Posted on 03/08/2006 7:08:13 AM PST by beeler
I think you're confusing libertarians with Libertarians. Sullivan is indeed an idiot just as Bush is not conservative.
Yes, and the Liberals claim to be for both as well.
Sullivan endorsed kerry in the presidential election.
Explain that away.
No, I am not.
A "libertarian" whether small "l" or big "L" is not a "Conservative" by definition. Please do not attempt to argue the labels are interchangable, if that were true two distinct labels wouldn't exist.
Agreed on Sullivan.
As for the President? He's conservative on some issues, not so on others. Actually I've always maintained he doesn't fit an ideological sterotype even though folks today find it convenient to designate others as Liberal or conservative. Unlike moderates, he doesn't define label because he lacks willingness to take a position. Rather he just takes it issue by issue which results in a grey area of strong beliefs no one can adequately attribute a label to. Perhaps "Independent" which is sort of "blah" in meaning.
Conservative minded people support conservative ideals no matter what some think of their political lable. Those who blindly support labels only allow the big government socialists the oportunity to destroy America.
If you've been reduced to meaningless propaganda the point was made.
OH - I thought this was about FreeRepublic.
Yeah, that is troubling. Here is a weak attempt: If Bush got elected it would set conservativsm back further, and if Kerry got elected we'd have 4 years of Kerry then elect a true conservative.
LIBERTARIANS are not conservative...
I'm no Libertarian but they seem to me now to be much more conservative than the GOP.
Libertarians believe in open borders, legalized drugs, and no military...do you?
Meaningless propaganda is the tool of the label supporters, not the supporters of conservative ideals.
You are correct.
That is weak.
Following YOUR logic, defeating '41 would have produced a True conservative. We got Dole. Following your logic, allowing Clinton's re-election paved the way for the true conservative-Bush 43.
Try Again.
Sullivan endorsed kerry in the presidential election. Explain that away.
Yeah, that is troubling. Here is a weak attempt: If Bush got elected it would set conservativsm back further, and if Kerry got elected we'd have 4 years of Kerry then elect a true conservative.
And what did 8 years of Clintoon give us?(9-11,Osama,Chinese ports)
By the time the foolish bashbots get finished running this administration into the ground, there won't be a conservative movement left that amounts to anything.
I don't believe the labels are interchangable, but it is possible to be both a libertarian and a conservative.
Exactly. And since I'm old enough to remember the Reagan years, defeating Reagan would have given a REAL conservative like Goldwater another chance. ; ).
The basic problem is that the people in charge of the GOP have given the personality cult of Dubya priority over actual small-government conservative principles.
If you suggest that this administration is a "conservative movement" then we will have lost nothing.
There has been no vast expansion of the government under George Bush.
Spending for the Federal government is right in the average of the last forty years as a percent of GDP.
You need a different argument, one that is true.
http://www.cbo.gov/budget/historical.pdf
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.