George Will: ‘What I did see at CPAC was the rise of the libertarian strand of Republicanism’ [VIDEO

Daily Caller ^ | March 17, 2013 | Jeff Poor

[PapaBear3625]

Being libertarian means supporting the radical leftist agenda at all levels of government, school boards, city government, county, state, and federal.

Being libertarian means working to cut back on government power at all levels, and promote responsibility by cutting back the governmental "safety nets" which facilitate irresponsibility.

[Rightwing Conspiratr1]

Social liberalism leads to destroyed lives. People don't always make the right choices. Today, those who choose to destroy their lives are rewarded with a life time of care. They not only get what they need - they even get those things they want. It's destroying the nation rather than strengthening it.

+10

[AuntB]

“America is a democracy,”

ansel12, that’s where your continued made up arguments should end and you lose ALL credibility.

[ansel12]

Another trip into legalism?

You don’t think that all Americans of age can vote, and that the more anti-social conservative they are, the more the certainty that they vote democrat, that the more decadent we become that we create more big government, not less?

[PapaBear3625]

If you interviewed drunken mobs, you would find that libertarianism is prevalent among them, not social conservatism.

And where you see women being stoned to death for the crime of being raped, the killers are about as socially conservative as you can find. Just because it's not YOUR particular flavor of social conservatism does not make them any less socially conservative.

[ansel12]

Being libertarian means working to cut back on government power at all levels, and promote responsibility by cutting back the governmental "safety nets" which facilitate irresponsibility.

Actually libertarianism is rightfully famous for being anti-conservative, socially liberal, for opposing traditional morality, and being for open borders, all strategies which create MORE big government voters and liberals, MORE laws and social programs and LESS responsibility.

[ReformationFan]

“I consider myself to hold many libertarian views but I fail to see why any self described libertarian, people whose fall back position tends to be “get the government out,” would want to creat a whole other area of government to regulate and administer gay marriage. Since “gay marriage” is not real marriage, the current laws governing the act would not be sufficient to govern what the homosexuals propose and the result woud be more government and laws added.”

Thanks for pointing this out. I’ve wondered the same thing myself. Unnatural marriage by its very definition can only exist if the state expands and declares it to be so I have found it very odd that people who say they’re libertarians would support something that requires more, not less, government.

“I for one would support removing marriage from the realm of government all together and returning it to the church.”

I’ve heard this argument before but we must face facts. The homonazi crowd would never go for this because they want a bigger government that can persecute the church in order to tyrannize and “get even” in their minds.

[x]

Which answers the question, "Who are is he going to go after next?"

And now a poem ...

First you came for the Mormons,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Mormon.

Then you came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Catholic.

Then you came for the women,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a woman.

Then you came for the libertarians,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a libertarian.

Then you came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.

Next the more substantive part of the program ...

Has it occurred to you that what you mean by "libertarianism" and what other people mean by "libertarianism" aren't the same thing?

Do you think that you could work with your opponents to clarify just what each of you is talking about?

[PapaBear3625]

Social liberalism leads to destroyed lives. People don't always make the right choices. Today, those who choose to destroy their lives are rewarded with a life time of care. They not only get what they need - they even get those things they want. It's destroying the nation rather than strengthening it.

You're describing an example of the consequences of social AND fiscal liberalism.

The libertarian approach to somebody who has chosen to destroy his life would be to tell the person "OK, you will now fully bear the costs and consequences of your behavior, yourself".

[ansel12]

That is your attack on America, on the Protestant Christians that built this nation?

You want to attack Christ that way?

You sure illustrated the libertarian agenda far better than I could have done.

[Arlis]

The biggest difference between 1790’s and now is that then EVERYONE had a Christian world view and believed in the morality and standards of the Bible.

So this is what makes today’s Libertarians wholly different from our Founding Fathers. Then, no one even questioned the moral standards of scripture.

And our whole constitution was written based on the presence and existence of those moral standards.

See here (which deserves it’s own thread on FR):

http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/

[Poison Pill]

Sodom and Gomorrah were filled with depraved individuals who felt it was their right to have sex with strange men, to the point of trying to beat the door down to get to them.

That is in no way libertarian.

You may as well save your breath. The FR Church Lady crowd doesn't have the capacity to understand.

[ansel12]

The libertarian approach to somebody who has chosen to destroy his life would be to tell the person "OK, you will now fully bear the costs and consequences of your behavior, yourself".

Again, that childish fantasy, don't you realize that his vote and the vote of his buddies, counts just as much as yours? Libertarianism's social liberalism, BREEDS liberal voters, like a farming operation.

[PapaBear3625]

Actually libertarianism is rightfully famous for being anti-conservative, socially liberal, for opposing traditional morality, and being for open borders, all strategies which create MORE big government voters and liberals, MORE laws and social programs and LESS responsibility.

I'm not for open borders, or Third World immigration. The current welfare system will attract an unlimited number of people wanting to mooch off it. The right to associate also means that people have the right to choose to NOT associate with some.

[ansel12]

Well, FR is a social conservative site, and here you are dissing it.

[ansel12]

Here is the Libertarian position on immigration, your personal position is of no importance.

“”COMPLETE PLATFORM TEXT
INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AND CIVIL ORDER

IMMIGRATION:
The Issue: We welcome all refugees to our country and condemn the efforts of U.S. officials to create a new “Berlin Wall” which would keep them captive. We condemn the U.S. government’s policy of barring those refugees from our country and preventing Americans from assisting their passage to help them escape tyranny or improve their economic prospects.

The Principle: We hold that human rights should not be denied or abridged on the basis of nationality. Undocumented non-citizens should not be denied the fundamental freedom to labor and to move about unmolested. Furthermore, immigration must not be restricted for reasons of race, religion, political creed, age or sexual preference. We oppose government welfare and resettlement payments to non-citizens just as we oppose government welfare payments to all other persons.

Solutions: We condemn massive roundups of Hispanic Americans and others by the federal government in its hunt for individuals not possessing required government documents. We strongly oppose all measures that punish employers who hire undocumented workers. Such measures repress free enterprise, harass workers, and systematically discourage employers from hiring Hispanics.

Transitional Action: We call for the elimination of all restrictions on immigration, the abolition of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Border Patrol, and a declaration of full amnesty for all people who have entered the country illegally.””

[Berlin_Freeper]

I see, now you are upset, not because someone was directly nasty, but because you lack the maturity to argue against an opinion based on history.

[DManA]

You have to make define what you are talking about before there can be any profit in discuss thing this.

Are we talking about Federal policy? Marriage is outside the purview of the Federal government so it makes no sense to argue about it in that framework. That means it is irrelevant what a candidate for Federal office things about it (except that it’s none of the Federal Governments business).

Are we talking about state policy? We probably live in different states so it’s none of my business what the citizens of your state decide to do about this and vice-versa.

You want to talk about society in general? You and I probably agree completely on this. It is foolish in the extreme to redefine the parameters of a foundational institution.

[Berlin_Freeper]

I said, culture-rot people who want drugs and penis get nasty.

This thread proved me right.

[Berlin_Freeper]

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) (Pub.L. 104–199, 110 Stat. 2419, enacted September 21, 1996, 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C) is a United States federal law that defines marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman for federal and inter-state recognition purposes in the United States.