Glenn Beck now favors gay marriage

[Lunar]

I read this as Glenn Beck not caring about gay marriage, rather than favoring it

[Lunar]

I read this as Glenn Beck not caring about gay marriage, rather than favoring it

Its better than his old position that it would lead to people being allowed to marry animals lol. 

Wasn't that what BillO thinks?  Don't remember Beck ranting about the issue like that

[Lunar]

I hate, hate, hate the obsession over the word "libertarian."  It's such a clusterf*&).

Unlike "conservative" you can't, in American discourse at least, refer to yourself as a "moderate Libertarian.  Everyone is OCD about the word.  Many of the youngin' Libs on this board seem terribly preoccupied in determining who can and cannot claim to be members of their club.  It really doesn't make all that much sense, considering that there are libertarian-leaning parts of the electorate that don't meet rigid binary definitions, let alone realize that the word "libertarian" may even apply to them.  Not to mention that among the hyper-political, the club is pretty diverse and nonsensical, ranging from Beck to Paul.

I wrote a thread about it a couple days ago but I deleted the thread before I posted it because I know that any discussion of the term would result in horrible awfulness.  And I don't want to interfere with people being trendy.

[Lunar]

I hate, hate, hate the obsession over the word "libertarian."  It's such a clusterf*&).

Unlike "conservative" you can't, in American discourse at least, refer to yourself as a "moderate Libertarian.  Everyone is OCD about the word.  Many of the youngin' Libs on this board seem terribly preoccupied in determining who can and cannot claim to be members of their club.  It really doesn't make all that much sense, considering that there are libertarian-leaning parts of the electorate that don't meet rigid binary definitions, let alone realize that the word "libertarian" may even apply to them.  Not to mention that among the hyper-political, the club is pretty diverse and nonsensical, ranging from Beck to Paul.

I wrote a thread about it a couple days ago but I deleted the thread before I posted it because I know that any discussion of the term would result in horrible awfulness.  And I don't want to interfere with people being trendy.

     Conservatives are fans of NTSing everyone they possibly can out of their club as well. It just so happens that "conservative" is a term with so much more mainstream recognition & such a robust donor base behind it that any moderate libertarian in politics would rather brand himself or herself as a moderate conservative.

     There is also the option of branding oneself as a moderate liberal, but politicians avoid any notion of liberalism like the plague unless they are deep enough in Democratic country for it to not matter. Also, the donor base of liberals is probably not quite as strong as that of conservatives, owing to the larger proportion of people willing to self-identify as conservatives. There are more Americans who are alright with you being a member of the NRA than there are who are alright with you being a member of the ACLU.

Yeah, sure, I realize my OP was a bit rambling and incoherent.   Zoomed back in to the context of this forum, there is no such effort to ostracize members from the liberal or conservative club like there is with the Libertarian club. 

To zoom back out, sure, there is all that RINO and DINO bloggertalk, especially during primaries, but it seems more for specific action.  Let's get this RINO defeated!  It's not about excluding the person from their club in the same way that everyone seems obsessed with here on this forum.  Hell, there are major pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, or even openly homosexual* Republican candidates out there this cycle that people aren't even really aware of, just like no one really knew Scott Brown was pro-choice.

*In the case of one Lt. Governor candidate in a tossup race.

[Lunar]

I hate, hate, hate the obsession over the word "libertarian."  It's such a clusterf*&).

Unlike "conservative" you can't, in American discourse at least, refer to yourself as a "moderate Libertarian.  Everyone is OCD about the word.  Many of the youngin' Libs on this board seem terribly preoccupied in determining who can and cannot claim to be members of their club.  It really doesn't make all that much sense, considering that there are libertarian-leaning parts of the electorate that don't meet rigid binary definitions, let alone realize that the word "libertarian" may even apply to them.  Not to mention that among the hyper-political, the club is pretty diverse and nonsensical, ranging from Beck to Paul.

I wrote a thread about it a couple days ago but I deleted the thread before I posted it because I know that any discussion of the term would result in horrible awfulness.  And I don't want to interfere with people being trendy.

I suppose it had more to do with the fact that libertarianism is a strict ideology compared to liberalism and conservatism. Whereas the latter two ideologies want to use the state for their own purposes, the libertarians want to minimize the role of the state. To be a "moderate" libertarian is like calling someone a "moderate" atheist.

See, that's exactly the problem.  You don't seem to understand that there is such a a thing as a moderate libertarian, which only require a libertarian who is pragmatic with political and institutional realities, not to mention socially liberal, economically conservative types, say, business owners on Wall Street, who don't subscribe to "the state=evil" ideology, but would certainly be libertarian on the 'ole matrix score

Instead, you take the binary view.  You have to be Libertarian 100%,  which you, and I'm not exaggerating here, compare to believing in God or not believing in God

[Lunar]

Who ever said BillO and Beck were Christians?  I remember hearing BillO claim that the only parts of the bible that were the word of God were the letters in red.  I knew right then and there he wasn't a Christian

Beck's a converted Mormon, so I'm pretty sure that means he's going to hell in your book.  Anyway, moving on.

[Lunar]

eh... again, the obsession over this word.  Like, look how you need to put the phrase moderate libertarian into quotation marks.  Like, there is no legitimate ability to such thing to exist.  And again with the religion comparison.  You know you're out of touch with America when you start directly equating the two, heh

I mean, sheesh, the Wall Street thing was just to aid for visualization purposes.  Obviously wealthy people who work on Wall Street are going to favor policies that favor them.

Does Libertarianism have to equal absolutism to the ideals that you construe to define Libertarianism?  Why can't it mean something slightly less?  Does socialism only apply to politicians and voters who absolutely 100% adhere to certain principles, or is there middle ground?  What about authoritarianism?  Is Libertarian just a magic word that automatically implies absolutism?

[Lunar]

This attitude really frustrates me about libertarians. I consider myself a moderate libertarian,

I know of plenty of people whom I'd describe this way, but I've never seen someone use this expression before.  Is that an identifier you really use, and if so, why?  #justinterested

[Lunar]

Even some people who don't believe in the Bible at all are called Christians.

How exactly does that work?

In America, there's no official regulatory agency that determines who is authentically Christian or not.  You can call yourself anything you want to be.