Posted on 06/17/2013 7:18:47 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
You mean you're dumb enough to imagine you know what I have, based on an anonymous internet forum post.
Your posts are about as meaningless as they come.
It isn’t even clear what you are interested in or wanting to say about the thread topic.
You just sit that and pretend to not understand what you don’t like hearing. It puctuates your arguments appropriately.
You have to say something for people to be able to respond to it, you don’t say anything.
You're not rerplying to me because I didn't say anything. You're looking for an attack vector.
LOL, this is baffling.
Not all that smart, after all.
From surveying this thread I get the impression that ansel12 is giving off the clueless jokey vibe of a noob toker who has smoked up, and is disoriented with regard to linear thinking.
Not trying to be a buzz-killer, ansel, but the “high” will wear off.
LOL, so this is libertarianism.
This is what libertarianism really is...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3032604/posts
This too...
And sometimes this...
The LP? Not so much. It’d be great if they were, but they aren’t. This has been pointed out to you before. And, I have zero doubts you will now go off on some idiotic tangent to obfuscate the clarity of what I just said...
And... GO!!!
So libertarianism is against gay marriage, and drugs.
I guess we are all social conservatives now.
Great, we need to make sure that the GOP and conservatives and all elements of the right, all become more aggressively social conservative.
And most importantly judging by this thread, WE ALL AGREE THAT THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY NEEDS TO BE STOPPED AND CONDEMNED.
What’s to be gained by having “aggressively social conservatives” in the US Congress or Executive office?
As this thread points out, the politics of the libertarian party are taking hold among rinos and the young as America decays, we social conservatives need to fight that.
Libertarian Party Platform:
Throw open the borders completely; only a rare individual (terrorist, disease carrier etc.) can be kept from freedom of movement through “political boundaries”, eliminate the Border Patrol and INS.
Homosexuals; total freedom in the military, gay marriage, adoption, child custody and everything else.
Abortion; zero restrictions or impediments during the full 9 months.
Pornography; no restraint, no restrictions.
Drugs; Meth, Heroin, Crack, and anything new that science and marketers can come up with, zero restrictions.
Advertising those drugs, prostitution, and pornography; zero restrictions.
Military Strength; minimal capabilities.
No where in the FedCon does it give the FedGov the authority to run a drug war. Getting them out of the equation doesn't mean States can't enact their own bans, as with Texas dry Counties. It does mean that the GOP no longer gets to tell Mark Mcwire that his weight lifting supplements are legally equivalent to crack cocaine.
The LP is a tiny fraction of the problem. They are largely irrelevant in elections. What we should be focused on is the faction in the GOP bent on being "Democrat-lite" and expending government into areas it has no business being in the first place. Their capitulation on core principles has angered the voting Base enough that they stay home in sufficient numbers to give the victory to the Democrats.
Solidify the conservative base, around core beliefs and Constitutional limits on government that benefit us all, and the Dems would lose in land-slides...
And what enumerated power of Congress do you imagine these "aggressively social conservites" using to make that happen?
They represent libertarianism in America, and you claim that they are not, so they need to be stopped and their image and credibility destroyed.
By the way, your argument for gay marriage was pretty weak, telling people that they can have private internal religious beliefs while the left and the libertarians deliver gay marriage and polygamy to America and the military, is hardly a conservative position.
You are starting to sound like you agree with the libertarian party.
I'm sure they'd like to. But they no more represent the principles than McCain does conservative TEA Party issues.
...while the left and the libertarians deliver gay marriage and polygamy to America and the military...
How so? If the government doesn't HAVE that power, and no where in the Constitution does it give it to them, then how could such a thing as you state come to be?
Here's how... IT COULDN'T.
You are starting to sound ...
And here you go 'round your mulberry bush again. Go play in a nice busy intersection somewhere...
They represent libertarianism in America, and you claim that they are not libertarian, so they need to be stopped and their image and credibility destroyed.
I see, we stop gay marriage and polygamy by ending our conservative efforts to stop it, and we overcome the left and libertarian efforts to force the military and federal government to accept homosexuality and gay marriage and polygamy, by stopping our efforts to overcome it.
Like I said, your arguments to promote the left's politics are really lame.
Look. I know reasonable cognition is a major issue for you... But please try.
If the government has no say in who gets married, then you are free to follow your religions tenets. Period. No interference at all. They can't legalize gay marriages because they don't have that power. Period.
If you don't want to hire them, you don't have to. Freedom of association. If you don't want to sell groceries/automobiles/houses to them, then don't.
This is how it used to be and these issues NEVER came up. Society kept them in the closet via sheer peer pressure. But Noooo... You wanted LAWS to uphold YOUR religion. You ceded that power to a government that was never supposed to have it in the first place and now look what has happened.
You were warned. You failed. Now get out of the way so we can fix it.
I don’t understand your insistence that everyone is religious, or the same religion, your insistence that only a religion can decide who is married is bizarre in America, and which religion, the gay church, Islam?
The federal government has to decide which marriages it will recognize and it always has, the states also have to allow people to travel and relocate, and bring their children, and divorce and settle divorces in their states.
You seem to think that marriage doesn’t really exist at all, that it is just whatever people want to call it individually.
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.