Libertarians, Please GO AWAY

Vanity ^ | 11-08-06 | Me

[Keltik]

At this link: http://boortz.com/nuze/index.html

Neil Boortz is quoted as saying: "So how did I actually vote when I got that provisional ballot in my hand. Straight Libertarian."

Thank you Neil Boortz. Thanks to you and those who think like you, we now have the Democrats in control of Congress. I hope you and your ilk are very happy.

Free Republic is allegedly a CONSERVATIVE web site. Will you libertarians please go somewhere like Lucianne.com, where you can laugh and smile about how you put the Republicans out of power, and leave Free Republic to the conservatives.

Oh, and one more thing.

Neil Boortz -- GO TO HELL.

[tacticalogic]

I've got no quarrel with that at all.

I hope you sleep well. It's been a hell of a last couple of days.

[MonroeDNA]

Let me take a wild guess:

You are some professor of something, and think you are the professor of everything.

So are you some PhD, or not? Yes or no?

[patriot preacher]

A tendency Libertarians seem to have here is putting words in my mouth.

The reason Conservatives lost is because they abandoned their Conservative values. The Libertarians didn't HELP with that, but it wasn't "their fault."

Now, speaking PERSONALLY, I didn't abandon MY principles -- but far too many Conservative Republicans in Congress DID.

[JCEccles]

Libertarians are parasites who live thanklessly off the prosperity and security made possible by law-abiding social conservatives.

[LibertarianSchmoe]

A tendency *some* socio-cons have is to over-generalize.

What words did I attribute specifically to you? I was speaking about those who, on other threads, characterize libertarians as useless in getting Republicans elected and then blame libertarians when Republicans lose elections. I'm sure you can see the inconsistency in those two mutually-exclusive positions.

[tpaine]

Libertarians are parasites who live thanklessly off the prosperity and security made possible by law-abiding social conservatives.

Mis-characterizing libertarians as "parasites" who live off the prosperity and security made possible by those who term themselves "law-abiding social conservatives --" is socialist type pejorative rhetoric.

The prosperity and security we now enjoy were made possible by the constitutional liberties of our free republic, -- not by the constraints of majority rule advocated by the socialists among us.

[n-tres-ted]

Oh, yes. Now I remember. 1993-2000 was that period of great political leadership for the country; great progress. And these last six years have been just awful.

How ridiculous is that?!

[Mamzelle]

re:The prosperity and security we now enjoy were made possible by the constitutional liberties of our free republic, -- not by the constraints of majority rule advocated by the socialists among us.))

A piece of paper doesn't do the fighting, the envelop-stuffing, the door-knocking, the fund-raising. People do. And it's almost always the Joe Sixpacks and the social conservatives who do this. The Libertarians I joined briefly didn't like doing that--they got the icky-poo shudders at the prospect of rubbing elbows with a Baptist.

But they're willing to take phony-baloney thinktank jobs at CATO and express all kind of distaste at just how not perfect things are. And, of course, like Boortz--express his everlastingly noble intention of making everybody lose on principle.

Without the people who are willing to do work of politics --hey, sometimes that includes making a compromise or two with somebody else!!--who makie the constitution LIVE.

Libertarians are the CHICKENHAWKS of conservative politics, the spoilers, and the spoiled brats.

[LibertarianSchmoe]

Who's the spoiled brat? Who's whining about how the people you claim to be poltically impotent are also responsible for the recent Republican losses? Well, what is it, Mammy? We can't "not matter" and "make all the difference" at the same time?

Do you even know what compromise means? I'm sure you believe it means people giving you what *you* want without any return consideration. Spoiled brat indeed. All of the spoiled brats I've encountered demand that everything go their way, and when they don't, they throw themselves on the ground in a tizzy, screaming about how it's all everyone else's fault but their own.

I'd write more, but I'm choking on the hypocrisy of your post.

[Mamzelle]

Well, libertarians are known for choking under pressure. Or swooning.

[Mamzelle]

Libertarian makes himself blue for a blue-state Montana

[tpaine]

Mis-characterizing libertarians as "parasites" who live off the prosperity and security made possible by those who term themselves
"law-abiding social conservatives --" is socialist type pejorative rhetoric.


The prosperity and security we now enjoy were made possible by the constitutional liberties of our free republic, -- not by the constraints of majority rule advocated by the socialists among us.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Mam:

A piece of paper doesn't do the fighting, the envelop-stuffing, the door-knocking, the fund-raising. People do. And it's almost always the Joe Sixpacks and the social conservatives who do this. The Libertarians I joined briefly didn't like doing that--they got the icky-poo shudders at the prospect of rubbing elbows with a Baptist.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Baptists are welcome at the RLC.


REPUBLICAN LIBERTY CAUCUS POSITION STATEMENT
posted by Jim Robinson
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-rlc/721810/posts


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Mam:

But they're willing to take phony-baloney thinktank jobs at CATO and express all kind of distaste at just how not perfect things are. And, of course, like Boortz--express his everlastingly noble intention of making everybody lose on principle.
Without the people who are willing to do work of politics --hey, sometimes that includes making a compromise or two with somebody else!!--who makie the constitution LIVE.
Libertarians are the CHICKENHAWKS of conservative politics, the spoilers, and the spoiled brats.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


And calling libertarians "chickenhawk brats" is principled? -- Be ashamed.

[LibertarianSchmoe]

Not pressure. Hypocrisy - what *you* are "known for".

Aren't there some envelopes you could be stuffing. Or something else?

[gondramB]

>>Any more admirers of Locke/Jefferson/Hume/Smith/Voltaire/Rousseau want to try to shame or horrify me by calling me "un-American?" I'll simply smile and say "d@mn right!"<<

I've got interest in calling you names - I took 7 years of French in high school and college and am not that fond of Voltaire or Rousseau. Had I lived in the day I would have preferred Hamilton and Washington to Jefferson.

But I dig John Locke and his second treatise seems to be the rational basis for establishing a government of men.

God has given us commandments but except when God has anointed a King it does not automatically follow that men are entitled to put themselves in charge and decide how others should act. To be legitimate that power of government must come directly or indirectly from the people.

But the $64 questions is "did you just say that that you are in fact un-American and proud of it?" Surely you didn't mean that. And if you did mean that - why do you hang out here - this is a pretty darn pro-American board.

[gondramB]

Sorry - that was a typo - should have said "I've got NO interest in calling you names.

[Zionist Conspirator]

You've got taste. I definitely prefer Washington and Hamilton to Jefferson (and even Jackson) myself.

I believe I said that I expected to be called un-American, but calling me a Theocrat is no insult since I admit I am one.

I am aware of my ideological idiosyncrasies and am grateful to Jim Robinson for allowing me to poste here for much of the past seven and a half years. This is his board and I am here only as long as he allows me. I will not argue with him if he ever decides I don't belong here.

I'm hardly the only misfit on the board, however. There are monarchist far right Catholic types and (perhaps) those bizarre creatures called "palaeolibertarian" who advocate abolition of the state and yet call for racial segregation at the same time (doesn't that require laws, which require a state to enforce?) and who call everyone with whom they disagree a "fascist" or "statist" even as they glow with admiration of Franco and Papadopoulos and Stroessner and Trujillo and Salazar. I hope that so long as these types are around the presence of one Noachide Theocrat doesn't do any harm.

[gondramB]

>>I believe I said that I expected to be called un-American, but calling me a Theocrat is no insult since I admit I am one.<<

I am both sorry I misunderstood and glad that it was a misunderstanding.

I particularly appreciate you taking time to get to my second post rather than seeing the typo in the first part of the first post and taking offense.

Now I need to go look up about 10 words and names to be sure I understand what you are saying now. :)

I'm not ready to accept your self applied label of misfit but I agree that there is diversity here on Freep in much greater ammounts than outsiders and even some long time members appreciate.

[Grampa Dave]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1737364/posts

Reason Magazine Blogger Finds Pleasure in Tears of Rick Santorum's 8-year-old Daughter
Right Reason philosophical conservatism. ^ | 11/11/2006 | Francis J. Beckwith


Posted on 11/12/2006 10:48:17 AM PST by Matchett-PI


Reason Magazine Blogger Finds Pleasure in Tears of Rick Santorum's 8-year-old Daughter

Because the libertarian universe has no place for the vulnerable, weak, or the dependent--since none are autonomous adult-choosers in search of virtual kiddie porn--it has no qualms in providing a forum in which children and their families can be verbally abused and have profanities hurled at them. Read and weep Julian Sanchez's "Your Tears Are So Yummy and Sweet" in which the writer says he finds joy in the tears of Rick Santorum's eight-year-old daughter, who is pictured crying next to her father as he gives his concession speech on Tuesday night, November 7. Most of the comments that follow celebrate and contribute to Mr. Sanchez's meanness. In fact, one commentator, named Jon H., makes sarcastic reference to the Santorums' newborn child who died in 1996. ~ Posted by Francis J. Beckwith at 11:25 PM

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1737364/posts


Your Tears Are So Yummy and Sweet


Julian Sanchez | November 8, 2006, 2:44pm


Man, I haven't taken this much pleasure in the suffering of a small child in days.


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1737364/posts

[onyx]

Beyond sickening.

[Matchett-PI]

bttt