Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Libertarians don't care if people want to be religious.
No we don't care what your religion is, who you worship, or if you do or don't.
We simply don't believe in "returning the constitution legislatively to a "supposed biblical beginning" as many Tea Party members opine to, e.g. Sara Palin & co.
We do not involve ourselves with supporting the associated social causes many Tea Party members want to legislatively change/keep because of their own personal religion, e.g. gay issues, marriage, drugs, abortion.
That's why I said, leave your religious trunk (junk) at the door, politically speaking
No we don't care what your religion is, who you worship, or if you do or don't.
We simply don't believe in "returning the constitution legislatively to a "supposed biblical beginning" as many Tea Party members opine to, e.g. Sara Palin & co.
We do not involve ourselves with supporting the associated social causes many Tea Party members want to legislatively change/keep because of their own personal religion, e.g. gay issues, marriage, drugs, abortion.
That's why I said, leave your religious trunk (junk) at the door, politically speaking
No we don't care what your religion is, who you worship, or if you do or don't.
We simply don't believe in "returning the constitution legislatively to a "supposed biblical beginning" as many Tea Party members opine to, e.g. Sara Palin & co.
Sarah Palin is an opportunist. Nothing more. People can claim their farts smell like roses but they don't.
Quote:
We do not involve ourselves with supporting the associated social causes many Tea Party members want to legislatively change/keep because of their own personal religion, e.g. gay issues, marriage, drugs, abortion.
That's why I said, leave your religious trunk (junk) at the door, politically speaking
I'll begin by indicating how I became aware, very belatedly, of the "indivisibility of life." I mention this fragment of autobiography only be cause I think it may be useful to those who are interested in bringing others like me - some people are not interested in making the ranks more heterogeneous, but others are, as I've been finding out - to a realization that the "slippery slope" is far more than a metaphor.
When I say "like me," I suppose in some respects I'm regarded as a "liberal," although I often stray from that category, and certainly a civil libertarian - though the ACLU and I are in profound disagreement on the matters of abortion, handicapped infants and euthanasia, because I think they have forsaken basic civil liberties in dealing with these issues. I'm considered a liberal except for that unaccountable heresy of recent years that has to do with pro-life matters.
It's all the more unaccountable to a lot of people because I remain an atheist, a Jewish atheist. (That's a special branch of the division.) I think the question I'm most often asked from both sides is, "How do you presume to have this kind of moral conception without a belief in God?" And the answer is, "It's harder." But it's not impossible.
Some of the most well respected Libertarians are pro-life. Ron Paul and Nat Hentoff for example.
People really should quit with the generalizations.
Did you notice the most in my comment, and most libertarians are pro choice. I was not pro choice, but no longer consider myself libertarian.
I've only met a handful of religious libertarians, that is definitely not true about tea partiers.
Generalizations never happen in politics right? This whole thread is based on the generalization that libertarians and tea partiers don't mix, which is somewhat ridiculous, but I was pointing out a reason some don't mix.
Open borders are fine, as long as there is no tax & spend welfare state. That is the Libertarian stance.
It has also been updated (at least since 2002) to include enforcing the border for
security and/or health reasons.
We also believe in immigration legislation that reflects the reality of why folks are
illegally coming here in the first place. E.g. drug trafficking
Making marijuana possession legal and manufacturing the drug
in the US, would create less demand for the drug from South-Central America/Mexico.
The number of immigrants who transport drugs would drop in turn.
Which results in spending less tax dollars for border control.
Did you notice the most in my comment, and most libertarians are pro choice. I was not pro choice, but no longer consider myself libertarian.
I don't feel qualified to speak to the *most* of any group.
Quote:
I've only met a handful of religious libertarians, that is definitely not true about tea partiers.
I've met very few of either libertarians or tea partiers so I can't really base anything off those I've met.
Quote:
Generalizations never happen in politics right? This whole thread is based on the generalization that libertarians and tea partiers don't mix, which is somewhat ridiculous, but I was pointing out a reason some don't mix.
One position consistently espoused by libertarians is that all people are interchangeable and that outcomes of a society are based on legal and economic models. This is why most libertarians believe in open borders. They think that all people should have freedom of movement, even across national borders, since border enforcement is a use of force.
Do I need to even explain why that is wrong?
That may be the most bizarre thing I've ever read on CD & that's saying something. Libertarians are not one simple ideology, so that needs to be understood. That said, I don't know a single Libertarian who thinks the Southern border should be left open. Not one. I hold many Libertarian beliefs, but not all so I don't speak for everyone. I believe we should bring all of our troops home from overseas. I believe we should end foreign aid. I believe we should use some of those soldiers to man our borders because illegal immigration is a matter of Nation Security. I believe we should also reform the immigration process so that people can actually apply & get a Visa the right way, without having to wait years for an appointment. I believe the "War on Terror" is mostly a scam. Why am I supposed to worry about terrorists in Yemen or Pakistan, or sit by as rent-a-cops strip search American children at airports, while terrorists can simply walk across our borders? Does not compute.
When I say "like me," I suppose in some respects I'm regarded as a "liberal," although I often stray from that category, and certainly a civil libertarian - though the ACLU and I are in profound disagreement on the matters of abortion, handicapped infants and euthanasia, because I think they have forsaken basic civil liberties in dealing with these issues.
My stance is that it is a personal issue and any decision one makes in that regard is between them and their conscious. Not me. Not the government. I feel the same way about assisted suicide for the terminally ill, which I believe this country is totally wrong about.
I guess it's unfair to use Sara Palin as an example of the many Tea Party folks who started out with/or around the time of Ron Paul's 2008 campaign. But regardless, that movement was hijacked, and what they are now is more akin to the Constitution Party, not the Libertarian Party in focus and motivation.
But that does not necessary mean we can't get along. I don't even believe in all our platforms either, especially the one on health care. But we've got to pick our poison, and foreign policy is it for me.
I think if we had a party that just had one issue: agreed that the federal government is spending too much of our own money we would all win hands down. I will just call it the Bird Party - come fly with me
My stance is that it is a personal issue and any decision one makes in that regard is
between them and their conscious. Not me. Not the government. I feel the same
way about assisted suicide for the terminally ill, which I believe this country is totally wrong about.
O.K.
Quote:
I guess it's unfair to use Sara Palin as an example of the many Tea Party folks who started out with/
or around the time of Ron Paul's 2008 campaign. But regardless, that movement was hijacked, and
what they are now is more akin to the Constitution Party, not the Libertarian Party in focus
and motivation.
In 2008 Palin hooked her wagon to the opposite of a Libertarian in McCain. She will never get that stench off her.
Quote:
But that does not necessary mean we can't get along. I don't even believe in all our platforms either,
especially the one on health care. But we've got to pick our poison, and foreign policy is it for me.
I think if we had a party that just had one issue: agreed that the federal government is spending
too much of our own money we would all win hands down.
I will just call it the Bird Party - come fly with me
Right, people can get along even with differences of belief.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
- come fly with me
