politically correct cover for a bunch of johnny-come-lately peace-nics, because they had a minorly-successful candidates this time in Ron Paul, which candidacy really only happened because of the fractures in the Right Wing caused by the Tea Party, not because Paul is anything even remotely close to an authentic representation of most American and then there's Rand Paul to pick up that whole legacy.
Libertarian peacers weren't about peace during the build up to the invasion of Iraq. Peace is likely little more than a political gambit to them now. They only advocate for it because peace would give them more access to more markets to exploit around the world on whatever terms they can get by with, including fast-and-furious style assault weapons markets everywhere, and that includes everything south of our border.
It's really sad that Libertarian peacer numbers have swelled the ranks of the peace movement overall, which I don't suppose is such a bad thing if the authentic peace people can get a little synergy out of them for authentic peace; I just worry about what the price of that will be in terms of the synergy that affects other issues like single payer health care and the right to organize.
Oh yeah, and these phony peace loving Libertarians are ALL about hating the U.N. (New World Order & Big Brother and all, you know), which impedes any effort to approach reform of the U.N. and U.N. peace-keeping and hence whatever chance that there will ever be to address the IMF which is responsible for MUCH of the destabilization that causes terrorism in the first place, distinctly ANTI-peace, that.
I'm really disturbed by anyone in the peace movement who doesn't put these distinctions honestly up front in dealing with those they are collaborating with, which is why I turn a cautious eye on all of this drone agitation, even though I oppose drones. If it's the real peace thing, we need it; if it's just about getting Obama, FOR WHATEVER OTHER AGENDA (not just Libertarian but also that of what calls itself "the LEFT) I oppose it.
Opposing issues just to oppose them is destructive and, given our do nothing Congress, including complicit Democrats, it could turn into fascism, because it sends the wrong message. Instead of establishing consequences for bad Congressional votes; it just engages in opposition for the sake of opposition alone, in order to build a base, so its not consequences in order to shape a congress critters voting behaviors, since no matter what the congressional representation does, even if it might even be kind of good or almost right, they oppose anyway since, as the minor party, Libertarians are more interested in building numbers through displays of power instead of actually trying to solve any problems. And paralyzing a President is an effective way to go about that.
= new reply since forum marked as read
go blow off some steam. I think I'll go menace those repugs on the yahoo forums for a while. They really love me over there. 
