Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

Quote:Sorry Anchorman, no libertarian of any kind supports a strong central government. It defies the very purpose of the movement.

 

There's extremities and degrees of libertarian-ism but they all share one common concept a restricted and decentralized government.

 

 

Why is that, Eric?  

 

When it's clear that I have more of a grasp of the law than most the "conservatives" that are backing trump... Perhaps it's time for Libertarians to realize decentralizing our Constitution is anti-Constitutional. 

 

I'm beginning to realize that my political philosophies more align with libertarianism.  And that the fault of libertarianism is that the movement cannot reconcile with the Constitution.  It's clear what the solution is.

 

As a libertarian, it's the Constitution.  

 

The Constitution creates authority for the Federal and for States.  If you are serious about being a libertarian, you have to address this fact.

Quote:Why is that, Eric?  

 

When it's clear that I have more of a grasp of the law than most the "conservatives" that are backing trump... Perhaps it's time for Libertarians to realize decentralizing our Constitution is anti-Constitutional. 

 

I'm beginning to realize that my political philosophies more align with libertarianism.  And that the fault of libertarianism is that the movement cannot reconcile with the Constitution.  It's clear what the solution is.

 

As a libertarian, it's the Constitution.  

 

The Constitution creates authority for the Federal and for States.  If you are serious about being a libertarian, you have to address this fact.

 

Yes it creates authority and restricts most matters from reaching the Federal level (that's the pesky centralized government you advocate) and defers most issues to the States (that's the plank of de-centralized government ala libertarianism). 

Quote:lol.  Now that's funny.  

 

The legal rationale for slavery was whether or not, in the eyes of the law, all men (and women) were equal before the law and the universality of the endowment by the creator espoused by Jefferson.  The recognition that all men are created equal was an essential part of the rationale behind the 13th 14th 15th amendments to the constitution as well as the subsequent civil rights acts of both the 19th and 20th centuries respectively.  

 

 

Jim Crow, Dredd Scott, property rights and the civil war...  Not particularly in that order.

 

Now look at Roe V Wade and the discussion of personhood.  Sorry, it's 2 different things.  If you want to litigate the so called "republican party" and Lincoln, fine.  Create a thread.

 

But the fact is that property rights and personhood are different.  It's muddying the waters, which you are keen at doing in order to not allow the facts to persist.  But as a libertarian, the concept of Slavery and the concept of Abortion are 2 different things.

 

Sorry that you are too much of a bleeding heart liberal to realize the differences.  But that's not really my fault.  That's on you.\

 

The fetus is not property.  The fetus is not a "slave" or a thing that is looked down upon based on color.  The discussion of abortion is based on personhood and personhood alone---along with other things...  But for libertarians, it's about personhood.  The law matters here.

 

The garbage you like to do is the "well what about..." non-sense.  Take your junk elsewhere.

 

Slavery and Abortion are not the same.  But go on and bleed away, with your heart on your sleeve.  You big softy.

Quote:Yes it creates authority and restricts most matters from reaching the Federal level (that's the pesky centralized government you advocate) and defers most issues to the States (that's the plank of de-centralized government ala libertarianism). 

 

What's the "most matters" that you are mentioning?

 

Perhaps, life, liberty and happiness?

 

Those are pretty vague terms, are they not?

 

Also, due process and commerce are within the scope of the "pesky" federal government.  The federal government creates the structure in which states are allowed to operate.  That means that the Constitution creates a strong central government.  

 

As a libertarian, I respect that.

Quote:Jim Crow, Dredd Scott, property rights and the civil war...  Not particularly in that order.

 

Now look at Roe V Wade and the discussion of personhood.  Sorry, it's 2 different things.  If you want to litigate the so called "republican party" and Lincoln, fine.  Create a thread.

 

But the fact is that property rights and personhood are different.  It's muddying the waters, which you are keen at doing in order to not allow the facts to persist.  But as a libertarian, the concept of Slavery and the concept of Abortion are 2 different things.

 

Sorry that you are too much of a bleeding heart liberal to realize the differences.  But that's not really my fault.  That's on you.\

 

The fetus is not property.  The fetus is not a "slave" or a thing that is looked down upon based on color.  The discussion of abortion is based on personhood and personhood alone---along with other things...  But for libertarians, it's about personhood.  The law matters here.

 

The garbage you like to do is the "well what about..." non-sense.  Take your junk elsewhere.

 

Slavery and Abortion are not the same.  But go on and bleed away, with your heart on your sleeve.  You big softy.

 

Quote:What's the "most matters" that you are mentioning?

 

Perhaps, life, liberty and happiness?

 

Those are pretty vague terms, are they not?

 

Also, due process and commerce are within the scope of the "pesky" federal government.  The federal government creates the structure in which states are allowed to operate.  That means that the Constitution creates a strong central government.  

 

As a libertarian, I respect that.

 

Cute, you really think "life" is vague? 

 

Quote:Jim Crow, Dredd Scott, property rights and the civil war... Not particularly in that order.


Now look at Roe V Wade and the discussion of personhood. Sorry, it's 2 different things. If you want to litigate the so called "republican party" and Lincoln, fine. Create a thread.


But the fact is that property rights and personhood are different. It's muddying the waters, which you are keen at doing in order to not allow the facts to persist. But as a libertarian, the concept of Slavery and the concept of Abortion are 2 different things.


Sorry that you are too much of a bleeding heart liberal to realize the differences. But that's not really my fault. That's on you.\


The fetus is not property. The fetus is not a "slave" or a thing that is looked down upon based on color. The discussion of abortion is based on personhood and personhood alone---along with other things... But for libertarians, it's about personhood. The law matters here.


The garbage you like to do is the "well what about..." non-sense. Take your junk elsewhere.


Slavery and Abortion are not the same. But go on and bleed away, with your heart on your sleeve. You big softy.

Judgment reversed and suit dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

1. Persons of African descent cannot be, nor were ever intended to be, citizens under the U.S. Const. Plaintiff is without standing to file a suit.


That's from the holding decision in dress Scott. As you can see, there was a legal rationale based on the ancestry of Africans to rationalize disenfranchising them of basic rights.


Its the same with the legal rationalization to deprive the unborn of the right to exist.


Moreover, its intilectually dishonest to deify the rationalization of personhood. Its a pseudo intilectually concept that has no root in the actual constitution.


You also failed to acknowledge that you were wrong about the holding opinion of roe v. Wade.

Quote:What's the "most matters" that you are mentioning?


Perhaps, life, liberty and happiness?


Those are pretty vague terms, are they not?


Also, due process and commerce are within the scope of the "pesky" federal government. The federal government creates the structure in which states are allowed to operate. That means that the Constitution creates a strong central government.


As a libertarian, I respect that.

The commerce clause in article 1 and provides congress the ability to regulate commerce between the states and with foreign nations etc.


The idea of UN-elected bureaucrats writing thousands of pages of regulations not voted on by congress is antithetical to the true meaning of the commerce clause and hardly libertarian.

Quote:What's the "most matters" that you are mentioning?

 

Perhaps, life, liberty and happiness?

 

Those are pretty vague terms, are they not?

 

Also, due process and commerce are within the scope of the "pesky" federal government.  The federal government creates the structure in which states are allowed to operate.  That means that the Constitution creates a strong central government.

 

As a libertarian, I respect that.

 

Anything not specified in the constitution as an inalienable right is sent to the individual states. That includes matters like Abortion, Narcotics, Marriage Laws ect...

 

It's getting late and your shtick is falling apart so I'm to bed. 

 

The bold statement means you are not a libertarian, which is neither good nor bad just a reality. You believe pretty strongly in a centralized government and a strong one at that which is fine that's your choice. But to claim it could ever be inline with an ideology that teaches decentralized government is just you being silly. 

 

What you are doing is displaying a classical modern liberal thought process, you perceive something to be truth, therefor it must be truth. 

Quote:I like Gary on 90% of the issues. Again its is pro-choice stance that gives me pause. In the past he's took a more let the states deciede approach but this year I've seen a few interviews where he just days I'm pro-choice that's it.

 

Shouldn't choices about a person's body be the thing you wouldn't want the state to interfere in? "You can tell my girlfriend what to do with her body, but don't you ever - EVER - tell me where my money should go!" Yeah, that just doesn't sound right to me.

Quote:Shouldn't choices about a person's body be the thing you wouldn't want the state to interfere in? "You can tell my girlfriend what to do with her body, but don't you ever - EVER - tell me where my money should go!" Yeah, that just doesn't sound right to me.

 

The whole "telling a woman what she can and can't do with her body" is pure leftist spin.


 

The proposed abortion laws specify what some else can't do to a woman's body. The woman herself is usually not criminalized, only an abortionist if one is involved, and that seems to be the position taken by most politicians who oppose abortion.


 

And one could argue that the baby inside is not part of the woman's body either, it's the body of a separate person. The real question is whether or not a fetus is a person. That should have been decided by the public at large, not by five of nine elitists.

I don't wed myself to a political philosophy and try to fit everything into that philosophy.   I try to take each issue individually, try to figure out what works, what doesn't work, what the unintended consequences are, etc.  But when I do try to generalize about myself, I see myself falling into a social liberal / fiscal conservative type of box.  

 

Gary Johnson says he is a social liberal and fiscal conservative.   I also believe he's not a nut nor is he a crook.   That's why I'm interested.  

 

Even if he loses, he can get enough votes to show the way for a viable third party, which is something we really need right now.   Leave the socialists in the Democratic party and leave the social conservatives in the Republican party.   Take everyone else and offer them a viable alternative. 

Quote:The whole "telling a woman what she can and can't do with her body" is pure leftist spin.


The proposed abortion laws specify what some else can't do to a woman's body. The woman herself is usually not criminalized, only an abortionist if one is involved, and that seems to be the position taken by most politicians who oppose abortion.


And one could argue that the baby inside is not part of the woman's body either, it's the body of a separate person. The real question is whether or not a fetus is a person. That should have been decided by the public at large, not by five of nine elitists.

Also the idea that my half of the genetic material doesn't grant me legal standing is crazy...

Quote:I don't wed myself to a political philosophy and try to fit everything into that philosophy. I try to take each issue individually, try to figure out what works, what doesn't work, what the unintended consequences are, etc. But when I do try to generalize about myself, I see myself falling into a social liberal / fiscal conservative type of box.


Gary Johnson says he is a social liberal and fiscal conservative. I also believe he's not a nut nor is he a crook. That's why I'm interested.


Even if he loses, he can get enough votes to show the way for a viable third party, which is something we really need right now. Leave the socialists in the Democratic party and leave the social conservatives in the Republican party. Take everyone else and offer them a viable alternative.

Perot failed Nader failed and he's going up against the great political movement of our time... Good luck with that

How can one think this is human?  It's clearly just a blob not yet human.  Can only be human when it comes out.  So the few seconds before it comes out, not human.  Comes out, human.  There is a supernatural transformation in those few seconds.  This is science.

 



 

It's a kid you idiots.

Quote:How can one think this is human?  It's clearly just a blob not yet human.  Can only be human when it comes out.  So the few seconds before it comes out, not human.  Comes out, human.  There is a supernatural transformation in those few seconds.  This is science.

 

It's a kid you idiots.

 

It's amazing what detailed images of tumors we can get these days.

Quote:I don't wed myself to a political philosophy and try to fit everything into that philosophy.   I try to take each issue individually, try to figure out what works, what doesn't work, what the unintended consequences are, etc.  But when I do try to generalize about myself, I see myself falling into a social liberal / fiscal conservative type of box.  

 

Gary Johnson says he is a social liberal and fiscal conservative.   I also believe he's not a nut nor is he a crook.   That's why I'm interested.  

 

Even if he loses, he can get enough votes to show the way for a viable third party, which is something we really need right now.   Leave the socialists in the Democratic party and leave the social conservatives in the Republican party.   Take everyone else and offer them a viable alternative. 

 

This is precisely how I feel in a nutshell and why Johnson has my vote...again. Not being a nut, crook nor seemingly a zealot are all VERY appealing attributes.

 

Quote:Perot failed Nader failed and he's going up against the great political movement of our time... Good luck with that

 

Ross Perot ran as an Independent in 92, not a Libertarian. In 96, he ran as a Reform Party candidate (I had to look that one up, as I didn't remember). Nader was primarily a Green Party candidate as I recall...also not a Libertarian. I get your overall premise, but it's not exactly the same. Presenting reasonable, electable candidates who aren't crooks nor zealots is starting to draw more and more attention to the party...which can only be a good thing moving forward regardless of the outcome of this election.

 

It hopefully shows the American public that there are other, viable options...that there is a place for voters like TRM and myself are socially liberal yet fiscally conservative. I was a Democrat by default for over a decade until I found the Libertarian party because I didn't know any better.

Roes not getting overturned gay marriage won't be overturned what's the problem?


For years it was get away fromsocial issues run on jobs. We do that and there's still blow back?


And you can play with the words all you want. Mexico will pay for a toll bridge to china before a third party candidate wins an actual electoral vote.