Free Republic
Browse · Search
RLC Liberty Caucus
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

REPUBLICAN LIBERTY CAUCUS POSITION STATEMENT
RLC Website ^ | December 8, 2000 | Republican Liberty Caucus

Posted on 07/24/2002 3:47:01 PM PDT by Jim Robinson

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-262 next last
To: Reagan Man; Jim Robinson
I've attempted to be civil with you, but that seems to be an effort in futilty on my part.

LOL, I don't think so. Your blood pressure is rising despite my polite responses. As soon as your postion is refuted in a rational credible way, you lose your cool.

The critical aspects of political positions taken by the Republican Liberty Caucus is exactly what's at issue on this thread and to deny that is the case, is to run from the truth. I don't expect you'll stop huffing-n-puffing, anytime soon.

Please define "huffing and puffing". Oh you mean pointing out that groups don't need to take a postion on every topic? That huffing and puffing?

If you want to compare you're bowling league with the Libertarian Party,

OOPS!! There is the real agenda. A hatred of the libertarians. It didn't take long to get around to it.

Look, abortion is supported by Libertarian's in general. I'm a strong pro-lifer and am opposed to the libertarian philosophy in general.

Off topic, this thread isn't about the Libertarian Party or abortion.

Your basic argument over abortion is intelliectually bankrupt.

Hmmm, funny, you said you were happy that I am anti-abortion. Hmmmm, I guess you want me to be pro-abortion? LOL

This is the political, social and cultural issue of our time. If you're too blind to see that, that's not my fault. You're pathetic.

Personal attacks are a the last course of action for the defeated.

Hey, maybe Robinson will pull your post or your priviledges for violation of the rules. It is his thread, and his site. LOL

51 posted on 07/25/2002 10:49:21 AM PDT by Protagoras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
This is a thread about uniting for Liberty. A positive idea. Changes can not be made 5, 10, 20 issues at a time. LIBERTY is a BIG and meaningful word inspire unity. I find your desire to debate something in the Long List of issues posted to be petty , disruptive and out of line.
52 posted on 07/25/2002 11:08:31 AM PDT by madfly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: madfly
It seems that many posters on this forum have such an obsession against individual liberty that they attempt to hi-jack every thread and turn it into an attack on libertarians. Some have become so bold (due to the lack of rebuffs from the mods) that they even hi-jack the threads of the site owner. Much to the detriment of the forum. A shame, IMO.
53 posted on 07/25/2002 11:23:12 AM PDT by Protagoras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: NC_Libertarian
I would definately vote for any Republican who supports the above position.

And I'll bump that. Too bad the RNC isn't giving us that option this time here in NC. I tend to disagree with some of the anti-WOD crowd for legalization, however it is not the general government's concern. It should be handled at the state level. I would like to see a pro-life adoption as well. I don't see myself leaving the Southern Party anytime soon but I generally vote for the Republican candidate (unless of course it's local and in a lot of cases Republicans just don't run at the local level). But if the RLC gains strength in the Republican party, I could easily support candidates that they offered

54 posted on 07/25/2002 12:00:55 PM PDT by billbears
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: ThomasJefferson
>>>Personal attacks are a the last course of action for the defeated.

I haven't engaged in any personal attacks. Just political debate. You've lost the argument and now your whining about it. That's nothing new. And your attempting to use standard convoluted reasoning for your failure to best me on the issues. Standard fair for the intellectually and emotionally challenged.

>>>Hey, maybe Robinson will pull your post or your priviledges for violation of the rules. It is his thread, and his site. LOL

If you want to make outrageous and foolish threats that you can't back up, so be it. Better yet, get your own website, invite me onto it and then ban me. LMAO Like I said, you are pathetic. When you stop crying and want to engage in civil debate on the political issues of our time, this conservative will be around. Just PING me. Until then, rant on little man.

55 posted on 07/25/2002 12:06:19 PM PDT by Reagan Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: madfly
>>>This is a thread about uniting for Liberty.

This is a thread about the Republican Liberty Caucus. That makes its positions on the issues highly relevent to conservatives like me and the current national debate on all the issues. If you read my initial post, you would have understood that. But instead, you've become petty yourself and chosen to define what is proper debate for Free Republic. Guess you don't believe in freedom of speech and the Bill of Rights either. Figures.

56 posted on 07/25/2002 12:11:59 PM PDT by Reagan Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
I haven't engaged in any personal attacks. Just political debate.

Political debate and no personal attacks? LOL, OK, Lets examine it.

I don't expect you'll stop huffing-n-puffing, anytime soon.
You're pathetic.
Standard fair for the intellectually and emotionally challenged.
Like I said, you are pathetic.
When you stop crying and want to engage in civil debate on the political issues of our time, this conservative will be around.
Just PING me. Until then, rant on little man.
Your basic argument over abortion is intelliectually bankrupt.

All refer to me personally and some name calling trown in for good measure. Nice try, but your idea of debate is nothing more than personal attack when your points are shown to be without substance.

If you want to make outrageous and foolish threats that you can't back up, so be it.

What threats? Please enumerate them.

57 posted on 07/25/2002 12:19:59 PM PDT by Protagoras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: ThomasJefferson
Yawn. More circle jerk rhetoric. Man, will you ever stop crying and whining? Answer: I think not.
58 posted on 07/25/2002 12:25:00 PM PDT by Reagan Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man; Jim Robinson
"WHEREAS libertarian Republicans believe in limited government, individual freedom and personal responsibility"

What does this mean to you?

Thanks for posting this, Jim. I honestly hadn't seen it before.

59 posted on 07/25/2002 12:27:04 PM PDT by Slip18
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
Not crying and whining at all. Never did, laughing at you mostly.

Why not think of a few more personal attacks and insults? It changes the subject away from your contention that any group who doesn't take a postition on abortion is automatically pro-abortion. LOL, great stuff, keep it up.

60 posted on 07/25/2002 12:28:45 PM PDT by Protagoras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: ThomasJefferson
Poor baby. Take a nap. Sleep it off. And stop crying and whining already, little man. You've lost the debate, get over it.

I'm ROTF, LMFBO at you!

61 posted on 07/25/2002 12:37:06 PM PDT by Reagan Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
You are the poster boy for what is wrong with this whole picture. How old are you son?
62 posted on 07/25/2002 12:42:16 PM PDT by Protagoras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
"Are you attempting to appeal to the craven immoral libertarian mindset? Has FR lost too many libertarian ideologues lately? Do libertarians, anarchists and other fringe extremists really mean that much to you Jim? Hmmm. Inquiring minds want to know."

When your "moral" Republicans stop forcing me to hand over part of my paycheck to support Planned Parenthood, et al, then you can talk.

When "pro-life" President George Walker Bush directs HHS Director Tommy Thompson to investigate the use of taxpayer money to fund organizations who violate state laws mandating the reporting of suspected child molestation, then you can talk. When your "moral" Republicans do that, you ping me. OK?

63 posted on 07/25/2002 1:16:38 PM PDT by toenail
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Slip18; JR; yall
"WHEREAS libertarian Republicans believe in limited government, individual freedom and personal responsibility"
What does this mean to you?

Thanks for posting this, Jim. I honestly hadn't seen it before.
- slip18 -


I believe the RLC platform was posted once back in '98 by 'navigator', - but at that time I don't think it was nearly as libertarian as this position.

-- I think this is an excellent platform to build a conservative coalition upon, and one that could unify FR to a certain extent.
[I won't hold my breath tho.]
64 posted on 07/25/2002 1:21:54 PM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: steve50
Not much fun here in Ohio either. We get marxists, neocons and RINOs as our options. I'm left with a couple libertarians to punch for or leave em balnk.

I see you aren't enthused about the Ohio governor's race either Taft (RINO) v. Hagan (Demo-Marxist) are there any third parties running, this is are rare case where I will waste my vote on one.

65 posted on 07/25/2002 1:25:40 PM PDT by NeoCaveman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
You think you've won a debate?
With crap like this? I doubt it:

"Are you attempting to appeal to the craven immoral libertarian mindset? Has FR lost too many libertarian ideologues lately? Do libertarians, anarchists and other fringe extremists really mean that much to you Jim?" - #18 regan man

66 posted on 07/25/2002 1:30:21 PM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
"[I won't hold my breath tho.]"

This thread is reminding me of the thread "How Many FReepers Does It Take To Change A Lightbulb."

All of us have different opinions, but we have to stop fighting amongst ourselves and unify to bring our Republic back to the way our Founding Fathers had intended our Republic to be. < /rant >

67 posted on 07/25/2002 1:38:32 PM PDT by Slip18
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: ThomasJefferson
Like I said, you've lost the debate, little man. Get over it already. Although, something tells me, that's impossible for you. I predict more whining and crying from FReeper "Thomas Jefferson". Will you prove me wrong? We shall see.

ps- Take my advice, take a nap. Get rested. Relax. lol

68 posted on 07/25/2002 2:10:53 PM PDT by Reagan Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Slip18; Reagan Man
-- I think this is an excellent platform to build a conservative coalition upon, and one that could unify FR to a certain extent.
[I won't hold my breath tho.]
64 by tpaine


This thread is reminding me of the thread "How Many FReepers Does It Take To Change A Lightbulb."
All of us have different opinions, but we have to stop fighting amongst ourselves and unify to bring our Republic back to the way our Founding Fathers had intended our Republic to be. < /rant >


Don't let one creep like R-mam switch out that lite.
That is exactly his real agenda here, -- to keep us fighting amongst ourselves.
69 posted on 07/25/2002 2:27:47 PM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: xzins; Jim Robinson; Jerry_M; OWK; Lurker
Position statement says: 11.5 U. S. armed forces should be all-volunteer AND 11.6 Military draft registration should be eliminated... I believe these are in conflict with the congressional power in the Constitution to call out the militia and the presidential power to command that militia. The militia, by law, is the armed citizenry. (An important issue in the gun debate.)

The Militia is, by definition, the voluntarily armed citizenry.

The Quakers have abdicated their Fatherly responsibility before God in their refusal to take up Arms in defense of their Families, but I tend to feel that they should have to answer to God for that, not the Government. The Government should not enjoy the Power to contravene the Quakers' "religious freedom" to behave like godless pacifists.

Rather, the Militia is itself a Voluntary institution, composed only of those who Volunteer to undertake their Godly Responsibilities to defend home and hearth -- and it is this "militia" which Congress constitutionally enjoys the Power to call up in time of War.

Of course, this would make it very difficult to wage Offensive Foreign Wars, as perhaps 90% of the USA's potential Military manpower might well refuse to Volunteer to "defend" Kosovo Albanian Islamofascists. By contrast, Defensive Domestic Wars would likely enjoy a 90% Volunteer ratio -- 9 out of 10 Citizens might not volunteer to defend Albania, but only perhaps 1 out of 10 Citizens would not volunteer to defend against a direct assault on their own Homeland.

70 posted on 07/25/2002 3:22:10 PM PDT by OrthodoxPresbyterian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
I read, somewhere the other day, an early American discussing a standing army. His objection, besides the abuse we suffered under the British troops, was that it was insulting to Americans, being supposed cowardly enough not to come to their own defense.
71 posted on 07/25/2002 3:35:24 PM PDT by toenail
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
"...contravene the Quakers' 'religious freedom' to behave like godless pacifists."

As far as I can tell, they're NOT behaving like "godless pacifists." They're behaving like God-fearing pacifists. (Some folks take "Thou shalt not kill" literally.)
72 posted on 07/25/2002 3:36:21 PM PDT by Mark Bahner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: GOPcapitalist

Tell me, do you support the RLC 'position', as it is posted here by JR?
73 posted on 07/25/2002 3:44:09 PM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
Art 1 (legislative), Sec 1: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Art 2 (executive), Sec 2: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;

The issue for me isn't what should be. The issue for me is the above language in the constitution.

I'm no constitutional scholar, but I don't see anything about the militia being voluntary in the language. While I might want it there, I don't see it there. That absence of language seems to grant definitional power to the several states from whom the militias will be called out.

Here are the other appearances of "militia" in the constitution. Again, I see no language that says the militia is voluntary.

The fifth amendment says no one can be deprived arbitrarily of "liberty." All that's required to actually deprive one of liberty is "due process of law." The clause indicates it's speaking of criminal proceedings, however.

Art. 2, Sec 8 -- To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Amendment II - Right to bear arms. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment V - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791. No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

74 posted on 07/25/2002 4:30:55 PM PDT by xzins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: xzins
"I'm no constitutional scholar, but I don't see anything about the militia being voluntary in the language."

How about this language?

"1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

I'm sure a good case could be made that the folks who wrote that probably weren't THINKING about conscripted military service as being "involuntary servitude." But it clearly IS.

So should we follow the letter of the Constitution, or not?
75 posted on 07/25/2002 4:46:41 PM PDT by Mark Bahner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
What's up Jim?
The Republican Liberty Caucus makes some excellent points. In fact, many of their political positions, mirror the positions conservatives, like myself, have championed for many years now.
However, there are some downsides to the RLC and they should be discussed openly. First off, the RLC website specifically states the following, on the issue of abortion.
What is the RLC's position on abortion?
Neutral. We have both pro-lifers to pro-choicers, and in between. As far as libertarian groups go, you'll find that we are probably the most tolerant of the pro-life viewpoint. Our immediate past chairman, Cong. Ron Paul (R-TX, 14th Dist.) is very pro-life. Many other members are pro-choice. As libertarians, we oppose Federal funding of abortion under any circumstances. It is not a litmus test, and it is not an issue that is often debated internally. However, the California RLC website www.LibertyCaucus.org, has sponsored a debate on the issue between two prominent members.
Neutral?
That won't fly with social, moral and Christian conservatives. That's a big black mark against the RLC. This is a political position taken by most Libertarians.
In addition, without removing a portion of #13 off its agenda, the RLC will never appeal to law and order conservatives, in the great tradition of Ronald Reagan. Leaving in that certain portion of #13 as part of its position statement, which promotes alternatives to America's current national drug control strategy, gives its agenda a stench of libertarian-lite.
Are you attempting to appeal to the craven immoral libertarian mindset? Has FR lost too many libertarian ideologues lately? Do libertarians, anarchists and other fringe extremists really mean that much to you Jim? Hmmm. Inquiring minds want to know.
I don't expect you to answer these questions, but I continue to respect your right to follow the political philosophy of your choice, even if that may include, basic agreement on a neutral position on abortion. Even if that means opposition to America's successful national drug control policy. Even if that means joining forces with individuals who consider themselves libertarian-Republicans. There's an oxymoron for ya!
Having a separate forum on FR, that promotes a libertarian-lite website, won't make you any political allies among conservatives. But with you being an ex-Democrat, I can appreciate your desire to return to a political philosophy more in tune with your personal desires.



You posted the above this morning. - An hour later, I wrote a short retort, intending to post it on this thread. - But then had second thoughts, as it would no doubt only start a 'flame war'.

So I posted the below, to you, in 'private reply':

Re: REPUBLICAN LIBERTY CAUCUS POSITION STATEMENT
To Reagan Man | 2002-07-25 09:45:41 sent
Hoisted on your own petard as a rino, and as an irrational libertarian hater.
Thank you.


-- Now, you have seen fit to 'report' me to the mods as flaming you in private.
- How weird can you get?
76 posted on 07/25/2002 4:57:36 PM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Mark Bahner; OrthodoxPresbyterian
"1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." I'm sure a good case could be made that the folks who wrote that probably weren't THINKING about conscripted military service as being "involuntary servitude." But it clearly IS. So should we follow the letter of the Constitution, or not?

I think we should follow the constitution. The language you point out, as you mention, probably will be interpreted to relate to a bygone slavery/servitude economic system.

It is POSSIBLE that it could be interpreted to cover involuntary military conscription, but it hasn't been used that way up to this point, even though it could have been.

My point is that to get the language you want, you will probably have to amend the constitution regarding the selective service draft.

There is no language currently in the Constitution that MUST MEAN that a draft is inappropriate.

77 posted on 07/25/2002 4:59:39 PM PDT by xzins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: xzins
"I think we should follow the constitution."

Well, the Constitution says "involuntary servitude" is forbidden.

"My point is that to get the language you want, you will probably have to amend the constitution regarding the selective service draft."

You mean like, "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction"...."this includes involuntary servitude resulting from military conscription"?

Isn't that sort of like making an amendment that says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;..."..."this includes laws about virtual child pornography."?
78 posted on 07/25/2002 5:16:30 PM PDT by Mark Bahner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: xzins
I'm no constitutional scholar, but I don't see anything about the militia being voluntary in the language. While I might want it there, I don't see it there. That absence of language seems to grant definitional power to the several states from whom the militias will be called out.

At best, then, it's an issue for State Law as to whether or not Militias should be Compulsory, not a Federal prerogative (in fact, it seems to me this would be closer to Original Intent by far). The Federals can call out the "Militia", but the definition thereof is left to the States.

79 posted on 07/25/2002 6:28:01 PM PDT by OrthodoxPresbyterian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Mark Bahner
As far as I can tell, they're NOT behaving like "godless pacifists." They're behaving like God-fearing pacifists. (Some folks take "Thou shalt not kill" literally.)

The Commandment is, "Thou Shalt Not Murder". Bad Translations do not Good Theology make.

Defense of Family is not Murder, it is Duty.

80 posted on 07/25/2002 6:29:55 PM PDT by OrthodoxPresbyterian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
At best, then, it's an issue for State Law as to whether or not Militias should be Compulsory, not a Federal prerogative (in fact, it seems to me this would be closer to Original Intent by far). The Federals can call out the "Militia", but the definition thereof is left to the States.

I agree strongly with the statement in bold.

81 posted on 07/25/2002 7:23:07 PM PDT by xzins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Mark Bahner
see #79 & 81
82 posted on 07/25/2002 7:25:43 PM PDT by xzins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: ThomasJefferson
"So Jim, You advocate these positions?"

Mostly, yes. But I'd rather repeal the 16th and abolish the Income Tax and the IRS altogether. And I do not agree with disclosure of campaign contributions. This is a privacy issue. I'd also like to repeal the 17th. And I'd like to go through all of the ABC agencies and abolish those that are not authorized by the Constitution, ie, most of them. I would also like to see the RLC take a pro-life stance. In the very least, to recognize that the Federal Government has no say in the matter whatsoever. Oh, yeah, and I'd also like to repeal most of the so-called federal crimes. I believe the Constitution leaves crime fighting to the states. Also, eliminate any chance of double jeopardy thru overlapping federal and state jurisdictions.

83 posted on 07/25/2002 8:35:16 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
"neutral"!!!!!!

Well, I guess the Republican Liberty Caucus doesn't care about the liberty of the unborn.
84 posted on 07/25/2002 8:44:52 PM PDT by rwfromkansas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
He has the right to bring up an issue concerning the RLC. He did so. They support the murder of innocent children. Yes, yes, they are "neutral." There is NEVER true neutrality in this world, only ignoring issues.
85 posted on 07/25/2002 8:50:24 PM PDT by rwfromkansas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson; Reagan Man; ThomasJefferson
would also like to see the RLC take a pro-life stance. In the very least, to recognize that the Federal Government has no say in the matter whatsoever.

Yeah, I'd like to see the RLC take a "Pro-Life Stance" too... but ultimately, I'd just like to see the RLC say "Abortion is a State Issue, like 80% of all current Federal Programs".

Abortion is Murder. MURDER LAW is defined and administered by the States. Anyone who says otherwise is supporting the idea that Common Law should be the prerogative of the Feds... which contravenes the basic idea of State Sovereignty incorporated in our Constitution.

86 posted on 07/25/2002 8:50:56 PM PDT by OrthodoxPresbyterian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
I do want to say overall the platform is good, though I take issue with a few things (ending the WOD etc). Despite the abortion issue, they sound like a good group.

I just wish they would take a stand and not be neutral on questions of morality. Conservatives traditionally are not neutral on issues of ethics and morality. Then again, this is not a conservative group, but a libertarian group. I have a lot to support when it comes to libertarians. My main sticking point with libertarians is just the morality issue.
87 posted on 07/25/2002 8:54:21 PM PDT by rwfromkansas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
I seriously doubt if Bush or Reagan would ever post in the embarrassing, vulgar and flat-out immature manner in which you yourself have chosen to do. If I owned this forum (which of course I don't), I would revoke your "ReaganMan" screenname and allow you to post only as "LittleMan," which you seem to enjoy calling people who disagree with you in a logical or sensible manner.
88 posted on 07/25/2002 8:54:50 PM PDT by bluefish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas; tpaine; Jim Robinson
He has the right to bring up an issue concerning the RLC. He did so. They support the murder of innocent children. Yes, yes, they are "neutral." There is NEVER true neutrality in this world, only ignoring issues.

No, the Federal Government can be "neutral" on the issue of Abortion. Just like they can be "neutral" on the issue of RAPE.

If the Federal Government is "neutral" on an issue, that does not constitute approval. It constitutes an admission of delegation.

Murder Law (which should certainly include Abortion) -- like Rape Law -- is delegated to the States.

If one believes in State Sovereignty, one delegates these issues to the States. All issues of common law are rightfully the prerogative of the Several States.

89 posted on 07/25/2002 8:57:22 PM PDT by OrthodoxPresbyterian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas; ThomasJefferson; Jim Robinson
My main sticking point with libertarians is just the morality issue.

State Issue.

The Federal Government was not constituted for the purpose of instituting Morality among the Sovereign States; it was constituted for the mutual defense of the Sovereign States.

It is not the Governor of the States; it is their Servant.

90 posted on 07/25/2002 9:00:18 PM PDT by OrthodoxPresbyterian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas
To: Reagan Man
Put a sock in it. - This is not an abortion thread, or forum. - The RLC position is neutral.
48 by tpaine

--------------------------

He has the right to bring up an issue concerning the RLC. He did so.

Yep, and we all heard him, & refuted him, the first time. Then he went on and on, spamming the thread.
There are plenty of abortion threads at FR. This is not one.

They support the murder of innocent children. Yes, yes, they are "neutral." There is NEVER true neutrality in this world, only ignoring issues.

You ignore this threads issue.
- So put a sock in it.

91 posted on 07/25/2002 9:00:45 PM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
Certainly you are right that respecting the authority of states is important here.

I am not talking about the federal government staying out. I am talking about not even taking a position as a group (the RLC), whether they are okay with or oppose abortion. My comment has nothing to do with the govt. and everything to do with the "neutrality" given by the RLC on this issue as to whether they will come together and say abortion is okay or not.
92 posted on 07/25/2002 9:03:02 PM PDT by rwfromkansas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
It concerns the positions of the RLC. How is that being ignored?
93 posted on 07/25/2002 9:03:45 PM PDT by rwfromkansas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas; ThomasJefferson; Jim Robinson
"Neutral"!! Well, I guess the Republican Liberty Caucus doesn't care about the liberty of the unborn. 84 posted on 7/25/02 8:44 PM Pacific by rwfromkansas

That's like saying that the Republican Liberty Caucus "doesn't care" about the sanctity of women's chastity.

Poppycock.

The RLC is not "uncaring" about the matter of Rape Laws; they just recognize that such Laws are defined and administered by the Sovereign States. Just like Murder Laws -- including Abortion-Murder.

94 posted on 07/25/2002 9:04:24 PM PDT by OrthodoxPresbyterian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas; ThomasJefferson; Jim Robinson
I am not talking about the federal government staying out. I am talking about not even taking a position as a group (the RLC), whether they are okay with or oppose abortion. My comment has nothing to do with the govt. and everything to do with the "neutrality" given by the RLC on this issue as to whether they will come together and say abortion is okay or not.

They are a Partisan Political Action Committee.
Just like the Republican National Committee.

And since the Republican National Committee delivers millions of dollars a year to Pro-Abortion candidates, how is ANY so-called "Republican" fit to criticize the Republican Liberty Caucus for simply refusing to behave as hypocritically as take a the Republican National Committee?

The RLC does not take a position. By contrast, the Republican National Committee claims a "pro-life" position (one not entirely commensurate with State's Rights, at that), and then betrays it.

Which is worse?

95 posted on 07/25/2002 9:10:21 PM PDT by OrthodoxPresbyterian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
I admit there is a part of me that hates the thought of giving up a national moral standard on issues. If I can bring myself to do this and come fully to the state's rights position for EVERY common law area, I have to say I still would be bothered by the libertarians....not because of their position on state's rights, but on their refusal as a group to stand and declare that every life is sacred, drugs destroy lives, morality matters and a small group of reprobates can corrupt much larger groups of people. You see, the founding fathers did not shy away from declaring God is the ruler of nations and people in society need to have strong ethics and that includes strong laws to maintain this morality (at the state level, of course).
96 posted on 07/25/2002 9:10:33 PM PDT by rwfromkansas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas
That is where the libertarians fall short. That is why if I joined a party, it would be the Constitution Party. They actually recognize the serious importance of an ethical and moral people in a Republic...without it, a Republic WILL fall eventually.
97 posted on 07/25/2002 9:11:54 PM PDT by rwfromkansas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
That is evil just the same. I don't condone that either.
98 posted on 07/25/2002 9:13:14 PM PDT by rwfromkansas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas
That is where the libertarians fall short. That is why if I joined a party, it would be the Constitution Party. They actually recognize the serious importance of an ethical and moral people in a Republic...without it, a Republic WILL fall eventually.

I nearly voted Constitution in 2000.

I voted Libertarian, because I decided that it is silly to expect Morality to be preserved by Government. Government is the enemy of Morality at its best, because Government is Force and Forced Morality is not Morality, it is Hypocrisy.

Which is, itself, a Sin.

A Republic not founded upon an ethical and moral people, will indeed Die. But a Republic not founded upon an ethical and moral people deserves to Die. Trusting Government to forestall the dissolution only makes one party to an anti-Christian form of Messianic Statism.

Where God has failed us, Government will succeed?

God has not failed us, we have failed God. And Government will not succeed, nor bring us back to God, nor help one little bit. Government is an Idol, craves your obeisance, and will only make things worse.

The Government is your Enemy, and the Government desires your Worship. Think about it.

99 posted on 07/25/2002 9:20:25 PM PDT by OrthodoxPresbyterian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
Wow.....VERY insightful post.

You make an excellent point. I have always WANTED a Christian nation in law, but only could support that if the people covenanted to that end. It would be wrong to force people to love God.

However, you take this issue of force much further and make govt. out to be the enemy completely on this matter. You make a powerful argument.
100 posted on 07/25/2002 9:25:34 PM PDT by rwfromkansas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-262 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
RLC Liberty Caucus
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson