+1
Although, I think that the people wanting the Constitution followed will be labeled terrorists before the people that use the Constitution as toilet paper will be labeled as such.
+1
Although, I think that the people wanting the Constitution followed will be labeled terrorists before the people that use the Constitution as toilet paper will be labeled as such.
Ah...I have found the disgruntled Libertarian thread.
Bulbboy is correct - RP would have lost by an even larger gap than Romney.
RP did, practically, stand for isolationism -- which does not mean no trade - never has, that is a neo-Libertarian definition.
In many years of following US national politics the Libertarian party has never called for no trade but it has been isolationist in international affairs.
It goes well beyond non-interventionism which should, I agree, be the default US position in most areas.
While I did support RP's call to closer following of the Constitution's original intent that doesn't mean I necessarily came to the same conclusions about specific actions - any more than when someone says he's "Bible Believing" that you can tell what that means on any specific topic in advance.
The biggest "issue" I had is that the US's leadership in the international arena is vital - because the alternative is that regional powers like China or Russia will start filling a void left by the US if we simply withdraw. There should still be a debate about how/when to take actions and under what authority but RP seemed inclined to ignore what are manifestly important events - at least it seemed so to me and to many Conservatives.
Bulbboy is correct - RP would have lost by an even larger gap than Romney.
RP did, practically, stand for isolationism -- which does not mean no trade - never has, that is a neo-Libertarian definition.
In many years of following US national politics the Libertarian party has never called for no trade but it has been isolationist in international affairs.
It goes well beyond non-interventionism which should, I agree, be the default US position in most areas.
While I did support RP's call to closer following of the Constitution's original intent that doesn't mean I necessarily came to the same conclusions about specific actions - any more than when someone says he's "Bible Believing" that you can tell what that means on any specific topic in advance.
The biggest "issue" I had is that the US's leadership in the international arena is vital - because the alternative is that regional powers like China or Russia will start filling a void left by the US if we simply withdraw. There should still be a debate about how/when to take actions and under what authority but RP seemed inclined to ignore what are manifestly important events - at least it seemed so to me and to many Conservatives.
Actually things like isolating America and letting Iran have access to nukes is extreme.
He was, and still is, just another opportunistic politician, albeit one with a slightly better message.
He really took a stand on this last fiscal cliff legislation didn't he? Note even present for the vote...
He really took a stand on this last fiscal cliff legislation didn't he? Note even present for the vote...
Fox infotainment is as reliable and accurate as MSNBC infotainment. Neither one is worth spit as a source of reliable news.
Because I would honestly like a logical, non-biased reason. I love it when people change my mind.
LOL, what are we doing to stop them now? And is it working?
Never argue to change the opposing persons view point. Those ideas are securly ingrained, argue to change the people watching the debate. Argue for the person on the fence.....if you can....
I thought we already had been?
We can all argue over how far RP would have us go, but I think it's insanity to think we shouldn't at least turn around and start marching in that *direction* for awhile. We don't need the Second Coming of Calvin Coolidge...we just need to start peeling the onion, as it were.
We don't need "isolationism", but do we need hundreds of military bases defending Europe and Japan so they can NOT spend their own money on their own defense?
We don't need "isolationism", but do we need hundreds of military bases defending Europe and Japan so they can NOT spend their own money on their own defense?
Similar threads
