Sorry to disrupt your rant but you might wantot click the link to the LIBERTARIANS FOR LIFE that i provided for you and as far as the smoking dope and homosexual agenda if you can point me to the spacific constitutional amendment or article in the us constitution that give the fed gov and not the states the rightto prohibit people from smoking weed and pole smoking no matter how distasteful you might find it i will gladly read it and agree with yu if you cant find it then its up to the states to legalise it or not and not washington dc
Incorrect, I am well aware of what Marxism is all about.
You use the term "Liberaltarians." Thats very clever. Did you think of that all by yourself?
Yep.
Modern day liberals (as opposed to the classical use of the term) support large governments that tries to tell people how to live their lives. I see no difference between either of the two parties currently in Washington on this point except which aspects of our lives you want to regulate. And one other minor difference. Democrats support big government and high taxes to pay for it. Republicans support big government and big debt to avoid paying for it.
Rubbish. I don't know a single Libertarian who supports smoking dope. I (and most libertarians) do believe however that you have a God given right to be stupid if you wish, as long as society doesn't have to pay for your stupidity.
BWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHH!!!!! The Libertarian platform supports dope. Individuals should have the right to use drugs, whether for medical or recreational purposes, without fear of legal reprisals...
Thats a tough one. Many Libertarians do support that. I do not. To me abortion violates the most basic of libertarian principals. Your rights end when they intrude on someone else's. The Right to Life being foremost among those rights.
So you conceed the fact that many libertarians support murder.
Again your ignorance betrays you. We do NOT support any such thing. We believe that we (and you) have no right to impose our morality by legislation on others.
All laws legislate morality. Every single one of them. Homosexuality is a perverse evil that spreads into and destroys society as a whole. There is a reason that the very people who wrote the Constitution also went back and wrote laws in their own states to protect society from this perversity.
What someone does in private with another consenting adult is between them and God. Its none of my business. And frankly its none of yours either.
That's incorrect, because what you do in private spreads out into public. As one of our Framers stated: No man is permitted to corrupt the morals of the people; secret poison cannot be thus disseminated.
When the homos try to force by law or government action acceptance of their perverted (thats my private opinion) lifestyle on me or you or anyone else we oppose them.
No you don't. Your own platform supports redefining marriage and allowing homos to adopt playthings for their amusement.
By which you mean the morals that you happen to think everyone else should abide by. Enough said.
All laws legislate morality in one form or another. Repealing what you call "morality laws" is by default endorsement of amorality.
LMAO!!! Exactly how many libertarians have been appointing judges in this country? The only judicial activism that I have seen is by a court that has over the last half century been hell bent on aggrandizing the powers of the government to promote the interests of whichever of the two political parties happens to have been naming Supreme Court Justices. If you believe otherwise please give specific examples and not a lot of hot air.
Libertarians jumped for joy at the activist decisions of Roe and Lawerence.
I have never met a Libertarian who supports illegal immigration. But if they did they are as entitled to their opinion as you are. Thats another difference between libertarians and GOPers and DU types. When we don't agree with you we will tell you but we won;t call you names generally or resort to childish tantrums. In fact we strongly believe in your right to spout your foolish invective.
Libertarians are in favor of "open borders", which translated is, "Let everyone and anyone run wild into the Country and do what they please."
Well actually you said Marxists not Democrats. And while you may equate the two (another example of your ignorance) I do not.
Their positions on various issues equate them.
As for preferring the company of one or the other thats one man's opinion. I generally am more comfortable around Republicans (excepting those in public office) since we tend to share the same outlook on things culturally politically much more so than Democrats. But to each their own.
I guess you didn't read the links.
Generally I agree with you on the State's Right issue. But Libertarians and their platform are also against STATE laws restricting drugs.
Again, that it's a states' rights issue. The Consitution of the US doesn't give the federal government the right to ban abortions. But again, I agree with you. Many libertarians are attracted to the party due to their support of abortions. Interestingly enough though, the libertarians would ban public spending (at least on a federal level) on abortions or birth control.
A very good case can be made that an unborn child is a person, entitled to Constitutional protection.
Equal rights for all. That's what the Constitution of the US is supposed to support. However, the "gay agenda" does attract some people who agree with it. But again, at least on a federal level, most libertarians believe that this is a states' rights issue (are you starting to see a pattern here?)
You are incorrect here. No clause in the Constitution, none whatsoever, supports the homosexual agenda and it's attempts to redefine marriage, family and society. The Equal Protection clause was never intended to mean radical eglitarianism.
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.
Actually, they favor "open borders," which would end the entire concept of "illegal immigration." Interestingly enough, both dems and pubbies seem to agree with this...
Tom Tancredo supports open borders? LOL!!
Whoa Hoss! i didn't post the rant. i was responding to it. You need to post to the right guy!
you are not allowed to use the constitution in debate here. it's considered cheating.