Posted on 11/16/2012 3:21:20 AM PST by Reaganite Republican
The only way to attract libertarians is to throw the socons under the bus. Ain’t gonna happen. Libertarians either need to get their priorities in order or go caucus with the Democrats. Last I heard the Donks like wacky weed and hate religious folk. Should be a nice fit. Be sure to watch you wallet, though.
You are right, because republicans should get every vote that is not for a democrat, no matter how out-of-touch, liberal, or careerist politician they are.
How dare these people vote for the candidate that most closely matches their political views.
Don’t these voters see the price of sticking to their principals!
Some people vote their conscience, and others vote 3rd party to send a message to the GOP.
In either case, they obviously weren’t going to vote for the GOP candidate no matter what.
I can’t stand Ron Paul and his followers, but I voted for Gary Johnson because I wasn’t voting for Obama or his GOP doppelgänger. Now, I live in NY where it wasn’t a contest anyway, but I’d have done the same had I live in Ohio or Florida.
You know, as well as I, that he was ‘elected’ by corruption of the election process, not by real Conservative popular vote... it wasn’t an accident. (Open Primaries, for example).
I honestly wanted to send the same message... but I gave in in the end and voted RR... not happy at all having to do it to save what’s left of OUR Country (get the queer muzzy out of the position of going full steam ahead on destroying it (USA)). Didn’t work out too well though :/
Reading through the posts on this thread, I see a lot of emotional name-calling and finger-pointing by Republicans and some reasonable responses by libertarian-minded people.
The GOP has completely lost its way. You’ve turned into your own biggest enemy.
Libertarians are more reminiscent of original ‘true conservatives’.
Spirited: Nothing could be further from reality. While a handful of the Founders were Deists, most were Christian even if only nominally. All of them adhered to unique spiritual foundations specific to the Bible such as for example, the Bibles definition of man created in the likeness of the triune God, meaning that man is a tripartite being: spirit (mind, will, conscience), soul (self), body.
Within the context of this view property rights begin with the spiritual, not the temporal.
Modern Libertarianism has its roots in polytheistic positivism, whose father is the madman Comte and in Ayn Rand’s materialism, Modern materialism has its roots in ancient Egypt and in certain Greek nature philosophers such as Epicurus.
Common to both views is naturalism. Naturalism denies the existence of the living triune God and posits spontaneously generated matter (generated from nothing) as its’ source of being....life, consciousness. However, spontaneous generation was disproved over 100 years ago, which means naturalism has no source whatever for life, consciousness, and mind. And this is precisely why materialists like Richard Dawkins are quietly moving away from spontaneous generation and toward extraterrestrials in the hope that they are the sowers of life on our planet. Of course this position merely moves the unresolvable problem of the origin of life out into deep space.
For many long years Libertarians have loudly boasted of their reason while ridiculing the faith of Christians. However, the brutal reality for Libertarians is this: Christians have a living Source of life and mind. But Libertarians, evolutionary materialists (i.e., dialectical materialists, secular humanists) and polytheistic pantheists(i.e., positivists, spiritual transhumanists) have no source for life and mind,. For them, life and mind are like the Kings’ new clothes-—nonexistent.
Well said.
The GOP should have learned to be more fiscally conservative after 1992 and 1996, when disaffected conservatives pulled the lever for Ross Perot rather than go for “Democrat Lite”, giving us Bill Clinton as a result.
They haven’t. No matter how many times the lose with “Democrat Lite”, they keep trotting them out. Well, you get what you deserve.
Every time I see these old farts throw around the term “losertarian” and “liberaltarian” I can’t help but picture a pot-bellied old man wearing jean shorts (the pockets full of Werther’s candies), a t-shirt featuring a bald eagle, and a visor.
This is a really research study on the psychology of Libertarians I thought I’d share:
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0042366
Basically what it ends up showing is that Libertarians are neither contemporary Liberal nor Conservative, but form a unique 3rd strata of political disposition.
This is a really interesting research study on the psychology of Libertarians I thought I’d share:
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0042366
Basically what it ends up showing is that Libertarians are neither contemporary Liberal nor Conservative, but form a unique 3rd strata of political disposition.
Excellent reply!!
Thanks
Thanks - I get tired of Republicans blaming others for their failings. If the Republicans want the libertarian vote they need to EARN it by actually working for smaller and less intrusive government rather than a slightly different approach than the Democrats to making government ever bigger.
As I understand responses to my statement that it’s odd to think that libertarians would necessarily vote conservative, your post attempts to point out that “liberal” is a term which has had a change of meaning over the years, and that modern liberals have co-opted a word that previously had a positive meaning.
So, your argument is that “liberal” doesn’t mean what it used to mean.
I can only agree with that. It now means what it now means is where your argument leads, even though it doesn’t mean what it used to mean.
That basically has you arguing my case, that libertarian support of abortion, unnatural relationships, drugs, and isolationism is more akin to today’s understanding of “liberal”.
So, I reiterate my original point. It’s near-sighted to think that a libertarian necessarily cost the GOP anything. A libertarian would be just as likely to vote Obama, or Libertarian as they would Romney. So, it strikes me that it’s a wash. And I wouldn’t be surprised to discover that many of them voted for Obama more than for Romney.
I can't begin to guess the threshold price at which it would be practically impossible to afford drugs, but a complete swag would be $1000 per hit. A quick google search revealed that the cost per hit is about $20 for grass. Unless we institute capital punishment for drug trafficking we are not going to get to $1000 per hit.
I think the hysteria over drug use is just that - hysteria. Few people know it, but narcotic drugs were legal until they were prohibited in 1914. Alcohol prohibition followed in 1919. In other words, for hundreds of years, the people of this country went about their business fine without significant restrictions on either narcotic drugs nor alcohol. How is it that legislators suddenly figured that the country needed to divert scarce police resources towards regulating something that can't really be stamped out without draconian measures that the public will not countenance?
I don't understand the half-assed regulations that have been instituted against them. If we are going to stamp out these addictions, we need more than band aids. We need to start executing dealers and users alike. All we're doing now is wasting police and penitentiary resources while making a select number of drug dealers very, very rich, while even homeless indigents can afford to get high. The drug war is a miserable failure because *anybody* - from slum-dwelling indigents to captains of industry - can afford to get high and dealers are ubiquitous.
The reasoning behind the laws was presumably that if anybody can get high, then everybody will get high. The reality is that while drugs were readily available prior to drug prohibition, most people did not get high. Even today, when drugs are easily available and cheaper as % of income than they have ever been in this country's history, a small minority of people use narcotic drugs. Meanwhile, we have drug cases making up 1/3 of the justice system's caseload.
I am not a libertarian. A libertarian would not approve of applying the capital offense to drug cases. I think we should execute dealers and users alike. However, I understand the libertarian case for abolishing the prohibition of narcotic drugs. It's got nothing to do with libertinism and everything to do with the impossibility of delivering a death blow to the drug trade given the limited policy tools at hand, combined with the massive drain on the criminal justice system that drug cases represent. These are resources better put towards thefts, murders, rapes, burglaries and other actual crimes that the perps did not inflict upon themselves.
They kick out Libertarians, Conservatives, Tea Party folks, Constitutionalists, anti (un)fair traders and blue collar workers... They ought to feel privileged and grateful that they got the votes they did...
That’s a nice little box you built for Libertarians. Too bad few will actually fit in it.
In the aftermath of the election, my wife and I were feeling particularly disgusted with the sad state of political affairs in this country. We are very conservative people, both socially and fiscally, believe in small government, and are committed Christ followers (the kind that actually have a living relationship with our risen Savior, not the kind that park their dead butts in a dead church once a week to go through worn-out religious motions). We were discussing the way our views on how things should be done have changed, but our basic values have stayed the same. We somehow got on the subject of Libertarians and decided to read the LP’s platform so that we could actually see what they believe rather than what others say they believe.
We could find very little in the Libertarian Party’s platform that we could disagree with. It is the philosophy of responsible adults who don’t believe we have the right to treat other adults like children who need to be ordered about. I’m not a registered Libertarian, but I am done with being treated like a serf by the GOP.
I wouldn't poke 'em in the eye too hard because you DO need them around if you want to win...
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.