Republicans Vs. Republican TEA Partiers

[2A_Tom]

I predict we will never again elect a fiscal or moral conservative President again.

I do hope I am wrong.

 

[hornadylnl]

I predict we will never again elect a fiscal or moral conservative President again.

I do hope I am wrong.

A person who spews the fiscal or moral conservative rhetoric? Yes. A person who actually does it? No.

 

[2A_Tom]

A person who spews the fiscal or moral conservative rhetoric? Yes. A person who actually does it? No.

I have to disagree, too many would see even the threat of not getting "theirs" too agregious that even a Rino will never again be elected.

The only way a real fiscal conservative could be elected is if she ran as a bigger government give you everything, Super Nanny Statist.

 

[darrent]

GOP forcing a 3rd party - interesting...

 

[lucky4034]

Great. Looks like I can resume not voting for republicans again.

You voted for Romney

 

[Liberty1911]

GOP forcing a 3rd party - interesting...

It looks like it would be a 4th party then.

Big government, pro immorality - Democrats
Big government, pro morality - Republicans
Small government, pro immorality - Libertarians
Small government, pro morality - Tea Party

 

[Liberty1911]

You voted for Romney

This is the reason I usually ignore your posts. You rarely pay attention to anything people actually say to you.

 

[Survivalcookie]

I hope that a 3rd party emerges....but if that is going to happen they better start now...they are way behind. I have not seen anything on a 3rd party runny for 2016.

 

[lucky4034]

This is the reason I usually ignore your posts.

Contradiction is your forte... maybe you could start a 5th party named the Hypocritical Party.

 

[88GT]

I hope that a 3rd party emerges....but if that is going to happen they better start now...they are way behind. I have not seen anything on a 3rd party runny for 2016.

Last time I checked, we had more than 2 parties on our ballot.

The number of parties isn't the problem.

 

[steveh_131]

It looks like it would be a 4th party then.

Big government, pro immorality - Democrats
Big government, pro morality - Republicans
Small government, pro immorality - Libertarians
Small government, pro morality - Tea Party

You do understand the distinction between being 'pro' something and being against government intervention in that something, right?

Pop quiz, true/false:

• Anti gun control = pro murder
• Anti communism = pro starvation of children
• Anti government enforced morality = pro immorality
• Anti universal healthcare = pro death

Answer Key:

False
False
False
False

 

[Liberty1911]

You do understand the distinction between being 'pro' something and being against government intervention in that something, right?

Pop quiz, true/false:

• Anti gun control = pro murder
• Anti communism = pro starvation of children
• Anti government enforced morality = pro immorality
• Anti universal healthcare = pro death

Answer Key:

False
False
False
False

As usual, you create straw men to joust. That seems to be the MO for libertarians.

You do understand the what immorality means right?

So, the real analogy would be like you saying the government shouldn't pass laws against child molestation.

That doesn't necessarily make you pro-pedophilia, but it does make you pro-immorality.

 

[steveh_131]

As usual, you create straw men to joust. That seems to be the MO for libertarians.

You do understand the what immorality means right?

So, the real analogy would be like you saying the government shouldn't pass laws against child molestation.

That doesn't necessarily make you pro-pedophilia, but it does make you pro-immorality.

What? Do you know what a straw man is?

The post that I responded to was the exact definition of a straw man. Libertarians are against government enforcement of morality. The straw man that you erected in place of their actual stance is that they are 'pro immorality'. This is not true.

Example:

I think that homosexuality is immoral. I do not think that there should be a law against it. This does not make me 'pro homosexuality' or 'pro immorality'. Slapping an ill-fitting label on it is intellectually lazy, which appears to be your MO.

 

[Liberty1911]

What? Do you know what a straw man is?

The post that I responded to was the exact definition of a straw man. Libertarians are against government enforcement of morality. The straw man that you erected in place of their actual stance is that they are 'pro immorality'. This is not true.

Example:

I think that homosexuality is immoral. I do not think that there is a law against it. This does not make me 'pro homosexuality' or 'pro immorality'. Slapping an ill-fitting label on it is intellectually lazy, which appears to be your MO.

Your defense is the same one the pro-abortion crowd uses.

"I'm not pro-abortion, I'm pro-choice" Technically, they have a point, in that they may not be personally willing to get an abortion, so they're not personally pro-abortion.

However, my point is that turning your back on injustice and/or immorality by claiming that you personally would not do x,y, or z, does not make you amoral.

As an example - the recent subway murder in New York. The person filming it can say that he's not pro-murder, however, he is an immoral person for not trying to help the man off the tracks.

That's my point. You can choose to understand that or not.

 

[steveh_131]

Your defense is the same one the pro-abortion crowd uses.

"I'm not pro-abortion, I'm pro-choice" Technically, they have a point, in that they may not be personally willing to get an abortion, so they're not personally pro-abortion.

However, my point is that turning your back on injustice and/or immorality by claiming that you personally would not do x,y, or z, does not make you amoral.

As an example - the recent subway murder in New York. The person filming it can say that he's not pro-murder, however, he is an immoral person for not trying to help the man off the tracks.

That's my point. You can choose to understand that or not.

Based on your post, I assume you are an advocate of government bans on sodomy, pornography, cursing, name-calling, wearings clothes of mixed fibers, and every other act that you personally consider immoral?

After all, just saying you're against those things without advocating a government ban on them doesn't make you amoral, right?

 

[Liberty1911]

Based on your post, I assume you are an advocate of government bans on sodomy, pornography, cursing, name-calling, wearings clothes of mixed fibers, and every other act that you personally consider immoral?

After all, just saying you're against those things without advocating a government ban on them doesn't make you amoral, right?

I've had to think through those issues more in depth lately, which has helped me clarify my thinking on the issue.

First, I'd say that I'm against the Federal Government legislating anything that doesn't fall under the enumerated powers in the constitution. That would invalidate 90% of what the Fed does, including such things as drug laws.

Second, I'm ok with the states doing whatever they want under 10A as long as they aren't violating our enumerated constitutional rights.

In my opinion, this is how the Founders envisioned the Federal Republic working.

So then, we get into what exactly those enumerated rights are. For instance, I don't think homosexual marriage is part of our enumerated rights under the constitution, so I'm ok with individual states banning it or allowing it if they want. That leaves room for me to personally vote at the state level against what I consider to be immoral.

I guess that's where I differ with Libertarians. I'm generally in favor of letting people do what they want as long as it doesn't affect me, but Libertarians want to use the force of law, regardless of enumerated constitutional rights, to impose "freedom" and all the consequences that entails, on the entire society. In my view, that crosses the line to pro-immorality.

 

[rambone]

That leaves room for me to personally vote at the state level against what I consider to be immoral.

I guess that's where I differ with Libertarians.

Agreed, you are way outside the libertarian camp.

Forcing other people to live by your theology or moral standards is a pretty fundamental disagreement on liberty.

 

[Liberty1911]

Agreed, you are way outside the libertarian camp.

Forcing other people to live by your theology or moral standards is a pretty fundamental disagreement on liberty.

And my point is, Libertarians are no different. They use the force of law to impose the consequences of freedom on the whole of society.

They know that if homosexual marriage is sanctioned by the government, which is what they advocate, that it will also necessarily diminish individual property rights by forcing landlords to rent to them under penalty of existing law, just to mention one of many consequences.

They don't care, they want full speed ahead anyway, damn the torpedos.

Trading the rights of some to suit your sense of morality is in fundamental disagreement with liberty also.

Libertarians seem to think they have the moral high ground, but when it comes down to it, they're perfectly willing to use the force of government to diminish the rights of others as long as conforms with their moral standards.

 

[rambone]

And my point is, Libertarians are no different. They use the force of law to impose the consequences of freedom on the whole of society.

Better keep fighting back against freedom with your morality laws.

 

[mrjarrell]

Libertarians are looking for the American ideal of equality before the law, as guaranteed by the Constitution. Not a "Damn the torpedos" make up law. If that's not obvious from what's been written by libertarians and others then someone has missed the point entirely or is stuck in a rut.