Party split already happening: Conservative Party VS Republican Party

[Bucjason]

I understand that their "no position" is a cop out "everyone decides for themselves" which is a default pro-choice position. Not going to get into a pro-choice vs. pro-abort vs. pro-life discussion, as I think that would derail the thread.

I don't watch Fox, and have gotten all of my understanding of the LP position from LP members themselves, not third parties.

It's a TOTAL cop out...so weak not to take a stance, but still call yourself "the party of principle" ...

 

[torchbearer]

It's a TOTAL cop out...so weak not to take a stance, but call yourself "the party of principle" ...

Ignorance.
Ever been to a platform debate?
When it came to abortion- we had pro-lifers with no regard to the constitution.
Meaning- they believed it was a federal duty to enforce murder charges. (not so)
The federal government wasn't set up to police murder crimes in the states.
So- you have lawful lpers who argued- the policing of murders should be done at the state level. (Ron Paul and Bob Barr's positions)
Well- the nutjobs were screaming "cop out".
Then you had a group who believe such policing of murders should be done by the local communites/churches etc.
Then you had a group who believed the people most effected by the decision should police themselves.
Then you had anarch type groups who believed nothing should be illegal.

So- there could be no resolution passed. Not because it was a cop-out, but because the party has many different views of who should enforce what...

I've seen nothing but ignorance from people in this thread.
I've actually been in those platform debates. they could go on for years.

So- 90% of the delegates weren't for butchering babies... yet, this thread proves that propoganda prevails.
And I bet everyone of you think you are immune to propoganda. nope- not so.

I've spelled out that pro-life libertarians are often held in high regards by the super-majority of our delegation. As for the anarchs- We can't force anyone out of the party. It is their right to associate.

So- how about you talk about something you know. Ignorance doesn't become you.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

It's a TOTAL cop out...so weak not to take a stance, but call yourself "the party of principle" ...

The LP is half pro-choice, half pro-life. Just like every election it's down to the candidate and what he/she espouses. Personally, if I had to choose from the run of the mill GOP candidate, or the LP candidate, I'll choose the LP candidate 100% of the time. Regardless if they're pro-life or pro-choice simply on the basis that currently what is more important is to reduce the power structures as much as humanly possible. If you think putting our posterity into slavery is any better, than go ahead and vote that way...

As an aside I'm a pretty rabid pro-life guy.

 

[jmdrake]

That's really odd that the LP pro lifers would be so split when the goal of the pro life movement in general is to return abortion to the states. (Overturning Roe v. Wade). National abortion laws (like the partial birth abortion bill) were in response to the supreme court knocking down everything the states put forward.

Ignorance.
Ever been to a platform debate?
When it came to abortion- we had pro-lifers with no regard to the constitution.
Meaning- they believed it was a federal duty to enforce murder charges. (not so)
The federal government wasn't set up to police murder crimes in the states.
So- you have lawful lpers who argued- the policing of murders should be done at the state level. (Ron Paul and Bob Barr's positions)
Well- the nutjobs were screaming "cop out".
Then you had a group who believe such policing of murders should be done by the local communites/churches etc.
Then you had a group who believed the people most effected by the decision should police themselves.
Then you had anarch type groups who believed nothing should be illegal.

So- there could be no resolution passed. Not because it was a cop-out, but because the party has many different views of who should enforce what...

I've seen nothing but ignorance from people in this thread.
I've actually been in those platform debates. they could go on for years.

So- 90% of the delegates weren't for butchering babies... yet, this thread proves that propoganda prevails.
And I bet everyone of you think you are immune to propoganda. nope- not so.

I've spelled out that pro-life libertarians are often held in high regards by the super-majority of our delegation. As for the anarchs- We can't force anyone out of the party. It is their right to associate.

So- how about you talk about something you know. Ignorance doesn't become you.

 

[jmdrake]

that is what the one-issue voters call the LP.
You voted for Baldwin because he was pro-life. yet his party wants to use government force to restrict gambling, prostitution, and drug use.

Bob Barr is Pro-life and pro-freedom.

Did you really make the best choice?

Are you still defending Bob Barr after he endorsed Eric Holder for attorney general? How is that consistent with him being "pro freedom"?

 

[Original_Intent]

I've seen nothing but ignorance from people in this thread.

You should try reading other people's posts and quit rereading your own.

You must be very disappointed in your "best man for the job" seeing as he gave his endorsement to someone other than Barr. Would you chalk that up to bad judgment, was it an emotional reaction to Barr's actions regarding the press conference? Something else? Wow, if it was based on emotion, that really doesn't bode well for his (Ron Paul's) ability to be president...I mean, his endorsement was a pretty big deal.

I, on the other hand felt like he endorsed the right candidate, obviously. I gotta say Torch, you seem to be talking down your nose at people when you are the one dancing a jig to twist the facts to your own interpretation. You have totally put words in my mouth and then attacked my position based on things I did not say. I think the thread speaks for itself, and you have done what I have rarely seen you do, and that is make an ass out of yourself.

Oh and FYI I have participated in a national committee to draw up a platform for a political party and I understand where you are coming from (on that part of the discussion) - we often had 15-30 minute debates over individual word choices, let alone addressing a major issue.

 

[torchbearer]

That's really odd that the LP pro lifers would be so split when the goal of the pro life movement in general is to return abortion to the states. (Overturning Roe v. Wade). National abortion laws (like the partial birth abortion bill) were in response to the supreme court knocking down everything the states put forward.

I would say 40% of LP delegates support the above. (as do i)
15% believe the federal government should police murder in the states.
its about a 10-15% split(each) for the rest of the arguments.

Anarchs will rule our next convention because most of our moderate membership has joined the GOP to help Ron Paul.

 

[torchbearer]

You should try reading other people's posts and quit rereading your own.

You must be very disappointed in your "best man for the job" seeing as he gave his endorsement to someone other than Barr. Would you chalk that up to bad judgment, was it an emotional reaction to Barr's actions regarding the press conference? Something else? Wow, if it was based on emotion, that really doesn't bode well for his (Ron Paul's) ability to be president...I mean, his endorsement was a pretty big deal.

I, on the other hand felt like he endorsed the right candidate, obviously. I gotta say Torch, you seem to be talking down your nose at people when you are the one dancing a jig to twist the facts to your own interpretation. You have totally put words in my mouth and then attacked my position based on things I did not say. I think the thread speaks for itself, and you have done what I have rarely seen you do, and that is make an ass out of yourself.

Oh and FYI I have participated in a national committee to draw up a platform for a political party and I understand where you are coming from (on that part of the discussion) - we often had 15-30 minute debates over individual word choices, let alone addressing a major issue.

Barr dissing Ron's invites had nothing to do with Baldwin's endorsement?

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

That's really odd that the LP pro lifers would be so split when the goal of the pro life movement in general is to return abortion to the states. (Overturning Roe v. Wade). National abortion laws (like the partial birth abortion bill) were in response to the supreme court knocking down everything the states put forward.

A State can Nullify Roe v Wade and the Government mandate. I'm still waiting though.....

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Barr dissing Ron's invites had nothing to do with Baldwin's endorsement?

Barr was a neo-con, horrible choice by the LP. Why are you defending him? Let's get Ruwart for 2012.

 

[torchbearer]

Are you still defending Bob Barr after he endorsed Eric Holder for attorney general? How is that consistent with him being "pro freedom"?

I'm not defending Barr- I was showing the differences between Baldwin and Barr's stated agenda.
One is more pro-freedom than the other- and they are both Pro-Life.

It was the LP that knocked Barr's dick in the dirt- causing him to lose his election for congress. He then had to reconsider his position on sending sick people to prison.
Baldwin has never backed down on his drug war stance.

I'm just stating facts. I didn't vote for Barr. I actually supported Steve Kubby and Mary Ruwart.
I supported Gary Nolan and Aaron Russo the election before.

 

[Bucjason]

Ignorance.
Ever been to a platform debate?
When it came to abortion- we had pro-lifers with no regard to the constitution.
Meaning- they believed it was a federal duty to enforce murder charges. (not so)
The federal government wasn't set up to police murder crimes in the states.
So- you have lawful lpers who argued- the policing of murders should be done at the state level. (Ron Paul and Bob Barr's positions)
Well- the nutjobs were screaming "cop out".
Then you had a group who believe such policing of murders should be done by the local communites/churches etc.
Then you had a group who believed the people most effected by the decision should police themselves.
Then you had anarch type groups who believed nothing should be illegal.

So- there could be no resolution passed. Not because it was a cop-out, but because the party has many different views of who should enforce what...

I've seen nothing but ignorance from people in this thread.
I've actually been in those platform debates. they could go on for years.

So- 90% of the delegates weren't for butchering babies... yet, this thread proves that propoganda prevails.
And I bet everyone of you think you are immune to propoganda. nope- not so.

I've spelled out that pro-life libertarians are often held in high regards by the super-majority of our delegation. As for the anarchs- We can't force anyone out of the party. It is their right to associate.

So- how about you talk about something you know. Ignorance doesn't become you.

Well then , how about you at least pass a resolution to clarify that position a little better?

Besides , does 100% of the party have to agree on EVERYTHING in the platform?? If that's the case then how do you ever pass anything?

You do realize whenever anyone thinking of joining the party reads " We realize people of good faith can have differing opinions on abortion" , they laugh and roll thier eyes right ?? It's a ridiculous thing to put into a platform. I mean just try that with any other issue -- " We realize people of good faith can have differing opinions on the level of taxation, so tax whatever you please"

It's sounds chickenshit, and the opposite of "principle".

 

[torchbearer]

Barr was a neo-con, horrible choice by the LP. Why are you defending him? Let's get Ruwart for 2012.

again- I'm not defending him- just listing the facts. I know its hard to take in that people's votes for Baldwin were simply based on Ron's recommendation and not their stated platforms.

 

[torchbearer]

Well then , how about you at least pass a resolution to clarify that position a little better?

Besides , does a 100% of the party have to agree on EVERYTHING in the platform?? If that's the case then how do you ever pass anything?

You do realize whenever anyone thinking of joining the party reads " We realize people of good faith can have differing opinions on abortion" , they laugh and roll thier eyes right ?? It's a ridiculous thing to put into a platform. I mean just try that with any other issue -- " We realize people of good faith can have differing opinions on the level of taxation, so tax whatever you please"

It's sounds chickenshit, and the opposite of "principle".

You can't pass a resolution unless a majority will vote for it.
I invite you to the next LP national convention platform debate. Bring plenty of caffiene. You will be there awhile.

 

[Bucjason]

You can't pass a resolution unless a majority will vote for it.
I invite you to the next LP national convention platform debate. Bring plenty of caffiene. You will be there awhile.

LoL. no thanks....this is why I never get involved in politics to that level , 45 minutes into that ridiculous discussion I'd jump out the window to my death.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

The copout in the LP position isn't on the "which level of government should enforce" side, but on the unborn's actual, protectable right to life side of the issue. A human life, born and preborn, requires legal protection of its basic individual right to life.

A real pro-life position, or one that is truly reconciling with the prolifers, will recognize the unborn has legal rights equal to that of born persons, or approaching that of born persons. The degree of rights the unborn has may be argued back and forth and differently protected by local governments, but not the fact they have rights.

The current situation is one where the unborn has 0.0% legal rights. The LP platform does not address this matter, the pivot on which the issue actually turns. We can acknowledge that some pregnancies are not wanted, without applying a coercive solution (killing babies) as the answer. This defacto embrace of state-sanctioned initiation of force against the unborn makes the current LP position a credibility killer in selling the party to many other pro-liberty people.

I think the platform is silent because if it flatly denied the rights of the unborn, the nakedness of its totally pro-abortion statement would be apparent to everyone. The current rhetoric leads to a defacto pro-choice/0.0% unborn rights result, but was kept vague enough to placate pro-life Libertarians. This makes the plank a cop-out, and the LP a harder sell because it plainly contradicts its supposed commitment to principle, transparency and non-aggression.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

LoL. no thanks....this is why I never get involved in politics to that level , 45 minutes into that ridiculous discussion I'd jump out the window to my death.

It's not an easy position. Remember, Libertarians staunchly believe in the Non-Aggression Axiom, and private property. It is a question of when do you believe life starts. I say at conception, others say at birth. So, you can see the principle diemma correct?

Both are bound in principles. So, we say leave it to the States to decide which is what I also espouse because de-centralization is priority at all costs. As a Governor though I would make abortion a crime because it destroys private property (The baby). Natural Law stipulates that abortion is murder. Remember, this is all based on when I believe life starts. (Though again, I would try and dismantle all State power, since I am an An-Cap )

Not sure why you make such a huge fuss over it. It is the only issue that really divides the party besides of course the minarchists and non-archists

 

[torchbearer]

I just describe the debate, and now another tard is going to tell me what happened at the meeting.

 

[jmdrake]

I'm not defending Barr- I was showing the differences between Baldwin and Barr's stated agenda.
One is more pro-freedom than the other- and they are both Pro-Life.

It was the LP that knocked Barr's dick in the dirt- causing him to lose his election for congress. He then had to reconsider his position on sending sick people to prison.
Baldwin has never backed down on his drug war stance.

I'm just stating facts. I didn't vote for Barr. I actually supported Steve Kubby and Mary Ruwart.
I supported Gary Nolan and Aaron Russo the election before.

What's wrong with Baldwin's war on drugs stance?

1. The War On Terror

As with the "war on drugs," President Bush's "war on terror" is the cornerstone doctrine which allows the executive branch of the federal government to run roughshod over the Constitution and individual liberty. Whenever anyone objects to the illegality or immorality of ever-meddling, ever-growing, ever-menacing federal encroachments upon our freedoms, Bush and his apologists have a ready-made response: "We are fighting a war on terrorism." Actually, what Mr. Bush is doing is fighting a war against the U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Declaration of Independence!

And further:

The War on Drugs

Another of the reasons Baldwin gave in his interview with The New American for differing philosophically with the Libertarian Party is that "historically, the Libertarian Party believes in free access to drugs of all sorts, and I don’t subscribe to that." Elsewhere in his interview Baldwin was asked: "Where do you stand on the war on drugs?" His reply: "I believe that as president, I would have the responsibility to keep drugs from crossing borders, and I would do everything in my power to keep drugs out of America."

However, in his article "Thank You, Dr. Ron Paul," Baldwin denounces the federal war on drugs: "My sworn oath to the Tenth Amendment means I would dismantle the Patriot Act and restore law enforcement to the states and local governments, where it rightly belongs. Yes, this includes the so-called ‘war on drugs’ and the so-called ‘war on terror’." Whether this means that Baldwin would support a state war on drugs is hard to say, but he clearly rejects a role for the federal government. This, however, contradicts what he said in his interview.

Because it fosters violence, unnecessarily overpopulates prisons, costs the taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars, has been used as an excuse to attack civil liberties and privacy, and is not the constitutional purpose of government, Ron Paul has always opposed any kind of a war on drugs, viewing drug addiction (like alcohol addiction) as a social problem, not a crime.

According to the government’s own figures, 775,000 Americans were arrested last year for the victimless crime of simple pot possession. But it is simply not the business of government – at any level – to monitor what people smoke, drink, snort, or inject into their own body. A government powerful enough to ban what it considers to be illicit substances is a government powerful enough to ban religious reading material it deems to be subversive. A government powerful enough to control what someone puts into his body is a government powerful enough to control what someone is allowed to hear from a church pulpit

He wants to keep the federal role limited to controlling drugs at the border and leave it up to the states to do what they want inside their own borders? I don't have a problem with that. For one thing that's actually constitutional. For another most of the damage done by the "war on drugs" is users and small time dealers operating intrastate. I'm not so concerned about the cross border profiteers.

 

[Bucjason]

It's not an easy position. Remember, Libertarians staunchly believe in the Non-Aggression Axiom, and private property. It is a question of when do you believe life starts. I say at conception, others say at birth. So, you can see the principle diemma correct?

Both are bound in principles. So, we say leave it to the States to decide which is what I also espouse because de-centralization is priority at all costs. As a Governor though I would make abortion a crime because it destroys private property (The baby). Natural Law stipulates that abortion is murder. Remember, this is all based on when I believe life starts. (Though again, I would try and dismantle all State power, since I am an An-Cap )

Not sure why you make such a huge fuss over it. It is the only issue that really divides the party besides of course the minarchists and non-archists

I could totally get on board with leaving the decision to the states. I AM a constitutionalist afterall.

The libertarian party won't even go THAT far , though. Why can't the platform say something like , " We believe that Roe vs. Wade is unconstitutional, and abortion rights should be left up to the states. " Instead we get, "Good people can think whatever they want"

It just pisses me off , that's all.