First the traitor...
Lindsey Ping
"Republican by day, Democrat by night."
Add me to the list. / Remove me from the list.
Now the hero...
 |
Gov. Mark Sanford Ping! |
Want on or off this ping list? Just FReepmail me.
Posted on 05/18/2009 6:22:58 PM PDT by rabscuttle385
(snip)
After the speech a volunteer from Paul’s Campaign for Liberty asked Gov. Mark Sanford (R-S.C.) about it, and he weighed in against Graham.
There was almost a pejorative comment a moment ago. Sen. Graham spoke and said “I’m not a libertarian,” whatever, whatever, as if that’s an evil word. Liberty is the hallmark of the American experiment … People say, you know, “Mark, you’re kind of libertarian,” you know, and they say it as if it’s an evil word, like you’re a communist or something. I’m like: Throw me in that briar patch … I’ve been accused of being a libertarian and I wear it as a badge of honor.
(snip)
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonindependent.com ...
Wittiest...response...EVER!
Grahamnesty just got served by a real conservative.
GO MARK SANFORD!!!
I’d call Sen. Graham a lot of things, but Libertarian isn’t one of them. He likes big government dressed up in free market clothes.
Grahamnesty is a liberal and a two-bit political man whore for McLame and 0bama...an utter and abject disgrace to the people of South Carolina.
Uh-oh....there goes Gov. Sanford’s chances for winning the 2012 GOP Presidential nomination!
Juan McCain? Yes they will!
Lindsey Graham? You betcha!
Mark Sanford? NEXT!!!!!!!
I really started to wonder about him when he rushed out to defend ‘poor’ Sen. Specter. Had not paid much attention to him beforehand, but he really shows himself as a strong contender for the next poster boy of what’s wrong with the Republican party.
I want the “limited” part put back into the meaning of government.
Mark Sanford should have run against Graham in the Republican primary last year.
Something is wrong because Sanford doesn’t seem to support much of this.
Libertarian Party Platform:
Throw open the borders completely; only a rare individual (terrorist, disease carrier etc.) can be kept from freedom of movement through “political borders”.
Homosexuals; total freedom in the military, gay marriage, adoption, child custody and everything else.
Abortion; zero restrictions or impediments.
Pornography; no restraint, no restrictions.
Drugs; Meth, Heroin, Crack, anything new that science can come up with, zero restrictions.
Advertising drugs, prostitution, pornography; zero restrictions.
Military Strength; minimal capabilities.
IMO there's a substantial difference between libertarianism (note the small "L") and the Libertarian Party. I'm all for the former. The latter might as well be promoting Anarchy.
The Libertarian party is just the libertarian party (or vice verse), that’s all. It is just a tiny little party with one platform, not big L platforms and little l platforms.
That's a bit disingenuous.
This is from the Libertarian Party's website listing its platform:
3.1 National DefenseWe support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression. The United States should both abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world and avoid entangling alliances. We oppose any form of compulsory national service.
This would be roughly equivalent to the Founding Father's wishes for our military.
I know many Republicans like to have the military out conquering and increasing empire but...
But people in SC disagree with us. Look how long they held on to the coattails of Thurmond and Hollings. Graham may outlive us all!
I think minimal capabilities is an adequate summary of that position, I personally think that it is overly generous.
There’s a difference between Libertarian and libertarian. Just like there’s a difference between Republican and republican.
I just saw Lindsay Graham on Fox. I hate the sight of that creep. He is all over TV lately posing as a conservative. In fact he is a sell out who carried the water for John McCain and George Bush on amnesty for illegal aliens.
Graham is hoping that South Carolina voters will forget that he called Americans who were against amnesty bigots. He said that in front of LaRaza, a Mexican open borders group. LaRaza is Spanish for “The race”. graham wanted their vote.
I have periodically called Grahams office and left messages. I assure him that while I do not live or vote in his state I will do everything I can to remind voters there of his treachery.
First the traitor...
Lindsey Ping
"Republican by day, Democrat by night."
Add me to the list. / Remove me from the list.
Now the hero...
|
Gov. Mark Sanford Ping! |
Ummm. No. Adequately defending the country includes offensive weaponry like nuclear subs and ICBMs. Just depends on what the threat is that’s out there.
Plus, you cherry pick the things that you disagree with from their platform- which is typical.
You didn’t highlight what you don’t like about their ideas on gun control for example, education or personal responsibility.
The thing is- I’m assuming (and I hope I’m not assuming incorrectly) that you’re not a libertarian (big L or small). So, why should their party platform be agreeable to you? I mean, I never get the animosity Republicans have for Libertarians. They’re not out to get you. They side with you more often than not. They have much more in common with you than democrats. But at the end of the day- you have your party: the GOP. You don’t like the Libertarian party, don’t vote for it.
I mean, we all know and are aware that the political right is a big mish-mash of groups- many of whom don’t have that much in common with each other. For my part- deity worshippers (christians) make my skin crawl. But I recognise that until something better comes along I’m stuck with having them on the same side, politically speaking, as I am. I also don’t like getting associated with the creationist nutjobs- but there you go, it is a necessary evil in order to keep the democrats at bay.
Getting back to the point about the military. Libertarians just don’t think the American military should be out there trying to be the world’s police. There is nothing evil, per se, about that position.
I realize that I’m probably wasting my time by responding to this, but I can’t let this go unchallenged.
Borders: You fail to mention that libertarians would end all forms of public welfare that many illegals might find attractive. If they’re not here to sponge off the system and we prevent diseased and potential terrorists immigrating, what would be the complaint against the rest?
Homosexuals: Most libertarians I know would kick things like marriage out of the hands of the state/fed and back into the private sector. Seriously, we need to get off of this whole gay thing. There are much bigger issues out there to be concerned about.
Abortion: Libertarians recognize that reasonable people can disagree on exactly when life begins. While I may believe it prudent to error on the side of caution and advocate conception, others may feel that life begins sometime later. Nobody wants to kill babies. What they do agree on is that abortion should be handled at more local level, like the state.
Pornography: Consenting adults should be free to engage or purchase porn if they so desire. It’s none of mine or your business.
Drugs: Again, consenting adults should be free to partake of a drugs like alcohol, cigarettes or dope. Libertarians would require them to take responsibility for their actions, intoxicated or not. The drug war is a complete failure.
Advertising: Are we anti-capitalists now? My guess is that any company who dared publish explicit sex acts in a public domain where children would be exposed to it, would undoubtedly incur the wrath of the citizenry.
Military: This is one of the few areas that libertarians believe the government should have a role in. They just don’t think we should be the global police force or nation building with our soldiers. When we are attacked or in imminent threat from attack, then we should open up a can of whoop a**. Libertarians are some of the most ardent advocate of self defense. What makes you think they don’t apply that on a national level?
The whole crux of libertarian philosophy boils down to maximizing individual liberty. They follow the non aggression principle which is akin to the golden rule. They believe people should be free to do as they will as long as they don’t use force or fraud in pursing it.
No there isn’t a difference, the party is not even 226,000 registered people, it is too small for the diversity of a real party that has tens of millions of members.
The real problem is that it is a fantasy myth, that is why all this big l small L childishness, it is a catch all where just about any one can live half of their personal political fantasy whether they are liberal or conservative.
Yeah, well I've never been too thrilled sharing the party with the godless heathens myself :D
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.