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 ...
I have to in order to keep up with all of the rhetoric being used to try and discredit what is actually not a bad philosophy for governance. The logical lapses, red herrings, and outright silliness on this thread alone kind of gives the lie to the title that libertarianism is "practically irrelevant". If that were true, this thread wouldn't be crossing the 400 posts mark.
Threaten you?!! Who called Jim? It wasn't me!
You have outright stated that libertarians need to be expunged from FR and you keep reposting snippets from Jim's posts as a threat. Unlike you, I'm not trying to put words in his mouth.
Where is your proof of that? Give it or retract the accusation.
This whole thread has gone back and forth between States rights and Federal power. When one tack doesn't work, you shift to something else to try and bolster your arguments. When talking about a Federal issue, States having certain statutes is brought up to try and give credence to such an effort at the Federal level. When it doesn't work, then it's back to what the States have done.
The underlying philosophy is the same throughout. You want POWER over others. I don't. It's that simple.
http://www.learnnc.org/lp/editions/nchist-colonial/4107
Not sure on that source. It’s a start and I’m a little pressed for time. I’m a bit long on my lunch hour. Sorry.
Wrong. The amendments simply stated that certain conditions couldn't be used to prohibit someone from voting. The Constitution of the United States doesn't grant ANY individual the right to vote.
However, they were not afford all of the Rights of the rest of us. This is undeniable. Even by you.
These were state issues not federal.
Devotion to immorality? I live a very moral life. I attend church, am monogamously married, and I'm raising my kids the same way. So much this this alleged "devotion" you are prattling about...
Where did I accuse you of this?
Also, Constitutionally limited government is not "anarchy". It just doesn't give you as much control as you want. Sorry... Them's the breaks.
The limited government that most libertarians desire in no way resembles the federal government of the Founding Fathers. If it did, there wouldn't be any complaints about morality laws.
Here’s a snippet from another source:
How is posting Jim’s words or offering a direct link to one of his posts “trying to put words in his mouth”?
[I] believe that everyone has exactly the same rights, no more, no lesslittle jeremiah wrote:and
I do not support a homosexual agenda or anything remotely close to it.
Please answer these questions, thenPerhaps I missed something along the way, but now I'm quite curious to see Hemingway's Ghost answers to your questions, little jeremiah.
I have posted links and your own posts back to you. Why the hysteria?
You have outright stated that libertarians need to be expunged from FR
That's not what I said. Post 394
Truthfully, I wouldn't allow libertarians on my site. They are not conservatives and they work to undermine activism.
Where did I mention FR?
This whole thread has gone back and forth between States rights and Federal power
In Post 391you stated: you continue to twist between what States are allowed to do, and what the Constitution allows. Where did I do that?
The underlying philosophy is the same throughout. You want POWER over others. I don't. It's that simple.
Where did I state that? Post number and quote.
I don't want the gays having the same power that folks like you want to have. And in politics, what comes around goes around. Is that so hard to see?
Scripter, these fellows generally refuse to answer specific questions because hiding in the shadows of slogans and meaningless rhetoric with hints, and dancing around specifics that reveal clearly their POV, is their SOP.
Freaking cowards.
How is quoting Jim’s actual comment “putting words in his mouth”?
The electorate figured that out a long time ago.
When you find an actual quote from the Constitution stating that women are mere proprety, ping me.
Limited government? Personal responsibility? No one being given a big enough government axe to tell others how to act in such an intimate manner? Not giving the gays that same stick to beat us with later?
As for being a coward, do you really know me so well that you can make that judgment? Seriously?
Okay.
1. Based on what I’ve experienced as an enlisted man and as an officer, I feel homosexuality is incompatible with the military lifestyle.
2. Homosexuals can teach kids, provided they don’t gay up the classroom. I’m very much against the notion of a teacher, homo or not, expressing sexuality in the class.
3 & 4. See above.
5. Marriage to me is a sacrament. I am ambivalent about gay marriage . . . I feel it is up to the states. Not sure, quite frankly.
6. A property owner makes his or her own business rules. Rent or do not rent as you see fit.
Yes. You may mark that on your calendar. I actually agree with you on something substantive.
*Note: I have NEVER voted for a liberal or a Democrat. I know if I don't add this disclaimer, someone will try and use my above statement against me.
Other than that, what you said works for me... ;-)
What meaningless BS. How about enuncuiating your POV specifically and answering this question:
Should homosexuals be allowed to serve in the military, yes or no? Two parts - under DADT, or openly?
Do you then want to prohibit homosexuals from serving in the military? IOW that it should be the standard?
Cowardice is dancing around tossing slogans without admitting your own POV specifically.
You dance a mean minuette!
Yes, they should be allowed to serve. It is their Country too.
DADT. I don't want to know about it. Keep your naughty bits to yourself.
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.