this from wikipedia…….Political party Republican (1976-1988)
Libertarian (1988 Presidential Election)
Republican (1988-Present)

he was a libertarian what 4 months out of a 33 year career of being a republican?

how stupid can you get?

http://reason.com/archives/2009/10/05/scenes-from-a-crackdown

That, by far, is the stupidest thing you have ever said.

"Stick around, I'll teach ya." it WAS the stupidest thing until you said that

Ron Paul was the Libertarian candidate for President in 1988. He then decided he could effect change better in one of the two major parties, and ran for Congress as a Republican. His beliefs never changed.

The invasion of Iraq was not illegal. Congress authorized it, as the Constitution mandates.

The Bosnia war by the Clinton administration was illegal. Congress didn't authorize that one. You could also make the case that bombing Pakistan is illegal. I don't remember any Congressional authorization for that either.

Stick around, I'll teach ya.

Understanding and abiding by the Constitution isn't just libertarians…….it should be ALL Americans.

kinda leaves you out

just saying

You've failed.

http://www.counterpunch.org/quigley09282009.html

Huh ? Schiavo was an example of government getting INTO someone's life.

And your Ron Paul example was a pretty clear example of a Libertarian distinguishing himself from the Republican party, so you disproved your own hypothesis.

We already covered this, rainman. Because I'm not interested in repeating myself over and over…………later.

then sez….."Yet somehow you don't see that the Libertarian idea of "identifying and challenging structures of authority" pertains most of all to the biggest authority of all, the federal government."

What I'm surprised about is a republican like you quoting Chomsky

walter is spot on here. You simply cannot slip a piece of paper between the differences said to exist between libertarians and Republicans….you can't.

The only redeeming quality to Ron Paul's campaign was his opposition to wars of imperialism, his rejection of the neo-con's doctrine. But here, on this blog, so-called libertarians are all for wars of choice and aggression. So-called libertarians are all for mindng other countries business. I see today's self-proclaimed libertarians as mostly radicalized neo-conservatives. Their claim of wanting government out of our lives is pure rubbish…..see: Schiavo, Terry.

so libertarians ARE anarchists

Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees.

You've eliminated your own argument. I appreciate it. You saved me the trouble.

King, do libertarians a favor…….just stay a republican

no, that sounds like republican speak to me. The question is……are those republicans who refused to deliver on their promises going to deliver on their promises rebranded as libertarians? And the answer is….of course not.

again, Chomsky said…..""I think it only makes sense to seek out and identify structures of authority, hierarchy, and domination in every aspect of life, and to challenge them; unless a justification for them can be given, they are illegitimate, and should be dismantled, to increase the scope of human freedom."

that is TRUE libertarian philosophy

http://www.lp.org/

Libertarians are for smaller government, lower taxes, and individual freedom. They are against the all-powerful state. Does that sound like a socialist to you ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugq86q9KyPE&feature=player_embedded

"……to increase the scope of human freedom…….."

yes, I could see where King, larry and the not reverend would have problems with Chomsky

But I'm surprised that a conservative such as yourself would quote Noam Chomsky.

And those Reagan years were just TERRIBLE, weren't they ? He reversed the rampant inflation, high unemployment, and stagnant economic growth of the Carter years. He created 20 million jobs. He oversaw massive economic growth. He won the Cold War. Yeah, why we we ever want to emulate THAT ?

His reply: "I was attracted to anarchism as a young teenager, as soon as I began to think about the world beyond a pretty narrow range, and haven't seen much reason to revise those early attitudes since. I think it only makes sense to seek out and identify structures of authority, hierarchy, and domination in every aspect of life, and to challenge them; unless a justification for them can be given, they are illegitimate, and should be dismantled, to increase the scope of human freedom."

The great professor of linguistics is just giving a new name to the same failed collectivist ideals that have never worked.

I think you owe Larry an apology. A fruit basket makes a lovely gift and would remind him of you.

Source: Noam Chomsky on Anarchism, Marxism & Hope for the Future, http://thumbjig.blogspot.com/2008_08_01_archive.html

More than ever, libertarian socialist ideas are relevant, and the population is very much open to them. Despite a huge mass of corporate propaganda, outside of educated circles, people still maintain pretty much their traditional attitudes. In the US, for example, more than 80% of the population regard the economic system as inherently unfair and the political system as a fraud, which serves the special interests, not the people. Overwhelming majorities think working people have too little voice in public affairs (the same is true in England), that the government has the responsibility of assisting people in need, that spending for education and health should take precedence over budget-cutting and tax cuts, that the current Republican proposals that are sailing through Congress benefit the rich and harm the general population, and so on. Intellectuals may tell a different story, but it's not all that difficult to find out the facts.