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 ...
Do you have a condition? Maybe one that renders you blind to sarcasm, irony, exaggeration, and/or illustration?
Because the plight mentioned in 173 there was heterosexuals*, or did you not read it?
And 172 was about the reediness of our government to trample the Constitution in all matters due to rampant statism; of which I assume you ascribe.
* To wit, they were purging the ranks of anyone pointing out that DOMA was still considered law well before the USSC decision overturned it.
For a person to even be able to think in terms of the silliness of post 173 was incredibly revealing. To think that simply reversing normal and the bizarre homosexual agenda as though they are the same, was an insight into your thinking, it is no wonder that you have so many strange ideas.
As a lawyer involved in divorce law, Thomas Jefferson would be waving his marriage license at you.
George Washington would be raging at you insisting that homosexuals not only serve, but serve as married men in the military, the Continental Congress and the nation’s Congress would be outraged that you insist that they include “gay marriage” in their definitions of marriage.
And didn't the man own slaves? A morally reprehensible and unconscionable thing to our standards?
In short, just because the founders did something, does that make it morally right?
(Or were they free from sin?)
“Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question.”I think Jefferson might agree that government of others should be kept as small as possible.
—Thomas Jefferson
1st Inaugural Address, 1801
George Washington would be raging at you insisting that homosexuals not only serve, but serve as married men in the military, the Continental Congress and the nation’s Congress would be outraged that you insist that they include “gay marriage” in their definitions of marriage.
I never claimed that homosexuals serve, nor that they serve as married men in the military.
You are utterly dishonest; see how you twist the statements around to say whatever you wish them to?
You rage, and fight, and seek only to quarrel; why?
LOL, OK, I see this from libertarians frequently, just mindless arguing with nothing really in mind except to rage against conservatism in some manner.
I love that reaction on mention of Jefferson having a marriage license, O-OH Yeah? Well What about slavery Man.....
Yes, I support allowing free movement between borders. That does NOT = Citizen and all the benefits that entails. It also does NOT mean ‘whomever wants to come across with anything they wish to carry and never bat an eyelash’.
Lastly, I oppose gov’t interference, preference and social, engineering using a rigged tax code, in any/all contracts between adults. Gov’t should NOT be in the middle of marriage or any civil union (one being a religious matter, the latter a contractual, and in many ways the former is as well).
My thoughts are well posted if anyone wishes to look.
Who said all libertarians are atheists? Not me. However there are far more of them in libertarian ranks than in the gop. And no the gop is NOT just like the dems. If you think they are the same on taxes for example you have your head in the sand. Despite their faults, the gop held the line on cap and trade, kept the middle class bush tax cut in place and stood their ground against the huge gun control onslaught a few months ago. And its the gop governors who are defunding planned parenthood across the nation though I suspect you who are tending to lean libertarian may not see the good in that.
Snowden taking refuge in communist countries...leftists are convincing conservatives that that’s somehow heroic. Far from it. He’s a leftist adolescent punk with a glory complex who got all in a tizzy because guantanamo isn’t closed yet.
There's no "oh-oh yeah" I was making the point that just because it's legal/accepted doesn't mean it's moral/right.
But then again, tell me more about how you want government to regulate all your personal relationships.
Too true. The numbers games has always been 40% R 40% D and the other 20% ‘other’. Let’s not even get into the NIMBY thinking (IE: ‘SS is MINE since I *paid* into it’, so much for the Constitutional basis *rolls eyes*).
There is also the irony of their own hypocrisy: Conservatives ‘holding their noses’ for the lesser of two evils = capitulating their morals/beliefs/etc. for the Party; not very ‘conservative’ IMHO.
Reasonable stances, if you ask me.
Ansel12, on the other hand, will take that to mean that you support homosexual marriage (because there's some denominations that accept homosexual marriage) or some other BS to justify inserting his god, the great and powerful government, into your life.
Post 116 gives the libertarian position on immigration, and post 77 gives their position on the homosexual and related sexes.
That seems pretty radical stuff to be embracing, or thinking.
‘conscientious consideration’, which, IMHO, is completely 180 to the Constitution, especially with the knowledge and science we have today, and their own platform (live by the consequences of ones’ actions).
Other than the few areas, which can be debated and changed, I believe their platform is quite sound.
Sorry but when you suddenly deny that you support homosexual equality in the military, you are just too gone to try and make sense of.
No wonder you have bizarre ideas of removing law from marriage and divorce.
Sorry, I was being factious there....the ‘net pipes didn’t carry it very well. Your point is spot on.
My point is it is the Conservatives and Moderates whom have ruined their own brand. Allowing the watering down of their own platform, their own elected officials to sway and hem-n-haw instead of taking principled stands, expanding gov’t (even worse when THEY were in complete power), etc. They pay their own base lip service and the base responds “Thank you, sir, may I have another”.
The Leftists are at least honest in their wants and ideals. It takes a special rube to voluntarily not see what is put in front of them.
You support the hard left liber social platform with the claimed exception of abortion, yet consider that conservative?
I was supporting heterosexual equality, rather than the special status homosexuals have attained.
You are apparently unable to comprehend how much it galls someone who is (a) former Army, and (b) very interested in Justice to see that sort of injustice made SOP.
No wonder you have bizarre ideas of removing law from marriage and divorce.
Again, you are a fool: unable or unwilling to listen to another person, ascribing to them positions they do not hold and refusing to listen to any defense.
You have, however, shown that you are a statist: believing your god, the government, should be involved in, and superior to, all affairs of man.
Always so confusing as you slip back and forth,in and out, here and there.
You do support discriminating against homosexuals in the military, or support not discriminating against them?
You do want government laws involved in marriage and divorce or do you want government law removed from it?
Says the guy who doesn’t appear to have a clue that individual Rights and Responsibilities are at the very heart of what he denigrates.
There is nothing wrong with self governance, freedom, and Capitalism no matter how hard you fight to hate it.
Same players, same dance, same ignorance on display.
It’ll be the same the next time the topic comes up as well.
That is because you make no effort to listen; but I will answer the implied question anyway.
You do want government laws involved in marriage and divorce or do you want government law removed from it?
What business is it of the government who gets married? (As others have pointed out, there's a religious aspect there. I don't think the government should be in the business of regulating religions at all — before you bring out human sacrifice and whatnot, that is murder and I believe that should be treated as a capital offense. i.e. You can practice any religion you wish, but that doesn't mitigate/justify law-breaking.
)
You do support discriminating against homosexuals in the military, or support not discriminating against them?
How hard is it to see what I've said: the current modus operandi is a discrimination against heterosexuals, due to the protected status
of homosexuals, and such is wrong. (See, for instance, the Chaplaincy and it's problems dealing with the administration's vengefulness.)
I know, I know… what I'm saying doesn't make any sense to you. You find it unthinkable that anyone should want to limit government, your god, in the affairs of man.
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.