Posted on 02/24/2005 6:27:01 AM PST by Happy2BMe
Libertarians Seeking 'True Conservatives'
By Susan Jones
CNSNews.com Morning Editor
February 24, 2005
(CNSNews.com) -- The Libertarian Party says its representatives were "very well received" by conservatives at a recent conference in Washington.
"We met a lot of people who are either supportive of our ideas or who simply support having an alternative to the big-government ideal put forward by the Republicans and Democrats," said Sam New, who organized the Libertarian Party's activities at the Conservative Political Action Committee Conference in Washington.
The Libertarian Party was a first-time cosponsor of the Feb. 17-19 CPAC Conference, and its involvement was a "big step forward" for the Party, said Executive Director Joe Seehusen in a report on the group's website.
"Our profile has been low for some time, and we were able to showcase our party in a positive light to many people and groups, including a large number of students and small business owners."
Seehusen, who considers President George W. Bush a socialist, said the Libertarians' support for limited government and appreciation for individual rights strikes a cord with many people who call themselves Republicans or conservatives.
"Many of them stopped by our booth to learn more," which is exactly why the Libertarians decided to take part in CPAC this year, he said.
The Libertarians believe they can appeal to "true conservatives" (as opposed to "big-government neo-conservatives") on a number of issues.
"By taking part in this CPAC conference, we hope to show that Libertarians are the true fiscal conservatives -- much more so than the Republicans are," Seehusen said on the Libertarian website.
He said the party is studying how successful groups market themselves, so the Libertarian Party "can more effectively reach out to conservatives" in the future.
So that other nonsense you made up about libertarians being libertines is out? I haven't seen you apologise or withdraw that BS yet.
No one...
Me neither. Oddly, that was one thing I was hoping Bush would come around on. The War on Terror is a big concern. His leaving the border open the way it is verges on inexcusable.
beep beep *CLICK*
DRUGS!!!!! ILLEGAL ALIENS!! DRUGS!! DRUGS!!! ILLEGALS!!!!
*CLICK* beep beep
(end FR libertarian thread inserto-matic bot)
What he's trying to do with Mexico in propping it up is a separate issue that conservatives oppose as well. Could be he's attempting to kill two birds with one stone, both of which are bound to fail.
I'm for upping immigration quotas to help feed worker demand. Not just flinging open the border and allowing them full access to welfare/medicare/social security. Also, people willing to INVADE us in a criminal enterprise are NOT the kind of people we want coming here. Period.
My take on matching "willing worker with willing empoyer" is that there are no quotas, if a job opens and no one applies for it then it's gets advertised to the world. The official libertarian line is in full agreement with that and has been for years.
There are it appears differing opinions among libertarians about the wiseness of such a policy but the fundamental philosophy of the party is that free movement of people, even if it is to be done only at legal checkpoints and not through the backdoor is just fine.
Then you might like the Constitution Party, basically they're pro-life Libertarians.
It's also what the President seems to be advocating we allow them to do. Or at least excusing them if they get caught. Above and beyond even that is the Presidents proposal to fork over our tax money to them. That money should see to our own national needs BEFORE it is ever considered for use elsewhere. Without a few billion going to Africa, a few more billion going to South America, and only the Gods know what else in foreign aid giveaways... we could probably get the budget way back under $2 trillion again. Easily.
$68 BILLION was lost because of illegals sucking up resources. Their taxes from picking turnips isn't gonna put a dent in that. Especially once they start drawing even more benefits legally. This'll make the Presidents Viagra give-away look frugal by comparison.
Illegal immigration has got to be stopped but at the same time we have to keep legal immigration quotas in place. No way could I support open-ended immigration, even if it's legal.
Everything else you say is correct, stop the foreign giveaways and end the welfare.
Agreement at last. Ending the welfare fraud is something else libertarians are big on. A hand up is one thing, but the hand outs have GOT to stop. Absent that, the "legal" immigrants would be less of a problem than you might think.
Hmmmm. A federal power to assist in the enforcement of state prohibition? Boy that sounds a lot like the 1913 Webb-Kenyon Act.
Hitherto that!
"Greed IS good. What on earth are you doing in FR (instead of DU) if you have a problem with people getting rich?"
Ayn Rand notwithstanding, greed is NOT good. Self-interest is OK and understandable but greed is a sickness of the mind and soul. Rand's creed is I, I, I, I, I ... It doesn't work if everyone follows it.
I have no problem with people getting rich.
What the libertarians can't understand - at least until they grow up - is that man is a social being and to maximize individual liberty (licience) with no thought given to one's fellow man is to invite chaos which then can quickly turn into totalitarianism.
When you maximize individual liberty (right to porn, whores, drugs, movement across borders, etc.), the equation becomes: libertarianism = tyranny. That's how the world works.
And by the way, libertarians will NEVER take over the GOP. The best they can do is influence the party on the margins.
Well I though I'd just cut to the chase, rather than dickin' around.
Yep. Particularly that last part.
Opinions formed from ignorance have plenty of reason to be humble.
Libertarians don't believe in the things you pretend they believe in. The one who needs to grow up is you. Your ideas about things are quite childish.
Knowing people are aware the word is spelled "kotow", although "kow-tow" may be acceptable in vulgar usage.
The right way, and the Bork way.
============================================
I agree with the first part of that. And the last part of it. And the middle part of it also.
Which part does the President not get?
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.