Ron Paul -- Libertarian

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

OStateMan

Banned
Banned
Feb 4, 2004
5,233
804
743
Vail, Colorado
#1
That alone is enough for me to support Ron Paul.

I see little difference, outside of a lack of courage or resolve, seperating the two, traditional parties.

However, I do believe it's time for many Americans, frustrated by the graft, greed and special interest decisions of career politicians of the two leading parties, to start a revolution -- a non-violent revolution -- to put the power back where it belongs -- with the American people.

The Libertarian Party is the spearhead of that organized revolt.

If you are fed up with the status quo, change your registration to Libertarian and vote Libertarian.

When millions change their party affiliation, then other voters will begin to take notice.

The time has come.
 

kaje

Let's Go Heat!
Nov 19, 2005
15,892
7,918
1,743
35
Stillwater, OK
www.maczealot.net
#3
Ron Paul is running on the Republican ballot, though. If you change your vote status to Libertarian, you wouldn't be able to vote for Ron Paul in the primaries and he has stated that he will not run as an independant.
 
Nov 1, 2004
4,529
480
1,713
#4
Voting rules depend on the state of the primary\caucus. Some states allow "switch over" voting ... some don't.
 

Donnyboy

Lettin' the high times carry the low....
A/V Subscriber
Oct 31, 2005
23,041
21,731
1,743
#6
What if you disagree with the Libertarian platform?
Amen...

If you go to the Libertarian's website and read their platform it reads like a little kids government when they grow up.

"When I grow up I will be able to eat pizza when ever I want....and I will abolish the ATF....and I will claim the planet Uranus as my own"

I have liked some of the Libby's on the local level shaking things up and agree with some of what they say. I like the idea of a third party. I just think they have a very simplistic view of the world. They put a lot of stock in the douche bags of America to control themselves.
 

JoeHero

I don't say blah blah blah
A/V Subscriber
May 8, 2006
14,765
10,093
1,743
36
#7
If you are fed up with the status quo, change your registration to Libertarian and vote Libertarian.

When millions change their party affiliation, then other voters will begin to take notice..
Unfortunately, in Oklahoma you can't. Libertarian was my party affiliation until a couple of years when the state quit recognizing it as a party. Oklahoma has the most restrictive ballot access laws in the country, and the local Libertarian party uses most of their resources trying to change that.
 
Feb 7, 2007
1,015
0
166
#8
Amen...

If you go to the Libertarian's website and read their platform it reads like a little kids government when they grow up.

"When I grow up I will be able to eat pizza when ever I want....and I will abolish the ATF....and I will claim the planet Uranus as my own"

I have liked some of the Libby's on the local level shaking things up and agree with some of what they say. I like the idea of a third party. I just think they have a very simplistic view of the world. They put a lot of stock in the douche bags of America to control themselves.

Wow. The fundamental basis of any Libertarian is conforming to the ideals of our country's forefathers, and protecting the constitution. The measure of every law is "Is this Constitutional" not "Is this popular".

It just so happens that every President is SWORN to protect and uphold the constitution. And somehow you liken the party to what a little kid's government would be like?

Do us all a favor and clarify how you arrived at this conclusion.
 
Nov 1, 2004
4,529
480
1,713
#9
Ideals of country's forefathers and protecting Constitution. OK, back at you, Desert ... explain that statement in context of USA's national security and economic security. Cause right now you're out there on that same limb you've put DB on ... but more to the end.

Maybe you can start a wave ... getting us all to the libertarian position ... whatever it is ... your version anyway.
 

Donnyboy

Lettin' the high times carry the low....
A/V Subscriber
Oct 31, 2005
23,041
21,731
1,743
#10
Wow. The fundamental basis of any Libertarian is conforming to the ideals of our country's forefathers, and protecting the constitution. The measure of every law is "Is this Constitutional" not "Is this popular".

It just so happens that every President is SWORN to protect and uphold the constitution. And somehow you liken the party to what a little kid's government would be like?

Do us all a favor and clarify how you arrived at this conclusion.
Calm down there big guy.....don't get so caught up in the revolution you can't see that it was a bit tongue in cheek.

My point is for someone who wants to be a major party the Libby's have a very simplistic platform. Some see it as their charm I see it as naive. As I said I agree with some of it but you can read the entire platform in one trip to the dumper. The issues of a government of a nation this size are a little more complex than they are addressing IMO. If the nation were made up of fine law abiding citizens such as yourself it would work but there is way too much stock put in the individual for it to work on a large scale. The ATF comment was because well Libby's want it gone.....and the Uranus comment was because it is a platform statement of the Libby's that one should be able to homestead unclaimed extraterrestrial bodies and Uranus is funny to say.
 
Aug 7, 2006
1,326
2
668
#11
Wow. The fundamental basis of any Libertarian is conforming to the ideals of our country's forefathers, and protecting the constitution. The measure of every law is "Is this Constitutional" not "Is this popular".
I don't know about you, but I have found that Libertarians are actually quite broad in their reasons for joining up.

I've been a party member for about 7 years now. I think the constitution is a great document, but certainly not my guiding star.

Basically, I believe the old axiom that you cannot gain equality without sacrificing freedom and cannot gain freedom without sacrificing equality. If this is true, I will err on the side of freedom almost every time.

Seeing as i'm registered and don't get to vote in the primaries, I won't get a chance to vote for Ron Paul, but boy I wish I could.
 
Aug 7, 2006
1,326
2
668
#12
My point is for someone who wants to be a major party the Libby's have a very simplistic platform. Some see it as their charm I see it as naive. As I said I agree with some of it but you can read the entire platform in one trip to the dumper. The issues of a government of a nation this size are a little more complex than they are addressing IMO.
Um . . . don't you think the fact that they want LESS government leads to their simplistic message?

Its moot to argue the intricacies of the tax code when you want to do away with it. I can understand why you see it as naive. I doubt any Libertarian expects to accomplish his goals immediately. Most people recognize those changes would be gradual. However, it would be disingenuous not to clearly state long term goals up front. Those long term goals happen to be a drastically reduced role for government. They obviously would have a reduced message.
 

Donnyboy

Lettin' the high times carry the low....
A/V Subscriber
Oct 31, 2005
23,041
21,731
1,743
#13
Um . . . don't you think the fact that they want LESS government leads to their simplistic message?

Its moot to argue the intricacies of the tax code when you want to do away with it. I can understand why you see it as naive. I doubt any Libertarian expects to accomplish his goals immediately. Most people recognize those changes would be gradual. However, it would be disingenuous not to clearly state long term goals up front. Those long term goals happen to be a drastically reduced role for government. They obviously would have a reduced message.
I understand what you are saying thus the "some see it as their charm" comment. However it is a bit pie in the sky....how gradual are we talking here? 20-30-100 years because no party has ever had nor will ever have that time frame....especially with three in the mix. Where I see it as naive is the are fitting very complex huge issues into tiny little simple boxes.....and they just aren't going to fit there in a growing evolving soceity. Immigration: anyone that passes the background check come on in in limitless numbers.....maybe a bit to simplistic? The entire section on Foreign Affairs would fit on a napkin! Gun control.....an immediate (they use immediate not gradual on more than one occasion if memory serves me) repeal of ALL gun control laws at ALL levels.....do think there might need to be a little control for ohhh I don't know felons or the insane what about children? The list goes on......

To me....again just my opinion.....it is a "perfect world" document even in it's best case. Since we don't live in a perfect world and never will it appears simplistic. "Do whatever you want as long as it doesn't affect others" well who decides when that happens? It just kind of looks like a document a Jr. High student council would publish, not a party that wants to be a major player in American politics.
 
Aug 7, 2006
1,326
2
668
#14
I'm not quite sure what you are saying here Donny.

If they believe in their system and if they think it will work, who cares how long it is? Why make things complicated if they don't need to be?

As for you gun control comment . . . that seems to be a different complaint. Their gun control policy isn't "too simple" you just disagree with it. That is a much different problem.

Too simple and Too idealistic and Too ambitious aren't really the same critiques.
While I think there a reasonable case for all three, it might help if you clarify which you are making.
 

Donnyboy

Lettin' the high times carry the low....
A/V Subscriber
Oct 31, 2005
23,041
21,731
1,743
#15
I'm not quite sure what you are saying here Donny.

If they believe in their system and if they think it will work, who cares how long it is? Why make things complicated if they don't need to be?

As for you gun control comment . . . that seems to be a different complaint. Their gun control policy isn't "too simple" you just disagree with it. That is a much different problem.

Too simple and Too idealistic and Too ambitious aren't really the same critiques.
While I think there a reasonable case for all three, it might help if you clarify which you are making.
Maybe not the same but the three aren't mutually exclusive.

However if I have to pick one it is too simple. The problems they discuss are complicated issues that at times involve every single American. The statements made in the platform are blanket statements......ALL is used a lot when it is hard to fit 300 million eggs in one basket.

The gun control issue is just a good example. So if all gun control laws at all levels are abolished what constitutes a gun.....what constitutes a gun law....are laws involving no gun zones gun laws if they prohibit guns? Could I go by a bazooka? Can a 5 year old? Can someone fresh out of jail for assault with a deadly weapon? Can I now carry one to school? In a court room? To the White House? Are there laws to protect children that include guns that aren't "gun" laws.......you see with a blanket statement like that you aren't addressing the issue you are creating new ones. Are we now to trust the wisdom of felons, children and the insane because Paul one? It isn't that I just don't agree it is an extremely naive and simple look at gun control that doesn't address a soceity such as ours. Thus my comments regarding that it would work in a responsible citizen utopia but that has never existed.....and never will.