Posted on 01/25/2013 8:05:16 AM PST by The_Freemason
I was a Libertarian pre 1980. Ronald Reagan pulled me over. 1992 when many Libertarins ran on the Rebublican ticket and won was a great time. The Gingrich “Contract with America” was a very hopeful time. Libertarians running on their party ticket generally pull about 2%.
I know a Libertarian that has won at the county level here. He ran for state senate this past election and lost. I have had many discussions with him regarding running as a Republican and taking the party over from within. He believes that would not be principled. I guess, as many Libertarians believe, that everyone will see the light at some point and they will become viable in elections. It’s a shame, because I think many of the constitutioal beliefs of the Libertarians are valid. Some are just nutty. Leagalizing drugs is just insane. Who pays for their care when they over dose? Libertarians say that you have to be self accountable. Great concept. Let someone ingest what they want. A drug user is not known for being self accountable. I don’t think they’ll buy their own medical insurance. Do we leave them on the steps of a hospital to die? Same with homosexuality. When they develope HIV or AIDS who pays? In a perfect Libertarian world they would have to pay higher premiums for their “lifestyle choice.” But in reality they want everyone else to share in the cost through premiums. If this was legislated, wouldn’t that be coercing morality?
Just my rambling thoughts.
When I first moved to Texas, the place was run by Democrats, so I registered as a Republican. I don’t send any money to the GOP, I donate to individual conservative candidates. Sometimes that works out well (as in Ted Cruz) and sometimes it doesn’t (as in Sharon Angle).
The important thing right now is to stop the juggernaut.
when was the last time we had “Republican control” - and by that, I mean President, the House, and filibuster proof Senate?
Answer: not in your lifetime.
As I said, the problem with this is the entire retarded notion of “control”
“If you find any conspiracy theory about us, the roots are almost always a libertarian leaning site or writer.”
There were libertarians back in 19th century America during the anti-Masonry craze? Or controlling the papacy back in the 18th century when they started issuing encyclicals against Freemasonry?
“Maybe if more “conservatives” would stop worrying about what I ingest, who I marry and the like”
He’s part of the juggernaut.
I asked him if he supported homosexual marriage and legalizing drugs, his response was “yep”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2981786/posts?page=44#44
He also claims that pushing such on society is embracing freedom.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2981786/posts?page=43#43
The problem is that many things that some define as ‘moral’ issues aren’t.
Abortion, for example isn’t a moral issue. It is an issue of personal liberty and the very right of existence. It is an issue if someone has the right to take a life without due process.
Marriage (where I believe we have the worst arguments on the case) is an issue of standardized legal definitions that make up laws and contracts. (and is authorized by Congress to define under ‘weights and measures’ in Article 1, Section 8). It is necessary to have standard legal definitions within our system in the same way that measures are standardized. We don’t just change what a mile is on a whim because someone doesn’t like it. The legal definition of marriage spans cultures, nations, religions and history.
Drugs are more complex. I’ll leave the ‘pot’ issue off the table, but if you look at the history of things like Cocaine, especially when the drug war really took off, it really was a war against the US by third world Communist hell holes dumping this into our streets as an indirect attack. Most of the hard drugs came from these commie hell holes. If they were dumping arsenic in our water, we wouldn’t question the strategic issue but because some enjoyed getting high, it was turned into a ‘moral’ issue....
...the list goes on and on...
Our side has failed because we too often frame political arguments around ‘God said so’ which may mean something to us but doesn’t mean a thing to someone without the same belief system. The ‘moral’ issues need to be stripped down to their raw, legal basis.
Your processor has blown a gasket, as you have no idea my point. Do you want to compare credibility on Bush bringing us Obama? REally? Read and learn:
From Jan 2009:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/01/bushs_legacy_none_of_the_above_1.html
From election night 2008:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/11/gop_defeat_and_the_new_tone.html
And soon to be released:
www.gone2012book.com
Next?
The problem is that many things that some define as ‘moral’ issues aren’t.
Abortion, for example isn’t a moral issue. It is an issue of personal liberty and the very right of existence. It is an issue if someone has the right to take a life without due process.
Marriage (where I believe we have the worst arguments on the case) is an issue of standardized legal definitions that make up laws and contracts. (and is authorized by Congress to define under ‘weights and measures’ in Article 1, Section 8). It is necessary to have standard legal definitions within our system in the same way that measures are standardized. We don’t just change what a mile is on a whim because someone doesn’t like it. The legal definition of marriage spans cultures, nations, religions and history.
Drugs are more complex. I’ll leave the ‘pot’ issue off the table, but if you look at the history of things like Cocaine, especially when the drug war really took off, it really was a war against the US by third world Communist hell holes dumping this into our streets as an indirect attack. Most of the hard drugs came from these commie hell holes. If they were dumping arsenic in our water, we wouldn’t question the strategic issue but because some enjoyed getting high, it was turned into a ‘moral’ issue....
...the list goes on and on...
Our side has failed because we too often frame political arguments around ‘God said so’ which may mean something to us but doesn’t mean a thing to someone without the same belief system. The ‘moral’ issues need to be stripped down to their raw, legal basis.
You actually posed two separate questions. The first — why do conservatives equate the GOP with their ideology? Answer: many don’t anymore. Those who do probably do so out of inertia or the GOP’s conservatism relative to the Socialists.
The second — why don’t conservatives abandon their social agenda and focus on smaller government and fiscal issues — is a lot like asking why water insists on staying wet. Social and fiscal/political/cultural conservatism are inseperable. All moral decisions have cultural and political repercussions. Forsaking the one undermines the other and renders both nothing more than soulless parlor exercises.
I’ll stay with doctrinaire conservatism, thank you, not some eviscerated shell of political convenience.
Now I will be polite and have a look at your links, but anyone that does not realize that Bush is responsible for the election of Obama has a serious creditability problem with me.
Are you obtuse? My point is, I HAVE BEEN WAY WAY WAY AHEAD OF YOU in saying JUST THAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And I am finishing up a 120 thousand word book ABOUT JUST THAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! But who the hell are you waiting for to "apologize" on behalf of the GOP????????????????????????????????????????? That's an asinine concept. What do you think the TEA PARTY IS??????????????????????????????????????????????? DUH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You are no doubt a Beck koolaider.....wainting for this phony false unreal never definable “come to Jesus moment” and too blind to see that millions and millions of Republicans are coming to Jesus all over the place around you. OPEN EYES! But if you’re waiting for the RNC to officially issue a memo apologizing for Bush, let me sell you some ocean front property.....
Missing thepoint of this thread.
Freemason posted this to stir up crap.
From his “article” he said:
“Maybe if more “conservatives” would stop worrying about what I ingest, who I marry”
I asked him if he supposrted homosexual marriage and legalized drugs.
He said “Yes”.
This is a troll thread.
Guess who hates morals and values.Caution unicorn stamped ahead.
“yep”
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Wow!
I do believe you just posted the shortest opus ever.
IATZ
Another Paulbot crying in his beer.
Started off pretty good but the conclusion is not correct. Liberal and Conservative aren't badly defined but the link with libertarianism is stretched too far.
It's true that the fundamental "desires" are/were mostly the same but ignores the need for the fundamental cohesiveness necessary to make society work. In the USA, even when it was at war with itself, that cohesion came from shared Judeo-Christian principles.
No matter how often a libertarian may attend church services, today's Big L practitioners seem to have given up those principles in favor of mere license (disclaimer: I'm not a big churchgoer).
Maybe your screen name provides you with insulation from that license and, surely, there is a fundamental agreement in individual rights and limited government, but don't let it run away with you.
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.