Posted on 04/18/2002 5:43:33 AM PDT by Commie Basher
Perhaps not. But neither will the GOP. And at least the LP has these ideas about cutting government -- which cannot be said about the GOP.
I see what you're saying, but I disagree. The GOP base thinks of cutting the size and scope of government, but the non-politicos who are the GOP representation in the House and Senate don't. Well, they don't know how to fight. They think that politics is a debating club.
But the GOP base never insists that the elected officials do anything about cutting government. They may think about it, but when they get right down to it, they are happy to elect people who promise to grow government, so long as the politician has a GOP label.
Take GW for instance. Throughout his campaign, he promised to grow government. He never suggested he'd cut government. But the GOP base elected him anyway.
Anti-porn campaigners warn women that the possible dangers of sexual violence are too high a price to pay for freedom, whether it be freedom of expression in general or the specific right of women to explore their sexuality. We should cower once again in the "safety" of marriage rather than risk the fear of sexual assault, we are told. Pornography "gives men ideas", you know, and those ideas are of no use to women. Anyway, porn is just "pictures of women for men", and shows "no mutuality" - and you know, they are absolutely right about that, where the UK is concerned, because the existing censorship doesn't much allow you to show anything else.
How can you have mutuality if you can't show people together? How can you portray men sexually if you can't even show erections? Anti-porn "feminists" say this is an innate trait of pornography, but it certainly isn't a factor in the porn available in Europe and America, where plenty of porn shows mutuality, cocks, female sexual assertiveness and such. The much-deplored "imbalance" British women find in porn is an artifact of censorship, not of human sexual interest in sexual material. In other countries, women consume pornography; they don't do it here because there's nothing to buy."
From another site about why to vote libertarian:
"One of the few agreed-upon issues by Bush and Gore in this year's election is the problem of "smut" and "filth" on the internet. We must put sex and violence filters on computers in schools and libraries. We must shut down obscene web sites and prosecute their owners. We must do whatever is necessary to protect children from the dangers of online pornography.
Well, I say ba humbug and fiddlesticks to that! Bring on the smut!"
Another Libertarian group has a web page with links to such articles as "Tales from the Clit".
One Libertarian group runs a virtual prostitution museum.
There are more of these people than you can shake a stick at.
I know the official LP position does not praise porn. But a whole lot of people claiming to be Libertarians do. This damages the image of the entire movement.
By the way, I agree with the LP position on porn. My position is that maybe we should remember "Loose lips sink ships."
Go to the head of your class.
There is a Republican site claiming that all Republicans like to eat babies too.
No real libertarian ever promoted porn as a libertarian position.
Kevin Curry and Roscoe and CJ run the sites you mentioned.
Have faith. anything is possible. Just look at the news everyday. Shifting alliances and whole countries switching political and economic systems. And then there is the ...........
...Middle East, in particular that little speck of ground that everyone is fighting over..........ISRAEL.
We live in the end times, in this writer's opinion and we are in for the show of our lives.
God is in charge and I expect no letdown from Him.
CATO
And getting 0.01% percent of the vote is going to do that? Ha, I won't hold my breath waiting for the Libertarians (or any fringe party) to do anything.
Meanwhile....
Our government grows, takes more of our money and spends it to benefit themselves.
Perhaps working for change wihtin the party could work...
It hasn't so far....
Or are you in favor of bigger government, more taxes, and less freedom.
What would you suggest?
Libertarians (or any "fringe party") will make a difference when they attract a decent percentage of the vote (say 5% or more) and that difference is the difference in the election.
Ross Perot didn't even come close to getting elected President in 1992, but he forced both Democrats and Republicans to focus--against both parties' wishes--on the deficit and national debt.
It's not necessary to win...only to significantly place. The Socialists and Progressives didn't win (the Presidency, or many members of Congress) but they did get most of their agenda enacted.
Your comment that libertarians are terrorists in bad taste, and detract from what is otherwise a good point.
Republicans on the other hand, have done a wonderful job at reducing the size of government...
Like when they federalized airport security workers.
And expanded federal involvement in education.
And provided free prescription drugs for seniors.
And re-funded NEA and NEH after they were already dead.
And pushed that big fat socialist farm bill.
And extended government unemployment benefits....
Yeah, it's a good thing the GOP is on the job alright.
Otherwise government might be growing or something.
And what is the site address?
Wow...
Didja think that up all by yourself?
All buy yourself huh?
Too funny for words.
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.