United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: The Libertarian Party Believes Ron Paul Is Not A Libertarian
Source:
libertarianconsrvative.com
URL Source: http://www.thelibertyconservative.c ... eves-ron-paul-not-libertarian/
Published: Jan 7, 2017
Author: Chris Dixon
Post Date: 2017-01-08 23:04:16 by Gatlin
Keywords: None
Views: 5352
Comments: 60
t is often said that political parties are ruining the dignity of American discourse. Instead of discussing policy points, many identify with one of two partisan identities and allow their loyalties to fall in line. Here, policy support shapes around their team and they turn against whatever the other side opposes. It’s shallow. And it is growing worse. The problem with the political arena is that as the investment grows more significantly, so does the need for self-preservation. Political careers mean that principles can take a backseat to the race discussion because nobody is going to make either a name for himself or money by losing with dignity. This is a phenomenon also not restricted to the Democrats and Republicans. The Libertarian party has the same problem. The Libertarian Party has developed a tendency to attack non-enrolled libertarians, including prominent figures like Senator Rand Paul and his father, former Texas Congressman Ron Paul. Two-time Libertarian Party presidential candidate Gary Johnson has attacked Senator Paul in the past as not being libertarian. While there is a legitimate debate whether Senator Paul is more conservative than libertarian, the former New Mexico Governor is hardly in a position to talk. Now it’s Libertarian Party chairman Nicholas Sarwark who is stepping up criticism of Paul, echoing a common claim of party members. Ron Paul, according to Chairman Sarwark, is not a libertarian. He claims that the liberty leader has often been wrong and even anti-libertarian, then pointing to his support of states’ rights. To libertarians, the states’ rights debate is more like a game of semantics. Technically, a state does not have rights — only individuals do. The state is still government and thus, the power for its existence is derived from the people themselves. Given this, only the people themselves have rights. This is a position that Paul supports. In 2002, he wrote that “states’ rights simply means the individual states should retain authority over all matters not expressly delegated to the federal government in Article I of the Constitution.” Essentially, the term “states’ rights” simply alludes to the Tenth Amendment, which itself states that the people retain all power not specifically delegated to the federal government or prohibited to the states. In his book “Liberty Defined,” Paul states: “Technically, states don’t have ‘rights’ — only individuals do. But states are legal entities that are very important in the governmental structure of the United States, of course. They serve as a kind of bulwark against an overweening federal government. The Constitution was written with an intent to protect the independence of each state by establishing for the states a very limited relationship to the federal government.” Paul clearly states that states don’t have rights and again notes the term itself alludes to the Tenth Amendment. Under our system of government, the state is supposed to retain its independence from federal overreach while still acting on behalf of the people. If this is not libertarian, what is? The Libertarian Party has a confused history on what libertarianism is. They have previously had individuals run for president like Bob Barr, a former Congressman who voted for the USA PATRIOT Act and the invasion of Iraq. Given this fact, it’s not entirely surprising that the party had a Hillary Clinton apologist run for vice president, described as “the original libertarian.” Ron Paul may not be perfect, but he did not support the USA PATRIOT Act. The Libertarian party has supported people who did, including their latest vice presidential candidate. Paul did not support the Iraq invasion, while the Libertarian party has advocated for people who did. Former governor Bill Weld himself has supported affirmative action and stronger environmental regulations at the federal level. Before criticizing others for not being libertarian, the Libertarian Party should probably learn what it means to be a libertarian first.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-20) not displayed.
.
.
.
#21. To: Gatlin (#7)
With all due respect sir your answer is quite lame. You are afraid to admit you agree with most of his positions. That is my opinion. Because his bills didn't pass doesn't mean anything is wrong with his positins. It just means that most of the others didn't agree. Now we all know the country has been gong in the wrong direction. If you agree with that then you can't blame Ron Paul for the condition of the country. He tried but he was outnumbered. If his bills would have passed would it have made the country a better place. For the most part for sure. Later when I have more time I will post a bunch of his positions that I disagree with. Ron Paul is an honorable man.
Ij ust chose some from the list. Picked some from each category. I put some in i agree with and some I don't. I left some out I didn't agree with.
Other than collect a salary, what is it that you think lawamakers should do? I suppose you could include repealing laws, but he failed at that too.
I'll read your long response later when I get home. Thanks taking the time to write a detailed response. That is one thing I like about you. You do go in detail about why you believe as you do. Have a good day.
I suppose you could include repealing laws, but he failed at that too. Because assholes like you outnumber him is the reason he didn't get as much accomplished as he did had we had more honorable people in congress. I doubt you can man up because you are so childish. But if you have it in you and you have the balls to answer (very doubtful because your friends will make fun of you) please tell us what you agree with or what you disagree with on my little list. Or don't if you are a pussy.
I don't like fags. But we should all be equal under the law. That doesn't mean fag pretend marriage. I don't think he is actually for them. He has a mixed record on the issue. I disagree with some of his votes that concerned homos. But I don't disagree with all of them. If we get to the root of WHY he voted the way he did we might understand why better and come to the conclusion that he isn't pro sodomite. Maybe not. I don't agree with some of his drug positions. But you are exaggerating with heroin vending machines. He has to many views that are different then Fondas. You have a good day too.
It would appear that you suffer greatly from this affliction. Maybe a better word to describe you would be "libertyphobe". Post the link or crawl back in your hole. We're not far apart. We should all be equal under the law. And that does not mean that gays can marry, because that is not marriage at all. I suppose where we would differ is that you don't like gays, while I am almost completely indifferent and generally find them pathetic, the sad and attainted dead-ends of their genetic lines. My view is that they should not be suppressed, or oppressed, just simply ignored. And pitied.
And thinking that is sign of accomplishment….is why you assholes are laughingly ridiculed as Paultards.
But, he is a most honorable man who has only talked, while he has accomplished nothing. Talking is okay, but I want a leader who is not only a TALKER….but also a DOER, who makes things happen. And that is why I wanted Donald Trump. Donald Trump is a leader who does not “walk softly and carries a big stick” like Teddy; a leader who does not “talk softly and does nothing” like Ron….but, Donald Trump is a leader who “talks loudly and carries a big iPhone or iPad” while he accomplishes something to back up everything he says. To paraphrase Brutus: I come to bury failures to accomplish….not to praise failures that did not accomplish. Do we want to live in a world of “if happenings” or live in a world of “reality with beneficial happenings?” Some people look to the past and only dream about “if” things had happened….while others wake up and look to the future to find someone to make things happen. We have now awakened and found Donald Trump….who will make things happen, happen for the best. Let us therefore move on, and be thankful for that …
That is one thing I like about you. You do go in detail about why you believe as you do. Have a good day. Thanks, you too. I call them as a see 'em. I'm not a politician, so I don't have a hidden agenda. "I am what I am" - Popeye
Of course. I have to YELLA some of my examples to EVEN the YELLA playing field your agenda posters paint your site. 95% of Ron Paul's positions, I agree with. That 95% outweigh the 5% I don't agree with. So based on his political platform, knowing I will NEVER find a political candidate that I 100% agree with, I would vote for RP before I'd vote for 99% of the Republican past candidates. With that said, I'll never vote for him unless HE'S VIABLE.... AND it's to keep a (D) out of office because of the vile assholes that tarnish his name. Decktard, being a shining example of one. Trust me when I say, Ron Paul's 6% popularity is a direct result of the TRASH (like Sucky Bucky, Hondope and Decktard) that's associated with his name. They just fail to get it... they FAIL to understand that it's because of the vile radical liberaltarian TRASH that Ron PAULTARD will DIE before he gets more than 3 laws passed or becomes POTUS I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
libertarianism one too but the not a the love ps I'll I pss even If you ... don't use exclamation points --- you should't be typeing ! Commas - semicolons - question marks are for girlie boys !
Just churches? Not Kmart? Craven bitch.
I agree …
The actions by these Paultard assholes has done more to turn me off Libertarianism than — well, than anything. My contacts with the libertarians on LP created a certain amount of contempt for their philosophies and that grew to be even greater contempt after they moved over to LF. They all rely on the asinine assumption that….if they will only string together enough of their vague and repulsive rhetoric, then all of human history and what all rational people on earth wants can be completely ignored. They live in their own misguided worlds …
You could NEVER be a libertarian; both of you thrive on government handouts.
Craven bitch. Churches. Why are you to cowardly to answer a simple straight forward question?
From your response I'm pretty sure that Gatlin and Grand Island agree with Ron Paul more that you do. I'm where you are for the most part. If I get time I'll come back and tell you where I disagree with you and why. One real quick would be gold for currency. The constitution does say that. Also in the Bible god says he likes true weights and measures. Paper money is manipulated money.
Why is that, dullard? Because your man-crush said so? No more Justices of the Peace? No more marriages by ship's captains? No more marriages by judges? No more marriages by court clerks? Who decides what a church is for purposes of conducting marriages? And why not Kmart? Stupid parrot.
Why are you to much of a pussy to answer the question? Hmm pussyboy?
I'm answering one of your moronic proposals. You're pissing yourself and running away from it.
You are now Yukons left nut. Because you are a pussy and to cowardly to answer the question.
It was Ron Pauls proposal not mine. I agree that churches should be able to issue marriage licenses without the governments permission.
So do I... and they shouldn't be forced to wed faggots in the name of treating people equal. We ain't all equal... we never were. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
print college take on the love If you ... don't use exclamation points --- you should't be typeing ! Commas - semicolons - question marks are for girlie boys !
My pension is derived by private mutual funds, not taxes. D-bag. lol
I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
I'll go even further. If some homos want to go to the store and get some crayons and make their own license. I don't care. Just when the interfere in the public sphere and try to force acceptance of a perversion.
Expand please.
quack pilots soldiers sailors seers magicians anthropologists psychics crystal chicken tea throw make april 365 / love ps 3rd If you ... don't use exclamation points --- you should't be typeing ! Commas - semicolons - question marks are for girlie boys !
Could you expand on each of those points. I think i'm understanding.
think live ebonics trees bananas brown jail white torture bondage If you ... don't use exclamation points --- you should't be typeing ! Commas - semicolons - question marks are for girlie boys !
I think we often come up against the real seam in our respective ways of thinking and understanding that make it very hard sometimes, for us to "get" each other. Given the nature of it, I think it's harder for you to understand me than the reverse - I know what you're referring to in the Constitution and the Bible. I think that where you find what I have to say about such things distressing is that I often view some of the same things you see as authoritative, but not necessarily limitative. In a religious sense, I'm not a Sola Scripturalist, but I have always been willing to do straight KJV-Only Sola Scriptura in Biblical discussions. If we ever did that, we would see pretty quickly that our methods of addressing the same words are different. If we got angry at each other (and you do get angry at me sometimes) you would say that I am "Lying", and I would retort that you are "reading things into the text, adding outside concepts that are not there". I think if we were calm about it and recognized that we are both men of good will trying to get at the truth, but see things from different - sincere - perspectives, it would be easier to put the points of tension and disagreement in clear perspective. I actually think that the place to begin with all of it is the Bible, because ultimately my whole morality comes out of my beliefs about God, and I perceive that yours does to. We see God differently, in part because of denominational differences, but of course in this world we choose our denominations, so those chosen denominational differences are really the offshoot of the deeper structure of our respective minds. One could say that I "think the way I do because I am a Catholic", or a lawyer, but it would be much more accurate to say that I am a Catholic, and a successful lawyer, because I think the way I do. The mind preceded the career choice, and steered it, and while I was baptized Catholic, I passed through three decades of being nothing more than a Christianized pagan before the Christian religion was concretely proven to me to my satisfaction, at which point I could have selected any denomination, but remained Catholic - not just externally anymore, but also largely internally. I don't know that you are Baptist, but the way you think reminds me of my Baptist cousins and Baptist minister great uncle. There is a clarity of logic along clear lines, all of which flows for certain key foundational scriptures. For you to discuss Catholicism with me objectively, or me to discuss those cornerstones of Baptisty Scripture with you objectively, would be difficult, because we are coming from a position of different weightings of things. It's easy to get steamed over them when the root of the other's view seems to come from a place that must not be questioned - from a place of evil. The Apostles also fought with each other, sometimes quite bitterly. Christ sometimes mocked them (calling two of them "Sons of Thunder" for their goings on) and sometimes prayed to the Father for their unity, that they would be able to hold together in spite of the differences. At the fundamental root, I believe that the broad direction of what I do is based on the will of God. And so do you. We look at what God said, and what he meant, differently. I think the most productive thing we could do - if we don't want to fight like cats and dogs, is to really try to look at Christianity through the eyes of the other. Do that until we can manage it, and I think that we will each realize that the other is not coming from a position of immoral compromise with evil, or setting aside God's word to satisfy a political desire, but that we really read the same words of the same God and think he meant something different. As an example (using the Constitution, not the Bible)- I think you read Article 1, section 8 para 5 (granting Congress the power to coin money), and Article 1, Section 10, para 1 (denying the states the power to make anything other than gold or silver coin as legal tender for the payment of debts), as limiting the federal government to using only gold or silver as the basis for the money. But I read those two clauses and do not see that. What I see is that Congress has the power to make money (it is not limited to gold and silver), but that states have no power to make money, other than gold or silver. So, for example, the Congress has the authority to make the money we have - "fiat" money as goldbugs would say - and that is the legal tender of the whole realm. States do not have the right to make their own legal tender, but they could, in the day, use Spanish pieces of eight, or French louis, or British pounds sterling - gold and silver money - as the basis for paying debts. I do not read the limitation on the states as a limitation on the federal government. My motive is not "to empower the federal government". It is because I am reading exactly what the text SAYS. The limitation is on the states, to prevent THEM from making money (but to permit them to use the gold and silver that was in circulation in that day). But there is no limitation in the text as to what the federal government has to make money out of. So, a state with a debt to the feds back then COULD pay the feds in silver or gold coinage of foreign nations - it was valued based on the silver and gold - but the federal government was not bound to issue money made of gold and silver. It DID, mostly, but it also issued debts and paper money for the exigencies of war, in particular. I by no means desire a fight over this, but that is what I read when I read those words. I don't see the limits on the federal government in them that the gold-bugs see. This is not because I am an agent of the Rothschild's. It's because I am strictly honest, and the words are just not there. I don't suffer from a deficiency of logic - that's where the arguments start to get insulting: I must be an idiot because I don't read the words the way somebody else reads them. Well, I'm not an idiot and I know it. And so does anybody who talks with me for any time. It am not playing a game when I say that the words aren't there. I really mean it: the words are not there, and I can't just pretend that they ARE there in order to get along. I can PRETEND they are there, to go ahead to see what the implications are...and what those implications are is that there is no civil war (because the South could not have fought for a week on the gold standard - it had to rely entirely on printed money), but that the Germans would have won World War I and been the colonial masters of the world (because the United States, limited to a pure gold and silver standard, without fractional reserving, did not have one-one hundredth of the gold or silver necessary to fight that war. Had the standard applied to the American Revolutionaries, we would be British subjects: the Revolution was won on Continental paper money and unbacked debt. Since the 1600s war has been so expensive that no nation in the world has ever been able to fight it on the gold or silver standard. All have had to resort to unbacked debt and fractional reserving. Just because it is not sustainable does not mean that the Constitution does not bind the federal government to a gold and silver standard. But it simply doesn't: the words are not there. So when I look at things formalistically - playing Sola Scriptura with the US Constitution - or when I look at things consequentially - what would happen if we did - I find that the country would not have ever become independent in the first place had the Founders themselves not issued fiat currency, and I find that they did not write a document that actually bound themselves or their heirs, at the federal level, to do so. It DID bind the states of gold and silver, in order to remove a deficiency of the articles of Confederation, which allowed each state to issue its own money. That was not working well, so it was changed. I understand the desire to fix our economic mess by a resort to gold. I am not personally opposed to getting our finances in such a shape that we could, in peacetime, be on the gold and silver standard (in wartime, it is absolutely impossible - the total gold and silver in the world is not one one millionth of the value necessary to fight World War II - to stick to that standard in modern war means to certainly lose the war - and there are things more important than economic stability). But what I can't do is pretend that a document like the Constitution says what I can see it does not say. To me, that would be dishonest. There is no bright line rule, in written word from the American past, that forces the result I would like to see. We actually do have to fight it out politically. We don't have the written words to be able to seize the Supreme Court and get the court to rule, based on original intent, that we go on a bi-metal standard, thereby bypassing the hard politics. The Constitution just doesn't say it. All that the Scripture says is that when one has weights and measures, whether for gold or silver, or for measuring out grain and oil at the marketplace, they must be honest weights. To have dishonest weights is to cheat and steal one's counterparties. The Scriptures do not require men to operate their governments on the gold and silver standard. This doesn't mean that I'm opposed to sound money! It means that I can't pretend that powerful documents give me divine authority and the authority of the Founding Fathers to demand a particular result that I prefer. Now, if you were angry, you might very well look at those same texts and call me a "liar" because YOU see the gold and silver standard for money in them. I could then turn and call you a "liar" because that mandatory standard is NOT there. And back and forth we would go. I wouldn't do it (call you a "liar") because I recognize that you really are sincere. You might (I don't know that this is the case with gold and silver) really see those words you're reading (in the Constitution, and about weights and measures in the Scripture) as really saying that. They don't, I know, but YOU know they do. There's no dishonesty here. Neither is lying. We're just not seeing the same meaning in a set of words. I don't think that can ever be worked out politically, but I think in a political sense it maybe could be IF we were to agree on a single Scriptural text (say, the KJV) and then read it in a Sola Scriptura manner, without admitting with Catholic tradition or Protestant tradition. Just the words themselves. If we did that, I think we would still not see everything the same way. But I think that we WOULD really understand where, precisely, in a Biblical sense, the other was coming from. And we could plot out the places where we're bound to disagree, on a Scriptural basis, and know WHY we disagree, and recognize that our disagreement is rooted in completely sincere differences in our understandings of what God is actually saying to us there. It might not really remove the points of disagreement, but I think it would certainly reduce the rancor when we disagree, because of the improved understanding.
But I read those two clauses and do not see that. What I see is that Congress has the power to make money (it is not limited to gold and silver), but that states have no power to make money, other than gold or silver. So, for example, the Congress has the authority to make the money we have - "fiat" money as goldbugs would say - and that is the legal tender of the whole realm. States do not have the right to make their own legal tender, but they could, in the day, use Spanish pieces of eight, or French louis, or British pounds sterling - gold and silver money - as the basis for paying debts. I do not read the limitation on the states as a limitation on the federal government. Then add the 10th in.
The 10th Amendment, or Article 1, Section 10?
I'll assume you mean the 10th Amendment. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." So, we've got three parts of the Constitution. Article I, Section 8, Para. 5, granting Congress the power to coin money - and not specifying of what the money must be coined. There is no mention of gold, silver, bronze, electrum, tin, iron, or any other metal that is the standard. Congress is given the power to make money out of what it chooses to make it. It is not limited by this clause to gold and silver. Article 1, Section 10, paragraph 2 denies the states the power to make anything legal tender for the payment of debts other than gold or silver coin. Note that the states do not decide whether or not whatever the federal government makes legal tender for the nation is legal tender. The power to establish what is US national legal tender is assigned to the Congress by Article 1, Section 8, para 5, as already discussed. Art. 1, Sec. 10, para 1 strips the states of the power to make anything ELSE legal tender, other than gold and silver coin. So, there's the federal money, established constitutionally by Congress, in whatever form there is. The states cannot veto that, or say it's not legal tender, because the money-making power is assigned by the Constitution to Congress. Money established by Congress is legal tender, period. The Constitution gives Congress that power, and does not limit it to any metal. And then there's state money. The states can't make anything else legal tender besides the federal money, which is legal tender by definition, or gold and silver. The states can, under the Constitution, also make gold and silver coin legal tender for the payment of debts, alongside the federal currency. And that is the limit of state power to do anything else with money. The state is formally and explicitly limited by the Art. 1, Sec 10, para 1. The Congress is formally and explicitly granted the power to make money by ARt. 1, Sec. 8, Para. 5. So, now, let's add in the 10th Amendment. It begins ""The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution," - but the money making power IS delegated to the United States by the Constitution, but Art. I, Sec. 8, Para. 5. "nor prohibited by it to the States," - but the power to make money IS explicitly prohibited to the states by Art. I, Sec. 10, Para. 1. They cannot make anything (besides federal money, which is legal tender because of Art. I, Sec. 8, Para. 5) legal tender except gold and silver. The states "are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." In this case, nothing is left. Congress is delegated the sole moneymaking power. The states are completely denied it, and merely granted the power to also use (existing) gold and silver coin for the payment of debts. When it comes to the making of money, no power at all is left to the states or the people. The plenary grant of authority is made to Congress. And that grant of authority contains no gold or silver limitation. Therefore, Constitutionally, none exists. Maybe one SHOULD exist, but it DOES NOT exist. The Constitution would not have to be amended to put us on the gold standard: Congress has the power to do that (per Art. I, Sec. 8, Para. 5), but the Supreme Court cannot read the Constitution and rule that Congress has no authority to create fiat money. The Constitution has no such limit on Congress. The Constitution DOES completely strip the states of any power to do so. So, can the people themselves decide that something is legal tender between themselves? Sure. Barter is not illegal. But it is taxable, at its value in US dollars, just like any other exchange. The states cannot establish the value of barter goods as a currency however - they are expressly denied that power by the 10th Amendment. That's what I think the Constitution says, and I think the English is plain and what I am saying is unremarkable. The Constitution won't save us from fiat money, because Congress has the power to create it - always did. The noxious effects of money inflation have to be addressed politically. People have to be persuaded and the battle won at the ballot box, because the Supreme Court cannot step in as a constitutional matter and find a "gold only", or "bi-metals only" rule in the Constitution that limits the federal government...that is, of course, unless the Supreme's "go Roe" and just make up shit as they please and impose it on the nation as "the Constitution". But you and I both know that Roe was a completely dishonest decision, that there is no inherent right to abortion in the Constitution. The money issue, by contrast, is pretty fully spelled out in the Constitution, and Congress has the power to do what it's done. It SHOULD be more cautious, but it isn't acting unconstitutionally when it isn't, on this subject.
#22. To: Deckard (#17)
Great list - thanks for posting it.
#23. To: Deckard (#16)
You fools think that "passing new laws" is a sign of accomplishment.
#24. To: Vicomte13 (#12)
#25. To: Roscoe (#23)
Other than collect a salary, what is it that you think lawamakers should do?
#26. To: GrandIsland (#9)
He supports faggots... and like most libtards, feels it's Whitey's fault that 25% of our populace (blacks) make up 70% of our prison populace.... couple that with his heroin vending machines at school lunch rooms and he's a big fat Jane Fonda in a creepy old man skin suit.
#27. To: Gatlin (#18)
Libertarian Derangement Syndrome
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.
#28. To: GrandIsland (#9)
his (Ron Paul) heroin vending machines at school lunch rooms
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.
#29. To: A K A Stone (#26)
(Edited)
I don't like fags. But we should all be equal under the law. That doesn't mean fag pretend marriage.
#30. To: Deckard (#16)
You fools think that "passing new laws" is a sign of accomplishment.
I definitely know, not think, that sponsoring 620 bills and getting only one passed into law is no sign of accomplishment.
Which is why you are laughingly derided as statists.
#31. To: A K A Stone (#21)
Ron Paul is an honorable man.
I never said that Ron Paul wasn’t an honorable man….I truly believe that he is a most honorable man. Now we all know the country has been gong in the wrong direction. If you agree with that then you can't blame Ron Paul for the condition of the country. He tried but he was outnumbered.
This country has definitely gone in the wrong direction and I never blamed, or tried to blame, Ron Paul for that in any way. Sure he has tired and he failed….as have many others also tried and failed. If his bills would have passed would it have made the country a better place.
#32. To: A K A Stone (#24)
I'll read your long response later when I get home. Thanks taking the time to write a detailed response.
#33. To: A K A Stone (#26)
(Edited)
But you are exaggerating with heroin vending machines.
#34. To: Deckard (#27)
(Edited)
is
false
dichotomy
cliff
short
cut
side
many
laws
a
good
herd
stampede
other
side
enough
laws
gentle
breeze
slide
edge
height
bottom
is
the
same
boris
take
the
opposite
side
like
to
call
it
conservative
reality
safety
a
two
year
old
should
be
able
to
understand
this
#35. To: A K A Stone (#25)
Let churches marry couples, without government document. (Jun 2011)
#36. To: GrandIsland, A K A Stone (#33)
95% of Ron Paul's positions, I agree with. That 95% outweigh the 5% I don't agree with. So based on his political platform, knowing I will NEVER find a political candidate that I 100% agree with, I would vote for RP before I'd vote for 99% of the Republican past candidates. With that said, I'll never vote for him unless HE'S VIABLE.... AND it's to keep a (D) out of office because of the vile assholes that tarnish his name. Decktard, being a shining example of one.
#37. To: GrandIsland, A K A Stone (#36)
Trust me when I say, Ron Paul's [LOW] 6% popularity is a direct result of the TRASH (like Sucky Bucky, Hondope and Decktard) that's associated with his name. They just fail to get it... they FAIL to understand that it's because of the vile radical liberaltarian TRASH that Ron PAULTARD will DIE before he gets more than 3 laws passed or becomes POTUS
Absolutely….well stated.
#38. To: Gatlin, GrandIsland (#37)
The actions by these Paultard assholes has done more to turn me off Libertarianism than — well, than anything.
#39. To: Roscoe (#35)
Just churches? Not Kmart?
#40. To: Vicomte13 (#12)
#41. To: A K A Stone (#39)
Churches.
#42. To: Roscoe (#41)
#43. To: A K A Stone (#42)
#44. To: Yukons Left Nut (#41)
#45. To: A K A Stone (#42)
(Edited)
#46. To: A K A Stone (#44)
(Edited)
#47. To: A K A Stone (#44)
#48. To: Roscoe (#43)
I'm answering one of your moronic proposals. You're pissing yourself and running away from it.
#49. To: A K A Stone (#48)
I agree that churches should be able to issue marriage licenses without the governments permission.
#50. To: A K A Stone (#48)
you
own
money
degrees
the
oath
of
office
comic
books
libertarian
bible
manistfesto
boris
#51. To: buckeroo (#38)
(Edited)
#52. To: GrandIsland, sneakypete (#49)
So do I... and they shouldn't be forced to wed faggots in the name of treating people equal. We ain't all equal... we never were.
#53. To: BorisY (#50)
college degrees
#54. To: A K A Stone (#53)
physicians
balls
entrails
leaves
dah
bones
it
all
up
fools
year
boris
world
usa
#55. To: BorisY (#54)
#56. To: A K A Stone (#55)
nosing
sex
slavery
#57. To: A K A Stone (#40)
One real quick would be gold for currency. The constitution does say that. Also in the Bible god says he likes true weights and measures. Paper money is manipulated money.
#58. To: Vicomte13 (#57)
As an example (using the Constitution, not the Bible)- I think you read Article 1, section 8 para 5 (granting Congress the power to coin money), and Article 1, Section 10, para 1 (denying the states the power to make anything other than gold or silver coin as legal tender for the payment of debts), as limiting the federal government to using only gold or silver as the basis for the money.
#59. To: A K A Stone (#58)
Then add the 10th in.
#60. To: A K A Stone (#58)
Then add the 10th in.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]