What is Digg?Sponsored by newegg
Ready. Set. Shop view!
newegg.com - Newegg.com Black Friday Sale starting 11/25 3PM PST. No Lines, No Crowds, Click and Save.
653 Comments
- Airforcefalco, on 10/29/2009, -9/+230I love it how these RINOs (I'm looking at you Limbaugh, Hannity, Fox News, O'Reilly, and a good portion of the people at these 'Tea Parties' among others) only become fiscally conservative when a Democrat is in office.
- meruru, on 10/29/2009, -4/+223Good, maybe we can finally get a viable 3rd party
- rizzo2008, on 10/29/2009, -6/+135The party split a long time ago really. There are the Barry Goldwater Republicans (very few of them left - most of them older like Ron Paul) and then there are the evangelicals and neocon warmongers who hijacked the party in the 70s and 80s.
- FOR3MAN, on 10/29/2009, -3/+93As a Libertarian, I am appalled at the "Johnny Come Latelys" who have jumped on the Tea Party movement because it is convenient to their opposition of Obama. Where were you when we were protesting against Bush's outrageous agenda as well.
Libertarians are non interventionist in military philosophy. Obama may be out of control in his spending, yet at least he is reeling in our warmongering.
I feel both major parties have messed up so badly that America has no other choice but to look at a third party. I do not hope for failure though. - JoeyNine, on 10/29/2009, -7/+86Republicans gave up being small government years ago. It does not mean that they can't return to those principles. But it'll only happen if we vote for those that have a truly fiscally conservative record and libertarian ideals. No more anti-gay marriage crap, anti-drug crap, etc. If that means we have to vote for libertarians only, so be it. Two parties of large government are doing nothing but bad for this country.
- footbag01, on 10/29/2009, -5/+83I can understand libertarians. Republicans... Not so much.
- BullBearMS, on 10/29/2009, -5/+77What is interesting is how much the libertarians and progressive Democrats have in common. We both have watched our parties move away from their historical platform and become corporate sell-outs.
- Myakka, on 10/29/2009, -6/+72I think that the headline "A Growing Rift" mischaracterizes the situation. The beliefs of the Ultra-conservatives who now
dominate the Republican Party and the beliefs of the Libertarians have not changed. What has changed is that the
Ultra-conservatives are now the one and only voice of the Republican Party. This is pushing out both Libertarians and
Moderates who are simultaneously uncomfortably with reactionary politics AND not tolerated by said Ultra-conservatives
(who are famous for being the infalliable God-like figures who know exactly how we all should live our lives.) - D1Foley, on 10/29/2009, -7/+71Well Libertarians must have realized that Republicans are only against government intervention in your life if you aren't gay, black, a woman or use marijuana.
They say their anti-government influence in your life, but at the same time use the government to enforce their cultural norms. - PeppermintPig, on 10/29/2009, -22/+84"Although a temporary truce between Libertarians and Republicans has been in effect for the Tea Parties"
This is misleading, chronologically and ideologically. Ron Paul's campaign drew many liberty oriented people together. Of people who identify themselves as libertarians who happened to have voted, most of them appear to have voted for Paul over the LP candidate Bob Barr (given the LP's hard failure for abandoning principles of their party, let alone the principles of libertarianism proper). It doesn't therefore follow that people attracted to the tea parties outside of the republican sphere are therefore libertarians. Most are in reality not libertarian. Libertarianism is foremost not a political ideology.
There's more political and ideological diversity here than the author appears to recognize. - Waiting2awake, on 10/29/2009, -9/+62Did you treat Bush as the enemy when he was doing the same things?
- Waiting2awake, on 10/29/2009, -2/+54Would be nice wouldn't it?
- pathouston22, on 10/29/2009, -19/+68And Democrats are anti-corporate only when a Republican is in office.
Weee, I love this game! - inactive, on 10/29/2009, -7/+55Cant grow fast enough. The republicans and democrats have ***** the people long enough. Its time for the common man to start *****.
- Airforcefalco, on 10/29/2009, -9/+53The protests started AFTER Obama was in office.
L2History
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_protests - TheMeatball, on 10/29/2009, -3/+47The problem with a third party is that the electoral system doesn't foster it, in the current political climate.
If someone wants to vote with their heart, and vote for the Green Party, they know their vote is also "against" the Democratic Party, who is likely more in in line with their views that the Republicans.
With a "Single Transferrable Vote", you rank your available choices. You could say:
Green
Democratic
Libertarian
Republican
That way, if the Green Party gets a minority of the votes, your vote transfers to your next choice, the Democratic Party, and so on.
This way, you can vote for a third party without throwing the other parties under the bus. It's a system much more accepting of third parties. - pathouston22, on 10/29/2009, -32/+74"Republicans continue to demonize undocumented immigrants seeking a better life in the US."
No. Republicans support ENFORCING the LAW on ILLEGAL immigrants. Or "undocumented immigrants" as you call them. - buzaman, on 10/29/2009, -3/+44While most libertarians come from a conservative background. Libertarians are equidistant from Conservatives and Liberals. As the pamphlet says, we're the best of both sides.
What is truly important is that the libertarians, both the Cato types and the Mises types, work with the Paleo and other libertarian conservatives as well as the progressive left-libertarians, in partnership, to eliminate our destructive foreign policy. It's imperative that this anti-Empire coalition work against the interventionist Center Left/Right Imperialists.
The goal should be to end the empire, we'll debate social organization afterward. - lukas88, on 10/29/2009, -6/+45To sum it up:
Fear and self interest vs. personal freedom and responsibility. - firesphotons, on 10/29/2009, -6/+43You had eight years to do it, no teeth in the commitment, why? Because rich business owners (including the ones who are friends with Bush) love cheap labor, the very reason illegals trickle over here in the first place. A good start would be changing the law regarding being born here making a baby an automatic citizen, the parents should have to be citizens too.
- goffy59, on 10/29/2009, -1/+35It bothers me that these filthy neo-cons have tried to hide under the wings of the campaign for liberty. They taint the intended purpose of the campaign. They don't stand for our values. They just have no where else to go because they are so disconnected from reality.
- treehugger87, on 10/29/2009, -2/+31I agree, but not with the notion that "evangelicals and neocon warmongers" hijacked the party. I would say that it's more like the Republican party used the evangelicals in order to get votes the same way they used the racists and the chicken-hawks: to get votes.
- Wosat, on 10/29/2009, -22/+51Gotta love digg...
Analysis of the left... by leftist websites.
- and -
Analysis of the right... by leftist websites. - kylere, on 10/29/2009, -6/+34As a Libertarian, I have never NOT had a rift with Republicans. I love how people speak for an entire party.
- Hiwnes, on 10/29/2009, -2/+29I believe the point is that they HAVEN'T changed ideology. They're just running with the Libertarian movement because it's politically convenient at the moment. Ask them about cutting Military/Defense funding (currently 2/3 of the federal budget) or foreign aid to Israel sometime and see what happens.
- digitalArtform, on 10/29/2009, -0/+27You have to distinguish between the average Archie Bunker Republican, who does feel that way, and the ruling Montgomery Burns Republicans who have no problem at all with the cheap labor.
- mintedmeadow, on 10/29/2009, -14/+41Anyone who has a problem with immigrants coming to this country illegally is clearly a racist, regardless of whether or not you and your family are (legal) immigrants.
(That is sarcasm.) - jsffive, on 10/29/2009, -3/+30Who gives a ***** about Republicans?
For that matter, who gives a ***** about Democrats?
Same old *****, different day, as far as I'm concerned. Both parties try to buy as many votes by issuing palliatives during their campaigns, and then quickly find ways to back pedal as soon as they take power. In my forty-four years, THAT has been the only constant. And it absolutely blows my mind, that every two years, the people in this country allow themselves to be ***** by it over and over.
Nothing has "changed"... Our nation is STILL an imperialistic, warmongering HEGEMON. Vote "right", vote "left", and curiously, we always seem to end up with the same result.
How could that possibly be, if both parties were ACTUALLY as diametrically opposed as their TV commercials claim?
Please, take this simple test, and see where you are on the political spectrum.
http://www.theadvocates.org/quizp/index.html
And say "no" to political parties... say "no" to GANG VIOLENCE! - digitalArtform, on 10/29/2009, -2/+29We are the particular kind of Democracy known as a Republic.
- oldhick, on 10/29/2009, -1/+26No, Republicans say crap like that to get the little robots to vote for them. What did they ever do about it???? NOTHING.
- BullBearMS, on 10/29/2009, -1/+26At one point the Republicans actually stood for many of the things that Libertarians are in favor of.
Just as at one point the Democrats actually stood for many of the things that the Progressives are in favor of.
Now both parties are jointly voting for things like the Patriot Act, Digital Millennium Copyright Act, TARP, FISA... Basically, whatever their major donors want. - Apokalyps2547, on 10/29/2009, -1/+25No no no, he's saying libertarians have watched their party become corporate sell-outs, in addition to watching them move away from the platforms. The sentence structure is ambiguous.
- darkism, on 10/29/2009, -0/+24I'm sick and tired of these nuts and crazies claiming to be libertarians. Actual libertarians don't want anything to do with these people and their so-called "libertarianism" that is, in reality, the antithesis of liberty.
- WraTH017, on 10/29/2009, -1/+24Exactly. If the republicans really cared about immigration, abortion, and gay marriage they would have done something about it when they had absolute power just a few years ago... yet they didn't. They use those issues to rally the troops, but have no real intentions in dealing with them... they just want you to think they do.
- GorfTron, on 10/29/2009, -2/+24There is a growing rift between Republicans and *reality*. No more R for me, thanks.
- V3n0M, on 10/29/2009, -1/+23...and they'd be wrong.
- mparker21311, on 10/29/2009, -1/+22So true, both parties suck.
- goomba323, on 10/29/2009, -1/+22There will never be a "viable 3rd party candidate". The system "winner take all" is designed for two parties vying for position. If anything, one party will transform (as the Whigs did, and the old Republicans did). I wouldn't mind a transformation, but having 3 parties isn't practical. Democrats vs. Libertarians would be nice. As long as a party stops catering to the extreme religious right, I'll be happy.
Google Duverger's law. - treehugger87, on 10/29/2009, -4/+25If this is for real, I think the time has come for a rift between the progressives and the Democrats as well. I wish there were some more viable voices for the green party...
- MidnightReign, on 10/29/2009, -4/+23Nothing, as long as they're white, straight, female, christian, submissive, and good cooks.
Anything else is right out. - novenator, on 10/29/2009, -20/+38So Obama is an enemy now?
- alienufo, on 10/29/2009, -3/+21as a liberal, this is a good thing to me. We'd be much better off if we had true libertarians as an opposition party rather than the current neocon, evangelical christian party that currently calls themselves republicans.
- funkedup, on 10/29/2009, -3/+21Republicans have never been Libertarians, and it's moronic to compare them at all. Theoretically, the Republicans believe in a free market, but end up being more like Democrats. Theoretically, the Democrats believe in non-violence, but end up being like Republicans.
- BullBearMS, on 10/29/2009, -7/+24That would be a lot like the Democrats promising to be anti-war to get elected, then expanding the wars in the middle east.
- WraTH017, on 10/29/2009, -7/+24I would rather have a two party system with the republican party out of the equation.
- cromulent742, on 10/29/2009, -0/+17Homer: America, take a good look at your beloved candidates. They're nothing but hideous space reptiles. [unmasks them, audience gasps in terror]
Kodos: It's true, we are aliens. But what are you going to do about it? It's a two-party system; you have to vote for one of us.
Man1: He's right, this is a two-party system.
Man2: Well, I believe I'll vote for a third-party candidate.
Kang: Go ahead, throw your vote away.
[Kang and Kodos laugh out loud]
[Ross Perot smashes his "Perot 96" hat] - GorfTron, on 10/29/2009, -1/+17Lets make a pile and start *****.
- JoeyNine, on 10/29/2009, -12/+28@Waiting2awake
If your talking to me, I just said that Obama is not the enemy, he's just inexperienced. I didn't treat Bush like the enemy either. I was angered by the majority of his policies since they were Big Government policies. I'm anti-Big Government across the board, therefore both Obama and Bush screwed the pooch in my eyes. - rotundo, on 10/29/2009, -8/+24You realize that right before the Civil War a lot of people supported ENFORCING the LAW on ILLEGAL runaway slaves... or "negro citizens" as others called them.
The law is not the ends, it is only the means. Pragmatic and ethical concerns dictate the law, not the other way around.
The current immigration laws in the US is both ethically poor and practically counterproductive for the development of our nation. You can hide behind "the law" all you want, but we can do better. - Pyros7, on 10/29/2009, -2/+17This article makes a lot more sense if you replace the word "Republican" with "Christian Conservative" everywhere.
Republicans in power are against most of these things because they'd lose their religious vote if they weren't. The Republicans that are still for smaller government, lower taxes, balanced budgets and individual freedoms either left the party or gave up and quit voting years ago when it became obvious that the party no longer gave a ***** about any of that after the election was over.
The party will continue to lose the votes of millions of younger people who don't give a rat's ass if two gay guys want the same legal protection as a married couple or if a woman wants to have an abortion. -
Show 51 - 100 of 660 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is