|
|
Post by james on Nov 25, 2012 9:38:24 GMT -5
Conservatives and Libertarians are so close in political philosophy that it really doesn't make sense for us to be so divided on the execution. While we often agree on principle we disagree vehemntly on style.
Personally, I don't think this is really necessary. For instance, the Libertarian Party often loses people, including me, when they voice their support for legalization of drugs. My suggestion would be to recognize the fact that constitutionally, the federal government has very little authority to regulate the manufacture and sale of any particular product, including drugs. In my way of thinking the states would have that authority and it would be up to them to chose whether or not to use it. The federal government would have the authority to ban importation of those drugs into the country, and to prevent them from being transported across state lines, but nothing else.
I also believe a similar approach should be taken on a number of other issues such as abortion, gay marriage, etc. These are issues in which the federal government simply has no proper role. If we take issues such as these and really try, I think it would be possible to bridge the gap that separates conservatives and libertarians, allowing us to build a conservative party that can attract a much wider following.
Any thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by rocktowngal on Nov 25, 2012 10:52:40 GMT -5
You are correct Jim that the Gov't has their hands in way more then they should have. The regulations that have been put into place lately is a perfect example.
I think the people of the States should vote on what should and should not be allowed in their States. Our Reps no long represent us.
I do not believe in abortion...but do not think I should be able to tell others what to do in that respect.
I also do not believe in gay marriage...that's just plain wrong.
I firmly believe that the gap can be bridged in respect to many items that are a concern to us...both L and C.
|
|
|
|
Post by james on Nov 25, 2012 11:05:45 GMT -5
I don't believe in abortion either, but think about this. If you kill your next door neighbor and are charged with murder you will, in most cases, be charged under a state law. If the state has the authority to make it illegal to kill someone who has been born, that same authority exists to decide if it should be illegal to kill someone who hasn't been born. Nowhere in this does the federal government have any authority.
I also do not believe in gay marriage, but there is nothing in the Constitution that gives the federal government the authority to regulate marriage. The states should make that decision.
I believe in the principle Jefferson spoke of when he said "That government is best which is closest to the people".
|
|
|
|
Post by rocktowngal on Nov 25, 2012 13:34:10 GMT -5
Yes, the Gov't needs to stay out of our lives and let the people and State handle the majority of the decisions as to what goes on in our State. The Constitution does not give the Gov't this kind of authority.
|
|
|
|
Post by james on Nov 25, 2012 13:40:49 GMT -5
The Constitution does not give the Gov't this kind of authority.
It's really is that simple, isn't it?
|
|
|
|
Post by rocktowngal on Nov 25, 2012 14:03:32 GMT -5
Yes it is
|
|
|
|
Post by ryanthomas on Nov 25, 2012 14:17:13 GMT -5
One of the big sticking points is usage of our military. Many libertarians are too pacifistic, not willing to accept that there is any good reason to go to war. And many conservatives seem to be too willing to use military force. If we can bridge that gap, I think we could certainly overcome the other smaller issues. It would probably be best to not get into debates about previous wars if we're trying to find common ground. There are people who will never be convinced that the Iraq war was a good idea, and there are those who will defend it until their last breath. So if there's any chance of coming together, we should talk only about the future. It might be enough just to support requiring a declaration of war before going to war. I don't really know.
|
|
|
|
Post by kasilofhome on Nov 25, 2012 14:32:51 GMT -5
Keep our military at home and trained --simply prepped keep up with defence tec and skills & stay out of other countries --no bases over seas. Work with like minded countries that want peace. Do not try to change other countries. Send NO aid to any other nation. Loans that are aproved via congress and senate but not to excees a percent of our wealth. Get our house in order.
|
|
|
|
Post by kasilofhome on Nov 25, 2012 14:37:43 GMT -5
I want to show you all what is going on where I live. See we are not alone I bet many states are involed with some restoring
1830 E. Parks Hwy A-113 #535, Wasilla, AK 99654 (Hdq.)
Phone No. 907-354-8360/61
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Evil cannot be wished away, it cannot be loved away, it cannot be talked away,
it must be destroyed!
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Visit us on Facebook
Who We Are
If you are tired of talk and want to get involved with a group that is taking action, want to be involved in the political process and make a difference, then join CPG. CPG has members statewide. We welcome your support and interest in our group. Joined together, we can make a difference.
CPG is an Alaskan-based, all volunteer, nonpartisan, grass roots independent advocacy organization that is committed to supporting the election of conservative candidates, advancing conservative ideas, promoting traditional American values, advocating responsible resource development, and we support a strong military.
When you become a member, we will use your dues to educate and empower fellow citizens and our conservative representatives, and to recruit more right-minded thinking individuals to become members. As a member you will receive e-mails and Action Alerts concerning important local, state and federal issues.
CPG is proud that its involvement and efforts helped elect the following conservative candidates to office in 2012:
*Larry DeVilbiss - Matsu Borough Mayor
*Ron Arvin - Matsu Borough Assembly
*Mike Dunleavy - State Senate
*Shelley Hughes - State House
*Lynn Gattis - State House
*Wes Keller- State House
*Lora Rienbold-State House
Our Mission:
It is our mission, as patriots, to uphold and defend the spirit and word of the Constitution of our United States of America and our Bill of Rights
Accomplishments:
Since our incorporation in July 2009, we have been politically active. CPG has sponsored numerous events, including town halls on Obamacare and Beluga whale Cook Inlet critical habitat, 2010 & 2011 "9-11 Remembrance Rally" held in Wasilla, along with "Tea Party" rallies during the spring/summer months in both Wasilla and Anchorage. We have been actively involved with electing conservative candidates to offices in the Matsu and Anchorage Borough assemblies, school boards, the state legislature, and the Anchorage & Matsu Fish and Game Advisory Boards. We have aired numerous radio ads and hung thousands of door hangers to help elect conservative candidates.. We produced and sponsored the CPG radio talk show that was aired on KBYR twice weekly during 2010 & 2011.
Freedom Pledge Membership
We encourage you to purchase a Freedom Dues Pledge membership at either the $10 or $20 a month level. Sign-Up Now These funds are then used to support are mission. Other membership levels are available. (See "Freedom Pledge Membership" Tab)
As an independent advocacy group, CPG's "campaign" efforts, must by law, be separate from and totally independent from the candidates. CPG conducts a parallel but independent campaign effort to elect conservative candidates of its choice.
|
|
|
|
Post by james on Nov 25, 2012 14:41:55 GMT -5
One of the big sticking points is usage of our military. Many libertarians are too pacifistic, not willing to accept that there is any good reason to go to war. And many conservatives seem to be too willing to use military force. If we can bridge that gap, I think we could certainly overcome the other smaller issues. It would probably be best to not get into debates about previous wars if we're trying to find common ground. There are people who will never be convinced that the Iraq war was a good idea, and there are those who will defend it until their last breath. So if there's any chance of coming together, we should talk only about the future. It might be enough just to support requiring a declaration of war before going to war. I don't really know. I understand your point of view. I can't go along with the LP's stance of 'not unless we're attacked', because we do have interests and allies around the world. For instance, when Saddam attacked Kuwait, who was an ally, I thought defending our friends was the right thing to do. Would you not have your friend's back if someone threatened them? I also believed it was right to go back to Iraq when Saddam failed to live up to his end of the cease fire agreement. After all, a cease fire agreement is nothing more than a surrender by the winning side if it is not enforced. Where I find fault with the whole situation is that, because Bush used the UN as authorization to take the action, he was forced into the ceasefire before the job was done. As it played out, if he had done more than what he did, he could have faced impeachment by the Democrats for going beyond what he was authorized to do. Because he was a weak leader, he had to beg for permission rather than boldly stating his case. Had he been free to pursue Saddam in the first Gulf war and force him into a total surrender, the job would have been done. I also fault Clinton for allowing the situation to continue until W was in office. The first time Saddam refused to allow inspectors into a site, that site should have been bombed into dust within 15 minutes. He should have then asked Saddam if there were any other sites he didn't want to have inspected. If he had been so stupid as to say yes, those sites should have been reduced to rubble as well. Obviously I do see times when the use of military force is necessary, but if we are not timid in the uss of that force, those instances will be far fewer than they are now. Strength promotes peace, weakness destroys it. |
|
|
|
Post by james on Nov 25, 2012 15:02:30 GMT -5
Keep our military at home and trained --simply prepped keep up with defence tec and skills & stay out of other countries --no bases over seas. Work with like minded countries that want peace. Do not try to change other countries. Send NO aid to any other nation. Loans that are aproved via congress and senate but not to excees a percent of our wealth. Get our house in order. Debbie, unfortunately the day has long since passed when our military could just stay home and have no bases overseas. Having served in the Navy, I can assure you that those bases are absolutely vital to the safey and mission of our service men and women. Those bases benefit our forces much more than they do the host countries. I have no problem however, with making those host countries share in the cost of operating those bases. Foreign aid is another point where I disagree to a point with the LP. Sometimes it is worth the investment to provide aid to another country, but we should get something in return. I believe the federal government should never cut a check to anyone for which it does not receive goods or services, and that includes foreign countries. If we are going to provide aid to any country, there should be no question that we expect certain things in return and if those things are not forthcoming, the money will not be provided. By doing so, we can easily determine whether or not our investment is worthwhile. As for the loans, I couldn't agree with you more. |
|
|
|
Post by rocktowngal on Nov 25, 2012 15:22:32 GMT -5
I really do not think the USA needs to be a police nation...and that is what we have come to be.
Here are some things I do no understand. 1) why do we have to rebuild what we tear up? Why do we have to train others how to take care of theirselves? Really I just do not get this. Take 9/11 for instance did the terrorist come here and rebuild? No. So why do we?
The UN MUST GO PERIOD! They should have no part in what we say or do whatsoever.
|
|
|
|
Post by kasilofhome on Nov 25, 2012 15:34:01 GMT -5
Foreign aid is another point where I disagree to a point with the LP. Sometimes it is worth the investment to provide aid to another country, but we should get something in return. I believe the federal government should never cut a check to anyone for which it does not receive goods or services, and that includes foreign countries. If we are going to provide aid to any country, there should be no question that we expect certain things in return and if those things are not forthcoming, the money will not be provided. By doing so, we can easily determine whether or not our investment is worthwhile.
This makes sense to me. Both of my parents served overseas in Germany and I do feel that good came from that but I want a return on the investment. I want the other countries to have some skin in the game.
|
|
|
|
Post by james on Nov 25, 2012 15:48:14 GMT -5
I really do not think the USA needs to be a police nation...and that is what we have come to be. Here are some things I do no understand. 1) why do we have to rebuild what we tear up? Why do we have to train others how to take care of theirselves? Really I just do not get this. Take 9/11 for instance did the terrorist come here and rebuild? No. So why do we? The UN MUST GO PERIOD! They should have no part in what we say or do whatsoever. In theory, you are right. In practice however, you have to face the reality that power abhors a vacuum. If we don't fill it, someone else will, and that cannot be good for us or the world. Already, we can see the effects of the lack of leadership from Obama. I'm not real big on the rebuilding efforts either. It turned out good in Japan and Germany, but not so well in Iraq and Afghanistan. I'm okay with helping, but not necessarily with financing. You have no idea how much I agree with you on the UN. I'd be hard pressed to give them 30 days to vacate the premises. |
|
|
|
Post by james on Nov 25, 2012 15:55:25 GMT -5
Foreign aid is another point where I disagree to a point with the LP. Sometimes it is worth the investment to provide aid to another country, but we should get something in return. I believe the federal government should never cut a check to anyone for which it does not receive goods or services, and that includes foreign countries. If we are going to provide aid to any country, there should be no question that we expect certain things in return and if those things are not forthcoming, the money will not be provided. By doing so, we can easily determine whether or not our investment is worthwhile. This makes sense to me. Both of my parents served overseas in Germany and I do feel that good came from that but I want a return on the investment. I want the other countries to have some skin in the game. Exactly. It's just common sense. |
|
