Posted on 02/09/2013 2:39:36 PM PST by JohnPDuncan
RON PAUL, Republican of Texas, has retired from the House, after winning more than two million presidential primary votes in 2012. He took the party’s libertarian wing from ignorable fringe to significant faction. His son, Senator Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky, is angling to lead that faction, very possibly as a presidential candidate himself.
The libertarian wing’s dissatisfaction with Mitt Romney led the Libertarian Party to earn 1.2 million votes in the presidential election for its candidate, the former New Mexico governor (and former Republican) Gary Johnson. That was its largest vote total ever. In at least seven national House and Senate races a Libertarian beat the spread between a winning Democrat and a losing Republican. From the Republican point of view, losing the libertarians can mean losing elections.
“There’s a whole swath of people not getting adequate attention from Republicans or Democrats,” Senator Paul told me recently. These are independent voters who want to seriously cut government spending the way the Tea Party faction does but who also want a “foreign policy more of defense and less offense,” as Senator Paul put it, and a “more socially tolerant attitude.”
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Oh, well!!! Looks like it's back to smoking dope, and molesting the neighbors' livestock.
Both Ron and Rand Paul support Life at Conception Act, indeed Ron was the author and was pushing it when the GOP had control of all the branches of the Federal Government. It would have taken the Supreme Courts authority in cases of abortion away and nullified Roe v. Wade but they weren’t interested
Fake conservative = Libertarian
Again you lie.
____________________________________________________
Abortion laws should be a state-level choice
It is now widely accepted that there’s a constitutional right to abort a human fetus. Of course, the Constitution says nothing about abortion, murder, manslaughter, or any other acts of violence. Criminal and civil laws were deliberately left to the states.
I consider it a state-level responsibility to restrain violence against any human being. I disagree with the nationalization of the issue and reject the Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion in all 50 states. Legislation that I have proposed would limit fe4deral court jurisdiction of abortion, and allow state prohibition of abortion on demand as well as in all trimesters. It will not stop all abortions. Only a truly moral society can do that.
The pro-life opponents to my approach are less respectful of the rule of law and the Constitution. Instead of admitting that my position allows the states to minimize or ban abortions, they claim that my position supports the legalization of abortion by the states. This is twisted logic.
Source: Liberty Defined, by Rep. Ron Paul, p. 2&6-7 , Apr 19, 2011
http://www.ontheissues.org/2012/Ron_Paul_Abortion.htm
Maybe so. Taking back the GOP, IMHO, is akin to restoring the iron cross to its former glory.
Of course I understand the hurdles places on any 3rd party; as much as I understand that the same people exempted themselves from O’Care (yet another stand those in Congress could be making but haven’t).
Why would you believe that when the GOP could, it didn’t, but ‘may’ THIS time?? How many ‘kick me’ signs before you finally realize plantation is alive and well, just change the name-tag?
That church is analogous to the GOP. They have their flock whom continue to follow the leadership, no matter how far outta skew from the teachings of the Bible.
How much easier it is to cast a blind eye than to strike out on ones principles to find another church/party that DOES follow the straight and narrow, let alone vocally denounce to everyone else how far they have strayed.
No. The old saying of ‘What is insanity’ still fits. In no way do I think all (L) of the same mold. Hell, I myself have a few qualms on their platform, but they have, at least to me, not only followed that platform but walked the walk when/where they have won. The GOP, you so wish to rebuild, does not even give the platitudes any longer.
What do you disagree with? Why do you want to tell MA what to do and if would you want MA telling your state to legalize gay marriage?
Even as I have some qualms about the (L) platform/ideals....this is one.
A Person is a person and under the protection of their Creator given Rights of Life and Liberty. It is NOT a State issue, nor a Federal one. IMHO, they’ve done a great disservice in not bringing cases to the court using the science of today. Is not a fetus/child/baby/whatever-you-want-to-call-it not unique in its DNA? Hence, it is NOT the woman’s’ ‘choice’ to terminate, in as much as she can be prosecuted for using drugs and/or alcohol while carrying. One too can be prosecuted for killing the child in-womb (double murder). Why these inconsistencies? Either the Law is just or it is invalid and vague.
Unfortunately, there are those in the GOP camp that would still use these single discrepancies to write-off the (L) party while Rome burns. Instead, they should be putting aside their prejudices and note the wide-swath of ideals we all can agree upon. Much as their own superior moral outrages thinks that ‘a vote for anyone but the GOP is a vote for XYZ’, instead of realizing that votes are earned.
A Palin/Rand Paul ticket would really shake things up. Conservative and libertarian cred.
Libertarian Party members have a Big Tent full of ideas.
Their ideas on Drugs, Sex and other topics that are more about civil morality than civil Government will place past and future Libertarian Candidates in a small niche’ voting block.
Their ideas on money and the size of the Federal Government are currently their strong suits.
The 2012 Romney election was the last straw for those of us middle of the road Republicans that want the following:
NO National Debt, a balanced Federal Budget every year;
NO Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare and Obama”care;”
NO aid to Dependent Children, Federal Disabilities for non-Federal workers;
NO Federal Aid to Schools;
NO department of Education, National Labor Relations Board;
NO Federal Housing Authority, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae;
NO Federal loans to Private Businesses;
NO Progressive Personal Income Tax System;
and NO Income tax on Interest and dividends.
This should decrease the size of the damned US Federal Government by about 40 % in 10 years.
To achieve this wonderful goal in 10 years would require an across the board cut of 40 % in year to year spending to ALL of the above Federal Welfare Programs EVERY YEAR for consecutive 10 Years.
If our sorry Federal Politicians do not do this soon, the World Bond Market will do it for them VERY soon.
If future Libertarians can reject the permissive planks on Drugs, Sex and other moral quagmires then then would have more appeal to us middle of the road Republicans, as defined above.
No offense, but let me get this straight:
If not for the 3 ‘planks’ noted, the Fedzilla has NO business being in in the first place, you’d be voting more in line of the (L) party?
Instead, you’ve held your nose for a guy only a SMIDGEN less revolting than the current occupant as he’s: placed DEMs in positions of gov’t over GOP, assaulted numerous Amendments of the Constitution (gun ban, Romneycare, etc.)???
So you took the platitudes and promises of a known lying liberal N.E. politician, with which you may only HAVE ~3 things in COMMON with, over (a) party/parties that can articulate the Constitution and what Freedom and Liberty mean to us all??
And the (L) are the dopers?
What are the Libertarian “ideas on sex” that you have a problem with?
40 % of the money that the damned US Federal Government spends every day has to be borrowed.
42 % of the money that the damned US Federal Government spends every day is spent on the Federal Welfare Programs that I listed.
Without the damned US Federal Government Welfare State the US Federal Government would be a middle of the road Government.
Liberal, Libertarians and Left-Wing Republicans love to distract attention to the money they waste on Welfare by bringing up hot-buttion moral issues which have NOTHING to do with running a financially responsible Government.
My point was that if a Libertarian wants to solve the Federal Finance Mess, then they had better focus on that and not some tar-baby moral issue.
Marriage extends far beyond States Rights. Traditional marriage has always been a national concern. Welfare, taxes, laws and so much more depend on FedGov upholding the sanctity of marriage.
Why is that a problem for you? Do you support fag marriages in Massachusetts? I don’t. I would deny them that right to screw over federal laws - which affects me here in Texas - so two lezzies can marry.
Same with abortion. It should not be left up to the states.
Unfortunately, there are those in the GOP camp that would still use these single discrepancies to write-off the (L) party while Rome burns. Instead, they should be putting aside their prejudices and note the wide-swath of ideals we all can agree upon. Much as their own superior moral outrages thinks that ‘a vote for anyone but the GOP is a vote for XYZ’, instead of realizing that votes are earned.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What you’re talking about is compromising and settling. And guess what? We’ve tried that. It doesn’t work. The GOP tried running RINO’s like McCain and Mittens. And you want us to go even further left and hold hands with libertarians?
No bleeping way. We’ll let Rome burn first. Then - we’ll start over and try Social Conservatism. It’s the only thing that will rebuild America after the libs trash it to death.
And what if the Senators from MA want to define marriage in YOUR state between men, or indeed between a man and a dog? do you not see how stupid it is to allow the US Senate and the Federal government to define marriage considering the Democrats have 55 votes?
Mittens and McCain vote for big government programs and are not acceptable to any self-respecting libertarian, that’s why they won’t vote for them and that’s why they lost by a few million votes and Obama won.
WTF are you talking about? How is that in ANY way a problem with the (L) and like parties??
Let’s say we all kept the moral-issue(s) out of the discussion; something I myself have postulated in the past and got berate on this forum. There are still those of your party that will fight for big-gov’t as it’s ‘their’ big-gov’t guy pushing Fascism (IE: SS/Medicare/etc.), as if we’ve all ‘paid’ into something other than political pipe-dreams.
Tell me, when has the gov’t EVER been financially responsible?? Those two are mutually exclusive, they are as removed from the source of those funds as one can get. Why should they care? Nothing happens to them when their plans/etc go awry. In fact, they use the failure to double-down, confiscate more $$ and continue the cycle.
Even w/out the Welfare State, the Fed is still an overbearing, nosy, intrusive Unconstitutional mess. The (L) has the easiest, most concise ‘answer’ to even this GOP ‘conundrum’....wipe it from the books as it does fall into A1S8.
What has the GOP done? Bent over, handed over and waved the white flag. But it’s the (L) whom are the problem somehow? Think you should put down the peace-pipe myself.
You’ve taken that and turned it 180. There was a CHORUS of ‘conservative’ voices on this forum screaming “Vote for Mitt or we’re all DOOMED”. THAT is one whom is compromising and settling. Yet, somehow, voting Mitt was to be an automatic since he was the selected on the GOP side; let alone the 2nd coming (SOMEHOW) of the Conservative movement. It was the rest of us, even those that stayed home, and said HELL NO. Again, my vote is EARNED, not given just because of some party label.
I’ve still yet to understand how adhering to the Constitution is some-how Left leaning; but supporting SS/Medicare (since, somehow, one ‘paid’ into some promise) is more in line with the same document?! Or well-meaning, busy-body moralists imposing their beliefs on others as Freedom/Liberty. Talk about rectal-cranium inversion!
I too will let Rome burn, as it hasn’t been the (L) or others of their type, whom helped kindle and strike the first flame. Hell, you guys can’t even un-box yourselves, verbally, from the Social Conservatism camp you’ve been put INTO (War on Women, etc.).
Your articulation, or lack thereof, of your platform and beliefs is so great, you share the same stage with us ‘fringe (L)’ as ever before....but think yourselves so superior you can’t see the forest for the trees when an ally offer their hand.
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.