The Right Scoop
First time I've taken exception to Zo. Neo-confederate libertarian? That sounds like an oxymoron. The confederates were slavers. That's antithesis of libertarianism.
@libertifirst No we do not want to control. We want to work with whom we want to work with, hire those who have similar views, have our children schooled on acedemics not force fed acceptence of homosexual beliefs, hedonism and earth first. The problem is the libs and socialist are the controlling ones becuase they think if everyone does what they want then they can fix things. The fact is unwise hedonist beliefs and practices will naturally take down those who participate.We should not be forced to support those that live like this or make laws that force us to accept the thier beliefs.
Zo doesn't understand blogging and by rote that idiot that stood up at CPAC. Often times these guys are plants and to give them attention is to perpetuate a cycle of narcissism. That guy really seem to be a plant to me since he fulfilled every stereotype there is. Also I don't get Zo's condemnation of the Confederate Flag. I'm sick to death of everyone making that flag a stupid symbol of slavery. We don't need a symbol to remind us of slavery. Stamping out that flag is nothing but more useless symbolism.Just as Black culture has it's own unique and distinctive characteristics so does the South.
Now having said that I agree completely with Zo. We must have the courage of our convictions and not let the left define us with these potted plants on blogs and in audiences. Don't get me started on Libertarians however I will praise anyone on issues I agree with what they say. I don't think Carolla is a conservative but I do admire his courage in pointing to the 800 lb. gorilla in the room. I am intelligent enough to treat issues individually as well as people. Throwing out the baby with the bathwater is hardly intellect.Governance in this country is done by majority and those have to be built and it has to be done issue by issue and in the realm of right and wrong...not you scratch my back and I will scratch yours.
2 Like
The two parties are completely compatible and should merge. Just because one idiot got up and made a fool out of himself, doesn't mean all libertarians believe that nonsense. Zo is stereotyping, using a sample size of n=1. I wonder if Zo has ever heard of Friedrich Hayek or Milton Friedman. They were also libertarians.
3 Like
I know I am late but I humbly offer this thought. Republicans need to develop a Parent not Friend mentality. Parents must never befriend their children, they must go further and love their children. There is a dangerous trend of many parents today that want their children's approval so desperately they are willing to soften their position on important issues. Curfew, bed time, drinking after the prom, smoking (whatever it is they smoke) and adult relationships. (yes, that means sex.) Even looking the other way as their precious child befriends individuals that will cause them harm. Being a friend; in today's society often allows yes to enter the conversation when the answer needs to be no. Most parents understand that no is a part of life, and only by correctly utilizing no, will their children be prepared for the harsh world of reality. The Republican Party is falling for the same lie that parents are with their kids; that is if Republicans will soften their position, then liberals will like them and eventually listen. The fact is that after the liberals get what they want, they will abandon their newly acquired Republican friends and leave them anyway. Just like spoiled rotten brats that we tolerate today at the mall, school and even our churches. No is a part of life, and we conservative people need to stand by it when called for.
AKA armyvet10
Sorry for the late re-reply, but between my Student teaching, School an d life itself, I have little time anymore. It is funny about this simple mind set of parents and the ability to say no. We all need to learn that NO isn't always said or used to deny, but often is used to keep people safe and often used to show love and compassion. Christ says no very often, it is how we as individuals receive that “no” that makes it bad or good. Have to leave for my Student teaching now, have a great and blessed day,
2 Like
Rock on Zo! Libertarians are definitely sell outs! They want to have their cake and eat it too! The fact is that liberal thinking is killing this country, destroying the family unit, enticing our children down the road of homosexuallity, promoting a total hedonistic society. Yeah it's all ok as long as they don't bother me. Sorry folks this is not sustainable and will result in our society falling apart. Basic moral values give us the ability to lead a disciplined lifestyle, hard work, sacrifice and community, whereas liberals throw that to the wind and grab all they can.
3 Like
Libertarians for the most part are strict constitutionalists, who, like the founding fathers, believe that the federal government should not be involved in social matters and that a free market economy means just that. Thus, when it comes to social matters they believe that all social decisions should be left up the the individual and not some group of do-gooders or government. Same goes for the economy, all individuals should be free to transact their business without interference from outside sources (unions, government). They also believe that laws should only be in place to protect the individual's life and property and not to restrict free enterprise or free association. To be a true Libertarian the individual must understand, advocate and practice both personal liberty and personal responsibility.
3 Like
@Diogenes_wy The problem is a large majority of "libiterians" are riding the above definiation's coat tails just to get what they want. There moto is "Everything is ok as long as it doesn't bother me". This is exhibited by Ron Paul's isolationist views. Most libertarians are hedonist at their core. Laws aka "the Constitution" are worthless without morals to give it a spine.
2 Like
@DanKlapp @Diogenes_wy Why do so many republican conservatives give up their constitutional and principled positions on certain issues, but not on others? When a "conservative" says that government has the right to tell a person that they can't smoke pot, their excuse for this personal infringement is that it is bad for society. That makes you a socialist/communists. If government has the right to regulate our personal behavior on things that do not directly harm others, then they have the right to regulate all personal behaviors. You can't pick and choose which socialist, anti liberty policies you like, and then cry "bill of rights" on other things. Do you want government to decide whether going to church is harmful on society or not? Do you want them deciding whether sodas are good for society or not? If they can regulate these things for that reason, then they can deem guns as being bad for society and ban them. It's all the same principle, so pick one or the other. Socialism/Communism, or a free constitutional republic.
Zo is improperly associating Libertarians with these racist confederate types. There are so few of these types among Libertarians that it is like picking the one jellybean out of a tanker truck full of M&Ms.Tea Party people should understand that this is a tactic that the left has used against them, and they should refrain from using it on others.
What was Lincoln's vision? His vision was not to free slaves when he ran for office, so what changed? The war changed his mind. What war was that? The one that was waged against states who were initially rebelling against federal taxation, and decided to secede. You know, the war that conquered the ninth and tenth amendments. The war that told the rest of the states that the federal government will send troops if you don't bow down and do as ordered. Lincoln's vision was to secure and grow the power of the federal government over individual and states rights. Lincoln's vision was to arrest and imprison journalists who disagreed with him. It was to imprison members of congress for voicing their disagreement with the federal government's war.
I have heard so may so called conservative rail against Libertarians, and when pressed, could not even quote the basics of Libertarian philosophy correctly. Where are libertarians really on the abortion issue? Well, abortion kills an innocent child. That is called doing direct harm to another. Violence against others is BAD to Libertarians. RP is anti-abortion, and constantly pointed out that Bush and his majority could have negated Roe V Wade with a simple majority vote, and didn't. Where were all of those other republican anti-abortionists? Crickets. Saying that Libertarians are a bunch of pro-abortion liberals is completely wrong, and only someone who is listening to the propaganda of the establishment right would repeat it as if it were true.
Zo likes to do hit pieces on Libertarians, and, quite frankly, he doesn't get it. He needs to do some research and toss his racial biases aside so that he can look directly at the real Libertarian issues, and study history from a vantage point that is not created by the federal education system and the liberal media.
The biggest argument that so called conservatives have against Libertarian policy is that Libertarians would end the wars. For some reason, many conservatives are now calling for ending the wars, but only after $4T worth of national debt has been accrued fighting them, and with no substantive change in who is running those countries. In fact, worse people now head those countries. Libertarians agreed with the founders concerning foreign entanglements. They agree with George Bush Jr. when he was campaigning in 1999 that the US should not be policing the world, but protecting our borders.
Why would the republican party want a bunch of people who want strict adherence to the constitution? That isn't what the party is all about.
Christian conservatives want to control all aspects of personal behavior on a moral basis. The only way that you can do that legally is to toss out the constitution and bill of rights, and create a theocracy. Otherwise, you simply have to respect the individuals right to choose when it does not do direct harm to another or their property.
What do republicans actually want? Socialism, communism, or a theocracy? It doesn't appear that they actually believe in individual liberty and states rights, so it can't be a constitutional republic that they want.
I was a republican for over twenty years. I am a Christian who abhors the act of homosexuality, abortion, and many other things that the liberal left advocates. Saying that I don't have the right to define marriage for an entire country full of people doesn't make me a supporter of sodomy any more than saying that I don't have the right to tell people what they can and can't smoke makes me a pot head. Why is it that so many conservatives have such a hard time making that differentiation?
1 Like
@Major914 You say pot harms society. But what, alcohol and tobacco do not?
The government that is big enough to ban marijuana without a Constitutional justification, is big enough to impose Obamacare by using the same logic.
I just don't see any morality in two people getting together to vote to make politicians take something from a third person that it would be a crime for the two people to take away on their own.
2 Like
What you overlook or ignore, or simply fail to understand, is that marriage, and a raft of other things, WILL BE defined for all of society by law. Permission is not neutral--allowing so-called gay marriage is to define marriage. And the leftists are more than happy to carry out that act of defining for society, and then engage in enforcement.
This 'hands off equals neutrality' fallacy of libertarians is a senseless evil. It is the same problem in foreign policy--there is no neutrality in the sense of freedom from a chain of inter-related consequences.
Marijuana is harmful to society--that is, to individuals directly and indirectly; that is, to myself and my family and loved ones--therefore it is in my interest to vote to maintain its illegality. We all have a definite interest in what kind of person we meet on the street, and in the workplace, and within our institutions, etc.
Human life and society are necessarily moral. If this were nothing but an accidental material world--as leftists maintain, and many libertarians--then force and opinion are absolutely the only arbiters of 'right'. Our constitution rightfully acknowledges that our inalienable rights come from God--they could come from no other source. Again, neutrality is a categorical impossibility--laws cannot be other than morally significant. The only questions are which morals, and what individual and societal effects.
Am I my brother's keeper? Morality, or the lack of it is an individual choice, and the consequences of one's actions are ultimately judged not by man but by God alone.
George Washington believed that we (the US) should have trade and comity with all nations and alliances with none.
4 Like
Zo lost me on this one. He obviously did NOT hear Adam's original podcast with Gavin Newsom in which Newsom claimed that blacks and hispanics could not succeed because of RACE. Adam called him on it and boxed him into his racist corner. Invoking Andrew and his #War was also a huge misstep. Andrew's #War was against the Establishment and the complicit media. Did anyone ever doubt that Andrew was a Conservative warrior first, but that he also had Libertarian leanings? Yeah, me neither. And I hate to remind Zo that OUR side banned the frikking lightbulb. The lightbulb.
I will never ever cede my pro-life position, nor ignore my stance on the Constitutional requirement to provide for defense of our country, but at some point we must admit that thanks to Obama, Israel is now our only ally in the Middle East. We must defend them with all we have and let the rest (re)turn to glass.
@sybilll Agreed. I understand his criticisms of Carolla on the other things, but he's wrong about the exchange with Newsom for the exact reasons you stated. Carolla's point was all about learned behavior being perpetuated from generation to generation, both good and bad, in certain communities.
@MarkWendt Zo seemed to subjectively define all libertarians as nutjobs, due to one insignificant moron. Zo is falling victim to the stereotype virus.
4 Like
At first, I thought Zo was wearing a Karl Marx T-Shirt. Whew! Thank goodness it's only Jerry Garcia.
3 Like
@57thunderbird @drphibes Yes, it is. I was attempting a little humor. (very little!)
2 Like
@drphibes @57thunderbird Sorry.I completely missed your humor.Senior moment.Does kinda resemble Garcia. :-)
5 Like
Zo you should really learn what libertarians are. I use to think you made go points, but on this point your head is up your a**.
1 Like
@TCW9127The problem is a large majority of "libiterians" are riding the above definiation's coat tails just to get what they want. There moto is "Everything is ok as long as it doesn't bother me". This is exhibited by Ron Paul's isolationist views. Most libertarians are hedonist at their core. Laws aka "the Constitution" are worthless without morals to give it a spine
2 Like
@DanKlapp @TCW9127 It's called non-interventionist, not isolationist. An Isolationist NEVER wants to leave his country, nor do business or engage in commerce with others. A non-interventions only has a defensive army and navy, and engages in commerce with anyone who wants to peacefully trade with each other.
@DanKlapp @TCW9127 Was this a copy and paste post? If what you mean by "isolationist" is defending US sovereignty, then I agree, and am glad to be called an isolationist. If you want foreign global rule over the US and open borders, then I believe that you will get what you want. For me, isolationism, as you define it, is just fine.
1 Like
Yeah. I liked a lot of his vids too. I've also been dissapointed with him on this topic. For perspective he likes Rubio the GOPe Bush-era guy.
4 Like
@57thunderbird @drphibes Yes it is. From the movie with the original 9-9-9 plan.... "Nine killed her, nine shall die, nine eternities in doom!"
1 Like
@57thunderbird @drphibes @Jim25 Yes, that's doubled up with Comedy of Terrors, which has Karloff, Lorre, and Rathbone.
@drphibes @57thunderbird I grew up watching Vincent Price horror movies.I will definitely check it out.
1 Like
@57thunderbird @drphibes Yes, heartily suggest you do. They often feature great extras - interviews with Roger Corman, Richard Matheson and other notables. If you love that era, this series has done it justice and at a good value.
@drphibes @57thunderbird That sounds great. will look into it.Thanks.Thanks for the link.
1 Like
@Jim25 @drphibes @57thunderbird Yes, case in point is this...from Amazon... http://tinyurl.com/cmlxu2g
1 Like
@drphibes @Jim25 @57thunderbird Great movies all.I am kind of partial to the Raven.
2 Like
@57thunderbird @drphibes I HIGHLY recommend you scoop up some of the "MGM Midnite Movies" series on DVD, they have all the American International Pictures films, including the "Poe Cycle" with Vincent Price - Fall of the House of Usher, Pit and the Pendulum, Masque of the Red Death, etc. Many on double feature discs for good price.
2 Like
@drphibes @Jim25 @57thunderbird
Oh, yeah. That's right. I've wanted to see that for the longest time. It should be on Netflix but I don't have it anymore.
3 Like
@Jim25 @drphibes @57thunderbird My namesake, The Abominable Dr. Phibes. The best film ever, followed by Citizen Kane and Casablanca.
1 Like
White nationalists are typically not social liberals.
In fact, I've been to their sites and like the Bushies they think are behind 'white genocide', they're not very fiscally conservative, but socially yes.
2 Like
@ScottKerr Nothing wrong with that. I think I heard even Mark Levin a few days ago use that term when discussing the re-branding of the GOP and there was a bunch of "Bushies" who complied the report.
Bushies are not conservative.
What about your comments about libertarians? That's not childish. Bush was a progressive. Either we deal with it and acknowledge that that real conservatives do, or remain the party of Rove and never win again.
2 Like
@drphibes @Jim25 Libertarians say that it is immoral to forcibly take from one person to give to another, or to use force to make someone pay into a social retirement system, or buy a product, etc. Does that sound liberal to you? It does not to me. Republican social conservatives support the social systems, and vote to fund abortions through appropriation bills like Santorum did. Libertarians would say that this is immoral on more than one front. Ron Paul voted against Santorum on that bill. Libertarians are absolutely resolute on supporting the right to bear arms. Is that liberal? They believe that the individual and the states have more power over our lives than the federal government does. Liberal? They want to shut down the DOE, IRS, Fed Res, FDA, USDA, and others. Liberal? They believe in free trade and ending corporate influence on the federal government who creates the regulations that government carries out like a rabid tyranny running loose.. Liberal? Libertarians believe in protecting the first, second, fourth, fifth, ninth, and tenth amendments, among others. They want to repeal the 16th amendment. Liberal?
Libertarians sound a lot more conservative than a lot of so called "conservatives". The republicans and democrats just need to join together officially and call themselves Demopublicans, then it won't be quite so confusing as to what Libertarians stand for.
Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.