Richard Nixon - Conservative

[Timber Loftis]

You must understand the distinction between the paleo-Con and the neo-Con, and the paleo-Con who votes for the neo-Con is voting against some of his values.

[Morgeruat]

I was reading an article in the paper the other day that classical conservatives are splitting from the GOP, and that the GOP is likely to be split into 2-3 parties it will be a very interesting time for liberals (democrats) if they can hold together through the next few elections.

I see more of the traditional conservatives shifting towards the libertarians (the same way I tend to vote despite being a registered Republican).

[wellard]

Originally posted by Morgeruat: I was reading an article in the paper the other day that classical conservatives are splitting from the GOP, and that the GOP is likely to be split into 2-3 parties it will be a very interesting time for liberals (democrats) if they can hold together through the next few elections. I see more of the traditional conservatives shifting towards the libertarians (the same way I tend to vote despite being a registered Republican).

Who are the Libertarian *leaders* within the Republican Party Morgeruat? Is it a recognized power group inside the party? Or is the Libertarian movement outside of the party altogether? I freely admit to being a bit unclear on this issue as well as confused on some of its values

[Morgeruat]

Timber used to have a link in his sig, it is a seperate political party just like the green party (go Nader), it essentially advocates stripping the government down to that established in the constitution, it has several "liberal" stances, as well as plenty of "conservative" ones.

[wellard]

I'm afraid Timbers sig just sends me to a Sudan / US story Morgeruat [img]tongue.gif[/img]

If you do come across a link do let me know, a lot of people on IW have expressed sympathy with there views so I guess I should study some [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

[Morgeruat]

here you go: http://www.lp.org/

[Timber Loftis]

Exactly, Morgeruat. Support your local libertarian party. Read their party platform. If you're like me, you won't agree with all of it, but you'll be sure to note that it's the side of politics that's gone AWOL in the last 20 years.

Say it with me:
Less Government
Less Government
Less Government

For the sake of Less Government. Because Less Government is a goal in and of itself. Because we want Less Government messing with us.

[shamrock_uk]

What a party, and what a great list of where they stand on political issues!

Somewhat perplexed that they choose Britain as a model example of a successful reigning in of the welfare state (when the opposite is happening) but they talk an awful lot of sense.

Personally, I disagree with their stance on guns and also their argument that unbridled free trade will increase third-world prosperity. Strongly agree with their stance on drugs and especially their protection of individual freedoms. If I was a US citizen, they'd get my vote.

[ 11-22-2005, 01:58 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

[wellard]

MMMM..... The personal freedom side of things seems good, not unlike most true Liberal party policies (as opposed to the pretend Liberals in the USA, the Democrats)

But the reduction of business legislation seems like a free ticket to sell untested drugs from a highly polluting factory. I am all for the reduction in corporate welfare though [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

Some questions that remain unclear

Abortion, United Nations, welfare for the poor and handicapped, Getting rid of the omnipresent force of religion in schools and government, and how they would break through the duopoly of the REP/DEM power hold on US politics. The website does seem vague on many contentious issues.


Me? I think I will stick to pushing for reform in the nearest thing to the social democratic values party that we have down here [img]smile.gif[/img]

[wellard]

"We should eliminate the entire social welfare system. This includes eliminating AFDC, food stamps, subsidized housing, and all the rest. Individuals who are unable to fully support themselves and their families through the job market must, once again, learn to rely on supportive family, church, community, or private charity to bridge the gap."

^^^^Quote from the site....

They have got to be kidding! Social welfare is clunky and open to abuse admittedly but to disperse with it all together? So the children of the poor have to suffer in a country as rich as America? Sounds like a load of Bollox to me [img]smile.gif[/img]