Skip to comments.Sarah Palin floats idea of leaving the Republican Party [VIDEO]
Posted on 06/29/2013 11:44:52 AM PDT by Jim Robinson
Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, the 2008 Republican nominee for vice president responded to a Fox News Channel viewers Twitter question Saturday about the possibility of her and conservative talker Mark Levin abandoning the Republican Party and creating something called the Freedom Party.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
WHY didn't the founders outlaw sodomy, etc., or even murder for that matter, in the Constitution? Do you think they would have thought it wrong for the states to do so? NO???? Then why do you accuse me of it?
The Libertarian party with a big L is an official party. However, libertarian principles are indeed, as Reagan said, at the heart of conservatism.
And yes, as I have stated, I would be happy if Roe v Wade was overturned and given back to the states. It would be a HELL OF A LOT BETTER than what we have now, and what we have now is because Americans went against libertarian principle of limited government and allowed the Federal governent to impose Roe v Wade. I hope abortion would become illegal in all states but unlike you I RESPECT what the Founders and the Constitution defined as limited government.
STOP demonizing libertarian principles because of what the Libertarian party has done.
You assume that because I think the Founders DELIBERABELY refrained from using the Federal government to have laws against sodomy, prostitution, etc., that "such laws are wrong in [my] mind."
Reading comprehension problem? I ASKED you - there were several question marks - I sincerely want to know what you think, you still did not clearly answer me!
So you think the laws against sodomy in all the states for 150 years were wrong? And that states should not be allowed to have such laws? How about abortion - should it be up to the states as well? How about pornography? Prostitution? There were laws against obscenity and prostituion in every state throughout most of our history, were such laws wrong in your mind?
See the several question marks? I was asking you questions. I know what the men who formed the Republic thought, obviously. I know what many libertarians think (that states also have no business making laws against vice). What I don't know is what you think about it, other than your statement above which sounds like other libertarians I've "debated" with:
Because they understood that limited government is there to protect people's rights to DO things, not to prohibit people from indulging in moral failings.
When you can clearly articulate whether, in your libertarian view, the states have the right to make laws against vices like drugs, prostitution and sodomy, get back to me. Yea or nay. So far, more obfuscation as far as I'm cocerned. And you accuse me of emotional knee jerking. Sheesh. I clearly state my postion, I'm waiting for something clear from you; emtional accusations and lack of clarity about specifics are what I read from you. So far all I have is that abortion is a states' issue (is "regular" murder allowed in some states? Should it be? If not, why not?) and the phrase "libertarian principles". What are they?
THe same thing as the Libertarian Party platform or something different?
“The official Libertarian Party is officially pro-abortion, pro-open borders, pro-the entire homo agenda, pro-legal all drugs, pro-legal prostituion, and pro-no holds barred porn even in public places.”
Funny thing is, some of us can admit that the Libertarian Party (big L) is full of crap. And still consider ourselves to be quite libertarian ourselves.
I used to say I was a conservative with libertarian leanings. More and more I think I am a libertarian with conservative leanings. And yet I still think the Libertarian Party is weirdo central. They co-opted the name libertarian, the way I see it.
You mention abortion: I find abortion at odds with the idea of liberty. One can not be truly free if one is killed before they are born, now can they?
This very libertarian leaning person has no problem reconciling that abortion is wrong and should be illegal, with the cause of liberty and freedom.
I also object to the attempts by many conservatives to legislate behavior strictly on moral grounds. I prefer to mind my own business and just want the Government to do the same.
People who OBSESS over others moral failings are usually projecting something - such as their own moral failings.
Are you basically accusing me of “obsesing” about morality becaus I have my own moral failings? Sort of how homosexuals accuse those opposed to the homosexual agenda of struggling with their own homosexual feelings?
So you’re not okay with the LP pro-abortion position. How about their pro-homo agenda, pro-prostitution, pro-legalizing all drugs, pro-open borders issues?
And furthermore, as a “libertarian leaning conservative”, what’s your position on states having laws prohibiting those vices? Is that okay with you or not?
The LP of today are social Marxists. They believe in doing everything and anything is the way to go. Homosexual “marriage” ? Fine with them. Slaughtering fetuses ? Hey that’s a-ok for the LP. Surrendering to Islamonazis ? Let’s ask the LP’s hero Surrender Monkey Ron Paul.
If you believe in any of the above, you’re simply not a Conservative.
Even Ayn Rand, who helped start the Libertarian movement, thought it was farcical.
The libertarians are simply liberals who don’t want to pay taxes.
I didn’t accuse you of anything. But your reaction is interesting.
You seem to have missed that I am not OK with the “LP” at all.
I am not a one-worlder. Borders have nothing to do with freedom, so long as people are allowed to LEAVE at will. It is not necessary to allow foreigners to COME IN at will.
A free country allows anyone to leave. It does not have to allow anyone to come in. A legal process to be followed for immigration is sufficient. This does not mean “open borders” as you mean it.
“pro homo agenda” : Nope. I have stated here before that I think it is a psychiatric disorder. Those people need shrinks, not enablers. And they sure as hell don’t need special laws or rights not already afforded to others. I don’t obsess over homos, I do find this big push to normalize it troubling and not in the best interest of those who suffer from it. I don’t think it is right to abuse someone because they are mentally ill, and thus I don’t condone gay bashing/beating or anything of the sort. I do wish they would either get treatment or get back in the closet. But they don’t scare me, I don’t fear them.
Prostitution is to me morally reprehensible. We have to walk a fine line between protecting our society and protecting people’s freedom to do as they choose. This is a complicated subject and frankly I don’t have the answer. Personally, I take a “mind my own business” attitude towards it. (I never claimed to have all the answers and any one who does is a flat out liar.)
Drugs: If a drug is so outrageously harmful that a person can not control themselves once they have used it (IE: Meth, crack, etc.) then there is good reason to make them illegal. Because the people using them are not really acting of their own free will, they have been victimized by the seller of that drug. It is not anti-freedom to make it illegal to victimize people. However, I also think it is wrong and stupid to put people in jail for using pot (or whatever they call it these days). Nicotine is legal, caffeine is legal, alcohol is legal. Many drugs are legal already and there is no logic as to why some are legal and some others are not.
States having laws prohibiting vices: I am going to answer it this way: Strictly judging from the standpoint of liberty a law that is unjust at the federal level is unjust at the state level too. For example, if Roe V Wade suddenly went away, I would not support the State’s right to decide because abortion is wrong no matter where you are. As far anyone prohibiting “vices” I have already answered that question.
Anything else you would like to know about me? Why don’t you read my about page. Anything not answered there I will be glad to answer for you here in open forum.
I call it the ultra kook anarchy fringe of the hard left.
I’ll go along with that.
With her all the way.
If Sarah Leaves the party, I will leave the party...
There's NO hope of anything changing?
Guess we're DOOMED. Might as well get back to watching "Dancing with the Stars" because there is NOTHING we can do. /s
Agreed. But the philosophical principles of libertariansim (as opposed to the diametrically opposing official LP party stance which in fact BETRAYS and CONTRADICTS libertarian principle in much the same way that Romney betrayed true conservatism) marks some of the THE FINEST conservative thinkers in America: Thomas Sowell. Milton Friedman. Walter E. Williams. Or, Absolutely Nobama, prove otherwise by posting anywhere idea and opinions put forth by them that are leftist? No? Why is that? Because the official LP Party is fraudulent ... but STUPID PARTY "conservatives" are rejecting a vast number of Americans who are philosophical allies (who aren't members of the LP party but who consider themselves somewhat libertarian) becuase stupid-emotional "conservatives" STUPIDLY ignore what libertarianism really is, and allow themselves to be used LIKE THE TOOLS THEY ARE by the Marxists who have taken over the LP. Tools like yourself are rejecting on false premises those Americans who could join us in votes to SAVE AMERICAN FREEDOM.
IT IS STUPID AND SUICIDAL for "conservatives" to reject out of hand a philosophical principal (not the official political party, whicn NO ONE, an certainly not me, is advocating) of libertarianism (HELLO??? That's small-l libertarian) shared by some of the finest conserative minds on politics today.
Free Republic is REPLETE with Stupid Party people.
The LP of today, then is as fraudulent with regard to libertarianism as Obama is with regard to being American and as pro-abortion, pro-nationlized-healthcare, pro gay agenda Romney was with regard to being "conservaive."
PROOF? Take homosexual "rights," for example. Were there laws on the books specifically prohibiting homosexuals from adopting childrn? Were there laws on the books specifically prohibiting two men from going through a charade wedding ceremony? NO.
Instead, there were adoption agencies that said, "Hell no, we're not going to let you two homosexual 'parents' -- ha ha! -- adopt one of our kids." Instead, there were churches, businesses, that said "Hell no, we're not going to participate in or officially recognize your fake 'marriage.'"
So along comes government tyrants (you like to call them "social Marxists," which is a MISNOMER) who want to use government, in the false name of homosexual "rights," to pass laws rescinding free Americans' rights, the God-given rights of adoption agencies and churches and businesses, to refuse to play along with the gay charade. Desire for such law is the antithesis of libertarian principle.
TRUE libertarian (small l, buddy!!!) practice would be limited government where gay guys could pretend to get married in communities where they could get away with it and not be run out of town on a rail, to let them approach adoption agencies if they want -- and just SEE how many adoption agencies would cooperate, how long they would last if it was known that they catered to homosexuals, how long it would be before vice and child pornography cops rightly shut those agencies down; just SEE how many churches and businesses would play pretend marriage. Some would, maybe more than some, but YOU and I and everyone else would be free to tell them to get lost.
But what you erroniously call "social Marxism" and what I correctly call GOVERNMENT TYRANNY, the EXACT thing that the Founders deliberatly side-stepped in the Constitution by not including laws prohibiting moral failings, GOVERNMENT TYRANNY acts to prohibit what IT sees as a moral failing -- that is, governmnt tyrants in the Republican party, in the Democrat party, and in the Libertarian party, believe that it is immoral to tell the homosexuals to go to hell.
The LP Party is a FRAUD if it advocates using government to probhibit people from discriminating against open homosexuals in their businesses, churches, adoption agencies (!), etc.
The LP Party no more represents true libertarianism, the kind that Sarah Palin talks about so many of us having a "streak" of, than Romney represents conservatism.
So again, IT IS STUPIDITY SUPREME to reject out of hand a natural philosophical ally, the libertarian such as Thomas Sowell, Walter E. Williams, and Milton Friedman, not to mention the wisdom of Ronald Reagan who stood by his statement, when challened, that libertarian limited government philosophy was at the heart of conservatism, when that philosophical ally can swing the votes in FAVOR of FREEDOM the way the Founders intended.
“The LP of today, then is as fraudulent with regard to libertarianism as Obama is with regard to being American and as pro-abortion, pro-nationlized-healthcare, pro gay agenda Romney was with regard to being ‘conservative.’ “
I never supported Mitt Trotsky until it was a choice between him and the Kenyan.
“So along comes government tyrants (you like to call them ‘social Marxists,’ which is a MISNOMER) who want to use government, in the false name of homosexual ‘rights,’ to pass laws rescinding free Americans’ rights, the God-given rights of adoption agencies and churches and businesses, to refuse to play along with the gay charade. Desire for such law is the antithesis of libertarian principle.”
Most of Ron Paul’s sycophants are tickled pink that homosexual “marriage” is on its way.
“So again, IT IS STUPIDITY SUPREME to reject out of hand a natural philosophical ally....”
I will NOT stand with the libertarians in any way, shape, or form. Again, see Ron Paul for a million reasons why.
“Or, Absolutely Nobama, prove otherwise by posting anywhere idea and opinions put forth by them that are leftist?”
Where should I start ? Dismantling the military ? Surrendering to al-Qaeda ? Rampant atheism ? Ron Paul, perhaps ?
Small “l” libertarianism is fine, on certain issues. On economic matters, I’m a a libertarian. On the Constitution, I’m an originalist. On matters like repealing the 17th Amendment, fine by me. (For that matter, I could also be called far right.)
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.