Posted on 12/18/2012 8:25:58 AM PST by LouAvul
My local gun board is infested with libertarians and democRATs. The Rats were gloating about O'Dumdum's re-election, etc. Prior to the election they were insisting O'Bummer wouldn't make any moves to restrict gun rights, ownership, etc.
Now they've got egg on their faces, and one of them announced he's converting to the Republican party, solely on the basis of gun rights. But he continues to be a liberal on all other issues. Numerous posters chimed in that they did the same, etc, and are working to change the Republican party from within. They want to make us "socially relevant."
“Give a social undesirable a gun and you have, well, a social undesirable with a gun.”
So, are you arguing that we should disarm “undesirables”? I’m really hoping that sounds a lot worse than you meant it to.
Just like we now have vending machines for the legal drug alcohol?
I pity the fool on the hill
I understand the dilemma. The country has gone nuts. Ron Paulbots were crazy on social and foreign policy. The GOP is not conservative. Conservatives are leaving the GOP. The tea party is very upset with the GOP and John Boehner. Fraud was committed in the election. The left has been infiltrating the GOP for years. Things are going insane. People who are of different persuasions dislike Barack Obama, but let him win re-election. No place to go because a civil war in the GOP has to take place or form another party. Bad times.
In other words the GOP has a tent that can no longer get along because they vastly disagree on the direction to take. And just because some people in the GOP agree on some things with us conservatives like dislike of Obama or gun right or economic policy does not mean we agree on everything with them or vice versa. So we get into bitter debates.
I had no idea such “commissions” existed. Sounds like those RINOs would fit right in with a local freedom-of-speech board, where one would have to apply for a permit to speak one’s mind.
The problem is that social conservatives or the social-fiscal hybrid which I call traditional conservatism and libertarians especially social liberatians can’t co-exist.
Us conservatives believe in Christian principals and right to life and traditional moral and cultural values.
But a social libertarian thinks that everybody is free to do as they please without the need for laws, problems, or consequences. They think social issues should be left up to the person to decide what to do and everyone is free to do what they want. In essence they support the leftist view of social issues in many regards.
The libertarians are on the wrong side of every social issue such as abortion, drug prohibition, homosexuality, marriage, prostitution and just about every other choice that consenting adults make with the exception of gun ownership.
Social libertarians are really no different from the leftists that want to destroy society.
Social libertarians are really no different from the leftists that want to destroy society.
Legal drugs didn't destroy our society the last time they were legal (nor has the legal drug alcohol done so), and legal prostitution hasn't destroyed Nevada.
Well maybe free to do as they please until they start infringing on another's rights.
It isn't necessarily that libertarians agree with those social issues that should be left up to individuals to police, or that there aren't consequences for some of those decisions, it's just that we dont believe in using the fed gov to do those things. Especially when the Consitution doesn't give those powers to the fed gov.
So in that vein, I believe you're right. It's fair to say that social conservatives and libertarians cant really coexist.
It's also fair to say that you support the leftist view of using the fed gov in completely anti-constitutional ways in many regards. aka, you're a progressive.
It's fair to say that while you'll pay lip service to personal responsibility, you dont actually believe in it. aka, you're a hypocrite.
And finally, it's fair to say that you probably have much more in common with democrats than actual conservatives. Aka, you're the Whig party.
Poster child for what is wrong with today’s GOP...
Poster child for today’s Libertarians...
http://down-with-power.com/lever_action/10_lsacgen.html
Your choice. Choose wisely.
Holy cow. I don't even think there's a freerepublic any more, given the libertarians posting on this thread.
So can we say that you believe that it's the proper role of DC to give sanction to or ban those activities? If so, perhaps you can show us where the constitution specifically gives the feds that power?
I should mention that there are also disagreements with libertarians on foreign policy. They want to curtail the defense and have come to think of the military as a force that has caused more harm than good. They don’t value a war on terror or understand its ramifications. They do not get the Islamic threats. There is one group that is even against Israeli and any Jewish state. There is another that is very anti-war and wants to end all wars.
They think everything is a civil liberties issue or causing a police state and while some of it is understandable and true, they oppose measures of any kind to track or punish the enemy. They are heavily opposed to the military.
They support cutting defense. Now I don’t mind cutting some of the defense if not needed and fixing departments as long as it does not jeopardize security. But some libertarians want it cut as drastic as Obama or even more because war is bad to them and they see it as us being the oppressors around the world. Hence they call republican, conservatives or folks who support the military and defense as neo-cons.
But rampant drugs and drug use destroys the culture. People will start to try them because they are available to try if not outlawed. The majority of the ghettos and cities with high crime rates have a drug problem. Drugs are bad. Who would want to poison the body and end up sick? You have to enjoy life not start destroying the one body you were given. If it is your choice fine, but people make an industry of it. If it is legal then the industry will flourish like in Amsterdam.
I say it is the role of society to keep things moral and decent for the kids and for it to be a respectable society for all of us to live in. I don’t want to live in inner city Detroit or South-side Chicago where social values have run amok with their socially liberal outlook on life. I want a nation that is clean and moral. Not one filled with debauchery and a broken down society. A destruction of our values to be good human beings.
Ah but leftists or neo-progressives agree more with your point of view. They want government off their bodies and out of their personal lives. They want to be able to be free to ruin the culture and do things that are not moral and decent. They are using it to push left wing values that take it faraway from the traditional values the founding fathers had. Religion was an important part of the founding of the nation.
Lot of socially liberal people are not friendly to religion. They don’t like values, they want to be free to do what they want without any consequence.
Ahhh. So it’s all “...for the children”?
Still waiting to hear where the constitution gives the feds the power to enforce that.
They [libertarians] actually have a point here: it is destructive to our own sovereignty to impose our will upon other nations via the military (i.e. being "world police") -- this is because in doing so we assert that might makes right, and therefore have absolutely no legal or moral defense (w/o becoming hypocrites) if and when that should be done to us (think UN enforcement of small-arms treaty/agreement).
Not that our government isn't hypocritical in the extreme now: they have cited state sponsored terrorism as justification for forcing [regime] changes to foreign states -- and then executed Operation Fast & Furious, which is state sponsored terrorism.
They don’t value a war on terror or understand its ramifications.
I'm a veteran and I'm against a "War on Terror." Why? Because there is no victory condition -- certainly not one that is militarily attainable. Like the War on Drugs or the War on Poverty, the 'target' of the declared 'war' is ever malleable and will always be changed to further government control; if the War on Drugs was ever close to eradicating drugs on the street the 'goal' would be changed to include prescription drug abuse -- likewise, if the War on Terror were close to being won there would be one thing sure to change: the definition of terrorist, allowing for more government control/action {actually, this has already happened in some degree with militia, returning vets, third-party supporters, and anti-abortionists all being flagged as possible terrorist groups}.
In short, I'm against any 'war'/policy that doesn't have well-defined and attainable/enforceable goals.
Wow. You really don't see it, do you?
The people who "poison their body" are those who are the most in need of help (and hope) -- Jesus came to heal the sick, not the well... and if you are a christian then your goal is to become Christ-like. Period.
WTH is a ‘gun board’?.............
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.