Posted on 01/12/2003 9:15:48 PM PST by Sparta
I've been reading posts by people who use the term Conservative and others who use the term Libertarian. I have a question for all FReepers, is there a difference between the two?
Whoops, was that a freudian slip about how I'm disappointed with the libertarian position on immigration? =P Yes, It was a mistake.
Labels like "Pro-drugs" and "Pro Abortion" are propaganda (lies) used by the so called Conservatives to spin the discussion so as to prevent actually discussing the issues.
REAL Conservatives don't need to tell lies about others and don't feel compelled to use government to impose their wills on others. REAL Conservatives know that drugs were legal until the last half of the last century. REAL Conservatives can handle the idea that other citizens may do things that they may not like or approve of. REAL Conservatives are for Constutional government, not what W is doing, not what goes on in the War on (some)Drugs.
I came to FR believing myself to be a Conservative, yet after seeing the obnoxious, rude, misleading posts by self proclaimed Conservative, I knew I didn't want to be one of those any more. I'd rather be falsely thought to be pro-drug, pro-porn, pro-abortion than to be identified with FR Conservatives.
Today's Conservatism on FR is a mixture of fascism (government control of industry), socialism (Government handouts, funding the Dept of Ed., etc), Statism (government regulation of personal lives, food, drink, medications, iminent domain), and Democrat party attitudes due to so many Democratic defections in the last decade.
I know the difference between REAL Conservatives and most of those on this thread who are Big Government statists with a Conservative name tag.
The differences between REAL Conservatives and libertarians are not great, but they are there.
I might move myself a touch more toward right conservative, but this seems pretty accurate.
Nice idea but I don't think you can. For example, I consider myself to be neither a conservative nor a liberal but in some situations I may be labelled (or is it libelled) as one or the other. If I'm asked to label myself I prefer the label: constitutionalist. The U.S. Constitution is more important to me than whatever issues are the political fads of the day. Also, I've sworn an oath to uphold the principles of the Constitution. I still do not like labels but I am not unhappy to be called a constitutionalist.
Then you should make a move to have your party platform changed to add the word federal.
I suggested you might reconsider with regard to laws that would keep guns from violent criminals and the mentally disturbed. You opined that the law would just empower government and would do nothing to keep guns away from these groups.
So I followed your logic (a law is not good if people are going to break the law anyway) to apply to other areas to illustrate the nonsense of your stated response.
It must have totally boggled your mind because, rather than trying to form a well-reasoned rebuttal, you launch into a tirade of insults - "idiot","moron","Centrist","statist","brainwashed","strawman", and suggesting I need to take my meds. I'm surprised you didn't call me a Nazi and a "facist" (since most folks who would call me a fascist are too stupid to correctly spell fascist).
I will concede that defending the second amendment is different than defending murder or rape. It was not my point to equate the two. It was my point to illustrate the absurdity of your logic.
You have made your point clear. I believe that once convicted of committing a violent crime (you DO believe in laws against violent crime, don't you, even though violent crimes are still committed even after laws are put in place to deter them - or is that just more statist drivel?) that one forfeits certain rights, including the right to vote, the right to freedom and the right to keep and bear arms. Sounds darned "common sense" to me - even though some will still try to vote, still try to break out of jail and still try to obtain weapons. In fact, I'd say my position is darned "conservative", if I dare say so myself.
It's nice to know your "tent bruning" would include a conservative Republican such as myself. I'm so far to the right of our President that it makes me angry that he keeps trying to remake the party into his little RINO clones.
But to suggest that keeping murderers and rapists from having guns makes me an idiot, statist, brainwashed, moron on meds is to truly marginalize your own position. If I confused you for a Libertarian, maybe it's because you demonstrated as much common sense and arrogance as your typical Libertarian. Perhaps you should really give them another look. They seem to be more in line with your belief system.
As a libertarian who opposes the use of drugs and knows that most do, I find your statement incorrect. The WOD notwithstanding.
I can tell that you disagree with me, but I don't understand your reply.
Nice try. But a lie.
"Conservatives are mostly interested in starving babies". Same BS the liberals spew.
Liar, as usual.
Huh? Where does that come from? Intuit should be forced to provide sofware for free? I must have misunderstood.
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.