Neal Boortz's reasons to Not Vote Libertarian, etc


PDA






hillbilly
August 28, 2006, 08:04 AM
Today, Neal Boortz lists on his website reasons to not vote for X.

The link is http://boortz.com/nuze/index.html but will be valid only for today.

I found it interesting.

Even though he lists Libertarians last, I'll put that list here first.


Why you shouldn't vote Libertarian

With over 50% of the American people harboring strong libertarian feelings, they can't manage to mount a viable third-party campaign. How would they manage to govern?
Not only will they not defend America's borders, they don't really think the borders need defending.
Though philosophically they're right, they fail to see that their "legalize drugs" agenda isn't exactly a winner with the American people.
They never jumped on eminent domain abuse as the party agenda. People will react when they think their property rights are being threatened .... and the Libertarians couldn't take advantage of this.
Have you seen the way some of the people at their convention dress?


And here are the Repulican and Democrat lists, too.

Why you shouldn't vote Republican

They have absolutely no fiscal discipline whatsoever. No congress has ever blown money on vote-buying programs quite like the current Republican congress has.
There are far too many Republicans who want to take their personal religious blueprints for behavior and make them law.
The seem unwilling to press the advantage when it is theirs to press.
They're prudes.
Stem cell research.
Donald Wildmon
The McCain-Feingold Campaign Reform Act.
Democrats think that it's odd that the jails are so full while our crime rate is going down.
The Medicare Prescription Drug benefit for the Gimme Generation
If they had their way, Terri Schiavo's soul would still not be at rest.
They pay more attention to K Street than they do to the American workers and businessmen carrying the load.
They can't even protect America's borders.
Do you want your kids to come home from a government school and tell you that the Earth is only 6000 years old?
Why you shouldn't vote Democrat

They clearly will not defend America from Islamic Fascism ... not now ... not until the price of that defense is catastrophic.
They think terrorism is a law enforcement problem.
Their war against individualism.
They think America is great because of its government.
They seem to think that income is distributed, not earned.
They promote class warfare.
They have almost single-handedly destroyed black culture in America.
Hillary Clinton.
They're joined at the hip with teacher's unions.
Taxes can never be too high for Democrats.
They fully intend to destroy talk radio.
Their love of mob rule.
The fully intend to turn illegal aliens into Democrat voters.
Like the Republicans; they refuse to protect America's borders

If you enjoyed reading about "Neal Boortz's reasons to Not Vote Libertarian, etc" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Vitamin G
August 28, 2006, 08:26 AM
Perfect example of how more and more people are becoming disenfranchised with the whole system.
Not that I think whining about it will fix anything...

MudPuppy
August 29, 2006, 12:39 AM
Okay, what's his solution?

I did a lookup of all the National representative from my zip code today--ALL were former attornies. I think I know what the problem is now...

xd9fan
August 29, 2006, 05:12 AM
list is smaller on the libertarian side....count me in!!!

highdesert
August 29, 2006, 12:22 PM
Ultimately the biggest threat we face is self-inflicted: nearly unlimited expansion of deficit spending. Blame for that rests squarely on the Demopublicans, and the electorate that keeps sending them back for more.

PinnedAndRecessed
August 30, 2006, 02:13 PM
I would absolutely oppose libertarians because of their open borders policy.

Wait, that's true of the demonRats, too.

Wait, that's the repugnants, too.

Never mind.

mordechaianiliewicz
August 30, 2006, 03:25 PM
The open borders policy would be the place for the Libertarians to strike out, and get some votes. But they aren't gonna do it because of "ideological purity" of free market economics.

What I figured out a long time ago (and I am in many ways a small libertarian), is that international corporations working in cahoots with various governments to get subsidies, tax breaks, and other advantages not possible in the free market isn't laissez faire.

This illegal issue is very much a big part of that.

highdesert
August 30, 2006, 03:42 PM
are definitely the weakest part of the Libertarian national party platform. Ironically, most "practicing" Libertarians I know of (myself included) are not for open borders. We view it as one of the few legitimate functions of government to protect our borders from foreign invasion. And open borders would be less of an issue if government didn't dabble in free ("free" as in "taxpayer funded"!) healthcare, education, etc.

Aside from open borders, most potential voters hate the thought of legalizing drugs... I do too but I don't see that making them illegal has been such a good thing either, and it opens the door to banning other things I do believe in like guns and beer (again).

Phetro
August 30, 2006, 04:50 PM
Yeah, open borders drove me away from the Ls. No way will I support someone who supports open borders.

On another note, he lists "Stem cell research" as a reason not to vote for Republicans?!

Let's get one thing straight: EMBRYONIC stem cells have produced no cures for anything. None whatsoever. That's all the Rs are fighting against, to my knowledge. And they're right--it's morally and scientifically wrong to pursue the useless embryonic cells. No one knows why the Ds are so bent on pursuing them, other than to defy morality with their "in your face" desecration of all that is traditional. They have been shown time and again not to work.

Adult and umbilical stem cells are the ones that work in medicine, AND they don't present a morality issue to use.

Cousin Mike
August 30, 2006, 05:12 PM
Why you shouldn't vote Democrat...

They have almost single-handedly destroyed black culture in America.

A-FRIGGIN-MEN!

What angers me the most is when I try to explain this to other black folks - and get ostracized for NOT being a democrat! Of course, with a little bit of tact and a lot of facts to back up my position, most of my friends and family are starting to understand where I'm coming from. To be honest though, what do we expect? One party loves to play our music at their conventions, but completely ignores us once they get elected... The other party, well, they just ignore us altogether...

Guess you can tell I'm not a republican either.

Justin
August 30, 2006, 05:21 PM
People will react when they think their property rights are being threatened .... and the Libertarians couldn't take advantage of this.

For what it's worth, Reason Magazine and it's online Blog Hit 'n' Run have been doing an excellent job of covering the emminent domain issue.

22-rimfire
August 30, 2006, 05:27 PM
I listen to Boortz online if I am in the office during the show just about every day. I like his ideas for the most part. In fact I am listening to 750 AM right now via the internet...

Like a lot of us, he is disenfranchized with the Republicans. Not enough DO. But, I can not see the Democrats or Libratarians doing any better in any of the pressure points that cause me to vote one way or the other. If the Republicans loose either the House or Senate, they should take some lessons from the behavior of their Democratic opponents.

highdesert
August 30, 2006, 05:36 PM
Sounds like we need to start a THR party :)

MechAg94
August 30, 2006, 05:39 PM
One thing I do agree with in general: far too many people in both parties are authoritarian these days. Limited Govt seems to be becoming an antiquated idea.

gezzer
August 30, 2006, 05:41 PM
Lets all just vote for Perot again so we can ashore Hillarys win.:banghead: :banghead:

MrTuffPaws
August 30, 2006, 05:44 PM
Solution: Out law political parties. Make each person vote of a person, instead of an vauge unfollowed agenda.

Justin
August 30, 2006, 05:54 PM
Oh no. What ever would people do if they didn't have a tribe dictating to them!

highdesert
August 30, 2006, 05:59 PM
The problem with the Libertarian / anti-authoritarian platform is that somebody has to run for office, but if you truly believe that government should be minimized/eliminated, you can't desire office. Maybe Ron Paul is the exception.

I'm always spouting off my personal responsiblity / get gov't out of our lives stuff around work, and people say "that's great... you should run for office." But by definition I don't want to hold office because I want officeholders out of my life.

Maybe if ballots included "Abolish this elected office" as a choice... :scrutiny:

cordex
August 30, 2006, 06:31 PM
Lets all just vote for Perot again so we can ashore Hillarys win.
If we put Hillary ashore, is that a case of a beached whale or an evil beach?

Solution: Out law political parties. Make each person vote of a person, instead of an vauge unfollowed agenda.
Yeah! If there's one thing that will solve any problem it's passing more laws and advocating greater governmental intrusiveness!

Could help. If people even kept voting, it is also possible or likely they'd just pick random names, or the names they'd heard the most. In other words, things wouldn't change all that much.

hillbilly
August 30, 2006, 07:16 PM
In my personal experiences, the vast number of alleged "Libertarians" I have encountered, both on the web and in the flesh, have been a lot more interested in being "ideologically pure" than messing with anything so silly and pedestrian as fielding viable candidates or trying to win elections.

There may be big-time exceptions out there, but I haven't run across them yet.

Of course, your proverbial mileage may proverbially vary.......

hillbilly

ArmedBear
August 30, 2006, 07:26 PM
In my personal experiences, the vast number of alleged "Libertarians" I have encountered, both on the web and in the flesh, have been a lot more interested in being "ideologically pure" than messing with anything so silly and pedestrian as fielding viable candidates or trying to win elections.


Down here, we have some practical Libertarians. Not everyone, of course, but some really active people, who actually make a dent on local politics. It is nearly impossible to get into office without an R or D behind your name, though, we've found out (and Ron Paul, too).

I think we're best off trying to get good people in, during the primaries, then voting as best we can in the generals.

TallPine
August 30, 2006, 07:32 PM
The problem with the Libertarian / anti-authoritarian platform is that somebody has to run for office, but if you truly believe that government should be minimized/eliminated, you can't desire office. Maybe Ron Paul is the exception.

I'm always spouting off my personal responsiblity / get gov't out of our lives stuff around work, and people say "that's great... you should run for office." But by definition I don't want to hold office because I want officeholders out of my life.



I'm beginning to think we should just "draft" people at random to take a turn at political office, sort of like we do now for jury duty.

It couldn't be much worse than the present system :p

gezzer
August 30, 2006, 09:13 PM
If we put Hillary ashore, is that a case of a beached whale or an evil beach?


Bwahahahahahahahaha! I'm wiping my keyboard off the lemonaide that just speewed from nose onto it. I hope my keys won't stick laterrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

publius
August 30, 2006, 11:08 PM
For what it's worth, Reason Magazine and it's online Blog Hit 'n' Run have been doing an excellent job of covering the emminent domain issue.True, and Reason carries advertisements for the Institute for Justice. Still, Boortz' criticisms are all correct. The LP won't be a real political party if it can't connect with the public on an issue like eminent domain, and if it can't address the other problems Boortz noted.

OTOH, getting elected might not be as much fun as talking about what elected people should do...

Kelly J
August 30, 2006, 11:28 PM
There is no way I could Back the LibertairanParty, I can not agree with the open border policy nor the legalisation of Drugs, but I was looking around and did find a Party that I can Back and that is the Constitution Party.

http://www.constitutionparty.com/

Go to the Web Page, select the tab Party Information and drop down to Platform, I think you will agree it is a pretty good Platform.

Cousin Mike
August 30, 2006, 11:31 PM
I like the idea of legalization of drugs...

Do you have any idea what that would do for our economy?! :D

Besides... the stuff they give you at the doctors office is a hell of a lot worse for you than the crap you can buy on the street in most cases.

Drug dealing is already perfectly legal in America... It's just monopolized by the HMO's. As long as your nametag has Ph.D. on it, you can push all the drugs you want.

neoncowboy
August 30, 2006, 11:47 PM
If this is the Libertarian platform on immigration/borders, what's the problem?

This (depending on who interprets it) is in line with what I see as an acceptable solution: control the borders, keep the criminals out, enforce the law and clean up the immigration process.

Personally, I'd rather suspend issuance of work visas and ship about 3 million illegals back to Mexico...but if this is the price I have to pay to have freedom lovers in charge, that's fine.


The Issue: Our borders are currently neither open, closed, nor secure. This situation restricts the labor pool, encouraging employers to hire undocumented workers, while leaving those workers neither subject to nor protected by the law. A completely open border allows foreign criminals, carriers of communicable diseases, terrorists and other potential threats to enter the country unchecked. Pandering politicians guarantee access to public services for undocumented aliens, to the detriment of those who would enter to work productively, and increasing the burden on taxpayers.

The Principle: The legitimate function and obligation of government to protect the lives, rights and property of its citizens, requires awareness of and control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a threat to security, health or property. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demands that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders.

Solutions: Borders will be secure, with free entry to those who have demonstrated compliance with certain requirements. The terms and conditions of entry into the United States must be simple and clearly spelled out. Documenting the entry of individuals must be restricted to screening for criminal background and threats to public health and national security. It is the obligation of the prospective immigrant to demonstrate compliance with these requirements. Once effective immigration policies are in place, general amnesties will no longer be necessary.

Transitional Action: Ensure immigration requirements include only appropriate documentation, screening for criminal background and threats to public health and national security. Simplifying the immigration process and redeployment of surveillance technology to focus on the borders will encourage the use of regular and monitored entry points, thus preventing trespass and saving lives. End federal requirements that benefits and services be provided to those in the country illegally. Repeal all measures that punish employers for hiring undocumented workers. Repeal all immigration quotas.

Soybomb
August 31, 2006, 12:43 AM
re is no way I could Back the LibertairanParty, I can not agree with the open border policy nor the legalisation of Drugs, but I was looking around and did find a Party that I can Back and that is the Constitution Party.

http://www.constitutionparty.com/

Go to the Web Page, select the tab Party Information and drop down to Platform, I think you will agree it is a pretty good Platform.
To each his own but I want less government, not to use the power of government to force people to live life the way I think my own should be led. Continuing to pay for a failed war on drugs is not less government. Outlawing drug use also isn't the freedom I'd like to see more of.

Honestly all their mention of god in their platform page kinda creeps me out too. I do not want a theocracy. They support the boy scouts discriminatory practices while neglecting the fact they receive public funding. They say they like free speech while advocating using "obscenity" laws against pornography. They've got a few things right, but overall I'd rather elect a democrat I think. It sounds like you might as well just name it the extreme christians party to me. ;)

White Horseradish
August 31, 2006, 12:48 AM
There is no way I could Back the LibertairanParty, I can not agree with the open border policy nor the legalisation of Drugs, but I was looking around and did find a Party that I can Back and that is the Constitution Party.

http://www.constitutionparty.com/

Go to the Web Page, select the tab Party Information and drop down to Platform, I think you will agree it is a pretty good Platform.

Sure, it's a wonderful platform. However, I think that trusting the reins of the government to the people who know so little about it that they think it has Biblical foundations is a bad idea.

Besides, since a much more accurate name for them would be "the Bible Party", I feel they are trying to mislead people. And then there is the "Education as a whole, therefore, cannot be separated from religious faith. " bit. And their support for religion-derived laws pertaining to sex and marriage. And the belief that "government plays a vital role in establishing and maintaining the highest level of decency in our community standards."

Just what we need - government-mandated decency...

Autolycus
August 31, 2006, 01:04 AM
White Horseradish: You basically said everything that I want to say. The Constitution party is a wolf in sheeps clothing and is just like having an Islamofascist leading the country. Sorry I enjoy my freedom from the crazy Christian religion saying that gays are bad, abortion is wrong, and that I should go to bible school. :barf:

Derby FALs
August 31, 2006, 01:35 AM
American Taliban.

xd9fan
August 31, 2006, 01:50 AM
One thing I do agree with in general: far too many people in both parties are authoritarian these days. Limited Govt seems to be becoming an antiquated idea.

People are not willing to use Persuasion (ie like the free market) to respectfully win people over.....more and more enbrace Force (via Govt) to change behavior......and this is called progressive!

www.theadvocates.org/library/pers-vs-force.html

Lets all just vote for Perot again so we can ashore Hillarys win

Perot was Perot bacause Bush 41, (like Bush 43 now) pissed off alot of republicans. Clinton was just the last guy standing.


The Constitution party is a wolf in sheeps clothing

Republicans and Democrats are each deplorably eager to use the force of the government as a tool of oppession against those with whom they disagree or disapprove of-either to steal thier wealth or restrict their personal freedom.

The Constitution party would be no diffferent.

mordechaianiliewicz
August 31, 2006, 03:14 AM
I've said this next election, I just want Tancredo to get the Presidential nomination for the Republicans. Although there are plenty of things that Tancredo supports which I do not, he isn't a regular establishment Republican. In fact he was a schoolteacher before he became a politician.

As for the Dems, who? Howard Dean is the only one I could come close to stomaching, and I'd have real bad heartburn.

But what of the Libertarians? I don't know about y'all, but they need to change their platform, and that's all there is to it.

I don't know. What about a 3rd Party? A Populist Party. They would support limited immigration, and secure borders. Standing against China economically, and politically. They would encourage a return of American industry, and higher wages for American workers, and have a policy of returning most Fedgov functions to the states to decide on as to whether the states wish to have them or not. (Basically a constitutional fedgov).

Just from that little nugget of an idea, might you vote for that kind of party?

If you enjoyed reading about "Neal Boortz's reasons to Not Vote Libertarian, etc" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!