The odd man out - Liberal Constitutionalists

[Jofaba]

Even Google seems to have a problem with me (laughter/applause/cricket silence). Type "Liberal Constitutionalist" into Google search, and it asks if you really meant "Liberal Institutionalists". No, that's not what I meant.

Here's my question, why does it seem almost exclusively black and white? Mind, I know that a lot of you reading this will take offense if I do not say as such; I am talking about the talking heads on tv, and stereotypical responses to news stories and general public discussions, on and offline. That said:

When it comes to gun control debate, why does it seem to boil down to Republican party-liners being the gun advocates, and Democrat party-liners toting the anti-gun stance? I searched online all weekend to find the middle and came up with very little. I found an interesting podcast that had an entire hour long show dedicated to discussing the liberal gun owner and they certainly weren't talking about me. They were talking about Democrats who finally shot a gun,enjoyed it, and that's where the connection ended for those liberals.

Is there something wrong with defending the second amendment while calling for nationalized health care? Is there something wrong with arguing against the assault weapon ban, while simultaneously supporting the legalization of marijuana, and the decriminalization of all other drugs? Is it really that crazy for a non-smoker who HATES the smell of cigarettes finding it absurd to ban cigarettes from bars, and feels that the continuing increase of taxes is criminal? Is it really that disturbing that an atheist thinks that Christians should be allowed to have nativity sets, that if city hall wants to put the ten commandments on the front lawn then let them, that freedom of religious expression does not equal state sponsored religion? Is it impossible to legalize gay marriage and let the churches decide if they accept the unions? Can a man not stand up and say that, as a man, he does not have the right to even enter the abortion debate because, just as a white man cannot comprehend the racism a black man feels, a man cannot comprehend the concept of growing a human inside of their own body? Can you support the troops, but not the war?

I put in the New Member thread post that I was not a one issue voter. Yet I have (in my life, not just here) met exactly one other person who voted for Obama and wants to protect the 2nd Amendment. I'm not looking for validation, I am not looking for agreement. I am making this thread to ask any of you that these questions may apply to (to which your answers were"no"), why?

Why can't there, and isn't there, an allowance of deviating and conflicting beliefs and ideals? Do you think me naive? Are there atheist Republicans? Are there Constitutionalist Democrats? Are there libertarians who support nationalized health care?

I don't fail to fit into a niche because it's cool. It's not, let me tell you; it's simply frustrating. When you can't find an ally anywhere, you're not cool. You're alone. I fail to fit into a niche because none of them entirely make sense to me, and I feel that in order to enter a niche you need to adhere to the code. None of the codes seem to make sense though. They're all about 50/50.

So, in closing, is there any room for the odd man out? Is an oxymoron like a liberal constitutionalist acceptable? Do any of you differ from your party in any fashion, and are you vocal about it, and does it make you uncomfortable or angry that you have to defend your position?

Also, I am curious if anyone voted for Obama. I give him a 50% rating right now. I voted for him thinking that he would do us good. I'd have given him a 40% before his G20 and Europe trip. I'm not looking to find anyone in love with Obama, obviously we all fear for our gun rights; I am just trying to see if 1, anyone will admit to it, and 2, if you regret it. (I don't, I think if we're loud enough we can change his mind).

Lastly, I truly hope that no staff member or anyone here feels that this is a trolling thread. It is absolutely an honest set of questions which I hope will spur debate and while I am new, check my postings thus far. I am a dedicated conversationalist and, staff willing, will be here for quite some time.

I thank you all in advance for your comments, criticism, and the intellectual debate which is sure to follow.

- Joshua

 

[B. Lahey]

There are quite a few of your sort around this forum. Welcome, you came to the right place.

I don't agree with you about everything, but on most of those issues you mentioned we are on the same page. It's tough to find a friendly crowd when you are conservative and liberal at the same time, isn't it?

Radical moderates unite! (all half dozen of us)

 

[jamullinstx]

What you are describing are largely Libertarian views, with the exception of the national health care issue. I am hard core Libertarian, holding the view that the U.S. Constitution gives the federal government a very limited set of responsibilities and all others are reserved to the states:

Postal service
Judicial system
Military
Treasury
Elections
Foreign relations (treaties, etc.)
Patent office
Manage DC

etc. You get the idea. The list is short!

I am a pragmatist, however. We do a very poor job of operating an efficient health care system in this country. I'm open to a good suggestion for a better system. I just don't think allowing the government to run it is a good idea.

 

[RedneckFur]

My views arent all that different from yours. I'm more Liberterian than liberal, but my social views are very liberal, and are similar to those that you state.

Me, I didnt vote for Obama or McCain. both seemd to be very bad choices to me. I wrote in Ron Paul. Some call it a waste, I call it a protest vote. Obama, is living up to my expectations. I epected Bush III, and in my openion, thats what we got.

Debating politics here is generally not allowed, so i'm not going to debate anyone here, in public, but I'm willing to discus anything through Email or Private Message.

 

[protectedbyglock]

I agree with you, OP, on many of your views and like jamullinstx said, you are not alone.
There are many like-minded people out here that don't believe in the whole Dem/Rep hard line BS. It's like you have to pick a side or you won't get anything.
I blame the media.

It's much like kurt vonnegut once said:

"Even crazier than golf, though, is modern American politics, where, thanks to TV and for the convenience of TV, you can only be one of two kinds of human beings, either a liberal or a conservative."
"If you want to take my guns away from me, and you’re all for murdering fetuses, and love it when homosexuals marry each other, and want to give them kitchen appliances at their showers, and you’re for the poor, you’re a liberal. If you are against those perversions and for the rich, you’re a conservative. What could be simpler?"

I don't agree with Vonnegut sometimes, but I can see his point in almost everything.

 

[bob.a]

Holding many Libertarian views myself, I find myself totally unrepresented by either party. Sadly, the few Libertarian candidates that pop up seem to either have tinfoil hats firmly in place, or else are so depicted by the media.

It would be interesting to have available national media without bias. It is troubling, to say the least, to find so much in the way of half truth to total lies being spoonfed to the American public. And with the coming demise of print news, it can only get worse, as everyone becomes trained to think in ten-second sound bites. Our elected representatives and their appointees lie to our faces, and no one holds their feet to the fire; the media are only interested in attention-grabbing scare tactics, and reasoned analysis is out of fashion.

Can it be true that we get the government we deserve?

I don't feel I'm adding much to the discussion, but at least it's an outlet for some frustration. Good to know I'm not alone in the wilderness.

 

[COYOTE JLR]

I am really glad to see this thread. I agree with the O.P. I don't really fit into a black and white category. I have friends and family on both sides and I get so much crap from all of them.

My republican friends say that I'm a long haired hippie adding to the degeneration of society and its morals. And my liberal friends say that I'm a long haired, redneck beast, hell bent on destroying nature, and gunning down a gay bar.

And ya know what? They're all wrong. I voted for Obama because I thought that out of the choices we were presented with he was the lesser of two evils. I have never felt truly represented though. Not by any means. And no. I don't regret voting for him. I'm a patient person and will wait to pass judgment. We are in a crisis that is spinning beyond anyone's control. Getting things back into a semblance of order will take years. I will never claim to know the proper way to fix things. There are many men out there more intelligent than I am, who have spent their lives studying economics and those buggers can't agree on a damn thing. What am I going to do? I voted for what to me made sense and what I thought was more morally acceptable. Compromises had to be made, but that's life.

I'm very glad to find that there are other people on this forum who don't fit in either.

 

[jamullinstx]

You're all gonna laugh

As I said, I'm hard-core Libertarian, but a bit pragmatical. What bothers me about the Libertarian party is that they think that the most important issue is legalization of hemp. It makes my vote pretty irrelevant, because I can't find a Constitutional clause that protects hemp harvest, smoking, etc. I don't think the government should regulate it, mind you, but I don't think it is the most important issue. I think the most important issues are the Bill of Rights issues, especially the 2nd Amendment, but all the others, too. I don't understand when politicians and justices lost the ability to read obvious text.

So, the laughing part was with respect to thinking hemp legalization was the most important issue. Sorry for getting you to read this with a duplicitous headline.

And, my longtime "sound bite" is, "I want a government that stays out of my bedroom and my pocketbook." There is you're laughing point.

 

[Jofaba]

These responses made my morning. I'm glad that I didn't upset anyone, and am surprised at all the positive feedback. This forum seems to really have a community spirit that's open. When I go to gun shows or when I took my gun class, and even when I go to the Kittery Trading Post, I keep politics dialed down to zero because there is a tenseness in the air, grumblings over Obama, and it almost feels like a dangerous prospect to stir the pot.

Debating politics here is generally not allowed, so i'm not going to debate anyone here, in public, but I'm willing to discus anything through Email or Private Message.

I hope that I did not break any rules; it was not my intention to cause a ruckus. I can see the merit behind that kind of rule because of basically what I described above, and although this thread wasn't meant to cause debate, I am happy that so far it hasn't.

Thanks again for the responses.

 

[LaBulldog]

I am really glad to see this thread. I agree with the O.P. I don't really fit into a black and white category. I have friends and family on both sides and I get so much crap from all of them.

My republican friends say that I'm a long haired hippie adding to the degeneration of society and its morals. And my liberal friends say that I'm a long haired, redneck beast, hell bent on destroying nature, and gunning down a gay bar.

And ya know what? They're all wrong. I voted for Obama because I thought that out of the choices we were presented with he was the lesser of two evils. I have never felt truly represented though. Not by any means. And no. I don't regret voting for him. I'm a patient person and will wait to pass judgment. We are in a crisis that is spinning beyond anyone's control. Getting things back into a semblance of order will take years. I will never claim to know the proper way to fix things. There are many men out there more intelligent than I am, who have spent their lives studying economics and those buggers can't agree on a damn thing. What am I going to do? I voted for what to me made sense and what I thought was more morally acceptable. Compromises had to be made, but that's life.

I'm very glad to find that there are other people on this forum who don't fit in either.

+1 I could not have said it any better.

I voted for Obama also. It had nothing to do with guns, pro or con, it had to do with the Constitution especially the Bill of Rights, all of them, not just the 2nd Amendment. Am I 100% please with everything he's done so far? No. Will I agree with everything he will do? Of course not. I will support his efforts to make this country better for ALL of us.

 

[Enoy21]

I don't know that it's as rare as you believe my friend....

I personally consider myself Republican conservative.... He is a democratic conservative.

We have very similar views on many things , but several differences....

Neither of us let our vote decide on the party lines... We look at and listen to the officials plans , goals and views ... the one that lines up most with our beliefs and our hopes for the future of this country gets the vote.


He voted Obama , I voted McCain. We are in constant political debates about the economy , and foreign policy ( most recently the economy and the bailouts ). Which BOTH of us disagree with and think it's a foolish move, just for different reasons.

But we both agree that both sides of the fence seem so politically driven and blinded by the party lines that we want to create what we call the "Common F-n sense party" . Because some things are just common sense to any real thinking person that it blows my mind how they contort and change things and seem to have no clue whatsoever.



Personally for me , I never really knew which line I was on because I often found myself middle line. This past election I have found myself ( for the first time in 30 yrs ) really studying the parties and the views and REALLY getting into the politics side of things and found myself to fall way more in line with the republican party..... as I am considered "overly" conservative by most of my friends and family.




In addition to this , a local politician "Mark Warner" is a democrat but is pro Gun and Pro huntsman (sportsman).


Personally I feel that Rifles , shotguns and general hunting will be the very last of the 2nd amendment right to be taken away. No where in the second amendment does it say the "type of arms". So I fear that they will continue to widdle away any type of gun, First assault , then Semi Auto handguns , then all handguns etc ....

until it's nothing left but a shotgun for hunting.

 

[zukiphile]

You seem to be posing two different questions.

1. Can an individual see prudence is departing from the principles on which he structures most of his political conclusions? Certainly.

2. Is he demonstrating consistency or application of princple in doing that? Not necessarily.

Is there something wrong with defending the second amendment while calling for nationalized health care?

One implies a vision of limited government, while the other doesn't.

Are there libertarians who support nationalized health care?

If they believed the state should be the sole provider of health care services, in what respect could they be libertarians?

Is it really that crazy for a non-smoker who HATES the smell of cigarettes finding it absurd to ban cigarettes from bars, and feels that the continuing increase of taxes is criminal? Is it really that disturbing that an atheist thinks that Christians should be allowed to have nativity sets, that if city hall wants to put the ten commandments on the front lawn then let them, that freedom of religious expression does not equal state sponsored religion? Is it impossible to legalize gay marriage and let the churches decide if they accept the unions? Can a man not stand up and say that, as a man, he does not have the right to even enter the abortion debate because, just as a white man cannot comprehend the racism a black man feels, a man cannot comprehend the concept of growing a human inside of their own body? Can you support the troops, but not the war?

While not commenting on the logic of some of those statements, I will note that being a minority view within a larger political movement, such as an atheist who supports nativity scenes and ten commandment displays, will necessarily be less likely to have his position fully represented in public debate. Public discourse takes on a pro and contra structure in which advocates generally set forth their most coherent and persuasive position.

 

[a7mmnut]

I don't believe most people ever deserted one particular party--the parties have deserted us. What was once a blue collar/white collar party division has now become both major parties interested in getting volumes of votes in return for caring for the masses of voters. "National" equals "social" in my book. People too lazy to work now have more benefits than I do. If you don't have enough money to have a baby, just don't get married, and the federal funds will take care of the rest. Total control of and for "the people" is also what it's obviously about.

We now line up for a rural/municipal needs forum for each party during the election. Subdivisional battlegrounds are now considered quite important, as we've just seen last fall. What didn't use to be considered by one party is now stolen in idealogical form and presented as their original cure for the ailing. It's called "morally corrupt", and it's everywhere. I won't even mention the true defining impact of racial lines. What has traditionally been considered as very important to most Americans is now questionable, or at best, varying shades of gray. The blood and sacrifices of millions of our ancestors mean nothing. Our parents should have done better, and we know it.

For me, I'm just a stupid, undereducated farm boy that lost the farm. I voted for the party that stuck the closest to my family's heritage and moral character on a number of issues: healthcare, conservation, 2nd Ammendment Rights, Right To Life issues, military and foreign affairs issues, the "world" economy as it effects us, future business management, etc. These issues are obviously only minor inconveniences today, and were poorly referenced to during the entire election. All I heard was how each candidate promised to help some other group. All I wanted was the freedom to help myself and to help my family. Some of my family members and close friends still insist on voting with a party they registered for some 45-50 years ago. All I can say is, "Just look around--it no longer exists."

So please, if you can't help me save what I can, you damn sure better not try to take away what little I have left.

-7-

 

[vranasaurus]

I am a libertarian. I am fiscally conservative but socially liberal.

I don't like the government telling people what to do. Whether it's in their bedroom or in their wallet.

If someone wants to smoke pot, I say why not. Even though I won't partake, and I would encourage others not too.

Do I think abortion is wrong, yes. Do I think the governemnt should ban it, no. Do I think homosexualaity runs contrary to nature, yes. But do I think the government should prevent homsexuals from having some kind of union, no. The issue just doesn't affect me. These two issues affect so few people yet get so many fired up. Does it really F'n matter?

I don't like vast social safety nets because they don't motivate people to strive for success and they are ripe for abuse.

I don't want government health care because IMO it will be run poorly just like almost every other government program. If the figure of roughly 50 million is an accurate count of people that don't have health care that means 85% of this country does. There is only a finite amount of capacity in the system. Adding 50 million people to a system that can't handle it will lead to rationing of care and a lower standard of care for those of us who currently have health care but are not wealthy. Call me heartless if you want but that is just the way it is.

The wealthy do not offend me as long as they play by the rules. They pay the vast majority of taxes in this country and that doesn't offend me.

I believe there are limited circumstances in which the government is a necessary part of solving the problem. For major emergencies it may be necessary, only because no one else can, but as we saw with Katrina or the financial crisis the government doesn't even do those things particularly well.

The problem is that when forming parties those one issue voters tend to adopt the stances of others members of their party.

Think about death penalty vs. abortion. Republicans generally support the death penalty but oppose abortion because life is sacred. Democrats tend to support abortion but oppose the death penalty because it's unfair and innocent people might get put to death. My questions are if life is so sacred how is the deaht penalty OK and If your afraid innocent people will die how can you support abortion.

Now the issue of gun control confounds me. How is it that gun rights supporters can't convince inner city minorities, who vote 90% for gun control proponents, that gun control is bad for them? To me it's that they have always supported democrats for other reasons and those democrats they supported always opposed gun rights. Gun rights activists need to take a page from the school voucher proponents play book. While elected democrats oppose school vouchers, mostly because of the teachers union, many of their inner city constituents support them. This is because they have seen the advantages.

 

[ilbob]

Is there something wrong with defending the second amendment while calling for nationalized health care?

yes. The constitution is very clear that there is some right to keep and bear arms. it is also very clear that the federal government has no authority to run the health care system, and is actually specifically forbidden from doing so.

Is there something wrong with arguing against the assault weapon ban, while simultaneously supporting the legalization of marijuana, and the decriminalization of all other drugs?

Both are unconstitutional.

Is it really that crazy for a non-smoker who HATES the smell of cigarettes finding it absurd to ban cigarettes from bars, and feels that the continuing increase of taxes is criminal?

if you don't like the smell, go elsewhere. let the business owner know why you left. if enough people truely cared, there would be plenty of smoke free places. the fact is that the average person just does not care.

Is it really that disturbing that an atheist thinks that Christians should be allowed to have nativity sets, that if city hall wants to put the ten commandments on the front lawn then let them, that freedom of religious expression does not equal state sponsored religion?

Few people would argue that display of religious symbols is the same thing as the sponsoring of state religion. In fact, the constitution does not, nor has it ever banned a state from establishing a religion. it only bans congress from doing so.

Is it impossible to legalize gay marriage and let the churches decide if they accept the unions?

marriage is what it is. a union between an man and a woman. You can call it gay marriage, just as you can call an apple a banana, but it does not make the apple a banana.

Can a man not stand up and say that, as a man, he does not have the right to even enter the abortion debate because, just as a white man cannot comprehend the racism a black man feels, a man cannot comprehend the concept of growing a human inside of their own body?

BS. racism works both ways. if women want to have complete control over whether they bring a fetus to term, they need to give up all rights to government mandated child support.

Can you support the troops, but not the war?

in practice it does not work out that way.

 

[johnwilliamson062]

I'm hard-core Libertarian, but a bit pragmatical. What bothers me about the Libertarian party is that they think that the most important issue is legalization of hemp

I am pretty Libertarian.
I have never smoked pot or partaken in any other illegal "recreational drugs."
Every couple of years I paint something without proper ventilation without thinking and that is enough of a drug experience for me.

That doesn't change the fact that the war on drugs has been a huge drag on our economy and has done nothing but provide a great funding source for criminals.

That being said I do not think this is the driving issue in the Ohio LP. In Ohio there seems to be much more focus on gun control. Almost every Libertarian involved in the party has their CCW and a few open carry just to make the point. I am not sure this is all that much better than focusing on the drug issue.

Many Libertarians do not like drug use, abortion, gay marriage, or a number of other things. The things I listed are things I personally do not support. That does not mean I believe the government should be involved in its regulation. That is the huge difference between the Libertarian party and the others. You can believe whatever you want and still be a Libertarian. You just have to agree that it is not the governments role to bend people to your will.

 

[Jekyll]

Your 1st example tells me that you might not be the "constitutionalist" you think you are.

Is there something wrong with defending the second amendment while calling for nationalized health care?

There is nothing in the Constitution that supports the assumption of health care by the federal government. The only part of the Constitution that applies is the 10th Amendment: (to paraphrase) that not enumerated resides with the States and the people.

Liking guns and supporting the 2nd Amendment doesn't make you a constitutionalist rather, it makes you a shooter. The Constitution isn't a buffet line where you take a bit of this and some of that. It is a contract between the federal government, the States and the People. All paragraphs and ammendments are equally important.

 

[pendennis]

Even Google seems to have a problem with me...

Here's my question, why does it seem almost exclusively black and white? Mind, I know that a lot of you reading this will take offense if I do not say as such; I am talking about the talking heads on tv, and stereotypical responses to news stories and general public discussions, on and offline. That said:

When it comes to gun control debate, why does it seem to boil down to Republican party-liners being the gun advocates, and Democrat party-liners toting the anti-gun stance? I searched online all weekend to find the middle and came up with very little. I found an interesting podcast that had an entire hour long show dedicated to discussing the liberal gun owner and they certainly weren't talking about me. They were talking about Democrats who finally shot a gun,enjoyed it, and that's where the connection ended for those liberals.

The gun debate is not a Republican v. Democrat issue. It's a conservative(modern) v. liberal (modern) debate. I'll use these terms in lieu of the classical liberal (Jeffersonian).

Is there something wrong with defending the second amendment while calling for nationalized health care? Is there something wrong with arguing against the assault weapon ban, while simultaneously supporting the legalization of marijuana, and the decriminalization of all other drugs? Is it really that crazy for a non-smoker who HATES the smell of cigarettes finding it absurd to ban cigarettes from bars, and feels that the continuing increase of taxes is criminal? Is it really that disturbing that an atheist thinks that Christians should be allowed to have nativity sets, that if city hall wants to put the ten commandments on the front lawn then let them, that freedom of religious expression does not equal state sponsored religion? Is it impossible to legalize gay marriage and let the churches decide if they accept the unions? Can a man not stand up and say that, as a man, he does not have the right to even enter the abortion debate because, just as a white man cannot comprehend the racism a black man feels, a man cannot comprehend the concept of growing a human inside of their own body? Can you support the troops, but not the war?

You can't support nationalized (socialist/collectivist) health care if you believe in individual liberty. Social programs only spread misery, not enhance wealth for the poor or ill.

Conservatives have no issue with the legalization of marijuana, or most any other drug. However, conservatives know that legalization of drugs leads to dependency by users on those who don't do drugs. Drug users always end up putting a strain on the rest of society, because of their addictions. The addictions eventually cause the user to be a total burden on society. Practicing your freedom can't put cost or limits on others' freedom.

Conservatives view overt homosexuality as immoral, just as they view overt heterosexuality as immoral. Practice sexual preferences in the bedroom, not the public square. If two homosexuals want to enter into a contract for support and living purposes, then hire a lawyer, write a contract, sign it, and abide by its terms. Marriage has historically been the joining of man and woman for the purposes of procreation, not the disbursement of government-or private sector-paid benefits.

Abortion is a moral, not political issue. Conservatives seek to protect the weakest in our society. An unborn baby is the weakest, and has no vote in his/her further life. Abortion is a unilateral decision by the female. Excercise of one's rights can't impinge on those of another

Racism is immoral, whether black-on-white, white-on-black, etc. Since the majority of those on earth are Asian, does that not mean that Asians will be racist towards whites, but not vice versa?

The United States military, by law, has a unified command structure, from the lowest private/sailor/marine/airman, on up to the Commander-in-Chief. You can't support the private, and not support the CIC.

I put in the New Member thread post that I was not a one issue voter. Yet I have (in my life, not just here) met exactly one other person who voted for Obama and wants to protect the 2nd Amendment. I'm not looking for validation, I am not looking for agreement. I am making this thread to ask any of you that these questions may apply to (to which your answers were"no"), why?

Why can't there, and isn't there, an allowance of deviating and conflicting beliefs and ideals? Do you think me naive? Are there atheist Republicans? Are there Constitutionalist Democrats? Are there libertarians who support nationalized health care?

Yes, you show some naivete in your logic. The modern liberal is not interested in living his life for his own good. He is interested in having everyone dependent on a "nanny government", because he doesn't believe that people can be prosperous without government control.

There are atheists of all political persuasions. Atheism is not the question. The question is a matter of morality v. immorality. Religion and morality don't always share the same path. For more on this, study the Reformation and the Inquisition.

No, we can't all just "get along". I refuse to compromise my beliefs for someone who wants to enslave me.

No, Libertarians do not support socialized health care.

I don't fail to fit into a niche because it's cool. It's not, let me tell you; it's simply frustrating. When you can't find an ally anywhere, you're not cool. You're alone. I fail to fit into a niche because none of them entirely make sense to me, and I feel that in order to enter a niche you need to adhere to the code. None of the codes seem to make sense though. They're all about 50/50.

You can't get everyone to like you. You must take a stand, ignore those who don't like you because of it, and ally yourself only with those who believe as you do. Standing in the middle of the road only gets you killed. There are no degrees of conservatism. You are conservative, or you are liberal.

So, in closing, is there any room for the odd man out? Is an oxymoron like a liberal constitutionalist acceptable? Do any of you differ from your party in any fashion, and are you vocal about it, and does it make you uncomfortable or angry that you have to defend your position?

No. The "odd man out" is a cop-out. The difference in conservatives and liberals is not one of politics. It's one of morality. Quite simply, those who are liberal are immoral, because they seek to enslave the individual, and use the power of immoral government to put power in the liberal's hands.

Also, I am curious if anyone voted for Obama. I give him a 50% rating right now. I voted for him thinking that he would do us good. I'd have given him a 40% before his G20 and Europe trip. I'm not looking to find anyone in love with Obama, obviously we all fear for our gun rights; I am just trying to see if 1, anyone will admit to it, and 2, if you regret it. (I don't, I think if we're loud enough we can change his mind).

Obama is an immoral socialist. His statements about the United States being "arrogant" are the ulitmate in pandering to a group of nations in Europe who have warred with each other nearly constantly since the founding of western civilization in ancient Greece. The Europeans, including the British, are basket cases because of their socialistic governments. Yet they are unremittent in their criticism of the only country in the world which exports freedom.

 

[vranasaurus]

Many Libertarians do not like drug use, abortion, gay marriage, or a number of other things. The things I listed are things I personally do not support. That does not mean I believe the government should be involved in its regulation. That is the huge difference between the Libertarian party and the others. You can believe whatever you want and still be a Libertarian. You just have to agree that it is not the governments role to bend people to your will.

As a libertarian I don't have to like what you do but as long as it doesn't affect someone else then you are free to do it.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

Here's my question, why does it seem almost exclusively black and white?

Because the constitution does not directly support the majority of the liberal agenda.