Posted on 11/08/2006 10:24:16 AM PST by Keltik
At this link: http://boortz.com/nuze/index.html
Neil Boortz is quoted as saying: "So how did I actually vote when I got that provisional ballot in my hand. Straight Libertarian."
Thank you Neil Boortz. Thanks to you and those who think like you, we now have the Democrats in control of Congress. I hope you and your ilk are very happy.
Free Republic is allegedly a CONSERVATIVE web site. Will you libertarians please go somewhere like Lucianne.com, where you can laugh and smile about how you put the Republicans out of power, and leave Free Republic to the conservatives.
Oh, and one more thing.
Neil Boortz -- GO TO HELL.
If you go outside his studios to protest, like the Muslims sometimes do, he'll order you a pizza.
Where in the United States Constitution do you see that the Federal Government has any role in abortion????
Roe v. Wade was decided by an activist court making a tortured interpretation of the "right to privacy." I happen to be fervently against abortion, but do not believe the federal government has any say in it. It is a matter "reserved to the states."
You're talking about overturning Roe v. Wade. No pro-choice politician could or would support that.
That's a misperception.
Maybe so.
But what do you think our Founding Fathers would think of the Libertarian Party today?
Would they be impressed? Or horrified?
No, we just remembered the little guy with the big ears who gave us Iraq and the return of LBJ's Great Society (and tried to nominate his secretary to the SCOTUS and tried to give our deepwater ports to Arabs and ignored an invasion from Mexico and...well...you should get the point by now).
Time to get a "spirit of Goldwater" movement going in the GOP.
In the original constitution of the united states, a direct tax on income was prohibited. Libertarians might as well be called Jeffersonians. So you can have Reagan and I'll have Thomas Jefferson.
I disagree. A pro-choice constitutionalist would do exactly that. If I were advising Rudy I'd tell him to proclaim that while he's personally pro-choice, it's a matter that should be decided at the state level. And as you noted, that is the functional equivalent of saying you opposed Roe v Wade on moral grounds.
As a pro-lifer, that stance would be good enough for me.
Quick name me the times a President vetoed his own party's legislation.
Hmm, let's look at some of the numbers (I have been).
Take OH, Dewine lost with no Libertarian/Independent candidate in the race. Chuck Blasdel lost with no Libertarian/Independent candidate in the race. Craig Foltin lost with no Libertarian/Independent candidate in the race. Joy Padgett lost with no Libertarian/Independent candidate in the race.
You could have an argument on Jim Talent's race in Missouri and Burns' race in Montana, but Santorum and Chafee lost with no Libertarian/Independent candidate in the race.
The majority of the races that Republicans lost seats in did not have a Libertarian/Independent candidate. This was just the Republicans beating themselves, as Boortz stated.
Well, I'd hope so! To him it's all a wonderful joke he's perpetrated on the rest of us. He's no more conservative OR Libertarian than Nancy Pelosi. He's found the formula to get and stay wealthy, off the hopes of conservatives and libertarians. He'd sell his mother down the stream for a buck. Have you ever heard him talk about his parents before 9/11 and his recent need to identify with the military however vicariously? Call him and ask about it. Ask him if he ever called them drunks or ever said anything about his father that was good before he became a syndicated host.
This one did, with the single exception of Kyl.
...if he were acting only according to principle. If Rudy Giuliani took that stance in the real world, however, the howls of outrage would be heard to the ends of the earth, he would be burned in effigy in Ithaca (City of Evil), and Susan Estrich would issue a fatwa against him.
None of which would particularly bother me, but Roe v. Wade is so symbolic to feminism and liberalism, any support for overturning it would be construed as being anti-choice, regardless of the principles behind such a stance.
If I thought a vote for a pro-choice candidate might actually result in the overturning of Roe v. Wade, I'd have to think about it...I'd have to think long and hard.
I think an articulate politician could make the case in a convincing enough fashion that it would satisfy the GOP and most independents.
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.