Conquer Club

Deadpool809 wrote:I'll submit that Canada is awesome. I have enjoyed visits there, My friends there are all good people.

As to the extradition thing - honestly, good. They shoudn't be granting amnesty to our soldiers who are deserters - we are supposed to be allies. Being a good ally isn't a one-way street, and for all the talk about what the US supposedly needs to do for the rest of the world to be a good friend and ally, the same is in reverse.

Let's say your friend picks a fight with someone - even if you don't think he should be in that fight, do you desert him? No one is saying that Canada has to be gung ho about the War on Terror, but giving sanctuary to US Army deserters just because of a War Policy isn't something a close ally and neighbor should do. I would expect the US to do the same for Canadian deserters.

Yes but some of these people claim that they joined National Guard and that they were told they would not be sent to Iraq. Now I am not sure what is the National Guard mandate i.e. whether or not it can be deployed abroad, but this at least deserves to be investigated by Canadian govt i.e., if it is true that the National Guard cannot be sent abroad and if it is true that these people joined National Guard (not the US Army) then they have every right to get asylum in Canada.

What do you mean? Most actual Libertarians are a bit confused about the party's strange recent whacky anti-war position - it is contrary to the core Libertarian belief. Oppose federal involvement in the Education system? Sure. But a war? That is an enumerated power. Being so anti-war to the point that you support irresponsible troop deployments is insanity.

As far as the rest of what I believe... typical Libertarian... small Federal government is the way to go

And there is absolutely nothing illegal about the National Guard being sent abroad. Nothing at all.

Deadpool809 wrote:What do you mean? Most actual Libertarians are a bit confused about the party's strange recent whacky anti-war position - it is contrary to the core Libertarian belief. Oppose federal involvement in the Education system? Sure. But a war? That is an enumerated power. Being so anti-war to the point that you support irresponsible troop deployments is insanity.

As far as the rest of what I believe... typical Libertarian... small Federal government is the way to go

And there is absolutely nothing illegal about the National Guard being sent abroad. Nothing at all.

But, could you tell me why there are Libertarians masquerading as Conservative Republicans (of which I am the latter), and try and call Conservatives (in the traditional sense, anyways) "NeoCons" when what most Libertarians don't believe in all that many traditional things? Not trying to come off as trying to mock you, but I have posed this question on a few forums, and never really received an answer.

muy_thaiguy wrote:But, could you tell me why there are Libertarians masquerading as Conservative Republicans (of which I am the latter), and try and call Conservatives (in the traditional sense, anyways) "NeoCons" when what most Libertarians don't believe in all that many traditional things? Not trying to come off as trying to mock you, but I have posed this question on a few forums, and never really received an answer.

I have asked myself a similar question, but I think the answer lies in Money. A true Libertarian believes that the government has no place in the social. On some issues like gay marriage, for example, a Libertarian would probably support it. I personally don't - for complicated reasons (I don't think the government should have a role in marriage at all - but if they do, I think it is acceptable for the government to provide benefits to promote families having and supporting kids, but that is it), but I think marriage should be a civil contract only, and adding more people to a system I don't support doesn't make sense to me. To me, getting married is exchanging vows and living together, and the government should have nothing to do with that (and nothing really stops gays from doing that anyway). You shouldn't get any "perks" for it, unless there are kids involved. Not trying to debate that though - just stating a position.

Back to the topic, the Christian Right is a powerful force in the GOP, And you simply can't get elected to national office in the Republican Party without supporting "traditional values." Hence the masquerade.

Trouble is twofold though, because Conservatives who are more into Traditional Values (Bush being an example) give lip service to the Libertarian aspects of Conservativism, and promote larger federal government (prescription), and actively stomp all over states rights (The Terry Schaivo case being a good example of that). When I was a Republican, I was willing to put up with the values aspect, because I felt that overall, the more radical things would never be accomplished, because most people don't want to live in a "Christian" state.

The GOP is kind of broken right now I think - I really believe that if they had a real canditate that Promoted either pure Conservatism, or even a more Libertarian position would be unstoppable right now. Instead, we don't have many real choices of either flavor. Too much pandering going on all around, and I think that is the reason for the candidates like the ones you so despise. The party needs a Reagan, and I haven't seen any on the National level. (A good one in California though - Tom McClintok - if only he wasn't in such a poor place to launch a national career)