User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 2/14/2006 1:33:07 PM EDT
[#1]
Does that CP want abortion "banned" or do they want Roe overturned? There is a HUGE difference between those two positions. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/14/2006 1:33:43 PM EDT
[#2]
Libertarians make me laugh. I used to think that I was one, but I'm not and never was. I was just an ignorant kid. I am a conservative. I think some libertarian ideas are good, in moderation.
However, if all of the planks of the libertarian party were to be made law our country would end, and not in a good way. Anarchy would be the result. Our strong central republic government would be replaced by another type of strong government, most likely military or corporate dictatorship. In other words, nature abhors a vacuum. Someone or something will fill the power vacuum left if our govt ceases to tax and regulate and field a military- thus exist. I don't like the nanny state we live in. But I also don't want to end our Republic as we know it either. I think moderate change through our current political process is what needs to be done. Like it or not, the Republican Party is the closest thing we have to the ideals many here share. The only way to influence it is to become a part of it and make your voice heard. That's what I think. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/14/2006 1:35:49 PM EDT
[#3]
from wikipedia:
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/14/2006 1:37:49 PM EDT
[#4]
If you live by the Non-initiation of Force principle, then you are a libertarian whether you vote that way or not. I'm not a party voter. I also tend to use the 2A as a litmus test for all my candidates to see if they are even close to being someone worthy of my vote. It might be only one vote, but all floods out there start with one rain drop. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/14/2006 1:46:03 PM EDT
[#5]
I like their ideas for instant run off elections and the addition of "None of the Above is Acceptable" as a choice for every issue on every ballot.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/14/2006 1:59:07 PM EDT
[#6]
I believe this is the first time I have ever seen an actual Libertarian post this here so openly and candidly in all my time here. Kudos to you, sir. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/14/2006 2:25:25 PM EDT
[#7]
Term limits with no opportunity to become a lobbyist would really make our political system a lot better than it is now. Lobbyists should be banned. Let them write a letter just like the rest of us.
Problem is.........our country is just a big player in the new world order. When it gets right down to it, our Gov. is just going along with world wide money interests. We, and everybody else on this earth are just grains of sand in comparison. I don't care if you are a Libertarian or an (fill in the blank) we can not make a dent in this world wide system. DRJarHead, (I like your style) I just hope all these addicts don't screw my chance of having all the pain meds I might need if dying of some horrific disease! Our wonderful Gov war on drugs has put thousands of our family memebers thru pain hell, because the docs were afraid to subscribe that much morphine etc. If that ever happened to one of my family members, somebody is going to go down........ 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/14/2006 3:15:18 PM EDT
[#8]
You realize that lobbyist are "just like the rest of us" in that they represent groups. They have no special status. I grant you that the whole "freedom of association" bolderdash is annoying.  This kind of sentiment is funny coming from someone with "NRA" as their username. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/14/2006 3:25:47 PM EDT
[#9]
Thanks I am probably the strictest doc I know when it comes to drugs. If you have a serious injury or something of that nature, you will get pain meds. If you are a pain ridden terminal cancer pt or that sort of thing you will have all you need. If you claim your back hurts and you need 8 Vicodin a day, or some other BS story I will show you the door. If you try to intimidate me, I will try to get you to take a swing at me so I can kick your ass.  You would be surprised at how many addicts think that intimidating docs will ge them drugs. I just open the door and tell them to get out. When they threaten me, I laugh. Ain't gonna do shit. I should be so lucky. ETA: Fear of the DEA has nothing to do with our prescribing practices. Nothing. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/14/2006 3:37:22 PM EDT
[#10]
The constitution party is religiously based. That is basically a contradiction to libertarianism. Never happen. I didn't mention any existing party. I did not capitalize the word. I said they'd be, "libertarians" and they absolutely would be. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/14/2006 3:39:14 PM EDT
[#11]
Can you name any law that stopped a person from breaking that law?
Feel free to donate your dollars to the charity of your choice to help drug addicts. Meanwhile keep your hands off my tax dollars.
Looks like wolfman has a  account now! LOL. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/14/2006 3:42:35 PM EDT
[#12]
Okay Rik, note that the quoted poster wrote 'libertarians,' which means idealogical. You wrote "Libertarians," which means the party. I think the Founding fathers would at once be libertarians as well as disappointed / disgusted with Libertarians. I think we're on the same page I just wanted to make sure you understood the OP. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/14/2006 3:48:19 PM EDT
[#13]
LP does not have a position on abortion. There are constitutional arguements both ways on this issue. It's not at all in the Libertarian platform. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/14/2006 3:49:11 PM EDT
[#14]
I understand now...sorry, I didn't realize he meant little "L" libertarians. Well, the truth is, some would be and some would not. Jefferson would, but Washington and Hamilton would not. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/14/2006 3:51:46 PM EDT
[#15]
They would all be libertarians. They would be divided just as they were back then, but they would all be for a much smaller and less expensive government than we are today.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/14/2006 4:42:38 PM EDT
[#16]
I.17: Conscription & the Military (Transition section) – Revise to allow military discipline. Conflicts with U.S. Const. I:8:16 (Rules of Military Discipline).
What is this all about? Anyone?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/14/2006 4:46:49 PM EDT
[#17]
the LP doesn't (didn't?) like the UCMJ
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/14/2006 5:10:38 PM EDT
[#18]
OMG you wouldn't vote Libertarian because they wouldn't give a hand out to Israel? Israel is a special interest. Any aid to any country should be done throught private charities. What right do think the US government has to give my tax money to another country? You want to give money to Israel? Open your wallet and write them a check! |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/14/2006 5:15:09 PM EDT
[#19]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/14/2006 6:05:32 PM EDT
[#20]
Damn those pesky laws like "Thou shall not kill", they're downright anti freedom |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/14/2006 6:06:57 PM EDT
[#21]
x2
You cannot have successful freedom without it being protected. The government exists to protect you from losses of your life, libery, and property...and for no other reason. |
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/15/2006 12:14:26 AM EDT
[#22]
Even the most ardent Libertarian would not suggest that it would be possible or successful to end welfare overnight. It would require a transition period of 5-10 years, gradually eliminating enrollment in various programs. And, as has been proven many times, most recently when the House Repubs forced welfare reform on Clinton, people who lose welfare support suddenly find motivation to WORK. When people's cell phone and TV cable get shut off, they figure out the whole job thing real quick. Very, very few people who are on welfare NEED welfare; most are on welfare because "it's free" and "they deserve it". Oh, and as far as the criminals running free in the streets: remember that Libertarians recognize the TRUE right to bear arms, and under a Libertarian government, everyone would have no-permit-needed CCW. No need for more police; heck, we'd need far fewer of them. And since welfare would be eliminated, and the folks who today have nothing to do with their time would be AT WORK, you aren't going to have "idle-time crimes" nearly to the degree you do today. The people who argue against Libertarian policies always pick ONE of them, and then try to apply it to the current social system as it stands today, so they can prove how it won't work. Of course it won't. Many policies would need to be changed, and those changes would have to occur in the correct sequence, to "undo" decades of socialism incrementally, just as it was implemented incrementally. -Troy |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/15/2006 12:29:43 AM EDT
[#23]
The Lib party a hundred years from now will be doing exactly what it is today. Debating their non-existant political presence.
All they are are anarchists that don't have the stones to admit it to themselves, so they talk instead. As for the druggies, I have never in almost 25 years of police work come across a druggie that WANTED to quit. Oh, they talk a great game, but they'll never leave the bench. It's a character flaw.  One they will never correct.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/15/2006 12:38:39 AM EDT
[#24]
I disagree. Welfare on all levels could be ended tomorrow without the chaos that everyone is so sure would happen in my opinion. Where would we house all the new criminals? Probably in the cells previously occupied by people that commit victimless crimes like doing drugs and prostitution. Whole lot of vacant cells when you end the war on drugs. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/15/2006 6:00:49 AM EDT
[#25]
Say a reformed LP got 100X the most votes they'd ever received in the next presidential election; the only thing that would accomplish would be to throw the election to the Democrats and destroy the LP's political viability. LP candidates should run as conservative Republicans and reform the party from within.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/15/2006 6:18:13 AM EDT
[#26]
You have no idea what I have seen and haven't.
Can you explain why those things didn't happen before the drugs were made illegal?
Meaning, that no matter what someone cites you aren't going to bother to read any of it. Thanks for demonstrating the real thinking behind the drug war.
That's a debatable point. Talk it over with your buddies while you enjoy a beer. Or just think it over while you drink your morning coffee.
Show me any country in the history of the world that has not used drugs.
Thanks again for demonstrating the ignorance and bigotry behind this policy. When you encounter someone who has actually done some research your immediate response is to say that you won't read anything (deliberate ignorance) and then accuse someone you don't know of being a drug addict. Yeah, that's as good as the arguments get for the drug war. |
||||||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/15/2006 6:19:30 AM EDT
[#27]
show me any reference for those two statements. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/15/2006 6:21:42 AM EDT
[#28]
Happy to. But this is simply yet another point where Libertarians lose touch with reality. So you're saying Libertarianism knows no debt of conscience such as the US (and indeed, much of the world) has felt for Jews for what happened in WWII? Israel would likely cease to be a nation without the money the US gives. And I'm fine with that. You also forgot to address the whole standing army thing. Is that being changed in this new draft? Because Libertarians like to say that not having a standing army and never going over our own borders to protect our interests is a great way to prevent unjust wars. Fine. But that means that any nation that doesn't ascribe to Libertarianism can come in and kick our butts unless we're like Switzerland... Not exactly the best way to make things work on a macro-scale IMHO. (Switzerland being a small nation and frankly, impassable at points, not many, if any, natural resources...Totally unlike the US in other words). The drug policy is another wreck I cannot support. Libertarian types always seem to forget things like that. Without a major overhaul, the Libertarian party will always be like Communism - an interesting thought experiment that stops working the second you try to make it work in the real world. (I am NOT saying that any other system is perfect... just that it is easy to see the flaws in this Libertarian model) |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/15/2006 6:26:50 AM EDT
[#29]
So a "free country" for you would include locking up all the alcoholics, too, I suppose.
I know quite a few of them, thanks. You don't get around much because there are whole organizations of them fighting for new drug laws. You must not read much on this issue.
Maybe you were confused about the physician's job. They do not wear a badge and arrest people. Their job is to help people deal with whatever health problems you may have -- same as with cheeseburgers, beer, etc. Any physician who thinks it is OK to drink beer should lose their license in your view, right? Geez what you don't know about the subject.
You must have misssed all the previous discussions (as well as not having read anything at all on these issues). Therefore, two quick points: 1) That kind of problem was essentially unknown before the drug laws were passed. If you knew anything at all about the history, you would know this. 2) If they commit those crimes, then you don't need a drug law to arrest them, do you? Same as with alcohol, which causes far more problems than all the illegal drugs combined.
Well, as usual, you don't really know what you are talking about on this topic. |
|||||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/15/2006 6:30:27 AM EDT
[#30]
You would do well in the DEA. Unfortunately, the DEA is currently in major fights with the major medical organizations over just that attitude. Just FYI, in 1925, the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that the Feds had no right to interfere in the practice of medicine, even if the doctor was prescribing heroin solely for the purpose of maintaining an addict on their drug of choice. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/15/2006 6:33:19 AM EDT
[#31]
There are more than a few major medical organizations who strongly disagree with you. There has been quite a lot of broohaha about this lately. That's not to mention the aftermath of the 1925 Linder decision that changed the practice of medicine forever in the US. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/15/2006 6:34:44 AM EDT
[#32]
No, that wasn't me. But I will tell you what -- whenever you run into an educated person, you can be sure it is a conspiracy against you. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/15/2006 7:06:12 AM EDT
[#33]
Last count I saw 3 statements not 2 |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/15/2006 7:07:30 AM EDT
[#34]
The IQ statements. |
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/15/2006 7:50:34 AM EDT
[#35]
I have no first, second or third hand knowledge of a physican changing his prescribing habits based on ANY interaction with the DEA. I'm the one who does this for a living and I am telling you it is a non issue. It never even occurs to me. IMO, for the DEA to even become involved it would have to be so extreme that the doc in question should probably lose their license. What needs to actually happen is for people who doctor shop and are filling multiple narcotic Rxs to be prosecuted. We only find out sometimes if their insurance or the pharmacists contact us about these pts. In my case, I know who these people are the minute I walk in the room but there is a general thought that docs will give people the "benefit of the doubt" a time or two. As a result they just go from doc to doc. I could tell you some incredible stories about this issue. Bottom line though is that I prescribed narcotics less every week I practiced. It caused more problems than help and almost everyone coming in for "pain control" was an addict. Most of you who are, are in extreme denial about that. You only fool yourselves, certainly not me. Like I said, I know who you all are as soon as I walk in the room. As a group you are not very polished at your drug seeking. Lame would be the word I would use to describe it. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/15/2006 8:10:52 AM EDT
[#36]
http://www.aceviper.net/aceviper_net/ace_intelligence/aceviper_questions_and_answers/aceviper_interesting_intelligence_related_questions_and_answers.html |
|||||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/15/2006 8:11:08 AM EDT
[#37]
I like my mother… But my mother knows her proper place in the life of an adult man. If Mom went around butting into my life unasked then I would tell her where to go.
Similarly, I would like the Government if it just stuck to doing the things government is supposed to do and stayed the hell out of things it don’t got no business being concerned with. Thing is, once you’re an adult, your mother only really has the power over your life that you give her. And Government only has the power that we the people collectively give it. And that’s what Libertarians don’t get. People want environmental laws, gun control laws, roads, drug laws, welfare, entitlement spending, etc. Whenever we need something or whenever our neighbor does something we don’t like we (as a people) go running to the Government asking them to fix it. It’s not the Governments fault it’s ours. What we need to do collectively is to stop worrying about what our neighbors are doing and live up to our responsibilities as adults. When the American people do this, and expect the same of others, we will be free of Big Government. But until America has this attitude change Government will continue to grow. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/15/2006 8:13:08 AM EDT
[#38]
No election is going to be thrown to the democrats. They're on a rapid decline and will never be in power again. Libertarianism is nowhere near "conservative Republicans" not sure where you got that idea but libertarianism is no closer to that than it is to the Democrats. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/15/2006 8:13:37 AM EDT
[#39]
I have no doubt you run into people trying to scam the system. On the other hand, if you will go to http://www.mapinc.org and just search for terms like "pain", and "DEA" you will immediately find dozens of articles which talk about the fight that major medical groups are having with the DEA. This isn't just my idea. The fight got big enough that a number of pain specialists got together with the DEA last summer and drew up some guidelines under which doctors could feel safe in prescribing. The DEA even posted the guidelines on their web site. Then, suddenly they realized that their own guidelines would knock out one of their major prosecutions so they took the guidelines down and reneged on the whole deal. This isn't any secret. You can find lots and lots of news articles discussing it.
We will assume that you are using the "generic you" because certainly nothing you said there would apply to me. |
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/15/2006 8:15:39 AM EDT
[#40]
Re Al Capone it says "it was rumored". Oooookay. |
||||||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/15/2006 10:11:27 AM EDT
[#41]
Most of them looking for pain meds are in my experience. By far.
I could find shit on the interent about just about anything.
Many of these so-called pain specialists are the major part of the problem. How do you think these people got addicted to this shit in the first place.
So what. I am telling you it is not even a concern to any physician I know. I watched a neurologist write rxs for 300 vicodin at a time. If DEA thinks he should be stopped I would be all for it. And I like the guy. But he never got any heat from DEA. Ever.
We will assume that you are using the "generic you" because certainly nothing you said there would apply to me. Of course. There are a lot of them on this site. There are a lot period. National disgrace if you ask me and it cuts thru every demographic group. Little old ladies sure like the stuff I can tell you that. Narcs and benzos. But all that said, I don't care if they legalize the shit and I think they should. If people want to be stupid and screw their life up it is their right, IMO, provided they don't harm others. the bottom line for me is that I want no part of their bullshit. Leave me out of it, I ain't the local pusher. |
||||||||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/15/2006 11:01:46 AM EDT
[#42]
1) Ross Perot: Look at either EC or popular vote figures for 2000, 2004 and factor in a strong LP LP candidate. 2) Consider crazy-ass Algore spouting sedition in Saudi Arabia. But for a relatively few votes, he would be crazy-ass President Algore. Likewise, John Kerry. Would most LP'ers really be ambivalent about that? And that's a serious question, not sarcasm. If so, I stand corrected, and not a little disheartened about a party I feel quite a bit of empathy for. Making assumptions about the Democratic Party going the way of the dinosaur is fraught with the dangers all assumptions face. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/15/2006 11:26:29 AM EDT
[#43]
John Kerry was no closer to becoming president than mickey mouse. Turn off CNN and get a clue.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/15/2006 11:37:37 AM EDT
[#44]
People want all these things because they benefit (or think they do), but don't have to pay the price. Want clean air but don't want to pay for it? Have the .gov pass a law that requires industry to spend $100 billion on new equipment. Want safe streets but don't want to bother taking responsibility for yourself? Have the .gov pass gun control and inconvenience law abiding people so you can live under your delusion. Don't want beggars on the street? Have the .gov pass a law stealing money from taxpayers like me to give a handout to the beggars, getting them off the street. Of course, you don't have to pay for it because you don't make enough money, so in your mind it's cost free. That's the real problem. The .gov needs to be full of people who will simply look at those who demand benefits while making others pay much like a person disciplining his dog - a firm look in the eye, a clear and concise "No!" and a swat on the nose with a rolled up newspaper. That's what the .gov should be. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/15/2006 11:42:56 AM EDT
[#45]
You're wrong about that. Although true as far as it goes, it ignores the fact that as amended, the constitution only authorizes government to do 15 things, the vast majority of what government does is unconstitutional absent a constitutional amendment. Your position assumes not only that America is a democracy, but also apparently that democracy is the proper way to settle questions of liberty, which it is not. As far as a standing army goes, I'd imagine military discipline is intended to apply to somebody. Since the army is one of those 15 things bringing the platform into compliance with the constitution implies a standing army. There is a difference between "never crossing our borders" and "going not abroad in search of monsters to destroy" You guys are mostly still rehashing the old arguements rather than discussing the subject of the thread. Many of these criticisms are valid, but will no longer apply if this proposed change takes place. That's what's so interesting about it. Those of you who still believe in the GOP should go spend some time working within your own party rather than trolling my thread. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/15/2006 12:04:44 PM EDT
[#46]
A well-reasoned and meaningful addition to the discussion. Thanks. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/15/2006 12:12:33 PM EDT
[#47]
First (see the red highlight above) you indicate the problem is the Constitution itself, that in its present state its doesn't provide a free enuf society. Then you point out (see blue part) the problem is NOT the Constitution itself, but violation of the founders intent, and the incorrect enforcement of the Constitution. SO which is the problem? The Constitution itself, or violations of it? Until you work out spurious logic like that, I'm not gonna take the LP seriously. Oh, and also pot and the borders and the military and all that other stuff - get a clue there too. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/15/2006 12:13:28 PM EDT
[#48]
Well, In case you haven't noticed, heroin addicts all over the country get methadone (sp?) doses every day for the same reason..to maintain their habit...I do have a question..While I understand the theory of "Freedom" that is, to able do whatever with little or no Govt. interference, And in theory, many of you also believe that you have the right to inject, injest, inhale any drug you want as long as "no one gets hurt"..Where then, is that line drawn??? When you blow your paycheck on blow, and your family has to do without? When you decide to get behind the wheel when you're in a altered state and put everybody on the road else at risk? Where is the line drawn?? This is one of the reasons the Lib party will never be taken seriously.. Because they don't have a answer to this question. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/15/2006 12:33:04 PM EDT
[#49]
I'd say that's a good summary of the perception problem marginalizing LP's and not a bad solution to the problem. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/15/2006 12:50:35 PM EDT
[#50]
Garandman, I fail to see your point, or rather I think you need to read the passage again, there is no inconsistency. It simply says the constitution isn't perfect, but it's a hell of a lot better than what we have now. The proposal addresses the issues of borders and the military, along with a great many other things, it really is a big deal if it's adopted. |
||
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
