'Gone Old Party'

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Are libertarians taking a stand against masturbation these days?
 
Someone who says they want to uphold the Constitution yet doesn't understand separation of church and state and lobbied for "biblical principles to issues of public policy".

Someone who wants to force women to carry to term even in case of rape.

Someone who wants to preach against masturbation.

Someone who speaks out against frivolous litigiousness yet sued for 6.9 million in a wrongful termination suit, where she was only employed less than a year and then lied about the circumstances.

This is who you want?

Shall I go on, or does she qualify under your definition as well?
 
Why does the Tea Party celebrate such things? Can someone explain?
The Tea Party doesn't celebrate much of what you say. The Tea Party is unaware of much of what you say. I think that's pretty evident.

The Tea Party does support the Bible thing, though.
 

Libertarianism is apparently a broad church. I consider myself libertarian on some issues but if I was posting this thread it would have been entitled something like "GOP nut thinks wanking equals adultery".

I'd really love to hear how it is you think Christine O'Donnell's win advances libertarian principles.

Now if you'd excuse me I'm off to toss one off.
 
For O’Donnell, such gay-baiting was very much in character. Toward the end of the Clinton administration, she protested the appointment of James Hormel to be ambassador to Luxembourg, a posting the religious right opposed because Hormel was gay. “The SALT was concerned about Hormel’s ties to the pedophile-rights movement,” her website said, though there was not a shred of evidence behind the slur. In 1997, in a clip recently unearthed by Talking Points Memo, she appeared on C-SPAN, where, looking fresh, lovely, and innocent, she objected to AIDS sufferers being called “victims” because the disease is the product of their own actions. In an appearance on Fox in 2000, she exclaimed over the horrors of New York’s gay pride parade: “They’re getting away with nudity! They’re getting away with lasciviousness! They’re getting away with perversion!”

O’Donnell’s demonization of gay people is especially striking given the fact that, according to Richards, she has a sister who is openly lesbian. Indeed, it was meeting her sister, he says, that helped him begin to accept his own sexuality. “What helped me really come to grips was that her sister is an open lesbian and was living in L.A. and was in a long-term relationship and was working with a youth organization,” he says. “By hanging out with her, I saw, wow, she has a pretty normal life.” Being gay, he started to realize, needn’t condemn him to a life of seedy anonymous hookups, drug abuse, and nihilism.


Christine O’Donnell’s Gay Former Aide Speaks Out - The Daily Beast

Christine O'Donnell is ignorant, uneducated and dangerous. It will be a sad day in America if she becomes Senator of Delaware.
 
Christine O’Donnell’s Gay Former Aide Speaks Out - The Daily Beast

Christine O'Donnell is ignorant, uneducated and dangerous. It will be a sad day in America if she becomes Senator of Delaware.



And a growing all reaching increasingly intrusive federal government is not?

My thoughts on her victory were not about her, but about the principles of less big government, more liberty that she say she supports.

If she's like me, she is far from perfect and flawed.
 
When you say liberty, do you also mean telling people how to live their lives in terms of sexual orientation? Or sexual activity?

She'll probably push for abstinence in schools and vote against same-sex marriage. That doesn't sound like liberty or small government to me.
 
And a growing all reaching increasingly intrusive federal government is not?

My thoughts on her victory were not about her, but about the principles of less big government, more liberty that she say she supports.

If she's like me, she is far from perfect and flawed.
She's just saying big government. Literally. She's just using it as a buzzword so sheep will follow. You're falling right in line.

You do realize being anti-gay rights is pro-big government, don't you?
 
She's just saying big government. Literally. She's just using it as a buzzword so sheep will follow. You're falling right in line.

You do realize being anti-gay rights is pro-big government, don't you?


Buzz word and the the sheep will follow?

So, I'm falling right in line?

Who are the blind sheep here?

I guess it's me or is it?

I don't know, I'm just the stupid libertarian:wave
 
And a growing all reaching increasingly intrusive federal government is not?


I'm growing so tired of this trope.

Can someone explain to me exactly how the government has become so all-reaching and intrusive?

I didn't think so. It's fearmongering, plain and simple.

I mean, come on "ObamaCare!!!" No one's been able to credibly explain how these tepid health reform measures are going to "take away our freedom."

The "DEFICIT". Sorry my bullshit detector starts screaming when I hear people wringing their hands about something as arcane as the federal deficit. Which is not to say that it's a serious issue--I'm sure it is. I'm just saying most ordinarily people probably can't articulate why it's serious. If we're being the honest the real upset is over WHO is raising the deficit and the reasons for which it's being done--because we started spending more than we had long before this administration came into power--it's just that people hollering now didn't have a problem with the guy before doing the spending or what he was spending the money on. And let's be honest if we're really serious about reducing the deficit we've got to BOTH cut spending AND raise taxes (or at the very least not cut them any further). But who would vote for that?

and oh no the "bailouts!" The idiocy of this country sometimes just boggles the mind. Most people are mad about the bailouts because of an emotional sense of "unfairness" rather than a practical and informed understanding of our financial system.

It is truly sad that reasonable conservatives are being drowned out by this rabble.
 
Buzz word and the the sheep will follow?

So, I'm falling right in line?

Who are the blind sheep here?

I guess it's me or is it?

I don't know, I'm just the stupid libertarian:wave

IH, if you're not a blind sheep, prove it. Make a credible case for the growing reach of the all-intrusive federal government.
 
With all due respect, perhaps I wasn't clear enough:

A CREDIBLE case please.

An snarky opinion column with an unflattering picture of Michelle Obama? You'll have to do better than that.


Snarky?

I have to do better?

Did you actually read the article?

Please quote from the article and state why you agree the federal government should be Big Brother (The Food Police)
 
You don't get that that's an opinion column with an agenda?

You don't seem to like real news with facts.

Tell maycocksean how the food police has stopped you from eating what you want.

Please inform us.
 
You don't get that that's an opinion column with an agenda?

You don't seem to like real news with facts.

Tell maycocksean how the food police has stopped you from eating what you want.

Please inform us.


Please post quotes from the link that prove your point.

And maycocksean,

The federal government has banned butter, whole milk, and limited salt in public schools lunches.

The result the past twenty years:
More obesity.

It's not the food stupid!
(sorry, just taking a President Clinton phrase)
 
Snarky?

I have to do better?

Did you actually read the article?

Please quote from the article and state why you agree the federal government should be Big Brother (The Food Police)


I did read the article, and yes it was snarky. Let me ask, did you read the full text of Michelle Obama's speech. Perhaps you could quote from her speech and show were she is advocating that the federal government should be the Food Police. Because from my reading all I'm gathering is that she's encouraging a group of private business owners to make healthier meals a higher priority. It sounds mainly like "raising awareness" to me. She's about a government takeover of our dietary choices as Laura Bush was about a big-government mandate that all children be forced to learn to read.
 
Please post quotes from the link that prove your point.

And maycocksean,

The federal government has banned butter, whole milk, and limited salt in public schools lunches.

The result the past twenty years:
More obesity.

It's not the food stupid!
(sorry, just taking a President Clinton phrase)

You're a school teacher, when your student presents you with a paper that states that the nazis were right and that pumpkins are purple do you accept it when the student says "well show me where in my paper I was wrong"?

The federal government has banned butter, milk, and limited salt in public school lunches?

Please show me this? Who? Where?

Is this what being libertarian is about?
 
My thoughts on her victory were not about her, but about the principles of less big government, more liberty that she say she supports.

And you honest to God think she will follow that belief? You truly believe that?

If she's like me, she is far from perfect and flawed.

Imperfect and flawed isn't a bad thing in and of itself, that's fine. I don't expect any politician to be perfect. Which is why I get irritated when they act like they are, and it seems to me that that's how she's trying to present herself.

I'm sorry, I don't see how or why you can support someone who feels the need to go around presuming and making rumors about other people's sexuality, who feels the need to make something so private her business. That is NOT supporting more liberty and less government. Not even close. And the rumor mill she likes to go on is just mean-spirited. I don't want a mean-spirited person running any aspect of government. We have way too many of those kinds of people in our government now, that's why we're having difficulty getting anything good done.

From the article about her:

"You know what got me? She's down to Earth. She's on the street. She's been there,"

Aren't we done with the "they're just like us, they're down to earth" thing yet? Of course I want a leader who will genuinely understand what people such as myself are going through, but I'm sorry, they have to have some sort of exceptional quality to be a leader, some special ability that makes them stand out. We tried the whole, "Someone who we could have a beer with" idea. Remember how well that turned out?

From what I've heard about her, I can't relate to her. The fact that she beat out a conservative who can claim this:

But he broke often with the Republican president, including a highly-publicized 2005 fight with the administration and GOP congressional leaders over federal funding for stem-cell research.

and this:

He opposed a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

is very sad to me. Sure, there's other issues I noticed with the link about Castle that I would disagree with him on, namely the Iraq war, it seems, but there are areas where I could agree with him, too. Don't we want that? Don't we need that? Sean hit the nail on the head here, I could not agree with you more :up:.

On a much lighter note, in relation to O'Donnell, I absolutely loved this bit from Stephen Colbert's show last night-how he managed to keep an overall straight face during this, I do not know:

Libertea - The Colbert Report - 9/15/10 - Video Clip | Comedy Central

"Hello, stranger!" :lmao:

Angela
 
Buzz word and the the sheep will follow?

So, I'm falling right in line?

Who are the blind sheep here?

I guess it's me or is it?

I don't know, I'm just the stupid libertarian:wave
If you just take someone who says "libertarian" as being a libertarian at face value without actually studying her views, then you are falling in line.
 
Democrat Chris Coons has a sizable lead over Republican Christine O'Donnell in the Delaware Senate race, according to the results of a Rasmussen Reports poll released on Thursday, with the news likely to add to GOP concerns about O'Donnell's viability in the general election after her upset primary win.
The poll showed that 53 percent of likely Delaware voters said they would vote for Coons compared to the 42 percent that said they would for O'Donnell. Another 4 percent are undecided and 1 percent prefer another candidate.


Only an 11 point lead?

Coons should just conceed right now.
 
Back
Top Bottom