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...
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?
You and the others play word games.
Post 202 :Apparently FR is now a pro-sodomy, pro-anarchy, pro-child sexuality promoting, pro-drugs, pro-homosexual agenda website.
Do you agree or not. Simple. Everything listed there is against what FR stands for. But there are posters pushing one or more items on that list. Do you agree with that list?
Agreeing with the list will be characterized as agreement that "there are posters pushing one or more items on that list".
You do not ask if I agree with the assesment that other posters are pushing items on the list, only if I agree with the list. Answering that question at all will imply agreement that other posters are pushing those items, just like answering the question "Do you still beat your wife?" will carry an implicit admission of having done so in the past.
Why should I play the hand after watching how carefully you've stacked the deck?
Agreeing with the list will be characterized as agreement that "there are posters pushing one or more items on that list".
You do not ask if I agree with the assesment that other posters are pushing items on the list,
You seem to be incapable of saying "I believe......". You state that you aren't answering because you aren't asked the correct question. That's absolutely ridiculous. You are avoiding answering.
The truth is that you have avoided it so well that it's become a joke watching you twist in the wind.
You have a nice day.
I told you I’m not answering loaded questions. You can and have chosen not to understand that. I cannot make you understand what you have willfully decided not to. You made the decision, and the responsibility for the consequences are yours. End of story.
You have avoided answering. There are no loaded questions. Post 202 is simple to answer. "I believe....." That's not a yes or no response. You can't answer because you don't dare state what you believe. This is a Conservative site, not a libertarian one. Honesty is why you can't answer.
End of story.
More word games.
"Conservative" is a politically relative term, while "libertarian" is absolute. Libertarianism is a political philosophy, and some aspects of that philosophy are ingrained in our political heritage and embodied in our Constitution. You're now engaged in trying to say who is and isn't a "conservative" by defining what is and isn't "convervativism". That debate has been going on this site as long as I've been here, and you aren't about to end it with that steaming heap of sophistry.
"Conservative" is a politically relative term,
Is it? Really?
Statement by the founder of Free Republic
In our continuing fight for freedom, for America and our constitution and against totalitarianism, socialism, tyranny, terrorism, etc., Free Republic stands firmly on the side of right, i.e., the conservative side.
snip
As a conservative site, Free Republic is pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-Constitution, pro-Bill of Rights, pro-gun, pro-limited government, pro-private property rights, pro-limited taxes, pro-capitalism, pro-national defense, pro-freedom, and-pro America. We oppose all forms of liberalism, socialism, fascism, pacifism, totalitarianism, anarchism, government enforced atheism, abortionism, feminism, homosexualism, racism, wacko environmentalism, judicial activism, etc. We also oppose the United Nations or any other world government body that may attempt to impose its will or rule over our sovereign nation and sovereign people. We believe in defending our borders, our constitution and our national sovereignty.
The above is why you can't answer.
Yes, it really is. A "conservative" political philosophy intends to conserve or oppose change to existing political structure. A "liberal" political philosophy is more inclined to want to change it.
A "conservative" political philosophy here is a much different philosophy than a "conservative" philosophy in a country like China. A libertarian philosophy will be the same in either place.
If you beieve that "conservativism" and libertarianism are completely different and mutually exclusive philosophies, can you explain Ronald Reagan's repeated references to libertarian principles in our political heritage?
And it's HYSTERICAL that you claim conservatives are opposed to change while on an ACTIVIST site.
So, what is your opinion of Post 202?
Post 202 : Apparently FR is now a pro-sodomy, pro-anarchy, pro-child sexuality promoting, pro-drugs, pro-homosexual agenda website.
How can you actively oppose change without engaging in activism?
So, what is your opinion of Post 202?
I think it's a steaming pile of crap.
Your statement post 288: A "conservative" political philosophy intends to conserve or oppose change to existing political structure.
You made the statement. Om an activist site no less.
I think it's a steaming pile of crap.
The world is going to end! You gave an answer!
There are people pushing those things on FR. And when they get too brazen, the Boss bans them.
Bye!
Now, what did you win? Hmmm?
Oh heavens! We can't have limited government. Then the Nanny State might be curtailed and people will do things we don't like! WE CAN'T HAVE THAT!!!!
Libertarians are pro-God. Just not pro-Government telling you how to worship.
They are also pro-gun. More so than either Dems or Repubs.
We are pro-family. Especially keeping the government out of how you raise your kids.
Pro-private property. More so than either of the Big Two Parties. Part of our border problem would be solved if ranchers could defend their border properties with force. It's the FedGov's job, but those jobs revert to us if they fall derelict.
Limited taxes? There are none more against taxation than libertarians. Legalized theft is still theft.
Capitalism? Laissez-faire. We wrote the book.
National defense? 340 million Americans. Libertarians advocate militias, private security firms, and every American that wants to to have any kind of firepower they can own without directly injuring their neighbors. Machine guns, tanks, whatever you can afford.
We not only oppose the UN, but the Hague, NATO, and every other entangling alliance that hampers private trade or creates "globo-cop" committments on our part. We aren't the worlds policemen, nor should we try to be. Get in, smash our enemies, get out.
Heck... Putting it all that way the libertarians have more in common with FR"s mission statement than the RNC currently does.
Maybe they go TOO far. They want TOO much freedom. They want TOO much personal responsibility. It's a scary thing being the master of your own destiny. Of giving up that power over the lives of others.
Can you handle it?
Tried it ONCE, and decided never again? That is a full agreement, that you don't even try to make your posts "clear, and open".
They say insanity is trying the same thing over and over again, expecting to get different results. Sounds about right to me. Why wasn't once enough?
Yikes, spacy stuff.
You wouldn’t be the first to be frightened of reason.
False, she never showed any evidence of any pro life activities or statements in her 32 year political history, and even having run as a libertarian candidate in 1982.
She showed nothing except for one very recent video for this particular Texas Governor campaign, ala Mitt Romney.
Kathie Glass never answered that audio I busted her with, that showed that she supported homosexual marriage, she ended up with no real defense,like on the abortion question.
What do you think that the Libertarian party is saying in this party platform position on abortion?
"we believe that government should be kept out of the matter"
That is projecting your fears on to someone else, I seek reason, but I never find it on the libertarian, and the pot head threads.
Have you ever investigated libertarianism, or the reason Reagan made numerous references to it being part of our political heritage in his speeches? Aspects of libertarianism are incorporated in our own Constitution, and explored in the writings of the Founders. Have you looked there?
Insults are easy. Reason is harder. It takes more than a bucket full of perjoratives about "projection" and "pot head threads" to make a resoned argument.
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.