Libertarian party says NO to senator Murkowski.

[LDB]

You do know who the VP is right? And you say Palin is dim? She may not be a Summa Cum Laude doctoral graduate but she's not dumb either.

 

[aristotle]

Well, duh, she's not liberal.

Do you really think if she came out staunchly against a Tea Party candidate, albeit i conservative one, that she would have much influence over how people voted? I don't. Mostly I see her as influencing people who have already decided what they are going to do.

She tells you what you want to hear. There's a difference.

Well, liberals for sure aren't going to like her. But "either"? I'm a conservative and I don't like her even a little bit. I see her for what she is, not for what I want her to be, and I refuse to project my wants and desires onto her and then assume she'll deliver. People did that with Obama and look where it got them.

Turtle, you may be a fiscal conservative. That's great. My understanding of your position on social issues, such as abortion, places you squarely in the liberal camp. That's fine, as well. Can't have it both ways.

 

[witness23]

Turtle, you may be a fiscal conservative. That's great. My understanding of your position on social issues, such as abortion, places you squarely in the liberal camp. That's fine, as well. Can't have it both ways.

With that being said about abortion, I guess your speculation of me being a liberal is incorrect since I am against abortion. Who knew?

 

[Turtle]

I had a feeling this is where it would end up. But sure you can have it both ways. The litmus test for a conservative isn't how religious you are, or how strongly you want to tell others what they can and can't do, which is what religion is mostly all about. There are many social issues that I am liberal about, as well as many that I am conservative about.

Mostly, I don't want someone else telling me how to think and how to act, what I can and cannot do based on their rendition of what is right and wrong, and I'm certainly not arrogant enough to tell others what to do and how to think. I'm a do-unto-others and mind-your-own-business kind of guy, which is not the same as being a liberal. Liberals certainly don't know how to mind their own business and have mo idea what the Golden Rule means. They think it means do as I say not as I do.

While I am conservative on many issues, far too many conservatives want to use the political platform to further their own religious morality to justify NOT minding their own business, which I find an outrage. A stance against abortion isn't the stance of a conservative, it's the stance of a religious morality that wants to impose that morality onto others whether they like it or not. There are many ways to be a social conservative without inserting religious morality into the mix, but it's certainly easier that way when you do.

So keep in mind that wanting to insert religious views and morality into political conservatism and the political process, you are doing exactly the same that you criticize Muslims for. Religious conservatives in this country are amateurs compared to Muslims when it comes to social conservatism, so you should be all for that.

 

[aristotle]

I had a feeling this is where it would end up. But sure you can have it both ways. The litmus test for a conservative isn't how religious you are, or how strongly you want to tell others what they can and can't do, which is what religion is mostly all about. There are many social issues that I am liberal about, as well as many that I am conservative about.

Mostly, I don't want someone else telling me how to think and how to act, what I can and cannot do based on their rendition of what is right and wrong, and I'm certainly not arrogant enough to tell others what to do and how to think. I'm a do-unto-others and mind-your-own-business kind of guy, which is not the same as being a liberal. Liberals certainly don't know how to mind their own business and have mo idea what the Golden Rule means. They think it means do as I say not as I do.

While I am conservative on many issues, far too many conservatives want to use the political platform to further their own religious morality to justify NOT minding their own business, which I find an outrage. A stance against abortion isn't the stance of a conservative, it's the stance of a religious morality that wants to impose that morality onto others whether they like it or not. There are many ways to be a social conservative without inserting religious morality into the mix, but it's certainly easier that way when you do.

So keep in mind that wanting to insert religious views and morality into political conservatism and the political process, you are doing exactly the same that you criticize Muslims for. Religious conservatives in this country are amateurs compared to Muslims when it comes to social conservatism, so you should be all for that.

Protecting the lives of unborn children isn't about religion. It's about the babies.

Turtle, it appears you philosophical views are actually Libertarian. Being pro-abortion is not and has never been a conservative stance. It's important to make these distinctions. The Conservative movement has pretty much purged itself of anyone holding pro-abortion viewpoints. We cannot have that toxin diluting conservatism.

 

[witness23]

Protecting the lives of unborn children isn't aqbout religion. It's about the babies.

Turtle, it appears you philosophical views are actually Libertarian. Being pro-abortion is not and has never been a conservative stance. It's important to make these distinctions. The Conservative movement has pretty much purged itself of anyone holding pro-abortion viewpoints. We cannot have that toxin diluting conservatism.

Is there a checklist somewhere that details what a conservitive is?

 

[layoutshooter]

Is there a checklist somewhere that details what a conservitive is?

If you are a REAL HONEST Conservative the ONLY checklist you need is the Constitution. That says all you need to know. That is the beginning and the end, NOTHING else matters. Period.

 

[Turtle]

Protecting the lives of unborn children isn't aqbout religion. It's about the babies.

Yes, it is about the babies, babies that aren't yours. But it is religion that gives you the perceived authority to tell people what to do about it.

Turtle, it appears you philosophical views are actually Libertarian.

True, conservative Libertarian.

Being pro-abortion is not and has never been a conservative stance.

Depends on how far back you want to go for "has never been". Perhaps in the context of this country and how conservatism has been defined largely by Christians and the religious right. Anti-abortion sentiment is a relatively recent invention, literally born of strict religious moralities of the west where it wasn't until the later half of the 19th century when various doctors, clerics, and social reformers pushed for an all-out ban on abortion in the UK and USA, and it was almost entirely religious based. Prior to that anti-abortion laws and sentiment were sparse and short-lived, with abortion being widely accepted and practiced all over the world. Throughout history there have been some very socially conservative societies where abortion was commonplace. Today, still, the primary opponents of abortion are the more religious types who try to define and redefine terms to fit a religious morality, and a relatively new one at that.

It's important to make these distinctions. The Conservative movement has pretty much purged itself of anyone holding pro-abortion viewpoints. We cannot have that toxin diluting conservatism.

That's religion talking. You think I'm pro-abortion. I'm not. I think it's deplorable. But more than that I'm pro minding your own business. The only people who should have any say whatsoever regarding an abortion, pro or con, is the pregnant female, the guy who got her pregnant, and possibly the doctor who would perform the operation. To everybody else, it's none of your business, no matter how badly you want to make it your business.

 

[Turtle]

If you are a REAL HONEST Conservative the ONLY checklist you need is the Constitution. That says all you need to know. That is the beginning and the end, NOTHING else matters. Period.

There ya go. It's when people start trying to insert their own little bits of agenda into things where it gets mucked up.

 

[layoutshooter]

Abortion is the killing of a living human being. Period. That has NOTHING to do with religion in my book. It is targeting the very weakest and most defenseless human beings that exist. No one has to agree with me. I don't care if you do or not. Once a HUMAN egg is fertilized by HUMAN sperm the resulting zygot (I think that is the right stage) has 100% of it's DNA. It is a normal (assuming no defects) human being for that stage in it's life. Aborting that human life KILLS it. Just the facts. I see NO difference between that and Hitler running 12 million through the gas chambers. That is my belief.

Roe vs. Wade is flawed as well. It was based, if I remember correctly, on the idea that the Constitution states that we have privacy rights, we don't. Just as the idea of "separation of church and state" is NOT in the Constitution.

 

[RLENT]

Is there a checklist somewhere that details what a conservitive is?

While you at it, ask him who the governing authority is, that determines whether one is conservative or not ....

 

[RLENT]

You do know who the VP is right? And you say Palin is dim?

So ....... it's Tweedle Dumb ........ or Tweedle Dee ?

She may not be a Summa Cum Laude doctoral graduate but she's not dumb either.

...... I guess it may well depend on the point from which one is viewing ..... I'm sure to many, she appears quite bright indeed .....

 

[RLENT]

She tells you what you want to hear. There's a difference.

.... indeed .....

 

[RLENT]

ILiberals certainly don't know how to mind their own business and have no idea what the Golden Rule means.

This isn't limited to liberals by any means .....

There are many ways to be a social conservative without inserting religious morality into the mix, but it's certainly easier that way when you do.

Quite true.

So keep in mind that wanting to insert religious views and morality into political conservatism and the political process, you are doing exactly the same that you criticize Muslims for.

Now ain't that interesting ......

 

[greg334]

Roe vs. Wade is flawed as well. It was based, if I remember correctly, on the idea that the Constitution states that we have privacy rights, we don't. Just as the idea of "separation of church and state" is NOT in the Constitution.

So ok ... the decision was to get the state out of the doctors office, the premise wasn't flawed but the result of the decision and further decisions may be.

If you want it the other way, then do not complain that the FMCSA is encroaching on your freedom to drive a truck.

I have a bit of a problem with this concept that conservatives are for the Constitution, I do not agree with that at all. Libertarians are, classic liberals are but not conservatives.

People keep pointing to Reagan as some conservative god but you know, he has a bit of a history and some of it was no where near conservative. I think if we take the Hannity hoopla out of the equation, then you may find a liberal who sees big government as part of the problem but also the solution. He took some of his actions (taxes, diplomacy, those crazy jelly bean things) from JFK, not Hoover, not Nixon and not anyone else.

 

[layoutshooter]

"If you want it the other way, then do not complain that the FMCSA is encroaching on your freedom to drive a truck"


Wrong Greg, I don't base my feelings about FMCSA encroaching on my freedom on the basis of privacy. I base it on the idea, that we are innocent until proven guilty. The mandatory drug testing idea assumes that we are doing drugs and that they are trying to catch us criminals. Same with the background check to buy a gun, which if I remember correctly, is MY RIGHT!! Just as innocence before guilt. By the way, I don't claim to be a conservative, at least not by Reagan or other so called conservatives call themselves. I just believe what I believe. I don't really care what other think.

 

[greg334]

Wrong Greg, I don't base my feelings about FMCSA encroaching on my freedom on the basis of privacy. I base it on the idea, that we are innocent until proven guilty. The mandatory drug testing idea assumes that we are doing drugs and that they are trying to catch us criminals. Same with the background check to buy a gun, which if I remember correctly, is MY RIGHT!! Just as innocence before guilt. By the way, I don't claim to be a conservative, at least not by Reagan or other so called conservatives call themselves. I just believe what I believe. I don't really care what other think.

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, touchy.

Look at the drug test not as an assumption of guilt but a limitation of those who are guilty. What I mean is that without the drug test, the people who shouldn't be here would be here and a danger to all.

The same goes for the background check, rather have that to deal with that than knowing the guy down the street who has four felonies for assault with intent to kill just on a whim has access to a legally bought firearm - know what I mean?

The point I was trying to make was about the big deal made over EOBRs and the company you drive for. Many view it as a privacy issue, but it really isn't. What is, I think is having my medical records transmitted to the state so they can have a record of it for me to drive a truck - there are some serious issues with the state losing or allowing access to medicaid records and the feds with VA records already.

 

[layoutshooter]

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, touchy.

Look at the drug test not as an assumption of guilt but a limitation of those who are guilty. What I mean is that without the drug test, the people who shouldn't be here would be here and a danger to all.

The same goes for the background check, rather have that to deal with that than knowing the guy down the street who has four felonies for assault with intent to kill just on a whim has access to a legally bought firearm - know what I mean?

The point I was trying to make was about the big deal made over EOBRs and the company you drive for. Many view it as a privacy issue, but it really isn't. What is, I think is having my medical records transmitted to the state so they can have a record of it for me to drive a truck - there are some serious issues with the state losing or allowing access to medicaid records and the feds with VA records already.

I don't agree. I consider that drug test a sign that someone, some government, harbors distrust and does not believe that I don't do drugs. I consider the same with that background check. I am not trusted to avail myself of the right to own a gun. I therefor, do NOT trust them. Either I am INNOCENT and therefor there is NO NEED to do these checks OR I am NOT trusted, by someone who does NOT adhere to the Constitution. I live in a VERY black and white world.

Not really touchy, just making things clear. Things often get mixed up in here.

 

[RLENT]

Not really touchy, just making things clear. Things often get mixed up in here.

Amazing how someone who spent their entire career observing others gets so touchy when someone is observing them .....

Ya just gotta love the sheer irony of it ....

 

[aristotle]

Turtle... aren't you the least bit embarrassed accepting the praise and worship of dimwitted dullards? What spell have you cast over these few people? It is like watching a documentary of the Jim Jones cult following in Guyana. The Peoples Temple. Witnessing such gullibility is quite frightening. Release these innocents.