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.
Just because you are a Libertarian doesn't mean you cannot be socially conservative.....if you think it is inherent, please explain why....
if one is libertarian, how could one believe that the government should decide who marries? or that the government decides if you should be able to smoke this plant, but not that plant?
a social conservative believes in 'traditional values' being enforced by the government, whereas a libertarian believes that the government has no role in your personal life. does any of the following sound like a libertarian to you?
"As an application of these general principles, social conservatives in many countries generally: favor the pro-life position in opposing euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, and abortion; oppose both eugenics (inheritable genetic modification) and human enhancement (transhumanism) while supporting bioconservatism;[1] support abstinence-only education, school prayers, gun ownership and defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman; support the continued prohibition of recreational or medically non-beneficial drugs; oppose prostitution and brothels, polygamy, gay adoption, premarital sex, and non-marital sex; and object to pornography and what they consider to be indecency and promiscuity. Some may also oppose the teaching of evolution in public schools, preferring creationism."
if one is libertarian, how could one believe that the government should decide who marries? or that the government decides if you should be able to smoke this plant, but not that plant?
a social conservative believes in 'traditional values' being enforced by the government, whereas a Libertarian believes that the government has no role in your personal life. does any of the following sound like a libertarian to you?
"As an application of these general principles, social conservatives in many countries generally: favor the pro-life position in opposing euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, and abortion; oppose both eugenics (inheritable genetic modification) and human enhancement (transhumanism) while supporting bioconservatism;[1] support abstinence-only education, school prayers, gun ownership and defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman; support the continued prohibition of recreational or medically non-beneficial drugs; oppose prostitution and brothels, polygamy, gay adoption, premarital sex, and non-marital sex; and object to pornography and what they consider to be indecency and promiscuity. Some may also oppose the teaching of evolution in public schools, preferring creationism."
No, that's where you're wrong...
A social conservative believes in being socially conservative....nothing more, nothing less. A libertarian believe that a government shouldn't force ANY social preference on anybody....
So, if a priest doesn't want to marry a gay couple they shouldn't have to. If a school doesn't want to teach about homosexuality they shouldn't be forced by federal slaps to do so. If an employer doesn't want to hire transgender they shouldn't be forced to do so federally....to do so would be at their own folly, but I digress....
Liberals PREFER to bring forced associations...and when it comes to forcing associations Liberals need the state way more than Libertarians do. So I don't understand why Liberals use this talking point.
Again, this is the true principles that libertarianism falls under..being Anti-State. Not like people trying to shove the name into the box of party politics.
No one has a right to commit fraud in voting. In fact, punishments for those that do are quite severe - which is why it's such a teeny tiny issue.
Blocking the military vote? I'm assuming you're referring to the issue that arose in Ohio that people have skewed the facts on. Democrats aren't blocking military votes...they are actually fighting for the early voting period to be extended to more than only ACTIVE DUTY, to also include veterans and non-military. So, instead of only Active Duty citizens getting early voting rights, Democrats are fighting for everyone to get them.
They aren't blocking the military vote.
Only one party is participating in voter suppression acts this election year.
owning a firearm is a right too, and I need an ID to appease the fedgov in order to buy one.
I do think that if the states want a ID needed in order to vote, then they should supply it at their cost to all citizens of that state free of charge.
What should be happening is a state should be actively comparing voter registration database to their records of death certificates.
Brady when Florida had originally requested access to federal database that had fairly new and accurate information on the legal status of immigarants they were blocked by the DOJ and subsequently granted access after suing. I don't believe they have continued their purge yet but it will happen to some degree before the election. .
i rarely ever pull my ID out of my wallet - so i never really understood this "everything in life" argument either.
At the age of 33 I once had to pull my ID out to buy a video game at Best Buy. Granted this was probably the pimply faced teenager on a power trip, I just about fell over because at that point I was no longer being asked for ID even to buy liquor at the state store which is very cautious.
Just yesterday I opened a new bank account and I had to produce ID and another form of non photo ID.
i'm from PA, and went to college in PA, and I knew dozens of people in college with fake Pennsylvania driver's licenses. I also knew someone (not a friend, but knew the guy) who made them and sold them. they sold for $100 back when i was in college about a decade ago. definitely not for thousands.
With the hologram on them? When I say thousands I mean one that is exact duplicate.
Quote:
In my opinion, March of an election year is too late. like i said - if the state can ensure that every registered voter has an ID, then by all means, go for it. sending letters and advertising on television is nice, but i'm saying i think the the burden is on the state to ensure that every registered voter has an ID.
Oh come on, what more do you expect them do. Go door to door? 8 months is plenty of warning and it's almost impossible for someone to not know it's law.
Quote:
should be simple enough...you start with the voter registration list and do a simple bump up to the photo ID and driver's license database. then, whomever falls out of that list is who you have to contact.
That's who the letters were sent too.
Quote:
when the problem it's addressing is essentially non existent (which the Commonwealth of PA admitted).
Don't misinterpret that, the lawyer had nothing to gain from introducing evidence of voter fraud. That is not what the case was about and there isn't a lawyer in this country that is going to bring evidence into a court of law that is not going to help their case.
a COLLEGE ID is a valid ID of WHOM your are...but NOT a valid id of RESIDENCY, but YOUR state CCP does show your RESIDENCY, and your photo
For the record a college/university ID is acceptable form of ID to vote here in PA. They tried to accommodate the students, another one that is acceptable is the ID from long term health care, aka old folks home.
Why haven't I seen CATO or the Reason Foundation do a piece on voter ID laws? That's how I know libertarians are closet conservatives. They never rally with liberals on any issue.
Libertarians are almost always fiscal conservatives. When has a libertarian ever denied it? We'd sooner be members of the Tea Party than Democratic Socialists. Paul is considered the father of the Tea Party, so why wouldn't that imply conservative leaning? We are moderate's who want a smaller federal government that protects our borders and defends the country. We want a less intrusive government which follows the constitution verbatim.
Voting is far more important that drinking or driving, both of which require identification. If you want to vote you should be prepared to show ID.
Even though we may share SOME beliefs, we are true moderates and still far right of todays liberals.
i rarely ever pull my ID out of my wallet - so i never really understood this "everything in life" argument either.
You don't use credit cards or write checks? You must know every teller and cashier where you live, huh? Some of us live in fairly large cities, like say... Los Angeles, and we are asked for ID on a daily basis.
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.
