Some libertarians are stooges of the NWO

Which one is Gary Johnson?

He's the one who doesn't support socialized medicine, bank bailouts, money printing, invading Libya, the PATRIOT Act, and eminent domain.

Ya me too.

The candidate you voted for had a chance of winning, and the GOP represents nothing at all. So, no, that doesn't make sense.

You voted for the candidate, because he got your panties aflutter with his nationalist rhetoric.
 
He's the one who doesn't support socialized medicine, bank bailouts, money printing, invading Libya, the PATRIOT Act, and eminent domain.

Ya that's why I voted for him, well mostly because of the libertarian party 5% he kinda screwed up his candidacy.
 
No, I voted for Gary Johnson. That's like the fourth time I've said that just in this thread.

O, I misunderstood you.

Which candidate did you vote for on November 8th?

The one who supports expanding the welfare state, or the one who supports expanding the welfare state?

Which one is Gary Johnson?


I also find that hard to believe, but I guess I'll take your word for it.

...unless you're Messicun.

...Messicuns lie.

...you aren't Messicun are you?
 
Last edited:
I just saw a video the other day on what's been happening in South Africa. And I agree that for whatever reason, certain groups don't seem to be able to form a relatively free country. But I think the flaw is in democracy not race. Look at the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany. I think the fundamental flaw is 1 man 1 vote. That's a huge flaw in the system when someone who contributes millions in tax revenue has an equal vote as someone who is a net parasite. I don't believe any amount of checks and balances can prevent socialism from eventually taking over in a 1 man 1 vote system. Only net contributors should be allowed to vote.
I will think about this.
 
Most libertarians I know are pushing the ideology of self-ownership and and the weakening of central government. Didn't realize this was Stalinist. Vielen Dank mein freund.

They ignore the elephant in the room. The libertarians I have issue with probably agree with a globalist system like Bill Clinton and the NWO goons.
 
And you are a perfect example of just such a stooge.

Because I support global government and the NWO? :rolleyes: THe far left elites hate racists like me. They don't fear people with your beliefs.

You cannot be "pro-white" and be a libertarian.

Tell that to George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.

But for the sake of discussion, will you elaborate?

Ron_Paul_On_Racism.jpg

"Libertarians are incapable of being a racist because racism is a collectivist idea.


I dislike that libertarians reject beliefs because of certain negative buzzwords like "collectivist." Most libertarians are too selfish and are not nationalistic. They only care about themselves and have an attitude of fuck everybody else and the group to which they belong.

You see people in group. A civil libertarian like myself sees everybody as an important individual. It's not the color of their skin that is important." -Ron Paul

Racists like myself are individualists. I don't disagree here.

Libertarianism protects human rights. Every human has the same equal rights.

Yep.

When you favor one group over another with government power you are granting more power to that group and violating the human rights of other.

I don't know if I want to "favor" a group. The only argument you can make is that I want to favor white immigrants, but only because racially homogenous countries are better and this prevents racial problems like we have in diverse countries like the USA.

Racism of any stripe is the opposite of libertarianism because libertarianism believes in universal equal human rights and individualism.

You're all wrong here. The only people who want to take away rights are the leftists. If anything racism is about preserving our country from threats and upholding our rights.

Racism is collectivist and wants to use government to grant certain powers and privileges to some at the expense of others.

How so? In what way?

You know what does play into the agenda of the rich and powerful? Dividing an ignorant population that could overwhelm the elites with the merest of efforts. It is easier to control 300 million people when they're too busy fighting each other instead of you. How is this accomplished? By promulgating idiot ideas to get the masses to hate each other over.

If anything racism just keeps groups separated and prevents hate. Forcing groups that hate each other together is not good. Do you believe if groups are separated there would be hatred in each group?

Make up stupid reasons to make some of them hate the others and play them against each other. Nationalism and racism work perfectly for this cause because even the most simple-minded can understand them, "Not- 'Murica bad! Not white bad! Give President power to protect 'Murica!"

The fact that people don't understands your brand of libertarianism shows its probably not true. I really do believe that if libertarians didn't ignore the elephant in the room on this issue they would have more electoral success. Why do you think Rand Pauly got at most 5 percent of the vote and Trump completely dominated him?

It is such a slave mentality that you would think any semi-intelligent person would see through it. But there you go.
Props for explaining your beliefs.
 
Last edited:
Beat me by about .5 seconds!

+rep

I would think this is a simple concept.

You are free to advocate for your "white America" all you want, as racist as it is. But don't for a minute try to equate that position with anything even remotely akin to individual liberty and freedom.... You have some learnin to do, kid.

Congrats. You don't even know my positions. You have learnin' to do, sonny.
 
Johnson was vastly better than Dump, but I was voting for the party, to enhance name recognition, not the candidate.

100% agree. I'm still confused that so many people in this forum could think Trump as equal to Johnson. Johnson is obviously not the ideal libertarian but compared to Trump???

I argued many times that during the campaign Johnson probably tried to sound more mainstream than he really was and Trump tried to sound more libertarian than he really was, just to attract votes. Obviously I was right, at least for Trump.
 
I will think about this.

I think you had to be a land owner to vote in the US in the early days. That was the right idea but I don't think "land owner" is the ideal qualification. It's not self correcting like "net contributor" I think would be. Eventually land owners would vote themselves unfair advantages. If you're a net contributor and you vote for free stuff you lose your vote so it's self correcting. Also it almost always works that way when groups decide on things. If you're planning a party the guy who chips in the most gets to pick the beer. It's just plain common sense.
 
I think you had to be a land owner to vote in the US in the early days. That was the right idea but I don't think "land owner" is the ideal qualification. It's not self correcting like "net contributor" I think would be. Eventually land owners would vote themselves unfair advantages. If you're a net contributor and you vote for free stuff you lose your vote so it's self correcting. Also it almost always works that way when groups decide on things. If you're planning a party the guy who chips in the most gets to pick the beer. It's just plain common sense.

Now the problem would be people with access to cheap credit vs. those without.:cool:
 
Back
Top