Quoted: Maybe you should actually READ the Constitution before you expound any more on what it says.

As I replied in another thread to your similar comment the other day (without response from you,  I might add):

Quoted: No, we know what the Constitution says... On any given day, the U.S. Constitution, for all real-world intents and purposes, says just exactly what 9 PRESIDENTIAL APPOINTEES decide it says.  If that alone isn't enough reason to elect a Republican over a Democrat for President each and every time, I'll eat my red-white-and-blue Constitution necktie...

Quoted: Libertarian Platform: the military... "Members of the military should have the same right to quit their jobs as other persons. We recommend the repeal of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the recognition and equal protection of the rights of armed forces members. "

Oddly, that referes to the DRAFT not voluntary service. Idiot.

Libertarian Platform: Immigration... "We call for the elimination of all restrictions on immigration, the abolition of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Border Patrol, and a declaration of full amnesty for all people who have entered the country illegally. "

Which Bush agrees with. I, however, don't care who comes here as long as they follow the rules to get here. No welfare for illegals like Bush is pushing though.

Libertarian Platform: One World... "We look forward to an era in which American citizens and foreigners can travel anywhere in the world without a passport. We aim to restore a world in which there are no passports, visas or other papers required to cross borders. "

Like what the EU set up under the UN and Bush is pushing now with his North American Trade Zone.

[Librtarian Platform: Military poawer... "U.S. weapons of indiscriminate mass destruction should be replaced with smaller weapons, aimed solely at military targets and not designed or targeted to kill millions of civilians. We call for the replacement of nuclear war fighting policies with a policy of developing cost-effective defensive systems. Accordingly, we oppose any future agreement which would prevent defensive systems on U.S. territory or in Earth orbit." "We call for the withdrawal of all American military personnel stationed abroad, including the countries of NATO Europe, Japan, the Philippines, Central America and South Korea. There is no current or foreseeable risk of any conventional military attack on the American people, particularly from long distances. We call for the withdrawal of the U.S. from commitments to engage in war on behalf of other governments and for abandonment of doctrines supporting military intervention such as the Monroe Doctrine."

Actually, a lot of Republicans hold similar views on bringing our Troops home. They are unwanted where they are. Oddly enough, nothing in the LP platform would prevent the US from BUYING land in another country and setting up a base there. Preferable to today where we get called in every time the UN steps on its dick.

And last but not least, hubris:

Yours?

[Librtarian Platform: Insanity... "We call upon all the world's governments to fully implement the principles and prescriptions contained in this platform and thereby usher in a new age of international harmony based upon the universal reign of liberty."

So you oppose people being free from oppressive governments? You don't think we should try to spread freedom to every country? I'd prefer to do it with out industry and capitalism being our embassadors to the world. But you have already made it abundantly clear that you don't like free-market capitalism.

These policies would spell disaster for our country. If you disagree, that's just because you are SO enamored of their GUN policies, that you won't look at the rest of it. Or you're an idiot. ANY candidate who supports the Libertarian Platform is just too STUPID to deserve election. Anyone who supports such a candidate.....well, you do the math.

So now you are saying I'm an idiot for wanting to vote for Bush? You may be right, but I really like the fact that he is killing our enemies in their country instead of ours. You sure I still can't vote for Bush?

Moron...

Quoted: Quoted: Cool, now if Badnarik would just endorse Bush and ask his supporters to support him... LOL, that would be the sane, reasonable thing to do.  What are the chances of a libertarian doing that?

You forgot to capitalize the L in

Quoted: Quoted: Maybe you should actually READ the Constitution before you expound any more on what it says. As I replied in another thread to your similar comment the other day (without response from you,  I might add): Quoted: No, we know what the Constitution says... On any given day, the U.S. Constitution, for all real-world intents and purposes, says just exactly what 9 PRESIDENTIAL APPOINTEES decide it says.  If that alone isn't enough reason to elect a Republican over a Democrat for President each and every time, I'll eat my red-white-and-blue Constitution necktie...

As stated, I'm still getting used to the forum organisation here. The software they use here is similar to a lot of other boards, but tracking threads can be tricky on any forum. Especially one without a fully functional search engine built in that allows searching by user name.

Actually, the Founders warned against legislation from the bench. That is why they added in impeachment proceedings. Even the USSC is not immune from that. The malfeasance our current courts are perptrating would have had the Fouders marching on Washington.

The argument could be made that we have fallen far from the ideal.

Quoted: ...Actually, the Founders warned against legislation from the bench. That is why they added in impeachment proceedings. Even the USSC is not immune from that. The malfeasance our current courts are perptrating would have had the Fouders marching on Washington. The argument could be made that we have fallen far from the ideal.

Agreed - 100%.

A very reasonable response, IMHO.  But how many USSC Justices have been impeached and removed in our nation's history?  The reality is that "legislation from the bench" will continue and nobody is going to be impeached for that.  Which of the two candidates in contention (yes, there are only two) is more likely to appoint a strict constructionist, and which is more likely to appoint a leftist federal judge to whom "judicial activism" is already second nature?

In a perfect world, this would not be an issue - but like you said,  this world is far from perfect...


ETA:  If the thought of Justice Charles Schumer or Justices Bill & Hillary Clinton don't make you cringe, then shame on you...

Quoted: Quoted: Okay, first I had to fix that mess.  Learn the Board Code, for God's sake. Twas you the fucker that fucked it first. Trying to decipher where you put font color tags in from teh rest of your rant was a chore.

What a dick.
All I did was quote you and respond at the bottom, period.
Then you fuck it all up and blame someone else.
I imagine that that's a running theme in your pathetic life, huh?

Quoted: Who's the idiot? "Taken Over"??  Be honest, you own a copy of Red Dawn, and watch it ALL the time. I hate to be the one to break this to you, but our enemies don't want to take us over, they want to kill us. HOW would all of those guns prevent someone from unloading ten or twenty Nukes, loading them into trucks, driving them to every city in the Country, and detonating them. At what point are you and Patrick Swayze going to ambush them and paint "wolverines!" on their truck? Name how such a thing would be stopped, were the Libertarians to impliment their Platform! Don't bother. It wouldn't be stopped. Good question. Don't know. If you'd bother to read my above posts, you'd see I don't support the LP's position on this issue. Too much to ask of someone with the bit in their teeth like you have, I know. But do try to keep up.

So what?
You still support the LP.
You can't just pretend that THAT PART of their platform doesn't exist.
It does, and it's STUPID.

I don't give a shit what part of their platform you like or don't like.  You can't cherry pick the good parts, and then discard the bad ones.  If you support the LP candidate, your supporting a Man who endorses that WHOLE platform. You think that saying you don't support "part" of their platform, exonerates you from the stupidity of the rest of it? Not if you vote Libertarian, dummy. Good one shit for brains. How many times do I need to state that I'm voting for Bush? Would one more help get it through that thickened skull of yours? Neither is that an endorsement of all of the GOP's socialized ideology.

Again, so what?
Good for you.
You're voting for Bush.
So why spend so much time defending the Libertarian Party?
I could care less who YOU vote for.
Vote for kerry.  That you are voting for Bush doesn't innoculate you from being an idiot.

Objectivism? Oh, please.  Stop it. Much better than whatever form of mutant socialized BS you appear to advocate.

So you read Ayn Rand and found it to be profound.
Congratulations.  That makes you a rare breed.
I bet you even filled out the little card in the back.
Good for you.
What a joke.

You can't have a defense in depth, if you haven't troops and supplies positioned forward. That's a fact. Given the nature of the threat we face, it a requirement. So... you are saying we SHOULD be the world police. Nice to see you are Kofi Annans side of that one. I take it you'll be voting Kerry then?

Hmmm...
Didn't someone mention Hyperbole before?
Oh yes, that was YOU.
Well, you ARE well versed.

Defense in depth does not equal "world police", sorry.

Clearly you've never served a DAY in the military (if you have, your lack of knowledge on these matters in unforgiveable)

What, against ALL of Islam? Sorry, read your own damned platform.  That wouldn't cut it. How about you read some history? How did we deal with the Barbary Pirates? Worked then. It'd work twice as good now. Especially with all that oil money laying around over there in terrorist hands.

You're telling ME to read "some history".
After that?
My God. What possible bearing does the case of the Barbary Pirates have to do with the threat we face today.
NOT TO MENTION, if you actually knew your history, you'd see the irony of even mentioning that event as a dfense of the LP Platform.
But I don't have time to school you.

The LP party believes that Nuclear deterance is the defense against nukes.   Someone should tell them about that whole "cold war ending" thing. Their Platform could not be more clear. They believe that other countries have just as much right to have nukes. So we should be the finaly arbiter of who gets to play in the nuclear playground? And when will that be added to the Constitution?

I hate to break this to you, but the Constitution does not spell out EVERY SINGLE situation, and how to deal with it.
And YES, WE get to decide whether or not we allow those who have sworn to destroy us, THE MEANS TO DESTROY US.

Again, I will ask: If the Libertarian Platform were to be implimented, how would we be able to prevent terrorists from driving a dozen trucks with nukes, into the US and detonating them? How? You couldn't. You wouldn't know about the plot, because we wouldn't be "over there" to find out. No Border Security. No ID checks. How would they be stopped? Ever hear of Letters of Marque and Reprisal? Worked great against teh Barbary Coast. Same situation as now, accept now we have much better technology than we did then even though they aren't much more advanced.

Oh, and who would employ this technology at our border?
The Border Patrol?  No, they've been eliminated by the LP.
how about Customs?  No, they're gone too.
Why not let the Locals check out incoming people and vehicles?
Oh no, that would violate the LP Platform.
You see, that's the Problem with OPEN BORDERS.

I also note the Bush has done NOTHING to secure our borders either. Other than continue to stroke Fox off at every opportunity.

Again with the inane hyperbole. At keast WE STILL HAVE BORDERS.  There are checkpoints, customs, radiation detectors (which would violate the spirit of the LP Platform), Border Patrol, Coast Guard, etc.
It ain't perfect, but it IS.
You can;'t defend the Libertarians, and then attack Bush for not doing enough on the issue of Border Security.
That's called being Intellectually Dishonest.

...and no one denies that there are those who would do this, if we dropped our guard. So... how is keeping the law abiding civilian populace from their rightful carrying of arms working in helping to protect the homeland? Ah... Bush is AGAINST that kind of thing, isn't he? So much for doing everything we can to "keep our garud up". We had citizen watches in WWII. Why not now?

watching for what?
Arabs?
No, that would violate the LP Platform.
How about Armed Arabs?
Not, that would be perfectly acceptable in the LP Platform.

Please junior, My education is hardly lacking.   Your knowledge of history and your own Party's Platform IS lacking. Your reading comprehension skills aside, your knowledge of anything is severly lacking. Including historical precedent.

Prove that.  Demonstrate where I've shown ignorance of history.
I've CLEARLY pointed out your deficits in that department.

Call me "junior" to my face sometime. Please.

Ahhh, the cherry on the Cake.
The Keyboard Kommando Threat.

Always the sign of someone who deserves the moniker:  "junior".

Quoted: Actually, the Founders warned against legislation from the bench. That is why they added in impeachment proceedings. Even the USSC is not immune from that. The malfeasance our current courts are perptrating would have had the Fouders marching on Washington. The argument could be made that we have fallen far from the ideal.

No, the impeachment process was put there by the founders to protect us from corrupt judges.  

The only time in US history when a Supreme Court Justice (Samuel Chase) was impeached because of his supposed unconstitutional rulings, the Senate refused to convict.

Quoted: Agreed - 100%. A very reasonable response, IMHO.  But how many USSC Justices have been impeached and removed in our nation's history?  The reality is that "legislation from the bench" will continue and nobody is going to be impeached for that.  Which of the two candidates in contention (yes, there are only two) is more likely to appoint a strict constructionist, and which is more likely to appoint a leftist federal judge to whom "judicial activism" is already second nature? In a perfect world, this would not be an issue - but like you said,  this world is far from perfect...

13 Federal Judges. Only one on the USSC if I remember correctly. Actually, there are three candidates currently on the ballot that would nominate strict constructionists to the USSC. Peroutka, Badnarik, and the one I'm voting for (for those who keep missing it) Bush. The only one I'm not 100% sure of on his judicial choices is Bush. The other two are pretty much Constitutional hardliners 9despite out of conext quoting of their parties platforms by rank amatures) that would probably advocate an Amendment instituting the Death Penalty for violation of the Oath of Office.

Can't get much better than that. I'm settling for Bush because of the "lesser of two certain evils" principle. While some feel this is a falacious argument, it none the less has a LOT of historical precedent to back it up. It took some rather radical circumstances for the then Third Party Republicans to over come the Whigs. It'll be the same for todays party structures.

Check out the RLC. The real conservaitves in the Republican Party.

Quoted: Medicare.

Early statistics are showing FEW people actually want the coverage. They already have better plans. While I'm against ANY socialist program, Bush actually managed to de-fang the issue, take it away from the Dems, and beat them senseless with it, without actually spending that much money. THIS is why they say making legislation is like making sausage...

More Socialist Security.

Actually, the Repubs are pushing the agenda to privatize part of SS. So youa re factually all wet on this.

More open boarders and workers permits.

Not happy about that either.

Massive expansion of the government.

Now you are repeating yourself.



Now, compare Bush to Kerry on

Guns

Tax cuts

Soverignty

The UN

Social security

Minimum wage

Defense

The military

Health care

Tort reform

The environment

Business environment

States rights

I could go on and on and on and on and on and on.

But you got your head so far up your @$$ on this you can't see the ONLY choice is EITHER Bush OR Kerry. With Kerry you get HARDCORE socialism. With Bush you get a semi-conservative position on the MINIMUM 13 issues I listed above(and questionable policy on three issues you listed.)

Its EITHER / OR.

Support Bush, or get harcore socialism. Stop living in a fantasy world where this is NOT the choice.

Quoted: Quoted: Agreed - 100%. A very reasonable response, IMHO.  But how many USSC Justices have been impeached and removed in our nation's history?  The reality is that "legislation from the bench" will continue and nobody is going to be impeached for that.  Which of the two candidates in contention (yes, there are only two) is more likely to appoint a strict constructionist, and which is more likely to appoint a leftist federal judge to whom "judicial activism" is already second nature? In a perfect world, this would not be an issue - but like you said,  this world is far from perfect... 13 Federal Judges. Only one on the USSC if I remember correctly. Actually, there are three candidates currently on the ballot that would nominate strict constructionists to the USSC. Peroutka, Badnarik, and the one I'm voting for (for those who keep missing it) Bush. The only one I'm not 100% sure of on his judicial choices is Bush. The other two are pretty much Constitutional hardliners 9despite out of conext quoting of their parties platforms by rank amatures) that would probably advocate an Amendment instituting the Death Penalty for violation of the Oath of Office. Can't get much better than that. I'm settling for Bush because of the "lesser of two certain evils" principle. While some feel this is a falacious argument, it none the less has a LOT of historical precedent to back it up. It took some rather radical circumstances for the then Third Party Republicans to over come the Whigs. It'll be the same for todays party structures. Check out the RLC. The real conservaitves in the Republican Party.

Michael Badnarik has such a screwed up understanding of the Constitution. How in heavens name do you expect him to appoint "Strict Constructionists" to the bench? The man called for requiring all members of Congress take his "special" course on the Constitution (a clear violation of the separation of powers), and then take a second oath of office (nowhere provided for in the Constitution). He also refuses to pay federal income taxes, despite a constitutional AMENDMENT authorizing it. He is a class "A" fruitcake.

Quoted: Quoted: Libertarian Platform: the military... "Members of the military should have the same right to quit their jobs as other persons. We recommend the repeal of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the recognition and equal protection of the rights of armed forces members. " Oddly, that referes to the DRAFT not voluntary service. Idiot.

Show me where it says "not voluntary service", and I'll send you $100.
If you can't do that, maybe it's YOU who is the "idiot".

And that little bit about "We recommend the repeal of the Uniform Code of Military Justice ..." What does that have to do with the draft?

Jesus.
You don't even understand your own party's platform.
What a rube.

Libertarian Platform: Immigration... "We call for the elimination of all restrictions on immigration, the abolition of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Border Patrol, and a declaration of full amnesty for all people who have entered the country illegally. " Which Bush agrees with.

That's a not true. Bush doesn't support "the elimination of all restrictions on immigration, the abolition of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Border Patrol".  The idea of "amnesty" though ill conceived, is one of registration.

I, however, don't care who comes here as long as they follow the rules to get here. No welfare for illegals like Bush is pushing though.

That's also not true.
Bush isn't "pushing though" "welfare for for illegals".  If he is, show me proof.
If you can't, you're a "teller of untruths".

Libertarian Platform: One World... "We look forward to an era in which American citizens and foreigners can travel anywhere in the world without a passport. We aim to restore a world in which there are no passports, visas or other papers required to cross borders. " Like what the EU set up under the UN and Bush is pushing now with his North American Trade Zone.

More lies.
You're collapsing.
Prove this, or shut up.

[Librtarian Platform: Military poawer... "U.S. weapons of indiscriminate mass destruction should be replaced with smaller weapons, aimed solely at military targets and not designed or targeted to kill millions of civilians. We call for the replacement of nuclear war fighting policies with a policy of developing cost-effective defensive systems. Accordingly, we oppose any future agreement which would prevent defensive systems on U.S. territory or in Earth orbit." "We call for the withdrawal of all American military personnel stationed abroad, including the countries of NATO Europe, Japan, the Philippines, Central America and South Korea. There is no current or foreseeable risk of any conventional military attack on the American people, particularly from long distances. We call for the withdrawal of the U.S. from commitments to engage in war on behalf of other governments and for abandonment of doctrines supporting military intervention such as the Monroe Doctrine." Actually, a lot of Republicans hold similar views on bringing our Troops home. They are unwanted where they are. Oddly enough, nothing in the LP platform would prevent the US from BUYING land in another country and setting up a base there. Preferable to today where we get called in every time the UN steps on its dick.

Yes it does.
Good God.
Read your own Platform.
It's quite clear in its intent, that such a scheme wouldn't be acceptable.

And last but not least, hubris: Yours? [Librtarian Platform: Insanity... "We call upon all the world's governments to fully implement the principles and prescriptions contained in this platform and thereby usher in a new age of international harmony based upon the universal reign of liberty." So you oppose people being free from oppressive governments?

Not at all, I just happen to believe that the way to help people to be free from oppressive governments, will probably take a bit more effort than just suggesting they all become Libertarians.
In my opinion, that's the most ridiculous thing I've ever read.
pathetic, as well.

You don't think we should try to spread freedom to every country?

Now who sounds like an Imperialist?

I'd prefer to do it with out industry and capitalism being our embassadors to the world. But you have already made it abundantly clear that you don't like free-market capitalism.

Liar.
Name one thing I've said, that indicates a dislike for free-market capitalism.
Name it.
Quote me.

These policies would spell disaster for our country. If you disagree, that's just because you are SO enamored of their GUN policies, that you won't look at the rest of it. Or you're an idiot. ANY candidate who supports the Libertarian Platform is just too STUPID to deserve election. Anyone who supports such a candidate.....well, you do the math. So now you are saying I'm an idiot for wanting to vote for Bush?

A good indicator of when someone is failing miserably in a debate, is when they constantly resort to the use of:
"So now you are saying I'm..."
...and phrases like that.
Not up to actually addressing my real pioints, you create weak strawmen, and the handily knock them down.
Pitiful.

You may be right, but I really like the fact that he is killing our enemies in their country instead of ours. You sure I still can't vote for Bush? Moron...

i don't care who you vote for.
I'll just be glad if anyone who has ever considered voting Libertarian, reads this thread.

The way you comport yourself, your weak grasp of the issues, and your overall lack of class, makes you an ideal ambassador for the Libertarian Party.
keep up the good work.

Quoted: ... Actually, there are three candidates currently on the ballot that would nominate strict constructionists to the USSC. Peroutka, Badnarik, and the one I'm voting for (for those who keep missing it) Bush.

I didn't say "on the ballot" - I said "in contention" and meant (I guess I should have spelled it out) "having a snowball's chance of winning."  But you aren't slow - you knew what I meant.

The only one I'm not 100% sure of on his judicial choices is Bush. The other two are pretty much Constitutional hardliners despite out of conext quoting of their parties platforms by rank amatures) that would probably advocate an Amendment instituting the Death Penalty for violation of the Oath of Office.

Nobody knows for sure whom he will appoint or, more imortantly, whom he can get through confirmation.  But I can tell you that I was impressed with his recess appointment of Bill Pryor, our former AG and a personal friend.  They don't come much more conservative - nor any finer, IMHO.  If that is an example of the type of jurist he will appoint, I am satisfied.

Can't get much better than that. I'm settling for Bush because of the "lesser of two certain evils" principle. While some feel this is a falacious argument, it none the less has a LOT of historical precedent to back it up. It took some rather radical circumstances for the then Third Party Republicans to over come the Whigs. It'll be the same for todays party structures.

Won't happen in our lifetimes, if ever.  Nevertheless, I will thank you for your Bush vote & wish you well - it sounds like we would have more in common than not.  (Except for that whole "hippie pot-head anarchist" thing... [j/k])

Quoted: What a dick. All I did was quote you and respond at the bottom, period. Then you fuck it all up and blame someone else. I imagine that that's a running theme in your pathetic life, huh?

So you weren't the one that put all that shitty red font in there?

So what? You still support the LP. You can't just pretend that THAT PART of their platform doesn't exist. It does, and it's STUPID.

Yer' daft. I haven't paid dues to the LP since 2002. Get a grip.

Again, so what? Good for you. You're voting for Bush. So why spend so much time defending the Libertarian Party? I could care less who YOU vote for. Vote for kerry.  That you are voting for Bush doesn't innoculate you from being an idiot.

It sure isn't doing you much good that is for goddamn sure.

So you read Ayn Rand and found it to be profound. Congratulations.  That makes you a rare breed. I bet you even filled out the little card in the back. Good for you. What a joke.

Rand. Smith. Plato. Aristotle. Coulter. Savage. O'Neil. Washington. Paine. Jefferson. Too many others to list. You, on the other hand, obviously stopped when you hit the Beetle Bailey part and never bothered to explore further.

Hmmm... Didn't someone mention Hyperbole before? Oh yes, that was YOU. Well, you ARE well versed.

Acknowledgement from ones peers is admirable. Too bad you don't rise to that level. The historical precedents are there. The current "hate America first " sentiment around the world is partially because of us acting as the UN's butt boys. Bring the troops home. Put 'em on the border.

Defense in depth does not equal "world police", sorry.

You read that in a Soldier of Fortune Magazine and now it is gospel to you isn't it? We can project force anywhere in the world in a matter of hours. All from within the US. How does stranding a bunch of our best fighters 4000 miles from home help in any way shape or form? As someone who served 21 months in Japan, I've got some small incite here.

Clearly you've never served a DAY in the military (if you have, your lack of knowledge on these matters in unforgiveable)

Nice way to insult a Marine jackass. '88-'94. Fuck you pal.

You're telling ME to read "some history". After that? My God. What possible bearing does the case of the Barbary Pirates have to do with the threat we face today.

Er... let me see here... Nationless terrorists attacking us maybe? SMall. MObile. Deadly forces that can cause more dissruption in out lives than the numbers would otherwise suggest they could? Naw... no precedent there at all. Idiot.

NOT TO MENTION, if you actually knew your history, you'd see the irony of even mentioning that event as a dfense of the LP Platform. But I don't have time to school you.

You are right on that last part. You obviously are late for your next class. Better run along before your teach gets pissed at you.

Oh, and who would employ this technology at our border? The Border Patrol?  No, they've been eliminated by the LP. how about Customs?  No, they're gone too. Why not let the Locals check out incoming people and vehicles? Oh no, that would violate the LP Platform. You see, that's the Problem with OPEN BORDERS.

Maintaining our borders is one of my displeasure points with the LP. Goddamn! How many times do I have to tell you the same fucking thing before it sinks in?

Again with the inane hyperbole. At keast WE STILL HAVE BORDERS.  There are checkpoints, customs, radiation detectors (which would violate the spirit of the LP Platform), Border Patrol, Coast Guard, etc. It ain't perfect, but it IS. You can;'t defend the Libertarians, and then attack Bush for not doing enough on the issue of Border Security. That's called being Intellectually Dishonest.

In case you missed it fuck-nut, I wasn't defending their position.

watching for what? Arabs? No, that would violate the LP Platform. How about Armed Arabs? Not, that would be perfectly acceptable in the LP Platform.

I'm done with you. You are obviously too stupid to read what I've already posted. Consdier this my last post to you. Maybe if you fucking grow up a bit and get over your hatred of anyone espousing more freedom than you think people should be allowed, we can try it again.

I'm not holding out a lot of hope on that one.

Quoted: ...  Why not come on board and bring some of those libertarian values into our fold and work toward them being adopted by a party that can win, can hold office and can effect a change?

Two out of three ain't bad.

Quoted: Show me where it says "not voluntary service", and I'll send you $100. If you can't do that, maybe it's YOU who is the "idiot".

Too juicy. Can't pass this one up. This is the FULL text of your link on the military.

Conscription and the Military
The Issue: We oppose any form of national service, including conscription into the military, a compulsory youth labor program, or any other kind of coerced social program.

The Principle: Impressment of individuals into the armed forces is involuntary servitude.

Solutions: Recognizing that registration is the first step toward full conscription, we oppose all attempts at compulsory registration of any person and all schemes for automatic registration through government invasions of the privacy of school, motor vehicle, or other records. We call for the abolition of the still-functioning elements of the Selective Service System. We call for the destruction of all files in computer-readable or hard-copy form compiled by the Selective Service System. We oppose adding women to the pool of those eligible for and subject to the draft, not because we think that as a rule women are unfit for combat, but because we believe that this step enlarges the number of people subjected to government tyranny.

Transitional Action: We call for the immediate and unconditional exoneration of all who have been accused or convicted of draft evasion, desertion from the military in cases of conscription or fraud, and other acts of resistance to such transgressions as imperialistic wars and aggressive acts of the military. Members of the military should have the same right to quit their jobs as other persons.

We call for the end of the Defense Department practice of discharging armed forces personnel for homosexual conduct. We further call for retraction of all less-than-honorable discharges previously assigned for such reasons and deletion of such information from military personnel files. We recommend the repeal of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the recognition and equal protection of the rights of armed forces members. This will thereby promote morale, dignity, and a sense of justice within the military.

Of which, you only excerpted the part you wanted to use in your argument.

IM me and I'll send you my address for you to mail that check to.

Revdeadcorpse, you want to know where this is going? Nowhere. Neither the republicans or dems have anything of substance in this race. They can only attack. It is sad watching this last slide down into oblivion. I defend the undefensible simply because the statist bunch doesn't have any else left in their bag of tricks but to attack. It is kind of like screaming at a rapid dog, it doesn't help and it may get you bit. That is the scariest thing-knowing that these guys would cheer if some of rumsfields dream came true.

Quoted: Revdeadcorpse, you want to know where this is going? Nowhere. Neither the republicans or dems have anything of substance in this race. They can only attack. It is sad watching this last slide down into oblivion. I defend the undefensible simply because the statist bunch doesn't have any else left in their bag of tricks but to attack. It is kind of like screaming at a rapid dog, it doesn't help and it may get you bit. That is the scariest thing-knowing that these guys would cheer if some of rumsfields dream came true.

I'm voting for Bush because Badnarik is deadly wrong on some of these issues. What is sad to me is on the areas where the LP and Republicans (at least those Republicans who have read the Constitution) should be able to agree. Most notably free market economics, speech, religion, and self defense, and property Rights. To get attacked by those supposedly on your side for issues you don't actually support is absurd in the extreme.

Bush hasn't been nearly as "attack" oriented as the Dims. That is ALL I have gotten from Kerry's team. Even Democrast I've talked to aren't certain of what his actual stances really are. I think Bush has actually done a much better job shopping out his parties platform than he did in his first run for office. Just because I don't agree with some of the more socialist aspects of it is not enough to detract from some of the larger issues.

Maybe next time some of the old guard LP'ers will get Boortz on the ticket for '08. Now that would be entertainment.

Quoted: Quoted: What a dick. All I did was quote you and respond at the bottom, period. Then you fuck it all up and blame someone else. I imagine that that's a running theme in your pathetic life, huh? So you weren't the one that put all that shitty red font in there?

Pull yourself together.

There is no red font in that post.

So what? You still support the LP. You can't just pretend that THAT PART of their platform doesn't exist. It does, and it's STUPID. Yer' daft. I haven't paid dues to the LP since 2002. Get a grip.

Advocacy is advocacy.

So two years ago, you supported that Platform.
No one gets smart that quickly.

Again, so what? Good for you. You're voting for Bush. So why spend so much time defending the Libertarian Party? I could care less who YOU vote for. Vote for kerry.  That you are voting for Bush doesn't innoculate you from being an idiot. It sure isn't doing you much good that is for goddamn sure.

Ooh, nice comeback.

Pathetic.

So you read Ayn Rand and found it to be profound. Congratulations.  That makes you a rare breed. I bet you even filled out the little card in the back. Good for you. What a joke. Rand. Smith. Plato. Aristotle. Coulter. Savage. O'Neil. Washington. Paine. Jefferson. Too many others to list. You, on the other hand, obviously stopped when you hit the Beetle Bailey part and never bothered to explore further.

Based on what you've said, and how you've said it, I'm going to call Bullshit.

I bet I could ask you some of the most basic questions regarding Aristotle and Plato, and you wouldn't have a clue.  In fact, I'll place wager....

Hmmm... Didn't someone mention Hyperbole before? Oh yes, that was YOU. Well, you ARE well versed. Acknowledgement from ones peers is admirable. Too bad you don't rise to that level. The historical precedents are there. The current "hate America first " sentiment around the world is partially because of us acting as the UN's butt boys. Bring the troops home. Put 'em on the border.

So the Libertarian Philosophy behind "the elimination of all restrictions on immigration, the abolition of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Border Patrol" would be supportive of such an act?
Yeah, you're a real philosopher.  You read Plato and Aristotle.
Uh huh.

Pull Arsitotle's "Rhetoric" off your shelf there.  Also Plato's "On Rhetoric and Poetry" and see what they have to say about your inconsistancy.

Quiz: Which would find your lack of rhetorical consistancy to be objectionable?

Defense in depth does not equal "world police", sorry. You read that in a Soldier of Fortune Magazine and now it is gospel to you isn't it? We can project force anywhere in the world in a matter of hours. All from within the US. How does stranding a bunch of our best fighters 4000 miles from home help in any way shape or form? As someone who served 21 months in Japan, I've got some small incite here.

Actually, 19 years (so far) of service.  USMC.  Been to Japan more times than I can count.  Well alright, that's not true.  Been there 6 times.  

Clearly you've never served a DAY in the military (if you have, your lack of knowledge on these matters in unforgiveable) Nice way to insult a Marine jackass. '88-'94. Fuck you pal.

Semper fi, you jackass .
And YES, I suppose I'm in just the right position to be able to judge whether your knowledge is up to par.
You'd recieve some very low Proficiency marks from me, because of your lack of knowledge.

You're telling ME to read "some history". After that? My God. What possible bearing does the case of the Barbary Pirates have to do with the threat we face today. Er... let me see here... Nationless terrorists attacking us maybe? SMall. MObile. Deadly forces that can cause more dissruption in out lives than the numbers would otherwise suggest they could? Naw... no precedent there at all. Idiot.

Nationless?

God, how can a Marine not know this?
We first signed a "treaty" with Morrocco, so that THEY would stop the piracy.
(a treaty with a non-nation?)
The "Barbary Nations" also had treaties with European nations.
Nationless?

Pitiful.

NOT TO MENTION, if you actually knew your history, you'd see the irony of even mentioning that event as a dfense of the LP Platform. But I don't have time to school you. You are right on that last part. You obviously are late for your next class. Better run along before your teach gets pissed at you.

I can't believe a Marine could be so ignorant of his own Corp's history.
Those Po/Cons are plummetting.

Oh, and who would employ this technology at our border? The Border Patrol?  No, they've been eliminated by the LP. how about Customs?  No, they're gone too. Why not let the Locals check out incoming people and vehicles? Oh no, that would violate the LP Platform. You see, that's the Problem with OPEN BORDERS. Maintaining our borders is one of my displeasure points with the LP. Goddamn! How many times do I have to tell you the same fucking thing before it sinks in?

You can't have it both ways. You can't cherry pick their platform.
Supporting it is either stupid, or smart.
take your pick.

Again with the inane hyperbole. At last WE STILL HAVE BORDERS.  There are checkpoints, customs, radiation detectors (which would violate the spirit of the LP Platform), Border Patrol, Coast Guard, etc. It ain't perfect, but it IS. You can't defend the Libertarians, and then attack Bush for not doing enough on the issue of Border Security. That's called being Intellectually Dishonest. In case you missed it fuck-nut, I wasn't defending their position. watching for what? Arabs? No, that would violate the LP Platform. How about Armed Arabs? Not, that would be perfectly acceptable in the LP Platform. I'm done with you. You are obviously too stupid to read what I've already posted. Consdier this my last post to you. Maybe if you fucking grow up a bit and get over your hatred of anyone espousing more freedom than you think people should be allowed, we can try it again.

"hatred of anyone espousing more freedom than you think people should be allowed"

You're high.

Quoted: You're high.

And you owe me $100. Tell you what... pick up a stripped Cav Arms Mark II lower for me and we'll call it even. Coyote Brown please. Thanks....

Quoted: Revdeadcorpse, you want to know where this is going? Nowhere. Neither the republicans or dems have anything of substance in this race. .

You blind.

Repub agenda -

Taxes - tax cuts based on WHO PAYS TAXES

Social security - partial privatization, reversing 100 years of socialism

Guns - declared a 2A right of the people by Bush DoJ, AWB killed.

Environment - use don't abuse. Stop neo-Marxist envirowhackoes

States rights - FIRMLY beleives in them

Tort reform - STRONGLY beleives in it

Judicial activism - working to stop it

minimum wage - hasn't raised it. No plans to

The UN - gave the UN the biggest poke in the eye it has ever received.

American sovereignty - ACTIVELY exercised it.

Military - you think the guys with boots on the ground agree with you there is little  difference between Ketry and Bush?? Don't be an idiot.

If you don't see these as differances of "substance" than you are a Marxist yourself.

Quoted: Quoted: Revdeadcorpse, you want to know where this is going? Nowhere. Neither the republicans or dems have anything of substance in this race. . YOu blind. Repub agenda - Taxes - tax cuts based on WHO PAYS TAXES Social security - partial provatization, reversing 100 years of socialism Guns - declared a 2A right of the people by Bush DoJ, AWB killed. Environment - use don't abuse. Stop neo-Marxist envirowhackoes States rights - FIRMLY beleives in them Tort reform - STRONGLY beleives in it Judicial activism - working to stop it minimum wage - hasn't raised it. No plans to The UN - gave the UN the biggest poke in the eye it has ever received. American sovereignty - ACTIVELY exercised it. Military - you think the guys with boots on the ground agree with you there is little  difference between Ketry and Bush?? Don't be an idiot. If you don't see these as differances of "substance" than you are a Marxist yourself.

That is another reason for me to vote for Bush. Although Badnarik is on the same page with this one...

The NRST. That would truly do more wonders for our economy than our last six tax cuts combined.

Quoted: Quoted: You're high. And you owe me $100. Tell you what... pick up a stripped Cav Arms Mark II lower for me and we'll call it even. Coyote Brown please. Thanks....

No kidding, you should really erase that post.
It's embarrassing that you can't comprehend it.

Quoted: Quoted: Show me where it says "not voluntary service", and I'll send you $100. If you can't do that, maybe it's YOU who is the "idiot". Too juicy. Can't pass this one up. This is the FULL text of your link on the military. Conscription and the Military The Issue: We oppose any form of national service, including conscription into the military, a compulsory youth labor program, or any other kind of coerced social program. The Principle: Impressment of individuals into the armed forces is involuntary servitude. Solutions: Recognizing that registration is the first step toward full conscription, we oppose all attempts at compulsory registration of any person and all schemes for automatic registration through government invasions of the privacy of school, motor vehicle, or other records. We call for the abolition of the still-functioning elements of the Selective Service System. We call for the destruction of all files in computer-readable or hard-copy form compiled by the Selective Service System. We oppose adding women to the pool of those eligible for and subject to the draft, not because we think that as a rule women are unfit for combat, but because we believe that this step enlarges the number of people subjected to government tyranny. Transitional Action: We call for the immediate and unconditional exoneration of all who have been accused or convicted of draft evasion, desertion from the military in cases of conscription or fraud, and other acts of resistance to such transgressions as imperialistic wars and aggressive acts of the military. Members of the military should have the same right to quit their jobs as other persons. We call for the end of the Defense Department practice of discharging armed forces personnel for homosexual conduct. We further call for retraction of all less-than-honorable discharges previously assigned for such reasons and deletion of such information from military personnel files. We recommend the repeal of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the recognition and equal protection of the rights of armed forces members. This will thereby promote morale, dignity, and a sense of justice within the military. Of which, you only excerpted the part you wanted to use in your argument. IM me and I'll send you my address for you to mail that check to.

Can't you read?
That isn't JUST about Conscription. The "the repeal of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the recognition and equal protection of the rights of armed forces members" is not just meant for Draftees.

It's clear that this passage is NOT just about Conscription.

"Members of the military should have the same right to quit their jobs as other persons"
No where does it say "Draftees".
The phrase "Members of the military" makes it all too plain, that it is NOT just referring to Draftees.

Frankly, it's shocking that you can't comprehend something as basic as this.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Show me where it says "not voluntary service", and I'll send you $100. If you can't do that, maybe it's YOU who is the "idiot". Too juicy. Can't pass this one up. This is the FULL text of your link on the military. Conscription and the Military The Issue: We oppose any form of national service, including conscription into the military, a compulsory youth labor program, or any other kind of coerced social program. The Principle: Impressment of individuals into the armed forces is involuntary servitude. Solutions: Recognizing that registration is the first step toward full conscription, we oppose all attempts at compulsory registration of any person and all schemes for automatic registration through government invasions of the privacy of school, motor vehicle, or other records. We call for the abolition of the still-functioning elements of the Selective Service System. We call for the destruction of all files in computer-readable or hard-copy form compiled by the Selective Service System. We oppose adding women to the pool of those eligible for and subject to the draft, not because we think that as a rule women are unfit for combat, but because we believe that this step enlarges the number of people subjected to government tyranny. Transitional Action: We call for the immediate and unconditional exoneration of all who have been accused or convicted of draft evasion, desertion from the military in cases of conscription or fraud, and other acts of resistance to such transgressions as imperialistic wars and aggressive acts of the military. Members of the military should have the same right to quit their jobs as other persons. We call for the end of the Defense Department practice of discharging armed forces personnel for homosexual conduct. We further call for retraction of all less-than-honorable discharges previously assigned for such reasons and deletion of such information from military personnel files. We recommend the repeal of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the recognition and equal protection of the rights of armed forces members. This will thereby promote morale, dignity, and a sense of justice within the military. Of which, you only excerpted the part you wanted to use in your argument. IM me and I'll send you my address for you to mail that check to. Can't you read? That isn't JUST about Conscription. The "the repeal of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the recognition and equal protection of the rights of armed forces members" is not just meant for Draftees. It's clear that this passage is NOT just about Conscription. "Members of the military should have the same right to quit their jobs as other persons" No where does it say "Draftees". The phrase "Members of the military" makes it all too plain, that it is NOT just referring to Draftees. Frankly, it's shocking that you can't comprehend something as basic as this.

What isn't shocking is your ignorance of things like context. So I take it you are welshing on this one? Or do you need me to post the Webster's definitions for "conscription" and "draft"?

I am Jack's complete lack of Suprise...

Hey Cpl Genius,

I'll make it simple for you.

The Libertarian Party is 100% against the Draft, and ANY form of Conscription, right?

Okay, that being the case.
All of the recommendations they put forth, pertain to those who are IN the military.
So, IF the Libertarian Party has no draft, why would they make regulations that allow draftees to quit?
In the Libertarian Military THERE ARE NO DRAFTEES.

Get it?

If you still don't get it, I'll up the bet to $200, we'll take it to the Bear Pit, and let Ed Sr, decide.

Quoted: Hey Cpl Genius, I'll make it simple for you. The Libertarian Party is 100% against the Draft, and ANY form of Conscription, right? Okay, that being the case. All of the recommendations they put forth, pertain to those who are IN the military. So, IF the Libertarian Party has no draft, why would they make regulations that allow draftees to quit? Get it? If you still don't get it, I'll up the bet to $200, we'll take it to the Bear Pit, and let Ed Sr, decide.

It all comes down to Consent. If you VOLUNTEER, then part of the enlistment contract is your agreement to abide by the UCMJ. I can check mine later and scan in the applicable language later if you need it. The Oath should suffice though.

In a Draft, you are not given a CHOICE. Your consent is not considered. In that case, you are little better than a slave to the State. Which is one of the reasons I volunteered. I believed enough in our Country and our Constitution to swear the oath and put my freedoms on hold. I KNEW going in that my life was on the line. I made that choice freely.

Massive difference. "Get it"?

Heading for home. Dispite my activity here, its been a long work day as well.

Later all....

Quoted: Quoted: Hey Cpl Genius, I'll make it simple for you. The Libertarian Party is 100% against the Draft, and ANY form of Conscription, right? Okay, that being the case. All of the recommendations they put forth, pertain to those who are IN the military. So, IF the Libertarian Party has no draft, why would they make regulations that allow draftees to quit? Get it? If you still don't get it, I'll up the bet to $200, we'll take it to the Bear Pit, and let Ed Sr, decide. It all comes down to Consent. If you VOLUNTEER, then part of the enlistment contract is your agreement to abide by the UCMJ. I can check mine later and scan in the applicable language later if you need it. The Oath should suffice though. In a Draft, you are not given a CHOICE. Your consent is not considered. In that case, you are little better than a slave to the State. Which is one of the reasons I volunteered. I believed enough in our Country and our Constitution to swear the oath and put my freedoms on hold. I KNEW going in that my life was on the line. I made that choice freely. Massive difference. "Get it"?

Yes, but that's not what our wager concerns.

You claimed that these clauses only pertained to draftees.
God....

Why do I bother?


Good night genius.

Quoted: Quoted: Libertarian Platform: the military... "Members of the military should have the same right to quit their jobs as other persons. We recommend the repeal of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the recognition and equal protection of the rights of armed forces members. " Oddly, that referes to the DRAFT not voluntary service. Idiot.

No, it referrs to abolishing enlistment contracts, making military service at-will...

Since there is no draft, it cannot referr to the draft...

Libertarian Platform: Immigration... "We call for the elimination of all restrictions on immigration, the abolition of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Border Patrol, and a declaration of full amnesty for all people who have entered the country illegally. " Which Bush agrees with. I, however, don't care who comes here as long as they follow the rules to get here. No welfare for illegals like Bush is pushing though.

Bush is advoacting NO SUCH THING. He is advocating work visas for Mexicans, so they can come here legally to work & will have to pay income & social security tax.

Libertarian Platform: One World... "We look forward to an era in which American citizens and foreigners can travel anywhere in the world without a passport. We aim to restore a world in which there are no passports, visas or other papers required to cross borders. " Like what the EU set up under the UN and Bush is pushing now with his North American Trade Zone.

NATZ is for corporate interests, not individual citizens.

[Librtarian Platform: Military poawer... "U.S. weapons of indiscriminate mass destruction should be replaced with smaller weapons, aimed solely at military targets and not designed or targeted to kill millions of civilians. We call for the replacement of nuclear war fighting policies with a policy of developing cost-effective defensive systems. Accordingly, we oppose any future agreement which would prevent defensive systems on U.S. territory or in Earth orbit." "We call for the withdrawal of all American military personnel stationed abroad, including the countries of NATO Europe, Japan, the Philippines, Central America and South Korea. There is no current or foreseeable risk of any conventional military attack on the American people, particularly from long distances. We call for the withdrawal of the U.S. from commitments to engage in war on behalf of other governments and for abandonment of doctrines supporting military intervention such as the Monroe Doctrine." Actually, a lot of Republicans hold similar views on bringing our Troops home. They are unwanted where they are. Oddly enough, nothing in the LP platform would prevent the US from BUYING land in another country and setting up a base there. Preferable to today where we get called in every time the UN steps on its dick.

Very few Republicans hold this dated, stupid, isolationist view that has killed thousands of US servicemen because we refused to strike first...

Those that do are quickly finding that they are not welcome in the Party...

We NEED foreign deployments to maintain the power that makes an attack on our country unthinkable... Further, we NEED to be able to protect US economic interests abroad, as we NEED products & resources from other parts of the world and will NEVER be self sufficient. We are too large, we need an economic empire of sorts to avoid collapsing under our own weight...

And last but not least, hubris: Yours?

[Librtarian Platform: Insanity... "We call upon all the world's governments to fully implement the principles and prescriptions contained in this platform and thereby usher in a new age of international harmony based upon the universal reign of liberty." So you oppose people being free from oppressive governments? You don't think we should try to spread freedom to every country? I'd prefer to do it with out industry and capitalism being our embassadors to the world. But you have already made it abundantly clear that you don't like free-market capitalism.

That piece is right out of marxisim, except the LP tries to achieve universal anarchisim instead of universal socialisim...

These policies would spell disaster for our country. If you disagree, that's just because you are SO enamored of their GUN policies, that you won't look at the rest of it. Or you're an idiot. ANY candidate who supports the Libertarian Platform is just too STUPID to deserve election. Anyone who supports such a candidate.....well, you do the math. So now you are saying I'm an idiot for wanting to vote for Bush? You may be right, but I really like the fact that he is killing our enemies in their country instead of ours. You sure I still can't vote for Bush? Moron...

No, C is calling you an idiot for supporting Libertarianisim as a concept. I partially concurr, as you seem to have limited the idiocy enough to recognize that there is one viable choice in this election, and he has a (R) after his name

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Yeah, the point is the LIBERTARIAN PARTY has been HIJACKED by LIBERAL HIPPIE ANARCHISTS!!! I used to consider myself a Libertarian, but once they started going for legalization of drugs, I saw the writing on the wall... The hippies, fed up with being ignored by the Dems, were taking over... The LP became the party of 'Peace, Pot & No Laws'... Pathetic... Er... I'm all for decriminalization. There is no Constitutional authority for the FedGov to wage a "War on Drugs". Try again: Commerce Clause & General Welfare Clause... Another example of 'Creative Constitution Reading' by Libertarians Asset Forfeiture laws are a travesty and encourage corruption. And the majority of these problems occurr at the STATE & LOCAL level Leave such things to the States were it belongs. So they can screw them up, like they have gun control... Remember, the most oppressive laws in this country are STATE & LOCAL laws <snip> Dave_A, you are quite simply wrong on the "War on Drugs" issue. There is NO, repeat NO constitutional justification for the federal government criminalizing recreational drug use. The police powers (regulation of health, safety, and morals) were explicitly left by the Founders to the states. The General Welfare clause cannot be stretched to create a grant of power to the the feds when that power was left to the states. Tell me, where in the Constitution does it limit the powers that may be used by Congress to provide for the General Welfare? It does not. Once something is given to the Feds, it is 100% there, there are no partial powers While the Commerce Clause has broad reach, it has been badly abused starting with the New Deal. It has grown to mean the federal government can regulate anything once they decide it has even the smallest incidental effect on commerce. This was never the intent of the Founders, and to pretend otherwise is intellectually dishonest. Intent is irrelevant. We are talking about LAW here, so only WRITTEN WORDS matter. Drugs move in interstate and international commerce, thus the Feds may ban them....  There is no stretching needed as long as cocaine is made in South America, pot sold in the northern states is grown down south & in foreign countries, and such... Once again, there is no limit on the Commerce Clause, the power to regulate commerce is absolute. If a limit was to exist, it would be written down Always remember that every single Federal gun control law has used the Commerce Clause for its constitutional justification. Don't fall into the common trap of finding powers in the constitution that just happen to coincide with what you WISH were there. Which is what you are doing. Gun Control is an exception to the rule, as there is no 2nd Ammendment counterpart for getting high. Although with judicial activisim as it is, I wouldn't be suprised if some liberal dipshit extends Roe from abortion to pot

Quoted: Quoted: Try again: Commerce Clause & General Welfare Clause... Another example of 'Creative Constitution Reading' by Libertarians Do you always make this much of a mess of a thread? This does not account for their needing an Amendment to criminalize Alcohol during prohibition. Inventing powers under unrelated clauses is judicial activism. Same thing that gave us gun control at the national level. Thanks for playing though... The powers are there. They are not invented. Drugs are bought & sold, correct? They are produced in other countries & imported here to be sold in their final form across state lines, correct? That is interstate commerce. What else does the power to 'regulate Commerce between the states, indian tribes, and foreign nations' give you if not the power to ban commerce in certain items. Alchohol prohibition did not need to be an ammendment, that is how it was done. Asset Forfeiture laws are a travesty and encourage corruption. And the majority of these problems occurr at the STATE & LOCAL level The laws the creat the problem are all FEDERAL. Hardly... 99.99% of all criminal law is STATE law. It's not the Federal Government siezing your car if you get caught street racing in CA, or if you patronize a hooker in MI... It's not the Federal Government that busts you for cooking Meth in WI & siezes everything you may have bought... It's the state & local officials. And in many cases it's 100% justified. Leave such things to the States were it belongs. So they can screw them up, like they have gun control... Remember, the most oppressive laws in this country are STATE & LOCAL laws Only because the Constitution is ignored. Re-enforce that, like the LP wants to do, and you wouldn't have California thinking it can abrogate your Right to self defense. Unlike now, where both of the major party candidates are on record supporting different levels of gun control. The Constitution, prior to the present interpretation of the 14th, did not apply to the states Bush is a Constitutionalist like Kerry is a Gun owner. Depends on how you define Constitutionalist... He fits my definition far better than yours, but then again, you seem to like to 'insert' things that transfer powers granted the Feds to the states/people, in the name of 'freedom' that was never meant to be,  as demonstrated by your drug claim You mean passing McCain-Feingold was a Constitutional position to take? Even with its blatant limits on free speech? Even though he himself is on record as having "Constitutional questions" on it? Has he forgotten that he has an as yet un-used power called VETO? How about the medicare drug give away program? Where in the Constitution does it say the FedGov can take over whole sections of our private medical industry? Or are you in favor of "free healthcare" as well? I do not like socialist healthcare, and it was assumed that McF would be struck down - the Prez was saving political capital on a gamble that failed. Even McCain does not like what his law has become... As for Medicare & welfare in general, once again there is a clause that authorizes it if we choose to enact it. Unfortunately, that is the way it is... Does not make it a good thing, just makes it legal. Maybe you should actually READ the Constitution before you expound any more on what it says. I have, and I'm not selectively reading it, winding in the nebulous 'intent of the founders', and such all in a quest to bend the Constitution to fit some perverse view of an impotent Federal Government

Quoted: Quoted: When will the Republicans repeal the GCA 1968?  Or for that matter any law whatsoever? For a supporter of a party based on strict Constitutional interpretation, you don't seem to be showing much awareness of how the Constitution works. Laws are passed by the House and the Senate and then signed by the President. From 1960 to today, the Republicans have never been in control of all three Houses except for the last two years - and because the "control" of the Senate was a one vote margin, it was effectively meaningless in repealing any type of controversial legislation. Despite that, the Republicans repealed large sections of the 1968 GCA in 1986. They also managed to pass a law repealing some of the administrative decisions made by the Clinton Administration just this year (Tiahrt Amendment). Personally, I can think of good reasons to vote for libertarian policies, especially in a "safe" state like California; but blaming the Republicans for being unable to achieve the impossible is not one of them.

Besides, the remainder of GCA 68 has only one infringing measure left, the 'Sporting Purposes' clause... That needs to go, along with 922(o), and we will be set as far as gun laws go...

The 4473 and NICS check do not infringe on anything, as those who have felony convictions/drug offenses/etc have no rights anymore, only privledges (see 14th Ammendment, 'without due process of law')....

As long as you're not a felon, all it does is confirm that you are not one, and thus still protected by the 2nd. This is why if they cannot prove that you are disabled, they are required to give you your gun in 3 days, hoevever this rarely happens.

The FFL system is not infringing either - you can still buy whatever you want, but sellers need a license to do interstate business...

Quoted: Yes, but that's not what our wager concerns. You claimed that these clauses only pertained to draftees. God.... Why do I bother? Good night genius.

Time to start wading back in again.....

What was the title, from the LP Platform, that you posted an excerpt from? Just in case, here are the first couple lines from thier website...

Conscription and the Military
The Issue: We oppose any form of national service, including conscription into the military, a compulsory youth labor program, or any other kind of coerced social program.

The Principle: Impressment of individuals into the armed forces is involuntary servitude.

Ergo, they are fucking talking about a DRAFT. CONSCRIPTION. INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE.

This has nothing to do with voluntary contractual obligations. You fail to live up to a contract, that is FRAUD. Another libertarian No-No.

Get it yet? You claimed the LP was making a blanket statement on all contractual obligations, including the one where a person voluntarily agrees to abide by the UCMJ. That is quite obviously not their gist in that position statement. Being FORCED to abide by such restrictions as put forth in the UCMJ however IS the gist.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Yeah, the point is the LIBERTARIAN PARTY has been HIJACKED by LIBERAL HIPPIE ANARCHISTS!!! I used to consider myself a Libertarian, but once they started going for legalization of drugs, I saw the writing on the wall... The hippies, fed up with being ignored by the Dems, were taking over... The LP became the party of 'Peace, Pot & No Laws'... Pathetic... Er... I'm all for decriminalization. There is no Constitutional authority for the FedGov to wage a "War on Drugs". Try again: Commerce Clause & General Welfare Clause... Another example of 'Creative Constitution Reading' by Libertarians Asset Forfeiture laws are a travesty and encourage corruption. And the majority of these problems occurr at the STATE & LOCAL level Leave such things to the States were it belongs. So they can screw them up, like they have gun control... Remember, the most oppressive laws in this country are STATE & LOCAL laws <snip> Dave_A, you are quite simply wrong on the "War on Drugs" issue. There is NO, repeat NO constitutional justification for the federal government criminalizing recreational drug use. The police powers (regulation of health, safety, and morals) were explicitly left by the Founders to the states. The General Welfare clause cannot be stretched to create a grant of power to the the feds when that power was left to the states. Tell me, where in the Constitution does it limit the powers that may be used by Congress to provide for the General Welfare? It does not. Once something is given to the Feds, it is 100% there, there are no partial powers.Your lack of understanding of the police powers is manifest. It is obvious you have not a clue about what the police powers are, and how they were left to the states. While the Commerce Clause has broad reach, it has been badly abused starting with the New Deal. It has grown to mean the federal government can regulate anything once they decide it has even the smallest incidental effect on commerce. This was never the intent of the Founders, and to pretend otherwise is intellectually dishonest. Intent is irrelevant. We are talking about LAW here, so only WRITTEN WORDS matter. Drugs move in interstate and international commerce, thus the Feds may ban them....  There is no stretching needed as long as cocaine is made in South America, pot sold in the northern states is grown down south & in foreign countries, and such... Once again, there is no limit on the Commerce Clause, the power to regulate commerce is absolute. If a limit was to exist, it would be written downYour Constitutional ignorance is showing - AGAIN. It is a settled rule of constitutional construction that intent is important, and that courts get to intent by reading what the authors of a law or constitutional clause had to say at the time of its writing and passage. Please, I studied Constitutional Law and History at the Doctoral level. You are way out of your depth here. Always remember that every single Federal gun control law has used the Commerce Clause for its constitutional justification. Don't fall into the common trap of finding powers in the constitution that just happen to coincide with what you WISH were there. Which is what you are doing.Wrong. What I am doing is reading the Constitution as the Framers intended. You are stretching it beyond its original boundaries, as do activist judges. Gun Control is an exception to the rule, What rule? Please point out this rule. as there is no 2nd Ammendment counterpart for getting high. There is also no Constitutional grant of police powers to the federal government. Per the IX and X Amendment, these powers were left to the states. They were also clearly left to the states if you read anything written by any of the Framers. Although with judicial activisim as it is, I wouldn't be suprised if some liberal dipshit extends Roe from abortion to pot.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Libertarian Platform: the military... "Members of the military should have the same right to quit their jobs as other persons. We recommend the repeal of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the recognition and equal protection of the rights of armed forces members. " Oddly, that referes to the DRAFT not voluntary service. Idiot. No, it referrs to abolishing enlistment contracts, making military service at-will... Since there is no draft, it cannot referr to the draft... So what does "conscription", "compulsory", and "impressment" mean in your dictionary genius? Libertarian Platform: Immigration... "We call for the elimination of all restrictions on immigration, the abolition of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Border Patrol, and a declaration of full amnesty for all people who have entered the country illegally. " Which Bush agrees with. I, however, don't care who comes here as long as they follow the rules to get here. No welfare for illegals like Bush is pushing though. Bush is advoacting NO SUCH THING. He is advocating work visas for Mexicans, so they can come here legally to work & will have to pay income & social security tax. And what has Bush done to stem the tide of million coming across our southern border other than prmoise them more money and call off in-land sweeps for illegals? Besides nothing that is. Libertarian Platform: One World... "We look forward to an era in which American citizens and foreigners can travel anywhere in the world without a passport. We aim to restore a world in which there are no passports, visas or other papers required to cross borders. " Like what the EU set up under the UN and Bush is pushing now with his North American Trade Zone. NATZ is for corporate interests, not individual citizens. Which incorperates the same "Nation without Borders" trade zone that the EU is. [Librtarian Platform: Military poawer... "U.S. weapons of indiscriminate mass destruction should be replaced with smaller weapons, aimed solely at military targets and not designed or targeted to kill millions of civilians. We call for the replacement of nuclear war fighting policies with a policy of developing cost-effective defensive systems. Accordingly, we oppose any future agreement which would prevent defensive systems on U.S. territory or in Earth orbit." "We call for the withdrawal of all American military personnel stationed abroad, including the countries of NATO Europe, Japan, the Philippines, Central America and South Korea. There is no current or foreseeable risk of any conventional military attack on the American people, particularly from long distances. We call for the withdrawal of the U.S. from commitments to engage in war on behalf of other governments and for abandonment of doctrines supporting military intervention such as the Monroe Doctrine." Actually, a lot of Republicans hold similar views on bringing our Troops home. They are unwanted where they are. Oddly enough, nothing in the LP platform would prevent the US from BUYING land in another country and setting up a base there. Preferable to today where we get called in every time the UN steps on its dick. Very few Republicans hold this dated, stupid, isolationist view that has killed thousands of US servicemen because we refused to strike first... Those that do are quickly finding that they are not welcome in the Party... We NEED foreign deployments to maintain the power that makes an attack on our country unthinkable... Further, we NEED to be able to protect US economic interests abroad, as we NEED products & resources from other parts of the world and will NEVER be self sufficient. We are too large, we need an economic empire of sorts to avoid collapsing under our own weight... Never is a very long time. Trade unions, Lawyers, and and over reaching increasingly socialist government are killing our economy. A healthy economy could have re-bounded from one market segment flaggin with no problems. Bush has done some good things to keep us afloat economicly. My point is that he could have done a LOT more. Most of it without more legislation. Bush's "protectionist" steel tarrifs almost got us in serious hot water with Europe. Do you really want THEM having that much pull with our economy? I'd prefer to have them come begging to us. Not the other way around. Careful here as well. Our military is for the protection of our homeland. To fight our enemies. What you are saying is dangerously close to the liberals cry of "blood for oil". You may want to re-think that. And last but not least, hubris: Yours? [Librtarian Platform: Insanity... "We call upon all the world's governments to fully implement the principles and prescriptions contained in this platform and thereby usher in a new age of international harmony based upon the universal reign of liberty." So you oppose people being free from oppressive governments? You don't think we should try to spread freedom to every country? I'd prefer to do it with out industry and capitalism being our embassadors to the world. But you have already made it abundantly clear that you don't like free-market capitalism. That piece is right out of marxisim, except the LP tries to achieve universal anarchisim instead of universal socialisim... Marxism? How can you confuse the two? They are at complete opposite ends of the spectrum. "From each... to each..." Vs. "soveriegn indiviual... every man for himself". Anarchism, in their definition, does not mean a lack of Laws. It means a lack of centralized government and everyone agrees to and follows the law on their own free will. With the Laws pared down to just those things encompassing initiation ofr force, fruad, and theft.... you almost don't need a government to enforce them. You'd still need courts to adjudicate and a security force of some kind to help people meet their obligations. Some are a lot more utopian on this ideal than most. I'm a "minarchist". I want our government to fit back inside its Constitutional boundries and I'll be just fine with things. I do not think our fellow humans are "moral" enough to live without a government holding at least some threat of force over their heads. We are a war like race. We always will be. These policies would spell disaster for our country. If you disagree, that's just because you are SO enamored of their GUN policies, that you won't look at the rest of it. Or you're an idiot. ANY candidate who supports the Libertarian Platform is just too STUPID to deserve election. Anyone who supports such a candidate.....well, you do the math. So now you are saying I'm an idiot for wanting to vote for Bush? You may be right, but I really like the fact that he is killing our enemies in their country instead of ours. You sure I still can't vote for Bush? Moron... No, C is calling you an idiot for supporting Libertarianisim as a concept. I partially concurr, as you seem to have limited the idiocy enough to recognize that there is one viable choice in this election, and he has a (R) after his name

Libertarianism as a "concept" is what the Founders laid out. Sovereign individuals freely engaging in commerce and other associations without government interference. A strictly LIMITED government with unheard of checks and balances. Most of those same checks and balances have long since been side stepped and are what is fueling the phenomenal growth of our government. Even under a Republican administration. Others have argued that the R's don't have "enough" of a margin. You have a majority in the House, the Senate, the Executive, and even supposedly the USSC. How much more do you need? Or are not all Republicans considered equal in the conservatism? Would you vote for Olympia Snowe just because of the R after her name? How about John McCain? That guy consults the Red and Blue labels on the backs of his underwear in the morning to see which positions he will advocate for the day.

Give us REAL conservative choices, and we wouldn't need to HAVE conversations like this one. Sad that one of the most "conservative" people currently stumping for Bush is a DEMOCRAT. Zell Miller.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Yeah, the point is the LIBERTARIAN PARTY has been HIJACKED by LIBERAL HIPPIE ANARCHISTS!!! I used to consider myself a Libertarian, but once they started going for legalization of drugs, I saw the writing on the wall... The hippies, fed up with being ignored by the Dems, were taking over... The LP became the party of 'Peace, Pot & No Laws'... Pathetic... Er... I'm all for decriminalization. There is no Constitutional authority for the FedGov to wage a "War on Drugs". Try again: Commerce Clause & General Welfare Clause... Another example of 'Creative Constitution Reading' by Libertarians Asset Forfeiture laws are a travesty and encourage corruption. And the majority of these problems occurr at the STATE & LOCAL level Leave such things to the States were it belongs. So they can screw them up, like they have gun control... Remember, the most oppressive laws in this country are STATE & LOCAL laws <snip> Dave_A, you are quite simply wrong on the "War on Drugs" issue. There is NO, repeat NO constitutional justification for the federal government criminalizing recreational drug use. The police powers (regulation of health, safety, and morals) were explicitly left by the Founders to the states. The General Welfare clause cannot be stretched to create a grant of power to the the feds when that power was left to the states. Tell me, where in the Constitution does it limit the powers that may be used by Congress to provide for the General Welfare? It does not. Once something is given to the Feds, it is 100% there, there are no partial powers.Your lack of understanding of the police powers is manifest. It is obvious you have not a clue about what the police powers are, and how they were left to the states. So it should be simplicity in itself to show, from the Constitution, why an Amendment was needed for alcohol prohibition, but not drug prohibition... While the Commerce Clause has broad reach, it has been badly abused starting with the New Deal. It has grown to mean the federal government can regulate anything once they decide it has even the smallest incidental effect on commerce. This was never the intent of the Founders, and to pretend otherwise is intellectually dishonest. Intent is irrelevant. We are talking about LAW here, so only WRITTEN WORDS matter. Drugs move in interstate and international commerce, thus the Feds may ban them....  There is no stretching needed as long as cocaine is made in South America, pot sold in the northern states is grown down south & in foreign countries, and such... Once again, there is no limit on the Commerce Clause, the power to regulate commerce is absolute. If a limit was to exist, it would be written downYour Constitutional ignorance is showing - AGAIN. It is a settled rule of constitutional construction that intent is important, and that courts get to intent by reading what the authors of a law or constitutional clause had to say at the time of its writing and passage. Please, I studied Constitutional Law and History at the Doctoral level. You are way out of your depth here. No wonder we are in such trouble if you are the type of doctoral student we are churning out these days. "Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government." James Madison "The power to regulate commerce among the several States" can not include a power to construct roads and canals, and to improve the navigation of water courses in order to facilitate, promote, and secure such commerce with a latitude of construction departing from the ordinary import of the terms strengthened by the known inconveniences which doubtless led to the grant of this remedial power to Congress. To refer the power in question to the clause "to provide for common defense and general welfare" would be contrary to the established and consistent rules of interpretation, as rendering the special and careful enumeration of powers which follow the clause nugatory and improper. Such a view of the Constitution would have the effect of giving to Congress a general power of legislation instead of the defined and limited one hitherto understood to belong to them, the terms "common defense and general welfare" embracing every object and act within the purview of a legislative trust. It would have the effect of subjecting both the Constitution and laws of the several States in all cases not specifically exempted to be superseded by laws of Congress, it being expressly declared "that the Constitution of the United States and laws made in pursuance thereof shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges of every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." Such a view of the Constitution, finally, would have the effect of excluding the judicial authority of the United States from its participation in guarding the boundary between the legislative powers of the General and the State Governments, inasmuch as questions relating to the general welfare, being questions of policy and expediency, are unsusceptible of judicial cognizance and decision. James Madison- March 3rd. 1817 Need more? I have a ton of them. You appear to be one of those who approves of the courts defining the Constitution by the Law, not the Law by the Constitution. Do you hold with the "living document" theory as well? The liberals love that one as they can find nearly any power they wish in "pennumbras" and "emenations" from the strictly enumerated powers. Always remember that every single Federal gun control law has used the Commerce Clause for its constitutional justification. Don't fall into the common trap of finding powers in the constitution that just happen to coincide with what you WISH were there. Which is what you are doing.Wrong. What I am doing is reading the Constitution as the Framers intended. You are stretching it beyond its original boundaries, as do activist judges. Gun Control is an exception to the rule, What rule? Please point out this rule. as there is no 2nd Ammendment counterpart for getting high. There is also no Constitutional grant of police powers to the federal government. Per the IX and X Amendment, these powers were left to the states. They were also clearly left to the states if you read anything written by any of the Framers. Although with judicial activisim as it is, I wouldn't be suprised if some liberal dipshit extends Roe from abortion to pot.

There is also no Constitutional protection for me to wear white underwear. That is not how the Constitution works. Certain Rights are protected at the Federal Level. These are the basic Rights of Man which no one should have the authority to abbrogate. Such as our Second Amendment Rights.

All other Rights, such as what to put in ones body, is left to the States, and the people of those States. If we agree that such police powers should be left toe the States on the drug issue, THEN WHY IS THERE A FEDERAL WAR ON DRUGS? Answer that one "doctor". Do the letters DEA ring a bell? That is not a State Law Enforcement agency. Nor are the billions in Federal Tax moneys wasted to damn near no effect on the drug trade.

Also, if you were such a studious person in persuit of your "doctorate"... you would also know that the Founders had clearly stated the no one portion of the Constitution could be used to negate another. Ergo, the Commerce clause cannot be used, legally speaking, to violate our Second Amendment Rights. Or any other Rights.

Government, in my humble opinion, should be formed to secure and to enlarge the exercise of the natural rights of its members; and every government, which has not this in view, as its principal object, is not a government of the legitimate kind.
James Wilson, Lectures on Law, 1791

The constitution of the United States is to receive a reasonable interpretation of its language, and its powers, keeping in view the objects and purposes, for which those powers were conferred. By a reasonable interpretation, we mean, that in case the words are susceptible of two different senses, the one strict, the other more enlarged, that should be adopted, which is most consonant with the apparent objects and intent of the Constitution.
Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution, 1833

Quoted: Quoted: Yes, but that's not what our wager concerns. You claimed that these clauses only pertained to draftees. God.... Why do I bother? Good night genius. Time to start wading back in again..... What was the title, from the LP Platform, that you posted an excerpt from? Just in case, here are the first couple lines from thier website...

Conscription AND the Military.

WHY CAN'T YOU GET IT?

Conscription and the Military The Issue: We oppose any form of national service, including conscription into the military, a compulsory youth labor program, or any other kind of coerced social program. The Principle: Impressment of individuals into the armed forces is involuntary servitude. Ergo, they are fucking talking about a DRAFT. CONSCRIPTION. INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE. This has nothing to do with voluntary contractual obligations. You fail to live up to a contract, that is FRAUD. Another libertarian No-No. Get it yet? You claimed the LP was making a blanket statement on all contractual obligations...

AGAIN, no I did not.
I am stating, quite clearly, that the Libertarian Party advocates the abolition of the UCMJ, and they ALSO advocate that "Members of the military should have the same right to quit their jobs as other persons".

EVERYONE knows this.
It is common knowledge that the Libertarian Party believes this.

, including the one where a person voluntarily agrees to abide by the UCMJ. That is quite obviously not their gist in that position statement. Being FORCED to abide by such restrictions as put forth in the UCMJ however IS the gist.

What part of "We recommend the repeal of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the recognition and equal protection of the rights of armed forces members", do you not understand?

It couldn't be more clear.

And you know this.

I'll tell you what.
I'll up the bet to $400.
We take it to the Bear pit.
We lay out our cases, and let Ed Sr., or the Moderator decide.

"...We recommend the repeal of the Uniform Code of Military Justice..."

That does not just apply to draftees, because the in the LP military, THERE ARE NO DRAFTEES.

The entire section deals with Individual Rights, under which falls Conscription AND the Military.
It lays out the LP's opposition to conscription, THEN it calls for a recognition of the rights of all servicemembers.
It advocates the "repeal" of the UCMJ, because the LP believes that the UCMJ is UnConstitutional, hence the demand for "equal protection of the rights of armed forces members".
It doesn't say this only pertains to"draftees or conscripts".
Why would it?
Why would this be about the rights of conscripts, if under the LP. there ARE NO CONSCRIPTS?
It refers to "Military Members", and under the LP, Military Members ALL serve voluntarily.


How could you have been a member of the LP, and not know this very basic truth?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Yes, but that's not what our wager concerns. You claimed that these clauses only pertained to draftees. God.... Why do I bother? Good night genius. Time to start wading back in again..... What was the title, from the LP Platform, that you posted an excerpt from? Just in case, here are the first couple lines from thier website... Conscription AND the Military. WHY CAN'T YOU GET IT? Conscription and the Military The Issue: We oppose any form of national service, including conscription into the military, a compulsory youth labor program, or any other kind of coerced social program. The Principle: Impressment of individuals into the armed forces is involuntary servitude. Ergo, they are fucking talking about a DRAFT. CONSCRIPTION. INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE. This has nothing to do with voluntary contractual obligations. You fail to live up to a contract, that is FRAUD. Another libertarian No-No. Get it yet? You claimed the LP was making a blanket statement on all contractual obligations... AGAIN, no I did not. I am stating, quite clearly, that the Libertarian Party advocates the abolition of the UCMJ, and they ALSO advocate that "Members of the military should have the same right to quit their jobs as other persons".Bullshit. Signing a contract to abide by the UCMJ falls well with their very first position... to whit: Freedom and Responsibility The Issue: Personal responsibility is discouraged by government denying individuals the opportunity to exercise it. In fact, the denial of freedom fosters irresponsibility. The Principle: Individuals should be free to make choices for themselves and to accept responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make. We must accept the right of others to choose for themselves if we are to have the same right. Our support of an individual's right to make choices in life does not mean that we necessarily approve or disapprove of those choices. We believe people must accept personal responsibility for the consequences of their actions. The article is CLEARLY relating to conscription and forced service. Despite how you care to twist it. EVERYONE knows this.Obviously not. I've been having these same kinds of conversations for years and this is the first time someone has tried this line of reasoning. And I use the term "reasoning" loosely. It is common knowledge that the Libertarian Party believes this. , including the one where a person voluntarily agrees to abide by the UCMJ. That is quite obviously not their gist in that position statement. Being FORCED to abide by such restrictions as put forth in the UCMJ however IS the gist. What part of "We recommend the repeal of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the recognition and equal protection of the rights of armed forces members", do you not understand? It couldn't be more clear. And you know this. Just because you keep snipping that one sentance out of the whole paragraph, does not add back in all the rest of the meaning behind it. That is like the liberals screaming that Bush said "immanent threat". You don't realize the paucity of logic that entails do you? I'll tell you what. I'll up the bet to $400. We take it to the Bear pit. We lay out our cases, and let Ed Sr., or the Moderator decide. Take it and do with it what ever will give you the greatest pleasure. I really couldn't fucking care. You are wrong, you know it. You just aren't man enough to admit it. "...We recommend the repeal of the Uniform Code of Military Justice..." The Issue: We oppose any form of national service, including conscription into the military, a compulsory youth labor program, or any other kind of coerced social program. The Principle: Impressment of individuals into the armed forces is involuntary servitude. Just keep ignoring the qualifying statement for everything else that follows. It makes me laugh. That does not just apply to draftees, because the in the LP military, THERE ARE NO DRAFTEES. The entire section deals with Individual Rights, under which falls Conscription AND the Military. It lays out the LP's opposition to conscription, THEN it calls for a recognition of the rights of all servicemembers. It advocates the "repeal" of the UCMJ, because the LP believes that the UCMJ is UnConstitutional, hence the demand for "equal protection of the rights of armed forces members". It doesn't say this only pertains to"draftees or conscripts". Why would it? Why would this be about the rights of conscripts, if under the LP. there ARE NO CONSCRIPTS? It refers to "Military Members", and under the LP, Military Members ALL serve voluntarily. The Issue: We oppose any form of national service, including conscription into the military, a compulsory youth labor program, or any other kind of coerced social program. The Principle: Impressment of individuals into the armed forces is involuntary servitude. That's it buddy. Just keep ignoring those first few sentances. How could you have been a member of the LP, and not know this very basic truth? How could you have granduated high school with such a rudimentory grasp of the basic reading skills? Or do you deny that lead in sentences and qualifying statements have a bearing on the content of a paragraph like that? You have also failed to show where a person signing a VOLUNTARY CONTRACT, like the one for voluntary service, should not be held to that contract under a libertarian system. Your initial statement was "soldiers can quit at ANYTIME, with no consequences". This is so factually AGAINST the very libertarian position of voluntary contractual obligations as to be laughable. Not that I actually think pointing this out to you will do any good.

Quoted: There is also no Constitutional protection for me to wear white underwear. That is not how the Constitution works. Certain Rights are protected at the Federal Level. These are the basic Rights of Man which no one should have the authority to abbrogate. Such as our Second Amendment Rights. All other Rights, such as what to put in ones body, is left to the States, and the people of those States. If we agree that such police powers should be left toe the States on the drug issue, THEN WHY IS THERE A FEDERAL WAR ON DRUGS? Answer that one "doctor". Do the letters DEA ring a bell? That is not a State Law Enforcement agency. Nor are the billions in Federal Tax moneys wasted to damn near no effect on the drug trade. Also, if you were such a studious person in persuit of your "doctorate"... you would also know that the Founders had clearly stated the no one portion of the Constitution could be used to negate another. Ergo, the Commerce clause cannot be used, legally speaking, to violate our Second Amendment Rights. Or any other Rights. Government, in my humble opinion, should be formed to secure and to enlarge the exercise of the natural rights of its members; and every government, which has not this in view, as its principal object, is not a government of the legitimate kind. James Wilson, Lectures on Law, 1791 The constitution of the United States is to receive a reasonable interpretation of its language, and its powers, keeping in view the objects and purposes, for which those powers were conferred. By a reasonable interpretation, we mean, that in case the words are susceptible of two different senses, the one strict, the other more enlarged, that should be adopted, which is most consonant with the apparent objects and intent of the Constitution. Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution, 1833

I think you are confused. I agree with you.

The police powers, which include controlling what one puts on ones body, were left to the states. I also agree 100% that the use of the Commerce Clause in order to violate the II Amendment should be invalid. I further agree that the creation of federal pseudo-police powers, which began during the new deal, are constitutionally VERY suspect. I too can find no Constitutional justification for the War on Drugs. Please reread what I wrote more carefully.

My argument is against Dave_A's incorrect interpretation of the General Welfare and Commerce Clauses to create a federal police power.

Remarkable.  You yourself said that you opposed the LP Party's position, regarding the Military.

As for the military, there is a contractual obligation involved. The LP is wrong on that one. All contracts need to be honored. Else you are committing fraud....

How are they wrong?
You've said ad nauseum that this section only pertains to draftees.
If so, what about it do you oppose?

Also...

"We call for the end of the Defense Department practice of discharging armed forces personnel for homosexual conduct. We further call for retraction of all less-than-honorable discharges previously assigned for such reasons and deletion of such information from military personnel files.... "

If, as you erroneously claim, that THE ENTIRE PLANK OF THE LP PLATFORM, REGARDING "CONSCRIPTION AND THE MILITARY" deals ONLY with CONSCRIPTION.....

Are you saying that the LP Platform's position on Gays in the Military ONLY deals with Conscripted Gays?
If so, when they also call for "retraction of all less-than-honorable discharges previously assigned for such reasons and deletion of such information from military personnel files", they must ONLY be referring to those Gays who were Drafted.

Therefore the Libertarian Party has NO PROBLEM with the Ban on gays in the Military, and No Problem with the denial of Constitutional Rights, as negated by parts of the UCMJ...

They just oppose these things for draftees.  Oh, and according to THEM, ther would BE no draftees.
BUT they did take time to make rules governing the Rights of Draftees, who would not exist.
Yeah.




A word about "objectivism"...

Ayn Rand explicitly rejected libertarianism: "Above all, do not join the wrong ideological groups or movements, in order to ‘do something.’ By ‘ideological’ (in this context), I mean groups or movements proclaiming some vaguely generalized, undefined (and, usually, contradictory) political goals. (E.g., the Conservative Party, which subordinates reason to faith, and substitutes theocracy for capitalism; or the ‘libertarian’ hippies, who subordinate reason to whims, and substitute anarchism for capitalism.) To join such groups means to reverse the philosophical hierarchy and to sell out fundamental principles for the sake of some superficial political action which is bound to fail. It means that you help the defeat of your ideas and the victory of your enemies."

Quoted: Quoted: There is also no Constitutional protection for me to wear white underwear. That is not how the Constitution works. Certain Rights are protected at the Federal Level. These are the basic Rights of Man which no one should have the authority to abbrogate. Such as our Second Amendment Rights. All other Rights, such as what to put in ones body, is left to the States, and the people of those States. If we agree that such police powers should be left toe the States on the drug issue, THEN WHY IS THERE A FEDERAL WAR ON DRUGS? Answer that one "doctor". Do the letters DEA ring a bell? That is not a State Law Enforcement agency. Nor are the billions in Federal Tax moneys wasted to damn near no effect on the drug trade. Also, if you were such a studious person in persuit of your "doctorate"... you would also know that the Founders had clearly stated the no one portion of the Constitution could be used to negate another. Ergo, the Commerce clause cannot be used, legally speaking, to violate our Second Amendment Rights. Or any other Rights. Government, in my humble opinion, should be formed to secure and to enlarge the exercise of the natural rights of its members; and every government, which has not this in view, as its principal object, is not a government of the legitimate kind. James Wilson, Lectures on Law, 1791 The constitution of the United States is to receive a reasonable interpretation of its language, and its powers, keeping in view the objects and purposes, for which those powers were conferred. By a reasonable interpretation, we mean, that in case the words are susceptible of two different senses, the one strict, the other more enlarged, that should be adopted, which is most consonant with the apparent objects and intent of the Constitution. Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution, 1833 I think you are confused. I agree with you. The police powers, which include controlling what one puts on ones body, were left to the states. I also agree 100% that the use of the Commerce Clause in order to violate the II Amendment should be invalid. I further agree that the creation of federal pseudo-police powers, which began during the new deal, are constitutionally VERY suspect. I too can find no Constitutional justification for the War on Drugs. Please reread what I wrote more carefully. My argument is against Dave_A's incorrect interpretation of the General Welfare and Commerce Clauses to create a federal police power.

Then I completely mis-read your statement. My apologies. Things are getting a bit heated on other sides of the debate. No excuse really, but there it is. I get a little worked up over some of these issues.

Quoted: Remarkable.  You yourself said that you opposed the LP Party's position, regarding the Military. As for the military, there is a contractual obligation involved. The LP is wrong on that one. All contracts need to be honored. Else you are committing fraud.... How are they wrong? You've said ad nauseum that this section only pertains to draftees. If so, what about it do you oppose? Violation of Contractual obligation. I've already re-posted your exact words on what YOU thought they meant. That anyone could violate such voluntary contracts at will is absurd. You have failed to link the two. If you are CONSCRIPTED. Forced in to it. It would almost be axiomatic that you should resist such enslavement. Our Founders did. Also... "We call for the end of the Defense Department practice of discharging armed forces personnel for homosexual conduct. We further call for retraction of all less-than-honorable discharges previously assigned for such reasons and deletion of such information from military personnel files.... " If, as you erroneously claim, that THE ENTIRE PLANK OF THE LP PLATFORM, REGARDING "CONSCRIPTION AND THE MILITARY" deals ONLY with CONSCRIPTION..... If you are forced into a contract that violates your basic privacy and Rights, how is this not an applicable statement? If you volunteer, you are bound by the agreement and the stipulations therein. Apples and Oranges. Are you saying that the LP Platform's position on Gays in the Military ONLY deals with Conscripted Gays? It would have to be read that way. Whether those who wrote up the platform agree or not, I do not know. You'd have to ask them. If you signed a contract to work for a company, and a stipulation was that you would not be gay while working for them, and you were despite your voluntary assent,... then you have committed Fraud have you not? See where I'm coming from here? If so, when they also call for "retraction of all less-than-honorable discharges previously assigned for such reasons and deletion of such information from military personnel files", they must ONLY be referring to those Gays who were Drafted. Therefore the Libertarian Party has NO PROBLEM with the Ban on gays in the Military, and No Problem with the denial of Constitutional Rights, as negated by parts of the UCMJ... Not if they want to remain logically consistant they wouldn't. That is how I have always seen it and the logic of it is unimpeechable. If you VOLUNTEER and sign the contract, then you had better be fully aware of what you are signing. They just oppose these things for draftees.  Oh, and according to THEM, ther would BE no draftees. BUT they did take time to make rules governing the Rights of Draftees, who would not exist. Yeah.

There really isn't a logical disconnect there. As with most position statements, they try to cram their ideology into reality to point out specific issues. Sometimes, it isn't a perfect fit.  Any LP'er worth his salt would agree that voluntarily giving up your Rights in a Contract for Service falls well within objectivist ideals. If someone puts a gun to your head and forces you to sign, are you still obligated to carry out the commitments it contains? Should you be held legally responsible for any charges brought from signing it under duress? At a later date, if such stipulations are repealed, should you still be seen as a criminal for actions you did or did not do as a result?

Take gun laws. If you currently own a machine gun illegally. You bought it when it was still legal to do so without the BATFE's hoops to jump through, and you just haven't registered it. Then they repeal the GCA and NFA and it is legal again without the taxes and paperwork. Would the government still be able to try you as a criminal for owning it during the ban? Would you be let out of jail and been exhonorated of the charges? Understand? Same logic applies.

Quoted: Then I completely mis-read your statement. My apologies. Things are getting a bit heated on other sides of the debate. No excuse really, but there it is. I get a little worked up over some of these issues.

Been there. Done that. No apology needed.

Sometimes it's best to just let the issue drop. Much better for your blood pressure.

Quoted: Quoted: Remarkable.  You yourself said that you opposed the LP Party's position, regarding the Military. As for the military, there is a contractual obligation involved. The LP is wrong on that one. All contracts need to be honored. Else you are committing fraud.... How are they wrong? You've said ad nauseum that this section only pertains to draftees. If so, what about it do you oppose? Violation of Contractual obligation. I've already re-posted your exact words on what YOU thought they meant. That anyone could violate such voluntary contracts at will is absurd. You have failed to link the two. If you are CONSCRIPTED. Forced in to it. It would almost be axiomatic that you should resist such enslavement. Our Founders did. Also... "We call for the end of the Defense Department practice of discharging armed forces personnel for homosexual conduct. We further call for retraction of all less-than-honorable discharges previously assigned for such reasons and deletion of such information from military personnel files.... " If, as you erroneously claim, that THE ENTIRE PLANK OF THE LP PLATFORM, REGARDING "CONSCRIPTION AND THE MILITARY" deals ONLY with CONSCRIPTION..... If you are forced into a contract that violates your basic privacy and Rights, how is this not an applicable statement? If you volunteer, you are bound by the agreement and the stipulations therein. Apples and Oranges. Are you saying that the LP Platform's position on Gays in the Military ONLY deals with Conscripted Gays? It would have to be read that way. Whether those who wrote up the platform agree or not, I do not know. You'd have to ask them. If you signed a contract to work for a company, and a stipulation was that you would not be gay while working for them, and you were despite your voluntary assent,... then you have committed Fraud have you not? See where I'm coming from here? If so, when they also call for "retraction of all less-than-honorable discharges previously assigned for such reasons and deletion of such information from military personnel files", they must ONLY be referring to those Gays who were Drafted?

You avoided this question.

We are now discussing the "intent" of the Platform.
Every Libertarian I have spoken to interprets the "Conscription AND Military" Plank, as I do.
I think the above question goes to the heart of that intent.
To suggest that the LP is ONLY recommending "retraction of all less-than-honorable discharges previously assigned for such reasons and deletion of such information from military personnel files" for those gays who were drafted is extremely far-fetched.
Especially considering their mentioning of "equal protection".
Your "logic" is bending WAY over backwards, to support your claims about this clause.

Quoted: Quoted: Cool, now if Badnarik would just endorse Bush and ask his supporters to support him... but no, in a close race be a spoiler... fucking brilliant! I guess that's how Libertarians define "relevance" and "legitimacy"  - spoil  elections thereby putting liberals like John Kerry in office who disagree with 95% of what their party platform says. %&$^ing brilliant. Idiots.

Perot = Spoiler
Nader = Spoiler
Badnarik = not a chance in hell, which sucks because I agree with Badnarik's stances on most of the issues.  Before anyone says he's pro-open borders, they should read the interview he did with Slashdot where he stated he believed protecting the borders was a national security issue that needed to be addressed immediately.  He wants to bring troops home and put them on the borders, something no other presidential candidate is willing to do.

Remember the Alamo, and God Bless Texas...

Quoted: Badnarik = not a chance in hell, which sucks because I agree with Badnarik's stances on most of the issues.  Before anyone says he's pro-open borders, they should read the interview he did with Slashdot where he stated he believed protecting the borders was a national security issue that needed to be addressed immediately.  He wants to bring troops home and put them on the borders, something no other presidential candidate is willing to do.

I would hope not.
Troops on the border is not a solution.
It's like calling the police, to deal with your termite problems.

The only "troops" who are even remotely able to do such a job, are MPs.

Besides, Badnarik "supports" the Platform 100%. It is "his" Campaign Platform.
That he also gives interviews, contradicting his own Platform, is just one more reason to oppose him.

Quoted: We are now discussing the "intent" of the Platform. Every Libertarian I have spoken to interprets the "Conscription AND Military" Plank, as I do. I think the above question goes to the heart of that intent. To suggest that the LP is ONLY recommending "retraction of all less-than-honorable discharges previously assigned for such reasons and deletion of such information from military personnel files" for those gays who were drafted is extremely far-fetched. Especially considering their mentioning of "equal protection". Your "logic" is bending WAY over backwards, to support your claims about this clause.

If you would like to know the "intent", then send them an e-mail. I would be guessing. From 15 years worth of study, I am giving you the logic based on the principles and the text provided in their platform. Actually BEING a "libertarian", I have had hundreds of conversations with libertarians and those who are just interested. One thing you may want to consider though, in the enlistment contract there is no stipulation that you "not be gay". I would have to look up in the UCMJ for the exact wording of the clauses pertaining to "homosexuality", but from what I remember most of it stems from harassment, sodomy clauses that work for all orientations, and "conduct unbecoming". Most of which is left to group commanders to define if actions fit.

You suffer the consequences of actions you voluntarily agree to do. Period. All else is nonsense no matter who is spouting it. "A man is only as good as his word". An ancient maxim and one of the reasons I like Bush so much. He sticks to what he says he will do. Which is why I have such a hard time with the Bushbots who natter on about him "just saying that to pander for votes" without any real intent behind it. Bullshit. Bush means exactly what he says. If he says he wants to give illegals more money, then that is exactly what he will try to do. Period. I approve of the honesty even if I do not approve of the actions. We need more people like that in government.

A contract is a contract. As long as no force or fraud was committed when you used your free will to sign it... then you must abide by those conditions agreed to.  Logic doesn't bend. It either works, or it doesn't. New datum can be added that negate a previously balanced equation, but the core logic would remain the same. A+B=C. A=1 B=1 then C will axiomatically equal 2. You can argue about the values of A and B all day long, but it doesn't change the logic.

Do you understand? If you volunteer, you are giving consent and must abide by the contract. If you are conscripted, or are forced to do things not stipulated in the contract, then you HAVE no obligation as there was no consent. Period. All of which is still consistant with the LP statement. If you want further "intent", then seriously consider contacting them.

Quoted: Quoted: Badnarik = not a chance in hell, which sucks because I agree with Badnarik's stances on most of the issues.  Before anyone says he's pro-open borders, they should read the interview he did with Slashdot where he stated he believed protecting the borders was a national security issue that needed to be addressed immediately.  He wants to bring troops home and put them on the borders, something no other presidential candidate is willing to do. I would hope not. Troops on the border is not a solution. It's like calling the police, to deal with your termite problems. The only "troops" who are even remotely able to do such a job, are MPs. Besides, Badnarik "supports" the Platform 100%. It is "his" Campaign Platform. That he also gives interviews, contradicting his own Platform, is just one more reason to oppose him.

Would you support a duly deputized citizen militia call-up mustered by the Governors of the affected border States? Under the auspices and direct control of the Sheriffs of said affected counties? We need to do something to harden our borders while we still face a terrorist threat. National Guard would seem to fit best as their name and mandate suggests.

Quoted: Quoted: We are now discussing the "intent" of the Platform. Every Libertarian I have spoken to interprets the "Conscription AND Military" Plank, as I do. I think the above question goes to the heart of that intent. To suggest that the LP is ONLY recommending "retraction of all less-than-honorable discharges previously assigned for such reasons and deletion of such information from military personnel files" for those gays who were drafted is extremely far-fetched. Especially considering their mentioning of "equal protection". Your "logic" is bending WAY over backwards, to support your claims about this clause. If you would like to know the "intent", then send them an e-mail. I would be guessing. From 15 years worth of study, I am giving you the logic based on the principles and the text provided in their platform. Actually BEING a "libertarian", I have had hundreds of conversations with libertarians and those who are just interested. One thing you may want to consider though, in the enlistment contract there is no stipulation that you "not be gay". I would have to look up in the UCMJ for the exact wording of the clauses pertaining to "homosexuality", but from what I remember most of it stems from harassment, sodomy clauses that work for all orientations, and "conduct unbecoming". Most of which is left to group commanders to define if actions fit. You suffer the consequences of actions you voluntarily agree to do. Period. All else is nonsense no matter who is spouting it. "A man is only as good as his word". An ancient maxim and one of the reasons I like Bush so much. He sticks to what he says he will do. Which is why I have such a hard time with the Bushbots who natter on about him "just saying that to pander for votes" without any real intent behind it. Bullshit. Bush means exactly what he says. If he says he wants to give illegals more money, then that is exactly what he will try to do. Period. I approve of the honesty even if I do not approve of the actions. We need more people like that in government. A contract is a contract. As long as no force or fraud was committed when you used your free will to sign it... then you must abide by those conditions agreed to.  Logic doesn't bend. It either works, or it doesn't. New datum can be added that negate a previously balanced equation, but the core logic would remain the same. A+B=C. A=1 B=1 then C will axiomatically equal 2. You can argue about the values of A and B all day long, but it doesn't change the logic. Do you understand? If you volunteer, you are giving consent and must abide by the contract. If you are conscripted, or are forced to do things not stipulated in the contract, then you HAVE no obligation as there was no consent. Period. All of which is still consistant with the LP statement. If you want further "intent", then seriously consider contacting them.

You still fail to answer this question:

You have stated clearly, that you believe that the LP call for allowing gays to serve, ONLY pertains to allowing gays to serve when drafted, which they oppose....

If so, when they also call for "retraction of all less-than-honorable discharges previously assigned for such reasons and deletion of such information from military personnel files", they must ONLY be referring to those Gays who were Drafted?

This makes NO sense.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Badnarik = not a chance in hell, which sucks because I agree with Badnarik's stances on most of the issues.  Before anyone says he's pro-open borders, they should read the interview he did with Slashdot where he stated he believed protecting the borders was a national security issue that needed to be addressed immediately.  He wants to bring troops home and put them on the borders, something no other presidential candidate is willing to do. I would hope not. Troops on the border is not a solution. It's like calling the police, to deal with your termite problems. The only "troops" who are even remotely able to do such a job, are MPs. Besides, Badnarik "supports" the Platform 100%. It is "his" Campaign Platform. That he also gives interviews, contradicting his own Platform, is just one more reason to oppose him. Would you support a duly deputized citizen militia call-up mustered by the Governors of the affected border States? Under the auspices and direct control of the Sheriffs of said affected counties? We need to do something to harden our borders while we still face a terrorist threat. National Guard would seem to fit best as their name and mandate suggests.

No.
The best thing, is to create a well trained group of professionals, who can deal with this very real, and very large threat.
Are the members of "a duly deputized citizen militia" going to show up with the right training, and the right equipement?
Will they have sensitive radiation detectors?
Will they be able to maintain them?

The National Guard isn't trained or equiped to do this either.
Neither are our special Forces for that matter.

Task organization.  This is a job for a designated Border patrol, in concert with Customs and Immigration, AND a capable Intelligence Arm.
Badnarik is calling for the elimination of ALL of these things.
That's not smart.

Citizens with guns are more than capable of dealing with armed bordercrossers.
That's not the threat.

Remember that "defense in depth"?  It would still be needed.  You can't be just along the border.
You MUST have depth.  This would mean checkpoints along roads, far inland from the borders.  And what would they be "checking", in this Libertarian Utopia?
Not IDs.  

I would prefer we avoid such police state trappings.  Let's bother the people of OTHER countries, not ours.

Quoted: You still fail to answer this question: You have stated clearly, that you believe that the LP call for allowing gays to serve, ONLY pertains to allowing gays to serve when drafted, which they oppose.... If so, when they also call for "retraction of all less-than-honorable discharges previously assigned for such reasons and deletion of such information from military personnel files", they must ONLY be referring to those Gays who were Drafted? This makes NO sense.

Not when it is snipped out of the rest of the paragraph. On that I would agree. As I said, e-mail them. Ask them for clarification.

The fact remains that your statement that enlistees could just violate the terms of their contract by dropping out wheneever they wanted to have been proven false. This is quite obviously NOT a part of the LP platform by any stretch of the imagination. You volunteer, you suffer the consequences of your actions. Period. You obviously either a)still don't understand and my debate skills just aren't up to getting it across, or b) you are just trying to weasle out of admitting the point.

Fine. I've got too much else to do today and I am 99.99% certain that there are many other threads far more interesting than this one is turning out to be.

Best regards....