Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Clint Eastwood: I'm A Libertarian
Libertarian Party press release ^ | 2/18/97 | Not sure

Posted on 12/27/2003 11:42:04 AM PST by Conservative til I die

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 381-394 next last
To: rwfromkansas
Goodbye libertarians; you should no longer be welcome here. You are disruptors and should be banned.

You children should really take it up with management.

161 posted on 12/27/2003 5:02:33 PM PST by Protagoras (When they asked me what I thought of freedom in America,,, I said I thought it would be a good idea.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: Conservative til I die
"Man! The haters sure do come out quickly! And with uninformed opinions too."

Fortunately you can't paint the Republicans with a broad brush, only some of them react this way at the mere mention of Libertarians. I found it quite enthralling that we had the opposite reception in New Hampshire after the FreeStaters voted to move there....the Democrats had a cow, and the Republicans including the governor welcomed us with open arms.

162 posted on 12/27/2003 6:06:04 PM PST by Katya
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: bc2
Answer #79 then.
163 posted on 12/27/2003 7:25:06 PM PST by swilhelm73
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: Drango
Libertarians are worse than the French.

Why you ask ?

They both lose

164 posted on 12/27/2003 7:29:44 PM PST by af_vet_1981
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: thoughtomator
Well, to be equitable, it must be admitted that, other than ending slavery (which was an enormous good, no doubt), the results of the Civil War were detrimental to the rule of law under the Constitution. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments, for example, went right into the toilet with the Confederacy.

That was my point exactly. I don't think the confederacy is in need of an apologist, but Lincoln sure is. Remember that slavery was not the reason that Lincoln went to war, but to preserve the "union". Or more succinctly put, to subjugate the south to northern rule. The end of slavery was perhaps the only good thing to come out of that but I believe that without the war of norther agression, slavery would have died a natural death in the south as mounting pressure from Europe and the north and a growing elightenment would have forced the south to be a little more introspective. I find it curious that people who point out that what Lincoln did was wrong, immoral and to the detriment of both the Union and the Confederacy are somehow branded as conspiracy theorist and lumped with the tin-foil hat gang.

165 posted on 12/28/2003 10:18:07 AM PST by Nanodik (Libertarian, Ex-Canadian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas; thoughtomator
If you don't agree with the Libertarian party, don't call yourself one, even a "small l" libertarian. Use some other name you can think of to describe your principles.

Exactly! Libertarianism was first described when the LP was created. The underlying political philosophy is what would be called "classical liberalism". If you believe you are a small "l" libertarian, you should actually refer to yourself as a liberal. Unfortunately, idiot talk-show hosts have associated this moniker with hard-left socialists. There is nothing liberal about today's "liberals".

166 posted on 12/28/2003 10:33:55 AM PST by Nanodik (Libertarian, Ex-Canadian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Conservative til I die
One can be a libertarian and be a conservative.

I suppose you are right in that so long as you do not buy into the bunk that "conservative" is a political philosophy. That is, you could be a conservative libertarian is you chose not to smoke, do drugs, drink and engage in wild sex but had no problem with other people choosing to engage in those things.

167 posted on 12/28/2003 10:38:35 AM PST by Nanodik (Libertarian, Ex-Canadian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: Nanodik
At some point you have to hold the line and not let your political opponents redefine the language under you. "Liberal" was lost before I was born, but "libertarian" isn't, and dammit, I'll fight to hold the ground on this one!
168 posted on 12/28/2003 10:42:08 AM PST by thoughtomator ("I will do whatever the Americans want because I saw what happened in Iraq, and I was afraid"-Qadafi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas
FR is a CONSERVATIVE news forum.

Just following Jesus' lead. He went were the sinners were!

169 posted on 12/28/2003 10:44:20 AM PST by Nanodik (Libertarian, Ex-Canadian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: tpaine; Conservative til I die
being blindly pro-'life', you've become an unconstitutional zealot in my eyes

I hate to come to the defence of someone who calls himself a conservative, but your statment is way off bounds. Nothing in the constitution adequately defines when a person becomes a person under the law. We are left to our own reasoning when it comes to that question. The fact is that abortion is perhaps the biggest argument among libertarians. You can apply the same basic philosophy, and depending on whether you consider the unborn a person under the law, come up with entirely different conclusions. I am a pro-life libertarian simply because I do not believe that the number of cells in your body or your bio-mass should determine whether or not you have legal rights under the US constituion. That does not make me a zealot or somehow unconstitutional. You and I look at the same set of facts and because there are no guidelines set down in law, we come up with different conclusions. The abortion issue is the symptom of a greater problem, and that is that the constitution is mostly silent on what exactly defines a "person".

170 posted on 12/28/2003 10:55:01 AM PST by Nanodik (Libertarian, Ex-Canadian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: Nanodik; rwfromkansas; thoughtomator
To: rwfromkansas; thoughtomator
If you don't agree with the Libertarian party, don't call yourself one, even a "small l" libertarian. Use some other name you can think of to describe your principles.

______________________________________

Exactly! Libertarianism was first described when the LP was created. The underlying political philosophy is what would be called "classical liberalism". If you believe you are a small "l" libertarian, you should actually refer to yourself as a liberal. Unfortunately, idiot talk-show hosts have associated this moniker with hard-left socialists. There is nothing liberal about today's "liberals".
166 -nano-




Constitutional libertarianism is probably best exemplified by the positions of the RLC.

RLC Liberty Caucus | latest posts
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/rlc/browse

And if you cannot support the main principles, the basics, of our constitution, -- you are not a libertarian..

-- Or a republican.
171 posted on 12/28/2003 10:59:37 AM PST by tpaine (I'm trying to be 'Mr Nice Guy', but FRs flying monkey squad brings out my devils. Happy New Year!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: bray
Libertarian=Independent who smokes dope

bray = idiot with a dial-up connection

172 posted on 12/28/2003 11:04:41 AM PST by The Green Goblin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Constitutional libertarianism is probably best exemplified by the positions of the RLC.

Republicans defining libertarianism? Just tune into Rush Limbaugh and wait for him to say "Maggot infested, dope-smoking, plastic-banana, good-time, rock-and-rollers" and you pretty much have it. If libertarians are going to let the Republicans define them and their philosophy, then they might as well just give up and join the Demoblicans or the Republicrats.

Sorry tpaine, I thought you were a libertarian.

173 posted on 12/28/2003 11:10:15 AM PST by Nanodik (Libertarian, Ex-Canadian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: Nanodik
-- being blindly pro-'life', you've become an unconstitutional zealot in my eyes.

I hate to come to the defence of someone who calls himself a conservative, but your statment is way off bounds.

Pulling my statement out of its context is out of bounds.

Nothing in the constitution adequately defines when a person becomes a person under the law.

Not true.. -- The 14th specifies "All persons born". The USSC decision included 'viabily', [being capable of living before actual birth] as a definition, -- and viablity increases every day, with advances in medical arts.

We are left to our own reasoning when it comes to that question. The fact is that abortion is perhaps the biggest argument among libertarians. You can apply the same basic philosophy, and depending on whether you consider the unborn a person under the law, come up with entirely different conclusions. I am a pro-life libertarian simply because I do not believe that the number of cells in your body or your bio-mass should determine whether or not you have legal rights under the US constituion. That does not make me a zealot or somehow unconstitutional.

OF course it doesn't.. You have to insist that government enforce your beliefs, ~as law~, to become a constitutional scofflaw & zealot..
Do you?

You and I look at the same set of facts and because there are no guidelines set down in law, we come up with different conclusions. The abortion issue is the symptom of a greater problem, and that is that the constitution is mostly silent on what exactly defines a "person".

Rational persons can arrive at reasonable regulations [like trial by jury] on moral dilemmas such as attempting to class early term abortion as murder. Zealots cannot. -- Choose your side.

174 posted on 12/28/2003 11:42:32 AM PST by tpaine (I'm trying to be 'Mr Nice Guy', but FRs flying monkey squad brings out my devils. Happy New Year!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: Nanodik
Libertarianism was first described when the LP was created. The underlying political philosophy is what would be called "classical liberalism". If you believe you are a small "l" libertarian, you should actually refer to yourself as a liberal. Unfortunately, idiot talk-show hosts have associated this moniker with hard-left socialists. There is nothing liberal about today's "liberals".
166 -nano-





Constitutional libertarianism is probably best exemplified by the positions of the RLC.

RLC Liberty Caucus | latest posts
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/rlc/browse


And if you cannot support the main principles, the basics, of our constitution, -- you are not a libertarian..

-- Or a republican.
171 tpaine






Republicans defining libertarianism?

Just tune into Rush Limbaugh and wait for him to say "Maggot infested, dope-smoking, plastic-banana, good-time, rock-and-rollers" and you pretty much have it.
If libertarians are going to let the Republicans define them and their philosophy, then they might as well just give up and join the Demoblicans or the Republicrats.

Sorry tpaine, I thought you were a libertarian.
173 -odic-





No, the RLC is a group of constitutional libertarians defining what republicanism should be.

No need to be sorry kiddo, your answer pretty well tells the tale on you.

Apparently you only agree with our constitution when its principles coincide with your own version of political 'classical liberalism'.
175 posted on 12/28/2003 12:31:51 PM PST by tpaine (I'm trying to be 'Mr Nice Guy', but FRs flying monkey squad brings out my devils. Happy New Year!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Not true.. -- The 14th specifies "All persons born".

Now you are the one taking things out of context. The 14th provides no definition of "person", but does clarify citizenship and rights accorded thereunder. As for the USSC, they do not have the power to alter the constitution, and I specifically said that there is no adequate constitutional definition of a "person", which there isn't. Besides, the USSC is hardly a bastion of rational thought let alone constitutional though.

You have to insist that government enforce your beliefs, ~as law~, to become a constitutional scofflaw & zealot.. Do you?

The constitution puts restrictions on the federal govt and sometimes on state and local govts. As such, a citizen not in a place of govt authority cannot be a scofflaw. If you want scofflaws, write your senator or representative but you most likely won't find one here. As for being a zealot, I still think OJ is guilty of murder despite the fact he was acquitted - does that make me a zealot? I think the laws ought to be enforced according to their original intent, whether or not I agree with them. Do I believe abortion is murder? Philosophically, yes. Do I believe the US constitution supports this position - not adequately, but sure it can be argued. Does that make me a zealot? I don't think so.

Rational persons can arrive at reasonable regulations [like trial by jury] on moral dilemmas such as attempting to class early term abortion as murder. Zealots cannot. -- Choose your side.

If there is a point here, I missed it...

176 posted on 12/28/2003 12:42:44 PM PST by Nanodik (Libertarian, Ex-Canadian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: Nanodik
Nothing in the constitution adequately defines when a person becomes a person under the law.

Not true.. -- The 14th specifies "All persons born".
The USSC decision included 'viabily', [being capable of living before actual birth] as a definition, -- and viablity increases every day, with advances in medical arts.

Now you are the one taking things out of context. The 14th provides no definition of "person", but does clarify citizenship and rights accorded thereunder.

"All persons born" are the first 3 words of the 14th, defining those whose rights are to be protected under our constitution.

As for the USSC, they do not have the power to alter the constitution,

'Alter' is not at issue. The USSC defines constitutional disputes.

and I specifically said that there is no adequate constitutional definition of a "person", which there isn't.

The facts belie you, as I explained above.

Besides, the USSC is hardly a bastion of rational thought let alone constitutional though.

So what? The words of the 14th are clear enough to decide the issue.
You have to insist that government enforce your beliefs, ~as law~, to become a constitutional scofflaw & zealot.. Do you?

The constitution puts restrictions on the federal govt and sometimes on state and local govts. As such, a citizen not in a place of govt authority cannot be a scofflaw.

Bull.. This position is ludicrous. You are a scofflaw if you do not support our constitutions laws.

If you want scofflaws, write your senator or representative but you most likely won't find one here. As for being a zealot, I still think OJ is guilty of murder despite the fact he was acquitted - does that make me a zealot? I think the laws ought to be enforced according to their original intent, whether or not I agree with them. Do I believe abortion is murder? Philosophically, yes. Do I believe the US constitution supports this position - not adequately, but sure it can be argued. Does that make me a zealot? I don't think so.

Rational persons can arrive at reasonable regulations [like trial by jury] on moral dilemmas such as attempting to class early term abortion as murder. Zealots cannot.
-- You seem to have chosen your side, in your rant above.

If there is a point here, I missed it...

Whatever. - I can't help you to learn to reason.

177 posted on 12/28/2003 1:22:43 PM PST by tpaine (I'm trying to be 'Mr Nice Guy', but FRs flying monkey squad brings out my devils. Happy New Year!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
I agree completely that the RP is trash. I just prefer the CP over the LP.
178 posted on 12/28/2003 3:38:31 PM PST by rb22982
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Christ man but you are dense. Let's take the first 9 words out of the 14th amendment:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States

So does the 14th amendment limit "person-hood" to those born or naturalized in the US? Get it straight - the 14th amendment was to make sure that black people would not be granted something less that citizenship in the US. It does not define who is and who is not a person. It clarifies citizenship and one does not need to be a citizen to be a beneficiary of the protections of the US constitution.

As for the USSC, those idiots could say that day is night and night is day, but that does not make it so? The recent decision on McCain-Feingold is a perfect example of this. The majority decision never mentions the text of the first amendment which is a telling sign that they have even given up the charade of interpreting the constitution. They have gone on to make themselves a black-robed star chamber.

179 posted on 12/28/2003 3:53:12 PM PST by Nanodik (Libertarian, Ex-Canadian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Better yet lets take this excerpt from the 14th amendment:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress

So does this mean that all Senators or Representatives can be aborted or that only aborted fetuses can hold federal public office?

180 posted on 12/28/2003 4:15:04 PM PST by Nanodik (Libertarian, Ex-Canadian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 381-394 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson