I strongly urge you watch the following two videos, they are extremely entertaining and truthful. Libertarian reporter John Stossel from ABC news is a personal favorite of mine and will hopefully enlighten you Obama and McCain supporters. For me, becoming libertarian was like a religious experience, it just makes so much sense.
Here are some basic libertarian beliefs:
- We believe in freedom. Both personally and economically.
- We are anti-war.
- We believe the government should be small and have limited power.
- We believe in limited executive powers
These are the first 2 parts of this fantastic report, you should watch all 6 parts on youtube. After watching these videos, how can you not be a libertarian? This 1st video is HILARIOUS!
20/20 -- Politically Incorrect Guide To Politics Part 1
20/20 -- Politically Incorrect Guide To Politics Part 2
Did you know that libertarianism originally derived from classical liberalism? Todays liberals believe in personal freedom, but not in economic freedom. Liberals want huge government directing every aspect of our lives. They seem to like high taxes. They seem to believe Barack Obama is some kind of Messiah who can and I quote, “Heal the world”.
Hillary Clinton said, “I am a government junkie with a million ideas, but there isn’t enough money in the world to pay for them all.” Pretty scary huh? Now we have Obama who is even more liberal than her! Obama wants to make the government even more powerful and massive -- the exact opposite of what we need. I don’t want to live in a socialistic/pseudo-capitalistic republic, do you?
- Universal healthcare? There’s no money for it!
- The Global Poverty Act? There’s no money for it.
- What Liberals fail to see is that America is broke and it’s people just loaned it’s own government over a trillion dollars -- we cannot afford more government programs.
- What conservatives fail to see is that war is stupid, too expensive and evil.
Who cares how calm Obama’s demeanor is and how “presidential” he looks. He wants to create endless new programs to “fix” everything in our lives. McCain is the same way. The only promise I want to hear is, “I promise to reduce government, stay out of your life, eliminate federal income taxes and NOT SCREW UP THIS NATION WITH MORE PROGRAMS AND MORE SPENDING!” And then they should shut up and play video games in the white house for four years. Doing nothing would be better than anything they have planned.
Inside every confused liberal and conservative is a libertarian dying to get out.
Be smart and be libertarian! I recommend people to vote for either Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party or Bob Barr of the Libertarian Party. Both parties are libertarian, and both offer better choices than big government socialist Barack Obama and big government imperialist John McCain. In the mind of a libertarian, Obama and McCain are economic and liberty disasters. Hopefully, I’ll be proven wrong about all this. If I am, I will admit it.
#1 by dcr at October 19th, 2008
| Quote
The skating rink example hit home. When I was a kid, my family went roller skating. We were doing fine. One of the skating rink managers or somebody came up to my mom and said she couldn’t carry her purse with her. So, going off the rink to put her purse away, she fell and broke her wrist.
If we had been left alone, she probably wouldn’t have broken her wrist!
#2 by Revellian at October 19th, 2008
| Quote
That was classic wasn’t it Dan? Haha! That’s all I want, is government to get over itself and get out of America’s way. Why can’t people see how big government is restrictive, poorly managed, overbearing and makes people less competitive.
#3 by Sean Rasmussen at October 19th, 2008
| Quote
Most people vote blindly on the candidate their fathers voted blindly for. The person leading the party is secondary. I was surprised to hear Colin Powell endorsing the “Obama Bin Biden” ticket(pardon the pun)despite the party difference. One would be excused to think the powers to be want Barrack to win. Putting an ex-POW in charge is a scary prospect and seems like the REP’s actually want to lose the election.
With all due respect to John McCain, he has spent time in jail. Forget about the fact that he didn’t break US law, but be broke the law of the country that jailed him (Vietnam) by illegally invading their soil. The US has jailed non-US citizens. They do it all the time and without permission from the country of origin. People forget that a prison sentence can mentally disturb a person regardless of the reason they were put there.
The republicans want to lose this election, in my opinion. I wish more people would be less sheep-like and consider the alternate parties. At least look at them.
#4 by Revellian at October 19th, 2008
| Quote
Hi Sean! Colin Powell is mad because after recommending to Bush that the Iraq war was not a good decision, Bush spit in his face and went to war anyway – so I don’t blame him for supporting Obama.
If the republicans want to win, they must shed their pro-war position. Hell, I don’t want a republican in office either. Alternatively of course Obama isn’t my idea of good, he is all big government, welfare and lord of the nanny state.
#5 by Zen Lill at October 19th, 2008
| Quote
Cheers, Bobby, great post.
Unfortunately, until there’s a mega-shift in our stupid two party system (wet vs dry poo) and the Libertarian party has a real platform with candidates who can campaign at the same level, it’s a tossed vote for one of these L candidates this election.
I do know several people who are just refraining from voting this year, ouch. I am a Libertarian in theory, in reality we’ll get wet/dry and have to deal either way.
I do love your pursuit of a better individualist way and I do hope there’s a large movement to add the huge third party, Liberatarian!
Ciao, Zen Lill
PS I’ll be using the same youtube videos in upcoming days just to follow through on your point, bc, my friend, it is a very good one.
#6 by Sean Rasmussen at October 19th, 2008
| Quote
Hi Zen Lill
I cannot vote, of course, as I’m not a US citizen. I can promise you (not like the candidates) that there are millions of non-US citizens out there that are directly affected by the outcome of this election (actually, Billions).
It is an insult to the world if US voters don’t at least considers all 6 candidates before deciding “not to” vote in the next election.
6% of the world (The US) can make a massive difference to 100% of the world population. I believe only 1.5% (25% of the US) turned out to the last election? Correct me if I’m wrong.
It sounds like you have an open mind. We need more of “you”.
#7 by Banno at October 19th, 2008
| Quote
You’ve convinced me. Also, didn’t really know the meaning of libertarianism until you explained it so succintly.
Wish I could vote.
#8 by Revellian at October 20th, 2008
| Quote
Hi Zen! I just can’t bring myself to vote for one of those two guys. With the explosion in social networking and blogs, the libertarian ideology is being heard by more and more people. I’m not necessarily convinced that the party is the answer. but more in having influence on people in the democrat/republican parties. I see it more as an idea that people should learn about.
I’m glad you liked the videos! They really are refreshing and honest
#9 by Revellian at October 20th, 2008
| Quote
Hi Banno! It’s just about being free and making things happen yourself. I wish you could vote here too!
#10 by dcr at October 20th, 2008
| Quote
One of the problems with the Libertarian Party is that, while they talk about principles, in choosing candidates they often choose style over substance, picking a name rather than someone who stands by party principles.
Another problem is the division in the party between Rothbard and Rand libertarians, which is near comparable to the differences between Democrats and Republicans.
On top of that, the Libertarian Party often fails to convey the value of libertarian ideas to the average person. Often, you’ll hear them talk about issues, such as decriminalizing drugs, that marginalize them rather than talk about issues that directly affect the majority of people.
And, I would argue that the Constitution Party is not libertarian. It is more Christian Conservative than it is libertarian.
#11 by Revellian at October 20th, 2008
| Quote
Hi Dan, the same differences you mentioned exist within the republican/democratic parties also – on a much greater scale.
Aside from two issues, abortion and marriage, the constitution party is much more libertarian than the libertarian party itself. I really don’t consider Bob Barr to be a real libertarian, he’s more like an anti-war conservative republican.
Abortion and marriage laws are not issues to me, they are irrelevant. Still, either of my chosen candidates have much smaller government ideologies than Obama & McCain. America does not “need a leader”, they need a representative. The people themselves are the leaders. Beggars can’t be choosers when the top two candidates are big government socialists
Who are you voting for Dan? I am dying to know!!!!
#12 by Sean Rasmussen at October 20th, 2008
| Quote
How about voting for someone that doesn’t go against the Christian values that they have to have to run in the first place. That would mean peace. No TRUE Christian can send their citizens off to war to kill another human being. That is an act of killing and goes against Christian values (actually, it probably goes against all religious values). Sorry candidates! You all fail miserably!
Pardon the sarcasm. I think a president should put his son on the front line as a foot-soldier whenever he makes the decision to go to war. Then he might think different when he taking orders from Haliburton, Bechtel, Rothschild, Rockefeller etc…
If there are corporate sponsorship boxes in Hell, I’m certain GW and his cronies have got a seat of honor there.
Bless the souls of all the US sons and daughters that have died for his cause fighting senseless wars.
#13 by Revellian at October 20th, 2008
| Quote
Hi Sean! If you lived in America, your candidate would be Chuck Baldwin. He is a Christian minister who opposes all war unless it’s for defense only. I’m not a Christian but my Zen practices and philosophy allow for no violence or war.
What you said is something I’ve pondered for years; how can a so-called “Christian conservative” be so pro-war? Some conservatives see the Iraq war as a religious war, some see it as fighting terrorism and some see it for a variety of other reasons.
I think the president should fight in the war himself like they did in ancient times to prove his worth! If that were a requirement, there would never be war
#14 by Sean Rasmussen at October 20th, 2008
| Quote
LOL. Image a wimp like GW out there without his cronies looking after the skinny frame. ROFL.
He’d last 10 minutes before they’d have to change his nappies.
#15 by Genie Princess at October 20th, 2008
| Quote
Morning Bobby! What’s for breakfast here today??
#16 by Revellian at October 20th, 2008
| Quote
@Sean: Hahaha!!! In my opinion, all these wars are not for this country, but for it’s government. I would fight to DEFEND this country, but I would never fight for a wimpy president
@Marzie: Good morning to you too Marzie! I’m serving Count Chocula and bananas
#17 by dcr at October 20th, 2008
| Quote
I don’t think Bob Barr is really a libertarian. That’s what I mean by the Libertarian Party choosing people by name rather than principles. It seems like every time I look into their primary candidates, they’ll have someone who really believes in libertarian principles and someone else who doesn’t but has a “name.” And, then the LP will turn around and pick the name.
Just like any other political party, I suppose, but when “The Party of Principle” is your tagline, I think you’re setting higher expectations of yourself, and the Libertarian Party does not live up to them.
I used to think that the Libertarian Party could be a strong and viable third party, but every time there is an opportunity for them, they seem to squander it.
Maybe it would help if we had a media that would expose the mistakes of BOTH parties. Except on YouTube or a short series on CNN (which was a surprise!), you don’t hear anything about the Democrats’ role in the economic mess. Everything is blamed on the Republicans, and the Democrats get off largely off the hook.
Have you seen any media coverage of Obama breaking Illinois election laws? Click here.
Have you read Orson Scott Card’s article on the media and the state of journalism today? Click here.
It’s just a mess. People complain that Americans are largely uninformed, but can you really blame them when much of what we see in the media is just the toting of the party lines? The media is supposed to be a watchdog, not a lapdog!
I mean, when McCain announced Palin as his running mate, the media dug into every bit of her past and private life. The media put her through more scrutiny than they ever put Obama through. Any criticisms of Obama are brushed aside. Any relationships or associations of Obama are brushed aside. But, for Palin, they went on a scavenger hunt.
Shouldn’t the media treat candidates from all sides with the same amount of scrutiny?
#18 by Revellian at October 20th, 2008
| Quote
Thanks Dan, Orson Scott Card’s article was great. I tend to agree with you on Bob Barr. Actually, the entire libertarian party is not really libertarian and I wish they were managed better and remained true to their message.
I’ve become a huge fan of the Cato Institute, They have fine writers and offer fantastic information. Normally, I think most libertarians are looking for a good republican candidate, but there really aren’t any. McCain isn’t a republican in my book; he’s a pro-war democrat. If the republicans could get a strong anti-war candidate, I would support them.
Yes, the media should treat everyone equally. I was disgusted to see major networks like the New York Times endorsing Obama. No news network should EVER endorse a candidate; it proves they are biased.
Since you won’t tell me who you’re voting for, I am guessing either Ralph Nader or John McCain
#19 by Sean Rasmussen at October 20th, 2008
| Quote
@dcr: I agree. It seems as if everyone, including the rep’s want Obama to win. I remember a recent election in Australia (about 8-9 years ago) when our “Democrats” threw the election, seemingly so our “Republicans” could introduce a Consumption tax, sell off our Phone network and join in some wars that our “lefties” aren’t known for doing (the wars, that is).
They know that, as long as they keep the third parties out, they will be back in again sooner rather than later.
Does your history show that the Rep’s go to war and your Dem’s bring the troops back? That is largely what has happened here. Right wing = war in Australia for the past 100+ years.
#20 by Miss Moneypenny at October 20th, 2008
| Quote
Here’s my Politically Incorrect Poem for you, Bobby!
The Turncoats are coming,
Armed with Bats are in their Belfry,
One Green Light for the B.S. (Barack Shit) of Obama,
And, Two Red Lights for the M.S. (McCain Shit) of John,
And, I on the opposite Blog will be,
Ready to write and spread the alarm,
Let Freedom Ring Again in this Land!
#21 by Sean Rasmussen at October 20th, 2008
| Quote
Actually, a song comes to mind:
Kill The Poor – Dead Kennedies –
About the Neuron Bomb. The Humane Bomb.
#22 by Miss Moneypenny at October 20th, 2008
| Quote
I agree with Dan (dcr) on Bob Barr. I believe Bob is pretending to be a Libertarian. I wonder who is paying off the liberal lapdogs in the media?
On “your history” comment : Didn’t Rep. Tricky Dick bring the troops home from Vietnam and didn’t Slick Willie Clinton invite the terrorists to attack on 911 by cutting our defense by 35% and closing military bases?
Beside Obama’s U.N. agenda, Obama’s defense spending cuts should be a top concern for all voting Americans after 911.
#23 by Revellian at October 21st, 2008
| Quote
@Sean: Still, the third parties need to become solid and stick to their platforms, particularly the libertarian party. It seems impossible to fight against the money behind the two main parties. See Debbie’s comment above Sean. In America, the political confusion prevents people from ever hearing truth from the media. Like Clinton, Obama will weaken our military defense, and that scares me.
@Debbie: I wish the libertarian party had a convention I could actually vote in. How can I vote in the libertarian primary? I’m sure there are better choices than Bob Barr. The U.N. is just as corrupted as the American government and one is enough to deal with.
#24 by Mitch at October 21st, 2008
| Quote
Bobby, thanks for sharing the YouTube clips.
I’m not certain that the banking mess is SOLELY caused by bad loans. It’s what was done with the bad loans that created the mess.
Now, I don’t have a good skating rink analogy, but here goes:
It’s not the spoilage of the fish that causes problems, but the consumption thereof.
In the second clip, after Bush is heard saying “homeownership rates are at an all-time high”, the person being interviewed said that
“…unfortunately, that was based on people who couldn’t afford to pay those loans back once housing prices started to fall.” This is simply a straw man set up to distract us from the fact that banks and investors engaged in unsound financial dealings.
#1. the value of the home does not impact your ability to repay a mortgage. That’s because the mortgage is based on a security note that has a fixed principal – the sales price that you paid for your house!
#2. it may be tempting to say that the falling house prices kept folks from refinancing, however, if they shouldn’t have gotten a loan in the first place, refinancing is a non-issue.
I don’t know about the rest of the issues, but that one seems to be barking up the wrong money tree.
Cheers,
Mitch
#25 by Revellian at October 21st, 2008
| Quote
Hi Mitch! Agreed, it’s not the sole cause, but part of the bigger picture. In 1999 Bill Clinton made changes to the community reinvestment act which was a major player in this problem. That, combined with wall street greed and malinvestment is the real beast. Read this astonishing article:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/05/60minutes/main4502454.shtml
All these things point towards the bigger picture. The media and politicians are arguing whether or not Obama’s plan is socialism or not. In a pure sense, it is not; however, I would argue that the entire government is headed towards socialism.
The bailouts were a horrifying mistake and the spark our leaders needed. Now we have the “temporary” nationalization of banks. Combine that with a redistribution of wealth and more government control and we are headed towards a socialistic superstate where we we be far less free. The fact is, the government needs to be reduced in power. All this talk of taxes and whatnot takes America’s eye off the real ball. Federal income taxes are illegal and enslaves the people in financial debt.
The more and more the government tries to fix things, the worse off we will become. The very thing that made America so great, which is personal and economic freedom is becoming a memory. Thus I oppose everything the government is doing.
We should remember what John F. Kennedy said, “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.”
McCain and Obama’s message is, “Ask not what you can do for for your country, but what your country can do for you.” The exact opposite of what we need to hear. The grotesque misuse and understanding of power has infected the minds of all in power while the people themselves have become apathetic sheep.