[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
Primative Weapons Title: Libertarians Are Taking Over The Republican Party Former Michigan Republican Rep. Thaddeus McCotter says his party’s future belongs to the libertarians. It’s a message McCotter has been spreading in interviews and to anyone who’ll listen. He’s even laid out his case in a smart book, “Liberty Risen: The Ultimate Triumph of Libertarian-Republicans, where he claims libertarians even have something to say to the Budweiser-drinking, boxer-wearing, pro-life, Boston sheet metal worker. Most Republicans who hype the libertarian moment are libertarians themselves. Not McCotter. He is a Russell Kirk-quoting social conservative. “I’m not a libertarian,” he jokes. “I just play one on TV.” But while fellow social conservatives like Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum slam libertarianism, McCotter believes the GOP will find a way to integrate libertarian activists who care about government surveillance the way it once assimilated evangelical Christians who cared about abortion. “When I was still in Congress I noticed younger Republicans saying, ‘I am a conservative, but I’m libertarian on some issues,’” McCotter told The Daily Caller. “They hadn’t grown up with Reagan and seen how [conservatism] had worked. All they had seen was the decline of the Republican Party.” “Now if you read your Russell Kirk, you can’t be both a libertarian and a conservative at the same time,” he added. “But America being what it is, you can be whatever you want.” In the past, Republicans might have used “libertarian” as a codeword for moderate. Arlen Specter, for example, liked to describe himself as an “economic-fiscal conservative and a social libertarian.” But libertarian is no longer a Republican euphemism. “Moderate Republicans would like Common Core,” McCotter told TheDC. “Libertarian Republicans wouldn’t like it.” According to McCotter, the shift isn’t just political and generational. It’s mainly cultural. “The 21st century doesn’t operate top down,” he said. “You wouldn’t let someone else program your iPod. Why let a top-down bureaucracy choose your health care?” The consumer-driven, highly personalized economy will eventually have an impact on a bureaucracy mostly designed in the distant past. He quotes Andrew Breitbart as saying, “Politics is downstream from culture.” The Libertarian Party won’t go away, he said, but libertarians who actually want to govern will do so as Republicans, like presidential candidate and former 12-term Texas Rep. Ron Paul, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul and Michigan Rep. Justin Amash. Libertarian Republicans can come to an accommodation with social conservatives, McCotter said — note that all of the above libertarian GOPers are pro-life. Even when they disagree on the substance of a social issue, he argued they can agree federal judges shouldn’t be the final arbiters of morality. He also believes “the failure of the neoconservative movement and even some of the realist movement” and a “war-weary” country gives libertarians an opening on foreign policy by appealing to voters who want to “crush the terrorist threat there without creating a government threat here.” That doesn’t necessarily mean Rand Paul will be the next Republican presidential nominee, however. “2016 may be too soon,” McCotter told TheDC. “In many ways, Senator Paul has an advantage in that his father was the pioneer, in other ways it’s a disadvantage.” “Libertarian Republicans need a national aspirational message,” McCotter said. “That’s hard to do, because libertarians are so individualistic.” Purist libertarians will resist, but liberals and conservatives aren’t immune to infighting over ideological points themselves. If Rand Paul did win the nomination, McCotter doubts many Republicans who disagree with him would sit out the race. He noted the tight 2008 Democratic contest in which Barack Obama upset Hillary Clinton, concluding, “They kept their eyes on the prize, which is the presidency.” Poster Comment:
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Comments (1-53) not displayed.
you can't have a civilized and peaceful society if things like murder and theft were to go unpunished. Then you are the problem. You are for abortion. You call murdering your kid self defense. Thanks for playing. You have painted yourself into a corner. You aren't for liberty. You are an anarchist that thinks murder is ok in some instances.
#55. To: sneakypete (#44) I champion individual freedoms and liberty. No you support pretend rights that forces bakers to bake cakes for people they don't want to. Let me phrase that better for you. You support pretend rights, and in doing that the results will undoubtedly be making people bake cakes for queers. You may not support the idea that people should be forced to bake a cake for some freak. But in your support of special privelages for some people in the country based on what kind of sex they have. You and your ilk are the genesis of bakers being forced to bake. While you may say and actually support the bakers in these matters. Your support of queers having special rights is what makes this possible. And you know it is inevitable when/if your pro homosexual agenda comes to fruition. And on your last snarkypete comment. I am attracted to threads with the words "sneakypete" in them. Anyway have a good day Pete. Nothing personal here.
#56. To: sneakypete (#46) Ok,you have either a 2nd or 3rd rate mind,and can't comprehend the difference between a personal state of being and the authority of the state to control our lives. “I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.” ― Robert A. Heinlein
#57. To: TooConservative, sneakypete (#52) You're doing a reverse-Willie here. I'm afraid you pinged me too late to the discussion because I can't follow along with all the different points that you two have been batting back & forth. So regarding the topic of this thread about "Libertarians taking over the Republican Party": let me first say that "hijack" is a better word than "taking over". And unlike McCotter, I have no intention of sharing a Big Tent and sleeping bag with those morally and ethically bankrupt vermin. Now I'm not gonna get into a length discussion of the difference between a big "L" and small "l" libertarian, nor the difference between a left-leaning or a right-leaning libertarian. I AM however, refering to those who can be accurately described as neo-confederate Birchers. I'm afraid I simply find their extremist worldview to be morally objectionable and reprehensible. "Some people march to a different drummer — and some people polka." #58. To: sneakypete (#47) There is even a black Confederate cemetery somewhere in southern Virginia. Unfortunately these accomplishments appear to be the zenith of Black achievement in America. Unless you buy into Black History Myth, er...Month.
#59. To: sneakypete (#47) Sadly,there were many reports of freed slaves being caught away from home and sold into slavery again. That was a risk associated with manumission, but not the one driving the creation of Virginia's anti-manumission laws. The problem lay in the slave owners who would "free" slaves who were old, ill, or disabled. Those homeless souls, no longer capable of working and taking care of themselves, would wind up in the public alms houses. Such former slaves would become ptax burdens, sorta like an early version of Social Security tparasites.
#60. To: TooConservative (#52) Why are railroad barons so bad but canal barons are so good? I can't believe you can take a honest look at history and then write such nonsense. First off,it was a LACK of government control that allowed the robber barons to steal so much land from citizens and steal so much money from the government itself. Secondly,the corruption involved in the Erie Canal was a mud puddle compared to the ocean of corruption it would have been without the government getting involved. The disputes between the counties and states alone would have led to armed insurrection,and it would have never been completed in your dream anarchist world. NO theory of government is worth a damn that doesn't take human nature into consideration. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012) #61. To: A K A Stone (#53) But that isn't what we were talking about. It sure as hell is an example of what *I* was talking about. So you acknowledge that this statement is false. "We are either all free,or none of us are free." Of course not. If I did I would be lying. If you can't understand that the statement applies to free society and government,I have no idea of how to explain it to you. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012) #62. To: A K A Stone (#54) Then you are the problem. You are for abortion. No,YOU are the problem because you are so dogmatic you refuse to debate without changing the terms of the debate to suit your biases. I'm done with you on this. Even if you can understand the concepts I am writing about you refuse to accept them,so why bother? My time would be better spent trying to teach mules how to tap dance than debate an issue with someone who only wants to preach a sermon. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012) #63. To: Palmdale (#56) “I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.” ― Robert A. Heinlein UHHHHH,Heinlein was talking about himself ruling himself as an individual,not about a system of government. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012) #64. To: A K A Stone (#54) You are an anarchist that thinks murder is ok in some instances. And you are a robot that lacks the ability to tell the difference between self-defense and murder. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012) #65. To: A K A Stone (#55) I champion individual freedoms and liberty. No you support pretend rights that forces bakers to bake cakes for people they don't want to. You can't because you don't understand it. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012) #66. To: Vinny (#58) Unfortunately these accomplishments appear to be the zenith of Black achievement in America. I disagree. They made great strides in America once they gained their freedom back,and there were thriving legitimate black businessmen and citizens running very nice and safe neighborhoods where most parents were married,and the children growing up had respectable role models to look up to as models for their own futures. Then 1964 and the Civil Wrongs Act of 1964 became law,and at the urging of their black leaders,mostly preachers who were promised a taste of all the "free money" that would flowing through their hands,sold themselves back into slavery on the Dim Plantation. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012) #67. To: hondo68 (#0) Did the article really mean "liberaltarians'? "Let the inspired Scripture, then, be our umpire, and the vote of truth will surely be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words." Gregory of Nyssa #68. To: sneakypete (#63) UHHHHH,Heinlein was talking about himself ruling himself as an individual,not about a system of government. Squirmy. “I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.” ― Robert A. Heinlein
#69. To: Palmdale, sneakypete, Y'ALL (#68) “I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.” ― Robert A. Heinlein. Poor Palmey, he imagines that anyone declaring himself a responsible individual is a squirmy anti-constitutional. That mental aberration is known as transference.
#70. To: redleghunter (#67) "liberaltarians'? No, libertarian conservatives... Goldwater, Reagan, and Buckley The D&R terrorists hate us because we're free, to vote second party![]() #71. To: hondo68 (#70) (Edited) No, libertarian conservatives... Reagan was a Conservative. It is revisionist history to call him of the libertarian brand. "Let the inspired Scripture, then, be our umpire, and the vote of truth will surely be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words." Gregory of Nyssa #72. To: redleghunter (#71) Reagan was a Conservative. It is revisionist history to call him of the libertarian brand. Wait for it. They'll post the following Reagan quote, typically leaving off the second paragraph. "If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so- called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is." "Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are travelling the same path."
#73. To: redleghunter (#71) It is revisionist history to call him of the libertarian brand From the horses mouth...
The D&R terrorists hate us because we're free, to vote second party![]() #74. To: Palmdale (#72) (Edited) Wait for it. They'll post the following Reagan quote, typically leaving off the second paragraph. [1975 Reason Magazine interview] Oddly enough, he kept saying that he was a libertarian conservative, in interviews for years. Got a conspiracy theory to cover that? The D&R terrorists hate us because we're free, to vote second party![]() #75. To: hondo68 (#74) Got a conspiracy theory to cover that? He rejected self-proclaimed libertarians who were "almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy." Got a conspiracy theory to cover that?
#76. To: Palmdale, hondo68 (#75) He rejected self-proclaimed libertarians who were "almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy." Who didn't and doesn't? You are purposely being disingenuous when you try to claim all or most people who call themselves Libertarians are anarchists,but that's what you need to do to maintain your own political stances and protect them.
ANY sane person over 12 years old knows there has to be some sort of organized government and rules to be enforced to protect the public. What is important is which side of the divide you fall on in most cases,the side of "You're not the boss of me!" like some sort of petulant 8 year old,or the side that thinks the government exists to promote their viewpoints and punish anyone that doesn't agree with them. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012) #77. To: sneakypete (#76) Who didn't and doesn't? The LP. Read their platforms over the years.
#78. To: hondo68, tpaine (#73) Good video. I am not convinced Reagan was of the same mind of a post modern libertarian. He believed in a strong national defense, overseas national interests, did not conceive the thought of pot legalization and most importantly advocated the overturn of Roe vs Wade. You have libertarians like tpaine who would like "Creator" erased from the Declaration of Independence. Reagan would never entertain such. He would call todays libertarians Democrats, Republicans Rockefellers, and the Democrats Marxist. 30 years ago the labels meant different things. "Let the inspired Scripture, then, be our umpire, and the vote of truth will surely be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words." Gregory of Nyssa #79. To: redleghunter (#78) You have libertarians like tpaine who would like "Creator" erased from the Declaration of Independence. That's a flat out lie, and you know it. We were discussing that phrase in the declaration, and I remarked that the it still made perfect sense without mention of a specific god, a Creator, --- while acknowledging that indeed, there must be a creator. What in hell is your purpose, what do you gain, by putting out such a petty lie about me and libertarians? Get a grip on your silly overly religious zeal.
#80. To: tpaine (#79) But the entire statement on rights is null and void if you take out "Creator." You would then have to take out "endowed" or add some other 'force' endowing. And the 'human spirit' or good will of the people can't be it as George III was part of that subset. "Let the inspired Scripture, then, be our umpire, and the vote of truth will surely be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words." Gregory of Nyssa #81. To: redleghunter (#80) (Edited) libertysflame.com/cgi-bin...comment.cgi?an=37160&cn=0
This was our original discussion on a different thread. Anyone that bothers to read it will see your petty lie.
#82. To: tpaine (#81) Endowed by what exactly? Something or Someone is endowing. "Let the inspired Scripture, then, be our umpire, and the vote of truth will surely be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words." Gregory of Nyssa #83. To: TooConservative (#50) Wasn't that Washington whose wife inherited slaves and a small plantation? Washington found it difficult to manage and didn't like slavery at all, thought it bad for the country. As I recall, they were freed upon his death.
Evidently Jefferson and Washington had similar feelings on the issue, but unlike the wealthy Washington, Jefferson's debt prevented him from being able to free what he did not own.
#84. To: VxH (#83) Washington himself had been a slave owner for fifty-six years, beginning at eleven years of age when he inherited ten slaves from his deceased father. Nice research. I was unaware that Washington inherited slaves from such an early age. That must have been shortly after he chopped down that cherry tree that we've lectured The Children about ever since. : )
#85. To: sneakypete (#64) And you are a robot that lacks the ability to tell the difference between self-defense and murder. You aupport the snuffing out of innocent children. Regardless of how old the child is. Killing your kid isn't self defense. Self defense is when some old grouch atheist comes up to you to steal your roku, because his is broken. Then you put him down like an old dog.
#86. To: A K A Stone (#85) Killing your kid isn't self defense. Self defense is when some old grouch atheist comes up to you to steal your roku, because his is broken. Then you put him down like an old dog. I seem to recall someone chiding me the other day about this sort of thing... At least Fred talked me off the ledge.
#87. To: A K A Stone (#85) Killing your kid isn't self defense. 1: It's not a kid until it has been born. Until then it is only a potential kid. 2:Since it is only a growth inside her body and endangering her life,removing it IS self-defense,just like removing a cancerous tumor. Self defense is when some old grouch atheist comes up to you to steal your roku, because his is broken. Then you put him down like an old dog. You can't even get that right. Killing somebody for stealing isn't self-defense. It is defense of property,not life. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012) #88. To: sneakypete (#87) 1: It's not a kid until it has been born. Until then it is only a potential kid. Proving that you are a moron. It isn't a kid, but 1 minute later it is a kid. Science never was your strong point. You support murdering innocent kids. That have nothing to defend themselves with. That is one of the reasons you will burn. Because you deserve it. You can always repent if you so choose. It would be the wise thing to do. I hope you get right in the head Pete. I really do.
#89. To: sneakypete (#87) 2:Since it is only a growth inside her body and endangering her life,removing it IS self-defense,just like removing a cancerous tumor. Yes a baby is just a tumor. Like you continually demonstrate. You are not only the enemy of law and morality but of science.
#90. To: sneakypete (#87) You can't even get that right. Killing somebody for stealing isn't self-defense. It is defense of property,not life. Tell that to the dead man who was put down like an old grouch even though he was a young black man. He just wanted the dudes shoes. He received a bullet instead.
#91. To: A K A Stone (#88) Proving that you are a moron. It isn't a kid, but 1 minute later it is a kid. Science never was your strong point. Oh,the irony! You support murdering innocent kids. That have nothing to defend themselves with. That is one of the reasons you will burn. Because you deserve it. Getting wood over thinking about it,ain't ya? Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012) #92. To: A K A Stone (#89) Yes a baby is just a tumor. It's not a baby. It's a fetus. Speaking of science,what branch of science is it that states "Life begins at erection."? Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012) #93. To: A K A Stone (#90) Tell that to the dead man who was put down like an old grouch even though he was a young black man. He just wanted the dudes shoes. He received a bullet instead. You probably think that makes sense,don't you? 1: That's not just stealing because you have to physically assault or threaten someone's life to steal their shoes. 2: What fantasy world is it that you live in that has young black thugs lusting after old man's shoes? Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012) #94. To: sneakypete (#91) Getting wood over thinking about it,ain't ya? No Pete. I actually like you and acknowledge that you have some good characteristics. It is just a couple or 3 subjects that you remain willingly ignorant. Issues that I consider important.
. . . Comments (95 - 144) not displayed. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|