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

Skip to comments.

CPAC, Libertarians And Ron Paul - What A Conservative Isn't
grasstopsusa.com ^ | 03/03/2010 | Don Feder

Posted on 03/03/2010 7:14:12 AM PST by massmike

This is not about the libertarian freak-show that the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) has become. (“See the bearded lady pushing gays in the military and fighting the war on terrorism the way the French fought World War II.”)

Nor is it meant to be an indictment of Congressman Ron Paul — who is to serious political debate what Comedy Central is to philosophical inquiry.

Neither is it about Grover Norquist’s attempts to make the conservative movement jihad-friendly. Norquist — who sits on the board of the American Conservative Union, CPAC’s parent organization — is the godfather of the Islamic Free Market Institute, a past CPAC co-sponsor. (Do they cut your taxes before or after they cut off your head?)

Rather, the foregoing serve to illustrate widespread ignorance and illusion regarding a word — and it is a word whose correct understanding is essential to America’s survival — conservative.

(Excerpt) Read more at grasstopsusa.com ...


TOPICS: Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: conservatives; cpac; groverhastogo; grovernorquist; nomorerinos; norquist; paulestinians; ronpaul
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-62 next last

1 posted on 03/03/2010 7:14:13 AM PST by massmike
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: massmike

Grover Norquist who thinks McCain is taxpayer friendly?

That’s a joke.


2 posted on 03/03/2010 7:19:27 AM PST by GeronL (Political Philosophy: I Own Me (yep, boiled down to 6 letters))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: massmike

This is a damnation of conservatism. What’s the conservative problem with freedom? :-(


3 posted on 03/03/2010 7:22:02 AM PST by Zanton (a polite & open-minded, but fierce, advocate of classical liberalism & libertarianism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: massmike
Limited to its proper functions, government is not a necessary evil but a positive good.

Bzzzt. Wrong answer.

"That Government is no more than a choice among evils, is acknowledged by the most intelligent among mankind, and has been a standing maxim for ages."

--Patrick Henry , June 7, 1788

4 posted on 03/03/2010 7:23:36 AM PST by Huck (Q: How can you tell a party is in the majority? A: They're complaining about the fillibuster.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: manc

Ping for your interest!


5 posted on 03/03/2010 7:25:29 AM PST by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus (We bury Democrats face down so that when they scratch, they get closer to home.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: massmike
Conservatives would give you the right...

Sorry, Mr. 'conservative'. It doesn't work that way.

Awful piece.

6 posted on 03/03/2010 7:26:36 AM PST by perfect_rovian_storm (The worst is behind us. Unfortunately it is really well endowed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: massmike
"...fighting the war on terrorism the way the French fought World War II..."

If we fought the war on terrorism the way the Americans fought World War II, it would be over by now.

7 posted on 03/03/2010 7:29:20 AM PST by Notary Sojac (Mi Tio es infermo, pero la carretera es verde!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zanton
What’s the conservative problem with freedom? :-(

I've said it before: too many conservatives have forgotten what they are supposed to be conserving, which is the radical spirit of liberty laid down by the Founding Fathers, and not the social norms of 1950's middle America.

For all his faults, Ron Paul is closer to being a genuine conservative than most of his critics are.

8 posted on 03/03/2010 7:29:33 AM PST by Mr. Jeeves ( "The right to offend is far more important than any right not to be offended." - Rowan Atkinson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: massmike

There were a few worthy speakers at CPAC, but most seemed to fit into the “other reality” corner...somewhere between freak show and ridiculous. If the Tea Party movement dissolves into this, we have no one more to blame than our selves. After reading some of the speeches I was apalled that things seemed to be in shambles and disarray. Some people are trying to take over the tea party movement for their own gain. We need to beware that some who join us have designs on our support for their own purposes, and not necessarily things that would help America. They talk out of both sides of their mouths...we all now the types.


9 posted on 03/03/2010 7:30:57 AM PST by Shery (in APO Land)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Jeeves
I've said it before: too many conservatives have forgotten what they are supposed to be conserving, which is the radical spirit of liberty laid down by the Founding Fathers, and not the social norms of 1950's middle America.

Tell that to Patrick Henry,

"Bad men cannot make good citizens. It is when a people forget God that tyrants forge their chains. A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, is incompatible with freedom. No free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue; and by a frequent recurrence to fundamental principles."

Simple fact of the matter is, if people won't self-govern, then they will be other-governed.

10 posted on 03/03/2010 7:31:40 AM PST by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus (We bury Democrats face down so that when they scratch, they get closer to home.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Jeeves

Bravo, Mr. Jeeves! :-) But the ultimate problem, in my view, lies with the term “conservatism” itself. Good people need to rally around a term and concept which clearly means freedom, liberty, individual rights, etc. “Conservatism” doesn’t cut it.


11 posted on 03/03/2010 7:39:05 AM PST by Zanton (a polite & open-minded, but fierce, advocate of classical liberalism & libertarianism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: perfect_rovian_storm
Sorry, Mr. 'conservative'. It doesn't work that way.

I think that Feder makes a good overall point, however, and one which a lot of "conservatives" here on Free Republic need to (re)learn.

There are a lot of people who seem to think that "liberty" and "moral conservatism" are opposites - and this seems to underly the "conservative-libertarian" divide. This supposed dichotomy is completely untrue. They are contiguous elements of the same fabric of self-governing freedom.

12 posted on 03/03/2010 7:42:08 AM PST by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus (We bury Democrats face down so that when they scratch, they get closer to home.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Jeeves

So the Founders supported homosexual marriage, abortion on demand and pornography?


13 posted on 03/03/2010 7:43:18 AM PST by Above My Pay Grade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Zanton

The term that fits best, Liberalism .... Classical Liberalism, is what conservatives were originally conserving. That form of Liberalism that was ruggedly individualistic, pro-natural rights, natural law etc.


14 posted on 03/03/2010 7:44:12 AM PST by runninglips (Don't support the Republican party, work to "fundamentally change" it...conservative would be nice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Above My Pay Grade; Mr. Jeeves; manc
So the Founders supported homosexual marriage, abortion on demand and pornography?

LOL, this hits it exactly.

It should come as no surprise that part of the blessing of liberty that conservatives should be conserving includes...drum roll please...the sort of "social conservatism" (as it is termed now) that restrains our baser instincts and enables us to actually function as a commonwealth of self-governing individual citizens.

One of libertarianism's many problems is that it doesn't truly understand the concept of "self-government." The average libertarian thinks "self-government" means "doing whatever I want to do, whenever I want to, regardless of what anyone thinks of it, so long as I'm not putting somebody's eye out while I'm doing it." The Founders, as well as the entire series of philosophical ground-layers upon whom the Founders rested from Algernon Sidney and John Locke all the way back to Marcus Tullius Cicero, would have disagreed.

Self-government involves voluntary restraint of our own desires so that we can function within the commonwealth in a way that facilitates civil society among us all. Or at least that's the way John Locke would have defined it. Libertarians, on the other hand, want to take us back to Locke and Hobbes' "state of nature" in which there is no commonwealth.

Because man is what he is, the unrestrained fulfillment of his every whim will ALWAYS end up infringing on the natural liberties of other individuals. To see the truth of this in our society merely requires us to read the news with at least a modicum of understanding of human nature. Hence, man always needs government. The issue is, then, whether that will be self-government or other-government. To the extent that we do not exhibit the former, we will have that much greater a proportion of the latter.

15 posted on 03/03/2010 7:51:36 AM PST by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus (We bury Democrats face down so that when they scratch, they get closer to home.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: runninglips
The term that fits best, Liberalism .... Classical Liberalism, is what conservatives were originally conserving. That form of Liberalism that was ruggedly individualistic, pro-natural rights, natural law etc.

I absolutely agree, Runninglips. What a HORROR that the anti-freedom, soft-socialist Left has stolen the term "liberalism". True liberalism, as a philosophy, barely exists today. Only with the libertarians, Austrian economic thinkers, and Objectivists.

16 posted on 03/03/2010 8:01:08 AM PST by Zanton (a polite & open-minded, but fierce, advocate of classical liberalism & libertarianism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

“Grover Norquist who thinks McCain is taxpayer friendly?

That’s a joke.”

Grover is a traitor to the United States and agent of a foreign power. His presence on the board is why I no longer donate to the NRA.


17 posted on 03/03/2010 8:03:24 AM PST by Favor Center (Targets Up! Hold hard and favor center!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Above My Pay Grade

On the outskirts of society, that which seems “strange” was not only tolerated, but considered “normal” during the early years of our country. It was not that govt promoted it, but allowed local law to rule. Centralizing power is the way of the tyrant. When the “strange” grab control of this tyrannical power, they promote it. Much better to allow local govts to do as they please on the local level, keep centralized govt to a minimum, and tolerate the differences.

If gays want to marry, shouldn’t it be up to the voters in a State, county or city? Ditto for abortion, and porn. As for gay marriage, govt caused this problem, when it took unto itself MARRIAGE itself.


18 posted on 03/03/2010 8:05:15 AM PST by runninglips (Don't support the Republican party, work to "fundamentally change" it...conservative would be nice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus

I’m fine with ‘moral conservatism’ and I don’t think it’s the opposite of liberty. However, it isn’t liberty when the government is deciding what the morals are. When government decides what’s ‘moral’, that’s how we end up with transfat bans and forced crappy light bulbs as part of our ‘morality’. That ain’t liberty.

I’m tired of liberals forcing their morality or lack-thereof on me. I’m tired of them trying to indoctrinate my children. However, that doesn’t mean I think that the answer is more of the same, but with new management deciding what’s moral.


19 posted on 03/03/2010 8:13:30 AM PST by perfect_rovian_storm (The worst is behind us. Unfortunately it is really well endowed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus

I would be willing to bet that the argument that people are incapable of “self government”, and would devolve into anarchy, hedonism and reduced to a crying baby state, without a govt that seeks to CONSERVE traditional life, was the self same one voiced by King George in 1775.


20 posted on 03/03/2010 8:17:55 AM PST by runninglips (Don't support the Republican party, work to "fundamentally change" it...conservative would be nice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: runninglips
I would be willing to bet that the argument that people are incapable of “self government”, and would devolve into anarchy, hedonism and reduced to a crying baby state, without a govt that seeks to CONSERVE traditional life, was the self same one voiced by King George in 1775.

That's fine, if you want to be a historical illiterate in the service of libertarianism, go right ahead.

Since, well, Patrick Henry of all people voiced essentially the same point I've made.

21 posted on 03/03/2010 8:23:27 AM PST by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus (We bury Democrats face down so that when they scratch, they get closer to home.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: perfect_rovian_storm
I’m fine with ‘moral conservatism’ and I don’t think it’s the opposite of liberty. However, it isn’t liberty when the government is deciding what the morals are. When government decides what’s ‘moral’, that’s how we end up with transfat bans and forced crappy light bulbs as part of our ‘morality’. That ain’t liberty.

I agree - but that cuts to the issue. If the government isn't the arbiter of morals - and it's not - then what is? We ourselves, each one individually, regardless of the effect it has on other members of the commonwealth? That's not self-government, either. But now, we're crossing that uncomfortable line whereby people might be held to eternal moral standards that exist regardless of any government...

22 posted on 03/03/2010 8:25:37 AM PST by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus (We bury Democrats face down so that when they scratch, they get closer to home.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: massmike

This a a very good article (especially the first half), that does a great job explaining the difference between Conservatism and Libertarianism.

I especially like this passage:

“A conservative isn’t a libertarian. A conservative values freedom (individual liberty); a libertarian worships it. A libertarian recognizes no political value other than freedom. A libertarian is a utopian of the right. The left’s utopia is a government that’s all-inclusive. The libertarian’s is a government that’s non-existent — or nearly so. The left believes people are angels corrupted by capitalism. The libertarian believes people are angels corrupted by the state. The conservative believes humanity is flawed — hence, corruptible.”

I think he goes a bit too far on the faith aspect. While I am a devout Christian, I believe an agnostic or atheist can be a conservative, so long as they agree with certain core Christian values. Still, this an excellent article.


23 posted on 03/03/2010 8:31:45 AM PST by Above My Pay Grade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: runninglips

>>>As for gay marriage, govt caused this problem, when it took unto itself MARRIAGE itself.<<<

This is absolutely untrue. Marriage predated government. Governments, almost without exception, have recognized that marriage (between a man and a woman, of course) was the normal, natural course of existence for humans, and that it was highly beneficial to the individuals and to society. As a result, it saw fit to officially recognize the fact that a married couple is a unit, that should be treated as a single entity for certain purposes.

For the most part, government merely registers marriages, (in much the same way it registers corporations) and makes some minimal efforts to ensure that individuals seeking marriage are meet some very basic eligibility requirements (not already married, of age, not close relatives, etc.).

Homosexuals might co-habitate and on some level might even “love” one another, but they cannot form the natural union, and basis of the family unit and of socitey, known as marriage. Therefore, there is no practical reason for recognition of such false “unions”.


24 posted on 03/03/2010 8:42:18 AM PST by Above My Pay Grade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus

Patrick Henry governed what again? It is really quite easy to stand on hard principles when living your private life, but when you are attempting to put together rules to govern others lives it is very hard. Without the freedom to sin, there is no need to self govern. The freedom is what causes the need for self government, not the barriers put up artificially.


25 posted on 03/03/2010 8:59:18 AM PST by runninglips (Don't support the Republican party, work to "fundamentally change" it...conservative would be nice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Above My Pay Grade

Why should govt need to recognize any marriage? Why do I need govt sanction to live my life the way I see fit? Marriage will survive without govt, it is easily destroyed by it.


26 posted on 03/03/2010 9:01:34 AM PST by runninglips (Don't support the Republican party, work to "fundamentally change" it...conservative would be nice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: massmike

He seems on point for the most part, but one thing, one very important thing, I did not see anywhere in his write up, is the mention of Progressives.

We can talk all day long about democrats, republicans, liberals and conservatives. But until one opens their eyes and see’s it’s the Progressives that are ruining this country and call them for what they are, nothing will change. IMO


27 posted on 03/03/2010 9:05:03 AM PST by Lucky9teen (The cowards are very very concerned that someone might notice that they are cowards.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: runninglips

>>>Why should govt need to recognize any marriage? Why do I need govt sanction to live my life the way I see fit? Marriage will survive without govt, it is easily destroyed by it.<<<

A married couple an entity beyond the two individuals and therefore it is only logical that it be treated as such in certain situations. The government’s primary (and almost exclusive) function in marriage is to certify the existence of this unit for certain legal purposes. IOW, it prevents people from falsely claiming that they are a married couple, and gives married couples evidence that the union exists.

Do you oppose the government registering corporations?


28 posted on 03/03/2010 9:06:21 AM PST by Above My Pay Grade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Jeeves

For all his faults, Ron Paul is closer to being a genuine conservative than most of his critics are.

Agreed


29 posted on 03/03/2010 9:06:35 AM PST by Lucky9teen (The cowards are very very concerned that someone might notice that they are cowards.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
If the government isn't the arbiter of morals - and it's not - then what is? We ourselves, each one individually, regardless of the effect it has on other members of the commonwealth?

The problem with this question is that there isn't an acceptable answer to this question OTHER than we ourselves individually. Not without giving some other entity WAY too much power to impose morality, or tyranny, depending on how you look at it, over the population.

I think a large part of the problem is that with the advent of all the social programs and government 'benefits' that are handed out, this has gone to create a collectivist mindset even in conservatives who would otherwise tend to be more individualist.

If we remove the moral hazard of damaging social programs, the morality of the individual will follow.

To be honest, I don't think much more of the argument that people aren't capable of governing their own morality than I do of the envirotard progressives who are out there trying to ban my barbecue grill.

30 posted on 03/03/2010 9:07:53 AM PST by perfect_rovian_storm (The worst is behind us. Unfortunately it is really well endowed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: massmike

What an idiotic article...yawn


31 posted on 03/03/2010 9:08:40 AM PST by be-baw (still seeking)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
One of libertarianism's many problems is that it doesn't truly understand the concept of "self-government." The average libertarian thinks "self-government" means "doing whatever I want to do, whenever I want to, regardless of what anyone thinks of it, so long as I'm not putting somebody's eye out while I'm doing it." The Founders, as well as the entire series of philosophical ground-layers upon whom the Founders rested from Algernon Sidney and John Locke all the way back to Marcus Tullius Cicero, would have disagreed.

Self-government involves voluntary restraint of our own desires so that we can function within the commonwealth in a way that facilitates civil society among us all. Or at least that's the way John Locke would have defined it. Libertarians, on the other hand, want to take us back to Locke and Hobbes' "state of nature" in which there is no commonwealth.

Right. Libertarianism is anarchy. BS.

32 posted on 03/03/2010 9:24:46 AM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: massmike
That article was a regrettably painful read - not for inaccuracy in describing the Paulbot freakshow, but for the fact that it's author, while attacking conspiracy theorists, is just as much a conspiracy-theory minded whack-a-doodle ABOUT the Paul movement.

You want a simpler and more accurate explanation for what happened at CPAC? Well here it is.

CPAC has long been the main stomping ground of conservative college student activists. In recent years it's become even more so, with a full half of the audience or higher being in that 18-25 demographic. College age conservatives tend to have a substantially stronger small-l libertarian streak than the rest of the conservative electorate. For better or for worse:

- They don't really care one way or another about the gay movement, and don't really think of it as a political threat

- They don't see marijuana as marking the downfall of Western Civilization

- They associate most social conservatism with "sunday school," which is that boring thing their parents used to make them go to when they were living at home.

- They aren't too keen on religious conservative crusades against alcohol and other "moral vices" either, seeing as they typically partake in them

- In fact, they probably see those socially conservative "moral vice" policies as evidence of an intrusive big government preventing them from freely partaking in the consumption of alcohol

- Those of them who are gung ho about the war in Iraq have already signed up in the military, and the rest are generally indifferent

- They're generally healthy and at an age where they think they're invincible, so they don't really get riled up about medicare or health insurance either...except when they're asked to pay for somebody else's.

- They are usually new to the working world, have just discovered that they have to pay income taxes

- They've also just discovered that part of their paycheck is confiscated for a social security system that they will never see or benefit from

- And they're generally drawn to idealistic political causes over pragmatist ones

All of those factors combine together to make a candidate like Ron Paul sound very appealing, so they vote for him over a bible thumper like Palin, a stuffy old career politician like McCain, or a slick but empty suit like Romney. Give it a few years and most of them will grow out of it. But a giant Ron Paul conspiracy to take over the GOP it is not.

33 posted on 03/03/2010 10:36:58 AM PST by conimbricenses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Jeeves
For all his faults, Ron Paul is closer to being a genuine conservative than most of his critics are.

Your line shows the real divide in the Republican party. We have RINO's, and we have Progressives, and then we have Libertarians, all of which will eventually destroy the very fabric of our society.

34 posted on 03/03/2010 11:00:00 AM PST by itsahoot (Each generation takes to excess, what the previous generation accepted in moderation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus

Well said Titus. Wish I had something to add, but you summed up my feelings in four paragraphs.


35 posted on 03/03/2010 11:05:43 AM PST by itsahoot (Each generation takes to excess, what the previous generation accepted in moderation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: massmike

I thought it was a good article. Has this place been overrun by the Ronulans?


36 posted on 03/03/2010 11:06:06 AM PST by inglorious_basterd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: perfect_rovian_storm
but with new management deciding what’s moral.

Each man was doing what was right in his own eyes.

May not be familiar to you, but what happened after that statement, was a repudiation of your position.

37 posted on 03/03/2010 11:08:54 AM PST by itsahoot (Each generation takes to excess, what the previous generation accepted in moderation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: All

Some very good points in this discussion! Thank you all!


38 posted on 03/03/2010 11:11:46 AM PST by LearsFool ("Thou shouldst not have been old, till thou hadst been wise.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: conimbricenses
They don't see

No they don't, but they will, or we are doomed.

39 posted on 03/03/2010 11:17:23 AM PST by itsahoot (Each generation takes to excess, what the previous generation accepted in moderation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: itsahoot

What does that mean?


40 posted on 03/03/2010 11:17:33 AM PST by perfect_rovian_storm (The worst is behind us. Unfortunately it is really well endowed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: inglorious_basterd
Has this place been overrun by the Ronulans?

Take comfort.There's still more of us than them.

Let them nominate a man (Paul) that would be nearly 78 by the time he could take office in three years.If they thought they heard old-age cracks about McCain.........

41 posted on 03/03/2010 11:22:50 AM PST by massmike (...So this is what happens when OJ's jury elects the president....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus

Well said.


42 posted on 03/03/2010 12:00:07 PM PST by Crolis ("Nemo me impune lacessit!" - "No one provokes me with impunity!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Notary Sojac
If we fought the war on terrorism the way the Americans fought World War II, it would be over by now.

Exactly. Every single war we've been involved in since and including Korea has been handicapped by political correctness and executive micromanagement.

It is also no coincidence that almost every war since and including Korea has ended in what is, at best, a stalemate if not outright defeat.

43 posted on 03/03/2010 12:24:51 PM PST by conimbricenses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
LOL, this hits it exactly.
Except that it doesn't. The Paulbots, for all their faults, are usually pro-life and generally skeptical of the gay marriage movement. Their position is a bit more nuanced than my own or most other conservatives. They don't want a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, but they also don't think other states should be forced to recognize gay marriages simply because Massachusetts does.

Their main divergence with some aspects of conservatism on "moral values" issues is not pornography or abortion, but rather the drug war. And they usually attack it in historical parallels to the prohibition movement of the early 20th century. While I wouldn't go as far as them in the whole legalization movement, I do not find this position to be fundamentally at odds with conservatism proper. Since the founding era we've always had an internal division on the regulation of "vices." Historically it was tied to religion, usually pitting the fundamentalists against the mainline protestants and catholics over alcohol.

44 posted on 03/03/2010 12:33:12 PM PST by conimbricenses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: perfect_rovian_storm
Doomed was a little over the top, but I was referring to what was said about all the things younger kids don't see.

I intende it to mean, if they don't begin to see things differently soon, we may lose our sovereignty.

45 posted on 03/03/2010 12:48:38 PM PST by itsahoot (Each generation takes to excess, what the previous generation accepted in moderation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: perfect_rovian_storm

Oops I responded to the wrong post. The reference comes from the Old Testament. God destroyed that Generation.


46 posted on 03/03/2010 12:52:50 PM PST by itsahoot (Each generation takes to excess, what the previous generation accepted in moderation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: perfect_rovian_storm

Most states had state churches in 1789.


47 posted on 03/03/2010 1:56:12 PM PST by rmlew (Democracy tends to ignore..., threats to its existence because it loathes doing what is needed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Jeeves
For all his faults, Ron Paul is closer to being a genuine conservative than most of his critics are.

Conservative??? In what way? By being an anti-American truther who blames America for 9/11? Or by blaming America for every problem in the world? Or by taking every earmark he can get his hands on? He is NO conservative. He may talk like one but in all the time he has been living off of the tax payers dime what has he ever actually accomplished? Answer NOTHING!!!
48 posted on 03/03/2010 2:04:59 PM PST by John D
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: rmlew
Most states had state churches in 1789.

In 1789, only Connecticut, New Hampshire and South Carolina did. New Hampshire and South Carolina disestablished their State churches in 1790. Connecticut did so in 1818.

You could arguably include Georgia, since they disestablished a State church under their new constitution in 1789.

That's not even a third of the States inclusive of Georgia.

49 posted on 03/03/2010 2:13:20 PM PST by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Above My Pay Grade

“So the Founders supported homosexual marriage, abortion on demand and pornography?”

Where and by which Founders were those issues written of?


50 posted on 03/03/2010 3:10:53 PM PST by truth_seeker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-62 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