PDA

View Full Version : Mike Gravel joined the Libertarian Party




dirtyp
03-26-2008, 06:54 AM
Mike Gravel joined the Libertarian Party
On March 25, former Alaska U.S. Senator Mike Gravel joined the Libertarian Party. He currently lives in Virginia, which does not have registration by party. Gravel joined the party by becoming a dues-paying member. Thanks to ThirdPartyWatch for this news.
http://waronyou.blogspot.com/2008/03/mike-gravel-joins-libertarian-party.html

dirknb@hotmail.com
03-26-2008, 07:16 AM
Awesome.

crazyfingers
03-26-2008, 07:28 AM
Surprising. I always assumed Gravel was pretty far left, what with his support for Universal Health Care and increased carbon taxes. He's right on the big issue though: bringing an end to the military industrial complex.

I don't really agree with his "national initative" idea though. Putting more power in the hands of the people is not the solution. We don't need direct democracy, we need our constitutionally limited Republic back.

jrich4rpaul
03-26-2008, 11:29 AM
So like we're trying to make the Republican party more about liberty, Gravel is trying to make the Libertarian party more globalist? He's a huge supporter of world government.

I smell something fishy.

Razmear
03-26-2008, 11:49 AM
More details at:
http://www.rawstory.com/news/mochila/Democrat_Gravel_switches_to_Liberta_03262008.html

eb

jabrownie
03-26-2008, 11:57 AM
Gravel doesn't agree with us on everything, but he does on many things and is willing to sit down and seriously debate those areas where we disagree. Additionally, he's got balls the size of watermelons, was hugely influential in ending the draft during vietnam, and stood up to help expose Nixon even at the risk of going to jail for doing so. If nothing else, the guy can at least be respected. I for one am excited to hear this and welcome him with open arms.

Alawn
03-26-2008, 12:00 PM
What the heck? That guy is so far from libertarian it isn't funny. He can't get any democrats to vote for him so he thinks maybe libertarians will nominate him because he has more name recognition than the people they get? Sorry you can't be a libertarian unless you want to reduce the size and role of government. Being against the war doesn't make you a libertarian.

SWATH
03-26-2008, 12:10 PM
Maybe he has changed his mind about his views. Maybe the message of liberty has spread to him. At least if it hasn't he isn't changing the minds of any libertarians. If anything they will change his views.

JosephTheLibertarian
03-26-2008, 12:17 PM
Mike Gravel joined the Libertarian Party
On March 25, former Alaska U.S. Senator Mike Gravel joined the Libertarian Party. He currently lives in Virginia, which does not have registration by party. Gravel joined the party by becoming a dues-paying member. Thanks to ThirdPartyWatch for this news.
http://waronyou.blogspot.com/2008/03/mike-gravel-joins-libertarian-party.html

I prefer to go to third party watch than your blog.

rockandrollsouls
03-26-2008, 12:17 PM
maybe ron paul converted him when they talked :D

Aratus
03-26-2008, 12:20 PM
i think mike gravel thinks our stock market is about to crash like 1929
and is agreeing with ron paul on how unstable things are with the fed...

humanic
03-26-2008, 01:26 PM
Here's what was posted on Third Party Watch (http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/03/26/gravel-to-run-as-libertarian/):


Gravel For President 2008
A Personal Message from Mike Gravel

Dear friend,

I wanted to update you on my latest plans before news gets out. Today, I am announcing my plan to join the Libertarian Party, because the Democratic Party no longer represents my vision for our great country. I wanted my supporters to get this news first, because you have been the ones who have kept my campaign alive since I first declared my candidacy on April 17, 2006.

The fact is, the Democratic Party today is no longer the party of FDR. It is a party that continues to sustain war, the military-industrial complex and imperialism—all of which I find anathema to my views.

By and large, I have been repeatedly marginalized in both national debates and in media exposure by the Democratic leadership, which works in tandem with the corporate interests that control what we read and hear in the media.

I look forward to advancing my presidential candidacy within the Libertarian Party, which is considerably closer to my values, my foreign policy views and my domestic views.

Please take a moment to make your most generous donation to my presidential campaign today. $10, $20, $50—whatever you feel you can afford.

I want to thank you all for your continued support.

Gratefully yours,
Mike Sig Small

Learn More www.gravel2008.us

Kilrain
03-26-2008, 01:33 PM
I don't get it. Gravel seems like a nice enough guy, but gimme a break. "No longer the party of FDR" my ass. FDR fought an undeclared war long before Pearl Harbor and stood for socializing the country. :mad:

SWATH
03-26-2008, 01:34 PM
The fact is, the Democratic Party today is no longer the party of FDR. It is a party that continues to sustain war, the military-industrial complex and imperialism—all of which I find anathema to my views.

So...yes, it is still the party of FDR.

Kade
03-26-2008, 01:38 PM
So many of you are so horribly mistaken.

Limited government and Strong Individual Freedom is not entirely contrary to what Gravel and other liberals, like myself believe. Quit being so absolutist about this crap... Liberalism is not socialism is not globalism. Just stop already.

SouthGeorgia61
03-26-2008, 01:41 PM
You guys that don't like Gravel should stop with the haterade in my opinion. Just because he doesn't have the same exact views as Ron Paul doesn't mean he still isn't a great person and a person fighting for the people and get rid of all the corporate influence in Washington, he just has a different idea on how to fix that problem than Ron does. And Ron often speaks positively of Ronald Reagen who didn't exactly always align with Ron on a lot of issues and did things a lot of people here disagree with yet you guys don't criticize Ron for it, so don't criticize Gravel for talking positively of FDR. Ron and Gravel are great people fighting for our rights, and while I agree with Ron more than I do with Mike, I would vote for either of them in a heartbeat.

Soccrmastr
03-26-2008, 01:43 PM
Very weird

crazyfingers
03-26-2008, 02:00 PM
So many of you are so horribly mistaken.

Limited government and Strong Individual Freedom is not entirely contrary to what Gravel and other liberals, like myself believe. Quit being so absolutist about this crap... Liberalism is not socialism is not globalism. Just stop already.

Are you a Ron Paul supporter? Absolutely no offense intended, but I just don't see how you can reconcile liberal beliefs with support for the most conservative member of Congress. Liberalism might not be socialism, but it certainly is contrary to the tenets of limited government and strong individual freedom.

Kade
03-26-2008, 02:03 PM
Are you a Ron Paul supporter? Absolutely no offense intended, but I just don't see how you can reconcile liberal beliefs with support for the most conservative member of Congress. Liberalism might not be socialism, but it certainly is contrary to the tenets of limited government and strong individual freedom.

Then you don't know what liberalism is... I'm sorry. It's okay though, common mistake on these boards.

Kilrain
03-26-2008, 02:06 PM
Then you don't know what liberalism is... I'm sorry. It's okay though, common mistake on these boards.

Liberalism has come to mean something completely different nowadays. In the classic sense, Ron Paul is very liberal, but he's nowhere close to what "liberal" means today.

Kade
03-26-2008, 02:08 PM
Liberalism has come to mean something completely different nowadays. In the classic sense, Ron Paul is very liberal, but he's nowhere close to what "liberal" means today.

I'm not giving up the word. Period. I am liberal.

In this sense, liberal solely means, forever and a day, that individual freedom is the most important political goal.

I define myself in rejection of other government theories, and leave myself open for new ones.

I reject the divine right of kings.
I reject Monarchies and totalitarian states of fascism and communism.
I reject Established religions and theocracies and theonomies.
I reject Hereditary Rule.
and I reject aristocracies and corporatism.

AJ Antimony
03-26-2008, 02:08 PM
So like we're trying to make the Republican party more about liberty, Gravel is trying to make the Libertarian party more globalist? He's a huge supporter of world government.

I smell something fishy.

I smell something fishy... with your logic! The candidates who support one world government are the "frontrunners" and are not marginalized by the media. If Gravel was for world government, then he would still be recognized as an active candidate.

Kade
03-26-2008, 02:11 PM
On top of this I am favorable to a market economy or perhaps a mixed economy and a very transparent system of government.

RonPaulFever
03-26-2008, 02:12 PM
As long as he isn't a gun-grabber, I might actually vote for him if he gets the LP nomination.

crazyfingers
03-26-2008, 02:14 PM
Then you don't know what liberalism is... I'm sorry. It's okay though, common mistake on these boards.

Well you didn't exactly clarify anything. The contemporary mainstream perception of "liberalism" is certainly not compatible with limited government, though. I believe in a "big tent" for the libertarian movement, but support for massive economic redistribution does not fall within it.

Edit: Oh I see you consider yourself a "classical liberal". Cool but I really don't think Gravel would identify himself that way, though.

CountryboyRonPaul
03-26-2008, 02:16 PM
The Libertarian Party and the Democratic Party are not very similair at all, nobody is hating on Gravel, a lot are praising him.

But, realistically there are only a handful of issues that Gravel seems to have in common with the LP.

Libertarian = Almost no Taxation, Almost no Business Regulation, Absolutely no Entitlement Programs, Absolutely no Gun Control.

IMO these have been the defining issues of the Democratic Party for a long time.

We all know Gravel is in agreement in regards to civil liberties (except Gun Control, and certain Economic Liberties), social issues, and the War. But are those enough to justify joining the LP? Heck, Hillary might be able to make a case for the LP. ;)

As far as I know the Green Party seems to match up with Gravel a bit better. But hey, that's just IMO.

Kade
03-26-2008, 02:17 PM
Well you didn't exactly clarify anything. The contemporary mainstream perception of "liberalism" is certainly not compatible with limited government, though. I believe in a "big tent" for the libertarian movement, but massive economic redistribution does not fall within it.

I believe in limited government, but I also believe in a mixed economy. I do support anti-discrimination laws, for instance.

SouthGeorgia61
03-26-2008, 02:17 PM
As far as I know the Green Party seems to match up with Gravel a bit better. But hey, that's just IMO.

I would agree with that.

rockandrollsouls
03-26-2008, 02:18 PM
I'm wary of ANYONE who wants to follow in FDR's footsteps.

Shink
03-26-2008, 03:38 PM
What the heck? That guy is so far from libertarian it isn't funny. He can't get any democrats to vote for him so he thinks maybe libertarians will nominate him because he has more name recognition than the people they get? Sorry you can't be a libertarian unless you want to reduce the size and role of government. Being against the war doesn't make you a libertarian.

Being a member of the Libertarian Party doesn't make you a libertarian either. I like Gravel in some ways, but he's dead wrong on the most important issue right now, the economy. He's a standup guy, but Ron would fuckin' run circles around him on matters of sovereignty, the Constitution, and economics. That's how I went from being a Gravel supporter to a Ron Paul supporter; I saw Ron debate. End of story.

LP members best watch out. The NWO's got minions ready to shape that party into another big government abetting party. Sinking ship that was hardly ever afloat to begin with.

JosephTheLibertarian
03-26-2008, 03:41 PM
I don't get it. Gravel seems like a nice enough guy, but gimme a break. "No longer the party of FDR" my ass. FDR fought an undeclared war long before Pearl Harbor and stood for socializing the country. :mad:

Maybe he thinks the LP is the party of FDR. LMAO

JosephTheLibertarian
03-26-2008, 03:43 PM
So many of you are so horribly mistaken.

Limited government and Strong Individual Freedom is not entirely contrary to what Gravel and other liberals, like myself believe. Quit being so absolutist about this crap... Liberalism is not socialism is not globalism. Just stop already.

I prefer left-libertarians to the bigoted rightwingers that flood the LP. When I say "rightwingers," I do not criticize their economic beliefs, I just get tired of the anti-immigration and anti-abortion rhetoric. But they can join, I'd prefer a big tent LP. I do think Gravel is incorrect on some economic issues, I don't think it's for government to decide when people are done with oil, so there's no reason to tax them for it. People already pay high at the pump, so we are going to punish them more? That's bullshit.

JosephTheLibertarian
03-26-2008, 03:47 PM
I'm not giving up the word. Period. I am liberal.

In this sense, liberal solely means, forever and a day, that individual freedom is the most important political goal.

I define myself in rejection of other government theories, and leave myself open for new ones.

I reject the divine right of kings.
I reject Monarchies and totalitarian states of fascism and communism.
I reject Established religions and theocracies and theonomies.
I reject Hereditary Rule.
and I reject aristocracies and corporatism.

But the benevolent dictatorship is the best form of government ;) and the democracy (indirect) is the least bad of the worst forms of government!

qaxn
03-26-2008, 04:00 PM
But the benevolent dictatorship is the best form of government ;) and the democracy (indirect) is the least bad of the worst forms of government!
dunno about you all but I sincerely would prefer a bad democracy to a good autocracy.

JosephTheLibertarian
03-26-2008, 04:02 PM
dunno about you all but I sincerely would prefer a bad democracy to a good autocracy.

You would only fear what happens after the great leader dies. That's why it never lasts lol

qaxn
03-26-2008, 04:05 PM
That's not it. That's not it at all.

If there were some sort of immortal all-knowing omnibenevolent God-King I would still prefer a democracy, even if that democracy was a failure in good governance.

JosephTheLibertarian
03-26-2008, 04:09 PM
That's not it. That's not it at all.

If there were some sort of immortal all-knowing omnibenevolent God-King I would still prefer a democracy, even if that democracy was a failure in good governance.

You kind of are going against the meaning. You would prefer a corrupt democracy over a benevolent leader? Interesting. Well, I guess that's why you're an American lol

BuddyRey
03-26-2008, 04:37 PM
THIS IS THE BEST NEWS I'VE HEARD ALL WEEK!!!!

I don't know if I'm reading too much into this or not, but Gravel switching over to the LP could quite possibly mark the beginning of a major sea-change among disenfranchised libertarian Democrats.

This same shift is what brought me into the Ron Paul Revolution, and I'll bet you dollars to donuts that Mike Gravel will bring over a LOT of people with him.

JosephTheLibertarian
03-26-2008, 04:44 PM
THIS IS THE BEST NEWS I'VE HEARD ALL WEEK!!!!

I don't know if I'm reading too much into this or not, but Gravel switching over to the LP could quite possibly mark the beginning of a major sea-change among disenfranchised libertarian Democrats.

This same shift is what brought me into the Ron Paul Revolution, and I'll bet you dollars to donuts that Mike Gravel will bring over a LOT of people with him.

I think Mike Gravel will become more and more libertarian over time. Bob Barr used to support the War on Drugs programs, but now he does not.

Rhys
03-26-2008, 05:09 PM
Doesn't he want each citizen to have one vote on every bill... basicly doing away with congress?

phuqig_hotband
03-26-2008, 05:11 PM
I think Mike Gravel will become more and more libertarian over time. Bob Barr used to support the War on Drugs programs, but now he does not.

Libertarianism is infectious among thinkers of a critical nature. The problem is, conventional wisdom must be ignored if objective reasoning is desired. Once achieved, in the place of the burden of a culture of ignorance, only rugged individualism stands. Contemporary conventional wisdom is synonomous with collectivism.

Faith in the American populace rests in the belief that such a personal and philosophical growth is possible among a large minority of us. I prefer to believe the shift is possible and that the old dog Mike Gravel is among the first of many to make it.

RedLightning
03-26-2008, 05:30 PM
Gravel joining the Libertarian party is just silly. He is no libertarian.

JosephTheLibertarian
03-26-2008, 05:36 PM
Gravel joining the Libertarian party is just silly. He is no libertarian.

agreed lol. He's a libertarian leaning liberal imo

kigol
03-26-2008, 05:44 PM
:cool:

JosephTheLibertarian
03-26-2008, 05:54 PM
But let's not stop there. Ron Paul is a libertarian leaning conservative. Wayne Allen Root is a conservative leaning libertarian. And Obama is a socialist. but I'm a real libertarian.

phuqig_hotband
03-26-2008, 06:03 PM
This Gravel story is all over the place. He is apparently running for the nomination.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/26/gravel-to-run-for-libertarian-nod/
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/26/former-democratic-presidential-hopeful-bolts-for-libertarian-party/
http://media.wildcat.arizona.edu/media/storage/paper997/news/2008/03/26/Opinions/The-Good.The.Bad.The.Ugly-3284049.shtml
http://weblog.signonsandiego.com/news/breaking/2008/03/gravel_turns_libertarian.html
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/03/26/gravel_joins_the_libertarians.html

Too bad they are mostly online blogs.

JosephTheLibertarian
03-26-2008, 06:19 PM
http://whitehouser.com/news/mike-gravel-joins-the-party/

LOOK! He converted a Democrat to the LP!

Caulfield
03-26-2008, 06:43 PM
Gravel Joins the Libertarians

By Alec MacGillis
Mike Gravel is headed to the convention in Denver. No, not that one. The septuagenarian former Alaska senator, who, depending on your viewpoint, was an amusing or aggravating presence in the early Democratic presidential debates, has announced that he is joining the Libertarian Party and will be competing for its presidential nomination in Denver in late May.

"I'm joining the Libertarian Party because it is a party that combines a commitment to freedom and peace that can't be found in the two major parties that control the government and politics of America," Gravel said in a statement. "My libertarian views, as well as my strong stance against war, the military industrial complex and American imperialism, seem not to be tolerated by Democratic Party elites who are out of touch with the average American."

Gravel's run for the Democratic nomination was marked by some memorable curmudgeonly comments from the far wings of the debate stage, such his declaration in April, in response to other candidates' threats against Iran, "I got to tell you, after standing up with them, some of these people frighten me -- they frighten me." His poll numbers stayed in decimal territory, but he drew spikes of Web traffic to his debate highlights and his minimalist campaign ads, including one in which he stared at the camera for an unnervingly long time before heaving a rock into a lake and walking away.

Gravel was barred from the debates beginning with the October one in Philadelphia (which, perhaps not coincidentally, was the debate where Hillary Clinton's aura of inevitability began to crumble, with her hedged answer on several issues, including drivers' licenses for immigrants.)

Andrew Davis, a spokesman for the Libertarian Party, said that Gravel was welcome to compete for the party's nomination, noting that the only requirements for running were meeting the constitutional requirements for the presidency, being a member of the party and being willing to accept its nomination. But he said that Gravel might face a tough sell on some issues -- while the party's membership agrees with his stances against the war in Iraq and the military draft, among other issues, it differs with his stances in favor of universal health care and higher spending on public education.

"He has some libertarian inclinations, but there's still a lot of issues that he doesn't fall into step that perfectly with the platform on," Davis said. "We're hoping once he can become acquainted and see what the party's all about, he can adjust his views."

There are currently 15 candidates competing for the nomination, which will be decided by the roughly 1,000 delegates expected in Denver, who will be partly guided by the results of primaries and straw polls held in some states. The elephant in the room, so to speak, is whether Ron Paul, the Texas congressman who has run for president on the Libertarian ticket in the past, will drop his bid for the Republican nomination and take his legions of loyal supporters back into the Libertarian fold for a third-party run in November. Paul this week reiterated that he has no intention of doing that.

But still, one can dream. A Paul-Gravel ticket? "That would be interesting, no doubt," said Davis.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/03/26/gravel_joins_the_libertarians.html

Shink
03-26-2008, 08:15 PM
Yep, here's a bulletin I got on myspace:

A Personal Message from Mike





Dear friend,









I wanted to update you on my latest plans before news gets out.

Today, I am announcing my plan to join the Libertarian Party, because the Democratic Party no longer represents my vision for our great country. I wanted my supporters to get this news first, because you have been the ones who have kept my campaign alive since I first declared my candidacy on April 17, 2006.







The fact is, the Democratic Party today is no longer the party of FDR. It is a party that continues to sustain war, the military-industrial complex and imperialism -- all of which I find anathema to my views.







By and large, I have been repeatedly marginalized in both national debates and in media exposure by the Democratic leadership, which works in tandem with the corporate interests that control what we read and hear in the media.







I look forward to advancing my presidential candidacy within the Libertarian Party, which is considerably closer to my values, my foreign policy views and my domestic views.







Please take a moment to make your most generous donation to my presidential campaign today. $10, $20, $50 -- whatever you feel you can afford.







I want to thank you all for your continued support.









Gratefully yours,
<fake signature>




Gravel 2008

brianewart
03-26-2008, 09:52 PM
agreed lol. He's a libertarian leaning liberal imo

But he says he's more libertarian than Ron Paul...

ARealConservative
03-26-2008, 10:02 PM
He leaves the Democrats because they no longer represent the party of FDR.

And he joins the Libertarians? :confused:

JosephTheLibertarian
03-26-2008, 10:24 PM
But he says he's more libertarian than Ron Paul...

only on a few social issues

Kade
03-27-2008, 09:29 AM
I prefer left-libertarians to the bigoted rightwingers that flood the LP. When I say "rightwingers," I do not criticize their economic beliefs, I just get tired of the anti-immigration and anti-abortion rhetoric. But they can join, I'd prefer a big tent LP. I do think Gravel is incorrect on some economic issues, I don't think it's for government to decide when people are done with oil, so there's no reason to tax them for it. People already pay high at the pump, so we are going to punish them more? That's bullshit.

You win. Exactly.

Shink
03-27-2008, 09:40 AM
I prefer left-libertarians to the bigoted rightwingers that flood the LP. When I say "rightwingers," I do not criticize their economic beliefs, I just get tired of the anti-immigration and anti-abortion rhetoric. But they can join, I'd prefer a big tent LP. I do think Gravel is incorrect on some economic issues, I don't think it's for government to decide when people are done with oil, so there's no reason to tax them for it. People already pay high at the pump, so we are going to punish them more? That's bullshit.

You do realize there are plenty of reasons to be opposed to amnesty aside from hating brown people, right? The plan to flood this country with illegal immigrants is a multi-pronged attack on the US. 'Tamper proof IDs,' NAFTA superhighway, tanked economy, NAU, Amero. That all ties in. I don't fucking hate Mexicans because I want to maintain national sovereignty. Perhaps you were referring more to cartoonish Republicans? Abortion is another matter. I'm (loosely) pro-choice, but Ron Paul educated me on why libertarians don't agree on the matter, and don't have to. What matters is that we fight against the same enemy as people we disagree with.

Kade
03-27-2008, 09:43 AM
You do realize there are plenty of reasons to be opposed to amnesty aside from hating brown people, right? The plan to flood this country with illegal immigrants is a multi-pronged attack on the US. 'Tamper proof IDs,' NAFTA superhighway, tanked economy, NAU, Amero. That all ties in. I don't fucking hate Mexicans because I want to maintain national sovereignty. Perhaps you were referring more to cartoonish Republicans? Abortion is another matter. I'm (loosely) pro-choice, but Ron Paul educated me on why libertarians don't agree on the matter, and don't have to. What matters is that we fight against the same enemy as people we disagree with.

I can't say I disagree with you here, on any account. My own pro-choice has been changed, I no longer support government funding of pro-choice because I now understand conscientious objection better...

My problem with immigration is not immigration. It's the things you mentioned, "'Tamper proof IDs,' NAFTA superhighway, tanked economy, NAU, Amero."

Shink
03-27-2008, 09:49 AM
I can't say I disagree with you here, on any account. My own pro-choice has been changed, I no longer support government funding of pro-choice because I now understand conscientious objection better...

My problem with immigration is not immigration. It's the things you mentioned, "'Tamper proof IDs,' NAFTA superhighway, tanked economy, NAU, Amero."

Yes. My abortion stance went from an immature, "who cares? Let her do what she wants" stance to a more pragmatic one. "I think abortion should be a personal matter, but the law says it must be left up to the individual states, and further, when I know EXACTLY what/when life is, I'll be against abortion at that point and beyond."

On immigration, it remains unfortunately true that "everything happens for a reason," and in our case, the reason is to dissolve sovereignty and push us to a one world dictatorship.

JosephTheLibertarian
03-27-2008, 10:51 AM
You do realize there are plenty of reasons to be opposed to amnesty aside from hating brown people, right? The plan to flood this country with illegal immigrants is a multi-pronged attack on the US. 'Tamper proof IDs,' NAFTA superhighway, tanked economy, NAU, Amero. That all ties in. I don't fucking hate Mexicans because I want to maintain national sovereignty. Perhaps you were referring more to cartoonish Republicans? Abortion is another matter. I'm (loosely) pro-choice, but Ron Paul educated me on why libertarians don't agree on the matter, and don't have to. What matters is that we fight against the same enemy as people we disagree with.

I never supported amnesty, I don't understand why we need a program for citizenship anyway.

Am I pro-NAU? Uh, no. That means more government. It's a political aim, not one that can be achieved through immigration.Amero needs a government to enact. We will certainly continue to tank the economy if we sustain this welfare/arfare state. The illegal immigration issue is a sympton of the problem at heart, which is welfare. We are subsidizing the very thing you're against.

I just think it's naive to have a longterm "war on illegal immigrants" program. We should be having a war on welare...and regulation that is gamed by corporations to monopolize entire markets.

Kade
03-27-2008, 11:26 AM
I never supported amnesty, I don't understand why we need a program for citizenship anyway.

Am I pro-NAU? Uh, no. That means more government. It's a political aim, not one that can be achieved through immigration.Amero needs a government to enact. We will certainly continue to tank the economy if we sustain this welfare/arfare state. The illegal immigration issue is a sympton of the problem at heart, which is welfare. We are subsidizing the very thing you're against.

I just think it's naive to have a longterm "war on illegal immigrants" program. We should be having a war on welare...and regulation that is gamed by corporations to monopolize entire markets.

If the system does not support illegal immigrants, they will leave on their own. I'm a liberal, and I believe this strongly. Ending welfare for illegal immigrants is a must. My state still has this... =(

JosephTheLibertarian
03-27-2008, 11:31 AM
If the system does not support illegal immigrants, they will leave on their own. I'm a liberal, and I believe this strongly. Ending welfare for illegal immigrants is a must. My state still has this... =(

Then you're a libertarian lol. Classically liberal, like me. hmm maybe I'm a paleoliberal?

jason43
03-27-2008, 11:40 AM
My issue with immigrants is that they send their kids to schools that teach them that minorities are represented by the democratic party and that we have a "living" constitution... they come from leftist countries and are not taught or informed about how/why our country works, and who do you think they will elect once they can vote? Also, supporting them with welfare programs paid for by other peoples taxes is just wrong. Why not just pay for people in France or England to go to school, have 'free' healthcare, etc? If we have to pay the bill for foreign nationals, why not just go all out?

Patriot123
03-28-2008, 04:58 PM
So like we're trying to make the Republican party more about liberty, Gravel is trying to make the Libertarian party more globalist? He's a huge supporter of world government.

I smell something fishy.

Oh please. PLEASE. I'm in support of a world government. He's said it before, and I'll say it again. Any well educated person would be in support of a world government, governed by the people, for the people. I've met this man, and I'll tell you right now, don't mix your little conspiracies with a great man like Mike Gravel. Just don't.

JosephTheLibertarian
03-28-2008, 11:53 PM
Oh please. PLEASE. I'm in support of a world government. He's said it before, and I'll say it again. Any well educated person would be in support of a world government, governed by the people, for the people. I've met this man, and I'll tell you right now, don't mix your little conspiracies with a great man like Mike Gravel. Just don't.

Why government? How about no government where people get to govern themselves?

Kludge
03-29-2008, 12:02 AM
Oh please. PLEASE. I'm in support of a world government. He's said it before, and I'll say it again. Any well educated person would be in support of a world government, governed by the people, for the people. I've met this man, and I'll tell you right now, don't mix your little conspiracies with a great man like Mike Gravel. Just don't.


=O You're on my naughty list...

G-Wohl
03-29-2008, 05:14 PM
Oh please. PLEASE. I'm in support of a world government. He's said it before, and I'll say it again. Any well educated person would be in support of a world government, governed by the people, for the people. I've met this man, and I'll tell you right now, don't mix your little conspiracies with a great man like Mike Gravel. Just don't.

This is something Dr. Paul would never support. It's against one of his main principles as a libertarian...

Gadsden Flag
03-30-2008, 05:35 PM
I agree with Patriot123.

If you oppose world government, you should consider reading a bit more about it and trying to separate the concept from all the goofy conspiracies perpetuated by Alex Jones and company.

G-Wohl
03-31-2008, 12:40 AM
I agree with Patriot123.

If you oppose world government, you should consider reading a bit more about it and trying to separate the concept from all the goofy conspiracies perpetuated by Alex Jones and company.

Ron Paul continuously speaks out against the UN and how we shouldn't be taking our marching orders from an international governing body.

What are these forums coming to?

JosephTheLibertarian
03-31-2008, 09:01 AM
You know, the libertarian doctrine is to preach against statism, it isn't to hope for a world government. Do you know how unlikely it is that a world government would be a libertarian government? Do you know that there are socialist factions that won't tolerate its policies? Stop being a god damn utopian

porcupine
03-31-2008, 09:11 AM
He just wants to run as a 3rd party and libertarian is available. He doesn't even know what a libertarian is.

JosephTheLibertarian
03-31-2008, 09:22 AM
He just wants to run as a 3rd party and libertarian is available. He doesn't even know what a libertarian is.

Libertarian* There's a difference.

LP is for reform in America. More economic freedom and more personal freedom.

FreeTraveler
03-31-2008, 09:27 AM
Gravel <> L(l)ibertarian

You can call anything a duck, but if it doesn't walk like a duck, swim like a duck, or quack like a duck, it's definately not a duck.

If you accept the "duck"'s self-definition, you've given up on language and rational thought, and the looters have already won.

JosephTheLibertarian
03-31-2008, 09:30 AM
Gravel <> L(l)ibertarian

You can call anything a duck, but if it doesn't walk like a duck, swim like a duck, or quack like a duck, it's definately not a duck.

let's call him a moderate Libertarian. lol. Why do the purists always want to run everyone out?

HollyforRP
03-31-2008, 10:06 AM
But he says he's more libertarian than Ron Paul...

yeah and that is what annoys me. Sounds like something a divider would say or someone trying to seek profit from an already existing movement under the guise of good intentions.

I think a bigger libertarian tent would be nice but not when a person is only just now claiming to be a libertarian to attack another libertarian.

I don't like Mike Gravel's approach so I hope he knocks it off because he's not getting my support if he's going to start knocking on Ron Paul.

G-Wohl
03-31-2008, 10:48 AM
But he says he's more libertarian than Ron Paul...

Show the evidence that he said that. I have never heard him say such a thing, and has even acknowledged that Ron Paul was more libertarian than he was in that YouTube video where he visits the college kid's dorm room.

Ron_Paul_For_Connecticut
04-03-2008, 03:44 PM
Show the evidence that he said that. I have never heard him say such a thing, and has even acknowledged that Ron Paul was more libertarian than he was in that YouTube video where he visits the college kid's dorm room.

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/125552.html

Caulfield
04-04-2008, 06:06 AM
Show the evidence that he said that. I have never heard him say such a thing, and has even acknowledged that Ron Paul was more libertarian than he was in that YouTube video where he visits the college kid's dorm room.

I've heard these words personally come out of his mouth.

JMann
04-04-2008, 09:19 AM
If Mike Gravel fell in the woods would he make a sound?

Kade
04-04-2008, 09:20 AM
If Mike Gravel fell in the woods would he make a sound?

Yes, actually, sort of like a sound a bagpipe full of cottage cheese might make.

Patriot123
04-04-2008, 04:15 PM
My G-d... No one understands the concept of world government that Gravel promotes; that every intelligent being should promote. A one world government which is a Constitutional Republic based on Libertarian principles or whatever the majority of the nations collectively decide on, with no army other than local militias. Basis libertarianism 101, yes? Only expanded on a global basis. Any intelligent person should see the rationality of supporting this. Now surely the world is obviously not ready for this at this point; especially with nuts like Alex Jones, however at some point in time we will be ready, hopefully. Ron Paul may not promote this, however if you actually have a sit down with him and make sure that he knows what sort of "world government" you're talking about, I'm sure as heck he'd agree. Any intelligent person would agree.

JosephTheLibertarian
04-04-2008, 07:41 PM
My G-d... No one understands the concept of world government that Gravel promotes; that every intelligent being should promote. A one world government which is a Constitutional Republic based on Libertarian principles or whatever the majority of the nations collectively decide on, with no army other than local militias. Basis libertarianism 101, yes? Only expanded on a global basis. Any intelligent person should see the rationality of supporting this. Now surely the world is obviously not ready for this at this point; especially with nuts like Alex Jones, however at some point in time we will be ready, hopefully. Ron Paul may not promote this, however if you actually have a sit down with him and make sure that he knows what sort of "world government" you're talking about, I'm sure as heck he'd agree. Any intelligent person would agree.

What about the first rule of libertarianism? local government is always best

Patriot123
04-04-2008, 07:48 PM
Actually, it's the right to bear arms ;) And I don't believe that's a Libertarian belief. Libertarianism is the belief that people should be able to do whatever the heck they want, as long as they don't infringe on anyone else's rights. This would just be put on a global level ;) Everything would still apply. Local militias and such. Just on a global basis. The government would still be as powerless as it was at the founding of our nation, of course if that's what the people want. The people would just be running the show. A world government doesn't have to be so "big and scary" like what Alex Jones tells ya', you know ;)

JosephTheLibertarian
04-04-2008, 07:58 PM
Actually, it's the right to bear arms ;) And I don't believe that's a Libertarian belief. Libertarianism is the belief that people should be able to do whatever the heck they want, as long as they don't infringe on anyone else's rights. This would just be put on a global level ;) Everything would still apply. Local militias and such. Just on a global basis. The government would still be as powerless as it was at the founding of our nation, of course if that's what the people want. The people would just be running the show. A world government doesn't have to be so "big and scary" like what Alex Jones tells ya', you know ;)

AJ isn't a libertarian and I don't listen to him. I just think that less government is always best, what can I say? In a perfect world your world government would be great and everyone will get along...utopian

This is what I think: We need to look at the world and see it the way it is. Then we need to come up with realistic strategies on how to change it to what we want.

So how would your ideal world government come about? Through war or what?

The one thing I don't like about Gravel: free trade. he opposes it. but he wants a world government, so isn't that a bit inconsistent? Free trade and globalism IS a way you can create a world government, not with protectionist and nationalistic policies

Patriot123
04-05-2008, 06:01 AM
Are you kidding? He's all for free trade. He's for the NAU. But for good reasons. He said in a video that if all it's going to do is promote free trade, he was all for it, but he would look into it a bit further as he didn't read much on it, and if there was something he didn't like he would change his stance on the issue.
How would it come about? Have you ignored all of my posts? I said that when we're more mature as a race [being humans collectively] it should come about slowly. Exactly what Gravel said. Right now it certainly isn't a good idea as we're not mature enough for such a thing. However as time moves on, we will [hopefully, if we're all not dead by then] mature and hopefully begin to slowly move towards a world government governed by the people for the people, or a Constitutional Republic, or maybe even some other new system. It will be decided by everyone. That way it's fair.

boggie08
04-05-2008, 08:33 AM
My G-d... No one understands the concept of world government that Gravel promotes; that every intelligent being should promote. A one world government which is a Constitutional Republic based on Libertarian principles or whatever the majority of the nations collectively decide on, with no army other than local militias. Basis libertarianism 101, yes? Only expanded on a global basis. Any intelligent person should see the rationality of supporting this. Now surely the world is obviously not ready for this at this point; especially with nuts like Alex Jones, however at some point in time we will be ready, hopefully. Ron Paul may not promote this, however if you actually have a sit down with him and make sure that he knows what sort of "world government" you're talking about, I'm sure as heck he'd agree. Any intelligent person would agree.

Gravel does not want a global government run by governments. He wants global democracy. Global democracy is scary, too. How long will it take for Africans and South Americans to vote for redistribution of our wealth? They do it to the rich in their countries often enough. We all remember that Benjamin Franklin quote, "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner."

Patriot123
04-05-2008, 10:31 AM
Gravel does not want a global government run by governments. He wants global democracy. Global democracy is scary, too. How long will it take for Africans and South Americans to vote for redistribution of our wealth? They do it to the rich in their countries often enough. We all remember that Benjamin Franklin quote, "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner."

That's funny, because there was no such thing as a Democracy... My G-d. Before it was all monarchies. Then we came along and introduced the Republic system. Then came the Democratic system. So that's a mis-quote. And how is it so 'scary?' People voicing their opinions is scary for you, right? That's a new one.

JosephTheLibertarian
04-05-2008, 02:37 PM
Are you kidding? He's all for free trade. He's for the NAU. But for good reasons. He said in a video that if all it's going to do is promote free trade, he was all for it, but he would look into it a bit further as he didn't read much on it, and if there was something he didn't like he would change his stance on the issue.
How would it come about? Have you ignored all of my posts? I said that when we're more mature as a race [being humans collectively] it should come about slowly. Exactly what Gravel said. Right now it certainly isn't a good idea as we're not mature enough for such a thing. However as time moves on, we will [hopefully, if we're all not dead by then] mature and hopefully begin to slowly move towards a world government governed by the people for the people, or a Constitutional Republic, or maybe even some other new system. It will be decided by everyone. That way it's fair.

You don't need government in order to have free trade ;) you don't even need any "agreements" or "treaties."

Patriot123
04-05-2008, 04:10 PM
You don't need government in order to have free trade ;) you don't even need any "agreements" or "treaties."

Who ever said government was needed?

JosephTheLibertarian
04-05-2008, 04:34 PM
Who ever said government was needed?

No one. It's like a mafia, but we have to deal with it. When did I ever agree to the laws that I'm told to respect? :p

Jason24
04-05-2008, 05:43 PM
I believe that Mike Gravel can best be described as being a progressive libertarian.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_libertarian

GHoeberX
04-06-2008, 09:38 AM
I believe that Mike Gravel can best be described as being a progressive libertarian.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_libertarian

No way; he simply is NO libertarian. If Gravels wants worldwide democracy, then there's no way he's a libertarian.

GHoeberX
04-06-2008, 09:45 AM
That's funny, because there was no such thing as a Democracy... My G-d. Before it was all monarchies. Then we came along and introduced the Republic system. Then came the Democratic system. So that's a mis-quote. And how is it so 'scary?' People voicing their opinions is scary for you, right? That's a new one.

Then what about Greek city states like Athens? They had good working democracy for 170 years: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_Athens

But I think you give 'democracy' a certain connotation which I don't give.

JosephTheLibertarian
04-06-2008, 12:08 PM
Then what about Greek city states like Athens? They had good working democracy for 170 years: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_Athens

But I think you give 'democracy' a certain connotation which I don't give.

Women couldn't vote, so i was more of a patriarchy. What about the slaves?

Battlecruiser
04-06-2008, 01:32 PM
THIS IS THE BEST NEWS I'VE HEARD ALL WEEK!!!!

I don't know if I'm reading too much into this or not, but Gravel switching over to the LP could quite possibly mark the beginning of a major sea-change among disenfranchised libertarian Democrats.

This same shift is what brought me into the Ron Paul Revolution, and I'll bet you dollars to donuts that Mike Gravel will bring over a LOT of people with him.

I hope so as well. I was one of those libertarian democrats who never even knew about the libertarian party. I consider myself to be a libertarian now. Here's hoping to the fall of the two major parties!

GHoeberX
04-06-2008, 03:23 PM
Women couldn't vote, so i was more of a patriarchy. What about the slaves?

Uhm; I'm not sure about the USA, but until first quarter of 20th century in most European democracies, most men and women couldn't vote either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_suffrage

JosephTheLibertarian
04-06-2008, 03:57 PM
Uhm; I'm not sure about the USA, but until first quarter of 20th century in most European democracies, most men and women couldn't vote either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_suffrage

Indirect democracy = representative democracy. direct democracy is when everyone represents his or herself.

GHoeberX
04-06-2008, 04:27 PM
Indirect democracy = representative democracy. direct democracy is when everyone represents his or herself.

You lost me here. To my knowledge both classical Athens as well as contemporary western states were using 'indirect democracy'.

Anyway; I only wanted to point out that it doesn't make sense to say:

"Before it was all monarchs" -> definitely not true
"Then we came along and introduced the Republic system." -> I assume you mean 'we' as in the USA, but what is 'the republic system' then exactly?
"Then came the democratic system" -> again, it's incorrect to say first there were monarchs, then came democracy as both systems have risen and fallen multiple times in history.

RonPaulalways
04-07-2008, 09:35 AM
To my knowledge both classical Athens as well as contemporary western states were using 'indirect democracy'.

Athens used direct democracy, in the way of assemblies composed of a random selection of 6000 citizens to vote on laws.

JosephTheLibertarian
04-07-2008, 10:53 AM
Athens used direct democracy, in the way of assemblies composed of a random selection of 6000 citizens to vote on laws.

but a true DD includes all citizens - not just men. I consider it a patriarchy.

rossl
04-09-2008, 01:08 PM
Mike Gravel doesn't want world "government" in the traditional sense of the word. From what I read in his book (www.citizen-power.us), he wants a group of global treaties that would work toward peace between nations, global prosperity, and basically promoting the most broad, agreed upon desires of humanity (eg, world peace and a healthy environment). But he would want it to be modelled after the National Initiative for Democracy, in order for the treaties to be carried out fairly.

And the Ni4D (National Initiative for Democracy) is really the centerpiece of Gravel's campaign. And it is probably one of the most Libertarian ideas that I have ever heard. It ensures a level of freedom never before granted to the everyday citizen, by giving them a voice with their government.

Now, you might say that it would be better to do away with the government than to promote it as a venue of freedom. And if you are a total anarchist that believes that there should be no government at any level, then the Ni4D probably isn't for you. But many Libertarians believe that government should only exist for the purpose of defense. In that case, the government would still exist. And it could still be taken advantage of by interests that go against those of the people. So if you want any level of government at all, you should be interested in the Ni4D, because it would ensure that the people's interests are taken care of, instead of the special interests.

mdh
04-18-2008, 01:47 AM
And if you are a total anarchist that believes that there should be no government at any level, then the Ni4D probably isn't for you.

I'll have to strongly disagree here. Most intellectual anarchists are not wholly opposed to steps in a positive direction. Most intellectual anarchists are frustrated with a broken government and don't see any workable fixes. I think many would be interested in seeing if this model would be useful to create a workable government at some level or another.

G-Wohl
04-18-2008, 04:27 PM
I saw this posted on Mike Gravel's facebook profile, and I think it needs to be seen here:

There's a lot of missunderstanding [sic] of the Libertarian Party

The LP has always had a tug of war between what some refer to as "right" libertarians and "left" libertarians.
Accepting that definition, it would be fair to say that the "right" libertarians have had the upper hand with the platform and most nominees. 1988 was a classic example with Ron Paul defeating Actor Russell Means for the nomination. We saw the rift appear again in 2000 when the party chose Mayor Art Olivier over Medical Marijuana activist Steve Kubby for VP. And in 2004 when Michael Badnarik won the presidential nomination over producer Aaron Russo.

This LP race has several strong contenders, with Former Congressman Bob Barr and Wayne Allyn Root appealing to the "right libertarians" while the "left" libertarians (me) are lining up with Gravel and Kubby.

I've been a Libertarian since 88 and favor a bigger tent. Any shade of Libertarian would be better in the White House than ANY president in my life

mdh
04-18-2008, 07:32 PM
I saw this posted on Mike Gravel's facebook profile, and I think it needs to be seen here:

There's a lot of missunderstanding [sic] of the Libertarian Party

The LP has always had a tug of war between what some refer to as "right" libertarians and "left" libertarians.
Accepting that definition, it would be fair to say that the "right" libertarians have had the upper hand with the platform and most nominees. 1988 was a classic example with Ron Paul defeating Actor Russell Means for the nomination. We saw the rift appear again in 2000 when the party chose Mayor Art Olivier over Medical Marijuana activist Steve Kubby for VP. And in 2004 when Michael Badnarik won the presidential nomination over producer Aaron Russo.

This LP race has several strong contenders, with Former Congressman Bob Barr and Wayne Allyn Root appealing to the "right libertarians" while the "left" libertarians (me) are lining up with Gravel and Kubby.

I've been a Libertarian since 88 and favor a bigger tent. Any shade of Libertarian would be better in the White House than ANY president in my life

I think this post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what "left libertarian" means. Generally, the LP has had three factions - the true hardcore libertarians (many of whom call themselves "left libertarian", Thomas Knapp for example), the disgruntled democrats, and the disgruntled republicans. The hope is that the disgruntled folk can come to the party and learn libertarian philosophy and become genuine libertarians. Some of them even bring new ideas to the table, and when those ideas aren't incompatible with core libertarian principles, we're wise to give them serious consideration. An example of this is Gravel's NI4D. Others, however, bring too much compromise in areas that do conflict with core libertarian ideology. An example of this is Root's whole platform.

Right now, candidates like Kubby, Smith, Phillies, and Burns are prime examples of true libertarians. They know the philosophy, they live the philosophy, and that's what they're bringing to the table as candidates. Amongst folks like these, it generally comes down to other factors, such as who can run a more effective campaign, and who has a better personality. With candidates like Barr and Gravel, we have to serious consider their history, their new ideas that we haven't thought about before, and their grasp of the libertarian philosophy.

Ceos
07-31-2008, 09:22 AM
Gravel does not want a global government run by governments. He wants global democracy. Global democracy is scary, too. How long will it take for Africans and South Americans to vote for redistribution of our wealth? They do it to the rich in their countries often enough. We all remember that Benjamin Franklin quote, "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner."

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin


Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.
Widely attributed to Franklin on the internet, sometimes without the second sentence. It is not found in any of his known writings, and the word "lunch" is not known to have appeared anywhere in english literature until the 1820s, decades after his death. The phrasing itself has a very modern tone and the second sentence especially might not even be as old as the internet. Some of these observations are made in response to a query at Google Answers.
A far rarer but somewhat more credible variation also occurs: "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner." Web searches on these lines uncovers the earliest definite citations for such a statement credit libertarian author James Bovard with a similar one in the Sacramento Bee (1994):
"Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner."

Kade
07-31-2008, 09:25 AM
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.
Widely attributed to Franklin on the internet, sometimes without the second sentence. It is not found in any of his known writings, and the word "lunch" is not known to have appeared anywhere in english literature until the 1820s, decades after his death. The phrasing itself has a very modern tone and the second sentence especially might not even be as old as the internet. Some of these observations are made in response to a query at Google Answers.
A far rarer but somewhat more credible variation also occurs: "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner." Web searches on these lines uncovers the earliest definite citations for such a statement credit libertarian author James Bovard with a similar one in the Sacramento Bee (1994):
"Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner."

Yes!!!! A rational person emerges!

We'll have to wait and see how far this one gets.

Kludge
07-31-2008, 09:27 AM
Yes!!!! A rational person emerges!

We'll have to wait and see how far this one gets.

:rolleyes:


:p

Ceos
07-31-2008, 09:39 AM
Yes!!!! A rational person emerges!

We'll have to wait and see how far this one gets.

?? I was just merely saying that it was a mis-quote.

Plus I'm 21 and I've been stuck in Iraq for the last 8 months. How rational do you think I am/ can be? Especially when I can't visit a lot of sites because of the Blue Coat filter banning Politcal Activist sites... yay for government computers/internet.

Just made sure I quoted and no one thought I came up with that.

Kade
07-31-2008, 11:06 AM
?? I was just merely saying that it was a mis-quote.

Plus I'm 21 and I've been stuck in Iraq for the last 8 months. How rational do you think I am/ can be? Especially when I can't visit a lot of sites because of the Blue Coat filter banning Politcal Activist sites... yay for government computers/internet.

Just made sure I quoted and no one thought I came up with that.

People here misquote like it is frog season in the Bayou.

There is a guy waltzing around with a Jefferson misquote that he refuses to remove... it's infuriating.

Anyone willing to fix the rampant misrepresentation of our founders especially, is a good person in my book.

Kludge
07-31-2008, 11:09 AM
People here like frog.

Waltz with Jefferson... He refuses to move. it's infuriating!

Fix the founders, good person.

:rolleyes:

Aratus
08-01-2008, 08:32 AM
Mike Gravel's political exit was timely... FDR's political do and don't rulebook has been eclipsed?