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 ...
No, I’m looking at their platform as it IS.
There is quite a bit of difference between your posting and their current. No offense, but your reading and comprehension skills need a bit brushing up; unless you are intentionally misstating the plank.
Ah, the besmirching fallback. I’m surprised to see the Nazi label missing as well.
I asked a simple, non-threatening, non-argumentative question that you may either answer or ignore.
What is it with the GOP/Conservatives and their lack of a respectable debate?
There is zero difference, what did they change?
You trolled with a stupid, time wasting question.
One reason trolls are kept off of FR is to avoid wasting time with liberals asking “”Please define ‘hard left liber social platform’.”” about a platform of partial birth abortion gay marriage and adoption, firing the Border patrol to truly open the borders, drugs, hookers, porn, etc.
I am primarily a federalist, but no party advocates this position. I worked in the GOP for years, but I dropped my affiliation a few years ago after realizing the complete futility of local politics. The constant boogie man in the wings gets old; the real boogie men have been ruining this country for decades!
I don’t see immigration or foreign policy as the biggest threats right now. Even if those were our greatest problems, unless libertarians had full control of all three branches, they would be very limited in effect, if not aim. I am for anyone who will actually decrease the size of all government and decrease government power.
The biggest threat to this country is not from foreign shore or foreign borders; it is the growth of government at all levels and the collusion of government, corporate and financial interests. I am all for business, but I am only interested in open competition and open markets based on sound fiscal policy.
If it was so ‘time wasting’, why bother to reply? to the reply? Since I still seem to be around, Jim and gang must not worry too much about me being a ‘troll’. Report me if you think otherwise, I do not own this board.
Now, when you use your own terminology, how is one supposed to gather your thoughts on the subject at hand? If you can’t handle such an innocuous request, why are YOU even here?
In fact, I’m all up for a spirited debate, for those that wish to do the same. Rarely will you see me post to put-down, if not in jest. Attacking me does nothing for your position nor for the debate. If that is all you have, please let me out of any further replies on this thread.
(I’ll presume to see another post or two in reply anyway)
Maybe, because their position changed?! Have you known ANY party platform to stay STATIC?
Sorry, hit the button before I finished my thought:
As to being the same? They are WILDLY different. I don’t see how you can even equate the two.
One says, open borders (and I presume that’s what you’ve latched onto even though....)
The current says protect the borders but free travel (which does NOT equate to Citizenship)
LOL, typical troll nonsense, purely time consuming nothingness in service to liberalism, and no, the libertarians did not change their position on immigration.
FR is not a debate site by the way, especially not for the promotion of liberalism.
Ping for later
1. On whatever occasions he may have supported restricting the fedgov's allowance and spending addiction on matters domestic (welfare state).
2. When, in his early career, he was still a supporter of a vigorous and powerful military and its use in foreign affairs to the point of actual military VICTORY.
Goldwater was not merely a liberal but an outright social issue revolutionary idiot when:
1. He married and stayed married to his first wife Peggy who served for 35 years (ca. 1940-1975 when she died) on the Planned Barrenhood National Board of Directors and recruited for his 1964 campaign from the ranks of Planned Barrenhood enthusiasts (such as the late State Senator John Lupton, his state chair in Connecticut, whose eugenics enthusiasm was on a par with that of Margaret Sanger);
2. He brought his own daughter to an abortion mill to abort his grandchild, publicized that tragic fact) and said that anyone who objected could kiss his hindquarters;
3. He expressed his public support for active homosexual conduct in endorsing same by a grandson rumored to not be alone in that respect among BMG's progeny;
4. He tried to stop Ronaldus Maximus from defeating the hapless Gerald Ford (another pathetic social revolutionary and enemy of Western Civilization) and being nominated in 1976 which would have saved us from Jimmuh Peanut's pathetic excuse for a presidency. Goldwater actually cut an advertisement for Ford, urging California's GOP voters from allowing Reagan;s finger to be in charge of the nuclear weapon button. It had everything but the little girl picking daisies with the countdown in the background;
5. Goldwater was notorious in his last term for resisting Reagan on foreign policy matters from the peacecreep left, trying to help castrate the US intelligence community and resist weapons systems.
There is more where that came from but that should suffice. Goldwater was strictly a second rate intellect made to look better by good speechwriters like Karl Hess who wrote his 1964 nomination acceptance speech.
I trust I have not dodged your question.
I also gave you a lot more than a simple yes or no. If the GOP reverts from the party of Ronaldus Maximus to that of Goldwater, the party is finished. Militant baby-killing, destruction of the social fabric of this nation, rejection of Judaeo-Christian values, celebrating second rate losers like Ford and Goldwater, foreign policy weaseling, neglect of military strength and single minded obsession with Muffie's trust fund are no way for the nation's allegedly conservative party to go through life, superloser.
Thanks for the ping.
Atheism has caused far more oppression than christianity. Christianity has done far more good than atheism ever could. Blue laws...I don’t want them in my state but if a state/county wants them that’s their probative. Bloomberg is trying to do similar things in NYC with sugar and he ain’t no Christian. Its humanity which does such...not christianity.
Thanks, BlackElk, for the info on Goldwater. Very enlightening. I undersand now why the libertarians have been promoting him so much on this thread.
My history may be lacking, but I don’t recall too many (none, actually) wars and the like attributed to atheism. I’m always willing to learn something new.
My point being that ALL religions, not matter how ‘benevolent’, are prone to zealot mentality. Hence, it should have little influence in politics.
Now, as to the last, yes, they have been State functions (and rightly so), but, again, goes to my point of having religion as a basis of Law.
Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot ring any bells? The most repressive killing machines out there. Zealot mentalities are found in all humans. Its a fallacy to say it’s a christian characteristic. Christianity has done some amazingly positive things including giving us our foundation for freedeom in gov. Of course this is always under attack and a popular way to do that is by attacking christianity.
lol, good point. Now, I didn’t say zealots ONLY came from one religion or another, I just said ALL have them, and they don’t help ANY ‘cause’ of Humanity.
Again, it is a good base to start. Even an agnostic, such as myself, can acknowledge that. But it is not the end all to all our problems. Gov’t can NEVER instill morality.
Absolutely not and thank you for your candor! Would that others were as such.
Zealots are found everywhere in hunanity, even among atheists. It’s not a christian characteristic...it’s a human one. But somehow the leftists have succeeded in making people think zealotry is a christian thing. Far from it.
And, as I said, some of the worst fanatics have been anti-christian atheists. In my view christians do a better job of ensuring freedom in gov’t...including freedom of religion...than others.
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.