Skip to comments.The GOP Is Dying Because The Liberty Movement Is Thriving
Posted on 12/06/2012 1:22:58 PM PST by Zakeet
To the point of causing intestinal convulsions, there has been no shortage of analysis on the elections of 2012. Every no-name mop-head mainstream media hack with a niche audience has put in his or her two cents on the finale of perhaps the biggest non-event of the decade and almost every single one of them has been depressingly wrong or completely disingenuous - but perhaps this was to be expected. The word journalist has today become synonymous with whore, simply because success in the field makes whoredom essential. The job of news outlets is not to report on the facts, but to fashion an illusory world out of manure bricks and glossy paint, and this is exactly what they have done in their musing on the fate of the GOP.
For any saucer-eyed skeptic who still believes that all disinformation is mere coincidence or personal bias rather than an engineered and coordinated conspiracy, I would like to point out the sudden, similar and simultaneous conclusions of MSM pundits in the wake of Barack Obamas victory in November. You would think that there would be hundreds if not thousands of conflicting ideas about what really happened this year, but instead, Americans are being presented with a chorus of identical viewpoints.
One meme that is being spread widely in the mainstream that I do actually agree with is that the Republican Party is dying. Oh yes, this is undoubtedly true. The GOP is on the fast track to the stew pot (or maybe another pot), but what the mainstream fails to mention is that this is something that alternative analysts in the Liberty Movement have been predicting for years, long before the name Barack Obama ever haunted the dreams of average Republicans, and this raises an important question; what did the alternative media see that the mainstream media missed?
The primary root of all the dysfunctional observations of the GOP is that most people today have no clue what conservatism is, and therefore, they have no idea how to diagnose problems in the Republican Party (an institution which is supposed to represent conservative values). You dont send a lawnmower repairman to examine a cancer ridden human being, you send a doctor who knows what a healthy body is supposed to look like. You also dont send a hardcore liberal or a Neo-Con flunky to comment on the failings of the GOP; you send a true conservative who knows how a healthy conservative organization is supposed to function. And, the only people left in this country who actually understand what conservatism really is are Liberty Movement activists.
Ironically, those of us in the movement who have deeply considered the election aftermath have predominantly concluded that it is WE who have taken the mojo out of the GOP, and frankly, were happy to do so
The GOP is dying because it no longer supports or nurtures the progress of true and traditional conservative values or the people who hold them. The GOP is fading into the bowels of political history because real conservatives are LEAVING it behind, and searching for other more legitimate avenues. These are the cold hard facts which the establishment and those who aid in its dominance have tried to keep out of the mainstream limelight post election. They have concocted a swarm of unsupported and absurd talking points which have been unleashed shotgun-style on the unsuspecting American populace. Their goal? To hide the fact that the Liberty Movement has gained enough momentum to bury the Neo-Con led GOP and even swing state contests at will, simply by not participating in the farce.
During the 2010 mid-term elections, there was a mass resurgence in conservative voting based almost entirely on Tea Party optimism. Some might argue that the Tea Party was a sham, and I would have to agree to a point. The Tea Party didnt start out that way (I know because I was involved during its inception). In the beginning it was a legitimate force for reduced government power and spending, and increased protection for civil liberties revolving mainly around the campaign of Ron Paul. That changed, though, when Neo-Con elites began weaseling their way into the club, gushing about how they loved freedom.
What these vermin do not understand, though, is that it takes more than rhetoric to hold onto Liberty Movement voters; you also have to back your words with action, and this is exactly why some career Republicans were shown the door in 2012. Not because the Democrats were a better choice, but because the Republicans had not lived up to the promises they made two years ago. Neo-Con toadies would, of course, sneer at my observations, and tell a completely different story on why they are losers
Lets take a look at just a few of the mainstream media and GOP leadership arguments and propaganda initiatives and why they are shameless fabrications meant to hide Liberty Movement influence
Lie #1: U.S. Demographics Are Changing And The GOP Platform Does Not Appeal To Minorities
The MSM and others are essentially suggesting that only white people will ever vote Republican, and by association, that only white people value conservatism and Constitutionalism. They are also cleverly and subconsciously implanting the idea that most minorities will only ever vote for a socialist and statist candidate (like Obama) in the future, or, that they will vote based entirely on skin color. That is to say, they are inferring that minority voters are predominantly narrow minded and stupid, and are also promoting a fabricated division based on race.
To illustrate why the demographics argument is a lie, I would like to use the examples of Allen West and Denny Rehberg; both high value Republicans in state races who unexpectedly lost to the Democrats.
Allen West, a black male candidate for the 22nd Congressional District of Florida, ran on a Tea Party limited government platform in 2010, and won by a margin of around 20,000 votes over Ron Klein, a white male Democrat. In 2012, West ran against another white male Democrat, Patrick Murphy, in Floridas 18th District and lost by 2000 votes. Obviously, Floridas vast population and myriad minority groups did NOT play the only part in Wests victory in 2010, or his loss in 2012. If skin color was ever the primary issue, then he should have won easily in 2012, just as he did in 2010 according to those who make the changing demographics race based argument. Wests opponents, Klein in 2010 and Murphy in 2012, had very similar and very standard Democratic Party policies, and neither man was overly interesting or influential. West did not suddenly have to face down a Dem. powerhouse in 2012; just another boring-as-crackers lefty.
West ran two campaigns against almost identical opponents under almost identical social conditions, somehow winning one, and losing the other. So, what happened? What was different in 2012? The fact is, the only thing different in 2012 was that this time around liberty based voters knew West was not a true conservative. West was a fraud, and a statist, and the Liberty Movement cast him out by declining to vote for him.
Almost immediately after Wests victory in 2010, his limited government constitutionalist persona began to change. He voted to strengthen pork programs which continue to pump fiat federal monies into local governments, generating massive national debt and making state officials beholden to federal control. He voted yes to line-item veto authority for the President, bypassing the constitutionally delineated powers of Congress. He supported CISPA (Cyber Intelligence Sharing And Protection Act) which would have given government incredible legal power to violate the privacy rights of ordinary Americans. And last, but certainly worst, West not only voted for the NDAA despite its unconstitutional indefinite detainment provisions, he also worked to strike down initiatives to remove language in the NDAA that made it applicable to U.S. citizens. To ice the cake, he openly admitted to serving on the Armed Forces Committee which reviewed the bill before it was even released, and later attempted to lie about what it actually did.
Why would a supposed constitutionalist and conservative champion applaud the legislated rendition and indefinite imprisonment of American citizens without trial and without due process all on the mere accusation of terrorism by the President, and then pretend as if that power was not granted by the bill? Because, he is a fake conservative and an establishment thug.
In my home state of Montana, Republican Denny Rehberg ran a highly anticipated race for Senate against incumbent Democrat John Tester. Rehbergs platform was just like Allan Wests; pro-Tea Party, limited government, thumbs up to the Constitution, and wrap up in the flag for good measure.
Rehberg had won many of his U.S. Representative campaigns by a vast margin leading up to his decision to run for Senate (around 60% to his opponents 30%). I can say that in a state like Montana, the idea of changing demographics affecting the election is laughable. Montana is freaken white! W-H-I-T-E! Rehberg, a Republican dreamboat candidate complete with carefully groomed cowboy mustache was thought to be a sure win in this state. By my personal observations seeing him at functions including a local Lincoln/Reagan dinner, I would say HE thought he was a sure win, to the point of ego-mania.
So in a predominantly white and predominantly conservative state, how did Rehberg lose? Because elections have little to do with demographics or party, and everything to do with the integrity of the person running, especially where the Liberty Movement is concerned.
Rehbergs professed fuzzy feelings for freedom and limited government were undeniably false. His consistent support for big government programs aside, he voted for and viciously defended the NDAA. When approached by Stewart Rhodes of Oath Keepers at a Republican function about his vote for rendition and permanent detention without trial for American citizens, he side-stepped the question completely, and accused Rhodes (a veteran Army Paratrooper) of not supporting the troops. Rehbergs attitude did not go unnoticed by the Liberty Movement population in Montana, and like Conrad Burns, the Republican incumbent who had been unseated in 2006, he lost by a substantial margin of voters who instead backed a Libertarian third party candidate.
The argument for changing demographics was certainly not applicable in either of these two incidences, along with numerous other state and local elections I do not have the space to mention. It also does not take into account the millions of Americans who refrain from voting because they feel utterly unrepresented in the election process. This lie is being pushed in order to hide the real change in America: a movement towards legitimacy and humility in government, rather than hubris and tyranny.
Lie #2: The GOP Does Not Appeal To Young Voters, Who Are Predominantly Liberal (Socialist)
I would still be considered a young voter, and so would many of my closest friends. They and I had all but abandoned politics in disgust years ago when we discovered Ron Paul, one of the only representatives in Washington D.C. that we felt actually embodied the traditional constitutional methodology (original conservatism). Not only had he received the highest amount of donations from the men and women of the U.S. military, he was also packing sold out speaking events on college campuses across the country while Obama and Romney were crawling on hands and knees throwing free tickets at elementary school children just to get a minor crowd. The point is, Ron Paul, a true conservative, was energizing the youth vote and even bringing some Democrats over from the socialist dark side.
The idea that a young voter is predestined to embrace collectivist nanny government and sell their soul to the Democratic Party is a lie of epic proportions. The GOP could have had them on board anytime they wanted; all they had to do was nominate Ron Paul as their presidential candidate. Instead, they went with yet another Neo-Con ghoul whose rhetoric and record was nearly identical to Obamas. The GOP could have won, if they had actually wanted to win. But then, it would have meant disrupting the false left right paradigm, and surely, the establishment cant have that
Lie #3: The GOP Needs To Evolve With Our Progressive Times Instead Of Clinging To Traditional Conservative Principles
Ultimately, this lie is designed to infer that the Republican Party needs to take on a more collectivist attitude in order to appeal to the rising tide of a younger generation and our nations so-called changing demographics. Hilariously, the lie is suggesting that the GOP do what they have in fact already done: go full socialist.
The Republican Party has not clung to traditional conservative principles for a very long time. Over the course of the past several decades it has become a haven for the minions of Leo Strauss, a statist and Platonian fascist whose job was to subvert the core of conservatism and warp it into a festering cesspool of elitism - much like the Democratic Party. The GOP has failed because this elitism is now undeniably present, and the party has lost its ability to hide what it has become.
When a sad victim of academia tries to argue that the cause of our economic crisis is the evil of the free market, I always point out that he/she has actually never lived in a world where true free markets exist. They have, for their entire lives, lived under a socialized and centralized economic system, and so, blaming free markets for their financial woes is like blaming Tasmanian Tigers for the death of their Chihuahua. The same goes for conservatism. When people wail against the crimes of George W. Bush and the possible return of a conservative presidency, I always point out that Bush was not a conservative, and that there hasnt been a legitimately conservative GOP since before they were born.
The Republican Party has already delved into the realm of centralized despotism as much as the Democratic Party has. Its only salvation now is to reverse course back towards limited government and freedom, not continue into federalized oblivion.
Lie #4: The Liberty Movement Had No Influence On The Elections Whatsoever
As I have shown, proponents of constitutional values have indeed swayed particular elections, at least at the state and local level. Therefore, the assertion is meant to inject disinformation in pursuit of a particular end. Strangely, I heard this argument all throughout the primaries and up until the week after Obama declared victory; the argument that our movement does not matter and will never gain tangible momentum. And yet, all through the primaries up until the day before elections the Neo-Cons were either courting us with gifts, goodies, and offers of a place at the table, or attacking us viciously as traitors to our own ideals whose non-participation was akin to a vote for the Antichrist (Obama).
Now, my question is; if the Liberty Movement doesnt matter, then why were GOP cronies so desperate to convince us to vote party line?
Why did they feel the need to regurgitate the lesser of to evils argument over and over again? Why did it matter to them if we voted for Romney, or voted third party, or didnt vote at all? If our influence is so miniscule, then why invite Liberty Movement representatives like Rand Paul or Sherriff Mac to cheerlead for the guy who will drive the bus off the cliff slower? Why try in a grade school manner to shame us into setting aside our principles? Why not simply ignore us and let us wallow in our own obscurity.
I see two possibilities
First, that the Liberty Movement has grown strong enough to encompass a sizable mass of voting power, at least large enough to ensure that many GOP candidates will win or lose by a particular margin. That margin may be thin and we may not yet be in a position to launch our own party, but without us, they know they are likely to fall short, and this problem is only going to grow as time passes. They court us, or attack us, because they realize they cannot win despite us.
Second, if you subscribe to the well documented idea that elections, at least at the federal level, are entirely staged (which I do), then you might ask yourself again why the GOP elite were grasping for the Liberty Movement to relinquish for the sake of defeating Obama. If Obama and Romney are essentially the same monkey, the same exact errand boy for the same exact globalist puppeteers, then what the hell do they need our vote for? Romney wins, and they get what they want. Obama wins and they get what they want. Unless what they really wanted was our participation in the farce.
Thats right, perhaps the greater purpose of the endless lesser-of-two-evils charade was to see if the establishment could convince us to compromise our conscience and be drawn back into the game. Maybe, just maybe, it was all a test, of you, of us, to discern how much of the Liberty Movement could be conned or swayed with moral relativism. Perhaps the death rattle of the Republican industrial complex was due to the one thing that the media will never spotlight in a 60 minute primetime special; the fact that the majority of the burgeoning Liberty Movement refused to sell out, proving that the GOP is no longer effective at keeping us reigned in or co-opted. The GOP is dying and we are thriving. Whether or not the two are related, I leave for you to decide
... perhaps the greater purpose of the endless lesser-of-two-evils charade was to see if the establishment could convince us to compromise our conscience and be drawn back into the game ...
I got really tired of being berated here on FR because I wouldn't vote for the liberal(R).
I don't vote for liberals. Ever.
I was not drawn back in. I no longer vote in national elections. Not that it makes a difference, as I live in MN and my candidate has never won our electoral votes.
Not that it ever would have mattered, because ni election that matters will ever be decided by one vote.
Anybody ever even heard of the Liberty Movement berfore?
I didn't think so. A whole lot of blustering here over some Liberty Movement no one ever heard of.
I am sympathetic to the liberty movement. I even paid LP dues for a few years, before Ruby Ridge and Waco. And I agree that the GOP is terminally ill.
But my adequate GOP congressman lost to a communist this year by 6000 votes, and the Libertarian in the race got 12 000 votes.
This was an official Jim Noble-designated BAD THING.
I may have missed it, but did everything he described in the last election revolve around defeating gop candidates? Was there even one candidate identified as being of "The Liberty Movement" that won an election without essentially running on the gop ticket?
Kind of hard to "thrive" when all you can do is make other people lose to leftwingers.
“Anybody ever even heard of the Liberty Movement berfore?”
Yes. It is libertarianism with a nice new marketing package. What it is NOT is a party of conservative values.
Yeah, I went and Googled Liberty Movement.
The results were Libertarians and Ron Paul. See my tagline. I HATE Libertarians. They are one or two steps better than your average Occu-tard.
Need to move away from the usual players. Cant believe Bill Clinton is still involved.
“liberty movement is thriving” ??
on what planet?
“The point is, Ron Paul, a true conservative”
BS, libertarians are the masters of standing for nothing. Yes they have sound fiscal policies (sometimes to extreme), but if you cannot stand for conservative values (even social ones) you stand for nothing. The unraveling of this country is based partially in its allowance of morality and history of acting on that morality to be cast aside in the name of diversity and political correctness.
Yes I don’t care what you do in your house as long as it stays in your house and does not harm anyone else (which covers abuse cases), but allowing for cultural definitions to be re-defined is not conservative.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing - Edmund Burke (basically the libertarian mantra)
Libertarian: Free markets, legal recreational drugs and yeah, yeah, that Bible stuff, too. If bombs are raining down on your head, call the military right away, but otherwise, don’t spend much on it, because it all goes to Eisenhower’s “military-industrial complex”.
Conservative: The Bible, legitimate free enterprise, law and order and true national defense, requiring the blood and treasure necessary, no more, no less.
It really is a catch-22. If you vote your conscience you acknowledge that more dems will be elected as a result. However voting for the lesser of two evils is what allows the GOP to remain in power as they shift to the left.
Why, yes, focus on the fringe differences....Don’t bother worrying about the elephant in the room, so to speak, on the basics: smaller Constitutional gov’t, lower taxes, Rule of Law and FREEDOM FREEDOM FREEDOM.
Naw, worry about the stoners (even the recreational users), the gays (and WHY is gov’t in the biz of marriage?), pulling back our troops where they’re not wanted/needed), etc.
It’s amazing, when the man-power is needed, what some in the Conservative wing focus on to dismiss a large swath of like-minded peoples.
Focus and join on the major points and battle the little bits LATER.
Tennessee Liberty Alliance
Florida Conservative Liberty Alliance
To name a few
Once the concepts get laundered through the DC bureaucracy into politically correct concepts and compromises ....not so much.
People like you gave us Obama. Thanks!
Now we have Obamacare.
I have. Maybe you just need to broaden your reading range?
Amen. Palin, Reagan, Thomas Sowell, and Walter Williams all know (knew, in the case of Reagan) better than to buy into the Libertarian-as-Stoner-Loser template, as assinine in its way as the MSM Republican-as-Redneck-Meanie template.
This is what it's about: restoring our rights to self determination within the framework of Judeo-Christian values enabled by smaller Constitutional govt, lower taxes, Rule of Law and FREEDOM FREEDOM FREEDOM. The way the Founders intended.
Anyone enabling the GOP is responsible for their leftward movement.
You get what you reward. You rewarded the leftward movement of the GOP.
Own it. Be proud.
My single vote didn't change a thing.
Waaaah waaaah waaaaah. Are you really so naive as to believe that you wouldn't have had Obamacare under Romney? He's the guy who originally INITIATED it -- Romney did what Hillary Clinton only dreamed of doing.
Vote fraud and a Democrat registered as a Republican as the GOP nominee gave us Obama.
H Hello???? That loser nominee gave Masschusetts Obamacare before Obama was even on the radar!!!
Wake up, smell the coffee, and STOP VOTING FOR LIBERALS.
Got it. Principled conservatives that won't vote for a liberal(R) are the problem for you.
Bogus. The Libertarian Party is primarily grounded in a perverse twist of Leftism — it definitely stands for something. These so-called Libertarians are not really libertarians, however. A true libertarian wouldn’t support the killing of nascent Life nor support the homo-fascist laws that effectively force others to support homosexual behavior.
The extreme endpoints defined by libertarianism and statism are non-starters for any free society. The best in my opinion would combine the values of Conservatism and the governing principles of libertarianism
Now we have Obamacare.
...And people like you are what has destroyed the party and now the country! Thank you! NOT!
Now we are bankrupt!
“Focus and join on the major points and battle the little bits LATER.”
Murdered babies are not “little bits”.
I live in MN’s 6th. It’s the only reason I vote.
>> Focus and join on the major points and battle the little bits LATER.
> Murdered babies are not little bits.
Literally they are — as disgusting as it is “little bits” is what’s left after many an abortion.
I’m sorry jiffy-john,but you did.
Indeed. Libertarianism is a great philosophy, but the wheels fall off of it on the values front.
Now we have Obamacare.
As JRF mentioned that was before last election that 0care came about. Since you seem to be willing to take whatever the Stupid Party (R) is willing to put on a ballot, I have some questions for you.
Romney supports giving "rebels" [Al-Qa'ida] weapons in Syria. Romney supports abortion. Romney supports socialized medicine. Romney supports "assault" weapons bans. Romney stated he was amenable to taxing the top income earners. Romney supports queers in the military. Romney supports queers in the Boy Scouts. Romney supports queer "marriage.".............so does Hillary Clinton. If Hillary became an (R) and was running against 0bama....would you vote for her? If so/not, why/why not?
Who says they don’t stand for conservative values? I assume you mean the values falling outside the golden rule compass. Maybe some of them don’t, or even most of them. But it is a political ideology, not a philosophy for everything. They don’t want the values of which you speak being enforced by the State.
You may think without political force backing the morals that purportedly used to hold the country ravelled said morality will wither. I disagree. That’s a cultural problem, not a political one. And though politics can hurt higher culture, it can never save it. Bringing in the state does more harm, I think, than good.
Just because you say various drugs and sexual exchanges should be legal does not mean you are encouraging people to use them. If more do, that might be the fault of legalization in a sense, but that’s the price of freedom. Anyway, I still blame culture at large, not politics.
What’s all this nonsense about diversity and political correctness? S
Well just like in a card game I'll rise you Bob couldn't wait to make a deal, Dole, or Read my Lips No New Taxes, Bush No.#-1 a.k.a., 41st President, and go all in with 43rd president Bush who could not spell, or write the word VETO!!
During the early to mid 1940's (I think it was or maybe the 1950's) a farmer actually invented a pair of "eyeglasses" or that would be "ROSE COLORED Eyeglasses" so that the chickens would not peck and kill each other. Obviously your wearing a pair. Same argument for all of the above, but left out of the article is how the Elites "Repub's" would cry (To get Conservatives to vote for their dog & pony show) don't forget about the SCOTUS. Need I remind you of just who was "Harriet Ellan Miers????????"
Again, you demonstrate that your infected with HOOF & MOUTH, ergo, every time you open your mouth, you stick your HOOF in it. Please find below just who was Harriet Miers.
On October 3, 2005, Harriet Miers was nominated for Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court by President George W. Bush to replace retiring Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. Miers was, at the time, White House Counsel, and had previously served in several roles both during Bush's tenure as Governor of Texas and President.
The nomination almost immediately drew criticism, virtually all of it from within the President's own party: David Frum castigated an "unforced error", and Robert Bork denounced it a "disaster" and "a slap in the face to the conservatives who've been building up a conservative legal movement for the last 20 years. Stop drinking the KOOL-AID made with "Potomac River" water supplied by the Carl "ROSE COLORED Eyeglasses" Rove's et. al.
The GOP-elitist said "Beat a Marxist with a Liberal!" What a colossal blunder.
"Life is hard; it's harder if your stupid" John Wayne.
Even now, they live in denial of the depth of tyranny which we have, and the looming totalitarianism--so much so they think this can be fixed by voting for the people who have helped craft it.
They have no concept of freedom, nor the ability to live a moral life without myriad legal constraints and value the illusion of security far too much to leave the fenced in plantation they live on.
And which Libertarians voted for any of that in Congress? Which Libertarian signed the Bill?
Are you testing me, or do you have something to say?
I would rather risk the perils of too much Liberty than the opposite.
So many GOP people are so hung up on regulating drugs (how is that working, BTW?) and scream about Libertarians when it comes to Abortion, but have yet to make any progress against abortion, even when the GOP held all the cards. I keep seeing Right foot, Left foot, trudging down the road to totalitarianism, each passing the tools the other cannot, until our Liberty has become but a pale shadow of its former self.
That aside, (and keeping in mind I do not agree with any Party at the moment), I think we need to put the Federal Genie back into its Constitutional bottle. It is granting far too many wishes out there.
The Federal workforce could be halved overnight if those duties not granted to the Federal Government in the Constitution were not being undertaken by the Fed Gov.
Does anyone in their right mind think the Congress, even if a GOP majority with the White House Behind it, will produce the sort of draconian cuts necessary, not only to save this country from spending itself into insolvency, but essential to fostering an environment in which businesses large and small can thrive and put America back to work, to restore our prosperity to the level which will be essential if this country is not going to become a footnote?
Without a restoration to those values, keeping in mind that those who founded this nation were godly in principle, there will only be a mentality of fighting over the scraps left on the carcass, much as that present today.
And yes, some of the largest offenders are the Wars on Drugs and Poverty, neither of which has been effective, but both of those imposters have consumed fortunes, lives, and the Rights of us all. Sadly, the war on Terror is being manipulated in the same way, with gropings at airports, and a loss of any semblance of privacy, right down to the nullification of Habeas Corpus.
This cannot go on.
If the GOP will not turn to the right, and it has shown only signs of the opposite, I am done with it. Now, like so many others, I am looking for a standard to bear. I would like to think there are enough solid Conservatives to toss the Marxists from the Libertarian movements and form a viable organization, but that is ever up to the individuals.
It would revert to the States to make laws concerning those topics, and people could live where the laws suited them. The results would inspire others to act accordingly, imho.
Just because there is no Federal Bludgeon to impose one size fits all rules does not mean life would become unlivable, nor does it mean that people would abandon their morality in the absence of a Federal Law.
Constitutionally, the Federal Government has no authority to regulate either, and to grant it that authority means that it can regulate anything a person consumes, and anything a person does, powers which might not be used in a moral fashion.
We all get to pick up the tab for their health care (why do you think Obamacare was pushed so hard??) and no Libertarian voted for that, either.
Try as one might, there are only two sets of feet this mess belongs at, and those are the Dems, who pushed a lot of it, and the GOP who failed to turn that around and push the other way.
I really can’t help it...just WOW. It’s no wonder Conservatives can’t get their sh!t together when most are so myopic and petty.
Instead of seeing the battle as Constitutional over-reach and Judicial fiat, they’d rather battle one another, and those of like minds to score some political points. At no time have I brought up abortion, but was cast into the same ‘fringe’ L camp. I bring up Liberty and get berated...c’est la vie.
“...May your chains sit lightly upon you...”
appreciate the correction!
True. Unfort. the GOP has their own plantation as much as the DEMs.
I’ve seen it too often they hem and haw while trying to pluck the silver lining from the thunderstorm instead of the laying the wrath of God upon those that are voted to do OUR bidding.
Boehner giving 800B? Roberts OK’ing health-law? “Well, that gives us option X, Y or Z”.
Libertarians though? They’re outright kookie! When the 2 party cartel has broken EVERY piece of the Constitution, we’re the ones waved away from fixing things....I think you’re right; they WANT their chains.
“Just because you say various drugs and sexual exchanges should be legal does not mean you are encouraging people to use them.” Tacitly yes you do. If you do not condemn it then it becomes a problem. I don’t care who you pump in your house (men, women, dog, light socket..) as long as it does not harm another person or cost me money. However history has shown that where a little perversion is allowed and not held in check it escalates due to cultural apathy and before you know it is harming others and costing me money. Examples: AIDS clinics, drug rehab clinics, alcohol rehab, minority education programs, animal shelters, property damage and bystander deaths from drugs and DWI accidents.
PC and diversity nonsense - not wanting to stand up and make a statement that something out side the realm of fiscal policy is wrong.
While I agree it is a culture issue, and there are people who argue the next point, this country was not founded on that kind of fu__ up culture. It was founded on Judeo-Christian values. Like it or not, it was and therefore any deviation from that culture will change this country. It has and for the worse. Example, early on when charity was handled at a local level, families, and through churches (yes God) people were cared for just fine and the government minded it own business. Once the government decided it could do it better the apathetic liberty lovers did nothing to stop it.
You can tie fiscal policy to that directly. Before we had to accommodate all the perverted and non-main stream lifestyles we did not have to spend money on making them get their fair share and not have their feelings hurt. Example, it is my right to hire who I want. If you have a behavior that you do not demonstrate to me or affects my business then fine, but if I find out I can not hire you or fire you. We don’t need the money sucking EEOC to ensure it and make me hire an X% of something.
“At no time have I brought up abortion.”
Of course you didn’t. Maybe because you are uncomfortable with the pro-baby killing aspect of your political beliefs, or maybe you are not a true libertarian. I don’t know. Don’t really care.
Again, the baby-murdering aspect of your ideology is not “small” nor “petty” nor “myopic”. Murdered babies are not “political points” as you seem to think and I cannot dismiss their murder as easily as you do.
Libertarians constitute <1% of the electorate. Sounds pretty fringe to me. That is why you people pretend to be conservative, unless drugs or abortion or open borders or gay marraige are involved (you know, the “small” stuff), because nobody pays attention to your political bleatings otherwise.
We are NOT political allies and never have been. Get a clue. We’re telling you to your face (Who’s the myopic one?) Cest la vie. Deal with it.
I am quite comfortable standing up for myself and my limited gov’t beliefs, thanks for asking. I guess you really put me in my place *rolls eyes*
Again, I never brought the subject up, YOU injected. Not that you’d bother to sit down, STFU and listen, but I’ll tell you anyhow: I’m against. One egg + one sperm = new person. Mommy only incubates and nurtures. They BOTH have full Constitutional protects; unless the baby truly does not make it through pregnancy on its own.
Second, I’m not sure way poll your grabbing for the <1%, but I’d say your under-counting by far. I’d rank it up there with the ‘debates’...if it wasn’t for the big-2 it’s not on TV != not a viable party/platform.
And lastly, yes, the details remain the SMALL parts. Liberty, Freedom and Rule of Law are the starting.
I could give a flying fornication at a rolling doughnut; I’ll still be fighting the good fight while your party continues to bend you over. Not many elections you’ll be winning pushing the ‘fringe’ groups from your tent. THAT is not only myopic, that’s just a special kind of STUPID.
I wish I had a dollar every time someone wrote "reigned in" rather than the correct "reined in" -- as in, reins on a buckboard or coach-and-six.
Or "honed in on" rather than "homed in on".
Or "poured over", meaning studying written material, rather than the correct "pored over".
It would certainly keep me in gasoline money.