Ralph Nader: Progressive-libertarian alliance ‘the most exciting new political dynamic’ in US

I don't believe Mr. Obama was ever a Republican in a Democrat suit, he was simply a Democrat all along. People just don't realize how alike they really are.

too TRUE! the Elephants & Asses screwing the masses!

Closet rascists? LMAO You just called President Obama a "white Uncle Tom." Is your closet walk-in or do you have to get a running start to cram your rascist ass in it?

Sir, you seem to be under the impression that if something is "right-wing" it must have something to do with Republicans, more specifically Neo-Cons, and is therefore bad.

Not only is this a very ignorant delusion, it is also a laughable one.

I think you would find the term "classical liberal" a more fitting representation of modern day Libertarians. We are certainly not affiliated with the Neo-Conservative Republican party. Ultra right-wing, maybe, but certainly not a "faction". Such a term almost seems to imply that we work for the neo-cons or do their bidding.

I implor you to do more research into what Libertarians are, what we stand for, and how we compare with Republicans.

Thank you, and have a splendid evening.

A quick link for you

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_Liberalism

To what party does o great grand libertarian leader Ron Paul belong? The Republican party. Libertarians are just Republicans who want to smoke pot.

You sir, bring nothing to the table. You are a part of the problem. I am a "progressive" (though I hate labels) and I find that a lot of libertarian ideals are impractical in the real world, though sound in PRINCIPAL. Thus, there is room for us to find common ground.

You however, think that your opinion is absolute, that no other opinion is correct, or even has merit. You are a closed minded bigot as bad as any "tea partier" you claim to decry. You are a religious zealot, and your religion is the Democratic Party.

Indeed. Real Americans are American first and liberal/conservative second.

Exactly.

Why is it ridiculous? Can you just not see yourself ever working with a Libertarian?

Their ideologies are opposite on all but a very few issues. The key difference, safety nets vs small government is a massive difference that will utterly block any cooperation.

your right for obama to be an Uncle Tom he would have had to be Black at some point in his life and he is as white as the sky is blue in all the ways that count.
Plus he's done nothing but bend over and take it from the republicans on all the critical issues.

This animosity towards a political ideology is why we keep getting what we are getting. Divided we fall. There are a MYRIAD of issues that progressives and libertarians have in common. There are even MORE that they do not. However, a LOT could be accomplished if you worked together on the commons, and left the others for later. At least we would accomplish something.

I will give you one example. Most progressives I know hate the large banking institutions for various reasons. Libertarians abhor the central banking system. Even though the reasons behind them may differ, this one issue could be an issue you could work together on and perhaps accomplish a positive change.

Why would anybody want to talk with a Libertarian who just told them to pull their head out of their ass you stupid troll fuck.

Very well said neocongo, I refuse to talk with this person!

I have a little thicker skin than some other, so I am not offended by some of the things you say. BUT, you more often than not call names and lace your statements with all sorts of vitriol. I agree with SOME things you say, and disagree with a lot more..however I would work with you on ares we agree on...let the other things wait till we solve the common problems. But I am not sure anyone else is willing to do such a thing, most people do not take kindly to name calling. It's not about whether the "others" do it, or accept it or not, it's about the kind of person YOU want to be, and what YOU want to bring to the table.

(Yeah, I am a little hypocritical, I am sure I have called you a name or two in a heated debate..LOL..)

Greedy monkeys, like yourself, worship the free market. Humanity sees and is much, much, more.

Well, I dont' know about the whole disease aspect to your argument, but you make some reasonable points. I think you have to argue that it is better to ensure the poor/disabled/old have enough money to live (i.e. 10-20k per year) than it is to have them locked up in a prison (35-50k per year) because they had to do something illegal to put food on their table.

You mention a good point about making sure there are not "multigenerational welfare families". IMHO that is more of a "family values republican/neocon" talking point. I'm sure we can all agree that the only way to break that trend is to improve education in both normal disciplines and sex ed. We could further the point by giving out free profalactics and birth control. The other thing we need to do is penalize those who have lots of babies by keeping welfare a fixed amount regardless of how many children you have, and not tying welfare to having children at all. Why should someone who made a mistake (or more than 1) be rewarded for it while someone who is working hard at school/work gets nothing for being resonsible?

The easy answerer is MOST Liberals/Progressives are so attached to the Democratic party that they are blinded to it's many faults. I say most and not all because you do have Democrats like Dennis Kucinich & Mike Gravel who reach out to Libertarians and like minded Republicans and try too get things done.

Libertarians are like the lemmings of the human race.

No, the United States Supreme Court is the reason Gore lost and Bush won in 2000.

The idea that Nader is the reason Gore lost is the stupidest thing I have ever heard.

It is a fact. Check the numbers, if Nader would have pulled out Gore would have easily won Florida and the election.

That is equivalent to saying that if George Bush had just pulled out, Gore would have won. It is an absurd notion....the Florida debate aside..Gore lost because he didn't get the votes...the idea that anyone else besides a Republican or Democrat who decides to run for President is a selfish asshole, is itself a selfish notion. You are making the assumption that only the guy YOU want as President should be running.

I voted for Nader, and I will continually vote for a 3rd party candidate and not one of the two parties that dominate our political landscape.

Your vote for Nader was a de facto vote for Bush.

Your equivalence is no equivalence but non-sense.

I am assuming that Gore would have been better than Bush. Nader never had a prayer - his campaign was a vain glorious failure that gave us Bush. He is now a shamed figure in American politics.

If you really don't understand how a vote for Nader was a vote for Bush, you may be beyond help.

Your implication being that I should vote for someone I do not think is qualified or in line with what I think. The only wasted vote is a vote for someone you don't support and I did not support Gore.

Could you please explain how the equivalence is bullshit?

Oh and for the record your ignorance of electoral politics shines through. You didn't even ask what State I live in before you assumed my vote for Nader was a vote for Bush. I don't live in Florida...I live in California, and Gore won my state. My vote gave the Green Party one more vote they needed. Third Parties need a certain percentage of the popular vote in order to gain Federal funding in the next election cycle.

Before you start tossing around asinine arguments, perhaps you should do some research.

If you support Nader, or any other third party candidate and vote for one of the Two Parties..then YOU are throwing your vote away. You just told me to vote for someone I don't in good conscience support.