Libertarians fight to break cycle of battered gay voter syndrome

You encourage battering?

Well you do if you encourage the state and the warmongering, anti-civil liberties, and corporate socialism policies that it brings.....

Compared to what the democrat elites have done for the cause, it wouldn't make that big of a difference...

and the Libertarians are growing, and gaining support left and right. Peace

Wouldn't make a difference?

Again, we are to smart to fall for a line of crap like that.

There is a HUGE difference between the Democrats failing to fulfill all of their promises, and the Republicans succeeding in fulfilling some of their threats.

So instead, you would have us vote for Libertarians, who are simply more adamant about voicing the promises while far less able to deliver on any of them?

And as long as Ron Paul is associated with the Libertarians, we can see what that party is worth.

Gaining support left & right?
You mean gaining support From the Right by bashing the Left.
Libertarians are the odddball little brother to the Conservatives.
And you ignore how your Conservative sibling uses it's political power against gay rights every chance it gets. Instead you post that Liberals are abusing homosexuals in an attempt to draw voters from the left to the right. (say word)

Don't pretend that Conservatives are victims.

Fall for what crap? The fact that the democrats have done little to nothing for the cause?

Even the US Senate candidate Elaine Marshall is keeping quiet about gay adoption bans that are ongoing in North Carolina! Dr Beitler and ALL the libertarians running for office fight hard for this cause. We even threw a special party just for this cause.

The democrats are wussies, and they will never go out on a limb for what is right, only for what is popular....

Your comment simply shows that "how things look" to you has nothing to do with how things are.

Again, the whole problem is how you twist and distort reality.

In the real world, there are two political parties.
In the real world, we all choose between the lesser of two evils.
In the real world, the Democrats have some problems, but over all they are doing OK.

In the real world, the Democrats don't have to use scare tactics to make me frightened of the Republicans. The Republicans are doing that all by themselves.

In the real world, if the Democrats started turning Fundie, and the Republicans started embracing diversity and Human rights, then guess what, I would start voting Republican.

In your small planet, a liberal is a Democrat, and only votes Democrat because they are Democrats.

In reality, a Liberal is a democrat, and votes democrat because they are the closest thing we have to liberal ideals.

If that changes, my vote changes.

Before Ronald Regan courted the Fundie and Dixiecrat votes, There were Liberals and Conservatives in both parties- and the Republicans were slightly more Liberal than the Democrats.

I vote based on my ideals, not based on the label on the can.

Just because you are a mindless sheep don't project that on anyone else.

Again- the problem is all YOU.

You have a really twisted view of the word, to the point of being bizarre.

No, they are NOT one party- there are negative aspects of all politicians collectively, but there are also substantial differences between the two parties, as I have already stated repeatedly.

Where the hell do you get that the Republicans would march gays to concentration camps? Just because you equate everyone who is different from you with the Nazis does not mean I do.

The Republicans do not want GLBT people to have equal rights- I NEVER said they want to actually kill us.

Well, back during the height of the AIDS epidemic, a few DID suggest rounding up gay people and putting us in Leper colonies, but that era is passed.

You say:
"The Republicans fear what Democrats will do because their leadership has told them the same damn kind of lies."

But there are no "same" lies. Yes, the Republicans lie about what the Democrats will do, but not the other way around.

You just jumped into some bizarre hyperbole (as you usually do) about Republicans having concentration camps for gays, and then CLAIMED that is something Democrats would say about Republicans.

It's not.

It is all YOU.

Again, I'm taking you to the real world, so please stay there- in the real world the right-wing pundits are convincing their base that Obama is a secret Muslim who is going to enact Sharia Law in the US.

In the real world, the Republicans ARE doing those extreme lies.

It is just not happening the other way around.

What are we told about the Republicans?

That they want to get rid of health care and corporate regulations.

You are PRETENDING that both sides are the same, but they are not, not by a long shot.

As far as the sentence: "If you want tax breaks for the middle class vote Democrat, if you want tax breaks for the rich vote Republican" that statement is TRUE.

If you don't get by now that the Bush tax cuts benefited the rich at the expense of the middle class, and that Obama has CUT taxes for the middle class, then you have NOT BEEN PAYING ATTENTION.

You are simply a tired, old cynic, who sees everything as one big canvas of shit brown, when the problem is all YOU and how YOU perceive things.

Again- it's all YOU.
I showed how you are wrong, and, as usual, resort to hyperbole and strawmen.
And this reply shows that you lack the maturity to admit when you are wrong.

Wow, how arrogant you are.
In that case, I'm done with you- you may leave this website now.
Your antics no longer amuse me.
Guards! Cease him!
Off with his head!

Guards!
Where are those lazy guards?
I want him hanged, drawn, quartered, drowned, then burned at the stake!

Liberal=Personal Freedom
Libertarian=Personal Freedom Most of the time & Corporate Secrecy and Right to Lie.

AMEN

You can't say you are for corporate transparency if you are against government regulations ensuring transparency.

Corporations do not naturally expose their shenanigans.
Heck, HUMANS do not naturally expose their shenanigans.

What audits? who is "our" who perform these audits? Who do "you" audit? How do you enforce the results of these audits of "yours"?

Everyone wants to cut off corporate lobbyists and stop subsidies to corporations, except the ones who finance their campaigns.

And there would be no corporate lobbyists if the government never polices industry anyway. They would have no need to lobby- they would have all of their dreams fulfilled.

The personal freedom you want is not freedom, it's chaos.

Freedom, TRUE freedom, goes hand in hand with responsibility.

TRUE freedom means that people do NOT have the right to infringe on the rights of others.

When a group of people get together and call themselves a company, they do not lose the responsibility every human being has to NOT infringe on the rights of others.

And since human beings, being what we are, DO infringe on the rights of others from time to time, we have laws and police.

Laws to regulate actions of individuals, and laws to regulate actions of groups called companies.

You say:
"Libertarians are the only alternative of real and meaningful, positive change.
Where people have the right to be left alone, gays included."

Yes, we gays do want a government that leaves us alone.
We do NOT want a government that looks the other way.

That is a distinction you fail to grasp.

Well wouldn't all press releases be considered propaganda then? It's not like they tried to hide the fact this was a press release from the LP.

If they are not objective then yes they are indeed propaganda.

Propaganda:
information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.

So whether you like the statement our not, it is completely true that this is indeed propaganda.

That said, I take the propaganda currently presented to be obfuscatory.

I wasn't disagreeing. However, nearly every single piece of news is propaganda because they all have their own agenda.

Like I said, it they weren't hiding the source of the article.

You take it to be obfuscatory, but I'm willing to bet you can't present a single fact they obfuscated. If you are confused by the reading I'm sure some of the libertarians will be more than willing to help you out.

Everything before the last sentence is acceptable discourse; however, the last sentence is pompous, and dripping in self righteous arrogance.

Ron Paul is the only libertarian?!?

Last I checked, everyone keeps drilling me for him being a republican....

Libertarians are against forcing others to accept gay marriage, just like they are against government banning gays and using government on gays.

Libertarians are pro-gay equality in child adoption, and no, Ron Paul is not correct on every issue.

Leave gay people alone, and they will leave you alone. It's really that simple. That does not mean I will use violence on people who do not serve gays, they have a right not to serve whoever they want. It's called freedom.

As for my life, gays are more than welcome. I could care less what people do in the bedroom as long as they don't force me to participate against my will.

You just want to use government magic for your cause.... but this government magic you think you're using, it's really just government FORCE.

As long as you don't infringe on gays, you can do whatever you want, but gay people are also not allowed to use force on others, including government force.

Ron Paul isn't a libertarian. He was a libertarian, and has libertarian leanings, but he is a true conservative.

how many Liberterians are in Congress?
You seem to think Democrats are "abusing" the 70% of Homosexuals who support them, because they can only get 90% support from elected Democrats on LGBT issues.

But at the same time Libertarians run as Republicans who oppose LGBT 100%
And they speak at Tea Partys, throwing red meat at the Christian right.
(yes i'm talking about Paul Jr.)

Keep telling "the gays" as you call them, that you think restaurants should have the right to tell them - " we don't serve your kind here "
that doesn't seem abusive at all.

You clearly don't understand how the free market works.

If a restaurant is discriminatory against a group of people, and patrons disapprove, then they will take their business elsewhere. Thus, that business will close its doors or change its policies. Meanwhile a restaurant that allows that group of individuals to enter will flourish.

This seems to be common sense.

Maybe it seems like common sense to you, but. . .

What if customers don't care. Or worse, they agree. They see a black person, or gay person getting kicked out of an establishment and they don't care or agree. They keep pumping money into the establishment. That's likely to happen, in accordance to various studies that have come out recently.

If so, too bad? Tyranny of the majority be damned?

This idea that racist businesses will die off and more welcoming ones will flourish? You don't know that.

Unless you are a Gay Black man with a Foriegn sounding name in the South and all the Tea People want Their country back. .-- Free Market , Not Free Discrimination .
If a single person is denied service or consideration in public life because of how or where they are born that would be disgraceful. If you make it legal for this to become common practice it would most likely become a national disgrace.

Forget the 'Back of the Bus' of Yesteryear, GreyHound could legaly have new fangled LED signs scrolling -- No Coloreds Allowed -- Jews in the Back -- Queers Under the Tires

That's the Free Market of Yesteryear. May it never be that "Free" again

If the business who is discriminating stays in business then a business who caters to that disenfranchised group will open. Whether they are black, white, gay, or whatever.

The free market isn't the tyranny of the majority. Tyranny of the majority refers to people empowering the government to remove the rights from individuals.

Nobody wants to make racism legal. People are talking about allowing private business owners the choices regarding how they run their business.

I'm afraid you aren't up on your history. The reason the free market did not work in the US regarding racism was because there was no free market. The racism was institutionalized by the federal and local governments. When you have government endorsing discriminatory policies then the free market cannot operate as it should.

The fact you think the free market doesn't give the consumer what's best (meaning what the consumer wants) is really laughable. Scary what they teach in schools these days.

Wait a minute- you are single-handedly responsible for at least half of the fawning posts about Ron Paul on this website.

http://current.com/search/items/0/q/ron+paul/loc/false/s/1/v/1/r/0/context/shank...

Are you now saying you have seen the light about this man?

If you allow private business owners the choices regarding how they run their business that go against Civil rights, that is making racism legal.

THUS, there are limits on the choices private business owners can make regarding how they run their business, correct?

These limits on the choices that private business owners can make regarding how they run their business are called REGULATIONS.

Regulations allow the government to protect us from certain "decisions" that private business owners can make regarding how they run their business.

THUS, regulations are a good thing.

Yes, there were diners that catered to black people.
Black people are poor.
They were not nice diners.
roaches everywhere.

The nice, clean restaurants were white only, and they did great business.
All the whites that went there were very happy, and left nice tips.
They were glad there were no ugly, messy, black people there ruining their appetite.

So exactly how would your free market solve this?

No, the phrase Tyranny of the Majority refers to the negative consequences of a pure democracy (such as a Free Market) without the limits of a Bill of Rights (such as Regulations) to limit the Majority by the rights of the Minority.

Jim Crow laws were mandated by governments, just like slavery!

Government enabled the segregation and the enslavement, it's side effects of hundreds of years of support for draconian measures are what pushed the issue so far down the road.

Once government stopped backing slavery, and once Jim Crow laws that forced segregation were taken off the books, that enabled the people to change. In fact, I would argue the market was working against slavery and the Jim Crow laws the whole time.

Civil disobedience, peaceful sit-ins, OSTRACISM (can't get more anarcho-capitalistic than that), not to mention educational private organizations that educated on equality. What about the UNDERGROUND railroad?!? That was a system setup against the government's slavery.

To act as if government laws ended racism is a bit naive, as government laws are often years behind the People's movements and as a secondary effect to the change that has already been occurring for a long time, much like the women's rights movement, where the 19th amendment was the frosting on the cake.

You are so naive.

You say Jim Crowe laws and slavery were "mandated" by the government? Like the nice, sweet southern whites really wanted blacks to be free, and vote, and be equal, but some big nasty politicians forced them to be bigoted?

Seriously, whenever I communicate with libertarians, and their cousins the anarchists, the word "naive" always comes to mind.

I did not say government laws ended racism.
That is your naivete, not mine.

I said government laws prevented people from ACTING upon their racist tendencies in a way that infringes on the rights of others.

Yes, civil rights movements start from the ground up. But without a government, there is no "up" for them to go.

When the Supreme Court case of Loving vs Virginia was decided 1n 1967, the overwhelming majority of people were against mixed race marriages.

By a Libertarian "states rights" agenda, it would still be illegal to this DAY for a black person and a white person to cohabitate, much less get married.

Without having a government that can make the decision to support minority rights, it would take CENTURIES for the slow churn of public opinion to eventually reach the majority.

That is WHY we HAVE a Bill of Rights in the first place.

What would most likely happen if a restaurant has a discriminatory policy against some group of people is that the group of people being discriminated against are(usually) the minority and will probably leave and move somewhere else.

That discriminatory business then gets more money, more funding, and becomes a franchise that spreads across towns, cities, states, and possibly the whole country.

At least that's how I think it'll go down(I have a pessimistic view of human behavior, yes).

Well stated.

I would also like to add, that if people WERE basically good, it would not mater what form of government we had- we would not need any government at all.

We would not need laws, because no one would commit a crime.

People would leave their doors unlocked, and children could play in the park unsupervised.

But, as you said- people are not like that, so we need government.

Of course Government is not the answer to all of our problems- but neither is the free market.

The truth, as always, is in a middle path- business must be free to exist and exercise their creative and innovative visions, and to expand, but government must regulate them so they do not gain monopoly control, and they do not create products that harm the consumers.

Individuals need to be able to become wealthy through hard work and creativity, but all people need to have the same opportunities to be able to succeed, through providing education and basic necessities so they can rise above simple survival.

That middle path is Socialism.

I wouldn't say the LP is attracting "conservatives." This is usually a false notion. We may be attracting more true conservatives (in the mold of Goldwater) which is a great thing for everyone.

If they are Republican on social issues then they are not libertarians.

Have, a fool or racist or all, believe your revisionist history. For you can afford it or ego lends you to believe as you step over the scum of the world, that repulsive lot of have-nots you abhor. I will lie cheat and steal for my bread screams the lecher at the sky with clinched fisted laughter and glee. A parasite pedophile upon the poor, will horde as bones litter the earth all around foot. For what do I owe my so called fellow man. I am here now, it is my time. I will consume the earth for a cold one. Let liberty and freedom crash for I have my loaf and love to hold out crust to tiny hands then pull it back to smack in my performance. Schadenfreude my favorite word, I snort as you sink beneath the cold waters. Even death a view is my pleasure. What wretch am I in self love. As long as my belly is full, then I want yours as well. The mirror is the only friend I want. Id is I he confesses proud.

Why, because I have several writing styles? Thank you for the complement. Was it you that I told not to bring a knife to a gun fight? (stole that from the Untouchables so shame on me), Hmmm? Maybe not, but the principle is still the same. I call it a modern Shakespearian style. You have to have a real grip on the English language to enjoy it. Enjoyment comes from the stylish verse and use of uncommon meaning with some words, but not most. Mostly it is the positioning of the words in a sentence uncommon to the contemporary form, add emotional flair. It’s the flair that I use to influence the reader; I touch their emotions which is a great way to sway opinion. Good thing I am not a liar like Fox Noise.
Then again some people have called it poetry, but I cannot agree since I never bothered to learn any of the rules of poetry. It just kind of comes out naturally, so whatever.
Sorry you can’t keep up, but then again let’s consider the sources of the complainant. Good luck with that BTW. LOL!

Gays are not the "bottom of the barrel".

No, they are not trying to get YOUR vote.

But they like being in the barrel!

Sorry, but I just found a possible place to reference a dirty joke and I just took it.

Again, I apologize.

I could vote for a party that has stated over and over again that they want to take my rights and make america a gay-free "moral" society or I could vote for the people who don't activly advocate for my rights reduction... that makes it a preety easy choice.

it is. we suck less has been the general train of political thought for...well forever.

Now the next step is to try out a new Motto like
"Don't Be Evil"

Hey, i t sure worked out well for Google

ouch, if i were a libertarian i'd be hurt right now.

Thats to bad i really like gay people and pot, maybe ill be the maverick

Why would libertarians be hurt? We expect these kind of responses from indoctrinated statists.

The two parties have done a great job of brainwashing people into thinking any vote not for them is a waste vote. They have established numerous laws and regulations to make sure it is nearly impossible for any other party to gain exposure. So it's not surprising people think it's a so called "wasted vote."

Voting for your principles is never a waste. I still find it humorous people think there is a difference between the two parties.

Yep, I agree.
The only real choices are Republican and Democrat, and no mater how long the list of promises the Democrats have failed to accomplish, it's better than the crap the Republicans actually DO.

The democrats see green party votes and votes for Ralph Nader as votes that "belong" to them or should've "belonged" to them.

If they see that voters are going to them in droves, and loosing elections because of missing the plurality, then they'll have to ask themselves if they want to move with those other voters or continue to stay where they are politically.

No, it not, because there are plenty of other men, and she only wants one- and she can even go it alone.

Here is a better metaphor- a world with only two countries. One totally sucks, and the other is not so bad, but has it's problems.

It is better to stick with the country that has it's problems than go live by yourself on a desert island, or risk the one that totally sucks taking over the planet.

No, I'm not desperately trying to justify wasting my time voting Democrat.
I'm pointing out that voting democrat is not a waste of time.
But I do get that you will never understand that;
just like you don't know what the word "fallacy" means.