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: 93583
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 (1-42) not displayed.
.
.
.
#43. To: A K A Stone (#27)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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
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
UHHHHH,Heinlein was talking about himself ruling himself as an individual,not about a system of government. --- sneakypete Squirmy. ---- palmsquirm Poor Palmey, he imagines that anyone declaring himself a responsible individual is a squirmy anti-constitutional. That mental aberration is known as transference.
No, libertarian conservatives... Goldwater, Reagan, and Buckley
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
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."
From the horses mouth...
Oddly enough, he kept saying that he was a libertarian conservative, in interviews for years. 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?
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)
The LP. Read their platforms over the years.
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
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.
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
This was our original discussion on a different thread. Anyone that bothers to read it will see your petty lie.
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
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. [snip] Because Jefferson died deeply in debt, most of the other members of the Monticello African-American community were sold at auction and dispersed among different owners in Albemarle and surrounding counties. " www.monticello.org/site/j...son/jefferson-and-slavery "At the time of George Washington’s death, the Mount Vernon estate’s enslaved population consisted of 318 people. 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. Washington’s thoughts on slavery were contradictory and changed over time. This evolution culminated near the end of his life; Washington’s will mandated the freeing of his slaves upon his wife’s death, making him the only slaveholding Founder to put provisions for manumission in his will."
Comments (84 - 144) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestWhen 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
#64. To: A K A Stone (#54)
You are an anarchist that thinks murder is ok in some instances.
#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.
#66. To: Vinny (#58)
Unfortunately these accomplishments appear to be the zenith of Black achievement in America.
#67. To: hondo68 (#0)
#68. To: sneakypete (#63)
UHHHHH,Heinlein was talking about himself ruling himself as an individual,not about a system of government.
#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.
#70. To: redleghunter (#67)
"liberaltarians'?
The D&R terrorists hate us because we're free, to vote second party
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#71. To: hondo68 (#70)
(Edited)
No, libertarian conservatives...
#72. To: redleghunter (#71)
Reagan was a Conservative. It is revisionist history to call him of the libertarian brand.
#73. To: redleghunter (#71)
It is revisionist history to call him of the libertarian brand
The D&R terrorists hate us because we're free, to vote second party
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#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]
The D&R terrorists hate us because we're free, to vote second party
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#75. To: hondo68 (#74)
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."
#77. To: sneakypete (#76)
Who didn't and doesn't?
#78. To: hondo68, tpaine (#73)
#79. To: redleghunter (#78)
You have libertarians like tpaine who would like "Creator" erased from the Declaration of Independence.
#80. To: tpaine (#79)
#81. To: redleghunter (#80)
(Edited)
libertysflame.com/cgi-bin...comment.cgi?an=37160&cn=0
#82. To: tpaine (#81)
#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.
"When Jefferson inherited about twenty slaves from his father in 1764, Virginians had been working their plantations primarily with black slave labor since the beginning of the century. In 1774, Jefferson inherited 135 more slaves from his father-in-law, John Wayles, who had been directly involved in the importation of enslaved Africans into Virginia. This practice was not prohibited until 1778, by an act drafted by Jefferson himself.
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]