GOP Tries Blocking Libertarian Candidates

Whoa nellie!!! Actually, Libertarians tend to be very strict constructionists. Far more so than so called conservatives who often do support judicial activism.

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

81 posted on 09/03/2006 7:00:00 AM PDT by MarkL (When Kaylee says "No power in the `verse can stop me," it's cute. When River says it, it's scary!)

To: freepatriot32

"They know we won’t 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.

82 posted on 09/03/2006 7:01:57 AM PDT by postaldave (McCain & Bush, you traitorous !#!$!!s. you two are no different then ted kennedy.)

Reading the exchange between the two of you is enough for any thinking person to decide which political party one should align with,

I'm not sure I even want to ask! LOL

Mark

83 posted on 09/03/2006 7:03:40 AM PDT by MarkL (When Kaylee says "No power in the `verse can stop me," it's cute. When River says it, it's scary!)

To: MassachusettsGOP

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.

84 posted on 09/03/2006 7:09:31 AM PDT by postaldave (McCain & Bush, you traitorous !#!$!!s. you two are no different then ted kennedy.)

To: freepatriot32

you are not allowed to use the constitution in debate here. it's considered cheating.

85 posted on 09/03/2006 7:11:19 AM PDT by postaldave (McCain & Bush, you traitorous !#!$!!s. you two are no different then ted kennedy.)

Make clear that "morality laws" are only applicable to public behavior.

Marriage is a public act that requires statutory license...

86 posted on 09/03/2006 7:20:40 AM PDT by Sir Francis Dashwood

To: freepatriot32

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).

87 posted on 09/03/2006 7:25:22 AM PDT by Hacksaw (Deport illegals the same way they came here - one at a time.)

Reading the exchange between the two of you is enough for any thinking person to decide which political party one should align with.(winston2)

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.

88 posted on 09/03/2006 7:35:44 AM PDT by winston2 (In matters of necessity let there be unity, in matters of doubt liberty, and in all things charity:-)

To: MarkL; ghostmonkey

The federal government has no authority here whatsoever. However, the whole "Marriage Protection" rigamarole does come from something in the Constitution, which can impose one state's values on another. But it's not the equal protection clause. So it's being thrown back to the federal government, which really doesn't have the authority to make the decision either way.

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.

Are all cultures equal? Hell no...

Only a cultural Marxist would think so.

89 posted on 09/03/2006 7:44:34 AM PDT by Sir Francis Dashwood

I really miss those guys that wrote our Constitution.

(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

90 posted on 09/03/2006 7:46:41 AM PDT by MarkL (When Kaylee says "No power in the `verse can stop me," it's cute. When River says it, it's scary!)

I read your links. No libertarians supporting Marxists at those links. I'll repeat...Have you got any names or are you just spanking your monkey

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.

91 posted on 09/03/2006 7:50:04 AM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist (404 Page Error Found)

To: Sir Francis Dashwood

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.

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

92 posted on 09/03/2006 7:53:12 AM PDT by MarkL (When Kaylee says "No power in the `verse can stop me," it's cute. When River says it, it's scary!)

I contend that the federal government really doesn't have authority in religious affairs, one way or another.

No man may become a law unto himself under the guise of freedom of religion...

93 posted on 09/03/2006 7:57:54 AM PDT by Sir Francis Dashwood

That was a great series of responses. I appreciate the time and effort.

94 posted on 09/03/2006 8:00:16 AM PDT by William Terrell (Individuals can exist without government but government can't exist without individuals.)

To: freepatriot32

95 posted on 09/03/2006 8:05:05 AM PDT by MonroeDNA (Crist!!! Next Governor of Florida!)

I really miss those guys that wrote our Constitution.

I think some out here would say to themselves, "And safely dead."

96 posted on 09/03/2006 8:05:36 AM PDT by William Terrell (Individuals can exist without government but government can't exist without individuals.)

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

97 posted on 09/03/2006 8:08:13 AM PDT by Sir Francis Dashwood

To: Sir Francis Dashwood

I contend that the federal government really doesn't have authority in religious affairs, one way or another.

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

98 posted on 09/03/2006 8:09:00 AM PDT by MarkL (When Kaylee says "No power in the `verse can stop me," it's cute. When River says it, it's scary!)

Many libertarians are attracted to the party due to their support of abortions.

Libertarians for Life

99 posted on 09/03/2006 8:13:44 AM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist (404 Page Error Found)

I say block 'em to the legal extent possible. When it comes to preventing Democrat wins, no price is too high.

100 posted on 09/03/2006 8:16:38 AM PDT by zook (McCain/Giuliani/Rice--2 of the 3 in 08!)

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794