Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: JohnPDuncan
So we think a little more of a libertarian Republican

Make no mistake, what is being talked about here is conservatives dropping the social issues.

26 posted on 01/20/2013 2:46:32 PM PST by Longbow1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Longbow1969
At the federal level, yes. Drop them and get back to the enumerated powers.

Fight for your social issue of choice at the state and local level.

34 posted on 01/20/2013 3:03:28 PM PST by GunRunner (***Not associated with any criminal actions by the ATF***)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies ]

To: Longbow1969

The irony is Rand is hugely social conservative, he just thinks the Feds shouldn’t be involved.

He is against abortion with no exceptions
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgCy4jyIs_s

And he said he wouldn’t vote to legalize drugs in his state but he doesn’t want it to be a federal issue.

He is socially conservative at the state level!

If he was Governor of Kentucky he would behave differently as President of the United States.

It’s kind of like having a split personality.


40 posted on 01/20/2013 3:12:18 PM PST by JohnPDuncan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies ]

To: Longbow1969

Exactly so - the assumption is that by being full on pro-abort, pro-gay marriage and pro-dope that this will lead to the salvation of the Republican party.

Seen it. I also don’t believe that ‘libertarians’ are even interested in passing spending cuts either. If you’re willing to compromise on social issues, then what’s stopping you from compromising on spending issues too?


44 posted on 01/20/2013 3:18:44 PM PST by JCBreckenridge (Texas is a state of mind - Steinbeck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies ]

To: Longbow1969
... the social issues.

Which are, specifically ... let's see, abortion. That's one on my list. It should be illegal, and by that, I mean it should go to the states, pre Roe v. Wade. The only reason we have Roe v Wade is because the Federal government presumed a moral role for free people -- in the Fed's eyes, it was immoral to deprive a woman of the opportunity to have an abortion. Social conservatives, please heed: the less government, the more morally people can live, and the less government, the easier and more self-interested it is for each person to live morally. The answer to many social ills lies in DUMPING government policy. So Cons are too tempted to want to replace it with their own version of control and largess in social engineering.

In fact, the Federal government oversteps and fowls things up in amazingly countless ways. Believe it or not, it's why L.A. has so many useless, expensive carpool lanes. And what, pray tell, does the Federal government have to do with sports figures like Lance Armstrong? Yet the Federal government presumes to take a roll in laying down the moral rules for America's sports heroes. Ludicrous presumption.

Not that I think you think it's one of the right's "social issues." Tell me, please, what are they?

69 posted on 01/20/2013 4:17:32 PM PST by Finny (Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path. -- Psalm 119:105)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


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