Skip to comments.Hot-Tub Libertarians
Posted on 05/16/2006 1:20:13 PM PDT by freepatriot32
click here to read article
He was a nasty RINO sort. I'll admit I voted for the pro-gun pro-life Dem (yes there are some. Glen Poshard is his name.) over the pro-abortion, anti-2nd, tax raising Republican. Poshard came within a whisker of defeating Ryan in the General election largely due to his pro-gun and low tax position.
Apparently the IL GOP has learned absolutely nothing from the Ryan debacle and has nominated as their candidate another pro-abortion, anti-2nd, tax raising, pro-illegal candidate. Judy Barr Topinka actually served in Ryans corrupt regime but claims 'no knowledge' of the laundry list of crimes committed during his tenure.
IL conservatives are a long suffering lot, but this is something up with which I will not put. In my district it's an easy choice for the House. Pete Roskam is running for Hydes seat and has his endorsement.
Unfortunately I'm stuck with Durban and Obama as Senators, once again largely due to the complete ineptitude of the IL GOP. I won't have a chance to vote for a Senator for another 2 years, sadly.
What I won't do under any circumstances is vote for a RINO for the US Senate. We've seen in the last few days what havoc even a couple of those beasts can wreak, so I won't be contributing in that regard.
Hopefully the IL GOP will purge itself of the RINOs running the Central Committee in the interim and find a real honest to God conservative to run against Durbin. I'm not sanguine about the possibility, but I suppose there's always hope.
No way, they want a chance to win and they aren't that stupid.
Who is "they"? Hillary wants to be president. Period. Some other 'Rats might be thinking that she is not the best horse to bet on, but what is their other option? Hillary has the money, she has the skills, and she has the key allies in the various state 'Rat organizations. Who can touch this? Some think that there are 'Rat elders somewhere that will somehow direct the primary process to produce that which is best for the party. Nonsense. It is every person for themself, and Hillary has all of the beans.
Your premise is based on a false assumption. The assumption you are making is that the Republic of the United States will last forever or as long as its judges. This contradicts what the Founders and many other wise people have said. All democracies end in bankruptcy or hyperinflation whenever the people learn to vote themselves benefits. Gokhale and Smetters tell us that the net present value of the unfunded liabilities of Social Security and Medicare are roughly equal to the entire estimated total private net worth of the United States and that the economy has never grown in a single year at a rate that would be required in each and every year in order to amortize these liabilities. It is Social Security and Medicare that are never ending problems that cannot be solved and that spell the end of the United States. There is no long term for the United States unless Social Security and Medicare are completely abandoned.
Returning to the Constitution is the only solution to this otherwise unsolvable problem. Nothing that has ever been tried in your lifetime has even remotely reversed the law or the trend in place of expanding and growing socialism. You have recently been presented a plan that is easily executed once it is implemented. There are no better proposals and none that I have ever seen that even come close to matching the potential of this effort. You, Jim Robinson, have the ability to initiate the effort needed that might get this plan launched. The biggest barrier and hurdle to the success of the plan, is actually getting it started.
Listen to your own words: "What is our mission? Free Republic is dedicated to reversing the trend of unconstitutional government expansion and is advocating a complete restoration of our constitutional republic"..."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..."
These are wonderful words and ideas. They are worth fighting for and yes, even worth dieing for. The plan you are being asked to initiate is not asking anybody to take to arms or risk death. All it asks is that you use your keyboard and this forum to engage in a debate in the arena of ideas to either implement our plan, improve our plan or find a better one and implement it.
The boomers will start becoming eligible for Medicare in the fall of 2012. By 2016, it will not be possible to hide the magnitude of the problem from anybody. Government has never solved a single problem of any kind. Governments magnify problems and multiply them. Medicare represents the single largest financial crisis that has ever faced mankind let alone the United States. The combined unfundable liabilities of Social Security and Medicare exceed the combined costs of all wars fought by the United States including the Revolutionary War and the Cold War. I haven't done the math, but would hazard a guess that the unfundable liabilities exceed the combined total federal budgets since the inception of the Republic. That was not Samuel Adams' view of freedom, "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." And if your own words still have meaning to you, it isn't your view of freedom either.
The United States will be a footnote in history before federal judges address this problem. And can you show me any problem ever fixed by a federal judge or one fixed by any federal official of any kind? Problems are solved by the people. And if WE the people don't solve this one before the unfunded liabilities of Medicare become perceived as genuine obligations of the US Treasury, there won't be any federal judges to address the problem anyway.
Ronald Reagan made a difference. He bought us more time to solve the problem, but he personally was not able to turn back the clock. Republicans have controlled the legislative agenda for more than decade and contolled the government for half that time. Republicans have acted exactly like Democrats. When faced with losing power, Republicans tried to buy votes with prescription drugs and made the problem worse, not better. Republicans knew campaign finance reform was unconstitutional, but they passed it, signed it, and made it law. The judges you hope will turn the clock back, said Campaign Finance Reform is constitutional after all. CFR added immensely to the burden of defeating incumbents, something that has to happen if you believe elected officials are going to solve this problem. Like you, Republicans have talked about the problem, but they fired the man who wanted to know the honest truth about the magnitude of the problem, and they buried the report itself. The report only saw the light of day because the men who did the study had the courage to quit the government and publish their results elsewhere in the hopes that men like you would see the light and start looking for a genuine solution before it's too late. The ball is in your court Jim, are you going to run with it or punt?
Frankly, I can take being called nutty, piggy, self-centered, disgusting, evil, godless, obnoxious, cynical, apathetic for not voting RINO. LOL
IMHO, you have written a pretty good description of ANY extremist group. This includes some "unappeasables" here on FR. The pragmatic approach is to support the electable candidate whose views most closely match your own and then attempt to influence the person you helped elect on issues where you disagree. Not perfect, but better than turning power over to people you can't stand and then carping about how bad they are.
Here in New Hampshire, after about two and a half years of the Free State Project, we have people holding elective office in towns, candidates for State Rep, a defeat of a smoking ban, and twenty people showing up at the drop of a hat to help a new family move in, and routine meetings and social events of 20-60 people nearly every week of the month.
Come to the Porcupine Fest in Lancaster, NH at the end of June to learn more, if you're interested.
"Organized voting blocks" who demand 100% ideological purity end up being completely politically irreverent.
You nailed it. Libertarians don't understand politics. They don't understand, or can't accept, that political power is ALWAYS -- did I say ALWAYS? -- gained and held by one part principle, one part compromise, artfully mixed.
The Republican Party is simply a coalition of the center-right in America. It's not gathering of pure-souled libertarians, conservatives, pro-lifers, whatever: it's a political party. It's function is to KEEP POWER AWAY FROM THE OTHER GUYS.
Participating in politics is A TACTICAL ACT, not a religious devotion to be accomplished with utmost purity. In every vote, make the choice most likely to lead to the best outcome (which is not necessarily the same as voting for the person you like the best). The concept of a protest vote is the intellectual equivalent of the buddhist monk who burned himself in front of the embassy: interesting exercise, but no practical outcome in this universe.
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.