Posted on 11/11/2012 5:29:55 PM PST by Renfield
America is over $16 trillion in debt. The “official” unemployment rate still hovers around 8%.
Our federal government claims the right to spy on American citizens, indefinitely detain them, and even assassinate them without trial.
Domestic drones fly over the country for civilian surveillance.
Twelve million fewer Americans voted in 2012 than in 2008, yet political pundits scratch their heads.
It’s not hard to see why, though.
To go along with endorsing a never-ending policy of bailouts, “stimulus packages,” and foreign military adventurism, the establishment of neither major party questions the assaults on Americans’ liberties I’ve named above.
As my campaign showed, the American people are fed up. Many realized heading into Tuesday that regardless of who won the presidential election, the status quo would be the real victor.
GOP leadership is now questioning why they didn’t perform better.
They’re looking at demographic changes in the United States and implying minorities can only be brought into the party by loudly advocating for abandoning what little remains of their limited government platform and endorsing more statist policies.
My presidential campaign proved that standing for freedom brings people together.
Liberty is popular – regardless of race, religion, or creed.
As long as the GOP establishment continues to not only reject the liberty message, but actively drive away the young, diverse coalition that supports those principles, it will see results similar to Tuesday’s outcome.
A renewed respect for liberty is the only way forward for the Republican Party and for our country.
I urge all my Republican colleagues to join the liberty movement in fighting for a brighter future.
You didn’t explain anything.
Reagan last voted for a democrat president in 1948, the President he served under in WWII, which had just ended 3 years before, Reagan then became known for being conservative and campaigning for Eisenhower in 1952 and 1956, and Nixon in 1960, in time becoming a conservative icon, did that touch you and Mitt? Well it did affect Mitt, it drove him to leave the republican party.
Care to explain how voting for Truman in 1948 compares to Mitt voting democrat, fund raising as a democrat and supporting democrats in the 1990s?
You don’t think that different historical periods and political eras exist?
Romney did not start as an independent, he left the republican party to escape Reagan and conservatism.
Romney eventually became a supporter of the democrats and a fundraiser and voter.
Your devotion to the hard left rino even after the election, is bizarre, now we need to marginalize him and make sure that his liberal influence is diminished or eliminated in the GOP.
The election is over, now you are simply promoting liberalism.
Ron Paul is pro 2nd Amendment and anti regulation as it pertains to industry. He's closer to my side than Romney ever was.
How many states did Ron Paul carry in his flip flop Libertarian/Republican presidential runs?
How many states did Paul win? He’s in no position to tell anyone how to win elections.
These guys came in with both barrels blazing publicly stating they were only going to fund and support approved candidates.
Contributions dropped to nearly zero but they're still there. They are totally dysfunctional.
>>Unlike Goode and Regan, Romney never transitioned to a conservative stance.
>
>Are you anticipating with glee Obama’s next attack on the 2nd Amendment and more restrictions on the oil and gas industry?
Who are you to question me on 2nd Amendment (and similar) stances? — I’d almost be willing to bet actual money I’ve done more on the subject of the right to keep and bear arms than you.
You and your ilk have been the "people" stupidly claiming there was no difference between Obama and Romney, Democrat and Republican.
I’d almost be willing to bet actual money I’ve done more on the subject of the right to keep and bear arms than you.
How much? You'll have to do better than how the 2nd Amendment is honored in Alaska.
>> I’d almost be willing to bet actual money I’ve done more on the subject of the right to keep and bear arms than you.
>
>How much? You’ll have to do better than how the 2nd Amendment is honored in Alaska.
Which means you, personally, haven’t done much, if anything.
Here’s something I have done: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2874833/posts?page=19#19
Yeah, it’s just a little thing, but I did it.
>>Who are you to question me on 2nd Amendment (and similar) stances?
>
>You and your ilk have been the “people” stupidly claiming there was no difference between Obama and Romney, Democrat and Republican.
That’s because there isn’t much difference between Romney and Obama; both are socialists, statists, and untrustworthy.
As to the Republican party: when was the last time it (as a party) *actively* pursued its party planks?
There is a reason you are known as Paultards and Libtards. Let me know when your state allows any law-abiding adult to legally carry a handgun, whether openly or concealed. No special permit is required. However, Alaska issues handgun permits to its residents so that they can carry handguns into other states that recognize Alaska's laws.
That’s because there isn’t much difference between Romney and Obama;
I've already posted two major differences. Do you like the 16 trillion dollar deficit, high unemployment and restrictions on oil and gas development? Well you've got them, thanks to Obama, not Romney!
>>Which means you, personally, haven’t done much
>
>There is a reason you are known as Paultards and Libtards.
And? — If you’re an example of GOP conservatism I can say that your abrasive, insulting, and arrogant attitude is not doing much to win my to your point of view.
>Let me know when your state allows any law-abiding adult to legally carry a handgun, whether openly or concealed.
So, because the states I’ve been have their own problems, which I have challenged and only had very small success against — because of that you dismiss what I have actually done?
Also you completely missed my point: when the work is finished there’s nothing for you to do; when the job is yet to be don there are things to be done.
Let me break it down into simple terms: Romney is a liar -- his whole campaign was a lie, because he is a liar; he stands for nothing, period.
I'm not a Republican. Look, you can harp about Romney for eternity, but now we have to endure 4 more years of the worst POS POTUS in history.
So, because the states I’ve been have their own problems, which I have challenged and only had very small success against
You threw down the gauntlet, remember? I've worked for 2nd Amendment rights for decades and have seen increasing success over the years, no thanks to liberals!
when the work is finished there’s nothing for you to do
The fact is that our work is never finished. Because like illegals and muslimaniacs, liberals just keep coming at us.
You just can't let it go. You're obsessed with Romney and never once are you critical of the worst POS POTUS we've ever had. Like I stated previously; there is a reason you are known as Paultards and libtards.
Whether they are irreligious or religious, their position is that of governmental minimalism. Christian nations such as the United States pre-1933 can follow governmental minimalism. Other nations styling themselves as Christian, such as Calvin's Geneva, England under Elizabeth I and Cromwell, Spain during the Inquisition, etc., were tyrannies with secret police, star chamber proceedings, and suppression of religious dissidents, including theft of their land, slavery, and mass murder.
If you want to talk about policy matters, most people who are styled conservatives today oppose abolishing the welfare state, restoring the gold standard, and eliminating Federal police agencies. As stated earlier, most modern conservatives are closer to New Deal/Great Society policies than to those of Harding and Coolidge. At most, they oppose further expansion of the welfare state, e.g. Obamacare.
Why do you assume that the lack of government will result in depravity?
It has been my experience that too much government leads to depravity under the color of law. We have more laws than ever, and more corruption than ever.
Individuals would be free to pray in the schools they pay for, to hire whomever they choose (to keep depravity out of their workforce), etc.
LIBERTY comes with responsibility, and substituting law for individual responsibility and accountability only works with honest and moral people. The law has only become a device to enforce corruption, especially when the Government ignores it.
Power corrupts, and the State has far too much power.YMMV
“Why do you assume that the lack of government will result in depravity?”
I don’t “assume” anything. I know it to be fact. Anarchy has ALWAYS lead to depravity and worse. Even a “corrupt” government is better than no government.
Hey, the argument here is about the role of government. I think (know actually) that it is right and proper for government to regulate behavior (AKA morality) to maintain order and restrain depravity. The more immoral a people are, the more the goverment needs to regulate behavior.
I believe you are mistating what one of the founder’s stated. He, can’t remember who, stated that the limited government being established in America was ONLY suitable for a moral people. The reason being that “moral” people were self governing and required no restraints on most of them.
Sadly, this is NOT the case today. Removing restraints on behavior as the Libertarians (yes they are LIBERTINES)want will only add to the depravity of our culture.
It will NEVER be possible to have a society where “everyman does what is right in his own eyes.”
Freedom? Mine has been consistently disappearing throughout my lifetime, and I'm a great-grandpa six times over.
Whether through the major intrusions of the Federal Government, environmental regulations which say where and when I can cut a tree down, or the proliferation of agencies and regulations to mind my business ad infinitum, my freedom has been stripped, one thin shred at a time for "the public good", to "make us safe", and to fight a wide variety of boogeymen.
It isn't that I'm crossing borders illegally, poisoning rivers, or destroying America's youth with depravity or chemical dependence, but the measures to fight those things (generally ineffectively) impact my day-to-day life in ways perhaps unintended by the authors of the legislation.
Why do I say "perhaps unintended"?
Because government is FORCE. It is CONTROL, and the more government you have, the more CONTROL--yet the measures, the laws against the things the additional laws and agencies were supposed to control were there, and were adequate to address the situation without infringing on my fundamental Rights long ago, so the only impact increasing the power of Government has had is to infringe my Rights and gather more power to government(--at the expense of Our Liberty--for only those who are upright care what the law is, thieves, brigands, and others do not).
For example, The Rivers and Harbors Act of 1898 not only provided for the punishment of those polluting, the person who brought the charges was entitled to half of the fine.
If you fouled you water or your fields, you got sick or died for your troubles.
Keep in mind that I write from the perspective of someone whose ancestors were here long before there was a United States, when people suffered the natural consequences of their actions: Be slothful and starve, rob/rape your neighbors and get killed for it, abuse your family and live with their undying enmity and no 'social safety net' to mollycoddle you--ever.
You reaped what you had sowed.
I'd gladly take that over being dragged down by swarms of Lilliputian pencil-necks whose entire raison d'etre is to further their power at the expense of the productive by regulating obscure minutiae.
Yet there are those who, even now, see the monster from a different view. They suckle and nurture at the teats of the beast that devours the rest of us to provide their sustenance. And those whelps are voting on who is for dinner.
When there is nothing left, that wolf will consume its own get to survive, but for now, they grow fat at our expense.
Note that all the problems these agencies and laws were supposed to solve are still there.
Many problems are worse, and the opportunity for corruption only increases with the number of edicts and prohibitions and the scope thereof.
Every solution proffered diminishes our Liberty, but does nothing to solve the problem.
We have known there was an Illegal Immigration problem since Eisenhower had "Operation Wetback", and yet we have done nothing effective at the Federal Level since to stop it in over half a century.
We fund and provide incentive for the violation of our border by making the contraband (other than humans) which comes across valuable by prohibiting it.
(The humans we give food, housing, and medical care rivalling that of our citizens.) We've had laws controlling drugs since Prohibition, and the problem has only grown.
We even provide housing, EBT cards, and 'disability' payments for the addicted.
Stupid is as stupid does.
Keep pushing that button, maybe the results will be different next time.
The GOP pulled some crap at the convention here, and when a slate which reflected the vote was proposed, they cut the power to the mikes and railroaded a committed Romney slate through.
Not another dime to those crooks.
Like removing prayer form the public schools? Like mandating that someone cannot be fired because they are homosexual? That kind of Government?
Anarchy is self-limiting. No one proposes anarchy, rather a return of the Federal Government to within the bounds of Original Constitutional Intent, which would eliminate over half of the agencies therein overnight. And it certainly wouldn't extend to the Government the right to regulate how many gallons per flush or what kind of light bulbs I can buy--which makes us all more moral, How?.
Statist.
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.