Of libertarians and liberals

[DonCoquixote]

let me be blunt: I see a lot of straw man arguments saying that because the Pauls and GG are libertarians, they must be full of shit at best, evil at worst. I also see some crown them as heroes (like the way Medea Benjamin made a Valentine to Ron Paul, as well as entertain the idea that Libertarians might offer some hope.

Let's not take an ounce and make it a pound. The fact is, Obama is dead wrong on the NSA, as was Clinton. If Hillary did not want to enforce things, she could have left, and probably had roses thrown at her feet. The fact is, we hired Obama to STOP this crap, and he has not, for whatever reason. We need to tear down the machine, especially before the likes of a Christie or worse gets their hands on it.

Now, does this mean that we cannot see the libertarians trying to step into the void left, yes?
Does this mean that we, as liberals can support them, no!

because for every little things they agree with us on, there are things far worse, especially considering they would get KILL of the very programs we get mad at the democrats for not protecting. Even someone like GG defended Citizens United; that alone means I will question his judgement and his motives, the same as I would someone that jumped into a Lion Cage at the zoo. However, that will not take away that fact he is right on the NSA, if anything, it would count even more against Obama, because right now, he is being clowned by GG and Snowden, two people whose conduct means they should not have enough respect to be hire to mow a lawn.

[Thinkingabout]

1. WTH, Obama took an oath to uphold the Constitution, thisvis what he is doing. It may not be your

Interruption or what you may like for the Constitution to contain. This is not left to individuals to follow what they like and kick the rest to the curb. If Obama was honoring his oath to the office of President there would be yelling and screaming.

[DonCoquixote]

2. where did I say that?

I did say it was wrong, but the point is that we did not need to care what a GG said. Facts are facts, regardless of who says them.

[Thinkingabout]

4. Did you state the following:

The fact is, we hired Obama to STOP this crap, and he has not, for whatever reason.

[nashville_brook]

8. those capable of kicking the constitution to the curb are not DUers

or average Americans.

Those capable of kicking the Constitution to the curb are people in positions of power.

[Thinkingabout]

9. The Constitution is for all American citizens. I hear plenty on this site kicking the Constitution

To the curb.

[DonCoquixote]

10. Yes

and of course we need to force him to stop this crap...that does not that i will ignore GG, it means we should not even NEED him to do so.

[Thinkingabout]

11. You want Obama to break his oath of office for what reason? He does not have any choice of

Which amendments to overlook.

[DonCoquixote]

12. reading comprehension is weak

If you read, I said very plainly "WE NEED TO STOP THIS NOW". where did you read that i wanted to allow Obama to do that? I am NOT giving Obama a pass, nor do I want this NSA to succeed, but just because I do not worship the almighty GG does not mean i do noty understand the need to protect the consitituion.

[Thinkingabout]

16. Comprehension might begin with the Fourth amendment, changing or removing amendments does

Not happen over night and may take years. This is the reason Obama can not violate his oath and just pick and choose what portions of the Constitution or laws he wants to start, stop or remove.

[DonCoquixote]

17. comprehsnion might begin

with where I said we had to stop it and that obama was wrong for keeping the NSA status alive, but of course, we have to scream at everyone who distrusts the Libertarian wolves that will sneak into the henshouse.

[Thinkingabout]

18. You can yell and scream but you have to change the Constitution and I dont really think

This will happen and don't think we really want to start changing the first amendments of the Constitution which have served us well for over two years. If you remove the Fourth amendment then you remove the need to have a warrant and your person and property can be inspected at any time. This would be a very bad move for our citizens.

[Warpy]

3. Paul's civil libertarianism extends only to his own sex and own color

He's an extremely poor example of a civil libertarian.

Social libertarians and Democrats have very much in common. Unfortunately, Randorrhoids have found a great home with the capital "L" Libertarians, making all their economic pronouncements really goofy and economic libertarians have tended to get social libertarians tarred with the same brush and that is unfair.

That's what's happening here at DU, the conservative, authoritarian types among us trying to tar civil libertarianism with the same brush they use for the horrible Pauls.

I am a proud civil libertarian, I have the ACLU card to prove it. I oppose the goofy fiscal libertarians, they're the root of much of what's gone wrong with this country.

I am a proud fiscal leftist. We know how to fix this economy, our forebears did it before we were born.

So chew on that. I am a civil libertarian and an economic leftist. They coexist quite nicely without bringing the appalling Paul family into it.

[DonCoquixote]

6. As chomsky pointed out

there are what used to be called libertarians and those now. If it helps, I am referring to those thatARE indeed allied with the modern group that calls themselves libertarians,. Granted, I doubt Chomsky or any anarchist would like them. And as much as we would like to think the Paul family is an aberration, there are those that use that title that are in no way left. I have no problem with the Chomsky Libertarians, but they are not the ones who have the microphone now.

[Baitball Blogger]

5. Here in my locale, libertarians are anti-government.

Dumb Republicans are rah-rah behind them without realizing how they disrupt the community by chiseling this community down for self-profit.

[leftstreet]

7. Isn't Paul a Republican?

[nyquil_man]

15. Thank you. nt

[quinnox]

13. The attempted framing of saying if you agree with the libertarians on an issue means you must

identify with them is utter hogwash. It is just a dumb and nonsensical argument on its face, and should be disregarded as such. It would mean you would have to be for such things as the Iraq war for example, as the libertarians were against that, and for the surveillance state and police state, because the libertarians are against that as well.

Good OP. K&R

[DonCoquixote]

14. nods or

It would mean that just because GG supported and defended the Citizens United decision means that a liberal must. Sorry, no can do, no will do. Thanks for the compliment.