Posted on 08/04/2014 5:37:03 PM PDT by chuckles
I'm 63 years old and in my lifetime, I have been political almost all of it. In my youth, the Viet Nam War was topic one, every day, all day. If you were against the war, you were a Democrat and for the war, a Republican. It was an easy line to see and pretty much lasted through Nixon into the Carter years. During Carter, we were reminded that the economy didn't have to remain bullet proof just because we were Americans. This is where I was intrigued by the fledgling libertarians that had the "pure" economic theory that was almost irrefutable when you had a debate about cause and effect. I was taken for awhile, but then as I dug deeper, I saw flaws, like legalized drugs, a non defense, defense, and a real weakness in the right and wrong God thing. I had watched some of my friends die and go to jail over drugs and I felt if the US wanted to play checkers instead of chess with foreign policy, we would end up with a different flag to salute if we weren't careful. It was the lack of religion that really concerned me though. Many I spoke with were for abortion so the woman could exercise her rights to her own body. I would always retort, "What about the babies rights?" Then it would immediately slide into "If you can kill a baby, you can kill the disabled or mentally deficient." It was about the time DR. Death( or Kevorkian) was big in the news. I had to just call myself a conservative and not libertarian or even a Republican. The moral questions always kept me from going whole hog.
Then the Reagan years and pure bliss for 8 years allowed me to calm down and just make money and raise my family. Bush 41 was weak, but I learned to live with it until Carter. The first drop of the hat and taxes were raised, recession was moving in, and Hillary Care was right in our face. Then Gingrich and the revolution moved in and put Clinton in thumb screws. We had the biggest economic boom I can remember due to Republicans holding just the growth of the government down. It was a living laboratory in front of everyone with what works and what doesn't. Nobody learned a damn thing. Bush 43 came in and we had war, but we also had many years of under 5% unemployment. The war was taxing, but we did mediocre in the money department.
Of course, for whatever reason the wars were unpopular and the libertarians showed up again telling us that everything would be better if we just retreated from Iraq and Afghanistan and came home. Well, here we are, out of both wars and reluctant to pop a cap anywhere.
Obama came in with a bad economy due to Democrats allowing anyone with a pulse to buy a house and Bush got the blame even though he and McCain both had hearings warning of the danger. The average skull full of mush blamed Bush, for whatever reason. They can't really tell you what he did to cause the crash, but hey, he was prez when it happened. Our country was ATTACKED from Afghanistan and Iraq was violating a cease fire for several years when they tried to assassinate Bush 41. Frankly, I don't know what my last straw would be, but trying to kill dad might just be it. We knew he had WMD, had already used them, and was denying inspections for months, even though that was a requirement of the cease fire.
Now there's the history. Today, libertarianism is rearing it's head again, but this time, Young people are coming by the droves and it's scares me. They used to just vote Democrat to legalize dope, you know,......... the most important legislation of all time. Now they hear they will have to pay back the debt and that finally, after 40 years wakes them up to the delima of more food stamps, more debt. But then the old bugaboo comes up of right and wrong. We have already murdered 55 million babies, but now, after 225 years, buggery, is now a right. These mental giants are now saying we have been wrong for thousands of years and misunderstand what God really meant. If you watch any talking head shows, it doesn't really matter what flavor they are, they now smugly proclaim so and so is a bigot or homophobe.
It doesn't matter what channel or what show, it has been settled that gay marriage is coming to America. Just as an example, FNC's Greg Gutfeld is very bright and right on many issues, but he has decided that sodomy is normal, and if you don't like it, get ready to be shunned cursed, and generally ridiculed. He at least isn't against defending America, but he also pushed the legalized drug agenda and apparently thinks it's a right to be hired with drugs in your system, even a cop or fireman. What level of impairment would make "your right" illegal,....no comment.
I will tell you, I'm all with the libertarian economic theory,.....it has been shown to work, for thousands of years. But the reluctance to "get involved" in foreign entanglements, just means the entanglers will be on your shore toot suit. I know the quote from George Washington, but a little more history will show we were fighting the Barbary Pirates almost immediately. The fights with Mexico and Cuba, among others were just because they were close to home, but today, we are a missile away from an attack from almost anyone. You have to stay involved or it will eventually come home to roost. A quick look at ISIS right now shows they are working on a coast to coast Caliphate in the Middle East and eventually, someone in the world will have to do something. Who do you think that will be? As far as I'm concerned, we are, right now, engaged in a perpetual war. It may take several different names with differing players, but make no mistake, the babies born today are raised up to kill the infidel. I don't rejoice when an errant bomb kills women and children, but realistically that's just one less bullet for later. My father knew his bombs from his B-24 were hitting private homes, hospitals and schools, but he knew if he bailed out, there was a good chance a 12 year old would stick a pitchfork in him as soon as he landed in a field.
The younger people that have seen what I've seen, still think they are idealistic and stick to the pure doctrine of libertarianism, but the reality is, wars need to be fought, dope is bad even for the people that don't harm others, and there is such a thing as right and wrong and those morals come from God. If we change morals, what morals will we keep? The morals of Molech and Baal where children were thrown in the fire? The morals of Sodom that was judged by God?
We can cut spending and taxes, and the size of government and agree on a balanced budget and printing money. I just can't embrace a philosophy that has NEVER WORKED.
For those that think it's never been tried, We have a libertarian right now that is allowing the world and the US to disintegrate because he doesn't want to get involved. Just look around and you will see what libertarians have wrought. The drug laws are a mess, and the world is erupting into chaos. The borders are disintegrating and they love it. Nationalism just gets in the way of economics and the adjusting of the wages downward to the lowest common denominator. Just think how grand it would be if we took in the $2 a day people to peel our grapes for us and wash our feet. If Obama would just adhere to their libertarianism in economics. Unfortunately, he is a Keynesian, another failed theory.
There are many libertarians in the Republican party, but that is only because they can't be elected on their own. Rand Paul will draw a percentage from conservatives and cause trouble for real conservatives and sap their money. Make him Treasury Secretary or something, but he will never be president. Right now, the Tea Party is a mixture of libertarians and conservatives. I will vote conservative and pick a candidate out of the Tea Party to do it. Pure libertarianism,.......NOPE!
LOL, of course you are, you oppose the pro-life movement and conservative politics to end abortion.
Nothing can persuade you in joining us in ending abortion at the federal level in their areas of jurisdiction and in federal policies, the same with gay marriage. The reality is that we can’t even get you to stop fighting us on it.
No, I’m not nut’s. I’m trying to figure out what sort of “libertarian” you are. Are you economic or social, or both? All I’ve seen so far is a complaining libertarian, that no one seems intelligent enough to understand where you are coming from. Even though we can’t understand your superior arguments, we appreciate your participation with the underlings. We all understand federalism and state vs, federal, I’m just trying to find out if you want gay marriage or a tax cut or both. My point is you can’t have both. If we get social chaos, the budget woes won’t matter. It’s like a Christian Democrat,....there’s no such animal.
You ignored my post, I haven’t said anything about courts, I was talking about the massive influence of the laws and policies that libertarians and liberals pass that only apply to the federal government.
Libertarians know that gay marriage at the federal level guarantees that they will get their gay marriage at the state level in time.
We were not going have a situation where Marines and Sailors and FBI men and millions of federal employees and immigrants were going to have to deal with being “family”, or “not family” during their careers of transfers and duty stations for very long, and libertarians know that.
Really?
I said nothing of the sort; moreover, I do believe the States have the authority to make anti-abortion laws despite what you've been brainwashed into believing.
Nothing can persuade you in joining us in ending abortion at the federal level
Because Constitutionally there's no place for it.
If we don't respect the Constitution when it's inconvenient for us we don't respect the Constitution. Period.
in their areas of jurisdiction and in federal policies
Their jurisdiction: DC and territories.
the same with gay marriage. The reality is that we can’t even get you to stop fighting us on it.
That's because surrendering the power to define marriage to the federal government means that you have surrendered, to the government, the power to define marriage.
If that is the case, then the definition can be changed by said government — even by Constitutional amendment; the Constitution could afterwards be amended to admit homosexual marriage after it has become accepted as being the legitimate authority.
Why can you not understand this?
The anti-war movement really began as a radical Left movement demonstrating against the liberal Democrat administration of Lyndon Johnson.
SDS, SNCC, and other such radical groups started it all. They were despised by blue collar, labor union Democrats. Hubert Humphrey in 1968 would be the last nominee who really represented the values of the those blue collar Democrats, although he was challenged by both Eugene McCarthy and Bobby Kennedy who were appealing to the antiwar crowd.
By in 1968 the antiwar faction within the Democrat party was working to take control of the Democratic Party. McGovern's group had something to do with reworking the nominating procedure and it worked to his advantage in 1972. McGovern's lack of popularity to the average Democrat became apparent when he managed to win exactly one state in the election.
But then came Watergate and the 1974 Democratic takeover of Congress by a heavily leftist group of candidates. That was the bunch who cut off all ammunition and gasoline to South Vietnam, assuring their defeat by the Communist north one year later.
I read your first post and it made no sense even with your vague confused reference to asset forfeiture...which was designed to make sure drug money couldn’t just be passed. Around and held on to after a criminal conviction.
My comments stand
This is just weird, do you read my posts at all?
No state can pass law telling the federal government what it’s abortion and gay marriage laws and rules are in regards to the military, federal employment and immigration and such.
That's fine, but freedom is not limited to people that share your ideas about what God wants. That's not freedom.
Yes, I do.
No state can pass law telling the federal government what it’s abortion and gay marriage laws and rules are in regards to the military, federal employment and immigration and such.
And why should those be federal issues?
Shouldn't those people be subject to the states wherein they are Citizens? [Baring immigration, which I agree that Congress has the authority to regulate.]
IOW, why do you insist that the federal government should have even more power than it does now?
I wish it to have less — most of what it has now is usurped anyway.
That's what I thought you said. Supporting Syrian rebels is not libertarian and is not economic. Supporting the uprisings in Egypt and Ukraine is not libertarian and is not economic. Running guns to known Mexican drug cartels is not libertarian and is not economic. Giving a pass to Jon Corzine for stealing client money at MF Global is not libertarian is not not economic. Using the IRS to audit conservative groups is not libertarian and is not economic. I could go on, but if I haven't gotten anywhere yet I'm not likely to with many more examples, either. Suffice it to say that I strongly disagree with your statement that "He is libertarian on almost his entire approach,....except economics." He is nothing of the sort.
That's just wacky.
Sure you can. You just don't demand that the government force everyone else to act like a moral conservative Christian.
LOL, see, you are a dedicated fighter for abortion and gay marriage.
The feds have their own areas of control, for instance in marriage and the military, the Congresses were passing law in regards to that in 1780, 1794, and 1798, 1802 and ever since, regardless of your evasive fantasies to avoid admitting that you are fighting us on gay marriage for the feds, just as you fight us on abortion and the feds, the feds have their own medical facilities, that is why the military could get abortions during the Vietnam war era, and they also have to decide law and policy for immigrants and in the state department and in foreign policy.
After the left has homosexualized the military and legalized gay marriage for themselves, and adopted it and abortion in federal areas of immigration and the state department and foreign policy,,,,now jump up to oppose conservative efforts to roll back those laws, with this goofy argument that reversing the recent federal laws is unappealing to you because now we need to leave federal law to the liberals and stay our of it.
I don’t care about your little fantasy world, it does bother me that we conservatives are the ones you oppose here.
It’s our pro-life and pro-marriage politics that you fight and mock, you want to make your gains at the federal level under Obama unchallenged, we want to reverse them.
Nothing about it was vague or confused. But that’s your story, stick to it if it gets you through the day.
Oh and your wrong. Asset forfeiture was to impede drug money from being used for expensive legal defense (I.E bribes and such). Note how forfeiture occurs before the conviction and becomes a second and altogether different set of court proceedings where one can be found innocent of crime, yet the forfeiture stands.
That is what happens today which is the misuse of the law. I previously posted the description in the law that requires conviction.
Sod off, troll.
The feds have their own areas of control, for instance in marriage and the military, the Congresses were passing law in regards to that in 1780, 1794, and 1798, 1802 and ever since,
Because what early congress does is obviously Constitutional… now, where's my copy of the Alien and Sedition Acts?
regardless of your evasive fantasies to avoid admitting that you are fighting us on gay marriage for the feds
I am not for gay marriage for the feds; sod off, troll.
just as you fight us on abortion and the feds, the feds have their own medical facilities, that is why the military could get abortions during the Vietnam war era, and they also have to decide law and policy for immigrants and in the state department and in foreign policy
I am against abortion; I am, however, not willing to injure the Constitution's restraints on the federal government in order to achieve it.
Sod off, troll.
I don’t care about your little fantasy world, it does bother me that we conservatives are the ones you oppose here.
No, what you don't care about is constitutional limits; sod off, troll.
It’s our pro-life and pro-marriage politics that you fight and mock,
I've not mocked anyone on this matter; please show me where I have.
Oh, and before I forget, sod off troll.
you want to make your gains at the federal level under Obama unchallenged, we want to reverse them.
Because not recognizing the federal level as appropriate authority is the same as endorsing the use of authority at the federal level?
You're not rational; sod off, crazy troll.
It's a plain violation of the 5th and (6th or 7th) Amendments:
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.Amendment VII
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
If you don’t support gay marriage for the military, then support us ending it, the same goes for abortion. Instead you keep evading the gay marriage in the military issue claiming that the Congress didn’t know what they were doing in 1780, 1794, 1798 and in all the years since in regards to marriage and the military as you do your fantasy bit, to give you an excuse to fight conservatism from behind a fig leaf.
Do you realize that a DU member could sign up here and argue with us pro-life, pro-marriage conservatives all day, year after year, using the same technique that you do, fight our politics, our party, our candidates, our legislative proposals, everything, just by using your methods.
The federal government has a lot to do with abortion, and not just abortion on military bases for federal employees, but in foreign policy, and their national issue influence is immeasurable.
Here is just one example:
*The Mexico City Policy requires all non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that receive federal funding to refrain from performing or promoting abortion services as a method of family planning with non-US government funds in other countries. The policy has not been in effect since January 23, 2009. Since 1973, USAID has followed the Helms Amendment ruling, banning use of US Government funds to provide abortion as a method of family planning anywhere in the world.
The policy was enacted by Republican President Ronald Reagan in 1984, rescinded by Democratic President Bill Clinton in January 1993, re-instituted in January 2001 as President George W. Bush took office, and rescinded January 23, 2009, 2 days after Democratic President Barack Obama took office.*
Let me refer you to my previous statement:I am against abortion; I am, however, not willing to injure the Constitution's restraints on the federal government in order to achieve it.
The same goes with homosexual marriage.
And, yes, ceding the power to define marriage to the federal government does injure the Constitution; specifically, the tenth amendment.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
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.