Posted on 05/18/2007 8:13:13 AM PDT by traviskicks
Agreed.
“Again, most of the choses are still left to everyone.
First, there’s all your vice laws.
Then, there’s your war on some drugs.
Then, there’s your online gambling ban.
..I could go on and on.
Social conservatives are not on the side of individual liberty. If they were, there’d be no need for a libertarian party, and half the liberals would come over. But there is, and they don’t. You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.
Publicly stating this would have had you arrested during WWI in any of the Allied countries:
Germans Muslims war against nations that incessantly stick their nose into European Middle Eastern affairs. Other nations are left alone.
The one above or this one would have had you arrested during WWII:
Apparently, the definition of treason & sedition has changed dramatically over the last 60 years.
Maybe the difference is reflected in whether or not Congress actually declares war. All else is ‘police action’ and ‘pre-emption.’
It came out of the Saudi desert in 622 AD via the sword. How else do you think it spread? By peaceful missionaries? The entire religion is nothing more than a pretext to legitimize normal (in the sense that all societies throughout history have them) warlike tendencies. Its genius lies in deflecting criticism that would normally be associated with secular extremism like Fascism, Communism, etc. under the guise of religious persecution.
I admit to a certain inability to view them as anything but irrational demons, especially considering what happened to Daniel Pearl, Nick Berg, those 4 Blackwater employees hanging off the Fallujah bridge, etc. etc. I had a friend that bought the farm on 9/11. He had an office in the basement of the Pentagon in the section that was hit. He left behind a wife and two kids, one of whom is a "special needs" child.I respect your feelings and empathize with your loss. Please don't take my response the wrong way.
I don't quite see why I have to understand them. I want to defeat them; vanquish them; destroy them utterly.
“First, there’s all your vice laws.”
Like what? I haven’t been arrested for a vice law yet. Still waiting...
___________________________________________________________
“Then, there’s your war on some drugs.”
Freedom of drugs? Perhaps we can be like China, around the 1700’s and have a 1/3 of our population addicted to opium.
This is common-sense. Weed maybe the most benign of them, but the rest aren’t exactly commercial benefits to society. And since our society doesn’t live on a completely free basis (on so many levels), we’re forced to support these drug-head morons....
So no.
_______________________________________________________
“Then, there’s your online gambling ban.”
This is done over economic reasons, not really social. Vegas still needs to make money. If it was pure social reason, gambling would be completely banned.
__________________________________________________________
“Social conservatives are not on the side of individual liberty. If they were, there’d be no need for a libertarian party, and half the liberals would come over. But there is, and they don’t. You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.”
With every idea there needs to be counter-vailing views. I don’t fear the ‘social coservatives’. That’s just silly. Maybe because I’m not living a drug infested life w/gambling problems.
If that’s the epitome of social freedom, count me out. I’m a moderate libertarian conservative. I’m not fighting for idealogy....common sense will due.
No, the real difference is the Internet. Finally an anonymous vehicle in which to undermine resistance; and our enemies use it to perfection.
Have you even bothered to look at his stance on immigration and the border? And you do know he is pro-life, right? Look, I don’t agree with all his views in regards to the war on islamafascists, but otherwise, he is very conservative in most areas.
from his website:
Border Security and Immigration Reform
The talk must stop. We must secure our borders now. A nation without secure borders is no nation at all. It makes no sense to fight terrorists abroad when our own front door is left unlocked. This is my six point plan:
1. Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals.
2. Enforce visa rules. Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law. This is especially important when we recall that a number of 9/11 terrorists had expired visas.
3. No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That’s a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws.
4. No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services.
5. End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong.
6. Pass true immigration reform. The current system is incoherent and unfair. But current reform proposals would allow up to 60 million more immigrants into our country, according to the Heritage Foundation. This is insanity. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods.
Let’s not look a gift horse in the mouth as Ron Paul has shown his new leftist fans that Saddam had a motive to attack America on 9-11.
It came out of the Saudi desert in 622 AD via the sword. How else do you think it spread? By peaceful missionaries? The entire religion is nothing more than a pretext to legitimize normal (in the sense that all societies throughout history have them) warlike tendencies. Its genius lies in deflecting criticism that would normally be associated with secular extremism like Fascism, Communism, etc. under the guise of religious persecution.Sure, but it gained prominence because of the failure of alternatives, fascism(embodied by ba'athism), communism and democracy in the ME. Only after all of those alternatives had failed to channel the national drives of the people in the ME did radical Islam take over as the radical ideology of the ME.
I call it squeaky wheel syndrome.
It won’t matter; the poor man’s Ross Perot won’t get the nomination.
Etc, etc.
After re-reading your post three times and giving it some deliberation, I've come to the conclusion that you have no idea what we're talking about. Your points are basically accurate, but are not germane to what is being discussed. Like many Ron Paul supporters, (or Paul himself) you seem to have just enough knowledge to be dangerous. Thanks for the reply, though.
“If that’s the epitome of social freedom, count me out.’
Then you admit social freedom is what you think it is. Thanks for proving my point.
What is it about libertarians that makes your think you are one?
I’m using the keyword “paulbearers” to mark these threads. think of it as the death throes.
There are non-Muslims in Peru, Norway, South Africa, Mongolia, and Australia. Why don’t Muslims fly planes into buildings and pursue jihad against these nations?
Because you don’t get on tv by flying a plane into a building in Mongolia. That is, if they have any tall buildings.
Where was the internet in the 1960s, that hotbed of perfidious treason? Oh, there wasn’t one.
If the president can’t be bothered to ask Congress for a declaration of war, instead advising the day after 9/11 that we could best help by going to the mall, it’s unlikely a sense of common cause will last long.
Oh, I’m a Ron Paul fan of sorts. But he’s fringe, always was, and lone voices crying in the wilderness don’t get elected president. I can’t imagine what he thinks he’s doing.
Which reminds me of one last thing. Whether you believe it or not, my roots are in the libertarian movement. Ayn Rand was my first influence...can’t get more libertarian than that.
This sort of dissention of views has gone on since Adams and Jefferson. They had differing views on what we would indentify as Conservatism and Libertarian views. Their ideas and views are still prevalent to this day. But in all essence they are allies.
They generally make-up what we call the Republican Party.
C&L should debate rigorously, but I fail to see the worth of such semantic apraisals of idealogy above common sense. Purely judging an issue off an idealogy, is often not the best means of understanding the issue.
I’m sure he thinks he’s just telling us what the deal is. Doesn’t make it right though.
;-)
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.