Libertarians issue warning to Tea Partiers Which do the tea partiers hate more ?

[henktermaat]

Both Equally.

 

[NordicHeathenVinlander]

I dont think it's a matter of purity of the cannidate. I cant see the justification to compromise more and more traditional values. Im against illegal immigration, and point be known - ALL FORMS of immigration until our immigrant issue is solved.

WTF would any American support Work visa program in our economical situation? The illegals I know talk about shipping money and goods back home; So steal the jobs, then put the profits else where.


This aint rocket science folks, AMERICA FIRST.. Not Gays first... Not Mexico First.. Not Liberalism first.

AMERICA FIRST. If we cant find a cannidate to be what we need, then America is certainly doomed. And to be quite honest, I'd have a chance to rebuild, then sit in limbo listening to abunch of traitious cowardly politicians (Not directed at anyone specific, but EVERYONE.)

 

[awatarius]

I dont think it's a matter of purity of the cannidate. I cant see the justification to compromise more and more traditional values. Im against illegal immigration, and point be known - ALL FORMS of immigration until our immigrant issue is solved.

WTF would any American support Work visa program in our economical situation? The illegals I know talk about shipping money and goods back home; So steal the jobs, then put the profits else where.


This aint rocket science folks, AMERICA FIRST.. Not Gays first... Not Mexico First.. Not Liberalism first.

AMERICA FIRST. If we cant find a cannidate to be what we need, then America is certainly doomed. And to be quite honest, I'd have a chance to rebuild, then sit in limbo listening to abunch of traitious cowardly politicians (Not directed at anyone specific, but EVERYONE.)

Hello,

I agree with a lot you have to say.. but a few times in some recent posts you have mentioned gays.. I know several gay people and I don't know that they ever said gays first over America. Most of the gay people I know are proudly American, and some are even republican. All people should have equal rights. Small Govt and less control are my biggest issues when it comes to politics. I think Govt should stay out of marriage all together. Marriage should be a religious institution only and the Govt should offer partnership contracts between one person and one person. I don't want anybody to be told that they can or can't do... even if I disagree with what they do.

Thanks,
Matthew

 

[Fletch]

Agree with everything you said except...

...and the Govt should offer partnership contracts between one person and one person.

What happened to "the government should not be involved"?

And what have you got against polygamy?

IMO, if consenting adults can agree to it of their own free will, government should get bent.

 

[Pocketman]

...Govt should offer partnership contracts between one person and one person...

Government does offer such contracts - it's called "marriage."

 

[photoshooter]

Show me the quote from either of those articles that prohibits standing armies.

I see where the confusion comes in with this issue. Our founders were very leery of giving the new Federal Govt too much power, and a permanent standing army was a symbol of (and a practical example of) the abuses capable of an oppressive federal govt.

“A standing army is one of the greatest mischief that can possibly happen” - James Madison

Let's rewind.

You are correct that there is nothing in the constitution that prevents the keeping of a standing army. Instead, there are limits on how the budget for that army is to be approved - so that the need for a standing army can be presented to the people, and in their review, the existence for the army voted on by the people's representatives.

The issue is one of permanency. We the people can - through our legislature - do away with the standing army any time (via review every two years) we desire. We cannot do so with the Navy. The legislature and Executive have the power to maintain the Navy indefinitely.

WHY does this proscription on the idea of a long term standing army even exist? Take a look at the era leading up to the Revolutionary War. Look at the abuses by the army of King George on the citizens of the country. We now have the third and fourth amendments specific to those abuses - in addition to the prescriptions in the main body of the Constitution.

The idea that the Standing Army needed to be reviewed and approved by the people's representatives every two years - when no such prohibition on a standing (or floating ) Navy exists - gives us pause to consider what the founders believed was necessary for our federal govt to maintain.

Fortunately, our founders had to sell the new constitution to the people of the independent states, and left behind the Federalist.

Let's take a look at the voice of the Constitutional Convention (in this case, Alexander Hamilton) explaining the intent of the founders about Standing Armies. You need to read Federalist 26, 27, and 28 to get the full picture of why the founders wanted to limit the ability of the govt to maintain a standing army.

Here is the pertinent reasoning behind a legislative review of the standing army: (emphasis mine)

The legislature of the United States will be OBLIGED, by this provision, once at least in every two years, to deliberate upon the propriety of keeping a military force on foot; to come to a new resolution on the point; and to declare their sense of the matter, by a formal vote in the face of their constituents. They are not AT LIBERTY to vest in the executive department permanent funds for the support of an army, if they were even incautious enough to be willing to repose in it so improper a confidence. As the spirit of party, in different degrees, must be expected to infect all political bodies, there will be, no doubt, persons in the national legislature willing enough to arraign the measures and criminate the views of the majority. The provision for the support of a military force will always be a favorable topic for declamation. As often as the question comes forward, the public attention will be roused and attracted to the subject, by the party in opposition; and if the majority should be really disposed to exceed the proper limits, the community will be warned of the danger, and will have an opportunity of taking measures to guard against it. Independent of parties in the national legislature itself, as often as the period of discussion arrived, the State legislatures, who will always be not only vigilant but suspicious and jealous guardians of the rights of the citizens against encroachments from the federal government, will constantly have their attention awake to the conduct of the national rulers, and will be ready enough, if any thing improper appears, to sound the alarm to the people, and not only to be the VOICE, but, if necessary, the ARM of their discontent.

Think about the above paragraph. Also, remember that Hamilton, the author, was a staunch BIG Govt guy and founded the Federalist party - which gave us the Alien and Sedition acts.

Yet, even he sees the requirement that any standing army's budget be subject to legislative review, so that the citizens and the individual states may voice their discontent at such an army when it becomes "improper" to keep it "standing."

The one sentence I didn't highlight above that deserves special attention is this:

They are not AT LIBERTY to vest in the executive department permanent funds for the support of an army, if they were even incautious enough to be willing to repose in it so improper a confidence.

Even Big Govt Military Hero Col Alexander Hamilton uses words like incautious and improper to describe the idea of permanent standing army.

The thought in this is clear that standing armies are not necessary or good to have ALL the time. The ability to have them is necessary - but the permanency of them is not.

 

[awatarius]

Agree with everything you said except...


What happened to "the government should not be involved"?

And what have you got against polygamy?

IMO, if consenting adults can agree to it of their own free will, government should get bent.

I concur mostly with you, the only reason I feel the govt should offer legal partnership contracts is for the purposes of next of kin rights, POA, death benefits, basically all the legal benefits of marriage. Again this opinion of mine is not popular it's just something I formulated in my mind after thinking for hours about how the govt should be small and stay out but at the same time people need those rights to prevent huge legal fights when/if the family wants something out of an estate.

 

[awatarius]

Government does offer such contracts - it's called "marriage."

Hello,

True, but marriage is defined by our Govt and that is our Govt telling people they must adhere to a certain set of moral beliefs. I am just strongly against forcing others to live by what I believe. As long as it doesn't harm anyone and it's between consenting adults I just don't see what right we or the Govt has to say no. Then you here people talking about the sanctity of marriage, well they may have something there because it's usually a religious event so get around the whole sanctity issue and have the Govt grant legal partnership contracts to those whom are married and anyone else can simply apply for them. That way they can have all the LEGAL rights of marriage without us or the govt telling them how to live.

Thanks,
Matthew

 

[ATOMonkey]

I don't believe that marriage should be a Federal issue. I also don't really believe that it should be a state issue either, but if people want the government in their bedroom, it should happen at the State level, not the Federal one.

As far as estate issues go, that is what arbitration and wills are for. If the deceased didn't have a will, then you can pay for arbitration if an equitable solution can not be determined without one.

Also, a good reason to have a living will.

 

[mrjarrell]

I don't believe that marriage should be a Federal issue. I also don't really believe that it should be a state issue either, but if people want the government in their bedroom, it should happen at the State level, not the Federal one.

As far as estate issues go, that is what arbitration and wills are for. If the deceased didn't have a will, then you can pay for arbitration if an equitable solution can not be determined without one.

Also, a good reason to have a living will.

I can almost get behind that, as long as there is a guarantee that the State will respect the rights of ALL and see that everyone is treated equally before the law. Otherwise we could have have a return to miscegenation laws and a host of other state sponsored inequalities. That's why we have, and are having, litigation and discussion of marriage equality now. And why the 14th Amendment is coming into play. Just saying "make it local" doesn't guarantee fairness or equality.

 

[bigus_D]

... but if people want the government in their bedroom, it should happen at the State level...

KINKY!

 

[awatarius]

I can almost get behind that, as long as there is a guarantee that the State will respect the rights of ALL and see that everyone is treated equally before the law. Otherwise we could have have a return to miscegenation laws and a host of other state sponsored inequalities. That's why we have, and are having, litigation and discussion of marriage equality now. And why the 14th Amendment is coming into play. Just saying "make it local" doesn't guarantee fairness or equality.

Hello,

Very very well stated.

Thanks,
Matthew

 

[Fletch]

I concur mostly with you, the only reason I feel the govt should offer legal partnership contracts is for the purposes of next of kin rights, POA, death benefits, basically all the legal benefits of marriage.

This is just subsidizing legal services. If they want those things, they can hire their own damned lawyer.

Again this opinion of mine is not popular it's just something I formulated in my mind after thinking for hours about how the govt should be small and stay out but at the same time people need those rights to prevent huge legal fights when/if the family wants something out of an estate.

Let them fight. Anyone who would turn the possessions of their deceased relative into a massive legal battle is a drain on society and this will keep them busy for a while instead of screwing things up for the rest of us.

 

[Fletch]

Hello,

Very very well stated.

Thanks,
Matthew

BTW, I find your Hello/Thanks very amusing. Not making fun of you, it's just been a long time since I've seen such formality on an internet forum.

 

[awatarius]

This is just subsidizing legal services. If they want those things, they can hire their own damned lawyer.


Let them fight. Anyone who would turn the possessions of their deceased relative into a massive legal battle is a drain on society and this will keep them busy for a while instead of screwing things up for the rest of us.

Hello,

Until it's happened to you it's very hard to understand. Imagine if you were gay and you and your partner spent a very long time together building up this business or life together and they died of cancer. The legal wills, and all of that have very well known limitations. Even death bed rights come into question. The next thing you know someone is trying to take everything away from you. Sometimes they win... Documentaries, famous stories, and articles have been written about how often these wills fail in legal battles. When someone tries to take everything from you.. something you bled, sweated, and worked years for... well you will fight for it.

Thanks,
Matthew

 

[Pocketman]

I know some gay people and they seem like decent folks. Nothing personal against them. However, the equal under the law argument just doesn't do it for me relative to gay marriage. No man (gay or straight) can marry another man. We are all being treated equally. If someone wants to support gay marriage, I don't think it should be from the "equality" perspective. What I see here is gays asking for rights above and beyond what's already afforded to all of us.

 

[ATOMonkey]

I can almost get behind that, as long as there is a guarantee that the State will respect the rights of ALL and see that everyone is treated equally before the law. Otherwise we could have have a return to miscegenation laws and a host of other state sponsored inequalities. That's why we have, and are having, litigation and discussion of marriage equality now. And why the 14th Amendment is coming into play. Just saying "make it local" doesn't guarantee fairness or equality.

Nothing guarantees fairness or equality. By keeping it local you at least have the option to move to a better place. When you make it Federal, there's no place to hide.

 

[ATOMonkey]

I think two straight men should be able to marry each other if they want to take advantage of the law and how it gives advantages to married couples.

I really don't care. Marriage is a religious issue to me, and you can't legislate religion...yet.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Hello,

Until it's happened to you it's very hard to understand. Imagine if you were gay and you and your partner spent a very long time together building up this business or life together and they died of cancer. The legal wills, and all of that have very well known limitations. Even death bed rights come into question. The next thing you know someone is trying to take everything away from you. Sometimes they win... Documentaries, famous stories, and articles have been written about how often these wills fail in legal battles. When someone tries to take everything from you.. something you bled, sweated, and worked years for... well you will fight for it.

Thanks,
Matthew

And you don't think there are fights over heterosexual couples or even bachelors under similar circumstances? Anytime there are sufficient money or possessions to be had people will fight over them.

 

[mrjarrell]

I know some gay people and they seem like decent folks. Nothing personal against them. However, the equal under the law argument just doesn't do it for me relative to gay marriage. No man (gay or straight) can marry another man. We are all being treated equally. If someone wants to support gay marriage, I don't think it should be from the "equality" perspective. What I see here is gays asking for rights above and beyond what's already afforded to all of us.

Marriage is a legal fiction, run by government, as it stands right now. As such all people who stand before the law must be treated equally. That's what this nation was founded upon. Until government is no longer involved in marriage, (which will be no time soon) it will remain a legal matter with government oversight. Therefor all people who engage in it MUST be treated equally.