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

Skip to comments.

Libertarians = Small gov. democrats? Or what? (vanity)
www.lp.org | Oct. 4th, 2010 | Celtic Cross

Posted on 10/03/2010 5:59:15 PM PDT by Celtic Cross

Recently, I was considering becoming a member of the Libertarian Party. I admit I knew little about the party, except that they are for smaller government. I visited their website, and this is what I found...

This, regarding immigration.

The party's views of gay unions and abortion are as follows;

"Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government's treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships."

"Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration."

I know that there are many libertarians here on FR, and I would appreciate it if they weighed in. How can you affiliate yourselves with a party that at least appears to disagree with many basic conservative principles?


TOPICS: Chit/Chat; Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: conservative; homosexualagenda; liberal; libertarian; liebertarians; moralabsolutes; politics
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 381-391 next last
To: DJ MacWoW
No one gave them anything.

Temperance Movement. Cotten Mather. Nancy Reagan and "Just say No". Don't give me that BS. That dam was breached long ago and both sides use it to grab MORE for themselves.

Those of us who see smaller government as a good thing are always derided as libertines and hit with all of this crap.

Exactly how are you planning on making government smaller and more Constitutional if you refuse to concede a few of your pet extra-Constitutional powers as well?

The problem with the governing power isn't in how it is currently being used to push a Commie/gay/whatever agenda, it's that the said power exists to be wielded at all.

Art 1 Sec 8 and NOTHING else. No penumbras. No emmanations. A Solid BoR.

There would be nothing for the Commies and the gays to use to push whatever BS de jure they are trying. Moral tyrants would lose that power as well though, and so it will never happen.

Get used to it...

141 posted on 10/06/2010 8:45:56 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (III, Alarm and Muster)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW
IOW... Yes... Freedom is vice and needs to be done away with.

"Kinky is using a feather. Perverted is using a whole chicken." "Porn, I know it when I see it.".

Bla-bla-bla... Who decides what is "perverse"? You? Me? Rev. Wright? Rev. Phelps?

You show me how this can work without imposing even more restrictions on freedom via the same government we can't already trust and I'll concede the argument.

142 posted on 10/06/2010 8:49:52 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (III, Alarm and Muster)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
Those of us who see smaller government as a good thing are always derided as libertines and hit with all of this crap.

So now the Founding Fathers were nanny staters because they had no problem with outlawed perversion?

143 posted on 10/06/2010 8:50:18 AM PDT by DJ MacWoW (If Bam is the answer, the question was stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
Oh and you can deny the infiltration but that doesn't change it.

The Communist Takeover Of America - 45 Declared Goals

16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.

17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers' associations. Put the party line in textbooks.

18. Gain control of all student newspapers.

19. Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations which are under Communist attack.

20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policy-making positions.

21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.

24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.

25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.

26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."

27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a "religious crutch."

28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state."

29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.

30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the "common man."

32. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture--education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.

144 posted on 10/06/2010 8:56:39 AM PDT by DJ MacWoW (If Bam is the answer, the question was stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW
Again, show me where the Founders "outlawed" perversion. I must have missed that clause in the Constitution.

Individual communities had a variety of laws. And yet Washington allowed "camp followers" even though VD was a serious issue. Nearly EVERY port town in the colonies had a thriving brothel business and as we both agree Franklin liked the "strumpets" as he reportedly called them.

None of which supports a Federal "gay rights" movement or a moral crusade using the same power against them.

145 posted on 10/06/2010 8:56:58 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (III, Alarm and Muster)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse

Perverse behavior goes against the laws of nature. Homosexual behavior is perverse. Again, even the guys that wrote the Constitution thought so. You claim you want a Constitutional government but not all of it. Just the parts that you pick. That’s anarchy. Btw, the sodomy laws were state laws. No Founder spoke out against them.


146 posted on 10/06/2010 9:00:23 AM PDT by DJ MacWoW (If Bam is the answer, the question was stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW
Oh and you can deny the infiltration but that doesn't change it.

I'm not denying anything. WTF does that have to do with what we were just talking about?

I was one of those who didn't want to vote for Bosh OR McCain in 2000 because I thought they were both RINO's and entirely to "progressive" for my tastes.

If you want to give up on the other arguments and go off on this tangent, fine. Do it on your own. I've wasted enough time with this thread as it is...

147 posted on 10/06/2010 9:00:27 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (III, Alarm and Muster)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: Ransomed

Agreed. How ever would we function without government involved in every aspect of our lives?


148 posted on 10/06/2010 9:02:12 AM PDT by Melas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW
Homosexual behavior is perverse.

Homosexuality happens in nature. Cats. Rabbits. Cows. Even monkeys. They are a biological dead end. Self correcting problem.

You claim you want a Constitutional government but not all of it.

Still waiting on where in the Constitution it gives the FedGov the power to regulate "perversion".

149 posted on 10/06/2010 9:02:13 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (III, Alarm and Muster)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW

Great! So what you’re advocating is a swap from the “commie” flavor of dictatorial big government to the “Bible thumper” flavor of dictatorial big government. Awesome. Where do we all sign up?


150 posted on 10/06/2010 9:03:11 AM PDT by Hemingway's Ghost (Spirit of '75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW

The problem with slinging around words like perversion is that it’s in the eye of the beholder. I have a good friend of the Catholic persuasion, and listening to him most married couples are engaging in perverse and disgusting acts on an almost nightly basis.


151 posted on 10/06/2010 9:04:19 AM PDT by Melas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
LIt is a kind of catch all, but definitely a code word for ‘I like a lot about conservatism, but I can’t stand those knuckle dragging Christian people, and their social conservatism’.

What's the catch-all for "big government moralists"?

152 posted on 10/06/2010 9:06:48 AM PDT by tacticalogic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
Again, show me where the Founders "outlawed" perversion. I must have missed that clause in the Constitution.

You brought the Constitution into it in post 124. And as I've already stated, the gays have no more right to use government force to push their agenda than homophobes have to make gay sex illegal. That's not Constitutional governance.

I pointed out that the guys that wrote the Constitution thought sodomy was a perversion. Why don't you show me where any of them spoke against STATE laws against sodomy? Show me where they clearly said perversion was a right.

153 posted on 10/06/2010 9:06:48 AM PDT by DJ MacWoW (If Bam is the answer, the question was stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: Hemingway's Ghost
Great! So what you’re advocating is a swap from the “commie” flavor of dictatorial big government to the “Bible thumper” flavor of dictatorial big government. Awesome. Where do we all sign up?

Go back and read some history.

154 posted on 10/06/2010 9:08:12 AM PDT by DJ MacWoW (If Bam is the answer, the question was stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW
I pointed out that the guys that wrote the Constitution thought sodomy was a perversion.

And yet they completely failed to include any morality statues in the Constitution.

Show me where they clearly said perversion was a right.

Show me where they clearly said having a blue house was a right. Any other non sequiturs you want to throw out there?

155 posted on 10/06/2010 9:09:13 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (III, Alarm and Muster)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: Melas
You need to go back and read history. I see all these people claiming that they want a Constitutional government but have no idea what that historically is.

I'm going to fix lunch now.

156 posted on 10/06/2010 9:09:43 AM PDT by DJ MacWoW (If Bam is the answer, the question was stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
WTF does that have to do with what we were just talking about?

I said that Commies and Marxists infiltrated government, academia and the MSM and you replied negatively.

I've wasted enough time with this thread as it is...

That's because you can't win this one.

I have a lunch to cook.

157 posted on 10/06/2010 9:12:38 AM PDT by DJ MacWoW (If Bam is the answer, the question was stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
Homosexuality happens in nature. Cats. Rabbits. Cows

People are no better than animals?!

They are a biological dead end. Self correcting problem.

Homosexuals recruit.

Still waiting on where in the Constitution it gives the FedGov the power to regulate "perversion".

I never said it. You did. I stated the Founders were in agreement with sodomy laws. You are the one that brought up the Constitution to encourage homosexual freedoms. They are no rights for deviancy. I showed you that there were not. Again, the laws were state laws. And no Founder was against them.

158 posted on 10/06/2010 9:16:12 AM PDT by DJ MacWoW (If Bam is the answer, the question was stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW
Thanks, but I'll put my knowledge and grasp of American history up against anyone here.

Instead of challenging people about American history, your time would be better served by developing an ability to present a logical argument.

159 posted on 10/06/2010 9:17:19 AM PDT by Hemingway's Ghost (Spirit of '75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW
No one gave them anything.

Comstock made abortion a federal concern, and Margaret Sanger a celebrity.

160 posted on 10/06/2010 9:18:06 AM PDT by tacticalogic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 381-391 next last

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.

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