Posted on 03/17/2013 11:13:56 AM PDT by Rufus2007
On this Sunday’s broadcast of ABC’s “This Week with George Stephanopoulos,” Washington Post columnist George Will criticized a New York Times article by Jim Rutenberg and Richard Stevenson that suggested the Conservative Political Action Conference revealed deep divisions in the conservative movement.
“First, here’s The New York Times headline on the CPAC conference: ‘GOP divisions fester at conservative retreat,’” Will said. “Festering an infected wound — it’s awful. I guarantee you, if there were a liberal conclave comparable to this, and there were vigorous debates going on there, The New York Times headline would be ‘Healthy diversity flourishes at the liberal conclave.’”
“Republicans have been arguing — social conservatives and libertarian free-market conservatives — since the 1950s, when the National Review was founded on the idea of the fusion of the two,” he continued. “It has worked before with Ronald Reagan. It can work again. What I did see at CPAC was the rise of the libertarian strand of Republicanism, which has an affected foreign policy that is a pullback from nation-building
...more (w/video)...
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
Where do you think I got my preaching materials. Ever heard of John Locke or Thomas Paine?
You are at best ill informed and unhinged with your ad homonym attacks, red herrings, and straw men.
Have a wonderful life in your "democratic" wonderland. (By the way, we live in a constitutional republic, not a "democracy". That may be what is skewing your perspective).
Why should the government be involved in marriage at all?
The issue centers around that gray area where one person’s rights cross over into another. Traditionally, that has been defined as “trespass” - the act of an individual that substantialy harms another’s life, person (health and safety) and poperty. Morality is self-regulation of our actions so as not to trespass on another’s rights.
Morality is respecting the rights of the unborn individual. It is not preventing gays from marrying (no trepass.) That is the imposition of a religious notion of right and wrong and not a civic one. Telling me I have to use my property to benefit society is not a legitimate prevention of tresppass. Making me pay to support the installation of solar panels on someone elses roof is beyond the oprevention of trespass.
Social conservatives and liberals like to impose their religious or philosophical notions of right and wrong on other’s behavior well beyond the limits of preventing tresspass. I think most libertarian Republicans just want to be left alone in liberty to follow their own conscience and inclinations as long as they are not trespassing on other’s rights.
It preserves the central tenant of our Constitution: individual liberty. Individual liberty was, and still is, the foundation of our nation.
See post #104 - which describes you to a T.
I've got no problem with social conservatism.
I have problems with inane statements like:
If you interviewed drunken mobs
or
America is a democracy
You are so naive as to think that social breakdown and liberalism don’t create MORE big government voters, who vote for MORE social programs, which breeds MORE support for protection from the resulting physical dangers of moral breakdown.
Libertarianism is the enemy of conservatism and small government and of breeding conservative voters, we have lived through that evidence of 50 years, it is proven and conclusive.
Social liberalism BREEDS liberals and welfare supporting voters.
my bad — See post #101 . . . my bifocals are working . . .
Do you think that the typical drunken mob would reveal a higher than normal percentage of social conservatives or social liberals/libertarians?
As far as the democracy thing, that merely meant that everyone votes, which is something that libertarians don’t seem to know as they promote ideas to create left wing voters, while pretending that they will end welfare while doing it, it is total nonsense, and insane thinking.
“The issue centers around that gray area where one person’s rights cross over into another. Traditionally, that has been defined as “trespass” - the act of an individual that substantialy harms another’s life, person (health and safety) and poperty. Morality is self-regulation of our actions so as not to trespass on another’s rights.
Morality is respecting the rights of the unborn individual. It is not preventing gays from marrying (no trepass.) That is the imposition of a religious notion of right and wrong and not a civic one. Telling me I have to use my property to benefit society is not a legitimate prevention of tresppass. Making me pay to support the installation of solar panels on someone elses roof is beyond the oprevention of trespass.
Social conservatives and liberals like to impose their religious or philosophical notions of right and wrong on other’s behavior well beyond the limits of preventing tresspass. I think most libertarian Republicans just want to be left alone in liberty to follow their own conscience and inclinations as long as they are not trespassing on other’s rights.”
Hallelujah! You said it so much better than I could, Marsh!
Or as my daddy used to say, “Your rights stop where my nose starts!”
Mosques and homosexuals and atheists could not define marriage in early America, why do you want to give them that power today?
My point being that the Taliban, the Inquisition, and Pharisees who had Christ crucified were acting out of their own flavors of social conservatism.
So when you say "social conservatism", you mean the social conservatism of your own particular Protestant branch?
America is the creation of social conservatives, Protestant Christians.
Not the “Taliban, the Inquisition, and Pharisees who had Christ crucified”, troll.
And I have stated over and over that I am a "small l" libertarian, and am not associated with the Libertarian Party, with which I have some major disagreements.
You’re exactly right about the threat of homosexual marriage. Liberals will create a bigger government to force gay marriage down the throats of conservative and religious Americans. Gay marriage will crush our churches, not expand our rights.
NO, they have a name because they have a political agenda and opponents, their agenda, their political purpose, is to defeat the conservatives, to fight for social liberalism, to oppose social conservatism.
If they were merely silent individuals who were indifferent to the culture war between the left and right, then we wouldn't know who they are, but we do, because they have a political agenda, something that they promote, fight for, argue for, they have a goal, and it means defeating the conservatives at all levels of government.
You've got the cart before the horse. Big government breeds ever expanding control over individuals. Control breeds dependence, dependence breeds bigger government, bigger government breeds poverty.
Liberty breeds maturity, self reliance, respect for individuals, and small, constitutional government.
Ever hang out with a mama's boy? He can't go to the bathroom without permission, and if he doesn't get permission, he gets constipated waiting to be told what to do.
I remember when seat belt laws were passed in Michigan when I was in college. A friend's dad was giving me a ride home for the weekend and beaming with joy - he asked me what I thought of the wonderful new law. I replied - "just what I need, another law to save me from myself".
Coddle people and you get liberals run amuck. Live in liberty and freedom and you grow self reliant people of character. If you don't realize this by now it's really sad for you, not me. So you can take all of your ad homonym attacks against me
"Only a libertarian could be so ridiculous as to defend homosexuality and abortion and polygamy and drugs gambling and hookers and every sin known to man almost, and pretend that it isn’t immoral."
(you didn't even bother to look at my profile, did you? never claimed to be a social liberal or promote anything in your list), and you can stick them where the sun doesn't shine - thank you very much!
You can have your personal differences from the perfect libertarian agenda, but that doesn’t affect libertarianism. Ted Kennedy was “personally” opposed to abortion, but he was a warrior for it nonetheless, by fighting for his general politics.
Ummm, prostitution WAS legal then. In fact, hookers followed the Army around to service them at night.
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.