Posted on 09/02/2006 9:01:49 PM PDT by freepatriot32
That's quite incorrect, as evidenced by libertarian support of both Roe and Lawrence, both radical activist decisions without a basis of support in the Constitution.
Gee, no republicans support Roe either, do they? You do love your sweeping generalizations. Roe should never have happened. Abortion should be a states rights issue. There are pro-life libertarians, just like there are pro-abortion republicans. Maybe you like the way the democrats treated their pro-life governor at the DNC national convention, when he wasn't allowed to speak, and think that republicans should act the same way.
Mark
"They know we wont hesitate to expose Republicans as deceiving the public with less government rhetoric and big government practice"
the dems use lie after lie every single day, why? with this huge FACT sitting out there for everyone to see.
never understood that.
I'm not sure I even want to ask! LOL
Mark
some are tired of two party system screwing America and don't care what the GOP or the donkey boys think.
the republicans promised a smaller government and failed. they need to be replaced or hurt so bad that the next time the gain power they will not waste it on growing the government faster then the communist left could ever do.
you are not allowed to use the constitution in debate here. it's considered cheating.
Marriage is a public act that requires statutory license...
If Liebertarians are going to run in elections, they are going to have to get used to having signatures challenged and everything else that comes with running, the same way EVERYONE else does. It happens all the time, nothing new. Myself, I flirted with becoming a Libertarian until I learned of their "what me worry" stance on abortion, borders, and foreign policy. Their links with the ACLU did not help either. Our local Pittsburgh LP chapter (leaders at the time were Terry McIntyre and Dan Sullivan, treasurer Rich Loether in case you don't believe me) joined the ACLU in an anti cop march in Pittsburgh and supported a class action lawsuit against the Pittsburgh Police (which later was dismissed by a judge).
I'm not sure I even want to ask! LOL
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My middle name should be coy, but this is a clear cut case. I really miss those guys that wrote our Constitution.
Some of these liberal-tarians forget, it is THEY who advocate separation of church and state. Let me cram it right back down their throats...
It was landmark U.S. Supreme Court precedent Reynolds v. United States in 1878 that made separation of church and state a dubiously legitimate point of case law, but more importantly; it confirmed the Constitutionality in statutory regulation of marriage practices.
Marriage is a religious rite, not a civil right...
Now, it ain't so palatable to them, is it? They are the ones here bashing the religious folks, now they want to claim some mercurial, ever changing definition of freedom of religion? I'm not going to live in their hell...
If I cannot yell fire in a crowded theater, I don't think someone should be able to light one with a U.S. flag and call it free speech.
Of course, a lot of these traitors to the United States would also whine if we wanted an Amendment to ban homosexual marriage or flag burning, wouldn't they?
There are doctrinaire, myopic cultural Marxists whose only purpose here on FreeRepublic is their polemic need to do anything contrary to the Christians. You will find most of them on the homosexual issue threads, the evolution threads, drug threads, genetic engineering threads or any other issue involving a perversion of, or attack on the Judaic book of Genesis.
Some of the Bozos out there can't get past that word God, so they would just piss the entire country away and join the enemies of America; all because they have this polemic need to bash the Christians and do everything in contravention to them. I say screw them and the filthy practices they want to live by. My children are not going to inherit their squalor if I can help it.
Of course, what a lot of the leftists and misguided, myopic liberal-tarians don't want to admit is that Christianity (and they do hate Christians) is just their politically correct proxy for their war against what is written in the book of Genesis.
They will jump up and down and snivel about the Ten Commandments and Christians; but the reminders that Moses was not a Christian, that Genesis, Deuteronomy and Exodus are Jewish literature really sticks in their craw. There are actually Marxist trolls here on FreeRepublic who cloak themselves in liberaltarianism and attack anything related to Genesis...
I could give you quite a list of their user names. They can be found a lot on the evolution, drug, genetic engineering threads, and have been bleeding over into the marriage issue threads. Their only purpose is to wage a psychological warfare on conservatives.
Some of the Bozos out there can't get past that word God, so they would just piss the entire country away and join the enemies of America; all because they have this polemic need to bash the Christians and do everything in contravention to them. I say screw them and the filthy practices they want to live by. My children are not going to inherit their squalor if I can help it.
Are all cultures equal? Hell no...
Only a cultural Marxist would think so.
(sigh) Me too. I can practically hear them spinning in their graves.
While they have an awful lot to be very proud of, with what this country has become, I believe with all my heart that if they were to see what's become of the government, they'd weep.
Then I believe that they'd promply go kick some politician ass.
Mark
The poster you responded to is your typical knee-jerk Libertarian basher. They can't debate the facts about Libertarians so they resort to ad-hominem attacks on Libertarians.
Gee, I can't imaging the SCOTUS making a bad decision, how about you? Dread Scott comes to mind, and more recently, Kelo. Again, I contend that the federal government really doesn't have authority in religious affairs, one way or another. The founders obviously believed that, because a number of states that ratified the Constitution had official state religions at the time. I belive that the original intent of the First Amendment was to keep the federal government from interfering in religion at all.
Mark
No man may become a law unto himself under the guise of freedom of religion...
I'm a Libertarian.
I think some out here would say to themselves, "And safely dead."
No man may become a law unto himself under the guise of freedom of religion:
Muslim leaders warn of riots (attempting to gag Australia's PM Howard) http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1694615/posts
No man may become a law unto himself under the guise of freedom of religion...
Well, we've already seen political speech attacked by congress, and upheld by the SCOTUS. I'm pretty sure that religion will be next.
Mark
I say block 'em to the legal extent possible. When it comes to preventing Democrat wins, no price is too high.
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.