Skip to comments.Hot-Tub Libertarians
Posted on 05/16/2006 1:20:13 PM PDT by freepatriot32
click here to read article
Most importantly, NEVER miss an opportunity to "take down", poltically speaking, a liberal. Do not shrink from the fact that said liberal could have an (R) next to their name instead of the more standard (D).
Right now, the GOP has "compromised" so much to the Left that they sound like Democrats did 20 years ago. How "artful" is that?
Things are pretty free out here yet; I live in North Dakota.
I think I'll stick around here and see if I can make a difference right here at home.
dang, sounds like a tough spot ya'll are in there. In that case you might be better off voting for the libertarian candidate or a third party, if there's any running locally. Ya know, Eugene Debs, the socialist, ran 4 times for pres and I think garned some 8% of the population at some point. FDR certainly had to make sure he didn't get too much, and adjusted policy (unfortunately in this case) accordingly.
Yeah but that can also be the problem. judges are forever even ones appointed by republicans. Souter and O conner where appointed by republican presidents and because of those two we no longer actually own any of our property. Under the kelo decision we are just temporarily allowed to pay 100,000 and up for a house and the government will alow us to squat on it until such time as a developer wants us to leave so he can put up a strip mall or grocery store or Pfizer offices
What the republicans need to do now that they have the majority is push for a constitutional amendment stating that any federal or supreme court judge that uses foreign laws or enumerations an penumbras to decide a case at the federal level and not the USA constitution is to be removed from office at the end of the day. That would be the only way to ensure that liberal activist judges don't last forever on the bench
I'm a small-l libertarian and I am opposed to abortion, attend church on a weekly basis, and am for the most part ambivilant about homos.
I'm a small-l libertarian who is a devout Christian.
I've served in the military, have never been arrested, and have a great relationship with my family.
I'd be happy to compare tax returns with you. I can almost assure you that my contributions to the National Bone Marrow Registry top all of your charitable contributions last year.
Can't argue with you there, but there is good nutty and bad nutty. I'm good nutty.
Nice of you to label me before you've even met me. Did you know that Ronald Reagan called libertarianism "the heart and soul of conservatism"?
No, but thanks for telling me, you godless, evil, self-centered small-l libertarian devout Christian.
Talking about repealing the 17th is easy. There is a way that you can personally lead such an effort, and it would be an effort likely to end in success. Please see post #45.
If Republicans are going to be the political party that you would like to see them become, it is going to take significant changes in the leadership of the party with the replacement of many incumbents. The leadership won't change substantively unless sufficient numbers of Congress change enough to have a large enough and conservative enough Republican delegation to elect more conservative leaders.
Surely you must realize that most people seeking careers in politics are little more than whores selling political favors in exchange for votes or campaign funding. Are you too blind to see that the Republicans are tending to occupy the ground formerly occupied by the Democrats who are moving even farther to the left? Instead of taking our country back, Republicans are taking it further into socialism, but just at a slower pace than Democrats. And in truth, if you look at Bush's and the Republicans budgets, federal spending is growing at an even greater rate under Republican control than it was when Republicans were in the minority. Arguably, a case can be made that Republicans are more effective at achieving your stated goals when they are in the minority than when they have power.
Open your eyes Jim. At best, Republicans are fighting a rear guard action while retreating into socialism and still growing government. Freedom in America is becoming nothing more than illusion. We used to have it. We still have the warm fuzzy memories of it. And like the frog slowly headed for a boil in the still cold water, we buy into the illusion and think we are OK. We aren't! And if you are too blind to see the difference and start taking action to the contrary, neither you nor FreeRepublic are likely to have any significant effect toward "reversing the trend of unconstitutional government expansion and is advocating a complete restoration of our constitutional republic". In a way, your blindness is actually tragic: "In our continuing fight for freedom, for America and our constitution and against totalitarianism, socialism, tyranny, terrorism, etc., Free Republic stands firmly on the side of right, i.e., the conservative side. Believing that the best defense is a strong offense, we (myself and those whom I'm trying to attract to FR) support the strategy of taking the fight to the enemy..." Why? You haven't recognized that the Republicans are slowly becoming the enemy.
It is not too late. And we can take our country back. In fact, we can take it back in far less time than almost anyone can imagine. It just takes some thought and leadership. There are still large numbers of very conservative Americans. Given the chance, they will vote for genuinely conservative leaders. Ronald Reagan's two landslide elections and the 1994 Congressional elections proved it. Jim, if you will lead the debate, FreeRepublic can become the catalyst that gets Rush and other conservative talk show hosts on the same page. All it takes is the courage to believe the truth. If you have lost your faith in the American people, and think you are doing yourself or them a favor by slowing the rate of descent into hell, then you are going to end up boiled just like the frog.
Just as grass-roots Americans need leadership, so does FreeRepublic. There once was a man named Jim Robinson who had a fire in his belly and he was willing to fight for freedom. The sacred fire of liberty is barely perceptible in the America of today. As dim as it is, it still stands between us and total darkness. Jim Robinson, can you still hear the ringing words of Ronald Reagan, "We have come to a time for choosing; we will preserve for our children this the last best hope for man on earth, or we will sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness.....history will record with the greatest astonishment that those who had the most to lose did the least to prevent its happening." Was he speaking to you Jim Robinson, or has the fire in your belly gone out?
It would be a mistake to let allegiance to the Republican Party over rule your allegiance to freedom. You are being presented with a decision to make. You can lead FreeRepublic toward freedom or lead them deeper into the Republican fold. These really are two different paths. Even doing nothing would be a choice. In 1964, if Republicans were actually succeeding at your goals, would President Reagan have given up his Hollywood/TV career to enter a field that he described as being a lot like the world's oldest profession? And in spite of President Reagan leadership and the example he set, in spite of the Contract with American and the gains Republicans made as result, are the Republicans closer now to achieving your goals than they were when President Reagan picked up the torch that holds the sacred fire of liberty? Jim, ask yourself, which choice would President Reagan want you to make? Would he prefer defeating Democrats to recovering our lost freedom?
How quickly we forget the attempted Harriet Meirs appointment. He withdrew the nomination only when he recognized his nominee would fail at the hands of conservatives in his own party.
That's like trying to herd cats.
I am a small "l" libertarian. Actually I'm a libertarian leaning conservative.
I think his premise is right. Until you encroach on a libertarian personally they really just don't care much.
It not only makes me want to puke; it makes me ashamed to be an American.
The long term for the United States is limited to the next decade. All democracies end in bankruptcy or hyperinflation whenever the public learns to vote itself benefits. The Gokhale-Smetters Report suggests that we will cross the threshold by the end of the next decade. We can't afford to wait for generational changes to solve this problem.
How about screaming for basic Constitutional principles?
Long term for the United States is about a decade if you believe the Gokhale-Smetters Report.
And as for Bush's appointments, if we wanted to delay the implications of Gokhale-Smetters, why did Bush push for Medicare Prescription Drugs and why did he appoint Bernanke? Federal Reserve Chairman are not forever, but they sure have an effect on the short term. I would proffer that the appointment of Helicopter Ben is a either a sign of desperation (panic) or insanity. And the Bernanke appointment sure as hell isn't the appointment of someone who is a passionate believer in the Constitution.
Try contrasting George Bush with Ronald Reagan. Anybody who believes the kind of leadership explemplified by Bush is taking us back toward the Constitution, needs to reconsider their thinking.
Cut the drama, and run for office.