Posted on 10/18/2010 9:10:24 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
He didn’t confuse the platform of the Libertarian Party for the political philosophy of libertarianism. He was smarter than that.
Since people espousing libertarianism don’t make a clear distinction between the LP platform and what they espouse, or if there is a difference, and since sophistry and deceit are their methods, we’ll never know what they actually think other than by inference.
But it is clear that they are not conservative in their principles.
The predictable parting shot of a position empty of objective arguments.
Inference is made by the listener/observer. If there is a failure of inference it is not theirs. Sophistry is an intentional tactic used by the speaker that seeks to answer a question in a different context or terms than it was asked.
But it is clear that they are not conservative in their principles.
How do you know they're not conservative in their principles if you don't even know in what context or meanging they speak of libertarianism?
My last comment to you, since all you do is stir up argument for the fun of it.
Libertarians make their abhorrence of conservative principles clear by their arguments on this and similar threads. Such as their support, tacit or outspoken, for the homosexual agenda. The LP is clear on their positions, and they are in direct opposition to many conservative principles.
But since I have better things to do than play shadow boxing, I bid you adieu.
I take issue with irrational arguments, and I go after those arguments. I understand the difference between attacking an argument and attacking someone personally, and I refrain from personal attacks, per the forum policies.
I don’t tangle with tar babies. I’m a simple high school dropout but recognize a tar baby after one or two encounters.
So do many leftist judges. Who defines what is rational in a government by the people? Who is the authority?
Is it government that decides what is rational or rationally premised? Is belief in the Creator rational?
"Rational" arguments contributed what exactly to the cause of freedom?
I would suggest your "rational" argument(s) are but self delusional facade -the mental masturbation of yet another relatively unprincipled leaf blowing in the wind...
Utter, absolute tripe. I have never claimed, nor would I ever claim, that homosexuals "get to make the rules." That's preposterous, it's utter hogwash, and it's a flat-out lie.
How many times do I have to say it before it penetrates that dense layer of bone you call a skull? Homosexuals have no more rights, and no less rights, than heterosexuals. Period.
Why should a eensy teensy minority (say at most 2%) of the population who is mentally ill and has unnatural, unhealthy, and immoral sexual practices determine any public policy whatsoever?
Because they're Americans. Same as you, same as me. See, I believe that "all men are created equal stuff." If you don't, that's not very American of you, little jeremiah.
Grow up.
So “allowing them a seat at the table” means they haven’t had a seat at the table?
In what way - have they been relegated to ghettos, not allowed to vote, prevented from eating in restaurants?
Your statement clearly implied that their goals and agenda should be taken into consideration in public policy. That’s called helping make the rules. Any time any part of the homsoexual agenda makes it (one way or another) into public policy, that’s “making the rules”.
So what exactly do you mean by “having a seat at the table”?
Okay, let's hoist you up on your own petard.
Perhaps the most "moral" law in all of nature is this: thou shalt not kill. I'm sure you rock-ribbed, true-blue, straight-and-narrow GOP ultra orthodox social conservatives can agree with us Trotsky-beard wearing left-wing commie pinko libertarians that it's probably not all moral and such to go about committing murder.
You say libertarians are typically against any laws, especially those which are most moral in nature. Are you suggesting that a libertarian would be against laws against murder because libertarians don't believe in laws that are moral in nature?
You honestly can hold this belief in your head and still walk around upright from day to day? And manage, I assume, to earn a living in society? Because that's some very poor, poor reasoning there.
Hmm. I've talked with some social conservatives who take the notion of being their brother's keeper very seriously, and that, in fact, is the source of their social conservatism.
Agreeing with conservatives on limited government does NOT make them conservative.
I'm curious to know exactly what your notion of a limited government is.
Yet again: they have the same rights as everyone else. No more, no less.
Here's for the next time you ask the same question:
They have the same rights as everyone else. No more, no less.
Just in case there is still some ambiguity:
They have the same rights as everyone else. No more, no less.
Oh, I don't know. Let's ask Thomas Jefferson, because he and a bunch of other pretty influential people got a good portion of the civilized world to bite off on this rational argument:
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.
Talk about raising the level of stupidity around here up a notch.
You have staked out those positions because you believe the act of sodomy is acceptable and not destructive to individuals, victims and society. So why not just say it, "I, Hemingway's Ghost, think sodomy is a fine thing."
If your stance was all about being fair to other people as you imply, you could substitute the word "gays" with "pedophiles", or "necrophiliacs" or "practitioners of bestiality", or those who suffer from any other sexual disorders and your arguments would be just as sound. But if you go back and do that, it really just sounds sick.
You can suggest anything you like. Suggesting it doesn't make a valid argument for it, and without that it's just a shower of perjorative confetti.
What makes it a "tar baby"? Questions you don't have answers to?
....Don’t like it? Leave!!
...Other than that, hang it in your ear, bub!!
.....Well, then I’d suggest you quit acting like you support their evil agenda. People might get the wrong idea about you.
I would suggest you the answer the questions posed...
Are you afraid?
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.