I recall seeing this quote dozens of times over the last few years, from liberals opposed to Bush's policies:

"Dissent Is the Highest Form of Patriotism"--Howard Zinn

.....except when it's directed against a liberal President's polices, I guess. Then it's "un-American", as we've been told by the DNC.

---Alderic Jourdain

It's the Dept. of Homeland Sec.'s job to spy on America citizens who legally gather and peacefully protest---as is their Constitutional right, I might add---against government policies and ideals with which they disagree?

I seem to recall hysterical howls of protest from the Left, and political obstacles thrown up by Democrat legislators, when Bush wanted to do something similar to Mideastern immigrants and American citizens sympathizing with Islamic terrorists and suspects. And Nixon was vilified for a supposed "enemies list", and for spying on leaders of the anti-war movement. And J. Edgar Hoover's name is still mud, with those people, for that matter.

I've been to a couple Tea Parties; no swastikas, no skinheads, no Klansmen, no Brownshirts......not even a Rebel flag at the ones I attended. Yet, the Democrat proaganda ministry and the liberal gossip machine insist that's who's coming out to these events and to the Town Halls, not  passionatelyconcerned, informed American citizens who don't want to see their country Socialized. Goodness, no....it simply has to be racist, redneck doofuses being revved-up by GOP operatives "manufacturing anger". And you believe them?

You want "solid evidence"? They issued a document called “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment.”  It focused mainly on traditional, patriotic American ideals and people, and it was quickly retracted because it offered an unvarnished glimpse into the radical liberal nature of Obama's administration.

I read it; the entire document was based upon the actions of the Left's favorite domestic terrorist/horrific aberration, Timothy McVeigh. If not for him, they wouldn't have had a leg to stand on. Not that they did, mind you.

I forget how many times his name is mentioned in the document.....but then, when that's really all you have to go on, I guess you have to keep hammering that nail.

This is from Australia:

 http://www.australia.to/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=8686:making-conservative-a-dirty-word-napolitanos-approach-to-homeland-security-&catid=53:jones-zach&Itemid=122

http://www.patrioticdissent.net/?p=694

 

Oh, and yes; I've kept up on the bill.....

 

There's a difference between spying on your average citizen and someone that is supspect of terrorist ties/plot, etc. You know that RW. It's often said that in order to protect, you have to be suspicious of all. Logically, in due time, the agency will know that they are not a threat and go. When it comes to terrorism, yes, you cannot be sure that group X is completely legit if they've made remarks that could be seen as threatening. Think about this way:

You are a federal agent who is assigned to monitor/watch for possible terrorists. You have a group that has stated many times things that are extremely...radical and inflamatory, life threatening as well. There is reason to believe that they could and would mount an attack. This group also happens to be "right wing." What do you do? Ignore them because you might be violating a right? At what expense? Should you not monitor them?

If you think about it, security is one of those things that is a give and take. People have to be willing to give a little, in order for security from terrorist attacks. Right?

 

Straw man. So it's okay for people who were anti-war to be spied on? They're people expressing their views, right? So...where's the outrage? Where's the outrage when people - left or right wing - have their rights stepped on. Suspected terrorists? Phone tapping? Anyone? It should be the same standard for everyone, no matter if you agree with them ideaologically or not.

 

 

Your experiences do not equate with what things are completely. I've it on record from a friend of mine who has participated in Tea Party's for some time now, that there have been ones where it was not about disagreement with policies, but an idealogue-fest (for lack of a better term). I am not discounting your claim, or saying that all or most of the Tea Parties have been as my friend stated - but there have been cases.

I'm NOT discounting your concern for abuse of power by the government , but, there is a point where one needs to acknowledge that there is some legitimacy in a government wanting to keep an eye on any possible terrorism. What is the difference between a suspected terrorist who is a right wing person, left wing person, or Muslim?

 

It was not very bright, I'll admit that, but I'm curious if you realize that there was a similar report during - i believe during Bush's or Clinton's term - on left wing militia and such, and one recently as of January 29th of this year. ( Source )

I just find it interesting that when such reports are made, even though there is practical value to keep and eye on and increase awareness of radical groups that just might kill people, it's wrong when it is those who are right wing. Otherwise it seems fine. This strikes me as a double standard toward political correctness. Apparently it's not PC to issue reports on terrorism, but the bashing against those evil liberals is fine. Are we to now be PC toward all right wing groups?

Tell me, where was your, the media's, et al. when the report on left wing groups was issued? Sorry, but my belief is that - while I understand, and agree with some of your points - the media (fox perhaps) used this and blew it out of proportion.

 

Straw man, again.

 

Did you support the Patriot Act? It monitors international calls for key words in an attempt to foil terrorists. Many liberals scream blue bloody murder at it's mention, yet embrace Obama's domestic snooping. I just shake my head at the direction this country is taking, when real, outside threats are aided and abetted by progressives and perceived internal threats are meticulously searched for. The era of the Police State is here, Stalin would be proud.

 

Got proof? Otherwise I would say you're slandering.

 

 

No, because I felt it went way beyond the government's power, and legal/necessary means to combat what it was supposed to.

 

 

Would you say the same thing if it was a Republican in office, or republican congress doing this? Somehow, i doubt it.

 

 

Fine, but there were elements of that document which specifically targeted ideals which are often considered "conservative"....anti-abortion views, support of third-party candidates, 2nd Amendment rights.....displaying the "Don't Tread on Me" banner, for crying out loud. They were---and are--watching, and possibly trying to demonize, conservatives.

---AJ

Well come on, ANY rally or demonstration, for ANY particular cause or ideal, is going to be an "idealogue-fest". Isn't that the point of a rally/demonstration, after all?

You can't help who comes to these things; they are, after all, open to the public.....if one moron wants to bring a swastika, all you can do is ask him not to display it. But I'd be willing to bet that, if the Klan or the American Nazi Party held a Tea Party, no one but their own representatives would show.

----AJ

---AJ

As with the 1980s anti-nuclear movement, virtually the entire 1960s anti-war movement was funded and controlled by the KGB; this was suspected back then, and confirmed in the 90s by the Venona documents.

They were keeping an eye on people whose ideals, and allies, sought to undermine the security and strength of the country. On the other hand, people like me are seeking INCREASE the strength and security of the country, a view which this administration considers subversive.

---AJ

Heh...I love how so much of that with which you disagree, seems able to be dismissed with these two words, and that's it.

 

Agreed, though I'm curious - do you feel that the desire to protect ourselves from any and all terrorists or possible terrorists, justifies such liberal use of powers (such as wire tapping, etc.)?

 

 

Sure you can; people do it all the time. When Jew based organizations meet, they don't let a self identified neo-Nazi sit in do they? You can easily ask and enforce your desire to not have certain groups/types of people, or certain things, at a rally.

Maybe.

 

Mmm, there's a difference between those who express their differing views and those who seek to destroy the country. More often than not, those who protested the Vietnam war were not looking to destroy the country.

Tell me, when does differing opinions turn people into "those who want to undermine the security and strength of the country"? You have to be careful with that sort of thing because sooner or later, it becomes a filter for what is supposibly right, and destroys all differences. Think of it like george orwell's 1984, for example.

 

Since you've made the assertion; mind providing the specific claims and the sources?

\

Yes (since you must have been hiding under a rock the last 7 months).

1, Domestic policy. Janet Napolitano written communication on suspected right-wing terrorists including veterans, anti-abortionists, second amendment supporters. Must I go on? OK, dismissal of leftist voter intimidations (Black Pothers).Report your neighbor program (so they could be set straight of course).

2. International foreign policy. Closure of Gitmo, citizen rights for detainees (habeas corpus). The Obama "I'm sorry the US is so bad" tour. "Throwing Israel under the bus" tour of the middle east. The "fudge on your western European allies" tour to Russia.

Now don't be lazy AJ, do something the rest of your fellow Obama supporters don't want to do, research the topics yourself. I've looked at all the pertinent info for myself as the events occurred. I'm not doing it again for someone too lazy to look for themselves or just take the easy way out and cry "slander". My friend you've insulted your own intelligence, by questioning that topics I've mentioned where not discussed in detail on this very site. That or you can't or refuse to recall them. Cheers.

I wasn't crazy about it either. Know what else I'm not crazy about? Terrorist using our own technology as a weapon against us. Progressives and the far-left would deny us the use of what we ourselves created to keep us safe. So I figure not discussing terrorist plots on the phone is the lesser of evils in this case. Did you have anything to say on an international call that would worry you? I call overseas a lot, never had a worry. Do any of the Jihad websites hold value for you? If so, I personally want someone on our side monitoring you. BTW we are at war, many folks seem forget that small detail since it has little no impact on them (no personal sacrifice). Loose lips sink ships... as true now as it ever was, in a sense.

Why should you, you almost nothing about me. Sorry if the Stalin comment offended your leftist sensibilities. The minute a Republican comes along that does this, I will oppose it. Here's a short lesson for you, conservatives, by nature, want as small a government as possible. A police state would require lots of government involvement.

 

That report was no different in terms of threats than the Left wing report issued in Januar and the one issued during Clinton's term. They both addressed idealogically driven extremism, one that is primarily technology infused, whereas the other one is not so much. Sorry, I don't see the big left wing conspiracy with that. 

I agree that voter intimidation by anyone is just plain wrong; including the history of republican actions like that.

 

Oh fucking A, are you serious? Good grief, call the frigging hospital, eh? You know, in order to believe the whole mess behind that you have to have some serious inclinations towards paranoia or something. Come on, really? Just be honest: you, being naturally inclined to not be fond of Obama's administration, are more than likely to believe some trumped up rumor/assertion that his administration is going to secretely send out its secret police (where are they again?) to "set people straight."

 

\sarcasm off

 

Hmm...

Closure of Gitmo? Agree with it.

Rights for detainee's? Agree with it (based of of the geneva and belief in certain basic human rights for everyone)

Apologizing for our mistakes and overbearing arrogance during Bush's term? Agree with it. 

Finally setting Israel aside for once? Agree with it.

Fudge on european allies? Mind expanding on that one, apparently I didn't read/hear about it. That or the way you said it...idk.

 

 

I'm willing to do the reasearch, but you made the assertions so you have to back them up, it's basic debate code.On the contrary, I feel that I've maintained the...ethics in the entire political bullshit that happens. I strongly believe that a lot of the shit out there (rumors, etc.), on both sides, are taken and spun so fast and so much...it's ridiculous.

 

 

So you would have people's private calls be monitored? Right, they're international calls right? No. Heh, no. Sorry, but I prefer my privacy. It's ironic though, that your support of such things is actually contrary to small government. Such allowances can allow justification and setup precedents for future government over steps. Who is to say that the government couldn't justify, through the war on terror, further similar actions? I understand that you believe such sacrifices are apparently necessary for our saftey, but I do not.

 

 

Thank you for making a point of mine that you've repeatedly ignored. Just as I know almost nothing about you, you know almost nothing about me. On the contrary, it didn't offend me because I understand and empathize with your point. I don't want to see any sort of vast government control, which is just as possible with "conservative" governments.  (Remember, many "small government" conservatives supported these invasive security measures and defensive tactics, like wire tapping, and the patriot act. (1st time around: 210 R reps, 49 R senators)) They don't sound like people who want the government to be small, and remain out of people's lives....not very conservative.

That's good to hear, because it shows me that you oppose such things on a matter of principle, not party. It's pathetic, but common, to see people oppose things when the other party is in power but support it when their party is in. I don't like that, because it's a double standard.

 

My bad, (dispite my comment being just that and not a debate) everything I posted was covered extensively on the pages of JU. Silly me for assuming you read them (even though you posted to many yourself). I'll be sure to put a link for the folks too lazy to click the next page at the bottom. Also, for someone crying for "proof" so much you rarely provide it yourself.

Please provide proof to your assertions. So much for your ethics.

Oh sorry I forgot your guy Obama is incapable of this!!

Funny how you call me paranoid over Obama's report your neighbor, and cry about the Patriot Act, which Obama has kept in place BTW. You do make these pages fun AJ.

Great, your left-wing liberal ID card is in the mail and should arrive soon (please turn in your "Libertarian" card (your claimed affiliation) as you espouse none of their core principles. Still waiting for you to admit that BS claim. Pride trumps truth I guess, but it sure hurts credibility.

BTW Al Quiada is not or never was a signer of the Geneva Convention, nobody is forcing them to fight. Having been to Gitmo, most US prisoners would kill (again and again) to get locked up there. These detainees are getting better than they ever give. I'm sure they appreciate your sympathy though, maybe they will save your infidel back side for last.

Again, you read and comprehend the part of my post that suits you. I said I was not crazy about the PA. Like most folks I am willing to make sacrifices for security. There was a time where I'm from where people left homes and cars unlocked (even keys in the visor). Those days are gone because people learned the hard way that some will exploit your convenience for their own gain.

I want the terrorists to get caught in their planning phase, not after the planes hit the buildings. Does it step on my conservative principles? Sure does, but the potential for worse things to happen are too great. That doesn't mean surrender to the government, we need to be vigilant.

The PA does not have people listening to your international calls. Software searches for key words that terrorist might use. Then if further monitoring is deemed necessary it is ordered. If you have something to say that is harmful to the security of this country, I can see your concern, but I have no sympathy for you in that case.

Just curious, many other nations monitor international (and domestic) phone calls without the notification or support of their citizens. Does that bother you? I thought the left want us to be like the rest of the world? Careful what you wish for.

On thing I do know about you (because I've seen it many times, not just responses to me) is that you often assume it's all about you and it's not. If I'm wrong, I ask someone besides yourself to say so.

If their is something I really want to know I'll ask. Sorry no burning questions at this time. That's not to say you can't learn by plain old reading, in fact nobody ever learned a thing by speaking or writing. Since I've spent more than half my life having to dissect what people say, their intentions, motives, and innuendos, I think I'm pretty fair at doing it, even though voice modulation and tone is not part of the JU environment.

 

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h107-3162&tab=votes

 

 

The patriot act has been shown to have been used for specific means/gains. Has obama's so claimed storm troopers broken down any doors lately? Has Obama specifically used the report your neighbor to jail anyone, or claim some groups are terrorists?

Besides, have I ever said that I agree with Obama keeping it? Nope, in fact I want him to get rid of it. If I'm guilty of anything, it's of not being more vocal on that.

 

 

Setting aside your laziness and...pomp, for lack of a better term; I don't remember everything, I try though.

 

I still believe they have basic rights as human beings.

 

 

 

 

Well duh, if you're addressing me on a comment then I'm going to take it as being about me. Wtf? As for you believing I am all about me, I don't know where exactly you're getting that from. Ironically this will sound self interested and such, but 99% of the time it is never about me. So if you could explain what you mean, I would greatly appreciate that.

 

 

Mmm, I always thought I was clear on what I believe in, but apparently I fail at that.

 

Modern liberals/democrats, to an extent, maybe...

Am I a person living in France? Do I live in England? I still do not agree with it, but who am I to say what another country should do? I have no foundation to do such.

 

What is ironic, is that I'm not only "rejected" by conservatives (here), but it seems that most die hard liberals/democrats, etc. reject me as well. Wtf? *shakes head* Anyways...

 

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." ~Franklen

That's what I think of the security programs.

 

 

 

None? What the fuck are you smoking?

Lets take a look at the platform:


 1.0    Personal Liberty

[I believe in complete and utter liberty for people. ]

Individuals should be free to make choices for themselves and to accept responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make. No individual, group, or government may initiate force against any other individual, group, or government. Our support of an individual's right to make choices in life does not mean that we necessarily approve or disapprove of those choices.

1.1    Expression and Communication

[I oppose censorship and believe in the right to express ones self. ]

We support full freedom of expression and oppose government censorship, regulation or control of communications media and technology. We favor the freedom to engage in or abstain from any religious activities that do not violate the rights of others. We oppose government actions which either aid or attack any religion.

1.2    Personal Privacy

[Yup, I'm such a big government guy. I'm such a flaming liberal, that I go against wiretapping, am against any sort of privacy invasion...libertarian? Nope, I must be a liberal loon. Stupidity ftw.]

We support the protections provided by the Fourth Amendment to be secure in our persons, homes, and property. Only actions that infringe on the rights of others can properly be termed crimes. We favor the repeal of all laws creating "crimes" without victims, such as the use of drugs for medicinal or recreational purposes.

1.3    Personal Relationships

[Agree with 100%]

Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the rights of individuals by government, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships.

1.4    Abortion

[Yup, believe it's a personal issue, not a government issue. ]

Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.

1.5    Crime and Justice

[Yup, agree with.]

Government exists to protect the rights of every individual including life, liberty and property. Criminal laws should be limited to violation of the rights of others through force or fraud, or deliberate actions that place others involuntarily at significant risk of harm. Individuals retain the right to voluntarily assume risk of harm to themselves. We support restitution of the victim to the fullest degree possible at the expense of the criminal or the negligent wrongdoer. We oppose reduction of constitutional safeguards of the rights of the criminally accused. The rights of due process, a speedy trial, legal counsel, trial by jury, and the legal presumption of innocence until proven guilty, must not be denied. We assert the common-law right of juries to judge not only the facts but also the justice of the law.

1.6    Self-Defense

[Hmm, don't agree with aggresive action, only self defense - though i agree with the second amendment (doesn't mean I see the sense in having assuault rifles) - the only thing I have an issue with is whether or not we're handling sales right. I look at the Va Tech shootings as an example, the guy shouldn't have gotten a weapon, period.]

The only legitimate use of force is in defense of individual rights — life, liberty, and justly acquired property — against aggression. This right inheres in the individual, who may agree to be aided by any other individual or group. We affirm the right to keep and bear arms, and oppose the prosecution of individuals for exercising their rights of self-defense. We oppose all laws at any level of government requiring registration of, or restricting, the ownership, manufacture, or transfer or sale of firearms or ammunition.

2.0    Economic Liberty

[I believe in a free, and FAIR market. I believe regulation should only extend to the point of establishing the rules and preventing manipulation/screwing over of people. IF you enter the market, you're expected to play by the rules, period.]

A free and competitive market allocates resources in the most efficient manner. Each person has the right to offer goods and services to others on the free market. The only proper role of government in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected. All efforts by government to redistribute wealth, or to control or manage trade, are improper in a free society.


2.1    Property and Contract

[Yup, agree with.]

Property rights are entitled to the same protection as all other human rights. The owners of property have the full right to control, use, dispose of, or in any manner enjoy, their property without interference, until and unless the exercise of their control infringes the valid rights of others. We oppose all controls on wages, prices, rents, profits, production, and interest rates. We advocate the repeal of all laws banning or restricting the advertising of prices, products, or services. We oppose all violations of the right to private property, liberty of contract, and freedom of trade. The right to trade includes the right not to trade — for any reasons whatsoever. Where property, including land, has been taken from its rightful owners by the government or private action in violation of individual rights, we favor restitution to the rightful owners.

2.2    Environment

[Agree with 100%]

We support a clean and healthy environment and sensible use of our natural resources. Private landowners and conservation groups have a vested interest in maintaining natural resources. Pollution and misuse of resources cause damage to our ecosystem. Governments, unlike private businesses, are unaccountable for such damage done to our environment and have a terrible track record when it comes to environmental protection. Protecting the environment requires a clear definition and enforcement of individual rights in resources like land, water, air, and wildlife. Free markets and property rights stimulate the technological innovations and behavioral changes required to protect our environment and ecosystems. We realize that our planet's climate is constantly changing, but environmental advocates and social pressure are the most effective means of changing public behavior.

2.3    Energy and Resources

[I am 50/50 on this and am still formulating where I stand]

While energy is needed to fuel a modern society, government should not be subsidizing any particular form of energy. We oppose all government control of energy pricing, allocation, and production.

2.4    Government Finance and Spending

[While I would love no taxes; ultimately, taxes are a necessity, even for a small government. I believe the best answer is, if we keep taxes, to have a fixed tax. I also believe it makes sense to have a balanced budget. In fact, I've always felt that a government wide audit would be a wonderful thing to have done.]

All persons are entitled to keep the fruits of their labor. We call for the repeal of the income tax, the abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service and all federal programs and services not required under the U.S. Constitution.  We oppose any legal requirements forcing employers to serve as tax collectors. Government should not incur debt, which burdens future generations without their consent. We support the passage of a "Balanced Budget Amendment" to the U.S. Constitution, provided that the budget is balanced exclusively by cutting expenditures, and not by raising taxes.

2.5    Money and Financial Markets

[Not educated enough in this area to really make a stand, though, as above, I'm learning]

We favor free-market banking, with unrestricted competition among banks and depository institutions of all types. Individuals engaged in voluntary exchange should be free to use as money any mutually agreeable commodity or item. We support a halt to inflationary monetary policies, the repeal of legal tender laws and compulsory governmental units of account.


2.6    Monopolies and Corporations

[Agree with for the most part, though I'm 50/50 on the government subsidies to interests [like farming for example]]

We defend the right of individuals to form corporations, cooperatives and other types of companies based on voluntary association. We seek to divest government of all functions that can be provided by non-governmental organizations or private individuals. We oppose government subsidies to business, labor, or any other special interest. Industries should be governed by free markets.

2.7    Labor Markets

[Agree with.]

We support repeal of all laws which impede the ability of any person to find employment. We oppose government-fostered forced retirement. We support the right of free persons to associate or not associate in labor unions, and an employer should have the right to recognize or refuse to recognize a union. We oppose government interference in bargaining, such as compulsory arbitration or imposing an obligation to bargain.

2.8    Education

[I can understand and even agree that if a school is forced to work to be better and better, than it could work for the best for the students. However, my concern is over schools that may (a la Kansas or other states) wish to...indoctrinate, and not educate. A school is supposed to educated and inspire, not put baseless fancies in their heads. Religion, intelligent design, and such are the parents responsibilities, not the schools. In that sense, I believe that there should be a standard curriculum.If a school is usurped into teaching the children dogma or other things that are not things like math, reading, writing, art, languages, etc...If they're taught that, then would that child grow into an individual who would ]

Education, like any other service, is best provided by the free market, achieving greater quality and efficiency with more diversity of choice. Schools should be managed locally to achieve greater accountability and parental involvement. Recognizing that the education of children is inextricably linked to moral values, we would return authority to parents to determine the education of their children, without interference from government. In particular, parents should have control of and responsibility for all funds expended for their children's education.


2.9    Health Care

[I agree, though I think the current health insurance market needs to be reformed.]

We favor restoring and reviving a free market health care system. We recognize the freedom of individuals to determine the level of health insurance they want, the level of health care they want, the care providers they want, the medicines and treatments they will use and all other aspects of their medical care, including end-of-life decisions.


2.10    Retirement and Income Security

[I'm leaning toward a safety net, because not always will everything planned work out - there are external, unforeseen circumstances that can totally screw over  a persons retirement. I do not believe it is right for someone who has worked most of their life, to be screwed out of their retirement for an external reason.]

Retirement planning is the responsibility of the individual, not the government. We favor replacing the current government-sponsored Social Security system with a private voluntary system. The proper source of help for the poor is the voluntary efforts of private groups and individuals.

3.0    Securing Liberty

[Agree\]

The protection of individual rights is the only proper purpose of government. Government is constitutionally limited so as to prevent the infringement of individual rights by the government itself. The principle of non-initiation of force should guide the relationships between governments.

3.1    National Defense

[Agree 110%]

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.

3.2    Internal Security and Individual Rights

[I agree, especially the part i put in bold.

The defense of the country requires that we have adequate intelligence to detect and to counter threats to domestic security. This requirement must not take priority over maintaining the civil liberties of our citizens.  The Bill of Rights provides no exceptions for a time of war. Intelligence agencies that legitimately seek to preserve the security of the nation must be subject to oversight and transparency. We oppose the government's use of secret classifications to keep from the public information that it should have, especially that which shows that the government has violated the law.

3.3    International Affairs

[Agree - though ultimately individuals have the right to decide whether they wish to live the way they live, to echo point 1.]

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. We recognize the right of all people to resist tyranny and defend themselves and their rights. We condemn the use of force, and especially the use of terrorism, against the innocent, regardless of whether such acts are committed by governments or by political or revolutionary groups.

3.4    Free Trade and Migration

[Free trade only so long as it is fair; I believe in workers rights and enviromental/social standards. I do not advocate trading with, or supporting a country (or corporation) that treats its citizens/workers like slaves, etc.]

We support the removal of governmental impediments to free trade.  Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries.  Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders.  However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a threat to security, health or property.


3.5    Rights and Discrimination

[Agree with 1,000,000%]

We condemn bigotry as irrational and repugnant. Government should not deny or abridge any individual's rights based on sex, wealth, race, color, creed, age, national origin, personal habits, political preference or sexual orientation. Parents, or other guardians, have the right to raise their children according to their own standards and beliefs.

3.6    Representative Government

[Agree, though I'm not a fan of "partisan party politics".]

We support electoral systems that are more representative of the electorate at the federal, state and local levels.  As private voluntary groups, political parties should be allowed to establish their own rules for nomination procedures, primaries and conventions. We call for an end to any tax-financed subsidies to candidates or parties and the repeal of all laws which restrict voluntary financing of election campaigns. We oppose laws that effectively exclude alternative candidates and parties, deny ballot access, gerrymander districts, or deny the voters their right to consider all legitimate alternatives.


3.7    Self-Determination

[Agree with.]

Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of individual liberty, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to agree to such new governance as to them shall seem most likely to protect their liberty.

4.0    Omissions

Our silence about any other particular government law, regulation, ordinance, directive, edict, control, regulatory agency, activity, or machination should not be construed to imply approval.

Love your choice of words when you feel a bit threatened. Yeah, you can cover up any mention of these topics being from the LP and you will find that many people, from a wide variety of political leanings would agree with most of them. To simply put a check mark by the topic and state your support doesn't really cover your past arguments does it?

I'm not gunning for you by any means AJ. So why do I mention it at all? Probably because I'm interested why one would argue points (on a wide range of articles) that went against their claimed political leanings. If it were a one (or couple) off thing, it wouldn't be of much interest. But, it seems to be a pattern over time.

I have no problem with a person having their convictions, be it liberal or conservative. In fact I admire those that stick to their guns if they truly believe in the issue. Folks are free to have a change of heart too, that happens from time to time. It's only when the duck moo's that my attention is piqued.

When you dive deeper into the LP topics that are part of the more regular JU topics (can't comment on topics that are never or rarely discussed) your simple affirmation of the party line seems to fall by the wayside. Here are a few topics, if I recall correctly. where you seem to diverge from the LP. Now nobody is usually in lock step 100% with there political party. Maybe all the pertinent topics where just where you diverge. If so, my bad, but then again I don't choose the articles you reply to.

Anyway, here's what I'm smoking (from the Libertarian Party website http://www.lp.org/issues

Well honestly, and it is probably just my irritable mood currently, but it feels like it. There's always a snide comment waiting in the wing. Why? I get and support saying whatever is on your mind, but what is the point (what is constructive) about making such comments?

 

Mmm, I could go both ways on this. So call me undecided.

 

Mmm, perhaps; I've experienced some pretty crappy and expensive stuff from private businesses though, heh.  

 

Like I said, government wide audit and get rid of the parts that we don't need or can privatize. Thereafter, keep only the essentials parts of government.

 

 

Mmm, like I previously mentioned, I believe the free market is the best option - but can be too easily manipulated. Set up the rules to make sure no one screws over the market, or when it comes to companies - their workers. Call me cynical, but I don't trust corporations/companies or some people. That is largely why I have a hard time toward accepting lassez faire. More often than not, people will screw others to succeed.

No different than what I believe.

 

 

 

You think I am divergent from the right to keep and bear arms? When have I said that? I support the second amendment, even though I don't see the sense or point in keeping assault weapons, still though - to each their own.