To: SoConPubbie; ansel12
ansel12 has a whole bunch of definitions that make no sense as far as I’m concerned. And he absolutely refuses to define what he claims to be - a conservative.
71 posted on
03/14/2014 3:13:06 PM PDT by
PapaNew
To: PapaNew; ansel12
ansel12 has a whole bunch of definitions that make no sense as far as I’m concerned. And he absolutely refuses to define what he claims to be - a conservative.
I'm not talking about Ansel12 here, but your definition of what it means to be a small "l" libertarian stacked up against Reagan's definition and how he lived it.
Hint, yours doesn't match up with his.
72 posted on
03/14/2014 3:18:56 PM PDT by
SoConPubbie
(Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
To: PapaNew
No, it is you that wants to create definitions to conceal libertarianism and your supporting it.
Libertarians are social liberals, that is the reason to never support one, for instance the feds have to have federal laws regarding gays, and gay marriage, and abortion, we don’t want libertarians who support leftist views on those issues being elected.
We sure don’t want to tolerate libertarians wanting to rewrite the GOP platform to reflect those left wing politics.
73 posted on
03/14/2014 3:19:17 PM PDT by
ansel12
((Libertarianism offers the transitory concepts and dialogue to move from conservatism, to liberalism)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson