Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery

Magic Mushrooms Zamnesia
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |  [ show all ]
Re: Libertarian Factor to Romney's defeat... [Re: 46 and 2]
    #17208026 -

46 and 2 said:
With the shady way things are ran in the GOP, it's no wonder. Still though, their stupid decision to put "Mitty Cent" instead of a winnable candidate is entirely their flaw.11


What winnable candidate are you referring to? 
Quote:
zappaisgod said:
They only way you'll get to do that is to opt out.  The IRS is the most brutal agency in the country and you just helped re-electe the biggest IRS enabler in history.  Way to go, Forrest.


What part of GJ or RP's 0% income tax did you not get, the 0, or the %? My thoughts exactly... Romney couldn't even offer a better tax percentage for voters, nor did he. Nice try.


What part of those two never had a fucking chance do you not understand?  Really.  Do you live in a fucking bubble?  Are you so impressively daft that you think either of those two could win a general election?  Do you live in your mom's basement?


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Libertarian Factor to Romney's defeat... [Re: 46 and 2] * 1
    #17208175 -

Quote:
It's never been a matter of the name that received the nomination, it's a matter of the issues.


Obviously for the hissy fit Paulbots it is not a matter of the issues. It is instead a matter of "getting even" with the horrible people who dissed your idol. If it were a matter of the issues, you wouldn't have facilitated the re-election of the one man in all of American history who is 180 degrees out of phase with every single issue you purport to care about.

Quote:
America knows that RP would have whooped Obama's ass in an election.


America knows no such thing, which is exactly why America voted for Ron Paul in the primaries in vanishingly small numbers. He never had even the faintest chance of being the Republican nominee (as he himself cheerfully admitted on many occasions) because America knew he never had even the faintest chance of beating Obama in the general election.

Quote:
America also knew that it was "neck and neck" between Obama and Romney, yet it's sensible to put your weakest candidate over your potentially strongest?


Sensible or not, he was what we had. And - knowing it was neck and neck - for Paulbots who disingenuously bleat that what they care about is not their precious Ron Paul, but the principles Paul espouses - to knowingly throw their vote away so that the man furthest opposed to Paul's principles in all of American presidential history can stomp all over those principles with impunity, is not just infantile, but borderline criminal.

Quote:
It is you that are shallow, lack logic, and a tactful strategy, and you think the rest of us should fall in line and back your gimp champion?


Despite your insistence that you're all about principles, you demonstrate clearly yet again that you have no comprehension of how to best protect those principles from attack. It's not about backing someone who is only eighty per cent Ron Paul. It never was. It's about stopping someone who has unmistakably and very convincingly demonstrated that he is the anti-Ron Paul. In every possible field. But you don't have the sense to realize that.

Quote:
You're sad in thinking we are shallow, whereas we are much more deep, passionate, and love freedom more than you do.


Don't make me laugh, bro. If you actually loved freedom, you wouldn't have wasted all those votes that could have been used to stop the president more determined to squash that freedom than any president in history.

Quote:
Because at the end of the day all I'll say is "Fuck you, I'll do whatever I want,"


... and by so doing, facilitate the re-election of the president who hates everything Ron Paul stands for and is doing his utmost to eradicate those things.

Heckuva job, Sparky!



Phred


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Libertarian Factor to Romney's defeat... [Re: zappaisgod]
    #17208222 -

zappaisgod said:
46 and 2 said:
With the shady way things are ran in the GOP, it's no wonder. Still though, their stupid decision to put "Mitty Cent" instead of a winnable candidate is entirely their flaw.


Quote:
zappaisgod said: What winnable candidate are you referring to?


RP, jackass. Go back and read. Better yet, go back and do some research on polls featuring RP, Obummer, Romney, and you'd see for yourself which candidate has a better chance than R-money.


Quote:
They only way you'll get to do that is to opt out.  The IRS is the most brutal agency in the country and you just helped re-electe the biggest IRS enabler in history.  Way to go, Forrest.


What part of GJ or RP's 0% income tax did you not get, the 0, or the %? My thoughts exactly... Romney couldn't even offer a better tax percentage for voters, nor did he. Nice try.


What part of those two never had a fucking chance do you not understand?  Really.  Do you live in a fucking bubble?  Are you so impressively daft that you think either of those two could win a general election?  Do you live in your mom's basement?



0% income tax is better than what either candidate offered. The idiot who resides in the bubble is you if you can't see that with your feeble little mind. Put that on a LIVE TELEVISED debate and you have an election winner. Keep doing things the way you want and the rest of the country keeps winding down into the same 2 party shithole it was. But guess what? You've taken a higher step on the ladder of self-induced retardation.


--------------------
Even if it seems certain that you will lose, retaliate. Neither wisdom or technique has a place in this. A real man does not think of victory or defeat. He plunges recklessly towards an irrational death. By doing this, you will awaken from your dreams. - Tsunetomo Yamamoto

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Libertarian Factor to Romney's defeat... [Re: Phred] * 1
    #17208244 -

Obama's reelection really isn't the end of the world, Phred.  The nation will go on.  To some people, voting for people who represent principles they support is more important than the outcome of any one election.  All of your doom and gloom predictions are precisely the kind of thing that keeps Americans voting for the lesser of two evils.


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Libertarian Factor to Romney's defeat... [Re: Enlil]
    #17208252 -

Enlil said:
Obama's reelection really isn't the end of the world, Phred.  The nation will go on.  To some people, voting for people who represent principles they support is more important than the outcome of any one election.  All of your doom and gloom predictions are precisely the kind of thing that keeps Americans voting for the lesser of two evils.


:kaneclap:


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Libertarian Factor to Romney's defeat... [Re: Enlil]
    #17208462 -

Quote:
Obama's reelection really isn't the end of the world, Phred.


No, just the end of America. Obama said he wanted to fundamentally transform America. He started doing so from his first day in office. What evidence do you have that he will stop?

Quote:
To some people, voting for people who represent principles they support is more important than the outcome of any one election.


Yes, I realize that. The problem is, they are doing it wrong. By voting for people with zero chance of winning, they facilitate the agenda of those who are doing the best to violate the principles they support. This is so obvious that only a Paulbot would deny it was so. This is why I point out - accurately - that the principles they claim to support are not in fact important to them at all. What is important to them is to be able to express their feelings.

Quote:
All of your doom and gloom predictions are precisely the kind of thing that keeps Americans voting for the lesser of two evils.


Would that this were so. Unfortunately, it isn't, as they clearly didn't vote for the lesser of two evils this time around.


Phred


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Libertarian Factor to Romney's defeat... [Re: Phred] * 1
    #17208575 -

Phred said:
No, just the end of America. Obama said he wanted to fundamentally transform America. He started doing so from his first day in office. What evidence do you have that he will stop?


History.  The president simply doesn't have the power to make the kinds of changes required to "end...America."
Quote:
Yes, I realize that. The problem is, they are doing it wrong. By voting for people with zero chance of winning, they facilitate the agenda of those who are doing the best to violate the principles they support. This is so obvious that only a Paulbot would deny it was so. This is why I point out - accurately - that the principles they claim to support are not in fact important to them at all. What is important to them is to be able to express their feelings.


Even if you're correct, I don't see a problem with that.

Quote:
Would that this were so. Unfortunately, it isn't, as they clearly didn't vote for the lesser of two evils this time around.



Only because they didn't listen to/believe you.


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Libertarian Factor to Romney's defeat... [Re: Enlil]
    #17208680 -

Enlil said, "To some people, voting for people who represent principles they support is more important than the outcome of any one election."

Well said.  Thank you.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Libertarian Factor to Romney's defeat... [Re: Enlil] * 1
    #17208858 -

Enlil said:
Obama's reelection really isn't the end of the world, Phred.  The nation will go on.  To some people, voting for people who represent principles they support is more important than the outcome of any one election.  All of your doom and gloom predictions are precisely the kind of thing that keeps Americans voting for the lesser of two evils.


It will go on diminished, much less than it has been in my lifetime and on a clear path to Greece.

You make a stupid whine about lesser of two evils and yet fail to produce any solution.  We actually do have a run off system which allows outside candidates to still take part even if they failed the first round.  What kind of blithering idiot who spent 3 years pursuing a law degree would think for one tenth of a second that there would be a real consensus?  There are election winners and there are election losers.  Everybody who even gets to the primary level has won something.  Anybody who gets beyond it has won more.  EVERY FEDERAL ELECTION IS A CHOICE BETWEEN THE LESSER OF TWO EVILS BECAUSE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS ALMOST IN IT'S ENTIRETY IS AN EVIL.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Libertarian Factor to Romney's defeat... [Re: zappaisgod]
    #17208900 -

There will never be consensus, but if more people voted for third parties, it would be noticed.  By voting for a candidate you don't truly want, you leave the impression that their platform has one more supporter than it actually does.

No one expects things to change overnight.  A third party candidate will not likely be elected President in your lifetime, but there is every possibility that a third party could get enough power in the senate and/or house to actually constitute a swing caucus.  If that happens, politicians of the two major parties will start addressing the concerns of the third party to some extent.

I don't offer a solution because there probably isn't one.  People are so used to seeing everything as an A/B decision that it would take a serious cultural shift for that to dramatically change.  The media gives the people what they want - two sides duking it out.  Maybe someday people will become educated or interested enough to look beyond the false dichotomy, but I don't have a lot of hope of that happening anytime soon.


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Libertarian Factor to Romney's defeat... [Re: Enlil]
    #17208917 -

Quote:
The president simply doesn't have the power to make the kinds of changes required to "end...America."


The president doesn't have the power to start a war with Libya without first getting approval from Congress. Yet this one started a war with Libya without even consulting Congress.

The president doesn't have the power to make recess appointments when Congress is not actually in recess. Yet this one did.

The president doesn't have the power to gut the provisions of the welfare reform legislation from the Clinton years. Yet this one did.

The president doesn't have the power to appoint CEOs of companies, to stiff creditors in bankruptcy proceedings, or to sell off dealerships of that company. Yet this one did all of those things.

The president does have the power to appoint Supreme Court justices. And they do have the power to put an end to America. As just one of many possible examples of what I mean, review Kelo. And Supreme Court Justices can't be voted out of office.

Quote:
Even if you're correct, I don't see a problem with that.


The problem is that the rest of us have to suffer the fallout from their hissy fit.

Quote:
Only because they didn't listen to/believe you.


No, because they didn't think things through. They aren't anywhere close to being as clever as they think they are. I have more respect for Obama voters than for the folks who voted for Gary Johnson to "teach those Neanderthals a lesson". I am not being facetious, here.


Phred


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Libertarian Factor to Romney's defeat... [Re: zappaisgod]
    #17208976 -

zappaisgod said:
Enlil said:
Obama's reelection really isn't the end of the world, Phred.  The nation will go on.  To some people, voting for people who represent principles they support is more important than the outcome of any one election.  All of your doom and gloom predictions are precisely the kind of thing that keeps Americans voting for the lesser of two evils.


It will go on diminished, much less than it has been in my lifetime and on a clear path to Greece.

You make a stupid whine about lesser of two evils and yet fail to produce any solution.  We actually do have a run off system which allows outside candidates to still take part even if they failed the first round.  What kind of blithering idiot who spent 3 years pursuing a law degree would think for one tenth of a second that there would be a real consensus?  There are election winners and there are election losers.  Everybody who even gets to the primary level has won something.  Anybody who gets beyond it has won more.  EVERY FEDERAL ELECTION IS A CHOICE BETWEEN THE LESSER OF TWO EVILS BECAUSE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS ALMOST IN IT'S ENTIRETY IS AN EVIL.


We do have a solution, vote 3rd party, spread the word, educate voters and teach them the meaning of a nation governed by the PEOPLE for the PEOPLE. It's better than your solution: do nothing and keep things the way they are. If the entire system is entirely evil like you say, why did you constantly push Romney throughout the entire bid for the Republican well throughout the election? I figure a person with such a mindset wouldn't even vote at all and just keep quiet about the matter.


--------------------
Even if it seems certain that you will lose, retaliate. Neither wisdom or technique has a place in this. A real man does not think of victory or defeat. He plunges recklessly towards an irrational death. By doing this, you will awaken from your dreams. - Tsunetomo Yamamoto

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Libertarian Factor to Romney's defeat... [Re: 46 and 2] * 1
    #17209072 -

Voting for Romney is like being an enabler. You enable the GOP to run a shitty platform year after year after year. Its just like someone who is friends with a junkie helping the junkie by driving them to their dealers house all the while knowing that driving the junkie to the dealer is bad for the junkie. Keep voting for the GOP Phred, Zappa, et al. Just remember, when you get what you vote for you have no one to blame but yourself. The rest of us will vote for who we believe in and hopefully one day that mentality will take hold. If it does then American politics will be better off because it will no longer be a bi-polar system of stupidity. How do these GOP sympathizers even sleep with themselves at night knowing they voted to endorse the war on drugs, they voted against marraige equality, they voted for a bigger military budget. How can they even claim to be libertarian when they vote to continued failed policies like these?


--------------------
"Life sucks but in this really beautiful way" - Axl Rose
"Life's a bitch and then you die that's why we get high cuz you never know when you're gonna go." - NAS
"When people don't know what you're about they put you down and shut you out" - Black Sabbath
"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind" - Gandhi
"Look up at me I am God, look down on me and I am evil, look at me I am you." - Charles Manson.
"Don't question my reality." - Me (as far as I know)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Libertarian Factor to Romney's defeat... [Re: Enlil]
    #17209283 -

Quote:
A third party candidate will not likely be elected President in your lifetime, but there is every possibility that a third party could get enough power in the senate and/or house to actually constitute a swing caucus.


No, there is no such possibility. People have been saying this since at least the Carter years, and it never happens. It never will, due to the inherent structure of the American electoral system. As I have pointed out repeatedly, if America had some variant of a parliamentary style setup, what you suggest might be a possibility. But absent at least one and possibly several constitutional amendments, that isn't going to happen.

Besides, the presidency is different. It is possible under the current system for a third party candidate, in some small and idiosyncratic niche markets like Vermont or maybe Hawaii to end up with a seat in one of the chambers of Congress. But the presidency? Never.

You seem to think throwing away your vote in the biggest of all elections - the presidential election - will effect some change. It doesn't. Never has, never will. In fact, absent constitutional amendments changing the structure of the electoral system radically, it can't.

Randy Barnett wrote an excellent article explaining this quite clearly in more detail than I have laid out. It starts like this:

Quote:
In 1972, the Libertarian Party nominated University of Southern California philosophy Prof. John Hospers as its first presidential candidate and ran Tonie Nathan for vice president. When Roger MacBride, a Virginia Republican elector pledged to Richard Nixon, voted instead for Hospers-Nathan, he cast the first electoral vote in American history for a woman. The Libertarian Party was off and running. In 1976, it nominated the renegade elector as its presidential candidate.

As a young libertarian, I was very enthusiastic about the formation of the Libertarian Party. I proudly cast my vote for Roger MacBride for president. I attended the 1975 national convention in New York that nominated him. But, while I am as libertarian today as I was then, I have come to believe that the Libertarian Party was a mistake.

The reason is simple. Unlike a parliamentary system in which governments are formed by coalitions of large and small parties, our electoral system is a first-past-the-post, winner-take-all one in which a winning presidential candidate just needs to get more than 50% of the vote. This means each contending "major" party is itself a coalition that needs to assemble enough diverse voting groups within it to get to 51%. Hence the need to appeal to the so-called moderates and independents rather than the more "extreme" elements within.

To the extent that a third party is successful, it will drain votes from the coalition party to which it is closest and help elect the coalition party that is further removed from its interests. The Libertarian Party's effort will, if effective, attract more libertarian voters away from the candidate who is marginally less hostile to liberty, and help hand the election to the candidate who is more hostile to liberty.

Fortunately, because this drawback is so obvious, the Libertarian Party's presidential vote has remained minuscule. (It was about 0.4% in 2008, though it could cost Mitt Romney the electoral votes of New Hampshire this time around). Most libertarian voters resist the party's call, even when, as this year, it has nominated a good man like Gary Johnson, the former governor of New Mexico.


Click here to read the rest. It is well worth your while, I assure you.


Phred


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Libertarian Factor to Romney's defeat... [Re: 46 and 2]
    #17209328 -

Quote:
We do have a solution, vote 3rd party...


In municipal elections? Certainly. In elections to the state legislature? Sure. But at the presidential level? Nope. All you do is take votes from the faction closer to your ideals and thus enable the faction furthest from them. By the time you hit the presidential level, it's too late. Far too late.

Quote:
...spread the word, educate voters and teach them the meaning of a nation governed by the PEOPLE for the PEOPLE.


Agreed. Do all that. By all means. I am not being facetious here - what do you think I've been doing on this forum for almost a dozen years now?

Quote:
It's better than your solution: do nothing and keep things the way they are.


No. That's what you seem incapable of grasping - by withholding your votes you guaranteed things would stay as they are. Look at the results: before the election, Obama was in the White House, Republicans (including many Tea Party Republicans) held the House, Dems held the Senate. After the election, Obama is still in the White House, Republicans still hold the House, Dems still hold the Senate. And not one Libertarian Party candidate is sitting in either house. Great plan, brah.


Phred


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Libertarian Factor to Romney's defeat... [Re: Phred]
    #17209452 -

What I don't get is how you think there is a huge difference between Obama and Romney.  There are only small, superficial differences. Nothing major.  If the GOP was close to any third party in it's platform what you say would be absolutely true.  But the fact is it's not.  Both the dems and the GOP are terrible and no matter whether it's Obama or Romney at the helm the country would still be going to shit.


--------------------




Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Libertarian Factor to Romney's defeat... [Re: SlashOZ]
    #17209466 -

Quote:
Voting for Romney is like being an enabler.


No, voting for candidates who haven't the faintest chance in hell of winning is being an enabler. Y'all just enabled Obama another four years.

Quote:
You enable the GOP to run a shitty platform year after year after year.


Voting Libertarian at the last minute won't change that. Following the Tea Party strategy will. You need to elect more Rand Pauls and Paul Ryans in the Republican Party primaries, then vote for them in the general elections. 

Quote:
Keep voting for the GOP Phred, Zappa, et al.


In the general election? Damn straight. It's the only thing a sensible Libertarian would do.

Quote:
Just remember, when you get what you vote for you have no one to blame but yourself.


But the smart Libertarian-leaning voters didn't get what they voted for. Instead they ended up with the creature they were desperately trying to keep away from the levers of power, because the Paulbots who are incapable of rational  thought and logical action decided that now was a good time to assuage their hurt feelings over their idol being denied a fifteen minute spotlight at the convention, thus shafting everyone else in America. Selfish, much?

Quote:
The rest of us will vote for who we believe in...


And by doing so you will end up with the guy who despises everything you believe in and will do his utmost to erase any possibility of any of it ever coming about in the future.

Quote:
If it does then American politics will be better off because it will no longer be a bi-polar system of stupidity.


Once again, what part of "constitutional amendment/s" are you having difficulty understanding? Voting for Gary Johnson won't make the system any less bi-polar than voting for Bob Barr did. Or Michael Badnarik before him, or Harry Browne before him.

Quote:
How do these GOP sympathizers even sleep with themselves at night knowing they voted to endorse the war on drugs...


Again, how can you not know that Obama is an even more zealous prosecutor of the WoD than even Bush was? The way you keep nattering on about it, it seems it must be of some importance to you, yet the fact (and yes, it is a fact) that Obama's DOJ raided in just 46 months four times as many MMJ operations as Bush's DOJ did in 96 months just whizzes right over your head. And who is president now? Why... that very same Obama.

Quote:
...they voted against marraige equality...


Please link us to the vote in Congress proposing that gay marriage be legalized. If marriage should even be a concern of anyone other than the religious organizations of those getting married, it should be dealt with by state legislatures, not federal ones. You do realize that up until a few months ago, Obama - who is still president, remember - opposed gay marriage. He was forced to "evolve" on the issue by his imbecile VP, much to his fury, but all he has done is mouth some words. He has taken no action to further gay marriage.

Quote:
...they voted for a bigger military budget.


Good. The military is one of the very few things the feds are supposed to handle and it has been allowed it to fall into shocking decrepitude, with more on the way. Can we say "sequestration"?



Phred


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Libertarian Factor to Romney's defeat... [Re: amilibertine]
    #17209619 -

Quote:
What I don't get is how you think there is a huge difference between Obama and Romney.  There are only small, superficial differences. Nothing major.


This is such tired old bullshit. There are in fact substantial differences between the two on almost every issue.

Go here. Fill in every answer, making sure to rank the importance as well, and making sure at the end of every section to select the option for more questions. When the extra questions pop up, fill those in, too. Then look at how closely your policy preferences match the positions held by the various candidates. The test will list your response, then allow you to see the stances of the politicians who agree with yours, and also the stances of politicians who disagree with yours. You can thus determine for yourself that there is almost no overlap between Romney's positions on the issues and Obama's.

You can also see how closely major websites agree with the various candidates. Since this thread has spent a lot of time on Ron Paul fans, let's see how Dailypaul.com did on the test:

To no one's surprise, people whose support of Ron Paul is so strong they frequent a website dedicated to Ron Paul agreed with Gary Johnson on 81% of the issues. (As a side note, my positions were even closer than those of the average Dailypaul reader, with 84% agreement with Gary Johnson.) But they also agreed with Mitt Romney on 39% of the issues. So, twice the level of agreement for the Libertarian candidate as for the Republican candidate. Again, not surprising.

Now let's look at how much agreement there is with Obama. Why, just 19%. In fact, the site reports there was agreement with Obama on "no major issues" while with Romney there was agreement on "economic, immigration, environmental, and social issues".

If there were only "small, superficial differences, nothing major," as you assert, then the numbers of Romney and Obama should be almost the same. But they aren't even close to being the same. They are hugely different. That's because there are in fact major and substantial differences in policy between the two in almost every area of interest to voters.



Phred


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Libertarian Factor to Romney's defeat... [Re: Phred] * 1
    #17209982 -

---

Edited by EntheogenicPeace (02/12/22 07:04 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Libertarian Factor to Romney's defeat... [Re: EntheogenicPeace]
    #17210052 -

Quote:
Only a big government neocon could call military spending (the largest component of federal spending if you add up total military spending divided between several places)...


How many years have you been posting in this forum? How many more times do you have to be reminded that military spending is not in fact the largest component of federal spending?

And even if it were, (which it isn't), so what? That's the way it should be, since it is one of the very few things the feds are constitutionally allowed to involve themselves in. The irony of your silly charge is that even though by rights military spending should be the largest chunk of the federal budget, it isn't. The largest chunk of federal spending is instead wealth-transfer programs, and has been for a very long time, as you well know. Why you continue to pretend you don't know this is baffling to me, but I can't be bothered trying to puzzle it out.


Phred


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |  [ show all ]

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Badnarik and Libertarians "Sickos"? JesusChrist 2,525 14 09/10/04 01:20 PM
by Ancalagon
* Right-Libertarianism's Image Problem
( 1 2 3 all )		 silversoul7 4,148 40 09/21/04 10:58 PM
by DigitalDuality
* Libertarian: Ron Paul
( 1 2 all )		 Bridgeburner 4,041 32 11/29/07 12:37 AM
by pooppoop
* So, those of libertarian minds out there patchwork 692 8 06/20/05 08:43 PM
by BrAiN
* The Libertarian message RandalFlagg 1,382 14 07/09/07 03:44 AM
by RandalFlagg
* For libertarians: A message of hope Silversoul 1,065 2 07/07/05 12:02 PM
by Redstorm
* Libertarians.......from Mr.Medved SirTripAlot 1,095 10 02/02/07 11:05 PM
by Silversoul
* Republican Party Animals GazzBut 516 0 09/04/04 11:07 AM
by GazzBut

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
6,451 topic views. 2 members, 1 guests and 8 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.035 seconds spending 0.007 seconds on 16 queries.