Posted on 11/08/2006 10:24:16 AM PST by Keltik
As a lifelong Republican, may I ask who are *you* to speak for FreeRepublic? Last time I checked this was Jim's site. Perhaps if someone is asked to leave, it should be his call?
Yeah, and I hear that they've also gotten all conservatives to thinking that the sun rises in the east, that the Pope is Catholic, and that bears defecate in the woods.
Even the most religious conservatives tend to run on economic issues instead of moral ones.
The ones who a)want to win and b)are smart enough to figure out how to win, yes.
What really hurts your feelings is that the current war will do to the theocratic strain of big-government "conservatism" what the war against the Nazis did to genteel anti-Semitism (i.e. render it outside the pale of polite society because of its clear resemblence to an obvious evil).
Yeah, I'm pretty annoyed that the Feds forced the drugstores to put the cold medicines that actually work worth a damn behind the counter and make customers jump through hoops for them.
Lousy Democrats -- they are so committed to Big Brotherism that the managed to enact this piece of it over a year before taking over Congress!
You seem to have trouble with the concept of VETO.
OK lets us see who has trouble with such concepts. When the President Vetoes a Bill is there any rule in the Constitution that states Congress can't just go and revote the same bill with a different number and present it again for the President's approval?
And if there is no such rule? Where is the power in the Veto that allows the President to cut the Budget?
2/3 override vote. However, according to House rules, the President is allowed to submit a compromise bill. Look through the history, Bush has pretty much given the Congress EVERY spending increase they've asked for.
Reagan forced them to cut domestic spending as one of those above charts shows.
If yo uare just going to chase your tail on this one, I'm done with you. I don't have time for silly games today.
Even now I'm fluoridating the water supply! Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha!!!
Only trouble is, I can't make up my mind as to whether I'm opposed to the United Nations, or "secretly behind" it.
How? And BTW the budget still increased almost threefold under Reagan's Presidency not to mention the deficit.
Chasing my tail? You claim Bush can CUT the Budget (thus reinforcing the clueless public's understanding of how government works. Your type rhetoric is one of the reasons our citizens seek to put responsibiliteis on the President he has little power to deal with.
If you want Congessional Spending controled then go to the source and put people in Congress that will do so. Don't think for one minute that when you elect a President he is going to veto his own party's legislation. And if we ever get one who would do such a thing the Media would crucify him.
Personal responsibility, I guess, is a quality only selectively endorsed by certain conservatives.
Much more subtle than the things that Catholics, Protestants, and Eastern Orthodox say about each other, of course. Now those folks get nasty!
And thank G-d there is an objectively chosen people! How else would a non-Jew like myself ever know objective Truth? According to the "kinist" chr*stians, every people gets to be the "holy people" living in its own "holy land" worshipping its own "gxd," and every one of them is "right" and "correct" for it. That's the most subjectivist bunch of leftist nonsense I've ever heard. I suppose the idea of a real, objective, universal G-d is what these people are talking about when they chatter about "globalism" and a "new world order."
WHO in the WORLD said I defended ANY of those things?! That's one reason the Republicans LOST. But now, are you telling me Libertarians would SUPPORT such things as "border security"?
I certainly DON'T defend the way Republicans have deserted these principles -- My point is that the Libertarians are NOT a realistic (or principled, or even 'constitutional") alternative.
What you don't see on the Libertarian site is the "more Pot smoking, more abortions, more "unrestricted" (NOT free) trade..." etc.
"L"ibertarians? No. Not unless you couched it in terms of "private property Rights" being trespassed upon.
"l"ibertarians realize that some of the folks coming across an open border are coming here to kill us and that this isn't a good thing. Since it's in the Constitution, then just maybe the FedGov has a legit purpose in keeping control of the border.
Of course, now that Bush has a Dem Congress to work with, Amnesty for 20 million or so illegals is just around the corner. I wonder how many of those folks who snuck across speak Farsi as a second language....
The Constitution is the ONLY alternative for the FedGov.
If it's a list job: Do it. They don't have a choice.
If it's NOT a listed job, or worse a specific prohibition: Then stop it. Don't even try.
And yeah, the Libertarians are MUCH more consistent in understanding this than dang near anyone in either of the Big Two Parties.
"What you don't see on the Libertarian site is the "more Pot smoking, more abortions, more "unrestricted" (NOT free) trade..." etc."
I am not a Libertarian, so I don't claim to know all that that party stands for. I consider myself a conservative with libertarian leanings when it comes to the role of the Federal Government.
On your points:
More pot smoking: I could care less. Decriminalize it and stop wasting money and conducting unconstitutional seizures of property without even holding a trial. I don't care that people choose to smoke dope, cigarettes, eat fatty foods, or drink JD either. (Now, if you do certain of those things and then drive a car, that is a different matter, obviously).
More abortions: I don't think there will be more than there are now. I am against abortion, but the US Constitution has nothing to say about it, and therefore in my opinion it is a matter left to the individual states to decide.
I'm not sure what "unrestricted" trade means. If it means lifting the embargo to Cuba or NK, I would be dead set against it. Trade is obviously a Federal responsibility, clearly laid out in the Constitution.
"Libertarianism is an ideological clique forever splitting into sects still smaller and odder, but rarely conjugating... A line of division exists between believers in some sort of transcendent moral order and utilitarians admitting no transcendent sanctions for conduct."
-- Russell Kirk
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.