I unplugged myself from the haze of being a Republican.

Before:

It was easy to trust my Republican government elected officials, easy to rag on the Dems

My mind just thought in the same way I love the Buckeyes.

Now, I see things without an affiliation. I see the Constitution & My Bill of Rights

There's a lot of negatives attached to this.

Why?

99% of people are like how I use to be. You may not think it, but you are.

With this clarity I have, I now can see history for what it is (the present, a while ago)

History tells us that the Patriots that formed the United States, were adamant to warn us that WE the People need to protect ourselves from letting the government have too much control. (Hence the bill of rights)

They looked at government as necessary but to be limited and monitored with checks and balances.

They understood.

Now, those who understand that way are cast into stereotypes and demonized for wanting liberty as being whacko.

Furthermore, those who seek the truth to make sure the government is transparent are "unpatriotic" truthers, conspirators, etc

When in fact, they are the ones similar to the original patriots.

You are not more of a patriot to never question the government, or want your liberty or freedoms. That is a Sheep.. Baaa Baaa. That is a person (nation) that will lose those liberties because they are dumbed down and have been blinded by the fact that they think its unpatriotic to want these things.

I want nothing more to go back to how I used to be, but I can't.

Am I crazy to look at history - to see a minority (not a majority) of governments that when not held in check, crumble in corruption, genocide, facism?

Am I crazy to look at history and just see the basic need for liberty, transparency, checks & balances?


How come I see thing as being American - rather than Being a republican or democrat?

Explain to me when exactly it has been like what was said?
What 1850 something?

rydawg... I am just now getting off the floor after laughing my ass off upon reading your "manifesto". Did you really write that, or did you get it in the mail?

I really do believe that you will start to see major growth in the Libertarian Leaning definition of conservatism (socially liberal, Fiscal Conservative, anti-nation buidling/war) I think if this type of leader were to emerge that was a bit younger and more charismatic that someone like Ron Paul that it could really hit a growth. It is already going on now in a lot of states (Iowa, Nevada, Florida, Missouri and a few more) were those type of Conservatives/Republicans are taking control of local and state positions.

Something will have to change because the current people in charge(both dems and repubs) are going to continue to run this country into the ground.

Show me the way oh enlightened one.

pmoney25;1368785 wrote:I really do believe that you will start to see major growth in the Libertarian Leaning definition of conservatism

Yeah, the problem is finding leaders with any real influence, and charisma.

I wonder how much impact the simple act of adding it to the tax returns to donate $3 to the Libertarian campaign fund would be. Most people probably don't even notice that, but besides being the way to get some money to the party it would subtlety plant the seed for a third party. Of course, even if we got our 100k signatures for a petition (which I'm sure has been done), it's still a Repub/Dem congress that would have to approve (fat chance).

gut;1369085 wrote:Yeah, the problem is finding leaders with any real influence, and charisma.

This....by far.

Libertarians need a strong voice as much as someone that will openly stand up to the marxists and elitists currently in charge. Daily, if need be. Oh yeah, one more thing, this person will need to be the cleanest, most honorable, perfect human being in order to stand up to the machines that will attempt to drive them to ruin. Just look at the last election, where one or both candidates was equivocated with draft dodging, dope smoking, murder, animal cruelty, tax dodging and the Antichrist.

Who could it be?

BGFalcons82;1369136 wrote:This....by far.

Libertarians need a strong voice as much as someone that will openly stand up to the marxists and elitists currently in charge. Daily, if need be. Oh yeah, one more thing, this person will need to be the cleanest, most honorable, perfect human being in order to stand up to the machines that will attempt to drive them to ruin. Just look at the last election, where one or both candidates was equivocated with draft dodging, dope smoking, murder, animal cruelty, tax dodging and the Antichrist.

Who could it be?

I'll do it. I personally love bashing the bible thumping right and the dumbasses on the left. Where do I sign up?

sleeper;1369250 wrote:I'll do it. I personally love bashing the bible thumping right and the dumbasses on the left. Where do I sign up?

I know of your thoughts about religion, however stomping all over the Bible Belt will NOT lead to the promised land. You could be like the Supreme Being and deny God, never mention J.C., and avoid church like Damien did. It worked for him.

BGFalcons82;1369256 wrote:I know of your thoughts about religion, however stomping all over the Bible Belt will NOT lead to the promised land. You could be like the Supreme Being and deny God, never mention J.C., and avoid church like Damien did. It worked for him.

Oh of course. I would absolutely lie about being religious only to completely rid the article of "freedom of religion" from the 1st amendment.

Screw the radical left and right and focus on the the moderates in the middle 60% and you could win the election with a little over half those votes and a few others.

The biggest problem, though, is money. Although a perhaps bigger problem is the media shapes/controls opinions of the vast majority of people that could be swayed. Saw a blurb about research showing most Americans spend less than 3-4 hours on the Presidential election, which explains why it's so very difficult for a 3rd party candidate to get any real momentum (because the media will largely ignore that candidate).

You never have more than two influential parties in countries that use winner-take-all systems in the electoral process. You have to have a proportional representation system if you want multiple parties from which to choose.

The only chance libertarians have is if they supplant the republican party or the republican party becomes the de-facto libertarian party by adopting non-interventionist views on foreign affairs.

BGFalcons82;1369256 wrote: You could be like the Supreme Being and deny God, never mention J.C., and avoid church like Damien did. It worked for him.

What is this referring to???

BoatShoes;1369452 wrote:What is this referring to???

Connect the dots counselor. You know exactly who it is.

gut;1369443 wrote:Screw the radical left and right and focus on the the moderates in the middle 60% and you could win the election with a little over half those votes and a few others.

Well, the R candidate in 2008 was the epitome of "moderate". The guy that ran in 2012 was equally as "moderate", but he was demonized as radical for his religion and the fact he was rich. Screw "moderates". They have done mothing except hand the keys over to socialists.

This country is in desperate need of a real leader who will STOP the socialists and rescue the country from Keynesian Infinitum. If he/she be a Libertarian, then so be it. What the hell, why not have lethal narcotics sold at the Heroin Hotel, located between Walmart and CVS? Can't be any worse than baby killing Planned Parenthood next to elementary schools.

BGFalcons82;1369469 wrote:Screw "moderates". They have done nothing except hand the keys over to socialists.

Agreed. Like I said before the first Tuesday of November...only default votes for King Barry.

BGFalcons82;1369469 wrote:Well, the R candidate in 2008 was the epitome of "moderate". The guy that ran in 2012 was equally as "moderate", but he was demonized as radical for his religion and the fact he was rich. Screw "moderates". They have done mothing except hand the keys over to socialists.

This country is in desperate need of a real leader who will STOP the socialists and rescue the country from Keynesian Infinitum. If he/she be a Libertarian, then so be it. What the hell, why not have lethal narcotics sold at the Heroin Hotel, located between Walmart and CVS? Can't be any worse than baby killing Planned Parenthood next to elementary schools.

They already sell something similar at cvs and walmart... Alcohol and prescription meds

pmoney25;1369477 wrote:They already sell something similar at cvs and walmart... Alcohol and prescription meds

Heroin, cocaine, LSD and crystal meth are the equal of whiskey and rum? You know better.

BGFalcons82;1369479 wrote:Heroin, cocaine, LSD and crystal meth are the equal of whiskey and rum? You know better.

Actually you would be surprised to see that some studies show alcohol to be more lethal than lsd and cocaine and can be just as destructive to ones life.

Now back to the topic. The neocon, social conservative, liberal spending republican party has to be shown the exit. Also I will say I have no issue with social conservatism if its your belief but I do have an issue with trying to put the federal government in charge of morality.

BGFalcons82;1369469 wrote: The guy that ran in 2012 was equally as "moderate", but he was demonized as radical for his religion and the fact he was rich.

I don't think Romney's religion mattered much, though it certainly would have come under attack if needed. I think the two things that really sunk his campaign was the class warfare card, and being a Republican as that party was attack as anti-minority and anti-women. And the vote was close enough in key swing states that straddling the fence as far as the "far right" lost him needed votes on both ends.

Oddly enough, I don't think his economic/fiscal plan is as compelling if he wasn't so successful in private equity. But it was less impactful because that world is so foreign to most people that its easy to demonize and distort what it is.

Maybe there's hope with Paul Ryan in 2016. But I think the Repub party is so convinced of the criticality of the latino vote that I'll be shocked if Rubio isn't nominated.

pmoney25;1369493 wrote: but I do have an issue with trying to put the federal government in charge of morality.

Which is also what the liberals/Dems want. So the Repubs carve out a different position, which alienates a lot of more fiscally conservative voters for whom social issues is more important.

It seems so simple to me - be a social conservative, personally, but take a position that it is a state issue. But platforms/campaigns can be counterintuitive because so many people are retarded.

gut;1369613 wrote:Which is also what the liberals/Dems want. So the Repubs carve out a different position, which alienates a lot of more fiscally conservative voters for whom social issues is more important.

It seems so simple to me - be a social conservative, personally, but take a position that it is a state issue. But platforms/campaigns can be counterintuitive because so many people are retarded.

Isn't that Rand Paul? I could get behind him.

pmoney25;1369493 wrote:The neocon, social conservative, liberal spending republican party has to be shown the exit. Also I will say I have no issue with social conservatism if its your belief but I do have an issue with trying to put the federal government in charge of morality.

In all fairness and intellectual honesty the ultra-leftist, social liberal, and - of course - liberal spending Democrats need to be shown the exit as well. I have no issue with ultra-liberal social views if that's your belief, but the Dems are just as guilty of attempting to legislate their brand of morality.

Suffice it to say that both parties are guilty of it. But for some strange reason you never hear Libertarians criticize the Dems for doing it.

believer;1369726 wrote:In all fairness and intellectual honesty the ultra-leftist, social liberal, and - of course - liberal spending Democrats need to be shown the exit as well. I have no issue with ultra-liberal social views if that's your belief, but the Dems are just as guilty of attempting to legislate their brand of morality.

Suffice it to say that both parties are guilty of it. But for some strange reason you never hear Libertarians criticize the Dems for doing it.

It is a given they are just as bad. However they practice what they preach. I don't agree with them but i can at least respect that.The reason I criticized repubs more is because they give lip service to small government but do the opposite.

In regards to myself I personally have some social issues I'm conservative on and some I'm liberal on. I'm not saying you're wrong to be socially conservative. I'm saying you're wrong if you believe the Federal government should tell people how to live then get mad when the government gets involved in fiscal matters. You either believe in small government or you don't.

gut;1369613 wrote:Which is also what the liberals/Dems want. So the Repubs carve out a different position, which alienates a lot of more fiscally conservative voters for whom social issues is more important.

It seems so simple to me - be a social conservative, personally, but take a position that it is a state issue. But platforms/campaigns can be counterintuitive because so many people are retarded.

I can agree with this.