Posted on 11/16/2012 3:21:20 AM PST by Reaganite Republican
I support the re-legalization of drugs, but I do not use pot, dope, bath salts or tobacco, nor will I. How does that make me pro-drug? I also support the repeal of prescription drug laws. Why should a free man need permission to buy a substance?
And if those votes had split evenly, the RINO would have lost anyway... By 400 votes.
And no, there is no evidence to suggest they would have done anything otherwise...
Given that Tisei was quite libertarian himself on some issues, he very well may have won more of those votes than Tierney. Unless it wasn't real libertarians who voted for Fishman ...
Why should poison control exist to rescue a free man?
I’m all for the elimination of wage and price controls. What I find tiresome is the constant attacks on conservative principles.
Libertarians aren’t willing to work with Conservatives if it means dropping the pro drugs plank.
Drop the pro abort, pro gay marriage and pro drugs stance and you’re welcome to join the cause.
Continue to defend any of those three, and you are not. You want to work with us? Then choose.
I’m tired of fighting liberals and I’m tired of fighting establishment conservatives and I’m really tired of fighting liberalatarians arguing that if only we go pro pot that will solve everything!
I’m also tired of cleaning up libertarian’s garbage and trash that they leave behind for conservatives to clean up. I’m a young man. Don’t you think I’ve heard the pro dope argument constantly? Then the pro dope folks expect me to clean up their bs in the ‘after party’.
Speaks volumes. I just helped one of you pro pot folks - came home blasted, cleaned up and then took off. Presumably expecting that my door will be open for the next time.
So no, I don’t have any sympathy for the pro drugs crowd. I want it restricted, and I want the pushers gone because I see what it does to the people that I care for. And. I. Don’t. Like. It.
Yeah, pompous. Trying to save someone here, while their enablers here are grousing about oh, we can’t get our pot. Boo-hoo.
“If you allow for abortions then you are pro-abortion. You can’t then turn around and claim to be against abortions.”
Au contrare
The Libertarian position is NOT a “moral” position, it is a LEGAL position. It is not trying to say that abortion is a moral choice, or not a moral choice; that that part is for the individual to decide. The Libertarian legal position leaves it to our Liberty and our conscience to guide our personal and moral choice on the matter.
Pompous, brainlocked old geezer. Such a perfect caricature of what the left believes Freepers to be.
I habe never advocated legalization. That’s yet another wrong assumption on your part.
Had you done even a cursory search to inform yourself, you would have discovered that my stating “the Constitution overturned the Common Law” was a quote of George Mason, who refused to put his hand to it because it contained no Bill Of Rights. He was not the only Founder to refuse to do so, there were three. Elbridge Gerry and Edmund Randolph in addition to Mason.
This country was a radical departure from the monarchy from which it separated at the cost of much blood and treasure. To treat the whole amtter as if it were a mere continuance of the same law is foolishness.
I’ll suggest to you that you read the Constitution itself and report back with evidence of thise reliance upon English Common Law upon which you insist so vehemently. The common law is the unwritten law, traditionally speaking, so you’re going to have a tough time of that.
“They’re the vanguard, telling the people of what to beware and their own road to serfdom is nearly upon.”
There are Libertarians IN the GOP in public office. Being there and being in office THEY are heard more often and more effectively than the barely visible (to the public) “vanguard” you speak of. As such, they are a much more effective Libertarian voice than the entire out of office, out of view Libertarian party.
My challenge to the Libertarian party members is that they are mistaken as to how much more effective they could be, using their own caucus in the grass roots, establishing their own “Republican” clubs and being very active, as Republicans in GOP primaries. I think they themselbes would be surprised at how much more they can be that “vanguard” IN government, in producing policies and solutions IN government. My challenge to them is they are mistaken if they think that is ever achieved by never making working allies with others who may not be as “pure” as you but are closer to you than everyone else.
It is a narcisstic “vangard” that does not really have a program for becoming part of the solution. Always crying in the wilderness is not what must be, but it is what they have chosen.
The Libertarian view is entirely, essentially, a LEGAL view, not a moral view. In a pure Libertarian view, marriage and/or civil unions - and many other “social” issues, would not be a legal matter to begin with; the law would not be involved, either as a moral advocate for or against what Libertarians see are choices the individual must make within their own Liberty and by the moral view of their own conscience.
In the present environment that means accepting a legal remedy that is closer to the law NOT making a moral choice FOR us. It is not a position trying to promote a “moral” good; only what Libertarians believe is a more neutral LEGAL position; more neutral in the sense that the law becomes less the defining issue than our own conscience.
Romney will end up with more white votes than McCain got in 2008. Obama will end up with ~7M fewer white votes than in 2008. Many of these Libertarian voters in 2012 are white voters who abandoned Obama.
Do you support WA and CO being able to enact their legalized mj policy under the Tenth Amendment, and without fedgov interference?
No, not at all. What they do, has a negative impact on surrounding states. How are you going to control distribution into America if all they have to do is drop in in WA and CO and you’re home free?
Some states can afford a permissive drug culture, others like Texas, cannot.
The problem is that society doesn’t work that way. Without morality, do you think we are going to get things like respect for private property rights? Limited government only works with a strong moral fabric underlying it - with weak morals - you will get a nation dependent on the state for their well being.
If we had a culture that shunned drug abuse, where everyone was responsible for their own welfare, I could see the impetus. But we do not live in such a culture. What is going to happen is that overturning the law will turn many parts of the country into warzones like we see on the other side of the border. Do you want that? No. And neither do we. If it takes cracking down on the drug culture to keep that on the other side, then that is what we will do.
I am 30.
I am 30.
“Pompous, brainlocked old geezer.”
Does this go under ‘most hilarious fail ever?’
So you support the expansive New Deal Commerce Clause and trampling the Tenth Amendment.
No, it merely points out the “fail” of your attempt at caricature.
The US has tariff control and has always had inspection control over goods imported. Right there in the constitution.
Ergo - drug distribution can be regulated by the federal government.
Now, if you can show me how they can ensure that no drugs come from outside into the US through WA and CO - then I might be pursuaded. As I see it - it’s just a cover for folks who are going to make megabucks distributing drugs to the rest of the US.
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.