Thought on the Walorski/Donnelly run.

[mrjarrell]

So Jackie lost by 2500 votes.

And the Libertarian took 9500 votes.

Is it me or is it time Libertarians stop f--king up Republican elections and giving power to the people that are diametrically opposed to what they believe in rather than the people are are probably a lot more aligned with them?

I'm sorry but I'm just over the whole "I'm a libertarian" nonconformist cool kid on the block thing anymore.

The Libertarian candidate did not "take" one single vote from the republicrat. They were freely given by voters who took the decision to give them. They liked what he had to say and didn't care for the republicrat message. Your candidate lost. Get over it.

 

[rambone]

Libertarians will spend the next two years complaining, whining and crying about him, but you own him.

You picked a funny thread to call Libertarians whiners.

Libertarians wouldn't know the first thing about how to govern. A while back dross started an "if you were elected what would you do" thread. You could almost tell the Libertarian supporters based on the responses, which vascilated between ineffective, unachievable, unreasonable, and flat out goofy. But that's what you get when you're a debate club who does nothing but throw little rocks that hit just hard enough to annoy yet not hard enough to grab attention or make any difference whatsoever.

Wow, really? You are judging the validity of libertarian principles on random yet passionate INGO members?

Is it fair to assume the republican platform is genocide of certain groups? I base that on the number of imbeciles who have wished for nuclear war, if only the president "had the balls" to turn the middle east into a "glass parking lot" ? We wouldn't want to be "soft" on terror would we now? How about the INGO debate with the republicans who insisted that the military draft was such a noble thing and argued that everyone should be forced to serve the government? How about the republicans who think the idea of forced vaccinating would be grand, for the "greater good" of the herd? How about the republicans who think people should go to prison for having long grass in their yard? How about all the republicans on this forum who constantly arguing with libertarians about how many infringements on the 2nd Amendment are okay with them?

It's the blindly stupid who say "I want to be one of those" not knowing what one of those is just to protest because they are too lazy to overcome their ignorance or get involved in changing the landscape.

You know, I think pound for pound, Libertarian voters know their s*** way more than your average Democrat or Republican. In fact I would bet the farm on it.

But in regard to this thread, it is intellectually dishonest to assert that a vote for whomever the Libertarian candidate was not a vote for Joe Donnelly.

Libertarians wouldn't know the first thing about how to govern.

And most heinous of all, that states in the platform that "unjust" laws (however defined) should not be followed and insurrection initiated if it doesn't like the results of lawful elections resulting in the lawful exercise of representative government.

As Fletch said, you have nothing good to say about them or their platform. You picked on Rebecca Sink-Burris every chance you got. You called Libertarian01 in the other thread corrupt and skirting the law because he presented a reason to vote Libertarian. You call their voters intellectually dishonest and other condescending things. You blame your losses on Libertarians. The constant digs have been going on for a while. Why don't you just say "I ****ing hate Libertarians." Just come out with it already.

The interesting thing to me is few Libertarians I know have actually read and agree with the party platform. Open borders. Legalizing drug use. Soft on crime. Pro choice. Promote anarchy. Isolationalist. Dovish. Anti-military power. All straight out of the Libertarian Party platform.

Ok. Let me give a try at defining the Republican platform.

Open borders. Amnesty. Bailouts. Gun control. Criminalize everything. Soft on following the constitution. Hard on freedom. Promote statism. Military Interventionalist. Perpetual war. Big Centralized Government. Police State. Nanny State. Surveillance State. Welfare State. Bankrupt the country.

 

[Delmar]

Maybe it's time for the repubs to stop ******* up the country. Maybe us non conformists will vote repub again. I voted only liberatarian this year.

I don't have a problem with voting 3rd party when both candidates are bums! I didn't vote for Dan Coats, but Jackle Walorski is a rock solid conservative and is not yet a Washington insider. Why blame her for messing up the country? My question is how cluless are the people of Indiana's second district, in sending a bum like Donelly back to Washington after betraying us by following the Obama Peloci agenda, right down the line. That liar is still claiming to be a conservative Dem!

 

[hornadylnl]

I don't have a problem with voting 3rd party when both candidates are bums, Jackle Walorski is a rock solid conservative and is not yet a Washington insider. Why blame her for messing up the country? My question is how cluless are the people of Indiana's second district, in sending a bum like Donelly back to Washington after betraying us by following the Obama Peloci agenda, right down the line. That liar is still claiming to be a conservative Dem!

And how is walorski going to change the rupube establishment? She will toe their line or they will push her out in 2 years.

 

[TiminMishawaka]

And how is walorski going to change the rupube establishment? She will toe their line or they will push her out in 2 years.

Wow, didn't know seeing the future was part of the Libertarian platform. And they called O'Donnell a witch....

 

[Delmar]

And how is walorski going to change the rupube establishment? She will toe their line or they will push her out in 2 years.

Can't really change the Republican party by letting the good ones go down in flames!

 

[Bill of Rights]

OK Bill, you're another guy I resect immensely. But I didn't spin anything. Let's take your points one by one.

First, all laws are by nature prohibitive. They provide for prohibition of behaviors and actions. So blindly being against prohibition is to be against the rule of law.

Having said that, I have consistently said I believe that there is an unreasonable disparity between the legal statuses of alcohol and drugs. I have also said repeatedly I could support legalizing some or most drugs. But not all. That support is predicated on a public policy review of the impact of legalization. Just saying they should be legal because you have an individual right to screw yourself up doesn't cut it. There are other external impacts that should be assessed. The Libertarian position is an absolutist debate topic, is not achievable in its presented form, and is endemic of the unyeilding position that has for 40 years prevented the Libertarian party from gaining positive traction and will keep it in the political shadows for another 40 years.

Oh, and no, I don't drink. I have an obsessive compulsive personality and am prone to over endulging in everything I do. In order to prevent my own personal destruction I choose not to drink. But I have no problem with people that do. Legal, personal choice.

I believe that abortion is wrong but that availability of the procedure should be determined by state, not federal law. My point on the abortion plank is that it is in fact a pro-choice position masquarading as a neutral position, which it clearly is not.

There are certainly situations where jury nullification is warranted. But they should be extremely rare. The plank position is that the "justice of the law" should be considered by the jury. This is an unacceptable position IMHO and would lead to a state of anarchy where some laws could be followed but others not. Where in some instances a jury would determine that circumstances warrant different outcomes. Where it's OK to convict a black man yet acquit a white one. No, I can't ever support that position.

We tend to forget that the Constitution, in addition to limiting the role of government, established the rules by which government functions. We vote for representatives who vote for laws. We don't get to pick and choose the laws we like or don't like. If we don't like the laws passed our redress is not to ignore or flaunt them. It is to elect new representatives who will change them. A more perfect example of this could not be found than the election held yesterday. In many parts of the country this was a revolution. A bloodless coup. Now we will have to see if there is follow through.

We will have to disagree on our military and foreign entanglements. I am a staunch supporter of maintaining a strong military so powerful just the thought of it's use strike fear in a potential adversary's heart such that we never have to use it. I don't want us to be the world's police, and with a few exceptions (Somolia, Bosnia, Panama to name a few) don't think our military has been used that way. I think it's a red herring argument. I fully support taking the fight to our enemies in Iraq and Afganistan. I also fully support having allies like OAS, NATO and Israel, although I wish the nature of the relationship with OAS and NATO were different. But that's more a factor of our inept ability to negotiate than anything else. Without allies it is us against the rest of the world. I support membership in the UN only to the extent that we can keep our friends close and our enemies closer. I would not cede an ounce of power to that corrupt organization. The Libertarian position does not support treaty organizations. This is more dangerous IMHO.

Finally, my "quote" was not from the Declaration of Independence at all. It came directly from the Libertarian platform. Contrary to ATO Monkey's assertion this statement is straight from the DoI, it is in fact a bastardized quote from the DoI supporting the revolutionary position of the Libertarian party. The actual quote is "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." The Libertarian platform shortens the text, removes the highlighted words "these ends" and inserts "individual liberty", totally changing the construct, intent and meaning of the passage while pretending as asserted that this text is "straight from the Declaration of Independence." It gives a false impression that the Founders would support revolt against a government that infringed on any individual liberty. This is simply not the case and is a dangerous call for insurrection in the name and with the proported blessing of the Founders.

The Founders were not absolutists. They were principled yet compromising men who did their best to balance individual liberties with the need to govern a country. They tried to implement a weak federal government. It failed. If they really believed individual liberties trumped all else they would have never written the Constitution. That doesn't mean they would want or would support a federal government as it exists today. But by the same token I don't believe they would want or support a system of government based solely on individual liberties as articulated by the Libertarian platform.

Please don't resect me. I like all my parts where they are! I am appreciative of your respect, though. (Sorry, just a little comic relief... this was getting a little intense, or so it seemed at this end.)

I should actually start by saying that I read your previous post (which I answered) as I had many of your others. My intent is not to dogpile you because I see that this has been addressed above quite well by Fletch and you answered him. I also saw your attitude toward libertarians as being venomous and contemptuous. It pleases me to see that I misread you and for that and for my tone in response to it, I apologize.

On to this post now:
I don't think I was clear enough. It's not merely laws which prohibit action that were the subject of my statement in re: Prohibition but rather laws which prohibit possession and use of things. You have the choice to use alcohol, as do I. We both choose not to, for differing reasons, both of which, IMHO are valid. The fact remains that it is our choice not to use it that prevents us from having to worry about OWI, PI, or any number of other alcohol-related charges. It is the fact that we (among many others) are good, peaceable men that prevents us from having to worry about being charged with such things as Attempted Battery, Pointing a Firearm at Another Person, Robbery, etc., not laws preventing us from having those firearms. A law preventing someone from legally having booze, tobacco, pot, or for that matter, heroin, coke, or meth is as wrong as a law preventing that person from legally having a firearm. Truth be told, the law prohibiting substances is in some ways worse, because if you possess drugs, yes, you can sell them, but more often, the person possessing small amounts is likely only going to use them him- or herself. I think it's fair to say that those of us who purchase firearms probably intend in most cases to use them on others (albeit those who are threatening us or those we love.) The mere possession should never be a criminal act, IMHO, because criminalizing simple possession cannot in any way I can see be classified as other than mala prohibita. You want to address the use of those things, whether a substance or a tool, now we can address the differences, because those uses would be where the differentiation arises vis a vis mala in se. Use a substance that impairs you and cause someone else injury, you are on the hook for the costs incurred, preferably without the backing of any insurance company, plus any criminal charges. You go and rob the local pharmacy to get oxycontin, I really hope the pharmacist is armed and a hell of a shot. You want to own an M-16 and can afford one, I don't know why you couldn't have one built, chambered in .75 Magnum with a barrel 12" long, suppressed, with a grenade launcher and 4 gauge shotgun side by side mounted underneath it, that you could buy at the local Ace Hardware for cash without any ID or anything else. Use it to commit a crime and whoever puts a round up your back end gets to keep that weapon you used against them. Let's get away from punishing possession and focus on punishing actions which harm or would, if completed, harm others innocent of wrongdoing. My read of libertarianism and specifically of the LP platform is that we should forget about the drugs, whatever they are (and like it or not, alcohol and tobacco are drugs... but then, legally speaking, so is oxygen. The difference is that some pencil-neck in an office somewhere decided that these are OK but those aren't. When my daughter was about 5, she started getting migraines. At the time, Children's Motrin was prescription-only. Her doc didn't want to give her that, but he was perfectly OK with giving her Valium and Fiorinal. We found another doctor, but the point is that then, someone decided that Motrin was OK to allow OTC. What, suddenly, it was no longer so dangerous that a doctor had to give permission for us to buy it? Idiotic prohibitions.)

(ETA: I meant to say as well that I'd not seen your repeated comments you noted about the alcohol/drug disparity or the partial decriminalization. Thanks for clarifying that as well.)

The point of the LP in re: Abortion as I see it is that it is a personal choice, as should be any- and everything that does not cause harm to others intentionally, and that as such, they support that general position, not specifically "pro-reproductive-choice". They're anti-government restriction on personal actions.

Jury Nullification could not be used to convict or exonerate based on color if we didn't have so da*n many laws that created guilt without a victim, because the judgement of the law would be well-established. Person A suffered a harm or a loss. Said loss/harm is proven to be at the hands of Person B. Person B is liable and responsible for his actions. OTOH, Person B is accused of doing the harm because of Person A's skin color.... who cares why? He did the harm. Punish him for it and/or let him make it right and be done with it.
I saw that you used the election as an example of the citizens' redress, but I didn't see where you answered my question in re: the Speedway ordinance, specifically the nullification of the law by the police rather than by the jury of citizens. If I just missed it, which is entirely possible, I'll try to catch it on a re-read.

I guess we will have to disagree about the "world police" thing; granted, I have no military service, but that's what I see our guys doing over in the sandbox now. Were there WMDs? I don't know. If so, OK, they had a job to do to go over and solve that problem, so solve it and get the hell out. We're certainly not going to bring peace to the Middle East by our presence, and fighting for peace is, as has been said, like screwing for virginity. Let me make very clear that I absolutely support the work our uniformed, armed services are doing. I do not support the actions of those leading them from inside the Beltway, either in the previous administration or the present one. I think our military are being treated like pawns and put at unnecessary risk. If they need to go kick some butt to defend our citizens here, turn 'em loose to do it and come home. Show them how our Founders went about creating a nation and get out. They do not have to be just like us; hell, they don't even have to like us, so long as they aren't actively trying to harm us. I think that much of the conflict may well be due not to the fact that "they hate us and our freedoms"... that's great to tell schoolchildren, but too many sources I've heard have said that the way we view ourselves (and what our citizens are told) is not what our nation does in the world community. They turn "superpower" into "bully", just as the fedgov does to our states with highway funds.

The LP/DOI quote: Honestly, I missed that difference, so thank you for pointing it out. I don't see it as changing the sentence's intent, however; Individual liberty is part and parcel of "those ends": People endowed by their Creator, unalienable rights, etc., and government interfering with the exercise of those unalienable rights, as it so often (read: always) does is, in the endgame, a call for that insurrection. HOWEVER! The point made by the portion I quoted, "...Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." says that it is hardly "any" infringement on individual liberty that is a cause for that, but rather a continued series of those infringements and abuses that would be so. Once again, I'll quote the INGO member whose signature says something on the order of "When you get fed up and can't take it any more, grab your rifle and run outside. If you're the only one, it's not time yet." I believe that, God forbid it ever does come, but if it does, it will require no pre-communication, no pre-planning, no arranged response. I think that our people will decide that's all they can stands, they can't stands n'more

​

You're correct, they did try, with the Articles of Confederation, to institute a weak fedgov which did not work, but I think if they could see what the government they created has been allowed to become, a wood lathe would look slow by comparison. They wanted a central gov't with the power to respond to enemies foreign, not one that would ever be allowed to become an enemy domestic. They were not anarchists. They did, clearly, want some laws, but the members of the larger parties seem to want to criminalize living; that is, to make it impossible to go through your day without breaking some law. This is where the LP and libertarians not so associated break away and want to do a "resection". If we resect the bowels of government, perhaps what we have serving us will not be so full of..... the stuff that fills bowels.

Thanks again for your note clarifying.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

You picked a funny thread to call Libertarians whiners.

It was all I had.

Wow, really? You are judging the validity of libertarian principles on random yet passionate INGO members?

Yeah, pretty much. It's the only place where I get any news whatsoever about the Libertarian party. You guys are the Libertarian good will ambassadors.

Is it fair to assume the republican platform is genocide of certain groups? I base that on the number of imbeciles who have wished for nuclear war, if only the president "had the balls" to turn the middle east into a "glass parking lot" ? We wouldn't want to be "soft" on terror would we now? How about the INGO debate with the republicans who insisted that the military draft was such a noble thing and argued that everyone should be forced to serve the government? How about the republicans who think the idea of forced vaccinating would be grand, for the "greater good" of the herd? How about the republicans who think people should go to prison for having long grass in their yard? How about all the republicans on this forum who constantly arguing with libertarians about how many infringements on the 2nd Amendment are okay with them?

So wanting to protect America makes you an imbecile? Nice.

I don't know about a draft debate. As a former Marine it was my honor to protect my country, and everyone living here. Those I agree with and theose I veheminently disagree with. Democrats, Republicans, and Libertarians. Nobody told me I had to. I did it because I wanted to keep America great.

Don't know about forced vaccinations either. Doesn't sound like a good thing to me. I wouldn't want to force anyone to have one. Guess I'm not a good Republican.

And the grass thing. There were more Libertarians complaining about it than anyone as I remember. I say whatever. You said whatever. A few others did as well. But most let their selfishness take over. I feel a slide further down the Republican pole.

And 2A, yeah, there's lots of strife there. I would like to park a tank in my front yard. HOA rules prevent that. I'll have to live with my machine guns and 50's. Guess Michael Steele want's his membership card back by now.

You know, I think pound for pound, Libertarian voters know their s*** way more than your average Democrat or Republican. In fact I would bet the farm on it.

Cool. How many seat did you win last night? Anywhere? In the whole country? Add them all up? Any?

As Fletch said, you have nothing good to say about them or their platform. You picked on Rebecca Sink-Burris every chance you got. You called Libertarian01 in the other thread corrupt and skirting the law because he presented a reason to vote Libertarian. You call their voters intellectually dishonest and other condescending things. You blame your losses on Libertarians. The constant digs have been going on for a while. Why don't you just say "I ****ing hate Libertarians." Just come out with it already.

Well let's see. I asked RSB a couple questions and never got a response. I took that as a dodge. I think RSB kicked ass at the debate I watched. I wish she would have run as a Republican where she may have gotten more support. I would like to see her run against Lugar in the 2012 primary. I wonder how she would do if she actually got some support.

Yeah, I think what I think. You don't have to agree, and I don't have to shut up. Sometimes (probably more often than not) we'll agree sometimes we won't.

As far as me hating Libertarians, I don't, and that's just silly to suggest. I wish they provided an actual alternative to the Republican party but they don't. Your champion Ron Paul knows that running as a Libertarian is a sure loser. Instead he runs as a libertarian-leaning Republican. He gets it. I just wonder why so many others don't. That's not hating.


Ok. Let me give a try at defining the Republican platform.

Open borders. Amnesty. Bailouts. Gun control. Criminalize everything. Soft on following the constitution. Hard on freedom. Promote statism. Military Interventionalist. Perpetual war. Big Centralized Government. Police State. Nanny State. Surveillance State. Welfare State. Bankrupt the country.

I didn't see any of those things on the Republican platform. Maybe I missed them you can double check for me http://www.gop.com/index.php/issues/issues/ .

 

[Hotdoger]

I think the angry ones are the ones who are crying about the repube losing due to us voting third party. I'm not angry. I already know our country is lost and I'm under no illusions that the repubes are going to save us.

Then why are you posting about anything the R are saying?

Post something about what all those loseatarians you voted for, are going to do.

 

[Lex Concord]

Only if you're using a multi-axis illustration. I wasn't.

Then your illustration wasn't reflective of reality.

 

[Delmar]

Let's take a look at what a Warloski win would have meant:

1. Putting H3llfire Jackie in the house. Bonus! I'd love to see here there just for the heartburn she'd give to Pelosi!

2. Would her race have given the GOP a Veto-Proof majority in the House? Nope? They're not close enough to get there.

3. Would the GOP have taken the US Senate with her race? Nope. Coats won without her coat tails.

All Jackie winning would have done in the National Picture - was to give the GOP one more vote in an already big majority in the house.

The GOP cannot do a darn thing right now at the national level except stop the Progressive agenda. They currently have enough votes to do that in the House, with or without JW being there.
Yes, having Jackie in the house would have been a good thing. I've lived in Andre Carson's district, and I know the feeling of desperation one has living in a district represented by the other side.

However, the Libertarian in that race did not out preform those in the rest of the state. Jackie took on a sitting congressman in Pat Bauer's back yard. You had to break through the liberal blockade known as St. Joe County.

I know it feels nice to blame the other party. Perhaps we can get our Sect State and Legislature to approve some common sense districts across the state that are not slanted to keep a single party's candidate in office. Then, the voters will really have a choice.

I'm just ticked off that it sends the rest of the country the message that Hoosiers don't know squat!

 

[Delmar]

AMEN! I'd like to see one Libertarian explain to me how a Donnelly win helps the Libertarian platform. Take your time. I'll wait.

I don't know about that, but I would have enjoyed a Dan Coats loss, even if it would have meant the Dems keeping that seat!

 

[Delmar]

Democrats and Republicans are not homogenous nationwide. An Oklahoma Democrat is a New York Republican.

Really? I haven't looked it up, but tell me that the Oklahoma Dems, didn't vote for Obama Care, if you can!

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Please don't resect me. I like all my parts where they are! I am appreciative of your respect, though. (Sorry, just a little comic relief... this was getting a little intense, or so it seemed at this end.)

I should actually start by saying that I read your previous post (which I answered) as I had many of your others. My intent is not to dogpile you because I see that this has been addressed above quite well by Fletch and you answered him. I also saw your attitude toward libertarians as being venomous and contemptuous. It pleases me to see that I misread you and for that and for my tone in response to it, I apologize.

On to this post now:
I don't think I was clear enough. It's not merely laws which prohibit action that were the subject of my statement in re: Prohibition but rather laws which prohibit possession and use of things. You have the choice to use alcohol, as do I. We both choose not to, for differing reasons, both of which, IMHO are valid. The fact remains that it is our choice not to use it that prevents us from having to worry about OWI, PI, or any number of other alcohol-related charges. It is the fact that we (among many others) are good, peaceable men that prevents us from having to worry about being charged with such things as Attempted Battery, Pointing a Firearm at Another Person, Robbery, etc., not laws preventing us from having those firearms. A law preventing someone from legally having booze, tobacco, pot, or for that matter, heroin, coke, or meth is as wrong as a law preventing that person from legally having a firearm. Truth be told, the law prohibiting substances is in some ways worse, because if you possess drugs, yes, you can sell them, but more often, the person possessing small amounts is likely only going to use them him- or herself. I think it's fair to say that those of us who purchase firearms probably intend in most cases to use them on others (albeit those who are threatening us or those we love.) The mere possession should never be a criminal act, IMHO, because criminalizing simple possession cannot in any way I can see be classified as other than mala prohibita. You want to address the use of those things, whether a substance or a tool, now we can address the differences, because those uses would be where the differentiation arises vis a vis mala in se. Use a substance that impairs you and cause someone else injury, you are on the hook for the costs incurred, preferably without the backing of any insurance company, plus any criminal charges. You go and rob the local pharmacy to get oxycontin, I really hope the pharmacist is armed and a hell of a shot. You want to own an M-16 and can afford one, I don't know why you couldn't have one built, chambered in .75 Magnum with a barrel 12" long, suppressed, with a grenade launcher and 4 gauge shotgun side by side mounted underneath it, that you could buy at the local Ace Hardware for cash without any ID or anything else. Use it to commit a crime and whoever puts a round up your back end gets to keep that weapon you used against them. Let's get away from punishing possession and focus on punishing actions which harm or would, if completed, harm others innocent of wrongdoing. My read of libertarianism and specifically of the LP platform is that we should forget about the drugs, whatever they are (and like it or not, alcohol and tobacco are drugs... but then, legally speaking, so is oxygen. The difference is that some pencil-neck in an office somewhere decided that these are OK but those aren't. When my daughter was about 5, she started getting migraines. At the time, Children's Motrin was prescription-only. Her doc didn't want to give her that, but he was perfectly OK with giving her Valium and Fiorinal. We found another doctor, but the point is that then, someone decided that Motrin was OK to allow OTC. What, suddenly, it was no longer so dangerous that a doctor had to give permission for us to buy it? Idiotic prohibitions.)

(ETA: I meant to say as well that I'd not seen your repeated comments you noted about the alcohol/drug disparity or the partial decriminalization. Thanks for clarifying that as well.)

The point of the LP in re: Abortion as I see it is that it is a personal choice, as should be any- and everything that does not cause harm to others intentionally, and that as such, they support that general position, not specifically "pro-reproductive-choice". They're anti-government restriction on personal actions.

Jury Nullification could not be used to convict or exonerate based on color if we didn't have so da*n many laws that created guilt without a victim, because the judgement of the law would be well-established. Person A suffered a harm or a loss. Said loss/harm is proven to be at the hands of Person B. Person B is liable and responsible for his actions. OTOH, Person B is accused of doing the harm because of Person A's skin color.... who cares why? He did the harm. Punish him for it and/or let him make it right and be done with it.
I saw that you used the election as an example of the citizens' redress, but I didn't see where you answered my question in re: the Speedway ordinance, specifically the nullification of the law by the police rather than by the jury of citizens. If I just missed it, which is entirely possible, I'll try to catch it on a re-read.

I guess we will have to disagree about the "world police" thing; granted, I have no military service, but that's what I see our guys doing over in the sandbox now. Were there WMDs? I don't know. If so, OK, they had a job to do to go over and solve that problem, so solve it and get the hell out. We're certainly not going to bring peace to the Middle East by our presence, and fighting for peace is, as has been said, like screwing for virginity. Let me make very clear that I absolutely support the work our uniformed, armed services are doing. I do not support the actions of those leading them from inside the Beltway, either in the previous administration or the present one. I think our military are being treated like pawns and put at unnecessary risk. If they need to go kick some butt to defend our citizens here, turn 'em loose to do it and come home. Show them how our Founders went about creating a nation and get out. They do not have to be just like us; hell, they don't even have to like us, so long as they aren't actively trying to harm us. I think that much of the conflict may well be due not to the fact that "they hate us and our freedoms"... that's great to tell schoolchildren, but too many sources I've heard have said that the way we view ourselves (and what our citizens are told) is not what our nation does in the world community. They turn "superpower" into "bully", just as the fedgov does to our states with highway funds.

The LP/DOI quote: Honestly, I missed that difference, so thank you for pointing it out. I don't see it as changing the sentence's intent, however; Individual liberty is part and parcel of "those ends": People endowed by their Creator, unalienable rights, etc., and government interfering with the exercise of those unalienable rights, as it so often (read: always) does is, in the endgame, a call for that insurrection. HOWEVER! The point made by the portion I quoted, "...Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." says that it is hardly "any" infringement on individual liberty that is a cause for that, but rather a continued series of those infringements and abuses that would be so. Once again, I'll quote the INGO member whose signature says something on the order of "When you get fed up and can't take it any more, grab your rifle and run outside. If you're the only one, it's not time yet." I believe that, God forbid it ever does come, but if it does, it will require no pre-communication, no pre-planning, no arranged response. I think that our people will decide that's all they can stands, they can't stands n'more

You're correct, they did try, with the Articles of Confederation, to institute a weak fedgov which did not work, but I think if they could see what the government they created has been allowed to become, a wood lathe would look slow by comparison. They wanted a central gov't with the power to respond to enemies foreign, not one that would ever be allowed to become an enemy domestic. They were not anarchists. They did, clearly, want some laws, but the members of the larger parties seem to want to criminalize living; that is, to make it impossible to go through your day without breaking some law. This is where the LP and libertarians not so associated break away and want to do a "resection". If we resect the bowels of government, perhaps what we have serving us will not be so full of..... the stuff that fills bowels.

Thanks again for your note clarifying.

Blessings,
Bill

For the time being we'll have to disagree about drug possession. I see too many bad public policy issues and not enough research.

On guns, I would like to see a total relaxation on firearms ownership. As a Class 7/SOT manufacturer, it would help my business a lot if I could greatly expand my market.

But I guess this is one area that I just don't get the Libertarian mindset. I get that people don't like the LTCH process. I don't like it. A lot. But I accepted it and paid the hundred bucks and never ever have to do it again. While I didn't like it it's just not worth getting riled up about to me. F*** it. I don't want to be grumpy and pissed off. But it seems like the Libertarians do want to be pissed at every single instance that rights are violated, even when not their own. Look at some of the threads lately. I honestly don't get it. But then my dog was killed by coyotes, and I'm pissed at them. I guess it's what brings us joy, brings us sorrow, and what's important to us.

Abortion kills babies. Why doesn't the Libertarian platform just say it's a pro choice party? It justifies it's position using liberty-speak. Who speaks for the dead baby's liberty?

I didn't respond to the Speedway ordinance because I don't live there nor know anything about it. Generally, if there's a law or ordinance I don't like, I work to change it. For a few years I lobbied the General Assembly on a number of issues. I was able to present a case and get laws changed. It took a lot of work. I wasn't paid. I was just Joe Citizen trying to make a difference. Again, it's easy to sit around in the man cave or online and complain to your buddies. It's a whole different thing to enact change.

Time and time again we've talked about the fact that the Constitution as it exists is not as it was written. You want the Founder's Constitution? Repeal the 14th and 17th Amendments. Pass some laws to nullify key SCOTUS decisions surrounding the commerce and general welfare clauses. Then you're getting close. But the incorporation clause of the 14th that gun owners love is the same clause that everyone, including gun owners, hates.

George Washington would be ashamed that a political party has a plank calling for insurrection. The Founders tried for nearly 50 years to reconcile with England, and it was with great consternation that they separated. Most thought the result of the Revolution would be the eventual reunification with England. Few viewed it as divorce.

 

[Fletch]

This was my point from the beginning. If the Libertarians can't run their campaigns, then there's no way they can run the country.

And yet they ran a good enough campaign to pee in your pool? You're contradicting yourself.

Yeah, not everything the Republican party does makes everyone happy but we don't live in a world where we get everything we want. You have to WIN elections in order to start effecting real change. It's join or die and in this district of Indiana the Libertarians chose die and sent Obama's lap dog back to Washington. Thanks Libertarians. Thanks a lot. Now go pleasure yourself with a Don't Tread On Me flag while talking about your "moral" victory.

Again, you assume that, forsaking an LP option, they would necessarily join your side, and I've been at pains to explain why this isn't necessarily so.

 

[Fletch]

Really? I haven't looked it up, but tell me that the Oklahoma Dems, didn't vote for Obama Care, if you can!

Because ObamaCare is the only issue in existence, right?

 

[Hotdoger]

Really? I haven't looked it up, but tell me that the Oklahoma Dems, didn't vote for Obama Care, if you can!

Google is so simple ANYONE can do it!

The 34 RAT nays:

John Adler (NJ-3)
Jason Altmire (PA-4)
Michael Arcuri (NY-24)
John Barrow (GA-12)
Marion Berry (AR-1)
Dan Boren (OK-2)
Rick Boucher (VA-9)
Bobby Bright (AL-2)
Ben Chandler (KY-6)
Travis Childers (MS-1)
Artur Davis (AL)
Lincoln Davis (TN)
Chet Edwards (TX)
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (SD-AL)
Tim Holden (PA-17)
Larry Kissell (NC-8)
Frank Kratovil (MD-1)
Daniel Lipinski (IL-3)
Stephen Lynch (MA-9)
Jim Marshall (GA-9)
Jim Matheson (UT-2)
Mike McIntyre (NC-7)
Mike McMahon (NY-13)
Charlie Melancon (LA-3)
Walt Minnick (ID-1)
Glenn Nye (VA-2)
Colin Peterson (MN-7)
Mike Ross (AR-4)
Heath Shuler (NC-11)
Ike Skelton (MO-4)
Zach Space (OH-18)
John Tanner (TN-8)
Gene Taylor (MS-4)
Harry Teague (NM-2)


Boran was up for election, He knew his political life was in the balance.

 

[topash]

Best thing about this race is Walorski gave up her IN State seat so now she's on the sidelines for at least 2 years. Hurray!

 

[hornadylnl]

Wow, didn't know seeing the future was part of the Libertarian platform. And they called O'Donnell a witch....

Is not the past a good predictor of the future? Has not the repube party establishment fought to keep out true conservatives in favor of their pro establishment candidates? Dan Coates and Arlen Spectre are the first 2 to come to mind. The establishment will fight you tooth and nail against reforming their party from within.

I can vote for who I damn well please. Cry all you want about how my vote for Vogel cost Walorski the election. It won't change my mind.

 

[Fletch]

Google is so simple ANYONE can do it!

...

Boran was up for election, He knew his political life was in the balance.

Then again, if you actually look at the kind of guy he is, you'd see he's a better Republican than a lot of the candidates we've been told we should vote for.

Dan Boren - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia