Party split already happening: Conservative Party VS Republican Party

[federalistnp]

Palin backs Doug Hoffman in NY-23
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28641.html


So what does this mean for the party. I was unaware that the Conservative Party had people on ballots. I think many of us were right to assume that the party would be fractured. It needs to be completely overhauled and find it's head before suffering another failure of imagination.

Does anyone know the real website of this Hoffman Conservative Party?

Does anyone now believe that there is more unrest and disasitfaction and that is why we are seeing people looking, begging, for a reboot? They don't want anything to do with the labels Democrats or Republicans.

I don't care what the name is, but the third party has no better time to happen than now.

[randolphfuller]

The Conservative Party of New York is a group of new-conservatives started by Bill Buckley in th 1950's and hates libertarians.

[torchbearer]

GOP going the way of the Whigs? It has happened before.

[Pauls' Revere]

Palin backs Doug Hoffman in NY-23
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28641.html


So what does this mean for the party. I was unaware that the Conservative Party had people on ballots. I think many of us were right to assume that the party would be fractured. It needs to be completely overhauled and find it's head before suffering another failure of imagination.

Does anyone know the real website of this Hoffman Conservative Party?

Does anyone now believe that there is more unrest and disasitfaction and that is why we are seeing people looking, begging, for a reboot? They don't want anything to do with the labels Democrats or Republicans.

I don't care what the name is, but the third party has no better time to happen than now.

I concur, would love to see RP do an Indy run since we have three years til 2012. Perhaps the Libertarians can put someone there that people can get behind. I'm done with the Dems and Repubs and would love to see the third party taken seriously. However, is there not rules in place which do not allow for a third party in any presidential debate? I may be wrong on that but I think the Commission of Presidential Debates will not allow the third party unless they are invited in. I believe that was the case with Ross Perot. I also wonder how many of these other parties are splinters of the Dems and Repubs anyway rather than a complete diversion from them.

[Pauls' Revere]

GOP going the way of the Whigs? It has happened before.

Now I believe in the power of prayer.

[akforme]

Now I believe in the power of prayer.

So did Bush, that's why he "decided" to invade Iraq.

[dgr]

I believe Bush though it was his mission to put us on the path to Armagaddon, or he was just buying everything Cheney told him.
the split in the GOP started with the most favored nation trade status for China, widdened with the invasion and occupatation of Iraq, amnesty sent a lot of republicians over the edge, and by the time the RNC insured the nominated McCain and bailed out AIG, it was over for many republicians. They have fled to 9 12 coalition and Freedom Works meetings , most of these same recovering republicians now believe in the "new world order" because they saw Bush pave the way for obama to race down the highway. We are reading "The Road to Serfdom", think jail was needed not bailouts, AND CHRINGE EVERYTIME CHEENEY OPENS HIS MOUTH NO MATTER WHAT HE SAYS. so yes the GOP is split and fractured. If a vailable 3rd party doesnot manifest itself now it never will and the Nation as we know it will cease to be.

[fj45lvr]

how many votes did the Constitution party get last election?? just curious.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I concur, would love to see RP do an Indy run since we have three years til 2012. Perhaps the Libertarians can put someone there that people can get behind. I'm done with the Dems and Repubs and would love to see the third party taken seriously. However, is there not rules in place which do not allow for a third party in any presidential debate? I may be wrong on that but I think the Commission of Presidential Debates will not allow the third party unless they are invited in. I believe that was the case with Ross Perot. I also wonder how many of these other parties are splinters of the Dems and Repubs anyway rather than a complete diversion from them.

Mary Ruwart. Seriously, this is the best time for the LP to flourish. They need to get their act together.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

how many votes did the Constitution party get last election?? just curious.

Many here are of the belief that the Constitution Party sounds very much theocratic. It is heavily founded on religion. Read their charter.

Now read the Libertarian Party charter. Your choice.

This isn't my cup of tea. Maybe yours though. /shrug

The Constitution Party gratefully acknowledges the blessing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as Creator, Preserver and Ruler of the Universe and of these United States. We hereby appeal to Him for mercy, aid, comfort, guidance and the protection of His Providence as we work to restore and preserve these United States.

This great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been and are afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.

The goal of the Constitution Party is to restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations and to limit the federal government to its Constitutional boundaries.


That is their preamble. Read the rest.

http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php

[tonesforjonesbones]

FOr those of you who pray for the demise of the GOP I hope you are ready for full blown socialism and prepare to say good bye to what is left of the constitution. TONES

[Flash]

It won't be the demise of the GOP. If Doug Hoffman gets into office he would most likely switch to the Republican Party. Even on his website he refers to himself as a true Republican. From my understanding of the Conservative Party, it works somewhat like a wing of the GOP in local New York politics. It is needed to keep the liberal-republicans in check.

[tonesforjonesbones]

I'm not opposed to endorsing third parties...tones is a libertarian, but some on here think that destroying the GOP completely is a good thing...to me...we should be attacking the democraps because they are MUCH more dangerous to the constitution that the GOP EVER has been. With the GOP we at least agree on about 80%. Why would anyone want to destroy the majority of the capitalists? tones

[erowe1]

Palin backs Doug Hoffman in NY-23
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28641.html


So what does this mean for the party. I was unaware that the Conservative Party had people on ballots. I think many of us were right to assume that the party would be fractured. It needs to be completely overhauled and find it's head before suffering another failure of imagination.

Does anyone know the real website of this Hoffman Conservative Party?

Does anyone now believe that there is more unrest and disasitfaction and that is why we are seeing people looking, begging, for a reboot? They don't want anything to do with the labels Democrats or Republicans.

I don't care what the name is, but the third party has no better time to happen than now.

This isn't a party split. The Conservative Party started in like the 60s. It was founded by William F. Buckley. Also, this Hoffman guy might be marginally better than the Republican he's running against, and maybe even ever so slightly better than the average Republican (which isn't saying much). But he's not that special. He's an avowed Keynesian. And the only federal spending he thinks is worth reducing is earmarks (which means nothing at all).
http://www.doughoffmanforcongress.com/issues.html

Also note the video on his site where Huckabee claims to agree with him on everything.

[federalistnp]

I agree with supporting capitalists but I disagree with supporting the party that has no more good ideas. If we could only get all former and disgruntled republicans to unite behind Libertarians or go with an Independent from the 912 group it would be the story of the new century.

The GOP is going to ignore the better more Ron Paul ideas in favor of restoring us to Bush policies.

The GOP has a tarnished reputation in the Media which gives progressives a big head start.

I understand that Ballot access is an issue, but whatever we do radical action needs to be taken now.

Either reformat the Republican party completely or start over with the LP or another party.

[tonesforjonesbones]

Here is a list of all the political parties in the USA. tOnes


Democratic Party
Republican Party (185)

Constitution Party (1992)
Green Party (1996)
Libertarian Party (1971
American Party (1969)
America First Party (2008)
America's Independent Party (2008)
Boston Tea Party (2006)
Independence Party of America (2007)
Moderate Party (2006)
Marijuana Party (2002)(some of you might want to change to this party)
Objectivist Party (2008)
Party for Socialism and Liberation (2004)
Peace and Freedom Party (1967) - active primarily in California
Prohibition Party (1867)
Reform Party of the United States of America (1995) - not to be confused with an offshoot of the party, the American Reform Party (below)
Socialist Equality Party (2008)
Socialist Party of the United States of America (1973)
Socialist Workers Party (1938)
Unity Party of America (2004)
Workers World Party (1959)
Working Families Party

Tones wants to add another one called the Keg Party.

[Matt Collins]

The Chair of the Nashville GOP (I am Vice-Chair) has publicly endorsed the NY non-Republican too.

You can read about it here.... the comments on this page are hilarious too:
http://politics.nashvillepost.com/2009/10/20/davidson-county-republican-party-endorses-non-republican/

[Bucjason]

The Libertarian and Constitution party are almost identical as far as platforms...only difference is the constitution party is a little more churchy as far as saying the Constitution is founded on "christian principles" ...oh and CP actually has the balls to take a stance in defense of the rights of unborn babies, unlike the LP who are scared to tell us ...

They would be smart to join forces.


As for the GOP splitting?? Probably won't happen. If they sense they are losing thier base , and therefore thier viability, they will move further to the right to get them back. #1 priority in politics is ALWAYS self-preservation.

[specsaregood]

Hrm....
From one of the comments:


frankj unwittingly hits the nail on the head. the case can be made (http://knappster.blogspot.com/2009/10/libertarianism-conservatism-and-number.html) that on the issues tea-baggers claim to care about (taxes, size of government, etc) Scozzafava is the better choice, or at least the one offering a record over rhetoric. But obviously their real priority is in keeping the country as backwards and troglydytic as possible.


Is this true? Does the GOP candidate have a proven fiscal conservative record, even pro 2nd amendment? And their only real beef with her is that she is ok with gay marriage and abortion?

[angelatc]

Palin backs Doug Hoffman in NY-23
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28641.html


So what does this mean for the party. I was unaware that the Conservative Party had people on ballots. I think many of us were right to assume that the party would be fractured. It needs to be completely overhauled and find it's head before suffering another failure of imagination.

.

New York has a voting system that allows candidates to appear on the ballot under multiple parties, and the votes are then combined. Usually the Republican candidate also appears on the Conservative Party ticket. This year they split off.

[Original_Intent]

The Libertarian and Constitution party are almost identical as far as platforms...only difference is the constitution party is a little more churchy as far as saying the Constitution is founded on "christian principles" ...oh and CP actually has the balls to take a stance in defense of the rights of unborn babies, unlike the LP who are scared to tell us ...

They would be smart to join forces.


As for the GOP splitting?? Probably won't happen. If they sense they are losing thier base , and therefore thier viability, they will move further to the right to get them back. #1 priority in politics is ALWAYS self-preservation.

The two biggest differences afaik are the abortion issue (where I side with the CP) and the drug war issue (where I side with the LP). Since the abortion issue is more important to me than the drug war issue, I stick with the CP.

Also, the CP is far more principle based, they will SUPPORT a candidate of another party if his or her principles are correct, but the LP I have found to be very much more concerned about "building the party", their non-support of Ron Paul and their excuses for not doing so bear that out. Now I understand a lot of LP MEMBERS were huge supporters of Ron Paul, but I just thought the party leadership's lack of enthusiasm for Ron Paul and the reasons they gave ("it's against our by-laws, blah blah blah) showed a very strong partisan element that I didn't care for.

[New York For Paul]

Many regular donors are jumping ship and refusing to donate to the RNC because of this race.

The RNC should have stayed out. While the RNC donate hundreds of thousands to help a rino, many conservative donors are witholding hundreds of thousands of dollars to protest this action.

For many Newt Gingrich has destroyed his credibility. His fundraising is going to take a huge hit.

[torchbearer]

The two biggest differences afaik are the abortion issue (where I side with the CP) and the drug war issue (where I side with the LP). Since the abortion issue is more important to me than the drug war issue, I stick with the CP.

Also, the CP is far more principle based, they will SUPPORT a candidate of another party if his or her principles are correct, but the LP I have found to be very much more concerned about "building the party", their non-support of Ron Paul and their excuses for not doing so bear that out. Now I understand a lot of LP MEMBERS were huge supporters of Ron Paul, but I just thought the party leadership's lack of enthusiasm for Ron Paul and the reasons they gave ("it's against our by-laws, blah blah blah) showed a very strong partisan element that I didn't care for.

You do realize their is no position on abortion in the LP. People have this notion that it is a baby killer party, and that isn't true. That is fox news propoganda you need flushed from your brain.

[Original_Intent]

You do realize their is no position on abortion in the LP. People have this notion that it is a baby killer party, and that isn't true. That is fox news propoganda you need flushed from your brain.

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.

[Original_Intent]

FOr those of you who pray for the demise of the GOP I hope you are ready for full blown socialism and prepare to say good bye to what is left of the constitution. TONES

Yep the current leadership of the GOP have certainly showed themselves to be defenders of the constitution - not. I don't pray for the death of the GOP so much as I pray for it to be taken back to its founding principles. I really don't want it to die anyway because then the Neocons would just scramble to take over whatever replaces it. I hope the party stays intact enough that they continue to fight to keep it on life support while all Americans of good intent move to a third and maybe even a fourth party.

[Pennsylvania]

When I was little, a "party" meant one thing. I'd like to reinstate that standard as soon as possible. We don't need more political parties, we need people with principles.

[torchbearer]

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.

Ron Paul is a member of the Libertarian Party, and is Pro-life. I guess you wouldn't have supported his 1988 presidential bid as a member of the baby-killer party.

[Brian4Liberty]

I have noticed that many groups are now being created and calling themselves "Conservative". They are aligning themselves with the Tea Party movement, and are hoping to lead them.

The disturbing thing is, that the vast majority are obviously full-blown neo-conservatives trying to take the reigns once again...

[LDA]

There needs to be a party for fiscal conservatives/libertarians, without all the social conservatism crap. Social conservatism, in pretty much all forms, aims to restrict personal freedom. I'm not going to condone that.

The thing is, the GOP isn't going to be able to oust the religious nutjob wing of the party. They're too influential. So what do we do? Continue to let Democrats run the country into the ground?

[torchbearer]

There needs to be a party for fiscal conservatives/libertarians, without all the social conservatism crap. Social conservatism, in pretty much all forms, aims to restrict personal freedom. I'm not going to condone that.

The thing is, the GOP isn't going to be able to oust the religious nutjob wing of the party. They're too influential. So what do we do? Continue to let Democrats run the country into the ground?

problem with the nutjobs of the GOP, they vote on one issue alone. Abortion.
They don't care if its a neocon who is only paying lip-service. They will vote for the tyrant because of one issue alone. Doesn't matter if he wants to send their children to die in some foreign land for nothing.
Case in point- George Bush and the Republican majority congress. I bet everyone of those GOPers in congress gave lip-service to "pro-life", but when they could have done something about it. They did nothing.
I don't think the nutjobs of the GOP have figured it out yet. Some people on this forum haven't figured it out either.

[Original_Intent]

Ron Paul is a member of the Libertarian Party, and is Pro-life. I guess you wouldn't have supported his 1988 presidential bid as a member of the baby-killer party.
I support the individual and the principles that they support. Bonus points if their voting record actually backs up what they say. Which is why I voted Chuck Baldwin (Ron Paul's endorsement) instead of the LP's candidate. But I am guessing you wouldn't have supported the presidential bid of the theocrat party.

[torchbearer]

I support the individual and the principles that they support. Bonus points if their voting record actually backs up what they say. Which is why I voted Chuck Baldwin (Ron Paul's endorsement) instead of the LP's candidate. But I am guessing you wouldn't have supported the presidential bid of the theocrat party.

Did you know Bob Barr is also Pro-Life?
What's up with the baby-killing party nominating Pro-lifers as their standard bearers? Must be that libertarians are also pro-life.
hmmm... Maybe you don't know as much as you claim to know. hmmmm

[rpfan2008]

This could make a Woodrow Wilson style victory for Obama in the next elections?

[Pauls' Revere]

FOr those of you who pray for the demise of the GOP I hope you are ready for full blown socialism and prepare to say good bye to what is left of the constitution. TONES

The GOP left me.

[Original_Intent]

Did you know Bob Barr is also Pro-Life?
What's up with the baby-killing party nominating Pro-lifers as their standard bearers? Must be that libertarians are also pro-life.
hmmm... Maybe you don't know as much as you claim to know. hmmmm

I realize there are pro-life libertarians (duh RP was one). What I don't like is their "non-position position" AS A PARTY, which is a default Pro-Choice position. I differentiate that from a Pro-Abort position which you seem to not comprehend as YOU continue to call the LP the baby killing party. :rolleyes:

I challenge you to see any post of mine EVER where I have claimed the LP is pro-abort. YOU were the one who assigned that belief to me and then have been attacking me non-stop with ridicule for "not knowing as much as I think I know. hmmm". So torch, as much as I like and agree with you most of the time, on this discussion you need to pull YOUR head out of your preconceived notions and address what I say, not what you think I meant.

For instance my first post I stated what I considered the two major differences of the LP and the CP, one being the abortion issue, where I side with the CP position. Let me clarify for you since you seem to be having a comprehension problem today - I prefer an actively pro-life position to a "neutral" cop-out position of "do as ye will" - which is clearly a pro-choice position even if the LP lacks the intestinal fortitude to spell it out and instead weakly says "no position". Can you hear me now?

[torchbearer]

I realize there are pro-life libertarians (duh RP was one). What I don't like is their "non-position position" AS A PARTY, which is a default Pro-Choice position. I differentiate that from a Pro-Abort position which you seem to not comprehend as YOU continue to call the LP the baby killing party. :rolleyes:

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?

[Pauls' Revere]

i have noticed that many groups are now being created and calling themselves "conservative". They are aligning themselves with the tea party movement, and are hoping to lead them.

The disturbing thing is, that the vast majority are obviously full-blown neo-conservatives trying to take the reigns once again...

bravo zulu!

[Original_Intent]

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?

Yep, because freedom to live outweighs by far the freedom to put drugs in your own body, the freedom to rent your body for sex, and the freedom to lose money to guess which color in a spinning wheel a little marble is going to land on.

So yes, you win on number of issues where you are right on, you lose on the big issue. I am not a one issue voter, but I am a priorities issue voter.

You might want to consider why Ron Paul endorsed Chuck Baldwin over "pro-life" Bob Barr, who was obviously much more aligned (according to you) with Ron Paul's platform.

[specsaregood]

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.


I voted for Baldwin; because I didn't trust Barr or his fancy mustache.
http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:G77QwBOZKSLwxM:http://brushfires2008.com/bob_barr_2008.jpg

I probably would have voted for him; but that press conference fiasco did him in for my vote as pointless as it (my act of voting) may have been.

[torchbearer]

I voted for Baldwin; because I didn't trust Barr or his fancy mustache.
http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:G77QwBOZKSLwxM:http://brushfires2008.com/bob_barr_2008.jpg

I probably would have voted for him; but that press conference fiasco did him in for my vote as pointless as it (my act of voting) may have been.

I voted for Ron Paul in the general, because we went out of our way to put him on the ballot. LPers fighting to put a pro-life guy on the ballot.
I got to vote for the best man for the job.

[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"? :confused:

[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"? :confused:

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 :D)

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 :D

[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 :D)

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 :D

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.