Posted on 11/26/2002 2:34:41 PM PST by Sparta
I'm certainly willing to cast Republican votes for reasonable candidates, but some of these guys are too much to stomach. No one has a right to my vote, whether they have an R or an L beside their name.
I think your statements really sum up very well the dilemma that so many of us confront. We want to cast principled votes for principled candidates but by the time the general election comes along we wind up being stuck with some pretty awful stinkers (Conlon, McPherson etc.).
I believe the solution is to work harder in the GOP primaries to recruit and support Constitution-minded candidates so we have a better slate in Nov.
Now, would it surprise you that what you've posted very directly contradicts a large percentage of what certain "libertarians" on this forum have told me?
Libertarians disagree with many Republicans on whether the state should punish people for committing sodomy if those people are taking reasonable efforts to keep their activities private and are only caught due to factors they could not reasonably have foreseen.This, for instance. I don't know how many times I've been called a socialist by a "libertarian" because I've supported the idea of prosecuting men who have public sex in restrooms and/or public parks.
You need to divest yourself of that fringe as much as we need to jettison Jerry Falwell!
Yes, but when a party's barely making 2% it tends to focus more on its differences with the other parties than on resolving the variations within itself.
The Constitution Party is really the one I'd favor, if they were ever on the ballot here (Illinois). Unfortunately, it's hard to support a party which doesn't really have much presence. Even the Libertarians, though, I tend to favor over the Republicans in that when they push for too much laxity on social issues it drives people to the Republicans; when Republicans, however, get too tyrannical it pushes more people to the Democrats than to the Libertarians.
Although homosexuals almost certainly do not comprise nearly the 10% of the population claimed by Kinsey et al., many if not most voters know at least one person who is, or who they think is, gay. How should these voters react to the knowledge that many Republicans would put their friend/acquaintance in jail if they could? Some probably brush such fears aside, on the basis that the Republicans would never get that much power. But can you really blame someone for believing that the Republicans pose a threat to their friend, given that the Republicans themselves say precisely that?
The way the Republicans play up things like the gay issues, it gives voters the choice between letting people commit all manner of lewdness in the park, or of throwing their friend (who does not commit such lewdness in public) in jail. Given such a choice, many voters are going to opt for the former even though they really don't like the lewdness in the park, just because they don't want their friend thrown in jail. If Republicans would stop providing fodder for Democrat fearmongers, they might actually be able to get enough votes to actually achieve some worthwhile conservative goals. Of course, if pigs had wings they could fly...
Oh, drop the nonsense. The overwhelming majority of Republicans that I know don't WANT to know about your personal life behind closed doors. Keep it private and they won't come looking.
You need to look at groups such as ACT-UP, which parades perversion in front of Roman Catholic Cathedrals (so much for THEIR tolerance), or GSLEN, which insists on having their deviant agenda taught in our schools and paid for withy OUR tax dollars.
The Gaystapo is the most intolerant group since Hitler's SS!
You know that and I know that, but there are many people who vote Democrat because they've been led to believe that Republicans want to throw their friends in jail. I think Republicans would do well to make clear that even if they came to power that isn't what would happen.
It's clear that ACT-UP et al. do not speak for the majority of homosexual people. And Libertarians do not support much of the ACT-UP agenda (since it involves having the government actively promoting immorality). Republicans should make clear that they do not have a beef with homosexuals who are discrete, who don't seek positions of either religious authority or direct control over children, and who don't seek to promote their lifestyle (especially using tax dollars).
If Republicans could do this, they wouldn't have to give up anything they could have gotten in the first place, and yet would deprive the Democrats of many of their "scare" voters.
Well, now that the Republicans have come "to power," I guess their actions will do the talking.
Who said Republicans aren't held to that standard? READ the Republican platform. IT'S agenda is to protect the unborn. No if, ands, or buts. The pro-abortion Republicans rant and rave about this every year, and try to get rid of it, but they don't have enough power or influence in the party to do so.
Now go read the LP platform.
When the MAJORITY of Libertarians support pro-life issues like the MAJORITY of Republicans do, then we'll talk.
Pro-lifers asking the LP to adopt the SAME stance as the GOP on this issue is not a "double standard". Quite the opposite, actually.
Wrong, for the most part bootlegging and moonshining are thru, thanks to legalisation. I imagine that there are still some southern holdouts but the vast (and I mean VAST) majority of Americans get their liquor legally, thru regulated channels.
Price is set by supply and demand. No one has ever suggested that there has not been an adequate supply of illegal drugs getting out to the streets.
There are always shortages, dry spells or what have you. Because there is so much risk involved supply lines are tentative (at best) and wholly un-reliable. What can a consumer expect when his entire supply chain is subject to arrest and imprisonment at any time?
Demand is not likely to go down, if the substances are made legal.I disagree. Take away the risk and supply will skyrocket with the realization of modern mass-farming techniques. Add to that the legitimate supply chains and I don't see how such drugs as MJ couldn't become cheaper by orders of magnitude. Of course, harder drugs (more costly production and far more regulation) don't fit the same model because they are produced in similar fashion to pharm's in that they require actual manufacturing.......they would remain relatively expensive due to regulation I imagine.
EBUCK
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.