Posted on 02/01/2002 10:21:47 AM PST by Exnihilo
As a knuckle-dragger to a thumb-sucker, let me say this:
I checked your posts on other threads, and you are just what I supposed, a disruptor.
Didn't see a single substantive item; just smears of Libertarians.
I'll say this for you, you smoked yourself out! LOL!
Closest to that is Kansas, and they moved there just a few years ago. I'm probably not your long lost fourth cousin three times removed, or whatever.
"If you throw your beer cans out the window of your pick-up truck, and your wife shoots them ... you might be a redneck." -Jeff Foxworthy
AB
C'mon.... at least be honest with yourself.
You posted this, never imagining that there was an imaginary rule that you were obligated to read anything other than the title.
And when you realized your mistake, you started the current line of song and dance.
No, but He sure has provided the opportunity.
I believe that's known as "freedom", something that was granted to Adam and Eve in the Garden, if you'll recall. God provided them the opportunity in the form of access to the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Not only that, He actually permitted temptation to be provided in the form of a certain being who was cast out of Heaven. Talk about your Grand Conspiracy Theories: God actually "permitted" the fall of Adam. But then again, maybe the problem was simply that God is so weak that He is incapable of keeping fallen angels from invading certain locations, and incapable of creating beings that are not subject to temptation.
Freedom has a cost. That cost was the reason why a Redeemer was sent to Earth. God apparently feels that the principle of freedom was worth the price of sacrificing a Redeemer.
Joe Isuzu telecaption translation:
"I've been crapping my pants trying to distance myself from this article I was too lazy to read".
The only difference I have with the Libertarian Party platform is in the area of Abortion. One of government's legitimate powers is protection of its citizens lives, and a preborn person is still a person.
One of the most passionate advocates on this threads in defending Libertarianism is a hard core Christian , and coincidentally, a hard core atheist and libertarian posting on this thread is also a hard core "Right to Life" advocate (from what I've seen on this forum before).
Please select a narrower brush before you start painting.
This silly article was first posted, here:
Why is libertarianism wrong? {Libertarians}
[Free Republic]
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a397a291e4f3b.htm
Changed:5:29 PM on Thursday, July 27, 2000
Ron Paul is as close as they come, I suppose. I'm registered Republican, myself. But I wouldn't say too many Republicans legislate like little-l libertarians.
Sadly, the overwhelming majority of congress is socialist, varying only in the degree to which they embrace redistributionist and authoritarian policy.
The most notable exception being Congressman Ron Paul (who curiously enough was a libertarian candidate for president of the United States)
Well, there's Ron Paul..
Oh, whoops.. He's a Republican.
Not very good I'm afraid.
The majority of Americans have decided that they value socialist redistribution programs more than liberty.
So they keep electing republicans and democrats.
As a practical matter, not too many Americans are interested in voting for someone who preaches restraint. They'd sooner feed at the government trough.
If all republicans were like Ron Paul, I'd vote republican every election.
But unfortunately, he's not only the exception, but he isn't even very well-tolerated by rank and file republicans (who are socialists at heart).
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.