Libertarian ping! Click here to get added or here to be removed or post a message here!
Posted on 09/30/2013 9:24:47 AM PDT by shego
During his Ironman 21-hour speech, Sen. Ted Cruz read excerpts from Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged, name-dropped "libertarians" at least six times, and yielded to Sen. Rand Paul, who invoked Frederic Bastiat's "What is Seen and Unseen," a favorite among libertarians.
Ted Cruz, who retained remarkable composure over the long night, seems in all things deliberate. Political leaders seem to have become more comfortable talking about libertarians, even identifying themselves as such. Libertarians may have reached a tipping point within the Republican Party.
Last week, a FreedomWorks study on public opinion found that libertarian views within the Republican Party are at the highest point in a decade, today representing 41 percent of Republican voters....
We define libertarians as those who favor "smaller government" and think government should not promote "traditional values." Using this method, FreedomWorks data show that 41 percent of Republicans and Republican leaning independents are libertarian today.
Two separate data sources, Gallup and ANES, show the same trend: that libertarian views are at the highest point in a decade....
Of course, as I've have noted previously, not all these libertarians self-identify as such and many don't know the word. But even that seems to be changing, and it's not just Ted Cruz.
Sen. Rand Paul calls himself a "libertarian-leaning Republican." Glenn Beck now considers himself libertarian, saying "I'm a lot closer to Penn Jillette than I am to Chuck Hagel." Matt Drudge recently tweeted his frustration with Republicans on Syria, saying it's now "authoritarian vs. libertarian." According to FreedomWorks' poll, only 10 percent of Republicans "don't know" the word libertarian, compared to 27 percent nationally.
The data confirm that libertarian views may well have reached a tipping point in the Republican Party.
(Excerpt) Read more at cato.org ...
Odd, I was a Libertarian back when Reagan was president, and became a Republican after that.
I was pleased at some point that I moved into Ron Paul’s district. Then I figured out that he had a number of neo-rebs that supported him, which was a disappointment. I looked closely at his voting record, and he would trade votes, voting against bills with his set asides that were sure to pass and voting measures where his vote was needed, and getting his set asides later for his sell out today.
At some time I realized that if you can’t take over half on one major political party you can not run the government or even have much influence on the country.
What does that mean? States and federal law won’t matter for abortion?
Why do you consider abortion irrelevant? Do you think it is irrelevant for the people being aborted?
I’m not supporting Cornyn anymore...There is a guy running against him in the primary by the name of Stovall...
If enough people have had enough of the nonsense, Cornyn can be replaced very easily, but I am concerned that the libertrians will balk at this and try to keep Cornyn in office...
Stovall will still need a little more vetting, and a little more research is in order...
Social liberalism guarantees fiscal liberalism, regardless of what libertarians claim or fantasize about.
Voting is universal in America, the war against traditional American values, Christianity, and morality destroys individuals and families and communities, and creates more and more liberal, big government voters.
Look at who votes how, social conservatives vote conservative, social liberals vote liberal, with rare exceptions.
” If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism.” Ronald Reagan, July 1975
Assertion of fact not in evidence.
I'm starting to notice the same pattern myself.
Oh, well, the adults can just continue the conversation while ignoring the feces-flingers in the peanut gallery.
Another attatboy. That noise sums up to smearing stalwarts of liberty, and then only to smite. Some here won't be happy until they kick even themselves out of the purity tent.
>> It’s all about the choom,
No it’s not. It’s about the magnitude of govt so many conservative statists don’t seem to mind.
Since you are a retread, and support things like abortion and gay marriage and homosexuals in the military, your posts are so vague and evasive, they don’t even make sense.
We know that you are anti-conservative and have a nooby troll agenda and are nasty about promoting it, but you never say much of anything to express what are obviously deeply held beliefs and politics.
I guess that is the difficult mine field trolls and libertarians tread on conservative sites.
LOL, a quote from the beginning of a 1975 interview for a small libertarian audience while he was campaigning.
Reagan then proceeded to explain how he wasn’t a libertarian because of he was a conservative and disagreed with them on social issues and national defense.
Here we are dealing with homosexualizing the military and gay marriage, and you want to pretend that Reagan supported that libertarian agenda, which he didn’t, he was even against gambling.
Calling people who do not support the libertarian position on homosexuals and the military for instance “statist” is no defense for radical liberalism.
Opposing this libertarian claptrap is not statist, it is conservatism and traditional Americanism.
libertarianism’s position on personal relationships and laws and government:
“”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.””
Actually drugs is the top libertarian argument here because they have to argue in code, and within tight boundaries at FR.
They can’t really get away with calling conservatives and Christians “statists” here, on abortion and gay marriage, homosexualizing the military, open borders and so on, so they use drugs as their attack club because FR tolerates the promotion of drug use and legalization.
Your primary purpose on this forum is to alienate potential conservatives, contributors, and voters. It wouldn’t surprise me if you worked for the Left.
My purpose here is to fight for conservatism, yours is to fight to move the country left, that is why you didn’t respond to the post, and made a silly personal attack.
Here is the post that caused your reaction.
ansel12 to Gene Eric
Calling people who do not support the libertarian position on homosexuals and the military for instance “statist” is no defense for radical liberalism.
Opposing this libertarian claptrap is not statist, it is conservatism and traditional Americanism.
libertarianism’s position on personal relationships and laws and government:
“”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.””
I see his moniker and don’t even bother to read his words; and I’m not remotely tempted or curious. Nothing personal, it’s just not worth my time.
I try from time to time but often find myself engaged in a pit of academic hostility.
That confirms the decision to write you off as a feces-flinging troll.
Seems to wear it proudly doesn’t he/she.
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.