Skip to comments.
Asking Yourself a Question: More 'Conservative'... or 'Libertarian'?
Reaganite Republican ^
| 19 March 2013
| Reaganite Republican
Posted on 03/19/2013 8:30:58 AM PDT by Reaganite Republican
Even though I agreed with much of what Ron Paul had to say, all I could ever think is 'this isn't my guy' for president -too odd a demeanor/un-electable- not to mention foreign policy positions that were appalling to a peace-through-strength Republican like myself, particularly statements made re. Iran and Israel.
But lo-and-behold, now we have fervent offspring Rand Paul who -while libertarian in his views- apparently saw wisdom in distancing himself from his father's take re. the volatile Muddled East.. and that's when I started listening to him.
Maybe I've changed in my hawkishness too- I'd rather have not been involved in Libya at all -don't want to empower jihadists in Syria- and find it pointless to back wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that I supported all the way when we're just going to hand them over to Iran or the Taliban at the end anyway.
Sooo, looking at the handy chart I found at the Libertarian Party (who I don't advocate as viable in 2016, even Rand Paul prefers working to take-over the Republican party to a 3rd-party challenge for practical reasons) you might find it useful to see right where the lines are drawn, as well as where you yourself stand as a whole in today's turbulent political cauldron...
(click to embiggen)
I don't know how 'socially tolerant' I am, but if putting social issues on the back burner to ensure fiscal crises remain front+center from now through 2016, so be it. Note that the 'libertarian' overlap below appears to be a potentially appealing package as far as winning elections go...
TOPICS: Business/Economy; Chit/Chat; Government; Politics
KEYWORDS: chart; conservative; liberaltarian; libertarian; moralabsolutes; rand; socialconservatives; socialliberals
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160, 161-180, 181-200, 201-216 last
To: JustSayNoToNannies
oh you don;t have to prove anything to me
201
posted on
03/21/2013 8:45:49 AM PDT
by
manc
(Marriage =1 man + 1 woman,when they say marriage equality then they should support polygamy)
To: JustSayNoToNannies
no you just want drugs to be legal and a man can marry another man.
202
posted on
03/21/2013 8:46:24 AM PDT
by
manc
(Marriage =1 man + 1 woman,when they say marriage equality then they should support polygamy)
To: JustSayNoToNannies
And if they want pot or porn legal or illegal in their community, that's their choice, right?As long as their communities are self-sufficient and don't drain on the finances of the other communities (*cough* *cough* Detroit), fine.
To: manc
they are so much more intune with the occupy radical left than the right wing My score from the Ideology Selector quiz:
Paleoconservative (100%)
Paleo-libertarian (87%)
Libertarian (80%)
Neoconservative (74%)
oh you don;t have to prove anything to me
Your mind's made up and you won't be confused by facts - I'm proving something to other readers of this thread.
204
posted on
03/21/2013 8:50:28 AM PDT
by
JustSayNoToNannies
("The Lord has removed His judgments against you" - Zep. 3:15)
To: JustSayNoToNannies
I'm not playing your game anymore. Total freedom leads to anarchy and perversions we have not seen. There are many people who will test the limits and find there are none and we will see this county turn into satans playground. I will never vote with a party that will destroy my kids and there future.
No reply needed.
205
posted on
03/21/2013 8:50:39 AM PDT
by
Linda Frances
(Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness)
To: JustSayNoToNannies
OK then address your post to All and not me if you don;t want to prove anything to me.
206
posted on
03/21/2013 8:51:33 AM PDT
by
manc
(Marriage =1 man + 1 woman,when they say marriage equality then they should support polygamy)
To: manc
you have no problem with homosexuals marrying Still telling this lie?
You;re all over this site on nearly every thread harping on about drugs and how it doesn;t hurt anyone.
Another of your lies - I've never claimed that drugs don't hurt anyone.
no you just want drugs to be legal
So that's at least one lie you'll stop telling?
and a man can marry another man.
You're in love with this lie. Did somebody tell you lying is a conservative value?
207
posted on
03/21/2013 8:52:16 AM PDT
by
JustSayNoToNannies
("The Lord has removed His judgments against you" - Zep. 3:15)
To: manc
OK then address your post to All and not me if you don;t want to prove anything to me. "All" is actually just another FR account - but if you want me to no longer include you on my replies to your posts, I'm happy to comply.
208
posted on
03/21/2013 8:53:50 AM PDT
by
JustSayNoToNannies
("The Lord has removed His judgments against you" - Zep. 3:15)
To: JustSayNoToNannies
nice one, All it is then and not to me...
209
posted on
03/21/2013 8:55:22 AM PDT
by
manc
(Marriage =1 man + 1 woman,when they say marriage equality then they should support polygamy)
To: JustSayNoToNannies
Paleo-libertarian (100%)
Conservative (86%)
Libertarian (83%)
Paleoconservative (81%)
Centrist (77%)
Neoconservative (73%)
Left-libertarian (71%)
Third Way (52%)
Radical (15%)
Liberal (0%)
210
posted on
03/21/2013 8:57:03 AM PDT
by
TheThirdRuffian
(RINOS like Romney, McCain, Dole are sure losers. No more!)
To: Linda Frances; All
Freedom is not the right to do what we want, but what we ought. With government deciding what we "ought"? Doesn't sound conservative to me.
I'm not playing your game anymore. Total freedom leads to anarchy
I'm against anarchy and for government protecting individual liberties - anything more is statism.
No reply needed.
It was needed to clear up your red herring about "anarchy." But if you want me to no longer include you on my replies to your posts, I'm happy to comply.
211
posted on
03/21/2013 8:57:11 AM PDT
by
JustSayNoToNannies
("The Lord has removed His judgments against you" - Zep. 3:15)
To: dfwgator
And if they want pot or porn legal or illegal in their community, that's their choice, right? As long as their communities are self-sufficient and don't drain on the finances of the other communities (*cough* *cough* Detroit), fine.
Makes sense. Detroit made itself a cesspool without legal pot or porn ... which could be a source of revenue (I suspect it would not be unknown for residents of "moral" communities to make incognito shopping trips to "immoral" communities).
212
posted on
03/21/2013 9:00:27 AM PDT
by
JustSayNoToNannies
("The Lord has removed His judgments against you" - Zep. 3:15)
To: JustSayNoToNannies
Everybody is not some nun the cops can beat in the head when called by an abortionist.
To: muawiyah
If you're not going to address anything I've said, please don't include me on your reply.
214
posted on
03/21/2013 9:46:43 AM PDT
by
JustSayNoToNannies
("The Lord has removed His judgments against you" - Zep. 3:15)
To: JustSayNoToNannies
Typical of so many libertarians, you don't want to debate the issues ~ just toss out some of your convoluted logic that misrepresents the natural structure of society and you're done with it.
The state exists to PROTECT COMMUNITIES ~ not just "the rights of individuals". For example, the Constitution's own preamble begins "We the people..." and the Bill of Rights refers to "the people" over and over and over and over.
You might have missed the subtle nuance but the US government (federal and state) do not exist to serve the personal interests of a king, or ruling class individuals who prey on the people in the name of their privileges.
To: muawiyah
Freedom is not the right to do what we want, but what we ought. With government deciding what we "ought"? Doesn't sound conservative to me.
I'm not playing your game anymore. Total freedom leads to anarchy
I'm against anarchy and for government protecting individual liberties - anything more is statism.
No reply needed.
Typical of so many libertarians, you don't want to debate the issues ~
Linda Frances is the one who wanted no reply.
just toss out some of your convoluted logic that misrepresents the natural structure of society and you're done with it.
Yes, because I threatened with physical harm anyone who dared reply to disagree with me - it's right there in my ... oh, wait a minute ...
The state exists to PROTECT COMMUNITIES ~ not just "the rights of individuals". For example, the Constitution's own preamble begins "We the people..." and the Bill of Rights refers to "the people" over and over and over and over.
"People" are individuals - no contradiction of my position there.
You might have missed the subtle nuance but the US government (federal and state) do not exist to serve the personal interests of a king, or ruling class individuals who prey on the people in the name of their privileges.
Individual rights are not "privileges" and belong to each adult (and, to a limited extent, each child). The term "ruling class" applies better to those who would violate the rights of individuals to "protect their community."
How do individuals, say, viewing porn or using drugs in the privacies of their homes thereby "prey on the people"?
216
posted on
03/21/2013 10:13:57 AM PDT
by
JustSayNoToNannies
("The Lord has removed His judgments against you" - Zep. 3:15)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160, 161-180, 181-200, 201-216 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson