Total Posts:24|Showing Posts:1-24
Jump to topic:

True Libertarians do not vote for Mitt Romney

1dustpelt
Posts: 1,970
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2012 6:12:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
http://www.lp.org...

True Libertarians, True Ron Paul Supporters, & True Tea Partiers:
"Vote AGAINST Higher Federal Tax Collections
"Vote AGAINST Higher Federal Spending
"Vote AGAINST Higher Federal Debt

We ALWAYS Vote AGAINST Candidates Who:
"Vote FOR Higher Federal Tax Collections
"Vote FOR Higher Federal Spending
"Vote FOR Higher Federal Debt

Look at the Mitt Romney / Paul Ryan Republican Budget Numbers Below.
Then Vote AGAINST the Anti-Libertarian, Anti-Ron Paul, Anti-Tea Party Republican Presidential Ticket on Election Day.

Romney/Ryan Republican Federal Budget Plan Boosts Tax Collections 88%, Hikes Federal Spending 35%, and ADDS $4 Trillion to the National Debt

Here are Paul Ryan's own hard numbers on his budget plan (S1)

http://budget.house.gov...

Paul Ryan's "Path to Prosperity" Budget Plan:

1) Increases Federal Government Tax Collections from $2.444 Trillion to $4.601 Trillion. A $2.157 Federal Tax Collection Increase. An 88% TaxCollection Increase.

2) Increases Federal Government Spending from $3.624 Trillion to $4.888 Trillion. A $1.264 Trillion Increase in Federal Government Spending. A 35% Increase.

3) ADDS $4 Trillion to the National Debt.

Libertarian Presidential Candidate, 2-Term Governor Gary Johnson, has pledged to cut spending 43% to balance the federal budget his first year in office.

TWO PARTY SYSTEM MUST GO! NOBODY WANTS TO HELP CUT SPENDING EXCEPT THIRD PARTIES!
Wall of LOL
"Infanticide is justified as long as the infants are below two" ~ RoyalPaladin
"Promoting female superiority is the only way to establish equality." ~ RoyalPaladin
"Jury trials should be banned. They're nothing more than opportunities for racists to destroy lives." ~ RoyalPaladin after the Zimmerman Trial.
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2012 6:17:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
We have a two party system. I think the best thing that libertarians could do is influence the GOP from its libertarian wing. Like what Rand Paul is doing. Or how Goldwater and Reagan revolutionized the GOP to a conservative viewpoint, rather than moderate ideology.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2012 6:19:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/20/2012 6:17:34 PM, Contra wrote:
We have a two party system. I think the best thing that libertarians could do is influence the GOP from its libertarian wing. Like what Rand Paul is doing. Or how Goldwater and Reagan revolutionized the GOP to a conservative viewpoint, rather than moderate ideology.

Spot on ol' chap.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2012 6:28:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/20/2012 6:17:34 PM, Contra wrote:
We have a two party system. I think the best thing that libertarians could do is influence the GOP from its libertarian wing. Like what Rand Paul is doing. Or how Goldwater and Reagan revolutionized the GOP to a conservative viewpoint, rather than moderate ideology.

That's very inaccurate. Goldwater and Reagan were symptoms of an ideological consolidation and shift in the Republican party, mostly due to the tumult, crime, protest, and hyperliberalism of the 60s and partly 70s and the adjoining democratic regimes, which many Americans were fed up with. Neither individual revolutionized anything. Leaders spring from movements. Leaders do not cause movements. So if the Republican continues in the rightward authoritarian direction that it went these last 2 years, then Rand Paul will get nowhere. He'd be destroyed on his voting record in the senate during primaries, before he ever gets to see the light of day.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2012 6:39:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
You're about two weeks late with that. Even if you're right, who cares? Romney already lost.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2012 6:40:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/20/2012 6:28:37 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/20/2012 6:17:34 PM, Contra wrote:
We have a two party system. I think the best thing that libertarians could do is influence the GOP from its libertarian wing. Like what Rand Paul is doing. Or how Goldwater and Reagan revolutionized the GOP to a conservative viewpoint, rather than moderate ideology.

That's very inaccurate. Goldwater and Reagan were symptoms of an ideological consolidation and shift in the Republican party, mostly due to the tumult, crime, protest, and hyperliberalism of the 60s and partly 70s and the adjoining democratic regimes, which many Americans were fed up with. Neither individual revolutionized anything. Leaders spring from movements. Leaders do not cause movements. So if the Republican continues in the rightward authoritarian direction that it went these last 2 years, then Rand Paul will get nowhere. He'd be destroyed on his voting record in the senate during primaries, before he ever gets to see the light of day.

Did you have to attack me? It's true that the hyperliberalism of the 1960s caused discontent, but it was leaders that helped organize it into a greater movement with a meaning. I hope the recent election serves as a reality check that the GOP has to stop being social extremists and instead adopt more moderate social issues and make their campaigns more about economic freedom and prosperity.

I think the GOP realizes that people like Santorum, Huckabee, etc. are only going to make the GOP lose with the huge social issues, because they turn off a huge sector of the electorate. The GOP lost 2 Senate seats because of comments on abortion and/or rape. Are you fvcking kidding me? Rape is rape, don't become preachy d!cks who have to talk about it and act like you should control these women.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2012 6:48:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/20/2012 6:40:19 PM, Contra wrote:
At 11/20/2012 6:28:37 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/20/2012 6:17:34 PM, Contra wrote:
We have a two party system. I think the best thing that libertarians could do is influence the GOP from its libertarian wing. Like what Rand Paul is doing. Or how Goldwater and Reagan revolutionized the GOP to a conservative viewpoint, rather than moderate ideology.

That's very inaccurate. Goldwater and Reagan were symptoms of an ideological consolidation and shift in the Republican party, mostly due to the tumult, crime, protest, and hyperliberalism of the 60s and partly 70s and the adjoining democratic regimes, which many Americans were fed up with. Neither individual revolutionized anything. Leaders spring from movements. Leaders do not cause movements. So if the Republican continues in the rightward authoritarian direction that it went these last 2 years, then Rand Paul will get nowhere. He'd be destroyed on his voting record in the senate during primaries, before he ever gets to see the light of day.

Did you have to attack me?

Please quote where I attacked you. Thanks

It's true that the hyperliberalism of the 1960s caused discontent, but it was leaders that helped organize it into a greater movement with a meaning. I hope the recent election serves as a reality check that the GOP has to stop being social extremists and instead adopt more moderate social issues and make their campaigns more about economic freedom and prosperity.

I think the GOP realizes that people like Santorum, Huckabee, etc. are only going to make the GOP lose with the huge social issues, because they turn off a huge sector of the electorate. The GOP lost 2 Senate seats because of comments on abortion and/or rape. Are you fvcking kidding me? Rape is rape, don't become preachy d!cks who have to talk about it and act like you should control these women.

My point is that people are not convinced en masse by one individual. Ronald Reagan did not revolutionize conservatism,...conservatism was already revolutionized before he stepped in,...same with MLK. MLK did not create the civil rights movement. There was already a movement and already underlying sentiments, and he rose from it a leader. So general consensus among a group is a precondition of leadership. Until the majority of the GOP espouses libertarian ideals (which is not likely since some are saying that America doesn't need 2 liberal parties), Rand Paul will never win and will never get far.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2012 6:51:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/20/2012 6:48:26 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/20/2012 6:40:19 PM, Contra wrote:
At 11/20/2012 6:28:37 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/20/2012 6:17:34 PM, Contra wrote:
We have a two party system. I think the best thing that libertarians could do is influence the GOP from its libertarian wing. Like what Rand Paul is doing. Or how Goldwater and Reagan revolutionized the GOP to a conservative viewpoint, rather than moderate ideology.

That's very inaccurate. Goldwater and Reagan were symptoms of an ideological consolidation and shift in the Republican party, mostly due to the tumult, crime, protest, and hyperliberalism of the 60s and partly 70s and the adjoining democratic regimes, which many Americans were fed up with. Neither individual revolutionized anything. Leaders spring from movements. Leaders do not cause movements. So if the Republican continues in the rightward authoritarian direction that it went these last 2 years, then Rand Paul will get nowhere. He'd be destroyed on his voting record in the senate during primaries, before he ever gets to see the light of day.

Did you have to attack me?

Please quote where I attacked you. Thanks

"That's very inaccurate."

It's true that the hyperliberalism of the 1960s caused discontent, but it was leaders that helped organize it into a greater movement with a meaning. I hope the recent election serves as a reality check that the GOP has to stop being social extremists and instead adopt more moderate social issues and make their campaigns more about economic freedom and prosperity.

I think the GOP realizes that people like Santorum, Huckabee, etc. are only going to make the GOP lose with the huge social issues, because they turn off a huge sector of the electorate. The GOP lost 2 Senate seats because of comments on abortion and/or rape. Are you fvcking kidding me? Rape is rape, don't become preachy d!cks who have to talk about it and act like you should control these women.

My point is that people are not convinced en masse by one individual. Ronald Reagan did not revolutionize conservatism,...conservatism was already revolutionized before he stepped in,...same with MLK. MLK did not create the civil rights movement. There was already a movement and already underlying sentiments, and he rose from it a leader. So general consensus among a group is a precondition of leadership.

Well the underlying feeling exists, I agree with that, but the existence of a real leader for the specific ideology is important too. Look at Ron Paul. Without him, libertarianism would have less of an impact on national politics (more so than now).

Until the majority of the GOP espouses libertarian ideals (which is not likely since some are saying that America doesn't need 2 liberal parties), Rand Paul will never win and will never get far.

I still have hope that the GOP will learn to become smarter and more liberal with social issues.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2012 6:57:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/20/2012 6:51:38 PM, Contra wrote:
At 11/20/2012 6:48:26 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/20/2012 6:40:19 PM, Contra wrote:
At 11/20/2012 6:28:37 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/20/2012 6:17:34 PM, Contra wrote:
We have a two party system. I think the best thing that libertarians could do is influence the GOP from its libertarian wing. Like what Rand Paul is doing. Or how Goldwater and Reagan revolutionized the GOP to a conservative viewpoint, rather than moderate ideology.

That's very inaccurate. Goldwater and Reagan were symptoms of an ideological consolidation and shift in the Republican party, mostly due to the tumult, crime, protest, and hyperliberalism of the 60s and partly 70s and the adjoining democratic regimes, which many Americans were fed up with. Neither individual revolutionized anything. Leaders spring from movements. Leaders do not cause movements. So if the Republican continues in the rightward authoritarian direction that it went these last 2 years, then Rand Paul will get nowhere. He'd be destroyed on his voting record in the senate during primaries, before he ever gets to see the light of day.

Did you have to attack me?

Please quote where I attacked you. Thanks

"That's very inaccurate."

Okay, I think we both know that's not an attack, so I won't spend too much time responding to this. We're not in kindergarten anymore...we need to learn how to take honest criticism. Alright?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2012 7:10:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/20/2012 6:57:31 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/20/2012 6:51:38 PM, Contra wrote:
At 11/20/2012 6:48:26 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/20/2012 6:40:19 PM, Contra wrote:
At 11/20/2012 6:28:37 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/20/2012 6:17:34 PM, Contra wrote:
We have a two party system. I think the best thing that libertarians could do is influence the GOP from its libertarian wing. Like what Rand Paul is doing. Or how Goldwater and Reagan revolutionized the GOP to a conservative viewpoint, rather than moderate ideology.

That's very inaccurate. Goldwater and Reagan were symptoms of an ideological consolidation and shift in the Republican party, mostly due to the tumult, crime, protest, and hyperliberalism of the 60s and partly 70s and the adjoining democratic regimes, which many Americans were fed up with. Neither individual revolutionized anything. Leaders spring from movements. Leaders do not cause movements. So if the Republican continues in the rightward authoritarian direction that it went these last 2 years, then Rand Paul will get nowhere. He'd be destroyed on his voting record in the senate during primaries, before he ever gets to see the light of day.

Did you have to attack me?

Please quote where I attacked you. Thanks

"That's very inaccurate."

Okay, I think we both know that's not an attack, so I won't spend too much time responding to this. We're not in kindergarten anymore...we need to learn how to take honest criticism. Alright?

Another attack! It sounds like you're talking down to me. Oh well I can handle it fine.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2012 10:17:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
"True" libertarians conform to whatever I think.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2012 10:43:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/20/2012 6:12:11 PM, 1dustpelt wrote:

True Libertarians, True Ron Paul Supporters, & True Tea Partiers:

Ron Paul is not a true Libertarian. He just plays one on TV.
Sure he votes like a Libertarian,but he introduces non-libertarian bills so others can vote in his stead. That way he takes no heat for it.

Look who Ron Paul endorses! Pat Buchanan! Pat Buchanan is anti-Free Market. Pat Buchanan is a economic nationalist, who believes in protectionism, and wants to replace the Fed with a Federalist style central bank. Pat Buchanan is Anti-Jeffersonian and Pro-Hamiltonian. Pat Buchanan wants to limit immigration to the US.

Ron Paul refused to endorse Romney (who favors state's rights), but instead chooses to endorse a Nationalist????

Ron Paul ain't no Libertarian!

Ron Paul is also power hungry. He was first elected to the house of Reps in 1979 where he served for 6 years. He than lost the 22nd district congressional seat to a Democrat.

In 1988 Ron Paul switched to the Libertarian party, so he could run for President on the Libertarian ticket. After he lost he switched back to the Republican party. Ron Paul was a republican since he was 21.

Ron Paul than gained the 14th district congressional district seat, due to his coalition with Pat Buchanan. He just barely won the district, because of his racist news letters, which appeared in Neo-Nazi online-directories.

Than he ran for President again in 2008, failing miserably, just like the last time. Than he ran for President again in 2012; attacking both candidates. His attacks on Obama did nothing to hurt Obama's campaign because collectivist support Obama. His attacks only hurt Romney. Immediately after Obama won the election his Facebook campaign page was filled with Ron Paul stooges claiming "don't blame me I voted Ron Paul". Talk about useful idiots.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2012 10:47:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/20/2012 9:25:22 PM, darkkermit wrote:


True libertarians do not look at explosions.

That's very homoerotic... I'm a little confused.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2012 11:38:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/20/2012 10:43:04 PM, DanT wrote:
At 11/20/2012 6:12:11 PM, 1dustpelt wrote:

True Libertarians, True Ron Paul Supporters, & True Tea Partiers:

Ron Paul is not a true Libertarian. He just plays one on TV.

False. His books, his actions, his voting record. I've seen him in person, not just on TV, he is the real deal. Ron Paul met with Rothbard, Mises, and Ayn Rand. It doesn't get more Libertarian than that.

Sure he votes like a Libertarian,but he introduces non-libertarian bills so others can vote in his stead. That way he takes no heat for it.

You mean earmarks? Lmao. Yeah, that's the point of being elected for a district. You give them funds for infrastructure. It's better than sending that money overseas to fix there bridges. Ron Paul never pretends, he always says that we should be fixing the roads and bridges at home and not overseas.

Look who Ron Paul endorses! Pat Buchanan! Pat Buchanan is anti-Free Market. Pat Buchanan is a economic nationalist, who believes in protectionism, and wants to replace the Fed with a Federalist style central bank. Pat Buchanan is Anti-Jeffersonian and Pro-Hamiltonian. Pat Buchanan wants to limit immigration to the US.

Pat Buchanon is not bad, he's a Paleo-Conservative. Buchanan was clearly better than the opposition so I see no issue with that endorsement. Just because you endorse someone, doesn't mean that they represent your views 100%.

Ron Paul refused to endorse Romney (who favors state's rights), but instead chooses to endorse a Nationalist????

C'mon, Romney had his fair share of issues just like Buchanan. Neither is as good as Ron Paul, and both are no Libertarians.

Ron Paul ain't no Libertarian!

You're not a Libertarian.

Ron Paul is also power hungry. He was first elected to the house of Reps in 1979 where he served for 6 years. He than lost the 22nd district congressional seat to a Democrat.

In 1988 Ron Paul switched to the Libertarian party, so he could run for President on the Libertarian ticket. After he lost he switched back to the Republican party. Ron Paul was a republican since he was 21.

Ron Paul than gained the 14th district congressional district seat, due to his coalition with Pat Buchanan. He just barely won the district, because of his racist news letters, which appeared in Neo-Nazi online-directories.

That's not power hungry. He never even had the desire to even be a Congressman. He became one because he had a message to spread to the world. A Libertarian message, and he did what he could to get the biggest platform to speak his ideas of Liberty. If he wanted power, he wouldn't have chose to be in the House of Representatives, that's for damn sure.

Than he ran for President again in 2008, failing miserably, just like the last time. Than he ran for President again in 2012; attacking both candidates. His attacks on Obama did nothing to hurt Obama's campaign because collectivist support Obama. His attacks only hurt Romney. Immediately after Obama won the election his Facebook campaign page was filled with Ron Paul stooges claiming "don't blame me I voted Ron Paul". Talk about useful idiots.

Ron Paul had every right to attack Romney. It's a debate and a competitive process to clinch the nomination. Which by the way, Ron Paul was rather light on Romney, especially with regards to ads. The press constantly asked him why he was soft on Romney.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2012 3:19:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/20/2012 10:48:45 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
True libertarians are like True Scotsmen.

True Libertarians don't believe in rhetorical fallacies.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2012 6:15:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/20/2012 11:38:36 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 11/20/2012 10:43:04 PM, DanT wrote:
At 11/20/2012 6:12:11 PM, 1dustpelt wrote:

True Libertarians, True Ron Paul Supporters, & True Tea Partiers:

Ron Paul is not a true Libertarian. He just plays one on TV.

False. His books,
If he authored the books, and he wants to portray himself as Libertarian, he won't put fascist ideologies in the book.
his actions,
You mean defrauding the taxpayers?

his voting record.
I already covered this.
I've seen him in person, not just on TV, he is the real deal.
You are taking the "he just plays one on tv" remark too literally.
Ron Paul met with Rothbard, Mises, and Ayn Rand.
It doesn't get more Libertarian than that.
Churchill met with Stalin, therefore Churchill is a communist..... Oh wait, that logic doesn't quite add up. Churchill was the one who proposed America lead the Free World against communism, in what later became the cold war.

It's safe to assume Ron Paul is not libertarian simply because he met with libertarians either.


Sure he votes like a Libertarian,but he introduces non-libertarian bills so others can vote in his stead. That way he takes no heat for it.

You mean earmarks? Lmao. Yeah, that's the point of being elected for a district.
No the point is to represent your district. Earmarks are unconstitutional, because the constitution does not authorize them. Instead of imposing federal taxes, than granting states earmarks so they become dependent on the central government, one could reduce federal taxes, and let the states collect their own revenue.
You give them funds for infrastructure. It's better than sending that money overseas to fix there bridges.
Here is a better idea; use that money to balance the budget.
Ron Paul never pretends, he always says that we should be fixing the roads and bridges at home and not overseas.

Yes, the states should be fixing roads and bridges, not the federal government.


Look who Ron Paul endorses! Pat Buchanan! Pat Buchanan is anti-Free Market. Pat Buchanan is a economic nationalist, who believes in protectionism, and wants to replace the Fed with a Federalist style central bank. Pat Buchanan is Anti-Jeffersonian and Pro-Hamiltonian. Pat Buchanan wants to limit immigration to the US.

Pat Buchanon is not bad, he's a Paleo-Conservative.
So you slap a label on him, and don't address his actual policies?
*cough* sheep *cough*
Buchanan was clearly better than the opposition so I see no issue with that endorsement.
Buchanan was a member of the reform party.
Fiscally the reform party believe in economic nationalism; socially they believe in progressivism.
Fiscally libertarians believe in Laissez-faire; socially they believe in Cultural liberalism.

In short, Buchanan is far from Libertarian. Romney is far more libertarian than Buchanan.
Just because you endorse someone, doesn't mean that they represent your views 100%.

So which views does he represent? The his anti-immigrant stance or his anti-free market stance? Maybe Ron Paul favors his platform regarding protective tarrifs?

Ron Paul refused to endorse Romney (who favors state's rights), but instead chooses to endorse a Nationalist????

C'mon, Romney had his fair share of issues just like Buchanan. Neither is as good as Ron Paul, and both are no Libertarians.

Ron Paul is not a libertarian. It is obvious he is trying too hard to be libertarian. There are numerous types of libertarians and Ron Paul tries to appeal to them all. Ron Paul is also a conspiracy theorist, backing groups like 9-11 truthers. He constantly spews misinformation, and BS. He supports anything fringe, just so he can disassociate himself from the 2 major parties.
Ron Paul ain't no Libertarian!

You're not a Libertarian.

Yes I am. I'm just not a sheep who believes everything a politician tells me. Just because I don't support Ron Paul, who is a fringe lunatic trying to piggyback on both the libertarian and the republican party, does not mean I am not a libertarian.

Libertarians shouldn't even being trying to win the Presidency right now. They should be trying to win congressional seats, governorships, and other local government positions. Until libertarianism becomes more popular locally, we cannot gain the Presidency.

Ron Paul has been counterproductive to the libertarian cause. His attacks on the 2 major parties alienate potential libertarians. His attempts to become the face of libertarianism, has taken the focus away from true libertarian candidates. The fact that he is a fringe lunatic, who believes in conspiracy theories, and supports nationalists, does not help the image of libertarianism either. It also does not help libertarianism when he babbles on, making up lies and spreading misinformation in order to support his points. It makes us look just as crazy and misinformed as Ron Paul.
Ron Paul is also power hungry. He was first elected to the house of Reps in 1979 where he served for 6 years. He than lost the 22nd district congressional seat to a Democrat.

In 1988 Ron Paul switched to the Libertarian party, so he could run for President on the Libertarian ticket. After he lost he switched back to the Republican party. Ron Paul was a republican since he was 21.

Ron Paul than gained the 14th district congressional district seat, due to his coalition with Pat Buchanan. He just barely won the district, because of his racist news letters, which appeared in Neo-Nazi online-directories.

That's not power hungry. He never even had the desire to even be a Congressman.
LOL that's BS
He became one because he had a message to spread to the world. A Libertarian message, and he did what he could to get the biggest platform to speak his ideas of Liberty.
Let me guess, you read that in his book?
If he wanted power, he wouldn't have chose to be in the House of Representatives, that's for damn sure.

That's the only place he can get elected too. He tried 3 times to gain the presidency, and failed.
Than he ran for President again in 2008, failing miserably, just like the last time. Than he ran for President again in 2012; attacking both candidates. His attacks on Obama did nothing to hurt Obama's campaign because collectivist support Obama. His attacks only hurt Romney. Immediately after Obama won the election his Facebook campaign page was filled with Ron Paul stooges claiming "don't blame me I voted Ron Paul". Talk about useful idiots.

Ron Paul had every right to attack Romney.
Having a right o do something does not make it right to do it.

It's a debate and a competitive process to clinch the nomination.
I'm talking about after Romney was nominated as the Republican candidate.

Which by the way, Ron Paul was rather light on Romney, especially with regards to ads.
that is your opinion. He shouldn't be attacking Romney at all. Every anti-Romney ad is 1 less ad that Obama had to pay for. He contributed to Obama's re-election.
The press constantly asked him why he was soft on Romney.

The press also kissed Obama's azz and held his hand, during his first term in office.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle