Posted on 11/14/2006 6:25:58 PM PST by Purple GOPer
Do you really thin small 'l' libertarians vote for the elimination of state sponsered marriage, open borders and elimination of all drug laws just because they are ticked that the republicans spend too much?
It makes sense that Soros would pay Libertarians to run against us.
Evil and clever.
As I said they are basically snobs and self richeous standing above the fray proclaiming we are the last defeners of the constitution
I am sure they will be happy with the 51 federal judges Bush has to appoint and get through the democrats
As I said brilliant way to revive the Constitution
But they have the right to vote as they want
It is their sanctimonious attitude that gets me
Good!
And in the dozen or so others, they didn't. Also, how many had GOP backed rivals? Ron Paul not only has to fight Democrats, but often his own party to get elected. He's arguably one of the few smaller, Constitutional government Republicans in the House.
"Libertarians would accomplish more if they were not a political party, but were instead organized like the AARP or NRA."
You might have a point, but the majority of libertarians aren't even Libertarians.
They had control of Congress and did nothing but GROW government and make it even LESS Constitutional. We should vote for MORE of this without protest? Just shut up and punch the lever for more RINO's?
Yeah right...
Gun control, property Rights, and the economy kinda seperate the Dems and the Libs by an unsurmountable gulf.
The failure of the strategery of the Republicans, to focus on "the base" by trotting out social issues such as the South Dakota no-exception abortion ban (which lost, I'm pleased to say) demonstrated two things: First, social issues do not have long coat-tails. Second, the GOP base is fiscal conservatives more than it is social conservatives.
###
This is wrong in two areas. First, the Republicans need both fiscal and social conservatives to win. Second, Libertarians cannot support unregulated abortion and be true to their ideals.
The basic premise of libertarianism is that each individual should be free to do as he or she pleases so long as he or she does not harm others. This is totally at odds with legal abortion.
Abortion is killing an unborn baby. Pro-abortion Libertarians try to deny this simple truth but the scientific evidence is overwhelming that the unborn baby is a living human person.
By 21 days after conception the baby pumps his own blood through separate closed circulatory system with his own blood type. By 42 days the baby’s brain waves can be recorded, his skeleton is complete, and reflexes present. He also has unique human DNA.
In every state in the nation death occurs when there is no brain wave or no heart beat. If both exit no state recognizes that life has ended. If life has not ended when both exist it must be present when both exist. So while we cannot scientifically prove when life begins, we can scientifically determine when it is present and detectable.
Therefore, no Libertarian can be against laws that prohibit abortion after the 42nd day after conception. At least, they can’t be against such laws and remain true to the basic premise they espouse.
They can make a case for allowing abortion before 42 days after conception if they want to and still be consistent. But after that time a separate, unique, human life is unquestionably being ended by any abortion.
Libertarian support for killing unborn babies is one of the biggest issues keeping many people from considering the Libertarian party as a viable alternative to the Republican Party. It also flies in the face of their most basic belief.
They need to change their stance on abortion.
Try swinging the GOP back towards smaller government Constitutionalism if you want the LP vote back in your pocket. Bitching about it isn't going to get 'em back for you.
Again, I would remind you all that if no Libertarian candidate had been on the ballot in Montana or the other races where R + L > D in the vote totals, it is not clear this year that the Libertarian vote would have broken so strongly GOP that we would have won those seats.
This election was largely about defense policy, and the Libertarian party is as isolationist as the demonRATs. Why, with foreign affairs pulling them toward the 'RATs do you think their free-market stance and fiscal conservatism would trump their social liberalism and land them in our camp?
Hogwash.
"the party that went from Social Security reform"
In the midst of the grueling Iraq problems, rotten Plamegame, BUSH LIED!!!!!, Sheehan-stalking, UN reform, etc, President Bush burned up precious political capital and time traveling the country for months last year trying push through Social Security reform...
And then the libertarians rewarded him and the GOP by handing America to the Marxist Party that sabotaged it.
*spit*
To those of you who agree with Sanchez and the obnoxious choir echoing his juvenile tantrums, I'm glad you are not in my camp or my party. I would be ashamed to have you on my side.
Is that "principled" enough for you? Other than that, each individual SHOULD be allowed to do what they want as long as doing so doesn't interfere with the equal Rights of others. And no, using the excuse of socialism's "cost" via insurance and medical care rates doesn't count. Those are problems created by government, not by freedom of action.
The Republicans still have the majority, Bush should call them into session and end earmarks.
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.