Posted on 08/01/2013 9:28:50 AM PDT by Responsibility2nd
Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships.
To which you replied:I’ll take that post as you agreeing with the libertarian position on personal relationships.
That was not the question, the question was whether or not you believe it is within the purview of government to define, license or restrict personal relationships
— do you, or do you not, believe this is withing the proper authority of government?
Libertarians are weak on Nat'l security and border control as well. And there are many atheists among them.
I don't trust them myself.
Have fun on your back and forth with Captain Cut-n-Paste. Others learned to ignore him to death. If he didn’t have a copy of the LP’s party platform he wouldn’t have much to post.
Actually the post that you jumped into to challenge was this, and it seems that your challenge is in support of the libertarian position.
1.3 Personal Relationships
Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government’s treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships.
That depends on which ones you're talking to, IMO. -- I've not found them to be unreasonable on the position, whereas Republicans (in much greater numbers) are. As an example: Snowden and the NSA — republicans are apologists for the NSA, believing that they really do need to inspect that level of general communication regardless of the 4th Amendment; and they condemn Snowden as a traitor and seem to hold an rather religious view of secret/top-secret
clearance.
(Yes the above is hyperbolic, but only slightly.)
And there are many atheists among them.
And? Doesn't that just mean that there's a lot of potential for sharing the Gospel? Like after Soviet Russia's fall, or in China right-now?
I don't trust them myself.
I trust them more than Republicans: who's helping in the pushing of Obamacare? Who's helping pushing amnesty? Who was it that pushed Obama-clone Romney?
Republicans.
* Note: I am talking about the national-level guys; the elite
, if you will.
I notice that you have nothing but insults and personal attacks to bring to these threads, nothing of substance.
You have to be vague and elusive because you know that your feelings about homosexual marriage don’t do well on this conservative site.
Try this one on him...
Fetal viability is well before the end of gestation. IOW, after a certain point... That child could be born and survive even though it hadn’t gestated the full nine months. As technology improves, that timeframe extends backwards towards conception.
In light of that, how is ending that viable human life NOT murder?
It should be obvious by now that this other poster is just trolling.
Maybe if we ignore it, it will go away...
It wouldn’t be so bad, but you make a point, and he just ignores it while trying to use someone else’s words to try and paint you with.
Blatant trolling at its dumbest. And i’ve seen a few doozies come and go.
1.3 Personal RelationshipsSee the underlined portion? That's what I am asking you about.
Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government’s treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships.
Do you believe it is within the purview of government to "define, license or restrict personal relationships"?
I’m sorry, but the federal government has not authorized you to communicate with me over the internet. Please refrain from doing so until you have proof of your authorization to post to me. Thank you!
I seem to recall that someone on the radio once said that libertarians are nothing more than cofused liberals. I don’t recall who said it. I am beginning to think they may right.
He seems to be a fan of repetition so I figure he can appreciate getting that reply a few dozen times.
You need to tell me if you are supporting their position or oppose it, then you can start the other discussion.
With positions that you guys have, we know why you must join together in a child's circle of personal insults and avoidance.
You cannot speak openly and honestly of your politics on a conservative site.
I’m sorry, but the federal government has not authorized you to communicate with me over the internet. Please refrain from doing so until you have proof of your authorization to post to me. Thank you!
My goodness where were these dinosaurs during the Amash NSA vote? Quietly hiding I suppose.
Listen, your theory? I don’t even know how someone could come up with that.
RINOs are really what one might call Neo-Conservatives. NeoCons, to use extreme over-simplification as you illustrate you are capable of....NeoCons, are basically Big Govt. Democrats who like war and occasionally throw a bone towards Christians (passively). At what point did Bush/Cheney attempt to slash government? When does John McCain not support a massive police state? Why do they think it’s ok to have a massive spying infrastructure sniffing up all of our collective rear-ends? And an ever-expanding TSA etc.
I understand for many of you, Social Conservatism trumps all, and it doesn’t bother me as long as you don’t go all Police State on me. RINOs you see are there to quietly and in a sneaky way allow big government to flourish while at the same time occasionally going on Fox News and acting incensed about it. Keeps the sheeple in line. You’ll see them buckle at the funding ObamaCare vote.
So in my case,
1. Paul/Cruz/Lee type I would vote for
2. Any republican supporting the massive spy infrastructure no matter what position they hold on anything else, is done with me. Never again will I be tricked into a Bush/McCain/Romney.
I gave it to you, chatting with you on another post, before: so I have already told you my position; you were then (and seem to be now) highly accusatory and unwilling to listen to someone else's stance if it did not align perfectly with you own.
Therefore, I ask you again:
Do you believe it is within the proper authority of government to "define, license or restrict personal relationships"?
Wow, you really want to go all over the place.
Which post was it where you told me that you agreed or disagreed with the libertarian position that you want to start justifying and explaining?
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.