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 ...
Sorry to get this crank so stirred up.
I didn't serve under Clinton; I was in for Bush and Obama — and the issues w/ the latter showed me that as-an-organization they have no intention of upholding the Constitution.
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.
Actually, that's not quite right: libertarian thought would not discourage people form thinking homosexuality is horrible — as I understand it there's at least a few who'll gut you [metaphor] if you hold that view.
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.
Homosexuality [and its issues] is not my passion — I'd much rather talk about Justice, the law (as an ideal, as practiced, and what would be good law), philosophy, programming... heck, there's a LOT more interesting things to talk about than homosexuality.
Which post did you describe your political choice on gays in the military and recognizing their state marriages?
You posted to my post, but didn’t ping me to it, try to stay with the lines and not post behind people’s backs.
Accepting gays and their state marriages in the military is the libertarian position.
Your dedication to this thread and the homosexual issue proves your strong passion for it, you just won’t admit where your political support goes on it.
Do you think the libertarian position shows more “justice” for the gays in the military than the centuries old conservative position?
And?
Your dedication to this thread and the homosexual issue proves your strong passion for it,
*shrug* -- It's less boring than the NOTHING that's happening here right now. I don't think that's "strong passion" by any means.
you just won’t admit where your political support goes on it.
Considering your only purpose on this thread is to attack anyone who doesn't perfectly align with yourself... why should I?
Do you think the libertarian position shows more “justice” for the gays in the military than the centuries old conservative position?
At this point I don't even care: I believe the "old" position would be selectively enforced just as the "new" position is because, as mentioned above, the Army currently isn't about Constitutional duty but politics. — I did my duty, and if they want to drink damage by being political creatures, let them.
That was a perfect post from you, it said absolutely nothing, it was long and wordy, but absolutely useless and meaningless.
Rather like you posted to Mr. Robinson about me, behind my back?
Crank.
Cry about it.
I wonder: Are you a libertarian that you know their positions so well?
Or do you just choose to set up straw men?
I like you, so I will take baby steps.
Marriage is a religious sacrament.
Laws respecting the sacrament of marriage are laws respecting an establishment of religion.
The way a religion interprets one event and the way a government does can be completely different, as they are with marriage. Some religions don’t recognize divorce for instance. Just like the holiday of Christmas. Christians celebrate it one way but secular people celebrate it differently. Every religion could disappear and be forgotten, but marriage could still exist as a secular institution if people wanted it to.
You’re actually suggesting that religion should have control over our lives by law. Because if religion thinks of a concept first, you’re saying it must then be barred from ever being legally recognized by the government.
Your comfort with lying is a little disconcerting, I pinged you.
To: donmeaker; Jim Robinson
Recruiting advertisements for homosexual medics sought to emphasize the care for other men.
Are you following this guy?
355 posted on 10/2/2013 1:57:42 PM by ansel12
That would be post 300.
If you are not going to read them, why would I respond to your foolishness?
That is a good point, a religion may or may not recognize a divorce, but the govt. must.
There is no one defined "religion" and people and mates can change religion.
The bigger point is why do libertarians try to pose such silly and non realistic fantasies as actually being a part of the political argument that we all know we are having, the real life, actually taking place, political and election battle.
No, I am suggesting that the legal and religious concepts are different enough that they deserve different terms.
The sacrament of marriage reflects divine approval for the state, and that chaste behavior can morally include sexual congress within marriage, without damage to one’s soul.
The government is more concerned with inheritance, and taxes. Child support, visitation, and custody are government legal concerns not dependent on marriage or civil union.
That wasn’t a lie, that was a mistake.
I apologize for the mistake.
Atheists get married.
Your fake argument is bulls***.
I read that and responded to it.
That isn't a political position, it is merely a personal fantasy, a childish wish, it isn't part of any political reality, or adult political discussion on our current political positions and law making.
We are fighting gay marriage right now, fighting the gaying of the military, and you have devoted yourself to defending the homosexual agenda on this thread.
I don’t support homosexuals in the military. I support competent people in the military.
I don’t support government recognition of homosexual marriages. I don’t support government recognition of any marriage, marriage being a religious sacrament, and the government being uniquely unqualified to rule on validity of religious sacraments.
As far as people being free to set up associations and legal connections that meet their needs, I support that, but it should be regulated by law, and those laws should be made in the usual way, not by judicial-fiat.
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.