Posted on 03/14/2014 12:08:38 PM PDT by US Navy Vet
If you are libertarian and arguing against social conservatives and conservatism, then it is pretty obvious who you support.
The feds have to make laws regarding the military, federal employment and immigration, and always have, how did you miss that, and why call it “unconstitutional” since the first congresses were doing it, and had to do it?
Which state decides federal law on abortion on federal land and hospitals and gay military service and recognizing gay marriage in the military and federal employment and immigration?
Well, there's the rub. The liberal "positive law" theorists have managed to use the 14th Amendment to steal away our freedoms to choose and associate. Is that the original intent and meaning of the 14th Amendment? No. I agree with the SCOUTS in the Slaughterhouse cases in the 1870's that confined the 14th Amendment to its post-Civil War intent: to give former slaves full citizenship rights and to forbid states from laws forcing segregation. That interpretation held for decades until the Progressive Fabian Socialists took over. SCOTUS reversed this and many other long-held precedents with little or no explanation and certainly nothing substantive constitutionally.
Supporting the Constitution by fighting against the unconstitutional federal government interference certainly doesn't make me a "social liberal". It means I agree with the Founders about what the federal government should and shouldn't be involved in.
Since abortion and "sodomite" rights (an oxymoron of there ever was one) are in federal hands now howbeit unconstitutionally, of course I would support amendments against them. But don't you see that the federal government is sponsoring a parade of horribles? And if we acquiesce to that, then every time we turn around we're going to need another constitutional amendment to deal with the next thing they have no business meddling with much less pervert?
I have to ping this out.
I don't know. How would you deal with that?
Obviously states aren’t’ the only government bodies that have to deal with marriage and homosexual issues and abortion.
Libertarians are social liberals, so we don’t want them at any level of government, we want conservatives.
Didn’t answer my question.
Of course I did, read post 85.
Why do you keep avoiding abortion and gay marriage at the federal level and homosexualizing the military, and less socially conservative politics and social conservative politicians?
I don’t know - becasue I never thought of it. My focus has always been the issue of the feds encroaching on states’ rights. I asked you an honest question - how would YOU deal with the feds on fed land and in the military?
Don't get me wrong -- I like Cruz. But, other than abortion [Paul is anti-abortion, vocally and loudly], what social issues has he brought up?
None, in my recollection.
Why are you so sure he's with you on them? Take a while before you commit. You might be disappointed.
No they don’t. Screw you charlatans.
One reason you haven’t thought about it is because you purposefully ignore it, like on this thread and many other threads.
Just like you keep making me post over and over that I answered your question in post 85.
When you fell better, maybe you can answer an honest question - What would YOU do about it?
To: PapaNew
Obviously states aren’t’ the only government bodies that have to deal with marriage and homosexual issues and abortion.
Libertarians are social liberals, so we don’t want them at any level of government, we want conservatives.
85 posted on 3/14/2014 4:17:01 PM by ansel12 ((Libertarianism offers the transitory concepts and dialogue to move from conservatism, to liberalism)
“States don’t make the laws that I just brought up on abortion, marriage and immigration and employment at the federal level.”
Duh! Rand Paul is saying that he believes the states SHOULD decide on Gay marriage. Not the Federal govt. I agree. A lot of other conservative republicans agree with that and they are not Libertarians.
Whether Rand Paul is a Libertarian remains to be seen and everygody will have to make up their own mind as the campaign unfolds. So far he’s been a pretty good republican and other than immigration and endorsing Mitch I don’t have a big problem with him at the moment.
Just remember Sarah Palin endorsing Mcstain. Now that was a blooper.
Duh? No kidding. Read post 60 again, ""The feds recognizing state gay marriages, and abortion on federal land, gay marriage and immigration, we know that “libertarian” means liberal on social issues at all levels of government and American culture.
States don’t make the laws that I just brought up on abortion, marriage and immigration and employment at the federal level.""
Which state makes the federal law on gay marriage and abortion for it's employees and the military and immigration, Massachusetts? Which state decides military and immigration and federal employee law?
That is why we need conservative politicians and a party platform, fighting gay marriage, not libertarians pushing gay marriage and wanting to change the party platform and convince conservatives to support more liberal candidates.
“That is why we need conservative politicians and a party platform, fighting gay marriage, not libertarians pushing gay marriage and wanting to change the party platform and convince conservatives to support more liberal candidates.”
Oh so now wanting to let the states decide on gay marriage is pushing gay marriage? Okay now I get it. :-)
“I dont know how would you deal with it?”
Good question professor. Please enlighten us I mean other than yelling “the Libertarians are coming, the Libertarians are coming.?” :-)
I am fine with agree to disagree but some things are off the table, one of which is same sex marriage. Marriage is a male/female thing, period.
Why not read the posts?
Which state makes the federal law on gay marriage and abortion for federal employees and the military and immigration, Massachusetts? Which state decides military and immigration and federal employee law?
That is why we need conservative politicians and a party platform, fighting gay marriage, not libertarians pushing gay marriage and wanting to change the party platform and convince conservatives to support more liberal candidates.
So what is your plan? I don’t think we have heard anything substantive from you yet? Its all well and good to attack everyone else as long as you can put forth a thoughtful plan of your own.
What is your thoughtful plan.
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.