Kenny: The similarity between libertarians and lefties is the inability to make firm moral judgments, and reflects a weakness of character, IMO. The success of our country is derived from our JudeoChristian personal morality, and both libertarians and lefties are unable to support and sustain that standard, for different reasons, but the outcome is the same.

Yet, as I pointed our on different threads AND above, having different moral beliefs than you is not the same as having moral beliefs.

THE most prominent libertarian, Ron Paul is anti-abortion. Abortion is the single most (IMO) moral issue of our time. And a good deal of libertarians (though nowhere near enough) are against it.

You claim that we’re mushy when it comes to moral issues, like drugs, but illegal drug use has caused a prohibition like effect. Weed may be unpleasant, but MS 13 and the bloods and Crips are FAR worse. I’d rather have a nation of drugged up imbeciles than a nation where tens of thousands of maniacs are running around with machetes hacking off limbs of innocent people.

To me, this IS a moral issue. I may not like the increase in potheads, but the cost in human life will go down. I can always try to convince the pothead to give up weed. I CANNOT do anything for the dead except pray for them.

We were promised that if cocaine was made illegal, that cokeheads would stop committing crime. Not only was this not true (drug addict crime went up), but we supplimented this with gang violence as well.

Much like Prohibition gave us the Mob, the drug war has given us gang warfare. I don’t see how gang violence is NOT a moral issue.

Paul has a couple problems with his ideas (isolationism being the only one i can think of right now)

Isolationism is a big one. This is no time to retreat from the GWOT. And for all his highly touted principles, he certainly didn’t have any problems accepting support from 9/11 Truthers and other fringe groups.

Whether he was pandering for their votes, or genuinely believed the conspiracy theories (or both) it did not bode well for him as a national leader.

Politics, like nature, abhors a vacuum. The lack of strong, bold conservative leadership has allowed a fringe guy like Paul to attract some very passionate conservatives (along with a heaping helping of kooks!), that might otherwise support a Reaganesque candidate.

***rolling eyes icon**** Paul has a couple problems with his ideas (isolationism being the only one i can think of right now), but you guys here act like he wants to rape kids. I dont give a crap what mccain (who has more fualts than i care to write about) supports say, Paul is 90% right. i would have HAPPILY taken paul over mcsameasobama and barry. at elast government would be smaller the DAY HE TOOK OFFICE and he would have stopped all the bailouts (that alone might have been worth accepting his failings).

Ron Paul was infused into the understandably disenchanted Republican scene by extreme liberal Green Peace and others who threw in the word “God” a few times and people who believe everything they hear and read, took the bait. He was like Ross Perot back in the Clinton days–a tool used to divide and conquer.

I would be willing to bet if Grahamesty doesn’t change his way’s he is going to be a losers. SC is a conservative state and I am sick and tired of the RINO’s yelling that it’s my party too. Fuck I am sick of them.

Absolutely false! Rush is constantly advocating a return to conservative values, and is not a “win at any cost” RINO/libertarian. He’s the last guy, along with some of the conservatives on this blog, who wants to compromise any principles. Pandering and appeasing are for losers.

first, ive heard him say it myself.

second, so he voted for barr?

Both RINOs and libertarians are squishy on moral issues, so there is a confluence there, not congruence in all ways.

Taking a different stand than you doesn’t make on “squishy” on moral issues. I’d argue that your position on drugs is far more immoral than any libertarian’s. [

quote]Not what I said, but I see you continue to use personal attack, and have no argument.

Where the hell is the personal attack? What, now personal attack is any disagreement with Robert? Nonsense.

Ya see, COUNTRY FIRST was more than a slogan to McCain.

Prior to 1982 I agree with that.

I certainly don’t think Ron Paul is a leader for any but a small (though very vocal) minority of the Republican party, I can sympathize with the feelings here. Graham is advocating more of the same milquetoast conservatism that has led the GOP into the minority in our national government over the last several years

Politics, like nature, abhors a vacuum. The lack of strong, bold conservative leadership has allowed a fringe guy like Paul to attract some very passionate conservatives (along with a heaping helping of kooks!), that might otherwise support a Reaganesque candidate.

Conservatives need to be true to their principles and drag the Republican party back to its roots. Therein is the path to victory.

Did it occur to anyone that Graham may be an American first and a Republican second? Serving your country is patriotic no matter who is our president. If people were going to serve otherwise, a major part of our military would be handing in their resignations. I’m not an Obama fan by any means but if I was asked to serve the country in some capacity that I could fulfill, I would be most hesitant to turn it down.

if you ask most people, even limbaugh, they will think it does not matter. just win, baby!

Absolutely false! Rush is constantly advocating a return to conservative values, and is not a “win at any cost” RINO/libertarian. He’s the last guy, along with some of the conservatives on this blog, who wants to compromise any principles. Pandering and appeasing are for losers.

Let me try to address this a different way. Did John McCain’s stand on amnesty (identical with Graham’s as far as I can tell) help him with the Republican base?

Did it help him with the Obama voters?

Now onto Grahamnesty, does showing contempt for his base made that situation better or worse?

The Republican’s didn’t lose, they gave it away. Ignoring that fact means things won’t get better.

McCain & Graham step on your immigration policy toes?…ha, just wait for what the Dems are gonna do with that issue.

Do you really think that calling your base bigots for disagreeing with him is a winning strategy?

Having a RINO is like getting down in your scrimmage line, looking to your Left and Right and seeing players from the opposing team on your side of the line, angled in towards your quarterback, but wearing your team’s helmets.

Anyone casually looking at the field might observe that you have lots of players wearing your helmets, but upon closer examination, you could see you’re not all on the same team.

Like RINO’s they seem to be on your side, but their true function is to fuck up your plays, defeat interceptions, cause fouls and otherwise make sure you do not win.

I would rather play with a solid, staunch team, short one man, than have extra players, when those players are defeating you from your own side of the scrimmage line.

Suitepotato: You missed one very important point.

Principle without power is impotent.

Winning elections is based on understanding – as Ronald Reagan clearly did – which principles you can compromise on and which you can’t.

…an utter lack of principles among Republicans is why the GOP is in the minority right now.

Exactly why we don’t support the tiny minority of homo activists using the courts to force their redefinition of marriage on all the rest of us.
Since about 60% of Americans self-identify as conservative, it would make sense that, to win, the Republican Party needs to return to conservative values and principles.
The reason lefties are winning is because the American people don’t have a clear and distinct choice between their unAmerican values and our American values, so they fall for hype instead.
Pandering and appeasing are for losers.

no. Do you think that one speech defines Graham as a R.? Do you think the Dems offer US a better future than Graham does?

get a grip and start working for a big 2010 surprise for Team Nancy&Harry;. THAT is what matters.

Moron: personal attack is commenting on the person, not citing facts and logic to disagree intelligently. Sorry I had to tell you that.
Rob made no argument to support his position, he just attacked me. That’s not a counter argument, it’s just personal attack.

A personal attack is attacking the person directly. Saying that you’re not using facts and logic is attacking the argument.

Moreover, you just called me a moron, which is….drumroll…a personal attack.

I never said that, so you’re just making it up. Both RINOs and libertarians are afraid to take moral stances, although for different reasons, but they’re still “squishy”. Any facts or logic to disagree with that, or just your usual stupid personal attacks?

Both RINOs and Libertarians take different moral stances than you. Rob and I, both Libertarians, are against abortion, a clearly moral issue. Ron Paul, the most prominent libertarian, has also taken this position.

Libertarians take moral stances all the time, but they disagree with you, so you call them “squishy”.

There is no personal attack here Robert. I’m calling your argument nonsense. If you cannot distinguish between me saying you’re wrong, and a personal attack, then you have no business debating big boy politics.

Whoops, wrong Republican, but in general my statement still stands.

Libertarians are RINO’s?

Not what I said, but I see you continue to use personal attack, and have no argument.
I know what “libertarian” means, Rob.
Try some facts and logic next time.

Both RINOs and libertarians are squishy on moral issues, so there is a confluence there, not congruence in all ways.

Your reliance on personal attack doesn’t serve you, Rob; it’s far too emotional to be effective.

yeah Rob, let the GOP support homo marriage…that’s the ticket to victory eh?

You and Whistler are great conservative thinkers. Barry Goldwater woulda been proud. And of course he got as close to winning the White House as your advice will get US now.

btw…McCain is a great American. Saying he’s not much diferent than Obama is a slur and you should be ashamed. Obama is not qualified to carry McCain’s hair brush, which ever since his active duty days McCain can’t use because he can’t raise his arms high enough to comb his own hair. Ya see, COUNTRY FIRST was more than a slogan to McCain.

Zig, I’m missing football season too. But that analogy was pretty bad. The better way to view any and all who will join the movement and help rid US of the ultra corrupt ObamaNancyHarryFrankDodd gang is this:

the enemy of my enemy is my friend

Death to the socialist/communist totalitarian ideology at work in America.

there is no default abortion stance for gop membership. that assumption is false too.

Its just that all the pro-choice assholes are RINOS. Did I spear your sacred cow, Sparky? So sorry.

But by all means, let’s keep trying your way. Let’s worry more about whatever the “homos” are doing rather than what OBama’s doing to our national budget.

Actually, I could care less what homos do, I just don’t want it called marriage.

Ask yourself this, Rob. How many blocs within the republican party can we afford to lose?

Libertarians? No. their loss would drastically unbalance the party, making it less attractive to reasonable men.

Christian fundamentalists? No. Their numbers are huge in several key states.

Moderates? No. They make up the largest voting bloc in the party.

Conservatives? No. When they stay home, we lose as we did in ’08.

Unlike the democrats who will put aside differences and vote for a cockroach if they think it can win, the right is an uneasy coalition of a number of groups.

Were John McCain President now, I do not think we would be concerned about the growing threat to 2nd Amendment rights, today’s Notre Dame speech would have been controvery-free, we would be gearing up to battle the senate over a Supreme Court nominee – rather than watching an ‘activist’ eased onto the court, we would not be funding ACORN with tax-dollars, our stand in the Middle East would be crystal clear, immigration policy would be no worse than it is now, the White House would not be CEO of the nations banks and auto-makers, Chavez would be trying to pull his book ‘gift’ to the President out of his ass, we would not be about to have socialized medicine shoved down our throats, and Sarah Palin would be Vice President.

That’s my view.

You are a hypocrite because there is no way on Earth you would go on record as being in favor of legalized child porn WHICH MUST INHERENTLY COME WITH MAXIMUM PERSONAL FREEDOM FROM AN ABSOLUTIST STANDPOINT WHICH IS THE CORE IDEAL OF THE LIBERTARIANS.

This is hilarious. Somehow, in order to be a consistent proponent of individual liberty, you must consent to child porn?

Do you even realize how ridiculous that is?

Kiddie porn is illegal, and should be illegal, because it infringes upon the rights of minors. Minors, for good reason, cannot legally consent to sex. Pornography involving them victimizes them. Thus it is, and should be, illegal.

This is not hypocritical. This is logic. Something you’re apparently not capable of.

What’s amazing is that my views on politics are not exactly strange to you guys. You know where I come down on these issues. Yet you ignore the fact that we agree on just about everything to pretend like I’m some sort of anarchist because that suits your needs for this particular argument.

I think you guys are wrong, and I’ll confess to being a little bit sarcastic in some of my comments, but I think I’ve been nothing but straight and respectful in my responses to you even as you hurl insults like this at me.

You aren’t exactly filling me with hope for the future of the GOP. My consolation is that things are going to ahve to change before anything gets better, meaning that you guys will either start to get it or you’ll move to the margins.

The ‘litmus-test’ mentality and the “I’d rather go down in flames on principle” mentality is a disaster in progress.

Right. Let’s just win elections then.

Who the hell cares why we want to win them.

The disaster, frankly, is people like pparets who are telling us that we have to vote for people like McCain even though he really wasn’t all that different from McCain.

We’re going to be lost in the wilderness until we lose enough election to realize that pparets is wrong.

By the way, I love how you guys all spit out “libertarian” like it’s some sort of dirty word.

Go ahead and try to win some elections without the libertarian wing of the party. See how far you get.

Ultimately the libertarian angle boils down to the same as the liberal one: both tempt the public to vote in favor of people who claim to give them what they want. Not what they need.

I reject that premise. Because who gets to decide what the people do and do not need?

yeah Rob, let the GOP support homo marriage…that’s the ticket to victory eh?

You and Whistler are great conservative thinkers. Barry Goldwater woulda been proud. And of course he got as close to winning the White House as your advice will get US now.

What’s amazing is that you attack me for saying we need to get back to principles when it’s clear that an utter lack of principles among Republicans is why the GOP is in the minority right now.

btw…McCain is a great American. Saying he’s not much diferent than Obama is a slur and you should be ashamed.

I didn’t say McCain wasn’t a great American. I’ve long said that I admire him for his service to this country. But policy wise, he really isn’t all that different from Obama.

Rob:

Ultimately the libertarian angle boils down to the same as the liberal one: both tempt the public to vote in favor of people who claim to give them what they want. Not what they need.

I reject that premise. Because who gets to decide what the people do and do not need?

The people themselves through the political process. The assumption implicit in your question is that the people have no right to decide for themselves and each other which of course they do and have proven satisfied with for thousands of years.

The form is the question, not the what. How will we decide? What is the process? What are the arguments?

Rob:

Go ahead and try to win some elections without the libertarian wing of the party. See how far you get.

There is no libertarian wing. There is no army of pro-abortion pot smokers in favor of gay marriage outside of the Democratic Party.

Rob:

When I say that I don’t want to tell other people how to live their lives I actually mean it.

Put up or shut up. Either come out in favor of everything else people do and would like to do in private as a matter of you thinking you don’t have the right to tell them how to live their lives or admit you’re wrong.

Before pressure by the US and the western Europe, child porn was legal in Denmark. It was regulated and the children were reviewed by medical and psych docs. Under your idea of maximum personal freedom, the parents and the children had the right to engage in that business as did the people who took the photos and shot the movies. Under your ideals that should still be legal there, and indeed anywhere else.

No? Why not? Your own words make it clear that they should not be told how to live their lives. You’re in favor of legalizing gay marriage and pot, hence in favor of making changes to existing restrictions, so why not legalize this?

You are a hypocrite because there is no way on Earth you would go on record as being in favor of legalized child porn WHICH MUST INHERENTLY COME WITH MAXIMUM PERSONAL FREEDOM FROM AN ABSOLUTIST STANDPOINT WHICH IS THE CORE IDEAL OF THE LIBERTARIANS.

You can say I’m just throwing that out there to be sensational but the fact is the logic holds. When you start engaging in unconditional absolutes as libertarianism does, you descend to a self-negating philosophy of a society without any controls or laws. At that point, with no one to tell anyone what to do, anyone may do what anyone may do and you may be the one done.

Peace, justice and brotherhood DO NOT come naturally. Any societal form with rules and structures DOES NOT come naturally. They had to be invented by men and fought for. Some had to be stronger than others that they may withstand the vulnerability of tolerance from a position of weakness which as I’ve told you is a folly. All of human civilization is a folly chosen specifically because they are afraid of the inevitable alternative. A gamble they engaged in without forethought or heed to what was needed. They just did it and thought about it later if at all.

Whether it lasts long enough to become a position of strength and thus mercy is a matter of the evolution of the cultures that make up the society.

Not thinking about it does not change the mechanics. It is a system of tradeoffs between the various imperatives of the individuals, between their desires and their needs, in the hopes of an increasingly improving world but with the inherent acceptance of that being a slower path than unbridled common drive which can only be established through great imposition on a majority of a limited way which would be at odds with their natures, but still better than the backward path of internecine warfare that the way of the jungle shows.

The faster path that I speak of above could be seen in Nazi Germany. Great speed, great efficiency, fast complete conquest. All it took was the majority being reduced to thinking about very little else.

The backward path is Somalia.

The middle path is ours.