Ron Paul Wins All of Maines delegates to the RNC in Tampa Romney wins ZERO

[LibertyForAll]

Everything in stuporfire's world is black and white. There is only anarchy or totalitarianism.

Nope.

There is this messy area in the middle which we call American politics, pitting Democrats against Republicans.

Apparently it is actually Democrats and Republicans against Libertarians.

You only differ in which big government plan we should follow and both rail against smaller government. Your entire argument is an attempt to justify majority rule over minorities. I can see why you would be a Romney fan since he is the father of Obamacare. The people have spoken!

 

[Avorysuds]

Everything in stuporfire's world is black and white. There is only anarchy or totalitarianism.

Nope.

There is this messy area in the middle which we call American politics, pitting Democrats against Republicans.

Apparently it is actually Democrats and Republicans against Libertarians.

You only differ in which big government plan we should follow and both rail against smaller government. Your entire argument is an attempt to justify majority rule over minorities. I can see why you would be a Romney fan since he is the father of Obamacare. The people have spoken!

It’s interesting that SF tries to make the claim that the DOI/Constitution do not count as libertarianism because of “Christianity.” Yet neither give any power to Christianity and in fact support libertarianism quite clearly though the laws or powers of restraint given to the people over their Government that make up the constitution. I am not attacking religion here, just pointing out that the Constitution clearly restricts all Governments role with religion.

The Republican party more fills SF’s ridiculous desired philosophy where Religion is priority #1 and restraint on Government is the enemy. What has the Republican party done in the last 30 years to restrain or shrink Government? Nothing. Now what have Republican done to expand, spend and bypass the constitution in the last 30 years? The list is mammoth.

It seems to me that people like SF simply found they could abuse Christianity by once again using its name to do untold amounts of damage. Under Christian ideas the constitution and Government restraint is now voided, how convenient for liberals like SF.

 

[Uncensored2008]

American has had the governing throttle of Christian ethos, of course.

I thought you were brighter than the rest of these guys.

If you look at my Avi, you'll see that I plainly state my political leanings.

What you fail to grasp is that governance starts as a matter of structure. At this point there are two opposing camps. We have the statists, which includes the communists, socialists, neo-cons, and greens. In other words, the democrats and the left-wing of the Republicans. Then we have the Libertarians, which includes the conservative faction of the GOP, and many of the independents.

You look at early America and declare "towns had laws, so they couldn't be Libertarian." But that merely illustrates your lack of grasp on both American history and on what liberty means.

The statist proposition is that all authority belongs to the state. The federal government is supreme and holds 100% authority over the nation and all in it. The fed bequeaths a small portion of it's sovereign power to the many states so that they can rule those within their borders on behalf of the federal overlords. The states allocate a small portion of their power to the counties, who in turn allocate a small portion to the cities. Cities must obey what rulers in Washington say, they are administrators of the will of the ruling body, nothing more. The people are expected to obey without question. If the rulers decide that tobacco or fried food is no longer to be ingested by the people, the people will obey. It isn't their decision, the rulers alone decide how each will live. The individual is answerable in all things to the all-powerful state.

The libertarian proposition, the one this nation was founded on, the one our constitution is based on, is quite different. It holds that the people hold the ultimate power. Yes, it uses Christian tradition that God imbued each of us as sovereign beings with both the right and responsibility to determine our own lives and fate. With the understanding that the individual holds the only valid authority over his own life, the structure is that the individual cedes a small portion of that authority to the community for the purpose of creating and maintaining a social contract to form a valid and civil society. Because a community is by nature small, the individuals are free to form it in any way they please, not answerable to other communities on how they run their affairs. These communities then cede a small portion of the power they derived from the people to the counties, so that trade and travel can be secure, and so that relations from one community to another can be conducted in a civil and just manner. In turn the counties cede a small portion of power to the state, which forms the laws that govern all within the borders of that state. The state cedes a very small portion to the federal government who provides a common defense against foreign aggressors and a system of courts to resolve disputes between the many states. The individual retains the ultimate authority over his life. The federal government has no authority at all over the life of any given person. The state has authority only over those things that affect the entire state. The counties hold only the authority to uphold the agreed statutes ratified by the communities. The community is the ultimate seat of legal power, with the individual holding through the ballot, control of said communities.

In the free society listed above, communities are free to pass laws prohibiting drugs. Others are free to allow drugs. But the state and federal entities have no say at all on the issue, there is no compelling interest for the state or fed to determine the details of an individuals ingestion of certain items.

I support the libertine model. I support that which Jefferson, Payne and Franklin established.

 

[Uncensored2008]

LOL.


Good one!

If you think they did, feel free to support your assertion.

 

[The Rabbi]

Everything in stuporfire's world is black and white. There is only anarchy or totalitarianism. This whole thread is about Neocons trying to convince themselves they are still conservative.


Libertarianism is not anarchism for the hundredth time. There are many different forms of libertarianism so you can't just lump them all into one category. Anarchists believe in zero government, Libertarians do not. I am a minarchist.

l.

PfahhBWAHAWAHAAA. A minarchist. Where do they teach this shit?
As for black and white, it seems to be the narco-libs on this thread calling people statists, Stalinists, fascists and who knows what else.
Narco-libs are united in their disdain for anything resembling responsibility or duty. The Founders understood that with rights go responsibilities. The Narcos don't understand that. Like Liberals they are fixated on rights rights rights, like a fetish. This is why liberals and narco-libertarians have so much in common and why the narcos hate real conservatives.

 

[Oddball]

cognitive dissonance

You repeat that a lot.

First year Psych student?

And you repeat "Deadwood" and "human nature" a lot...As though they mean anything to anyone but you.

First week debate student?

 

[Oddball]

Everything in stuporfire's world is black and white. There is only anarchy or totalitarianism. This whole thread is about Neocons trying to convince themselves they are still conservative.


Libertarianism is not anarchism for the hundredth time. There are many different forms of libertarianism so you can't just lump them all into one category. Anarchists believe in zero government, Libertarians do not. I am a minarchist.

l.

As for black and white, it seems to be the narco-libs on this thread calling people statists, Stalinists, fascists and who knows what else.

Rings mighty hollow from the Stalinist who feels fine with labeling libertarians "narco-libs", no matter where he encounters them.

 

[The Rabbi]

American has had the governing throttle of Christian ethos, of course.

I thought you were brighter than the rest of these guys.

If you look at my Avi, you'll see that I plainly state my political leanings.

What you fail to grasp is that governance starts as a matter of structure. At this point there are two opposing camps. We have the statists, which includes the communists, socialists, neo-cons, and greens. In other words, the democrats and the left-wing of the Republicans. Then we have the Libertarians, which includes the conservative faction of the GOP, and many of the independents.

You look at early America and declare "towns had laws, so they couldn't be Libertarian." But that merely illustrates your lack of grasp on both American history and on what liberty means.

The statist proposition is that all authority belongs to the state. The federal government is supreme and holds 100% authority over the nation and all in it. The fed bequeaths a small portion of it's sovereign power to the many states so that they can rule those within their borders on behalf of the federal overlords. The states allocate a small portion of their power to the counties, who in turn allocate a small portion to the cities. Cities must obey what rulers in Washington say, they are administrators of the will of the ruling body, nothing more. The people are expected to obey without question. If the rulers decide that tobacco or fried food is no longer to be ingested by the people, the people will obey. It isn't their decision, the rulers alone decide how each will live. The individual is answerable in all things to the all-powerful state.


I support the libertine model. I support that which Jefferson, Payne and Franklin established.

Yeah, libertine. Well chosen word. Here's a narco-libertarian expressing his philosophy.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAaWvVFERVA]Monty Python- The Annoying Peasant - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Uncensored2008]

Yeah, libertine. Well chosen word. Here's a narco-libertarian expressing his philosophy.

That is seriously your idea of rebuttal?

You trying to join Truthmatters in the ranks of the "never to be taken seriously?"

 

[Avorysuds]

LOL.


Good one!

If you think they did, feel free to support your assertion.

He can't and he won't... But he will repeat it.

 

[The Rabbi]

Yeah, libertine. Well chosen word. Here's a narco-libertarian expressing his philosophy.

That is seriously your idea of rebuttal?

You trying to join Truthmatters in the ranks of the "never to be taken seriously?"

You can't take me seriously and continue to be a narco lib.

lib·er·tine/ˈlibərˌtēn/
Noun:
A person, esp. a man, who behaves without moral principles.
Adjective:
Characterized by a disregard of morality.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

 

[Uncensored2008]

You can't take me seriously and continue to be a narco lib.

You can't be taken seriously at all.

lib·er·tine/ˈlibərˌtēn/
Noun:
A person, esp. a man, who behaves without moral principles.
Adjective:
Characterized by a disregard of morality.

Ah, now you start openly lying.

Thanks TM.

 

[Dr.Drock]

You are stumped.

Truth is, none has ever existed, nor will exist.

The shoot 'em up days of the unincorporated Wild Wild West is as close as you get, but even that was tamed by the statehood - which at least at the time were constitutional Christian theocracies.

Libertarianism is good as a personal philosophy, but as an actual set of rules to run society by, it fails because it cannot deal with the vagrancies of human nature. It is just like communism in that regard.

This is why we make fun of your fools.

You're right, your side is def winning.

The result of your team winning is the destruction of america, but hey at least you're winning.

What you really don't understand, even after all of this education, is that you don't have a 'side'.

Libertarianism exists in the mind only.

No there's def 2 sides.

Big gov't progressives (reps and dems) vs small gov't conservatives (libertarians and some independents).

 

[Dr.Drock]

You can't take me seriously and continue to be a narco lib.

You can't be taken seriously at all.

lib·er·tine/ˈlibərˌtēn/
Noun:
A person, esp. a man, who behaves without moral principles.
Adjective:
Characterized by a disregard of morality.

Ah, now you start openly lying.

Thanks TM.

Rabbi wants all morals to come from gov't.

Rabbi pretty much comes right out there with all his big gov't progressive views, then calls himself a small gov't conservative.

It'd be like putting grilled ground chuck, lettuce, ketchup and cheese on a bun and calling it a pizza.

 

[LibertyForAll]

I guess it makes sense that the morally bankrupt would look to some outside force to make them do the right thing. This is true for religionists as well as progressive types. Unfortunately for Rabbi he is both.

 

[Bigfoot]

Ron who?

 

[Dr.Drock]

Ron who?

He's that guy who's been around for decades saying the same things and always being right.

He's not a product of the media hype machine, see Obama and Romney for examples.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Ron who?

He's got more support than your guy, David Duke does, that's for sure.

 

[freedombecki]

Close. The nation was founded by Christian Libertarians with the expressed acknowledgement that our rights were inalienable and granted by God.

And that changes what I said, how?

We were - and if you buy into the inalienable rights of Nature's God - we are STILL operating as a defacto theocracy.

Nonsense. No clergy had sway over our government.

Uncensored2008, many of those of us on the right who are conservatives fiscally, have a slightly different view than you on the clergy and our government.

To begin with, the Continental Congress not once failed to open without a clergical sermon, reading from the Christian Bible, and earnest prayers followed by men referencing God in every other sentence.

One clergyman was a Signer of the Declaration of Independence.

The representatives system and ages were set up in accordance with clerical input about the age sufficient for a person to represent others plus the age sufficient for a person to be President of the United States.

All of the American schools at the time the Continental Congress began meeting were situated inside Church buildings of communities. People became doctors and lawyers by apprenticeship and were sent to represent their areas from meetings inside church buildings, which were usually the largest meeting areas American communities had at the time.

If you step back in time, and think in the ways the Founders did, you will know that many of the whiney-assed court cases going on now did not go on back then because people depended on each other to know "right" from "wrong" by regular church attendance. That is why many founders, including Benjamin Franklin, wondered whether the future could enjoy the blessings of liberty if they lost their faith in God. Many decided it would not be possible, and said so in their letters and memoirs.

Systems that were never intended to mete out morality are now overburdened with so many falling away from their church homes and blaming God for the failures of man who was given free will by God, according to the founders.

Roe v. Wade that causes so much consternation across the internet, and for which people are banned for stating their antagonistic view of the court, would never have been heard in Colonial times through all of the nineteenth century, because "right" and "wrong" needed no court definitions. Accepted were biblical "right" and "wrong." In fact, knowing "right and wrong" went on for 200 years because people remained loyal to a faith in God, and many attended church on a regular basis, didn't even know anyone who didn't, few exceptions.

Under the duress of "defacto theocracy," Americans invented many new items to make improvements to life:

1717-1799

1. Swim fins - Franklin
2. Octant - Thomas Godfrey
3. Franklin Stove - Benjamin Franklin
4. Mail Order - Ben Franklin
5. Lightening Rods
6. Flexible urinary catheter
7. Armonica
8. Swivel Chair - Thomas Jefferson
9. Flatboat - Jacob Yoder
10. Bifocals - Franklin
11. Artificial defraction grating - Rittenhouse
12. Automatic flour mill - Evans
13. Cracker - Pearson
14. Cotton gin - Whitney
15. Wheel cipher - Jefferson
16. Rumford fireplace
17. Cupcake

1800-1899


There are too many to list, so here's the timeline page. By then, America was on her own. Her freedoms enabled men to turn the world on its ear with new conveniences complete with gadgets and products to make everything easier to do, clean, work on, and afford.


From the steeples of churches, freedom did ring in early America.