Define libertarian ideals first. Our country is based on the classical liberal(a subset of the libertarian bracket) ideology, and was quite successful because of this. Not all libertarians are anarcho-capitalists. The overwhelming majority in the U.S are just constitutionalists who believe in individuals rights and the proper procedure of checks and balances. 

I agree with you on some of that but if the power fails into the wrong hands and starts really killing whoever they want. Then what? They need to have oversight, Some oversight. You can't just be Judge, Juror and Excutioner.  This law is horrible and yes I agree terrorist should be taken out but their needs to be a panel or people who have oversight. Also their needs to be a time period for the person to turn them selfs in. Publicize it.

See, at least that is a resonable, logical way to approach this topic. When I see comments like "Rand Paul rocks." That type of simplistic blind eyed support doesn't belong in a discussion. Suddenly Obama turns into the next Richard Nixon lol?... you wanna tell these people to get a life lol.

And we know he was a terrorist so much that we didn't even have to prove it before we killed him!

Awlaki may have indeed been a bad guy. Probably was, in fact. But pro-tip: due process isn't for the guilty, it's for the innocent.

Besides that, he was a preacher, not an operational leader. Certainly not an imminent threat. From what we know of his activities, there is really no difference between Obama killing him and if, say, LBJ had killed all those fuckhead college kids for marching around waving Viet Cong flags.

Not only was Awlaki killed, but so was his teenaged son. Who was also a U.S. citizen. What was the administration's response to this fact? That fat fucking mongoloid Robert Gibbs just glibly said something to the effect of, "Get a better father next time, loser!"

No, he's not. He's saying that it is a remarkably bad idea to accept the president's assertion that he is empowered to kill citizens without due process. Which is a remarkably reasonable position. If any other country on the planet was doing this, Obama would be the first to denounce it and give another of his torpid, interminable speeches about how he used to be a constitutional scholar and blah blah blah.

That he was in a rush to codify the process for drone strikes when he was afraid he might lose the election was a pretty good indicator that he knows his policy is insane bullshit, and he wouldn't trust Romney with the same power he had asserted for himself. One of many examples of how he flauts rule of law and favors rule of man, so long as that man is him.

Then maybe the cunt shouldn't do it.

Man. I never really thought about that before. I actually care about principles and not whether Red Team or Blue Team is benefitting. What kind of whackjob am I?

Thats the problem defining libertarian ideas is going to be different for all people. I think of Free market ideas, Which is dumb because the word is a oxi moron. Governments establish markets and without rules, proof 2008. Actually from 1930-1980 (Reagan happened.) we had harder laws on a lot of things and before that we where not the super power we are now. We became that way because the goverment has a massive role to play. 1930s government had people planting trees and doing massive jobs bills to offset the crash. The goverment should creates jobs of last resort. We need massive infrastructure bills. Sorry went on a rant but I think people have got so anti gov. that they can't see past their shoes.

However a lot of people saying their constitutionalist always care about their rights not when their rights effect others and there lies the problem with Rand Paul and his dad.

I see problem after problem with his views stepping all over other people's rights. I have a right to swing my arm but when my arm hits your face I have now violated your rights. People seem to have a problem with this concept.

OH I'm not a fan of Rand Paul and this is one of the only issues I agree with him but you have to go by issue. You can't just rule someone out, your going to agree on somethings and that is where you can find common ground.

Nothing the governemnt did helped us get out of the great recession, unless you want to attribute WW1 to them.

The first world war is what got us out of the recession, and the second world war is what put us as the top country in the world economically. 

Your first concerns were that of keyneysian vs. neo-liberalism. I'll keep away from economics, since it's a huge striated topic with a technical basis as well as a political basis. 

As far as I recall, both Ron Paul and Rand Paul adhere to the non-agression principle, which means if rights are infringed upon the state's responsibility is to fix it, in the instance that there is a state (let's ignore anarchism.) That is why we have laws and people go to prison. One must distinguish between rights and entitlements though, and that's what many researchers have done, are doing, and continue to do. That doesn't mean the concept of liberty is defunct or false though. It just means we need to work hard to maximize liberty. 

I stopped reading at "fat fuckin mongoloid robert gibbs." Althought i did see the word "cunt" somewhere down there.

If you can't refrain from attacking someone you disagree with on such a personal, vindictive basis...maybe you shouldn't be here lol. I mean I know you probably look like a regular Brad Pitt, but still....

You seem like a very typical voter, upset by alot, but not aware of the realities of our political system. You gettin Killzone: Shadowfall?