Libertarianism by definition means not telling other people what to believe and how to live.

yet another useless reason to go back to the Moon…

if this is the best NASA can do then well its over…

Robert

And, as far as religous tolerance, or tolerance in general, you, Edward, have more chutzpa than I have seen in a long time. Or free speech, for that matter. I’d love to hear about the tolerance shown by the Religous right.

Sorry, Ferris, but I have not intention of self-censoring the facts just to please you.

> we learned our tactics from your side.

Then you need to work on the implementation of the “religious tolerance” tactic, because you haven’t got it down yet. Not to mention free speech and tolerance in general.

No, and “civil liberties” is not a code word for religious intolerance. Libertarianism does not mean forcing other people to live and believe the way you think they should.

> Second, big spending doesn’t mean fiscally iresponsible spending and/or inneffective spending.

Yes, it does. The refusal to recognize that is the left’s radical religion. Unfortunately, you jihadis are forcing it on all of us.

> I, as a liberal who does like government programs, has a real problem with the current ESAS and VSE, or
> for that matter, the drug prescription bill.

The liberal objection to VSE and prescription drug coverage has generally been that the government is not spending enough money on those things. The proposed solution is even more reckless spending — “Milkulski Miracle,” etc.

But again, my point was not to engage in an ideological debate with a Daily Kos evangelist. I know I’m not going to convince that people who believe in God, or limited government, are not pure evil. I’m not trying to convince you. I was just trying to analyze the the chances of each party continuing to support VSE. I regret that it’s impossible to have such discussions without your turning it into another attempt to spread Kos with the sword.

— Donald

First, not EVERYTHING is about money, despite what some believe – the embrace of radical religion, the loss of civil liberties – those are big issues, that have nothing to do Big Spending. And you talk to many liberals, we are more pissed about that stuff than federal spending. And in point of fact, that stuff can piss the libertarians just as much, if not more. Libertarianism is not just a code word for financial greed.

Second, big spending doesn’t mean fiscally iresponsible spending and/or inneffective spending. And thats ties into why I, as a liberal who does like government programs, has a real problem with the current ESAS and VSE, or for that matter, the drug prescription bill.

Which brings me to my third point
When Republicans can keep their base and also attract the moderates, they win elections. If the fiscal conservatives and libertarians stay home or vote third-party, and the moderates vote Democratic, then Republicans lose.
See, I would argue that we are a center-left country, and thats why things have changed over the years. And thats why we held congress for so many years , and why conservatives only held it for a little more than a decade

Er, never mind.

My point still stands. If Bush could tick off the last box on the liberal issue scorecard and still not change the opinion of a single person on your side, what’s the point of even trying?