Posted on 04/13/2010 3:14:12 PM PDT by Maelstorm
Tell me about it. Carl Levin was trying to get highway funds to save Tiger Stadium and wanted to justify it by putting a bus station in it.
Federal money should have never gone for anything beyond the interstate highways. Now days federal highway money goes to states, counties, and townships and everybody is skimming off the top where they can.
Wealth redistribution. Those federal dollars did not just magically appear in the vault, as many seem to believe. They were taken from citizens and private enterprise at the point of the IRS's gun.
The Springs is home to a large number of Christian organizations, at one count IIRC it was 90 some. The largest, Focus on the Family employs thousands, acouple other big ones are HCJB and The Navigators.
Not much chance that the flavor of the community is going to change easily. The few witches are an oddity.
Trash collection was always by private collectors, fast, polite, cheap.
I’ve known for years that CS is a hub of conservatism for the State of CO. It goes without saying that our once great Christian nation, founded on the morals and economic policies of the word of God, has moved drastically in the other direction. So yes, we need to make changes and make changes now. However, if you look at the Libertarian Party platform, you’ll see that beside asinine things like wanting “open borders”, they want to “privatize” things that were never meant to be privatized. Can you imagine a privately run police dept.?
“Even a caveman would agree its a good idea.”
Unfortunately, the leftists in government, at all levels, have a sub-caveman mentality. This applies to many who call themselves ‘Republican’ also.
I guess this would make an interesting thread...what should local governments be required to provide?
Gosh, I've never heard such a creative response. Maligning my ...sob...screen name?!?! [Flutters eyelashes] Oh, Rhett, Rhett, whatever shall I do!?!?!
First of all LIE, don't put conservatives that believe in God in the same sentence with "rational atheist" Ayn Rand and her phony libertarian movement.
Okay, I'll reform that last sentence by substituting...um..."people like you"...and..."horses' asses."
Secondly, Everything from trash collection to streetlights to police coverage have been phased out in the quest to get closer to the free market model espoused by libertarians such as novelist Ayn Rand.
Actually, if you didn't spend so much time thinking a lot of yourself, you might actually read a bit, and stop trying so hard to make it out like Rand is some libertarian hero. There are a ton of big "L" libertarians and heck, Rand herself, oddly objecting to any association between her and the overall libertarian movement, which makes the connection between her and little "l" libertarians rather tenuous.
That said, and? So? You say it as if trash collection, streetlights, and police coverage are some sort of public birthright. That sort of inventive conservative thinking eventually led to so-called "abortion rights" and other legal travesties.
Oh, and you also say it as if that somehow addresses what I asked you. It doesn't. That I might want the smallest government (or, for that matter, the biggest, bestest, cutest li'l government ever!) has not thing one to do with the problem with your little 'lookit-the-hypocrites' question.
What's it going to be LIE, do you want to HAVE government services, or phase them out?
[salivating over the opportunity for turnabout] Can I take keep the asylums open for people like you, who 'answer' a question with a question--especially a question irrelevant to the initial discussion? See, my question was, and still is, unanswered. Since you posted it but haven't addressed it, here it is again, in all its glory:
So using a public property or services you pay taxes for makes you somehow an imperfect conservative/libertarian?
Do try to address it sometime, at your leisure. Note that I struck out the eeevil, naughty word that so offends your high-and-mightiness.
There are a ton of big "L" libertarians and heck, Rand herself, oddly objecting to any association between her and the overall libertarian movement, which makes the connection between her and little "l" libertarians rather tenuous.
Whether you're a big "L" or a little "l", libertarians all have one thing in common:
"Those who embrace libertarianism, believe that there is no ultimate authority to which men and their civil society must answer other than themselves and the words of their own constitutions and laws."
In other words, the laws of God are NOWHERE in the picture (and for those few that call themselves "Christian libertarians" or "Libertarian Christians", the force of government coercing moral behavior through laws and the punishment that follows is NEVER an option).
You say it as if trash collection, streetlights, and police coverage are some sort of public birthright. That sort of inventive conservative thinking eventually led to so-called "abortion rights" and other legal travesties.
Privatized police forces, something only a libertarian could conjure up. What next, privatizing the military? Government does has certain legitimate functions LIE (the enforcement of the law and punishing wrong-doers is a legitimate function). Cosnervative thinking led to abortion? And here I thought it was the libertarians that promoted the "It's MY body and I can do what I want with it" mentality.
So using a public property or services you pay taxes for makes you somehow an imperfect libertarian?
Libertarianism is "imperfect" by nature. Complaining about legitimate functions of government while continuing to use them only adds the big "H" word to your party platform: Hypocrite.
From your posts, it is clearly impossible in your mind, that one could advocate extremely limited government, and have an extreme concept of what freedom might entail, and still have conservative personal and moral beliefs. Used to be that religious conservatives knew better.
You simply can’t address my posts, just through out one asinine red herring after the other. Irrelevancy after irrelevancy. I tell you what—you try to figure out what this statement actually MEANS:
“So using a public property or services you pay taxes for makes you somehow an imperfect libertarian?”
And I’ll simply try to ignore you until you start comprehending simple English and posting responses instead of diatribes and asides. When I think of wastes of ‘valuable internet ink,’ further posting to you on this thread certainly leaps to mind.
From your posts, it is clearly impossible in your mind, that one could advocate extremely limited government, and have an extreme concept of what freedom might entail, and still have conservative personal and moral beliefs. Used to be that religious conservatives knew better.
Extremely limited government cannot be done without the laws of God. Libertarians fail to see that. They believe that they have sole domain over their bodies, and they can do whatever they wish with it as long as it doesn't DIRECTLY harm someone else (hence the asinine statement used by them "Your rights end where your fist meets my nose."). They constantly use the "victimless crime" phrase, failing to see that the individual, the family, and society in general are all "victims" of the ungodly behavior that they promote.
To repeat what I've said before regarding the following phrase:
“So using a public property or services you pay taxes for makes you somehow an imperfect libertarian?”
As long as libertarians (small l or big L) fail to see that God created the Universe and everything in it; and that man cannot truly be "free" without His guidance, then libertarianism will ALWAYS be "imperfect".
In ways, even, that mere humans may not comprehend. Hence the need for divine law to trump human law, if necessary.
Problems arise when deciding which divine law to follow, however.
It might help to answer that by seeing what remains after cutting away improper government functions.
Building sports stadiums, for example, seems an illegitimate government function to me.
Human laws IS (or at least WAS) based on the Divine laws of God. If man should legislate law WITHOUT His guidance, believe you me, it is "necessary" to rethink those laws of man's moral relativist mindset.
Problems arise when deciding which divine law to follow, however.
Returning to the 10 Commandments would be a good start.
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.