The Myth of Republican Conservatism

I wonder why Libertarian sources are so often linked by the Constitution Party if the two are not in bed together?

 

www.l4l.org

http://blog.lewrockwell.com/lewrw/archives/003664.html

From http://washingtonwitness.com/article.php?subaction=showfull&id=1091846502&archive=&start_from=&ucat=5&:

"Gottfried's final chapter describes the latest variations of American conservatism, variations which echo in many ways the anti-New Deal Old Right. These are the paleoconservatives, associated with the Rockford Institute and Chronicles Magazine, and the paleo-libertarians associated with the Ludwig von Mises Institute and Lew Rockwell. Both "paleo" groups oppose the federal power more than any other movement since the Old Right and both have predilections for high culture and traditional morality."

 

Both advocate limited, constitutional government.

 

And both seem to downplay that the Libertarians favor abortion and same-sex marriage. Peroutka and Badnarik seem to have a same-far-right marriage.

 

www.l4l.org

http://blog.lewrockwell.com/lewrw/archives/003664.html

From http://washingtonwitness.com/article.php?subaction=showfull&id=1091846502&archive=&start_from=&ucat=5&:

"Gottfried's final chapter describes the latest variations of American conservatism, variations which echo in many ways the anti-New Deal Old Right. These are the paleoconservatives, associated with the Rockford Institute and Chronicles Magazine, and the paleo-libertarians associated with the Ludwig von Mises Institute and Lew Rockwell. Both "paleo" groups oppose the federal power more than any other movement since the Old Right and both have predilections for high culture and traditional morality." </font>[/QUOTE]I didn't see anything here that supports your assertion that a "sizeable" portion of liberterians are pro-life or pro-family. Actually, I read much to the contrary.

 

I don't know if anyone has ever done a poll on these issues among libertarians. My comments are based on my reading of libertarian literature over the past 24 years.

 

They just did a poll; they nominated Badnarik. The majority support abortion and same-sex marriage.

 

I didn't say a majority didn't. Really, cmg, I am very concerned about your ability to comprehend what people write.

 

The question then becomes why you link all the time to Libertarian websites when you know perfectly well that Libertarians in the majority support abortion and and same-sex marriage? Aren't you unequally yoked? Get out of the Libertarian bed, Ken!

 

Because I agree with most libertarian policy positions, cmg. Abortion and homosexual "marriage" are only two issues. I try not to throw the baby out with the bath water.

 

What you mean, Ken, is that you will go anywhere, do anything, link anyone in order to smear Bush. I predict that you will spend 5,000 posts between now and election day on Libertarian and left-wing links to anti-Bush sources. That is your nature as a far rightist, and what I dislike most about the far right. With you, Ken, what you like about Libertarianism is $$$$$.

 

I have over 10,000 posts on this board, cmg, and you don't even begin to know or understand me.

It's really simple, cmg: I am for limited, small, constitutional government; and you are not.

 

Getting a little touchie feelie, Ken? Do you want to be "understood" now? Well, cheer up, big guy! I think that the Communist Party might "understand" you because they are saying that the war in Iraq is illegal just like Peroutka. If not, you can always try Lew Rockwell's Libertarian-pro-abortion-pro-same-sex-marriage touchie feelie website.

 

After four years of Republican rule, we have not made any abortions illegal, have exploded the size and cost of the federal government, tied the hands of local educators, and are sending thousands of women into combat.

The GOP is implementing the Democrat agenda far more effectively than the Democrats ever have.

 

cmg, you are always going off on tangents. Face the truth, cmg: if someone quotes the pope, and even if you agree with what the pope said, you will claim that the person quoting the pope is a Catholic.

But your attempt to silence me by intimidation will not work, cmg. Your weak attempt to falsely tie me to viewpoints I do not support will not shut me up.

As the old Air Force saying goes, "If you're not catching flak, then you're not over the target". By the way the Bush kool-aid drinkers act on this board, it's clear that I and others are directly over the target.

 

Wrong. You are on a flying saucer in outer space. Peroutka is not a conservative; he is a right-winger.

Part of the proof that Peroutka is a right-winger is his platform calling for the end of foreign aid and calling--along with the communists--the war in Iraq illegal. A second proof that Peroutka is a right-winger is your constant links to websites tied to pro-abortion and pro-same-sex-marriage views.

Now you say that you want to be "understood."

I see that you have borrowed Mrs. Kerry's private plane--when do you have to take it back?

 

A right-winger is a conservative, cmg, the opposite of a liberal like you because of your support of big government.

 

Better get that plane home to Mrs. Kerry before you crash it. A right-winger like you, Ken, is a far-right-winger. You are not conservative at all because the only thing that you want to conserve is you yourself. The war in Iraq you want to dump no matter what on some kind of Peroutka illegal technicality--just like the Communist Party wants to dump the war in Iraq as illegal.

You say that you support the Constitution, but you are unwilling to live by the Supreme Court ruling by default that the war is legal.

Then you want to abolish foreign aid because, you say, it is your money. That sums up the far-right-wingers--$$$$$$.

 

1) What do you mean I am unwilling? I am quite willing. I'm not trying to violently overthrow the central government.

2) You don't understand, cmg. I want to abolish non-defense foreign aid because the central government constitution does not authorize such.

 

Okay, this is getting to be a circle. From the point of view of the law, the war in Iraq is legal in spite of Peroutka's claims to the contrary. Why doesn't Peroutka enunciate what it is about the war in Iraq that he opposes? If we are defeated, he is not going to have the luxury of such political positions.

While you yourself want to retain military aid, Ken, while abolishing Food For Peace and other economic aid as well as technical assistance and disaster relief, Peroutka wants to abolish everything. Your position is more founded in reality and is a good reason for you to step out of the Constitution Party.

Here is what it means to lose the war according to one author:

We can definitely lose this war, and as anomalous as it may sound, the major reason we can lose is that so many of us simply do not fathom the answer to the second question - What does losing mean? It would appear that a great many of us think that losing the war means hanging our heads, bringing the troops home and going on about our business, like post Vietnam. This is as far from the truth as one can get. What losing really means is:

We would no longer be the premier country in the world. The attacks will not subside, but rather will steadily increase. Remember, they want us dead, not just quiet. If they had just wanted us quiet, they would not have produced an increasing series of attacks against us over the past 18 years. The plan was clearly to terrorist attack us until we were neutered and submissive to them.

We would of course have no future support from other nations for fear of reprisals and for the reason that they would see we are impotent and cannot help them.

http://www.jewishindy.com/article.php?sid=3672