I realize I’m a little late, so thank you for your time.

Re: “…what are my choices? Should I condone the Republican Party for moving to the left by voting for their candidate? I have never voted for a Republican and I have never voted for a Democrat and I have always voted for the Libertarian candidate. I feel like my voice is being lost. I thought maybe I’ll do a protest vote …”

Although a little dated [last Feb.], still the best explanation is given in an excellent article by Dr. Phil Jackson:

“The American political system operates in a certain way, and has certain consequences attached to that operation. Ignoring this reality will serve only one purpose. It will not advance your cause, promote your political philosophy, or teach corrupt politicians a lesson. Instead, it will reduce you to an irrelevant afterthought and do far more to damage the beliefs and ideas you hold dear, than advance them.” [Emphasis added]

You will have to read the rest here http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2008/02/01/to-vote-or-not-to-vote-that-is-the-question .

As to whether I’m a liberal or conservative under the definition you defined well I have a achieved a very comfortable life with my own hard work and I do not like giving handouts. Communism and Collectivism certainly has shown throughout history as an utter failure.

With the Republican party as you put it “moved to the left” what are my choices? Should I condone the Republican Party for moving to the left by voting for their candidate? I have never voted for a Republican and I have never voted for a Democrat and I have always voted for the Libertarian candidate. I feel like my voice is being lost. I thought maybe I’ll do a protest vote this round and see if other Libertarians were thinking the same.

I think really I was trying to convince myself to not vote republican. I needed a sound argument for me to vote for McCain and I thought the readers of this site might give me that argument. However with the argument being “McCain, at least he’s not a total liberal” along with rude comments from Ivan it made me completely want to give a giant F*** You to the republican party for not standing up for what their core principles are. Instead I think my best option is for my voice to become lost again and vote for Barr. At least I’ll be standing up for what I believe in.

I think having liberal politics is the only way to have a contrast. However I think Europe should be the Guinea Pigs of liberal politics not the republican party. Ron Paul was obviously a fantastic candidate and would have been a no-brainer to vote for but sadly there are very few who take the time that is necessary to understand governance. In fact I am still trying to understand the intricacies of politics.

Ivan thank you for taking the time re-reading my comments, unfortunately it took me calling you a coward for any real discussion to happen. When you criticized me for assuming, I think you need to look in the mirror. You assumed I was just another “troll” because I am new here not someone who is desperate for some sense of truth. If my comments are not welcome on this site than isn’t it hypocritical saying only liberals cannot withstand scrutiny?

Re: “Liberal” and “Conservative”

I agree that the Republican Party has move away from Reagan-type conservatism, but does that mean the Democrats are now more conservative? I submit that both parties have moved to the Left, the Democrats even more so.

However, these terms have changed meaning down through the years. Your definition of “conservative” would fit the Soviet Union’s Communist Party, because once it got into power, it wanted to “conserve” the status quo. But how much further Left can you get than the communists?

“Liberal” use to mean, in the classical sense, one who was for self-government, individual rights within limits, and the ability to rise on one’s own efforts and merits. The modern liberal is more correctly called a “Pseudo-Liberal” or a “collectivist”, as Baker points out here http://www.orgonomy.org/article_terrorism_trueliberal.html .

Can McCain be described as a collectivist? I hardly think so. On the other hand, can Obama, Hillary, and most other Democrats? I think they certainly can. (Please note that they are like the Soviet Union Communists in that they want collectivism for everyone except themselves. They are in it solely for power; otherwise, how do you explain why already rich Democrats [read: Ted Kennedy] want to get elected? So they can redistribute their own money?)

If you have not read George Orwell’s Animal Farm, I highly recommend it. It is an easy read of only 125 pages or so. It is a parody on the Russian Revolution and full of allegory, most notably the pigs who gain control of the wealth of the farm. And that is the defining element of collectivism, or Leftism as I prefer. Examples abound: High taxes, taxation for its own sake, income redistribution, affirmative action – the list goes on. However, it is not the only element. In order to get control of their wealth, you must get control of the people. This is done primarily by revolution: creating disorder and chaos by dividing people into “conflicting” groups, and also by encouraging people to become slaves to their passions, then the presenting of the Left as the salvation of all mankind. Once in power, the first task of the revolution is to prevent a counter-revolution. Hence speech codes, political correctness (invented to hide truth), persecution of tradition (especially the Christian tradition), and even the redefinition of truth and goodness because Leftist ideology cannot withstand the scrutiny of these ideas. To paraphrase Selwyn Duke, Leftist ideology is one which is not rejected when it conflicts with truth, but where truth is rejected when it conflicts with the ideology. The most brilliant talk I ever heard on Marxist/Leftist nonsense was given by Bishop Fulton Sheen on his TV program. Explaining the concept of truth and the difference between how Communism and Western thought arrive at it, he posed the question, “Where are your sox?” Western thought turns to REALITY [and tradition] – you look for them in your dresser drawer. Communism answers by stating, “Wherever the Party says they are!”

Because it appeals to man’s baser instincts, there is nothing new about Leftism.

A conservative could more correctly be called a traditionalist. In the process of solving any of life’s many problems, you must start somewhere, and the only place to start is to consult tradition. (Note here that tradition does not mean, “We do it that way because we’ve always done it that way,” but the distillation of human knowledge down through history.) While tradition might not always be right, it can’t help being the starting point, as Feser points out http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=092006B . In a way you might say this is a collectivist approach because it represents the collective knowledge of all the generations of history. (But then again, the idea of a society represents a collective approach in some way; that’s why they are called communities.)

A question to ask ourselves is whether we want each new generation to redefine society from scratch, or do we want one built on knowledge gained through the experience of many generations?

So, are you a liberal or a conservative?

Democrats are behind “Fair Market” expression of speech, meaning that failed Liberal talk shows must be subsidized, lest they fail in the marketplace.

Democrat strong-arm legal tactics are applied to the Media to try to abort anti-Democrat messages.

Facts are not only misrepresented, pure lies are expressed by the Democrat party on a daily basis.

Shall I continue? Who states, “the VP’s daughter is a WHORE?” Who claims “The Senator lied?”

I know who I see doing so daily, and it isn’t Republican.

Now it may be that I assume too much, however I thought this was a Libertarian site and I think people here need to ask themselves one question. Do we have more or less liberties than we did 8 years ago?