How did you find out about Free Talk Live?

Found via a Radio Station or other terrestrial radio show

I was told about FTL by a friend (I first listened by Radio)

I was told about FTL by a friend (I first listened online)

Found via PodcastAlley.com

Found via iTunes

Found via the Free State Project

Found via a Libertarian News Site

Found via a Libertarian Blog

Found via an ANTI-Libertarian Post or Article

Found via some other podcast directory

Found via a news press release or video

Found via MySpace

Found via Streaming Radio - Redragon365

Found via Streaming Radio - Rant Radio

Found via Streaming Radio - GCN Live

Found via DownsizeDC

Found via another Libertarian Activist Organization

Found via a mention on another Podcast or Internet Radio Show

Found via a mention on some non-liberterian, non-news website

[Johnson]

A certain amount of agreement with the general goals of a party are necessary for the party to productively support a candidate for office.  Are the Democrats happy having Lieberman in their midst?  Republicans with Dr. Paul hanging around?  Do you think they would be allowed to participate if the Dems and Reps had purity tests?  Would we be better off without them?

I think you just destroyed your own argument. Thank you, I don't even really have to reply to that... You answered yourself.

They are entirely meaningless, except as an internal shorthand.  90 percent of the population believes in this thing they call god.  If you quiz the population further, you'll find varying definitions of what god is; some of the definitions will contradict the other definitions.  Does that mean that less than 90 percent of the population believes in god?  If so, how do you determine who's god is the right god?

Internal shorthand is exactly why people struggle to define these words further... In your example, you use the word god... and say that people will have different definitions of what god means, and how do you determine what is the right god... This is not an APT anaology becuase all those people are arguing over what the NATURE and/or form of their GOD will be. It's apples to apples... Perhaps it's New York Macintosh Apples, to Washington State Granny Smith apples... but it's the same thing.

It's like if we were arguing over cake, and I had lemon chiffon cake and you had chocolate cake - Would you argue that it wasn't a cake if it wasn't chocolate? You'd be the crazy one... As I obviously have a CAKE.. it's a lemon chiffon cake.

There are certain RULES and INGREDIENTS for what makes something a CAKE.
This is how language works... I understand that it seems to be hard for you to grasp.. but I assure you.. It's the truth. This is how it works. 

However, If I had a LEMON. Instead of a LEMON cake... Then you would be correct. Then I would indeed NOT have a CAKE.

This is why people like Boortz and Elder are not Libertarians. They don't have the ingredients that DEFINE what makes up a Libertarian. They have more of the ingredients of what defines an indepedant or a republican, however they lack the

"I do not believe in, nor advocate, the initiation of force to achieve any goal."  ingredient that DEFINES a Libertarian.

It's like the old saying goes...
You can put a cat in an oven, but that don't make it a biscuit.

[TenaciousLee]

Mike D from redbarradio.com.  Devoted listener from the moment I heard Johnson on Red Bar.  Can't wait for Johnson to come back, but I still listen every day on my iPod.

[Lindsey]

I totally lied.  I actually found Ian on a street corner in downtown Sarasota.   

What was he charging back in those days?

Not yet.  This was before the idea of hosing money from listeners was put into his head.   

You r mind is nowhere near the filthy gutter level mine was at

I knew what you were getting at, it's just that I couldn't come up with anything better than that.   

[RAnthony]

This is why people like Boortz and Elder are not Libertarians. They don't have the ingredients that DEFINE what makes up a Libertarian. They have more of the ingredients of what defines an indepedant or a republican, however they lack the "I do not believe in, nor advocate, the initiation of force to achieve any goal."  ingredient that DEFINES a Libertarian.

How do you know they lack this 'crucial' element that defines Libertarians for you?  How do you know that is what defines libertarians in general?  I don't think I'd offer that limited a definition myself. 

I'm not the one having a problem understanding here.  I understand quite well the drive to purify the group, to weed out the unwanted.  The need to defend your territory.  Licensing (as in professional licensing) is directly related to this need.  Something else (like the Inquisition) that I'm not really supportive of.

Anarchists and Anarcho-capitalists are really great at 'outing' all the people that they think aren't pure enough to pass the libertarian muster.  What they fail to realize is that the percentage of the population that would label themselves in such a way is a single digit number.  You don't win elections with single digit numbers.

-RAnthony

[Johnson]

Not out to win elections then. It would be a waste of time to have Pseudo-Republicans win elections. They already do, and look what it gets us. You are definitely the confused one...

You don't have a concept of what it means to DEFINE something. In fact you rebel against it... purely out of the motivation that you probably fail to commit to the Libertarian Oath. We don't want pro-government people polluting the party. If that's you, I have no issues with losing your support. If that lowers your opinion of me or other people with principles... Well I guess I just can't force myself to care what someone with no principles thinks about me... ya know?

I find the "Militant Libertarians" to be the lowest form of scum. They are so forceful, that not only are they pro-military and pro-war violent peices of crap, but they are SO pro force that they would infiltrate the Libertarian Party and start calling themselves Libertarians. They would actually make the FORCEFUL attempt to STEAL away any ability to define ourselves by a stance of principles. I regard people like this with very little respect at all. 

Oh, and regardless of Boortz, or Elder... Free Talk Live will ALWAYS take the principled stance of telling people that a REAL Libertarian is one that has commited to and follows the Libertarian oath. If you can't do that, then you cease to be a Libertarian, and I will continue to do my very best to make sure that everyone I know and trust in in my circle of Libertarian friends agrees that a true Libertarian follows suit with that VERY basic ideal.

It's not about DEFINING Libertarians as a group... It's about DEFENDING the idea of what defines Libertarians from huxters and charlatans such as yourself who would attempt to REdefine Libertarians as pot-smoking republicans who are just as pro-war and religious-right as any other group of politicos. It's not about defending "territory". It's about ensuring the continued push for the education of the populace at large that Libertarianism is about the abrogation of aggression. Take that away... and what's left? That IS what Libertarian IS about, regardless of what people like you want to spout off. You don't want to see Libertarianism defined, because you are ACTIVELY working against the Libertarian ideal. I'm outing you.

What defines your idea of Libertarianism as really being any different than a Liberty Caucus Republican?

[RAnthony]

Not out to win elections then. It would be a waste of time to have Pseudo-Republicans win elections.

It's a waste of time supporting a political party that isn't intended to win elections.  (and you call me confused...)

The difference between us is I don't waste my time flogging Boortz or Elder for their failing to toe the anarcho-capitalist/pacifist line.  I welcome the attention that their purported libertarianism brings to the movement.

He hit me first is a schoolyard level defense.  It's easy to set up a scenario where your opponent can be enticed into striking the first blow, thereby allowing you to pummel the hell out of him and claim 'just cause'.  Both Pearl Harbor and 9-11 will probably turn out to be instances of just this type of thing.   

...and yet, even though the 'terrorists' struck first on 9-11, Americans are somehow to blame for that.  We don't have the right to remove threats to ourselves even when they strike first, apparently.  We're engaged in a war which the opponent has openly declared to be a war (jihad, which was declared before the 9-11 attacks) but we can't fight back?  Somehow we initiated hostilities, even though we tricked the other guy into throwing the first punch?

Might as well have dropped the nukes right off the bat then, saved us all a lot of time and trouble; because, I'll tell ya, this violence was bound to occur no matter what we did, once we got involved in the Middle East (way back before most of you were born)  And contrary to most of the "bring 'em home" type sentiment, the violence won't end even if we left now. There is no easy way out, no matter how much we want one. 

-RAnthony

[libertylover]

I think there needs to be another thread to reply to Johnsons anti Limited Government Libertarian rant.  Look for it coming to a thread near you.

[Johnson]

If you think the terrorists struck first on 9/11 you have a very short memory. (even though in your same post you cite our longstanding involvement in the middle east)

Do you remember a little president named George Bush from the Early Nineties? How about a guy named Bill Clinton?
Operation Desert Storm?   Norman Schwartzkopf?

*shrug* I guess being drowned in right wing conservative rhetoric clouds one's judgement.

If you are out to vote for a party that only tries to win elections and doesn't serve the people... PLEASE GO BACK to the REPUBLICANS.

Libertarians will win votes NOT by trying to win elections, but by winning the hearts and minds of people through principles and freedom. Winning elections will be the bonus of helping to bring freedom and prosperity.

[Johnson]

Yer damn skippy. I'm right up front about that too. Although, it's not disgreeing with ME so much that will cause that, but being engaged in a conversation with me in which you disgree with a position of principle, or make a statement somehow offensive to either truth or reality.
I'll discuss reason and science to no end... disagree with me about something inane... and I'm not likely to care at all.

You don't like the color purple? Don't like cats? That's your problem, not mine.

[sillyperson]

Libertarians will win votes NOT by trying to win elections

With most people, I would state the following more diplomatically, but just for you, Johnson:

               You're talking out of your ass


You clearly have never met Dick Marple, James Wheeler, or John Gallus.
The former two are State Representatives; the last is a State Senator.
They're all for legalizing pot, getting the government out of the education business, getting out of the Real-ID program, and just about any other libartarian platform you can name.
And they are CURRENTLY IN OFFICE.

[FTL_Ian]

Man, this thread was so good when it was on topic.  I'm almost motivated to moderate and split off these posts.  Almost.   

[libertylover]

Man, this thread was so good when it was on topic.  I'm almost motivated to moderate and split off these posts.  Almost.   

Hey I tried to split this off it seems they missed the message.  http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=9474.0
Anarchist vs. Limited Government Libertarians

This thread is met to be about how you found out about FTL. 

[RAnthony]

Do you remember a little president named George Bush from the Early Nineties? How about a guy named Bill Clinton?
Operation Desert Storm?   Norman Schwartzkopf?

Mere speedbumps on the road to global domination.  Think more big picture, like 1948 and the founding of modern Israel. Our backing of same.  The Arab attacks that haven't ceased since.  They've killed several generations of their children in futile suicide attacks attempting to retake the land that Israel claimed for itself, do you really think they'll just forget the 'Great Satan' if we pull up stakes and leave? I doubt it.

Most Americans don't remember farther back than 9-11, and then only because they have it paraded in their faces every year.  For them 9-11 was the first attack, and Boortz et al capitalize on that perception quite nicely.

PLEASE GO BACK to the REPUBLICANS.

Never voted for a Republican, although I did vote for Reagan in his second term (my Grandmother, the Yellow Dog Democrat, did her best to forgive me)  Never voted for a Democrat either.  I considered myself Liberal, until I discovered that Liberal means Socialist in the US.  I have always been a classical liberal in outlook, even before I knew what that meant.

...So, no, I don't feel any need to join the hawks over on the conservative side of the diamond.  I really don't have any need for them.  I just don't feel they are any less libertarian than any other borderline libertarian.

-RAnthony

[RAnthony]

Man, this thread was so good when it was on topic.  I'm almost motivated to moderate and split off these posts.  Almost.   

My apologies for going OT.  The comment about Boortz touched an old sore spot that I felt needed addressing. 

Two conventions ago... There were protests concerning Boortz being a featured speaker at the convention.  My take at the time was "who cares, if it gets good press, run with it." Hell, I wouldn't have minded if Limbaugh had shown up to speak.  It might have made the evening news when he was hounded out of the hall.

Debatable disagreements makes good airplay.  Which is why FTL generally works, and why I keep listening...

-RAnthony

[Slacker]

I first heard of FTL while listening to a podcast of Dan Carlin.