Mitt Romney's failure was inevitable

[VinBucFan]

 " Your problem is that you are ideologically predisposed to associating size of government with type of government. A "massive federal government" is not a plutocracy unless it is a massive plutocratic government."

Your problem is that you're comfortable with the phrase "massive federal government."

comfortable? 

[Durango 95]

 "Just because you don't buy into social conservativism doesn't make you a moderate. It makes you a Libertarian, which is anything but a moderate philosophy."

Yes, many of the Libertarian principles certainly do fit social Conservatism. I would never label myself a straight-line Libertarian precisely because its social philosophies  (as referenced) are akin to social Conservatism. Which I don't agree with. I like the idea of states rights and limited Fed. Government but would not sacrifice my social ideals to enjoin the straight-line Libertarian model.

Besides, "I refuse to join any club that would have me as a member".

[CBWx2]

 " Your problem is that you are ideologically predisposed to associating size of government with type of government. A "massive federal government" is not a plutocracy unless it is a massive plutocratic government."

Your problem is that you're comfortable with the phrase "massive federal government."

...and is also predisposed to over-using the word "plutocracy" in a psuedo-intellectual attempt to justify Mobocracy.

What am I justifying? What do you consider to be "mobocracy"?

[Dolorous Jason]

"Just because you don't buy into social conservativism doesn't make you a moderate. It makes you a Libertarian, which is anything but a moderate philosophy."

Yes, many of the Libertarian principles certainly do fit social Conservatism. I would never label myself a straight-line Libertarian precisely because its social philosophies  (as referenced) are akin to social Conservatism.

That's news to me...

[Dolorous Jason]

 " Your problem is that you are ideologically predisposed to associating size of government with type of government. A "massive federal government" is not a plutocracy unless it is a massive plutocratic government."

Your problem is that you're comfortable with the phrase "massive federal government."

...and is also predisposed to over-using the word "plutocracy" in a psuedo-intellectual attempt to justify Mobocracy.

What am I justifying? What do you consider to be "mobocracy"?

My god you're stupid. Figure it out , dimwit .

Meanwhile , I'll go back to believing in "extremist" things like balanced budgets and individual liberty.

[Durango 95]

Listing things that are not news to you would easily be a much more efficient way of keeping track of what you don't know.

BTW...stop following nearly every post I make., your fan-boy/ look at me approach is weird.

[jbear]

"Just because you don't buy into social conservativism doesn't make you a moderate. It makes you a Libertarian, which is anything but a moderate philosophy."

Yes, many of the Libertarian principles certainly do fit social Conservatism. I would never label myself a straight-line Libertarian precisely because its social philosophies  (as referenced) are akin to social Conservatism. Which I don't agree with. I like the idea of states rights and limited Fed. Government but would not sacrifice my social ideals to enjoin the straight-line Libertarian model.

Besides, "I refuse to join any club that would have me as a member".

There are many different forms of libertarianism from anarchists to what I consider to be the more moderate arm that has been trying to influence the republican party since at least 2008 but I am not aware of many who claim to be libertarians who would consider themselves as socail conservatives.  Most of the more moderate arm that supported Ron Paul believe in something called Social libertarianism.

Definition from Urban dictionary that seems to fit my understanding of social libertarianism.

Social libertarians support a political, social, and economic environment which allows voluntary accession to associations, but also permits a person to choose to remain free of restraint by society, except in cases in which an individual's claim of freedom interferes with another individual's right to be free from unwarranted, aggressive coercion or harm.

What I believe that to mean does not allow for what passes these days for social conservatisim or, in my mind, any of the plutocratic, mobrule stuff CBWx2 keeps brining up.   Social libertarians believe that all people should be able to asssociate with whoever they please without interference so long as it causes no harm to others or infringes on the rights of others.  That of course goes for gays, or any number of other "perversions" social conservatives seem to target.  It's easy for some to spin that as some kind of insideous plan to be able to be able to discriminate against others but to me it provides protection for everyone to do as they please.  Live and let live. 

For example, Ron Paul proposes that the federal governement get out of the business of marriage arguing that marriage is a religeous or social institution and government should not be involved in recognizing anything other than civil unions which could be between any two people.  There are already many churches that will marry two men or two women but the idea that many have that the government needs to recognize "marriage" oversteps the bounds of what the government should do.  For some reason, many Americans feel the need for all groups to accept thier marriage rather than just associating with those who accept it.  For me, I would prefer it to be that way and personally I would have no problem accepting an unorthodox marriage of two people I wanted to associate with. What I have a problem with is the idea that government should dictate social norms.  Society should do that and govenrment should get out of the way. 

I personally don't see anything in common with my idea of social libertarianism and social conservatism. 

[Durango 95]

However there is much more to the social aspect of this discussion you did not reference. There are many social programs that R Paul Libertarians would like to fiddle with and eliminate. I would absolutely be against threats to not provide assistance for those in need which come down from the Federal level. Be it Food Stamps or unemployment benefits these social services are often essential for survival. I am not convinced Libertarians are prepared to effectively deal w/ these issues.

[Dolorous Jason]

However there is much more to the social aspect of this discussion you did not reference. There are many social programs that R Paul Libertarians would like to fiddle with and eliminate. I would absolutely be against threats to not provide assistance for those in need which come down from the Federal level. Be it Food Stamps or unemployment benefits these social services are often essential for survival. I am not convinced Libertarians are prepared to effectively deal w/ these issues.

 Do you even know which issues are commonly referred to as social issues ?

[jbear]

However there is much more to the social aspect of this discussion you did not reference. There are many social programs that R Paul Libertarians would like to fiddle with and eliminate. I would absolutely be against threats to not provide assistance for those in need which come down from the Federal level. Be it Food Stamps or unemployment benefits these social services are often essential for survival. I am not convinced Libertarians are prepared to effectively deal w/ these issues.

Good point but I would consider those more akin to fiscal policy than social policy.  It's splitting hairs I suppose but I just think of social conservatisim as being more in line with telling others how to live.

Also, many of the "moderate" arm don't consider social assistance an evil.  On principle I think most I'm aware of would prefer things like that be handled at the state level and would like to eliminate or at least limit monlopoly of such programs by the federal government.  Nobody in the Paul camp... "not by any means all libertarians" is proposing getting rid of social security or medicare although they do propose allowing younger workers to opt out of the program.  The main thing that I would like to point out is that this arm of libertarianism is also proposing cutting defense and ending the American Empire.  It's a principled approach based on scaling back the federal government in all areas and ensuring libery and freedom for all Americans not just taking away entitlements and certainly not promoting classisim or plutocracy. 

I think it's a fair concern to be worried about whether libertarians are prepared to effectively deal with all the issues you're concerned about but I think its important for libertarians to be a part of the discussion in a more meaningful way.  In all honesty, Libertarians have been so far removed from actually having a real chance at running things that even people like Paul focused almost exclusively on education and getting out the message.  Hopefully it gets to the point where the worst elements in the republican party are muted.  I'm sick of hearing about republicans being intolerent or war mongerers.  It doesnt have to be that way.   

[CBWx2]

However there is much more to the social aspect of this discussion you did not reference. There are many social programs that R Paul Libertarians would like to fiddle with and eliminate. I would absolutely be against threats to not provide assistance for those in need which come down from the Federal level. Be it Food Stamps or unemployment benefits these social services are often essential for survival. I am not convinced Libertarians are prepared to effectively deal w/ these issues.

 Do you even know which issues are commonly referred to as social issues ?

Figure it out, dimwit.

[CBWx2]

 " Your problem is that you are ideologically predisposed to associating size of government with type of government. A "massive federal government" is not a plutocracy unless it is a massive plutocratic government."

Your problem is that you're comfortable with the phrase "massive federal government."

...and is also predisposed to over-using the word "plutocracy" in a psuedo-intellectual attempt to justify Mobocracy.

What am I justifying? What do you consider to be "mobocracy"?

My god you're stupid. Figure it out , dimwit .

Meanwhile , I'll go back to believing in "extremist" things like balanced budgets and individual liberty.

Hey asshat, point to me the post where I said that either of those things are extreme? Balancing budgets is not extreme. The manor in which you and your ilk wish to approach balancing the budget is extreme. Individual liberty is not extreme. The manor of which you and your ilk wish to uphold or promote individual liberty is extreme.

The definition of extremism is "one who supports ideas that deviate to the greatest degree from the center of opinion." I am advocating a mixed government that is currently in practice in one form or another in over half of the civilized world. You are advocating a fictional utopia that has never been practiced by any sane and rational government in the world. Yes, you are an extremist. An ideologically rigid, uncompromising, far right extremist.

[Dolorous Jason]

However there is much more to the social aspect of this discussion you did not reference. There are many social programs that R Paul Libertarians would like to fiddle with and eliminate. I would absolutely be against threats to not provide assistance for those in need which come down from the Federal level. Be it Food Stamps or unemployment benefits these social services are often essential for survival. I am not convinced Libertarians are prepared to effectively deal w/ these issues.

 Do you even know which issues are commonly referred to as social issues ?

Figure it out, dimwit.

Considering your original point on libertarians and social issues was the same as mine , maybe you're trying a little too hard on this one , dimwit.

Since when is the budget for government entitlement spending considered a "social" issue ?? Durango just proved his complete ignorance ( kind of like you did when I proved you had never read the constitution ) .

[Dolorous Jason]

 " Your problem is that you are ideologically predisposed to associating size of government with type of government. A "massive federal government" is not a plutocracy unless it is a massive plutocratic government."

Your problem is that you're comfortable with the phrase "massive federal government."

...and is also predisposed to over-using the word "plutocracy" in a psuedo-intellectual attempt to justify Mobocracy.

What am I justifying? What do you consider to be "mobocracy"?

My god you're stupid. Figure it out , dimwit .

Meanwhile , I'll go back to believing in "extremist" things like balanced budgets and individual liberty.

Hey asshat, point to me the post where I said that either of those things are extreme? Balancing budgets is not extreme. The manor in which you and your ilk wish to approach balancing the budget is extreme.

You mean byactually balancing it  ?? LOL . Yes that is extreme , better to just talk about maybe doing it 50 years from now if we feel like it and find a magic money tree.

The manor of which you and your ilk wish to uphold or promote individual liberty is extreme.

You mean by actually allowing people to enjoy individual liberties , instead of just using the words as empty rhetoric ?? Yes , that is extreme also.

[Dolorous Jason]

However there is much more to the social aspect of this discussion you did not reference. There are many social programs that R Paul Libertarians would like to fiddle with and eliminate. I would absolutely be against threats to not provide assistance for those in need which come down from the Federal level. Be it Food Stamps or unemployment benefits these social services are often essential for survival. I am not convinced Libertarians are prepared to effectively deal w/ these issues.

Good point but I would consider those more akin to fiscal policy than social policy.  It's splitting hairs I suppose but I just think of social conservatisim as being more in line with telling others how to live.

Also, many of the "moderate" arm don't consider social assistance an evil.  On principle I think most I'm aware of would prefer things like that be handled at the state level and would like to eliminate or at least limit monlopoly of such programs by the federal government. 

...and don't forgot charities . This suggestion that anyone fallen on hard times would be left to die without the federal government is simply shallow thinking. We've raised 528 million in donations for Haiti ...a donation , not a tax . How is that even possible !!! People are too selfish to give without being compelled by force !! Nonsense. Imagine what we could do for our own if need be . Imagine if the money raised here locally went straight to those who need it , instead of filtering through a gigantic bureaucracy 2,000 miles away and coming out the other side only pennies on the original dollar.

Don't accept the far left's scare tactics. It's a false dichotomy.