Posted on 03/19/2014 11:46:02 PM PDT by Lou Budvis
It’s vain to argue against an idee fixe.
No one is arguing against small government, I never see that argument here, we are for small government, it is a major reason we are social conservatives, social liberalism makes small government imposssible.
You are arguing for us to move left on social issues, that is the argument we see here at freerepublic, and it is the argument that we are seeing on this thread.
Rand isn’t running for Governor, Rand is a Senator voting on federal law, and is running for president, gays in the military, abortion on federal lands, gay marriage in the military and in federal employment and in immigration are not “state” issues, they are issues of bigger and more costly federal government.
I agree. Take away the gigantic force-feeding mechanism, and the sick agendas dry up - because they are unsustainable on their own power. That’s WHY their supporters also support such a huge increase on governmental power.
People who don’t understand this don’e understand the concept of cutting your opponant’s supply lines. In WWII, once we took away the North Africa oil fields from the Nazis, the war was won. It still had to wind down, and there was all sorts of dangerous drama, but the Nazis weren’t going anywhere without gas and oil.
Same thing with big government. The Left needs a gigantic government to ram all their sickness down America’s throat. Without big government, they dry up and blow away - because their “ideals” are MEANT to destroy, and not to sustain. So without force to back them up, they die.
And that’s why I suspect those who hammer on political idealism to prevent this single issue from uniting people are saboteurs, hiding under the guise of “pure” conservatism, “pure” religion, or “pure” anything else. Small government IS purity - REAL purity. The ONLY purity.
America was able to get away with as small a government as it did (smaller than the British one it shrugged off) because it had a gospel foundation.
Now the moment I point that out to ansel12, ansel12 shrieks that we must vote for a social conservative cause and that there ain’t any difference between small-l and large-L liberarians.
I’d chide you, but a little less. Still, folks are going to have to concern themselves with evangelization again (tell what the Lord Jesus Christ has done) before the country is even going to be comfortable with a mini-government again.
There is a difference between allowing something to exist under the law, and spending tax money on it.
Would you kill gays? No. Does that mean we should subsidize gay marriage? No. Is it possible there is a middle ground, protected by small government, that would undermine the taxation and legalization of this issue? Yes. DO we need the votes to beat the Rats so we can reduce the government size and deny the mney and excessive legislation this, and other social issues, are feeding off of?
YES.
What part of that is “moving left”? DO you believe ANYTHING should be outside of the law? Like, I don’t know, our LIVES, for example? Our culture? Our society? Or should we just have a massive government that claims legal authority over every aspect of our lives - but hey, that’s okay, it would be good, because conservatives would decide what those government positions would be, so in that case the bigger the government, the better?
Do you even SEE the two different issues here?
I think the answer to the last is no. It’s an idee fixe you’re fighting. I’ve tried to do it too. The broken record keeps coming back to the same place.
Well then pray he doesn’t have the effect on people he’s trying to have.
This country is based on separating the concept of government, from the concept of society.
Obviously, liberals have completely rejected that idea - by definition.
But it is a seriously insidious act to apparently reject liberalism, while invoking the liberal collectivist mindset for supposedly conservative principles - all while claiming to do so to prevent a drift to the left.
In fact, that’s a three-letter-agency level of insidiousness, IMO.
No, I don’t see accepting abortion and gay marriage and eliminating God, and all the other leftwing anti-American ism you are pushing.
You do not destroy the moral fabric of the nation, and get conservative voters out of it, you get more liberal voters, look at the change in voting for the last 50 years.
Rand is a Senator voting on federal law, and is running for president, gays in the military, abortion on federal lands, gay marriage in the military and in federal employment and in immigration are not “state” issues, they are issues of bigger and more costly federal government.
Are you even aware of those? Social liberals don’t care about such issues and will continue to allow the libertarian liberalism at the federal level.
I try to view the idea orthogonally to politics, through a gospel eye view.
I think we are way into the “trusting in princes” mode. Maybe our princes aren’t flouncing around in Hawaii several times a year unlike the Democrats’ prince, but they’re princes.
People have gotten used to all these princes taking care of their needs, even though they KNOW it’s a wasteful game.
I see the problem as needing to get rid of the princes. Of any kind. And to sell that, people will need to know there is a Lord who cares (and cares better) than the princes ever could.
When found out, just blaspheme with a bunch of lies and misconceptions?? Somehow we got to engage this gaggle of princes we got (and are dancing back and forth between Republicans and Democrats) in banning this or that or the other immoral thing. And if we fail to ban it, why just accuse them of wanting it.
I agree wholeheartedly.
There's no such thing as "Reagan Democrats" anymore. Those people switched parties in 1980 and have been Republican ever since. The ones still alive, anyways. Half the people who voted for Reagan in 1980 are dead. The voters that replaced them have different values and attitudes on many social issues.
People here don't want to accept this. Some of them need to log off Free Republic once in a while and walk outside from time to time.
A guy like Rand Paul could win. A lot of younger voters are disenfranchised with Obama over the ACA and NSA. They won't vote for someone like Romney or McCain but they'll listen to what Paul has to say.
I can’t make sense of your strange and bizarre posts.
Your usual response when pinned down with inescapable logic.
LOL, so you reject people wanting the smallest possible government - literally the mechanism by which America can be saved
Romney sucked on multiple levels. His suck transcended party lines, religious lines, racial demographics, and political ideologies. It still ticks me off to no end that he managed to weasel his way into the nomination by splitting conservatives. Worst Republican candidate in my life time. That he lost to the obamunist is proof enough of that.
Rand is doing a great job of approaching demographic groups that are traditionally opposed to conservative ideology non-confrontationally. I think this is the right approach. Get them talking on issues that we agree on, get them to see the logic, and learn to think, then they will understand and eventually support the other issues. Instead of seeing us as the “rich white guys with guns”, they will understand that we are really the party of logic and analysis; it is our common values, Christian morality, and the focus on impact that leads us to our conservative positions rather than doing what feels good.
“So far, Rand is the only potential nominee who may be able to poach votes from the dems with a message like this.”
DEMS are NOT going to vote for a Republican. Plus, Rand Paul isn’t even a REAL Republican. He is a Libertarian that calls himself a republican. He is DISHONEST when he sullies the Republican brand by running in a party he really doesn’t represent. Plus, those of you that are Paulistas need to can you pro-Paul propanganda - it is really getting old. Paul has NO PART of the REAL Republican party - the conservatives.
The “Reagan Democrats” you speak of were “SOCIAL CONSERVATIVES” that didn’t agree with the DEM slide towards increased liberalism. There is NO comparison between Ron Paul and President Reagan.
When will you Paulistas “grow up” and “go away.” You are like a “fifth column” sent to divide and destroy the GOP. We already have to deal with the GOP “Establishment”...now you fools are causing trouble and attempting to turn the GOP into a non-conservative party (a bunch of lawless Libertines = Libertarians).
“Rand is doing a great job of approaching demographic groups that are traditionally opposed to conservative ideology non-confrontationally. I think this is the right approach.”
Wrong, wrong, and wrong! He is trying to throw social/morale conservatism under the bus. Plus, he is a dangerous isolationist...not much better in foreign policy than Mr. Obama. HE DOES NOT BELONG IN THE GOP. HIS SUPPORTERS DO NOT BELONG IN THE GOP. He and you NEED TO SHUT UP AND GO AWAY.
Social/moral conservatives - like myself - will fight you to the death and seek out and destroy you for pushing this fraud (he is a LIBERTARIAN NOT A REPUBLICAN). Go join the Libertarian party IF you think Rand Paul is such a good thing, and STOP damaging the GOP conservatives.
“Social liberals don’t care about such issues and will continue to allow the libertarian liberalism at the federal level.”
Exactly, I consider social/moral liberals (like Libertarians - AKA Rand Paul) to be as ever bit as dangerous (or more so) to this country than Democrat Liberals. Plus, they are disrupting the GOP.
“A guy like Rand Paul could win. A lot of younger voters are disenfranchised with Obama over the ACA and NSA. They won’t vote for someone like Romney or McCain but they’ll listen to what Paul has to say.”
At what cost? Having Rand Paul in office is NOT a real improvement over Mr. Obama. If you are saying the same idiots that listened to Mr. Obama will listen to Paul....you make the case that Paul should NOT be listened to.
We MUST keep the GOP as a social/morale conservative party first. Paul’s Libertarian views are wrong, wrong, wrong!
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.