DIVERSITY AND MULTICULTURALISM ARE CODEWORDS FOR THE PROGRAM OF WHITE GENOCIDE THAT THE ANTI-RACISTS AND THEIR ANTI-WHITE ANGLO-ELITE MASTERS HAVE IMPOSED UPON THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLE OF EUROPE!!!
ANTI-RACIST IS A CODEWORD FOR ANTI-WHITE
YOU SAY YOU ARE ANTI-RACIST, WHAT YOU REALLY ARE IS ANTI-WHITE!!!
And everybody--everybody who is non-White of course--is being led into Europe. And Europe of course was 'screwed over' almost a thousand years ago by the Asian people invading our lands and decimating tens of millions of innocent White people and their children with murder, enslavement, disease, rape, pillaging, and outright attempted genocide.
ANTI-RACIST IS A CODEWORD FOR ANTI-WHITE
DIVERSITY IS A CODEWORD FOR THE PROGRAM OF WHITE GENOCIDE
Nobody goes to Africa and says that they shouldn't be allowed to discriminate against non-African people in favor of their own African people; Nobody goes to Asia and says that they shouldn't be allowed to discriminate against non-Asian people in favor of their own Asian people. IT IS ONLY WHITE COUNTRIES AND WHITE CHILDREN THAT ARE BEING SYSTEMATICALLY TARGETED WITH THIS TYPE OF PSYCHOLOGICAL MANIPULATION AND PSEUDO-MORALISM. IT IS PART OF AN ATTEMPTED WHITE GENOCIDE. ANT-WHITE
And this is what we are alleging here. We are alleging an intentional attempted genocide by our own WHITE anglo-elites against the indigenous White people of Europe through forced programs of massive non-White immigration into White countries and only White countries; programs of forced racial integration; and demands that White children racially assimilate into the non-White populations. THIS IS DEFINITELY AND ATTEMPT TO GENOCIDE THERE IS NOW NO QUESTION.
The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide 1948, defines genocide as “any of a number of acts committed with the intent to destroy in whole or in part a national, ethnic, racial or religious group: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.”
Libertarianism is expected to be included in the next edition of the DSM as a form of autism, as part of a further partitioning of Asperger's Syndrome due to an overwhelming rise in its e-diagnosis. Libertarians share many qualities with the Ass Pies, but differ in the fact that they see themselves as incarnations of Ayn Rand and the characters in her novels, rather than as dragons or elves.
Crazy talk! Libertarian is a bunch of people making laws? I thought that was Democracy! Mike, dude, you are different and you are genuine... but libertarian you are not. Not with a capital L or a small l.!
i never saw gravel as a democrat he believes to much in the constitution to much him and paul were only two i liked that ran last year he will make a fine addition to our ever growing party thought libertarians 2012 paul/gravel
the term libertarian was first used in france. the french government banned books on anarchy so anarchist authors termed their books "libertarian". conservative politics does not agree with anarchy at all so libertarians don't agree with conservative politics either. not that any american "conservatives" are actually conservative anyway. mostly statists and bible pushers.
Wrong. Ron Paul is a libertarian who is now registered as a republican. Majority of libertarians have conservative views. The core belief of a libertarian is to have conservative views, not liberal. Mike is no libertarian. He is an old liberal nut case. Ron Paul is better.
you should educate yourself. wikipedia(dot)org/wiki/History_of_libertarianism
"The history of classical liberalism is closely related to the history of modern libertarians who revived the original doctrine of liberalism, and often call themselves "libertarians" and "classical liberals" interchangeably. The term "classical liberalism" itself was coined in the 20th century, and applied retroactively to pre-1850 liberalism, to avoid confusion with an accepted modern definition of liberalism."
so libertarianism is actually a liberal convention. they even share the same root word. also, on a political compass liberal politics are always placed more closely to anarchy/unrestricted liberty than conservative politics.
the american libertarian is a rebranded republican. social fascists who believe in economic anarchy aka unregulated laissez faire capitalism. this belief obviously restricts liberty socially and economically as capitalism benefits those and only those who have capital.
Wrong. World politics 2008 describes "Libertarian views are more conservative than liberal, but slightly different from republicans." Dr. Ron Paul is now a republican not a democrat so that conveys that the libertarians have more in common than republicans. Gravel not a doctor. Gravel should have been an independent instead. Bob Barr former republican. Wikipedia is not accurate, they messed up when they said sin bad was dead lol. You would get an F at Oxford University for using that site.
i don't go to Oxford. judging by your sentence structure you don't either.
either way libertarian is a word used to describe anarchists. if you would do some reading you'd understand this. even people with better understanding than yourself know this. chomsky for example.
citing that an american politician jumped parties doesn't prove anything. arlen specter jumped from republican to democrat. what does that say?
only in america does libertarian mean the opposite of it's true meaning.
I'm sorry, but this comment reeks of poor economic understanding. Capitalism benefits everyone. The marxist position that capitalism is exploitation is rooted in the labor theory of value, which is no longer held by economists of any legitimate school.
When I look back at this, I still feel so devastated. After you lost the nomination, I found no one deserving my vote, even with ballot access. Although you ended your electoral career, my vote still goes to you. There's no one I would feel prouder to write in on election day.
Heh, this is probably the only non-sarcastic comment I have written under this name.
It doesnt matter who got the LP nomination, because they all share the same ideals, and all of them are 100 times the man mccain or obama could ever hope to be.
Libertarians are just ashamed-republicans-in-hiding with an extra dose of greed thrown into the mix.
Do us all a favor and shut the fuck up & go hide in your US Flag jammies & suck on your independent thumb while dreaming of fiscal responsibility while we set to work fixing all the damage that your fiscal responsibility nutjob ideology about has done to turn our country into a Hellish mess of uncared for sick children, ruined airlines & public transit systems, dead factories & falling bridges.
Actually it's Bush and the republicans who fucked up our country, and it's obvious that you know nothing about Libertarians. Maybe you should go educate yourself instead of attacking people's political opinions like a greedy, power-hungry, warmonger republican. None of the issues you mentioned have anything to do with Libertarianism. You are an asshole.
Libertarians want to abolish Social Security and condemn millions of old & disabled people to fend for themselves in the streets or to grovel at some church for a little food. Is that the sort of America you want??
It's not the kind of America I want, unfortunately there are many who believe the solution to overpopulation and food shortages is by "letting it happen" with the flawed laizzes faire system. Capitalism is great in perspective with feudalism, but not everybody is capable of fending for themselves, this doesn't mean they don't have the right to live.
oh so its better that the bread be taken by force from those who earned it to be given those who didn't... and sooner or later the ones who didn't earn it end up with a sense of entitlement..
and come on, every time I've helped at a food bank (charity) the people getting food treated it like a super market and even complained when they didn't have some specialty item they wanted... no groveling taking place..
Whine whine whine. "The Gub'mint robs me. Wahhhhhh!" That's all you selfish twits ever burble about.
Personally, I *WISH* they robbed you at gunpoint. You're a selfish, heartless excuse for a human being, and if you're too stunted in the soul to help out your fellow human beings on your own, then it's GOOD that Uncle Sam plants his foot up your ass and reminds you of your obligations as a citizen.
Otherwise, build a time machine and go to 1890, when the poor were abused just like you enjoy.
o but they do rob u (and everyone else) at gunpoint! what happens if you don't pay ur taxes? you go to jail.. obligations as a citizen... fuck off.. i shouldn't be obligated to help lazy women who pop out babies just to get a bigger welfare check.. we live in a world where the term "handicapped" has been abused to the point that 90% of us could get a check if we want..
ive worked my fair share of charity, and let me tell you. 75% of those who i helped could've done it themselves.
Knowing some people who truly are disabled and receiving Social Security Disability for it, and knowing that a scumbag like you would condemn them to a dehumanizing existence of being homeless & begging for food like an animal, all I have for you is a "Fuck You!", aite?
like i said before, every time i have volunteered, the disabled people at the food bank did not feel discriminated against one bit. if they did, we (the volunteers) would have done our best to alleviate their discomfort... and to say that these people would feel any better cashing a welfare check is just ridiculous.. go ahead a keep leaching off society.. either way ur gonna win, cuz unfortunately there are more of u leeches and bleeding hearts out there then there are of us realists
Bet it makes you feel superior to be lording over the disadvantaged, doesn't it? And NOW we finally get to the heart of Libertarianism: a power trip for losers who want to feel superior over others.
i have no problem giving my time and energy to those who need it. but u socialist pieces of shit keep FORCING everyone to "help others" through taxes..
in addition, welfare does nothing but enslave both sides.. take a trip to an indian reservation and maybe u'll see what i mean. they all get a free house from the gov and a gov check every month. look and see how they live and tell me their better off because of their monthly check.
yes, bob barr did that, so my comment was pretty stupid.
anyway, after more research, i do like a lot of mr. gravel's positions, and he does have a lot of libertarian qualities, and i really respect him for getting out of one of the two "major" parties; the problem i had with him was the expansion of the federal government in terms of universal health care and more social programs (which equal more spending), and the signing of more world treaties and organizations that hinder u.s. sovereignty.
@jeri4579 I don't agree with the second part of my comment anymore nor do I support Bob Barr (I wrote that 2 years ago), but I still defend the first part.
Libertarianism is a subset of populism. Just because you're populist doesn't mean you're libertarian. But if you are libertarian, then you fall under the populist category.
you need to be careful how you use terms. if you're talking american libertarians than no that kind of libertarian isn't about liberty. those people are more socially liberal republicans. true libertarians hold that capitalism infringes on liberty because it creates social hierarchy.
as for socialism not being abour liberty.. again i have to disagree. everyone has the right to live. socialists understand this. more so than capitalists. socialized health and education prove that.
emericanchaos has zero understanding of Libertarianism. Murray Rothbard, who co-founded the libertarian party, despised socialism. It is the "left-libertarians" who are the frauds and hi-jackers of libertarianism. Capitalism does not infringe on liberty, it is the only economic order that preserves it. Those who say otherwise misunderstand the distinction between "negative rights" and "positive rights." Only negative rights are compatible with liberty. Socialized anything is coercion.
The only consistent libertarian position is anarcho-capitalism. Any and all other forms of libertarianism are watered-down, weakened versions and lack the rational and logical consistency of anarchy. To claim that socialism is even remotely compatible with freedom is an absurdity. Socialism is economic PLANNING AND CONTROL, not economic FREEDOM. Socialists do not even comprehend the word "freedom." Socialism is the ANTI-FREEDOM ideology originally put forth to silence Classical liberalism.
it's called libertarian socialism. socialism is always taken as communism or some variation of marxist belief. marxism is only one side of the coin.
the american libertarian party was founded in 1971. the term libertarian and the movement very much predate the american libertarian party. the french and spanish revolutions for example. to try and use the term libertarian to describe unregulated capitalism is oxymoronic. capitalism is a system of dominion over others. that's not liberty.
Once again you have failed to acknowledge the negative rights/positive rights distinction. Until you understand this position and refute it, there is no point in arguing with me. You also did not answer my point that Socialism is by definition a controlled economy. CONTROLLED. As in, "you don't have the right to make your own economic decisions free of coercion." How is this type of control compatible with the libertarian notion of liberty? The oxymoron lies in the term "libertarian socialism"
you're clearly misunderstanding the term. libertarian socialism is socialism achieved through libertarian/diplomatic means. liberty first and collectivity as needed. it explains a very anarchist society with collectivity limited democracy and socialized regional organization. it is used to control market economies because of the global use of market economies. in a resource based econcomy we could use it do disolve money having resources go straight to technology instead of the markets.
If you are saying that socialism will spring up without coercion then I agree that we should try it and allow it if people freely choose it, but it sounds like you want some sort of control over markets, and that is not compatible with liberty. Also, I challenge you to name a civilization that utilized division of labor beyond a primitive level without money. There is no such example. By contrast, when the Bolsheviks abolished money people starved by the thousands.
arguably the main libertarian economic principle is that of a largely, but not solely, unregulated free market system. More of a laissez faire approach. Hong Kong practices this and is one of the wealthiest places in the Asia. This whole libertarian socialism thing is complete non-sense, as with "left" and "right" libertarianism. True libertarians reject all of those concepts. It is about personal responsibility on all issues at all times.
@robearl1983 How so? I am a social libertarian. I believe in giving a helping hand to others where it is needed but I also beleive that people should be free to do their own thing and any level of government has no right to poke it's unwanted nose into people's private business where it is not necessary to do so.
right im tired of repub's an demos there all the same party ill vote libertarian thank you very much....ron paul is cool and dennis but they both belong to the same trail of shit thats got us in this mess hail the republic vote libertarian
Gravel is NOT Libertarian. His last sentence asks "Can you think of anything more Libertarian than empowering people to make laws?" Mr. Gravel, Libertarians believe in fewer laws, not more. They don't want more laws, they believe there too many now. They believe in LESS government control over the lives of others and that all individuals are sovereign over their own lives. So what would be MORE Libertarian Mr. Gravel? To empower people QUIT trying to control others. That is Libertarianism!
We don't have a two-party system here! The Democrats and Republicans are very similar. They only disagree on small matters! America is not a fucking Democracy, and I wish it was!!!
I don't think Gravel is a libertarian, yet. However, I like the idea of a libertarian "teaming up" with him. He seems very open minded and his supporters at least come up with reasonable arguments, unlike the Hillarys of the world. Ask them why they support national healthcare and they repeat what Hillary said or they don't really know why.
yea, healthcare and the enviorment are important, but if we give the gov't a lot of power to help us, we also give it a lot of power to potentially take our freedom. Just look at the trends in U.S. history. Beggining- small gov't, much fredom; Now- large gov't, less freedom. So to people like Gravel, I say thank you for your good intentions, but I respectfully disagree with your ideology.
He lost me when he said 'the people need to be empowered to make laws'. Libertarians want to be free from cumbersome laws. The only law we need is the constitution. Nice try Gravel.
Gravel is trying to infiltrate the LP from the left, and Barr from the right. Neither will succeed, both suck. I will be voting for Wayne Root and against Gravel in Denver. Gravel doesn't understand the non-agression principle. He's a radical environmentalist nutjob, and wants socialized medicine. Moron material. He also seems to not understand that legislation is THE PROBLEM. He needs to talk to Bob Schultz from WTP...
I'm confused... How can you be a libertarian while also advocating a national healthcare plan? Is there an opt-out option or will I be forced to play this game?
I love how the right wing thinks they own the word libertarian. Gravel will bring human rights back into the agenda of the libertarian party. These old-school libertarians think there's only one set of views in the libertarian party (their own). Gravel is just enforcing the constitution. If you can't handle that, find a phony constitutionalist republican like Ron Paul. I celebrate diversity of opinion within parties.
Why do Gravel supporters think that bashing Ron Paul will make people support Gravel? It angers Ron Paul supporters (many of whom like Gravel) and it makes Gravel supporters look bad.
They don't realize Paul is electable and Gravel isn't. If Gravel gets the LP nomination, he'll be another one-percenter in the tradition of Harry Browne and Michael Badnarik.
pauldelacroix - You only support Paul because of electablity. Gravel supporters care about the issues not about electability. C'mon. There couldn't be a worse reason to vote for someone than numbers and percentage points.
That is only marginally true. It is true that if Gravel was more electable, I'd ponder voting for him. But I don't even think Ron Paul will be electable in four more years, when he's closer to Gravel's age.
The big factor for me, though, is that you can't be a Leftist Libertarian. You can be a libertarian-leaning Leftist, and that's certainly preferable to a neo-con Republican, but Libertarians have core values (Second Amendment absolutism, respect for private property) that liberals do not.
The man deserves to be bashed. I'm not going to self-censor myself on behalf of Gravel. I don't think Gravel is the right candidate for Paul supporters anyhow. Ron Paul thinks states should be able to ban gay marriage/adoptions, abortion, and enforce other Jim Crow type laws. This is blatantly unconstitutional and totally against what Gravel represents.
I just want you to know, that I am a Gravel supporter, but I also like Ron Paul. I would like you to understand that we've had Paul supporters that have bashed Mike, and in turn, his supporters. That's not to condone what Gravel supporters have said, but to perhaps give you some understanding. I do hope you realize that Mike has been marginalized even more than RP this election cycle...I do hope to be participating at the march in July! Gravel in '08!
i don't understand why you are bashing paul either. you must not know very much about him. and libertarians do advocate human rights. just not stealing money from others to pay for welfare (socialism). paul and gravel would make a good team. paul has the brains and gravel has the balls. i do disagree with gravel on the opinion that people should be making laws. they can't even elect a decent representative to make the laws for them. if the people were more EDUCATED it would be a different story
That makes you a big-government nationalist Federalist, which is anathema to Liberty. The typical liberal view is that the most important amendment to the Constitution is the Fourteenth Amendment, and all the others are optional. I believe in the Bill of Rights and individual liberty.
pauldelacroix - Thanks for the labels. I get new ones every day. You say federalism is an anathema to liberty, yet it's the states that passed anti-sodomy laws, banned abortion, passed Jim Crow laws, and tried to break away and start the Confederacy. It was the federally government who saved minorities and women from this state enforced fascism.
A libertarian advocates personal liberties - both civil and economic - they are not distinct things. How is it libertarian for Gravel to advocate a national healthcare plan that effectively removes choice by requiring everyone to participate? Should I be free to opt out or do I not have that liberty?
So if I'm not currently being given "free healthcare" then I'm also currently being denied the right to live? This is odd as I feel quite alive at the moment.
Heres your flaw: People don't have the RIGHT to good health just as they don't have the RIGHT to happiness. Rather, people of the right to PURSUE these things, but no one has the right to another person's productive efforts (health care) just as they don't have a right to the things which make them happy. Check the declaration.
If you had aids and were dirt poor you would probably be on the other side of the issue. 18,000 people die every year because they don't have healthcare. That's like letting six 9/11's happen every year. It's not the victims of economic injustice's fault. We live in a racist society that shits on minorities.
Under no circumstances would I advocate a system that pulls everyone else down with me- don't pretend you know what I would do / want in any hypothetical, sir.
Oh, I'm sorry- after having read your last sentence, I realized I was giving you too much credit.
Drag everyone down? France has socialized healthcare and they are ranked number one by the world health organization and the U.S. is at an embarassing 34th. We are the only industrialized country without free universal healthcare. That's because Americans would rather spend money on their lawns and Hummers than help a sick and dying person.
I see. But curious how the U.S. could be "34th" (whatEVER that means) yet still have the best medical schools anywhere, and be the home nation of nearly all significant medical innovations in the past 50 years. (I'm pre-medical and know these issues well- so don't quote ambiguous "rankings" to me.)
Your comment about hummers only further damages your already suspect credibility. You still never addressed my initial comment about whether I'm free to opt out. Still waiting on that...
It's from the world health organization. VERY credidle study. You can look up the criterion if you don't believe me. Medical innovations have NOTHING to do with medical treatment. The fact that the rich get good treatment means nothing to me if they are spitting on the poor in the process. What do you want to opt out of? Paying taxes?
Wow. You can interpret words on a computer as being agry? What talent! Sucks to be OWNED though doesn't it? France NUMBER 1. USA NUMBER 34. Socialized healthcare NUMBER 1. Capitalist Healthcare NUMBER 34.
By the way... I'll comment on anything I damned well please. Maybe you can get congress to regulate the internet to shut me up.
The WHO has a vested interest in socialized medicine. As does the UN and other world organizations as it is another way to control the population. The only evidence you need is that those who can afford care come from countries with universal healthcare to this one for quick, prompt, and effective treatment.
well he's against imperialism, war and the military industrial complex, which is all libertarian. He's also very libertarian on social issues. And while he's definitely leans left on most economic issues, he's by no means a socialist. He's definitely doesn't fit the libertarian ticket perfectly, but if the libertarian party is ever going to grow, it's got to have a fairly big tent.
"Our three branches of government have become like an unstable chair, a three-legged chair. The founders could not have envisioned how much money and special interests would corrupt the political process. Giving us Americans legislative power will put forth the fourth leg of our stool and make it stable." -Mike Gravel
The LP should grow because it makes more Americans aware that there is a party that truely stands for liberty and principle.
The LP should not let Mike Gravel hijack the party and change the political agenda to a socialist agenda in order to win votes.
If Mike Gravel would be willing to embrace true libertarian ideas also in economic affairs I would be far less critical against him - but as it looks he is a socialist at heart and does not seem tochange.
If you are looking for hippocrates look instead to your beloved Hollywood stars many of whom seek the next tax-haven (which there is nothing wrong with) but then preaches MORE "public expenses" and naturally MORE taxes.... well for anybody but themselves.
Most ORDINARY people are good and generous but FORCED taxation means that too many have only just enough to get by. Leave the money in the pockets of the citizens and they will make way wiser decisions than the politicians.
I pay more than 50% taxes, most of which the government wastes away on absolutely useless activities and bureaucracy.
With the little that I have left after the ROBBERS (aka the Government has taken "the publics" part) I actually still go out and support a fund for abused children.
I would like if I had to pay a lot less in taxes and be able to decide MYSELF what I would support. I do NOT need YOU or "THE GOVERMENT" to decide that for ME.
Elepantpuke/donhoody: I Wiki'ed the non-aggression principle. I agree with it totally. And?
Look at yourselves for crying out loud. Neither of you willingly pay taxes yet expect this hypothetical voluntary society to donate to NGOs? Why? Philanthropy? Laugh. Out. Loud.
Your stuck in 19th century economic theory. It's 21st century. Wiki: volunteer's dilemma. Welcome to the wonderful world of game theory. Learn monkey learn.
Would those people then just go homeless, uneducated and sick?
No - because a libertarian society would have a lot of NGOs based on voluntary contributions and work from the many people who would have more resources after the big burden of government RUBBERY had been lifted.
I do unlike you believe that people are good and generous WITHOUT politicians having to FORCE them.
The difference between socialists/fascists and libertarians is that libertarians have trust in the good of individuals.
What I can NOT support as a libertarian are socalled "rights" that involve coercion against other people.
That are things like a "right" to be PROVIDED housing (by the government aka financed through money FORCEFULLY collected from other citizens). The "right" to unemployment benefit (again PROVIDED by the government with money STOLEN from other citizens.
The "right" to free services including education, medical care etc (all again financed through coercion).
Erm...o.k. I wouldn't classify any of those as natural rights but o.k.
I'd classify natural rights as being reproductive rights, life, being in control of one's physical person (i.e. free from slavery, forced labor, draft, unlawful detention, etc.), rights you'd have in a vacuum.
Google "natural rights". Choose your site of choice.
If life is a natural right, which I would agree with you on, isn't it a right to be able to defend one's life and hence bear arms? I mean, how else do you realistically defend life?
figgypower: Did I give you the impression I was anti-gun rights? If so I apologize. I'm a gun owner. I like to think of my gun ownership as "preventive medicine". ;)
In that case, I apologize GH0ST1NTHEMACHINE. I was wrong. I too am a gun owner, and I'm a little confused as to whether Mike Gravel is a "real" libertarian, especially when suggests universal healthcare should be a right.
Ok. I watched it. Did you? I mean the opening line to that video was "The Libertarian Party is a classical liberal party."
From Wiki:Classical liberalism: "This includes the importance of human rationality, individual property rights, natural rights, the protection of civil liberties, constitutional limitations of government, free markets, and individual freedom from restraint as exemplified in the writings of Adam Smith"
I really don't understand what you were trying to accomplish by sending me to that video. As long as there has been Libertarians there have been Anarchists claiming it for themselves. Nothing new and certainly nothing worth shedding tears over.
The rest of the video:If your going to believe everything some random jack ass tells you about what it means to be a libertarian why not start with me?
I'll lay the logic on you simple like, wiki the non-aggression principle. This is the foundation and the leading principle of the libertarian party, or was rather. Government initiates force, they have a monopoly on force. Under a true libertarian system no one person or thing would enact uninitiated force on another. And there you have it, the reason why a true libertarian system is anarchist. Anarchy being the lack of rulers, in this case government.
Governments and "democracies" need to be held in constraints as to what POWER they can get.
A principle of minimum government should be the goal and written into the constitution to safeguard that not even a malicious or misguided majority will be able to take away the individual freedoms and force through more majority DICTATORSHIP.
I seriously suggest that you read up on libertarianism suckit since you seem to have a very distorted view of it and believe that we are just nice "anything-goers"
I once believed that you could limit governments control through a piece of paper, but we have seen how miserably this has failed here in the US. I've since become an anarchist, I no longer believe you can keep governments in check. History has proved otherwise.
just because 4 people out of a population of 5 decide that they should buy a subscription to TV Guide does not mean that they can FORCE the 5th person who does not want TV Guide and who will not read it to PAY for it.
The 4 people are FREE to go together and share the expense - that is their ABSOLUTE freedom to do - but they are NOT allowed to coerce ANYBODY just because they form a "Majority".
Yeah libertarian means liberty. You have either liberty or tyranny, you can't have both. So when the government steals your money, and forces you to do or not do certain things, that's tyranny. When you're free to make your own decisions with your money and body, that's liberty.
Viggo Mortensen endorses the quasi-communist Kusinic because Viggo Mortensen is a Hollywood-idiot who is totally out of touch with reality.
Seriously if you really listen to the Hollywood-people you will see that they are living in an ivory tower all too willing to write out bills that the average John Doe, who unlike them are not millionaires will end up paying.
suckit - I will say that YOU are the fascist for being willing to FORCE ordinary people to pay for a SYSTEM that YOU.
Well a fascist system would be like Massachusetts', where you're forced to pay a company for health insurance. Really it's socialism, but fascism is in the same vein as socialism.
I am not praising the US healthcare system. I have said that it does not work, and that the main reason is that it is part-socialised already. You are spending a lot of money (far more than other countries on PUBLIC healthcare). It clearly shows that governments are simply not good at running healthcare.
I believe that the ideas of the LP as stated in an earlier post is far supperior to any existing system.
The funniest part is donhoody is chastising Denmarks "socialist" healthcare plan while praising Americas. Denmark is rated number 34 by The Wrold Health Organization and America is number 37. Frances "socialized" healthcare is number 1. So it appears even your ever so horrible healthcare system is still better than our healthcare BUSINESS donhoody. Maybe that's why your former Dane Viggo Mortenson endorsed Kucinich.
The World Health Organization gives its rating, in part, to how socialized a healthcare system is. That's a huge hindrance to the U.S. systems since it lacks socialization. You should also look up disease specific life expectancy ratings or even morbidity; the U.S. ranks at the top for most. General U.S. life expectancy is low, but many economists agree that is due to lifestyle issues. You can't legislate away poor lifestyle choices.
John "Three Checks" McCain claims to be fit enough to be president, but gets a disability check from the NAVY.
He also gets a government check from the SENATE, although he has the worst attendance record in the senate.
Third, he gets a SOCIAL SECURITY Check!!!
He doesn't return any of these checks to the Treasury (U.S. taxpayers). So, he claims to be for smaller government, but I guess that only applies to you and me.
Don you're pretty awesome for a European. :P Just kidding man, it's just that I don't see very many European liberty lovers. More power to ya brother!
@suckit: mirror back to you :P you conspiracytheory red-fascist looser.
Next thing you will claim in your paranoid worldview is that not only I am not a Dane (check out my video and profile for crying out loud), but I must sure be GWB himself or payed by him or a part of the "illuminati", or an alien maybe?
I find it hard to discuss with a guy who has such a strange and distorted view on reality (here in Europe most people who believe in 9-11 conspiracy theories also like to deny the holocaust)
Ghost and suckittoMUHAMMED (oh boy that would be soooo PI if he was called that but when he is called suckittoJesus that is just cooool) really are good examples in their defense of Mike Gravel and the kind of quasi-socialist policy he stands for that the LP is being hijacked by people who are NOT libertarian.
They are free to not be libertarian, but then they should not join the LP, they should become members of the socialist or green party.
donhoody: Sure pal! Lets compromise! I'll call Mike Gravel a socialist if you call yourself a terrorist. Deal?
I love how everybody NOT living here in the States has got an opinion about how we should conduct ourselves. If it blows up our face (not yours) no skin off your nose, Rome won't burn down around YOUR ears. Howzabout you focus on your neck of the woods and try your sociological experiments in your backyard.
Donhoody. Stop pretending you live in Denmark. You must be nocturnal if you are online arguing at the same time we are. After reading everything you write, I now know why there are little to no minorities in the "small government" republican party.
Seriously, I'm done arguing with this fascist, selfish, poor little person. Have fun advocating corporatism.
Du må da være godt dum siden du tror at jeg som dansker ikke også kan elske frihed og kæmpe for libertarianske værdier.
Du lyder som en ignorant storby-amerikaner fra et rigt hjem der aldrig har lært hvor vigtig frihed er for at folk kan opnå lykke og velstand. Du har fået alt foræret og vil tvinge konsekvenserne af dit forskruede verdenssyn på andre.
DIVERSITY AND MULTICULTURALISM ARE CODEWORDS FOR THE PROGRAM OF WHITE GENOCIDE THAT THE ANTI-RACISTS AND THEIR ANTI-WHITE ANGLO-ELITE MASTERS HAVE IMPOSED UPON THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLE OF EUROPE!!!
ANTI-RACIST IS A CODEWORD FOR ANTI-WHITE
YOU SAY YOU ARE ANTI-RACIST, WHAT YOU REALLY ARE IS ANTI-WHITE!!!
Formulaone21 3 months ago
And everybody--everybody who is non-White of course--is being led into Europe. And Europe of course was 'screwed over' almost a thousand years ago by the Asian people invading our lands and decimating tens of millions of innocent White people and their children with murder, enslavement, disease, rape, pillaging, and outright attempted genocide.
ANTI-RACIST IS A CODEWORD FOR ANTI-WHITE
DIVERSITY IS A CODEWORD FOR THE PROGRAM OF WHITE GENOCIDE
Formulaone21 3 months ago
Nobody goes to Africa and says that they shouldn't be allowed to discriminate against non-African people in favor of their own African people; Nobody goes to Asia and says that they shouldn't be allowed to discriminate against non-Asian people in favor of their own Asian people. IT IS ONLY WHITE COUNTRIES AND WHITE CHILDREN THAT ARE BEING SYSTEMATICALLY TARGETED WITH THIS TYPE OF PSYCHOLOGICAL MANIPULATION AND PSEUDO-MORALISM. IT IS PART OF AN ATTEMPTED WHITE GENOCIDE. ANT-WHITE
Formulaone21 3 months ago
And this is what we are alleging here. We are alleging an intentional attempted genocide by our own WHITE anglo-elites against the indigenous White people of Europe through forced programs of massive non-White immigration into White countries and only White countries; programs of forced racial integration; and demands that White children racially assimilate into the non-White populations. THIS IS DEFINITELY AND ATTEMPT TO GENOCIDE THERE IS NOW NO QUESTION.
Anti-racist is code for anti-White
Formulaone21 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide 1948, defines genocide as “any of a number of acts committed with the intent to destroy in whole or in part a national, ethnic, racial or religious group: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.”
It doesn’t have to be violent.
Formulaone21 3 months ago
You always either ignore or try to minimize non-white violent crime committed against whites.
Anti-whites are opposed to white people defending their group interests.
Anti-whites always want what is worse for whites and better for non-whites.
Anti-whites want a future where whites have become an extinct life-form.
I agree,Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.
RACIAL DIVERSITY IN ANY ONE COUNTRY IS JUST A CODEWORD FOR WHITE GENOCIDE IN THAT VERY COUNTRY.
Formulaone21 3 months ago
"African-American studies" celebrates blacks
"Asian-American studies" celebrates asians
"Chicano studies" celebrates hispanics
"Whiteness studies" denies that white people even EXIST, and that these white people (who don't exist) have unearned "white privilege"
Who are you kidding Anti-Whites?
"Anti-racism" is just a code word for anti-WHITE
Formulaone21 3 months ago
I find this very ironic because Sen. Gravel has socialist non libertarian leanings
FRSFreeState 8 months ago
Mike...JOIN THE GREEN PARTY...WE WANT YOU!
Libertarians dont respect you!
HughieGphiladelphia 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Libertarianism is expected to be included in the next edition of the DSM as a form of autism, as part of a further partitioning of Asperger's Syndrome due to an overwhelming rise in its e-diagnosis. Libertarians share many qualities with the Ass Pies, but differ in the fact that they see themselves as incarnations of Ayn Rand and the characters in her novels, rather than as dragons or elves.
tHeWasTeDYouTh 1 year ago
youtube.com/watch?v=xuBy3SrCZWs
noyouaintgettingit 1 year ago
The RED team, and the BLUE team DO have a MONOPOLY!!
At the highest levels, they are the SAME PARTY, and they have sold us out!
poopstreek 1 year ago
This will help or possibly save the country. This is good,
pigletized 1 year ago
I am a Libertarian... though not in the way Americans would think
sgsfdgfsdfsdfsddf 2 years ago
honestly, he fit an independent better... but to bad they fell apart..
Swansen03 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
1-Copy and Paste this message to 8 other videos
2-Go to your channel and look at you background
huuh?
gamerinxD 2 years ago
Crazy talk! Libertarian is a bunch of people making laws? I thought that was Democracy! Mike, dude, you are different and you are genuine... but libertarian you are not. Not with a capital L or a small l.!
shepardh1 2 years ago
I never understood why he is called a libertarian???
threatlevelorange 2 years ago
I'm going to say this one more time: MIKE IS NOT A FUCKING LIBERTARIAN
MoarSpore 2 years ago
i never saw gravel as a democrat he believes to much in the constitution to much him and paul were only two i liked that ran last year he will make a fine addition to our ever growing party thought libertarians 2012 paul/gravel
GRIMTICK 3 years ago
this guy isnt a libertarian.
xkeltoix 3 years ago
Agreed He is not a libertarian. And true libertarians don't support pussy democrats like Gravel. Libertarians are more conservative.
SnakeCIA1 2 years ago
the term libertarian was first used in france. the french government banned books on anarchy so anarchist authors termed their books "libertarian". conservative politics does not agree with anarchy at all so libertarians don't agree with conservative politics either. not that any american "conservatives" are actually conservative anyway. mostly statists and bible pushers.
emericanchaos 2 years ago
Wrong. Ron Paul is a libertarian who is now registered as a republican. Majority of libertarians have conservative views. The core belief of a libertarian is to have conservative views, not liberal. Mike is no libertarian. He is an old liberal nut case. Ron Paul is better.
SnakeCIA1 2 years ago
you should educate yourself. wikipedia(dot)org/wiki/History_of_libertarianism
"The history of classical liberalism is closely related to the history of modern libertarians who revived the original doctrine of liberalism, and often call themselves "libertarians" and "classical liberals" interchangeably. The term "classical liberalism" itself was coined in the 20th century, and applied retroactively to pre-1850 liberalism, to avoid confusion with an accepted modern definition of liberalism."
emericanchaos 2 years ago
so libertarianism is actually a liberal convention. they even share the same root word. also, on a political compass liberal politics are always placed more closely to anarchy/unrestricted liberty than conservative politics.
the american libertarian is a rebranded republican. social fascists who believe in economic anarchy aka unregulated laissez faire capitalism. this belief obviously restricts liberty socially and economically as capitalism benefits those and only those who have capital.
emericanchaos 2 years ago
Wrong. World politics 2008 describes "Libertarian views are more conservative than liberal, but slightly different from republicans." Dr. Ron Paul is now a republican not a democrat so that conveys that the libertarians have more in common than republicans. Gravel not a doctor. Gravel should have been an independent instead. Bob Barr former republican. Wikipedia is not accurate, they messed up when they said sin bad was dead lol. You would get an F at Oxford University for using that site.
SnakeCIA1 2 years ago
i don't go to Oxford. judging by your sentence structure you don't either.
either way libertarian is a word used to describe anarchists. if you would do some reading you'd understand this. even people with better understanding than yourself know this. chomsky for example.
citing that an american politician jumped parties doesn't prove anything. arlen specter jumped from republican to democrat. what does that say?
only in america does libertarian mean the opposite of it's true meaning.
emericanchaos 2 years ago
I'm sorry, but this comment reeks of poor economic understanding. Capitalism benefits everyone. The marxist position that capitalism is exploitation is rooted in the labor theory of value, which is no longer held by economists of any legitimate school.
epilp88 2 years ago
jesus fuck
iflyboats 3 years ago
Went form Romney to Gravel then to Bob Barr and now I am in the LP and I plan on running for Mayor of my city under the LP
cruciblelion 3 years ago 2
When I look back at this, I still feel so devastated. After you lost the nomination, I found no one deserving my vote, even with ballot access. Although you ended your electoral career, my vote still goes to you. There's no one I would feel prouder to write in on election day.
Heh, this is probably the only non-sarcastic comment I have written under this name.
babbarr2008 3 years ago 2
Mike Gravel is the man.
lnd3005 3 years ago 3
The first self-identifying libertarian was a Marxist.
woawoa2008 3 years ago
How do you figure?
madshred 3 years ago
It doesnt matter who got the LP nomination, because they all share the same ideals, and all of them are 100 times the man mccain or obama could ever hope to be.
afiphoenix12 3 years ago 11
@afiphoenix12
Except Douchebag Barr
PersonalJesus348 11 months ago
Why wasn't Gravel given the presidential nomination for the LP?
dharmashapta 3 years ago
Because the LP made a big mistake and are just as influenced by big money as every one else!
Mike Gravel is amazing. I voted for him.
HughieGphiladelphia 3 years ago
Mike Gravel was right on when he said we should execute Socialists. It's not because they're Socialists, see, it's because they deserve it.
LVarosS 3 years ago
lol yea, they deserve it because communist countries used to execute their citizens.. wait what
d3p3ch3mod3 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Libertarians are just ashamed-republicans-in-hiding with an extra dose of greed thrown into the mix.
Do us all a favor and shut the fuck up & go hide in your US Flag jammies & suck on your independent thumb while dreaming of fiscal responsibility while we set to work fixing all the damage that your fiscal responsibility nutjob ideology about has done to turn our country into a Hellish mess of uncared for sick children, ruined airlines & public transit systems, dead factories & falling bridges.
mhirtes12 3 years ago
Actually it's Bush and the republicans who fucked up our country, and it's obvious that you know nothing about Libertarians. Maybe you should go educate yourself instead of attacking people's political opinions like a greedy, power-hungry, warmonger republican. None of the issues you mentioned have anything to do with Libertarianism. You are an asshole.
mcdanielcj 3 years ago
Libertarians want to abolish Social Security and condemn millions of old & disabled people to fend for themselves in the streets or to grovel at some church for a little food. Is that the sort of America you want??
mhirtes12 3 years ago
It's not the kind of America I want, unfortunately there are many who believe the solution to overpopulation and food shortages is by "letting it happen" with the flawed laizzes faire system. Capitalism is great in perspective with feudalism, but not everybody is capable of fending for themselves, this doesn't mean they don't have the right to live.
intothetopcorrupt 3 years ago
that's why charity exists.
RonArcherAlias 3 years ago
old people are the richest percentage of the population, and charity should take care of the disabled.
RonArcherAlias 3 years ago
Maybe people don't want to grovel to a church for a crust of bread. This isn't the 1880's. Ever think of that?
mhirtes12 3 years ago
oh so its better that the bread be taken by force from those who earned it to be given those who didn't... and sooner or later the ones who didn't earn it end up with a sense of entitlement..
and come on, every time I've helped at a food bank (charity) the people getting food treated it like a super market and even complained when they didn't have some specialty item they wanted... no groveling taking place..
RonArcherAlias 3 years ago
Whine whine whine. "The Gub'mint robs me. Wahhhhhh!" That's all you selfish twits ever burble about.
Personally, I *WISH* they robbed you at gunpoint. You're a selfish, heartless excuse for a human being, and if you're too stunted in the soul to help out your fellow human beings on your own, then it's GOOD that Uncle Sam plants his foot up your ass and reminds you of your obligations as a citizen.
Otherwise, build a time machine and go to 1890, when the poor were abused just like you enjoy.
mhirtes12 3 years ago
o but they do rob u (and everyone else) at gunpoint! what happens if you don't pay ur taxes? you go to jail.. obligations as a citizen... fuck off.. i shouldn't be obligated to help lazy women who pop out babies just to get a bigger welfare check.. we live in a world where the term "handicapped" has been abused to the point that 90% of us could get a check if we want..
ive worked my fair share of charity, and let me tell you. 75% of those who i helped could've done it themselves.
RonArcherAlias 3 years ago 2
Knowing some people who truly are disabled and receiving Social Security Disability for it, and knowing that a scumbag like you would condemn them to a dehumanizing existence of being homeless & begging for food like an animal, all I have for you is a "Fuck You!", aite?
mhirtes12 3 years ago
like i said before, every time i have volunteered, the disabled people at the food bank did not feel discriminated against one bit. if they did, we (the volunteers) would have done our best to alleviate their discomfort... and to say that these people would feel any better cashing a welfare check is just ridiculous.. go ahead a keep leaching off society.. either way ur gonna win, cuz unfortunately there are more of u leeches and bleeding hearts out there then there are of us realists
RonArcherAlias 3 years ago 3
Bet it makes you feel superior to be lording over the disadvantaged, doesn't it? And NOW we finally get to the heart of Libertarianism: a power trip for losers who want to feel superior over others.
mhirtes12 3 years ago
i have no problem giving my time and energy to those who need it. but u socialist pieces of shit keep FORCING everyone to "help others" through taxes..
in addition, welfare does nothing but enslave both sides.. take a trip to an indian reservation and maybe u'll see what i mean. they all get a free house from the gov and a gov check every month. look and see how they live and tell me their better off because of their monthly check.
u need a fucking eye opener like that
RonArcherAlias 3 years ago 2
uhm... what? no! Libertarian = LESS LAWS PLEASE!!!!!~!!!
tokirocket 3 years ago
populism isn't libertarianism, libertarianism is populism.
i don't think gravel is a true libertarian.
bob barr '08
matts05 3 years ago
I don't think Barr is any more libertarian than Gravel.
comradepinko 3 years ago
Bob Barr wrote the Defense of Marriage act and voted for the PATRIOT act.
Populism may not be Libertarianism. But neither is fascism.
gravel2008 3 years ago 7
yes, bob barr did that, so my comment was pretty stupid.
anyway, after more research, i do like a lot of mr. gravel's positions, and he does have a lot of libertarian qualities, and i really respect him for getting out of one of the two "major" parties; the problem i had with him was the expansion of the federal government in terms of universal health care and more social programs (which equal more spending), and the signing of more world treaties and organizations that hinder u.s. sovereignty.
matts05 3 years ago
@matts05 That is not a logical hypothesis.
jeri4579 1 year ago
@jeri4579 I don't agree with the second part of my comment anymore nor do I support Bob Barr (I wrote that 2 years ago), but I still defend the first part.
Libertarianism is a subset of populism. Just because you're populist doesn't mean you're libertarian. But if you are libertarian, then you fall under the populist category.
You are not a logical hypothesis, jeri.
matts05 1 year ago
Just because you dont fit in with either party DOES NOT make you a Libertarian.
Ventura thinks he's a Libertarian now.
Barr, Gravel and all these other idiots can fuck off.
What is Hillary a Libertarian now too? Huckabee?
Only people who HATE with a capital H all things government are Libertarians.
DrRonPaul 3 years ago
Gravel is MUCH better then Ron paul.
Gravel brings courage and wisdom and wants to help the American Party.
The Libertarians have alot of growing uop to do and need a wider array of candidates...not just Ron Paul thinkers.
HughieGphiladelphia 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Yeah we need socialist thinkers not just libertarian thinkers.
DrRonPaul 3 years ago
socalism is the enemy to libertarianism.
robearl1983 3 years ago 13
no kidding? lol
DrRonPaul 3 years ago 2
actually a libertarian can be either anarcho-captialist or anarcho-socialist
meatpopsicle1 3 years ago
no, socialism is against the very core of the libertarian party
sdf123asd 3 years ago 2
Correct, the U.S. Libertarian party is anarcho-capitalist.
However anarcho-socialism is also a facet of "Libertarianism", which is a very broad term.
meatpopsicle1 3 years ago 3
No. Let's not much up facts. Libertarian is about liberty... socialism is not liberty.
shepardh1 2 years ago
Exactly socalism is not liberity.
hexzerg 2 years ago
you need to be careful how you use terms. if you're talking american libertarians than no that kind of libertarian isn't about liberty. those people are more socially liberal republicans. true libertarians hold that capitalism infringes on liberty because it creates social hierarchy.
as for socialism not being abour liberty.. again i have to disagree. everyone has the right to live. socialists understand this. more so than capitalists. socialized health and education prove that.
emericanchaos 2 years ago
emericanchaos has zero understanding of Libertarianism. Murray Rothbard, who co-founded the libertarian party, despised socialism. It is the "left-libertarians" who are the frauds and hi-jackers of libertarianism. Capitalism does not infringe on liberty, it is the only economic order that preserves it. Those who say otherwise misunderstand the distinction between "negative rights" and "positive rights." Only negative rights are compatible with liberty. Socialized anything is coercion.
epilp88 2 years ago
The only consistent libertarian position is anarcho-capitalism. Any and all other forms of libertarianism are watered-down, weakened versions and lack the rational and logical consistency of anarchy. To claim that socialism is even remotely compatible with freedom is an absurdity. Socialism is economic PLANNING AND CONTROL, not economic FREEDOM. Socialists do not even comprehend the word "freedom." Socialism is the ANTI-FREEDOM ideology originally put forth to silence Classical liberalism.
epilp88 2 years ago
it's called libertarian socialism. socialism is always taken as communism or some variation of marxist belief. marxism is only one side of the coin.
the american libertarian party was founded in 1971. the term libertarian and the movement very much predate the american libertarian party. the french and spanish revolutions for example. to try and use the term libertarian to describe unregulated capitalism is oxymoronic. capitalism is a system of dominion over others. that's not liberty.
emericanchaos 2 years ago
Once again you have failed to acknowledge the negative rights/positive rights distinction. Until you understand this position and refute it, there is no point in arguing with me. You also did not answer my point that Socialism is by definition a controlled economy. CONTROLLED. As in, "you don't have the right to make your own economic decisions free of coercion." How is this type of control compatible with the libertarian notion of liberty? The oxymoron lies in the term "libertarian socialism"
epilp88 2 years ago
you're clearly misunderstanding the term. libertarian socialism is socialism achieved through libertarian/diplomatic means. liberty first and collectivity as needed. it explains a very anarchist society with collectivity limited democracy and socialized regional organization. it is used to control market economies because of the global use of market economies. in a resource based econcomy we could use it do disolve money having resources go straight to technology instead of the markets.
emericanchaos 2 years ago
If you are saying that socialism will spring up without coercion then I agree that we should try it and allow it if people freely choose it, but it sounds like you want some sort of control over markets, and that is not compatible with liberty. Also, I challenge you to name a civilization that utilized division of labor beyond a primitive level without money. There is no such example. By contrast, when the Bolsheviks abolished money people starved by the thousands.
epilp88 2 years ago
arguably the main libertarian economic principle is that of a largely, but not solely, unregulated free market system. More of a laissez faire approach. Hong Kong practices this and is one of the wealthiest places in the Asia. This whole libertarian socialism thing is complete non-sense, as with "left" and "right" libertarianism. True libertarians reject all of those concepts. It is about personal responsibility on all issues at all times.
Ethen560 2 years ago
@robearl1983 How so? I am a social libertarian. I believe in giving a helping hand to others where it is needed but I also beleive that people should be free to do their own thing and any level of government has no right to poke it's unwanted nose into people's private business where it is not necessary to do so.
ThomasTrue 4 months ago
right im tired of repub's an demos there all the same party ill vote libertarian thank you very much....ron paul is cool and dennis but they both belong to the same trail of shit thats got us in this mess hail the republic vote libertarian
goose420w 3 years ago
Gravel is NOT Libertarian. His last sentence asks "Can you think of anything more Libertarian than empowering people to make laws?" Mr. Gravel, Libertarians believe in fewer laws, not more. They don't want more laws, they believe there too many now. They believe in LESS government control over the lives of others and that all individuals are sovereign over their own lives. So what would be MORE Libertarian Mr. Gravel? To empower people QUIT trying to control others. That is Libertarianism!
citrainor 3 years ago 2
We don't have a two-party system here! The Democrats and Republicans are very similar. They only disagree on small matters! America is not a fucking Democracy, and I wish it was!!!
StalinLeninMao 3 years ago
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding on what's for dinner.
darkstar725 3 years ago
I don't think Gravel is a libertarian, yet. However, I like the idea of a libertarian "teaming up" with him. He seems very open minded and his supporters at least come up with reasonable arguments, unlike the Hillarys of the world. Ask them why they support national healthcare and they repeat what Hillary said or they don't really know why.
docgoodandthegood 3 years ago 2
yea, healthcare and the enviorment are important, but if we give the gov't a lot of power to help us, we also give it a lot of power to potentially take our freedom. Just look at the trends in U.S. history. Beggining- small gov't, much fredom; Now- large gov't, less freedom. So to people like Gravel, I say thank you for your good intentions, but I respectfully disagree with your ideology.
breen234 3 years ago 2
He lost me when he said 'the people need to be empowered to make laws'. Libertarians want to be free from cumbersome laws. The only law we need is the constitution. Nice try Gravel.
HubrisAmericanus 3 years ago
Gravel is trying to infiltrate the LP from the left, and Barr from the right. Neither will succeed, both suck. I will be voting for Wayne Root and against Gravel in Denver. Gravel doesn't understand the non-agression principle. He's a radical environmentalist nutjob, and wants socialized medicine. Moron material. He also seems to not understand that legislation is THE PROBLEM. He needs to talk to Bob Schultz from WTP...
libertarianjury 3 years ago
Mike Gravel '08
LIFE, liberty, and the persuit of happiness.
Vote3rdParty 3 years ago
I'm confused... How can you be a libertarian while also advocating a national healthcare plan? Is there an opt-out option or will I be forced to play this game?
VAUS82 3 years ago
MIKE GRAVEL MASS DONATION DAY 5/13!!!
Vote3rdParty 3 years ago
Mike
55NarutoYagami55 3 years ago
Gravel!
55NarutoYagami55 3 years ago
'08
55NarutoYagami55 3 years ago
Libetarian!
55NarutoYagami55 3 years ago
Don't Vote '08
Agora!
TehBANN3D 3 years ago
Ron Pauls racist, and homophobic newsletters explain his position on states rights quite clearly.
Vote3rdParty 3 years ago
Gravel = Liberty.
<3
GRAVEL '08
Vote3rdParty 3 years ago
I'm confused. How does a socialist leaning liberal call himself a libertarian?
MetalliTooL 3 years ago
I love how the right wing thinks they own the word libertarian. Gravel will bring human rights back into the agenda of the libertarian party. These old-school libertarians think there's only one set of views in the libertarian party (their own). Gravel is just enforcing the constitution. If you can't handle that, find a phony constitutionalist republican like Ron Paul. I celebrate diversity of opinion within parties.
Vote3rdParty 3 years ago
I'm not a right-winger. Don't be so presumptuous. And why do you call Paul a "phony" constitutionalist?
MetalliTooL 3 years ago
Why do Gravel supporters think that bashing Ron Paul will make people support Gravel? It angers Ron Paul supporters (many of whom like Gravel) and it makes Gravel supporters look bad.
paulfor08 3 years ago 2
They don't realize Paul is electable and Gravel isn't. If Gravel gets the LP nomination, he'll be another one-percenter in the tradition of Harry Browne and Michael Badnarik.
pauldelacroix 3 years ago
pauldelacroix - You only support Paul because of electablity. Gravel supporters care about the issues not about electability. C'mon. There couldn't be a worse reason to vote for someone than numbers and percentage points.
Vote3rdParty 3 years ago
That is only marginally true. It is true that if Gravel was more electable, I'd ponder voting for him. But I don't even think Ron Paul will be electable in four more years, when he's closer to Gravel's age.
The big factor for me, though, is that you can't be a Leftist Libertarian. You can be a libertarian-leaning Leftist, and that's certainly preferable to a neo-con Republican, but Libertarians have core values (Second Amendment absolutism, respect for private property) that liberals do not.
pauldelacroix 3 years ago
The man deserves to be bashed. I'm not going to self-censor myself on behalf of Gravel. I don't think Gravel is the right candidate for Paul supporters anyhow. Ron Paul thinks states should be able to ban gay marriage/adoptions, abortion, and enforce other Jim Crow type laws. This is blatantly unconstitutional and totally against what Gravel represents.
Vote3rdParty 3 years ago
In other words, you find States' Rights repugnant. Thanks for playing. Next!
pauldelacroix 3 years ago
I just want you to know, that I am a Gravel supporter, but I also like Ron Paul. I would like you to understand that we've had Paul supporters that have bashed Mike, and in turn, his supporters. That's not to condone what Gravel supporters have said, but to perhaps give you some understanding. I do hope you realize that Mike has been marginalized even more than RP this election cycle...I do hope to be participating at the march in July! Gravel in '08!
smh2224 3 years ago
i don't understand why you are bashing paul either. you must not know very much about him. and libertarians do advocate human rights. just not stealing money from others to pay for welfare (socialism). paul and gravel would make a good team. paul has the brains and gravel has the balls. i do disagree with gravel on the opinion that people should be making laws. they can't even elect a decent representative to make the laws for them. if the people were more EDUCATED it would be a different story
sweetmpea5 3 years ago
That makes you a big-government nationalist Federalist, which is anathema to Liberty. The typical liberal view is that the most important amendment to the Constitution is the Fourteenth Amendment, and all the others are optional. I believe in the Bill of Rights and individual liberty.
pauldelacroix 3 years ago
pauldelacroix - Thanks for the labels. I get new ones every day. You say federalism is an anathema to liberty, yet it's the states that passed anti-sodomy laws, banned abortion, passed Jim Crow laws, and tried to break away and start the Confederacy. It was the federally government who saved minorities and women from this state enforced fascism.
Vote3rdParty 3 years ago
A libertarian advocates personal liberties - both civil and economic - they are not distinct things. How is it libertarian for Gravel to advocate a national healthcare plan that effectively removes choice by requiring everyone to participate? Should I be free to opt out or do I not have that liberty?
VAUS82 3 years ago
You can't have liberty if you don't even have a right to live. That's why he also advocates fighting global warming.
Vote3rdParty 3 years ago
So if I'm not currently being given "free healthcare" then I'm also currently being denied the right to live? This is odd as I feel quite alive at the moment.
Heres your flaw: People don't have the RIGHT to good health just as they don't have the RIGHT to happiness. Rather, people of the right to PURSUE these things, but no one has the right to another person's productive efforts (health care) just as they don't have a right to the things which make them happy. Check the declaration.
VAUS82 3 years ago
If you had aids and were dirt poor you would probably be on the other side of the issue. 18,000 people die every year because they don't have healthcare. That's like letting six 9/11's happen every year. It's not the victims of economic injustice's fault. We live in a racist society that shits on minorities.
Vote3rdParty 3 years ago
Under no circumstances would I advocate a system that pulls everyone else down with me- don't pretend you know what I would do / want in any hypothetical, sir.
Oh, I'm sorry- after having read your last sentence, I realized I was giving you too much credit.
VAUS82 3 years ago
Drag everyone down? France has socialized healthcare and they are ranked number one by the world health organization and the U.S. is at an embarassing 34th. We are the only industrialized country without free universal healthcare. That's because Americans would rather spend money on their lawns and Hummers than help a sick and dying person.
Vote3rdParty 3 years ago
I see. But curious how the U.S. could be "34th" (whatEVER that means) yet still have the best medical schools anywhere, and be the home nation of nearly all significant medical innovations in the past 50 years. (I'm pre-medical and know these issues well- so don't quote ambiguous "rankings" to me.)
Your comment about hummers only further damages your already suspect credibility. You still never addressed my initial comment about whether I'm free to opt out. Still waiting on that...
VAUS82 3 years ago
It's from the world health organization. VERY credidle study. You can look up the criterion if you don't believe me. Medical innovations have NOTHING to do with medical treatment. The fact that the rich get good treatment means nothing to me if they are spitting on the poor in the process. What do you want to opt out of? Paying taxes?
Vote3rdParty 3 years ago
Today's innovations becomes tomorrow's practice- you shouldn't have to be told this.
Your comments are both naive and angry. Do not reply to this or any other comment of mine.
VAUS82 3 years ago
Wow. You can interpret words on a computer as being agry? What talent! Sucks to be OWNED though doesn't it? France NUMBER 1. USA NUMBER 34. Socialized healthcare NUMBER 1. Capitalist Healthcare NUMBER 34.
By the way... I'll comment on anything I damned well please. Maybe you can get congress to regulate the internet to shut me up.
Vote3rdParty 3 years ago
The WHO has a vested interest in socialized medicine. As does the UN and other world organizations as it is another way to control the population. The only evidence you need is that those who can afford care come from countries with universal healthcare to this one for quick, prompt, and effective treatment.
SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR 3 years ago
well he's against imperialism, war and the military industrial complex, which is all libertarian. He's also very libertarian on social issues. And while he's definitely leans left on most economic issues, he's by no means a socialist. He's definitely doesn't fit the libertarian ticket perfectly, but if the libertarian party is ever going to grow, it's got to have a fairly big tent.
rios9000 3 years ago 2
That sounds reasonable, but I'm still reluctant to call it libertarian. For now I'll refer to it by its real name: something else.
VAUS82 3 years ago
"Our three branches of government have become like an unstable chair, a three-legged chair. The founders could not have envisioned how much money and special interests would corrupt the political process. Giving us Americans legislative power will put forth the fourth leg of our stool and make it stable." -Mike Gravel
bongomang 3 years ago
Brilliant! Something MUST change.
Shultzgti 3 years ago
The libertarians are very different from the Democrats and Republicans in my opinion.
chrisknight02 3 years ago 2
Btw. the Mike Gravel candidacy would only be cool if his running mate would be Brad Pitt.
"Gravel-Pitt 08" ;)
donhoody 3 years ago
Who are those "excited libertarian bloggers" Gravel is referring to?
Seriously I am having a hard time finding those excited (at least in any kind of Gravel-positive manner) blogs.
donhoody 3 years ago
Shouldn't that be "Libertarian !?!?" ;)
donhoody 3 years ago
Libertarian!
55NarutoYagami55 3 years ago
Liberterian!
55NarutoYagami55 3 years ago
The LP should grow because it makes more Americans aware that there is a party that truely stands for liberty and principle.
The LP should not let Mike Gravel hijack the party and change the political agenda to a socialist agenda in order to win votes.
If Mike Gravel would be willing to embrace true libertarian ideas also in economic affairs I would be far less critical against him - but as it looks he is a socialist at heart and does not seem tochange.
Furthermore his fans are hardcore sociali.
donhoody 3 years ago
I think it is good for democracy in America that a third party grow stronger. It may balance it a bit.
arsenelupin123 3 years ago
If you are looking for hippocrates look instead to your beloved Hollywood stars many of whom seek the next tax-haven (which there is nothing wrong with) but then preaches MORE "public expenses" and naturally MORE taxes.... well for anybody but themselves.
Most ORDINARY people are good and generous but FORCED taxation means that too many have only just enough to get by. Leave the money in the pockets of the citizens and they will make way wiser decisions than the politicians.
donhoody 3 years ago
I pay more than 50% taxes, most of which the government wastes away on absolutely useless activities and bureaucracy.
With the little that I have left after the ROBBERS (aka the Government has taken "the publics" part) I actually still go out and support a fund for abused children.
I would like if I had to pay a lot less in taxes and be able to decide MYSELF what I would support. I do NOT need YOU or "THE GOVERMENT" to decide that for ME.
donhoody 3 years ago
Elepantpuke/donhoody: I Wiki'ed the non-aggression principle. I agree with it totally. And?
Look at yourselves for crying out loud. Neither of you willingly pay taxes yet expect this hypothetical voluntary society to donate to NGOs? Why? Philanthropy? Laugh. Out. Loud.
Your stuck in 19th century economic theory. It's 21st century. Wiki: volunteer's dilemma. Welcome to the wonderful world of game theory. Learn monkey learn.
GH0ST1NTHEMACH1NE 3 years ago
Would those people then just go homeless, uneducated and sick?
No - because a libertarian society would have a lot of NGOs based on voluntary contributions and work from the many people who would have more resources after the big burden of government RUBBERY had been lifted.
I do unlike you believe that people are good and generous WITHOUT politicians having to FORCE them.
The difference between socialists/fascists and libertarians is that libertarians have trust in the good of individuals.
donhoody 3 years ago
Well said.
elephantpuke 3 years ago
What I can NOT support as a libertarian are socalled "rights" that involve coercion against other people.
That are things like a "right" to be PROVIDED housing (by the government aka financed through money FORCEFULLY collected from other citizens). The "right" to unemployment benefit (again PROVIDED by the government with money STOLEN from other citizens.
The "right" to free services including education, medical care etc (all again financed through coercion).
donhoody 3 years ago 2
Natural rights like:
- freedom of religion (NOT to force other people to believe like you do or to force people not to make fun of you)
- freedom to make any deal you want with anybody (as long as that deal does NOT involve force against innocent third parties)
- freedom to bear arms (as long as you do NOT use these to hurt innocent third parties)
- freedom of ecucation (NOT to FORCE other people to pay for your education)
etc.
donhoody 3 years ago
Erm...o.k. I wouldn't classify any of those as natural rights but o.k.
I'd classify natural rights as being reproductive rights, life, being in control of one's physical person (i.e. free from slavery, forced labor, draft, unlawful detention, etc.), rights you'd have in a vacuum.
Google "natural rights". Choose your site of choice.
GH0ST1NTHEMACH1NE 3 years ago
Redundant statement that last part.
Read as: Choose a site and read it.
GH0ST1NTHEMACH1NE 3 years ago
If life is a natural right, which I would agree with you on, isn't it a right to be able to defend one's life and hence bear arms? I mean, how else do you realistically defend life?
figgypower 3 years ago
figgypower: Did I give you the impression I was anti-gun rights? If so I apologize. I'm a gun owner. I like to think of my gun ownership as "preventive medicine". ;)
GH0ST1NTHEMACH1NE 3 years ago
In that case, I apologize GH0ST1NTHEMACHINE. I was wrong. I too am a gun owner, and I'm a little confused as to whether Mike Gravel is a "real" libertarian, especially when suggests universal healthcare should be a right.
figgypower 3 years ago
Ghost you really need to check out this video regarding libertarian anarchists. Watch it and weep.
watch?v=Lsrgf2mdEno
elephantpuke 3 years ago
Ok. I watched it. Did you? I mean the opening line to that video was "The Libertarian Party is a classical liberal party."
From Wiki:Classical liberalism: "This includes the importance of human rationality, individual property rights, natural rights, the protection of civil liberties, constitutional limitations of government, free markets, and individual freedom from restraint as exemplified in the writings of Adam Smith"
Note" Less government not NONE.
Note: natural rights.
cont.
GH0ST1NTHEMACH1NE 3 years ago
Note: "free markets...exemplified by Adam Smith."
Watch: watch?v=0JDoQb6A2YI
I really don't understand what you were trying to accomplish by sending me to that video. As long as there has been Libertarians there have been Anarchists claiming it for themselves. Nothing new and certainly nothing worth shedding tears over.
The rest of the video:If your going to believe everything some random jack ass tells you about what it means to be a libertarian why not start with me?
GH0ST1NTHEMACH1NE 3 years ago
I'll lay the logic on you simple like, wiki the non-aggression principle. This is the foundation and the leading principle of the libertarian party, or was rather. Government initiates force, they have a monopoly on force. Under a true libertarian system no one person or thing would enact uninitiated force on another. And there you have it, the reason why a true libertarian system is anarchist. Anarchy being the lack of rulers, in this case government.
elephantpuke 3 years ago
I responded to your comment but it didn't stick. (Wouldn't want you to think I was responding to you without giving the chance to defend yourself.)
GH0ST1NTHEMACH1NE 3 years ago
And my best libertarian offer (I am sure the first one will interest you suckit):
- Legalize drugs (you sure sound like one who is stoned and therefore unable to remember what I have written)
and
- Make healthcare (including treatment for druguse related health and mental problems) a PRIVATE matter
Now that is a good and fair deal.
donhoody 3 years ago
Governments and "democracies" need to be held in constraints as to what POWER they can get.
A principle of minimum government should be the goal and written into the constitution to safeguard that not even a malicious or misguided majority will be able to take away the individual freedoms and force through more majority DICTATORSHIP.
I seriously suggest that you read up on libertarianism suckit since you seem to have a very distorted view of it and believe that we are just nice "anything-goers"
donhoody 3 years ago
I once believed that you could limit governments control through a piece of paper, but we have seen how miserably this has failed here in the US. I've since become an anarchist, I no longer believe you can keep governments in check. History has proved otherwise.
elephantpuke 3 years ago
And a bit of libertarian basics:
just because 4 people out of a population of 5 decide that they should buy a subscription to TV Guide does not mean that they can FORCE the 5th person who does not want TV Guide and who will not read it to PAY for it.
The 4 people are FREE to go together and share the expense - that is their ABSOLUTE freedom to do - but they are NOT allowed to coerce ANYBODY just because they form a "Majority".
donhoody 3 years ago
Yeah libertarian means liberty. You have either liberty or tyranny, you can't have both. So when the government steals your money, and forces you to do or not do certain things, that's tyranny. When you're free to make your own decisions with your money and body, that's liberty.
elephantpuke 3 years ago
Viggo Mortensen endorses the quasi-communist Kusinic because Viggo Mortensen is a Hollywood-idiot who is totally out of touch with reality.
Seriously if you really listen to the Hollywood-people you will see that they are living in an ivory tower all too willing to write out bills that the average John Doe, who unlike them are not millionaires will end up paying.
suckit - I will say that YOU are the fascist for being willing to FORCE ordinary people to pay for a SYSTEM that YOU.
donhoody 3 years ago 2
Well a fascist system would be like Massachusetts', where you're forced to pay a company for health insurance. Really it's socialism, but fascism is in the same vein as socialism.
elephantpuke 3 years ago
I am not praising the US healthcare system. I have said that it does not work, and that the main reason is that it is part-socialised already. You are spending a lot of money (far more than other countries on PUBLIC healthcare). It clearly shows that governments are simply not good at running healthcare.
I believe that the ideas of the LP as stated in an earlier post is far supperior to any existing system.
donhoody 3 years ago 2
The funniest part is donhoody is chastising Denmarks "socialist" healthcare plan while praising Americas. Denmark is rated number 34 by The Wrold Health Organization and America is number 37. Frances "socialized" healthcare is number 1. So it appears even your ever so horrible healthcare system is still better than our healthcare BUSINESS donhoody. Maybe that's why your former Dane Viggo Mortenson endorsed Kucinich.
suckitjesus2 3 years ago
The World Health Organization gives its rating, in part, to how socialized a healthcare system is. That's a huge hindrance to the U.S. systems since it lacks socialization. You should also look up disease specific life expectancy ratings or even morbidity; the U.S. ranks at the top for most. General U.S. life expectancy is low, but many economists agree that is due to lifestyle issues. You can't legislate away poor lifestyle choices.
figgypower 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
John "Three Checks" McCain claims to be fit enough to be president, but gets a disability check from the NAVY.
He also gets a government check from the SENATE, although he has the worst attendance record in the senate.
Third, he gets a SOCIAL SECURITY Check!!!
He doesn't return any of these checks to the Treasury (U.S. taxpayers). So, he claims to be for smaller government, but I guess that only applies to you and me.
** McCain is a one-man pork barrel project. **
NO COPYRIGHT: REPOST FREELY
EdinHaglersville 3 years ago
Don you're pretty awesome for a European. :P Just kidding man, it's just that I don't see very many European liberty lovers. More power to ya brother!
elephantpuke 3 years ago
@suckit: mirror back to you :P you conspiracytheory red-fascist looser.
Next thing you will claim in your paranoid worldview is that not only I am not a Dane (check out my video and profile for crying out loud), but I must sure be GWB himself or payed by him or a part of the "illuminati", or an alien maybe?
I find it hard to discuss with a guy who has such a strange and distorted view on reality (here in Europe most people who believe in 9-11 conspiracy theories also like to deny the holocaust)
donhoody 3 years ago
Ghost and suckittoMUHAMMED (oh boy that would be soooo PI if he was called that but when he is called suckittoJesus that is just cooool) really are good examples in their defense of Mike Gravel and the kind of quasi-socialist policy he stands for that the LP is being hijacked by people who are NOT libertarian.
They are free to not be libertarian, but then they should not join the LP, they should become members of the socialist or green party.
donhoody 3 years ago
donhoody: Sure pal! Lets compromise! I'll call Mike Gravel a socialist if you call yourself a terrorist. Deal?
I love how everybody NOT living here in the States has got an opinion about how we should conduct ourselves. If it blows up our face (not yours) no skin off your nose, Rome won't burn down around YOUR ears. Howzabout you focus on your neck of the woods and try your sociological experiments in your backyard.
GH0ST1NTHEMACH1NE 3 years ago
lewrockwell[dot]com/blog/lewrw/archives/020742.html
Read and learn why the libertarian party is no longer libertarian, the party has been blatantly hijacked.
elephantpuke 3 years ago
Ghost, join the goddamn green party all ready.
elephantpuke 3 years ago
No. Any luck with that Anarchist Party or are you just content to try and hijack the Libertarian Party like the guerrilla you are?
GH0ST1NTHEMACH1NE 3 years ago
Donhoody. Stop pretending you live in Denmark. You must be nocturnal if you are online arguing at the same time we are. After reading everything you write, I now know why there are little to no minorities in the "small government" republican party.
Seriously, I'm done arguing with this fascist, selfish, poor little person. Have fun advocating corporatism.
suckitjesus2 3 years ago
Jeg ved sku ikke hvad du snakker om mester.
Du må da være godt dum siden du tror at jeg som dansker ikke også kan elske frihed og kæmpe for libertarianske værdier.
Du lyder som en ignorant storby-amerikaner fra et rigt hjem der aldrig har lært hvor vigtig frihed er for at folk kan opnå lykke og velstand. Du har fået alt foræret og vil tvinge konsekvenserne af dit forskruede verdenssyn på andre.
donhoody 3 years ago