Paul-endorsed congressional candidate winning Kansas GOP primary

[RoyalShock]

Kansas state senator Tim Huelskamp is currently winning the GOP primary in Kansas' 1st district.

With 58% of precincts reporting he holds a 37% to 26% lead over his nearest challenger. There are six candidates running for the GOP spot.

[South Park Fan]

Is he a certifiable liberty candidate? If so, this is good, we can have at least 3 Ron Pauls in Congress (Ron Paul, Justin Amash, Tim Huelskamp)

[nate895]

Is he a certifiable liberty candidate? If so, this is good, we can have at least 3 Ron Pauls in Congress (Ron Paul, Justin Amash, Tim Huelskamp)

Don't forget David Hedrick!!!

[South Park Fan]

Don't forget David Hedrick!!!

I was just referring to candidates in safe districts who have won their primaries. There will probably be even more if candidates in tossup districts get elected.

[koob]

Ron Paul on Tim Huelskamp:

"I am proud to endorse Republican candidate Tim Huelskamp for Congress.

"Tim Huelskamp will do the work to fight for lower taxes and spending and for more freedom in Washington. I have been very impressed by Tim's record of fiscal responsibility. We need people like Tim Huelskamp voting with me in Congress."

"The American people need more than just another vote. They need a man of principle who will always stand up and fight. They need a citizen politician who will represent THEM. Tim Huelskamp is just that kind of individual."

[RoyalShock]

Is he a certifiable liberty candidate? If so, this is good, we can have at least 3 Ron Pauls in Congress (Ron Paul, Justin Amash, Tim Huelskamp)

It's tough to say. I tried emailing the campaign to find out his positions on foreign and monetary policy. I got no response. I later received a call from his campaign and the worker's answer to the monetary policy question was "I'm not exactly sure, but he was endorsed by Ron Paul, so that should tell you something."

I'm still not sure where he stands on foreign policy.

http://www.huelskamp.org/

[trey4sports]

he gives off the impression of a social neo-con.

[nate895]

he gives off the impression of a social neo-con.

"Social neo-con," so he appears to be a gregarious neoconservative?

"Social neo-con" is not a political ideology.

[trey4sports]

"Social neo-con," so he appears to be a gregarious neoconservative?

"Social neo-con" is not a political ideology.

social authoritarian.

Better?

[nate895]

social authoritarian.

Better?

I suppose, but social conservative is generally the name for someone like Huelskamp. Someone who mentions they are pro-life and anti-gay marriage is hardly a "social authoritarian." It is not like they are saying they are for regulating every facet of human behavior, or even most. They are for recognizing a right to life before birth, and denying that there is such a thing as "gay marriage." Both positions that Dr. Paul holds to, so if you are going to call Huelskamp a "social authoritarian," then you would have to call Ron Paul and a good chunk of the liberty movement "social authoritarians."

[Bman]

I suppose, but social conservative is generally the name for someone like Huelskamp. Someone who mentions they are pro-life and anti-gay marriage is hardly a "social authoritarian." It is not like they are saying they are for regulating every facet of human behavior, or even most. They are for recognizing a right to life before birth, and denying that there is such a thing as "gay marriage." Both positions that Dr. Paul holds to, so if you are going to call Huelskamp a "social authoritarian," then you would have to call Ron Paul and a good chunk of the liberty movement "social authoritarians."


It's a forcing of morality for a lot of people. For example, I personally wouldn't get an abortion, besides I lack the physical attributes to even consider such an action, I'd try to talk someone out of it, but I wouldn't use the law to just throw people in jail who disagreed with me. Same thing with two guys who want to call themselves a married couple. While I will say abortion and gay marriage are not the same thing and would tolerate local decisions that work best per community when looking to federal people we have to know at the least there are some things that will just not be entertained at a federal level.

[libertybrewcity]

He's a farmer too. We need more of them in congress.


Agriculture
As a 5th generation American farmer, we continue to work the same land that my family has farmed for over 80 years. I was born and raised in Fowler, learned to farm and ranch in Fowler, and returned home after completing college. My life as a farmer gives me a unique perspective, not only on the industry, but also on the importance of family, rural communities, and the value of Kansans.

In a House of Representatives that is increasingly made up of urban Congressmen, I offer a refreshing perspective: a real farmer that understands agricultural issues on more than just a textbook level.

Kansas farms are the livelihood of rural communities, they offer employment to the next generation, and they help feed the world. I will work diligently to ensure that the Kansans of tomorrow have the same opportunities to return to their communities that I did, that comprehensive legislation protects their interests without regulating them profitless, and that global markets are pursued to protect the value of their products. As new technologies such as bio-fuels emerge to answer the energy needs of tomorrow, we must ensure that the opportunities are sought in a way to help producers as well.

I have been honored to serve in the Kansas Senate for the past 13 years, and I’m proud to be a Kansas farmer.

[Sentient Void]

Ron Paul does not believe the federal government has nor should have authority in legalizing or banning abortion or gay marriage (although he has personal views against them he would never force these views on anyone else). He believes these things should be left to the states.

[Epic]

Guys, look like we're gonna have to wait and see on Huelskamp. Don't donate or anything. He doesn't need the money in that district.

Anyway, Huelskamp's economic votes in Kansas were very good.

[RoyalShock]

Guys, look like we're gonna have to wait and see on Huelskamp. Don't donate or anything. He doesn't need the money in that district.

Anyway, Huelskamp's economic votes in Kansas were very good.

This is true. It doesn't matter who the Dem's run, he will win the general election. This is my district and it is GOP to the core (mostly rural western and central Kansas).

[Golding]

I suppose, but social conservative is generally the name for someone like Huelskamp. Someone who mentions they are pro-life and anti-gay marriage is hardly a "social authoritarian." It is not like they are saying they are for regulating every facet of human behavior, or even most. They are for recognizing a right to life before birth, and denying that there is such a thing as "gay marriage." Both positions that Dr. Paul holds to, so if you are going to call Huelskamp a "social authoritarian," then you would have to call Ron Paul and a good chunk of the liberty movement "social authoritarians."Wanting to use government to define life and how people are allowed to relate with one another is pretty authoritarian. While Ron Paul acknowledges that abortion is a violent act against a child, he's particularly against government taking upon itself the role of suggesting what makes a person alive. And he's certainly not for the government telling people whether they are allowed to marry. This is why he always makes the point that politicians lead the country astray by asking the wrong questions. Instead of arguing over "this vs. that", they ought to be asking themselves whether they have the authority to decide this or that.

Not saying anything one way or another about Huelskamp, since I haven't familiarized myself with him. But I just wanted to make that point that "pro-life" and "anti-gay marriage" still have authoritarianism rooted in them.

[Slutter McGee]

Wanting to use government to define life and how people are allowed to relate with one another is pretty authoritarian. While Ron Paul acknowledges that abortion is a violent act against a child, he's particularly against government taking upon itself the role of suggesting what makes a person alive. And he's certainly not for the government telling people whether they are allowed to marry. This is why he always makes the point that politicians lead the country astray by asking the wrong questions. Instead of arguing over "this vs. that", they ought to be asking themselves whether they have the authority to decide this or that.

Not saying anything one way or another about Huelskamp, since I haven't familiarized myself with him. But I just wanted to make that point that "pro-life" and "anti-gay marriage" still have authoritarianism rooted in them.

Protecting life is a legitimate function of government. So defining life is necessary act of government.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

[trey4sports]

"gay marriage" is a sham, and everybody is fucked no matter what. Here's what pisses me off.....

the government adopts a christian function known as marriage and subsidizes those who use it in the form of tax breaks. The government first and foremost cannot discriminate, whether it's a man and a woman or a woman and a woman that is getting married. Yet, you have the the religious right who say "marriage" is a christian function, and it is defined as a man and woman.

So now there are two opposing forces colliding.

government discrimination and Christianity.

The solution?

government give out civil unions which offer the same incentives to all "couples" and if you want to get "married" you do so at your church.

[erowe1]

He's a farmer too. We need more of them in congress.

Do we need more bankers, auto-executives, and other various corporate welfare dependents in Congress too?

[malkusm]

Do we need more bankers, auto-executives, and other various corporate welfare dependents in Congress too?

Try not to throw baseless lies and accusations around, please.

http://www.heritage.org/static/reportimages/7849751F65382F10E8D5236DD560DF67.gif

http://farm.ewg.org/persondetail.php?custnumber=007991785

Tim Huelskamp received payments totaling $258 from 1995 through 2009

Hardly a "corporate welfare dependent." I'm sure, if you were really worried about it, he'd give the $258 back. :rolleyes:

[malkusm]

But anyway....what's the consensus on this guy? Do we consider it a victory for us if he wins in November?

[erowe1]

Try not to throw baseless lies and accusations around, please.


I didn't throw any baseless charge. I asked a question. I still haven't gotten an answer.

I don't know anything about Hueskamp or his position on farm bailouts. But do people really see his being a farmer as some kind of a plus? If so, why?

[malkusm]

He's a farmer too. We need more of them in congress.


Do we need more bankers, auto-executives, and other various corporate welfare dependents in Congress too?

You are either saying that (A) All farmers are "corporate welfare dependents," or (B) That Huelskamp himself is one. Which is why I posted what I posted. Your question was a rhetorical attack on Huelskamp predicated on one of the two lies.


Try not to throw baseless lies and accusations around, please.

http://www.heritage.org/static/reportimages/7849751F65382F10E8D5236DD560DF67.gif

http://farm.ewg.org/persondetail.php?custnumber=007991785

Tim Huelskamp received payments totaling $258 from 1995 through 2009

Hardly a "corporate welfare dependent." I'm sure, if you were really worried about it, he'd give the $258 back. :rolleyes:

[klamath]

Wanting to use government to define life and how people are allowed to relate with one another is pretty authoritarian. While Ron Paul acknowledges that abortion is a violent act against a child, he's particularly against government taking upon itself the role of suggesting what makes a person alive. And he's certainly not for the government telling people whether they are allowed to marry. This is why he always makes the point that politicians lead the country astray by asking the wrong questions. Instead of arguing over "this vs. that", they ought to be asking themselves whether they have the authority to decide this or that.

Not saying anything one way or another about Huelskamp, since I haven't familiarized myself with him. But I just wanted to make that point that "pro-life" and "anti-gay marriage" still have authoritarianism rooted in them.

Wrong. RP only believes the FEDERAL government should not be passing laws on murder and it should be left up to the states But he does believe government should define when life begans just not the federal government. When he was forced into it he did vote for a partial birth abortion federal ban.
Abortion is the most authoratarian you can get.

[RoyalShock]

But anyway....what's the consensus on this guy? Do we consider it a victory for us if he wins in November?

Since I haven't been able to determine, even after two separate inquiries of his campaign, what his foreign policy entails, I have hope that he may at least lean toward non-interventionism. Saying that publicly in Kansas' 1st district would potentially be political suicide, especially in a six-candidate primary with very little to separate their platforms. To give you an idea, the guy who finished third was the favorite until he hinted that it would be best if Obama would just release his original birth certificate so the issue could be put to bed.

[malkusm]

I don't know anything about Hueskamp or his position on farm bailouts. But do people really see his being a farmer as some kind of a plus? If so, why?

My family owns a third generation farm, and the regulations are outrageous. Several years ago, they were all but forced out of their livestock operation due to a bunch of new regulations that passed, which would have required them to upgrade the ventilation in the housing as well as installing automated feeders in each facility.

Joel Salatin really hammers it home in this essay: http://www.acresusa.com/toolbox/reprints/Salatin_Sept03.pdf

Bottom line, yes, I think it's a good thing to have a farmer in Congress, to be able to stand up against this nonsense. Just like any other industry, it's regulated from the top down, and the costs of those regulations are driving the little guy out of the market. Which is why an increasing percentage of farm subsidy money each year go to the "Big Three."

[Bergie Bergeron]

Sounds like the guy who finished third pulled a Debra Medina.

[Brian Defferding]

Sigh. I am starting to get sick of these so-called "Liberty" candidates when almost all of them believe the federal government should define marriage as one man/one woman, and seem to skip over the crucial issue of ending the war on drugs.

Tim won't get my support. Sorry guys.

[malkusm]

Since I haven't been able to determine, even after two separate inquiries of his campaign, what his foreign policy entails, I have hope that he may at least lean toward non-interventionism. Saying that publicly in Kansas' 1st district would potentially be political suicide, especially in a six-candidate primary with very little to separate their platforms. To give you an idea, the guy who finished third was the favorite until he hinted that it would be best if Obama would just release his original birth certificate so the issue could be put to bed.

Good to know. I'll keep him in mind for my November candidates thread. It sounds like we need to add him as "one of our guys," if for no other reason than to keep tabs on him once he's elected. :)

[RoyalShock]

Good to know. I'll keep him in mind for my November candidates thread. It sounds like we need to add him as "one of our guys," if for no other reason than to keep tabs on him once he's elected. :)

I'm going to try another run at getting some answers, namely foreign and monetary policy and the war on drugs. Perhaps some folks on his facebook page will have some input.

[malkusm]

Here is what the FEC has on file for his past campaign donations - just two donations to the Kansas GOP and a donation to Sam Brownback's 2004 Senate campaign.

http://www.fec.gov/finance/disclosure/norindsea.shtml

EDIT: This only reports donations of $250 or more, I believe.

[malkusm]

This is discouraging: Huelskamp was the sponsor of a bill to limit advertising for adult stores within 1 mile of a state highway: http://www.kansasliberty.com/liberty-update-archive/2009/25may/ag-responds-to-adult-superstore-lawsuit/



The law's backers complain that Six caved too easily and didn't provide evidence about pornography's "secondary negative effects" such as lower property values, increased drug trafficking and general blight. "The porn industry has deep, deep, deep pockets," says state senator Tim Huelskamp, who believes there is a link between pornography and fantasy-driven criminal behavior. "Justice shouldn't have a price. What is the cost of one additional rape of a child, the cost of another young woman being a victim? Kansas families deserve an opportunity to drive freely down the highway without this kind of advertising."

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1916567,00.html

[erowe1]

You are either saying that (A) All farmers are "corporate welfare dependents," or (B) That Huelskamp himself is one. Which is why I posted what I posted. Your question was a rhetorical attack on Huelskamp predicated on one of the two lies.

That wasn't what I meant. My question was a rhetorical attack on the quote that I included in my post which claimed that we need more farmers in Congress. That was farmers in the plural, not just any particular farmer who happens to be good, but more farmers in general. Most banks don't get much in the way of bailouts either. But I'd consider it strange to see someone say we need more bankers in Congress.

Huelskamp may well be great, but not because he's a farmer.

Also, incidentally, for what it's worth, I don't really care what kinds of welfare any given person running for office may have benefited from as an individual. Given the opportunity, I wouldn't turn down a check from the government myself and have no qualms about having taken advantage of things the government has provided me that I believe it shouldn't have been allowed to. I'm really only concerned about how a legislator will vote on those things.

[malkusm]

State Sen. Tim Huelskamp, a Fowler conservative who endorsed Huckabee, said McCain wasn't "trustworthy" on issues such as taxes, immigration and campaign finance. Then, Huelskamp noted, McCain picked Palin.

"For most of us, this was the biggest political decision of his life, and I think he got this right," Huelskamp said. "She has just energized the party."


http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-27-kansas-election_N.htm

[Bergie Bergeron]

Sigh. I am starting to get sick of these so-called "Liberty" candidates when almost all of them believe the federal government should define marriage as one man/one woman, and seem to skip over the crucial issue of ending the war on drugs.

Tim won't get my support. Sorry guys.

:)

[malkusm]

That wasn't what I meant. My question was a rhetorical attack on the quote that I included in my post which claimed that we need more farmers in Congress. That was farmers in the plural, not just any particular farmer who happens to be good, but more farmers in general. Most banks don't get much in the way of bailouts either. But I'd consider it strange to see someone say we need more bankers in Congress.

Huelskamp may well be great, but not because he's a farmer.

Also, incidentally, for what it's worth, I don't really care what kinds of welfare any given person running for office may have benefited from as an individual. Given the opportunity, I wouldn't turn down a check from the government myself and have no qualms about having taken advantage of things the government has provided me that I believe it shouldn't have been allowed to. I'm really only concerned about how a legislator will vote on those things.

No problem, I understand now. Sorry if I came off as rude or brash. :o

I'm in the process of vetting Mr. Huelskamp as best I can.

[malkusm]

Huelskamp caucused for Mike Huckabee in 2008, not Ron Paul:


State Sen. Tim Huelskamp spoke on behalf of Huckabee. He told the crowd that 24 hours previously, he didn’t know which candidate he would be voting for. Then he met Huckabee in Topeka during one of the former governor’s four campaign stops in the state on Friday. He said the opportunity to look someone in the eye told him a lot about his character.

“When you look at Gov. Huckabee’s record as an executive, and unlike any of the other candidates, he’s actually had to lead a government,” Huelskamp said. “And incidentally, don’t forget, that was a government that was run previously by cronies of the Clinton family. And he spent years cleaning that up. Seventeen elected officials after he took (the office of) governor were indicted or put in jail.”


http://www.emporiagazette.com/news/2008/feb/11/gop_chooses_huckabee/

[Kregisen]

Well I guess we can all say "fuck you tim" eh?

[erowe1]

As far as Huckabee is from Ron Paul in policy, and as much as he has personally denigrated libertarians and small government conservatives, I've noticed that a lot (though not most) of his supporters are really quite a bit closer to us than most Republicans. Here in Indiana, John Hostettler got a lot of support from former Huckabee supporters. I wouldn't automatically rule Huelskamp out for that.

[RoyalShock]

Both Paul and Huckabee endorsed Huelskamp, though Paul's came first.

The thing that keeps entering my mind is that Ron doesn't hand out endorsements willy-nilly. What, exactly, did Ron see in Tim's platform to give an endorsement?

[erowe1]

The thing that keeps entering my mind is that Ron doesn't hand out endorsements willy-nilly. What, exactly, did Ron see in Tim's platform to give an endorsement?

He is especially stingy when it comes to endorsements in contested primaries. An RP endorsement for a general election sometimes goes to people who have a mix of some pretty bad views with some pretty good ones (like Michelle Bachman). But when he endorses someone in a contested primary, that's a case where he's really hoping to win a serious ally in Congress.

[RoyalShock]

He is especially stingy when it comes to endorsements in contested primaries. An RP endorsement for a general election sometimes goes to people who have a mix of some pretty bad views with some pretty good ones (like Michelle Bachman). But when he endorses someone in a contested primary, that's a case where he's really hoping to win a serious ally in Congress.

Three years ago I'd have been an ardent Huckabee supporter.

Perhaps Mr. Huelskamp is in the midst of a reformation of some of his positions. That's something I can specifically relate to!

[Jodi]

I didn't vote for huelskamp, but if he is elected that will make my job as precinct committee woman gain some importance this time around.

[libertybrewcity]

Do we need more bankers, auto-executives, and other various corporate welfare dependents in Congress too?


No, we need less of those. But we do need more farmers.

[libertybrewcity]

I didn't throw any baseless charge. I asked a question. I still haven't gotten an answer.

I don't know anything about Hueskamp or his position on farm bailouts. But do people really see his being a farmer as some kind of a plus? If so, why?

I was really talking about 'liberty' candidate farmers but yes, i think that we need more farmers in washington. I would much rather have a group of farmers than a group of attorneys. I think that farmers would take things more slowly. And yes, they would repeal or pass legislation to protect family farmers. I don't agree with subsidies and that is one potential downside.

But basically yes, a farmer in congress i would argue is much better than a career politician or lawyer.

[Brett85]

I'm a Tim Huelskamp supporter who has met him in person. On economic issues Tim is as conservative as you can possibly get. He's never voted for a tax increase, and he has a record of voting against out of control spending. The votes in the Kansas Senate were usually like 40-1, with Tim being the one person voting "no." That may be one reason why Ron Paul endorsed him. Those of you who are social liberals won't like his social policies, as he's a hard core social conservative as well. (Although I don't know where he stands on the federal war on drugs.) There aren't going to be any Republicans running in Western Kansas who are going to be pro choice and support gay marriage. I would say that probably 80% of the people out there oppose those things.

I did ask him about his foreign policy positions, and he basically agreed with me that we would be better off reducing our military presence around the world and using our troops to secure the border and defend our own country. So I think that he at least leans to the non interventionist side. I asked him about Afghanistan as well, and although he's no Ron Paul, he doesn't support endless war there like Kristol, Cheney, etc. So I would say that on foreign policy he's probably more non interventionalist than the average Republican, but he probably isn't far enough in that direction to please many of you. Overall, I would say that Tim will probably be similar to Jim Demint and Tom Coburn. That may not be good enough for some of you, but I would think that you would prefer him to the likes of McCain and Graham.

[SkyPie]

Wanting to use government to define life and how people are allowed to relate with one another is pretty authoritarian. While Ron Paul acknowledges that abortion is a violent act against a child, he's particularly against government taking upon itself the role of suggesting what makes a person alive. And he's certainly not for the government telling people whether they are allowed to marry. This is why he always makes the point that politicians lead the country astray by asking the wrong questions. Instead of arguing over "this vs. that", they ought to be asking themselves whether they have the authority to decide this or that.

Not saying anything one way or another about Huelskamp, since I haven't familiarized myself with him. But I just wanted to make that point that "pro-life" and "anti-gay marriage" still have authoritarianism rooted in them.
Agreed.

Abortion is a personal matter. What goes on within a human body is the business of the owner of the body. During the first few months you wouldn't even know a woman was pregnant unless she told you. And why should you? Besides pregnancy DOES begin as a chemical reaction with cell division. Hardly a human being.

[SkyPie]

I didn't throw any baseless charge. I asked a question. I still haven't gotten an answer.

I don't know anything about Hueskamp or his position on farm bailouts. But do people really see his being a farmer as some kind of a plus? If so, why?

Farmers are the foundation of a self sustaining Nation. Remember this when the Humane Society of the United States, PeTa and the rest of the nut jobs use their MILLIONS to mandate spay/neuter laws, pet limit laws and the like. These people want us all to become vegans. In CA for example it is now a felony to cage an egg laying chicken.

Farmers by and large oppose animal rights agenda. VERY important to protecting property and freedoms.

[YumYum]

Agreed.

Abortion is a personal matter. What goes on within a human body is the business of the owner of the body. During the first few months you wouldn't even know a woman was pregnant unless she told you. And why should you? Besides pregnancy DOES begin as a chemical reaction with cell division. Hardly a human being.

I was totally unconditional pro-choice on abortion when I came on this forum. After reading the viewpoints of Libertarians on this board who are against abortion, I have altered my views. Their arguments from the human rights perspective are very logical.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I was totally unconditional pro-choice on abortion when I came on this forum. After reading the viewpoints of Libertarians on this board who are against abortion, I have altered my views. Their arguments from the human rights perspective are very logical.

You would probably like Walter Blocks stance then, which I happen to support. Basically the woman does not have the right to kill the baby, but does have every right to evict the child. In other words, current technology allows for a woman to evict the child at around 7-8 months without killing. In the future (and not too far flung), a woman will be able to evict at 2-3 months without killing the child. This is probably more theoretical than reality at this point, but this position right now makes me both pro-choice, and pro-life :p My leanings though are favorably towards pro-life.

As for Huelskamp. I don't think I would have voted for him (Is there a libertarian in the race?), but as with most conservatives, they tend to like to conserve, and that means big-government grows larger, because their opponents increase it at every chance and conservatives never decrease it. So it is a stop-gap measure at best, and at worst status-quo. So we'll see.

[malkusm]

I'm a Tim Huelskamp supporter who has met him in person. On economic issues Tim is as conservative as you can possibly get. He's never voted for a tax increase, and he has a record of voting against out of control spending. The votes in the Kansas Senate were usually like 40-1, with Tim being the one person voting "no." That may be one reason why Ron Paul endorsed him. Those of you who are social liberals won't like his social policies, as he's a hard core social conservative as well. (Although I don't know where he stands on the federal war on drugs.) There aren't going to be any Republicans running in Western Kansas who are going to be pro choice and support gay marriage. I would say that probably 80% of the people out there oppose those things.

I did ask him about his foreign policy positions, and he basically agreed with me that we would be better off reducing our military presence around the world and using our troops to secure the border and defend our own country. So I think that he at least leans to the non interventionist side. I asked him about Afghanistan as well, and although he's no Ron Paul, he doesn't support endless war there like Kristol, Cheney, etc. So I would say that on foreign policy he's probably more non interventionalist than the average Republican, but he probably isn't far enough in that direction to please many of you. Overall, I would say that Tim will probably be similar to Jim Demint and Tom Coburn. That may not be good enough for some of you, but I would think that you would prefer him to the likes of McCain and Graham.

Thank you for the insight. He's not perfect, but sounds better than a lot of the Republicans in the House. The good news is that we really don't need to throw a lot of resources his way, because Western Kansas is such a Republican-leaning district. If he were expected to have a close race in November, I think there would be some soul-searching going on over whether or not to support this guy financially.

[Slutter McGee]

You would probably like Walter Blocks stance then, which I happen to support. Basically the woman does not have the right to kill the baby, but does have every right to evict the child. In other words, current technology allows for a woman to evict the child at around 7-8 months without killing. In the future (and not too far flung), a woman will be able to evict at 2-3 months without killing the child. This is probably more theoretical than reality at this point, but this position right now makes me both pro-choice, and pro-life :p My leanings though are favorably towards pro-life.

As for Huelskamp. I don't think I would have voted for him (Is there a libertarian in the race?), but as with most conservatives, they tend to like to conserve, and that means big-government grows larger, because their opponents increase it at every chance and conservatives never decrease it. So it is a stop-gap measure at best, and at worst status-quo. So we'll see.

My God. We agree on something.

People forget that the argument for abortion concerns not the right of the woman to terminate the fetus, but rather her right to control over her own body. A good argument for abortion goes like this. A woman's right to her body is an absolute right. But nobody agrees when the rights of personhood should be extended to the fetus. So the right to life of the fetus is a possible right. The absolute right wins.

Basically, as technology increases and the fetus is able to be removed from a woman's body without the destruction of the fetus, then you able to protect both rights. And the pro-choice argument become much more difficult.

Anyway, on subject. Sounds like a good "NO" pickup in this guy. I wouldn't call him a "liberty candidate", but he sounds like a good ally on a lot of issues.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

[erowe1]

Farmers are the foundation of a self sustaining Nation.

I don't really care about "nations," self-sustaining or otherwise. But if I did, I still wouldn't buy this line. Economic growth doesn't come from smart people picking certain industries as more important than others, it comes from millions or billions of free individuals making up their own minds about what economic exchanges they want to make with one another and letting the chips fall wherever they fall as a result of those countless decisions.

[SkyPie]

I don't really care about "nations," self-sustaining or otherwise. But if I did, I still wouldn't buy this line. Economic growth doesn't come from smart people picking certain industries as more important than others, it comes from millions or billions of free individuals making up their own minds about what economic exchanges they want to make with one another and letting the chips fall wherever they fall as a result of those countless decisions.

I didn't say farming is more important than other industry.

[SkyPie]

I was totally unconditional pro-choice on abortion when I came on this forum. After reading the viewpoints of Libertarians on this board who are against abortion, I have altered my views. Their arguments from the human rights perspective are very logical.

Impossible. Blastocysts do not have rights.

[KurtBoyer25L]

What nobody (Libertarian or otherwise) has talked me out of: Strict pro-life beliefs are inherently religious in cause and structure, and therefore the enforcement of such ideas through use of the law/regulations/police is not only authoritarian, but the function of a militant religious state.

It's easy to say "human life is sacred" and leave it at that, but we also must ask why this is so. A Christian may soundly argue, within her premises, that human life is created by God in His image and is therefore fully sentient, spiritual and valued far above plant or animal life. An atheist may typically argue that yes, human life is more valuable than animal life, because we have evolved into the most sentient, evolved consciousness on Earth. Both sides agree on what makes human beings so special, inasmuch as our brains & souls -- our conscious awareness -- is the expression & substance of that value.

Since human life is valued for its self-awareness, it follows that a "human being" that has no awareness, no power to think or feel, may not be logically valued in the same way that a conscious, sentient person is valued. (When a baby is born without a brain, it dies, and is never considered a fully formed human being). Now a late-trimester fetus can scientifically, logically be shown to possess awareness and sentience. A five-months fetus has likely developed the special traits that make human life so valuable, with a brain, a heart and a consciousness. Even if we're "not sure" if fetuses or even small infants are completely self-aware and sentient human beings, it is absolutely wrong to kill them, just as it's wrong to throw a bomb into a building that "may have" people in it. A developed fetus is absolutely a form of human life & absolutely has natural rights.

But the idea that a first-weeks pregnancy, which at that point consists of a mother carrying a fertilized tissue mass, objectively constitutes a sentient and qualitatively human life, is absurd from a secular point of view. Does the woman at this point have the potential to create a human baby? Yes, she does. But so do any man and woman on a date. Has a self-aware human life yet formed and experienced human consciousness? No, it hasn't. From a secular, scientific, common-sense point of view, using the properties of human life as the standard of what human life is, there is no significant moral difference between two people A) deciding not to screw, B) screwing & using birth control, C) screwing, fertilizing (maybe) and using the morning-after pill, or D) screwing, fertilizing/conceiving, waiting two weeks and aborting the fertilized tissue mass. No new consciousness may be rationally shown to have lived, or died. A potential was always there and is always there every day, but that does not equal a human life any more than an abstention from sex equals an abortion.

But maybe that's wrong, you might say, because what about the Bible/Buddhism/Paganism theories of the soul awakening at conception, of reincarnation & the moment of transference, of your belief as a Christian that the soul in fact is birthed or reconstituted at the moment of fertilization? Well, what about them? These are perfectly valid concepts. Anyone is free to believe any or all or none of them & make personal, moral decisions based on those issues of faith or conviction. But it is not okay to enforce those views on your neighbor or on the public. If we say, "Christianity teaches us that every fertilized egg is a soul" and then go on to make laws that force non-Christians to comply (or Christians who do not choose to believe life begins at conception) with the resulting moral standard, then we are not respecting other faiths and belief systems, and we are enforcing a a religious code on our neighbors. I am sure that most everyone at Liberty Forest would defend one's right in a free society to move into a Hindu neighborhood and sell hamburgers or cooked rattlesnake. To the Hindus present, this would be a horrible crime of killing and eating holy, godlike creatures of worship. Who's to say they're wrong about those animals? That is part of their faith and moral worldview. Yet we would defend our restaurant owner his right to disagree with this religious, unproven, belief -- just as we must defend the liberties of those in Christian-filled communities who are homosexual, or Atheist, or whatever heresy they choose to partake in, if it is not objectively shown to be violent or criminal.

It is worth noting that "life begins at conception" is a fairly moderate version of long-held Western religious beliefs about sex and reproduction. Of course the Catholics are still technically against birth control because a condom does, in fact, prevent new souls from conception and birth. I have had evangelical Constitutionalists on DailyPaul tell me that wanking off is evil because "of all the little tadpoles" that die when you do it. Again, I don't necessarily have a problem with people who believe this, but would clearly demonstrate an authoritarian religious tyranny to make laws based on such beliefs that everyone must follow. Some wiseacre at this point might point out the implications of the government making jacking-off illegal and enforcing it using the surveillance powers of the Patriot Act, and of our entire 14 year old population subsequently going to jail as "pre-abortionists." I encourage you.

I think it is curious that no politicians (and precious few citizens) are able to qualitatively separate early/late term abortions -- objective acts of violence vs. acts merely perceived as violent within certain religious belief -- in this simple way. Dr. Paul has suggested, albeit timidly, legislation along such lines. Everyone else seems to be either hardcore anti-all abortion or hardcore pro-anytime abortion. Given the profound, qualitative differences between early/late term pregnancies & the lives they carry, this would appear to be absurd and myopic.

[YumYum]

Everyone else seems to be either hardcore anti-all abortion or hardcore pro-anytime abortion. Given the profound, objective, qualitative differences between early/late term pregnancies & the lives they carry, this would appear to be absurd and myopic.

Good post. I have notice this to be the case. There are members on here that say a woman doesn't have a choice even if it means her dying, such as with tubal pregnancy.

I have witnessed some interesting debates on this forum regarding abortion. I used to be 100% against it based on religious convictions, then, when I got out of the religion I grew up in, I went the other way and believed that a woman had a right to do whatever she wanted to with her body. Currently, I abhor abortions and I wish they didn't exist, but in the long run I still feel it's the woman's right to choose, especially if going full term could kill her.

Here is something to consider: If a woman decides to abort a fetus; that's fine and dandy with the law of the land. But if that same woman decides to have the baby and she comes to my house and slips on my greasy kitchen floor and has a miscarriage, she can sue me for everything I've got; even get manslaughter charges against me if it can be shown that I was willfully negligent.

This makes absolutely no sense to me.

[SkyPie]

You raise a good point, YumYum, my personal belief is that late term abortion is not the same, because there have been births where babies survived without artificial intervention. Certainly that cannot happen within the first 10 weeks. And before you say it yes I know it couldn't happen at 14 weeks either.

It is complex to be sure. However, I firmly believe early abortion is not a legal matter.

As for the fall I think she should not be able to sue you period. Only if you pushed her or tricked her into falling should it be your fault, and then you have assaulted the woman.

[erowe1]

I didn't say farming is more important than other industry.

Then what did you mean by your use of the word "foundation"?

[erowe1]

Strict pro-life beliefs are inherently religious

All ethical beliefs are inherently religious.

I might even go so far as to say that all beliefs about anything are inherently religious.

[Slutter McGee]

All ethical beliefs are inherently religious.

I might even go so far as to say that all beliefs about anything are inherently religious.

That is asinine. There are plenty of ethical theories that in no way involve commands from a supreme being.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

[erowe1]

That is asinine. There are plenty of ethical theories that in no way involve commands from a supreme being.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

I didn't say anything about commands from supreme beings.

But it is worth observing here, for the sake of illustration, that the claim, "There are plenty of ethical theories that in no way involve commands from a supreme being." is a religious claim.

[Slutter McGee]

I didn't say anything about commands from supreme beings.

But it is worth observing here, for the sake of illustration, that the claim, "There are plenty of ethical theories that in no way involve commands from a supreme being." is a religious claim.

No. It isn't. Utilitarianism is not religious in nature. Egoism is not religious in nature. Locke's rights theories is not religious in nature.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

[erowe1]

Utilitarianism is not religious in nature.
Yes it is.


Egoism is not religious in nature.
Yes it is.


Locke's rights theories are not religious in nature.

Yes they are.


Moreover, the claims, "Utilitarianism is not religious in nature," "Egoism is not religious in nature," and "Locke's rights theories are not religious in nature," are all religious claims.

[klamath]

What nobody (Libertarian or otherwise) has talked me out of: Strict pro-life beliefs are inherently religious in cause and structure, and therefore the enforcement of such ideas through use of the law/regulations/police is not only authoritarian, but the function of a militant religious state.

It's easy to say "human life is sacred" and leave it at that, but we also must ask why this is so. A Christian may soundly argue, within her premises, that human life is created by God in His image and is therefore fully sentient, spiritual and valued far above plant or animal life. An atheist may typically argue that yes, human life is more valuable than animal life, because we have evolved into the most sentient, evolved consciousness on Earth. Both sides agree on what makes human beings so special, inasmuch as our brains & souls -- our conscious awareness -- is the expression & substance of that value.

Since human life is valued for its self-awareness, it follows that a "human being" that has no awareness, no power to think or feel, may not be logically valued in the same way that a conscious, sentient person is valued. (When a baby is born without a brain, it dies, and is never considered a fully formed human being). Now a late-trimester fetus can scientifically, logically be shown to possess awareness and sentience. A five-months fetus has likely developed the special traits that make human life so valuable, with a brain, a heart and a consciousness. Even if we're "not sure" if fetuses or even small infants are completely self-aware and sentient human beings, it is absolutely wrong to kill them, just as it's wrong to throw a bomb into a building that "may have" people in it. A developed fetus is absolutely a form of human life & absolutely has natural rights.

But the idea that a first-weeks pregnancy, which at that point consists of a mother carrying a fertilized tissue mass, objectively constitutes a sentient and qualitatively human life, is absurd from a secular point of view. Does the woman at this point have the potential to create a human baby? Yes, she does. But so do any man and woman on a date. Has a self-aware human life yet formed and experienced human consciousness? No, it hasn't. From a secular, scientific, common-sense point of view, using the properties of human life as the standard of what human life is, there is no significant moral difference between two people A) deciding not to screw, B) screwing & using birth control, C) screwing, fertilizing (maybe) and using the morning-after pill, or D) screwing, fertilizing/conceiving, waiting two weeks and aborting the fertilized tissue mass. No new consciousness may be rationally shown to have lived, or died. A potential was always there and is always there every day, but that does not equal a human life any more than an abstention from sex equals an abortion.

But maybe that's wrong, you might say, because what about the Bible/Buddhism/Paganism theories of the soul awakening at conception, of reincarnation & the moment of transference, of your belief as a Christian that the soul in fact is birthed or reconstituted at the moment of fertilization? Well, what about them? These are perfectly valid concepts. Anyone is free to believe any or all or none of them & make personal, moral decisions based on those issues of faith or conviction. But it is not okay to enforce those views on your neighbor or on the public. If we say, "Christianity teaches us that every fertilized egg is a soul" and then go on to make laws that force non-Christians to comply (or Christians who do not choose to believe life begins at conception) with the resulting moral standard, then we are not respecting other faiths and belief systems, and we are enforcing a a religious code on our neighbors. I am sure that most everyone at Liberty Forest would defend one's right in a free society to move into a Hindu neighborhood and sell hamburgers or cooked rattlesnake. To the Hindus present, this would be a horrible crime of killing and eating holy, godlike creatures of worship. Who's to say they're wrong about those animals? That is part of their faith and moral worldview. Yet we would defend our restaurant owner his right to disagree with this religious, unproven, belief -- just as we must defend the liberties of those in Christian-filled communities who are homosexual, or Atheist, or whatever heresy they choose to partake in, if it is not objectively shown to be violent or criminal.

It is worth noting that "life begins at conception" is a fairly moderate version of long-held Western religious beliefs about sex and reproduction. Of course the Catholics are still technically against birth control because a condom does, in fact, prevent new souls from conception and birth. I have had evangelical Constitutionalists on DailyPaul tell me that wanking off is evil because "of all the little tadpoles" that die when you do it. Again, I don't necessarily have a problem with people who believe this, but would clearly demonstrate an authoritarian religious tyranny to make laws based on such beliefs that everyone must follow. Some wiseacre at this point might point out the implications of the government making jacking-off illegal and enforcing it using the surveillance powers of the Patriot Act, and of our entire 14 year old population subsequently going to jail as "pre-abortionists." I encourage you.

I think it is curious that no politicians (and precious few citizens) are able to qualitatively separate early/late term abortions -- objective acts of violence vs. acts merely perceived as violent within certain religious belief -- in this simple way. Dr. Paul has suggested, albeit timidly, legislation along such lines. Everyone else seems to be either hardcore anti-all abortion or hardcore pro-anytime abortion. Given the profound, qualitative differences between early/late term pregnancies & the lives they carry, this would appear to be absurd and myopic.
I am not religious and am strongly against abortion. You either respect life or you don't. The day I accept abortion is the day I will not longer care if another person walks into your house and kills you or any other person. I will shrug my shoulders and say, "not me, couldn't care less". It will also be the day I laugh at others when they scream about the loss of their natural rights in all areas as well.

[Slutter McGee]

Yes it is.


Yes it is.


Yes they are.


Moreover, the claims, "Utilitarianism is not religious in nature," "Egoism is not religious in nature," and "Locke's rights theories are not religious in nature," are all religious claims.

If you would like to expand on your argument feel free, but I am not going to get into what could be the most bullshit semantic arguement I have ever seen unless you give me some more for your claim.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

[SkyPie]

Then what did you mean by your use of the word "foundation"?

I meant if you starve game over. Obviously reliance on foreign countries for food is not being free.

[SkyPie]

All ethical beliefs are inherently religious.

I might even go so far as to say that all beliefs about anything are inherently religious.

Ethical or did you mean moral?

[erowe1]

I meant if you starve game over. Obviously reliance on foreign countries for food is not being free.

It still looks to me like you're making a statement about the relative importance of farming.

[erowe1]

Ethical or did you mean moral?

Same thing.

[erowe1]

If you would like to expand on your argument feel free, but I am not going to get into what could be the most bullshit semantic arguement I have ever seen unless you give me some more for your claim.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

Any question that pertains to religious issues, such as whether or not a god exists, whether or not absolute morality exists, and what logical consequences result from either the existence or nonexistence of any gods or moral absolutes, is a religious question. Belief systems that answer those religious questions in any given way are necessarily just as religious as belief systems that answer them any other way.

We can't have atheists going around saying to theists, "You answer the question of whether or not a god exists in the affirmative, whereas I answer it in the negative. Therefore, your answer to that question is a religious answer and and mine is not."

[SkyPie]

Same thing.

No it isn't. Do you have a dictionary? I love a good debate but you sir, seem to want to argue for the sake of doing so. A tyrant in your own right.

[Slutter McGee]

Any question that pertains to religious issues, such as whether or not a god exists, whether or not absolute morality exists, and what logical consequences result from either the existence or nonexistence of any gods or moral absolutes, is a religious question. Belief systems that answer those religious questions in any given way are necessarily just as religious as belief systems that answer them any other way.

We can't have atheists going around saying to theists, "You answer the question of whether or not a god exists in the affirmative, whereas I answer it in the negative. Therefore, your answer to that question is a religious answer and and mine is not."

Thats what I thought. You are playing semantic games. I was simply arguing that morality does not necessitate religion.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

[erowe1]

I was simply arguing that morality does not necessitate religion.


So you are arguing either for a definition of "morality" that is somehow separable from religion or a definition of "religion" that is somehow separable from morality. Either way, isn't that already a semantic argument?

[erowe1]

Do you have a dictionary?

When I'm on the internet I usually just go to dictionary.com, or if I need something more meaty the OED.

Here's the first entry in the former for "ethics":


eth·ics
   
/ˈɛθɪks/ Show Spelled[eth-iks] Show IPA
–plural noun
1.
( used with a singular or plural verb ) a system of moral principles: the ethics of a culture.

Here is the first entry for the singular "ethic" in the latter:

A. adj. (Now usually ETHICAL.)

1. Relating to morals.

And here is the first entry for the plural "ethics" in the same:

II. pl. ethics.

2. (after Gr. {tau}{gagrave} {hlenis}{theta}{iota}{kappa}{gaacu}). The science of morals; the department of study concerned with the principles of human duty.

I apologize if something about the fact that I believe something differently than you do came across as tyranny (another word of whose definition we are apparently not in agreement, it seems).

[Slutter McGee]

So you are arguing either for a definition of "morality" that is somehow separable from religion or a definition of "religion" that is somehow separable from morality. Either way, isn't that already a semantic argument?

NO. But your broad use and definition of the word "religious" distort your idea, confusing it with something that it is not. Just because religions are based on a belief system does not mean all belief systems necessitate a religion.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

[erowe1]

NO. But your broad use and definition of the word "religious" distort your idea, confusing it with something that it is not. Just because religions are based on a belief system does not mean all belief systems necessitate a religion.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

But in actuality the distortion happens when people try to narrow the definition so that they can play a rhetorical trick where religion is implicitly an irrational superstition and some other belief system (generally their own) that they manage to exclude from the category of religion can be upheld as more rational and unbiased than it really is.

dictionary.com is helpful here again:


re·li·gion
   /rɪˈlɪdʒən/ Show Spelled[ri-lij-uhn] Show IPA
–noun
1.
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2.
a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3.
the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4.
the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5.
the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6.
something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
7.
religions, Archaic . religious rites.
8.
Archaic . strict faithfulness; devotion: a religion to one's vow.

[Slutter McGee]

But in actuality the distortion happens when people try to narrow the definition so that they can play a rhetorical trick where religion is implicitly an irrational superstition and some other belief system (generally their own) that they manage to exclude from the category of religion can be upheld as more rational and unbiased than it really is.

dictionary.com is helpful here again:

In common usage.

Religion- A set of beliefs pertaining to a diety, a higher state of being, or an afterlife.

That is my definition. And like it or not, it is the definition that 99.9% of humanity believe. Oh wait I said "believe". I am being religious again.

You can ascribe any definition you want to the word. None of my business. Just don't get self-righteous when nobody knows what the hell you are talking about.

Give me a break,

Slutter McGee

[erowe1]

In common usage.

Religion- A set of beliefs pertaining to a diety, a higher state of being, or an afterlife.


Good. Then we agree that atheism (along with whatever ethical system any given atheist thinks comports with his atheist worldview) is a religion, since atheism is "a set of beliefs pertaining to a diety, a higher state of being, or an afterlife."

[low preference guy]

Good. Then we agree that atheism (along with whatever ethical system any given atheist thinks comports with his atheist worldview) is a religion, since atheism is "a set of beliefs pertaining to a diety, a higher state of being, or an afterlife."

How does not believing in a God imply that one has a particular belief about the afterlife?

[erowe1]

How does not believing in a God imply that one has a particular belief about the afterlife?

The definition that he presented and that I quoted said "or," not "and."

But even if it did say "and," I don't think I'd be going out on a limb to suggest that any belief any given atheist has about the afterlife is bound to be part of a system of beliefs that includes that atheist's belief that there is no god.

[Slutter McGee]

Good. Then we agree that atheism (along with whatever ethical system any given atheist thinks comports with his atheist worldview) is a religion, since atheism is "a set of beliefs pertaining to a diety, a higher state of being, or an afterlife."

Stop with the semantic games already. "Pertaining to" was the wrong word. How bout "belief in" which is different than a negative. Look. I don't want to argue about the definition of the friggin word.

I would like you to simply tell me if religion, as commonly accepted by society,....Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, etc.....is the only basis of moral ideas?

If you agree that these religions (my definition) is not the only basis of morallity, then WE agree, and this arguement is the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen. If you disagree, then we have something of substance to debate.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

[erowe1]

Stop with the semantic games already. "Pertaining to" was the wrong word. How bout "belief in" which is different than a negative.

But "pertaining to" was not the wrong word. It was a good definition with "pertaining to," and when you replace it with "belief in" you make it a terrible definition that is nothing short of stacking the deck so as to exclude all the various forms of religion that are atheistic from the category. And making belief in a deity a requirement for something to be religious is certainly not a "commonly agreed upon" requirement as you said.

It looks to me like you're the one insisting on playing semantic games.

[erowe1]

I would like you to simply tell me if religion, as commonly accepted by society,....Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, etc.....is the only basis of moral ideas?


I will say it the way I mean it, which is that one's moral ideas comprise part of a system of belief which make up one's religion, and there is no such thing as a person without religion, and I mean "religion" in the sense commonly accepted in society, so as to include theistic religions like Christianity and Islam, as well as atheistic ones, such as secular humanism, utilitarianism, and certain forms of Buddhism.

[Slutter McGee]

I will say it the way I mean it, which is that one's moral ideas comprise part of a system of belief which make up one's religion, and there is no such thing as a person without religion, and I mean "religion" in the sense commonly accepted in society, so as to include theistic religions like Christianity and Islam, as well as atheistic ones, such as secular humanism, utilitarianism, and certain forms of Buddhism.

Thats it. Debate is over. You are arguing that humanism and utilitarianism is a religion. Fine. You can have whatever definitions you want. You recognize that theistic religion are not the only source of morality. I agree. End of ridiculous argument.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

[SkyPie]

When I'm on the internet I usually just go to dictionary.com, or if I need something more meaty the OED.

Here's the first entry in the former for "ethics":


Here is the first entry for the singular "ethic" in the latter:


And here is the first entry for the plural "ethics" in the same:


I apologize if something about the fact that I believe something differently than you do came across as tyranny (another word of whose definition we are apparently not in agreement, it seems).

You can be an ethical person without necessarily being a moral one, since ethical implies conformity with a code of fair and honest behavior, particularly in business or in a profession (: an ethical legislator who didn't believe in cutting deals), while moral refers to generally accepted standards of goodness and rightness in character and conduct—especially sexual conduct (: the moral values she'd learned from her mother).

Should I continue to post here you will have continued trouble understanding my posts. I tend to skip over things assuming people know what I'm talking about. Fortunately I rarely have anything interesting to say so you don't need to feel bad about your inability to keep up.

[00_Pete]

Some people just intellectualize too much and get too philosophical...really...you guys should try waking up early in the morning, go to the bakery store buy a drink and a hot cake fresh off the oven, go outside, watch the sun appearing on the skyline, watch the birds in the trees flying around and singing their early morning tunes while thinking about absolutely nothing...just standing there watching the birds thinking about absolutely nothing...give it a try really... :eek:

Humanity about to be enslaved for the rest of its days?!? Who cares?! You just got to intellectualize and phylosophy "gay marriage...neocons...blahblah...sociocons...force over the individual...womans body...religion...blahblahblah...statists...libert y...blahblahblah..."

Really: Waking up in the morning before sun rises->Bakery store and buy something to drink and eat->Go outside->Watch the birds and the sun while thinking about absolutely nothing...just standing there, eating your cake, drinking your drink, watching the birds flying around and singing, and watch the Sun...give it a try...

And when you get home try to read any Antony Sutton book you can find (esp Wall Street Rise of Hitler/Bolshevik/FDR series, Best Enemies Money Can Buy and his America´s Secret Establishment masterpiece) and also watch some of his videos on youtube. Then you will see how miserable, small, low-priority those WORTHLESS issues are.

Go ask the Russians that survived the worst days of the totalitarian steel-toe boot if they gave a quarter of a baboons ass about gay marriage or abortion or any of that crap when the NKVP was doing the hunting...