Libertarians: Closer to Liberals or Conservatives ?

[Cyrus]

Yeah, it's Conservatives, I know.

But I find this very funny seeing as how the Conservatives have been the side that's taken away more individual freedoms, while appearing to hand out "economic freedoms".

Which is kinda nifty and sly, if you think of it: Liberate capital, enslave the citizenry.

Here are a couple of news items:

[ QUOTE ]
AutoWeek: (http://www.autoweek.com/article.cms?articleId=101136) Your movements in the car will be monitored, from now on.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Loompanics: (http://www.loompanics.com/cgi-local/SoftCart.exe/Articles/newbankruptcylaw.html?L+scstore+mqcc1911ff960c96+1 138746941) New laws make the federal government a Bill Collector for the Credit Card Companies.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Darryl_P]

I like to think I'm a real conservative yet I sense that libertarians and anarcho-capitalists are working towards my ideals better than most republicans and neocons.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
But I find this very funny seeing as how the Conservatives have been the side that's taken away more individual freedoms, while appearing to hand out "economic freedoms".

[/ QUOTE ]

I deeply question this assertion. For instance, it is liberal Democrats who have authored/pushed through most of the laws (pre-911, at least) giving government the right to seize property on mere suspicion (asset seizure and forfeiture laws, purportedly to advance the "war on drugs", among other things), and laws which are invasive of privacy (banking laws such as the infamous "know your customer" law). By the way John Kerry has long been a major proponent and initiator of such laws and even an author.

Post 9/11, maybe it is conservatives who have pushed through more such laws; I don't know. But overall I think your claim is deeply suspicious.

Anyway, you titled your post about Libertarians; then went off on a tangent about Conservatives. Did any Libertarians author or help push through the types of laws you are bringing to attention? If not, what does the title of your post really have to do with the body of your post (other than the combination of the two being a cheap and unsupportable implicit sideswipe at Libertarians)?

[Oblomov]

[ QUOTE ]
I like to think I'm a real conservative yet I sense that libertarians and anarcho-capitalists are working towards my ideals better than most republicans and neocons.

[/ QUOTE ]

This post makes me wonder how you would define 'real conservatism'. /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

I've found that most people (liberal or conservative) believe in authoritarian government.

Am I closer to a liberal or conservative?

I am pro-choice
I support the right of gays to get married
I believe there is an implied right to privacy in the Constitution
I believe that the right to own a gun is fundamental
I believe the right to keep 100% of the money you earn is fundamental
I believe welfare is counter-productive
I believe a graduated income tax of income is theft
I believe fewer laws is better for society than more laws
I believe Intelligent Design is a back-door attempt to introduce theology into science class.
I have no problem with Nativity displays in the town square
I do have a problem with the 10 Commandments in a courtroom
I think some of the most religiously intolerant people in the US are secularists
I thyink Eisenhower was the best president of my lifetime.

Am I more a liberal or conservative. You decide. The answer is irrelevant to me.

[Felix_Nietsche]

...........Conservatives.

Traditionally conservatives (Repubs) have been for lower taxes and lower spending while liberals (Dems) have been for higher taxes and higher spending (lets ignore the "compassionate conservative" idiocy of Bush43).

My premises is:
Taxes = Govt Power
Less taxes = Less Govt Power
More taxes = More Govt Power
More Govt Power = Greater restrictions of Freedom

Consider this, if a party passes a law that makes marijuana illegal but does not provide the funding to enforce this law then for all practical purposes....people are free to smoke marijuana. Funding (money) is the true source of power....

Since libertarians want more freedom, voting for the party that wants lower taxes is the best way to advance their libertarian beliefs.

[Darryl_P]

In another thread (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=4043035&page=0&fpart=8&v c=1) I posted this:

[ QUOTE ]
The way I see it, true conservatism is about God being in charge, men answering to God, women answering to their husbands who place a high value on the family as the fundamental building block of society, and families interacting with each other in ways which they deem mutually beneficial with only minimal involvement from a (secular) central authority.


[/ QUOTE ]

vulturesrow also added this link (http://www.kirkcenter.org/kirk/ten-principles.html) which I more or less agree with.

[Darryl_P]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe that the right to own a gun is fundamental
I believe the right to keep 100% of the money you earn is fundamental
I believe welfare is counter-productive
I believe a graduated income tax of income is theft
I believe fewer laws is better for society than more laws


[/ QUOTE ]

I think these issues carry more weight than the others you mention, therefore you are closer to being conservative IMO.

[coffeecrazy1]

I agree with 6M. What does your post have to do with Libertarians, especially since you answer your own question in the first sentence? Seems to me you did the politics forum version of the following:

SEX! Now that I have your attention, here's why you should buy (insert whatever product you are selling).

Just because there are many libertarians on here does not mean it's a good idea to put the word in your subject line so as to generate views. That is a cheap, used-car salesman move.

But...what can you expect from a Democrat... /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[canis582]

Its not a left and a right, its a wheel. Libertarians and authoritarians are at oppisite ends and liberals and conservatives are at oppisite ends.

It is possible to be liberal and authoritarian or liberal and libertarian.

The Bush white house has extremely authoritarian policies with increased police powers, reduced oversight of CIA servalience, increased powers to sieze private personal and business records etc.

His nomination of Alito will serve to take away the rights of the individual.

Our individual rights are being taken away slowly, but steadily.

[whiskeytown]

I believe on fiscal policy, the Libertarians support programs similar to conservatives.

On Social Policy, Libertarians tend to be more like democrats. At the most, they wouldn't ban abortion but they'd throw a decision down to state level, but they're not just making a decision based on a religious power base.

RB

[lehighguy]

Our government has very little involvement in personal life, and an overwhelming amount of involvement in economic matters.

As another poster said, Bush might want me to go to church on Sunday, but he can't make me. However, he can and does spend my money.

So most libraterians are closer to republicans because fiscal matters are the matters most before us in government.

This is of course based on the classical roles of the two parties and assuming they actually stand for things, which they don't. Modern day republicans are fiscally irresponsible and modern day democrats are against free speech and particular social liberties they don't like.

[canis582]

"modern day democrats are against free speech and particular social liberties they don't like." Examples??? /images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[etgryphon]

Free Speech Limitations:
-The McCain-Fiengold Act and all there political campaign limitation.
-A teachers capacity to talk about religion in school.

Social Liberties:
-Gun Rights

As a few examples...

-Gryph

[canis582]

[ QUOTE ]
Free Speech Limitations:
-The McCain-Fiengold Act and all there political campaign limitation.
-A teachers capacity to talk about religion in school.

Social Liberties:
-Gun Rights

As a few examples...

-Gryph

[/ QUOTE ]

With the McCain Fiendgold thing, are you saying its ok to let corporations control our politicians?

[etgryphon]

[ QUOTE ]

His nomination of Alito will serve to take away the rights of the individual.


[/ QUOTE ]

This show a profound lack of understanding of the judicial branch of government. The Judicial Branch can't "take" away rights. It can only rule about the laws passed by the Legislative branch. Its the legislative branch that "takes" or rather limits personal "rights". I guess you can say that the judiciary can facilitate the "taking" of rights by not standing in the gap and doing their job. This has been done for 70 years with gun rights...

It the legislative branch that takes rights. This is how it should be. We can vote out members of the legislative branchs and the executive branches.

-Gryph

[canis582]

The supreme court took away the right of Floridians to count their own votes!!!

[etgryphon]

That is not what it says and either:

-You know this and you are being facetious.
-You don't know this and you are relying on what someone told you

Any group (corporation, non-profit, etc) should be able to run ads and contribute to the political process at any time.

Any limit is a clear breach of Free Speech.

-Gryph

[etgryphon]

[ QUOTE ]
The supreme court took away the right of Floridians to count their own votes!!!

[/ QUOTE ]

Again...This is a rather sad and inaccurate understanding of the ruling. Read it again. They ruled that Florida could not "makeup" recounting rules that superceded established law to make a recount supposedly "fairer" AFTER an election. THAT is disenfranchisment of not only Florida but the nation.

-Gryph

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
That is not what it says and either:

-You know this and you are being facetious.
-You don't know this and you are relying on what someone told you

Any group (corporation, non-profit, etc) should be able to run ads and contribute to the political process at any time.
Any limit is a clear breach of Free Speech.

-Gryph

[/ QUOTE ]

Warning: *Thread Hijack* - please PM me or start a new thread if you want to debate the following:

Just as an aside -- but the whole campaign finance debate, and subsequently, the deabte over the BCRA/ McConnell vs FEC demonstrates just how much conservatives, and conservative legal scholars, are perfectly A-OK with judicial activism; that is, their own brand of judicial activism.

Keep in mind, of course, the near-constant, and oh-so-righteous indignation that we're constantly subjected to from the right, demanding that we quit pulling all these interpretations out of our ass and start following the text in the Constitution -- in other words, can't we all just be a little more like our dear friend Justice Scalia?

Scalia from his McConnell commentary, claiming that we ought to provide corporations with First Amendment protections: (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=02-1674#other1)

<font color="blue">"The last proposition that might explain at least some of today's casual abridgment of free-speech rights is this: that the particular form of association known as a corporation does not enjoy full First Amendment protection. Of course the text of the First Amendment does not limit its application in this fashion, even though "by the end of the eighteenth century the corporation was a familiar figure in American economic life." C. Cooke, Corporation, Trust and Company 92 (1951). Nor is there any basis in reason why First Amendment rights should not attach to corporate associations."</font>

Isn't this the kind of [censored] that's anathema to conservatives (and by that I mean, isn't this the kind of [censored] that conservatives claim, when convenient, is anathema to them)? If we replaced 'Scalia' with 'Ginsberg' or 'Stevens', I can just hear the chorus of conservative voices shouting from the rooftops “Ha! There go the liberals, inventing protections again! Ignoring the text of the Constitution, only to supplant it with what they think ought to be there – which they came to by ‘reason’!?!?!? Ha Ha, Ho Ho – oh those silly liberals, making up rights and protections again!”

Just thought I’d bring this up, yet again – so that when we hear the typical nonsense from the right about how conservatives “follow the letter of the law” and liberals “make stuff up”, we’re reminded of this, and how, in truth, the study of jurisprudence is a study of good and bad interpretations, not “following the Constitution” vs. “making [censored] up”...and that of course, conservative do just as much interpreting as liberals do.

---------------------------------

Just to bring this around to etgrphyon’s post, to claim that “money” = “speech” (a claim I’m not necessarily opposed to) – or to make the claim that prohibiting political contributions equals a "clear breach" of the First Amendment, we have to do some ‘interpreting’, some ‘reasoning’, and some ‘looking beyond the text available’...something (as I’ve described above) that conservatives usually bristle at.

---------------------------------

Lastly (an in regard to the rest of the thread), I don't think it's particularly convenient, necessary, or useful to describe libertarians as either conservative or liberal; but I’ve found (and this is just my personal experience, and this certainly constitutes an unfair jab at some for whom this description does not fit) – but I’ve found that:

“Libertarian” usually = “Closet Republican, who enjoys whining about the excesses of liberals, but when called upon to defend Republican excesses (be they budgetary excesses, or excesses of state authority), enjoys washing their hands of the matter and saying ‘don’t blame me, I’m a libertarian.’ ”

Given how little actual support libertarian parties/candidates receive, but how many ‘self-described’ libertarians there are, I assume many libertarians just vote Republican but are too (insert appropriate adjective here) to admit it.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

His nomination of Alito will serve to take away the rights of the individual.

That's interesting. Please explain why in the medical marijauana case the dissenting votes in favor of individual freedom were from Rehnquist, O'Connor &amp; Thomas and on the Eminent domain case, the dissenting votes against low-income homeowners having their property seized by the government for corporate development were Rehnquist, O'Connor, Thomas and Scalia.

Seems in those two cases, individual freedom was being upheld by the justices with resumes close to Alitos.

Or are you just one of those liberals who thinks the only valid individual freedom is the right to an abortion?

I'm not a liberal. Liberals are pro-choice on abortion. I'm a libertarian. I'm pro-choice on everything.

[lehighguy]

Conservative judges voted against McCain-Fiengold in court. I know Scalia did because I read his dissent. There is precedent going all the way back to the founding days relating to newspaper and print advertisement and the entire idea of money = speech. I'm not sure what your claim is here?

Thanks for your gross generalizations BTW. I voted libraterian in the last election. And no, it's not just about excess, Republicans actually want us to live in some kind of 1950s Christian utopia and I don't agree with that. The excess helps though.

P.S. Maybe you are just trying to justify the fact that you don't like the people you vote for, but you justify it by saying the other side is worse. The idea of people who actually vote thier conscious is frightning to you, so you have to try whatever you can to stick them in the group you don't like.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

true conservatism is about God being in charge, men answering to God, women answering to their husbands

Wow. I already know I'm not a liberal, but if this is true, I'm also not a conservative.

[canis582]

"Or are you just one of those liberals who thinks the only valid individual freedom is the right to an abortion?"

This is known as setting up a straw man so you have something defenseless to beat up. Ann "crazy legs" coulter has taught you well.
---------------

Alito wants to expand police powers and take rights away from women.

Should an abused wife have to get permission from her husband in order to get an abortion?

Should police officers be allowed to strip search 14 year old girls without a warrant or probable cause?

Alito says YES!

[lehighguy]

Censorship. Everywhere. Have you insulted anyone lately, it's like against the freaking law. And god forbid you might try to pray somewhere. Personally I haven't gone to church in years, but the fact the religion is treated different from non-religous philosophies has always baffled me.

[lehighguy]

The goal of McCain-Feingold was to limit the kind of fund raising and advertising that was damaging to incumbents. Congress voted for a bill that ensured thier own jobs.

[lehighguy]

Welcome to libraterianism. If you understand Eco 101, and you don't go to church, you'll like it here.

[The Don]

A true libertarian believes that the economic "freedoms" advocated by conservatives are grossly insufficient. Additionally, the restriction of individual freedom and rigidly defined "moral values" are quite disturbing to them. Any "libertarian" who would actually vote Republican certainly does not have enough conviction in his ideals to actually consider himself one.

[canis582]

"And god forbid you might try to pray somewhere."

Has anyone's right to pray ever been infringed upon in the US?

Leading an entire school is prayer is not praying, its imposing your creed on others, which is a violations of their rights.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
Conservative judges voted against McCain-Fiengold in court.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay? Point being? This is in relation to absolutely nothing I said. I know conservative justices voted against McCain-Feingold in court, which is why I posted a link to Scalia's commentary - and it's not necessarily true that conservatives voted against all of the provisions in the BCRA; it was a complicated case that actually involved 2 separate rulings, each with its own opinion and dissent -- neither dissent was written by Scalia.

My point wasn't that conservative justices were hypocritical for voting against the BCRA, or that they didn't vote against the BCRA, or whatever you think I'm getting at -- my point was that the right-wing narrative concerning jurisprudence (i.e., conservatives study 'the text' and 'follow the law' while liberals 'make things up' and are 'judicially active') is frequently inaccurate, disingenuous and hypocritical.

[ QUOTE ]
I know Scalia did because I read his dissent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Scalia didn't officially write a dissenting opinion; he added commentary because he thought the case was vital -- but he didn't write a dissent in McConnell v FEC.

[ QUOTE ]
There is precedent going all the way back to the founding days relating to newspaper and print advertisement and the entire idea of money = speech. I'm not sure what your claim is here?

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, point being? This is in relation to absolutely nothing I said. What I was trying to get at is this: to claim (as etgryphon did) that prohibiting campaign contributions is a violation of the First Amendment, you have to do some interpreting -- and interpreting (where Scalia says it stands to reason that the First Amendment extends to corporations, as liberals have claimed numerous amendments provide a right to privacy) is what judges do -- jurisprudence is not, as the right frequently claims, the difference between what conservatives do ('follow the the letter of the law') and what liberals do ('invent stuff out of your ass'). And McConnell v FEC is a prime example of why conservatives rely just as heavily on interpretation, reason, and other instruments of deduction to claim rights can legitimately exist which aren't explicitly in the text of the Constitution.

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks for your gross generalizations BTW. I voted libraterian in the last election. And no, it's not just about excess, Republicans actually want us to live in some kind of 1950s Christian utopia and I don't agree with that. The excess helps though.

P.S. Maybe you are just trying to justify the fact that you don't like the people you vote for, but you justify it by saying the other side is worse. The idea of people who actually vote thier conscious is frightning to you, so you have to try whatever you can to stick them in the group you don't like.

[/ QUOTE ]

Read my post carefully :

[ QUOTE ]
(and this is just my personal experience, and this certainly constitutes an unfair jab at some for whom this description does not fit)

[/ QUOTE ]

[coffeecrazy1]

[ QUOTE ]

Should an abused wife have to get permission from her husband in order to get an abortion?

[/ QUOTE ] Hmm...maybe I missed the part about the wife being abused. I'm not saying I agree with Alito's decision or not(haven't really given it much thought), but nowhere did I read that he specified the wives had to be abused in order to be forced to report to their abusive husbands regarding their abortion. Is there a link for this?

[ QUOTE ]

Should police officers be allowed to strip search 14 year old girls without a warrant or probable cause?

[/ QUOTE ] Link? I haven't heard this one. I find such a claim dubious, because the fact they are 14 and female is irrelevant...since no one should be strip searched without a warrant or probable cause. I find it difficult to believe that any judge with common sense would flagrantly rule against the search-and-seizure clause, but hey, I also would never have believed Kelo could happen, either.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Should an abused wife have to get permission from her husband in order to get an abortion?

If you think that was the gist of the case in which he dissented, you are selectively reading the facts of the case. In the case, the law read that a woman had to sign a statement saying she discussed the procedure with her husband. It had an exception for cases of abuse. I disagree with his dissent because even though I agree that (except in the cases of abusive relationships), the ethically correct thing is for both parties to be involved in the decision, that aspect is no business of the government.

Alito wants to expand police powers and take rights away from women.

Cite one example of either.

Should police officers be allowed to strip search 14 year old girls without a warrant or probable cause?

Please show me somewhere where he says that any cop anywhere in the country shgould be empowered to ask teenage girls to take of their clothes and not give a reason?

[Richard Tanner]

Cyrus,
I know you aren't a big fan of ours, but I think we agree with Dems alot more then you think. Personally, I would vote Red simply because when you simplify everything down to it's base elements, Republicans do the economic freedoms and Dems go for the social ones.
That said, social freedoms tend to take care of themselves (see also: Civil Rights Movement, Women's sufferage). I have little doubt that in 50 years, people who were against gay marriage in any way (mostly semantic arguments) well be looked back upon as a fool. The idea of social security and other monitary redistribution plans offend and threaten me more then banning gay marriage (as I think it'll be settled by the public).

Cody

[canis582]

ALITO SUPPORTS UNAUTHORIZED STRIP SEARCHES: In Doe v. Groody, Alito agued that police officers had not violated constitutional rights when they strip searched a mother and her ten-year-old daughter while carrying out a search warrant that authorized only the search of a man and his home. [Doe v. Groody, 2004]

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/3rd/024532p.pdf

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
ALITO SUPPORTS UNAUTHORIZED STRIP SEARCHES: In Doe v. Groody, Alito agued that police officers had not violated constitutional rights when they strip searched a mother and her ten-year-old daughter while carrying out a search warrant that authorized only the search of a man and his home. [Doe v. Groody, 2004]

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/3rd/024532p.pdf

[/ QUOTE ]

I can do it too:

Alito Authorizes Sacraficing Virgins by Police Officers who wear Chicken Costumes (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/3rd/024532p.pdf )

[canis582]

I provided a link that goes to the actual case. Don't ignore the truth: our rights are being taken away by activist judges.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Please rerad the following

while carrying out a search warrant that authorized only the search of a man and his home.

Please show where the "no probable cause" part is. I'm not saying that I agree with this specific decision, but the way you intitially stated it misrepresents the facts.

After reading the brief, and my general opposition to drug laws not withstanding, it seems to me that the police acted within the bounds of propriety (female officers) and at least on the surface, seem to have reasonable probable cause to believe they were acting within constitutional bounds in making the search.

This makes two out of three of your points against Alito where you materially misrepresent facts to make your point.

In my mind, you have precisely zero credibility.

[coffeecrazy1]

[ QUOTE ]
ALITO SUPPORTS UNAUTHORIZED STRIP SEARCHES: In Doe v. Groody, Alito agued that police officers had not violated constitutional rights when they strip searched a mother and her ten-year-old daughter while carrying out a search warrant that authorized only the search of a man and his home. [Doe v. Groody, 2004]

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/3rd/024532p.pdf

[/ QUOTE ]

I actually would side with the majority opinion, but I can understand Alito's dissent. I think it hinges on this language in the affidavit: "The search should also include all occupants of the residence." I'm not saying that I necessarily agree with his reading of the warrant and affidavit, but I think it is a farcical extrapolation to conclude that he "supports unauthorized strip searches of 14 year old girls." Sounds like a headline from the National Enquirer.

[Cyrus]

My caps :
[ QUOTE ]

Am I closer to a liberal or conservative?
<font color="white"> .</font>
I am pro-choice LIBERAL
I support the right of gays to get married LIBERAL
I believe there is an implied right to privacy in the Constitution LIBERAL
I believe that the right to own a gun is fundamental CONSERVATIVE
I believe the right to keep 100% of the money you earn is fundamental CONSERVATIVE
I believe welfare is counter-productive CONSERVATIVE
I believe a graduated income tax of income is theft CONSERVATIVE
I believe fewer laws is better for society than more laws LIBERAL
I believe Intelligent Design is a back-door attempt to introduce theology into science class LIBERAL
I have no problem with Nativity displays in the town square BOTH
I do have a problem with the 10 Comandments in a courtroom LIBERAL
I think some of the most religiously intolerant people in the US are secularists CONSERVATIVE
I think Eisenhower was the best president of my lifetime CONSERVATIVE

[/ QUOTE ]

You do the tally.

And we did not even go to sex, drugs or rock 'n roll.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
A true libertarian believes that the economic "freedoms" advocated by conservatives are grossly insufficient. Additionally, the restriction of individual freedom and rigidly defined "moral values" are quite disturbing to them. Any "libertarian" who would actually vote Republican certainly does not have enough conviction in his ideals to actually consider himself one.

[/ QUOTE ]

And for a real-world insight into the chasm separating "conservatives" with "libertarians", check out Darryl P's posts in this thread.

[lehighguy]

I read it in Scalia Dissents, a book of Scalia's dissents. Maybe it was another similair case, maybe there was something else related too it, anyway, I'm going on what I read there.

If you read scalia's philosophy there are ways by which you determine original meaning.

1) The Text is Clear
The right to bear arms means guns, not phsyical arms. If there is question as to wording, consult dictionaries from the era and other research.

2) The Text is Unclear, but there is precedent from the time of the laws implementation.

Something may have multiple meanings and be complex. As such, you try to go back to the time the law was implemented and see how the court interpreted it then. This is the best way of determining original meaning.

As such, the fact that there is precedent going back to the time of the constitution is relevent to original meaning. If the court made rulings in relation to print advertisement and used the logic that is was the primary means of communication and public discourse, then it doesn't take much (or any really, just common sense) interpreting to update it for TV or internet because they are now the primary forum for public discourse and communication.

[lehighguy]

There have been numerous situations on this board where we have discussed matters where religion is disciminated against. If you say you have a philosophy you can say and do whatever you want, but somehow we treat religion much differently. I'm not going to go into all of them.

A small example, my Mom wasn't allowed to put up a small christmas decoration on her desk because her boss said people might complain and sue them for "imposing" thier religion. My mom hasn't been to church in years, but apparently she's a raging zealot now.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Should an abused wife have to get permission from her husband in order to get an abortion?

[/ QUOTE ]
You are either a moron, ignorant, or both if you actually believe this was what happened in Planned Parenthood v Casey. The law in question had an exception for women who feared reprisal from telling their husbands about getting an abortion. Hell, Rehnquist, in his dissent, quoted Alito's dissent and if you think about it, Alito really is replacing Rehnquist.

Turn off the NARAL ads and actually do some real research on the subject.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
There have been numerous situations on this board where we have discussed matters where religion is disciminated against. If you say you have a philosophy you can say and do whatever you want, but somehow we treat religion much differently. I'm not going to go into all of them.

A small example, my Mom wasn't allowed to put up a small christmas decoration on her desk because her boss said people might complain and sue them for "imposing" thier religion. My mom hasn't been to church in years, but apparently she's a raging zealot now.

[/ QUOTE ]

Does your mom work for the state?

[Indiana]

Good discussion here. I'm fiscally conservative, socially liberal...Dont really care what gay people wanna do in their free time if you know what I mean...I'm also pro life but why argue it? It's irrelevant and you should not vote around it because it cannot be changed. Fact is that there is an entire industry built around abortions and attempting to stop it at this stage of the game would result in public bloodletting in the streets. Same with guns...Every gun shop owner in the world would retaliate if guns became illegal. And they do have access to lots of guns....

Let's focus on issues that can be changed in gov't like overspending and overtaxing. Let's stay out of the marriage and butthole phucking business and do our jobs as citizens to create a better future for this country!!!

Indy

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Good discussion here. I'm fiscally conservative, socially liberal...Dont really care what gay people wanna do in their free time if you know what I mean...I'm also pro life but why argue it? It's irrelevant and you should not vote around it because it cannot be changed. Fact is that there is an entire industry built around abortions and attempting to stop it at this stage of the game would result in public bloodletting in the streets. Same with guns...Every gun shop owner in the world would retaliate if guns became illegal. And they do have access to lots of guns....

Let's focus on issues that can be changed in gov't like overspending and overtaxing. Let's stay out of the marriage and butthole phucking business and do our jobs as citizens to create a better future for this country!!!

Indy

[/ QUOTE ]

Amen /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Welcome to libraterianism

Been there since the mid 80's.

Voted for McGovern in '72, Ford in '76 and Reagan '80. After that it's been LP all the way.

[ QUOTE ]
After that it's been LP all the way.

[/ QUOTE ]

You arent helping the cause of freedom. The Republican Party needs change from within

[QuadsOverQuads]

The Libertarian Party believes -- in a truly radical and fundamentalist sense -- that Utopia can be created through the laissez-faire doctrines of the 1910's.

They are the economic version of the Religious Right.


q/q

[FredJones888]

Libertarians are what the republicans are supposed to be.

Republicans no longer care about "freedom" although they use the idea of "defending freedom" wherever they find it convenient.

Democrats care an awfull lot about redistribution of wealth and government control in the name of fairness. They fail to see how this conflicts with personal freedom and democracy itself.

Libertarians are so rational that they can't win an election.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Libertarians are so rational that they can't win an election.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is why my slide towards libertarianism is a little depressing...

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
A true libertarian believes that the economic "freedoms" advocated by conservatives are grossly insufficient. Additionally, the restriction of individual freedom and rigidly defined "moral values" are quite disturbing to them. Any "libertarian" who would actually vote Republican certainly does not have enough conviction in his ideals to actually consider himself one.

[/ QUOTE ]

I heard some windbag on the radio yesterday promoting her new book about how great conservatism is. In the interview she mentioned that she thinks of herself as a "classical liberal", which basically means libertarian.

I thought, oh cool, she sounds great.

Then she followed up IMMEDIATELY, the very next sentence, with "And I don't think drug abuse should be legal, or prostitution".

WTF.

Lady, I don't think that word means what you think it means.

natedogg

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

How would voting for their candidate promote change from within?