I noticed allot of Obama supporters.... they are so much in love with him that they fail to see the bad things I say about Bush a republican...... all they see if Obama

So here is a poll please choose 1





I am a "Libertarian- Does not Support Obama"

Umm... you know you could have added a poll, right? So that it actually tallies up the votes?


Also, I vote for none of the above.

I'm fairly sure you don't know what liberal means given this AMAZING first post, so

libertarian--supports Obama

poor centrists, authoritarians, fascists and anarchists >_<

Liberal +Obama

Green - I'd support Obama on some things and not support him on others, if I was American.

I vote all of the above. I fully support my President, but I oppose most of his agenda. I hope he's successful in defending the US and its interests around the world, building a positive image of the United States, securing economic recovery here at home, and in securing the future fiscal stability of the United States. To that end, I oppose his ideas on healthcare, military matters, environmental matters, stimulus spending, overall spending, and the role of government.

Independent - Does not support Obama.

This needs a real poll, I don't think I have ever seen one like this.

I am a center-right, kinda Republican, that's cautiously pessimistic.

I consider myself to be a libertarian, microeconomic socialist supporter of markets who is wary of Obama and is neither supportive nor opposed to the man himself

I support him and I'm a socialist, but I don't understand the first line of your post.

Silly Ethan, you're far too centrist to be libertarian.

Libertarian, which means I won't support Obama.

Independent, neutral towards Obama at this point.

This poll is very much lacking in the polling and the choices. You've pretty much missed everything from fascist to anarchist to Constitution Partyists.

Where is the: radical liberal who only lukewarmly supports Obama, but only because he find him far more appealing then a teabagger or Palin?

I added a pole....... I did not say I was Liberal I said I was libertarian!!!!!!!!!

Libertarian is not Liberal!!!!!!!!

That is a very insulting mistake

Voted every option available with preference given to the options that were incorrectly spelled when voting was actually restricted.

The poll questions still don't clearly define who or what we do or don't support.

voted "stop posting"

Fine by me, I'm tired of arguing.... I would like a decent debate but nobody wants to debate anymore only argue


Is it ok if I post a bunch of polls , there are allot of topics I would like to see polled

if you wanted a debate, you'd post better. You'd take correction when people point out the many ways you're wrong.

You just want people to agree with you.

you would think but my uncle a long time libertarian agrees with him, or atleast claims it (he has a liberal wife)

True Libertarians believe in and support self-ownership, his wife must rubbing off on him.

I totally agree

I consider myself a Anarcho-Capitalist which is not really a capitalist so much as they believe that government should be abolished and that all government jobs should be given to compeating companies.

If worked out right it could work

I am also libertarian since the dream of anarchy is too far gone without a revolution

This, and anaracho-capitalism isn't a political party. By definition.

I am a member of the Anarcho-Communist Party (nevermind the contradiction in the notion of an "anarchist party") and, as such, I disapprove of my government.



Self-ownership implies that the self is a unit of property, and like any other unit of property, can be bought, sold, or traded. If "True Libertarians" believe in self-ownership, then they must also believe in the most unfree condition imaginable, that of slavery.

Proper libertarians (that is, socialists) prefer the idea of self-determination, or integrity of the self. That all persons are created free and that this liberty is an integral part of themselves as conscious beings. The notion of selling oneself into slavery is absurd from this standpoint, as one can no more willingly cease to be free than one can willingly cease breathing. This suggests the interesting topic that liberty is human nature, but that is not the topic of this thread.

Conservative who does not support Obama or Liberal republicans

Self-ownership implies that no one else has the ability to own you. Socialism is a contradiction of libertarianism, a system in which the government has control of means of production robs oppurtunity from the individual. The same system also implies a welfare state, in which people assume a collective responsibility without consent of all involved. A person (or group of people) I've never met are not my responsibility, and no one has the right to force that responsibility upon me without consent, especially a government. I cannot take an argument seriously if someone claims that a contradiction is the proper form of the ideal it is contradicting.

A mix...so, other. Mostly a Constitutionalist.

I think the stimulus was probably a good idea, I think opposition to gay marriage is stupid, I think abortions should free for everyone under the age of 21, I think the American health care system dramatically underperforms European competitors, I think Reagan's spending was too high and Bush I was very irresponsible, I think Clinton had reasonable economic policies, I think the idea that tax cuts increase government revenues is stupid, I think that tax cuts as stimulus are REALLY stupid, I think the idea that CRA created the housing bubble was totally wrong, I think that we need more international institutions and eventually one world government, that global warming and evolution are both real and undeniable, and I think defensive medicine and insurer competition is not going to seriously drive down health costs.

On the other hand, I think supply-side tax cuts are pretty sound in theory, that government safety need massive reform, that social security needs to be scaled back and people need to take more responsibility and need more choice in their personal retirement accounts, that Reagan did a reasonable job in ending the Cold War and reforming the tax code, that America needs to stand tall and strong and above other nations and needs to be a leader, that Democratic give-aways and taxes destroy work incentives at all levels, that the health care bills are pieces of crap because it doesn't really control costs while expanding coverage, that the deficit is going to need to be trimmed and its a serious issue(but a long-term one), that global warming is better addressed through adaptation and kicking the can down the road a bit, that big business is generally good although a bit explotitative, that major social problems are the result of people behaving improperly, and that labor unions are generally bad.




So am I a "Liberal" Republican? Is there no room in the party for me?

Voted all because I could. (Hi Cato! I see you viewing the thread. )

Anyways, I'd say I'm a Socialist, and no, and no, to the other two questions.

Did i say that? No

Nope, you said you were against Liberal Republicans. Since I am not such a big fan of these so-called conservative Republicans, I'm wondering whether there is a target on my back, along with a few other buddies of mine.


If you can't tell me, who can?

Ideally, I'm a Syndicalist, but since I'm very pragmatic, I'm more of a liberal or socialist with a very mixed political background, sometimes I find myself agreeing with Libertarians, other times more with socialists and Keynesians. I generally support at least half of our elected politicians and whole-heartedly support Obama (since he did inherit some of the programs and problems from the previous presidency and he's not the legislature anyway, which is filled with quite a few lifetime senators who definitely are not always looking after the interests of the American people with efficiency).

For example, I agree with about 80% of GV's post that's 4 posts above mine.

Centrist-Conservative-Libertarian not supporting current government officials (most) and not supporting the Obama administration.

I voted Liberal, Libertarian, and Centrist; only Democrats, but acknowledge the lack of degree in the poll; and only some.

Anarcho-communist/Other Form of Anarchy. Unsure Government officials. Generally yes to Obama administration.

Eric, how can you support Obama as an anarchist?

I'm a communist, I oppose all governments on the planet, including the Obama Administration.

As a philosophical anarchist, I support an evolutionary political path towards anarchism; similarly, I support an advancement to a socialist system before a communist system. Until we reach a stage at which people have learned to cooperate and take care of themselves safely and peacefully without such behavior being prompted by an outside agent, I consider government has a role to play. I also acknowledge that that may require an increased role of government until cooperation, compassion, and egalitarianism has been ingrained in our social consciousness- at which point government may slowly be eliminated.

So, long term, I'm an anarchist; short term, I'll take what I can get that appears to be moving us in a useful direction. I think the Obama admin is at least attempting to get us to catch up to the rest of the world.

On the border between Liberal/Libertarian, still consider myself a Libertarian (I've eased off of the "Wooo! Laissez-faire capitalism" crack).

I support our current government, and I support my President.

I mean Libertarian as in the LP, not the proper libertarians.

There is a very small party known as the anarchy party by small I mean on the scale of the green party

How ever the anarchy party is plit into diffrent sects because of diffrent views on how to do things

the 2 main groups is anarcho-capitalism, and anarcho-Communism

Anarcho capitalism is libertarian and anarcho communism is liberal

both may fall under the liberal and bertarian umbrellia if needed that is, but if big enough they can be listed as thier own party for views that government is evil


Anarcho capitalism states that without government the government jobs is given to compeating comapnies so our standard of living does not decline, more jobs are suplied, we have a money system, and we are protected by compeating companies under a set regulations before hand, but we are not obligated to a government as we are now



Anarcho Communism states that without governments we all should live in communes, and share everything, with no private property, and everything is shared.... that we we need no money and everyone has what they need






We are not picking on you, we are just stating our political beliefs just as you are......

Voted Liberal/Capitalist/Other (Social Democrat) and supports the Obama Administration.

I am an empiricist who is strongly in favor of decent spelling, the use of periods at the end of sentences, well-constructed polls, and coherent arguments.

Property ownership implies that you can sell your property. If you own yourself as property, then you can sell yourself as property as well.



Most libertarian socialists reject the idea of government altogether.



Money does not exist in most forms of socialism.



Which is why it is so unjust that we all are forced to support the parasitism of capitalists. Socialism rectifies this problem by getting rid of capitalists, replacing rule by Capital with self-rule, i.e. workers' self-management and direct democracy.



Nevermind that not only did the idea of libertarianism originate from socialists, but your idea of "libertarian capitalism" originates in part directly from socialists such as Lysander Spooner.



Pragmatism invariably leads one to a(n) (anarcho-)syndicalist conclusion; the State has a 100% failure rate at bringing meaningful reform, which is to be expected considering its eternal alliance with Capital. Thus, the only way to achieve anything is to demolish it.



No, the means of production are shared, i.e. held in common, such that any person may use them without having to pay tribute to XYZ capitalists.

The results of production, i.e. consumer goods and such, are available to all, but individual consumption is private and private ownership of possessions is essential.

The idea of an "anarchy party" is ridiculous and if such a thing exists it is nothing more than a joke party. Socialists co-existing with "anarchist" capitalists is also impossible, considering that capitalists are inherently authoritarian and therefore quite opposed to anarchism.

"what part of "not really capitalism" Do you not understand?????? It is called that not because it is a capitalist idea but because it involves the market and bussinesses to work....... it believes in free market idealogy.............

it is not shared and if you look into it you will know that.....


unlike anarcho communism anarcho capitalism is not really capitalism........

that would be like me saying anarcho-communism is the bleief in a dictatorship in which all property and bussinesses belongs to the state run by the dictatorship

That would make no sence because anarchy does not like government



The bussiness owners will charge you, but only as compeating companies, so it will be low prices because they are compeating for the most customers

If your not going to read it than stop quoting it

that is rather just lazyness or stupidity....




Communism does not call for a dictator, but history has shown it breads dictators

Capitalism requires a government in which they can gain money through

So anarcho capitalism is not real capitalism because it does not believe in government, but rather free market


What is more simple and catchy to say Anarcho-capitalism or Anarcho-Free Marke...... that would be capitalism since it's 2 words anarcho and capitalism...... where as Free market is 3 words anarcho, Free, and market

it's a perfect storm of crazy opinions, bad typing, and confusing formatting.

I neither know nor care what you are talking about. Were you saying something about barack obama's magic time traveling plane again?

Except for when they begin price fixing once they realize that allying themselves together is much more profitable than trying to compete with each other.

I guess the part I don't understand is the part where it is really capitalism. Capitalism can exist under a number of government types or no government at all. This will have significant implications for how that capitalism develops and operates (or collapses), but it is a variant of capitalism nevertheless. Whether or not it's practical is a different question altogether.

I bow to wikipedia for a decent definition:
"Capitalism is an economic and social system in which capital, the non-labor factors of production (also known as the means of production), is privately controlled[citation needed]; labor, goods and capital are traded in markets; profits distributed to owners or invested in technologies and industries; and wages are paid to labor."

Why am I even arguing with you people.... you are just liberal extreamist nuts who think the free market is out to get them..

Exhibit A for what is wrong with the modern education system. Your post illustrates a breath-taking inability to either form a coherent argument or spell and format sentences correctly. Your teachers must be so proud.

On a related note - I do love my dictators breaded (panko is best) and lightly fried.

I was also going to mention that communists aren't liberals. Read some Lenin and you will find that liberals are his major target for abuse.

Granted though, we are a little nuts.

Yeah, I'm totally extreme for wanting equal rights for everyone.