Posted on 08/25/2014 9:21:23 AM PDT by afraidfortherepublic
“But the motive was correct.”
As yes the old, “but we had good intentions” statement. Bullhocky, Saddam was not crazy just very ruthless and what we did was protect those that fund groups like the ISIS (hint, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait). What we did was destabilize the entire region because of a grudge match between Saddam and Bush Jr. You can try and rationalize this but the evidences speaks louder than any poor excuses you can give.
There some serious flaws in libertarian platform. Abortion. There should be no right to take innocent life.
Also the fight of Iran to develop nukes. However there is a lot of good also.
My ideal party would be a mix of strong conservatism and libertarian ideas.
Right of iran
I was just curious if you would give a non-evasive answer.
As far as the platform:
Regarding abortion, it wants government out of it, so on the one hand it's pro-abortion. But it doesn't want government financing abortion, nor giving special protections for clinic against protestors, nor mandating that medical students study abortion procedures if they don't want to, nor mandating employer health coverage of abortion or abortificant birth control, so it's more pro-life than what we have.
As far as "gay rights", it is against government passing laws restricting "voluntary sexual relations", on the one hand. On the other hand, it specifically upholds the right of people to choose not to do business with others. So libertarianism would not compel Christians to associate or do business with homosexuals, which again is better than where we currently are.
It is a little early for you to go personal isn’t it?
So it is pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage, and pro-gays in the military etc.
The same platform as today, far to the left.
I don’t think they have any.
Meanwhile, Democrats would consider it "beyond radical right wing", due to it not compelling people to associate or do business with other people.
Libertarianism would allow unions, but not allow unions to engage in violence and intimidation, nor compel businesses to recognize them, which would effectively gut unions.
Libertarianism would allow people to associate or not associate, hire or not hire, rent to or not rent to, other people on any basis they chose to. No more "anti-discrimination" laws. If a baker didn't want to bake a gay wedding cake, he wouldn't have to. If a business owner wanted to hire only red-headed Irishmen, then the government would not bother him.
You think the average Dem would agree with you that libertarianism is left-wing?
More precisely, democrats would find some elements of the childish politics of the libertarians, “conservative”, while much of it, in fact the easier to attain parts, or radically left wing.
Here is the leftists agenda hidden behind the Libertarian Party curtain.
Libertarian Party Platform:
Throw open the borders completely; only a rare individual (terrorist, disease carrier etc.) can be kept from freedom of movement through “political boundaries”, eliminate the Border Patrol and INS.
Homosexuals; total freedom in the military, gay marriage, adoption, child custody and everything else.
Abortion; zero restrictions or impediments full 9 months.
Pornography; no restraint, no restrictions.
Drugs; Meth, Heroin, Crack, and anything new that science and marketers can come up with, zero restrictions.
Advertising those drugs, prostitution, and pornography; zero restrictions.
Military Strength; minimal capabilities.
That Bush was strategically negligent in not pursuing those weapons was the sole error.
After all, absent the free flow of oil and WMD, the USA has NO INTEREST in the Gulf or elsewhere in the Middle East.
We could simply allow them to kill each other til such time as they reach Europe.
Overview Of America:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-MzxC8Mqupw
I Want Your Money:
http://www.firedrive.com/file/B7DF0B2EDD1E9CF4
Agenda: Grinding America Down:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUMOWZc8PU8
The Project parts 1-2:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcPIaEVrS8U
I’m pretty much an independent conservative because I cannot agree with the dovish pro-abortion and pro-drug libertarian platform. The end. I support conservatism at its core.
“The fact that he turned those WMD over to Syria is all the evidence we need to declare the operation necessary.”
There were no WMD’s and even if there were that’s no reason to invade. Heck we’ve got more WMDs than any one else on the planet, so does that mean anyone can invade us? And don’t say that we’re more responsible because history shows that we are more than willing to use them if we want to.
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.