First the traitor...
Lindsey Ping
"Republican by day, Democrat by night."
Add me to the list. / Remove me from the list.
Now the hero...
 |
Gov. Mark Sanford Ping! |
Want on or off this ping list? Just FReepmail me.
Posted on 05/18/2009 6:22:58 PM PDT by rabscuttle385
(snip)
After the speech a volunteer from Paul’s Campaign for Liberty asked Gov. Mark Sanford (R-S.C.) about it, and he weighed in against Graham.
There was almost a pejorative comment a moment ago. Sen. Graham spoke and said “I’m not a libertarian,” whatever, whatever, as if that’s an evil word. Liberty is the hallmark of the American experiment … People say, you know, “Mark, you’re kind of libertarian,” you know, and they say it as if it’s an evil word, like you’re a communist or something. I’m like: Throw me in that briar patch … I’ve been accused of being a libertarian and I wear it as a badge of honor.
(snip)
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonindependent.com ...
Wittiest...response...EVER!
Grahamnesty just got served by a real conservative.
GO MARK SANFORD!!!
I’d call Sen. Graham a lot of things, but Libertarian isn’t one of them. He likes big government dressed up in free market clothes.
Grahamnesty is a liberal and a two-bit political man whore for McLame and 0bama...an utter and abject disgrace to the people of South Carolina.
Uh-oh....there goes Gov. Sanford’s chances for winning the 2012 GOP Presidential nomination!
Juan McCain? Yes they will!
Lindsey Graham? You betcha!
Mark Sanford? NEXT!!!!!!!
I really started to wonder about him when he rushed out to defend ‘poor’ Sen. Specter. Had not paid much attention to him beforehand, but he really shows himself as a strong contender for the next poster boy of what’s wrong with the Republican party.
I want the “limited” part put back into the meaning of government.
Mark Sanford should have run against Graham in the Republican primary last year.
Something is wrong because Sanford doesn’t seem to support much of this.
Libertarian Party Platform:
Throw open the borders completely; only a rare individual (terrorist, disease carrier etc.) can be kept from freedom of movement through “political borders”.
Homosexuals; total freedom in the military, gay marriage, adoption, child custody and everything else.
Abortion; zero restrictions or impediments.
Pornography; no restraint, no restrictions.
Drugs; Meth, Heroin, Crack, anything new that science can come up with, zero restrictions.
Advertising drugs, prostitution, pornography; zero restrictions.
Military Strength; minimal capabilities.
IMO there's a substantial difference between libertarianism (note the small "L") and the Libertarian Party. I'm all for the former. The latter might as well be promoting Anarchy.
The Libertarian party is just the libertarian party (or vice verse), that’s all. It is just a tiny little party with one platform, not big L platforms and little l platforms.
That's a bit disingenuous.
This is from the Libertarian Party's website listing its platform:
3.1 National DefenseWe support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression. The United States should both abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world and avoid entangling alliances. We oppose any form of compulsory national service.
This would be roughly equivalent to the Founding Father's wishes for our military.
I know many Republicans like to have the military out conquering and increasing empire but...
But people in SC disagree with us. Look how long they held on to the coattails of Thurmond and Hollings. Graham may outlive us all!
I think minimal capabilities is an adequate summary of that position, I personally think that it is overly generous.
There’s a difference between Libertarian and libertarian. Just like there’s a difference between Republican and republican.
I just saw Lindsay Graham on Fox. I hate the sight of that creep. He is all over TV lately posing as a conservative. In fact he is a sell out who carried the water for John McCain and George Bush on amnesty for illegal aliens.
Graham is hoping that South Carolina voters will forget that he called Americans who were against amnesty bigots. He said that in front of LaRaza, a Mexican open borders group. LaRaza is Spanish for “The race”. graham wanted their vote.
I have periodically called Grahams office and left messages. I assure him that while I do not live or vote in his state I will do everything I can to remind voters there of his treachery.
First the traitor...
Lindsey Ping
"Republican by day, Democrat by night."
Add me to the list. / Remove me from the list.
Now the hero...
|
Gov. Mark Sanford Ping! |
Ummm. No. Adequately defending the country includes offensive weaponry like nuclear subs and ICBMs. Just depends on what the threat is that’s out there.
Plus, you cherry pick the things that you disagree with from their platform- which is typical.
You didn’t highlight what you don’t like about their ideas on gun control for example, education or personal responsibility.
The thing is- I’m assuming (and I hope I’m not assuming incorrectly) that you’re not a libertarian (big L or small). So, why should their party platform be agreeable to you? I mean, I never get the animosity Republicans have for Libertarians. They’re not out to get you. They side with you more often than not. They have much more in common with you than democrats. But at the end of the day- you have your party: the GOP. You don’t like the Libertarian party, don’t vote for it.
I mean, we all know and are aware that the political right is a big mish-mash of groups- many of whom don’t have that much in common with each other. For my part- deity worshippers (christians) make my skin crawl. But I recognise that until something better comes along I’m stuck with having them on the same side, politically speaking, as I am. I also don’t like getting associated with the creationist nutjobs- but there you go, it is a necessary evil in order to keep the democrats at bay.
Getting back to the point about the military. Libertarians just don’t think the American military should be out there trying to be the world’s police. There is nothing evil, per se, about that position.
I realize that I’m probably wasting my time by responding to this, but I can’t let this go unchallenged.
Borders: You fail to mention that libertarians would end all forms of public welfare that many illegals might find attractive. If they’re not here to sponge off the system and we prevent diseased and potential terrorists immigrating, what would be the complaint against the rest?
Homosexuals: Most libertarians I know would kick things like marriage out of the hands of the state/fed and back into the private sector. Seriously, we need to get off of this whole gay thing. There are much bigger issues out there to be concerned about.
Abortion: Libertarians recognize that reasonable people can disagree on exactly when life begins. While I may believe it prudent to error on the side of caution and advocate conception, others may feel that life begins sometime later. Nobody wants to kill babies. What they do agree on is that abortion should be handled at more local level, like the state.
Pornography: Consenting adults should be free to engage or purchase porn if they so desire. It’s none of mine or your business.
Drugs: Again, consenting adults should be free to partake of a drugs like alcohol, cigarettes or dope. Libertarians would require them to take responsibility for their actions, intoxicated or not. The drug war is a complete failure.
Advertising: Are we anti-capitalists now? My guess is that any company who dared publish explicit sex acts in a public domain where children would be exposed to it, would undoubtedly incur the wrath of the citizenry.
Military: This is one of the few areas that libertarians believe the government should have a role in. They just don’t think we should be the global police force or nation building with our soldiers. When we are attacked or in imminent threat from attack, then we should open up a can of whoop a**. Libertarians are some of the most ardent advocate of self defense. What makes you think they don’t apply that on a national level?
The whole crux of libertarian philosophy boils down to maximizing individual liberty. They follow the non aggression principle which is akin to the golden rule. They believe people should be free to do as they will as long as they don’t use force or fraud in pursing it.
No there isn’t a difference, the party is not even 226,000 registered people, it is too small for the diversity of a real party that has tens of millions of members.
The real problem is that it is a fantasy myth, that is why all this big l small L childishness, it is a catch all where just about any one can live half of their personal political fantasy whether they are liberal or conservative.
Yeah, well I've never been too thrilled sharing the party with the godless heathens myself :D
Your answer is nonsense and dishonest, the actual libertarian positions are as I listed.
Totally open borders (except for that rare individual)and even the disbandment of the Border Patrol and Immigration.
Homosexuals-zero laws, fully opening the military, adoption etc.
Abortion-zero restraints.
You agree about the drugs
You agree about the pornography and the advertising of the dope and pornography.
The military minimal capabilities and full acceptance of homosexuality.
Conservatives are socially conservative, it about more than taxes.
Yet Christians are the conservative movement, period. your type is rare in conservatism but thanks for the few of your type that don't vote Democrat.
Small l libertarianism is just a political belief system of limited government. Generally they are economically conservative and liberal on social issues. The term is more akin to conservative or liberal.
Big L Libertarianism is the political party that, for the most part, represents the libertarian philosophy. It’s equivalents would be the Republican and Democratic parties.
Many libertarians find that joining one of the 2 major parties is a more affective means by which to implement libertarian ideas. Since the Republican party has had a tradition of preaching the virtues of personal responsibility and individual liberty, many feel that there is a natural bond that exists among the libertarians and the conservative who comprise the party.
That’s the difference between libertarian philosophy and the Libertarian Party platform. Libertarian philosophy predates the party by that name by a long time. The Founders epitomized the libertarian POV.
***No there isn’t a difference, the party is not even 226,000 registered people, it is too small for the diversity of a real party that has tens of millions of members.***
Um, yes there is. Plenty of libertarians don’t agree with abortion or lax border security or minimal defense. The idea that just because the Party only has 226,000 members means that it encompasses ALL libertarians and all definitions of the same is ridiculous. I’m not defending the Libertarian Party, but to say all libertarians are Libertarians is flat out wrong. I know many libertarians that agree more with Republicans (well the core beliefs of the Party anyway) or are independents.
Good post but I don’t see the need to talk through this filter of such a goofy little party, I checked them out in 1974, got excited for a few minutes until I got to the meeting and asked some penetrating questions, then I laughed my way out the door.
Nobody belongs to them, nobody votes for them, almost nobody knows the sordid truth about their platform, yet the most pro abortion, most open borders, most pro homosexual party in America has people here that believe in it.
Then they shouldn't belong to the party that does, unless they are indifferent to those issues.
By the way that isn't "lax border security" it is the ending of a formal border and the border patrol period.
You’re welcome.
Oh Mark Sanford! Why oh why did you not run for President?!?!?!
The Founders also did not hesitate to project American Power to the other side of the world went they sent the US to put the boot in the Ass of some Islamic pirates in Africa.
The Founders primary concern was survival of the nation. From them to the conservative leadership now, nothing has changed, just the means of achieving that survival.
***Then they shouldn’t belong to the party that does, unless they are indifferent to those issues.***
And many don’t. Hence the difference between Libertarian and libertarian.
And? Why are you telling me this?
Gee spare me from this silliness of big L little l and people that aren’t Ls but are ls. It is a radically left party that supports good economics, but it is a contradictory fantasy.
1) The problem with the "L"ibertarian Party has a lot less to do with their beliefs than the fact that it is constituted by wierdos who are completely socially inept and ignorant of the mechanics of our democracy that is only capable of having two political parties by design. The smart people with libertarian ideas work within the R party to choose nominees favorable to their issues.
2) If you spend any time with Libertarian party people, their #1 issue and all they really seem to care about is pot. They want their pot. They want it legalized. And if they got that, they would smoke up so much that they wouldn't care about anything else and would evolve from a political party to a 'best munchies' online chat room.
3) Ayn Rand was correct: "libertarians are monstrous, disgusting people." In part because they defend their positions with the idea of amorality rather than an actual morality.
4) Mark is a good guy. And I think in the contest of 'libertarian' he means literally someone who supports 'liberty,' rather than saying he's an intellectually bankrupt pothead.
5) Which gets to the bigger point: like conservative, it's hard to defend what 'libertarianism' means, but the 'L'ibertarian party does have a platform and, well, they are essentially anarchists.
To tell you that were they around now, the Founders would have changed their mind about what the US needs in a military and in it’s military mission.
Ayn Rand was a humourless bitch who didn’t know how to drive an automobile.
The ‘all libertarians care about is pot’ schtick is pretty stupid by now.
First and foremost, they care about not having to pay taxes. Abolish income taxes and keep pot illegal and I could live with that.
The marijuana issue is just a symbol. The government feels like it can interfere with people’s lives. Telling them one substance is hunky dory while another substance will land them in jail is right at the meat of government interference in places where they ought not to be. When the government legalises pot, you will know something fundamental about the way the government perceives itself has changed. This is why libertarians care about the marijuana issue.
You last point is valid. Libertarianism cannot work on Earth. What you would get is organised crime controlling everything that mattered and religion controlling everything else.
I’m not defending the party.
I don’t like it when people say they know what the Founders would do or say. It’s kind of like people saying they know what Jehovah/Allah/Zeus would or wouldn’t say about something.
Personally, I think most people would probably be very surprised with how the Founders would view modern America. But that’s just me.
You never know what guys like Franklin, Washington and Jefferson would have thought because they were widely different personalities and had differing ideas about things.
RONALD REAGAN, Reason Magazine, Jul. 1, 1975
--http://www.notable-quotes.com
Let us post the second half of that answer, and you can ponder how much stronger Reagan's statement would have been once the weirdness of the libertarians became more widely known.
REAGAN: "If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is."
"Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are travelling the same path."
In the part you quoted, Reagan made the distinction between the "L" party and the "l" philosophy - the same distinction you refuse to acknowledge, and that many on this thread have been trying to tell you.
Sanford was not talking about the Libertarian party. YOU were the one who twisted his comments to mean that he was (post #8). It was a thread hijack, IMO.
Nonsense on both counts, Reagan was doing no such thing and the thread was about Sanford not getting upset at being accused of being a libertarian.
At some point people have to come up with better phrasing we no longer walk around using liberal and democrat the way we would have in the past, we have a libertarian party now with libertarian ideas and libertarian members that spout libertarian positions.
It's there in plain English:
I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism.
-snip-
Now, I can't say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say..."
and the thread was about Sanford not getting upset at being accused of being a libertarian.
Is it your position that Sanford was referring to the Libertarian party?
He was addressing a Ron Paul supporter what do you think he was saying? I think he was appealing to libertarians.
So is it your position that Sanford was referring to the Libertarian party... yes or no?
To answer your question, it was clear that Sanford was speaking of libertarian philosophy, not the Libertarian party. He meant it in the sense that Reagan meant it, IMO. Sanford is a Republican in good standing. It makes no sense that he would be talking about the Libertarian party platform. Your dragging of the LP platform into the discussion was simply a diversion.
I think he was appealing to libertarians.
Do you agree or disagree with Reagan that libertarianism is the heart and soul of conservatism?
I think that Sanford was appealing to people that call them selves libertarians that mean the party, like we have so many of here and I think that Reagan was speaking in the language of Reason magazine that day , he used different language in the general public even 34 years ago he had to clarify what he was saying and that was a very long 34 years ago when it comes to using the word libertarian.
What is the definition of libertarianism that you use?
I disagree. Being Christian is not a political philosophy. There may be a lot of Christians in the conservative movement, but there are plenty of others. Remember the three legged stool.
Me thinks you did not watch the actual video at the link, the subject of the thread. Listen to his whole comments, not the excerpts here.
Is that your critique of Objectivism? How humerus.
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.