The most interesting Republican you've never heard of

[rambone]

Pro-drug, Pro-abortion, anti-war, atheist = Leftist.

Wow...

Read the 10th Amendment. The states have rights. They are supposed to be allowed to make their own laws about things like this. What is the point of having Governors and State Congresses if the Federal Government is going to pass sweeping laws control all the states?

If the states have the power to pass their own murder laws, they should have to make up their own minds about abortion. It should never have been a national matter left up to the Feds.

Similarly, if states want to legalize drugs, that should be their option. It should never have been a national matter left up to the Feds.

It is mind-blowing that a constitutionalist or a libertarian can be confused with a modern American "leftist." Hows big government working out for you?

 

[Joe Williams]

snip

Pro-drug and pro-abortion are synonymous with pro-freedom because they both enable the CHOICE to do drugs or have an abortion. Neither state that if you are pro-drug or pro-abortion that you MUST do one, rather you simply have the choice, should you chose, thus being pro-freedom.

snip

Oh, goodie!!! Murder is a choice we are all free to make, according to those who embrace that view. I think leftists need aborted, and apparently doing so is not a crime, or even morally wrong. It's just a choice!! Wheeeeeee!!!!!!!!

 

[Joe Williams]

Pro-drug, Pro-abortion, anti-war, atheist = Leftist.

It is always fun watching those who support legal drug use, murdering babies, and not defending this nation try to tell us how that's not what they support.

 

[rambone]

So why do we have murder laws in Indiana, Joe? Why not just let Barack Obama make up his mind about every single thing that should be illegal?

Supporting states' right to make their own law, does NOT mean you support abortion. It means you support the system of divided power that is laid out in the constitution.

Frankly, overturning Roe V. Wade would be a great leap toward protecting babies, wouldn't it? It sure beats the Feds making up the law that must apply to every state. Since right now that law is pro-abortion.

Support states rights! The Feds have too much power.

 

[Joe Williams]

So why do we have murder laws in Indiana, Joe? snip.

Exactly, why? Seems to me that for pro-abortionists, it is hypocritical not to call for repeal of those laws. Pure age discrimination, and they impede my ability to choose who is convenient to me and therefore worthy of life, and who is inconvenient.

Freedom of choice is what it's all about, isn't it?

 

[rambone]

Exactly, why? Seems to me that for pro-abortionists, it is hypocritical not to call for repeal of those laws. Pure age discrimination, and they impede my ability to choose who is convenient to me and therefore worthy of life, and who is inconvenient.

Freedom of choice is what it's all about, isn't it?

Then every murder should be a federal crime? The FBI and the Obama Police should be dispatched from Washington DC for every felony?

We are supposed to divide power between the states. And I would be inclined to support an anti-abortion law, on a state level. But we can't since we have a central power dictating things the states are supposed to decide. I would strip the power from the Feds on basically any issue I could.

 

[rambone]

Wait, now I'm confused which side you are on. Time for bed.

 

[Joe Williams]

Then every murder should be a federal crime? The FBI and the Obama Police should be dispatched from Washington DC for every felony?

We are supposed to divide power between the states. And I would be inclined to support an anti-abortion law, on a state level. But we can't since we have a central power dictating things the states are supposed to decide. I would strip the power from the Feds on basically any issue I could.

Why would it be a crime? The pro-infanticide crowd has ensured it's not a crime to kill babies in the name of "choice." Why stop there? Why should our choices be limited by age? If it's ok to kill children and call it a choice, there is no logical reason we should not simply eliminate murder as a crime altogether. It is an infringement upon my rights not to let me choose to perform abortions on those I see fit. There is no other way to view it, if one is going to call abortion a matter of choice, and not defend the rights of the person killed.

 

[Expat]

Come on Joe, you are way out there now. How can you be against pulling a living baby's head outside of the mother, perhaps it even starts breathing, but you keep those feet in the mother. Shove the tube into the back of its head and then suck its brain out. Toss it to the side then on the floor, but hey if you didn't get the job done and it is still alive, just go over and finish the job. Now that is some freedom we can't possibly live without. You need to join the modern world Joe.

 

[Archaic_Entity]

It is always fun watching those who support legal drug use, murdering babies, and not defending this nation try to tell us how that's not what they support.

I'm still stuck on this quote, abortion arguments aside. Legal drug use was just fine until it was criminalized in the 1950's through 1970's. Until then, no one had a problem with it. I'd also stand for lowering the age limits on alcohol consumption. And legalizing drugs, so long as they're used willingly. Same with prostitution. If it's a fair transaction between two willing parties, then have a party. Maybe two.

No one has said we're against defending this nation either. End the war on drugs and we'll be taking a lot of the money from drug cartels. Defend the borders of America, not the borders of other countries that don't want us there. Maybe then you'll see National Guard stationed in Arizona drug country.

I'm going to leave the abortion issue alone because I really can't comment on it in any way that hasn't been touched.

 

[kingnereli]

That also matches the description of every libertarian I know. As for your list, I don't believe I've ever stated a stance on abortion and, the last time I checked I wasn't an atheist. How much wronger can you get?

I wasn't referring specifically to you. That's how the article described the leftist in Republican clothing politician. So I guess I'm not "wronger."

First of all religion has nothing to do with a political party, or left or right. It crosses all boundaries.

This I agree with for the most part. Religion doesn't necessarily preclude certain party affiliations. However, people tend to gravitate toward parties who aren't morally offensive to their beliefs. Abortion is a good example. People who value life gravitate toward the historically pro-life Republican party.

Pro-drug and pro-abortion are synonymous with pro-freedom because they both enable the CHOICE to do drugs or have an abortion. Neither state that if you are pro-drug or pro-abortion that you MUST do one, rather you simply have the choice, should you chose, thus being pro-freedom.

That is quite easy for you to say seeing how you are already born and aren't likely under the sway of a crack head. The babies don't get to choose to have their brains sucked out. The kids, spouses, friends, loved ones don't get to choose the ramifications and influence of a persons drug use. Personal freedom can not mean freedom for those with power at the expense of everyone else around. It's inherently selfish.

anti-war? Are you kidding me? Is there such a thing as "pro-war"? Do people sit around all day in their black leather chairs down in their secret lair attempting to come up with ways to start wars? I thought every sane human being was "anti-war". If you enjoy thousands or millions of people dying over a few short years, then I hope you're in a very small minority.

I'm absolutely serious. It's the belief that there are things worth fighting for. It is a shame that this country has gotten to a place where so many people think that we shouldn't defend ourselves, that we shouldn't use our national position and power to procure freedom for others as we can. It's inherently selfish. This hasn't been a perfect war. There is no such thing. Though we were attacked and had every right to return the favor. A lot of good has come of it. It's far better than the libertarian idea of holing up with a tiny military.


Pro-freedom is Pro-American. Anti-freedom is Anti-American. Don't tread on me.

As long as you get to choose who is permitted what freedoms rather than someone else. You would do well to consider who you are treading on while you're screaming "Don't tread on me."

Wow...

Read the 10th Amendment. The states have rights.

Oh, I'm glad you clarified that. That changes everything.

They are supposed to be allowed to make their own laws about things like this. What is the point of having Governors and State Congresses if the Federal Government is going to pass sweeping laws control all the states?

I've got no problem with the federal government stepping in when states get it wrong. Libertarians chant about states rights on some issues but not others. Immigration for instance. There are an awful lot of libertarians right now blaming the federal government for the illegal alien problem. They also don't have any problem with the plethora of other federal laws. Why not let each state decide if murder, rape, theft, etc. should be illegal. Because they are morally abhorrent and too important to let slide anywhere at any time. Abortion (I repeat myself with murder) and drug use fit that category as well.

If the states have the power to pass their own murder laws, they should have to make up their own minds about abortion. It should never have been a national matter left up to the Feds.

Let a state legalize murder (of people who are already born) and see if the "Feds" don't step in.

Similarly, if states want to legalize drugs, that should be their option. It should never have been a national matter left up to the Feds.

I've already covered this so I'l just say YEAH HUH.

It is mind-blowing that a constitutionalist or a libertarian can be confused with a modern American "leftist." Hows big government working out for you?

The line is very very thin and in some cases we would be worse off under a Libertarian majority. (Though that's not going to happen in my lifetime.) Can you not see how you have a lot of agreement with "modern American leftists" specifically on these issues? I've had this same debate with liberals. The may have different motives but they come to the same conclusions. When I'm arguing abortion, effective military, drugs, etc. it is difficult to tell whether I'm debating a libertarian or a liberal. They're only a hairs breadth apart.

Who said I was in favor of big government? In large part I'm unhappy with the way things are right now. I'm just opposed to turning the country over to the liberals or their closet brothers the libertarians. We need to return to traditional conservatism. That is morally centered, founding fathers approved, rights for ALL conservatism. Libertarianism will take us down the same road we are on only for different reasons.

Exactly, why? Seems to me that for pro-abortionists, it is hypocritical not to call for repeal of those laws. Pure age discrimination, and they impede my ability to choose who is convenient to me and therefore worthy of life, and who is inconvenient.

Freedom of choice is what it's all about, isn't it?

This is one of my favorite arguments. Abortion is about selfish convenience. To be logically consistent we would have to allow people to choose to kill anyone they deem inconvenient. The elderly would be an obvious next step. If you get too old to take care of yourself I'll just suck your brain out. How about mentally or physically handicapped? Why not? How about my neighbor who blares his rock music when I'm trying to sleep? It is mighty inconvenient.

You can tell a great deal about a society by how they treat their most vulnerable elements. So far we are failing.

 

[rambone]

I've got no problem with the federal government stepping in when states get it wrong. Libertarians chant about states rights on some issues but not others. Immigration for instance. There are an awful lot of libertarians right now blaming the federal government for the illegal alien problem.

Really? Well I do have a problem with it when they don't have the authority. The states' rights are being trounced by the Feds. Again I ask what is the point of having State Congress if the Feds are going to do their job for them?

Immigration is one of a handful of things that the Federal Government is actually tasked with in the Constitution. And from what I have seen of the AZ law, it is constitutional and I'm not objecting to it.

They also don't have any problem with the plethora of other federal laws.

What? Do you know what a libertarian is?? They support stripping the Feds' power to do practically everything and give it back to the states. Hence, dividing power and protecting us from centralized tyranny.

Why not let each state decide if murder, rape, theft, etc. should be illegal. Because they are morally abhorrent and too important to let slide anywhere at any time. Abortion (I repeat myself with murder) and drug use fit that category as well.

What part of the Constitution says the Federal Government has the power to regulate things that are too immoral for States to contemplate?? The states have the power to regulate all that stuff you mentioned.

And yeah... the states all have their own murder laws, that was my point. I was trying to show how abortion is the same and should be dealt with by the states. Murder is illegal in every state, without the help of the Federal Government.

Otherwise you are left with "Roe v. Wade" and the Feds dictate that abortion is legal everywhere. So why are you supporting centralized power again? You are clearly against abortion. And so am I. But the states can't do squat when the Feds take away states' rights.

Who said I was in favor of big government?

If you support small government, why do you support the Feds unconstitutional power grab to regulate drugs across the whole country? It should be a state issue.

Me personally? I'd choose to live in a state that decided not to enforce drug laws. Because I want lower taxes and weak government. NOT because I use drugs.

If some states kept it illegal, and made it a state enforcement program, that would be their right. Hence, the 10th Amendment in action.

Can you not see how you have a lot of agreement with "modern American leftists" specifically on these issues?

I can't say that I've ever heard a Leftist argue for strong states' rights and a weak Federal government. And I'm not even arguing for abortion.

We need to return to traditional conservatism. That is morally centered, founding fathers approved, rights for ALL conservatism. Libertarianism will take us down the same road we are on only for different reasons.

Ok then... why didn't the Founding Fathers give the Federal Government power to ban abortion and drug use? Because... those powers were left to the states.... Just like MURDER is now! The Federal Government was not supposed to be into everything, just national concerns, like treaties, military, trade, immigration...


There is no way in hell a Libertarian society would facilitate centralized Federal tyranny. You seem to be the one arguing that the Feds need to have more power.

I'm just opposed to turning the country over to the liberals or their closet brothers the libertarians.

If liberals and libertarians are closet brothers, then find me a single libertarian that is happy with the way the country is being run by liberals. In my opinion you are misinterpreting what liberty means to a libertarian.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

To be fair, I (and most libertarians) aren't "pro-drug". We're anti-war on drugs and for the legalisation of drugs. There's a difference. Most libertarians are pro-choice, but there are a significant number who are anti-choice. And loads of people are anti-war, including quite a few republicans.
As for your switch...I hope it's working out for you, altho it doesn't look like it is.

Since we're being so frank and open here, why don't you just say you're in favor of letting women decide if they want to murder their unborn babies, just like we allow the rest of our population to murder someone who is "inconvenient". I WILL NOT get into a debate about this issue because I understand the Libertarian argument and don't - never will - agree with it, so I won't be trying to convince anyone, but if we're going to be blunt, then don't sugar-coat the situation and don't try to equate the choice of using drugs with the choice of murdering an innocent baby.

 

[level.eleven]

Since we're being so frank and open here, why don't you just say you're in favor of letting women decide if they want to murder their unborn babies, just like we allow the rest of our population to murder someone who is "inconvenient". I WILL NOT get into a debate about this issue because I understand the Libertarian argument and don't - never will - agree with it, so I won't be trying to convince anyone, but if we're going to be blunt, then don't sugar-coat the situation and don't try to equate the choice of using drugs with the choice of murdering an innocent baby.

Without googling, can you tell us the Libertarian Party position on abortion?

 

[Archaic_Entity]

Since we're being so frank and open here, why don't you just say you're in favor of letting women decide if they want to murder their unborn babies, just like we allow the rest of our population to murder someone who is "inconvenient". I WILL NOT get into a debate about this issue because I understand the Libertarian argument and don't - never will - agree with it, so I won't be trying to convince anyone, but if we're going to be blunt, then don't sugar-coat the situation and don't try to equate the choice of using drugs with the choice of murdering an innocent baby.

While I believe your primary issue is the argument as to whether or not an embryo is alive or not, that's not the issue they're bringing up. The issue at hand isn't even about abortion rights. It's about the Federal government usurping state's rights to decide things for themselves. I.E. Roe v Wade which does exactly that. Rather than giving the states the right to decide what their laws consist of, it allows the Federal government to blanket statement things such as abortion stance while overriding anything states say. So, if the President is pro-abortion, he can just say it's a nationwide thing to be legal. Annnd... didn't he? Didn't he pass sweeping national health care acts that promote abortion? Just because the Federal government has control over the matter.

If they didn't, then Indiana would still be anti-abortion. Don't confuse the issues of the argument here.