Posted on 05/09/2014 6:19:54 PM PDT by RKBA Democrat
That’s not a very impressive defense of Objectivism. Keep attacking that God-shaped straw man. I think you can beat it.
btw, have to correct you there (post 166).. They SAY they are conservative, yet go against at least half of what we believe (moral value) :/
The “hodge podge” of positions was about addressing positions I saw you accuse libertarians of being on the wrong side. So, no hodge podge, just a response.
Um, I never said I was OK with gays in the military. I said there was no place for ANY sexuality in it. I do not care if someone is gay in the privacy of their own home, just not, as I stated, in the military. I am starting to get the impression that you want to outlaw homosexuality, using the force of government. If I am wrong, let’s hear your solution. I have gleaned from your posts that government power should be used to advance YOUR wishes. How are you any different than the Dem/Fascists out there?
I did address civil unions, they should be recognized because they are a function of government. I thought that was self-explanatory. Should the government not recognize them? Then what would be the point?
I know many libertarians who agree with me on national defense and abortion. This is why I cannot understand your irrational hatred for libertarians. We agree on may issues.
As far as child porn is concerned, I do not stand with the Party on that or many other issues. I tell you what. I will judge you based on what the Republican Party does, and you can continue to judge all libertarians on what the Libertarian Party does...deal? because that is what you are doing to us libertarians right now.
Describing the positions of libertarianism is not an accusation, it is what libertarianism stands for.
If you want homosexuals banned by law from the military, then I misunderstood you, but I didn’t, you merely said that you want them to hide their homosexuality, but don’t try to talk about no “sexuality” in the military, the military is a hot bed of sexuality, it is full of aggressive and physically fit young people, overwhelmingly male.
We are past civil unions, now we are trying to block Obama’s recognition of gay marriage at the federal level, so you can drop that.
At some point you have to realize that no one cares about whether you yourself are a pure libertarian, or fall short on your commitment to your ideology, the discussion is about libertarianism itself, and it’s war against conservatism, not you.
It is silly to compare the tiny, pure, libertarian party that was founded by the libertarians to PERFECTLY reflect their libertarian ideals, and which is carefully maintained and kept on the true path of libertarian purity, with the two huge, vast, all encompassing, historical national parties in a two party system.
A libertarian party platform is a meeting of pure libertarians, concentrating on expressing libertarian purity on paper, not winning presidential elections and satisfying 60 million voters.
By the way, on your home page you describe yourself as a republican, and a conservative, are you either/both?
If you are, then why are you coming on as a member of the libertarian movement?
I thought I was talking to a libertarian.
Ok, then you must favor amnesty. You know since the Party does.
I served in the military...have you? I know there are lots of young fit people. But there is this thing called DISCIPLINE.. or following orders. Maybe you should read up on it. I know that sounds condescending, but I go where your remarks take me. When I served, outward sexuality was forbidden. And it worked, so don’t tell me it can’t. That’s defeatist and sounds like you are saying if people are going to violate the rules anyway then there shouldn’t be any. So, you are on the wrong side yet again...
I will drop NOTHING. Who says we are past civil unions? Obama himself just became pro gay marriage over the past couple of years. Nothing is set in stone and this is a solution to the problem.
I also do not care if you are a pure conservative, which I am guessing you are not as you seem to love using government power. Yes, this discussion is about libertarianism itself. And you have once again failed to see that it is NOT monolithic just as conservatism is not. But you have to try to make it that way so you have some boogey man to fight and whine about. If you cannot see that then you are not nearly as smart or politically savvy as you believe yourself to be.
I will say this however. The Libertarian Party was founded with certain principles in mind. While I do not agree with some of their prescriptions, as I have already explained, I will at least say they are true to their small government principles. Can the Republican Party say that? Can you? Right now you and your ilk are part of the statist problem. So keep villifying everyone else and gloss over your own faults. It works for 6 year olds, why not you too.
“By the way, on your home page you describe yourself as a republican, and a conservative, are you either/both?
If you are, then why are you coming on as a member of the libertarian movement?
I thought I was talking to a libertarian.”
Because I may be a registered Republican, but am having a hard time supporting the party these days. I am conservative on many issues but have a strong libertarian streak.
On election day, I vote for the most “Constitutionally correct” candidate who can win. I do not like throwing my vote away. In most cases this causes me to vote Republican, but not all. However, I will say I NEVER vote Dem.
A lot of what you say, I don’t even know what it means, for instance this “”When I served, outward sexuality was forbidden.””
I’m a two time vet, I have no idea what that means, we never hid our sexuality, we were randy paratroopers and soldiers, all the men in my family are vets, Navy, Army, Marines, I don’t know what you are talking about “outward sexuality was forbidden”, we reveled in it, openly, we sang songs about it in basic and AIT, and at Jump School and on morning runs and marches, the sergeants and officers sang them, led them, we couldn’t bring hookers to the barracks though.
Homosexuals are either in or out, so far you say ‘in’, as long as they can hide that they are homosexual, well that was true under George Washington, you only got kicked out if someone discovered you were homosexual, in other words, it was against the law to lie to get in.
If you don’t want gay marriage and abortion at the federal level, do you want the laws changed, or kept as they are?
I am a pretty pure conservative, it is you that rejects it and has moved left into libertarianism, and you are a republican as well.
What have I posted that is “statist”, would you quote it for me?
What does that mean?
By the way, you don't know the libertarian position on immigration, do you?
As far as you, as a member of the republican party, continually smearing me as being a republican, well that is just weird, and especially weird since I have never been a republican.
Well, let’s make it simpler. When I served you were not allowed to fraternize with the opposite sex on base or while on duty. Is that clear enough? In other words, you could not have sex. That is outward sexuality, need me to draw a picture? And, since we were disciplined we did not do it.
I do not care about songs or whatever nonsense you are talking about. Who cares? Songs...really?! This is not about that. This is about open homosexuality, right? Ban the behavior and problem solved. Unless that is not enough for you and you want to conduct witch hunts to flush them out. By the way, that would be a statist position, just in case you need me to explain it further.
Well, if I don’t want something done at the federal level, that is what it means. So if the feds are currently doing it, I want it changed. If not it is fine to be left as it is. What is with these moronic questions? Are you being purposely obtuse?
I guarantee you that you are the leftie. You seem to want to use the government to solve all of your problems. How about you answer some questions.
If you don’t want homosexuals in the military, and they are following orders and not being open about it, how do you propose to get rid of them? Your posts concerning this are what I consider statist because I know what you want the solution to be, even if you won’t admit it yourself. I also think that if you had your way, no state could recognize a civil union, no state could have any laws on their books that although constitutional, may collide with what you deem to be acceptable.
I am done with this conversation because you seem to want to focus on homosexuality, and quite frankly I do not care enough about it to continue. I proposed a solution so if you want to continue to blather on about it you can do it alone.
I know the libertarian position on immigration better than you do. Which is why in one of my previous posts I explained how I differ from it. Did you read that or are you just making things up now?
I have never been a member of the Libertarian party, but you seem to want to smear me because of what their party platform says. I am just giving you a taste of your own medicine, returning what you are doing to me. Or are you too good for that? Better than the rest of us and not subject to being held to your own standards?
I know the Libertarian party position on immigration better than you do. Which is why in one of my previous posts I explained how I differ from it. Did you read that or are you just making things up now?
I have never been a member of the Libertarian party, but you seem to want to smear me because of what their party platform says. I am just giving you a taste of your own medicine, returning what you are doing to me. Or are you too good for that? Better than the rest of us and not subject to being held to your own standards?
I don’t know what you are up to,
But the difference between you and me, is that I do not play games.
You Do not know your people;s position on immigration.
Care to guess?
The same way George Washington did?
Very interesting post.
Well, next time I see a worthy article that might bring the trolls out of the woodwork, I’ll just start with a request that they not be fed.
Just a belated note of appreciation for your this post.
Thank you so very kindly.
This means that those of us who donate to the FReepathons are SUBSIDIZING these lying, false-witness-bearing creeps who willfully DECIEVE themselves and others about what small-l libertarian principle represents in America today, in that our donations have to cover for the potential donors who understandably don't want to give money to a forum where they are overwhelmed with insults so foul as to accuse them of complete lack of honor and decency, and of engaging in utter depravity, accusations that at one time would have been settled in duels.
This small handful has the potential of destroying Free Republic, so I can only wish every small-l libertarian Christian conservative FReeper would simply SKIP PAST any post authored by this very tiny minority (on this thread, only five individuals) when the topic is libertarianism (these few FReepers are quite reasonable and "right" on other topics; it is only libertarianism that sets them completely, rabidly, viciously unhinged), and do everything possible to encourage and enlist more new FReepers to find that indeed, small-l libertarianism is something that UNITES most of us, that these dweebs are best IGNORED because they are a minority, not the the bullying faux-majority that simply tries to outshout and insult with despicable lies the level-headed clear majority.
“No it isn’t at all, you don’t think that libertarianism is largely based on opposing the social conservatism and national defense positions of conservatism?”
Not at all. Small “l” libertarianism doesn’t “oppose” conservatism, but rather supports personal freedom, the basis for our country’s founding and form of government.
National defense is one thing, world policeman and nation-building are quite another.
Libertarian conservatives want a government so small and constrained, as to lack resources to impose upon personal freedoms.
Your version of “conservatism,” like Obama’s, needs a big well funded government, to monitor and meddle in peoples’ lives, finances, church attendance, other nations’ internal affairs & external, etc.
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.