I guess you still don't get it. What I'm saying is that I want the party to be less conservative, not more, at least when it comes to social issues. Give up the moral high horse. Let people live and quit acting like the nanny state in the bedroom. Give up the anti-gay issue. Being more conservative is losing the younger vote. I'm not young, but the moral regulation favored by the R party bothers me.NovaHunter wrote:
There's lots that is wrong with the GOP. I've been inside the party fighting for the last 4 years for more conservative platforms, and for candidates who are actually conservative and stick by what they say.
Instead, focus on the message of fiscal conservatism. This should resonate with young and old, especially the young because they will inherit this fiscal mess. This is a huge soft spot for the D party.
It's not just BJs, and you know it. It's the idea that they can regulate what goes on in the bedroom, or elsewhere, based on religion or their ideas of morality. The prevailing argument against homosexuality is that it's immoral because it's against religion. I don't want a government too deeply rooted in religion, whether its christianity, muslim, or whatever.NovaHunter wrote:No one will ever match up with your personal view 100%. And, I fail to see how a supposed philosophy against BJ's ( and I mean supposed) trumps so many other issues.
But that warm feeling down my leg will feel good, because I voted for the person who I felt best represents my views.NovaHunter wrote:I voted for Bob Barr in 2008 over McCain. Hated McCain, still do. But, voting for Bob Barr was like p*issing into the wind; it felt good, but all I got was a wet leg. Voting for Sarvis this November will only accomplish the same thing.
No, I don't actually agree with everything that libertarians believe. But I believe in their basic philosophy of limited government, including when it comes to legislating morality in victimless acts.