If the eventual Republican nominee succeeds in making clear the libertarian nature of Reaganite conservatism — and runs on that platform, he could do as well among young voters as the Gipper did in the 1980s. Bear in mind that twenty somethings today as in the Reagan era seem to have a thing for septuagenarians who talk about freedom.
Ron Paul may be a flawed messenger, but his message resonates. College students, Glenn reports, are becoming more libertarian. They may calls themselves “liberal”, but that may be because it’s just “cool” to be liberal in college. They tend to support a live-and-let-live attitude that defines the Reagan wing of the GOP.
It behooves the GOP to make clear to young voters (indeed to all voters) that is the party of individual party — and to support policies to that end. And to remind people that Democrats favor policies which limit the choices individuals can make.
Reagan was very far from “conservative”, “libertarian” or “live-and-let-live”. We had some of the highest level of government intervention during Reagan’s administration, and pretty badly at that.
The “problem” is that much of core-values of Reagan’s Republicanism today is denounced as Northeastern-Liberal Republicanism and campus RINOism. Thirty years ago who would have thought that…
I guess I am lost in the mystique of the coded message.
I sort of grasp the live-and-let-live attitude theme, but I have the uneasy feeling that is some sort of backhanded slap at what is commonly called “social conservatism.”
Ron Paul’s “libertarianism” is as far as you can get from Reagan’s strong defense policy. Ron Paul is nearly laissez-faire regarding terrorists carrying out terrorism. Ron Paul is all but an isolationist. Not much like Reagan.
Shrink the nanny state. Get the budget mess under control. Let the states handle the social issues. Read, understand and follow the Constitution. Let the free market engine of the economy do its work. Those are the conservative principles. They are not principles exclusive to libertarians and certainly were not foreign to Reagan.
If the message is that the candidates need to put a lid on religion, avoid the abortion talk, lay off the illegal immigrants and do a little more Kumbaya, then lets say so.
But all Republicans from RINOs to “libertarians” need to understand that the MSM needles ALL Republicans in a way they never go after Democrats. Republicans, generally, have principles and a Judeo-Christian ethic. Democrats are moral relativists with shifting, momentary principles. Therefore, the Republicans can be hounded over the mere scent of hypocrisy and the Democrats are totally immune from being who and what they are since they never arise above their lowest level of honesty or integrity. The only honor they have is the same honor found among all con artists. Pride in plying their craft.
“I sort of grasp the live-and-let-live attitude theme, but I have the uneasy feeling that is some sort of backhanded slap at what is commonly called ‘social conservatism.’”
A backhanded slap at social conservatism is exactly what it is, Heliotrope. I believe that by “libertarian”, B. Daniel, Lori, and others here really mean “socially liberal”. However, on a blog calling itself conservative, an open championing of social liberalism might not be too wise. Still, I firmly believe that B. Daniel, Lori, and other gay conservatives here want nothing less than to turn conservatism into a conduit for social leftism, complete with disdain for traditional values and those who hold them. And they want that because social conservatism is an obstacle to the full mainstreaming of homosexuality, which is what they want. IMO, (most) gay conservatives here are gay first, like their liberal counterparts, and view everything through the prism of their sexuality. They don’t like social conservatives. Period. It’s time they just admit it.
No, Seane-Anna, YOU want to do that. Because you would keep alive this mindless tennis-match between the statist Left and the statist Right into infinity.
You make the common statist mistake of thinking that only when the government does something is it truly real. Therefore, if the government does not use force to “make” morality happen, there is no way it could happen.
It is not “social liberalism” to believe that if government gets out of the way, and bad behavior is left to do what it will do naturally, which is bring about its own forms of punishment, what would result would be a far more moral society than one in which government busy-bodies — Those Who Know Better — attempted to play God.
First of all Dan, way to sound like you’re 90 years old. Kids in college call themselves liberal because it’s just cool? Whatever. I can do that too – Old farts sit around on their porches calling themselves conservatives because they’ve never read a book. Aren’t you the one always preaching about how we need to trust in the sincerity of our political opponents’ beliefs?
Secondly, it’s complete nonsense to say that it’s the Democratic party that limits the choices individuals can make when it is the Republicans that are firmly entrenched against choice on current issues like gay marriage and abortion – which just so happen to be really popular with the young people. These are positions which directly affect people’s lives in very intimate ways – is it your contention that there are any liberal positions that impact people as directly as the conservative positions on these issues? There just aren’t. You guys have someone running for President that thinks contraception is a bad thing – and you want to pretend like it’s the liberals that favor policies which limit the choices individuals can make? Pffft….
Isaac, please specify.
My, my, Levi, you do have a prejudiced view of conservatives to think we define ourselves as such if we don’t read. A number of recent surveys have shown that conservatives read more books than liberals.
Let’s see the Democrats voted for a health care reform which defines what kind of plans qualify as the health insurance we must carry — and defines the kinds of treatments doctors may use on patients.
And please tell me just exactly where conservatives are preventing gay people from living openly in couples and calling themselves married. It’s just the state recognition they oppose.
And we should also remember that Levi and his fellow liberals endorse and support murdering babies as a form of “contraception”.
Levi’s addiction to abortion and contraception is rooted in the fact that he is a misogynist and OWS rapist who sees women’s bodies as something for him to use and discard without him ever having to take or accept the consequences for his decision. Of course, in his great generosity, after he rapes and impregnates a woman, he will allow her to kill the baby.
The hilarity is watching a brat like Levi whine about “choice” when one is very aware that, if his parents had exercised similar morals to his own and killed their “inconvenient” child, he wouldn’t be around to agitate.
Le sigh…. Way to miss the point!
None of which constitutes ‘limiting the choices individuals can make.’ Universal healthcare, with its lower costs and wider accessibility, if anything gives more choices to people.
However you want to justify it, the bottom line is that conservatives are going out of their way to deny homosexuals the ability to marry. In no universe is that anything other than ‘limiting choice.’
Smoking in public, or even at home, is being eliminated. Trans fats are being eliminated. DDT was eliminated. We get ever rising CAFE standards on cars which lead to thousands of highway deaths each year. SUVs are villanized and on the decline. We can’t hang on to our payroll tax money and plan our own retirement instead of contributing to the Socialist Stupidity Ponzi Scheme.
Liberals are opposed to choosing a fuel that actually works. Liberals oppose allowing parents to choose where to send their kids to school. Liberals are opposed to people being able to choose a job free from union thugs. Liberals are opposed to allowing businesses to build where they choose. Liberals are opposed to one choosing to protect one’s self and family with a firearm.
Liberals are opposed to choosing freedom and economic prosperity but, by damn, you MUST be allowed to slaughter your baby and toss it in the trash so you can still go out clubbing on the weekends.
Ergo, you can take your “Republicans are opposed to choice” and cram it.
Bullshit. It’s costing us more now and it hasn’t even started yet. But ObaMarx’s BFFs are excused. You can’t fudge the numbers and hide it forever. Where’s the choice for the millions of people opposed to it?
Given all the arrests and indictments of liberals lately, it seems that liberals are opposed to choosing elections free of fraud. Oh, and intimidation too. And since we can force people to buy insurance, why can’t we require people to present some form of ID when voting?
Hi Dan,
Another reason college students like Ron Paul is because he has a consistent message with regards to civil liberties, which have been eroded under both the previous Republican administration AND the current Democratic one. Paul links this to our overseas military adventures and “war” on terror. He argues that “fighting” that “war” on “terror” fuels the continued undermining of our individual rights in this country. I think that is the key message of Paul’s candidacy (and on that, I agree with him), and he is the only candidate–on either side of the political divide–who is making that case. It is not just about “live and let live”‘ it is also about something absolutely fundamental to the survival of this Republic…
The progressive left has made the bargain that they will give unlimited freedom to do whatever you want inside the bedroom without consequences… in exchange for absolute control by the state of everything you do once you leave the bedroom.
I still don’t get why this is supposed to be such a fantastic deal.
A conservative is a great deal more likely to leave you alone in the bedroom that a liberal is to leave you alone outside of it.
Tell that to the Brits who are denied access to life-saving breast cancer drugs, or the Canadians who have to wait weeks and months for routine procedures.
For those of us who are based in reality, the truth about the cost of health care is slightly different. That what Levi states (without proof, but asking Levi for facts is like asking me for diet tips)
This doesn’t even consider that Obamacare doesn’t allow for exceptions (unless the great and powerful HHS deems it so) so it is infringing on people’s religion.
Oh and let us also not forget that the current President voted to allow newborns to die in closets if they were inconvienent.
As others have pointed out, this doesn’t get into the smoking bans, transfat bans, barring RotC from campuses, hate speech…
Now hush Levi, adults are talking.
Here is the translation, but not the one that Levi means:
All laws limit freedom. Laws are made by government. Regulations deriving from laws further limit freedom. The “bigger” the government, the more intrusive the laws and regulations on the society. Those who favor large government, “social justice” through government intervention and regulation, punitive and redistributive taxation, are liberals.
However, liberals weigh freedom against “choice.” When the society informs the government that it opposes gay marriage, the liberal sees that as a crushing thumb on the individual’s “freedom of choice.” But, strangely, the same liberal can not see the denial of polygamy the same way. That is the hypocrisy of liberalism. If the “liberal society” says it is OK, then it is a freedom issue. If the “liberal society” says it is not OK then it is not a freedom issue. (Go figure.)
People must have their food habits regulated by the government. This is so they will be healthy and live longer and cost the state less, even though they live longer and must be cut off for “comfort care only” at some specified age. They are being regulated for their own good. That is part of the definition of freedom and choice if your mind works in the liberal way. Marijuana, is OK. It is not a gateway drug. It does not do anything whatsoever that is injurious to the user or those around the user in anyway whatsoever. Pilots and surgeons and auto mechanics and day care workers can toke up often and constantly as a matter of freedom and choice. (Well, maybe not. The liberals and libertarians will have to get back to us on that one.)
So. Levi understands liberals. They are not bound by any rules of logic or “foolish consistency” that may come back on them. Everything is relative to what they think today and tomorrow is another day.
As to abortion: an unwanted pregnancy too often results in a child that lives in the ghetto and becomes human debris. The best thing for the mother, the child and society is to kill it in the womb and prevent any further problems from the clump of cells.
But, the liberal does not care to sterilize the mother, because she just might like to have a child “when she is ready.” Therefore, liberals are content to ply the woman with contraception and deal with STDs as matter of publicly funded health care. The liberal mantra here is: You can have your cake and eat it too. Baby=bad sex. No baby=good choice. STDs=the cost of freedom. Treating STDs=obligation of a responsible society.
There is no confusion in any of this. It is just as clear as mud.
Maybe so. I have not heard him explain how you protect yourself and your country by standing back and letting events “just happen” and do the mopping up afterwards.
I would be interested to know what Ron Paul thinks of trying to head off a suitcase dirty bomb or doing a little something to keep airplane hi-jackers from getting their way.
For me, whenever Ron Paul gets the microphone, he goes into a high-pitched protracted whine about how we bring all of “this” upon ourselves. I have yet to hear him address the problems of terrorism. Why should that be left to my imagination? It would seem that a smart man like Ron Paul would know a little something about human nature.
And that brings me to the people who “adore” Ron Paul. Like the “hope and change” crowd, what are they hearing? Or are they just all hot to be a part of the cult?
Socialized health care is, to put it diplomatically, a demon-beast straight from the sulfurous bowels of Hell. I don’t expect Levi to understand why; his thought processes don’t go any deeper than the bumper sticker level, but the reasons are quite obvious to anyone with common sense.
First of all, socialized health care is the ultimate tool of the state to demolish personal liberty. Every human activity has an impact on the likelihood of a person becoming sick or injured, and socialized health care provides the rationale for the state to micromanage human behavior on the basis that since the costs of health care are borne by “society,” then society has the right to micromanage your life to reduce your costs. In the UK and New York City, we see ever growing lists of proscribed foods and forbidden activities.
Also, socialized medicines punishes the responsible and rewards the irresponsible. It essentially robs the fit, monogamous, tea-totaler to pay the health care bills of the unfit, the promiscuous, and the abusers. Which is okay to promoters of socialized medicine because the former tend to vote conservative and the latter tend to vote progressive.
College students would do well to understand the nature of Romney’s, Santorum’s, and Gingrich’s appeal also.
The libertarians stand on most social issues I can identify with, such as gay issues. What I have difficulty with is the absolute isolationism, downsizing the military in these dangerous times and drugs. I can appreciate the opinion that what I do with my body is my own business as long as I don´t hurt anybody. The user does hurt other people, if not directly, indirectly by empowering the farmer who grows the plant product, be it in Bolivia, Colombia, Afganistan, and elsewhere, the traffiker, the dealer, and other consumers. I don´t believe that legalizing drugs is the solution.
Which is a good thing. Reagan had a purpose for the military expansion during the 80s. His intent / strategy with the military build-up during his tenure was to regain the strength of the institution after the moral sag left over from the Vietnam war, and bankrupt the Soviet Union.
Mission Accomplished.
A military build-up today… What’s it for?
Will it make us feel strong again?
No. We already know we can kick anyone’s arse if ewe really want to.
Will it bankrupt China?
No.
Will it bankrupt Iran?
No.
Will it bankrupt any of a number of Islamic states?
Of course not.
Reagan’s military strategy was engineered for a cold war era. That is not the world we live in today. Our foes are not trying to match us like the soviets… they know they don’t need to. And the only country that we are succeeding in bankrupting… Is our own.
PS. Dan, reading a new really good book. It’s called The Guns Of August, and documents the making of World War 1. .
Have to go work now.
The threat environment has changed since the eighties, but the need for a large, effective military has not. Instead of one monolithic threat, we face multiple threats from multiple adversaries of differing capabilities and strategies. The military’s operating agenda needs to adjust to the nature of new threats, certainly, but that only means the military has to be more nimble and better equipped, not hamstrung by political correctness, undermanned, and relying on 40 year old fighters, 50 year old tankers, and 60 year old bombers to get the job done.
We need to recapitalize the military and make it a more effective fighting force. It need not cost as much. Our proven weapons systems can do the job if we just build new copies and refurbish existing assets; much less expensive than new weapons programs. We can save the expensive, high-technology stuff for the elite SEAL and SPECOPS units.
But it’s naive and foolish to to assume the USA would have no enemies if we just disarmed and isolated ourselves. And gutting the military is to put recklessness on top of foolishness.
You liberals and your stereotypes never fail to amuse me.
#10
And why shouldn’t it be? Smoking exposes people to carcinogenic smoke. I think people’s right not to be unwillingly exposed to carginogenic smoke should be more important than the right of people to do something incredibly stupid. But that’s just me. (I agree with the sentiment expressed in the rest of your comment, though).
Just wondering, is it the individual rights of the average person that are being undermined, or is it the individual rights of people suspected of terrorism that are being undermined? I know, under Obama, it has increasingly shifted towards the former (considering his desire not to offend the Muslims), but I would hope that, under a Republican, common sense would prevail over politically correct idiocy.
PS: I realize that my previous comment might be interpreted as being supercilious, which isn’t how it is intended. I am interested in the reasoning behind the viewpoint opposite to the one I expressed.
I would be mortified if we elected a Neo-liberal jackass who has stated that he would NOT commit to the extermination of millions of Jews, gays, Gypsies, Poles, POWs etc. I would be embarrassed and ashamed to have ever supported that candidate even if he has no intentions on winning the nomination. Interesting to know you agree with that position though.
If you don’t like roller coasters, you don’t ride on them. If you don’t like what’s on TV, you change the channel. If you don’t want to be exposed to smoke, don’t go where there is some. You have a choice. Instead, folks have forced their choice on others “for the greater good”.
And just how does smoking in your own home expose others to it? This is something I can’t fathom. That and the job discrimination out there?
Not commit to stopping, rather.
Everything leftists want involves robbing from successful people and giving what is robbed to unsuccessful people, doesn’t it? One of the many, many problems with that, however, is that as time advances, the amount of people that try to be successful (and hence contribute to society) increasingly decreases, so as time advances, you have fewer and fewer successful people to steal from, and more and more unsuccessful people to give to. Ergo, everyone gets poorer and poorer. Also, stealing is just plain unjust.
Contrast that with a redistribution-free society, and success becomes correlated with wealth, which gives people an incentive to be successful, and hence contribute to society. It might not make you feel all warm and fuzzy, but using compassion as a means by which to make decisions tends to have the effect opposite to the one intended. Plus, there will always be private charities that tend to manage their resources better than the government (because of competition).
The thing is, second hand smoke is a lot more difficult to avoid than roller coasters. I would prefer the smoker be inconvenienced than me (so they should go to some designated smoking area or something, so smoke is more easily avoided).
Smoking in your own home, per se, is fine (in my opinion). However, if you have children, then I don’t think it is (even if they are not around, because cigarette smoke sticks to surfaces).
To clarify, I don’t favor an outright ban on smoking, just restrictions. My comment #25 was made under the assumption that the alternative to “smoking […] being eliminated” was not to have any restrictions on smoking (because those restrictions would eliminate the freedom to smoke in certain places). I guess my reasoning is partially based in that I can’t see why anyone would start smoking in the first place, so I don’t see why people shouldn’t be restricted from doing something that harms other people and that doesn’t have any benefit (at least starting smoking in the first place doesn’t). However, I do not support restricting chewing tobacco, because it is not harmful in any way that I am aware of to anyone other than the person chewing the tobacco.
If the government is handing out marriage benefits to couples that aren’t related and are of a certain age, they shouldn’t restrict who gets those benefits based on insignificant factors like sexual orientation, race, height, hand-eye coordination, IQ, juggling ability, etc. That begins and ends the argument, and any attempt you make to label me a hypocrite because I don’t want to let polygamists in is a meaningless diversion that couldn’t have less to do with the issue at hand. If you want to marry everyone in your church and live together on some compound, you go right ahead – but for the state’s purposes only two people can be married at a time. That’s the only fair way to do it.
Oh come off it, do you think that’s a fair characterization at all? Is there anyone in this country that could rightly complain about their food habits being regulated by the government? No. Drop the feigned hysteria – you could drive ten miles in any direction and you would pass dozens of restaurants that will serve you however much high-cholesterol, high-fat, high-sugar, high-calorie food that you can pay for.
It’s not a bad thing that the government tries to promote healthy eating, particularly in impulsive children who might have shitty/lazy/busy parents. The generally atrocious health of the American population is a bigger threat to this country than terrorism, and you want to get upset because a school district might want to take vending machines out of the lunch room?
I assume you’re being sarcastic, but after that little rant about the government regulating food, you have absolutely no room to talk about marijuana. High fructose corn syrup is a holocaust compared to marijuana.
Blah blah blah….
It’s not that pro-choice people like abortions. But abortions aren’t the problem, abortions are a symptom of our dysfunctional healthcare and education systems. Universal healthcare would do more to reduce the number of abortions than any red-faced screaming on street corners ever will. Teaching kids from a young age about the consequences of sex and making contraception absurdly cheap would do more to reduce abortion than these puritanical abstinence-only education programs that the right is so enamored with.
Of course, as dramatically as the conservatives flail around and as enthusiastically as you display your gory fetus banners, you don’t seem too concerned about doing anything to fix these root problems. You just want to ban abortion, and then there won’t be any more abortions, right? Because that’s how things work in the real world, correct? The only reason people get abortions is because they’re legal, and if they were illegal, no one would ever try to get one ever again, right?
For conservatives, the abortion issue is mostly about getting the chance to call your political opponent a murderer. If you’re seriously concerned about the tragedy of abortion, as I am, you would support and advocate for those policies that would reduce the number of abortions. Abortions aren’t your enemy, unwanted pregnancies are, and by targeting poverty and our healthcare and education systems, we could do a lot to oh who am I kidding you don’t care about anything I have to say because I’m just some brutal babykiller that wants to live a wild hedonistic lifestyle and have promiscuous sex without ever dealing with the consequences and I live in my parents’ basement.
And I’m on welfare.
“No, Seane-Anna, YOU want to do that.”
I want to mainstream homosexuality?
“…I’m just some brutal babykiller that wants to live a wild hedonistic lifestyle and have promiscuous sex without ever dealing with the consequences…”
Yep, Levi, that pretty much sums up the modern liberal.
Hmm, so our resident socialist is all for the government telling him what to eat, what to drive, what to buy, as long as he can frak whenever he wants.
Is anyone surprised?
If I were to live irresponsibly, not buy insurance even if I could afford to because I’d rather spend it on sweet kicks and a 90″ plasma TV, and then got sick or injured… what would give me the right to reach into the pocket of someone more responsible and force them to pay for my health care?
The summary of the modern progressive philosophy.
Ever try finding the smoking areas at Disney World or your local airport? At TPA they used to have separate, closed off rooms in the air side terminals. The righteous still bitched so those were closed off and now one has to go outside on a patio on the land side. Of course if you need to get back to the air side to catch your connection, you have to go back through the TnA “security” grope fest.
How about businesses who want the ability to choose to allow smoking in their establishments? They’re shit out of luck because the nanny state and pleasure police says no.
And then there’s jobs. You can be denied a job if you smoke. Sure you might be able to lie and get the job. Problem is that if you’re drug tested, they will check for nicotine and don’t even have to tell you they’re testing for it. If they find any in your system, you’re fired. No more revenue for the liberal’s Socialist Stupidity slush fund.
Why pussy foot around with half-assed attempts to control the masses? If it’s so deadly, ban it.
“I want to mainstream homosexuality?”
That’s right, Seane-Anna. Totally ignore everything else I said in my last comment. You evidently can’t deal with it, so you might as well.
Maybe Santa Claus will give you a really hard-core statist who’ll wave a wand and “de-mainstream” us, whatever the hell that means to you.
Government, after all, must do it, or it isn’t real to you.
Did I miss the part where Levi gets to define fair?
Oh.
Gosh.
I would like to read the studies on that one.
Sorry, but the subject of vending machines never came up.
Sorry, again, but I never proposed banning abortions.
In all of Levi’s blathering, he has only proved once again that what HE thinks is fair and right and what HE thinks is stupid and wrong is just “self evident truth.”
The government can regulate the food you eat, but not marijuana. Gays can marry because being gay is like being left-handed, but polygamists can not marry because polygamists have the choice not to be polygamists. So gays, like pedophiles have no choice about their attractions, but pedophiles are icky and besides, marriage is not about sex and, Oh! Look! a squirrel.
And on, and on and on.
Of course not. That’s why they worship them, celebrate them, promote them, push them, and demand that the Federal government fund them.
Indeed, especially since it’s turning out imbecile progressives like you who can’t figure out that a) sex causes babies and that, given a), b) therefore you shouldn’t have it until you’re ready to have them.
I, like most conservatives, knew that when I was eight years old, so clearly the fault is not in the education or the health care; it’s in the fact that “progressives” like yourself will never take any responsibility for your actions.
And this was a real winner.
Wrong.
I mean, seriously. Levi blabbers about how “educated” he and his siblings are and how his mommy and daddy buy them all the health care and contraceptives they want, and they STILL are too stupid, lazy, and irresponsible to use them — as was shown by Levi’s blather that his sibling was visited by the “unintended pregnancy fairy”.
Voting for Obama and supporting gay-sex marriage.
At least that’s what Levi believes. It’s amazing how “progressives” like him are all about “gay rights” as long as the gays allow Levi to rob them blind and steal everything they own.
One correction, Livewire.
Levi is all for the government PAYING for what he eats, what he wants to buy, and what he drives – and for him frakking whenever he wants.
Realize when you talk to “progressives” like Levi that they have no intention of ever living by the rules they intend to impose on you. Just like Barack Obama, they want higher taxes, but have no intention of paying said taxes themselves.
Ace had a brilliant riff today that sums up Obama, Levi, and their ilk perfectly: they are perfectly happy to give us the freedom to work and earn as long as we give them the profits, and they think we should be grateful to them for doing it.
The scary part is that, if you are at all versed in history, you realize very quickly that Levi is repeating virtually verbatim the rationales his Obama Party ancestors used to justify slavery two centuries earlier.
Lori, Lori, Lori…. I know I shouldn’t, but I will.
You are one confused cookie, and you prove my point that most conservative gays here are gay first and see everything through the prism of their sexuality. That’s certainly true of you.
You like to yell “Statist!” a lot yet never bother to explain precisely what you mean by that term. The only reason I can see for your frequent flinging of that term at me is that I don’t support gay marriage. Apparently, in your book that makes me a “filthy little creep” obsessed with what goes on in other people’s bedrooms. Yet, you can oppose polygamous marriages or abortion without being a “statist busybody” sticking her nose into people’s bedrooms.
Don’t get me wrong (which I know you will). I’m not saying I support polygamy or abortion. What I am saying is that your concept of “statist” is strictly tied to the advancement of your sexuality. In other words, Lori, for you “statism” means impeding, impinging, or restricting the push for “gay acceptance and inclusion”, as you worded it on your blog. And “statist” is your slur for anyone you deem not sufficiently supportive of said push. Like I said, everything is filtered through the prism of your sexuality. If it advances your sexuality, it’s libertarian; if it hinders said advancement, it’s “statism”. How convenient.
Wow, Seane-Anna, you really are obsessed with sex. Especially with your lurid imaginings of the sex lives of other people.
I’m through with you. You aren’t worth the trouble of arguing with. Most of the other commenters on this blog gave up on you a long time ago — the few, that is, who ever paid any attention to you in the first place.
If you really have that much difficulty understanding the ideas I have expressed here, then you aren’t very smart. Or you’ve just got such a loose screw about homosexuality that you’re simply incapable of thinking rationally about anything even remotely approaching the issue.
Have a nice life, but go bother someone else.
They’re not already? And besides, what about people who do use contraception and still have children? I know a couple who did. She wouldn’t take the pill because she’s one of those “all natural” types and he wore a Trojan. Now they have a beautiful daughter.
Now tell me how many people who abstain have children and/or diseases.
If wide availability of contraceptives were the solution, there would be no abortions. I don’t know what delusional world libs live in where contraceptives are hard to come by.
“Wow, Seane-Anna, you really are obsessed with sex. Especially with your lurid imaginings of the sex lives of other people.”
And like clock work you got what I said totally wrong, just like I knew you would. Well, you’re consistent, Lori, if nothing else. And I don’t understand the ideas you express here because they don’t make any sense. Take, for instance, your outlandish claim that I’m obsessed with sex and have “lurid imaginings” about other people’s sex lives. And just what forces you to that bizarre conclusion? The fact that I oppose gay marriage? So, then, does the fact that you oppose polygamous marriage mean that YOU are obsessed with sex and have lurid imaginings of other people’s sex lives?
Of course, I won’t get a coherent answer to that question from you, Lori, because coherent and rational thought is beyond your capacity. But your blatherings do make for great comic relief. Yes, they do.
I agree that businesses should be able to decide if they want to allow smoking.
So long as the employer is a private business, it is their prerogative if they don’t want to employ any smokers. However, that is only if legislation such as ENDA is not in place. If you can’t fire someone because they’re gay, then it isn’t fair to be able to fire someone because they smoke.
I don’t think that would be necessarily realistic or fair, considering tobacco has been legal forever (as far as I know). And I wouldn’t want to add another substance to the list of substances that gangs can traffic and make money from. All I favor is minimal regulations, and I do so reluctantly because that means giving the government more power. The more I think about it though, the less appealing it seems.
The one where you actually have to use them.
OWS Levi doesn’t want to wear a condom, and his latest sex partner, consensual or not, is too busy protesting to take a pill or use a diaphragm.
And of course, they’d rather spend their money that Mommie and Daddy give them on weed, new TV sets, and $150 pairs of skinny jeans.
In summation, I would not presume to inconvenience others for my own comfort. The anti-smoking Gestapo have. I was raised better than that. Others apparently weren’t.
Further, you can’t tell me that you’re worried about your health as you head into the local choke n puke to scarf down a double cheeseburger with chili and bacon.
I would also note that, to my knowledge, there’s no #OccupyTrojan or demands for redistributing condoms. I’m also going to guess that the Occutwat rapists probably didn’t use condoms.
You just realized your party are the ones most responsible for poverty, high costs of healthcare and shitty education system?
Hi TGC,
I find it interesting that you take my support for his disavowal of the “war on terror” as an affirmation of the position that we should not actively stop Hitler’s genocide (how you get that, I am unsure). I would point out that I, like you, can agree with some parts of a person’s position, and not other parts…
Hi RS,
I would say: both. After all, since governments make mistakes in who they go for, it is quite possible for an innocent person to be targeted as a “suspected terrorist.”
Hi HT,
Good point, but would I be right in surmising that you think that there is an erosion of civil liberties, and that that erosion is necessary to safeguard the country? It is not at all clear to me why we should have a government that has the power to indefinitely detain an American citizen without trial (until “the end of hostilities”)–e.g., NDAA. So, I think that is a provision that erodes our civil liberties, AND, is not required to thwart the bomb carrier, a la “24.” And since we are fighting a “war” on “terror” that means that “hostilities” could go on for a long, long time, as terrorist threats mutate–say “indefinitely”…
The pill is by far the best contraceptive we have available, but there are still lots of barriers to acquire it, especially for poorer women which just so happen to be at higher risk of an unplanned pregnancy. You need a prescription for it first of all, so if you don’t regularly go to the doctor (which poor people don’t do) you’re not going to get a prescription. Planned Parenthood helps tremendously on this front and universal healthcare is the logical next step – women that go to the OB/GYN more regularly are inherently going to be better at family planning. Additionally, birth control is not covered by healthcare plans and needs to be paid for out-of-pocket, which makes no sense when Viagra is covered by most plans. The pills cost between 30 to 60 dollars a month, which is a massive expense for poor people.
In any event, the pill could still be made far cheaper and more widely adopted than it is, especially for poorer people. Universal healthcare achieves this – and before you go complaining about the cost to the taxpayer, keep in mind that covering contraception ahead of time is many times less expensive than covering Medicaid expenses for 3 to 4 children in poverty.
Or, you know, just keep screaming at confused teenagers that they’re murderers. So effective after all these years!
So according to Levi, the poor can’t keep their legs together?
I assume this is akin to him believing that ‘Arabians’ can’t handle democracy?
Actually, it’s more for lazy white middle-class OWS brats like Levi who don’t want to pay for it.
Because Levi and his fellow Obama Party operatives have plenty of contraceptives to waste by throwing them at high school girls.
You would think that if Levi cared so much about “the poor”, he would be out distributing those condoms to “the poor” — especially since condoms, in addition to being contraceptive, also prevent the spread of STDs, something the Pill does NOT do.
But again, Levi doesn’t care about “the poor”. He just uses them as an excuse to make government pay his bills.
NDT, Levi is simply reiterating the Margaret Sanger/Ruth Bader “Never hired a black” Ginsburg eugenics-based justification for abortion and birth control; to keep the “undesirables” down so they don’t threaten the living standards of affluent whites.