Jingoistic cold-war claptrap. What brought communism down was nothing less than communism. Thats’ the point we need to be making – that communism is self-destructive, not that ‘we’ (or even more absurd, Reagan himself) somehow ‘beat’ it.

As for ‘never directly confronted’, no; he was content to f$ck with the lives of people throughout the world by propping up militaristic right-wing governments that preyed upon them. But here’s a clue: that not non-interventionism.

What Ronald Reagan did should be a model for future generations.

Let us hope not!

Reagan is not the guy Libertarians should be targeting. They should be following his model. If they would, they’d do a heck of alot better in elections, as would Republicans.

Is that his major increase in the size and scope of government model? Or his mucking around in other countries, stirring up wars and propping up right-wing regimes model?

Reagan made some libertarianesque noises at a few points. That’s fine as far as it goes, but the same could be said of Alan Greenspan. That didn’t make either one of them particularly libertarian. In fact it makes them particularly repulsive in light of their antilibertarian actions, as they ought to have known better.

Wow. I was a democrat in the 80s (a particularly naive one, I will say); and this is giving me flashbacks.

Libertarians are not Anarchists. There is more than just a distinction, they are mutually exclusive.

Blink.

Afghanistan? Angola? Nicaragua?

Hardly ‘noninterventionism’.

Where were you in the eighties? I was here on Planet Earth, and I didn’t notice Reagan being particularly ‘noninterventionist’. Sure, I realize that Bush has lowered the bar, so that not actually over-running a country with national guard troops looks like noninterventionism, but there are other forms of interventionism.

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

The Straight Arrows are the ones who have consistently supported a strong National Security throughout the Cold War and now into the War on Islamo-Fascism.

Now that’s the old disinter whom we hate and don’t admire…;-) LOL

****************

I DON’T HATE HIM, I JUST WANT TO SCROG HIM! CAUSE HE’S ONE SEXY MOTHERFUCKER!

To me, and no doubt countless others, I thought it meant that I was not a bomb thrower or terrorist. Of course, what it really certifies ( but has never been disclaimed or further explained by the LP officially ) is that by becoming a member and signing that pledge, you are a anarchist and believe in no governmental authority at all, no statehood of any kind, including american.

the word ‘force’ has a double meaning in the pledge. the LP has been using the Nolan chart for years as outreach with many quadrants in it, yet upon joining,
the member is sworn to 100/100 on the chart instead of anything else.

the only accepted “true” libertarian is one that has taken the oath and understands what it really means. But the LP has never explained their use of the word “force” as they apply it. There has never been a disclaimer used to explain to people what they were really agreeing to by joining the party. There’s no question that thousands and thousands of people have donated and joined up to the LP over the years not knowing what they were agreeing to, assuming as I did.

thats the issue and I believe the tactic is deliberate and fraudulent upon possible donators to the LNC. if they know beforehand then they can make a informed decision whether or not to donate to the LP.

I never have had any problem with anarchists, except for 1 thing: they used the oath in a manner inconsistent with the actions of principled individuals by keeping the oath ambiguous while at the same time accepting the money and support of people who did not know of the double meaning of the word “force” in the oath.

Principled people would have disclaimed or explained the actual meaning of the word ‘force’ as it pertains to the LP in the oath proudly and without wiggle room.