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 ...
In the post-Vietnam Carter administration, one soldier in my platoon wanted out, and publically committed homosexual acts in an attempt to achieve it.
He was not permitted to be separated for that.
The irony was, he wanted to get out to go home to be with his girlfriend.
“Government isn’t in your bedroom, try to be more honest”
Oh, but it is.
The all-powerful liberal government is forcing us to teach our children that homosexuality is fine.
It’s only a matter of time before they start taking children away from Christian parents for daring to teach Christian values about homosexularity or anything else.
Just wait until the government starts shutting down churches for refusing to conduct gay “marriages.”
It’s already happening in other countries.
A government that can not pass laws respecting an estabishment of religion is a relatively new thing, and to my mind a good thing.
All the libertarians I’ve ever “debated” with (to use the term loosely) claim they are not large “L” libertarians, just small “l” libertarians, but although they often try to hide it, they are all 100% pro vice. So what part of the LP platform do they disagree with? They just try to avoid the stench of the LP platform, but most of them (about 99% I’d say) really agree with it.
So they lie.
Duplicity, avoidance, sloganeering, straw men and the entire gamut of dirty dihonest debate methods are their SOP. They are masters at trying to hide what their real beliefs and philosophies are. If the small l’s are really opposed to the large L platform so much, why don’t they call themselves something else? For instance, I call my myself a “constitutionalist”. Fits my philosophy.
They to a man want all vice legalized. They pretend to claim that they only don’t want the fedgov making anti-vice laws (which is fine with me, other than abortion) but they also do not want the states to make anti-vice laws either. So they are really the Huge Giant Big Nanny State JBTs. Their ideal utopian state has nothing to do with Constitutional principles nor the writings of the men who wrote it.
I have not a freaking clue why you bring up the establishment of religion.
That has not a damned thing to do with the topic.
Nada. Nothing. Zilch.
Of course that’s what they want to do.
What does that have to do with libertarianism or Libertarianism?
Hint: nothing.
You saw a play where the character wasn’t rejected for the draft for playing gay?
That is your argument that the military actively recruited gays because they are so great?
You heard an allan Sherman song where the character wasn’t rejected for the draft for playing gay?
That is your argument that the military actively recruited gays because they are so great?
When you were in the service you knew of a hetro guy who tried to fake being homosexual to get out and they didnt fall for it?
That is your argument that the military actively recruited gays because they are so great?
This is nuts.
Probably, but I think the movement is growing up.
Most promising, I’ve been hearing a lot of small-l libertarians who are pro-life, on the basis that the murder of a child violates the rights of child.
There’s even a website with some pretty good articles — libertarians for life.
Me, I view the government as a lost cause, basically impossible to use to promote conservative values and only a danger to Christian and other conservative values.
In short, I think I agree with libertarians about the role of government (next to nothing), but for a different reason.
“What does that have to do with libertarianism or Libertarianism?
Hint: nothing.”
No, if there weren’t “Anti-Descrimation Laws” and “Hate Speech laws” the government could not close down churches.
On this topic, I agree with libertarians that the laws should be removed. If people want to descriminate, let them.
You are just posting gibberish.
Should the law be libertarian and that gays are equal, and their legal state marriages recognized in the military, or should they be kicked out if they are discovered to be gay?
Please do not keep pretending that no one can discover if a soldier is gay, in reality, we have been doing that for centuries, including when you were in.
Washington and American military law was always dealing with homosexuality, not only rape, that is another bizarre misdirection claiming that it was legal to be homosexual, you just could’t rape your fellow soldiers.
That is a lie, just as donmeaker lied when he claimed that the military during the 1960s and 1970s that homosexuals were “”recruited and admired for their excellent performance.””.
As far as defining a homosexual in the military, I never realized that you were asking that and I don’t know the relevance, it means anyone who is an active homosexual or is learned to identify as a homosexual, I thought that was obvious, surely you know that there must be a few pedophiles in the military but no one can mind read, if they are discovered to be so, then they are kicked out.
None of this changes the reality that law has to determine the status of homosexuals in the military, either they are discriminated against by law, or equal in the law, equal means that their legal gay marriages would be recognized as well.
Certainly the military recruited homosexuals.
Certainly there are some advantages to recruiting homosexuals. It should be obvious that lesbians are less likely to get pregant during a tour.
Technical services (Medical Corps, Nurse Corps, Medical Service Corps, Signal Corps, Ordinance Corps) had numbers requirements along with requirements for intelligence and education, and had difficulty reaching the numbers required, so they didn’t filter out homosexuals. Wounded soldiers tend to be appreciative of their Medics, and would certainly appreciate having a medic of what ever orientation, vs. dying untreated.
The Navy had a signals intelligence ship, painted white to help cool the electronics that was a gay magnet ship. “The great white wh*re of the Arabian Shore”.
Facts are stubborn things.
Government is like fire: a useful servant and a terrible master.
And there it is; you confirm my suspicion that you have no regard for the Fifth Amendment.
You were never in the military? You weren't vetted and investigated and required to answer numerous personal questions on legal forms?
Even civilian jobs do that.
Below is one of the punishments at Valley Forge:
What is most interesting is how these charges took place at Valley Forge, where the man responsible for the training of the Continental troops (Von Steuben) was most likely homosexual himself. Von Steuben, who was accompanied to Valley Forge by his “handsome” 17-year-old secretary (which added fuel to the speculation that he was indeed a homosexual and possibly a boy lover), had been forced out of the Prussian Army under suspicion of homosexual activities, which was seen as a detriment to the army. At Valley Forge, however, Von Steuben proved his worth by instilling a measure of discipline that had been lacking in the Continental Army.
Head Quarters, V. Forge, Saturday, March 14, 1778.
At a General Court Martial whereof Colo. Tupper was President (10th March 1778) Lieutt. Enslin of Colo. Malcom’s Regiment tried for attempting to commit sodomy, with John Monhort a soldier; Secondly, For Perjury in swearing to false Accounts, found guilty of the charges exhibited against him, being breaches of 5th. Article 18th. Section of the Articles of War and do sentence him to be dismiss’d the service with Infamy. His Excellency the Commander in Chief approves the sentence and with Abhorrence and Detestation of such Infamous Crimes orders Lieutt. Enslin to be drummed out of Camp tomorrow morning by all the Drummers and Fifers in the Army never to return; The Drummers and Fifers to attend on the Grand Parade at Guard mounting for that Purpose.
Note that Monfort was not punished.
You keep pushing this absurd and sick claim that the military actively recruited homosexuals because they are so exceptional.
Why? I guess it is painfully obvious that you strongly and enthusiastically support homosexuals in the military and recognizing their gay marriages.
But why? Why are you so passionate in that political agenda that you are going to such absurd lengths and making such laughable claims on this thread?
“Government is like fire: a useful servant and a terrible master.”
Indeed. You would think Conservatives (of which I am one) would know that the libertarian approach of minimizing government is the only way to advance Conservatism.
Government is innately anti-conservative.
For example (talked about on another thread going), in Europe they are outlawing Jewish circumcision -— only an issue because people stupidly gave away parental rights and power to the government —— you know “for the children.”
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.