Primative Weapons
See other Primative Weapons Articles
Title: Libertarians Are Taking Over The Republican Party
Source:
The Daily Caller
URL Source: http://dailycaller.com/2015/01/15/l ... ing-over-the-republican-party/
Published: Jan 16, 2015
Author: W. James Antle III
Post Date: 2015-01-17 00:08:54 by Hondo68
Keywords: Libertarian Republicans, come to an accommodation, national aspirational message
Views: 93715
Comments: 144
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:
Mittards will be assimilated
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-22) not displayed.
.
.
.
#23. To: sneakypete (#19)
(Edited)
Off Topic
Moderator X
Take off the blinders,Stone. Are you claiming to be an oracle or some kind ofseer? Because no one knows what would happen in history if you change some factors. Pure lunacy to think you know something about something that never was.
The state has decided that murder and stealing are immoral and made laws against it. i guess you should be free from those restraints if it conflicts with your libertarian loserosophy.
You think?
You can always count on dictators to give you all the freedom they think you need. When Reagan was President we didn't have queers pretending to be married. When the founders were here they would never have tolerated fags pretending to be married. Are we more free now or them?
No you support pretend rights that forces bakers to bake cakes for people they don't want to. That is the consequence of what you ignorantly believe.
That statement cannot be true. We had slaves and other people were free at the same time. Freedom doesn't mean you get to change the meaning of words to fit your titillation of the day.
This is true. However, some effort will probably be made by Rand Paul and/or his supporters to change this law. You think?
Yep.
Fred N. was only watering the seed that sprouted on someone Else's watch. http://www.google.com/#q=Luther+the+jews+and+their+lies "Are you not aware the angels dance when a Jew farts" What does this mean?
We are either all rich,or none of us are rich. We are either all sober,or none of us are sober. We are either all sleeping,or none of us are sleeping.
What does this mean? How many guesses do I get?
Probably take a lot fewer if we just read Mein Kampf and connect the ideological dots. "3. Luther and the Jews It is imperative for the Lutheran Church, which knows itself to be indebted to the work and tradition of Martin Luther, to take seriously also his anti-Jewish utterances, to acknowledge their theological function, and to reflect on their consequences. It has to distance itself from every [expression of] anti-Judaism in Lutheran theology. In this, attention must be given not only to his polemics against the Jews but also to all places where Luther simplistically set the faith of the Jews as "works-righteousness" over against the gospel."
Thomas Jefferson inherited slaves but wasn't free to free them because somebody else owned them... or at least the mortgage on them.
Plus it was against the law to manumit slaves in the state of Virginia, for the slaves' protection.
So do 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)
We are either all sober,or none of us are sober.
It's still being used all these decades later. Doesn't sound like a failure to me. Similarly, the transcontinental railroad project failed several times before it was finally complete. Mostly or totally due to political corruption and selling favors for kickbacks. The people involved had no interest in finishing on budget or on time because that would cut their cash flow off. The process was as much accident as design and a lot of mistakes were made. See the above. Those with a more libertarian bent would have more doubts about these projects and would look for more ways to accomplish these same goals through the private sector. Is that a fancy way of saying there would have been even more corruption and pay-offs,and it would have NEVER gotten built? Fact it,you want to live in theoretical perfect Libertarian anarchist world where nobody is in charge and everything works. This world doesn't exist and will never exist,because like communism it goes against human nature.
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)
No. I am claiming to be a rational human being that looks at things with a open mind and picks the best course of action based on the available options,not my personal biases. I don't expect the world to work the way I wish it would work merely because I wish it would work that way. I don't follow dogma. You should try it sometime.
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)
No,it didn't. The PEOPLE decided this and demanded the state make those things illegal. The state went along because you can't have a civilized and peaceful society if things like murder and theft were to go unpunished. The result of ignoring those actions would be anarchy.
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)
You can't possibly be that ignorant. Queers were pretending to be married thousands of years ago. This may come as a major shock to you,but marriage predates Christianity. When the founders were here they would never have tolerated fags pretending to be married. And you know this,how? What writings have you discovered where they discussed this? Are we more free now or them? We haven't been free since The Civil Wrongs Act of 1964 was signed into law.
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)
No you support pretend rights that forces bakers to bake cakes for people they don't want to. Are you just ignorant,or knowingly lying? I have posted the exact opposite of what you just claimed dozens of times,the most recent being right here of LF yesterday. Given the way you are attracted to any thread with the word "homosexual" in it like iron filings to a magnet,I know you read 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)
That statement cannot be true. We had slaves and other people were free at the same time. And WHY do you think that changed? Think MAYBE it was because enough people finally realized that any government that had the power to enslave blacks also had the power to enslave whites?
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)
We are either all rich,or none of us are rich. We are either all sober,or none of us are sober. We are either all sleeping,or none of us are sleeping. 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 know all this is too complex for you,so maybe you would just be better off ignoring posts like that from this point on?
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)
There were free blacks that were either freed slaves or the descendants of freed slaves fighting for the Confederacy during The Northern War of Aggression. There is even a black Confederate cemetery somewhere in southern Virginia. IIRC,a black slave from Virginia was awarded the highest valor away by General Washington for his courage during the Revolutionary War,and also given his freedom and enough land to farm. It IS true that freed blacks all over had to pretty much stay in local communities of freed blacks,and if they traveled to where they weren't known they needed to take their papers with them that proved citizenship,and it was best to travel with a white man so they wouldn't be stopped and asked who they were and what they were doing. Sadly,there were many reports of freed slaves being caught away from home and sold into slavery again.
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)
Family slogan?
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)
That's ridiculous. The economic demand would have created it more efficiently but at a slower pace via the private market.
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.
LReally? Who would have been in charge? I can answer that. It would have been the Railroad barons and they would have created a monopoly so they controlled all the traffic and collected all the money. The result would have been no small businessman would have been able to afford the shipping fees and the barons would have bought them out after they went bankrupt and created other monopolies. The result of that would have been higher prices for everything that traveled on the canal.
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)
So you imagine, never taking account of how canal shippers used government largesse to dominate their own market, may have actually bought out competitors with their profits, as compared to you merely making up this scenario of the evil railroad barons who might have engaged in monopolistic practices if the Canal had not been built. Why are railroad barons so bad but canal barons are so good? You're doing a reverse-Willie here. The railroad barons benefited from heavy Big Gov subsidy exactly as the canal barons did.
We had slaves and other people were free at the same time. And WHY do you think that changed? Think MAYBE it was because enough people finally realized that any government that had the power to enslave blacks also had the power to enslave whites? No that was not the reason in my view. But that isn't what we were talking about. So you acknowledge that this statement is false. "We are either all free,or none of us are free." Your own words just admitted it was a false statement. I can appreciate your sentiments that we should all be free.
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.
Are you just ignorant,or knowingly lying? I have posted the exact opposite of what you just claimed dozens of times,the most recent being right here of LF yesterday. Given the way you are attracted to any thread with the word "homosexual" in it like iron filings to a magnet,I know you read it. 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.
I know all this is too complex for you,so maybe you would just be better off ignoring posts like that from this point on? “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
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."
IIRC,a black slave from Virginia was awarded the highest valor away by General Washington for his courage during the Revolutionary War,and also given his freedom and enough land to farm. Unfortunately these accomplishments appear to be the zenith of Black achievement in America. Unless you buy into Black History Myth, er...Month.
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
Comments (64 - 144) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#24. To: sneakypete (#18)
Just because you open your mouth and spout nonsense doesn't make it true.
#25. To: sneakypete (#20)
Totalitarians like Hitler and Stalin would have happily agreed with you that the state has the right to decide which "freedoms" are moral or immoral.
#26. To: Gatlin (#5)
Kentucky's current law says "no candidate's name shall appear on any voting machine or absentee ballot more than once," except for certain special elections. He'll just run to federal court and demand the law be overturned.
#27. To: sneakypete (#20)
Totalitarians like Hitler and Stalin would have happily agreed with you that the state has the right to decide which "freedoms" are moral or immoral.
#28. To: sneakypete (#19)
I champion individual freedoms and liberty.
#29. To: sneakypete (#19)
We are either all free,or none of us are free.
#30. To: Excalibur, Palmdale (#26)
Kentucky's current law says "no candidate's name shall appear on any voting machine or absentee ballot more than once," except for certain special elections.
He'll just run to federal court and demand the law be overturned.
You will need to ask Palmdale, the quote is his opinion.
#31. To: Excalibur (#26)
#32. To: Palmdale (#21)
(Edited)
Hitler felt he was beyond good and evil.
#33. To: sneakypete (#19)
We are either all free,or none of us are free.
#34. To: VxH (#32)
"Are you not aware the angels dance when a Jew farts"
#35. To: Palmdale (#34)
How many guesses do I get?
http://www.jcrelations.net/Chris...f+Bavaria.2377.0.html?L=3
#36. To: A K A Stone (#29)
We had slaves and other people were free at the same time.
#37. To: VxH (#36)
Thomas Jefferson inherited slaves but wasn't free to free them because somebody else owned them... or at least the mortgage on them.
#38. To: Palmdale (#21)
Bzzzzzzt. Hitler felt he was beyond good and evil.
#39. To: sneakypete (#38)
So do you.
#40. To: TooConservative (#22)
The Canal was recognized as a failure less than a decade after it was built. An early Big Gov failure.
#41. To: Excalibur (#24)
Are you claiming to be an oracle or some kind ofseer?
#42. To: Excalibur (#25)
The state has decided that murder and stealing are immoral and made laws against it.
#43. To: A K A Stone (#27)
When Reagan was President we didn't have queers pretending to be married.
#44. To: A K A Stone (#28)
I champion individual freedoms and liberty.
#45. To: A K A Stone (#29)
We are either all free,or none of us are free.
#46. To: Palmdale (#33)
We are either all free,or none of us are free.
#47. To: Palmdale (#37)
Plus it was against the law to manumit slaves in the state of Virginia, for the slaves' protection.
#48. To: Palmdale (#39)
We are either all sober,or none of us are sober.
#49. To: sneakypete (#40)
Is that a fancy way of saying there would have been even more corruption and pay-offs,and it would have NEVER gotten built?
#50. To: VxH (#36)
Thomas Jefferson inherited slaves but wasn't free to free them because somebody else owned them... or at least the mortgage on them.
#51. To: TooConservative (#49)
That's ridiculous. The economic demand would have created it more efficiently but at a slower pace via the private market.
#52. To: sneakypete, Willie Green (#51)
(Edited)
The result would have been no small businessman would have been able to afford the shipping fees and the barons would have bought them out after they went bankrupt and created other monopolies.
#53. To: sneakypete (#45)
We are either all free,or none of us are free. That statement cannot be true.
#54. To: sneakypete (#42)
you can't have a civilized and peaceful society if things like murder and theft were to go unpunished.
#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.
#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.
#57. To: TooConservative, sneakypete (#52)
You're doing a reverse-Willie here.
#58. To: sneakypete (#47)
There is even a black Confederate cemetery somewhere in southern Virginia.
#59. To: sneakypete (#47)
Sadly,there were many reports of freed slaves being caught away from home and sold into slavery again.
#60. To: TooConservative (#52)
Why are railroad barons so bad but canal barons are so good?
#61. To: A K A Stone (#53)
But that isn't what we were talking about.
#62. To: A K A Stone (#54)
Then you are the problem. You are for abortion.
#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
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]