Posted on 03/23/2009 7:32:52 PM PDT by Delacon
...Never stepped in demo or repub sh!t. I can smell it all over, don’t want it on my shoes or in my hat...
...”Rinos took control” agree, but, maybe Limbaugh shouldn’t have tried so hard to derail Clintons’ bid for POTUS. At least we knew what was in her hand...
“You can’t say they lost, unless by “performed dismally” you’re referring to the failure to nominate a conservative GOP presidential candidate”
Well yes, that would be what I was thinking when the author said that. That and the conservative failure to keep the congressional GOP in line and champion conservative ideals.
“...”Rinos took control” agree, but, maybe Limbaugh shouldn’t have tried so hard to derail Clintons’ bid for POTUS. At least we knew what was in her hand...”
I dunno. Would Clinton have attempted the level of overreach that Obama has? Would Clinton have set the demo party up for the comming backlash that many feel is going to happen come the next election? In short, is Obama better for the GOP?
“All this guy did was serve up the same old “moderate” Republican bilge”.
What this guy did was reiterate exactly what WF Buckley and Frank Meyer had been saying from the very beginning of the conservative ascension back in the late 60s and what carried the conservative movement to power. That is that social and libertarian conservatives have to work together and the way to do that is for social conservatives to articulate conservative moral principles and for libertarians to defend against government encroachment on our freedoms.
Social conservatives - stop with the nanny state, stop with the seat belt laws, stop with the stupid smoking bans, stop trying to "conservatize" liberalism and stop trying to run other people's lives.
IMHO, in most cases the disagreement is more about the means than the end.
The first step is to get everyone on the same page with regard to the distribution of powers - which issues are legitimately within the enumerated powers of the federal government to deal with, and which ones belong to the states. If something isn't explicitly enumerated in the Constitution as being the pervue of the national government, then the assumption should be that it is a state issue.
If there are issues that need to be decided by Congress, but they aren't explicitly empowered to do so then we need to get that authorized by amendment, and the purpose and limitations of the power laid out when it is granted. Quit relying on the New Deal interpretation of the Commerce Clause for federal authority - to quote Clarence Thomas "the substantial effects tests is no test at all - it is a blank check".
Someone pointed out on another thread recently that most libertarians (particularly the small ‘l’ variety) are typically socially conservative.
The difference lies in how we view Government’s role in morality - as a way to express good morals through sensible law and policy, vs. a way to enforce a particular set of morals with draconian zero tolerance rules and state power.
...”Obama better for the GOP” Good point, short term no, he’s moving to fast, long term, maybe, but, may not be enough time to undo the BS. Clinton, I don’t think so, but, that’s past...
1. I don't believe in the legalization of marijuana for ALL citizens. I believe that marijuana is a holistic medicinal alternative to manmade pills for those that would benefit the most from it. Like glaucoma and cancer patients for example. ONLY for MEDICINAL PURPOSES. I also believe in decriminalization for possession of paraphernalia and small amounts up to 1 ounce for personal consumption that was in 1 bag/container, not 2 or more that would suggest the intent of trafficking. Being a street pharmacist is still illegal.
2. Porn is LEGAL! Don't mix bigotry and ignorance together please.
3. Prostitution is illegal but its going to happen, and I don't believe it should be legal, but again like marijuana decriminalized or at least be moved from the street corners to a licensed and regulated, tax paying business entity (brothel), that protects the working girls/mans rights and health (being that they are not illegally trafficked and are being forced to have sex for money)that would eliminate or reduce the illegal sex trade and are located in designated “red light” districts like in Europe. One way to clean up the streets and make everyone happy I guess.
4. I don't like the UN either, damn blue helmets.
5. I don't like the nanny state either as you put it. Broken window laws are stupid and wring out the remaining freedoms from us in my opinion. If we don't have simple freedoms how do we have complex ones? I agree. As far as smoking bans I agree/disagree. I don't want to be inhaling cigarettes at Longhorn when I'm trying to enjoy a nice ribeye for example, but at a bar that doesn't serve food, well tough kittens go to another waterin’ hole. I don't smoke so I would probably not go to a bar that is full of smoke, unless it had great ventilation ;).
6. Conservatizing liberalism doesn't make sense. Consrvatizng libertarianism does at least to me, and it is not liberalism don't get it confused.
7. I don't favor partisan politics I believe I am open minded, but have aligned my beliefs (right now anyway) to a fusion of Libertarianism and Constitutional Conservatism and Independent if that makes sense. George Washington was an independent by the way, how come we always vote Republican or Democrat? We need change and that's the third party that gets 50% + 1.
Oh yeah, last but not least the 2nd Amendment, the Amendment that protects all Amendments.
Guns no matter what they are, look like, capacity, optics, lasers, etc. should all be legal.
I don’t like that the liberals have found ways to circumvent our constitution with laws that only take away the freedoms of law-abiding citizens and has nothing to do with reducing crime or protecting kids or any of that.
Guns are tools for hunting and killing human beings that is the reality. I would rather have an efficient tool for doing so than a blunderbuss or flintlock when the need arose for me to kill a deer or a tyrannical government or a criminal intent on doing me or my family harm. The 2nd Amendment isn’t about hunting AT ALL though. Its about killing people that threaten the freedom as laid out by our forefathers in the Bill of Rights/Constitution and people that intend on harming your family or yourself. That is the reality and that’s what happened during our Revolutionary war, people got shot and killed and that is what gave birth to our nation. Do people think we just got here by the good will and faith of the British government at the time? I didn’t think so. So this nonsense about “assault rifles” is hogwash, and capacity bans, etc. They are “defense rifles”. First off they aren’t fully automatic and secondly no one is going on the offense except for deranged lunatics that make up maybe .001% of the population.
Actually that is partly the reason why the British eventually backed off of the colonies (and partly why the independence movement of India later succeeded). Being still informed by the gospel, rather than scorch earth and utterly devastate a huge swath of humanity, they ceded their war. They were not the most dogged enemy that is possible to face.
It is the ethic of the 1st Amendment when applied to faith (that is a potpourri of provisions, so I point out faith) that brings the blessings that make it possible to even carry out the rest of the rights promised by the Constitution and popularly believed to be inalienable. Guns are only implements of destruction. They cannot create anything new. Once resources are gone a gun will not put them back into place. Only God can do that.
By asking too much, one gets nothing.
This is to Extremely Extreme Extremist:
As far as abortion is concerned here is my views and I expect that you will be an open-minded adult because some things I might say may offend you and that is not my intent, so I apologize in advance if I do.
I don’t think that abortions should take place after a certain point in the pregnancy like say the second or third trimester for example. I do feel however that a woman should have the option in the first trimester to have an abortion if she wants to. Why?
1. From a secularist point of view religion shouldn’t be shoving their beliefs down someone else’s throat (It’s un-American). If the woman was agnostic or atheist an Orthodox-Catholic for example has no right claiming its an abomination to God or some other silly dogmatic claim.
2. Woman have abortions every month if you get my drift.
3. The woman would have to make a decision before the second trimester whether she was going to abort or not. By then should would be legally obligated to term and have 2 options:
1. Keep her child or 2. give him/her up for adoption.
Simple right? It’s a compromise for both sides. We need to have compromises and agree that it can’t always be my way or the highway mentality.
I say these things in response to your post because I feel you have contradicted yourself. You say people shouldn’t be trying to control what other people do but then you don’t like abortion. I’m just saying that there is a reasonable and logical compromise that can be had with anything we have problems we have today, its just that people have to be willing to do so.
Its not a perfect world and never will be. We need to stop acting like it is come off our high horses and make changes that benefit us all and not just one side or the other.
Abortion in 1st trimester OK but not 2nd or 3rd...Is that a fair compromise? Its not your decision or your business for the person that is making a choice in her life.
From a secularist point of view religion shouldn’t be shoving their beliefs down someone else’s throat (It’s un-American). If the woman was agnostic or atheist an Orthodox-Catholic for example has no right claiming its an abomination to God or some other silly dogmatic claim.
Should children be sex slaves? Should people have the legal right to marry farm animals?
I'm just wondering what dividing line (if any) you would draw on those practices and if the guiding principle is more than "gross!"
Dear gogeo,
To have sex with children or marry farm animals as a comparison to a reasonable approach to abortion is gross. What guides my thoughts/principles is a compromise that everyone can live with. Obviously using a child as a sex slave does happen unfortunately, it is however illegal, and is not a debatable issue at the moment in our time as well as the marriage to farm animals. Today we do discuss abortion and there are two sides: Pro-life and Pro-choice. There isn’t however Pro-Child Sex Slave and Pro-Choice Sex Slave or Pro-Marriage to Farm Animals or Choice-Marriage to Farm Animals. There are lines that have been drawn obviously. No one is advocating any of that you mentioned, but people are advocating were the line is drawn when it comes to what a person has for liberty when it comes to their personal lives.
I guess your defending the British Monarchy at the time that was obviously bad news for the budding United States, but ok your entitled to your views like I am. Who knows that what you claimed is true. All I know is that a time came that the Colonialists stood up against a tyrannical British Monarchy. You can’t refute that they were not tyrannical by claiming that had they not withdrawn (probably more like retreated because they were getting their arses handed to them on a silver platter)they would have wiped out large swathes of humanity. What? They were informed by gospel? You mean King George III, and his greed as with any “bad” king? You are also claiming that the British Empire gave us our rights too? No, they were fought for with blood, sweat, and tears. Do you get that? George Washington crossed the Potomac and kicked their limey arses and that’s all she wrote pal with the help of the French.
Guns are only instruments of destruction in the wrong hands. In the right hands they are protectors and liberators. They can and do create things that are new. For example the Revolutionary war was fought with guns and the 13 Colonies won against a “superior” force and created at the time what was a new approach to government. Alas, our Federal Democratic Republic was born complete with its unprecedented Constitution and Bill of Rights. So yes sir guns to make new things, may not be a car or plane but it has created the most important thing a man or woman can have and that my friend is FREEDOM!
As far as resources guns can defend them and people can’t put them back (except trees, but we can create/invent/develop/implement/ [insert adjective here] alternatives and we are.
[Insert Verb Here] Correction to [Insert Adjective Here] my mistake.
FYI ping
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.