Posted on 08/01/2013 9:28:50 AM PDT by Responsibility2nd
Way back in 1975, a Republican agitator named Ronald Reagan had this to say about an esoteric young movement that was roiling politics: “If you analyze it, I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism.”
Neither the GOP old guard nor the rowdy libertarians ever quite bought that argument.
They both lay claim to the same conservative economic philosophy. But libertarians are more isolationist and antiwar than Republican orthodoxy allows on foreign policy and more permissive on social issues.
Still, in the nearly four decades since Reagan made those comments, the two have managed — at least most of the time — to maintain an uneasy marriage of expedience.
Libertarianism once again appears to be on the rise, particularly among the young. But its alliance with the Republican establishment is fraying, as demonstrated by the increasingly personal war of words between two leading potential 2016 presidential contenders.
The sparring began last week, when New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) posited: “As a former prosecutor who was appointed by President George W. Bush on Sept. 10, 2001, I just want us to be really cautious, because this strain of libertarianism that’s going through both parties right now and making big headlines, I think, is a very dangerous thought.”
After Christie made it clear that he was referring to Rand Paul, the Senate’s leading critic of the National Security Agency and its surveillance programs, the Kentucky Republican fired back on his Twitter account: “Christie worries about the dangers of freedom. I worry about the danger of losing that freedom. Spying without warrants is unconstitutional.”
Their feud — which is being watched closely as a possible warmup round for 2016 — has continued, expanded and spilled over into other issues.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Actually, Romney was very libertarian on the homosexual agenda.
I wish I would have read the whole thread first Dadfly, you admit to oversimplifying and seem like a nice enough fellow.
My position is this. I will vote for a conservative despite some libertarian leanings. So I don’t give a flying @#$ what ansel likes to throw out there in philosophical debate. Never again will I vote for a non-constitutional GOP member. These idiots who like draw lines between Cruz and Paul are insane in my opinion. In any case anyone from the Bush tree is done forever. Anyone from the tree of Bill Kristol, Dick Cheney, McCain, Boehner, Paul Ryan, Chris Christie etc. Done. I don’t care where they stand any issue at this point they are dead.... useless. Those folks are far more dangerous than Rand Paul.
Wow, if you are discussing a freeper, then ping him.
Not really; there's the mere fact that if you are a Christian I have a different set of things that needs to be said to you WRT you behavior. (If not, then it isn't my place to correct you on it.)
Which post was it where you told me that you agreed or disagreed with the libertarian position that you want to start justifying and explaining?
We took a good half a thread up, and you were unwilling to listen then; why should I expect you to listen now, especially given your behavior on this very thread?
Yeah, the post of you telling me whether you agree or disagree with the libertarian position on personal relationships doesn’t seem to exist.
It was a month (two?) ago. You made it clear that agreeing with any of their sentiments, in any way or form, was tantamount to agreeing with every position the Libertarian website offered, as well as your refusal to acknowledge the second sentence in that statement: Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships.
Until you acknowledge that such stance can exist separately from approval/embracing of homosexuality there is no point in talking with you on that subject precisely because you will accuse any such inclination to be the approval/embracing of homosexuality.
That was where i was back when the debate here was RINO John McCain vs. not as much of a RINO George Bush in 1999.
It’s been a weird decade and a half....
Oh good Lord, I don’t who you are, or your positions on something because you posted it on some distant thread.
I can’t believe that you were wasting all this time on this thread because you think people remember you and one of your posts from months ago.
I will say that typical of libers here, you want to fiercely defend the liber position on personal relationships, while getting angry and personal, while refusing to admit that you agree with it.
It is mind boggling, this liber trait of fighting fiercely and nastily for liber positions that they will not admit to sharing personally.
Considering that some of them barely believe we should have a foreign policy and a government at all, sure.
But I have to wonder about what the "Republican orthodoxy" is. It seems like there are a lot of varied opinions out there short of absolute isolationism.
I wasn't; you've constantly affirmed my suppositions: that you are merely here to attack.
I will say that typical of libers here, you want to fiercely defend the liber position on personal relationships, while getting angry and personal, while refusing to admit that you agree with it.
See, there we are!
I cannot say personal relationships are not the business of the government
without you jumping to attack.
(Point to the post were I'm angry and personal; defensive, yes [and reason given]. Snarky: yes, at times. But angry and personal? Where?)
It is mind boggling, this liber trait of fighting fiercely and nastily for liber positions that they will not admit to sharing personally.
Why is it that you cannot accept a partial agreement on some position?
Do you think it is just and right for the government to define, license or restrict personal relationships
?
(Do we need marriage licenses? What about friendship licenses? Acquaintance certificates? Permits regarding personal association?)
See, I'm asking you perfectly good, valid, on-topic questions and it is you who are hung up on whether or not I ascribe, wholly and completely*, to a document I have not published nor hand in creating.
* You reject any in part
, or take agreement with the underlying principal
to be utter endorsement of their entire statement.
"You don't need to be straight to fight and die for your country. You just need to shoot straight." - Barry Goldwater
Is someone trying to tell us that Mister Conservative is not a conservative? That would be shocking.
Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell didn’t keep out gays, it just kept out all their crap.
^^^ which is how it should be.
exactly and now its pretty much law everywhere in Russia too
Superloser, supporting the homosexual agenda as you do is not conservative.
Which is it, you wanted to legalize homosexuality in the military but keep it second class, as Clinton did, or to make homosexuality equal in America as some of your posts indicate?
Your analogy is off.
Your analogy would be correct if:
The Republican party changed its platform to pro-fagdom, pro-abortion, open borders all illegals welcome, and other total crap, and I still called myself a Republican.
We’re talking PARTY and IDEAS, not people.
Romney and McCain are scum and I refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils ever again.
If you can keep on topic (doubtful) and be rational (even more doubtful), we could discuss.
We are not discussing rotten slimey weasel politicians, but principles. The LP platform is evil, leftist/anarcho garbage with some nice sounding financial and economic ideas.
Anyone who calls themselves a libertarian but claims not to agree with major portions of the LP is clinically insane or a liar.
I don’t call myself a Republican any more because the platform doesn’t adhere to Constitutional principles enough, but mainly because the GOP elites are worse than the Dems because they’re dishonest self serving scum and/or liberals.
Oh, another interesting feature of almost all libertarians (and I’ve also seen this attitude among dope smokers, but then I guess I’m repeating myself) they have a weird “holier/cooler/smarter than thou” attitude and refuse to discuss rationally and honestly.
You were telling me that you had answered whether you agreed with the libertarian position on personal relationships, and then eventually revealed that you had done so months ago, on another thread.
You are fighting for the libertarian position, so why all the hours of evasiveness and dishonest cutesiness?
You think that is a successful approach to get someone to argue it with you.
And what agenda is that, pray tell?
What someone does in the privacy of their own home is none of my business and it is none of your business until and unless they are harming someone.
That being said, I am no fan of Pride Parades. I am no fan of "special protection" because, really, its nobody's business. If someone wants to go out and be Flaming, then they draw attention to themselves and all bets should be off at that point.
But really, whose business is it if things stay behind closed doors? When they leave those closed doors, that is where I draw the line. Full stop.
You know this, and I know it, and he deep down knows it.. but he sticks to that annoying legalism about what the definition of “born” is. He’s one of those wimpy “I’m personally against it, but I wouldn’t tell a woman what to do” people. A flake.
The best I’ve gotten is to ask him: if a state changed the legal definition of “born” to the time of fetal viability, would he concede his case in that jurisdiction? He squirmed a LOT on that one, and tried to claim that states don’t have that power. I asked him to point out where this supposed limit on state power was established, and he couldn’t answer.
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.