Posted on 08/03/2013 6:35:31 AM PDT by Kaslin
The very first bit of anti-libertarian humor I ever posted was this clever video about the anarcho-capitalist paradise of Somalia.
I then shared two cartoons, one on libertarian ice fishing and the other showinglibertarian lifeguards.
That was followed by a very funny list of the 24 types of libertarians.
But I haven’t shared anything making fun of people like me since this “think I do” montage last year.
Thanks to Buzzfeed, however, we now have something new for our collection. They came up with “23 Libertarian Problems” and here are two of my favorites from the list.
(Excerpt) Read more at finance.townhall.com ...
LOL, no they don’t, or else they would be able to carry some weight in changing the libertarian unlimited abortions at any time, any stage, ZERO interference position.
To point out the obvious, it was the comments about restricting individual choices by adults. Thanks for asking.
So you don’t think Sowell said it then?
Let’s get that cleared up first.
So, you haven’t informed yourself. I’ll bet you’re used to that position.
You are agreeing that Islam should define marriage, and that atheists can’t marry?
__________________________
No to both
Yes
In 366 you lied, you had agreed that marriage should be purely a religious matter, Islam is religion and atheism is not.
That gives you legalized polygamy and atheists unable to marry at all.
In 367 you say that the military does not need to have a definition of wife or widow, you don’t know anything about a military life, or death, do you?
Why do you not speak, unable to explain your nonsense?
I am not a libertarian, but you accuse conservatives like myself of infiltrating what’s left of a political force. What political force would that be?
The GOP left conservatives, like me and many there, just like the DNC left Ronald Reagan. The GOP leadership does not care one iota for conservatives and want to marginalize us.
If the GOP leadership wants me and many other conservatives on their side, they will have to start moving back to the right instead o lurching hard to left. The days of “pulling the lever for the GOP guy because if I don’t the Democrat wins, are over. If the GOP candidate does not hold my beliefs at heart, he or she is not going to get my vote...period.
I think he did say it. My issue is what he says and how he says it. I don’t think the definition he stated there of what constitutes a ‘conservative’ is all that compelling.
Under our system of law, there is no question that abortion is a matter left to the states, because it is not addressed in our Constitution. It’s just not enumerated in the Constitution. 10th Amendment. That was clearly understood for nearly 200 years. We are so conditioned by the leftwing desire to federalize every issue, that it’s difficult to conceive of the states deciding those issues, but they did for decades. Important does not equal federal. Thank God, because Washington is obviously a cesspool. Alas, federalism is probably dead anyway. The alternative under our laws is to amend the constitution. I don’t have a lot of hope, but I tend towards pessimism.
As for the left recruiting libertarians to fight their battles, I have to ask for an example. Libertarians don’t make much of a voting block (like 1% or so in a strong year), and the Left hates them even more than ansell does. Given that electoral weakness, I don’t think the Left would even bother.
William F. Buckley summed up the role of conservatives with his classic line “standing athwart history yelling stop”. So Sowell isn’t exactly off the reservation with his comment.
But again, what’s most interesting about Sowell’s remarks isn’t so much what he said about conservatism, but that he selected the label libertarian as the best match for him. Presumably this was because libertarian core principles are closest to his own, and even though yes he does note that he disagrees with libertarianism on some issues. I do think it’s telling that he apparently agrees with libertarians on the drug issue, which for many conservatives is the bright line between conservatism and libertarianism.
Before Washington got in on it, abortion was illegal here. Washington got in on it. Now it’s legal here. Do the math.
In 366 you lied, you had agreed that marriage should be purely a religious matter, Islam is religion and atheism is not.
_______________________
So what? I said that the religious can define marriage however they want. Atheists can define marriage how they want.
________________________
In 367 you say that the military does not need to have a definition of wife or widow, you don’t know anything about a military life, or death, do you?
_______________________
Survivor would be the designation I would use.
Do the math?
Why don’t you look at what changed.
What changed was the nation becoming aware that they were killing people, American people.
Once people realized the reality, then it made for an entirely different issue.
If innocent people are being murdered under a local law, then it is not local.
Don’t tell me that you would be against ending abortion at the federal level if we can.
So you want marriage to cease to exist, and to just let people call whatever they want, marriage.
And you want all of those relationships treated as and funded as “marriage” in the military?
That was cute the way you tried that, use abortion, and then the homosexual agenda.
Remember abortion?
Well hell why not point out with the same energy the fact that the Democrats are the party of slavery ,socialism & sodomy or that the Republicans are for all intents & purposes spineless zipless F#@ks.
Yes, do the math. Abortion was illegal here. Washington got involved. Now abortion is legal here. It’s almost like they didn’t care what folks around here thought about it. That’s what changed. What part of that has you confused?
Why are you inquiring as to where I stand on ending abortion at the federal level. You already know everything about where I stand on everything, don’t you? You claim to. Any minute now you will post that single leftwing social position I have promoted, or that spot where I attacked social conservatism. In my heart, I almost believe that you will. Come on, man (I might assume too much). You can do it!
I’ll make this issue easy on you. Under our Constitution, abortion is a matter left to the states, because it doesn’t fall under an enumerated power for the federal government. It’s that simple. Leaving it to the states doesn’t mean it isn’t vital, it just means that’s the way our Founders set things up. They thought it best that the federal government only have a few specific duties (please tell me if you disagree on this). They were sort of suspicious of concentrated power (again, please tell me if you disagree on this). What they didn’t anticipate was a Supreme Court that would make stuff up. I think you would have to read the Constitution in a dishonest manner (like a liberal) to see it otherwise. Since the Supreme Court usurped the 10th Amendment power of the states on abortion, it is necessary to amend the Constitution. I don’t see another alternative, apart from war, as efforts to overturn Roe have been unsuccessful.
You are arguing that abortion is a federal issue because people suddenly became aware that abortion was killing. That is absurd. Abortion was illegal prior to Roe for a reason. Namely, that reason was that people saw abortion as killing. Obviously. You don’t get that?
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.