trivial benefits from government spending? Sometimes you even betray your own understanding of the insincerity of such claims by refering to "direct" benefits.

Originally Posted by Cardinal Fang

Au contraire. It merely adds neocons to the phoniness list. They weren't real neocons then, and they aren't real libertarians now. Cheerleader-bots they could rightfully claim to be. But not much else.

You are a new person around here so you can continue to speak from ignorance if you like, but I know for a fact that many people like me were extremely critical of the foreign policy in the last decade. Progressives once agreed with me on these issues, but now that Obama is waging the same basic policy, everything seems to be smoothed over.

So I disagree very heavily on who the actual phonies are.

Originally Posted by mpg

Do you have any evidence to back up those accusations?

Sure - just look at how the Libertarian party has done in the last several presidential elections. Just look up how many members of Congress got voted in on the Libertarian Party ticket. Just look up how many members elected to State legislatures have got elected on the Libertarian Party ticket.

Originally Posted by Cardinal Fang

Those names were not from my circle of friends. They were a rhetorical slap-in-the-face for the silliness of the original question. If you are meanwhile not aware of a massive increase iin the numbers of people claiming all of a sudden to be libertarians, you haven't been paying any attention.


What makes them phony is the fact that they are not now and never have been libertarians. They are mere right-wing rubes who were cheerleaders for all nine yards of the neocon agenda, but after seeing a dismally failed economy piled on top of dismally failed wars, they are not willing to face the music or endure any of the we told you so's that they so richly deserve. So the smarmy little cowards try to hide out behind the best nearby cover they can find, and that's where 100% of their latter-day libertarianism comes from. Never came across any of those folks?

I know very few self described libertarians, and the ones I know have been libertarians since the 80s. I think that the vast majority of libertarians don't even realize that they're libertarians.

Originally Posted by mpg

So the military is part of the government? Whodathunkit?

I don't know what your smartass comment is supposed to mean.

Originally Posted by Catawba

Everything I have read about libertarians is that they believe in a small government. Spending almost as much of the rest of the world combined on the military is not small government.

Barry Goldwater was pro-choice on abortion. According to your logic, he wasn't a conservative.

Originally Posted by mpg

Barry Goldwater was pro-choice on abortion. According to your logic, he wasn't a conservative.

Small government is the predominate philosophy of the Libertarian party. Pro-life is not the predominate philosophy of the Conservative party.

Besides:

"Throughout the 1970s, he opposed abortion on demand and taxpayer funding of abortions."

The Claremont Institute - The Goldwater Myth

Originally Posted by Catawba

Small government is the predominate philosophy of the Libertarian party. Pro-life is not the predominate philosophy of the Conservative party

You can be in favor of a small government and a large military because the military is only part of the government, just as pro-life is only part of conservatism. Did I really need to explain that?