Reply With Quote
s yeah. We can't ever possibly contemplate giving up the opportunity for future conflicts for the state so that it can usurp more of our rights under the guise of yet another 'national emergency.'
I'm in favor of closing the European military bases. Doing so in Korea might violate our obligations in the region as well as put us at a disadvantage for probably future conflicts with others in that region.
Glad to amuse.
s yeah. We can't ever possibly contemplate giving up the opportunity for future conflicts for the state so that it can usurp more of our rights under the guise of yet another 'national emergency.'
So, there are no evils out there?
He didn't? And here I thought you and all your buddies were letting us know that he and his rival were Socialists way back in 2007.
I mean, didn't you tell us thats what he was? And didn't the left vote him in because they wanted that?
Nope.
Yep.
I don't know why they voted for him. Stupidity defies explanation sometimes.
As does hypocrisy.
Hypocrisy is fairly easily understood. Well, for me. I can see, however, you're having difficulty both recognizing it (in some) and misidentifying it (in others).
There are different types of libertarians. The primary reason why we call ourselves libertarians is because we was as little government as practical. That does not mean we oppose war. We oppose authoritarianism, which means we oppose socialism, fascism, communism, etc.
I knew when Obama lied on Oprah that he was not going to run for president he was a fraud.
But at the time Iknew I rather have Obama than Bush or McCain in office.
But now I am seeing all his flip flopping and back pedaling on almost every issue, I am tempted to join Yonivore's Army.
The reason you call yourself libertarian is because neoconservative is no longer politically attractive. Libertarianism does not maintain an endorsement of preemptive wars or a standing military empire around the globe.
Oh , the Illuminati are here.
At least credit Dan Brown for the idea.
That may be what the party's statement says, but that doesn't mean all who agree with the ideals of libertarianism agree with all the written points. If everyone had to be in lockstep with the political ideals they state, we'd be a rather boring lot of people.
I'm in too good of a mood right now, but I'll respond to this anyway. You simply don't know what the you're talking about.
Well, it's a rather key component of libertarianism. And historically it's been a part of conservatism as well.
Usage is king. History is the dustbin. This line of argument never works. WC thinks he's the teacher.
I'd say it's more about the guy pushing the plan than the plan itself. "My guy" wants to do something? Great idea. "Your guy" wants to do the exact same thing? Horrible idea.
I see nothing saying the party is against taking the war to a valid threat.3.1 National Defense
We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression. The United States should both abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world and avoid entangling alliances. We oppose any form of compulsory national service
link:
National Platform of the Libertarian Party, Adopted in Convention, May 2008, Denver, Colorado
"Aggression" by another state, not "hey, they could do something sometime in the future so let's invade."
And you should notice the use of "defend" which does not condone an offensive military posture with however many bases around the globe. It is actual defense of the homeland against real attacks by states.
You know we've gone through the looking glass when you have to explain that pre-emptive attacks aren't defensive.
For example:
http://www.lp.org/news/press-release...foreign-policy
Press Release
For Immediate Release
Monday, December 22, 2008
Libertarians Accuse Obama of "Hawkish" Foreign Policy
Party Says Obama Following Missteps of Bush Administration
America's largest third-party is accusing Barack Obama of pursuing the same "hawkish" foreign policy of his predecessor George Bush. "What we hoped to see with the incoming Obama administration were plans for a total withdrawal from Afghanistan and Iraq," says William Redpath, national chairman of the Libertarian Party. "Instead, we're seeing the same missteps of the Bush administration that have kept our troops in the Middle East since 2001."
This past September, the Libertarian National Committee passed a resolution calling for the withdraw of U.S. troops from Afghanistan "without undue delay." However, current Pentagon plans call for potentially doubling the size of the U.S. presence in Afghanistan to 60,000 troops.
"Shifting troops from one front to another is not 'bringing them home,' as Democrats promised to do in 2006," says Redpath. "Obama is pursuing a hawkish foreign policy that should worry any advocates of non-intervention. He'll keep us in that region for his entire presidency."
"The United States should both abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world and avoid entangling alliances," reads the Libertarian Party's platform. "American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world and its defense against attack from abroad. We would end the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention, including military and economic aid."
For more information on this issue, or to arrange an interview with the Libertarian Party, please email Andrew Davis at [email protected], or call (202) 731-0002.
The Libertarian Party is America's third-largest political party, founded in 1971 as an alternative to the two main political parties. You can find more information on the Libertarian Party by visiting www.LP.org. The Libertarian Party proudly stands for smaller government, lower taxes and more freedom.
If Israel takes out Iranian nuclear facilities, is that not for their defense?
ROFL.
Our affair with Israel has caused us enough trouble. The last thing we need is the relationship dragging us into yet another war.
Building nuclear plants isn't an attack.
When was the last time Iran started a war with another country?
The best is when you start a war to convert another nation's government to liberal democracy. "W" stands for Woodrow, I'm convinced.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
