COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • http://llphsecondrevolution.wordpress.com/ spoasteph97

    in that I oppose certain things like the Patriot Act, CISPA, SOPA/PIPA, foreign aid (for the most part), and support auditing the fed.

    I DO AND WILL SUPPORT MITT ROMNEY FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES! A vote for anyone but Mitt Romney is a vote for President Obama! I get frustrated with libertarians who refuse to support Romney…get over it…he’s the nominee and won fair and square.

    Conservative in the Primary, REPUBLICAN in the GENERAL!

    • constitutional

      that’s conservatism..

      • http://llphsecondrevolution.wordpress.com/ spoasteph97

        I thought that conservatives support the Patriot Act, CISPA, and foreign aid. At least that’s what I’ve heard. Heritage Foundation blasted those who oppose the Patriot Act.

    • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

      Reflexive opposition to the protection of IP online isn’t conservative, or “conservative-libertarian” (whatever that’s supposed to mean).

      Nor is attempting to *increase* the political pressure on the Fed. That’s not conservative or even sound.

      Also, this anti-PATRIOT ACT stuff is just tired International ANSWER stuff I long since got sick of.

      None of this stuff is conservative in the least.

      • http://llphsecondrevolution.wordpress.com/ spoasteph97

        I hope I won’t be banned for disagreeing respectfully. Several awesome conservatives agree with me on these issues.

        Rand Paul and Mike Lee (two of the most conservative senators) opposed reauthorization of the Patriot Act). Also fabulous representatives like Tom Graves and Raul Labrador opposed its reauthorization due to serious privacy concerns.

        I also want to point out that Jim Demint supports auditing the fed. As does Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Mike Lee, and other conservatives. The audit passed with nearly every GOP representatives’ support.

        • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

          I’m talking about ideas, not men.

      • constitutional

        I think it was my mistake. I misspoke. My intention was to say that it isn’t libertarian, because libertarian is a farce–like I said in my post. It’s not conservatism, but rather Republicanism (which are two different things, one being a shelter that holds moderate conservatism and actual conservatism.) I would say that those things above fit under /Republicanism/, not conservatism.

        Bottom line: whether I support those things or not is irrelevant, being as they all technically fall under Republicanism.

        Errgh, I hope I cleared things up.

    • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

      That you lump together USA PATRIOT, CISPA, SOPA and PROTECT IP just shows you’re probably ignorant about all four.

      • http://llphsecondrevolution.wordpress.com/ spoasteph97

        I get my information from senators like Jim Demint, Mike Lee, and Rand Paul. I watch a lot of videos done by them, and most of my information is what I learned from their websites. So unless they are misinforming the public, I doubt I am being ignorant.

        Jim Demint and Rand Paul’s statement on auditing the fed: http://paul.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=585

        Jim Demint was also willing to let Rand Paul get his amendments to the Patriot Act and even voted for a few of them: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8a_lth45nuk
        http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=1&vote=00082
        http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=1&vote=00083

        Senators Paul and Lee vote against Patriot Act: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=1&vote=00084

        • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

          .

  • Cornholio

    If your talking about a looney tunes Ron Paul supporter who would rather hand Obama the election than vote for Mitt Romney, all while shouting nutty conspiracy theories about the Bilderberg Group and the Zionist bankers – than yes, those people are insane and have no place in the GOP.

    But if you’re talking about the general principle that government should stay out of a citizen’s business unless its necessary to protect the individual liberty of other citizens (which is another way to define libertarianism), I don’t find that offensive at all and I think many people here would entirely agree with that premise.

    The problem with many Libertarians is (1) they are too theoretical and philosophical, with no sense of pragmatism (e.g. legalizing heroin); and (2) they instantly assign themselves to the looney-bin the minute they start talking about baseless 9-11 conspiracies, “false-flag” operations, Agenda 21, Chemtrails and (worst of all) Zionists running the world. Trying to reason with those folks is simply a lost cause, and we should keep them as far away from the GOP as possible.

    • http://llphsecondrevolution.wordpress.com/ spoasteph97

      You hit it right on! But there are some common sense Ron Paul supporters who are willing to support Mitt Romney. I know several of them.. They have the right to support who they want during the primary.,,so nobody should take offense at anybody who supports Ron Paul.

      THE PROBLEM: Those who refuse to support the nominee of the GOP.

      Category 1: The normal, common sense ones. Strong in convictions, but respectful to those who disagree with them.. They will support who they want during the primary, but support the GOP nominee in the end. (Think Rand Paul type).

      Category 2: The rude, Ron Paul is a perfect human being type. These are the crazies who I think have no place in the party. They are perfectionists who only like Ron Paul and themselves. Just to let you know, some have even sworn to never support Rand Paul.

      So I think conservatives have to recognize that there are crazies in all parties. There are good libertarians who Republicans should welcome and be willing to talk to. But there are also crazies who even hate Rand Paul….those should be shown the door.

  • californiasquish

    And Ron Paul doesn’t speak for me. He’s out to lunch. And an embarrassment.

    You’re picking out the oddball 1% of a group, and applying those ideas and tactics to the entire group. Paulbots are Libertarians in the way that the Westboro Baptist Church are Baptists. You’re debating with a straw man.

    You’re argument is also self-defeating. The path for a Romney win in the general requires building the largest possible constituency, and that is going to include millions of libertarians. It’s also going to include Blue Dog Democrats, Tea Party activists (which, when you think about it, is closest related to Libertarian ideals), ex-Obama supporters, Independents and anyone else that thinks the federal government needs to be reigned in.

    You want those votes, too. And calling them ‘dumb, ‘insane’ and ‘inane’ for having the politics, I argue, most similar to the founding fathers doesn’t help the cause.

    • Cornholio

      You

      • constitutional

        No, no. No.

        I’m not picking the 1% of the party. Libertarianism is a joke. With or without Ron Paul, it’s a pure and simple joke.

        [quote] “So, at what point do we just let the truth be what it is? At what point do we, the conservatives who are clearly for Romney, stop playing nice and respond to inane comments instead of just agreeing them?” [/quote]

        This is what I said. I did not call them inane, I called their comments inane. I do want their votes, as I said. But simply agreeing with their inane comments, just to get their votes, is not something we should be doing.

        And also as I said, Libertarianism is not close to Tea Party activists. Tea Party activists are for limited government and less spending–the closest related is conservatism. “Libertarians” walk around with liberal ideas like legalizing pot, ending wars, abortion and gay marriage; but that’s just plain liberalism.

        If being pro-abortion and for fiscal conservatism means you’re a libertarian, well than that even furthers my point of how ridiculous the ‘party’ is.

        Look, I mean no disrespect, but I’m not debating a straw man. I’m debating libertarians and libertarianism in general.

        (sorry, typed on my phone, so if there are any problems with this paragraph I do apologize. Wanted to get back to you.)

        • Cornholio
        • Finrod

          You’re mixing up libertarians (the political philosophy), libertarian-conservatism, and the Libertarian Party, and proceeding to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

          Many libertarians supported the liberation of Iraq, because they support LIBERTY, which is something the people of Iraq had very little of under Saddam Hussein. This is very different from the Libertarian Party, which is run by a bunch of folks that don’t know their head from their backside when it comes to politics and many other things.

          Abortion is in no way a primary libertarian issue, and you trying to equate abortion rights with libertarianism just shows me how completely clueless you are.

          Sure I’ll argue in favor of drug legalization, because under the US Constitution, the federal government has no authority to ban drugs. That’s why there was a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol, after all. Why were drug laws passed but no constitutional amendment? Because they were passed by the New Deal Congress which threw off all previous limitations on Congressional power and passed whatever they felt like at the time.

          Fiscal conservatism is libertarian, because libertarians think the government should only have the money it needs to perform the basic functions of government, and no more. This is not far from the Tea Party, really.

          Go ahead and call gay marriage liberal if you want, but be aware that there’s at least one frontpager here who supports it, so I’d be careful with my insults on that front if I were you.

          The fact that you don’t think your characterization of libertarians is a strawman tells me that you don’t know what straw is, let alone libertarianism.

          • PowerToThePeople

            with you or him and your views in libertarianism as both of you are more than able enough to debate your different views, but gay marriage and the attack on traditional values is a leftist goal albeit some on the right buy into it as well. Moe may support gay marriage to some extent but has never even threatened a ban on anyone who states what the gay marriage movement is. Not too mention the site itself stands for traditional marriage.

            Moe has always been respectful in his disagreement as to whether marriage should include gays and has only required the same from the other side. Calling the gay marriage movement a leftist/liberal attempt to attack tradition and conservatism is not crossing the line so not sure what you are trying to gain by warning him/her.

        • funwithknives

          but around here i see many whom I asociated with in the
          “90′s L P surges”.
          They are without exception, former Libertarians {Card Carriers}and I see them exclusively at TPP/Retake Our Gov’t meetings,in Milford and Lansing, Mich.

          When I ask them why, here and now , Normally the Response is along the lines of “…tired of looking at the same 30 people …”, or “…it’s the only game around, and I Want In…”

          Needless to say they’re getting on in years , and that might have something to do with it……

          • funwithknives

            Hanging my head in Temporary Shame…..

    • funwithknives

      to remind myself that absolutism in any form gets you squat.

      The Purity Seekers in the L P , really got on my nerves by 2004 {Joined in 1993} I caught myself being one of ‘them’ and took a long, hard look at myself, that it just was not me, and I had to teach myself The Lesson, so’s it would not be forgotten
      {I E, Self-Teaching, as in making it My Idea , means seldom forgetting. Especially when Pain is involved.}

      I’ve gotten semi-comfortable with a ‘Constitutionalist’ label. A majority of *Conservatism hits home, but like anything human-created , not all of it does.
      Can I add on that* tagline? To me , it is secondary.
      I ‘do no harm’.
      I use violence only in self-defense
      I assist when and where I can.
      I loathe Barry and every single person who admires him.

      Am I ‘in’, around here? It’d be a real drag to find out the answer is NO………….

      • Cornholio

        You pretty much hit the nail on the head about the purity-seekers in the Libertarian party. Total lack of pragmatism, i.e. the ability to actually win in politics. They’ve kind of painted themselves into the corner of being irrelevant, dogmatic and elitist libertarians.

        I would like to say the priniciple of non-initiation of violence is widely accepted in the GOP, but unfortunately there are pockets that can’t let go of statist control on some issues – especially among the weathervane RINO-types.

  • Viet71

    Always have found live and let live works well in personal dealings.

    Limits on individual freedom have to pass a “strict scrutiny” test as far as I’m concerned.

    Am a big believer in Amendments I-X, which say what the Feds can’t do.

    Can’t think of a federal law enacted in the past 40 years that hasn’t served special interests.

    Guess I’ll call myself a conservative and a libertarian.

  • expanding_man

    Allow me to summarize it:

    I don’t like libertarians
    “we” do need their votes
    Just because they’ve agreed to vote for Romney “we” shouldn’t have to be nice to them
    I’d like to kick them out of the Republican party

    This reads like the whining of a spoiled child. Get some self-awareness and good luck on voting for the first time.

  • mikeymike143

    after all that was the ”year of the tea party”. the answer is ZERO!!

    ok, lets spot every libertarian party candidate a FREE TWENTY POINT LEAD, and guess how many would have managed to win either a house seat, a senate seat, or a governors race. after all, there were over 500 open seats, and this was the year of change. the answer is… still ZERO.

    now lets look at how many conservatives and tea party members got elected to those same seats in 2010. certainly over 100(and i am not counting RINO’s, moderates, or dems in that count).

    i would say that is a DIRECT REJECTION of the libertarian party and what they stand for by the american people.

    • Cornholio

      You’d have to be living under a rock to think the Libertarian Party could win anything.

      But what I’m curious to know is, where does conservatism begin and libertarianism end?

      I don’t consider the foreign policy positions of Ron Paul to be libertarian, but if they were that is certainly one clear distinction. I guess its a line drawing exercise and I’m just not exactly sure where that line is drawn.

      • mikeymike143

        and the foreign policy postions of that loon paul ARE the same foreign policy positions of the libertarian party. and i am on the official libertarian party site reading their platform so i am saying that based on their stated position.

        other differences between conservatives/tea partiers and libertarians include:

        immigration: libertarians are pro open borders, unlimited immigration and conservatives/tea partiers are for securing our border and for restricting immigration

        gay marriage: libertarians agree with it and conservatives/tea partiers generally oppose it.

        drug use: libertarians favor the legalization of all drugs, including crack cocaine and heroin. conservatives/tea partiers generally oppose that.

        and plenty more looney stuff. i actually got my information from libertarian party offical platform that was adopted in may 2012, and prominently posted on their LP site as the platform that they have adopted, so its pretty safe to say that the info is accurate.

        Libertarian Party 2012 Platform

        Adopted in Convention, May 2012, Las Vegas, NV

        http://www.lp.org/platform