So, Sarah Palin screws up a speech

[Hawk]

And those beliefs are fine, and admirable, as long as you accept that they are not uniquely Libertarian, and, in fact, generally align stronger with traditional conservative values (with the exception of the Foreign Policy angle, which is basically something that Paul opportunistically invented and isn't even universally agreed upon by all Libertarians).

And not to sound like a broken record, but I guess the distinction I am trying to make goes back to the differences between Republican/Conservative and Liberal/Democratic ... the new Libertarian party does not encapsulate (or adequately represent) the Libertarian political belief system.

Also, there's a difference between being 'hip' and being a 'hipster' ... but that's for another time and place, I suppose.

[Oklahomahawk]

I guarantee that if you ask the average self-proclaimed 'Libertarian' what his/her belief system is comprised of you'll hear a bunch of lip-flapping intermingled with, 'Freedom ... Independence... Small Government'. The especially clueless will make Paulian references to the Gold Standard, Isolationism, and other more contemporary 3rd party obsessions. It's like pick'em politics.

To me, the father of modern Libertarianism was Barry Goldwater, and I think we all know the basis of his theories was (is).

I cringe when people assume that all conservatives are Republican, and all liberals Democrat. It's just ... so American. The parties are constantly malleable in their beliefs, and I don't subscribe to the assumption that most people are, too.

First let me say that I couldn't agree more with your statement about both parties sucking, ie "they can suck a bowling ball through a garden hose", but allow me ask another question or two about your other statements. I'll leave the Paul-ian stuff to strug.

Should we/can we dispense with the Conservative/Republican and/or Liberal/Democrat terms then? Can we say that those who tend to agree with most/all of EITHER the Conservative/Republican crap as "The Right" and those who tend to agree with most/all of EITHER the Liberal/Democrat crap as "The Left" or is combing these the opposite of what you're trying to establish here? You see my problem with both parties/groups is that after Vlad Cheney's (and to a lesser extent W's) regime too many people to the right on the political scale will admit to being Republican (and to a lesser extent Conservative) and even fewer will admit to being Faux junkies or listen to talk radio or right wing website Aficionados, yet they can almost without fail quote to you the party line on just about everything, and Liberals/Democrats, who don't want to be tied to Nancy or Harry or Obama or even Joe (I put Obama 3rd because I think more Dems are turned off by Harry and Nancy than Obama, though I could be wrong), never watch, or listen to, or read far left stuff yet they can quote their position on everything verbatim as well.

So, nobody ever reads or watches or listens to the more extremist points of view that would seem to be closer to whatever group the average person would want to classify them into yet they all know the diatribe word for word. Doesn't that sound a bit strange to you? Is that the "Pick-em politics" you're referring to? So what are they all trying to do, be Republican/Democrat without having to wear the Scarlet letter of R or D and suffer the ridicule that goes with it from its detractors? And if they are pretty much followers of one party or the other in ideology but do not wear the team colors for fear of being labeled and/or ridiculed what does that say? And if they are "closet Rs or Ds" in action and belief, but don't follow the party out in the open, who are they then following? Is it the various Joseph Goebbels-es of our country, the far left and far right thought police? Isn't that way worse than even following a corrupt sucky political party?

I remember (barely) Goldwater, but for those of the younger persuasion would you elaborate on which of his "libertarian-isms" you're referring to?

[sturg33]

And those beliefs are fine, and admirable, as long as you accept that they are not uniquely Libertarian, and, in fact, generally align stronger with traditional conservative values (with the exception of the Foreign Policy angle, which is basically something that Paul opportunistically invented and isn't even universally agreed upon by all Libertarians).

And not to sound like a broken record, but I guess the distinction I am trying to make goes back to the differences between Republican/Conservative and Liberal/Democratic ... the new Libertarian party does not encapsulate (or adequately represent) the Libertarian political belief system.

Also, there's a difference between being 'hip' and being a 'hipster' ... but that's for another time and place, I suppose.

That's fine. If Republicans espoused those views - and actually acted on them - then I would support them. Same for democrats. I don't really care about your symbol.

The foreign policy was not invented by Paul. It was the general guidelines for many Presidents prior to the world wars. But we are so opportunistic now about military conflicts for two big reasons:

1) Because we heavily support the military industrial complex

2) Because since we have left the gold standard - our economy is almost entirely propped up from the petrodollar - which our military ensures it remains in place.