Asking Yourself a Question: More 'Conservative'... or 'Libertarian'?

Reaganite Republican ^ | 19 March 2013 | Reaganite Republican

[Reaganite Republican]

Even though I agreed with much of what Ron Paul had to say, all I could ever think is 'this isn't my guy' for president -too odd a demeanor/un-electable- not to mention foreign policy positions that were appalling to a peace-through-strength Republican like myself, particularly statements made re. Iran and Israel.

But lo-and-behold, now we have fervent offspring Rand Paul who -while libertarian in his views- apparently saw wisdom in distancing himself from his father's take re. the volatile Muddled East.. and that's when I started listening to him.

Maybe I've changed in my hawkishness too- I'd rather have not been involved in Libya at all -don't want to empower jihadists in Syria- and find it pointless to back wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that I supported all the way when we're just going to hand them over to Iran or the Taliban at the end anyway.

Sooo, looking at the handy chart I found at the Libertarian Party (who I don't advocate as viable in 2016, even Rand Paul prefers working to take-over the Republican party to a 3rd-party challenge for practical reasons) you might find it useful to see right where the lines are drawn, as well as where you yourself stand as a whole in today's turbulent political cauldron...
(click to embiggen)

I don't know how 'socially tolerant' I am, but if putting social issues on the back burner to ensure fiscal crises remain front+center from now through 2016, so be it. Note that the 'libertarian' overlap below appears to be a potentially appealing package as far as winning elections go...

Libertarian Party    PatriotPost 

[Linda Frances]

They left out God.

[Reaganite Republican]

*** PING ***

Any who’d like to be added to the RR ping-list, pls FReepmail me at ‘Reaganite Republican’

TIA~

[Waywardson]

If you are buying the flavor he is pushing, then you are ingesting RAT POISON!

[trisham]

I’m conservative, but the definition of conservatism that you have there is not correct. What you have there is a libertarian’s view of a conservative.

[Linda Frances]

Also separation of church and state took away many Christian rights and welcomed Islam. Now Islam in US school and other places has more rights than Christianity.

[Uncle Miltie]

Libertarians do not believe in a “Robust National Defense.”

After 9/11, they (Cato / Reason) did not support invading Afghanistan.

They are limp-wristed, lilly-livered, tail-between-their-legs pu$$ies.

[Uncle Miltie]

Conservatives believe in ending Corporate Welfare.

Corporate Welfare is supported by the Bushies-GOPe socialist wing of the Republican party. They are not Conservative.

[Uncle Miltie]

This is friggin’ idiotic.

Conservatives don’t believe in personal freedom?

Nuts.

Whoever wrote this can go back to he||.

[Olog-hai]

If by “on the right” what is really meant is US conservatives, then no—no conservative believes in “government-regulated morality” at all, but rather what the Founding Fathers believed in, which is private morality. That is why the Constitution is written the way it is written.

If libertarians insist on engaging in what the left does—defining conservatives and conservatism from the outside—then how much different are they from the left, apart from economic views? God is real, and those who insist on eschewing private morality for amorality and immorality will not receive God’s protection, bottom line.

[TomGuy]

I was just thinking of a way to ‘grade’ these idiots who will probably be running in 2016.

Due to the dumbing down of everything, it would have to be a PASS or FAIL system.

Which ones do you give a FAIL to on a given issue?

Which ones do you give a PASS to on a given issue?

[Wyrd bið ful aræd]

This is bull-bunk. It syas that conservatives don't believe in personal freedom, and leaves out the fact that libertarians support sodomy and abortion.

These libertarian propoganda images are laughable.

[John Valentine]

You have the symptom right, but your diagnosis is wrong. The coddling of Islam has nothing to do with “separation of church and state” and everything to do with cowering of morally weak individuals in the face blatant intimidation.

This is not the fault of “Libertarians” but is the fault of all those, left or right, who think it is the business of government to interfere with individual rights in the name of “tolerance” or “security” or “fairness” or “safety” or whatever fig leaf they are using on the day.

[ClearCase_guy]

Stacking the deck. It's what Libertarians do best. They're sure that they are right -- and they are sure that everyone else is wrong. Their whole focus is on "winning" the argument at all costs.

I consider Libertarians to be -- psychologically -- very much like Liberals: immature.

[muawiyah]

Personal freedom means you can't stop me from defending the innocent and helpless when they are about to be murdered by the state, the state's agents, or just other thugs on the street.

Libertarianism does not agree that defending the innocent and helpless is a legitimate liberty interest the state should respect.

[Rebel_Ace]

Here’s one way to look at this: You can consider TWO primary spheres of influence that the Gubbermint wants to get its grubby hands on:

(1) The Economic Sphere (tangible assets, goods and services)

(2) The “Hearts and Minds” of people (what they believe, how they think about things)

Now, I am a stubborn cuss, and short of shooting me, it would be difficult for a Gubbermint Agent to change my belief system. I can assume that others with strong personal convictions operate the same way. So, people of strong convictions are more or less “immune” to the Gubbermint’s attention to the second sphere.

On the other hand, for a Gubbermint to operate at all, it needs to be able to tax (and take) actual things of value from the first sphere. While a belief of mine cannot be seized, my house sure could. So, I look for proponents of small Gubbermint that advocate LESS INFLUNCE in the Economic Sphere.

Some preachy tea-totaller could advocate for a ban on alcohol, and that would just be water off my back. A man with a gun from the Gubbermint shows up at the house to confiscate my 150 year old Scotch, and I have a problem with that.

So, let’s get the Gubbermint to pass fewer laws about actual, tangible things, and I think we can let people’s personal beliefs work themselves out.

[SoConPubbie]

These libertarian propoganda images are laughable.

I don't know which it is:

a.) They really believe we are that stupid to buy this line of bull about Conservatives.
b.) They really are that stupid and actually believe this representation of conservatives represents the majority of conservatives.

Either way, this is laughable, like you said.

[muawiyah]

The triumvirate of evil ~ liberals, libertines and libertarians

That's the three legged stool on which sits the abomination of desolation.

[Olog-hai]

“Separation of church and state” is not in the US Constitution. It was, however, in the USSR’s constitution.

In order to ensure to citizens freedom of conscience, the church in the USSR is separated from the state, and the school from the church. Freedom of religious worship and freedom of antireligious propaganda is recognized for all citizens.

— 1936 constitution, Article 124

Citizens of the USSR are guaranteed freedom of conscience, that is, the right to profess or not to profess any religion, and to conduct religious worship or atheistic propaganda. Incitement of hostility or hatred on religious grounds is prohibited.

In the USSR, the church is separated from the state, and the school from the church.

— 1977 constitution, Article 52

The leftist chorus of “separation blah blah” has a definite source. Also note the special protection that was given to “anti-religious” and atheistic propaganda, above that of freedom to preach religious views (which is not mentioned and therefore did not exist).

[Linda Frances]

All this is, is democrat light, maybe worse. Personal freedom and tolerance for other peoples choices, could mean anything. Freedom to have sex with whoever and whatever you want; freedom to let kids smoke pot in kindergarten (they are citizens too) or sell heroin at the drugstore. Freedom to let parents kill babies after they are born. Politicians can start out with vague with laws and expand them to allow people to fulfill their every passion and desire.