Posted on 03/21/2014 2:24:28 PM PDT by Berlin_Freeper
Gay and lesbian "parents" are set to bring up a generation of angry, confused, and licentious children, that as adults will be at each others' throats, which will of course require more of the police state to deal with the crimes and a therapeutic welfare state to deal with the losers. Both are VERY expensive. The more bureaucrats there are the more they vote for more government. Hence, to be a "social libertarian" is to have no comprehension for the preconditions of liberty.
I take exception to Paul’s wanting to kick social issues to the back of the closet
I agree !!!
If we take a hard look at our constitution and the ramifications of the changes that have distorted its original intent, I contend, as it was originally established, the need for a “Moral populace” to maintain this framework has been slipping away. First by inches, but now by miles.
The issue runs deep into our culture and the peer pressure that is on display in our media to accept virtually all points of view as valid.
Mao or Pol Pot could run as a democrat today and get 40% of the vote, as the media as no clue.
The Century of Self, to be sure.
A Brave New World ?
We have lost our moral bearings as a culture. They are still there, but way to many voters are have been indoctrinated into a choice between Socialism or Fascism.
Hitler was a “right wing fascist”, BAD.
Communist’s/Socialist’s were our allies that fought against Hitler, Good.
That’s the extent of their arguments.
Bush = Hitler
Bush = Republicans
Republicans = Bad.
Yea, no kidding. There are plenty of Freepers who seem to prefer to get bent over 100% of the time rather take the best option and continue to push forward with conservative principles. No wonder why we lose.
first off he is more conservative on social issues than romney is...and secondly this so called fatal flaw is the only angle we have to get vast number of morons to vote for us
THAT is the crux of it. Without the force of government behind it, the homosexual "civil rights" agenda would be dead in the water; the majority rejects it, otherwise government force wouldn't be called for.
In spite of what Obama says, America is a Christian nation; our bible defines marriage. Outlawing gay marriage is like outlawing unicorns in any case -- in vain. Allow businesses, churches, employers, the military, schools, landlords, all free people, to deal with two people of the same sex who pretend to be married, in our own civil ways. PERIOD. Take government out of it. PERIOD.
Government force now dictates to us how WE deal with unicorns. Cut it off, prune that government, and watch morality come snapping back as people were restored to being able to tell open homosexuals, "parade it somewhere else, thank you."
I think this issue is one of the least important issues of the day. What consequence is it to me and my marriage if two dudes in Cali get married? Whose rights are violated? Slavery, of course, is a whole nuther ballgame. Obviously.
The older I get, the more major an issue it appears to me because it is so wickedly destructive to our poor, heart-breakingly vulnerable youths! Compassion is a strength, a Christian strength. Really, I know that sounds sappy, but it's just sad, sorry sin that wears souls down, and these young kids are in such ugly waters, socially. The gay agenda seeks to promote it to our youths! In grade school, no less, and even younger. Jesus had pretty harsh words for those who would lead little ones astray. Vote FOR that in a Republican candidate? In order to vote "against" it in the Democrat?
When rocks float.
If Rand Paul stands for prohibiting any government force that would punish a baker, photographer, hall, entertainer, church, florist, whatever, for turning down a gay client, if Rand Paul stands for ENDING any government force that would punish a business for refusing to extend spousal benefits to "married" gays, if Rand Paul stands for ENDING that kind of government force, he's on the same side of the river as I am.
How has gay marriage affected you directly?
Boom - right from the gate, we have nobody to vote for if Cruz isn't in it.
Let me be CRUEL here.....Rand Paul will NEVER EVER be President UNLESS the person that runs against him is even SHORTER than he is.
Actually I am liking Scott Walker and what he has accomplished better than I like Cruz, and I DO like Cruz, but Walker has really done great things in Wisconsin.
Rand is racist in this article? No, but I am sick of these guys who are capitulating before the first shot is fired. Rand seems to be one. Bob
Right. Cruz is MY candidate right now for 2016. All the issues that Rand is good on, Ted is right there with him. Why NOT Cruz? Bob
I'd be happy to vote for Paul. Or for Cruz. Or for Walker, Jindal, or Kasich. Or for Palin or Daniels if they get back into the fray. Or even for Rubio.
The only two who might possibly cause me to sit it out are Jeb or Christie.
Calling me a "RINO" for this stand has about as much effect as liberals calling me a racist. Water off a duck's back.
Not sure how you took my comments as applying to you as apparently they do not.
My point was concerning the many Freepers who rapidly dispose of a candidate who lacks 100% purity. My analogy would be a football game. Some Freepers think the winning strategy is going out on the field and throwing 50 yard passes on every play. Clearly, you will never a game that way. Sometimes we will have to take a candidate that only gets us a 5 yard gain and we must prepare for the next play.
The goal should be to continue to move the ball down the field on each play (election).
No way I meant that last comment to apply to you. Apologies...
Reagan didn't unite conservatives and libertarians, that is a complete reversal of the facts.
Ayn Rand despised Reagan, and the best election that the libertarians ever had, was running against Reagan in 1980.
As far as winning independents, Romney cleaned up with the independent vote and won it hugely.
INFOGRAPHIC: Obama Lost Independent Vote In Almost Every Swing State
The president only won the independent vote in one battleground state: North Carolina. Things looked very different for Obama in 2008, when independent voters came out in huge numbers to support him. Just before Election Day, the Wall Street Journal reported those polling numbers had hardly changed, with Romney overwhelmingly leading among independent voters across the country. Republican pollster Bill McInteruff told the Journal the Democrats were really flirting with trouble if youre losing independents by this margin.
The left turned out every "body" they could find and independents had their normal...maybe slightly down...turnout.
But the nominally Republican vote didn't show up well.
Do you really think the zombie generation is engaged enough to discern the difference between liberty and fascism ?
As far as they are concerned “liberty” is a property of the “right” and the “right” is fascist (Hitler), Hitler was evil, therefore they reject the “right” as it is like Hitler.
You can’t argue with stupid, but this is what we are left to deal with.
The more “right” our candidates are the more evil they are.
It’s completely messed up, but it is the nature of our shallow thinking, pop and peer pressure culture.
We need to Lie.
Not flat out lie, but be less than honest.
We need to be “Perfectly Vague”.
The left’s vote was way down in 2012, Obama got millions of fewer votes, Rommey’s was up over 2008, Romney cleaned up with Independents, Reagan was hated by the libertarians.
How did libertarians vote in 2012?
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.