Naw... They stand out...
Posted on 08/09/2009 12:44:19 AM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist
WASHINGTON - America's third largets party Friday called on Democrats to end what appears to be a budding campaign of union violence targeted at citizens who dissent with the White House at town hall meetings across the country. Libertarians oppose not only the White Houses's plan for government-run medicine, but the use of violence to achieve polirtical or social goals.
(Excerpt) Read more at smallgovtimes.com ...
You made the assertion that Libertarians primary means of exposure is via attacking conservatives. Where in this threads lead article does it say a conservative was attacked?
Are you still having trouble with this concept? Or do you always pull a thread hijack on your first post?
You are a Theocrat.
You do realize that religious freedom is a Founding plank of our Republic don't you? That a "freedom to worship only as I say you must worship and live your life only by MY religions edicts" is no freedom at all...
“My apologies, that “24k” stood for 24-karat. As in gold plated”
LOL! I knew that, but it seems more like 24000 RINOS.
“I wonder if we could trick Pelosi’s Union goons into going after our herd of RINO’s..”
That would be a neat trick, but the RINO’s are hiding
all over the country. It would be akin to an Easter egg hunt.
Naw... They stand out...
Lindsay Graham??
Which conservatives did I say were attacked in this article?
If you find one let me know.
Take your time, we'll wait.....
...and wait...
Libertarians generally attack liberals, not conservatives, as liberals promote what is essentially antithetical to libertarians. I don’t see libertarians attacking “Ronald Reagan’ conservatives, although they go after RINO’s, of which there is an ample supply.
Your definitions of libertarian and Christian are quite narrow and exclusionary. I'll give you that most libertarians believe that the state should stay out of the bedroom and the medicine cabinet, but to suggest that unless one favors such government intrusion one is not Christian is absurd.
For a party that is so insignificant, you sure have a problem with them.
Wow, very deep stuff that. A conservative on pro-life FR that finds the most pro abortion, most pro homosexual, most ridiculously pro immigration party in existence distasteful, shocking stuff eh.
You didn’t read post 49 where I showed the current, the 2004 and the 1990 versions to show no real change only an effort to make it less clear because of the current anti-immigration heat right now, you missed post 62 as well.
The new version is an attempted cover for the truth, here it is. This is as far as they will go even in these times, the 2004 platform is the longer version of their true goals although they say the same thing in this short version.
2009 party platform (shortened to conceal)
3.4 Free Trade and Migration
We support the removal of governmental impediments to free trade. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders. However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a threat to security, health or property.
2004 Libertarian Party Platform Immigration:
Immigration
The Issue: We welcome all refugees to our country and condemn the efforts of U.S. officials to create a new “Berlin Wall” which would keep them captive. We condemn the U.S. government’s policy of barring those refugees from our country and preventing Americans from assisting their passage to help them escape tyranny or improve their economic prospects.
The Principle: We hold that human rights should not be denied or abridged on the basis of nationality. Undocumented non-citizens should not be denied the fundamental freedom to labor and to move about unmolested. Furthermore, immigration must not be restricted for reasons of race, religion, political creed, age or sexual preference. We oppose government welfare and resettlement payments to non-citizens just as we oppose government welfare payments to all other persons.
Solutions: We condemn massive roundups of Hispanic Americans and others by the federal government in its hunt for individuals not possessing required government documents. We strongly oppose all measures that punish employers who hire undocumented workers. Such measures repress free enterprise, harass workers, and systematically discourage employers from hiring Hispanics.
Transitional Action: We call for the elimination of all restrictions on immigration, the abolition of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Border Patrol, and a declaration of full amnesty for all people who have entered the country illegally.
1990 Libertarian Party Platform:
17. IMMIGRATION
We hold that human rights should not be denied or abridged on the basis of nationality. We condemn massive roundups of Hispanic Americans and others by the federal government in its hunt for individuals not possessing required government documents. We strongly oppose all measures that punish employers who hire undocumented workers. Such measures repress free enterprise, harass workers, and systematically discourage employers from hiring Hispanics.
Undocumented non-citizens should not be denied the fundamental freedom to labor and to move about unmolested. Furthermore, immigration must not be restricted for reasons of race, religion, political creed, age, or sexual preference.
We therefore call for the elimination of all restrictions on immigration, the abolition of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Border Patrol, and a declaration of full amnesty for all people who have entered the country illegally. We oppose government welfare payments to non-citizens just as we oppose government welfare payments to all other persons.
Because we support the right of workers to cross borders without harassment, we oppose all government-mandated “temporary worker” plans. Specifically, we condemn attempts to revive the Bracero Program as government imposition of second-class status on Mexican-born workers.
We welcome all refugees to our shores and condemn the efforts of U.S. officials to create a new “Berlin Wall” which would keep them captive. We condemn the U.S. government’s policy of barring those refugees from our shores and preventing Americans from assisting their passage to help them escape tyranny or improve their economic prospects.
Lather.. Rinse.. Repeat.
Still, there is almost nothing "liberty" related to todays "liberals". NOTHING. Not even drugs or free speech. They are pure socialists and the proven enemies of humanity and human rights.
“Your definitions of libertarian and Christian are quite narrow and exclusionary.”
You say that as though Our Lord did not say, “Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat. How narrow is the gate, and strait is the way that leadeth to life: and few there are that find it!”
“I’ll give you that most libertarians believe that the state should stay out of the bedroom”
No, actually, that’s not true. Not that they don’t want to keep “the state” out of the bedroom; they just never stop there.
That “bedroom” crap is a smokescreen. They *claim* to be worried about “the state in the bedroom,” but after decades of that smokescreen we find that they demand complete legalization and enthusiastic endorsement of whatever vice they practice. Many, and especially libtards, laughed at those who foresaw indoctrination of elementary school students by sodomites, but that’s right where we are now. The question is not whether some boogeyman is going to crash into your bedroom; the question is whether you want to live in a society that celebrates vice, or one that deplores it.
“and the medicine cabinet”
Ditto here. Holland’s experiment with the legalization of marijuana is not working out well, you know. WRT narcotics, there are many elements in addiction. One of those is opportunity. The more people who have the opportunity to become addicted, the more will actually become addicted.
“but to suggest that unless one favors such government intrusion one is not Christian is absurd.”
That is *so* dishonest. You’ve created a false dichotomy: complete legalization or nightmare state with government agents “in the bedroom.”
That is not the choice that faces us.
If you don’t deplore and reject those things that the Christian faith says should be deplored, then you are not practicing the Christian faith. If you do not want to save both yourself and your neighbor from the glamour of evil, then you are not practicing the Christian faith. If you do not think it is best to live in a society that institutionalizes its rejection of those things, then you do not understand and accept the Christian faith.
And none of that requires bedroom police that listen at every keyhole. As Thomas Jefferson said, “When (the moral sense) is wanting, we endeavor to supply the defect by education (and religion). These correctives supplied by the moralist, the preacher and legislator lead into a course of correction of those whose depravity is not too profound to be eradicated.”
You can’t just pick and choose those elements of Christianity that appeal to you. It’s a seamless garment; an all-or-nothing package. And a libertarian who does not seek to protect the legal status of vice (as defined by the Christian faith) is not a libertarian, but a conservative.
“You are a Theocrat.”
So, you’ve decided to drop all pretense of rational argument, and just go nutty with the mudslinging.
“freedom to worship only as I say you must worship and live your life only by MY religions edicts” is no freedom at all.”
Well, then, I guess you’d have us legalize human sacrifice.
“Libertarianism is predicated as the Individual as supreme arbiter of their life, Socialism that life is subservient to the State.”
Good grief. You make my point and then repeat that I’m lying.
Both libertarianism and socialism hold that *man* is the supreme arbiter of human life. The fact that one holds that each individual is god, while the other holds that some arbitrary quorum of individuals is god, is a distinction without a difference.
“As for God... my God thinks your God should stick to impressing his desert rats in the Middle East and leave the rest of us alone. Where does that leave you?”
Shaking my head at the futility of trying to discuss an issue with a person who knows nothing of the subject, and wrinkling my nose at the odor of leftism.
You were the one that brought scripture into the picture to try and justify handing our utterly corrupt government Nanny State powers.
If that isn't "sacrificing" the rest of us to your own personal dislikes, I don't know what is...
Fine. Go for it. Libertarians are perfectly ok with you having your faith. A Socialist wouldn't be.
You have more in common with them for this reason. The individual must give up themselves because YOU say so. God may have laid down the Law, but MEN like you are the ones that pervert the execution of those laws.
FRiend,
I highlighted the above passage from your last post because I believe that it leads us to the crux of the matter. In your version of Christianity, I must accept A, B and C in order to be worthy of being considered D (Christian). But there is evidently no room for me at the inn, since while I wholeheartedly accept A and B, I have a somewhat different perspective on C.
It's interesting that you use the word "institutionalize". Such a mellow word to describe the damage that the state does when prosecuting vice. I have some perspective on this as I was once a participant in the "drug war".
As a young man, some forty or so years ago, I was arrested for possession of marijuana. I was found guilty (I was guilty) and at the tender age of nineteen I had a criminal record. That record has damaged my career. I have been passed over for at least one job because of it. I have also been denied a promotion because of it. I made a stupid mistake, no question, but the conviction by the state hurt me worse than any drugs ever did.
But, you might be thinking, the arrest surely taught me my lesson, right? It surely kept me from moving to harder drugs. Hardly. It pushed me further into the life. It hardened my "us versus them" mentality. Fortunately, my dear wife arrived on the scene shortly after this incident and straightened me out. Without using coercion too, I might add.
Sometimes, the drug war fallout is even more serious than my experience. Take, for example, a recent occurrence in my home town. A young man was selling marijuana from his home. He was reported to the police. Late one night the SWAT team came to his house. According to reports (and believed by the jury) he heard them pounding on his door and thought he was being robbed. He fired a pistol at the door. A young policeman was hit, and killed. The policeman left behind a young family. The young man who fired the gun is now spending his life in jail. Two lives are gone, and two families have been irreparably damaged. And all over a small amount of an intoxicating weed that people ingest voluntarily.
Now I would not deny that misusing drugs does damage, and that undoubtedly other lives have been helped by the "institutionalized" rejection of this vice. And I would not condemn someone with the perspective that the drug war is an overall positive state program. I certainly would not condemn such a view as non Christian, just mistaken.
But this is where you and I differ. Whereas I would suggest that two Christians could have different perspectives on this matter of the drug war - whether it should be continued or dropped - you, on the other hand, condemn me for my perspective, going so far as to question my belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ. In your mind it is evidently not possible that I am simply mistaken. I am simply not a Christian.
I will leave you with one final thought, my FRiend. I direct your attention to my tag line. This wonderful quote from one of our founding fathers can be interpreted in (at least) two ways. The first, and most obvious interpretation is that we humans, born ignorant, become more the wise the more we displace our ignorance with facts.
The second interpretation, and what I believe Benjamin Franklin to have been thinking when he penned this, is that it is the very realization of our own natural state of ignorance that leads us to wisdom. For it is this realization that causes us to continually question our "facts". I use this quote as my tag line as a constant reminder to myself that no matter how sure I am of my position, I do need to approach every problem with what the Zen masters call "beginner's mind". The possibility that my facts may simply be wrong.
God only knows whether you are correct, that A, B and C are required in order to be considered D. God only knows. You don't. Consider that you just might be wrong. That's what a Christian would do.
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.