Government bureaucrats from Mars decimate the 'hood
We have a right to determine what kind of a society we are to live in, what kind of a society we are to bequeath to our children.
Posted on 11/06/2002 5:34:44 AM PST by logic101.net
TIME FOR AN END TO THE CONSERVATIVE INFIGHTING MARK A SITY 11/6/02
When WI taxpayers burden skyrockets, we have Ed Thompson to thank. When Milwaukee and the surrounding area are saddled with a light rail system few want, and no one will ride, we have Ed Thompson to thank. When caps on property taxes are removed, and property taxes skyrocket, we have Ed Thompson to thank. When welfare reform is de-reformed in WI, we have Ed Thompson to thank. When public schools in WI get even worse, and the public school teachers get huge raises, we have Ed Thompson to thank. When WI residents find their rights to defend themselves against criminals who break into their homes weakened, we have Ed Thompson to thank. When companies leave WI, or decide not to set up shop here due to our repressive tax structure, we have Ed Thompson to thank. When Gov Jim "bingo" Doyle rewards his contributors, at the expense of the taxpayers (as he has a history of doing), we have Ed Thompson to thank.
Who is Ed Thompson? Ed is the brother of Tommy, our former governor; the current HHS Secretary. Ed was the Libertarian candidate for governor in WI. Ed gave the Governor's Mansion to Bingo Jim by getting 10% of the vote. Governor McCallum lost the election by only 3%. Thanks Ed.
IL can say much the same for Cal Skinner. I don't know how much of the vote Cal got, but it is likely that Jim Ryan would have won there rather than the Democrat were it not for Cal. One good thing for WI residents over IL residents; at least we can pronounce and spell Bingo Jim's name. I won't even try either for the IL Governor Elect!
Let's keep in mind that Libertarians and Republicans are generally going in the same direction. True, the Republicans don't want to go as far as Libertarians, and there are some very contrary views. However, both generally want a smaller federal government that is less intrusive. Democrats on the other hand want bigger and bigger government. They want hand outs. They want dependency. They want Socialism rather than freedom! They want gun control rather than criminal control. They want ignorant sheeple rather than an informed, educated self-dependent population. I prefer much of the Libertarian agenda to that of the Republicans, but I find the Democrat agenda totally repulsive. Libertarians often hand elections to the Democrats, by taking away conservative leaning votes. When a Libertarian candidate's message resonates with the public; Democrats win! A Democratic win doesn't help Republicans, Libertarians, or Constitutionalists! It sets back all of our causes. It is well past time for Libertarians and Republicans to get together to defeat the common enemy. We can work out our differences later; let's get rid of the common threat first! As far as my views; neither Libertarians nor Republicans go far enough; I am a Constitutionalist! Yet, I generally vote Republican; I'm a realist. When we break the stranglehold of the left, then we can fight each other; but let's fight each other on our terms, not theirs!
Now, as far as Ed Thompson goes; well I have to steal a line from one of my favorite movies (They Call Me Trinity). I'm not mad at Ed, I'm mad at his ma. She should have strangled him, or at least drown him when he was born.
MARK A SITY http://www.logic101.net/
I have thrown my lot in with Republicans because I believe they are the only viable power to stave off the socialism and moral degeneracy of the Democrats.
But I am an bred-in-the-bone American and raised Christian, and these are nonnegotiable items with me.
Libertarians have the right to their view of the world and to place their loyalties where they want. I disagree with them vehemently about elevating the legalizing of drugs and moral permissiveness to a "principle," but I do not expect them to vote for my candidates. If they decide to, that is their choice. If they don't, they can suffer the consequences of their choice, but they may feel they will suffer less emotionally/intellectually if they stood up for what they believe.
What I does bother me is people who call themselves, not Libertarians, but "conservatives" and wrap themselves in the Constitution and then stand by and let liberal/socialist/SecondAmendment haters/anti-Americans win elections because the Republican candidate was not pure enough for them. And the conservative purists say they are fighting for the founding fathers' vision of America. That does bug me because I think their tactics are counterproductive.
But Libertarians are not fighting for the founders' America, they are fighting for some other vision of what they want America to change into, which is their right.
Here's the thing though... Libertarians want YOU to make those moral decisions in your life. History is litered with examples of societies who have fallen into decay and despotism AFTER they enacted goverments that tried to enforce some morality by government edict. This just plain doesn't work. It removes the consequences of a persons actions and negates any need for a person to formulate morals on their own. That's the short answer.
Would you really want someone like Bill Clinton using force of government to enact his "moral" code on the rest of us?
It's not that we feel having loose morals is a good thing. None of us see drug abuse as a good thing. What has spurred us to action is the fact that those in government have done far worse to whipe out some percieved "moral" bad. The ends does not justify the means if your "cure" is worse than the disease.
Who would you rather have making those moral decisions in your life? Yourself, or Hillary? Libertarians want you to make them and to live with the consequences of your actions. Hillary, and her ilk, think they know better than you.
I tend to think of them as socially liberal and politically conservative. The fiscal/social view of political definitions makes an implicit assertion that society is a function of politics, and therefore of government, IMHO.
Do they really? They want to see an end to the monthly welfare checks,food stamps, midnight basketball, and free clinics? Do they want to make it easier for the average citizen to keep an bear arms? I don't think so. They'd like to see the local police department gutted. Are you implying that that's what people here mean when they say they want an end to "big government"?
We have a right to determine what kind of a society we are to live in, what kind of a society we are to bequeath to our children.
What? Do you want the GOP to promise doobies to every libertarian who votes Republican?
That would be the only way to get their vote.
More like 137 years (circa 1865) overdue.
Correct.
Jesus led by fulfilling the LAW for us.
If you want smaller government, you have to vote for the candidate who CAN WIN, and is CLOSEST to your political views (this is called compromise, and is, sadly, a fact of life in ALL politics). Otherwise you will consistently elect the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you want, i.e., SOCIALISTS. If that's ok with you, then enjoy.
Or do you enjoy the rampant liberalism that is being foisted upon our up and coming generations by the NEA?
I would prefer to pass on a legacy of personal responiblity and the freedom to succeed to my children. How about you? (Note: I don't really expect a cogent answer from you. It would really suprise me if you did.)
Arrogant and condescending. Nice.
If Bush can hold the Republicans true to their promises of smaller government, they'll get my vote next time around.
Not just a reduction in the rate of increase, but real... meaningful reductions.
Dump the INS and do something meaningful about the 13 million illegal aliens currently sucking off our resources. Dump the IRS and institute an NRST. Dump the un-Constitutional Gun Control Laws. Abolish the NEA.
If he can accomplish even meaningful steps towards those goals, shouldn't be a problem with Republican majorities across the board, I'll vote for more of the same in two years.
That is a promise.
Is it possible that you confused me with someone who posted that comment?
ROTFLMAO, that's one of the funniest things I have heard all day. The very idea that BUSH is interested in smaller government is so absurd that it works quite well as slapstick! LOL,, thanks for the belly laugh.
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.