George M. Middius wrote:

Law of Storms said:


Libertarians are not social *liberals.*


Doesn't "social liberal" mean, like, tolerant to a fault? Or are you
saying libertarians aren't allowed to have positions on social issues?



Sure, the tolerance part may apply. But "social liberal" in
today's context, where "liberal" is second only to "child
molester" in the pantheon of horrid monsters stalking the
American public, implies government programs, which cost
money, usually gathered via taxation, making "libertarian"
an inappropriate label.


I think you might possibly be inflating the fear level among the
Republicans. Sure, they've got their fear of god, and diversity, and
ethnicity, and gays, and communism, and taxes, but beneath all those
fears, they must be able to lead productive lives, right?

I'm not certain that's a safe presumption.

They are also afraid of fun. Very paralyzing.


--
Law of Storms

"My God, it's full of stars..."