• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Who is the Party of freedom?

Who is the party of Freedom?

  • Democrats

    Votes: 5 12.5%

  • Republicans

    Votes: 8 20.0%

  • The Free Bacon Party

    Votes: 12 30.0%

  • Rutabaga

    Votes: 15 37.5%
  • Total voters
    40
tres borrachos said:
Only libertarians.:)
Click to expand...

By that, real Libertarians. Not the so-called "Libertarian - Right" wannabes who frequently pop up on this forum saying they favor limited govt. then turn around saying "hey yeah obama's just a sissy cuz he ain't goin' over there and kicking ass in Syria and Iraq w/another $100 trillion dollars of taxpayer debt."
 
johndylan1 said:
I'm curios. How did you feel shackled by a republican? Was it a personal conflict? Was it a policy? What happened?
Click to expand...

I guess a lot of it is personal, I will admit and not political policies. However, since I am transgender and transitioning, that should say something about my struggles. I will gladly discuss more specifics about my personal life in a private chat or another thread if anyone wants to so as not to derail this thread.

In general, however, Rebublicans would limit my access to employment, even in the public sector because of my transitioning and Republicans would limit who I could marry.
 
solletica said:
By that, real Libertarians. Not the so-called "Libertarian - Right" wannabes who frequently pop up on this forum saying they favor limited govt. then turn around saying "hey yeah obama's just a sissy cuz he ain't goin' over there and kicking ass in Syria and Iraq w/another $100 trillion dollars of taxpayer debt."
Click to expand...

You mean like me, who wants to legalize all drugs, who is against going into Syria and Iraq, who wants to cut the military by 50% and mind our own business yet does criticize Obama and Bush for spending us into oblivion? Sorry I don't measure up to your standards... but then again, I really don't care about your standards.
 
ernst barkmann said:
disagree...... those who want democracy, and think the people rule under that form of government........ get the problems you described.

only a true republican form of government of divided power, limits the problems you described.

those who take democracy to be liberty are foolish indeed.
Click to expand...

At no point have I ever advocated direct democracy or a lack of divided power. I know you have a bug up your bonnet about that, but in parlance describing our government, it is both democratic and republican, but republican is more of a subset of democratic. There is no need to quibble about the nomenclature. This is, for example, why having the supreme court's power of judicial review to check the legislature is important, despite how often you and yours tend to complain about it. It is divided power. This is why no one save for the liberal boogeymen who live in your MasterLiberty's heads want to move all power into the federal government. Having levels of government to check one another is another important part of divided power and republican government. I will repeat that no one is suggesting doing away with that. But that still doesn't allow for states to violate the federal constitution, or counties to violate state constitutions. While those upper tiers can check the actions of their lower tiers, it would still be wholly inappropriate for either to try to determine the placement of a stop sign in a town. No one is suggesting that congress should determine stop signs.

So please, stop with the hyperbole and quibbling over terms even though we all know what we're talking about.
 
johndylan1 said:
You may be a bit confused here. A mainstream republican is more likely to vote for policies that provide for food assistance and healthcare assistance than a libertarian. With out question the libertarian is more in the individualist camp, however both libertarians and republicans are strong advocates for private charitable giving.
Click to expand...

I agree that they would have a better chance but they would put many restrictions on other parts of my life. I would rather live in a world where I might starve then in a world where I am forced to be someone I am not.
 
rocket88 said:
After the warning, I couldn't reply in thread. But I did think the topic deserved it's own:






Of course the only people I've heard say that are hardcore Dems. Just like hard core Repubs will say the Republicans are (cue Nick denying that he's a Republican even though he never says anything but their party line).

Who is it, then?
Click to expand...



I have no choice but to go with Rutabaga. Both seek restrictions of some kind, just and / or unjust. Neither is expanding freedom.
 
ernst barkmann said:
a party who believes in no force or coercion on other people.
Click to expand...

That wouldn't be you--a "libertarian right", someone who supports (or consistently votes for pols that support)

1) Making it illegal for a business in the US to hire anyone he/she wants in the world at any time, regardless of the hiree's residency status.

2) Shielding oil and coal cos. from liability for the damages they cause, so that they can create more jobs

3) Waging endless war in the Middle East
 
solletica said:
By that, real Libertarians. Not the so-called "Libertarian - Right" wannabes who frequently pop up on this forum saying they favor limited govt. then turn around saying "hey yeah obama's just a sissy cuz he ain't goin' over there and kicking ass in Syria and Iraq w/another $100 trillion dollars of taxpayer debt."
Click to expand...

Maybe I dont frequent the right forums but I havent seen any Libertarians supporting most wars.
 
Boo Radley said:
I have choice but to go with Rutabaga. Both seek restrictions of some kind, just and / or unjust. Neither is expanding freedom.
Click to expand...

When your view of freedom is more government bureaucracy, regulation and larger oversight to enforce liberal justice... I'd rather you go with Rutabaga as well. Freedom is about leaving people alone to do live their lives how they want to live them. Not baby sit people and force bull**** regulations "for their own good" because some moron somewhere in government thinks they know better than the individual person does.
 
Ockham said:
When your view of freedom is more government bureaucracy, regulation and larger oversight to enforce liberal justice... I'd rather you go with Rutabaga as well. Freedom is about leaving people alone to do live their lives how they want to live them. Not baby sit people and force bull**** regulations "for their own good" because some moron somewhere in government thinks they know better than the individual person does.
Click to expand...

There's no difference in the parties on that. It's just a matter of where they push that influence.
 
Paschendale said:
There is no party of freedom. Each party has specific people whose freedom it is trying to enhance at the expense of others. Despite the above libertarian circle-jerk, that party's policies enhance one's freedom in direct proportion to one's economic power. It only creates freedom for the rich. Of the existing parties (there isn't really an American socialist party), Democrats are probably the ones whose platforms would enhance freedom for the greatest number of people, and most of the freedoms they aim to take away are freedoms people shouldn't really want in the first place, like the freedom to pay women less money than men, or the freedom to discriminate against someone in the workplace because they're gay, or the freedom to impose one's religious views on the healthcare system.

One freedom that the major parties and the supposedly superior libertarians can agree on, though, is the freedom to buy the allegiances of political candidates for their own economic gain.
Click to expand...

Democrats... party of freedom...:lamo
 
Ockham said:
You mean like me, who wants to legalize all drugs, who is against going into Syria and Iraq, who wants to cut the military by 50% and mind our own business yet does criticize Obama and Bush for spending us into oblivion? Sorry I don't measure up to your standards... but then again, I really don't care about your standards.
Click to expand...

Sorry, those who call themselves "Libertarian - Right" are just cowards who would like to believe they support limited govt. but don't have the fortitude to stand up to the pro-military US regime because doing so would jeopardize their standing w/mainstream America, which is always gung-ho for more war and more limits on freedom in the name of security (i. e. the "War on Terror")

Every time there's a major terrorist attack in the US, we--the real Libertarians, have to worry about people like you because you will just jump up and down w/reactionary zeal and vote in the loonies that will remove even more freedoms in the name of "security" after such an incident.

It takes a 9-11 to separate the real Libertarians (like moi) from the "Libertarian - Righties" who will scream "HELL YEAH LET'S GO KICK RAGHEAD ASS!" after such an event.
 
Paschendale said:
At no point have I ever advocated direct democracy or a lack of divided power. I know you have a bug up your bonnet about that, but in parlance describing our government, it is both democratic and republican, but republican is more of a subset of democratic. There is no need to quibble about the nomenclature. This is, for example, why having the supreme court's power of judicial review to check the legislature is important, despite how often you and yours tend to complain about it. It is divided power. This is why no one save for the liberal boogeymen who live in your MasterLiberty's heads want to move all power into the federal government. Having levels of government to check one another is another important part of divided power and republican government. I will repeat that no one is suggesting doing away with that. But that still doesn't allow for states to violate the federal constitution, or counties to violate state constitutions. While those upper tiers can check the actions of their lower tiers, it would still be wholly inappropriate for either to try to determine the placement of a stop sign in a town. No one is suggesting that congress should determine stop signs.

So please, stop with the hyperbole and quibbling over terms even though we all know what we're talking about.
Click to expand...

I did not say direct democracy...I said [democracy] be it direct or representative, both are vile, and are the roads to socialism.

Karl Marx- democracy is the road to socialism

Lenin - democracy is indispensable to socialism

democracy as a FORM of government is not liberty, it is a very factious run form of government, run by the few and powerful thru the guise "rule of the people".

lobbyist run our government though the idea of democracy,.....power in only 1

a republican form of government ...is power in 2, lobbying is more difficult when power is divided.

democracy is a low form of government, were as republican government is a higher form and more complex.
 
solletica said:
That wouldn't be you--a "libertarian right", someone who supports (or consistently votes for pols that support)

1) Making it illegal for a business in the US to hire anyone he/she wants in the world at any time, regardless of the hiree's residency status.

2) Shielding oil and coal cos. from liability for the damages they cause, so that they can create more jobs

3) Waging endless war in the Middle East
Click to expand...

1.. who told you this
2... who told you this
3 ... who told you this
 
solletica said:
Sorry, those who call themselves "Libertarian - Right" are just cowards who would like to believe they support limited govt. but don't have the fortitude to stand up to the pro-military US regime because doing so would jeopardize their standing w/mainstream America, which is always gung-ho for more war and more limits on freedom in the name of security (i. e. the "War on Terror")

Every time there's a major terrorist attack in the US, we--the real Libertarians, have to worry about people like you because you will just jump up and down w/reactionary zeal and vote in the loonies that will remove even more freedoms in the name of "security" after such an incident.

It takes a 9-11 to separate the real Libertarians (like moi) from the "Libertarian - Righties" who will scream "HELL YEAH LET'S GO KICK RAGHEAD ASS!" after such an event.
Click to expand...

If you represent real Libertarianism (which you don't), you can keep your BS to yourself. A real Libertarian isn't going to tell someone else how they should be, or act, or push their BS on others. You my friend talk to much and the nonsense you vomit out in your posts tell me views like yours give Libertarians a bad name. You'll forgive me if I flush you're views, the scent is a little too thick for my liking. :2wave:
 
The Gay Nazi Party.
 
Ockham said:
If you represent real Libertarianism (which you don't), you can keep your BS to yourself. A real Libertarian isn't going to tell someone else how they should be,
Click to expand...

NO, but we can reveal what true freedom is, and expose those apparently who can't take it, as evidenced below. . .

Ockham said:
or act, or push their BS on others. You my friend talk to much and the nonsense you vomit out in your posts tell me views like yours give Libertarians a bad name. You'll forgive me if I flush you're views, the scent is a little too thick for my liking. :2wave:
Click to expand...

Let me make that more clear for the forum: "the scent is a little too pro-freedom for my liking. I like just like war too much, esp. after terrorist attacks on the US."
 
Ockham said:
What about the Popular Peoples Gay Nazi Save the Whales for Jesus Party?
Click to expand...

The Jesus Party is the GOP or its equivalent--the "libertarian - right" Party--the one that claims to support the Constitution but then likes to ban the construction of privately funded mosques (esp. soon after terrorist attacks on the US).
 
ernst barkmann said:
1.. who told you this
2... who told you this
3 ... who told you this
Click to expand...

Because support for those 3 things (and others) are what it means to call oneself "Right." If you don't support those things, you'd just call yourself "Libertarian." A genuine Libertarian supports

1) Open borders (no restriction on hiring or any other voluntary transactions across borders).

2) No legal liability limits.

3) National military (or militias) funded solely through voluntary contributions from individuals and private organizations, not taxes or public debt.

However, that's too much for some folks--it makes them look un-American, so they add the word "Right" to their political affiliation to clarify that they don't want to go that far.
 
Thrilla said:
Democrats... party of freedom...:lamo
Click to expand...

If you were a racial or religious minority, a woman, or gay, you'd certainly think so.

Geneke said:
What about the Communist Party of the U.S? Their goal of turning diverse, unequal humans into a grey blocks of concrete equal in every respect seems pretty admirable.
Click to expand...

Too small to make any difference. And, of course, that is no one's goal.

ernst barkmann said:
I did not say direct democracy...I said [democracy] be it direct or representative, both are vile, and are the roads to socialism.

Karl Marx- democracy is the road to socialism

Lenin - democracy is indispensable to socialism

democracy as a FORM of government is not liberty, it is a very factious run form of government, run by the few and powerful thru the guise "rule of the people".

lobbyist run our government though the idea of democracy,.....power in only 1

a republican form of government ...is power in 2, lobbying is more difficult when power is divided.

democracy is a low form of government, were as republican government is a higher form and more complex.
Click to expand...

So... you don't want people voting at all? If that's not your point, then you're really not making yourself clear. How would these mysterious "power in 2" be chosen?
 
I prefer the Green Party, but there is no right answer, per se. Voted Free Bacon.

Paschendale said:
There is no party of freedom. Each party has specific people whose freedom it is trying to enhance at the expense of others. Despite the above libertarian circle-jerk, that party's policies enhance one's freedom in direct proportion to one's economic power. It only creates freedom for the rich. Of the existing parties (there isn't really an American socialist party), Democrats are probably the ones whose platforms would enhance freedom for the greatest number of people, and most of the freedoms they aim to take away are freedoms people shouldn't really want in the first place, like the freedom to pay women less money than men, or the freedom to discriminate against someone in the workplace because they're gay, or the freedom to impose one's religious views on the healthcare system.

One freedom that the major parties and the supposedly superior libertarians can agree on, though, is the freedom to buy the allegiances of political candidates for their own economic gain.
Click to expand...

How about the Greens? Or Socialism & Liberation? There are plenty of social democratic, socialist, and communist parties here; they are simply kept out of government by the two-party system.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom