Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by Wuerffel5220, Jul 11, 2013.
You do that.
What is a contemporary libertarian?
I'm a strict Constitutional libertarian myself
My four would be Lysander Spooner, Henry David Thoreau, Murray Rothbard, and Ron Paul, carved solely with the use of private funds, of course.
You calling out someone on a dumb post, that's cute....
John, Paul, George, Ringo.
You not being able to refute me:
I now understand the unbridgeable divide. No further point in wasting anyone's time. Good day.
If one were a strict constitutional libertarian I don't think Reagan would be particularly appealing.
Your attempts at being the most annoying poster don't go unnoticed.
Try to keep up.
No, Reagan wasnt a libertarian. Duh.
That wasn't what this was about. It was about who would be replaced. Teddy was horrible. A socialist.
Madison would probably be my first choice to replace him. Someone mentioned Reagan before I did. I was obviously piling on.
Reagan was a much a "socialist" as Roosevelt (which is to say, not one), but carry on.
Thanks for being so kind and offering a nuanced rebuttal. I'm sure Rothbard, Nolan, Paul, etc. would appreciate this detailed and extensive defense.
Lincoln / McKinley / Garfield / Kennedy
One thing I always enjoy is when the American progressive left has to indulge the fact that "socialist" and "communist" and "Marxist" are still, quite deservedly, political epithets and albatrosses, even historically, when I always feel like they are dying to say they ordered the code red.
Please. Everyone knows your game here. It's grown tired.
I don't need to defend crap. Your inane needling is silly.
Meh, I'm just more interested in the integrity of the notion. Why don't we call actual socialists and Marxists by those terms? That's all I ask. I'm quite fine with embracing actual socialists like Eugene V. Debs, or even Karl Marx as personal heroes or great thinkers, I just ask you don't besmirch their fine reputations by lumping them in with "progressive" capitalists like Obama or Rooosevelt.
Yes. It's just a shame the some people can't even admit where the stand on it either.
I'm not entirely sure why you're so defensive here. As a matter of policy and record, Reagan was not a particularly popular president among Libertarians. Hence my confusion.
I understand you'd prefer to toss barbs than to discuss the specifics that make you a fan in the "constitutional Libertarian" sense, but at least try to be a bit more civil.
I would still love someone to explain exactly toward what progressives imagine they are progressing us and why it is worth going. Oh, don't worry, I will always impugn Marx for his deadly intellectual farce
That was a heaping load of crap.
Obama and Roosevelt aren't socialists?
Go down the Socialist platform.
How many of them are at odds with what Obama thinks and Roosevelt thought?
Socialism means a single thing: direct government control of markets. I'm not sure why this concept is so difficult for people.