Posted on 05/06/2013 2:59:10 PM PDT by EveningStar
A battle within the Republican Party over same-sex marriage is unfolding on two fronts, in public, and behind the scenes. In the latter case, one of the most influential players is a billionaire hedge fund manager largely unknown to those who don’t work in finance or mix with political mega-donors.
That man is Paul E. Singer, who over the years has used his wealth to spur Republicans to support gay marriage laws. Now, Singer is expanding his reach with the creation of an advocacy group which aims to spend millions influencing the legislative debate over same-sex marriage across the country.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
It only means that if you have adopted the language of the left.
I call “pro-choice,” “pro-death.”
I call “diversity,” “no whites need apply.”
Etc.
You have permitted the liberals to define “libertarian” ideals of our founders as meaning “libertine.” It doesn’t mean that, and never has.
Words have power. Just because you have chosen defeat, doesn’t mean the rest of us have to be fooled, too.
No one has redefined libertarianism, the term exists partly to define one as not conservative, especially social conservative.
You seem to think that libertarianism is a pro-God, pro-social conservative, pro-traditional marriage, pro-life, anti-homosexual agenda ideology, you are confusing it with that which it opposes, social conservatism.
Do you think that libertarianism opposes homosexuality in the military, or supports it being open and equal there?
A “libertarian” (as the word is orginally defined) can be socially liberal or socially conservative, in that it principle meaning is on the limitation on government power to impose those choices.
But, given that government is inherantly liberal because government workers are inherantly liberal, small, weak, government is far more friendly to social conservatives.
Wow, talk about making up weird stuff, no libertarianism is social liberalism, it is fundamental to it, conservative economics is not what separates libertarians from conservatism, it is the social issues, it is why so many lefties are libertarians.
“”I’m libertarian on social issues””
Libertarianism is a children’s fantasy, that is why a libertarian salesman can go to a leftwing meeting or a right wing meeting and shape a message for each audience by limiting which portions he wants to reveal and which he wants to conceal.
Successful with 39% of the vote in 1860
and look at all the joy that led to the next 15 years
and still giving in a way
and with so many Yankees flooding south escaping the mess in their home states
who really won?
Border states gave the election to Lincoln by going for the lesser two candidates
Undecideds of their day..lol
I fear we are beyond that...more like politics by other means at some point or a cataclysm wakes people up
Here you go:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism
In short, “I do not think that word means what you think it means.”
We know what libertarianism is, and what it’s role in politics is.
“”I’m libertarian on social issues””
It is why you and the other libertarians ignore the question in post 102.
“”Do you think that libertarianism opposes homosexuality in the military, or supports it being open and equal there?””
You question is ignored because it’s underlying premise is stupidity.
Go read up on classic liberalism (or if you prefer “neo classic liberalism”).
That’s what actual libertarianism is.
I even gave you the links.
That is evasion, you just flat refuse to to answer the question although you claim to be the expert on what libertarianism is, so expert that you deny that the real libertarians are libertarians.
Seriously, do you think that libertarianism opposes homosexuality in the military, or supports it being open and equal there?
The fact that you think there is something to “evade” shows how little you know about the subject and how brain-washed by communists you are.
When your whole focus is speaking for libertarianism and someone asks you, do you think that libertarianism opposes homosexuality in the military, or supports it being open and equal there, and you won’t answer, then you are evading.
While you evade revealing the truth, I will post the answer for thread readers, the answer is yes, libertarianism is for homosexualizing the military.
In your fantasy world.
I suppose you also think forks make people fat and SUV and guns live to kill people.
Another weird post. No wonder you can’t answer the simple question.
You are very representative of libertarianism, in that you are evasive, dishonest, and slippery, and confused evidently.
“”Do you think that libertarianism opposes homosexuality in the military, or supports it being open and equal there?””
You cannot even answer that simple question.
Look, I understand your actual knowledge of political theory is limited, but you have good intent.
If you would actually learn a bit (and I provided you links), you would realize your question present a false dichotomy.
You can’t even offer your own personal opinion of if you think that libertarianism opposes homosexuality in the military, or supports it being open and equal there?
The libertarian (or, more properly neo-classical liberalism) is about shrinking governance to the smallest possible unit (smallest being the family unit and the individual), with the least power at each tier.
The libertarian (or, more properly neo-classical liberalism) has nothing — one way or the other -— to do with homosexuality in the military and would be compatable with accepting it (if progressive neo-classical liberalism), reject it (if conservative neo-classical liberalism), or take no position.
Libertariasm (as actually defined) is like a knife. That knife can be used for good purposes or bad. But the knife is neither good nor bad.
The progressives have attempted to claim all of libertarian thought for their own.
For whatever reason, you’ve bought into that view.
Homosexuals in the military is one of our biggest political issues.
So libertarianism agrees that a homosexual person should be discriminated against in the military and kicked out?
Libertarianism believes that homosexuality should be completely open and free in the military, and adoption, and “marriage”, and in all ways.
1.3 Personal Relationships
Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government’s treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships.
You are still quoting the Libertarian platform.
The Libertarian platform has nothing to do with neo-classical liberalism (aka libertarianism).
You’ve been given links to this about 3 times now.
Neither yes or no. It has nothing to do with that.
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.