Thank you, Governer

[Perd Hapley]

And congratulations: the two of you just demonstrated WHY the Republicans will lose to the Democrats almost every time.

They may have their internal squables. But they ALWAYS manage to knuckle down and support "their guy"... whoever happens to be the choice as such.

Republicans? Get so divided by stuff that really shouldn't matter...

The consequences of having principles. Or call them ideals, if you will. The left would refer to it as "ideology."

[Hutch]

Look, you are not a slumbering majority of small-govt, fiscal-conservative, social "moderates." You are, at best, a sizable number of small-govt, fiscal conservatives, with loony-left ideas on social issues. There are too many of you, to be sure, but not enough to make it worth the GOP's while to trade us for you.   Quothe Fistie

So, minding your own business is a hallmark of the looney left?  'Cause, at it's heart, that defines libertarianism pretty well.  You presume to tell people what they can or can't do, when it infringes NONE of your inalienable rights, pretty soon you start thinking you'd probably do a better job of spending their money, too.  To hell with that.

[Perd Hapley]

So, minding your own business is a hallmark of the looney left?  'Cause, at it's heart, that defines libertarianism pretty well. 

No.

I'm talking about radical social policy, not libertarianism. There's nothing libertarian about using government to change the definition of marriage, or refusing to recognize the basic human rights of those persons still in the womb. The first is far-left social engineering. The second is something more sinister.

[gunsmith]

No.

I'm talking about radical social policy, not libertarianism. There's nothing libertarian about using government to change the definition of marriage, or refusing to recognize the basic human rights of those persons still in the womb. The first is far-left social engineering. The second is something more sinister.

Dang homie! now I can't vote for Libertarian, & the Constitution Party isn't really doing anything, ... I guess its vote for the best but I aint never pulling a lever for a rino.

[AZRedhawk44]

No.

I'm talking about radical social policy, not libertarianism. There's nothing libertarian about using government to change the definition of marriage, or refusing to recognize the basic human rights of those persons still in the womb. The first is far-left social engineering. The second is something more sinister.

Marriage is either a private contract, or a religious covenant.

Either way, government has NO place defining it.  At all.

As for abhorshins, I'm perfectly happy letting that one sit at the individual decision level.  That'll sort itself out in a generation or two, IMO.  Used to be abhorrent to society as a whole but available secretly.  Medical technology has outpaced morality.  Free market solutions such as the morning after pill and regular birth control will counterbalance the morality gap until it catches back up again.  Keeping government out of it is for the best.

Unless you'd rather pay people with guns to go around and kill people that seek abhorshins?  Ultimately, that is the final solution by the State since ultimately every law boils down to men with guns demanding compliance or your life.

[lupinus]

Marriage is either a private contract, or a religious covenant.

Either way, government has NO place defining it.  At all.

Agree wholeheartedly. Except that they just redefined it instead of removing themselves from it.

Unless you'd rather pay people with guns to go around and kill people that seek abhorshins?  Ultimately, that is the final solution by the State since ultimately every law boils down to men with guns demanding compliance or your life.

Way to make it sound like summary execution. Aside from the over dramatics sure, I'm fine with police arresting people who have abortions and them being charged.

[AZRedhawk44]

Agree wholeheartedly. Except that they just redefined it instead of removing themselves from it.
Way to make it sound like summary execution. Aside from the over dramatics sure, I'm fine with police arresting people who have abortions and them being charged.

Charged with?

And if they don't want to be arrested?  Then there's a gunfight, meaning the State says they are to be apprehended or executed.


What about providers of abortions?  Doctors who do it also to be arrested, shot or killed?



I find them abhorrent also but I find the use of the State in this matter more abhorrent.  This fight can be won in the realm of ideas and education and technology, much like the Civil War and the slavery issue.  Instead, some people want to flex the authoritah muscle and make a law or go to war or whatever over it.

[lupinus]

Charged with?

And if they don't want to be arrested?  Then there's a gunfight, meaning the State says they are to be apprehended or executed.


What about providers of abortions?  Doctors who do it also to be arrested, shot or killed?



I find them abhorrent also but I find the use of the State in this matter more abhorrent.  This fight can be won in the realm of ideas and education and technology, much like the Civil War and the slavery issue.  Instead, some people want to flex the authoritah muscle and make a law or go to war or whatever over it.

Ok. So by your rationale we should just go ahead and abolish all laws then? Since ultimately, by your reasoning, all laws come down to getting shot if you don't comply?

[AZRedhawk44]

Ok. So by your rationale we should just go ahead and abolish all laws then? Since ultimately, by your reasoning, all laws come down to getting shot if you don't comply?

Only laws that don't have massive, obvious community coherence.

Murder is an obvious one.  Rape another.

Abortion isn't there yet.

[Perd Hapley]

Marriage is either a private contract, or a religious covenant.

Either way, government has NO place defining it.  At all.

So we agree that there's nothing libertarian about using government to change the definition of marriage.

Only laws that don't have massive, obvious community coherence.

Murder is an obvious one.  Rape another.

Abortion isn't there yet.

Abortion was "there" for quite some time, and will likely be "there" again, once people like you are ready to see sense. Perhaps when the growth and gestation of the unborn was not so well understood, your position may have been reasonable. Not so much anymore.

I guess murder is not such an obvious wrong, seeing as how you won't condemn it across the board (as in, inside or outside of the womb). But, yeah, since abortion is the murder of a small child, no one should object to abortionists being arrested, tried and sentenced, like anyone else that murders children. And, yes, many of us are willing to pass laws against it. Murder being an obvious wrong, as you say.

[zxcvbob]

How did we get from "Christie is a DB" to abortion?  (*expletive deleted*bag is an expletive?)

[Perd Hapley]

How did we get from "Christie is a DB" to abortion?  (*expletive deleted* is an expletive?)

Because people keep trying to tell us that, in order to win, the GOP Pres. candidate must not be a RINO, but also must be a RINO.

[zxcvbob]

Because people keep trying to tell us that, in order to win, the GOP Pres. candidate must not be a RINO, but also must be a RINO.

OK, that makes sense.  Thanks.

[Levant]

And congratulations: the two of you just demonstrated WHY the Republicans will lose to the Democrats almost every time.

They may have their internal squables. But they ALWAYS manage to knuckle down and support "their guy"... whoever happens to be the choice as such.

Republicans? Get so divided by stuff that really shouldn't matter...

You're suggesting that the Republican Party can continue to act illegally, counter to the intent and vote of those they represent, and we should continue to vote for them for the sake of unity?

[Perd Hapley]

You're suggesting that the Republican Party can continue to act illegally, counter to the intent and vote of those they represent, and we should continue to vote for them for the sake of unity?

Who are you talking to, and what do you mean?

[Strings]

>refusing to recognize the basic human rights of those persons still in the womb<

Abortion is the one place that libertarian principals become a complete quagmire: either way, you can argue that someone's rights are being infringed. So libertarians (mostly) leave that one the hell alone.

That's all I will say on that issue: it's becoming something of a sore point with me, given that we have so many people fighting so hard for the "rights of the unborn" while completely ignoring the already born and living in hell.


My previous point was that Republicans always get caught up in things that really shouldn't matter. Take religion: it sometimes seems (to many people) that a Republican candidate, who espouses (and even has a track record to prove their belief in) someone's stance on the major issues can't get support if he doesn't go to the right church.

Seriously: I would LOVE to see an atheist, who has served in congress or as a governor, and has proven to be socially and financially conservative, run for president... just to test the theory. That being that many on the Religions Right would demonize them (pardon the pun) for not believing in the correct form of Deity...

[roo_ster]

http://takimag.com/article/the_week_that_perished_july_29_takimag/print#axzz2aPcWgIL9

Rhino-shaped and RINO-spirited New Jersey Governor Chris Christie bemoaned a “very dangerous…strain of libertarianism” as exemplified by Kentucky Senator Rand Paul. Christie weighed heavily—yes, pun intended—on the side of security in the eternal debate of freedom versus security in protecting Americans from “terrorism,” perhaps not pausing in between bites of his calzone to ponder that such massive government surveillance could have the effect of terrorizing citizens into silence. In a measured response, the much more svelte Senator Paul refrained from calling Christie a big fat fattie.

Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, a fiscal conservative/social liberal politician, an unfashionable septuagenarian pro-life woman, and a Sports Illustrated swimsuit model (who is also a Talmudic scholar) are at an intersection at the four points of the compass.  If there is a voter registration form in the middle of the intersection, who gets to it first to fill it out and possibly effect political change?

The unfashionable septuagenarian pro-life woman, because the rest are all figments of your imagination.

[roo_ster]

Seriously: I would LOVE to see an atheist, who has served in congress or as a governor, and has proven to be socially and financially conservative, run for president... just to test the theory. That being that many on the Religions Right would demonize them (pardon the pun) for not believing in the correct form of Deity...

Two explanations for that text:
1. You were in a coma for the 2012 election cycle.
OR
2. You know very, very little about social conservatives and Christianity in the USA.

I am betting on #2.

[Perd Hapley]

>refusing to recognize the basic human rights of those persons still in the womb<

Abortion is the one place that libertarian principals become a complete quagmire: either way, you can argue that someone's rights are being infringed. So libertarians (mostly) leave that one the hell alone.

   The same could be said about slavery. Or a dozen other cases in which people make up "rights" that don't exist.

That's all I will say on that issue: it's becoming something of a sore point with me, given that we have so many people fighting so hard for the "rights of the unborn" while completely ignoring the already born and living in hell.

  again.  If by ignoring them you mean trying to keep them from murdering unborn folks...

My previous point was that Republicans always get caught up in things that really shouldn't matter. Take religion: it sometimes seems (to many people) that a Republican candidate, who espouses (and even has a track record to prove their belief in) someone's stance on the major issues can't get support if he doesn't go to the right church.

The religious affiliation of the past few presidents (minus the current one) is that the Republicans have been members of liberal denominations, or infrequent church-goers; while the Democrats have been members of a certain conservative denomination.

Seriously: I would LOVE to see an atheist, who has served in congress or as a governor, and has proven to be socially and financially conservative, run for president... just to test the theory. That being that many on the Religions Right would demonize them (pardon the pun) for not believing in the correct form of Deity...

Most likely. I remember seeing a survey a few years ago in which the hypothetical atheist candidate finished well behind the homosexual candidate, and a number of other minority candidates.

[RoadKingLarry]

Two explanations for that text:
1. You were in a coma for the 2012 election cycle.
OR
2. You know very, very little about social conservatives and Christianity in the USA.

I am betting on #2.

Could you expound on that a little?
 Romney was demonized for being a Mormon. Some of it was subtle but the MSM played it. Obama could claim to be a devout follower of satan, the FSM and Cthulhu and he would receive no criticism from any place that matter because it would be racist to do so.

[Levant]

Who are you talking to, and what do you mean?

I left out the quoted message I was replying to.  I fixed it now.

[RevDisk]

  The same could be said about slavery. Or a dozen other cases in which people make up "rights" that don't exist.

I'm not touching the abortion issue with a ten foot pole axe.

Folks argue that rights come from being human, or from $deity, or FSM. They are all correct. Rights exist because of belief that they exist and the will to enforce them against those that wish to infringe upon them. Any right exists if enough folks believe it exists, and are willing to enforce that right's existence. There is no "right that doesn't exist". There is only rights lacking followers or will.

[gunsmith]

you can be a stone cold atheist and still believe in the right of human beings to stay alive.
survival is probably the most basic instinct their is.
scientific advances, instead of making the pro-life argument unsound has done the opposite.

Christie still isn't getting my vote.

[roo_ster]

Could you expound on that a little?
 Romney was demonized for being a Mormon. Some of it was subtle but the MSM played it. Obama could claim to be a devout follower of satan, the FSM and Cthulhu and he would receive no criticism from any place that matter because it would be racist to do so.

Yep, many/most Christian denominations look at Mormonism as a non-Christian cult and are not shy about saying so.  Many were not shy about saying so WRT Romney. 

Thing is, Romney got a larger percentage of the so-con/"evangelical" vote or polled better than did McCain, who is Baptist.

Romney holds the support of three-fourths, 76 percent, of white evangelical protestant voters, according to the poll. If that is reflective of the election, it would comfortably surpass the 65 percent of white evangelical votes that John McCain received in 2008 and President George W. Bush’s 63 percent and 67 percent in 2000 and 2004 respectively, according to Pew Research.

That tells me that so-cons will vote for someone they think is socially conservative.  Cult member or no.

If you do some digging, I would bet dollars to donuts that Romney's Mormonism lost him more secular voters than Christian voters.  Run an atheist with a solid so-con bona fides who can convincingly explain himself and I would expect him to do much better among the evangelical voters than secular voters.

I would also bet you would find a similar pattern WRT Santorum, who hails from the Roman Catholic wing of Roman Catholicism.  Despite the Pope(1) being the anti-Christ (according to many denominations).

Oddly, it is the "intolerant" fundy folk who are more willing to overlook religious oddity than the "tolerant" secular crowd.

[roo_ster]

One last thing:

As long as children are a product of marriage and as long as married folk have stuff worth passing on to heirs, gov't will be involved in marriage.  "Getting the gov't out of marriage" would be about as practical and useful as "Getting the wet out of water."

You don't think gov't was involved in marriage in, say, the Middle Ages?  Think on it for about five minutes.