Posted on 10/18/2010 9:10:24 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
I have come to believe that Libertarians are worthless. Before them, a crop of wonderful, small government candidates sit and will likely win–scores of points of optimism in a political sky that has been bleak and black. To coin a word from the opposition, there’s Hope.
Now, most of us watching this election realize that the exhausting work over the last two years has hardly begun. Once this new crop become part of the system, they’ll have to be watched and held accountable.
The most optimistic change, then, hasn’t really been these candidates. It’s been the heart of the American people. Citizens have decided that they’ve sat on their duffs long enough. It’s time to get involved. It’s time to stay involved.
The candidates aren’t perfect. No politicians are perfect. Hells bells. They’re human and mere vessels for the expression of the voters’ will.
So, I read Doug Mataconis’ piece about why Libertarians are still disenchanted even with the best electoral hope in a generation presents itself. I feel absolute disgust.
Kvetching about the social issues of a Christine O’Donnell while ignoring the economic liberties that Mike Castle would have assuredly stripped had he had his way makes no sense. How on earth can a true Libertarian even worry about such irrelevance?
(Excerpt) Read more at libertypundits.net ...
Funny that the Founders were much more moral than we are, and yet completely forgot to add your morality clauses into the Constitution.
“No difference.”
If you don’t acknowledge the difference, you are either a liar or too stupid to see it.
No, but states were not prevented from laws against, for instance, sodomy. Such laws were not considered unconstitutional in the least.
I don’t know why you think I want “morality clauses” in the Constitution. I just want states to be able to govern themselves as they should be able to according the Constitution, and the fedgov to limit itself as it ought, according to the Constitution.
The Sensibilities of Our Forefathers - The History of Sodomy Laws in the United States
Should a hallucinating schizophrenic have “the same rights as everyone else”?
Should someone suffering from severe neurosis - say paranoia, have “the same rights as everyone else”?
Should a practitioner of bestiality have “the same rights as everyone else”?
Should a pedophile have “the same rights as everyone else”?
Homosexuality is a behavior. There is no static “group identity” of homosexuality, since there are many former homosexuals, and some who decide they are “gay” later in life. It is a category based on one thing, and one thing only - practicing sodomy with a member of the same sex.
So, why should practitioners of other aberrant sexual practices not “have the same rights as everyone else”?
Rights such as marriage, adopting children, being Boy Scout leaders, and so on.
But now thanks to the SCOTUS such laws are considered unconstitutional!
An argument that stands contrary to objectively verifiable evidence, and without any evidence offered in support of it is irrational. You can submit your belief in something based on feelings and emotions, but those feelings and emotions do not constitute evidence that it is true. True rationality is a matter of consesus. It is irrational to say the sky is green, when we can all see that it is blue, and given the right tools, measure exactly how blue it is.
Is it government that decides what is rational or rationally premised? Is belief in the Creator rational?
No government that operates by the consent of the governed assumes to decide for them what is and is not rational. It would be self-contradictory. A authoritarian government based on dogmatism will. That is the nature of dogma - it is declared to be self-evident truth by decree, and becomes the litmus test for rationality. Questioning it is irrational, because believing it is the standard of rationality. This is the kind of power the left seeks to wield in declaring and imposing "political correctness".
As far as believing in the Creator being rational, I believe it is, but that is a subjective determination. In a political context, I believe the debate over the propriety of religious tests was hashed out and decided long ago.
"Rational" arguments contributed what exactly to the cause of freedom?
For starters, Thomas Paine's The Age of Reason helped bring about the public support for the American Revolution.
Now, what there do you take exception to, and what evidence do you submit in defense of those objections?
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.
All men are created equal doesn't mean that a criminal, or psychotic, has the same duties, responsibility or rights as a normally functioning member of society. And since homosexuality is a mental illness based on sexual perversion, their demands to be in the military, marry members of the same sex and adopt children, are wrong and should not be legitimized. Created equal doesn't mean one cannot make moral or rational judgements about behavior!
Suppose 2% of the population decide they like necrophilia? Or bestiality? Should they "have a seat at the table" too? (You never did explain what you meant by that nice homey-sounding phrase...)
A late thirteenth-century publication, Fleta, a manual of law published along with a condemnation of dealings with Jews, was the first known legal writing in England on sodomy. It recommended death for sodomites.
A little harsh I think.
Goodnight.
When presented with facts they cannot deny or questions they cannot answer, without revealing their actual position, they shut up and reappear another day to repeat the same insanity.
Or engage in trickster dishonesty (again).
Good night!
Medicare part d?
I guess you'd say the same thing about children too?? Where in the Constitution does it give the government to deny sex and drugs to children?
Dumb argument
bump
Ever think that maybe you have an unhealthy interest in controlling your neighbors life?
For good reason. It isn't any of your damn business.
I don't WANT it to be any business of mine. A government, State or Federal, powerful enough to legislate such intimacies between consenting adults has WAY too much power.
How much more history do we need to experience before we figure out that powerful governments always abuse that power no matter how "noble" or "moral" their starting goals may be?
I've staked out these positions because I believe that everyone has exactly the same rights, no more, no less.
Yes it is when it's in the public square and degenerates are forcing acceptance of their deviancy.
How much more history do we need to experience
Tell it to Rome. Oh wait......you can't. They rotted from within and fell.
Have a nice day.
Either what you say doesn't mean a damn thing and you are not going to take action or....
Honestly . . . are you serious?
My agenda here is nothing more or less than this: Americans have equal rights. Not one American has fewer rights than another American; not one American has more rights than another American. That is the sum total of my "agenda." I'm not pro-gay, I'm not anti-gay, I'm pro-American. I don't believe in gay rights. I don't believe in bald rights. I don't believe in people who are over six feet tall rights. I just believe in rights.
I've seen several design changes here on Free Republic. I've posted since the mid-to-late 1990s. And my stance has always been the same: pro-American. Now this is Mr. Robinson's site, and as such, he makes the rules, and if he doesn't want me around, so be it: I support his right to run this site however he sees fit. But if I get banned, then I'll be getting banned for something I am not . . . something that flat-out kooks like you labeled me to be because you're just flat-out not intelligent enough to understand that I stand on the side of limited government here.
But you know what? I know that you're just not intelligent enough to understand the big picture. After all, you're the same nut arguing for the return of sodomy laws who didn't quite understand what sodomy was, and that heterosexuals as well as homosexuals can engage in sodomy. I noticed you went silent on this thread after you made that immense blunder.
Until now, when you join it just to call an air strike on me.
I do not support a homosexual agenda or anything remotely close to it.
LOL!
Excellent post, metmom.
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.