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 ...
So, you're saying exactly what I've been saying a dozen times upthread: that, if a homosexual never acts on his urges then there is no legal or regulatory basis for kicking him out?
The fact that von Steuben could not get into three different militaries in Europe, that Benjamin Franklin lied about him when presenting him as a “Prussian General” should give one pause. He was actually a captain.
Von Steuben himself wrote about the charges of sexual misconduct with young boys. He wrote “I have nothing to be ashamed of for my part in the war, though it may be that an inconsiderate step and perhaps an irreconcilable enemy destroyed the expectation of a better reward.”
He came to America with Peter Du Ponceau, a seventeen year old boy, who acted as his interpreter. His servant was Carl Vogel, another 17 year old boy, who was described as handsome.
Du Ponceau once wrote about Von Steuben “Once, with the baron’s permission, his aides invited a number of the young officers to dine at our quarters, on condition that none should be admitted that had on a whole pair of breeches...”
President John Adams disowned his son Charles when he moved in with von Steuben in his late teens. The President tore up every letter that his son had written him.
He was given 16.000 acres for his service and a yearly pension. He bequeathed the land to the two young aides-de-camp who he had met under Washington’s command and had live with him after the war until his death.
This is just some of the evidence that shows von Steuben being a homosexual. He was also the “Father of the American Military”.
It isn’t a sick claim. It is a fact that in times when there is a shortage of personnel with appropriate skills, the military recruits people with skills and doesn’t care about other aspects. The rules against homosexuals in the military during and after Vietnam were so widely violated that they became a joke, and that joke was documented in plays and commercial songs.
I suggested that the government withdraw completely from the religious aspects of marriage, and offered a means by which it could be done, without getting the government involved in religious controversy.
Good Lord man, if no one knows that you are a homosexual, or a pedophile, or a Russian spy, then you don’t get kicked out, but if they found out you were, then you were gone.
How many days do you intend to spend on this meaningless and obvious fact?
How does this make a clear and official policy on the status of homosexuals in the military?
LOL, of course not, the homosexual was drummed out after making a pass at Monfort.
My father in law applied for a position as an accountant.
The interval went well, but at the end my Uncle R. was told that they were looking for someone with less experience. Uncle R. said “I’m 23!”
They said oh, that was different, and he was hired. At 23 he had severe male pattern balding, and a very weather beaten face. He had worked his way through Cornell by working on a farm.
There are restrictions on the questions that interviewers are permitted to ask. Age was, at that time, one of them.
Except the homosexual von Steuben, retained his position as a general, and was admired for his excellent service.
I agree.
I can’t stand drugs or druggies, but all the drug war has succeeded in doing to me personally is have 20+ armed guys with machine guns pointed at me when I was driving on a private road on my own ranch.
They laughed at me when I said they were tresspassing and to get the f—k off my property.
That’s the moment I realized they are just the tip of an occupying force.
That is ridiculous, the facts are that recruits and draftees were screened for homosexuality, just as they have always been, and were forced out when discovered.
You go way beyond the reality that some homosexuals escape the safeguards, just as do spies, criminals, etc, some always get through when you are hiring many millions of men.
You claim that the military actively recrutied homosexuals homosexuals were "even recruited and admired for their excellent performance."
I made an appointment with the recruiter, went over the forms, pros/cons, etc.
I don't remember a single "are you a homosexual" question, or any sexual questions at all (other than Male/Female) — but that could be because it was over a decade ago.
I was in for nine years and got out during Obama's first term when it became apparent that (a) the Army as-an-institution had no intention of upholding the Constitution [i.e. ensuring that the President was Constitutionally eligible], and (b) that promotions were pretty political (e.g. all of my promotions [E2-E4] required nonstandard intervention even though they were supposed to be automatic dependent on TIG and/or TIS).
So, if you don't mind, I'm going to say that the regulations/standards don't really matter if they're enforced/unenforced sporadically dependent on how politically connected/favored whoever [is in question] happens to be. *gasp* It's the same way with the law! And one reason why I think there ought to be a culling of all nonessential laws/regulations: the breadth and complexity of our laws is such that it forces the enforcers to be selective in their enforcement, and selective-enforcement is injustice.
You served your full hitches and was honorably discharged?
There is a story about a Moyle (rabbi who performs Jewish Circumcisions) who had a clock in his office window.
A gentleman enters his office, and asked to get his watch repaired.
The Rabbi explained that he didn’t repair watchs or clocks.
“But you have a clock on display in your window!”
“If you were a moyle, what would you put in your window?”
You say they were forced out. I know they were not and gave examples. The screening procedure was a joke, so wide spread that it made it to Allan Sherman and his audiences.
Recruiting advertisements for homosexual medics sought to emphasize the care for other men. Recruiting advertisements for lesbians provided pictures of stout women with hard edged hair styles.
The medium was, and is the message.
Your sad assertion of counterfactuals is ridiculous.
Are you following this guy?
Yep: 6-year enlistment, 3-year re-up.
Would you leave off making a mockery of history and painting a fake history of the years when I was involved with both the Vietnam draft and active duty military and try to explain your current politics on the matter?
It is painfully obvious that you strongly and enthusiastically support homosexuals in the military and recognizing their gay marriages.
But why?
If “OBAMACARE SUBSIDY HEALTH INSURANCE TAX,” aka OSHIT, is so popular, then why isn’t Mr. Michelle Obama enrolled?
This is enrollment day number TWO, Barry: tick-tock - - -
I didn’t realize you served under Clinton and I guess DADT, which means if you got in and kept yourself from being found out as openly homosexual, you were left alone.
Now the law is libertarian law, they don’t have to hide in the shadows they are equal, and their state gay marriages are recognized.
I think you oppose the libertarian position on that and want to return to the 1970s law of, if they are found out, they are drummed out, even screened before they go in at all and their state law marriages are not recognized, which is the social conservative, traditional American position.
I explained my politics on the issue.
You didn’t like them, and complained that you were not interested in my fantasy.
By the way, France has a strong anti-clerical strain in its government and denies priests/ministers the right to officiate at a civil marriage. People who marry in the church routinely go through a two step procedure, a church marriage and a civil procedure. People who marry outside the church (divorced marriages) skip the church marriage.
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.