Your friend's screed is arrant nonsense. It is simple minded and mechanistic clap-trap.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: And how come that all these people that say the rebuplican party isn't "conservative" enough are often athiests? Sgat1r5 Divide and conquer?? You may be right Gman, I never thought of that. I wonder where they get there major funding. Sgatr125

I "think" the Republican party ISN'T conservative enough and by that I mean I think it is a bad idea to provide social security benefits to ILLEGAL FUCKING ALIENS.

That is generally what "I" mean by "conservative." I already knew Bush believed in God. So did Reagan and he was one of my favorite Presidents.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: And blunts. Crap, I hadn't realized I was a dope smoking liberal....shit. That's all you ever hear from Libertarians - "stay outta my hash bag." Don't blame me.

Those aren't Libertarians. Those are Hash smokers who are trying to use the Libertarian Party as a platform to legalized their bullshit since it has become obvious the Democrats won't get it done.

They are what you call "Bill Maher" Libertarians. These are people who "think" they are Libertarians but in reality are only douchebags. Just another bunch of pointless jackoffs who only what the freedoms "they" are interested in and don't want icky things like gun freedoms.

Quoted: Those aren't Libertarians. Those are Hash smokers who are trying to use the Libertarian Party as a platform to legalized their bullshit since it has become obvious the Democrats won't get it done. They are what you call "Bill Maher" Libertarians. These are people who "think" they are Libertarians but in reality are only douchebags. Just another bunch of pointless jackoffs who only what the freedoms "they" are interested in and don't want icky things like gun freedoms.

Well, there isn't a "Douchebag Party" and y'all have an image problem.  

Tho I am QUITE sure I saw legalized medical marijuana in the Lib platform.

Quoted: Your friend's screed ...

+10 style point for properly using the word "screed."

Quoted: Quoted: Those aren't Libertarians. Those are Hash smokers who are trying to use the Libertarian Party as a platform to legalized their bullshit since it has become obvious the Democrats won't get it done. They are what you call "Bill Maher" Libertarians. These are people who "think" they are Libertarians but in reality are only douchebags. Just another bunch of pointless jackoffs who only what the freedoms "they" are interested in and don't want icky things like gun freedoms. Well, there isn't a "Douchebag Party" and y'all have an image problem.   Tho I am QUITE sure I saw legalized medical marijuana in the Lib platform.

I'm sure you did. But my reasons for supporting things like ACTUAL medical marijuana are from a "freedom" standpoint and not because "I" want some.

Quoted: Quoted: Tho I am QUITE sure I saw legalized medical marijuana in the Lib platform. I'm sure you did. But my reasons for supporting things like ACTUAL medical marijuana are from a "freedom" standpoint and not because "I" want some.

Well, the libertarians I hear from all make lightin' up weed the central issue of freedom. As if it were in the Constitution

Like I say, you Liberts got an image problem.

Quoted: Quoted: Those aren't Libertarians. Those are Hash smokers who are trying to use the Libertarian Party as a platform to legalized their bullshit since it has become obvious the Democrats won't get it done. They are what you call "Bill Maher" Libertarians. These are people who "think" they are Libertarians but in reality are only douchebags. Just another bunch of pointless jackoffs who only what the freedoms "they" are interested in and don't want icky things like gun freedoms. Well, there isn't a "Douchebag Party" and y'all have an image problem.   Tho I am QUITE sure I saw legalized medical marijuana in the Lib platform.

Let me ask you to think about something garandman.  What good ever came from alcohol prohibition?  Oh, I know - a nation of criminals, economic and political power in the hands of people like Al Capone and the politicians and cops on his payroll, etc...

Now, what good ever came from "drug" prohibition?   SEE ABOVE.  Only now instead of Al Capone, we have crap from Mara Salvatrucha, the current situation in Nuevo Laredo, the Mexican border in general, not to mention the temptation that must be there for rank and file Border Patrolmen and law enforcement officers who would have the opportunity to double their yearly income by simply "looking the other way" now and then.

Being a drunk, is immoral, irresponsible, and just plain dumb-ass.  Same with being a pot-head, meth freak, or whatever.  BUT, even the most thick-headed should be able to see that what we've been doing for the past 40 years hasn't even made a dent in the "drug problem" in this country!  If anything, ALL it's done is increase drug use and "official" curruption.

As SteyrAUG says, the "pot-heads" and other freaks who attach themselves to the Libertarian Party are not much better than the average run of the mill Damnocrat.  But guys like you on the other side of the issue are at least as big a problem, in the BIG picture, as the Leftys.  The reason being that a lot of the infringements on individual Freedom in this country would not be tolerated by you dyed in the wool Republicans if the EXACT SAME policies were being rammed down our throats by a Damnocrat.  And THAT is the point Smokey's trying to make in the article.

Rank and file Republicans and Damnocrats both tend toward knee-jerk reactions to issues.  If we have a problem with illegal aliens, Repubs want to hire 10,000 new Border Patrol agents or send the Marines to the border... It never crosses their minds that the problem is created by US Gov policies in the first place with minimum wage laws, tax-collecting requirements placed on employers, welfare, state-funded education, free health care, etc.  It's easier to send the Marines than to deal with the root causes.

By the same token, the Libs get all bent out of shape about "gay marriage", but never stop to think that the Govt shouldn't be involved in ANY marriage in the first place - it's supposed to be a contract between a man, a woman, and God - NOT a man, a woman, and the Almighty State!  Which brings up another Libertarian point:  That people should have an UNLIMITED right to contract, (barring contracts for such things as murder-for-hire etc).  So if a couple of queers want to enter into a "civil contract" to do or not do certain things for a specified period of time, it should be nobody's business but theirs....  BUT, the Govt should not be allowed to make it illegal for me to discriminate against them because I think they are immoral.

If you want to protect your OWN Liberty, you MUST be willing to protect the Liberty of those you disagree with.  Otherwise ALL Liberty will eventually be lost.  That is the central idea of Libertarianism, and that is the problem with the Left and Right in this country today.  Neither side has any principles - only knee-jerk reactions.


ETA:  Just in case anybody's curious, morally I am about as far "Right" as a guy can get without being a Fundamentalist Preacher.  But, I don't think it's the govts job to take the place of God in deciding what people should or should not be allowed to do.  The exceptions would be for crimes that actually have victims like murder (including abortion), rape, robbery, theft, etc...  Some guy smoking a joint or even shooting up heroin has created no victim but himself.  The govt shouldn't arrest him for it, BUT neither should they subsidize it (as they do today).  Simply put, people should have to take ALL the responsibility for their own actions.

Quoted: Let me ask you to think about something garandman.  What good ever came from alcohol prohibition?  Oh, I know - a nation of criminals, economic and political power in the hands of people like Al Capone and the politicians and cops on his payroll, etc... Now, what good ever came from "drug" prohibition?   SEE ABOVE.

I'll concede that prohibition created the mafia.

And I'll also gladly concede that the gov't that governs least governs best.

But here's where Liberts go off the deep end, IMO.

It says the government that governs LEAST. It does NOT say the government that governs not at all governs best.

In this, Liberts are just anarchists dressed up as conservatives.

Consider the words of William Penn. "Men will either be governed by God, or they will be ruled by tyrants."

Lemme give ya the G-man paraphrase - "Men will either govern themselves, as they understand that God will hold them accountable for their actions, or they will be made to knuckle under by the man."

Lemme put in another way - you WILL have someone telling you what to do. You have a choice between 2 options - a benevolent God, or a tyrannical man.

Its a difficult balancing act, but....

To the degree men won't control themselves, the gov't MUST step in.

If all the weed users would just stay home and only screw up their own lives, it would all be good.

But as Justice Holmes said "The right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins."

I've seen these weed users. They are as bad as drunks. They INSIST they can smoke weed, and drive a car, or operate machinery. They show poor judgment in using weed at all, and then the use of  weed FURTHER impairs their judgment.

They endanger other people lives and are a general nuisance in society.

Thus, tho part of me dislikes it, I can see outlawing weed.


Sure it creates a black market for it.

But you can't make laws based on how people might work to break those laws.

Quoted: Well, to explain why the neo-cons have such influence today while they were ignored for about 20-30 years, it's all because of 9/11.

Yep. The neocons were the only ones with a plausible plan in the wake of 9/11. Nobody, left or right, has come up with a credible alternative. In politics something beats nothing, so they won by default.

The Briggs article is confused that it ascribes a domestic agenda to the neocons when they basically have none.  The Weekly Standard was going on about "National Greatness" a few years back, but that died without a trace because as a movement it was very few chiefs and no indians at all.

As far as other claims:

Unfortunately, IMAGE is all that changed. It is still the party of country club, Northern industrialists who would enslave this country for a short-sighted dime

Northern industrialists? WTF? 1935 called and wants their rhetoric back. Flip through the bios of Bush's cabinet. His advisors are mainly southerners or westerners. If "northern industrialists" were running things they'd have more say on policy and more protectionism as a result.

The article is Frank's "What Happened to Kansas" warmed over for a different audience.

No, but when the word NEO-Con is used I realize I am reading a VERY biased article.

And this perfectly illustrates what your buddy was talking about because just like the NAACP sees every policy filtered through the lens of racism towards blacks, the neo-cons see any objection to their policies as anti-semitism.

Pot meet kettle. I can see you two will get along just fine.

Quoted: By Neo-Cons do you mean Jews? Or what exactly? Sgat1r5

What's that supposed to mean?

I think the  put the "Neo" in front of con because people associate it with Nazi. Neo means "new" at least according to my dictionary. Why don't they use the term "Neo Libs"?

Quoted: Quoted: By Neo-Cons do you mean Jews? Or what exactly? Sgat1r5 What's that supposed to mean?

Among some people, "neo-con" simply means "Jews", and they suspect the neo-con agenda has Israel's interests at heart first instead of America's. If you actually read what neo-cons and their groups like the PNAC actually say, it's hard to come to that conclusion.  The "neo-cons=Israeli agents" people reach that conclusion through a quick perusal of the neo-cons' last names, and little else.

Some people on both the Left and Right think this way, such as Pat Buchanan, whoever indoctrinated dim-bulb Cindy Sheehan, and even my own dad (he's a Democrat).

Quoted: It says the government that governs LEAST. It does NOT say the government that governs not at all governs best. In this, Liberts are just anarchists dressed up as conservatives.

That's NOT what Libertarianism is at all!  "Liberts" absolutely DO think there should be govt - hence, the 10 Commandments, and the U.S. Constitution.  "Anarcho-capitalists" think ALL of society's ills would be taken care of by the market, which is not exactly what I believe, though I do think it would be preferable to what we have now.  (see my comment above regarding murder, rape, robbery, etc.)

Consider the words of William Penn. "Men will either be governed by God, or they will be ruled by tyrants."... To the degree men won't control themselves, the gov't MUST step in.  If all the weed users would just stay home and only screw up their own lives, it would all be good.  But as Justice Holmes said "The right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins."...

I agree 100 percent with the Holmes quote!!!  BUT, I do not agree that it means the govt needs to step in regarding the moral decision whether or not to smoke dope, get drunk, shoot up "smack", or whatever.  The act of getting high (or drunk) does NOT in and of itself create an unwilling victim... BUT, the act of driving under the influence equals "reckless endangerment", just like walking down the street with your .45 and randomly popping off rounds with no regard for where they're going.  You SHOULD be arrested and severely punished for that kind of behavior!.... but NOT for simply possessing the dope, or the booze, or whatever.

Shit, your "preemptive" enforcement ideology is based on exactly the same principle (or lack thereof) as gun control laws!  "Throw them in jail for possession of the illegal substance (or firearm) because they might do something evil with it, or after using it."  It is immoral to ban the gun because some dumbass might shoot somebody with it....  AND it is immoral to ban the dope because some dumbass might do something harmful or dangerous after using/consuming it.

And THAT, dear friend, equals no principles... only knee-jerk reactions.

(edited to add)  Bottom line:  The U.S. Constitution, plus the 10 Commandments is ALL  the law anybody needs.  Anything more than that, or less than that, is defacto tyranny and is absolutely immoral.  If you agree that it is immoral, and take the position that because "you" have the political backing (by that I mean force of arms) necessary to make it reality, then I can somewhat respect that.  The problem I have with "neo-cons", or "present-day Republicans" is all the self-deluding, half thought out positions on issues that don't make much more sense, from the standpoint of morality and principle than the Damnocrats positions.

Wasn't it George Washington that said something about Govt not being eloquence or ideals, but simply brute force?   Simply because the "brute force" is under your control (for now), does not make its excercise necessarily good or moral... or Godly.

Quoted: By Neo-Cons do you mean Jews? Or what exactly? Sgat1r5

No, he means 'the portion of the 'right' that I don't like'....

'Neo-con' has been applied to so many different groups it is now near meaningless...

It almost requires a definition...

The above is IMHO inacurate, as the folks described above are the old conservatives...

Neo ->

1) Interventionist, not Isolationist
   (eg 'The US will use military force as needed to promote it's political and economic interests'
2) Strictly literalist WRT the constitution
   (Commerce clause -> feds have power over any/all commerce between states or between states and foreign nations, President has absolute power as commander in chief UNLESS he wants a declared war, etc)
3) Anti-welfare-state, within reason
4) Consider social issues (gay shit, abortion, etc) a state problem for legislatures to sort out
5) Pro free-trade, free-market (eg no tarrifs, no 'protecting jobs', etc)...
6) Anti-UN, anti-'One World' (unless that 'One World' is under the heel of US combat boots, a/o the UN)...

Quoted: I think the  put the "Neo" in front of con because people associate it with Nazi. Neo means "new" at least according to my dictionary. Why don't they use the term "Neo Libs"?

Liberals are incapable of any original thought, and therfore NOTHING "new" comes out of or into their thinking.

Quoted: I agree 100 percent with the Holmes quote!!!  BUT, I do not agree that it means the govt needs to step in regarding the moral decision whether or not to smoke dope, get drunk, shoot up "smack", or whatever.

Hhmmmmm.....do you beleive murder has a moral component?

The act of getting high (or drunk) does NOT in and of itself create an unwilling victim... BUT, the act of driving under the influence equals "reckless endangerment", just like walking down the street with your .45 and randomly popping off rounds with no regard for where they're going.  You SHOULD be arrested and severely punished for that kind of behavior!.... but NOT for simply possessing the dope, or the booze, or whatever.

I'll admit mixed emotions as to outlawing pot. I just see NO redeeming or beneficial aspect to it. And LOTS of downside.

Shit, your "preemptive" enforcement ideology is based on exactly the same principle (or lack thereof) as gun control laws!  "Throw them in jail for possession of the illegal substance (or firearm) because they might do something evil with it, or after using it."  It is immoral to ban the gun because some dumbass might shoot somebody with it....

Except firearms are "specifically enumerated" in the  CONTUS. Dope isn't. SO its different.

AND it is immoral to ban the dope because some dumbass might do something harmful or dangerous after using/consuming it.

So we should have no speed limits? And a hundred other laws that help society run efficiently?

(edited to add)  Bottom line:  The U.S. Constitution, plus the 10 Commandments is ALL  the law anybody needs.  Anything more than that, or less than that, is defacto tyranny and is absolutely immoral.

NO offense, but that's just pollyannish. NEVER would work in a country our size.

I'm not happy about that reality either, but it is reality.

Quoted: Except firearms are "specifically enumerated" in the  CONTUS. Dope isn't. SO its different.

Correct, but then there's the 10th Amendment which says that just because something isn't "specifically enumerated" in the Bill of Rights, does NOT mean that it's okay for the govt to automatically deny or regulate it.

So we should have no speed limits? And a hundred other laws that help society run efficiently?

I think we should stop trying to micromanage every aspect of people's lives.  "Speed limits" could be caught in the category of "reckless endangerment", which really equates "assault" - which is where the "fist swinging" quote above comes in... which actually has been further defined as "the right to swing your fist stops where a reasonable and prudent individual would have reason to believe the swinging of said fist consitutes a threat to my nose".  

On a certain piece of road, there may be times when 90 mph is perfectly reasonable (no traffic, broad daylight), and other times when 50 mph is too damned fast (dense fog etc).  Therefore, a posted and enforced speed limit of 70 mph is unreasonable.  BUT driving 75 mph in dense fog at night actually constitutes an "assault" (threat of use of force) and should be dealt with in that way, so the punishment would actually be MORE severe than a speeding ticket - actual jail time for assault with a deadly weapon, which is what the crime actually IS...  BUT the burden of proof would be on the State, and a jury would decide whether or not to send the guy to prison for 10 yrs (which I think would be reasonable for the 75/fog/night scenario, though NOT for the 90/no-traffic/clear-day scenario).

To me that makes much more sense than a blindly, mindlessly enforced "speed limit" law.  It forces people to think and act responsibly... or pay a price that matches the crime

Same goes for DWI, or drug use, or whatever else the "nanny state" is trying to micromanage.

(edited to add)  Bottom line:  The U.S. Constitution, plus the 10 Commandments is ALL  the law anybody needs.  Anything more than that, or less than that, is defacto tyranny and is absolutely immoral.   NO offense, but that's just pollyannish. NEVER would work in a country our size. I'm not happy about that reality either, but it is reality.

Okay, maybe we do need a little more definition than simply the Const. and the 10 Commandments... BUT, as I described above re "speed limits", I think we could go a looooong way toward making people actually take responsibility for their actions by removing a lot of the silly laws that attempt to micromanage peoples lives.  I think a lot of the problem these days is that people think that "legality" equals morality, and vice-versa.  The more the govt attempts to take the place of God, the more Godless its people will become, simply because the people no longer have to take the responsibility of making their own decisions.  

I started to take this apart piece by piece but this clown is too far off the mark and too full of himself to bother.

The conservatives are the intruders in the republican party. This started 50 years ago, not ten as this moron thinks. The republicans were largely rudderless until the goldwater revolution in the late 50's and early 60's.

This more conservative than thou shit is getting old. All these morons think that they are the only ones that see this going on but in fact they are the only ones too dumb to see that without the "neo-cons" we conservatives are out on the streets and the dems have full control of the house senate and whitehouse as they did when it was just the rockefeller republicans there .

Some of what we want, piece by piece is better than all of nothing right now. That is exactly where all the buchannonite morons would have us. Standing alone with our precious principals with no power and eventually no freedom. Our principals are worthless unless we put them into action.

They need us. We need them. It's as simple as that.

If one of these "more conservative than thou" morons could put together a plan that would give us the power without relying on the neo-cons I'd like to hear it, but all I hear from them is this same bullshit over and over.

Quoted: I started to take this apart piece by piece but this clown is too far off the mark and too full of himself to bother. The conservatives are the intruders in the republican party. This started 50 years ago, not ten as this moron thinks. The republicans were largely rudderless until the goldwater revolution in the late 50's and early 60's. This more conservative than thou shit is getting old. All these morons think that they are the only ones that see this going on but in fact they are the only ones too dumb to see that without the "neo-cons" we conservatives are out on the streets and the dems have full control of the house senate and whitehouse as they did when it was just the rockefeller republicans there . Some of what we want, piece by piece is better than all of nothing right now. That is exactly where all the buchannonite morons would have us. Standing alone with our precious principals with no power and eventually no freedom. Our principals are worthless unless we put them into action. They need us. We need them. It's as simple as that. If one of these "more conservative than thou" morons could put together a plan that would give us the power without relying on the neo-cons I'd like to hear it, but all I hear from them is this same bullshit over and over.

I think if you had called a few more people "morons" your argument would be more convincing.



Yer a Moron  (under the "takes one to know one" doctrine)

Quoted: Correct, but then there's the 10th Amendment which says that just because something isn't "specifically enumerated" in the Bill of Rights, does NOT mean that it's okay for the govt to automatically deny or regulate it.

True, its a states rights issue.

But then the Liberts come round and try to apply the Fourteenth Amendment and take the right away from states to make up their own mind.

And they also fight it on the state level as well.

Basically, Liberts want their dope, and ain't nobody gonna tell them otherwise (much like a petulant child)

I think we should stop trying to micromanage every aspect of people's lives.   Same goes for DWI, or drug use, or whatever else the "nanny state" is trying to micromanage.

So do I.

But then, back in the real world, I understand the truth of William Penn's statement - "Men will either be (self) governed by God, or they will be ruled by tyrants."

its is naieve to think that the Libert version of "live and let live" actually works in the real world.

Okay, maybe we do need a little more definition than simply the Const. and the 10 Commandments... BUT, as I described above re "speed limits", I think we could go a looooong way toward making people actually take responsibility for their actions by removing a lot of the silly laws that attempt to micromanage peoples lives.

That's pollyannish.

People become MORE  responsible by having LESS restriction? Not only pollyannish, its nuts. Fact is, the ONLY thing that keeps alot of people from becoming scumbags is the threat of punishment at law.

Liberts live in this rose colored world, and that's why they'll always be marginalized. I like their theory, but it just doesn't work that way in practice.

Its like ANY organization. When small, with small numbers of members, loose regualtion works. But in a country of 200 million, the structure MUSt exist or the nation will cease to exist.

THAT'S the real world Liberts seem to refuse to acknowledge.

Well garandman, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree...  If you have that low an opinion of the nature of man, then we ain't got much more to talk about.  I guess that's where "conservatives" and "liberals" DO agree - they both think that man is too dumb and/or evil to be allowed to be Free.  The only things they differ on is how to go about "ruling" him.   An extreme version of this would be the Commies vs. the Nazis back in the 1930's - they BOTH were totalitarian socialists, they just differed on exactly how to go about stomping the old jackboot into the face of the people.

From my standpoint, both the Dems and the Reps in this country think a "properly" preemptively applied jackboot is a wonderful thing.  They only differ on the definition of "properly".  

I (and real Libertarians) think preemptively applied jackboots are ALWAYS a worse evil than the evil they claim to be stomping on.  

Quoted: Well garandman, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree...  If you have that low an opinion of the nature of man, then we ain't got much more to talk about.  I guess that's where "conservatives" and "liberals" DO agree - they both think that man is too dumb and/or evil to be allowed to be Free.  The only things they differ on is how to go about "ruling" him.   An extreme version of this would be the Commies vs. the Nazis back in the 1930's - they BOTH were totalitarian socialists, they just differed on exactly how to go about stomping the old jackboot into the face of the people. From my standpoint, both the Dems and the Reps in this country think a "properly" preemptively applied jackboot is a wonderful thing.  They only differ on the definition of "properly".   I (and real Libertarians) think preemptively applied jackboots are ALWAYS a worse evil than the evil they claim to be stomping on.

My opinion on the nature of man is based entirely on the word of the God who created man.

The difference is this -

Liberals wish to control man solely for the power trip. In reality, Liberals desire for control has NOTHING to do with their analysis of man's nature. Liberals beleive man is basically good.

Conservatives wish to allow freedom UNTIL man proves himself out of control. Conservatism is based on real world observations of human nature. And of a few occasions, COnservatives will allow for pre-emptive law where man has almost universally proved himself un trustworthy. Conservatives beleive an efficient society is based upon a social contract of mutually agreed upon rules necessary for efficiency.

Libertarianism is a utopian ideal of how they WISH the world was. Everybody sharing their toys and playing nice and freely crossing borders and sharing tokes off their bones and living and let live. Which is loopy. I wish it were true, but it ain't.

Quoted: I (and real Libertarians) think preemptively applied jackboots are ALWAYS a worse evil than the evil they claim to be stomping on.

There ya go.

The proof libetarians are nuts.

yeah, speed limits are worse than the scientifically verified fact that reckless speed kills NOT just the speeder, but innocent victims.

Yer out of your mind. I like you, but you are nuts.

Quoted: On a certain piece of road, there may be times when 90 mph is perfectly reasonable (no traffic, broad daylight), and other times when 50 mph is too damned fast (dense fog etc).  Therefore, a posted and enforced speed limit of 70 mph is unreasonable.  BUT driving 75 mph in dense fog at night actually constitutes an "assault" (threat of use of force) and should be dealt with in that way, so the punishment would actually be MORE severe than a speeding ticket - actual jail time for assault with a deadly weapon, which is what the crime actually IS...  BUT the burden of proof would be on the State, and a jury would decide whether or not to send the guy to prison for 10 yrs (which I think would be reasonable for the 75/fog/night scenario, though NOT for the 90/no-traffic/clear-day scenario). To me that makes much more sense than a blindly, mindlessly enforced "speed limit" law.  It forces people to think and act responsibly... or pay a price that matches the crime

And your policy here would require a ten-fold increase in the enforcement manpower of the police department and the court systems.

This just demostrates the polly annish, immature mindset of the Libertarian.

What you suggest MIGHT work in a country of 1- 2 million people, but it can NEVER work in a nation our size.

In effect, what your policy does is VASTLY increase the size of the jackboot in the police force and court system that would be necessary to support that policy. Fact is, in a naton ou size, you MUSt have broad, far reaching laws SOLELY for the ability to apply them equitably, and be able to apply them at all.

Again, Libertarians are just never capable of serious thought beyond "I wanna smoke my dope."
(broad generalization, but illustrated by your fantasy world wishful thinking about "live and let live." )

Pull a Ricky Williams and go up the mountain in some foreign country and light up, man. Then, come on back and join us in the real world. When teh real world gets to be too much, go back to the mountain top and smoke another joint. But we've got a real world to run down here - one where EVEN with a 65 mph limit, people routinely do 85 mph plus. One where people steal paper napkins and salt shakers from restuarants for WHO KNOWS THE HELL WHY. One where tax fraud and welfare fraud and insurance fraud are killing whole industries. Where poeple sue for the off chance a jury of libertarian dope smokers will be on the jury and give them some looney award.

Utopia DOES NOT WORK. Deal with it.

funny how when you strike a chord of Truth, the opposition resorts to name calling etc - insinuating I'm a "pot-head" or that any real Libertarian would be one of the idiots that pass out other people's money in the plethora of assinine court cases we hear about every day....  

ahhh....  I quit.  I could dissect your last post point by point to illustrate your incredible lack of understanding (yet again), and point out that most of these problems you see with the "real world" are created by govt, not solved by it.... but I'm reminded of something my Dad used to tell me:  "Don't try to teach a pig to sing, son.  It only wastes your time and annoys the pig."





I've got more productive things to do.

Adios.

Ok, now we get into 'Waah... But But the 10th Ammendment'...

Ok, here goes:

1) The 'people' get last crack at any 'powers', it's specifically IN the Constuttion

"the States, or the People'. That means that ANYTHING the Feds don't or can't take action on, the STATES get next crack (and who prosecutes most drug, DUI, and other criminal cases? Why the STATES of course), and the people get whatever's left

2) Commerce Clause

Feds have the right to regulate any/all interstate and foreign commerce (which most drug traffiking is)
Like it or not, there are no limits placed on this power in the text of the Constitution, so if it it is bought or sold across state or national borders, it's federal game...

Now, granted, the USSC has improperly expanded the CC, but even if it were reduced to the literal text, the Feds would still have the power to ban the purchase, sale, or movement of drugs across state lines, and the States would have the power to ban posession (which almost all do)...


Like it or not, the Constitution, read literally, authorizes a very strong, powerful government at state and fed level... That's the law, as written, and that's all that matters...

Quoted: funny how when you strike a chord of Truth, the opposition resorts to name calling etc - insinuating I'm a "pot-head" or that any real Libertarian would be one of the idiots that pass out other people's money in the plethora of assinine court cases we hear about every day....

Yer the one that wanted to expand the police and court systems exponentially by turning simple speeding tickts into everything from hangnails to assualt cases.

Interstingly, THAT is exactly the type of preemptive law you CLAIM to detest. Driving 90 mph in a 25 zone is (as long as no one gets hurt) a victimless crime, and you want to turn it into assault. In fact, you DO support preemptive laws.

ahhh....  I quit.  I could dissect your last post point by point to illustrate your incredible lack of understanding (yet again), and point out that most of these problems you see with the "real world" are created by govt, not solved by it.... but I'm reminded of something my Dad used to tell me:  "Don't try to teach a pig to sing, son.  It only wastes your time and annoys the pig."

Hello? McFly? ALL the instances I cited are NOT caused by gov't. Fraud is NOT caused by gov't. Speeding is NTO caused by gov't. Theft is NOT  caused by gov't.


But you did show everyone the Libertarians tendency toward anarchy. Not that you  are anarchists, you just want a gov't that doesn't interfere with whatever your pet thing is.

Far as calling names, "dope smoker"  IS an activity voraciously promoted by most Libertarians, making my characterization accurate and legitimate. . And you insinuating I'm the logical equaivalent of a pig shows the vacuousness of your arguments.

Quoted: I could dissect your last post point by point ...

YOu guys always say that.

But you never do.

Oh well...your loss.  

Quoted: ...most of these problems you see with the "real world" are created by govt, not solved by it....

AShooter -


As a final thought (I don't wish to "bait" you after you said you were done) this statement shows the stark difference between libertarians / liberals and conservatives.

The best commetn you made in this thread was the assessment of me seeing man as basically corrupt, to varying degrees.

You see, the liberal beelives man is basically good - its just his environment is bad, and so he does bad stuff. "Fix the environment, and you curb mans poor behaviour" the liberal says.

As your statement shows, libertarians aren't that much different in this root cause ideology. You think gov't CAUSES " most of these problems you see with the "real world" "  (I was referring to fraud, theft, and wanton violation of  speed limits)

Once again the libertarian , like the liberal sees environemntal and external causes for mans poor behaviour. "Limit the gov't and you fix man's poor behaviour" says the libertarian.

In stark contrast to libertarians and liberals, true conservatives understand the root cause of mans problem is internal to himself. The conservative says "You fix man's poor behaviour by fixing the man." The conservative understands that it is internal corruption within man that CAUSES him even to abuse the rightful and necessary powers of gov't . Abusive gov't is caused not by gov't, but by corrupt man. The conservative understands that man, unless he is reigned in, will abuse and violate his fellow man. Wherever possible the true conservative chooses freedom. But sometimes theres no way license (the abuse of freedom and liberty)  can be allowed. There MUST be law.

Different men require different levels of reigning in. Some men require near none. The pollyannish libertarian thinks you can base societies rules on THIS type of man. That's rank foolishness. The fact is, laws MUST be based roughly on the mean average of man's proclivity to abuse and violate his fellow man.

THIS is why Penn said "Men will either be (self) governed by God, or the WILL be ruled by tyrants." Self-government under the authority of God RAISES the mean average of the proclivity to abuse and violate fellow man, and the strictness of societal laws can be eased.

But these days, man is throwing off God's authority and the mean average is dropping. For a society to survive, tyrants MUST step in. Often these "tyrants" are unwilling tyrants, stepping in  only with sorrow and reluctance. (These "tyrants" are known as "conservatives." ) They do so ONLY because they understand man REFUSES to control himself, and therefore gov't must, in order to save society from devouring itself.

This is the real world that mostly only conservatives live in. If you wish to join us, you know where we can be found.

Quoted: Quoted: I started to take this apart piece by piece but this clown is too far off the mark and too full of himself to bother. The conservatives are the intruders in the republican party. This started 50 years ago, not ten as this moron thinks. The republicans were largely rudderless until the goldwater revolution in the late 50's and early 60's. This more conservative than thou shit is getting old. All these morons think that they are the only ones that see this going on but in fact they are the only ones too dumb to see that without the "neo-cons" we conservatives are out on the streets and the dems have full control of the house senate and whitehouse as they did when it was just the rockefeller republicans there . Some of what we want, piece by piece is better than all of nothing right now. That is exactly where all the buchannonite morons would have us. Standing alone with our precious principals with no power and eventually no freedom. Our principals are worthless unless we put them into action. They need us. We need them. It's as simple as that. If one of these "more conservative than thou" morons could put together a plan that would give us the power without relying on the neo-cons I'd like to hear it, but all I hear from them is this same bullshit over and over. I think if you had called a few more people "morons" your argument would be more convincing. Yer a Moron  (under the "takes one to know one" doctrine)

That's is? That's the best you can do? You post this big stupid screed and that's the best defense you can give it.

Quoted: As for me, I'd say "neo-con" is code language for "modern Republican statist flying the false flag of 'Conservatism' who has sold out our Country and our Constitution for who knows what reason, but it sure as hell ain't the reason they've been telling us"...  Conservatism has not changed in my lifetime, but the Republican Party sure as hell has.  That's what I mean by "neo-con".

All that's nothing more than a "RINO".

But you just love to use that Oh-I'm-So-Intellectual-Sounding "Neo-Con" ad hominem.

Well if you like ad hominems then you and "Smokey" are nothing more than useful tools parroting the talking points of the hybrid spawn of a John Birch Society member crossed with Janine Garafalo.



Oh and BTW... here's one of the original "Neo-Cons":



Barry Goldwater's 1964 Republican Presidential Nomination Acceptance Speech (with translated NEO-CONisms)

"This Nation and its people are freedom's model in a searching world. We can be freedom's missionaries in a doubting world."
Sounds like a typical NEO-CON - proselytizing democracy.

"...failures haunt the houses of our once great alliances and undermine the greatest bulwark ever erected by free nations - the NATO community."
Damn NEO-CONS just love their international "alliances" and foreign entanglements!

"And I needn't remind you that it was the strength and the unbelievable will of the Eisenhower years that kept the peace by using our strength, by using it in the Formosa Straits and in Lebanon and by showing it courageously at all times."
One NEO-CON Imperialist praising another.

"We must know the whole good is the product of many single contributions."
NEO-CON nod to collectivism.

"And I can see in the distant and yet recognizable future the outlines of a world worthy our dedication, our every risk, our every effort, our every sacrifice along the way. Yes, a world that will redeem the suffering of those who will be liberated from tyranny..."
Typical NEO-CON, putting us all at greater risk for his interventionist vision of liberating the world.

I can see and I suggest that all thoughtful men must contemplate the flowering of an Atlantic civilization, the whole world of Europe unified and free, trading openly across its borders, communicating openly across the world... What a destiny, what a destiny can be ours to stand as a great central pillar linking Europe, the Americans and the venerable and vital peoples and cultures of the Pacific. I can see a day when all the Americas, North and South, will be linked in a mighty system, a system in which the errors and misunderstandings of the past will be submerged one by one in a rising tide of prosperity and interdependence."
Open borders, free-trade, a mighty system of interdependence... Yep, absolute NEO-CONism all right there.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I started to take this apart piece by piece but this clown is too far off the mark and too full of himself to bother. The conservatives are the intruders in the republican party. This started 50 years ago, not ten as this moron thinks. The republicans were largely rudderless until the goldwater revolution in the late 50's and early 60's. This more conservative than thou shit is getting old. All these morons think that they are the only ones that see this going on but in fact they are the only ones too dumb to see that without the "neo-cons" we conservatives are out on the streets and the dems have full control of the house senate and whitehouse as they did when it was just the rockefeller republicans there . Some of what we want, piece by piece is better than all of nothing right now. That is exactly where all the buchannonite morons would have us. Standing alone with our precious principals with no power and eventually no freedom. Our principals are worthless unless we put them into action. They need us. We need them. It's as simple as that. If one of these "more conservative than thou" morons could put together a plan that would give us the power without relying on the neo-cons I'd like to hear it, but all I hear from them is this same bullshit over and over. I think if you had called a few more people "morons" your argument would be more convincing. Yer a Moron  (under the "takes one to know one" doctrine) That's is? That's the best you can do? You post this big stupid screed and that's the best defense you can give it.

I can do much better. I gave your post all it deserved.

And BTW, ya moron, I did NOT post this thread.  

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I started to take this apart piece by piece but this clown is too far off the mark and too full of himself to bother. The conservatives are the intruders in the republican party. This started 50 years ago, not ten as this moron thinks. The republicans were largely rudderless until the goldwater revolution in the late 50's and early 60's. This more conservative than thou shit is getting old. All these morons think that they are the only ones that see this going on but in fact they are the only ones too dumb to see that without the "neo-cons" we conservatives are out on the streets and the dems have full control of the house senate and whitehouse as they did when it was just the rockefeller republicans there . Some of what we want, piece by piece is better than all of nothing right now. That is exactly where all the buchannonite morons would have us. Standing alone with our precious principals with no power and eventually no freedom. Our principals are worthless unless we put them into action. They need us. We need them. It's as simple as that. If one of these "more conservative than thou" morons could put together a plan that would give us the power without relying on the neo-cons I'd like to hear it, but all I hear from them is this same bullshit over and over. I think if you had called a few more people "morons" your argument would be more convincing. Yer a Moron  (under the "takes one to know one" doctrine) That's is? That's the best you can do? You post this big stupid screed and that's the best defense you can give it. I can do much better. I gave your post all it deserved. And BTW, ya moron, I did NOT post this thread.

So you got nothing huh?

Quoted: So you got nothing huh?

I  understand that just labelling anyone and everyone a moron (as you did) is moronic.

Ya moron.


Dude...I got plenty, but nuthin' for the likes of you. Yer clueless. Why would i waste my time on you?