Libertarian Party

L.R.R.Hood wrote:

I'm wondering how many people are aware of what the libertarian party supports. Does anyone here plan on voting libertarian this year?

I'm aware of what the Libertarians stand for: it's a combination of naive sociology, intellectually bankrupt economics, and callous indifference to the less fortunate. Come to think of it, that describes the Bush administration as well; the Libertarians, however, are all that and half-baked anarchists to boot.

I don't think I'll be voting for them this year.

Thomas: From what I know, I wouldn't describe the FDP as "libertarian." They're more like Reagan Republicans.

I voted libertarian in 2000. Can't afford to this year. Every fiber of our collective being needs to be channelled to beat Bush.

I know you are an educated man, but I don't think you know much about the libertarians. What they want to do is revert the governmental powers to what they were before Roosevelt took control of business and social programs by threatening congress.

I am also a fan of the idea of a flat tax rate (although it'll probably never happen.) I'm not sure whether or not the libertarians support this.

In a true unregulated system, any company that donated large amounts of money to charities would place itself at an economic disadvantage against other companies that earmarked those 'charity monies' for expansion and improvements to make them more competitive.

Libertarians typically think that private companies would be better for things like road maintenance, and other public services... www.lp.org

Have they changed their platforms in the past five years? I couldv'e sworn my first statement was their platform when I first found out about them. No taxes would bring a screeching halt to the government, and roads, etc. That's ridiculous. I just found out the other day about wanting to eliminate the coastgaurd, etc.

Well, Joe, who do you think I should vote for if I want the goals (listed above) to be accomplished? (assuming, of course, that my vote would influence somthing.)

Do you think the libertarians are exaggerating their desires in order to reach a political middle ground with the populus?

Do the libertarian party members really follow these goals?

Joe, I'm glad to hear your opinions, but I think its distressing that you're so incredibly insulting and hostile towards anyone who connects with the Libertarian views. If I wanted to convince someone they were wrong, and I was right, I'd refrain from personal insults.

Saying libertarians are so far gone that not much will bring them back to their senses... that's something that makes me want to avoid reading your posts in the future.

I'm curious of why you are paid to speak, though... what are you speaking about?

Joe - I think lawyers get a bad rap. My father is a lawyer and he is one of the most honest people you could ever meet. I have also met lawyers who were scumsucking s.o.b.'s.

What kind of law do you specialize in? My father does tax law and patent law and some telecommunications. I'm guessing you do trial law? Where did you go to school? (or is that being invasive?)

Who do you vote for?

Who said Joe's trying to convince anyone that they are wrong? He may well simply be opining as he sees fit.

If you are to take a negative opinion of a view you hold as an insult you better hold universally accepted positions.

It never ceases to amaze me that people are so sensitive to hearing negative opinions expressed about their positions. It's almost as if they expect dissent to be non-existent.

The irony is that you turn around and start criticizing him. That too is a negative opinion.

The hyper-sensitive are rarely sensible enough to realize that their criticism of others falls under the same category.

With all due respect L.R.R. Hood you need to get over it. Joe is perfectly within his right to consider the Libertarian party nonsensical.

If you care to rebutt it feel free to do so. But you ahve no moral highground upon which to base your donning of the coat of civility while you criticize Joe for having the *audacity* to criticize the Libertarian party.

Your position is now both a hyper-sensitive and hypocritical one.

You are labelling mild criticism about an ideology as a "personal insult" while you single out an individual to personally criticize. The irony is apparently lost on you.

In my opinion, the Libertarians are powered by wealthy people who just wish more power to themselves - I mean who will stand in their way once they get rid of the power of goverment?

There is such a thing as constructive criticism, and I don't believe I insulted him in the way that he insulted me, as a libertarian.

L.R.R.Hood wrote:

There is such a thing as constructive criticism, and I don't believe I insulted him in the way that he insulted me, as a libertarian.

Yep, and as I said, those hyper-sensitive to criticism about positions they hold often furiously wave the banner of civility while blissfully unaware of the irony when they, in turn, decide to criticize.

You took criticism that was not even directed at you personally and decided to call it a "personal attack". In doing this you chose to single out an individual to criticize.

Again, with all due respect that is absurd. You take criticism of a political party personally and berate Joe for "personal insults" while criticizing him.

You obviously use the term "personal insult" in the sense that you too Joe's general criticism of the Libertarian party personally.

Your hypocrisy is evident in that you have no qualm with criticising him personally.

Your sensitivity is in overdrive in that you decide to take criticism of a political party personally.

I've long maintained that people who can't take dissent about their positions should avoid societal exchanges altogether or simply try to hold universally acceptable positions. Their sensitivities are far too delicate for society, in which disagreement is inevitable.