A fundamental right to pastrami is a basic human right that business owners must be compelled to service.
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
Johnson just lost my vote with his Anti 2A VP choice
- Thread starter Cameramonkey
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
A fundamental right to pastrami is a basic human right that business owners must be compelled to service.
Kirk Freeman
Grandmaster
My favorite part of Liberty is all the governmental violence that it takes to impose on the citizenry.
I think that's one of the issues keeping libertarians out of the mainstream, the "let them die in the streets" rap.
Pretty much what I thought.
Unfortunately as a political party we are not immune to unwise decisions.
As much as I never wanted a "purity test" on a local level, I thought it prudent to have a candidate review committee. We never did, but I was very concerned about someone running who might have had a very sordid past or something that could cause us more harm in the public eye. My thinking was it would be better to not have a candidate than to have one that smelled like
to the public.
We also talked about getting people to run who really are libertarians. If someone disagrees on one (1) or two (2) issues I have no problem with that. We all have our own little foibles where we disagree with our church, our political party, or our tribe. On the other hand if someone disagreed with a very large percentage of rights, liberty, and small government issues then they weren't really libertarian - and that is FINE! The issue was that I didn't want them representing our party if they weren't on board with most of our core values.
As a small growing party I have always believed we had to do things twice as good and be twice as sharp just to be taken half as seriously as another olde party candidate. While both democrats and republicans have their own whackjobs on the fringe everyone understands that those are their FRINGE elements. With us, people see a whackjob and they think that is our norm.
I hope that when all is said and done at the end of this next weekend we come out smelling much better than the D's or R's. That is my hope...
Regards,
Doug
As much as I never wanted a "purity test" on a local level, I thought it prudent to have a candidate review committee. We never did, but I was very concerned about someone running who might have had a very sordid past or something that could cause us more harm in the public eye. My thinking was it would be better to not have a candidate than to have one that smelled like
to the public.We also talked about getting people to run who really are libertarians. If someone disagrees on one (1) or two (2) issues I have no problem with that. We all have our own little foibles where we disagree with our church, our political party, or our tribe. On the other hand if someone disagreed with a very large percentage of rights, liberty, and small government issues then they weren't really libertarian - and that is FINE! The issue was that I didn't want them representing our party if they weren't on board with most of our core values.
As a small growing party I have always believed we had to do things twice as good and be twice as sharp just to be taken half as seriously as another olde party candidate. While both democrats and republicans have their own whackjobs on the fringe everyone understands that those are their FRINGE elements. With us, people see a whackjob and they think that is our norm.
I hope that when all is said and done at the end of this next weekend we come out smelling much better than the D's or R's. That is my hope...
Regards,
Doug
Twangbanger
Grandmaster
- Oct 9, 2010
- 7,113
- 113
Just wait 'til a Libertarian comes out in support of "common sense drug prohibition". That's when the turds will hit the twirler.
Libertarian party has never been relevant, you can get back to your Trump thread.
Trump: Favorable/Unfavorable
1.2k Shares
Polling Data
| Poll | Date | Sample | Favorable | Unfavorable | Spread |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RCP Average | 5/6 - 5/19 | -- | 35.2 | 58.0 | -22.8 |
| ABC News/Wash Post | 5/16 - 5/19 | 829 RV | 40 | 57 | -17 |
| CBS News/NY Times | 5/13 - 5/17 | 1109 RV | 26 | 55 | -29 |
| FOX News | 5/14 - 5/17 | 1021 RV | 41 | 56 | -15 |
| PPP (D) | 5/6 - 5/9 | 1222 RV | 34 | 61 | -27 |
| The Economist/YouGov | 5/6 - 5/8 | 2000 A | 35 | 61 | -26 |
Last edited:
Fundamental flaw of libertarianism is in not understanding that to implement their goals it will require a iron fist approach. Yes, you will have to force people to be free before you can walk away and let nature run its course.
Shutting down social security is not something that would happen quietly nor easily.
More freedom most certainly can be the end result, but the temporary means to get there isn't going to feel good.
There are a lot of flaws with libertarianism but that's definitely not one, how exactly do you force people to be free with an iron fist? if people don't want freedom(which they don't), they vote for Trump or Hilary (which they will) and the system keeps going. If enough people voted to elect the libertarian that'd be the mandate. There's no iron fist necessary.
If you're not voting for someone that can beat Hillary, you are voting for gun control anyway. You can "feel good" all day long, while she puts in Supreme Court judges that will take away the Second Amendment and legalize aliens that will never allow numbers for us, our kids or our grandkids to win them back again.
Last edited:
Just to play devils advocate, the case could be made that you smoking in your car infringes on your child's rights. It doesn't really matter that it's your child.
Children are not chattel. And it disturbs me that so many "liberty" loving types routinely define them that way - here and elsewhere (note: I am not accusing you of that position, just generally waxing philosophically)
Twangbanger
Grandmaster
- Oct 9, 2010
- 7,113
- 113
But the Point is...do you (or me) really want the Government to have the Power to tell me (or you) you can't leave your child in a hot car?
Are you saying killing children slowly is morally equivalent to killing them quickly?
Do you really think Laws will prevent this?
And most importantly - why do you hate Liberty so?
You just expressed in your statement exactly why I said what I said. The majority will not vote for freedom, they do not want it and will actively fight against it. The only way to implement it is to forcibly rip away the chains.
People will always vote for safety over liberty.
You're absolutely correct, and that's why that argument is so troubling to me. See, my child is not chattel, as you put it, but until she turned 18, in the eyes of the law she was an "infant", which is to say that she had no right to speak for herself. This may not be precise, but it's generally accurate. You have to reach your own majority in most cases to exercise your rights for yourself, emancipation notwithstanding. Thus, since she could not, until that time, speak for herself, as her father, I spoke for her, as did her mother. With that in mind, I chose in which car she was or was not allowed to ride. I chose with whom she could associate. I chose what she was allowed to eat or not, and if we were serving big, thick steaks and baked potatoes for supper, she had the choice to eat that or not eat.
As should be obvious, I'm not being literal, nor reciting history as it happened, I'm making the point that it's not government who decided what food we were allowed to feed her, nor her friends, nor the vehicles involved, it was us, her parents. A case could be made that such and such vehicle inherently presented a danger, and thus, a law is needed to forbid children being transported in that vehicle, or that something happened in this specific vehicle (someone smoked last week, no children present at the time) and therefore, as 2nd hand smoke is a danger, the vehicle must be thoroughly detailed, deodorized, and sanitized prior to a child under age X being permitted to even see the vehicle, let alone ride in it. And that doesn't even address the horrors of red meat!
Where, precisely, is the Constitutional authority for the US gov't to define decisions traditionally left to parents?
As to Twangbanger's point, or for that matter, even to yours, if an actual, demonstrable harm has come as a result of someone's action or inaction, then punish that. This does, of course, require that someone must suffer an injury before we, society, can exact our revenge upon the actor who caused it, but the proper approach is education, not punishment.
Your point is well taken. We DO have to consider the child's rights as well. I'm at a loss to say where the line exists that says which decisions a parent is to make, however, and which are the province of government... or if the latter exist at all.
Blessings,
Bill
I think George Orwell phrased it similarly: Freedom Is Slavery.
Kirk Freeman
Grandmaster
Well, if those in the black overalls say that it is freedom, then it is freedom, as they know best and are more pure.
Site Supporter
Latest posts
-
The Funny Picture/Video Thread, 15th Edition: Be more like Coleman.- Latest: BehindBlueI's
-
-
