THEY’RE NOT DONATING MONTHLY!
** help .. click **
Posted on 12/21/2011 10:41:32 AM PST by presidio9
“No matter how much I hate the idea of a president Mitt Romney, I will vote for him in the general election for that reason alone.”
Now we get to the nut of the underlying philosophical difference here. You’ll continue to vote for whatever “republican” the gop nominates on the off chance that their USSC appointments will matter worth a tinkers cuss. If USSC appointments actually mattered, then why oh why is Roe v Wade still the law of the land? Over 35 years later!
The gop is offering conservatives a suckers game. It’s three-card monte for conservatives, and I’m done playing it. I’m picking the most conservative person on the ballot. If that candidate happens to be a libertarian, then so be it. If that happens to be a third party candidate, then that’s just fine and dandy with me.
If the gop won’t nominate conservatives, then what good is it?
I see ... the Declaration of Independence and Constitution were written by racist, pro-slavery, white supremacists. Therefore, “conservatives” must reject these things.
Gotcha.
Piss off, Palestinian. You know nothing about the founders.
Piss off, Paulestinian. You know nothing about the founders.
No, you’re the one defending slavery and accusing our Founders of being un-Christian, racist pro-slavery types. That’s your position.
You’ve also admitted you support slavery, and think states should have a “right” to it.
Don’t bother replying any further, because I won’t see it.
(1) The Founders really were “racists” and “white supremacists” and many of them really were “slaveowners.” That’s a fact.
(2) The Constitution protects slavery in the 3/5th clause, the fugitive slave clause, and the slave trade clause.
(3) Some of the Founders were Christians. Some were Deists. Unlike Britain, America has never had an established national church.
(4) The term “racism” doesn’t appear in America until the 1930s. It seems to have originated in communist circles on the Far Left in Europe in the 1920s.
(5) Slavery was legal in every Southern state until 1865. That’s a fact.
Want to bet?
Your confusion is based on the idea that libertarians CAN be conservative. They can not. Libertarians are strict constitutionalists. As such they have found a place within the Republican umbrella, as a sort of conscience, but they differ with conservatives on many, many issues.
I am not going get into an issue by issue discussion here, so if you need to know what a conservative then "looks like," pick Ronald Reagan, the benchmark for modern conservativism in this country. The man was not perfect, and he famously (on this website anyway) appealed to libertarian voters in a 1975 interview with Reason Magazine, but as president he consistently chose the conservative pack, as opposed to the libertarian one.
You can be a libertarian republican, or you can be a conservative republican. You can't pick your friend's nose, and you can't be a "libertarian conservative."
“You can be a libertarian republican, or you can be a conservative republican. You can’t pick your friend’s nose, and you can’t be a “libertarian conservative.”
Libertarians, or classic liberals as I prefer to call them, are similar in their ideology to paleoconservatives. Similar, but not identical. I guess you could argue that a classic liberal cannot by definition be a “classic” or paleo conservative as well. OK. You’re good as far as it goes. But to say or imply that they’re all that different isn’t true.
The big ideological differences are really between classic liberals and paleo conservatives on one hand and the neoliberals and neoconservatives on the other. The classic liberals and paleoconservatives tend to be for minimal governmental control. I’d argue that the emphasis is different; classic liberals tend to focus more on social issues and paleoconservatives on more the economic, but both would agree that reduction of the size and scope of government is generally a good thing.
Neoconservatives and neoliberals on the other hand both tend to embrace bigger government. Their priorities are of course different; neoliberals want a large welfare state while neoconservatives tend to favor a large military. Neither disagree materially on what the size and scope of government should be, but they disagree emphatically on what it should do. There is also a lot more animosity between neoliberals and neoconservatives than between classic liberals and paleoconservatives in my experience. And as a result, the lines between “libertarians” and paleoconservatives tend to be more blurred. In contrast, if you err and call a neoliberal a conservative, those are fighting words. Even though they’re a lot more similar than either would like to admit.
You are making this a lot more complicated than it needs to be. A conservative can’t and won’t vote against restrictions on transporting minors across state lines for abortions, and he certainly won’t do it twice.
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.