[SteelyDan]

This is my favorite internet site, and I have learned more from it than I can ever hope to give back. I actually care about this site, and the direction it is headed, and that is why I am writing now.

Over the last few months, I have become more and more disturbed with the extremist tilt we seem to be taking, and with the fact that several of the moderators seem to be among the most extreme. For what it’s worth, I’m probably in the 95th percentile of the population in terms of promoting individual rights and limiting governmental powers, but it seems like the last 5 percent, or even 1 percent, is trying to take charge.

I’ve spent some time on internet sites where, if you suggest there may be two sides to an issue, you’re branded a traitor. I don’t go to those sites anymore, because there’s no point. Everyone is an enthusiastic critic of everything that is wrong with this country, and all their buddies applaud their criticism, but rarely can anyone suggest a practical alternative that might actually work better.

I’m starting to see this site headed in that direction, and it bothers me a lot. It’s the kind of closed-minded and ultimately self-defeating mindset that drives me nuts. For example, “I just won’t vote because they’re all against us,” or “I’ll never vote republican because in 1992 such-and-such happened,” or “if you don’t vote Libertarian you’re selling out,” or “I’d never vote for any administration that would enact the Patriot Act.” Those aren’t direct quotes, but they’re illustrative. And a bunch of that sentiment is coming from various moderators.

Here’s the problem. It’s really easy to bitch about all the things that are wrong with this country, but those who complain the most never seem able to suggest any realistic alternatives. Don’t misunderstand, I’m not exactly thrilled with everything that’s going on, but I can understand why it’s happening and I’m not able to suggest any better alternatives. We live in a complex world, and just because we don’t like something doesn’t mean it isn’t the right choice under the circumstances.

I just don’t understand this new “Blame America First” mentality that seems to be showing up here.

I’d put my “flame shield” on now, but I don’t have one. All I ask is that in the future, when you read a post bitching about what we’re doing wrong, ask yourself if the writer bothers to suggest any realistic alternatives.

[CZ-75]

And the Founding Fathers were also extremists. Most folks are complacent, then and now. So-called extremists can shake fence-sitters out of their slumber. Just because there are two sides to an issue doesn't mean both are right.


Oh, and you must have a poor opinion of THR to think that a moderator would pre-emptively ban you for this post.

[Pendragon]

Of course everyone who believes more strongly than you is a radical, everyone who believes less stronger than you is a flake.

Stay, engage, persuade.

[Thumper]

SteelyDan,

I understand where you're coming from. Consider this, though: In spite of the fact that several of our moderators are of a strongly Libertarian...even anarcho-capitalist bent, they are all remarkably even handed in using thier super powers. That's something you don't find everywhere.

I think it would be a terrible waste if our moderators were somehow discouraged from sharing their views. Some offer a lot of insight.

BTW, good thread title...guaranteed to garner a ton of "views."

:D

[King]

Personally, I like to hear everyone's point of view here. At the least, it's going to be "pro-gun". I simply use it, digest it , or discard the information as I see fit.

I'll say this, I've learned a ton from this site as well as The Firing Line previously. I don't always agree but I do want to undertand the various points of view (which includes the exterme). I'm a heck of a lot smarter and more savvy as a result.

As long as folks civil and don't offend each other in a personal way, say what you think and believe.

[Preacherman]

Steelydan, the whole point about a site like THR is to allow individuals to express their views in a reasonably polite way, and to allow the rest of us to respond to those views. There are many posts on THR with which I personally disagree, but I absolutely defend the right of the posters to their own views. They would doubtless disagree vehemently with many of mine! I think that as long as we take "The High Road" in our discussions, and keep them civil, we'll do OK.

[Leatherneck]

I don't think you're out of line, SteelyDan, for posting concerns about the nature of some discussions here. Oleg founded the site with pretty high principles in mind, and we all voluntarily came here.

That said, I also have been concerned at times with what amounts to a "herd mentality", and a fairly intolerant one at that. The group's treatment of Agricola and Malone Laveigh in particular come to mind. While a conservative viewpoint seems the most consistent with our one unifying trait--enjoyment of firearms--it certainly is not an axiom that liberals hate guns and gun rights. Most of them, maybe, but not all. :D

And I agree with you that it's the height of folly to disassociate with the Republican party over a few minor--or even major--issues. Realpolitik would dictate staying engaged and trying to convince others of your views. JMHO.

TC
TFL Survivor

[BTR]

I always find the posts that wish rape and death on gun control advocates, gleefully note the death of politicians (Wellstone), and praise murderers (Carl Drega) extremely distressing.:(

[Boats]

Anarcho-capitalists? Libertarians? (l)ibertarians? These are all fringe elements that have scant impact on reality. Complaining about them is like condemning a gentle breeze that always comes from the same direction but invariably carries with it a peculiar, but not necessarily offensive, odor.:neener:

IOW, what's the use in complaining? It's just part of the environment here and one that is not going to change.

[pax]

Insanity is doing the same thing, over and over, and expecting a different result.

Vote Republican, get screwed, vote Republican, get screwed, vote Republican, get screwed, vote Republican, get screwed ... Notice that you keep getting screwed. Vote Republican anyway. Continuing this cycle is nuttier than a squirrel's winter stash.

No matter how extreme the alternative may look, at least it is not insane.

Think about it.

pax

We hardly find any persons of good sense, save those who agree with us. -- La Rochefoucauld

[Thumper]

Sorry, Pax...

All those sane people searching for an alternative (Ross Perot) cleared the way for Slick Willy.

Letting Slick Willy in your house is a great way to get screwed...true on many levels.

Idealism v. reality. Reality dictates, at this sorry stage, that we vote for the one of the sides we think will screw us the least.

We are a 50/50 country right now. Pulling votes from the side that's a little more freedom loving is not a good idea.

Let me ask this...do you think that, even in a best case scenario, a Libertarian candidate could win in the next election?

[DigitalWarrior]

First, I am an extremist.

I believe that any administration that supports the "Patriot Act”:banghead: while not necessarily evil :evil:, is definitely acting irresponsibly. I will not vote for them. They may believe that I am safer with them watching and regulating everything I do. But the road to tyranny is paved with good intentions.

I will not support being disarmed by my government. Where I live, the Libertarian Party is the only party to recognize the constitution. The only other choice I see involves voting for someone who wants to enslave me.:fire:

VOTING LIBERTARIAN IS AN ALTERNATIVE. I get annoyed when people pretend that it is ineffective. On-line polls are ineffective, trying to buy politicians is ineffective, because it legitimises their corruption of the Constitution, VOTING IS EFFECTIVE! Registering others to vote is Effective!

DW

Remember, You are free when you do not have to ask someone else to do something. Even slaves can get their owners permission. Are you free?

[NukemJim]

Libertarians are small now. Politically almost powerless. Not enough votes in any legistlative body to affect the vast majority of legislation.

However,

A) that does not mean that theywill always be small and powerless. Every movement has a start.

B) If they raise issues and get them acted upon by current political parties they can acomplish what they want without winning office. ( But it would be VERY difficult )

Bottom Line Libertartians are the ONLY national political party that is Truly pro-gun. Voting for them makes sense to me if only to let the other politicans know what we want.

The vicsous circle is sadly they are powerless because they are small, ( and in ILL purposly kept that way by unlawfull actions by both Democratic and Republican parties. ) and small because they are powerless.:confused:

Do not know the answer but continuosly voting for people who take away our rights does NOT seem reasonable to me.:cuss:

As always I may be wrong.

NukemJim

[Tamara]

Pulling votes from the side that's a little more freedom loving...

...but only on some issues. (And not very firm about it even on those.)

[P95Carry]

Board moderation and admin is inevitably a ''no win'' situation (I know this, 1st hand) .... and so the best that will usually be managed is to please ''most of the people, most of the time''.

Overall I have been impressed with moderation here ...... that which I have seen ..... and there have to be some rules to maintain a sense of order. Politics tho will for ever be one of the hottest potatoes and will never fail to ''stir the pot''.:p

[Leaky Waders]

SD,

I think it's the nature of the internet for passionate persons to express themselves - on some issues - like a fervant zealot.

I also think that most people wouldn't speak like that face to face...it's just that the sender and addresser are both anonymous and trying to argue/discuss/rebuke/kiss - ok no kissing here...wrong board ;) joke - with brief diatribes w/o voice inflection or body language...it's tuff.

I haven't seen the rape and kill posts...don't think I'd like them either....I kind of pick and choose what to read and reply to...if I don't like it or think it's moronic I just move on. Why waste time?

I'm usually reading gun posts...now I'm lusting for a jetfire...don't know how many times I've read the archives. My B-day is this month and I've circled the add in the buyers guide and handed it to my wife...but I digress...usually I digress on Sharon Stone...see how much the silly little jetfire tantalizes me...

By the way...Pax, Mike Irwin, Frenchy and I along with some others just finished (well I'm done :) ) conversation about S&W...we don't agree...but that's ok...it was still enlightening for me. I mean someone named latin for Peace can't be all that bad.

Anyways..chin up, Don't get discouraged,

VR.
LW

[DigitalWarrior]

No a Libertarian will not win the presidency next time. But the presidency is not what we need. Stack the Legislature! I think we stand a chance of making people notice there. I also think that if we started winning small elections more peple would feel that their vote wouldn't be wastedand vote Libertarian.

[DigitalWarrior]

I also have to giove moderators credit because this post critisizing them (unjustly) is still here. Now that is freedom of speech. And this is even somebody elses private property.

[Thumper]

but only on some issues. (And not very firm about it even on those.)

Agreed, Tam. But they beat the heck out of the only viable alternative. As I've admitted before, I'm a single issue voter.

I don't think anyone here would bet 100 bucks against a million that a Lib candidate could win in 2004...or even 2008.

Come up with a freedom loving candidate that has a snowball's chance in hell of winning a Presidential election and I'll vote for 'em.

Until then, a vote for a fringe candidate amounts to a helping hand for the Dems.

[Boats]

Is this thread going to be hijacked into yet another "conversation" consisting of, "The Libertarian Party is really effective, no seriously, QUIT LAUGHING, we'll get there someday, WHEN you say?!? Who cares when you pathetic freedom hater, we're returning to this country's roots here--where's our prez candidate's federal matching funds and invite to the debates?"

If so, please do. I really enjoy the protestations of relevancy.

[Tamara]

Ah. Validity based on popularity contest.

"My team took my guns away. :(
But they kicked butt at the polls! :)

Yayyyyy team!"

I think pom-poms in party colors are so cute. ;)

[justice4all]

People say that it is "unrealistic" to think that Libertarian candidates will ever be elected, as if the two-party system is a metaphysically given. It is not. It is man made. It can be changed by voters who vote their principles.

[Tamara]

...this "The GOP is on your side, you should stick with them and change them from within" is simply untrue. The Right Sociali... er, GOP is not on my side; it may lean closer to me on one or two issues than the other major party, but it is diametrically opposed to me on so many others, that I'd be as well off trying to "change from within" over with the Left Sociali... er, Democrats.

Why should I vote for someone with whom I staunchly disagree on almost every major issue?

[Oracle]

Tamara just described the reason I vote Libertarian. I'm just as far away from the Republicans on most issues as I am from the Democrats. Were I going to vote for one of the two largest parties, I might as well just flip a coin and hope for whichever candidate I help elect not to further violate and restrict my rights. I'm done with doing that. I'm going to vote for someone who actually does represent my views, and in the vast majority of cases, thats the Libertarians. I'm not going to help elect people I staunchly disagree with anymore, simply because they MIGHT be the "lesser of two evils". Remember, the lesser of two evils is still evil.

[Justin]

Heh.
SteelyDan, methinks you're being a tad bit mellow dramatic. I'm certainly not going to ban you for your post, and neither will any of the other mods. For what it's worth, lemme do a point-by-point.
For what it’s worth, I’m probably in the 95th percentile of the population in terms of promoting individual rights and limiting governmental powers, but it seems like the last 5 percent, or even 1 percent, is trying to take charge.A quick edjumacation regarding becoming a mod. You don't find the job, the job finds you. Said another way, I didn't ask to be a mod, I was invited. That hardly qualifies as trying to run the digital equivalent of an online forum coup.
I’ve spent some time on internet sites where, if you suggest there may be two sides to an issue, you’re branded a traitor. I don’t go to those sites anymore, because there’s no point.To be completely honest, I stopped believing that there were only two sides to any given issue long ago. Usually there's more than that, much more, and I think that debating the various merits of an issue are worthy, including the points of view that I may vehemently disagree with.
Everyone is an enthusiastic critic of everything that is wrong with this country, and all their buddies applaud their criticism, but rarely can anyone suggest a practical alternative that might actually work better.I disagree, many times critics of the current system are critical of it because they have sat down and figured out a better way of doing things. Of course "better" usually means "different," which to most people equates to being "bad." To truly grasp a lot of libertarian/free market philosophy takes a bit of reading and logical thought. Because of this, a lot of people are unwilling to swallow the red pill, so to speak.
For example, “I just won’t vote because they’re all against us,” or “I’ll never vote republican because in 1992 such-and-such happened,” or “if you don’t vote Libertarian you’re selling out,” or “I’d never vote for any administration that would enact the Patriot Act.” Those aren’t direct quotes, but they’re illustrative. And a bunch of that sentiment is coming from various moderators.heh. Dunno if you've noticed, but I've been a pretty loud advocate of working within the system to kill the AW ban. Having said that, I bear no ill will to those who are so disenfranchised that they abstain from voting. As for not voting Republican, well lemme tell you a little story: About 3 years ago I was in total lockstep agreement with the Repubs. I was a total Dittohead/G. Gordon Liddy/George Bush kinda guy. And then I started paying attention to the Republicans and what they were doing. And I noticed that they really weren't doing what they claimed they were doing. Government spending went up under the party with an R just about as much as under the party with the D. Gun control seemed to be instituted about as much by the R's as the D's. And as I sat and thought about it, I realized that it wasn't that one party was for freedom and the other for oppression. I realized that it was more about which demographic the two major parties wanted to oppress. I guess that I must have decided early on that I had a certain threshold, and once that was passed I saw no reason to support the Republicans any more. Where's your threshold? At what point is 'the lesser evil' no longer worth supporting because they are still evil?
I just don’t understand this new “Blame America First” mentality that seems to be showing up here.As long as we're sloganizing, I just don't understand this "My country, right or wrong" mentality that seems to be showing up everywhere.
All I ask is that in the future, when you read a post bitching about what we’re doing wrong, ask yourself if the writer bothers to suggest any realistic alternatives. That's fair enough, so long as you're willing to be open-minded enough to consider the alternatives suggested instead of dismissing them out of hand. No more of the "That won't work because we've never done it that way before and it's different, so it's bound to fail!" mentality.

[Justin]

Oh, and Boats- The Whigs said the same thing about the Republicans.

[Byron Quick]

Steely Dan,

You call that a rant?:D That might get you banned?:rolleyes:

My friend, you were CIVIL. You've got to break the rules that you agreed to abide by when you joined to get banned.

Disagreeing with us moderators ain't one of them...go back and check.

Libertarian? Yeah, I usually vote that way. I've voted for two Republican pukes since 1976. I really don't see much difference between a Republican conservative and a Democratic liberal as they disagree over which areas of my life that the government should control and to what degree that control should entail. They are in total agreement that THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD CONTROL AREAS OF MY LIFE THAT DO NOT INTRUDE ON THE RIGHTS OF ANY INDIVIDUAL.

But, I'm not a Libertarian...I'm more radical than that. The best description I've heard of my position is that I'm a rational anarchist. In other words, I need no government as I do not murder, rob, plunder, rape, etc. due to the existence of laws and police. On the other hand, I recognize that there are people who NEED to be told what to do, how to do it, and when to do it by an authority figure of some nature. I consider that need to be pathological... but it is still a fact. Therefore, those laws that I find to be tolerable...I tolerate.

But, thinking that your polemic is sufficient to attain the status of banishment? Have you ever looked up paranoia in the dictionary?

I just don’t understand this new “Blame America First” mentality that seems to be showing up here.

Please explain to me exactly what relationship, if any, laughing at the idiocy of Republicans and Democrats has to do with "Blame America First?"

I stand more with both the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists viewpoints of America than the johnnie come lately Republicans and Democrats. That makes me part of a "Blame America First" crowd? I don't blame America. I blame the folks responsible...the folks who have been in control of the government for 180 years...the Republicans and the Democrats. Not America.

[jdmb03]

Well put, SteelyDan.

[Art Eatman]

I tend to take a view of life from the standpoint of engineer/mechanic/racer: If it works, it's probably good. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. If something isn't working, why keep doing it?

Ergo, to wit and therefore, I can't have a lot of respect for many governmental social programs. Since I've noticed that my opinion doesn't matter to the Congressfolks, I commonly show my contempt when posting but feel it's pointless to offer alternatives--BTDT, made no difference.

To me, the drawback to the idea of Libertarianism as a nationally-powerful political party is that it requires people to think/live in terms of exercising a high degree of personal responsibility. Given the nature of our society, I'm dubious this could ever attract a voting majority beyond small, local areas. Note this view has nothing to do with my opinion of the philosophy...

All in all, it seems to me that moderators don't care one iota about somebody's views on any issue, so long as the comments are halfway-smart and reasonably courteous.

:), Art

[longeyes]

Freedom of speech tends to be messy. Let's make the most of it.

[Boats]

Oh Justin--

The Republicans had an issue--slavery, and all of its attendant constitutional issues--that people were willing to kill and die over. The Libertarians have jack that motivates the masses, which of course is essential to gaining electoral viability.

A political party that can't even gain a signficant minority status in a small state is not exactly taking the scene by storm as the Republicans who supplanted the Whigs over a relatively short span did.

Nice try though, but the political party in the most danger of fracturing today isn't the Republican one. The Greens have way more troublemaking power on the Left than the Libertarians have on the Right.

[Wildalaska]

Im a mod on a very large Board and its thankless, the guys here do a good job.

The thing that bugs me too is the internet chest beating..."hang em, kill em, they are traitors and enemies, etc etc, ad nauseum, ad infinitum". Also the hypocrisy and generalizations:

a. The police are our enemies until they arrest someone we dont like.
2. Lawyers are scum leeches until they defend a gun case.
3. The constitution protects all sorts of rights until it speaks of one I dont like.
4. Fair trials and inncoent until proven guilty only apply to gun possesion crimes or dealer errors.

WildihavemorebutyagethtepointAlaska

[rick newland]

I don't think that in my life time I will ever see the Libertarians make any major inroads. But if people would get out and vote a handful of them into office that would be a major wakeup call to the Reps and Dems that people are really getting sick of them.

[garrettwc]

Excellet post SteelyDan.

You feel that the board is straying from things you believe in, voice your opinions clearly, and politely.

You have opened up an interesting discussion, and I think that's what is great about THR. The way our divergent beliefs can be discussed openly. We all end up being better as a whole. It's a shame our legislators can't live by our example.

I took an online test awhile back that attempts to determine where your political affiliations should be based on how you answered certain viewpoint questions. It said I was a conservative, but with definite liberal tendencies.

Do I think the Libertarians are a viable political force?

Not yet, but they are getting there.

Do I think that because they are small they don't bring anything good to the table?

Certainly not. They have several good points on their side, and I like to learn from as many sources as possible. They are probably the party closest to the Constitution at this point, so I will continue to monitor their progress, and support their views where I agree with them. I will continue to do the same with the Republicans. However, I do agree with some of the posters who have said that the Republican pitch lately is vote for us because we won't ignore the Constitution "as much" as the others.

[rock jock]

Steely,

I'm with you 100%. The problem as I see it is that some folks want to transform America into something that it is not and was never meant to be. They will often cite the founding fathers when it suits their purpose, but move beyond original intent on so many other issues. It is duplicitous to propose a political framework substantially different from what the FF intended, i.e., pure libertarianism, and then criticize Republicans and Democrats for doing the same with socialism. Of course, the "true believers" will quickly assail you for being a sheep if you don't buy into their definition of freedom or the proper role of government.

[spartacus2002]

I think most of the political conversation on this board would become completely civil again if we distinguished between criticizing our country (culture, values, people) and criticizing our government (actions, forms, and institutions) when we make our observations on a given subject.

It is too easy to be misunderstood if one says "America has done this..." because nobody knows what the heck you mean by America. Americans? Congress? Business? State Dept?

Don't confuse loving your country and loving your government.

Don't confuse frustration with government with hatred of country.

[tyme]

(thumper) Letting Slick Willy in your house is a great way to get screwed...true on many levels.
And as it turns out, voting Bush into office is a great way to get screwed too. I really don't see your point. Vote Dem: get screwed. Vote Rep: get screwed. See a pattern? At least we're overdue for an electoral realignment... hopefully the Libertarian party will take over in place of the Republican party... one can always hope.
(nukemjim) Bottom Line Libertartians are the ONLY national political party that is Truly pro-gun. Voting for them makes sense to me if only to let the other politicans know what we want.

Wrong. Libertarians themselves are not necessarily pro-gun. That's the problem I have with some of them. Regardless of how they'd vote, If they don't see the utility of firearms I don't want them in office. That kept me from voting for the TX Lib. Party candidate for U.S. Senate last November.

[Seeker]

In spite of the fact that several of our moderators are of a strongly Libertarian

You say that like it is a bad thing.

The country was founded on libertarian principles, have you read Common Sense (http://www.hdmsc.org/html/new/Thomas%20Paine's%20Commom%20Sense%20-%20TEXT%20VERSION.htm)

Republicrat, Demican = six of one half a dozen of another. Both are enemys of Freedom.

I've never voted Demincan and the last time I voted Republicrat I voted for RR and later wished I hadn't.

Someone in a previous post said they are a single issue voter, guess that keeps life simple, I presume that single issue is the 2nd Amendment. If that is the case why aren't you voting Libertarian? What have the Republicrats done to reduce legislation limilting firearms rights

edited to fix link -- pax
which is beyond my abilities, apparently... sorry.
Thanks pax, I tried to make it work for about 15 minutes then lost internet connection. I tried to do it by using the http:// button...but no joy.- seeker

[alan]

If you were banned from this site based on what you said in the original post, which I very much doubt would happen, then this site isn't worth bothering about or with.

[Tamara]

The Libertarians have jack that motivates the masses, which of course is essential to gaining electoral viability.

When your rebuttals have been reduced to reductio ad absurdum, straw man, excluded middle, and ad hominem, it might be time to, you know, check the strength of your argument. ;)

A political party that can't even gain a signficant minority status in a small state is not exactly taking the scene by storm as the Republicans who supplanted the Whigs over a relatively short span did.

So your average voter is more concerned about the WWF than the BoR. Your point?

[JohnBT]

SteelyDan - I hear you. I see it too.
___________

I haven't worked for or voted for a Libertarian candidate since the late 70s. The overall problem seems to be the great difficulty in organizing people who at heart are individualists and don't like organizations.

We're all going to have to band together to defeat Senator Cllinton when she gets around to running for President.

John

[brookstexas]

The Assault Weapon Ban came from the Bush Sr. administration and after he was out Clinton signed it into law.
WHO is our friend?
Bush Jr and John Ashcroft have dismantled the 1st, 2nd and 4th Amendments via the Patriot and subsequent additions.
Don't believe it? Have YOU read them?
Bush Jr said he was against the Sunsetting of the AWB.
Puuuuuhleeeese, don't tell me how clever he was as he knew Congress would kill it etc. I don't want a clever/tricky Prez, I already had Clinton!
Voting Libertarian this time because the above two choices aren't my friends....
BT

want to learn what's really going on? www.infowars.com

[Thumper]

Voting Libertarian this time because the above two choices aren't my friends....

Really? Who ya votin' for? (Hint: If you have to look it up, it's a pretty good indicator that he/she's not going to win.)

Either way, Feinstein, Schumer, Kerry, Hillary, et al appreciate your support.

[Ed Brunner]

Art Eatman has the right idea. Let me give you my take on Libertarians vs. Republicans. The Libertarians are idealists the Republicans are realists. And yes, I agree it's not that simple, but you get the picture. Deep down I am Libertarian. I'm just not willing to trust this country to Democrats while we develop the party.

[pax]

Deep down I am Libertarian.
If I had a vote from every Republican who'd ever said that, I could be President by now.

pax

[sm]

In my short time in this world a couple of thoughts. If one wants to know if a politician is lying--check to see if their mouth is open. Sometimes the only difference in parties is they way they spell the party name. Many politicians either forgot all the stumping for votes, or just plain lied from the get-go to get into office. All politicians have a Master's in "rationaliztion"--and working on Doctorate.

I think the problem with gummit is gummit itself. Gummit has in part been able to do this because of complacency of the populace. Kinda like a drug dealer, free dope for votes, get 'em hooked, brains turns to mush, and instead of being personally responsible for themselves, the populace is now dependent on more "dope". Addicts= Subjects.

THR and Mods : Thankless job they do. It is of my opinion when heated topics arise, the mods provide links to references, encourage the members to do the same. This way everyone is able to debate the subect matter, and not the individual. THR is (IMO) advocating personal responsibility. Don't take it for granted, look it up and be informed, debate and get us all to think.

Best weapon we have against those whom wish to do harm, is to be informed. Sheeple just follow the leader blindly...and take another hit...

[oldfart]

SteelyDan;

Back around the beginning of the 20th century, many of the problems we now see were already known. In 1900 there were a lot of possible ways to fix things. By 1920 there were even more signs of the coming Socialism and fewer answers. After WW2 things really started sliding downhill and taking the answers with them.

Here we are beginning the 21st century and it looks like Kreutschev (sp?) was right-- we're nearly as Socialist as was the USSR and we're down to only two or three possible avenues to salvation.

We all hope we will be able to lift ourselves out of this morass by our own bootstraps, somehow voting a better sort of politician into office who will 'fix' things for us. A second, only slightly better chance is afforded by the Free State Project which hopes to change one state at a time, eventually changing the whole country.

In actuallity, our only real chance is to take the same road our founders did. I don't know when we'll turn down that dark lane but I know the time will come when people will realize their lives are so brutalized, so empty, so futile they have nothing to lose except a few years of brutal, empty futility. Then-- and only then-- will things change.

So, for now all we can do is bitch about the way things are done. Right now we still have the faint hope offered by those first two possibilities and the fear of losing what little we still enjoy. Were I twenty years old I might be able_to look forward realistically to a time when I could pick up my rifle and make a difference. But I'm pushing seventy and when the time comes (and it will) I'll be barely a memory to my grandchildren.

Complaining may not be as satisfying as actually doing something, but right now it's all we have. Make the most of it.

[Thumper]

If I had a vote from every Republican who'd ever said that, I could be President by now.

Pax, clever, but you know it's not true.

Seriously...when, in a realistic best case scenario, do you think Libs could advance enough to be relevant on the national stage?

[Sir Galahad]

As a former extremist (except I was an actual card-carrying, organizer one---I didn't just play one on the internet), I will say that the votes of those who profess anarchism of various stripes (boy, my former IWW comrades would get a kick out of seeing the term "anarcho-capitalist") do not matter because there are so few of them. In fact, most of them are probably right here on this board, so count them, and you have about 75% of the folks who profess that belief. History also shows the people who claim to have "THE Answer" will usually be far worse than the system they seek to replace. Lenin and Hitler both claimed to have "THE Answer". Mao had "THE Answer". (And about here is where I'll be branded the freedom-hating schwein and running-dog lackey of The Man.) Well, I've heard ALLLLLLLLL of this same stuff before, except from the Left. In fact, if you took some of the things I've read here, changed the words, and put it into the IWW newspaper, they'd never know the difference. The "talk" is almost like a political Mad Lib: "The federal government is taking away our right to own (add noun) and (add adjective)! Everyone who disagrees is a slave of the (noun)! Liberate yourselves from the federal tyranny! When we become a (add noun), everyone will be free and happy and all will sing the praises of (add noun) to the entire world!" The Far Right and Far Left meet in the middle in the rear. Yep, "I" have "THE Answer"! Not you!! Not him!! But "I"!!! You are a slave and a fool if you don't believe it!

In the absence of real problems, people will always invent their own. Feel free to add my name to the list of those slated for the re-education camps after The Revolution. Please be sure I get a top bunk, please.

[Glock Glockler]

Really? Who ya votin' for? (Hint: If you have to look it up, it's a pretty good indicator that he/she's not going to win.)

Either way, Feinstein, Schumer, Kerry, Hillary, et al appreciate your support.

Who cares if they don't win? Just because a candidate doesn't win doesn't mean that they cannot affect political change (that's the point of voting, yes?). Politicians want to stay in office and are only interested in whatever will keep them there, so I am sending them a loud message that I will not support them unless they are willing to scale back govt, not just increase it at a marginally slower rate. I am also emboldening others who might want to vote libertarian but don't want to "throw away their vote".

Also, if more people voted for them, they will win, so what's the problem?

Also, it is important to note that I am in no way obligated to vote for any Republican, so how is that a support for Democrats? You only support them when you vote for them, so if I vote libertarian, even though they're not going to win, right, it's no different than voting for Bugs Bunny or not voting at all. So why is it that we're supporting Democrats any more than those that are just too lazy to vote in the first place.

Maybe the problem isn't Libertarians that won't vote Republican, maybe it's Republicans that won't vote Libertarian.

[Marko Kloos]

Either way, Feinstein, Schumer, Kerry, Hillary, et al appreciate your support.

If the Democrats win, it's only because the Republican platform failed to attract enough votes. In other words, a Democrat win is the fault of the Republican who didn't do enough to get the vote of the "idealists". If enough Libertarians siphon votes away from the Republicans, then the "insignificant" Libertarians do make a difference, as they will force the Republicans to return to constitutional principle in order to get the pro-freedom vote. Right now, the Republicrats are both proponents of "Socialism Lite", and both parties are government-happy Statists. The only difference between them is the articles of the Bill of Rights that they ignore or incinerate.

A democratic success is the fault of the Republicans for failing to distiguish themselves enough from the Liberals. It is not the fault of the Libertarian voters for voting their convictions.

[Boats]

Hey Tam--

Thanks for making my point. If all the Libertarians have are some shopworn Latin phrases for their critics then they have bigger problems than even I suspected.

It is your folks who are caught in the electoral logic trap, not mine. Most parents don't want drugs legalized or to give up on public education for starters.

I won't even get into how once again the local Libertarians won't run for the school board or some city council seat before making themselves big time failures in higher profile races.

If playing the spoiler for a pat on the head and an attentive ear from the Republicans is all the Libertarian Party is playing for they have some really petty dreams. Spoiler campaigns are to politics what streaking is to intelligent political protest. "Look at ME! Look AT me. . . ."

[Sir Galahad]

Poor folks....they have it so hard living in the U.S. Such a miserable place. The poor have DVD players without SurroundSound. The supermarkets only have 5 brands of cheese crackers. The interstates only have 2 lanes instead of 4. Isn't it horrible? And people can go to bookstores and public libraries and read magazines and books. The horror! I feel so sorry for these folks, to be so miserable in such oppressive conditions. I can see why there are so many wild-eyed, beret-wearing revolutionaries desperately trying to grow a beard that looks just like Che's. I can see why so many people are thronging to the virtual podiums of speakers pointing out not only the multitudes of oppressed peoples in America but also that all Americans want a revolution but just don't know it yet, so it is up to these few, these brave few, these band of internet revolutionaries to awaken the dull-eyed drones. Yes, it's just like a scene out of Dr. Zhivago. You can almost hear the people at the railside yell "Strelniknov!" and smell the cabbage soup a-boiling. Please pass me a corona-corona cigar and I, too, will grow a scraggly beard and wear a beret. Please, though, make my cigar a maduro if possible, so that I am not oppressed by a lack of selection in wrappers.

[Zander]

When your rebuttals have been reduced to reductio ad absurdum, straw man, excluded middle, and ad hominem, it might be time to, you know, check the strength of your argument. -- Tamara [moderator]By all means, walk us through those points. Seems to me that Boats is simply and correctly stating political reality.

So your average voter is more concerned about the WWF than the BoR. Your point? - dittoA bit of hyperbole but, unfortunately, quite accurate.

The inevitable veer of any discussion of this type into "the Libertarian Party is our only hope" sophistry serves one purpose, intended or not; to excoriate those who hold a different view...and the leading edge of that argument is pushed frequently by staff. That sort of elitism is counterproductive, no matter the discussions in the faculty lounge.

When I was a teenager, a neighbor of mine had the entirely predictable habit of "accidentally" bumping the chessboard when he realized he was a couple of moves from being checkmated. The iteration on this board is to ban or strongly discourage, by convenient means, certain subjects from discussion. That doesn't speak well for those who would feign adherence to the rules.

It's as if the members:

1. Can't be trusted to discuss those subjects in a rational manner, or;

2. It's too much "trouble" to moderate a discussion when the outcome might not be to certain moderators' liking.

To add insult, for instance, we're reminded constantly that the attempt to reverse decades of Democrat Party sociofascism can't be aided by voting for Republicans because they are [choose your own pejorative] "DemoLite". If we all suddenly "saw the light" and voted for Libertarian Party candidates, we'd hasten that reversal. It isn't going to happen, for several very potent reasons, and it is naive to suggest otherwise.

As some have noted in this thread and endless others, the Libertarian Party has no power to effect change; I suspect it never will. It, and others such as The Green Party, are relegated to the role of spoilers...nothing more nor less.

I'd be grateful if certain strident advocates of the "dump the Republicrats" movement would refrain from asserting that those of differing opinions are lacking in "principle" because we see the picture differently.

Finally, let me toss a few current subjects into the mix and ask the adherents of the "our only hope" mindset how they think they could, in any substantial way, be effected in the near future by withholding support from the current administration:

1. The odious AWB;

2. The reaction to September 11th;

3. Tax cuts.

Frankly, I'll take small steps forward any day over giant steps backward, but would be most interested in your opinions, even if you continue to decry the slowing of ever-increasing gov't power in favor of the fond hope that taking the right decision in the voting booth will solve the problem by next Tuesday.

Quick addendum:

A democratic success is the fault of the Republicans for failing to distiguish themselves enough from the Liberals. - lendringser [moderator]The mixing of labels aside, doesn't this ignore much of the political history of the 1990s?

[Safety First]

Dan,
Chew up the meat and spit-out the fat...we are all the same but different and all have opinions that we feel like sharing sometimes and this is a good place. 99% of what I have seen on THR has been done with respect...Let's face it,none of us will agree 100% about every subject/topic. That is what makes this country sooooooooo great,we can express our views without being afraid of the Kings men hauling us off to the the dungeon.. and what I really appreciate is that sometimes I learn something new...and in defense of the Moderators, I think they work very hard to keep us on track, I do appreciate their efforts and the time they put in here to enable us to have such a great place to come and spend time....

[Art Eatman]

A generality: Most folks who run for elective office have some degree of desire to tell other people what and how to do; how to behave. (Citywide anti-smoking ordinances come readily to mind.)

Couple the above idea with the knowledge that all those younger than around 55 years of age have become adults under the era of LBJ's Great Society, wherein it is believed that not only CAN government solve social problems, it SHOULD solve social problems. Therefore, a high (near majority?) of all our citizens look to government for solutions moreso than they do for private-sector solutions.

'Scuse me, but I gotta chuckle when folks speak of Dubya as a Conservative. By WW II era standards, he would be called, at best, a Moderate, but more likely a non-socialist Liberal.

Art

[Glock Glockler]

It is your folks who are caught in the electoral logic trap, not mine.

Why is it that Libertarians are telling people to vote their conscience and it's the Republicans who are calling Libertarians "traitors" for not voting for them?

Most parents don't want drugs legalized or to give up on public education for starters.

This is the fault of Libertarians for pushing an end to the WoD, as it is a big issue for them, and they therefore conclude that it should likewise be for others as well. The WoD is a crock, as drugs are cheap and plentiful, and I don't know a soul who is incapable of getting them should they desire. Thanks for the tip: Libertarians need to learn how to sell.

As for govt education, I don't know of any parent that is satisfied with 1) the quality, or lack thereof, in their local public school, and 2) the astronimical cost of govt education. Most parents are getting fed up and are beginning to look out of the box for alternative means of education. Free Market education is gaining more strength every day.

I won't even get into how once again the local Libertarians won't run for the school board or some city council seat before making themselves big time failures in higher profile races.

Valid point. I believe that Libs should concentrate their activity on a local and state level, and only run hollow campaigns on a Federal level so that we have someone to protest vote for. Thanks, I hope more people in the LP take your point.

[SteelyDan]

Well, I still have log-in privileges...:)

Let me explain what inspired the post. I was playing poker with some buddies Friday night, and one of them got on a soapbox about all of the things that are wrong with the country and the current administration. He refused to acknowledge, however, that there are legitimate reasons why some (not all) of those things have occurred, and he wouldn't or couldn't suggest any viable alternatives to the things he was criticising that would address the various problems the country faces.

In my opinion, his attitude is overly simplistic, and it reminds me of the attitude that seems to be becoming more common here. For better or worse, we live in an extremely complex world and I do not believe that absolutist positions are going to accomplish anything positive in our lifetimes. This is frustrating because if the absolutists (and I'm talking about the "good ones" here--the ones who post on this forum) would focus their energies in a little more realistic direction, they could help to swing the pendulum in the right direction. But the "my way or the highway" attitude does nothing but ensure that all of that energy will be wasted.

Having said all this, I'm probably guilty of trying to impose my values or mindset on others, which is one of the things I was complaining about in the first place. So, for that I apologize. But I know I'll keep doing it, as will others, because I have strong feelings about this stuff.

[TallPine]

So what is the complaint here ...?

1) That some people think that giving up our freedoms a little at a time is still giving up our freedoms?

2) That the moderators aren't doing their job right?

3) That people aren't voting Republican?

[TexasVet]

Vote Republican, get screwed, vote Republican, get screwed, vote Republican, get screwed, vote Republican, get screwed ... Notice that you keep getting screwed. Vote Republican anyway. Continuing this cycle is nuttier than a squirrel's winter stash.
Aw, that is just the New Age version of "Enabling". Don't upset the minds of the masses, they might start thinking that voting Republicrat actually makes a difference.:rolleyes:

This is the fault of Libertarians for pushing an end to the WoD, as it is a big issue for them
Glad you used the Big L there, as most libertarians DON'T belong to the "L" Party, if fact , a libertarian party is an oxymoron. And a great many could care less about drugs one way or the other. Most real libs only care about individual rights, period, be they minarchists, Randian anarcho-capitalists, propertarians, or whatever.

[Boats]

Why is it that Libertarians are telling people to vote their conscience and it's the Republicans who are calling Libertarians "traitors" for not voting for them?

Don't put words in my mouth. I don't give a rat's patootie who a Libertarian votes for because contrary to the Party line a vote cast for a three percenter may as well never happened, i.e. it's wasted.

This is the fault of Libertarians for pushing an end to the WoD, as it is a big issue for them, and they therefore conclude that it should likewise be for others as well. The WoD is a crock, as drugs are cheap and plentiful, and I don't know a soul who is incapable of getting them should they desire. Thanks for the tip: Libertarians need to learn how to sell.

Crock though it may be, it's a fairly popular crock to anyone trying to raise children without pushers out in the open on every corner on the way to school. Even if it is minimally tough to acquire drugs, they are more expensive and thus have something of a cost barrier to most people that they wouldn't have legalized.

As for govt education, I don't know of any parent that is satisfied with 1) the quality, or lack thereof, in their local public school, and 2) the astronimical cost of govt education. Most parents are getting fed up and are beginning to look out of the box for alternative means of education. Free Market education is gaining more strength every day.

I'd agree with you insofar as I can see some momentum building to bust the NEA's and AFT's strangleholds on the education system, making it all but impervious to reform. No true profession requires a union. That said, the rhetoric doesn't match the reality. Even a middling private school costs $4-6k per year in most civilized places. Folks balk at those numbers when asked to pay them, even if they had their property, sales, or income taxes they pay rebated to them.

I am one who differentiates between libertarians, who I have some sympathy with, and Libertarians, whom I ridicule at the drop of a hat. Like the semi-automatic revolver, perhaps the LP is the answer to a question no one is asking?

As long as Libertarian voters feel their votes make a difference, they don't have to think about how totally ineffective they are. Even the most successful one I am aware of, Rep. Ron Paul, had to formally identify as a Republican to get anywhere serious enough to try and implement his agenda. I applaud him for actually thinking his way through the problem of Libertarian Party unpopularity. The real easy answer is that one does not need to kow-tow to some party orthodoxy to identify as a Republican, though one might make some personally distasteful choices or merely abstain from leadership votes as they gain seniority in Congress. There are pro and anti choice Republicans, those for legalizing drugs and those against, pro and anti RKBA, Catholics and Protestants, gays and straights, whites and other ethnicities, school choicers and school reformers, on and on. Just because a particular group within the party is in ascendancy or numerically noisy (like pro-gunners) doesn't mean the others are wholly unwelcome heretics. Ron Paul is living proof you can have strong libertarian leanings and not become persona non grata within the party.

I guess he has no idea what he is doing trying to influence the organization from the inside rather than from the weeds of continued non-electability? I happen to think that if one wants to make the libertarian philosophy work in an everyday way that matters politically, Ron Paul's trojan horsing into the Republican party is the more viable model than a national burgeoning of the Libertarian Party, (no evidence for decades now), is.

[Ian Sean]

I personally subscribe to the Goldwater/John Birch brand of Republicanism......oh the good old days.

But I support the repubs. take a look at Ron Paul and his Liberty Commitee for instance. Over 20 congressman with a little caucus trying to do the right thing. Look at the legislation they have introduced, good stuff!

Pat Toomey (PA) is a member and I sent him a support E-mail and he isn't even my congressman.

Call me an optimist but there is hope and some good people out there, and they need our/your support. Check out the site and see if your congressman is a member.

SteelyDan, No apology needed as far as I'm concerned, we are all fighting to keep the country and our values from going down the toilet. We all feel strongly about it and get fired up time to time, I know I do!

[Ian Sean]

Boats, you Deckape!:D

Beat me on Ron Paul by 6 minutes!

[gburner]

two little hitlers will fight it out until...
one little hitler does the other one's will...

I'm as tired as any of you of the 'two party system'. Until you can run a viable campaign with a third party that does not merely act as a spoiler to turn the tide from one major party to the other, it's pretty useless. I recommend a libertarian/constitutonalist/populist
grassroots campaign in this country that
will embrace the ideals that made our country great. We will not see it's ascent to power in our lifetime, but we owe it to our children to initiate the change now. Otherwise, it's just more internet chest thumping.

[Ian]

I'd just like to quickly point out that a handful of us (3,945 as of Friday) realize that libertarians aren't numerous enough to accomplish much as things stand, and we're in the process of doing something about it. Through the Free State Project (http://www.freestateproject.org) we plan to concentrate ourselves and make tangible and meaningful changes in a single state. IMO, even people like Boats ought to support us, as if the Project fails, it'll give them more ammo to use in arguing with libertarians. On the other hand, when it succeeds (as I firmly believe it will) some of y'all might have to swallow some words. ;)

[Mike Irwin]

"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

Sen. Barry Goldwater

There's a hell of a lot of wisdom in that quote. It's the same kind of wisdom that drove many of the men who founded this nation.

Think about that.

[Tamara]

I'm not quite sure I get the point of that last post; were you responding to another thread, perhaps? :confused:

[Khornet]

I can spout my stuff here, and so can Malone. What's not to like? Keeps me sharp. Maybe keeps Malone sharp too. It wouldn't be any fun if nobody could show that I'm an idiot, and vice versa.

[Oracle]

Crock though it may be, it's a fairly popular crock to anyone trying to raise children without pushers out in the open on every corner on the way to school. Even if it is minimally tough to acquire drugs, they are more expensive and thus have something of a cost barrier to most people that they wouldn't have legalized.

Boats, before Prohibition, a lot of people were saying these same things about "that demon Alcohol". Now, alcohol is legal and you don't see "pushers out in the open on every corner on the way to school" trying to sell kids alcohol. It's sold in a way that makes it harder for kids to get than other drugs are. In many neighborhoods, you see pushers on every street corner on the way to school now, trying to sell kids drugs. How has the "War on Drugs" stopped that? It hasn't, it's just a "feel good" measure to make people think that they are making a difference.

Why couldn't other mind-altering substances be sold the same way? Go to your local pharmacist and pick up the drug of your choice, if you're caught distributing it to kids or using it while engaging in activities that would endanger others (such as driving) you go to jail, much like we handle alcohol today. And, the "street corner pushers" would be out of business, just like moonshiners are out of business today. Another added benefit is that the money from the sale of these drugs wouldn't go to fund criminal and terrorist enterprise, as it does now.

There are a lot of Libertarians, myself included, who want to protect their children from drugs and the crime that is currently associated with it's sale and distribution just as much as you do. However, we realize that what is being done currently isn't working, and can't work. Prohibition didn't work in the 20's, it's not going to work now. The best way to keep drugs out of the hands of kids is how we keep alcohol out of the hands of kids, by legalizing it for adults, taking the criminal element out of the drug trade, and restricting it's sale the same way we restrict the sale of alcohol. More children (defined as people under the age of 18) have smoked pot in the U.S. than than children (again, defined as people under the age of 18) have in European countries where it is legal. Why do you think this is?

[Thumper]

Khornet's exactly right. There are some pretty bright people on both (all?) sides. Heck, even Malone manages to work his way to a point occassionally.

If you can't defend your issue, perhaps you should change your view.

Do any of the Libs here believe that, even with the support of Pax' closet libertarians, the Libertarian party has a chance of fielding a viable candidate in the near future?

It seems to me that if they can't, your only real choices are Art's "mechanic" approach, i.e. fix it from the inside...or open revolution.

[Oracle]

Thumper,

Do I believe that, sometime in the near future, the Libertarians have a chance of fielding a viable Presidential candidate? No, not really.

Do I believe that, sometime in the near future, the Libertarians have a chance of fielding a viable candidate for the U.S. Senate or House of Representatives? Yes, I do.

Personally, I think that House or Senate seats are more important than the Presidency. The Presidential race gets the most attention, but the Senators and Representatives are the ones that get things done. I think that the Libertarian Party ought to quit focusing on the Presidential election and start focusing on the various House and Senate races that they actually have a chance of winning. The LP is also starting to see this, and, from what I've seen, are changing their tactics to come more into line with this strategy.

Of course, I think that Libertarians running as Republicans, as long as they will vote in accordance with their libertarian beliefs (a la Ron Paul), are a legitimate option as well. I don't see why all of these options cannot be used.

[wingman]

Moderator's sometime remind me of the
old junior high hall monitors, some just
took the job to serious, however what
I like about the internet when discussed
with someone or what you read hit the old disconnect button and have a cup of coffee, somethings about modern technology is great, couldnt do a thing
about the hall monitors.:neener:

[Russ]

SteelyDan,

Don't get discouraged. I'm almost twice your age yet deep down . I still feel like I'm 20 (I'll trade you 20 years for all my guns!). I have to say life just keeps getting harder and stranger every single day. When I think I have a clue, something else I didn't expect comes to enlighten or prove me wrong.

I don't understand how some people on this board can come to the opinions they have and I'm sure many can't figure mine out either being the conservative that I am in most cases.

I enjoy reading about the differing opipions and how people think. This is a friendly place to hear differing opinions. Some people fry me and others delight me but they all make me think. While the mods may be a little to the libertarian side, that's OK. Deep down neither the far left or far right or the I don't care party (Libertarians) will prevail in all things. There is room for a mix of us all.

[Augustwest]

I’d never vote for any administration that would enact the Patriot Act. ;)

[Thumper]

Ian,

Free State Project...I don't think it has a chance, but I signed up anyway.

Montana or Wyoming and I'm in.

Still voting Republican for now, though.

[LawDog]

The iteration on this board is to ban or strongly discourage, by convenient means, certain subjects from discussion.
You got that one right. You don't discuss abortion; you don't discuss the sins of homosexuality, and the Eternal Damnation of those who practice it; you don't discuss the superiority of the White Race vs. the mud races; and you don't discuss Final Solutions to groups of people based on race, religion or favorite foods.

That doesn't speak well for those who would feign adherence to the rules.

Just what, exactly, does that non sequitor mean?

It's as if the members:

1. Can't be trusted to discuss those subjects in a rational manner, or;

Boy, you hit that one on the nose. How long was TFL going? How long has THR been on-line? After all those years of TFL, plus the experience of looking in on some of the unmoderated discussion forums on the World Wide Web, we have learned that there are some subjects that can not be discussed without winding up as a spew of oral diarrhea.

You want to discuss abortion? You aren't chained to THR. Go to another board where it's allowed and discuss abortion to your hearts' content.

2. It's too much "trouble" to moderate a discussion when the outcome might not be to certain moderators' liking.

Again, you're right. When the outcome is banning a long-standing Member for continual flaming, back-stabbing and knee-biting, it by God isn't "to my liking".

So, we shut down discussions that are spinning out of control, or heading that way.

Most Members get the bloody hint. Some don't.

Those who don't get the hint get a PM or e-mail warning. Most mend their ways. Some don't.

Then I gotta haul off and ban the ones who don't bloody well learn, which flat plain pisses me off.

So. In order to avoid me feeling guilty for having to ban someone who is begging -- no -- crying out for a digital ???-kicking, follow the simple Rules of the House:

Be polite.

Debate using facts, not insults.

Treat other Members the same way you want them to treat you.

Stay away from the topics that the Founder of the Feast (Oleg Volk) doesn't want discussed on his board.

It boils down to having courtesy for others. Do that, and you won't force your Staff to metaphorically smack you (and your THR account) with an axe.

LawDog

[themic]

think of it this way:
the democrats want to register gunowners.
the republicans want to use a registered list.

both sides work for control and power of the future, in different ways.

the alternative?
Liberatrians aren't necessarily the answer, because they by definition won't play the game the way it needs to be played in order to be truly effective. Does that mean they're wrong? I don't know. It'd be nice to be effective AND right one day. pick one, or work to combine them, I say.

[Zander]

You got that one right. You don't discuss abortion; you don't discuss the sins of homosexuality, and the Eternal Damnation of those who practice it; you don't discuss the superiority of the White Race vs. the mud races; and you don't discuss Final Solutions to groups of people based on race, religion or favorite foods.I didn't make reference to any of those subjects nor was that my intention. My entire post pertained to the subject at hand...period.

Perhaps you are referring to my smart-???, sarcastic comment re: 'abortion' in another thread. Looked like low-key and humorous responses by the posters until I blundered in...shortly after someone showed up with a 10-pound sledge to deal with the "cockroach".

You want to discuss abortion?Actually, no...I don't want to discuss abortion per se. There are a couple of current subjects that I think would be of interest in a forum that is labeled 'Legal and Political', though:

1. The Laci Peterson case and the impact of Scott Peterson being charged in the murder of his unborn son, Connor;

2. The likely passage of a Congressional ban on partial-birth abortion and the influence it might have on the 2004 races.

Instead, the mere utterance of certain words [note the plural, please] triggers immediate flares and and the inevitable scream of "conservatives/Republicans/theocrats in the wire!"

A second later, there's the sound of full-auto fire.

But wait, that isn't necessarily the case...as a simple search of the archives shows; there you can find actual on-the-record posts of intelligent, reasoned opinion [even involving polls] of members and staff alike which don't descend into "oral diarrhea" no matter what triggers the flare. References on request.

I'll shut up now...

[Zander]

Do I believe that, sometime in the near future, the Libertarians have a chance of fielding a viable candidate for the U.S. Senate or House of Representatives? Yes, I do. -- OracleHow? Candidates become viable by moving up from lesser-level political positions. Unless there is some secret to jumping levels in wholesale manner, I just don't see it. Even in those areas/states where Libertarian Party candidates should have the greatest chance in general elections, they continue to fail.

The idea that a Libertarian Party candidate could become a US Representative in the near future is questionable; that one could be become a US Senator is, frankly, silly. The passion for such an overwhelming victory is undeniable, but what's the game plan?!?

Not commenting on the advisability of such a thing, you understand...just that the odds are overwhelmingly against it.

[Silver Bullet]

I'm not in favor of off-topic topics, as I believe all it does is splinter the RKBA community here at the High Road. Let's say there are 10,000 pro-RKBA members here. Let's say that 70% of them are pro-life on the abortion issue. If the 30% pro-choice are heckled and harassed on abortion topics, potentially 3000 pro-RKBA members are driven away (or maybe they go away because they preceive that THR is both a pro-RKBA and pro-Life site, and they don't want to support pro-Life). Of the remaining 7000, let's say 5000 of them are Republicans and 2000 are Democrats. If the Republicans are intolerant to the Dems in "Who here is a Democrat?" threads, suddenly there are only 5000 pro-RKBA left. By the time you throw in another three or four divisive (non-RKBA) issues, there may be only 1000 members left.

On one of the threads here a few weeks ago, I saw one of the most liberal members here, very articulate and well-spoken, and very pro-RKBA, being referred to as a troll because he was in the minority position on the Iraq war. We need this High Roader as much as any other High Roader; he adds to our RKBA strength. If we want to utilize our collective strength to the maximum extent possible, it doesn't make sense to drive off good members on non-RKBA topics.

Just my opinion.

[Mastrogiacomo]

I agree. I've been put in the same pack of anti-gun, liberal Democrats even though I'm Independent. Our new governer is Republican -- a man I voted for -- who is actually anti-gun. Being from Massachusetts gives a lot of folks the feeling that can attack me and my views just because I'm from this state -- and open minded about the importance of other issues along with the second amendment right. They seem to be of the belief that I'm too ignorant about how it all "really works," and that I'm in some strange way the cause of all their woes as a gun owner. I've kind of given up trying to understand the extremes of others who are too closed-minded to listen to different views -- and color everyone with one brush. This isn't to say everyone on THR behaves in this way -- a lot of folks here are quite good about sticking up for people and don't tolerate these attacks -- but they happen....

I've learned at times you have to ignore and move on...

[Zander]

...it doesn't make sense to drive off good members on non-RKBA topics. -- Silver BulletAgreed...but does it automatically follow that disagreement on any issue alienates RKBA supporters to the extent that they abandon the board and/or their stance on the RKBA?

I've kind of given up trying to understand the extremes of others who are too close-minded to listen to different views -- MastrogiacomoSeems a bit of a conflict to me...much in the pot/kettle/black mold. Personally, I find some views unworthy of consideration, and no amount of PC-pressure is likely to have an effect on my opinion.

It isn't necessarily worth consideration just because it is different. Judgement is like that.

References if you'd like...

[Mastrogiacomo]

:confused: :scrutiny:

[Wildalaska]

I've learned at times you have to ignore and move on...

Thats what I do I have a few guys on an ignore list because I really dont care what they have to say..even if they say it about me or address anyhting I say...

WildmostguysarecoolAlaska

[Oleg Volk]

Silver Bullet -- well said!

[Sir Galahad]

Vote for me. I plan to legalize all firearms. Your birth certificate will have a detachable coupon good for "buy one, get one free" at your favorite gun shop. I'll be changing the name of the White House to "Sir Galahad's House of Catfish, Chili and Barb-B-Que and Medieval Style Smorgasbrod. Foreign diplomats who can't shoot won't be invited to the World Round Table Conference and Dollar-A-Shot Jackpot Shoot (This is going to replace the UN) and will be politely asked to refrain from ever speaking on world affairs again until they get some firearms savvy. I plan to put an archery 3D range where the current White House Rose Garden is. I won't fault world leaders if they can't shoot bow, but if they can't shoot at least a halfway decent group with a rifle, I fail to see further discourse with that leader until he gets hisself up to snuff. How can a man who can't shoot lead???

Vote for me. I'm going to run for Pres'dent and am seeking campaign contributions. I guaruntee to keep the nuking of pee-ant little countries to a minimum, provided they don't upset me too overly much. Oh, and I'm thinking of replacing civil courts with legalized dueling. Choice will be pistols, Bowies, or swords. Parties involveds lawyers will be the seconds for the duels. Dear friends, can I count on your contributions? They're not currently tax deductable, but after I'm elected, we'll work something out.

[Zander]

Vote for me. -- Sir GalahadAre you running on the Libertarian Party platform? :cool:

[P95Carry]

Sir G . you just got my vote dude ... http://www.patriotnetwork.net/images/smilies/biglaughplus.gif

[Ian Sean]

Oh, and I'm thinking of replacing civil courts with legalized dueling. Choice will be pistols, Bowies, or swords. Parties involveds lawyers will be the seconds for the duels.

Why can't the lawyers go first?

Who is your V.P. gonna be?

Keg parties in the rose garden, isn't there a bowling alley in the white house basement? Convert that into an indoor range.

[Sir Galahad]

I'm running on the Poker Party platform. We are committed to the idea of everyone getting dealt their cards and how they play them is up to them, but no whining if you threw away an ace and wound up losing. Gambling legal in all 50 states, too, by the way. That's my economic prosperity plan. That and no federal tax. "House" just takes 5% from the table each game. :D And it'll help the kids. Kids will be more motivated to learn how to count properly when they know that a straight is a great poker hand. Plus, the blackjack games will teach them about counting past 13. Welfare? Sure. Why not. Give 'em a rifle and point them towards deer country. Best welfare there is. FBI will be Federal Blackjack Inspectors (them's the boys what'll grab the House 5%) and will make sure all the decks and dice is square.

[Justin]

I didn't make reference to any of those subjects nor was that my intention. My entire post pertained to the subject at hand...period. The subject at hand being whether or not THR has a libertarian slant. Dunno if you noticed but the thread is still open, which indicates that you're free to debate the topic.

Actually, no...I don't want to discuss abortion per se. There are a couple of current subjects that I think would be of interest in a forum that is labeled 'Legal and Political', though:
Lawdog stated above why certain topics are not discussed. To repeat, it's because some topics are so divisive that any discussion on them will inevitably devolve into a flame-war. As for the Laci Peterson thing, I work with a bunch of journalists, and they're as perplexed as I am as to why it's even on the news. I've never seen an instance of something that so flagrantly fails the 'so what' test. Hence any threads dealing with Laci will get canked. Doubly so those that involve Laci and abortion. Don't like it? I'm sure there's plenty of discussion about it to be had on other forums.

[keithernTN]

One of the main issues that the libertarian party falls short is borders. You can't have open borders and expect stability and security. There are many terrorists that hate us from foriegn lands that would have a red carpet rolled out for them by the libertarian party. We have enough trouble with illegals rotting american society as it is. Millions more will not help.

Also there is a certain segment of our society that will never amount to anything, they will never take responsibility for themselves, they will always be lazy, never want to work, or have the education or skills to be productive citizens. What is the libertarian solution to these people when they eliminate the social programs that keep them from becoming even more criminal. I don't like my taxes being given away anymore than the next person but these people would be the main criminal element and there are millions of them.

In a perfect world everyone would take responsibility for themselves, but this is not the reality that we live in.

[Glock Glockler]

of the main issues that the libertarian party falls short is borders

Agreed. I would never support completely open borders for the security reasons you just mentioned. I find it odd that someone would agree to let millions of "former members" of the Chinese PLA into the country. Now, if we did eliminate all the social welfare BS we have, we could have a relaxed immigration policy, as we'd only attract those who wanted to work hard and get ahead.

What is the libertarian solution to these people when they eliminate the social programs that keep them from becoming even more criminal

You assume that people become criminal due to lack of social programs? The UK has plenty of social programs, far more than here, they even have national healthcare (the Socialists love that one) yet their crime is skyrocketing, so what gives? Crime is the result of low charachter people, not lack of socialism.

Eliminate welfare and watch the economy really blossom, as all that wasted capital can now be put into productive use into the economy. If that economic opportunity is not good enough for them, they can move to socialist countries that want slugs to get on the govt nipple. If that's not good enough for them, they can starve for all I care, and if they try to rob others to get by, it'll be a good thing that RKBA will be fully reinstated.

[keithernTN]

quote:

Crime is the result of low charachter people, not lack of socialism.

_________________________________________________

Agreed. Crime is the result of people with low character, and America has no shortage of those. Not everyone on welfare are criminals, that is what I said but not what I meant. I just think that if you take away the free ride more people will become criminals to survive because they have no ambition to do something productive with their lives, or they would have already. These low-lifes will not pack up and leave we would have to deal with them.