Can you be a Libertarian and a tea partier?

[bigus_D]

As long as it stays behind closed doors. When It becomes public then I have a problem with it.

Then don't hold your wife's hand in public, or kiss her. God damn it, that pisses me off to no end! You two can do whatever you want behind closed doors, but if I can sense your affection for one another in public, then MY RIGHTS are being trampled, because it pisses me off so much.

This is why my wife and I CC our love for one another... to respect the rights of others.


.
.
.

I think some people just don't get it. I can (edit: should be able to) enjoy my freedom despite it making you uncomfortable.

 

[Roadie]

Just like you can take the Lord's name in vain freely (board rules aside?). That is your right, but it is also my right to think it shows a lack of class, yes?

 

[bigus_D]

Just like you can take the Lord's name in vain freely (board rules aside?). That is your right, but it is also my right to think it shows a lack of class, yes?

Yes. Here is a man that gets it.


Note: I apologize to the moderators if I've violated board policy by taking the lord's name in vain, I also apologize for Roadie's veiled insult 'caused' by my rude comment (which may have also been a violation of board rules).

Anyhow, yes. I think you understand my point exactly.

 

[Roadie]

(snipped)

I think some people just don't get it. I can (edit: should be able to) enjoy my freedom despite it making you uncomfortable.

Would that include, say, allowing the discussion of religion on this board again?
So the real question is...
..is this "in public" or is it "in private" when we post here on INGO? or both perhaps? A public meeting in someone's "house"?

Could change the whole dynamic of this conversation, eh?

Yes. Here is a man that gets it.


Note: I apologize to the moderators if I've violated board policy by taking the lord's name in vain, I also apologize for Roadie's veiled insult 'caused' by my rude comment (which may have also been a violation of board rules).

Anyhow, yes. I think you understand my point exactly.

FYI, I think the board policy is just swearing in general.

(and if you think me saying something you did shows a "lack of class", is an insult, you need thicker skin, lol)

 

[rhino]

I just saw this topic and I'm still laughing at the first page. I'm definitely libertarian, (but not a Libertarian) and I'm amused that this makes me "liberal" in the modern vernacular sense (liberal = socialist statist). I never realized I was on the far left. I'm glad I've been set straight!

 

[U.S. Patriot]

Then don't hold your wife's hand in public, or kiss her. God damn it, that pisses me off to no end! You two can do whatever you want behind closed doors, but if I can sense your affection for one another in public, then MY RIGHTS are being trampled, because it pisses me off so much.

This is why my wife and I CC our love for one another... to respect the rights of others.


.
.
.

I think some people just don't get it. I can (edit: should be able to) enjoy my freedom despite it making you uncomfortable.

Let me better clear up my stance. I have no problem with a Man and Woman showing affection in public. I do however have a problem with homosexuals displaying affection in public. The answer is this. I do not believe in homosexuality. If they want to do it in their own home fine. I do not think the public, especialy children need to be exposed to such a thing. If that affends anyone, well I'm not sorry.

 

[U.S. Patriot]

I just saw this topic and I'm still laughing at the first page. I'm definitely libertarian, (but not a Libertarian) and I'm amused that this makes me "liberal" in the modern vernacular sense (liberal = socialist statist). I never realized I was on the far left. I'm glad I've been set straight!

Like I said, I'm still learning when it comes to some matters.

 

[lashicoN]

I do not believe in homosexuality.

Then why does it bother you to see them out in public, displaying affection? With anything else you don't believe in (monsters under the bed) just yell "I don't believe in you!" and poof, they disappear, mostly probably because they will think you're crazy.

 

[photoshooter]

As a non-Christian, liberty loving TEA Partier (Taxed Enough Already - Which is why I capitalize "TEA") who worked on a Senate campaign, as well as served on the organizing committee of one of the states largest TEA Party organizations...

What scared me the most about this past year was when I heard a regular speaker from a political action group here in Indiana say "...someone's morality will be legislated ... if it's not your morality, it will be someone else's..."

That is the difference I have found between conservatives and libertarians. One loves liberty - the other tolerates liberty of others until it interferes with their sense of "morality."

If it offends you that gays have public displays of affection, are you also offended by similar actions of heteros?

If you don't want marijanna decriminalized, do you believe that any adult has the right to smoke/chew tobacco products?

What's the difference? Your moral stance on each issue.

When I was on the senate campaign staff, we routinely received requests for stances on removing "In God We Trust" from our US Currency. The very next email or letter would ask if our candidate believed in the sanctity of marriage and would work to keep homosexuals out of the military... That was usually followed by a person asking if the candidate would work hard to get medical marijuana approved nationwide...

Never mind that our constitutional freedoms are on fire, our economy is teetering on the brink of a huge collapse, government has grown beyond our founders' wildest nightmares... everyone is so darn hung up on imposing their morality on everyone else.

Rather than electing those who have the cojones to fix the problems at the root, they just wanted another moralist of their own stripe.

 

[U.S. Patriot]

I do not believe in homosexuality.

Then why does it bother you to see them out in public, displaying affection? With anything else you don't believe in (monsters under the bed) just yell "I don't believe in you!" and poof, they disappear, mostly probably because they will think you're crazy.

Because I find it immoral and disgusting! Also, like I said in a previous post. It's something I think children should not have to witness. Just like if you want to swear in your own home between adults that's fine. However, I think people should not swear around children in public.

 

[lashicoN]

Because I find it immoral and disgusting! Also, like I said in a previous post. It's something I think children should not have to witness. Just like if you want to swear in your own home between adults that's fine. However, I think people should not swear around children in public.

Do you also not let Santa or anything else that you "don't believe in" around your kids?

Usually, the way freedom works is - if you feel uncomfortable, you go home. You don't make everyone else go home so you and your kids can live in a pretend world where no one swears and everyone is happily married to the opposite sex.

 

[U.S. Patriot]

As a non-Christian, liberty loving TEA Partier (Taxed Enough Already - Which is why I capitalize "TEA") who worked on a Senate campaign, as well as served on the organizing committee of one of the states largest TEA Party organizations...

What scared me the most about this past year was when I heard a regular speaker from a political action group here in Indiana say "...someone's morality will be legislated ... if it's not your morality, it will be someone else's..."

That is the difference I have found between conservatives and libertarians. One loves liberty - the other tolerates liberty of others until it interferes with their sense of "morality."

If it offends you that gays have public displays of affection, are you also offended by similar actions of heteros?

If you don't want marijuana decriminalized, do you believe that any adult has the right to smoke/chew tobacco products?

What's the difference? Your moral stance on each issue.

When I was on the senate campaign staff, we routinely received requests for stances on removing "In God We Trust" from our US Currency. The very next email or letter would ask if our candidate believed in the sanctity of marriage and would work to keep homosexuals out of the military... That was usually followed by a person asking if the candidate would work hard to get medical marijuana approved nationwide...

Never mind that our constitutional freedoms are on fire, our economy is teetering on the brink of a huge collapse, government has grown beyond our founders' wildest nightmares... everyone is so darn hung up on imposing their morality on everyone else.

Rather than electing those who have the cojones to fix the problems at the root, they just wanted another moralist of their own stripe.

Like I said in a previous post. I'm not offended by a Man and Woman showing public affection such as holding hands and kissing. Some things to me should be left behind closed doors. If an Adult chooses to conduct themselves in Illegal activities. Such as smoking Marijuana behind closed doors. That's their decision not mine. Am I saying legalize it, not at all. Last time I checked tobacco is legal. I smoke, but I do not smoke around children. There is more to politics than economy and such. Instilling morals into our youth is just as important. If we do not instill moral fiber into them. Then what will they choose when they become future leaders? That's one thing that upsets me more politically then a lot of things. This countries morals for the most part have fallen apart. That's my views. Rather you agree or not. That's where I stand.

 

[U.S. Patriot]

Do you also not let Santa or anything else that you "don't believe in" around your kids?

Usually, the way freedom works is - if you feel uncomfortable, you go home. You don't make everyone else go home so you and your kids can live in a pretend world where no one swears and everyone is happily married to the opposite sex.

I'm not saying the world is perfect. I'm not saying make laws to keep people from making free choices. That is one thing our creator gave us. I'm saying there is a time and place for certain things. There are certain things I will not do in public for moral reasons. I guess I'm just an unreasonable person because I think of others just not myself.

 

[lashicoN]

I'm not saying the world is perfect. I'm not saying make laws to keep people from making free choices. That is one thing our creator gave us. I'm saying there is a time and place for certain things. There are certain things I will not do in public for moral reasons. I guess I'm just an unreasonable person because I think of others just not myself.

But you are thinking of yourself, and only yourself. YOU don't want YOUR children to hear swearing, see tobacco, or know of the existence of homosexuality, so YOU think it should be forbidden in public. What about the people who want to smoke on the roads they pay for? What about the two women who want to hold hands in the park they paid for? Homosexuality is a moral issue. But only because people think they can legislate YOUR morality and force it onto others. Is homosexuality immoral? No. Is controlling other people's lives at the point of a gun (and that's what any restrictive law eventually leads to, gunpoint if you refuse to obey) immoral? Yes.

Morals are an extremely important thing to teach children. That's why you absolutely mustn't waste those points on things like marijuana and gay people. They will grow up, know the truth, and anything else you taught them will all be equally questionable. How about simply teaching them to love their country, respect their fellow citizens, and teach them to not lie or steal?

 

[Hammerhead]

I stopped into Burger King this afternoon to grab a bite to eat. They had CNN pumping through their flatscreen t.v. with their talking head leading discussions on various topics, namely the mid-term elections and the various topics surrounding them. The one that intrigued me the most, and unfortunately I was walking out the door as it came on, was a discussion with an author who'd just released a book about some political topic or another on where people stand in their politics.

This author was discussing with the talking head the idea that there are a lot of voters who don't have a party affiliation, aside from the one they registered to vote in. The topic was covering the idea that there are people who have beliefs, political and otherwise, that are for lack of a better term in the middle. They may have some Republican ideals and ideas, and they may have some Democrat ideals and ideas, they may agree with the Tea Party, they may agree with the extreme right and left.

Unfortunately, as I said, I was walking out the door before the discussion was very old, so I missed the meat of it all. But surprisingly, I actually agree with the initial thought. There are good ideas and ideals from both sides and the middle ground. I've never really allied myself with one party, aside from being registered Republican. I've kind of leaned R, but I've been in more agreement with the Libertarian, or some of the Tea Party's ideas and ideals.

Someone said above that there should be one party, a Constitutionalist party, and that's certainly a utopian thought. I don't believe that'll happen without some serious maturation and mind opening on the part of anyone wanting to be a politician. I can say, however, that my personal views have been nudged a bit in my time here, and other similar places, about freedoms and society's laws.

But I see, while reading this thread, that there are quite a few people who don't have a party affiliation, or at least aren't clinging radically to one or the other. There is a middle ground where everyone can agree. And that gives me a small amount of hope. The only reason I say this is because, while this group of people who are here regularly are generally open minded and are tolerant, even welcoming to dissenting points of view, this microcosm of humanity, this gathering of like-minded individuals, this community, is but a tiny blip on the radar of a gargantuan radar screen that encompasses Americans and their political and personal beliefs.

-1 to Burger King

 

[EnochRoot43]

Morals are an extremely important thing to teach children. That's why you absolutely mustn't waste those points on things like marijuana and gay people. They will grow up, know the truth, and anything else you taught them will all be equally questionable. How about simply teaching them to love their country, respect their fellow citizens, and teach them to not lie or steal?

+1 and repped. The most honest and reasonable statement I have read all day. Thank You.

 

[bigus_D]

Let me better clear up my stance. I have no problem with a Man and Woman showing affection in public. I do however have a problem with homosexuals displaying affection in public. The answer is this. I do not believe in homosexuality. If they want to do it in their own home fine. I do not think the public, especialy children need to be exposed to such a thing. If that affends anyone, well I'm not sorry.

I think, perhaps, you are missing my point...

I couldn't care less what you find offensive. I DO care if you think you should be able to limit my freedom because you find my actions offensive.

I know a LOT of people who find guns offensive. Do you think they should be able to keep you from caring yours? Of course not.

Keep your morals... but don't think you can force them on me.

 

[Ramen]

I would much rather tolerate homosexuality than have a government big enough to prevent people from being homosexual.

I can teach my children right and wrong even when there is evil and sin in the world.

Loving all people does not mean you have to accept and like every choice they make. It does mean you have to be willing to connect with them.

 

[mrjarrell]

Because I find it immoral and disgusting! Also, like I said in a previous post. It's something I think children should not have to witness. Just like if you want to swear in your own home between adults that's fine. However, I think people should not swear around children in public.

Think of the chiiiiildren! Let's see...who says this more often? MMmmm?
I dislike smoking, but I do not want smoking legislated away. I dislike people who do not wear motorcycle helmets, yet I support their right to not wear one. You, on the other hand would like to see people locked away so your delicate sensibilities aren't offended. Sorry. You don't have a right to not be offended, and neither do I. If seeing two girls walking down the street holding hands or sharing a kiss offends you so much...look away. See, problem solved.

 

[photoshooter]

What scared me the most about this past year was when I heard a regular speaker from a political action group here in Indiana say "...someone's morality will be legislated ... if it's not your morality, it will be someone else's..."

Your morals and my morals may not agree. The question becomes: does the FEDERAL Govt have the granted powers from the States and the People to legislate those morals?

Decency laws are rightfully placed in the hands of the states and the local communities. Where exactly does the Constitution (the pact between the people of the States and the Federal Govt) grant that the FEDERAL govt the ability to legislate our morality?