Posted on 10/01/2013 12:06:37 PM PDT by shego
For better or for worse, libertarianism is on the upswing in the Republican Party....
...."68% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents agree with the statement that 'individuals should be free to do as they like as long as they don't hurt others, and that the government should keep out of people's day-to-day lives.'....
"Some fundamentalist Christians are very libertarian in their beliefs," explained Dave Nalle, Chairman of the Republican Liberty Caucus, to The Washington Times Communities earlier this year....
"They understand that the governmental restraint which is central to libertarianism works to their benefit in protecting them from government interference in their religious life," he continued. "Like Ron Paul, who is very religious, they value the independence of their churches and want to keep government from promoting any ideology through the schools or its other programs. While they do not support social libertarianism they understand that if government can dictate lifestyle decisions it's a knife which cuts both ways."
During the same interview, Nalle mentioned that "(w)here we do run into problems with the religious right is with those small but influential groups which believe that they should promote their beliefs by using government as an instrument to impose them on other people.
"They don't understand that this is a terrible practice which can be turned against them and they use tactics which are essentially the same as the secular humanists from the left who are their greatest enemies. Ultimately I don't see much future for this element in the Republican Party or even in mainstream politics.
"When they are fanatical about forcing their beliefs on everyone through legislation they make themselves so unpopular that they become a political liability which no party can afford to get involved with...
(Excerpt) Read more at communities.washingtontimes.com ...
What I am saying in a nutshell, whether or not you think it is nutty:
(1) Evangelize people by all private means.
(2) Don’t set up a situation in which you will deliberately take on unbelievers into something you want to call “Christian.”
Yup, you did speak of creating a new alternate party, indicating whether you wanted to or not what you had hoped the GOP to be. All those personal attacks on me ring hollow.
Small minded classifications of people are not classy (and they are certainly not Christ-class), ansel... and it wasn’t just me you did it to. Word to the wise, ansel: stop it. You are forgiven but not excused: keep it up and you will keep on reaping disappointment.
I don’t recall labeling you a “theocrat” (which would be impossible in your case anyway). I pointed out that ancient Israel was a Theocracy as a means of countering Jewbacca’s libertarianism and apparent fear of social conservatism.
No fear of “social conservatism.”
Just recognition that any government short of a proper Mosiac Theocracy will inevitably be ANTI-social conservative.
Big government means: ending kosher butchering, ending the bris, ending raising children with Jewish values, etc.
I don’t care if you start with something arguably socially conservative (e.g., drug laws). What happens is a giant government organization with guns grows up and turns into brown shirts with zero relation to the original mission.
Thank you for your support.
There is nothing wrong with anyone defending their viewpoints, but false classifications and aspersions without evidence is wrong. Please bust my case as well if in my vigorous defense of my views I cross that line.
Thanks again.
Agreed!
I told a social conservative that the War on Drugs was nothing but a warmup for a War on Bibles and War on Guns. He stated that running through parking lots and through neighborhoods with drug dogs needed to be done to combat illegal drugs. I asked if it would be OK to do that with a dog trained for gunpowder residues and onion skin paper. That thought horrified him, and he saw the light that the problem was excessive governmental power.
I made a small l libertarian that day.
A cousin of mine who is a former Mormon described Romney as being of a type he often saw among the leadership of that sect. Material success commonly brings prominence and the distinction of religious leadership and entry to the trusted elite circle of Mormon leaders. Such men often become accustomed to thinking of themselves as an elect whose motives and decisions are by definition above reproach. Often, whatever their individual virtues, they also buy into the premises of the liberal thinking that dominates among the elite in American society.
Your earned reputation is that you prefer to make personal attacks on people and personalize your postings rather than just stay on the topic.
You keep talking about someplace where “social only conservatives” go to battle libertarians, yet you can’t name that place.
Here at freerepublic it is conservatives who battle the liberal social agenda on the biggest issues of the day such as homosexualizing the military, gay marriage and abortion, and immigration.
If you want to defend those liberal/libertarian politics please do, but quit trying to create a lie that there is some kind of group of conservatives who are only conservative on social issues challenging them here at FR.
Great, you promote libertarianism, mock social conservatism, and then go into sounding like a preacher talking about God’s will and how the left/libertarians homosexualizing the military and creating gay marriage could be God’s will for us.
Weird and slippery stuff, promote libertarianism and when called on it, pretend to be deeply religious and that God wants America to become a libertarian/liberal cesspool.
Bishop Romney has never been in conflict with his religion.
Mormonism knows exactly what game they are playing.
Wow, that is totally nut case territory, you make up something about me and the a Christian party and then go on to tell us that you think that the GOP is “”Dragging the supernal Jesus into all manner of compromised, earthly agendas.””
You even label the GOP as “God’s Own Party.”
The anti-Christian hate is bad enough, but the insanity of thinking that the republican party which is moving ever more libertarian is some kind of Christ’s Party, is insanity and shows that you are really out of touch with reality.
Now you are keeping it up claiming I want to create some “new alternate party” I would love to see those posts, since they don’t exist.
My cousin has a strong regard for many rank and file Mormons and helped advise on the grassroots agitation that eventually led to Mike Lee’s insurgent conservative victory in 2010. In my cousin’s view, when rank and file Mormons realize that they have been misled, they become stalwarts virtually immune to further manipulation by Mormon leaders.
You’re right ansel, the social only conservatives NEVER challenge other conservatives, and libertarians NEVER challenge social conservatives, ever - especially here on FR. You are so brilliant and observant - what parallel universe am I living in???????
You are soooo right - there are no fissures inside the conservative universe at all. We are all 100% united, and on the same page - yes, all conservatives are so well rounded. What was I thinking?????
What “social only conservatives”?
To counter the libertarian position of being conservative on economics and lefty on social issues, you seem obsessed with trying to create a myth that anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, anti-homosexualizing the military and immigration, and pro-borders social conservatives like Jim Robinson and most of the other conservatives here, are actually liberals on the conservative positions on economics and limited government.
You are trying to create a new lie that the challenge to libertarians wanting to homosexualize our military and open our borders and destroy marriage and protect full term abortions are a new category of freeper called “social only conservatives”.
Actually, you don’t read very well, and you are clearly spoiling for a fight that doesn’t exist and you are torturing yourself with your own delusions about what you fantasize my motivations are. I made on value statement at all on the different strains of conservatism, just acknowledged that they are out there and that they sometimes clash. That you disagree with that will bring you shame publicly.
Now, Jim Rob is hardly a SOCIAL ONLY conservative. But kudo’s to you for trying to polish the teachers apple to prove some kind of sick “look at me, I like the teacher more than you do” kindergarten mess.
My take on Jim Rob, not that he needs my help, is that he’s an all around Constitutional conservative. He does at times emphasize the social issues, but he is not a one trick pony by any stretch of the imagination. He supported Newt, who was HARDLY running a social focused campaign. Jim Rob is all around conservative. Obviously.....
But nice try......
I am still looking for the answer to my posts to you.
To: C. Edmund Wright
I see some social only conservatives do that to libertarians and vice versa.
Where do you find "social only conservatives" taking on libertarians, where does one find those two teams battling it out?
51 posted on 10/1/2013 1:38:42 PM by ansel12
To: C. Edmund Wright
No, seriously, where do you find “social only conservatives” taking on libertarians, where does one find those two teams battling it out?
I see conservatives taking on libertarians at freerepublic, but I don’t know where you find those pitched battles of “social only conservatives” taking on libertarians.
86 posted on 10/1/2013 9:32:55 PM by ansel12
I am a Christian conservative who always challenges, Cino, Libertarians and ANYONE who is quasi-pro-life.
The official libertarian position is: “choice lite” whatever that means
And Cinos are always squishy on life just like Romney was.
I am a Christian conservative who always challenges, Cino, Libertarians and ANYONE who is quasi-pro-life.
The official libertarian position is: “choice lite” whatever that means
And Cinos are always squishy on life just like Romney was.
OMG, ansel strikes again. Project much?
This from the guy who has accused me multiple times of being not just a "Romneybot", but one of the BIGGEST ever on the forum. He never could find a post where I was for Romney, other than after he was the only one who could stop the reelection of BHO, the totalitarian horror he helped reelect. I mean, the inexcusable RINOness of my tagline that said, "I don't care for Romney, but the alternative is unthinkable". You've gone after many Sir Ansel, in a personal way if they didn't agree with some of your ramblings.
Kindly go pound sand Sir Ansel, you're a genuine force for the other side.
X you are also a well rounded conservative, and yes, you will challenge libertarians on their quasi pro life or pro choice leanings, etc. Which, frankly, was my point: there is this tension in the conservtive movement.
I will also say that while the official libertarian position is choice lite, intellectually sound libertarians (many are not) would understand that the first liberty we must all have is life, or all the other liberties are not so relevant.
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.