Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

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...


Libertarian Party    PatriotPost 


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 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 201-216 next last
To: Uncle Miltie

I started it? You categorized all libertarian-leaning folks are “limp-wristed pu$$ies”.

Yet another mental disorder on display.

I actually agreed with using Letter’s of M&R to hunt down terror cells in Countries where our military wouldn’t be allowed to go in to. I would have formed my own security company to do so.

I also supported removing Saddam from power and decimating Al Queda. I do not support the pussifying ROE that has caused all of this crap to drag out. Sh*t or get off the pot.

Barking up the wrong tree jackass.


61 posted on 03/19/2013 9:25:36 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (I will not comply.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Wyrd bið ful aræd

Funny how they forgot to include that anywhere in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.


62 posted on 03/19/2013 9:26:50 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (I will not comply.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
"I posted the following statement to our front page in response to the criticism I'm receiving lately as to not being fair and balanced and perceived mistreatment of trolls and assorted malcontents. Got news for all, I'm NOT fair and balanced. I'm biased toward God, country, family, liberty and freedom and against liberalism, socialism, anarchism, wackoism, global balonyism and any other form of tyranny.

--Jim Robinson

63 posted on 03/19/2013 9:27:48 AM PDT by Wyrd bið ful aræd (Gone Galt, 11/07/12)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
Here: Eat your Liberaltarian Isolationism raw:

"We may have indeed started the fight. Bin Laden's stated reasons for his action against the U.S. include stationing U.S. troops in Islamic countries, U.S. trade sanctions against Iraq, and U.S. aid to Israel. If we were a libertarian country, bin Laden probably wouldn't have these "excuses" to attack us since we would have no troops stationed in the Middle East, no embargoes, and no foreign aid to Israel. Our tax dollars wouldn't have been used to "grow" bin Laden, his network, and the Taliban in times past. As a result, he might not have been strong enough to arrange the 9-11 hits. Perhaps we are simply reaping as we have sown; 9-11 may have been "blowback" from past U.S. policies."

http://www.libertarianism.com/content/short_answers?id=libertarianism-101&post_id=34

64 posted on 03/19/2013 9:28:02 AM PDT by Uncle Miltie (Due Process 2013: "Burn the M*****-F***er Down!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Wyrd bið ful aræd

Yes? And?

I’m purposing freedom to CHOOSE God. Not your tyranny that would use government to FORCE people to choose God.

Not even Jehovah went that far and gave us the ability to choose freely. A choice you are openly advocating taking away.


65 posted on 03/19/2013 9:29:16 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (I will not comply.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Blackirish

W was a social conservative who vastly increased the size,scope and cist of the federal government. Santorum the same also. When he started talking about banning porn....his campaign was toast.
Social conservatives also rallied to Akins defence and he single handedly set the pro life movement back with young woman for years.


If you can’t be truthful and have to use leftist lies, don’t debate. Freepers are not like democrats and bellieve whatever someone says. Santorum NEVER wanted to ban porn or was against women.


66 posted on 03/19/2013 9:29:20 AM PDT by Linda Frances (Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Wyrd bið ful aræd

Do you accept the first amendment right to believe whatever a man wants to about god and, more importantly, not be bound by others beliefs about god?


67 posted on 03/19/2013 9:29:28 AM PDT by muir_redwoods (Don't fire until you see the blue of their helmets)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
Funny how they forgot to include that anywhere in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Why did they need to?

They were all Christians of one sort or another.

Furthermore, if you would read their own personal writings, you'll find that they stated that this experiment in representative government was only meant for a Christian nation and would fail otherwise.
68 posted on 03/19/2013 9:29:38 AM PDT by SoConPubbie (Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Miltie

Yes. I know. And? I didn’t write that and I don’t agree with it. So what does it have to do with me?

You’ve been here long enough to know better. But you still suck at this whole forum discussion thing.


69 posted on 03/19/2013 9:30:46 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (I will not comply.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Shery

Prayers up.


70 posted on 03/19/2013 9:30:59 AM PDT by JimRed (Excise the cancer before it kills us; feed &water the Tree of Liberty! TERM LIMITS, NOW & FOREVER!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
Not even Jehovah went that far and gave us the ability to choose freely. A choice you are openly advocating taking away.

And even with that choice, he demanded that the government be setup in a way to honor his laws in the Old Testament.

And when Jesus came on the scene, he stated unequivocally that he did not come to do away with the Old Testament but to fulfill the Old Testament
71 posted on 03/19/2013 9:31:54 AM PDT by SoConPubbie (Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie

I did read their writings. They felt it would be a greater evil to force belief when even God didn’t do so.

They were right. Forced beliefs are nothing but evil themselves.

It must be chosen or it is worthless.


72 posted on 03/19/2013 9:31:58 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (I will not comply.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Reaganite Republican

Whoever made that chart doesn’t understand what conservatives really believe.


73 posted on 03/19/2013 9:33:39 AM PDT by ConjunctionJunction
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie

So you follow EVERY rule in Leviticus?

You would have Congress go through and codify every last requirement?


74 posted on 03/19/2013 9:33:47 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (I will not comply.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie; Dead Corpse
"Why did they need to? They were all Christians of one sort or another."

Absolutely true.

"Suppose a nation in some distant region should take the Bible for their only law book, and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited! Every member would be obliged in conscience, to temperance, frugality, and industry; to justice, kindness, and charity towards his fellow men; and to piety, love, and reverence toward Almighty God ... What a Eutopia, what a Paradise would this region be." John Adams, February 22, 1756

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams

"It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible" George Washington

Read this one VERY carefully.

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.... And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion ... Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail to the exclusion of religious principle." George Washington's Farewell Address

Furthermore, James Madison stated that the founding documents must always be considered in the correct context.

75 posted on 03/19/2013 9:35:34 AM PDT by Wyrd bið ful aræd (Gone Galt, 11/07/12)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

Here... This ought to make your head explode...

http://www.policymic.com/mobile/articles/30223/rand-paul-abortion-bill-life-at-conception-act-would-outlaw-abortion


76 posted on 03/19/2013 9:36:01 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (I will not comply.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Miltie

What this chart lists as ‘cnservatives’ should really be identified as those who hold both social conservative and neocon beliefs.


77 posted on 03/19/2013 9:37:20 AM PDT by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Reaganite Republican

What does “Republican” mean?

Lots of Democrats switched to the GOP, and never abandoned the typical liberal Democratic party line.


78 posted on 03/19/2013 9:37:36 AM PDT by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Wyrd bið ful aræd
Forgot one...

The error seems not sufficiently eradicated, that the operations of the mind, as well as the acts of the body, are subject to the coercion of the laws. But our rulers can have authority over such natural rights only as we have submitted to them. The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit. We are answerable for them to our God. The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. If it be said, his testimony in a court of justice cannot be relied on, reject it then, and be the stigma on him. Constraint may make him worse by making him a hypocrite, but it will never make him a truer man. It may fix him obstinately in his errors, but will not cure them. Reason and free enquiry are the only effectual agents against error. Give a loose to them, they will support the true religion, by bringing every false one to their tribunal, to the test of their investigation. They are the natural enemies of error, and of error only. Had not the Roman government permitted free enquiry, Christianity could never have been introduced. Had not free enquiry been indulged, at the aera of the reformation, the corruptions of Christianity could not have been purged away. If it be restrained now, the present corruptions will be protected, and new ones encouraged. Was the government to prescribe to us our medicine and diet, our bodies would be in such keeping as our souls are now. Thus in France the emetic was once forbidden as a medicine, and the potatoe as an article of food. -Thomas Jefferson.

Funny how it says exactly what I'm saying in my posts above.

79 posted on 03/19/2013 9:39:37 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (I will not comply.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Reaganite Republican

From whose point of view is this taken? That is a terrible, terrible synopsis of what "people on the right believe in". Sounds more like college student drivel than real-life investigation.


80 posted on 03/19/2013 9:39:55 AM PDT by so_real ( "The Congress of the United States recommends and approves the Holy Bible for use in all schools.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 201-216 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
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

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