Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Libertarians Seeking 'True Conservatives'
GOPUSA ^

Posted on 02/24/2005 6:27:01 AM PST by Happy2BMe

Libertarians Seeking 'True Conservatives'

By Susan Jones
CNSNews.com Morning Editor
February 24, 2005

(CNSNews.com) -- The Libertarian Party says its representatives were "very well received" by conservatives at a recent conference in Washington.

"We met a lot of people who are either supportive of our ideas or who simply support having an alternative to the big-government ideal put forward by the Republicans and Democrats," said Sam New, who organized the Libertarian Party's activities at the Conservative Political Action Committee Conference in Washington.

The Libertarian Party was a first-time cosponsor of the Feb. 17-19 CPAC Conference, and its involvement was a "big step forward" for the Party, said Executive Director Joe Seehusen in a report on the group's website.

"Our profile has been low for some time, and we were able to showcase our party in a positive light to many people and groups, including a large number of students and small business owners."

Seehusen, who considers President George W. Bush a socialist, said the Libertarians' support for limited government and appreciation for individual rights strikes a cord with many people who call themselves Republicans or conservatives.

"Many of them stopped by our booth to learn more," which is exactly why the Libertarians decided to take part in CPAC this year, he said.

The Libertarians believe they can appeal to "true conservatives" (as opposed to "big-government neo-conservatives") on a number of issues.

"By taking part in this CPAC conference, we hope to show that Libertarians are the true fiscal conservatives -- much more so than the Republicans are," Seehusen said on the Libertarian website.

He said the party is studying how successful groups market themselves, so the Libertarian Party "can more effectively reach out to conservatives" in the future.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism
KEYWORDS: conservative; conservativism; cpac; libertarian; lp; republican
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-292 next last
To: Happy2BMe

I consider myself a "libertarian," but I consistently vote for the GOP candidate over the Libertarian candidate, because those candidates, at least where I live, tend to be outlandish kooks and/or self-aggrandizing charlatans. I also agree with you that the concept of conservatism is in a crisis right now, especially here on Free Republic, where it seems conservatism is a synonym for prudery---and nothing more.


51 posted on 02/24/2005 7:19:59 AM PST by 54-46 Was My Number (Right now, somebody else got that number)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
children always have the right to establish their maturity by assuming administration and protection of their own rights, ending dependency upon their parents or other guardians, and assuming all responsibilities of adulthood

They have that now. It's called an emancipated minor.

52 posted on 02/24/2005 7:20:01 AM PST by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: A Ruckus of Dogs; jsmith48; Reagan Man; Reaganwuzthebest; Gipper08
"They The liberal RINOs need to have already infiltrate(d) the Republican party and move it farther right have moved it further to the left, and they need to learn how to play (dirty) politics."
53 posted on 02/24/2005 7:20:24 AM PST by Happy2BMe (Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
But what are we to do when virtue goes away

When virtue goes away, evil people use government to enforce their own wishes. Good people must then take the government back and shrink it down to its proper role (keeping the peace, enforcing contracts, resolving disputes between competing property-rights claims).

54 posted on 02/24/2005 7:20:27 AM PST by steve-b (A desire not to butt into other people's business is eighty percent of all human wisdom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: New Orleans Slim
Democracy only works when its members are moral, responsible, self-governing people. The huge social problems we are facing today is a result of moral-liberalism. For centuries we had no problems with the political will of the people of a state saying that evil behaviors have evil repercussions and are intolerable. If you want to call the Founding Fathers 'communists' then go for it.

The moral-liberal libertarians toy with the idea of making personal corruption some sort of human right only at the expense of liberty, since a corrupt people will never install virtuous leaders.

55 posted on 02/24/2005 7:23:18 AM PST by Cultural Jihad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Pittsburg Phil
With them, no real social cohesion is possible.

Social cohesion is invalid if forced with the barrel of a gun---always has been, always will be.

56 posted on 02/24/2005 7:23:29 AM PST by 54-46 Was My Number (Right now, somebody else got that number)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: New Orleans Slim
True conservatism is about getting the government off our backs and keeping it off. I trust the marketplace. And that includes morality. People need to learn to be moral by acting moral - and not depending on the government to enforce morality. And if you can't convince people to adopt your morality without using the government to shove it down my throat, then suck it up. In that case you lost in the marketplace of ideas, and it is not the job of the government to prop up marketplace losers. That, my friend, is called communism.

I really don't think any pure ideology works. America's system is all about the market place of ideas. The moralless anarchy that Libertarians propose has never worked and I have no doubt it never will. You can work within the best system ever created to advance individual rights and reduction of government, or you can keep taughting ideas that will keep Libertarians on the 1% fringe.

57 posted on 02/24/2005 7:24:41 AM PST by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat
"They have that now. It's called an emancipated minor."

Yes, but there is usually a minimum age, the parents must agree, the income must be legal, and the court makes the determination, not the child.

Other than that, you're right, it's identical.

58 posted on 02/24/2005 7:25:01 AM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: conservativecorner
They are available already. I don't want the use of illicit drugs to become an acceptable part of our society.

There's a difference between "acceptable" and "illegal." I'm all for making drug users societal pariahs, but their illegality and the subsequent drug war is a disaster.

The current cure is worse than the cold. The laws of economics say that we cannot win the drug war in a free and capitalist society. There is a demand, therefore they will be a supply.

59 posted on 02/24/2005 7:25:03 AM PST by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
But what are we to do when virtue goes away -- when people define for themselves what is right and what is wrong?

Hey, you've got support for your view:

Democracy is based on the principle of freedom of religion and belief. Under democracy, a man can believe anything he wants and choose any religion he wants and convert to any religion whenever he wants, even if this apostasy means abandoning the religion of Allah... This is a matter which is patently perverse and false and contradicts many specific [Muslim] legal texts, since according to Islam, if a Muslim apostatizes from Islam to heresy, he should be killed, as stated in the Hadith reported by Al-Bukhari and others: 'Whoever changes his religion, kill him.' It does not say 'leave him alone.'...
Democracy is based on the principle of 'freedom of expression,' no matter what the expression might be, even if it means hurting and reviling the Divine Being [i.e. Allah] and the laws of Islam, because in democracy nothing is so sacred that one cannot be insolent or use vile language about it....
--Abu Musab al-Zarqawi

60 posted on 02/24/2005 7:26:38 AM PST by steve-b (A desire not to butt into other people's business is eighty percent of all human wisdom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Always Right

Just goes to show that you either have no clear understanding of libertarian objectivism, or that you would prefer to have a Nanny state government to protect your from your own moral weakness.


61 posted on 02/24/2005 7:26:42 AM PST by Dead Corpse (The neighborhood is pretty dead at night, and I'm the one to blame....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: RockinRight

"Why shouldn't a felon vote if/when they have completed their sentence and done something to prove that they are no longer a criminal threat?"

If you feel that a criminal is penalized to rehabilitate, then your statement is half right providing the criminal does find something to prove they are no longer a threat (and I can't seem to think of anything that could ever prove that). But the point here is that a felony is not like a traffic ticket and warrants further punishment than some of the watered down sentences these people are getting. The purpose of taking away the privilege to vote, and to control firearms which seem to be the two most complained about areas by the pro-vote groups, is for nothing other than punishment. And let's face it, they still execute some for felonies. I would think having your vote taken away is a clear positive choice to execution.

I don't know if you aware of the problem with the governor's race here in Washington, but over 1100 felons illegally voted in the last election that was decided by less than 130 votes statewide. Funny thing is, just under 230 was the grand total for all but one county, combined, and the pro-liberal county had the rest of over 890. We are looking at Fort Sumpter here with court cases going and election people running for cover. If you don't think Hilery's statements about letting felons vote, and creating another minority sect to be controlled by the liberal party, is not being prayed upon because of their success here in the little watched northwest, then unfortuneatly you are watching your liberal media at work. Good luck.

Red


62 posted on 02/24/2005 7:28:01 AM PST by Redwood71
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
Just goes to show that you either have no clear understanding of libertarian objectivism, or that you would prefer to have a Nanny state government to protect your from your own moral weakness.

Eexactly my point. Stay at your 1% level if you wish. When you learn some political savvy, get back to me.

63 posted on 02/24/2005 7:28:47 AM PST by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: 54-46 Was My Number; Reagan Man; Reaganwuzthebest; devolve
"Conservativism" (up until about five years ago) has always represented something very specific to the American People, and in this order:

GOD

FAMILY

COUNTRY

I think you have described the "New Republican Party's" direction in a very interesting perspective. It seems to be indicative of what I've been seeing over the last six months anyway . .

"Conservatism is a synonym for prudery---and nothing more."

64 posted on 02/24/2005 7:31:16 AM PST by Happy2BMe (Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Or does the majority draw a line in the sand over which we, as a society, will not cross?

The problem with drawing such a line is this: to draw it, more often than not you have to bend and twist the Constitution, bastardizing the concept of original intent, in order to justify drawing it. By doing that, you give your opponent the justification for bending and twisting the Constitution and original intent to justify their platform. Either the Constitution means what it means or it doesn't.

65 posted on 02/24/2005 7:31:56 AM PST by 54-46 Was My Number (Right now, somebody else got that number)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Happy2BMe

The Libertarian Party has actually been bad for the libertarian movement, IMO. Especially in the hands of the likes of Badnarik and Browne.

I think it was Hayek who once said that a small "l" libertarian's best chance at influencing policy was via the GOP. That certainly seems much less true today, with the current administration and its direction. I still hold out hope, but right now there's not really even much debate within the GOP and that frustrates me. I let my senators and congressman know it.


66 posted on 02/24/2005 7:33:15 AM PST by Akira (Experience is a hard teacher, but fools will have no other.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
If that's the case, then why bother to overturn Roe v. Wade? Hell, the "official position" of the LP on abortion now amounts to the same.

Get rid of welfare? Agreed. Get rid of handouts? Agreed. Restore the 2nd Amend. to it's original intent? Agreed. Remove the borders? Hell no. Just because you restore the 2nd Amend. doesn't mean the borders will be magically more secure. Yes, Bush is a dismal failure at securing the borders, but it's still a far cry from leaving it open to all.

I mean, just because people would have their unrestricted 2nd Amend. rights restored (as they should) doesn't mean everyone will go out and buy a gun. It sounds to me like you're hoping the people will take up the security call, but I'd say many wouldn't bother. One thing I do believe the gov't should do is protect our damned borders. If they can't, or won't, as the case may be, then yes, citizens need to do it. But dissolving the border in no way helps the situation. If anything, it would lead to more confrontation between people who want to defend their land, and the gov'ts position of having the borders open for anyone to come and go.

67 posted on 02/24/2005 7:35:37 AM PST by Romish_Papist (Hannity nutshell: "Buy my book, eat @ Ruth's Chris Steakhouse, repeat ad nauseum...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen; steve-b; SJackson; dennisw; Salem; F15Eagle

Hey, you've got support for your view:

Democracy is based on the principle of freedom of religion and belief. Under democracy, a man can believe anything he wants and choose any religion he wants and convert to any religion whenever he wants, even if this apostasy means abandoning the religion of Allah... This is a matter which is patently perverse and false and contradicts many specific [Muslim] legal texts, since according to Islam, if a Muslim apostatizes from Islam to heresy, he should be killed, as stated in the Hadith reported by Al-Bukhari and others: 'Whoever changes his religion, kill him.' It does not say 'leave him alone.'...
Democracy is based on the principle of 'freedom of expression,' no matter what the expression might be, even if it means hurting and reviling the Divine Being [i.e. Allah] and the laws of Islam, because in democracy nothing is so sacred that one cannot be insolent or use vile language about it....
--Abu Musab al-Zarqawi

===========================================

Islam's greatest enemy and worst fear is democracy. The rule by and for the people is completely opposite to the rule of Islam, which is the (iron-fisted) rule of the Koran and the Islamic elite.

68 posted on 02/24/2005 7:36:54 AM PST by Happy2BMe (Government is not the solution to our problem, government *IS* the problem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Cultural Jihad

Advocating holy war against our culture is not a moral thing.


69 posted on 02/24/2005 7:40:11 AM PST by Protagoras (Putting government in charge of morality is like putting pedophiles in charge of children.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: RockinRight
"What I am saying, however, is that the Founding Fathers intended all those things to be State issues since they aren't specific powers given in the Constitution to the Federal gov't."

The 14th amendment had a lot to do with it. Much of the federal Bill of Rights now applies to the states such that a ruling by the USSC affects all states.

For example, if the USSC declares that abortion, or sodomy, or nude dancing, or pornography is a constitutionally protected right, the 14th amendment applies that ruling to all state laws, not just federal laws (as the Founding Fathers intended).

The only part of that list where Congress (not the USSC) stepped in was recreational and prescription drugs (alcohol is regulated at the state level). If this country wishes recreational and prescription drugs to be regulated at the state level, then I would suggest a federal amendment, similar in wording to the 21st amendment, taking that power away from the federal government.

70 posted on 02/24/2005 7:40:13 AM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Pittsburg Phil

It took to post 16 for someone to recognize they support open borders -- thank you for stating that fact. It is amazing how some conservatives are so blinded that they cannot see beyond the end of their nose at what Libertarians really stand for and this Conservative is not buying into their spin -- am a Republican and will always be a Republican.

Those Republicans that want 100% or nothing are not going to be happy anywhere. You start at the local level in your County Party structure and build from there but the "pure" or "true" whatever they call themselves today are too far right and stringent to make much of a difference. You cannot shove it at people if you don't believe the way I do, then you are not a "true" conservative. That is Bravo Sierra in my book!

My two cents for the day.


71 posted on 02/24/2005 7:42:45 AM PST by PhiKapMom (AOII Mom -- Increase Republicans in Congress in 2006!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Pittsburg Phil
They also want to legalized porn & prostitution to have open borders, and believe that greed is good.

Porn is already legal as is prostitution. Recreational drugs are also legal.

Libertarianism would spell the death of the Republic. With them, no real social cohesion is possible.

Your lack of understanding about, and adversion to, freedom, does not make your opinion valid.

72 posted on 02/24/2005 7:44:47 AM PST by Protagoras (Putting government in charge of morality is like putting pedophiles in charge of children.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: steve-b
"Libertarians want the government out..."
"Good (if you're the sort of person who belongs here rather than amongst the government-worshippers of DU)."

You wanna take my quote out of context, fine. Then how about, "Anarchists want the government out ..."

Equally true, taken out of context, yes?

73 posted on 02/24/2005 7:47:05 AM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: steve-b

What a crock.


74 posted on 02/24/2005 7:49:13 AM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: conservativecorner
You don't need legalization of drugs to actually get them. They are available already.

Correct. The WOD is an abject failure. Thanks for pointing that out.

The Europeans ,especially Denmark, have had a bad experience with legalized drugs in their society, and they are reexamining those policies.

Please reference the proof of your assertion.

Not to mention you seem to think the US has no bad experiences with drugs using their guns and corruption unconstitutional approach.

75 posted on 02/24/2005 7:52:32 AM PST by Protagoras (Putting government in charge of morality is like putting pedophiles in charge of children.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: TattooedUSAFConservative
I agree with you on the borders issue BTW. I was just giving you the LP's reasoning. Their logic goes, if there is no reason for people to come here as the current illegals are, then the only people coming here would be those who want to work for a living.

I don't necessarily agree. I think we need to be able to control our borders. Not to strain out people due to some ethnic bias, but to keep the criminal element from invading us.

Borders. Language. Culture. These are the things that make up a country. We used to be a melting pot where we came together under a banner of freedom and free markets. Now, we are a bunch of enclaves each trying to scrabble for a piece of the government pie.

76 posted on 02/24/2005 7:54:37 AM PST by Dead Corpse (The neighborhood is pretty dead at night, and I'm the one to blame....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: steve-b
When virtue goes away, evil people use government to enforce their own wishes. Good people must then take the government back and shrink it down to its proper role (keeping the peace, enforcing contracts, resolving disputes between competing property-rights claims).

Excellent post. Authoritarians will hate it and attack it, but it's correct. You will be able to judge just how on the mark it is by the personalities who show up to attack it.

Many of them will be former drug users and criminals who have found a bizarre form of "religion" in opposing freedom.

77 posted on 02/24/2005 7:58:32 AM PST by Protagoras (Putting government in charge of morality is like putting pedophiles in charge of children.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: freepatriot32

Fun little debate going on here.


78 posted on 02/24/2005 8:01:33 AM PST by BJClinton (What's the difference between the Super Bowl and the Grammy's? The Eagles have won a Grammy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PhiKapMom
am a Republican and will always be a Republican.

Excellent choice if you embrace huge new entitlement programs and providing Viagra to rich seniors on the public dime.

79 posted on 02/24/2005 8:01:47 AM PST by Protagoras (Putting government in charge of morality is like putting pedophiles in charge of children.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat
"I'm all for making drug users societal pariahs"

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

Then they'd be unique. (Well, maybe they'd join smokers or SUV drivers or some other cause de jour.)

Societal pariahs like pregnant single girls? Men who lie or those who cheat on their spouse? Homosexual behavior? Celebrity criminals who write books and appear on TV shows?

Oh yeah. Our society makes societal pariahs, all right. Mostly Christians and those who favor a moral society. Those are the societal pariahs.

80 posted on 02/24/2005 8:02:27 AM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Cultural Jihad

Well put.


81 posted on 02/24/2005 8:03:08 AM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: doug from upland
wants totally open borders with Mexico

And this is different from Democrats and Republicans how?
82 posted on 02/24/2005 8:07:45 AM PST by BJClinton (What's the difference between the Super Bowl and the Grammy's? The Eagles have won a Grammy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: PhiKapMom

There are some Libertian policies that conservatives (and especially Republicans) simply will not go for, and open borders are one of them. I don't think many on here are advocating voting for the LP. I simply wish that libertian-minded conservatives would have more influence within the GOP. I certainly don't agree with all LP policies, but as a principled small-government type who believes in personal responsibility and hates government waste, it's hard not to be alarmed at where the GOP is today. Was the Contract With America (which turned out to be all talk) really just 10 years ago?

I'm for secure borders, the death penalty and other things that don't jive with the LPP, but there are many libertarian/conservative ideas that the GOP continues to move away from.


83 posted on 02/24/2005 8:09:06 AM PST by Akira (Experience is a hard teacher, but fools will have no other.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
If this country wishes recreational and prescription drugs to be regulated at the state level, then I would suggest a federal amendment, similar in wording to the 21st amendment, taking that power away from the federal government.

There is no need for an amendment to remove that power from the federal government, because no amendment was enacted giving that power to the federal government in the first place.

84 posted on 02/24/2005 8:13:26 AM PST by steve-b (A desire not to butt into other people's business is eighty percent of all human wisdom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Cultural Jihad
Democracy only works when its members are moral, responsible, self-governing people.

Since no one in the world has ever been nor ever will be those things, one must assume you are AGAIN arguing against Americans and their form of government. Please suggest YOUR ideal form of government since you don't like our form.

The Taliban seems to be the model that fits your ideal.

Advocating Holy war (Jihad) against the American culture is not a moral thing.

85 posted on 02/24/2005 8:13:26 AM PST by Protagoras (Putting government in charge of morality is like putting pedophiles in charge of children.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
The moralless anarchy that Libertarians propose has never worked and I have no doubt it never will.

I don't believe they propose an amoral anarchy, rather, letting morals be decided by the people as a social issue rather than enforced by the government as a legal issue. Society will still look down upon the heroin junkie, whether it's legal or not. We do it with alcoholics now.

86 posted on 02/24/2005 8:14:30 AM PST by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Well put.

Your link got broken. The post containing quotes in support of your beliefs was Msg#60.

87 posted on 02/24/2005 8:16:07 AM PST by steve-b (A desire not to butt into other people's business is eighty percent of all human wisdom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: elfman2
You waste your time reasoning with the dope heads. To them everyone else is a "Drug Warrior" or a lover of the same.

Police are all jackbooted, and even though Ronald Reagen wouldn't give them time of day they believe they think along the same lines.

And don't let names like Patriot or True Conservative fool you, it always boils down to Cops arresting them for Breaking the law aka Their Right to Keep and Bear Pot.

88 posted on 02/24/2005 8:18:51 AM PST by DainBramage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: conservativecorner

and as long as they want to prevent any drilling on American soil, and force a 4 buck a gallon tax on gasoline, count me out too.

the other prob with libs, is they are so anti-business. if you think you have trouble running your business now, wait till the Nader types get in there and really start to put the vice on your nuts.


89 posted on 02/24/2005 8:21:20 AM PST by esoxmagnum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: steve-b
Here is a society which does precisly what some on this thread are advocating. These people all concider themselves to be "moral" and insist that most of the other citizens are not.


90 posted on 02/24/2005 8:23:27 AM PST by Protagoras (Putting government in charge of morality is like putting pedophiles in charge of children.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: New Orleans Slim
That makes you a big government supporter. The "war on drugs" has eroded the 4th Amendment, lead to rampant government spending, and limits personal liberty. Moreover, the black market in drugs leads to a spike in real crime associated with that market. If people want to get high, just let them. Do you want to ban alcohol next? Alcohol is a recreational drug, so I guess you want to interfere with my 23rd Amendment rights? You are anti-constitution!

Robert Bork calls this position radical Individualism and rightly calls it a rot on true liberty. Read Slouching Toward Gomorra.

91 posted on 02/24/2005 8:27:12 AM PST by frgoff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: DainBramage
You waste your time reasoning with the dope heads.

Please name the ones you are referring to.

Also, please give a detailed list of the government forbidden substances you have consumed in your life. It's important to be consistent on who has and has not used drugs. Thank you.

92 posted on 02/24/2005 8:27:15 AM PST by Protagoras (Putting government in charge of morality is like putting pedophiles in charge of children.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: frgoff

Er... yeah. Because the Founders didn't believe in the soviergn individual or anything right? I mean, that whole "We the People" thing wasn't referring to INDIVIDUALs now was it?


93 posted on 02/24/2005 8:30:01 AM PST by Dead Corpse (The neighborhood is pretty dead at night, and I'm the one to blame....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Oh yeah. Our society makes societal pariahs, all right. Mostly Christians and those who favor a moral society. Those are the societal pariahs.

So since Christians appear to be losing the culture war, you'd prefer for your beliefs to be enforced by the government at gunpoint?

94 posted on 02/24/2005 8:30:07 AM PST by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: jsmith48
Completly untrue. Libertarians simply believe that forcing others to believe as they do through coersion is wrong.

A factually false statement. Liberatarians are for legalizing drugs. That is forcing others (me) to believe as they do through coercion.

95 posted on 02/24/2005 8:30:25 AM PST by frgoff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: jsmith48
They need to infiltrate the Republican party and move it farther right, and they need to learn how to play politics.

Well said. The "Pot Platform" has forever tainted the Party.

96 posted on 02/24/2005 8:32:03 AM PST by numberonepal (Don't Even Think About Treading On Me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: frgoff
A factually false statement. Liberatarians are for legalizing drugs. That is forcing others (me) to believe as they do through coercion.

One of the most bizarre of all the posts. Kevvie boy,,is that you?

97 posted on 02/24/2005 8:34:21 AM PST by Protagoras (Putting government in charge of morality is like putting pedophiles in charge of children.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Protagoras
Right, and here’s the inevitable degeneration of libertarian anarchy taken to the extreme.

Both those pictures are evident of small minds.

98 posted on 02/24/2005 8:35:34 AM PST by elfman2 (Not paid to be PC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: A Ruckus of Dogs
I agree. If they've completed their sentence, then their debt to society is paid and their rights should be re-instated.

How about this?
If after some aribrary amount of time (say 5 or 10 years) after their sentence is completed they are allowed to vote.

99 posted on 02/24/2005 8:37:55 AM PST by numberonepal (Don't Even Think About Treading On Me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat
So since Christians appear to be losing the culture war, you'd prefer for your beliefs to be enforced by the government at gunpoint?

This is the goal.


100 posted on 02/24/2005 8:37:55 AM PST by Protagoras (Putting government in charge of morality is like putting pedophiles in charge of children.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-292 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson