We love Alex Thornton … a lot.
Not trying to make her husband jealous or anything … but we seriously love her. Not only is she rock solid on fiscal issues, she’s one of the few “big L” libertarians (i.e. actual members of the Libertarian Party) who accompanies common sense ideology with political sensibility.
Without selling out …
Anyway we were sold on Thornton (who is making quite the name for herself in Lowcountry political circles these days) when she told us her views on the doctrine of revenue neutrality – i.e. the belief that any reduction in government must be accompanied by a separate and equal increase in government.
“Revenue neutral tax reform would show our government that we support the insane amount of money they spend,” she told us. “Taxes need to be CUT, not replaced.”
Swoon.
This week Thornton took her brand of big “L” libertarianism to Journey Church in Summerville, S.C., specifically a meeting of the women of the church. There, she offered up some thoughts on the notion of church and state in the current two-party system.
“As Americans, we have come to rely on the government to provide us our moral code,” Thornton told the group. “As Christians, we should rely solely on God to guide our lives and enjoy the freedom we have to make mistakes and learn from them. Our government was never supposed to be our judge. Our government was never supposed to be big enough to act as our god.”
Nice …
America’s ideological moorings are changing, people. There’s a new way of thinking out there – and it doesn’t conform to the policies being advanced by the country’s two major parties. It does conform to candidates like Alex Thornton – evangelicals who are uncompromising in their fiscal policy but believe (rightfully) that religion is the purview of the church and faith the responsibility of the individual believer.
38 comments
What!! No bikini shots of her Will?
Irreverently, Shifty asks for cleavage……
Is she running for something or just bloviating? Talk’s cheap.
If there were still, Real Republicans around, you wouldn’t need to worry about idiots like this woman,and brain-damaged,LIEbertarians.
“On religious issues there can be little or no compromise. There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God’s name on one’s behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both.
I’m frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in “A,” “B,” “C” and “D.” Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me?
And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of “conservatism.” ‘
Barry Goldwater
“liebertarians”
Very creative.
Goldwater is credited with heavily influencing the libertarian movement and his campaign produced Lew Rockwell.
Come on dude, you are way above this. You could simply say that you think her pandering to the religious is offensive to you, but you have to know that L/libertarians in general have a ton of atheists/agnostics in their membership and would be the LAST group to champion any form of theocracy.
Goldwater was an Episcopalian for crying out loud, but he just felt government should not be run in favoritism to evangelicals, etc.
Further, are you telling me you’d actually vote for a Republican if he was “old school”?
‘LIEbertarians’ IS stupid,but I was trying to dumb it down to the level of,RINO’s,Socialized Medicine,Gubmint Schools,etc…
I didn’t find her remarks offensive.She’s an idiot.Alex Thornton is absolutely insane.
I’d have voted for ,Richard Nixon if he’d been running in the last election;’our last liberal president’.
lol, OK. I’ll change my above point by changing the word “offensive” to “insane”.
I can actually reasonably accept that an appeal to evangelicals in a way that opens the door to legislating their beliefs over everyone could be considered insane.
It seems to me though the quotes above are reflecting a clear separation between religion and government.
There’s something else I’d like you to accept,baby boy.
Could we go somewhere else and talk?(smiley face thing)
lol, my door doesn’t swing that way, but I’m flattered in an uncomfortable way.
?
“LIEbertarians”
“Liberal Tarians”
Maybe 9″ is BigT/GrandTango’s “Doppler-Ganger”?
Xlent.I did him too many times and it kinda rubbed off on me,so to speak.
I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!
Sounds pretty libertarian to TBG.
TBG also believes Barry Goldwater Jr is pretty active in libertarian politics.
“If there were still, Real Republicans around, you wouldn’t need to worry about idiots like this woman,and brain-damaged,LIEbertarians”
That doesn’t make any sense at all. The “Real Republicans” you talk about like Barry Goldwater are more like today’s Libertarians than any other political group out there. Since there are no more “Real Republicans” out there, who would you have us vote for? The morons in the party today?
Also, did you even read the article? she is saying exactly what Goldwater said–that religious groups trying to use government to force their ways on others is horrible. How does that make her an idiot?
Kimpson won 80% of the vote last month in the SC Senate District 42’s special election to replace crest fallen and disgraced Ford. Where was Thornton?
She was outspent 100:1 by an African American in a district with 65% BVAP – that’s where she was.
Do you love her like you loved Ashley? Should she expect a black eye?
“Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they’re sure trying to do so, it’s going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can’t and won’t compromise. I know, I’ve tried to deal with them.”
~Barry Goldwater
They should have listened to Barry.
AuH2O!!
Privatized religion. Interesting idea – purchase your religion plan from your local store. Get a contract guaranteeing the size of your crown and mansion for a nominal fee. I can see why the evangelicals would accept a libertarian’s concept of god – its what the founders intended.
She sounds like an idiot to me. All this religious mumbo-jumbo sounds like what I’ve heard from politicians around here forever – and all this sounds “Nice” to you??? From all the vile and repulsive stuff you post about women on this site I doubt those “women of the church” would be very pleased. Just saying.
She sounds like a Mark Sanford kind of gal… when he’s ready to trade in for a younger model.
Since she was at a church group, she’s probably not OK with legalizing dope and prostitution??
If that’s the case, she is not a REAL Libertarian!!!
LINO
That would give us LINOs, RINOs, and Democrats?
Real Democrats died out years ago,along with true liberalism.Think ,George McGovern,Adlai Stevenson;truly great men of intelligence,and substance.
That’s a cumbersome acronym.
How about,DINOs?
Hey 9″, word on da screet is dat you like cumbersome acronyms.
*TBG strives for new lows in juvenile humor—even by FITSNEWS standards*
Why do you say that? She already said that God should judge us not government. In fact, there is no morality without choice. To BE good, you must choose to be good which means you have to have the option of being bad. Don’t judge her on what you haven’t heard her say. Ask her.
Actually she is ok with legalizing dope and prostitution. Decriminalizing marijuana was even part of her campaign platform.
superb jugs almost as good as ashley landess http://instagram.com/p/c10FRiSZNI/ — i’m sold — what’s she running for?
No one is sure yet, but when she starts running I’m sure you’ll be the first to know who she’s running from.
We are all aware of what a “line” is – some of us have actually taken a geometry course. It is a series of points with a length, but no depth or width. The points, of course, have no length, or depth, or width – that’s why it takes an infinite number of them to make a line. A line, anchored by its start and end point, is not affected by the limitations of matter: electrons, gravity, light, magnetism, motion or electrical fields. The line is not “drawn” onto matter, but is a conceptual “thing” that we use to idealize the essence of the imperfect line we *can* draw – a 3D cake of polycarbonate paste whose electrons adhere to the electrons of a sheet of paper whose edges assume a zig-zag pattern coinciding with the matter underneath. The coordinate system of this “line” on paper moves with the earth as it spins and wobbles on its axis, travels on its orbit around the sun, which is travelling on a vector within the milky way, which is spinning and travelling through space. Our imagined line need not move.
The imagined line exists in a continuous universe in which “matter” is the stuff of dreams – a colored, two dimensional thing stretched unimaginably thin, imagined nonetheless. Of course, our imaginings of this line are flawed because we’ve never seen one. We have synthesized this dream in our head from the imperfect lines we have seen in the “real” world. The perfection in our minds can never be replicated in the three dimensional world where the template for that line was first experienced. The line in our heads has a transcendental quality that we imagine as “perfect,” though our imagination can in no way “create” the line we might believe has this quality. Our imaginations cannot produce even the image of an infinite number of points for us to dream about. Only by fooling ourselves with words can we come away from the task of visualizing a line made up of an infinite number of points thinking we have, indeed, visualized one.
No matter how science improves, no matter how cleverly we modify matter, we can never actually produce a line. But we *can* talk about it. And by producing this idealized construct, we can manipulate its properties in “the real world” to aid us in visualizing and constructing objects with qualities we want.
Can a line exist?
No.
Can the idea of a line be useful?
Yes.
Should we create superstitions around the existence of perfect lines?
No.
Should we create a religion that preserves the definition of a line, and pronounce it holy?
No. But corruption of these definitions, these thoughts, can have disastrous consequences for the things we create using them.
There are many templates in mathematics, chemistry, physics, and ethics that we have classified, but cannot really exist – except in our minds. They help us understand the “real world” by extracting a “perfect” model of what is “actually” happening, so we can measure the quality of what we do.
Our minds are the birth place of perfection – though we do not create it- we “synthesize” it from the real world, where the perfectly imperfect resides. If you will, our minds are “heaven” and we seek to bring the perfection we observe there onto the “real world.” Thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.
She is purdy! But, here I am broke again, some more.
She is a beauty and I think she has the perfect personality – good luck to her. And yes, Shifty would buy her a hot chocolate…..
Hot chick who talks Libertarian ideals at a theocratic cult meeting. Yeah. But did I mention that she’s hot?
Good God, FITS endorses this gal with the same jaw flapping snake oil pushing of politicians. Garner popular support by swaying with emotion. Nothing different/new. Exactly how Sanfraud. Haley. Lindsey. keep getting elected. Spout beliefs, concepts, meaningless adjectives (‘rock solid’? um, she spells correctly??) as ‘qualifications’ for political office. Ignore rational performance data – skills, experience, expertise,
training, SMART goals, actionable plans – as criteria for PUBLIC service.
“New thinking trend”?? Meaningless political speak. Stupid foppery. Nobody knows what people think, what
comprises ‘new’ thinking, what is ‘old’.
What would be ‘new’? Demand disclosure of, and assess, objective performance criteria. Reject one’s own emotional attachment to vague adjectives touting treasured beliefs.
Oh, never mind. Too eccentric, time consuming, boring, socially unacceptable. More fun to argue/vote/follow emotionalized jaw flapping.
Like everybody said, very pretty. However, I think clueless.
Hope she proves me wrong.
Fits little head talkin’. (sorry dude)
If Will ever likes a dumpy older female politician, I’ll have a fucking fit and fall in it.