(11-12-2012 08:07 AM)TampaKnight Wrote:  

(11-12-2012 07:15 AM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  

(11-11-2012 07:26 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Yes..All they have to do is support Liberty...Currently they have other masters.

If by liberty you mean freedom then the answer is no. Freedom to Marry the person you love male or female, Freedom of reproductive choice or even freedom to have serious conversations on evolution and climate change. The Evangelicals I know would reject all of the above without discussion or exception.

Certainly, evangelical Christians are permitted to disagree with the positions, but the right to discuss these issues is guaranteed by the 1st Amendment. And I know plenty of Born-again Christians who are ready to subscribe to theistic evolution.

This. The GOP needs to tell the religious right that it will no longer be the megaphone for Christian agenda. It is killing the party that is supposed to stand for fiscal responsibility and personal freedom.

As a Christian, we as a group need to get our own house in order. What's the point of forcing the GOP to be pro-life and anti-gay marriage? If someone is Christian, then abortion isn't supposed to be a legit consideration and as long as churches aren't forced to conduct gay marriages against their this becomes a non-issue. Preach the message to the congregation, not the nation.

With regard to the faux scientific/religious disconnect, there are plenty of Christians in multiple scientific fields doing amazing work. Work that can't be accomplished unless you believe the Earth is ~4 billions years old or that evolution isn't true. Exporting these individuals mindset to others is essential if Christianity expects to exist in the future.

(11-12-2012 10:10 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  As a Christian, we as a group need to get our own house in order. What's the point of forcing the GOP to be pro-life and anti-gay marriage? If someone is Christian, then abortion isn't supposed to be a legit consideration and as long as churches aren't forced to conduct gay marriages against their this becomes a non-issue. Preach the message to the congregation, not the nation.

What?

(11-12-2012 10:34 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(11-12-2012 10:10 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  As a Christian, we as a group need to get our own house in order. What's the point of forcing the GOP to be pro-life and anti-gay marriage? If someone is Christian, then abortion isn't supposed to be a legit consideration and as long as churches aren't forced to conduct gay marriages against their this becomes a non-issue. Preach the message to the congregation, not the nation.

What?

Just that from a Christian POV, abortion isn't a policy consideration, more of a personal one. Thinking that we are going to solve this ancient practice with laws is naive and even if I believe that life begins at conception its clear that a large majority of people in this country don't.

(11-12-2012 10:55 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(11-12-2012 10:34 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(11-12-2012 10:10 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  As a Christian, we as a group need to get our own house in order. What's the point of forcing the GOP to be pro-life and anti-gay marriage? If someone is Christian, then abortion isn't supposed to be a legit consideration and as long as churches aren't forced to conduct gay marriages against their this becomes a non-issue. Preach the message to the congregation, not the nation.

What?

Just that from a Christian POV, abortion isn't a policy consideration, more of a personal one. Thinking that we are going to solve this ancient practice with laws is naive and even if I believe that life begins at conception its clear that a large majority of people in this country don't.

If slavery was a political consideration for Christians then Abortion is..

(11-12-2012 11:01 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(11-12-2012 10:55 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(11-12-2012 10:34 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(11-12-2012 10:10 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  As a Christian, we as a group need to get our own house in order. What's the point of forcing the GOP to be pro-life and anti-gay marriage? If someone is Christian, then abortion isn't supposed to be a legit consideration and as long as churches aren't forced to conduct gay marriages against their this becomes a non-issue. Preach the message to the congregation, not the nation.

What?

Just that from a Christian POV, abortion isn't a policy consideration, more of a personal one. Thinking that we are going to solve this ancient practice with laws is naive and even if I believe that life begins at conception its clear that a large majority of people in this country don't.

If slavery was a political consideration for Christians then Abortion is..

Are you willing to resolve abortion the same way slavery was? Besides, the Bible was used just as ardently to justify slavery as it was to denounce it.

(11-12-2012 11:26 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(11-12-2012 11:01 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(11-12-2012 10:55 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(11-12-2012 10:34 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(11-12-2012 10:10 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  As a Christian, we as a group need to get our own house in order. What's the point of forcing the GOP to be pro-life and anti-gay marriage? If someone is Christian, then abortion isn't supposed to be a legit consideration and as long as churches aren't forced to conduct gay marriages against their this becomes a non-issue. Preach the message to the congregation, not the nation.

What?

Just that from a Christian POV, abortion isn't a policy consideration, more of a personal one. Thinking that we are going to solve this ancient practice with laws is naive and even if I believe that life begins at conception its clear that a large majority of people in this country don't.

If slavery was a political consideration for Christians then Abortion is..

Are you willing to resolve abortion the same way slavery was? Besides, the Bible was used just as ardently to justify slavery as it was to denounce it.

You did not answer the point...

If you believe that slavery was rightfully a political consideration then it's not absurd to say that Abortion it.

(11-11-2012 11:32 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  

(11-11-2012 11:02 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  The thing is that libertarians have to be reasonable. When a Ron Paul supporter gets up and starts talking about privatizing fire departments and letting people die when they get cancer, it turns people off. First, realize that we will never be the America that existed in 1776, it's just not feasible. Second, realize that you have to work towards your goal. You aren't going to elect someone that dismantles the entire federal establishment overnight. Work on it slowly. Build coalitions with groups that agree with you on some things. There's no reason that libertarians couldn't tie up with blue dog democrats and pull some support from the left.

I can agree with this. Change never happens overnight, and you'll never hear from me that fire departments should be privatized.

For the Libertarians to be a true force as our own party, I do think that we need to try to get blue dogs to join us.

I remember watching an interview about Paul where he stated basically this. The interviewer asked him if he wanted to get rid of one of the government organizations (FDA/DoE/EPA, not sure which one, but it's not really relevant) and he stated yes, but then he made it clear that he's well aware of the fact those departments do a job that is needed, just at the state level. He said he'd evaluate their effectiveness, attempt to transfer over their responsibilities to the states, and if that weren't possible, just limit their scope to what they need to effectively do their intended purpose. That isn't what many of the loudest libertarians want, but it's a rational way to move towards your goals. This whole "NO VOTING ON ANY TAX INCREASE EVER! PRINCIPLES!" is bullsh*t, and only going to drive our country off the cliff.

The Libertarians already sold out to the religious right, and they wonder why they have no credibility.

(11-12-2012 11:32 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(11-12-2012 11:26 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(11-12-2012 11:01 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(11-12-2012 10:55 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(11-12-2012 10:34 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  What?

Just that from a Christian POV, abortion isn't a policy consideration, more of a personal one. Thinking that we are going to solve this ancient practice with laws is naive and even if I believe that life begins at conception its clear that a large majority of people in this country don't.

If slavery was a political consideration for Christians then Abortion is..

Are you willing to resolve abortion the same way slavery was? Besides, the Bible was used just as ardently to justify slavery as it was to denounce it.

You did not answer the point...

If you believe that slavery was rightfully a political consideration then it's not absurd to say that Abortion it.

I believe slavery was a political consideration that was essentially written into the Constitution. It is not absurd to express Abortion in a similar vain. But as slavery was a restrictive institution, many perceive pro-life arguments in the same light.

I think that someone going to prison for smoking marijuana is a much larger civil liberties concern than whether or not you're going to have to pay a tax to fund another person healthcare. One is a removal of monetary funds, the other is a removal of a persons entire right as a citizen. I wouldn't be surprised if I wasn't the only one who felt this way.

I consider myself firmly in the social and fiscal conservative camp. That being said my views on the role of government and how the two party system facilitates the demise of freedom for everyone have "evolved" since I began posting and reading this forum a few years ago. I used to be a GOP'er from balls to bones. Now, I'm 80% Libertarian and 20% GOP. I can thank GTS, Blazer, Fo, Torch, SMN, REBEL, OWL and so on for that. For example I don't think abortion should be legal but I would compromise for it being legal if ZERO tax dollars funded organizations that performed them. I think a person's moral choices are between them and their maker(if you believe you have one). I also don't think government should be involved in "marriage". There shouldn't be any federal or state benefits for married couples. I don't want the definition or marriage to be changed. This is a religious institution and should stay that way. I think "civil unions" should have access to all the benefits married couples get(things like survivor ship, visitation, estate law..etc.) This may sound hypocritical but I also think churches should be able to "marry" anyone they choose. I just think churches that don't condone the practice shouldn't be forced to perform the ceremonies(no one is advocating for this I just see it coming with the INSANE lefties). I think we should close most of our bases overseas and bring our troops home. I think we should reform the tax code to be more competitive globally and broaden the tax base and eliminate deductions to raise revenue. Marijuana should be legal. We should reevaluate our police force to see EXACTLY what they need to enforce the law and not be a paramilitary unit. I basically want to be left alone by our government at the state and federal level. I don't think the government should make it harder for me to raise the kids I FATHERED by mandating(taxing...you choose) to pay for everyone else's healthcare, food and shelter. I don't mind helping the poor I just don't subscribe to the notion that people will be dying in the streets if we wean them off assistance or ask them to contribute to picking up trash or mowing the grass at state or federal buildings while submitting to drug tests to receive funds. I have to work for my money. Why shouldn't they? I could go on but you get the point. I can be on the religious right and vote Libertarian. I just want to be left alone and right now the Libertarians are the ones saying they'll do that. my two cents.

(11-12-2012 12:04 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(11-12-2012 11:32 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(11-12-2012 11:26 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(11-12-2012 11:01 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(11-12-2012 10:55 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  Just that from a Christian POV, abortion isn't a policy consideration, more of a personal one. Thinking that we are going to solve this ancient practice with laws is naive and even if I believe that life begins at conception its clear that a large majority of people in this country don't.

If slavery was a political consideration for Christians then Abortion is..

Are you willing to resolve abortion the same way slavery was? Besides, the Bible was used just as ardently to justify slavery as it was to denounce it.

You did not answer the point...

If you believe that slavery was rightfully a political consideration then it's not absurd to say that Abortion it.

I believe slavery was a political consideration that was essentially written into the Constitution. It is not absurd to express Abortion in a similar vain. But as slavery was a restrictive institution, many perceive pro-life arguments in the same light.

According to the SC Abortion, via privacy, is also "written into the constitution". And those who backed slavery vied abolition as a restrictive institution, restrictive of property rights.

And I can view anything in any light, doesn't mean it's at all a defensible position.

(11-12-2012 12:05 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  I think that someone going to prison for smoking marijuana is a much larger civil liberties concern than whether or not you're going to have to pay a tax to fund another person healthcare. One is a removal of monetary funds, the other is a removal of a persons entire right as a citizen. I wouldn't be surprised if I wasn't the only one who felt this way.

This.

I'd be a libertarian voter if actual freedom was higher on the ladder than "don't take my money"

So many on the right seem more than happy to lock people up for smoking pot while saying that paying for someone's cancer treatments is anti-American totalitarianism. I'm not saying change your stance on fiscal issues, but you'll get a lot of moderate liberals like me if you flip flop those around and work on actual freedom issues first.

(11-12-2012 02:04 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  

(11-12-2012 12:05 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  I think that someone going to prison for smoking marijuana is a much larger civil liberties concern than whether or not you're going to have to pay a tax to fund another person healthcare. One is a removal of monetary funds, the other is a removal of a persons entire right as a citizen. I wouldn't be surprised if I wasn't the only one who felt this way.

This.
I'd be a libertarian voter if actual freedom was higher on the ladder than "don't take my money"
So many on the right seem more than happy to lock people up for smoking pot while saying that paying for someone's cancer treatments is anti-American totalitarianism. I'm not saying change your stance on fiscal issues, but you'll get a lot of moderate liberals like me if you flip flop those around and work on actual freedom issues first.

I think someone going to jail is a larger civil liberties concern than taking someone's money, but not hugely so. Certainly not sufficiently so that it's okay to end the one and tolerate the other, either way. If you think that somehow "don't take my money" is not actual freedom, then I'm sorry, but you are misinformed. Personal freedom without economic freedom is worthless because personal freedom cannot be sustained without economic freedom.

(11-12-2012 12:56 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  I consider myself firmly in the social and fiscal conservative camp. That being said my views on the role of government and how the two party system facilitates the demise of freedom for everyone have "evolved" since I began posting and reading this forum a few years ago. I used to be a GOP'er from balls to bones. Now, I'm 80% Libertarian and 20% GOP. I can thank GTS, Blazer, Fo, Torch, SMN, REBEL, OWL and so on for that. For example I don't think abortion should be legal but I would compromise for it being legal if ZERO tax dollars funded organizations that performed them. I think a person's moral choices are between them and their maker(if you believe you have one). I also don't think government should be involved in "marriage". There shouldn't be any federal or state benefits for married couples. I don't want the definition or marriage to be changed. This is a religious institution and should stay that way. I think "civil unions" should have access to all the benefits married couples get(things like survivor ship, visitation, estate law..etc.) This may sound hypocritical but I also think churches should be able to "marry" anyone they choose. I just think churches that don't condone the practice shouldn't be forced to perform the ceremonies(no one is advocating for this I just see it coming with the INSANE lefties). I think we should close most of our bases overseas and bring our troops home. I think we should reform the tax code to be more competitive globally and broaden the tax base and eliminate deductions to raise revenue. Marijuana should be legal. We should reevaluate our police force to see EXACTLY what they need to enforce the law and not be a paramilitary unit. I basically want to be left alone by our government at the state and federal level. I don't think the government should make it harder for me to raise the kids I FATHERED by mandating(taxing...you choose) to pay for everyone else's healthcare, food and shelter. I don't mind helping the poor I just don't subscribe to the notion that people will be dying in the streets if we wean them off assistance or ask them to contribute to picking up trash or mowing the grass at state or federal buildings while submitting to drug tests to receive funds. I have to work for my money. Why shouldn't they? I could go on but you get the point. I can be on the religious right and vote Libertarian. I just want to be left alone and right now the Libertarians are the ones saying they'll do that. my two cents.

I just wish more from the social wing of the GOP were like you. I dont begrudge anyone for their personal beliefs. I do have issues when people feel that their personal beliefs should be forced to be how everyone lives.

(11-12-2012 03:01 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(11-12-2012 12:56 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  I consider myself firmly in the social and fiscal conservative camp. That being said my views on the role of government and how the two party system facilitates the demise of freedom for everyone have "evolved" since I began posting and reading this forum a few years ago. I used to be a GOP'er from balls to bones. Now, I'm 80% Libertarian and 20% GOP. I can thank GTS, Blazer, Fo, Torch, SMN, REBEL, OWL and so on for that. For example I don't think abortion should be legal but I would compromise for it being legal if ZERO tax dollars funded organizations that performed them. I think a person's moral choices are between them and their maker(if you believe you have one). I also don't think government should be involved in "marriage". There shouldn't be any federal or state benefits for married couples. I don't want the definition or marriage to be changed. This is a religious institution and should stay that way. I think "civil unions" should have access to all the benefits married couples get(things like survivor ship, visitation, estate law..etc.) This may sound hypocritical but I also think churches should be able to "marry" anyone they choose. I just think churches that don't condone the practice shouldn't be forced to perform the ceremonies(no one is advocating for this I just see it coming with the INSANE lefties). I think we should close most of our bases overseas and bring our troops home. I think we should reform the tax code to be more competitive globally and broaden the tax base and eliminate deductions to raise revenue. Marijuana should be legal. We should reevaluate our police force to see EXACTLY what they need to enforce the law and not be a paramilitary unit. I basically want to be left alone by our government at the state and federal level. I don't think the government should make it harder for me to raise the kids I FATHERED by mandating(taxing...you choose) to pay for everyone else's healthcare, food and shelter. I don't mind helping the poor I just don't subscribe to the notion that people will be dying in the streets if we wean them off assistance or ask them to contribute to picking up trash or mowing the grass at state or federal buildings while submitting to drug tests to receive funds. I have to work for my money. Why shouldn't they? I could go on but you get the point. I can be on the religious right and vote Libertarian. I just want to be left alone and right now the Libertarians are the ones saying they'll do that. my two cents.

I just wish more from the social wing of the GOP were like you. I begrudge anyone for their personal beliefs. I do have issues when people feel that their personal beliefs should be forced to be how everyone lives.

This is where I think the republicans have a huge opportunitiy. There are some crazies on the religious right who would never go for this, to be sure. But I think most of them would have no problem supporting a candidate who took those poisitions--and no problem STRONGLY supporting such a candidate if the opponent were Barack Obama (or Hilliary Clinton, for that matter, but I must admit that I don't understand the visceral hatred of the right for anything Clinton).

(11-12-2012 03:07 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-12-2012 03:01 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(11-12-2012 12:56 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  I consider myself firmly in the social and fiscal conservative camp. That being said my views on the role of government and how the two party system facilitates the demise of freedom for everyone have "evolved" since I began posting and reading this forum a few years ago. I used to be a GOP'er from balls to bones. Now, I'm 80% Libertarian and 20% GOP. I can thank GTS, Blazer, Fo, Torch, SMN, REBEL, OWL and so on for that. For example I don't think abortion should be legal but I would compromise for it being legal if ZERO tax dollars funded organizations that performed them. I think a person's moral choices are between them and their maker(if you believe you have one). I also don't think government should be involved in "marriage". There shouldn't be any federal or state benefits for married couples. I don't want the definition or marriage to be changed. This is a religious institution and should stay that way. I think "civil unions" should have access to all the benefits married couples get(things like survivor ship, visitation, estate law..etc.) This may sound hypocritical but I also think churches should be able to "marry" anyone they choose. I just think churches that don't condone the practice shouldn't be forced to perform the ceremonies(no one is advocating for this I just see it coming with the INSANE lefties). I think we should close most of our bases overseas and bring our troops home. I think we should reform the tax code to be more competitive globally and broaden the tax base and eliminate deductions to raise revenue. Marijuana should be legal. We should reevaluate our police force to see EXACTLY what they need to enforce the law and not be a paramilitary unit. I basically want to be left alone by our government at the state and federal level. I don't think the government should make it harder for me to raise the kids I FATHERED by mandating(taxing...you choose) to pay for everyone else's healthcare, food and shelter. I don't mind helping the poor I just don't subscribe to the notion that people will be dying in the streets if we wean them off assistance or ask them to contribute to picking up trash or mowing the grass at state or federal buildings while submitting to drug tests to receive funds. I have to work for my money. Why shouldn't they? I could go on but you get the point. I can be on the religious right and vote Libertarian. I just want to be left alone and right now the Libertarians are the ones saying they'll do that. my two cents.

I just wish more from the social wing of the GOP were like you. I begrudge anyone for their personal beliefs. I do have issues when people feel that their personal beliefs should be forced to be how everyone lives.

This is where I think the republicans have a huge opportunitiy. There are some crazies on the religious right who would never go for this, to be sure. But I think most of them would have no problem supporting a candidate who took those poisitions--and no problem STRONGLY supporting such a candidate if the opponent were Barack Obama (or Hilliary Clinton, for that matter, but I must admit that I don't understand the visceral hatred of the right for anything Clinton).

I think the visceral hate begins because they are democrats and its one reason I am completely fed up with the tribal-ness of our political setup.

(11-12-2012 03:12 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  I think the visceral hate begins because they are democrats and its one reason I am completely fed up with the tribal-ness of our political setup.

I don't think it's there just because they are democrats, any more than the left's visceral hate for GWB is there just because he's a republican. There are democrats and republicans that I believe can work with each other. Unfortunately, none of them seem to have made it to leadership positions (president, VP, speaker, senate majority/minority leaders, house majority/minority leaders).

(11-12-2012 02:58 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-12-2012 02:04 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  

(11-12-2012 12:05 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  I think that someone going to prison for smoking marijuana is a much larger civil liberties concern than whether or not you're going to have to pay a tax to fund another person healthcare. One is a removal of monetary funds, the other is a removal of a persons entire right as a citizen. I wouldn't be surprised if I wasn't the only one who felt this way.

This.
I'd be a libertarian voter if actual freedom was higher on the ladder than "don't take my money"
So many on the right seem more than happy to lock people up for smoking pot while saying that paying for someone's cancer treatments is anti-American totalitarianism. I'm not saying change your stance on fiscal issues, but you'll get a lot of moderate liberals like me if you flip flop those around and work on actual freedom issues first.

I think someone going to jail is a larger civil liberties concern than taking someone's money, but not hugely so. Certainly not sufficiently so that it's okay to end the one and tolerate the other, either way. If you think that somehow "don't take my money" is not actual freedom, then I'm sorry, but you are misinformed. Personal freedome without economic freedom is worthless because personal freedom cannot be sustained without economic freedom.

But, a tax increase isn't comparable to the loss of your total civil liberties. I'll agree that total and complete taxation of ones income could theoretically result in the same outcome, but we're nowhere near that, and conflating a tax increase which still puts us well below the average Western worlds total taxation as a percentage of their GDP as that is disengenuous. It's the same as someone who states that a policy which increases the level of socialist policies in the US is !SOCIALISM! and implies the same negative repercussions that are seen towards wholly socialistic societies. It isn't a fair comparison, and isn't intellectually honest.