why is it so important for the Feds to be “out of it”? Because libertarians need a libertarian response to the gay marriage issue? Because a very vocal group is talking as though federalism is the key to solving all of our problems?

I agree that federalism is a helpful response to some of Washington’s most recent oversteps: Obamacare. The taking of “federal” lands in the name of environmentalism. Education. But with gay marriage, federalism is a red herring. Because the famliy tax credit is not a pressing problem. Everyone knows the biggest tax problems we have are the top brackets and capital gains taxes.

When libertarians respond to concerned conservatives by giving them the federalism line, they are merely saying conservatives need to allow a minority like the gay community to force “marriage” to the top of the “federalism” list, rather than telling these people to buzz off (which is what the current ELECTORATE continues to do even in liberal states).

Finally, federalism has little to do with whether or not GOProud has a place at the CPAC table. Whether it is on the federal or state level, GOProud is still diluting the conservative platform.

This is just what I see from my admittedly-limited vantage point.

in fact I would love to kick the feds out of a ton of things, but it will never be a reality. And we have to live in reality or we are doomed to fail.

Here is why I said what I said before people start kicking my teeth in:

States can not rule over their own affairs as long as the Supreme Court exists. Abortion is a prime example. All but a few states had laws making abortion on demand illegal but allowed for the minor three reasons. Two rulings, with the most famous being Roe vs Wade, and every single states law was thrown out. There are pages and pages of laws in just about every state where this has happened. A person in CA can end a law in SC.

So now you have the issue of marriage. A vast majority of the populace are against gay marriage. States have written laws after votes reflecting that. Yet lawsuits in courts right now may end that across the entire country. If these people win, every single state will have to allow it.

We have to have the feds involved. Congress will have to write a law that clears the Supreme Court that allows states to define marriage or it will never last. And we do have to define marriage. Most people do not care if gays marry via civil union. It is the attack on traditional marriage that most people are against. If it is not defined, gays win the court battle, church refuses to marry a gay couple, they end up sued for everything.

Like it or not, the ability of the Supreme Court to trash a states laws makes it necessary to involve the feds to keep that from happening. There is no other way until we either end the Supreme Courts excessive power or shut it down and rely solely on Appeals courts. Neither will happen so we are stuck with reality.

By the way, most gays could care less about marriage and that was proven in votes in several states, HA included. A ballot issue was up for vote that would give same sex couples the right to join together with the same benefits as married couples under a civil union. The gay community came out hard and voted against it. They only care, as a general rule, about taking away the word marriage so that religious groups are forced to accept them or be sued. It is nothing more than an agenda that started 30 years ago and nothing more. The reality is, they could have long had civil unions with the same benefits as marriage, yet they have fought that compromise. It is an agenda plain and simple….

I’m not a fan of the flat tax either, not because it’s unfair, but because it’s been misrepresented as somehow “more fair” for us to all pay the same rate. It’s a surface appearance of fair, but when 45% of the country pays 0%, I’ll take it over the current nightmare plan.

equal protection and all that…why should one group pay a higher percentage for government services than another…especially since the ones paying are getting less back than those at the bottom end who consume a larger percentage of the tax burden?

So yeah, there’s a reason the government encourage them. I don’t find that opposed to the constitution at all.

I’m not married to the child tax credit issue. Like you, I’m against it in principle. But I do not understand why otherwise sensible conservatives seem so fixated on this issue right now. This tax credit thing certainly isn’t the only reason government is “involved in marriage”.

My pessimistic attitude is, figure out a way to stop my kids from being legally obligated to support the single people who didn’t have children — single people whose own families benefitted from tax credits when they themselves were children. Fix that first. THEN take away our child tax credit, with my compliments.

As I see it, had the church not abdicated in the first place, y’all wouldn’t be in your current conundrum. Small government types tried to warn ya back then too.

I’m not ignoring your point that the state is forcing y’all to make a “lesser of two evils” choice. I don’t view it as all that hard. Where there is life, there is hope. I do respect that y’all have the right to make your own choice, and that you don’t much like it. Can’t say that I blame you for disliking it, either.

The problem with your last paragraph is that it ignores that, by my compass, y’all are the ones denying a child a chance at a loving family, albeit a non-traditional one.

Mew

I think you know I’ve got you cornered and you won’t admit it…heh

Can’t do it in a one-liner.

If a person is a member of a group who receive a benefit and a member of a sub-group who do not receive a benefit, then .. yes. It’s a punishment to not receive the benefit that would otherwise be received.

If the teacher gives fresh oranges to everyone but Jamal because Jamal is deathly allergic to oranges, Jamal is being punished for being different, eh? Not his *fault* his genes are different, just .. is.

What needs careful consideration is what behaviour the benefit is supposed to reward.

Are we, with the marriage tax break, rewarding just getting married? I don’t think a tax break prevents unwedded sex, and not many people to get hitched just for the tax benefit either, so .. as a reward, it’s pretty useless.

Perhaps, as notalibertarian said, it’s a proxy for making babies… but then, why not remove the marriage benefit and provide a larger per-child credit?

The point is, I am not going to say that withholding a benefit always equates punishment – sometimes it equates to government incompetence.

Mew

I suggest we create a Red State Liberty Caucus to defend against a small group of our fellow “friends” who I see taking us on one on one to destroy libertarian-conservatives at this site. I have been here a long time, so when I say something is up, believe me, something is up.

Sure it is a small group who does the dirty work, but they are empowered by a bunch of new screen names and the fact that the moderators have taken a hands of approach. For example, Ace recently called me a “coward and a liar”. Ace does not know me, how can she call me a coward? She doesn’t know I joined the US Army infantry at 17, but she calls me a coward. Then she calls me a “fool”. Christians are not supposed to call people a fool.

Look, I can take the hits, that is not my point. But I must tell you straight, I am this close to leaving the site for good. I don’t want to spend my time fighting and insulting people like Ace, life is too short, I have too many real issues to work out. Hell, I am caring for two dying parents. This is not about me, this is the net and anyone can say anything, if you know me, you will know I speak the truth but I only offer it to support my point. My point is that I am ready to leave the site I love for good. If things do not change, I will be leaving, at least for a long cooling off period.

Anyway, I believe the libertarian conservatives are the driving force of conservatism today. We are the offspring of Friedman, Goldwater, and Reagan. The socons that hate us are trhe offspring of Falwell, Robertson, and Dobson, and dare I say, Savonarola.

I think this site is at a crossroads. I think RS is on the precipice of failure. If those who hate freedom because it allows turpitude take over the site and drive libertarians from here, the site will lose relevance for sure.

I am not asking for friends to help me fight my battles. I have done well here for a long time and I can fight my own battles. But I have a tendency to defend others when they are attacked wrongly, I know I have done that for Ace and many others. Yet I see libertarians ignoring each other and fighting alone. Even though they are ganged up upon by less than clear minded “social” conservatives.

What it comes down to is this. If this site is going to purge libertarian conservatives I still know that I can remain. Hell I have had a 5 year account at Kos even though I only do them harm. I can play the game and I can screw with people even when they don’t get it. But I am tired of these stupid, pointless fights. I am seeing people know for who they are. We have a bunch of people who are just angry in their own lives and want to take it out on others here. That is something I just don’t care to be a part of anymore.

So I suggest a RS Liberty Caucus for people who want to stand by their conservative beliefs and also want to stand up for their fellow true conservatives. I think we better recognize that a small group is trying to purge our beliefs from the site. I also think we better recognize we have not friends at the top. This is sad because the best posters here are libertarian conservatives. This is sad because libertarian conservatives are what the people want today and why we won the Congress.

Look at the people we have on our side, we have Mark Steyn, Mark Levin, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Neil Boortz, Thomas Sowell, And many, many others. They have Huckabee.

My point is not to attack so called social conservatives, my point is to wake them the hell up. We are allies, we agree on 90 percent of the issues unless you are not a real conservative. But keep screwing with us and you will get the “pure” statist minority party you seem to clamor for. The funny thing is I have been Republican longer than 90 percent of the people here. They will knot make us leave the party, they can only make us leave the site, and that will make this site anemic and sterile.

notalibertarian did not appeal to a third party to support his assertion. He made a couple of supporting assertions which are open to their own challenges.

And I’m not talking about formal debates. I’m talking about common sense. If you want someone to accept your statement by appealing to the authority of a study, I don’t think it’s too much to ask for the source of the study. Do you? Apparently acat is either unwilling or unable to provide the source.

But by all means, acat can continue spouting opinions and then back them up with the words ‘studies show’. That’ll show ‘em. Have fun.