Something to Chew on

I have been criticized for pointing out that our nation is paralleling the events of 1920’s – 1930’s Germany, and that we are setting up the conditions by which someone could seize power I have been told this could never happen in the United States. When I see this:

Egypt’s Morsi stands by decree

I have to wonder what makes people think that it can’t happen here? If it is because they don’t think people like Obama would try to seize power, then they haven’t been listening to Obama carefully enough. He has been openly telling people he wants to rule by decr4ee — without Congress or the Courts to get in the way. But, if they think Americans would never allow such a thing to stand: well, look at how the Egyptians are dealing with their “democratically elected” dictator — by protesting, just like we are doing in reaction to Obama’s many violations of the Constitution.

My friends, human nature is what it is and, given that there are too few left in this nation who actually understand and embrace true liberty, the most likely thing to happen should an American President declare himself to be dictator would be protests…until they are put down by the new civilian defense agency that is as well armed and trained as the U.S. military (which has been gutted, exhausted and socially engineered into a shell of its former self).

85 thoughts on “Something to Chew on

  1. So then; he gets by with a little help from his friends?

    B., the post I was referring to is Daddy’s on Hamas. I can’t remember the exact title, but it’s in scrolling distance….or would that be scroll-friendly?

  2. Sometimes I think Americans don’t deserve liberty, maybe what I really mean is that I don’t deserve liberty. For years I concentrated all my efforts on starting &building a biz and then a marriage. I have to admit, until I owned a biz in San Francisco and a home in Oakland I didn’t do anything to help my country’s liberty except vote and write checks to candidates. I can remember the day I realized that the so nice Jimmy Carter had been a terrible Prez and Ron Rayguns had been a great one. Boy, I was so wrong when I was young, how could I have been so wrong? Well, my first mistake was in listening to my college and my peers instead of my Dad. He had explained to me that the US system only works if u have both Dems and Repubs in power in a city, county, state or country. His take was you had to elect candidates from both parties so they would police each other, otherwise one party would rob us blind and that was exactly my experience in overwhelmingly Democratic, Oakland, CA.

    Is it too late? I’m awake now. I see the problem, but I don’t see the solution except for moving south and spending the rest of my life working to save as much as my country as I can. I’m sorry Dad, you were known for being part of the greatest generation. Guess my generation will be known as the ones who lost America. Now that’s something to really be ashamed of. And I am.

    • Ironic isn’t it? We think this is “our” fault.

      In reality, all our lives, everyone around us has been telling us we are over-reacting, we are paranoid, etc.

      Those of us who have been able to rise “above the fray” and indoctrination. Ignore rhetoric (LIES) and Look at actions and results.

      This is NOT our fault! This IS the result of Cultural Marxism.

      “the enemies of liberty” have been engaged in a Stealth War digging at the very foundations of America lieing to us all the while.

      No ! This is NOT our fault. We just awakened and realized where we are; while so many keep on walking down the path to the “waiting train” for their “utopia”; hoping beyond ALL reason and common sense there is a pot of gold at the end of the line.

      Now the question is, what do we do about it?

      Joe, Utah, Augger ? Any ideas?

      ps. The republicans have been facilitating all this while giving lip service to the opposite.

      • “Now the question is, what do we do about it?”

        Well, given the fact that we have to endure 4 more years of apologetic anti American exceptionalism, and a downright disdain for liberty and equality for all people, I strongly suggest we just sit back and let the Blamer-In-Chief run rampant throughout the world bitching himself out to the cheapest pimp of the day.

        Four years … we’ll have our Margaret Thatcher sooner, or later.

          • The world is smart enough to know when they see a weak pathetic individual when they see one. Obama isn’t the first. Jimmy Carter was seen the same way while he was in office.

    • I know what ur saying Trapped….We hail from the Bay area too.

      But I wouldn’t Say you ( or Others) don’t deserve Liberty….what you describe ….Working on Building a Business and a Marriage IS excercising Liberty….you were engaged in it and by doing so expanding it.
      The big mistake we made was being silent….succuming to the Politically Correct attitude of NOT discussing politics or of NOT defending the basic values of Self-sufficiency .

      And our parents Generation let the creep of Progressivism take over the primary schools……so that when we hit College we were already indoctrinated. MANY generations are responsible for the decline.

      And NOW we know that it isn’t Just a Mix of Republicans and Democrats that we need ……but rather People in office who are committed to the Very Basics of American Values and legislate for them NOT against them !!

      The TP and like conservative groups (Jeffersonian/Lockian Conservatives if you like), should be supported Actively (2010 DID HAPPEN remember!). As Joe said in another thread…we need to lock arms and support each other…and plan NOW for 2014. If we can Hold the line or even increase Constitutional Conservatives in the congress 2014 we have a chance to build more of a consensus towards the value of Liberty in the popular culture.

  3. While Obama assumes dictatorial power, so have other presidents. Our presidents tend to be narcissists bent on expanding their power. This is a growing trend. Presidents Bush, Clinton, and Reagan all fit the same mold. American presidents are co-opted for the New World Order Globalist Corporatist Socialist agenda. After the election, the president performs the tasks allotted to him by the corporate sponsors who paid for his advertising (campaign donations). Our presidents owe large corporations for their election, not the American voters. For this reason, there is a growing attraction to Libertarianism – freedom from oppression by moving to the grassroots campaigns. What concerns Libertarian-Republicans is a tendency on the part of Republicans to thwart usurpation of power by Democrat presidents, but to ignore Republican presidents who expand power and destructive policies.

    We are seeing a lot of disunity in the nullifications and secessionist petitions, and Obama’s response will likely be a war to bring the people together – the common adversary approach. The American pattern at this point is to blame someone else, to find an adversary to attack, which in my opinion, will produce Word War III. We see Civil Wars and uprisings in small countries, but in a large country I do not see that happening. The Communist revolution was produced without bloodshed in America. It is already done: Our country is gutted financially. Our problem is the rollback of Communist ideals, and there is too much risk of a Communist loss in a Civil War. If you looked at the election maps, only the large cities are held by Democrats. It is safer to pull the country together by targeting a common enemy. Obama will be acquiescing to the demands of Christians if he attacks Iran, and he will pull Christians, blinded by Globalist politicians promoting Corporatist foreign policy, behind him. The result will be World War III.

    • AW,

      WWIII is already in the making — with or without U.S. involvement.

      Next, while I agree — corporations hold too much sway over government — you must not overlook the absolute power government has over corporations. BP was just mauled in what was a TOTALLY illegal act of extortion by the government. Unless my memory fails BIG TIME, U.S. Law limited BP to only $175 MILLION in liabilities, yet is has paid out in the BILLIONS! This undermines the “all powerful” corporations mantra. Fascism is a blend of BOTH govt/corporate interests but, in the end, the govt has proven it is ALWAYS the stronger — because it holds the sword.

      The peril comes in when the leader decided he does not want to play the game for money to get re-elected and just seizes it.

      As for disunity among Libertarians: that will ever be your lot. It is why the Articles of Confederation failed and why Libertarianism will NEVER be anything more than a local success — just like true communism (which is true libertarianism in practice)

      • You misquoted me. I didn’t say there was disunity among Libertarians, The disunity is among Democrats and Republicans and between Establishment Republicans and Libertarian-Republicans. Calling Libertarianism true Communism is completely off-base to the point of insanity. Constitutionalism, the philosophy of Our Founding Fathers, and the principles by which are nation was governed for so many years when we had free markets and freedom is not Communism. You obviously need to do your research on Libertarianism. After your comment, I suspect you are following some hidden agenda to which I cannot subscribe.

        • AW,

          LOL, you don’t know it, but you just made my point.

          Anyone who has followed me for any length of time will tell you I am ANYTHING BUT a communist, or communist sympathizer. As for a hidden agenda: I wish. I was a Marine: the only way we know how to do things is to knock on the door, tell you we are coming in and then do it anyway. In other words, my cards are always face up on the table.

          As for the founders being libertarians: that is the point — they tried that and it failed. They had to come toward Utah’s direction — federalism.

          As for my comment about TRUE communism being TRUE libertarianism in action, it would appear that it is not I who do not understand communism. TRUE communism — as Marx defined it — not as the world practices it — is totally without government because all people work in accord with each other. Now I do not know how much more “libertarian” one can get.

          But, hey, feel free to snipe away at me. I find this amusing (and I do not mean to be smart, insulting or belittling. I honestly find it amusing) 🙂

  4. I think the way modern-day libertarians are is different from the archaic version that you boys are painting them. I would maybe concede that it could be coined differently, but that’s just a matter of semantics. And here we go with interpretation. I really hope root-beer boy comes back and chimes in.

    • Kells,

      “Modern day” libertarians??? If you add “modern day” to the definition, then you are NOT a libertarian. The term generally means something and, excuse me if you decide it sounds snotty, but this is right smack in the middle of my wheel house. It’s what I beat my head against the liberal academic wall for two years to earn: a philosophy degree specializing in natural rights, natural law and the classic liberal philosophy/ideology. Libertarians try to claim that mantle all the time — they did when I was in school. But they are too far Right (on the American spectrum) to lay any legitimate claim to being a Classic Liberal or to the Constitution.

      The divide is this: libertarians typically want the liberty, but they do not want the government involvement in ANYTHING BUT the markets/finances. Well, sorry, but the Constitution AND Classic Liberal BOTH recognize society’s right and even duty to provide for some minimum sense of social morality. Without it, society falls apart. But you will be hard pressed to find a Libertarian willing to accept this fact. Ron Paul certainly doesn’t in his book “Defining Liberty.”

        • Kells,

          You have now made my case: you want certain things, but you claim you do not want or even recognize the need for a minimum level of govt. involvement in assuring them. Hence my assertion that applied Libertarianism is anarchy.

          (Geeze, and to think they said I was “anti-govt” lol)

        • “I don’t know where you’re getting this idea that Libertarians want govt. involvement in mearkets/finances. Here is the Libertarian platform:

          Kells, Gary Johnson does not comprise the entire Libertarian philosophy, nor does he speak for the entire movement. He is but one of about 8 or 9 specific ideologies present under the title of “Libertarian” in modern times.

          Some Libertarians are fine with government. Others are not ok with any form of government. You need to understand that concept.

          • But Augger, this is the fella that was chosen to represent them. And I hope you noted his track record. You know, the two of you are sounding like Mr. Kells: “Libertarians just want to be free to smoke pot.” That’s so dumb! That is not the platform!

            • No, Kells, it is not the platform because they want to be free to do a lot of other things that are not necessarily conducive to a healthy society, either.

              Mr. K is right — again.

            • Kells, you are working on the premise that the Libertarians have consolidated their base in a similar fashion as the Republicans, and or Democrats have done. They have not.

              Gary Johnson ran as a Libertarian (he was a Republican until 2011). Does not mean he was the head of the Libertarian Party.

              Now if you wanna smoke a bowl, we can discuss that as a side bar item. 🙂

              • It was lack of consolidation in the Republican base that cost Republicans the 2012 election. Neither the Republican nor the Democrat base is actually consolidated to the degree that one might expect. I know 2 very well educated devout Christian couples who voted for Obama, and I know Republicans that range from Arch-Conservative to Moderate. There are also roughly between 5 and 8 million Independents ready to swing around to the other party at any given moment.

    • “I think the way modern-day libertarians are is different from the archaic version that you boys are painting them. I would maybe concede that it could be coined differently, but that’s just a matter of semantics. And here we go with interpretation. I really hope root-beer boy comes back and chimes in.”

      Noam Avram Chomsky, Sam Dolgoff, George Woodcock — just to name a few.

      Kells, I do not mean this to be derogatory, but you are jumping in over your head darling. Go read up on the subject. You would be surprised to discover how many contemporary libertarian anarchists are out there.

        • No, I do not need to take some internet quiz, but thank you. I’ve read and studied these individuals (why do you think I picked them specifically?) enough to know what they were about.

          I think it’s become painfully apparently I am wasting valuable time here with you. Have your dreams Kells. After all, who am I to tell you how to fantasize? 🙂

  5. You have Libertarianism confused with Liberalism. Libertarians are on the Far Right of the political spectrum. Of the Republicans candidates running for president, from Far Right to Moderate, Ron Paul was on the Far Right; then Gingrich, Santorum, and Romney in that order. You are also seeking to give the Federal Government responsibility for morality when it cannot even keep a straight set of books. In addition, I have no idea why you believe that Libertarians want government regulation of Free Markets. Just the opposite is true. Please do your research!

    Screaming about and trying to legislate against social issues is a Communist inspired game designed to undermine the Christian Church and destroy our country. You would be amazed at how fast the social issues will disappear, if you elect a Libertarian-Republican president. Libertarians will not allow the Federal Government to continue paying for immorality – the promotion of vice and the consequences of vice, but you certainly will because you just want to scream about and legislate against social issues, and you make sure those issues are always in the voters faces instead of promoting sound monetary policy and a return to State’s Rights. Constitutionalism would end Federal Government promotion of immorality by refusing to pay for it. Good Luck out there chasing those unicorns!

    • LOL, AW, my friend, now who is putting words in whose mouth. Once again, if you want to hold to the notion that I am part of some communist plot, you knock yourself out. But if you think you are standing on the founders’ hollowed ground, well, you need to look LEFT of where you’re standing. Your nearest ally is the barbarian, NOT the founders. Start by reading what they actually wrote about the govt.’s role in public morality. What THEY wrote, not what someone said they said.

      [ still amused 🙂 ]

      • Are you pretending that morality can be legislated, and Our Founding Fathers would support your efforts? For over 30 years, we listened to pro-life chants overwhelming the national debate while our country was foundering economically due to ethical problems – socialist destruction of our economy. Einstein’s definition of insanity (paraphrased) is continuing the same action with the same unsuccessful results, and I subscribe to that truism. Secondly, I have to admit, I have tired of all of this rhetoric. You have provided no viable solution to our nation’s problems, but you would condemn the philosophy of freedom that actually worked for a hundred years in America and to which Russia now seems to wish to subscribe – Libertarianism.

        • AW,

          If you are telling this board the founders did NOT legislate morality, then you are telling this board you have not read any of our earliest court cases dealing with morality.

          Now, just keep trying to spin me as some sort of commie lover. It’s not going to stick with anyone who has read what I post on the RNL.

          • Our Founding Fathers wanted a moral society. That is not what is in question here, but I am glad I got you to say it. Our Founding Fathers also did not believe the Federal Government should pay for anything other than a military to protect against invasion. Evangelical Christians present a dilemma, which is impossible to solve: On the one hand, many want to co-opt the national debate with Social Issues, which no Founding Father would have endorsed; and on the other, the same group refuse sensible solutions – a return to Libertarian government. There has to be some reason for Evangelical Christian intractability about having Social Issues solved quietly without fanfare – some reason Evangelical Christians cannot have Social Issues ever resolved because that is the net result of their intractability. What the Evangelical Christians really want to legislate against is “people” and the abject human condition, which is what I believe Our Founding Fathers would have told them. And, when it is presented in that manner it speaks to the impossibility of the task. Legislation for or against immorality does not work. All that can be done is to refuse to allow the Federal Government to pay for immorality along with all of the other cuts on a Libertarian agenda. In the times before our current moral dilemma, social pressure – peer pressure and ostracism were implemented in our society to enforce social conformity. It worked extremely well, and quite frankly, I do not understand why Christians do not want to go back to that. Refusing to give respect to actions and people that we did not wish to condone worked as a generally accepted method of enforcement of God’s Laws and moral principles. We had a very clean moral society back then as opposed to now.

            • AW,

              I find it interesting that you seem to ascribe things to people like me that we have NOT espoused while claiming things from the founders that are NOT in line with what most people would describe as “Libertarian” ideals.

              I assume you are a Ron Paul supporter, but not from what you have said, but by the way you seem to shoot at whatever is around you that dares to move in any direction but your own.

              How very….UN-libertarian of you.

            • “a return to Libertarian government”

              When the heck have we ever been a libertarian government? Appease me, what exactly is a libertarian government in your mind?

            • Partly I think it is because “back then” as you say there weren’t the Pervasive Media distractions there are today. The Churches were a bigger part of the community and having people’s respect meant more.

              Today, our Emtertainment and Schools teach relativism and in a sense they teach a kind of “Disrespect” as being cool.

              • Also, large cities create anonymity, so Liberalism is really easy in a place where no one knows the person, and he is less likely to come in contact with anyone who would criticize his behavior, hence the “Red” triumph in smaller cities and rural areas .

        • AW,

          I don’t mean this confrontaltional in any way…..but in earnest.

          Would you say or list what actions you feel should be taken by us now to return to the Republic ?

          • Well, I accidentally deleted my original comment, but here is the best part. I like the nullifications and petitions for secession. They send a strong message. The best thing to nullify to help us return to a Republic is the Federal Law giving the people at large the right to elect Senators instead of State Legislatures electing them as they once did. That will deal a strong blow to “Big” Federal Government. Republicans control the state legislatures in a lot of states – 30 governorships. I believe this move would redistribute the power in the Senate toward the Republicans. We need for the states to start taking back over on their own accord – to start saying “No” – the rights are ours. Just start moving everything back via nullifications. Financial items that need nullification are TAG, giving corporations first right in the event of bank failures – rights over the small businessman and individual depositor. Another one to nullify is the prelude to nationalization of health insurance companies via ObamaCare. Health insurance companies should not be made to compete on a national level.That will do little to lower the cost of medical insurance, and it will move investment capital off the state and local level and onto the national level, ultimately moving it to foreign investments. Remember how our wealth re-distribution scheme works when looking at this. Corporations need money for foreign investment, in order to move their manufacturing offshore. Nullify the TSA and the DHS.

            • Moi aussi mes ami….thanks.

              What should individuals do, or where should there (our) efforts be focused NOW….Tea Parties other organizarions?

              I feel numbers ( people working in unison ) are Key….are powerful. We can’t re-invent the wheel….but we did have some success in 2010 !

              • I’m going to start attending a local group that meets once a month, and I will work again in 2014 to get out the vote as I did in 2010. I’m also going to have a chat with an extended family member who used to be in the New Mexico legislature to check out his perspective. Republicans made a mistake in not twisting Gary Johnson’s arm to run for the Senate seat that Heather Wilson went after again. Gary would make a great Conservative addition to the Senate, and I believe we could capture a seat currently held by a Democrat in a Blue State.

                • Yes. Good. But I feel that our work must start NOW before 2014.

                  Also on the Talking front within our communities…..with people who are not part of the Choir so to speak. I’m just not sure of the best ways to do that.

                  • I’m not sure either, and I allow myself to be rather confrontational these days, to challenge people on their fondly held beliefs. It takes time to change beliefs, and we only have 4 years, but I will be out here blogging when I can, and talking to friends and relatives. Some of those Evangelical Republicans who were so unhappy about the election had very well-educated Evangelical Christian children who voted for Obama. Maybe talking to some of the kids to find out why they voted for Obama would lead to some answers., or do you already know?

                    • AW,

                      If what you say is true, I would suggest you check fire until you are sure you are not firing at a friendly. You have espoused many things tonight that, had you looked before you fired blind, you would have found I have argued for on the RNL for a long time. This is why I said you were amusing me today. So sure were you that I was a commie infiltrator that you were willing to shoot at someone who has already made many of the same cases you’re trying to make now. 🙂

                    • AW,

                      LOL, you really DON’T read what people post, do you? 🙂 I did not say that? I said that repeatedly throughout our exchanges, you just did not listen 😉

              • No I don’t know why some of the Kids voted that way! One of my Kids in College texted that two Other Kids in their High Shool Class whose parents are Strong Conservatives texted to say they thought Obama was Cool ! These kids had been conservative during HS.

                So talking to them is Prolly a Good Idea……..But remember it is NOT 4 years….the 2014 Midterm is CRUCIAL….in 2010 it stopped Obama……and I think with effort a similar thing can happen.

                • Don,

                  I think Kells said it: kids want to be with the “IT” crowed, and the Libs have ever painted themselves as that crowed. Nothing more complicated than this added to peer pressure. That’s why kids voted for Obama; it’s also why many adults did.

            • “The best thing to nullify to help us return to a Republic is the Federal Law giving the people at large the right to elect Senators instead of State Legislatures electing them as they once did.”

              No offense, but the LAST thing we need is even more regulation at the Federal level. Better is to spend about the next 30 years removing regulations from the Federal Government’s umbrella. (If we can even get that much work done in 30 years)

              • Returning the right to state legislatures to elect Senators is DEregulation. It returns a right the states once had, and moves power back to state legislatures, back to more of the Republic we once had and away from so much Federal Government control.

                • Kingsley – read again what I wrote. Ah hell nevermind, I will just ask you this: Do you really think there is a politician in office today that will add a regulation to deregulate the extended powers of the Federal Government? If you believe so, I have this big long red bridge in California to sell you.

                  I’ve stated it before, and I will repeat it here for you again …

                  Deregulation of the over extended powers of the Federal Government begins with (and we are already seeing it happening), state legislators filing lawsuits against federal mandates … both against the individual, and the state itself. (examples: Obamacare, and Federal Highway speeds)

                  Through these lawsuits, a clear distinction between general concerns of the nation at large (national government – ie, national defense), and particular concerns of the individual citizen (state government – ie, Welfare, and entitlements among others). State legislators are the tribunes of the people, and Congressional legislators are the tribunes of the states.

                  We’ve forgotten these things.

                  “Our Country is too large to have all its affairs directed by a single government.”
                  —Thomas Jefferson

                  States need to stop selling out to the Federal Government — remember how we got that federal mandated 55mph law to begin with? Yep, you guessed it. States accepted federal money for highway maintenance, but at what cost? A federal mandate.

                  Additionally, states themselves can move forward with their own agendas through legislation, and these legislators should invite federal officials to appear before them to explain any new regulations or mandates that would effect the state … and it should be done out in the open under the scrutiny of the citizens of that state. Remember, legislation was intended to be slow, and deliberate.

                  Cooperation with neighboring states. Regardless of what the big government folks tell you, states can work together for the betterment of all states. That craziness going on between California and Arizona is utterly unnecessary. In diametric opposition to that example, Arizona and Texas are quite cooperative … without a Federal mandate to do so. One area that states can cooperate would be in dealing with the federal governments dumping of thousands of regulations in to the Federal Register for public notice, and commentary. That register in my mind, is no longer the sufficient vehicle for passing mass regulations, and state legislators could, and should cooperate to send that message to Washington.

                  • What you just said is why I suggested that states nullify the current Federal Law for at-large voter election of Senators. That would change the law back to the way it was before the Federal Government intervened. It gives the states their power back, and the Feds would have to sue states to make them knuckle under. Can you imagine the effect if states nullify 10s of thousands of laws? The states will be living by the changed the laws for years by the time the Federal Government gets around to hearing all of those suits in court. By then, it gets to be a rather moot point.

                • “Can you imagine the effect if states nullify 10s of thousands of laws? The states will be living by the changed the laws for years by the time the Federal Government gets around to hearing all of those suits in court. By then, it gets to be a rather moot point.”

                  So you would propose each state title their Governors as dictators? No Kingsley, we have a US Constitution for a reason. What I proposed follows the Constitution. We follow it. It’s just that simple.

                  • “So you would propose each state title their Governors as dictators? No Kingsley, we have a US Constitution for a reason. What I proposed follows the Constitution. We follow it. It’s just that simple.”

                    You are misquoting me: I made no proposal to title governors as dictators. States are guaranteed State’s Rights under our Constitution, and I am just proposing that they take those Rights back, using “nullification”. The citizens of each state vote on the nullifications, unless state legislatures are also allowed to nullify. Nullifications appeared on the ballots of a few states in the 2012 election. Our Federal Government will not give up power, so states need to just start taking it back on their own.

  6. I have a Question for Folks here.

    If Ron Paul was so popular with the College Kids…..why did so many then vote for Obama ??

    • Many of the Ron Paul supporters and Libertarian-Republicans didn’t vote. They kept blogging that they were not going to the polls. Many high-profile Libertarian-Republicans claim that not only did they not vote, but neither did their friends. Apparently a lot of the young Republicans were among the non-voters. Gary Johnson had a different platform and message from Ron Paul’s, and Ron Paul didn’t endorse Gary Johnson.

      • Thank You AW……What do you make of the fact that almost 5 Million Obama voters in 2008 DID NOT vote for Obama this time ? in Round numbers ….69 million (2008)….versus….64 million (2012) ??

        • Independents shifted to Romney, and Republican voters didn’t show up at the polls. All but one national newspaper endorsed Romney, plus at least one high-profile Libertarian, Wayne Allyn Root. Romney got the endorsements and moved the Independents, but couldn’t move the Republican base.

    • Don,

      I think the youth like him because they know he would legalize drugs. Honestly, there is little else about Paul that could possibly appeal to a generation raised on Dewey’s secular humanist ideals.

      • Interesting, I have never heard Ron Paul spend any time on that issue, so it must be something else. Is it that YOU are uninterested in legalizing the drugs that used to be legal in the first place? Again, we see you wanting to legislate everything. People, they are such a pain. Finally, it becomes, people, they are such a pain we must get rid of them – like Muslims in Iraq and Iran. Quit trying to legislate, and start trying to solve the social and moral issues.

        • AW,

          Read his book. For as much as people love Ron Paul, he is STILL a politician, and he acts like one.

          Now, do me a favor, AW: show me where I have advocated legislating other peoples’ lives. If you cannot do that — I mean quote where I have advocated this — then I think I am going to have to sweep you over to Melfamy’s corner.

        • Kells,

          Read his book… 😉 He can speak about all the stuff he wants, and I even agree with much of it, but the youth have no idea what he is talking about. They just know he is a leader in the “Libertarian” movement, and they equate libertarian with drugs — and deservedly so. That rep has been earned.

          Funny thing to me is, while AW would have no way to know this, if YOU would bother to tweak that memory of yours, you might remember I have actually defended the legalization of most drugs — so long as the users were dealt with in accordance with natural law as well.

          • I did! In fact, I think I quoted from a chapter here……………..I can’t remember. B., you do realise that by advocating moral issues, you are in essence backing entitlement programs? Would you not concede that they fall into social/moral issues?

            • Kells,

              THE HELL I AM! It is IMMORAL to FORCE one person to pay for the care of another. I would concede that you — like most people — have a problem with consistency. I do not. This is why philosophy is important: once you have one worked out and it is based on consistent application of principles that do not contradict, it gets easy to make consistent choices as to what is right and wrong.

            • “B., you do realise that by advocating moral issues, you are in essence backing entitlement programs? Would you not concede that they fall into social/moral issues?”

              Jesus Kells – moral issues involving entitlement programs, seriously? What the hell about moral issues of stealing from one person to give to another?

              Do not compromise your own personal positions just to attempt to win an argument with Black.

Talk Amongst Yourselves:

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s