Matt Drudge Tweets! “Why Would Anyone Vote Republican”?

[Bigtigermike]

People are tired of the Republican-Democrat alliance

<

[Errant]

It’s not about how many, it’s about how they think that counts... ;)

[Rusty0604]

LOL

[cuban leaf]

...but a lot of bad things can happen. The only thing I have that is secure, is eternity. Beyond that, there are no guarantees.

---

Tell me about it.

I’m listening to Lamentations and Ezekiel on my 2.5 hour round trip commute right now. And I think that as a nation we are much worse than Israel ever was.

That said, the OT is about ISRAEL. The NT is about our personal relationship with Him. It is about the individual. I’m where I am in the spirit of Revelation 18:4 for that reason.

[thoughtomator 2.0]

Now that the liberty faction of the Republican Party has been shown to have been right about pretty much everything, are we welcome here again?

[GeronL]

What does that mean?

open borders is wrong

legal drugs is wrong

amnesty is wrong

perverting kids is wrong

“Liberty” is not license

[GraceG]

I am a Libertarian. Yes, I support drug legalization, because the War on Drugs is an absolute failure. Just an excuse to seize property.

The Drug “War” has given us: No Knock Raids, And almost complete dismantling of the 4th amendment, Property Seizure even if you are found innocent, Inability to carry cash above a certain amounts, Child Services seizing kids because the parents are suspected to be drug users even when they are not, A complete destruction of property rights and 5th amendment, Trampling on the states, etc etc.....

The sooner it ends the better in terms of individual liberty.

[Maceman]

We may defeat Obama in the march to war yet.

That will only be a battle won, not the war won.

The victory will be short-lived if the RINO Republicans maintain their power and collusion with the totalitarian Democrats.

Principled Conservative or political death should be the only alternatives that the base offers current Republicans.

[jjsheridan5]

libertarians support gay marriage and open borders too

Are you talking about the Libertarian party, or libertarianism. Because they aren't necessarily the same thing. I consider myself a libertarian conservative, and I don't believe in either of those things (but I do know that many people who claim the mantle of libertarian do). I am probably more conservative than you on immigration, in that I believe in going to a system for immigration based on merit, and I am strongly in favor of enforcing immigration laws. On gay marriage, I am wholly against (although I think marriage is a religious institution, and the state shouldn't have any role at all). I consider both positions libertarian and conservative, and couldn't care less whether others agree with me.

One of the big problems is that the ongoing assault on religion and quasi-religious organizations has created a vacuum, and has destroyed any shared sense of ethics.

[Viennacon]

Do you know which senators will be at the hearing today?

[GraceG]

Unintentionally, your post exemplifies a major problem with modern political thought. You confuse legality, with “normalization” and “acceptance”. A free society, but one consisting of people who share a common sense of character and morality, do not need laws to tell them what is normal and acceptable.

True, the social construct can ONLY be enforced via the culture. We should as a culture look down upon people with loose and wobbly morals because it is our right to use free speech to ridicule the crazy people.

[GeronL]

The goal of “gay marriage” is to destroy the institution of marriage. So your position is theirs on that issue

[Hugh the Scot]

It is ridiculous to me to even discuss “legality” in this particular context. The law is violence against liberty.

We do not need to “legalize” anything. We need to remove the arbitrary prohibitions against certain liberties that are codified into law.

The authoritarian outlook makes it illegal to possess a plant, because some person might misuse it, rather than focusing on the actions of the misuser, if they are harmful.

This is the exact same authoritarian outlook that thinks queer marriage can be legalized. They cannot force anyone to participate in their perverse unions, but the authoritarian bent seeks instead to force everyone else to accept it.(anti-discrimination laws)

They are two sides of the same coin. I may be “little l” libertarian after all.

The authoritarians can’t make me kill the unborn, participate in sodomy, or abuse my body with addictive drugs... By the same token, they cannot (morally) make me responsible for those who do.

More Constitution; less legislation.

[jjsheridan5]

True, the social construct can ONLY be enforced via the culture. We should as a culture look down upon people with loose and wobbly morals because it is our right to use free speech to ridicule the crazy people.

That's the missing element. Shame is a good thing (for society). People should be ashamed when they do wrong (although not necessary something illegal), and people should let them know that they view them with contempt. But the children of the 60s did their job to well, and their selfish ideals removed this concept from society at-large. And so we find ourselves with a decaying society (in many areas, but not all), and lack the capacity to have any kind of shared code of ethics.

[amophys]

I myself have found myself increasingly attracted to the Robert Heinlein school of thought: “Political tags — such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth — are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort.”

Maybe it is just me, but this is how I think people should start viewing political labels from here on in.

[jjsheridan5]

The goal of “gay marriage” is to destroy the institution of marriage. So your position is theirs on that issue

I don't know what you read, since I stated that I am wholly against gay marriage. My ultimate goal would be to remove the role of the state in marriage (more theoretical than realistic), since it is the state that has the power to destroy it. If it were a religious institution, then the state would have no say, and those wishing to harm the institution would have a much more difficult task. But since removing the state's role is not realistic, I am content with opposing gay marriage wherever it appears.

I would argue that those for a state's role in marriage are, unintentionally, giving those opposed to marriage the tools they need to destroy it.

[GraceG]

True, the social construct can ONLY be enforced via the culture. We should as a culture look down upon people with loose and wobbly morals because it is our right to use free speech to ridicule the crazy people.

That’s the missing element. Shame is a good thing (for society). People should be ashamed when they do wrong (although not necessary something illegal), and people should let them know that they view them with contempt. But the children of the 60s did their job to well, and their selfish ideals removed this concept from society at-large. And so we find ourselves with a decaying society (in many areas, but not all), and lack the capacity to have any kind of shared code of ethics.

The thing that really miffed me off on the Miley Cyrus crap skadoodle was the whole liberals whining about how the Conservatives in the media were “Slut Shaming” her for acting like a complete slut. They were whining that we had standards we were holding her to. And they wanted to make “Slut Shaming” a bad phrase. We need more damn shame in our society, in an effort to get rid of “unjustified shame” in the 1960s we have gotten rid of all of the “healthy shame”. We have thrown out the baby with the bathwater.

Shaming people for being loose with sex, drinking, drug using, eating too much, should all be acceptable, but in many cases you are called a hater for simply pointing out the truth...

[lonevoice]

[Cyber Liberty]

I totally swiped that for a print for my wall.

[Orangedog]

Mark Levin says he would vote for an orange juice container over a democrat. The establishment knows that all they have to give you is an OJ box to get your vote and they have no reason to give you more.

And to think of the hell I caught for calling him and limbaugh part of the establishment. People don't like being told santa isn't real.

[Deb]

Yeah, lets fragment and guarantee Marxist rule for our children. The Left NEVER cannibalizes itself over purity. NEVER!

I just love you phony patriots who are too cowardly to actually be Republicans, standing around calling them RINOs and gutless.

The stand should be against the DEMOCRATS and our guys will work themselves out. It's no time to be breaking off into little smug groups of "purists" while the country is taken over!