Republicans Vs. Republican TEA Partiers

[hornadylnl]

First of all, I advocate abolishing all of this nonsense.

Secondly, please explain how your personal rights are diminished when two strangers get married.

He won't be able to keep those queers from renting his apartments.

 

[rambone]

To your other point. Libertarians aren't offering me any freedom. They're offering me responsibility to take care of additional drug abusers via the safety net, and they're offering me another class of protected citizens that diminish my property rights.

If you're offering me additional freedom, I'd love to hear about it. So far, I'll I get are offers to have my freedom further diminished, and then lectured about "shoving my morality down their throat" if I don't agree with these offers.

Another softball question. The Trillion Dollar Drug War has heavily eroded the 4th amendment, and has no constitutional basis for existing whatsoever at all at the Federal level. It has produced awful SCOTUS decisions. It has created giant bureaucracies including the DEA. It has militarized and federalized local police across the country, and turned every traffic stop into a potential fishing expedition. It has increased crime & corruption, as demonstrated by our drug-running CIA. It is decidedly anti-capitalist, and has suppressed untold innovations and industries. No free market supporter would ever support the Drug War. Prohibition actually promotes addiction, it fills our prisons with non-violent criminals, and clogs our courts. Prohibition promotes smuggling and violence, and enriches gangsters and cartels. It directly violates your individual right of self-ownership, and your right of private property. It promotes monopolies for crony corporations. It has forced people to provide ID at the pharmacy, and inspired government databases of people buying cold medicine. It has killed untold amounts of people (including cops, non-violent offenders, pets, innocent bystanders, etc).

I could write a dissertation on the negative effects of the War on Drugs. I struggle to find any legitimate downside of abolishing prohibition. Your fears of supporting drug abusers is already fully realized under the current system, in spite of all our draconian drug laws.

 

[Ted]

Murder is an initiation of force.

Murder is the infringement of one's rights, by the taking of human life without due process of law.

 

[steveh_131]

Murder is the infringement of one's rights, by the taking of human life without due process of law.

I have absolutely no idea what your point is.

 

[mrjarrell]

Funny how Romney voters turn a thread about republicans going after republicans into a "let's trash the libertarians" thread. No wonder they can't win elections, these days.

 

[hornadylnl]

Funny how Romney voters turn a thread about republicans going after republicans into a "let's trash the libertarians" thread. No wonder they can't win elections, these days.

We're not wanted until Election Day. Then we just have to vote for "Anyone But Xxxxxxxx"!

I can't wait for Anyone But Hillary 2016!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[steveh_131]

I'm hoping for Donald Trump 2016. He's the perfect mixture of prejudiced hatred, elitist attitude and a general dislike-ability.

 

[hornadylnl]

I'm hoping for Donald Trump 2016. He's the perfect mixture of prejudiced hatred, elitist attitude and a general dislike-ability.

I'm think Bloomberg/Boehner.

 

[Ted]

Murder is an initiation of force.

I have absolutely no idea what your point is.

As I with yours.

 

[steveh_131]

As I with yours.

Murder should be illegal because it is an initiation of force, not because it is 'immoral'. That was what I was getting at.

 

[steveh_131]

I'm think Bloomberg/Boehner.

I don't know, man. I'm going with Trump/Nugent 2016. How can we lose?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I don't know, man. I'm going with Trump/Nugent 2016. How can we lose?

Ummmm....maybe by selecting:

Johnson/Gray or Barr/Root or Badnarik/Campagn or.......

 

[Walken]

No more Akin's. The point of an election is not to see who can say the craziest thing about abortion. The sad thing is when they lose, they retreat to the choir who tell them what a good job they did.

 

[Liberty1911]

Funny how Romney voters turn a thread about republicans going after republicans into a "let's trash the libertarians" thread. No wonder they can't win elections, these days.

LOL at Libertarians mocking others for not winning elections.

 

[Liberty1911]

Wow, really? Is this a serious question? MOST sins are also rights.

Worshiping idols and false gods
Blasphemy
Lying
Taking the Lord's name in vain
Dishonoring thy father and thy mother
Dishonoring the Sabbath
Adultery
Homosexuality
Practicing magic
Participating in the occult
Usury
Coveting
Pre-marital sex
Being a drunkard
Twisting scripture
Gluttony
Greed
Pride
Sloth
Wrath
Envy
Lust
Holding grudges
Not forgiving your neighbor
Hatred
Atheism
.....

This could continue for a LONG time.

Morality is a personal standard. Making it a legal standard is tyranny.

How much of this list do you favor putting into law, Liberty?
SIN LIST

I don't see anything there I would advocate a law for or against.

However, you're not really answering my question. How are any of those things Constitutional rights. I see 2-3 that might fit that category. Care to explain it?

 

[steveh_131]

Ummmm....maybe by selecting:

Johnson/Gray or Barr/Root or Badnarik/Campagn or.......

How DARE YOU sir!

LOL at Libertarians mocking others for not winning elections.

Libertarians have hugely different goals with their votes than republicans do. When your goal is ABO and you put up Mitt Romney...well, you're gonna get mocked.

Are you ever going to answer my hypothetical question from earlier? Too tough for ya?

 

[Liberty1911]

Another softball question. The Trillion Dollar Drug War has heavily eroded the 4th amendment, and has no constitutional basis for existing whatsoever at all at the Federal level. It has produced awful SCOTUS decisions. It has created giant bureaucracies including the DEA. It has militarized and federalized local police across the country, and turned every traffic stop into a potential fishing expedition. It has increased crime & corruption, as demonstrated by our drug-running CIA. It is decidedly anti-capitalist, and has suppressed untold innovations and industries. No free market supporter would ever support the Drug War. Prohibition actually promotes addiction, it fills our prisons with non-violent criminals, and clogs our courts. Prohibition promotes smuggling and violence, and enriches gangsters and cartels. It directly violates your individual right of self-ownership, and your right of private property. It promotes monopolies for crony corporations. It has forced people to provide ID at the pharmacy, and inspired government databases of people buying cold medicine. It has killed untold amounts of people (including cops, non-violent offenders, pets, innocent bystanders, etc).

I could write a dissertation on the negative effects of the War on Drugs. I struggle to find any legitimate downside of abolishing prohibition. Your fears of supporting drug abusers is already fully realized under the current system, in spite of all our draconian drug laws.

I agree that Federal drug laws need to be repealed and then the states can take up the issue.

I guess the question I have is, what drugs would you legalize? All of them or just some?

Next question is, are you willing to remove the safety net for drug abusers BEFORE legalization?

Here's an example of how I don't support drug users, but would under your legalization plan.

Black Township's drug-free welfare policy gaining national attention » Evansville Courier & Press

 

[Liberty1911]

How DARE YOU sir!



Libertarians have hugely different goals with their votes than republicans do. When your goal is ABO and you put up Mitt Romney...well, you're gonna get mocked.

Are you ever going to answer my hypothetical question from earlier? Too tough for ya?

Way too many posts to go back and look for the question. I have no idea what it was.

This isn't a one way street though. You never gave me an example of something immoral that you can also show is a Constitutional right.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Wow, really? Is this a serious question? MOST sins are also rights.

Worshiping idols and false gods
Blasphemy
Lying
Taking the Lord's name in vain
Dishonoring thy father and thy mother
Dishonoring the Sabbath
Adultery
Homosexuality
Practicing magic
Participating in the occult
Usury
Coveting
Pre-marital sex
Being a drunkard
Twisting scripture
Gluttony
Greed
Pride
Sloth
Wrath
Envy
Lust
Holding grudges
Not forgiving your neighbor
Hatred
Atheism
.....



This could continue for a LONG time.

Morality is a personal standard. Making it a legal standard is tyranny.


How much of this list do you favor putting into law, Liberty?
SIN LIST

The outstanding issue I see in deregulating this list is that is in fact deregulated, as in complete federal indifference. The problem is that there are practitioners of some of the listed actions/characteristics who want federal imprimatur and privilege rather than to be left alone. So far as I am concerned, this is the problem generating the conservative push-back.

 

[steveh_131]

Way too many posts to go back and look for the question. I have no idea what it was.

Here it is:

Your logic leads us down an interesting path. Let's look at a hypothetical. Let's say the opposite was currently true. Only same-sex marriages are recognized by the government. Heterosexual marriages are not.

My vote: Remove government from the marriage business altogether. Barring that, allow heterosexual couples the same benefits offered to homosexual couples under state law.

Your vote: Remove government from the marriage business altogether (or so you claim). Barring that, do not allow heterosexual couples to marry, because it would infringe upon the 'property rights' of folks who are morally against heterosexual marriage.

What do you say to that?

This isn't a one way street though. You never gave me an example of something immoral that you can also show is a Constitutional right.

Rambone listed many, but I already answered. I answered that the constitution wasn't designed to enumerate each of our rights. There is nothing in there that says I have the right to drink coffee in the morning, but I should still have that right. It's a silly question. Read the thread about natural rights and discuss it there, if you choose.