By Andy

July 9, 2008 10:54 PM | Link to this

Dont blame me I voted Republican in Texas, I voted for Ron Paul. It is beyond me, how with John McCain that others can be fooled by a democrat by him simply putting an (R) in front of his name and saying “im a war hero”. And they vote for him, the media really pushed McCain and he got so may endorsements (which is really the proof of how far left the party has moved) it just goes to show its time for Republicans to cut there losses and vote Libertarian.

By not fooled

August 10, 2008 9:31 PM | Link to this

Amen,Andy! John McCain has always been a democrat trying to pass as a Republican. Global warming is a myth created by the democrats to make you accept their total control of everything we do, along with the accompanying fees, fines, and taxes. America is being turned into another Mexico with the gang lifestyle, drugs, crime, grafitti on every surface and a broken economy trying to support their breeding program of a baby every nine months from puberty to menapause. They will break our country trying to provide food, education, medical care, and housing for people who will pay no taxes due to low or cash wages and large families. The cost of subsidizing cheap labor and vote buying will destroy our country.

By L1M89

August 11, 2008 10:38 AM | Link to this

During a recent debate the following questions came up: [‘Still think I’m a liberal? Do you understand the difference between a liberal and a libertarian?’]
Like most folks I thought that I did. Then a mistake was made, by me, of doing a web-search to determine the “official definition/designation” of “Liberalism” & “Libertarianism” & the lines between the two seemed to blur then merge. Was that a little confusing? Yep, you betcha & it seems that Liberals & Libertarians argue over their official doctrinaire, further clouding the issue.

“Libertarianism: The Oxymoronic Faith,” by Steve Farrell
link - http://centerformoralliberalism.wordpress.com/2008/01/04/libertarianism-the-oxymoronic-faith-by-steve-farrell/ Missing the Mark With Religion, Part 2

“Essay one addressed Modern Liberalism as the religion, albeit the false religion, that it is. Next, enter stage right, Libertarianism.”

[‘Libertarianism, or at least that mainstream brand of Libertarianism which zealously waves that oxymoronic political banner “Political Conservative, Social Liberal,” has its own pint-sized political party, but more importantly the faith of Libertarianism has a Titanic-sized impact upon the religious inclinations of the leadership ranks of the Republican Party, and upon many of the prestigious think-tanks which preach republicans their gospel.

Libertarianism’s central claim to fame from a political standpoint is that it represents an anti-statist, limited government answer to the ‘new’ religion of Modern Liberalism, in that it sets out to contract the reach of the state. “Contract the size of the state,” they say, “and all private interests are benefited—religion included.” Amen.

But, then, “faith without works is dead,” isn’t it? And needless to say, in politics, lively, pretty promises are all too often found dead on arrival, abandoned to the hungry and ugly dogs of fine print – and Libertarianism’s thesis on religion in public life is where all the fine print ugliness begins’]

(cut to end)

To overthrow the existing order is to overthrow the accumulated knowledge, traditions and patterns of history. The French Revolution is praised by every communist as the quintessential revolution for its brutal, bloody totality. Crushed were property, religion, legal traditions, social graces, you name it. Broken was the pattern of history and established was a new order under a secular constitution. All of it was done in the name of liberty—but license never is liberty.

Dull minds make for good slaves; and a moral vacuum needs to be filled.

That the attending moral vacuum would then be more readily filled by Communism or anyone of her totalitarian sisters is clear, for what other faith is possessed of the vision, the determination, the endurance, and equipped with the foot soldiers to change the old moral order for a new amoral order than this one?

This is what is wrong with Libertarianism. By default, it embraces the moral code, the religion, if you will, of its chief nemesis, absolute government, or communism. In as much as it does so, it misses the mark with religion and becomes a conservative accomplice to Modern Liberalism, a veritable Trojan Horse within the Republican Party, an enemy to liberty, to the foundation of the fabric, that necessary spring of free government, revealed religion.’]

dbm asked the question; “Do you understand the difference between a liberal and a libertarian?”
Not so much any more, still searching however the answer could be far worse than previously guessed…’]

more - http://centerformoralliberalism.wordpress.com/2008/01/04/libertarianism-the-oxymoronic-faith-by-steve-farrell/

By L1M89

August 11, 2008 10:58 AM | Link to this

While fighting the maverick RINO Sen. McCain over his past ill-advised Immigration policy is necessary for US to stop the Invasion of Illegal Aliens, we mustn’t lose the White House to a political party that is a major cause of our problem with Illegal Aliens.

Patriots of all political philosophies, please read the articles connected to these links.

link - http://stiffrightjab.com/2008/08/04/fischer-outrage-in-idaho-feds-send-man-to-prison-for-protecting-town-from-flooding/

link - http://stiffrightjab.com/2008/08/06/fischer-idaho-man-goes-to-federal-prison-today-at-2-pm/

This story that’s connected to those links is one of extreme judicial insanity. For every American, it should be added motivation to keep an ObamaNation from winning the White House. If nothing other than the horrible affects of our Judiciary being loaded up with even more activist moonbat extremists, we must certainly do everything legally possible to get a candidate elected POTUS that will not appoint judges who will deviate even further from our US Constitution.

Maverick RINO candidate McCain would appoint judges who’d stay closer to our Constitution rather than those who see rights that aren’t in there while ignoring rights that are clearly written in there. We mustn’t vote in a candidate who’ll appoint more extremists who view our United States Constitution as a “living document” where all our laws would be subject to change more often n’ moonbats change their loaded, soggy depends.