Hey Imbroglio,

Do you think they (the congress critters, and other associated vermin that inhabit my general vicinity) have ever read this little gem from the SCOTUS?  Not that it matters to them anyway.

"The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government."

~ Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2 (1866) U.S.S.C. Justice Davis

The entire document is at:
[url]http://www.civil-liberties.com/pages/exparte_milligan.htm[/url]

My thanks to David Dietman for bringing this to my attention.
rDAm

I doubt it. Most of the Senators and Representatives don't give a crap about the Constitution and actually view it as an obstacle to their own social engineering agendas. Come to think of it, I believe there are more than a few on here that really do want a totalitarian police state in place.

That decision ranks up there with:

"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.", ChiefJustice Marshall, Marbury vs. Madison, 5, U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 174, 176,(1803).

"The United States Supreme Court stated further that all rights and safeguards contained in the first eight amendments to the federal constitution are equally applicable in every State criminal action, "because a denial of them would be a denial of due process of law." William Malloy vs. Patrick J. Jogan,378 U.S. 1, 84 S. Ct. 1489, argued Mar 5, 1964, decided June 15, 1964.

Open borders?
Legal murder (abortion)?
All drugs legalized?

No thanks.

Since 9-11 Browne has published several essays basically blaming the attacks on America's evil and bullying ways. His brush is a broad one which lumps the bullying invasion of Grenada with the interventions in the Balkans, with every other use of American military forces for several decades. In doing so he demonstrates an impressive lack of depth in the various issues surrounding each of these interventions. He apparently cannot see the strategic national interest in Communist Cuba controlling the Grenadian govt and building a massive airbase there. He retreats to the US coastline to draw his line in the sand. Meanwhile it's his head that is in the sand. His grasp of the motivations of the radical Islamic movement is so poor, it is staggering for the leader of a party that seeks high office. I'd recommend he find the Oct 15th issue of Newsweek to read "Why they hate us" written by the Muslim Newsweek editor.

I've split my ticket in recent elections to vote for some Libertarians but no more. I am quite convinced now that Browne is either a kook, too lazy to research, or too dogmatic to pay attention to the smell of the coffee. Whichever I'm done with the Lib Party.  

Closed, sealed borders?  Military troops stationed everywhere?  Soldiers quartered in our homes?

Unwanted children?  Government telling people what they can and can't do with their own bodies?  Pro-life but in favor of the death penalty?  War, unending war against civilians?

All drugs illegal or heavily regulated?  Prohibition?  War on drugs destroying property rights and all civil liberties?


No thanks!

That was VERY intellectually dishonest.
To suggest that what you just posted is the alternative to what Jarhead posted....just plain silly.

Of course, the constitution specifically provides that the ability to petition for a writ of habeas corpus CAN be suspended in certain cases, such as, as the above case indicates, times of war or other exigencies. And when the constitution was written, they knew then what is is true now: a writ of habeas corpus is just about the only way to get out of jail if you are locked up in violation of some of right.

There's more:

Perverting the constitution to suit your political agenda, while at the same time claiming you are the only one who really supports the constitution?

been doing some research on this so far. i would not say that the US govt. was responsible for Hitlers rise to power. the information that i've been finding point to the international bankers. seems to have been a money issue involved in the US intervention during World war 1. after reading some more this could make for an interesting topic concerning how the "international banking cartel" effect foreign policy around the world. from the history buffs to the conspiracy nuts.

Harry Browne is off the mark on this. i've even been using those evil, dreaded right-wing sources [:D]

lib over

that being? what are you getting at?

[url]www.lp.org[/url]

you mean a constitutional republic (how many time do i have to repeat this)

i see the point of guarding borders. but am uncovinced that a "war on drugs" is effective. this is a matter of perception. try to convert me. i listen as well as you do.

on abortion. depends on what stage of birth. i oppose partial-birth abortions. then there is the issue of enforcement.

can you explain? show me the truth as you perceive it, or are you just spouting at the mouth. you show me just one example of how the Libertarian party has misinterperated the constitution. if they have why not enlighten us as opposed to ridicule.

i am unware of the Libertarian party stateing that it is the only political party who really supports the constitution. the Tax Payers party is for alot of the same stuff we are. is'nt there a Constitution Party?

I haven't seen any soldiers with subguns, but I have seen soldiers with M16's.  Mr. Browne doesn't even know his weapons.  I tend to be moderate, pro-choice, the war on drugs is a joke, but also anti-welfare and believe people are responsible for their own actions and should suffer the consequences of their bad choices.

On the subject of soldiers in airports, on my way to Barbados, I had a chance to BS with Guardsmen at both the Atlanta airport and the Miami airport.  Started talking about their M16's and my prebans and they loved it.  They were very nice.

agree on the first line. i dont think the US would EVER post troops in civilian homes.

i would like you Major-Murphy to explain to me why the rest is silly. i know that the answer is just obvious, so you really should'nt have to do much in order to help those who disagree with you from seeing it the right way.

to bash without proving any point at all could be VERY intellectually dishonest. not honest with ones self. prove me wrong. open up a can of whup ass on my unintelligent self.

ignorant lib

Sealed borders: It can't be done. Controlled immigration, yes. Otherwise it's not immigration, it's invasion. There are ANG guys in airports giving the sokkermoms a warm fuzzy, but other than that, where do you see troops? And soldiers quartered in our homes? HAH! Have you got one at your house? How do I sign up to get one at mine? I've got some yardwork that needs done.



Newsflash, Dr. Kevorkian: There are waiting lists years long to adopt babies. That's right, babies. It's not telling people what they can or can't do with their bodies; they've already made that choice if they're pregnant. To try and get me on the team for more infanticide is a no-win situation. Here's one for you: Since babies can't live without support from their parents (feeding, clothing, warmth, shelter), should it be legal to kill them up to say, 12 years old? It's just non-viable tissue before that, right?

Pro-life but in favor of the death penalty? You bet your ass I am. People on death row made their choice. They opted out of the human race. Babies, true innocents, don't get the "choice" that crusaders like you like to talk about.

"War, unending war against civilians?" What? What are you talking about?



I don't have an answer for the WOD. I know I don't agree with the way it's being waged now, but throwing in the towel entirely and putting LSD and heroin on the shelves next to Tylenol isn't the answer, either.

Typical libertarian logic, all of this. You've only reinforced my viewpoints. Thanks for the assist.

are Libertarians Typical? are Republicans typical? i could'nt disagree with you more. you have presented more then Major-murphy and a2carbine, but still act hypocritically concerning people in parties.

i have debated with both Democrats and Republicans. a lot of them sound the same. one Democrat will not take up the same issues in the same way another Democrat will. Typical "anti-Libertarian" [;D]

come on and attack this "weakest link" [:D] yeah! right here baby.

You don't care to address any of my points, just look at one line peripheral to my points and want me to engage in a debate on your terms?

No thanks.

Okay, so what are you and Jarhead suggesting, then?  I'm listening.  Seems like most of these are either one or the other type of situations.  You either have fascist style government or you don't, right?  I was trying to make a point and not use a lot of space.


Nothing intellectually dishonest about it.  Everyone claims the US Constitution is on their side whatever they try to do and they marginalize their political foes by trying to paint them as anti-American.  Typical rhetoritc.  

Why else call the most draconian piece of legislation the PATRIOT act and label anyone who opposes it as being against freedom and security?  If you called it what it is, a great big power grab by the federal government, there would be a lot more questions, right?  Better to just ram it through on a wave of emotion.  Same goes for the Airline Security Act that just ballooned the size of the federal government.   Can anyone show me where in the Constitution it says that the federal government even has the authority to regulate airlines?  Bail them out?  Federalize baggage screeners?  


That's the problem with Constitutions.  Nobody agrees that our founding principles mean anything, no one agrees that we have "inalienable rights" anymore either.  Bush sure doesn't.  Most of the Congress and Senate do not.  The Supreme Court can't usually get its act together either, after so many bad precedents.  Thus, I would not depend on the Constitution anymore, it is finished.  

As long as that is the case, America is doomed and no amount of flag waving is going to help.  So go be a Republican or Democrat or whatever the hell you want.  But don't beat up on libertarians because when all is said and done, you'll still have to get by even when everything is so tightly controlled that you have to ask the government for permission to flush your toilet.  
 
Oh and before I forget Jarhead, your argument about the death penalty is screwy--how many people have been close to being executed only to be exonerated?  How many innocent people have been executed?  Opting out of the human race?  Oh please, now who is casting aspersions here?  Has it ever occurred to you that a lot of crime is due to poverty and economic hardships?  In other words, things that the welfare state only promulgates?

Don't lecture me about abortion either.  It's none of your business what women you don't even know decide to do.  Only they can make that moral decision.  It's sad that people opt to terminate an unborn baby.  But it's none of my business.  I will conduct my life as I see fit, they will do the same with theirs.

OK

1. as far as borders go, i already agree with you. nuff' said [:)]

2. i dont support partial birth abortion. the concept of saving a fetus so it can be given to a prospective mom who will care about the well being of the child has my full support. a much better solution then letting the state raise them. from what i can gather (from Dr. Laura no less) is that kids who grow up without parents do not do as well socially. are more likely to get involved with crime. the state could force a parent to raise a child, but they could never force a parent to love a child. an unloved, unwanted child is quite a sad thing to see. adoption is prefereable to abortion, but it is not possible for every child to be adopted.

3. i believe that people have a right to their own bodies. if they wish to poison it and ruin their lives. then go ahead. as far as crack addicts stealing from other people to support their habbits; an armed populace, plus following state and local laws concerning theft is the best remedy. whether someone steals money for drugs or to spend it should'nt make a differnece.
 I could'nt give a rats ass if dealers kill each other. i am not aware of any significant statistic of drug dealers bringing innocent bystanders into their quarrels. again the best deterrent to any murdering drug dealers is an armed populace who wont put up with it. how cocky will a drup pusher be in a city of legally armed people?

thanks for challenging me and not calling me any funny names [;)].  your terms, your points

peace, lib out

No! Beware the evil right-wing sources!

That would definitely make for interesting reading, I must admit. It hits to exactly why his statements bothered me....I won't sit here and say US involvement in WWI/post WWI issues did not have any effect whatosever, but he presented it as a 'direct and responsible' causal relationship.

On a slightly more humorous note....you mentioned at one point I think that Libertarians are more 'cohesive'...it reminded me of some of the "libertarians" on the StarNews forum. Often they would argue a point which, on first notice did not seem to be one a libertarian would espouse. When called upon it, they would explain at length about how you are comparing them to an alternate and lesser form of libertarianism unjustifiably, as theirs is the true form of libertarianism. Always made me chuckle at what a REAL libertarian would say to them. Alas....I cannot claim the title. Don't like the thought of legalizing hard drugs, or abortion.....but that is another topic alltogether..

Hey Invictus....you know by posting something like that, ESPECIALLY from the USSC, can get you labeled a terrorist!! Be careful and remember, under no circumstances do politicians and truth ever mix.

to Hardcase:

i did not say Libertarians were cohesive. i said that Libertarian philosophy is cohesive. as before for JarHead22, there is no such a thing as a Typical Libertarian anymore than a Typical Republican and so on. despite any disagreements between one Lib and another, they all believe in less government, less taxes, gun rights, a Republic, personal responsibility, yadda, yadda, yadda

it may take me more than next week to start a topic on some WW 1 history. the most i could find on the net just gives a basic rundown of events. books on the subject will be hard to find, less i go to a library. i'll try at least to give the basics, but i wont have enough time and sources to present a compelling case. should be enough to open a debate.

UnTypical lib [:)]

to Tricshot:

Poverty does not necessarily lead to criminal activity. during the depression the crime rate was low. education or the lack thereof has more to do with crime. i can not defend this position at this time, but have read articles in the past that lead me to this conclusion. would also make for some interesting research.

prisoners who receive an education have been proven by statistics to be less likley to return to prison then inmates who do not. sorry i dont have a link, but heard this on a talk radio show about two years ago. the host did mention references.

i have not seen a specific example of how Bush does not beleive in "inalienable right". he appointed Tom Ridge whom does not, but that does not indicate that Bush does not.

Sorry, guy, but your passage on abortion simply covered it all, made most all of the mistakes, and was the closest one to quote - In other words, I'm not pickin' on you personally [:)]

But, it [i]is[/i] my business what the government does with my tax dollars.  And frankly, I don't see the benefit to society of killing that many unborn children every year.

Secondly, the woman [b]and[/b] the man, choose to make a baby - not a moralization (is that even a word?) on my part, just a fact - she spread 'em, and he followed his base self - all for a moments pleasure.  So, what did the unborn child conceived by these two do to deserve death?

If they didn't want the kid, they shouldn't have done the act (If you can't do the time, don't do the crime?)

It's unfortunate in this instance, but the real answer to the problem is education.  No not sex education - as in how to do it safely (well, that depends on your definition of "safely").  But education about the fact that making a baby is indeed a big responsibility.

Far to many people want the quick solution, but if the Gov't stops paying for it (except in cases of rape and incest...where it was force on the woman) then a lot of people will have to make the decision, live with the consequences of doing it, or stop doing it.  This makes sense, especially from a financial point of view - we can't afford to continue to federally fund birth control (and yes, abortion [b]is[/b] being used by many as a form of birth control)

As for adoption - please, don't make me laugh about babies going unadopted.  I have friends that would have jumped at the chance to adopt an "unwanted" american child.  But the process is so long, with so many hurdles, and qualifications one has to meet that it was easier for them to adopt from China.

Stupid things, like the youngest blood child was over a certain age, or they had only been married for two years (she was previously married, divorced - from a bum).  Or the really good one, her new hubby was younger than she was!  What the heck has that to do with being a good father?

The adoption procedure needs to be fixed as well, and that would answer a large part of the 'other' problem in this area.

Sorry, bub, but if an abortion is NOT paid for with tax dollars is NONE of your business.  As for all your other moralizations, you don't want people telling you how to run your life, especially with guns, then don't try to tell others how to run theirs.  A lot of people scream about their rights, but are quick to try to take other's rights.  A lot of people quote the Constitution on here, but just like the anti-gunners, only seem to want to enforce certain parts of it.

Okay.

"Closed, sealed borders?  Military troops stationed everywhere?  [red]Soldiers quartered in our homes?[/red]

Unwanted children?  Government telling people what they can and can't do with their own bodies?  Pro-life but in favor of the death penalty? [red] War, unending war against civilians?[/red]

All drugs illegal or heavily regulated?  Prohibition?  War on drugs destroying property rights and[red] all civil liberties?"[/red]

This is too easy.  
1. [red]"Soldiers quartered in our homes"[/red]
2. [red] "War, unending war against civilians"[/red]
3. [red] "destroying...all civil liberties?"[/red]

To attempt to make a point, the above statements are misguided, at best.

Trickshot was trying to insinuate that IF Jarhead is against:

Open borders
Legal murder (abortion)
All drugs legalized

THEN the alternative must be:

1. [red]"Soldiers quartered in our homes"[/red]
2. [red] "War, unending war against civilians"[/red]
3. [red] "destroying...all civil liberties?"[/red]

...and THAT is intellectually dishonest.

A well crafted and intelligently formed paragraph such as this, however,
is above reproach [;)]:

[b]to bash without proving any point at all could be VERY intellectually dishonest. not honest with ones self. prove me wrong. open up a can of whup ass on my unintelligent self.[/b]

Hmmm?? I wonder just how the Founding Fathers would have viewed the argument over abortion?

Let's see -

"We've staked the whole future of American civilization not on the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all our political institutions upon the capacity of each and all of us . . . to Govern ourselves according to the commandments of God. The future and success of America is not in this Constitution, but in the laws of God upon which this Constitution is founded."
-- James Madison, Fourth President of the United States (called the 'Father of the Constitution')([b]one pro-life vote, here[/b])

"Acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of . . . that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be.

"It is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor . . . ."
--George Washington (Thanksgiving Proclamation, 1789) ([b]one more pro-life vote here[/b])

"It is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue."
-- John Adams, Second President of the United States ([b]one more pro-life vote[/b])

Although not 'Founding Fathers' here are two more quotes (and [b]two more pro-life votes[/b])-

"Our ancestors established their system of government on morality and religious sentiment. Moral habits, they believed, cannot safely be trusted on any other foundation than religious principle, nor any government be secure which is not supported by moral habits."
-- Daniel Webster, American Jurist and Senator

"The only assurance of our nation's safety is to lay our foundation in morality and religion."
-- Abraham Lincoln, Sixteenth President of the United States

And then one of my favorite quotes on abortion -

[b]It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish.[/b]
-- Mother Teresa

I suppose her vote doesn't count though!

But I do love how 'pro-gun rights' people can pick and choose which rights they will cherish and which they abhor!

Eric The(So'GodlessFreedom'IsNowOurGoal,Eh?JustAs'GodlessCommunism'WasOnceOurEnemy?)Hun[>]:)]

How many have been executed wrongly? I don't know, and neither do you. All criminals say that they're innocent. How many have been close, only to be exonerated? A few, which says that the system, as flawed as it is with appeal after appeal, does grind out justice. Opting out of the human race? Yes, that's right. That's my position. You talk about poverty and economic hardship like a party-line liberal. Poverty and economic hardship don't make people do things that get them on death row. Steal bread, steal a car, steal clothes if you're poor, but the high school football star who shot the judge and his wife because he wanted their Mercedes Benz gets none of my sympathy or concern. My concern is for his victims.



Murder is [i]malum in se[/i], or evil by its very nature. Again, as I said in my first post and you clearly ignored, the mother had her choice, and made it. When does the baby get its choice? Murder is everyone's business. If someone makes a choice to end your life, society has to make that its business, right? Just because the baby doesn't get a vote doesn't mean it shouldn't have rights. Up to what age is it appropriate to "terminate?" I asked this before and you didn't answer.

To Eric the Hun:
We have no way of knowing for sure how the founding fathers would have leaned on the abortion issue. Just as they [i]obviously[/i] had a greater understanding of freedom than most modern Americans, so did they probably have a greater understanding of Gods plan. Gods plan has always been ALL about freedom. Free will to do good or evil. Did God prevent Eve from eating the apple or Kain from killing his brother? No and why not? Free will. Absolute freedom to do as you choose. You will deal with the consequences later according to the bible. So God has never prevented murder in the past, and I don't think he intends to now. Are you insinuating that a man can know better than God? I think our for fathers would have been pro CHOICE as a choice indicates FREEDOM, which they were clearly all about as does the FREE will that God gave everyone. Some of my words my be flawed but I believe you get my point.
So are you pro freedom or pro life?

To the guys who are talking about legalizing drugs. The fact that drugs are illegal is the cause for the violence associated with them. Just as the prohibition era was violent because alcohol was illegal. When something is already a CRIME it always has the possibility of escalating to violence. How many alcoholics rob liquor stores? Not too terribly many huh? Why?
A. Liquor is now affordable and available, nothing to get worked up about.
B. All liquor store owners are well armed and no alcy wants to lose his life for a bottle.

Just my short 2 cents.

Also wanted to add that illegalizing abortion will be as successful as the war on drugs. You will never prevent someone from killing a baby they don't want. Like it or don't it IS reality. It can be done in a humane way or an inhumane way. Same end result.

If a sufficient number of people want to do an inherently evil thing, then we should facilitate that by making it legal and safe?

Since the issue has now moved into the abortion debate....let me step in. Abortion right or wrong? Wrong..it is immoral to kill something without a purpose...whether it be a deer or a human. Now for more fuel on the fire, if NOW etc
cared so much about the rights of a women and her own body....why do they support killing girl children? Or why do they support abortion which is a pricey, dangerous SURGICAL solution, when there are other means to eliminate a human pregnancy. And most of the time they have to pay MEN for doing the operation.

Post from hatebreed -

Sure we do!!!! Abortion was illegal in every state in the union back then. And most of the Founding Fathers served in the same state legislatures that made abortion illegal!!

Eric The(PitchMeAHarderOneNow)Hun[>]:)]

----If a sufficient number of people want to do an inherently evil thing, then we should facilitate that by making it legal and safe?--


Very thin ice there....I agree with you on the abortion issue....it is already illegal and immoral to kill another human being..I don't care what the courts say in redefining human life...if it can be human--it is human. BUT many people see our Hobby as an "inherently evil thing"! All things should be legal that do not harm another human being.....if you hurt yourself, You are just stupid...

You're reading way too much into what was intended to be humor.

Maybe when you get older you'll come to have more compassion for your fellow human beings.  It's a brutal world, there's no sense in making it more brutal unless your life is on the line.  There's also no sense in trying to think you know more than anyone else because you continually discover what an idiot you were when you were younger--incomplete information always comes back to bite you.

The problem with the death penalty is that our entire system of justice is such a mess that errors are made constantly.  People suffer because of those errors.  That doesn't mean I support the murderers and reprobates of the world.  Far from it.  But as soon as you need a lawyer to interpret the law for you, as soon as you have judged with big egos involved in the process, and as soon as money can buy you out of trouble, then the whole damn thing is no good anymore.  Look at OJ.  Was he going to get the death penalty?  No way.  But poor people do and most of them couldn't afford a real defense.  The whole thing is a house of cards and it's going to eventually collapse.


That's all I have time for today, the abortion debate will have to wait.  I honestly think men should be completely left out of that debate anyways.

Sounds like Madison was saying more about natural rights than about God.  They didn't have the language that we have today, remember.  I don't particularly see a pro-life vote in there.



Rhetoric.  Not exactly one of Washington's best quotes.  Even if you don't agree, I could say that God's will is that I live my life happily and not having unwanted babies is how I choose to do that.  Once upon a time, the infant mortality rate was very high and life was precious, but in a world of 6 billion people that is no longer the case.



John Adams was a god damn ninny.  Plus, doesn't this fly in the face of what Jefferson and the others actually wrote in the Federalist papers and the Constitution itself?  Secular government and freedom of religion was the goal.  If pure virtue is a necessity, then humanity is doomed--pure virtue doesn't exist.  Rhetoric...




Sure, but who gets to define morality?  Recall that many of these great men had bastard children.  They talked a good talk, but that's all they did.  Instead of morality, they should have been talking about the ethics of power and how it can easily be corrupted by men to begin telling everyone else what to do and think, which is exactly what Webster appears to be trying to accomplish--a public service message from the "holier than thou."

Don't even include Lincoln with the founders.  Lincoln was a tyrant and a fool.



It counts, but like the rest of the Catholic faith, it is undercut by the church's own past evils--the Reformation got us out of the Dark Ages while the Catholic church did all it could to maintain political power (and the status quo).  Talk about morally bankrupt!  They never get to set the standards for morality ever again!  Plus, it sounds an awful like the bleeding heart "for the children" argument.  Won't someone please think of the children!





Far from it!  That's why I'm a libertarian in the first place--to have a consistent outlook that is missing from all other political philosophies.


There, now I've really got to go!

Post from trickshot -

Then what part of the phrase 'commandments of God' does Madison fail to convey with his imperfect speech concerning his ideas about the source of all of our rights? And what gives you the idea that English has progressed since the writing of our founding documents? If anything, the use of good English has declined since then.  Most of today's use of the English language, to put it in a popular and modern phrase, 'sucks out loud'!

Tell me what present-day writer could improve on the language found in our founding documents?

Are you religious? If you were, you might see what Madison refers to in this quote. Even if you weren't religious, you would tip your hat to the sublime piety that the Founding Fathers
had for the sanctity of life.

Wait a minute, I just read the rest of your posts for the first time. Is that the sort of history that they teach you in Junior High Schools today? Boy, you need some tutoring!

Eric The(Ninny?Who'sANinny?Yeah,Right-SoHowManyTermsDidYouServeAsPresident?MyHistoryMustBeRusty,Pres.Trickshot!)Hun[>]:)]

not saying that you are wrong, but i did not know that abortion existed back then. bloodletting yes, but abortion?

as far your religious refernece above, there is nothing there i can argue against. however just because something is "against G-d" does not mean that it should be illegal. religious people (wether christian, jew, catholic, etc...) they can not all agree on the same thing. G-d's plan for one is not the same as another. i personally believe that G-d has one plan for all people. to base law soley on one religous groups view would make the state respect an establishment of religion. i am not saying that morality has no place in govt. far from it. "Universal" or "natural" law is based on common moraility shared by most all religions. not all of this countries founding fathers were christians. i cant remember the name of the religion at the moment, but some were ??? (if i find out i let you know [:)])

some religious people i have met (including christians) have told me that Guns are "evil" and should not be owned by civilians. i've even had religious people tell me that socialism "is not that bad and is consistant with a christian way of life". in short, this is a matter of perception.

on abortion as i have posted above, should be avoided. i support saving the fetus as an alternative to death. even cyrogenic freezing to save it for invitro birthing would be preferable. should the population ever be decimated by a great calimity, just imagine how we could repopulate our race to save us from extinction. (or perhaps it would be better not to)

why is prostitution illegal? because it offends religous people. who cares? not much more then dating, but at least you know your going to "get some". its her/his body. so they dispense with pretenses. why should anybody care?

[:\]lib

in reference to trickshots post i see. as i have stated before i dont beleive in open borders. there has to be controlled immagration.

for my position on abortion just see my posts above and below [:)]

Drugs, ditto

thanks for responding.

lib over

Post from libertarian -

Hippocrates wrote about the misuse of abortions
among Greek women in the Fourth Century B.C.

Romans erected statues throughtout the Empire warning against the use of abortifacients for producing miscarriages.

And these two cultures which thought nothing of infanticide, forbade abortions to women.

Eric The(JustMoreSexistOppressionBy'TheMan'!)Hun[>]:)]

...interesting, thanks for the history.

i talked about this debate with a fellow co-worker. he says that a fetus is not a soverign entity until it leaves a womens body. it is a part of her. how would you answer this? (maybe this should be a seperate topic [;)])

lib over

You Sir, are no Abraham Lincoln! You may not notice a Trickshot Monument at the Washington Mall, because its not there!Abe freed the slaves.On your best day you are unworthy to shine Abes shoes.

I don't think anybody actually voted about this then. It was just understood as the definition for "Abomination".

to grimshaw:

i cant really say if Abe way a tyrant, but in his inaguration speech he said that he had no intention of freeing the slaves. i have a copy of it at home, cant remember the link. it was posted in a topic previously on this board (or maybe ak47.net) about half a year ago. if your really interested i'll try to dig it up for you.

You didn't direct this at anyone in particular, but since you and I have been going back and forth, I'll assume this is for me.

I didn't see anything funny in what you wrote in your last post. Point out the joke and I'll laugh with you.



How much compassion does a murderer, rapist, child molester, etc. rate? I know a little about the brutality of the world, and don't need you to hip me to your personal wisdom. I've fought for my life more than once.

When did I say I knew more than everyone else? I know more than some and less than many others. Kind of a superior attitude you're taking, don't you think? Is that because of your intellectually superior, pure line of libertarian thought?



Our justice system is the worst one there is, except when compared to all the rest in the world.



Because men don't understand the concept of murder, the intentional, unjustified taking of a human life?

You and I are obviously not going to come to any sort of accomodation on this issue, since I believe that a human life is present from conception and you don't. I'm not sure when you think a human life is present since you refuse to address that point, but maybe that's for another day, too.

Post from libertarian -

Not even the most liberal U. S. Supreme Court decision has ever held that to be the case! To the contrary, the Court has held that during the final trimester of pregnancy, the State has a sufficient enough interest in the welfare of the soon-to-be child that, barring actual and immediate serious harm to the mother, abortions may be freely banned by the States!

So how does this 'sovereignty' over one's body come about? Couldn't you just as easily say that because it's the woman's body she should be able to sell sex on the streets with it? Or kill herself? Or do whatever drugs she wishes? Or drive without a seat belt? Or a motorcycle helmet? etc.

If it's a part of her that can live without her, then she should have no say in the matter at all!

Eric The(CanYouSay'Viable'?)Hun[>]:)]  

There were two sons that were asked to do the Father's will. The first said"I will not!", but after giving it thought he did it. The other said "I will," but he did not. Who has done the better thing?

[:D]is this a riddle? my answer is the one who said "i will not!", but did.

i believe that the slavery issue was war propaganda used to justify "Northern agression". i am far from the "south shall rise again" types, but the Civil War was about state rights, and money. it was not started over slavery. only about 5% or so southerners owned slaves, so why would the rest take up arms for succession. so the slave owners could keep free labor.

though i am from Appomattox Va. i am not a civil war expert. there are QUITE a few books on the subject though.

not a reb, not a yankee lib