Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

A Return to Triangulation (libertarion vs social right)
National Review Online ^ | 10/25/06 | David Boaz & David Kirby

Posted on 10/25/2006 11:10:46 AM PDT by Blackirish

As the Republican base fragments and Christian conservatives consider a “fast” from politics, the polling data point to a mid-term Republican thumping. Less than two weeks from now, Republicans will begin their post-mortem soul searching. And as the corpses of their House and Senate majorities grow cold, so should Karl Rove’s 2006 campaign strategy.

(Excerpt) Read more at article.nationalreview.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: besthijack; bestthread; blackirish; braad; creation; darwin; darwincentral; darwinhomebase; doublehijacked; evolution; frhero; frlegend; hero; hijack; hijacked; hijackedthread; legend; libertian; minifreepathon; monthlydonorthon; rehijacked; religion; science; socialright; threadjacked; threadjacking
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 1,651-1,665 next last
The Repub party needs to go back to it's roots of limited government and personal responsabilty.

Leave nanny statism to the dims.

1 posted on 10/25/2006 11:10:48 AM PDT by Blackirish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Blackirish

Amen, brother. Amen....


2 posted on 10/25/2006 11:11:38 AM PDT by seeker_two
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Blackirish
According to our research, about 15 percent of American voters hold libertarian views—about the same share of the electorate as the “religious right,”

You wouldn't know that from Free Republic where the fundies have purged so many conservative-libertarians in their attempts to "purify" the party.

3 posted on 10/25/2006 11:15:40 AM PDT by Dracian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dracian
You wouldn't know that from Free Republic where the fundies have purged so many conservative-libertarians in their attempts to "purify" the party.

I'm a 'social liberal, political conservative'.

I've argued with many a social conservative here on FR, but I've never felt 'purged' from FR.

It doesn't have to be an 'us v. them' kind of thing.

4 posted on 10/25/2006 11:18:40 AM PDT by Dominic Harr (Conservative: The "ant", to a liberal's "grasshopper".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Dracian

Maybe because the "conservative-libertarians" go elsewhere by themselves to whine and bitch about a nonexistent theocracy. You can't blame social conservatives for big government conservatism.


5 posted on 10/25/2006 11:20:31 AM PDT by bahblahbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Dracian

"You wouldn't know that from Free Republic where the fundies have purged so many conservative-libertarians in their attempts to "purify" the party.
"

Aren't you a little new here to be making broad statements like that one?


6 posted on 10/25/2006 11:21:14 AM PDT by MineralMan (Non-evangelical Atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

Comment #7 Removed by Moderator

To: Dominic Harr
I've never felt 'purged'

I didn't say "felt." I meant actually physically banned from posting. Of course you don't hear about bannies complaining -- because they can't. Not here at least.

8 posted on 10/25/2006 11:22:09 AM PDT by Dracian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Blackirish

This article is stupid on many levels. Just one example-why is a libertarian complaining about the refusal to give a government subsidy for research on embryonic stem cells?


9 posted on 10/25/2006 11:23:12 AM PDT by almcbean
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Blackirish

Spell check is your friend.


10 posted on 10/25/2006 11:24:12 AM PDT by Protagoras (We are not free because we are great, we are great because we are free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Blackirish

If "libertarian" means it's a-okay to tear babies limb from limb by abortion, and that man marrying man equals many marrying woman, please count me out!


11 posted on 10/25/2006 11:24:40 AM PDT by guitarist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr
I've argued with many a social conservative here on FR, but I've never felt 'purged' from FR.

I have a feeling we will be if you come back to FR in about 5 years, but maybe that's just pessimism.

12 posted on 10/25/2006 11:26:22 AM PDT by Strategerist (Those who know what's best for us must rise and save us from ourselves)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Dracian; Dominic Harr

I am a libertarian conservative, and have never been purged or felt unwelcome in any way at FR. But then, I regard other FReepers as worthy of respect despite the differences we may have on the issues. Gentle persuasion, not conflict, is my approach.


13 posted on 10/25/2006 11:29:25 AM PDT by oblomov (Join the FR Folding@Home Team (#36120) keyword: folding@home)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: bahblahbah
You can't blame social conservatives for big government conservatism.


No? When you support changing the constitution to promote a social agenda don't be surprised when personal responsibility gets stiff-armed for the bigger, heavy hand of government.
14 posted on 10/25/2006 11:32:41 AM PDT by Blackirish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Blackirish
The weird thing is, the social conservatives are less nanny statists than the so-called "moderates" who always vote for all the social programs that are offered to fix the problems created by a lack of moral values.

And judicial branch of the government ordered moral indifference and unborn child murder is hardly less government. Personal responsiblity has long been dead. No one has to fund their own retirement, educate their own children, pay for the research on or drugs for their sexually-promiscuously acquired venereal diseases, and on and on. Hostility to religion and any kind of moral social structure -- like a nature based, reality based, traditionally based definition of marriage -- has left no one but the government responsible for the disasters people make of their lives. The more responsible you are, the more baggage you have to pick up and carry for the irresponsible.

America gave up on freedom a long time ago.

15 posted on 10/25/2006 11:35:25 AM PDT by The Ghost of FReepers Past (Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light..... Isaiah 5:20)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: guitarist

Most libertarians use natural law as the basis for their political philosophy. Many would oppose abortion for the same reason they oppose the death penalty. They do not believe that the state should ever have the power to take human life. And most libertarians would say that marriage is not a matter for the government to "license" one way or the other. So libertarians are not so different from many religious fundamentalists on these two issues.


16 posted on 10/25/2006 11:36:47 AM PDT by oblomov (Join the FR Folding@Home Team (#36120) keyword: folding@home)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Dracian; Jim Robinson
You wouldn't know that from Free Republic where the fundies have purged so many conservative-libertarians in their attempts to "purify" the party.

Why do I never get these memos?

17 posted on 10/25/2006 11:38:14 AM PDT by Admin Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Admin Moderator
LOL     **snort**
18 posted on 10/25/2006 11:39:00 AM PDT by Petronski (CNN is an insidiously treasonous, enemy propaganda organ.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Blackirish

Both parties are involved in pushing America into hell, both financially and socially. It's only a matter of how fast. Repubs just go a little slower than Dems.

One World Goverment is the goal and America must be destroyed to achieve that end.


19 posted on 10/25/2006 11:41:54 AM PDT by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Admin Moderator

It's a conspiracy I tells ya!



:0)


20 posted on 10/25/2006 11:43:54 AM PDT by Bigh4u2 (Denial is the first requirement to be a liberal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan

"One World Goverment is the goal and America must be destroyed to achieve that end."

I think you will see another 'civil war' before that happens.


21 posted on 10/25/2006 11:44:54 AM PDT by Bigh4u2 (Denial is the first requirement to be a liberal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Admin Moderator

One wonders what Dracian's name was the last time he was booted.


22 posted on 10/25/2006 11:46:30 AM PDT by MineralMan (Non-evangelical Atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Dracian

There's no reason we can't co-exist. If Union thugs and enviroweenies can co-exist in the Democrap Party then the religious right can co-exist with the "small l" libertarians.


23 posted on 10/25/2006 11:46:35 AM PDT by RockinRight (Maintaining a Republican majority is MORE IMPORTANT than your temper tantrum.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Dracian

Oops. Forgot to ping you in the message above. Sorry.


24 posted on 10/25/2006 11:47:43 AM PDT by MineralMan (Non-evangelical Atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Dracian
I meant actually physically banned from posting.

?

Just for disagreeing? Or did they get out of hand?

I hold some positions pretty heretical to Social Conservatives, and have debated them here on FR.

I've never been banned. But I always try my best to be careful not to get personal.

25 posted on 10/25/2006 11:49:39 AM PDT by Dominic Harr (Conservative: The "ant", to a liberal's "grasshopper".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr

I confess: I am a libertarian-conservative. Do your worst. :-)


26 posted on 10/25/2006 11:56:06 AM PDT by Dracian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Dracian
I've been purged? Aawww man...
27 posted on 10/25/2006 11:57:38 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (Well, my days of not taking your seriously are certainly coming to a middle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Blackirish
Libertarians have a few planks in their platform that fit well in a conservative Republican platform.

Evidence of that is that Libertarians often vote for Republicans to have any chance to move those issues forward.( taxes, property rights, gun ownership).

If Libertarians (at best) make up 15% of the Republican vote, it is a fools errand for them to attempt to take on the Religious Christians that make up 85% of the entire American population.

If Libertarians want queer marriage, legal drugs, abortion, high taxes, banned guns, no property rights, and a expanded Federal Government, they can vote for the RATS.

Its the Libertarian's choice to determine the issues in their platform that mean most to them. Its not up to Republicans to change to accommodate radical ideas to appease them.

You can't blame Republicans for some of the nutball things in the Libertarian platform.
28 posted on 10/25/2006 12:15:58 PM PDT by Beagle8U (Demonrats want the Gays out of Congress.....stand back and let them purge their base.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Blackirish
The Repub party needs to go back to it's roots of limited government and personal responsabilty.

I agree completely!

Also important to saving the Pubbies is the spouting of ID/Creationist nonsense, Intelligently Designed to destroy and discredit the Conservative Movement.

29 posted on 10/25/2006 12:16:04 PM PDT by DoctorMichael (A wall first. A wall now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: guitarist
If "libertarian" means it's a-okay to tear babies limb from limb by abortion, and that man marrying man equals many marrying woman, please count me out!

Of course all libertarians aren't united in their views, but going with the basic philosophy, abortion is wrong because it is violence against another human being. Gay marriage is solved because the government shouldn't be in the marriage business anyway. Sure, let people do civil unions for tax (although that mostly goes away with a Fair Tax) and other legal purposes, but true marriages (heart and soul under the deity of your choice) are up to the churches, mosques, covens, etc.

30 posted on 10/25/2006 12:22:36 PM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Beagle8U
If Libertarians want queer marriage, legal drugs, abortion, high taxes, banned guns, no property rights, and a expanded Federal Government, they can vote for the RATS.

The first one's been taken care of. Legal drugs are a consequence of less power to the government and more to the people (with personal responsibility). High taxes, gun banning, restrictions on property rights and expanded federal government are all anathema to libertarians.

31 posted on 10/25/2006 12:26:47 PM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Blackirish
As the Republican base fragments and Christian conservatives consider a “fast” from politics

Chicken Little, is that you?

32 posted on 10/25/2006 12:27:24 PM PDT by MEGoody (Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dracian
You wouldn't know that from Free Republic

That's because it's likely an incorrect number.

33 posted on 10/25/2006 12:28:08 PM PDT by MEGoody (Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: oblomov

It's a bit bogus to say that libertarian principles forbid the death penalty. The government can't execute someone. Okay, but why can the government lock a guy in prison for 50 years and control his private life? If the latter is extreme though okay, the first has to be, too.


34 posted on 10/25/2006 12:29:30 PM PDT by guitarist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Dracian
I meant actually physically banned from posting.

Yeah, right. Prove it.

35 posted on 10/25/2006 12:30:14 PM PDT by MEGoody (Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: MEGoody
Chicken Little, is that you?



No I'm not afraid of limited government and looking after my own business...are you?
36 posted on 10/25/2006 12:32:25 PM PDT by Blackirish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat
Their platform contains the ideas of the far ends of both major party's. That might be why they are at a loss to get over 1% of the vote?
37 posted on 10/25/2006 12:33:12 PM PDT by Beagle8U (Demonrats want the Gays out of Congress.....stand back and let them purge their base.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Blackirish

Before I go and read the whole article, I have to know if the definition of triangulation as being between libertarian and the social right is yours or theirs. I always thought that triangulation was Clinton term for threading the needle between the left and the middle, a sort of domestic form of the "Third Way".


38 posted on 10/25/2006 12:36:09 PM PDT by Eva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: oblomov

"I am a libertarian conservative..."

That means something to you, apparently. But to others, it means little.

For or against illegal immigration?
For or against abortion?
For or against war in Iraq?
For or against Patriot Act?
For or against legalization of drugs?


39 posted on 10/25/2006 12:36:14 PM PDT by truth_seeker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Dracian
You wouldn't know that from Free Republic where the fundies have purged so many conservative-libertarians in their attempts to "purify" the party

I think you view is the exact opposite of the reality. I have been here long enough to know the difference.

40 posted on 10/25/2006 12:37:36 PM PDT by itsahoot (If the GOP does not do something about immigration, immigration will do something about the GOP)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr
Just for disagreeing? Or did they get out of hand?

Many just for disagreeing, and others for "getting out of hand" to a far less degree than the people they were debating (who remain unbanned, and in fact have just gotten worse and more emboldened). On certain topics, there's a very distinct and grossly uneven double-standard, or at least there has been in the past year or so. Prior to that, the mods were a lot more even-handed.

Other biased and unethical stuff has been going on as well, such as repeated removals of someone's Freeper homepage for expressing an opinion contrary to the "party line" (without explanation or notification, even after repeated questions to the management about it), a moderator removing multiple messages that debunked falsehoods written by a good friend of the moderator (on a thread where the moderator was also participating in the discussion as an advocate for the same side under a non-mod screen name), upwards of a dozen people have been banned for no obvious reason at all or explanation, "coincidentally" all from one particiular side of certain issues, an old-time Freeper with thousands of posts under his belt was suddenly banned with the one-word so-called explanation of "Troll", publicly known and announced "sneakbacks" (people who were previously banned but returning under a new screen name) are allowed to remain here as long as they are on the "proper" side of the "party line", etc. etc.

Before about a year ago, all of the moderator decisions made sense to me -- even the times I thought they jumped the gun a bit or took a bit too long to take action, I agreed that things were near that point where action needed to be taken. But within the last year or so, dozens of their actions have prompted a, "what the hell??" reaction from me, as well as from a great number of other longtime Freepers I've discussed it with. Something has very much changed. Either Jim has altered his management style, and he says that he hasn't, or one or more intolerant moderators (who perhaps took on the job a year or so ago) have been pursuing their own personal agenda whenever they think they can get away with it against Freepers with whom they disagree.

Something has gotten way out of whack recently, and it's not good for FreeRepublic, and it's not right.

41 posted on 10/25/2006 12:37:48 PM PDT by Ichneumon (Ignorance is curable, but the afflicted has to want to be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Beagle8U
Your confusing small L libertarians/conservatives with card carrying members of the Libertarian party.
42 posted on 10/25/2006 12:39:42 PM PDT by Blackirish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Blackirish
Leave nanny statism to the dims.

A significant segment of the Religious Right has not been supporting Republicans for the proper reason - because Republicans will fight for freedom of worship against Democratic legislation that tries to curtail it. Rather, they have stayed on board in the hope that their beliefs would some day be written into law. Thus, there is anger at Bush for not doing enough to advance the social conservative agenda - they want laws passed, not speeches.

The grand coalition is fragmenting a bit.

43 posted on 10/25/2006 12:40:45 PM PDT by Mr. Jeeves ("When the government is invasive, the people are wanting." -- Tao Te Ching)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dracian

Apparently, you retread libertrollians have absolutely no regard for private property rights. Zot!


44 posted on 10/25/2006 12:41:19 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

Comment #45 Removed by Moderator

To: Blackirish
"Your confusing small L libertarians/conservatives with card carrying members of the Libertarian party"

I didn't know there was a small"L" party, thanks for correcting me on that.

Please post a link to their platform website so I can check it out.

Thanks in advance.
46 posted on 10/25/2006 12:47:36 PM PDT by Beagle8U (Demonrats want the Gays out of Congress.....stand back and let them purge their base.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: guitarist
If "libertarian" means it's a-okay to tear babies limb from limb by abortion, and that man marrying man equals many marrying woman, please count me out!

It doesn't mean that.

47 posted on 10/25/2006 12:48:07 PM PDT by Protagoras (We are not free because we are great, we are great because we are free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Beagle8U
You can't blame Republicans for some of the nutball things in the Libertarian platform.

But you can blame them for confusing small L libertarians from big L Libertarian party members.

48 posted on 10/25/2006 12:54:37 PM PDT by Protagoras (We are not free because we are great, we are great because we are free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Beagle8U
Their platform contains the ideas of the far ends of both major party's

Their platform has core values, and everything flows from that. The end results do tend to match the opposite sides on the surface.

For example, drug legalization. Libertarians want it because of the concepts of limited government size and power, freedom of the individual, and individual responsibility ("I was high" becomes an aggravating factor in a crime, not a way to evade responsibility). The concept exists even if a person, like me, is against the use of most recreational drugs (you're not taking my caffeine!).

The leftists just want to get high and be excused from responsibility for anything stupid they may do when high.

It's a big policy difference when you look closer, but most people don't.

49 posted on 10/25/2006 12:54:53 PM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
Something has gotten way out of whack recently, and it's not good for FreeRepublic, and it's not right.

The place is marginalizing itself to hell in a bucket. Every science thread now is a snake pit, and it's the people who try to answer the freak show who seem to be on thin ice with the management.

50 posted on 10/25/2006 12:55:10 PM PDT by VadeRetro (A systematic investigation of nature does not negotiate with crackpots.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 1,651-1,665 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson