Like this classic?
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 ...
By that logic Christmas should only be called Xmas or “winter holiday” by the government or secular people. But it’s all just semantics, as silly as when politically correct people try to change long-accepted terms to words they “like” better. A campaign to replace words is not a worthwhile effort.
There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kinds of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted -- and you create a nation of lawbreakers -- and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Rearden, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with.
--Atlas Shrugged
Like this classic?
One homosexual man cross dressed at a character “Simone” and got several awards during Vietnam war for his after hours work work raising morale. After the war was over, he was forced out. Different circumstances, different priorities, and personnel policies changed. That is understandable. What I don’t understand is people so closeted that they want to pretend that it never happened.
During the Reagan administration, there was significant risk of HIV contraction from infected blood from military blood donors. Many military hospitals and veterans hospitals had a HIV wing. Eventually HIV tests for blood were developed.
I think we know that you do not want to ban homosexuals from the military, and you do not want to refuse their recognition of gay marriage as long as they recognize normal marriage.
Your calls for only religions, all and any religions, to be able to make marriage law and the American people be subject to them is more silliness.
That should be fun when the military is trying to decide who or what the legal widow is, or wife in the case of living on base and in foreign assignments.
Oh would you stop with these stupid anecdotes about a song, or a play, or a guy trying to trick the military to get out and failing.
In this case your guy was kicked out for being gay, contradicting many of your previous posts when you were trying to tell us that the military liked gays and recruited them during the Vietnam war because they were so exceptional.
They recruited gays during vietnam because they could do the job, and the men who were not recruited could not do the job.
The ones that did the job exceptionally were promoted, and honored for the exceptional job they did.
And this guy wasn’t gay. Back when Flip Wilson was doing his Geraldine schtick, this guy came up with his character and entertained the wounded during his off hours. That he wasn’t gay, but rather playing a character, was ok with the military when the bullets were flying. After the war was over, people who had never dragged a guy in with his leg missing used it to get rid of him.
Selective enforcement is one of the major argument against government enforcement of social mores.
You think wrong.
I call for religions to have exclusive control of their sacraments, and for the government to have exclusive control over the legal obligations they enforce, and tax law.
In algebra we used to call it orthagonality.
Marry a thousand women and three vacuum cleaners using the combines rites of the Scottish Masons, the Druze, and the Parsees, and the government doesn’t care.
Claim a civil union, and the government sets the terms for it, and enforces it only if it meets the government terms. No religious nut from the Pope to an Iman has any more input to what it means than any other citizen (or similar non-citizen).
I guess you missed the part about how he was kicked out after Vietnam was over.
You said something was true. I provided a counter example that showed what you said was not true.
I can understand why you want me to stop.
Wow, 9 posts at me, take a breath and try and relax.
The military forbid homosexuals during the 1960s and 1970s and did not knowingly recruit them, you are lying about that, and it is a very strange lie to be telling but you are obsessed with the idea that homosexuals were so exceptional and superior, that the military sought them out and desired them as recruits, the reality is that they screened people to keep them out.
You are also immature in thinking that government does not have to have laws regarding marriage, including in the military, marriage has always come under law, it was never just whatever anyone wanted to make up.
The military and the feds for example must have official definitions of what legal marriage is for their use.
Making marriage only for religious people and cult members is another obsession of yours, but totally irrelevant in sane political discussions other than when someone is having some drinks and fantasizing about their wishes.
You are easy with the term “lie”.
I am not lying. If I make a mistake I correct it and apologize. I show evidence, and you complain. I explain my position and you complain.
I was hoping that you were not a troll. I was wrong about that too.
Sometimes people are lying and you are one of those people.
You have been trying to claim that “”homosexuals in the military were certainly tolerated, and even recruited and admired for their excellent performance.””
The military was recruiting and drafting millions of men, and doing their best to try and keep out the homosexuals, they were not seeking them.
You have some really twisted views of our military.
Your promotion of gays in the military is unlike anything that I have ever seen at freerepublic, yet you won’t come out and say that you support gay equality in the military, nor fully deny it either, that in itself eventually becomes a lie after hours of pretending or hinting to not when it is clear that you do.
For obvious reasons, this was practically impossible under the draft (which would become a dead letter if "hey I'm gay" was an instant Get Out Of Army Free card).
You really don’t know much about the screening that took place during the draft is my guess, I don’t imagine you were deeply involved in it as I was for about two years.
Remember that the draft ran continuously for about 32 years, WWII had been overwhelmingly a draft war, with 93% of the WWII Army being draftees, along with a high percentage of Marines and Navy. Vietnam was primarily volunteers.
The draft boards and shrinks and medical examiners were pretty hip to the process of separating actual homosexuals from obvious fakers, not a lot of young men of that era could pull off convincing a shrink they were homosexuals, or wanted to.
It wasn’t impossible, it was easier in most cases than determining an honest conscientious objector which was a more common ploy, but no medical exam was going to find anything there, and even a shrink had trouble with that, but looking into their background helped, signing federal documents under oath helped.
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.