TexasCHLforum.com

Beiruty wrote:video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YvR5qTUO ... r_embedded" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Good job Beiruty and congrats on not locking a thread for 3 days.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Topbuilder wrote:

Ameer wrote:It's sad there are yellow dog republicans who would vote against him based on party instead of issues.

It has apparently never occured to Ameer that a republican might oppose a democrat based on principle.

Ameer has made many posts in the past which are disparaging of republicans. I assume that he is either a libertarian or a democrat.....either way, he has no love lost for republicans, which would explain his "yellow dog" reference. So if you are a republican, take that into account when trying to understand his meaning.

Me personally, I'm a libertarian leaning republican.....meaning that I don't swallow ALL of the libertarian platform, but I do like a lot of it. But that said, I think that the libertarian party is largely irrelevant except as a means of helping to ensure the election of democrats. The libertarian that I have the MOST respect for is Wayne Allen Root, who recently joined the republican party to try and lead it in a more libertarian direction. I guess he's a yellow dog now too.

I used to consider myself a libertarian. I'd say the libertarian party has become worse than irrelevant: it's actually un-libertarian, and counter-productive with its childish emphasis on dope smoking and gay marriage over far more important issues, like the Federal Budget and the National Debt. It sometimes seems like the party is trying to make itself the Harold and Kumar party.

VMI77 wrote: I used to consider myself a libertarian. I'd say the libertarian party has become worse than irrelevant: it's actually un-libertarian, and counter-productive with its childish emphasis on dope smoking and gay marriage over far more important issues, like the Federal Budget and the National Debt. It sometimes seems like the party is trying to make itself the Harold and Kumar party.

While I agree that their focus should be on "smaller government," it almost seems like their campaign strategy in this election cycle is to make themselves appealing to liberals. That means less votes for Obama. Wouldn't it be a hoot to learn, 10 or so years from now, that the Libertarian party and the GOP actively conspired to draw votes away from Obama by creating a Libertarian campaign designed to appeal to liberals?

OldCannon wrote:

VMI77 wrote: I used to consider myself a libertarian. I'd say the libertarian party has become worse than irrelevant: it's actually un-libertarian, and counter-productive with its childish emphasis on dope smoking and gay marriage over far more important issues, like the Federal Budget and the National Debt. It sometimes seems like the party is trying to make itself the Harold and Kumar party.

While I agree that their focus should be on "smaller government," it almost seems like their campaign strategy in this election cycle is to make themselves appealing to liberals. That means less votes for Obama. Wouldn't it be a hoot to learn, 10 or so years from now, that the Libertarian party and the GOP actively conspired to draw votes away from Obama by creating a Libertarian campaign designed to appeal to liberals?

That's another way of saying what I was getting at. As far a joint conspiracy goes....I doubt either party is smart enough to pull off anything that intelligent, especially if it involves more than about one or two people per party.

VMI77 wrote:I used to consider myself a libertarian. I'd say the libertarian party has become worse than irrelevant: it's actually un-libertarian, and counter-productive with its childish emphasis on dope smoking and gay marriage over far more important issues, like the Federal Budget and the National Debt. It sometimes seems like the party is trying to make itself the Harold and Kumar party.

AAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAA!

I'm going to call it that from now on!

VMI77 wrote: It sometimes seems like the party is trying to make itself the Harold and Kumar party.

It does though, doesn't it?

Of course, the further irony is that "Kumar" (Kal Penn) from those movies works for President Obama now.

VMI77 wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Topbuilder wrote:

Ameer wrote:It's sad there are yellow dog republicans who would vote against him based on party instead of issues.

It has apparently never occured to Ameer that a republican might oppose a democrat based on principle.

Ameer has made many posts in the past which are disparaging of republicans. I assume that he is either a libertarian or a democrat.....either way, he has no love lost for republicans, which would explain his "yellow dog" reference. So if you are a republican, take that into account when trying to understand his meaning.

Me personally, I'm a libertarian leaning republican.....meaning that I don't swallow ALL of the libertarian platform, but I do like a lot of it. But that said, I think that the libertarian party is largely irrelevant except as a means of helping to ensure the election of democrats. The libertarian that I have the MOST respect for is Wayne Allen Root, who recently joined the republican party to try and lead it in a more libertarian direction. I guess he's a yellow dog now too.

I used to consider myself a libertarian. I'd say the libertarian party has become worse than irrelevant: it's actually un-libertarian, and counter-productive with its childish emphasis on dope smoking and gay marriage over far more important issues, like the Federal Budget and the National Debt. It sometimes seems like the party is trying to make itself the Harold and Kumar party.

We should not define a group by its extremists members. I am a conservative libertarian & recognize that in it's purest form, libertarianism is anarchy and is untenable. Though the fundamental nature is opposite, extreme libertarianism will impose an oppressive burden on the citizenry, just as does zealotry or communism.

I am anti-drugs but believe that drugs should be legalized & taxed as a means to control its use.

The issue of gay marriage is a ridiculous concept that would gift a certain percentage of the population with advantages not available to heterosexuals. ie: tax/legal/survivorship/insurance benefits. Homosexuality is a biological aberration, is not viable and does not provide extra ordinary contributions to society. Until someone can convince me of the advantage to our species, I will forever be against identification by sexual preference.

Like religion, democracy, socialism, libertarianism in theory is utopia, until human frailties are thrown into the mix. We mortals cant do anything right.

Now I'm hungry for White Castle but around here we only get the frozen grocery store ones.