Poll: Republican voters have embraced libertarian values

United Liberty ^ | 9/12/13 | Jason Pye

[shego]

The libertarian philosophy is taking the Republican Party by storm, according to a poll conducted by FreedomWorks, a DC-based grassroots service center with over 6 million members.

With Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI) and many other liberty-minded politicians gaining influence, libertarianism has generated new interest inside the Republican Party, much to the chagrin of the GOP's political establishment....

"FreedomWorks' poll shows that 42 percent of Republicans have a favorable view of the word ‘libertarian,' and only 10 percent don't know the word, compared to 27 percent who don't know nationally," they added.

And the term "libertarian" may still turn off some Republican voters, the basic message of the philosophy earns significant favor. The poll found that 68% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents agree with the statement that "individuals should be free to do as they like as long as they don't hurt others, and that the government should keep out of people's day-to-day lives."

What's more, an eye-popping 78% of Republicans consider themselves to be "fiscally conservative, but socially moderate," which is a significant finding given the debate in the GOP on social issues.

Looking outside of just the Republican box, the poll found that 66% of respondents consider themselves to fiscally conservative and socially moderate.

These numbers show that the libertarian message is appealing, not only to Republican voters, but also to all Americans; further advancing the case for conservative-libertarian fusionism as a way to promote free market ideals, limited government, and personal liberty....

[manc]

As far as I know I;m not getting zapped by any mods.

I;m merely pointing out your liberaltarian positions which for some reason you choose to ignore, choose to try and report me, HA report me, what a joke, you don’t want Govt, you want all drugs legal, open borders, public sex incest, and any kind of marriage but you want mods to silence me who is pointing out your positions on a website which clearly states is a conservative one, which clearly is Pro God and family.

I think you need to read what this website is about and why you are on it because clearly you are lost.

My I sugest something closer to home for you.

www.liberaltarian.com or www we want anarchy/com

[manc]

Also it was a liberaltarian which stated there should be no law having sex with a goat in public.

I suggest you read who I post to and reply to before you go running off reporting me for pointing out your positions and jumping in on a conversation.

HA HA HA, No Govt but I want you censored, you can’t even make this up any more, LOL.

[Orangedog]

But now that someone with a D after his name is in the white house, it’s cool to go back to paying lip service to being all about small government. Even some of the hard core, boot on your neck statists. You know the ones who wanted Snowden put up against the wall and shot. There are some here whom I suspect were the ones calling into CSPAN and talk radio demanding assange be tried for treason (it gets funny when you tell them he can’t be tried for treason and they pound the table demanding to know why).

[manc]

The problem liberaltarians have is that they cannot grasp the fact they are more liberal tan most liberals socially.

Here is an example.
A liberaltarian pointed out that it’s OK to have sex with a goat in public and we should look away.

I reply to that liberaltarian.

Another libertarian doesn’t want that message out so they try to get me banned.

That in itself shows how out of whack some of these people are.

Also they seem to not grasp the basic concept that this is not a liberal website nor a liberaltarain one but a conservative.

They try to preach their agenda and get all upset when it is pointed out that they are out of whack and sometimes perverted or might be on drugs.

[GeronL]

The fact that they ban you from their sites or threads shows how it will go in the future if they take control. Imagine a world in which you are attacked and vilified as an enemy of civilization for not thinking its fine and dandy for someone to have sex with a goat in public.

Besides this kind of society won’t last long, it will collapse and they will look for enemies to scapegoat and the logical ones will be you and me for not approving all of their perverted crap. We will be blamed for it not working.

Isn’t that kind of the way it’s always been in history?

[manc]

Stunning how when one points out their platform on drugs, open borders,and sex they want one banned and have posts deleted and this is on a conservative website which clearly states this site and Jim is against what they spout.

You are right, this clearly shows how dangerous they are if they get their way and if one is against their agenda then they want you out and vilified which is a tactic of the radical left.

[GeronL]

yep. I remember on Facebook I disagreed with their support for gay marriage and immediately began being attacked as a “bible thumper” and other things.

[Eva]

Government rules are not supposed to regulate how people think. Government has the power to regulate how homosexuals are treated under the law, but not in people’s minds. There is a difference between tolerance and approval. No one can force a person to approve of homosexual activity.

Look at it this way. Most people agree that pedophilia is wrong, but the government cannot stop some people from supporting NAMBLA. We had an Attorney General who wanted to lower the age of consent. No one demanded that Janet Reno be prosecuted for her beliefs or even prevented her nomination to the position of Attorney General.

[jpsb]

In case you have not noticed male and females are different. Males can do things females can not. Ergo my distinction, also I believe the Bible explicitly condemns male homosexual behavior, but not female ergo my distinction.

My definition of a moral society would be one that adheres to Judao/Christian mores cicra 1930-1960.

[Wallace T.]

Were the licenses obtained by Washington and Jefferson issued by the Anglican (Episcopalian) Church or the state/county? Until its disestablishment in 1786, the Church of England was the state church of Virginia, as had been case since its founding as an English colony. Except for Delaware and Rhode Island, the original 13 states had church (Anglican or Congregationalist) establishments. After the Declaration of Independence, the states disestablished the churches, the last being Massachusetts in 1833. From my genealogical research, state wedding licenses started in the mid-19th Century. Canadian, British, and Irish government agencies have taken possession and maintenance of church wedding and baptismal agencies.

[TallahasseeConservative]

I agree, but the issue remains. Where do we draw the line at government intervention? Is oppressive government allowable, when it is used against those we disagree with? I don’t believe in gay marriage, but if the state of Vermont etc. wants to allow it, do we then use the power of the Fed to overturn it? The marriage license is issued by the state, and that is where it should remain. Saying that, I also believe that a more conservative state should have the right to not honor that marriage license. Therein lies the issue. The solution however is not more government intrusion.

[TallahasseeConservative]

Most libertarians are not for any of those things. They simply wish to have the “small government” party return to it’s roots. We should go back to the devolution idea, whatever power is not explicitly given to Washington, should return to the states as intended by the framers. If a more liberal state chooses to embrace deviancy, then those voters get what they deserve, those Conservatives who live there are free to vote with their feet.

[GeronL]

The federal government is actively giving bennies to “married gays” even in states where its not legal.

Is that staying out of it?

[manc]

problem is that the homosexuals and others do not understand that and still bring their agenda to states like FL with them

Also their party platform which is in this thread advocates open borders, Paul has stated he wants to get rid of th CIA, FBI, no problem with any kind of marriage and even on here we have one of them saying we should look away if we see someone having sex with a goat.

[jpsb]

Well, no, male homosexual behavior is morally wrong and disease pron. I don't have the figures handy but the incidence of STD is way way higher amongst men that have sex with other men. Allowing homosexual marriages is condoning a fifthly unhealthy behavior. And since homosexual have many partners outside of "marriage" some of them women the diseases spread into the hetero sexual community. And then there is the whole attack on Christian institutions that refuse to condone the immoral behavior thing. So no the nation should not allow homosexual marriage anywhere.

I would suggest putting a law against sodomy on the books but rarely enforcing it. That would solve a great many of our problems.

[VerySadAmerican]

No, I think FARMERS should grow pot. They could plant it along side the hops and barley they grow to sell to corporations to make booze. Of course, crooked politicians would make sure they get subsidies.

[familyop]

"Poll: Republican voters have embraced libertarian values"

Ha, ha. A libertarian, like a feminist, is anything that its proponents want it to be for a particular audience at a particular time. The political/regulator minority has implemented libertine policies for some and increasingly violates the rights of others. Anarchists cleared the way for commies in Europe. Drugs, slavery, destruction of some families and robberies been legalized, while government serves gangsters. Nothing really new.

Try a search with the keywords,

outright libertarians.

Besides being the party of lawyers for absolute and unlimited rule by lawyers, that's what the new libs are about.

[Orangedog]

Try a search with the keywords,

outright libertarians

So you're good with having the log cabin republicans hung around your neck, then, right? After all, they say they are republicans so every damned one of you MUST be in lockstep with them.

[familyop]

"So you're good with having the log cabin republicans hung around your neck, then, right? After all, they say they are republicans so every damned one of you MUST be in lockstep with them."

Avoiding creepy weirdo cooties is only one of the many reasons that I'm more conservative than a Libertarian, Republican or Democrat.

Other readers, try a search with the keywords,

"outright libertarians"

to find out more about the posted topic.

[RB156]

I wouldn’t call Romney fiscally conservative and socially moderate. I’d call him fiscally everything and socially everything.