Posted on 08/03/2013 6:35:31 AM PDT by Kaslin
Yup and I am a libertarian leaning conservative so I’d probably agree with you 85% of the time. My biggest issue is illegal immigration followed closely by government spending and stopping the anti-Christian homosexual agenda. Your priorities are probably different but we would be allies.
And that differs from the bulk of republicans precisely how?
Care to read the official Republican Party platform and then watch Boehner et al in action. I spoke for many libertarians. The Republican Party is no longer a respectable organization.
I am not a Republican.
It has always been too socialist in my lifetime.
In my opinion, the democrats, republicans and libertarians are identified by these comments. Being a Christian, I place this in light of the social and fiscal elements of each of the three parties:
Democrats: We don’t care what you do, and we want the taxpayers to fund it.
Republicans: We care what you do, and we don’t want the taxpayers to fund it.
Libertarians: We don’t care what you do, and we don’t want the taxpayers to fund it.
The truth is... that as long as libertarians ignore God and appease every socially immoral thing that comes down the tracks... Christians will continue to see libertarians as liberals.
I know that the GOP is not living up to what they say they believe, but they are still a far better approach than the libertarians. I am all for seeing a new party form, as long as they are socially moral and fiscally responsible. The libertarians at large are not.
“I have said “equality under the law”.”
As I said previously, no one has the right to marry whomever they want. This is equality. What people are demanding is special rights, not equal rights. They are demanding that their particular favourite relationship be recognized as marriage.
Every individual can marry and can choose to marry a man or a woman, someone of the opposite sex. So no individual is being treated differently or excluded.
“You can’t deny a homosexual under the law”
If a gay man wishes to marry a woman then why would I want to stop them?
“That’s not what they want”
Query, does the law surrounding marriage have sweet diddly poo to do with what people want? Why not have polygamy? Marriage between minors? Again, marriage has nothing to do with what people want, but everything to do with society. Why does society recognize marriage between one man and one woman? Because that is how society perpetuates itself.
Gay marriage does not do this. Ergo, it is unworthy of the same status as traditional marriage.
“send marriage back to the Churches and get the Government out of it.”
Thanks to Kerry we have de facto federal recognition of gay marriage. Your argument is a failure, once again.
So which of you three draw a monthly social security check?
Not retired.
Not me, sir. I’ve never taken a government check. I’ve payed plenty.
How about you, sir?
Because the Constitution gives the Federal government absolutely no power whatsoever over marriage.
Where did you get the idea that it did?
“Because the Constitution gives the Federal government absolutely no power whatsoever over marriage.”
Which is why you’re up in arms about Kerry issuing visas to gay couples. Oh right, you don’t actually care about states rights. You just care about gay marriage. Go you. Good thing you helped dump DOMA.
What’s next, cheerleading when Obama tries to pass the gay marriage bill through the house and senate because you hate social conservatives more than you hate socialism?
What’s next, cheerleading when Obama tries to pass the gay marriage bill through the house and senate because you hate social conservatives more than you hate socialism?
What nonsense. If I got "up in arms" every time someone in the government proposed something unconstitutional my arms would fall off. I was attempting to explain to you why Rand opposed DOMA. It was unconstitutional.
And I’m attempting to explain to you why Rand really opposes DOMA but remains oh-so-silent about Kerry’s move.
It’s got nothing to do with states rights.
Let’s here you stand up to the Statists for once. Oh wait, you believe the social conservatives (and not Obama), are the enemy.
“I’m quite sure women could own property LOL!
As to women voting, I’m a bit conflicted on that one... ;-)”
In most cases you would be wrong.
“Massachusetts was one of the first jurisdictions that passed law in 1787 allowing married women to own property under certain circumstances. Single women could inherit land. Once a single woman married, the land would come under the control of her husband.
Women were not given substantial property rights in all states until around 1900.”
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/When_did_women_get_the_right_to_own_property_in_the_US
I guess I was referring to comments/articles that are presented in ink versus electrons. (Assuming that article was also published in the Gutenberg style.) Yep.
Women property rights were a state by state issue, but by 1880 a women right to own property was pretty much established. Again it really is a state by state issue.
I didn't confirm your point. You are just too obtuse to understand it.
I asked "Has it ever occurred to you that the reason libertarians hate you more than they hate statism?"
I guess I should have put emphasis on you. You, personally. Not conservatives in general: YOU.
Are you getting my point now?
It has been said, “we cannot win without them”.
And you haven't. Reagan was the last real conservative in the Oval Office, and his economic policies brought in enough libertarian-leaning voters to trounce his opposition. As in 49 states.
Reagan only lost the 50th state (Minnesota) by less than 3,000 votes, despite never campaigning there except for a brief stop for gas in Rochester on his way to CA on the eve of the election. And his opponent was career politician from MN. Do you really think it was Reagan's social policies that swung all those MN voters his way? I lived there at the time, and I can tell you with certainty: it wasn't.
More recently, the Republicans took control of the House with a wave of candidates back by the Tea Party. Yes, social conservatives are self-identifying with the Tea party movement, but it began and is sustained with conservative economic principles. Where do you think those voters came from? They were always there, they just weren't voting for Republicans that were Democrat-lite.
Insofar as libertarians hate conservativism more than they hate statism, we shall see statism prevail.
You have it backward. You hate libertarians more than you hate statism. And in case you aren't getting it, I'm not including you with conservatives. You aren't one, despite your belief that you are. Sorry to burst the bubble you've been living in.
It is not the duty of conservatives to abandon core conservative principles in order to woo libertarians. It is the duty of libertarians to finally abandon statism.
You can pontificate about "duty" all you want. But, I'm going to ask you a straight out question: do you want Republicans to win another national election, ever again? If you do, you had better learn to work with the only political group that has anything in common with you.
Your personal attacks only degrades you. Anyone with a moderate level of intelligence can recognize your astonishing level of intolerance, and ignore you and work with conservatives that are interested in changing the direction of this country. You will be cut out of the discussion completely.
Nope. It’s because of prejudice. Pure and simple. Calling conservatives on a conservative site, ‘supporters of sharia’, when they defend protecting the borders is plain prejudice. Pure and simple.
I'm sure you will be able to point me to cases where someone has made this claim. Then, I'll look at his/her posting history and decide if they are really a troll pretending to be libertarian, like you are pretending to be conservative. Or, if they were making the claim about you, rather than conservatives in general.
But, you are right about one thing: the problem is prejudice. Yours, personally.
Libertarians say they hate statism but they don’t, not really.
Then why were the libertarian wing of the Republicans (largely Tea Party supporters) the only ones in the party to vote for the NSA defunding? You didn't even address my point in my previous post. Did the truth make you uncomfortable?
Let me take a guess: You don't consider the vacuuming of personal data by the NSA without any suspicion of criminal activity to be "statist". If I'm correct, I think you need to take a close look at yourself and decide who the "statists" really are.
You expected libertarian-leaning voters to vote for John McCain?
Wow, you really are delusional.
As has been said before, liberaltarians don’t go to the DU to argue against their fiscal liberalism.
They come here to attack social conservativism. Why? Because they hate social conservatives more than they hate statists.
“And you haven’t”
Liberaltarians rewriting history claim that Reagan supported abortion, gay marriage, and free dope. All the things they support today.
“Yes, social conservatives are self-identifying with the Tea party movement, but it began and is sustained with conservative economic principles.”
And? You want to purge the Tea Party of social conservatives? You’re asserting that social conservatives aren’t economic conservatives? Neither is true.
“You hate libertarians more than you hate statism.”
As good ol’ El Rushbo states, “If you’re attracting flack you’re over the target.
I’m spot on here.
Go play in the DUmp and attack their fiscal liberalism. And make sure you vote for Obama again!
That's because they don't have anything in common with the DUmmies. If they went there, it would be only to troll.
They come here to attack social conservativism. Why? Because they hate social conservatives more than they hate statists.
Or maybe it's because they agree with conservatives on economic issues, but get attacked by YOU over social issues and respond in kind.
Your responses to me are a good example. All I did was point out that attacking libertarians wasn't a good idea, considering their common ground with conservatives on economic issues. You responded by attacking libertarians.
There is a common problem here: your behavior. When are you going to start accepting responsibility for it?
Liberaltarians rewriting history claim that Reagan supported abortion, gay marriage, and free dope. All the things they support today.
I haven't seen anyone claiming that Reagan supported these things. But, Reagan focused on economic issues. He wouldn't have made much progress on social issues anyway, since at least the House was always controlled by Democrats. He was able to build a coalition of Republicans and conservative Democrats to enact legislation.
There aren't many conservative Democrats left. They were either replaced by liberal Democrats, replaced by Republicans, or switched to the Republican party. But, even with the changes, the Republicans still don't have a enough support to take the Oval Office and the Senate. They have to build a coalition.
And? You want to purge the Tea Party of social conservatives? You’re asserting that social conservatives aren’t economic conservatives? Neither is true.
Did I say that? I said that the Tea Party was founded and was driven by economic conservative principles. Social conservative issues took a back seat in 2010, and Tea Party candidates did very well. They didn't do so well in 2012, but we are finding there were external influences. It will be interesting to see what happens in 2014.
I’m spot on here.
Keep those blinders on. You'll go right over the cliff.
Have a nice day.
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.