PDA

View Full Version : Is The Virginia Gov. Libertarian Candidate Even A Libertarian?




FrankRep
10-31-2013, 06:18 AM
Update: Oct. 31, 2013

As Ken Cuccinelli rebounds, Terry McAuliffe warns he could lose
http://washingtonexaminer.com/as-cuccinelli-rebounds-mcauliffe-warns-he-could-lose/article/2538282



http://benswann.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Sarvis.jpg (http://benswann.com/is-the-virginia-gov-libertarian-candidate-even-a-libertarian/)


Is The Virginia Gov. Libertarian Candidate Even A Libertarian? (http://benswann.com/is-the-virginia-gov-libertarian-candidate-even-a-libertarian/)


BenSwann.com
October 27, 2013


Robert Sarvis, the Virginia gubernatorial libertarian candidate, has been making headlines recently. Ben Swann recently reported on how Sarvis is not being allowed to appear in the Gubernatorial debate with his opponents Ken Cuccinelli (R) and Terry McAuliffe (D). This is certainly a tragedy. With Sarvis polling at 12%, those who support him certainly deserve to have their man on stage.

However, is Sarvis actually even a libertarian?

It probably depends on how you define libertarian. However, there are certain comments recently made by Sarvis that seem to offer a contrary party affiliation.
..


Full Story:
http://benswann.com/is-the-virginia-gov-libertarian-candidate-even-a-libertarian/



Related News:

Ron Paul to campaign for Ken Cuccinelli in Richmond on Monday 11/4
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?431938-Ron-Paul-to-campaign-for-Ken-Cuccinelli-in-Richmond-on-Monday-11-4

fisharmor
10-31-2013, 06:34 AM
We've all already determined he's not really.

Everyone on this board from Virginia has drawn lines in the sand already, and nobody's changing anyone else's mind.

Is there another reason for the eighteenth post on this? Or can you all just get over the fact that Ron Paul doesn't necessarily control our vote?

FrankRep
10-31-2013, 06:40 AM
Everyone on this board from Virginia has drawn lines in the sand already, and nobody's changing anyone else's mind.

Some people on this board may not be aware that the Libertarian Sarvis is not a libertarian.

This post is to benefit them.

cajuncocoa
10-31-2013, 07:02 AM
Some people on this board may not be aware that the Libertarian Sarvis is not a libertarian.

This post is to benefit them.
I think we're all aware of that; unfortunately, too many people on this board are unaware (or purposely ignoring the fact) that Cuccinelli isn't a liberty candidate.

FrankRep
10-31-2013, 07:05 AM
... too many people on this board are unaware (or purposely ignoring the fact) that Cuccinelli isn't a liberty candidate.
Like Ron Paul?

:-p

fisharmor
10-31-2013, 07:25 AM
We've all already determined he's not really.

Everyone on this board from Virginia has drawn lines in the sand already, and nobody's changing anyone else's mind.

Is there another reason for the eighteenth post on this? Or can you all just get over the fact that Ron Paul doesn't necessarily control our vote?


Like Ron Paul?

:-p

Apparently not.

CPUd
10-31-2013, 07:30 AM
http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view3/3110576/herding-cats-o.gif

cajuncocoa
10-31-2013, 07:40 AM
Like Ron Paul?

:-p
I thought we were running with the idea that endorsements are meaningless.

thoughtomator
10-31-2013, 08:07 AM
It doesn't matter if Sarvis is an actual libertarian or not, since he's not going to win. The point of voting Sarvis is to get the LP a line on the ballot. The only question is, is the difference between Cuccinelli and McAuliffe more significant than the ballot line would be. If you think so, then you vote for the Cooch. If not, you vote for Sarvis. Simple.

thoughtomator
10-31-2013, 08:07 AM
Like Ron Paul?

:-p

Ron Paul endorsed Lenora Fulani once. Would you vote for her?

cjm
10-31-2013, 08:22 AM
It doesn't matter if Sarvis is an actual libertarian or not, since he's not going to win. The point of voting Sarvis is to get the LP a line on the ballot. The only question is, is the difference between Cuccinelli and McAuliffe more significant than the ballot line would be. If you think so, then you vote for the Cooch. If not, you vote for Sarvis. Simple.

+rep. Value is subjective and thoughtomator sums up the question of this election well. I fall on the Cuccinelli side (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?431950-libertarian-Virginians-should-vote-for-Cuccinelli) but I can see where some would weigh the choices differently and come to a different conclusion.

eta: shameless plug (link) to my analysis.

FrankRep
10-31-2013, 08:46 AM
I thought we were running with the idea that endorsements are meaningless.

Ron Paul feels that Cuccinelli will advance the cause of liberty and I agree and respect Ron Paul's opinion.

Keith and stuff
10-31-2013, 09:42 AM
I heard he was a commie. Remember what my momma always said, better...

Keith and stuff
10-31-2013, 09:43 AM
Ron Paul endorsed Lenora Fulani once. Would you vote for her?

Ron Paul has endorsed dozens of anti liberty folks. But he endorsed most of them at the same time to get a vote on his federal reserve audit bill that ended up going no where.

FrankRep
10-31-2013, 10:04 AM
Ron Paul has endorsed dozens of anti liberty folks. But he endorsed most of them at the same time to get a vote on his federal reserve audit bill that ended up going no where.

Which "anti liberty" candidates are you referring to? You mean non-libertarians?

VoluntaryAmerican
10-31-2013, 10:46 AM
Not really a flattering view of Sarvis... but still have to give the man some respect for getting such high poll numbers running (L).

Mr.NoSmile
10-31-2013, 10:56 AM
Which "anti liberty" candidates are you referring to? You mean non-libertarians?

He endorsed Cruz and there are a plethora of people here, based on responses I've seen, who say that Cruz is not only not anti-liberty, but see him as a threat to Rand Paul and takes the spotlight away from him. Paraphrasing, but that's the general vibe. Heck, there's a thread on Rand Paul's sub-forum asking whether Cruz is undermining Paul.

TaftFan
10-31-2013, 02:43 PM
It doesn't matter if Sarvis is an actual libertarian or not, since he's not going to win. The point of voting Sarvis is to get the LP a line on the ballot. The only question is, is the difference between Cuccinelli and McAuliffe more significant than the ballot line would be. If you think so, then you vote for the Cooch. If not, you vote for Sarvis. Simple.

Why would you want the LP to get on the ballot. Their only function is to give 1-3% advantage to Democrats every election.

Christian Liberty
10-31-2013, 02:44 PM
Like Ron Paul?

:-p
Are you sure Ron posts here?

Mr.NoSmile
10-31-2013, 02:52 PM
Why would you want the LP to get on the ballot. Their only function is to give 1-3% advantage to Democrats every election.

Because the two party system is flawed. Well, broken is a better word because it pretty much excludes other voices. Plus, whose to say that Libertarian candidates can't siphon votes away from Democrats as well as Republicans? There's a reason a lot of people in Virginia are dissatisfied with both McAuliffe and Cuccinelli as options. And I wouldn't say they only have one function. Rather, one can be to offer voters an alternative outside of the typical Democratic and Republican candidate.

NIU Students for Liberty
10-31-2013, 03:01 PM
Ron Paul feels that Cuccinelli will advance the cause of liberty and I agree and respect Ron Paul's opinion.

Did you vote for Romney because Rand endorsed him? Would you have voted for Lamar Smith or Michelle Bachmann because Ron endorsed them?

NIU Students for Liberty
10-31-2013, 03:03 PM
Why would you want the LP to get on the ballot. Their only function is to give 1-3% advantage to Democrats every election.

I think Cuccinelli did a pretty good job at giving the Dems the advantage all on his own.

Keith and stuff
10-31-2013, 04:09 PM
Did you vote for Romney because Rand endorsed him? Would you have voted for Lamar Smith or Michelle Bachmann because Ron endorsed them?

Bachmann actually has a decent voting record and is the leader of the tax concerned folks in the US House. She even runs the House Tea Party.

cajuncocoa
10-31-2013, 04:13 PM
Bachmann actually has a decent voting record and is the leader of the tax concerned folks in the US House.
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t270/cajuncocoa/Emoticons/doh.gif

phill4paul
10-31-2013, 04:18 PM
Everyone in the entire state should write in "No confidence."

Antischism
10-31-2013, 04:24 PM
Social conservatives endorse and prefer a man who wants government in your bedroom? And they smear the libertarian/endorsed candidate as being "non-libertarian"? Color me surprised!

I don't give a fuck who Ron Paul endorses, either. Ron Paul endorses/has endorsed shit candidates, and will continue to do so it seems. He wants to work the Republican party obviously, so he pushes Republican candidates.

NIU Students for Liberty
10-31-2013, 04:41 PM
Bachmann actually has a decent voting record and is the leader of the tax concerned folks in the US House. She even runs the House Tea Party.

Yeah, she's awesome.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZVds4o7F6k

And if she truly claimed to be a fan of Mises, she wouldn't be an advocate of war since, oh, I don't know, wars cost money.

Rudeman
10-31-2013, 04:49 PM
I think it's a bit ironic how some will criticize that the Republican candidate isn't libertarian enough but at the same time has no problem supporting a Libertarian candidate that isn't libertarian at all. How does that make sense at all? Wouldn't the same reasons apply to the Libertarian party that apply to the Republican party?

AuH20
10-31-2013, 05:04 PM
Social conservatives endorse and prefer a man who wants government in your bedroom? And they smear the libertarian/endorsed candidate as being "non-libertarian"? Color me surprised!

I don't give a fuck who Ron Paul endorses, either. Ron Paul endorses/has endorsed shit candidates, and will continue to do so it seems. He wants to work the Republican party obviously, so he pushes Republican candidates.

Yeah, Cuccinelli is behind every pair of drapes waiting to strike! You do know what the law was used for? This has nothing to do with sex. This has to do with minors and a repeated deviant in one particular case. Meanwhile, Mr. Sarvis wants to actually put a device in your car tracking your mileage and taxing you for miles accrued! Who's the intruder? Do you like Mr. Sarvis in your car? Because I don't. Stay out of my car, 'libertarian' freak.

FrankRep
10-31-2013, 05:20 PM
I think it's a bit ironic how some will criticize that the Republican candidate isn't libertarian enough but at the same time has no problem supporting a Libertarian candidate that isn't libertarian at all. How does that make sense at all? Wouldn't the same reasons apply to the Libertarian party that apply to the Republican party?

The Libertarian strategy for victory:

http://www.christianrenaud.com/.a/6a00d8341e26ef53ef015434681e61970c-800wi

cajuncocoa
10-31-2013, 05:20 PM
Yeah, Cuccinelli is behind every pair of drapes waiting to strike!!! You do know what the law was used for? This has nothing to do with sex. This has to do with minors and a repeated deviant in one particular case. Meanwhile, Mr. Sarvis wants to actually put a device in your car tracking your mileage and taxing you for miles accrued!!!!! Who's the intruder? Do you like Mr. Sarvis in your car? Because I don't. Stay out of my car, 'libertarian' freak.i know what the law was used for, but it is what it is...and makes Cuccinelli anti-liberty for two reasons: (1) upholding sodomy laws and (2) using them to prosecute cases when evidence should be enough if there is any. Sardis also being a terrible Libertarian candidate means it doesn't matter who wins. Virginia is screwed either way, and without the benefit of sodomy laws to protect her.

FrankRep
10-31-2013, 05:27 PM
i know what the law was used for, but it is what it is...and makes Cuccinelli anti-liberty for two reasons: (1) upholding sodomy laws and (2) using them to prosecute cases when evidence should be enough if there is any. Sardis also being a terrible Libertarian candidate means it doesn't matter who wins. Virginia is screwed either way, and without the benefit of sodomy laws to protect her.

Wait, you're only against Cuccinelli because of "sodomy"? Please tell me that libertarians aren't that stupid.



Learn the facts...


Cuccinelli and other defenders of the law, including local prosecutors, have said that it is a vital tool for stopping child predators. Cuccinelli has said that the law “is not — and cannot be — used against consenting adults acting in private.”

SOURCE:
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-10-07/local/42786051_1_terry-mcauliffe-child-predators-virginia-s


Washington Post
October 07, 2013

AuH20
10-31-2013, 05:32 PM
i know what the law was used for, but it is what it is...and makes Cuccinelli anti-liberty for two reasons: (1) upholding sodomy laws and (2) using them to prosecute cases when evidence should be enough if there is any. Sardis also being a terrible Libertarian candidate means it doesn't matter who wins. Virginia is screwed either way, and without the benefit of sodomy laws to protect her.

Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. As District Attorney, he is responsible for criminals falling through the massive cracks of the justice system. If a released sex offender commits a crime, HE IS DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE. Protecting the liberties of others is the PRO-LIBERTY position as you put it.

Secondly, and most importantly, Cuccinelli has worked tirelessly to reverse cases in which individuals were wrongly prosecuted, most notably the Thomas Hayworth case, who was wrongfully convicted with questionable DNA evidence:

http://www.newsmax.com/ken_cuccinelli_biography/


In February 1984, Haynesworth was arrested while walking to a local market to buy sweet potatoes and bread. Only 18 at the time, he had no idea why he was suddenly surrounded by police peppering him with questions. Later, he learned a woman who had been the victim of a sexual assault had seen him walking to the same grocery store days earlier. She identified him as her assailant.

Then other victims said they believed Haynesworth attacked them as well. Authorities eventually accused him of five rapes, tried him for four, and convicted him of three. He was sentenced to 84 years in prison.

As Haynesworth languished in jail, friends and advisers urged him to confess in return for a reduced sentence. But he refused to cop a plea for crimes he did not commit.

Then in 2009, the forensic evidence associated with two of the rape charges was tested.

The results were astonishing: The DNA belonged not to Haynesworth, but to a convicted serial rapist who lived in the same neighborhood.


That man is now serving multiple life sentences. Thus began an arduous battle to win Haynesworth’s release. Only a majority vote by the Virginia Court of Appeals could overturn all of his convictions and set him free. But after 27 years, just getting a hearing would be difficult, because despite strong circumstantial evidence of his innocence, no DNA evidence was available in the other two cases.



On Dec. 6, 2011, by a 6-to-4 vote, the Virginia Court of Appeals cleared Haynesworth of all charges.

Today, Haynesworth works in the offices of Cuccinelli, one of the nation’s leading conservative standard-bearers, who fought tirelessly for his release and then gave him a job to try to help right the wrong that had been done.

Haynesworth spends his days with mundane but important tasks like collecting and metering mail. In his spare time, he visits prisons and encourages inmates not to give up hope. “He is real straightforward,” Haynesworth says of his new boss. “I like that. He said, ‘I can’t take it back. We were wrong. Whatever I can do to make that right, I’m going to try to do it.’ He meant what he said. And he backed it up.”

So why would an up-and-coming conservative like Cuccinelli expose himself to the risks of embracing Haynesworth’s case?

After all, the names of Willie Horton and Wayne DuMond stand as monuments to the havoc that a single bad criminal release can wreak on an otherwise promising political career.

“People are a little surprised to see a conservative Republican take that focus,” the attorney general admits, adding: “but I am passionate about it . . . I argued that case, and that kind of case alone makes it worth running for office.”

AuH20
10-31-2013, 05:35 PM
The Libertarian strategy for victory:

http://www.christianrenaud.com/.a/6a00d8341e26ef53ef015434681e61970c-800wi

There is nothing wrong with Libertarians exercising their principles and engaging in the political process. But the premature rush to Sarvis as well as the demonization of Cuccinelli was just pathetic. It's not like some phony republican like Bob McDonnell or Lindsay Graham is running for governor in VA.

AuH20
10-31-2013, 05:39 PM
Wait, you're only against Cuccinelli because of "sodomy"? Please tell me that libertarians aren't that stupid.



Learn the facts...


Cuccinelli and other defenders of the law, including local prosecutors, have said that it is a vital tool for stopping child predators. Cuccinelli has said that the law “is not — and cannot be — used against consenting adults acting in private.”

SOURCE:
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-10-07/local/42786051_1_terry-mcauliffe-child-predators-virginia-s


Washington Post
October 07, 2013

No one should be forced to support someone they are at odds with. With that said, the push to Sarvis was rather telling of inherent biases. Sarvis has more holes in his platform than a slab of swiss cheese, but we actually had people on this forum simply pushing him because he had an (L) next to his name. Cuccinelli wants to ban oral sex, vote for real Liberty! Robert Sarvis. Please.

Rudeman
10-31-2013, 05:39 PM
There is nothing wrong with Libertarians exercising their principles and engaging in the political process. But the premature rush to Sarvis as well as the demonization of Cuccinelli was just pathetic. It's not like some phony republican like Bob McDonnell or Lindsay Graham is running for governor in VA.

Yea there's nothing wrong with voting Libertarian when warranted (I voted for GJ) but this is just silly. Oh well people will do what they want, then bitch and complain later.

pcosmar
10-31-2013, 05:42 PM
Why would you want the LP to get on the ballot. Their only function is to give 1-3% advantage to Democrats every election.

What makes you think I care?

I certainly have not been impressed with the Republicans..

Any third party is a vote against the Two headed beast.

green73
10-31-2013, 05:43 PM
LP

Nuff said!

FrankRep
10-31-2013, 05:46 PM
What makes you think I care?

I certainly have not been impressed with the Republicans..

Any third party is a vote against the Two headed beast.

Ron Paul and Rand Paul care about keeping Cuccinelli in office. How does mean nothing to you?

TaftFan
10-31-2013, 05:47 PM
What makes you think I care?

I certainly have not been impressed with the Republicans..

Any third party is a vote against the Two headed beast.

And voting against the two parties accomplishes what? Emotional victory?

FrankRep
10-31-2013, 05:51 PM
When I think of the so-called "liberty movement," herding cats come to mind.

The liberty movement is losing... big shocker



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pk7yqlTMvp8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pk7yqlTMvp8

pcosmar
10-31-2013, 05:53 PM
And voting against the two parties accomplishes what? Emotional victory?

Voting for them accomplishes what?

More of the same

TaftFan
10-31-2013, 05:57 PM
Voting for them accomplishes what?

More of the same

I'd much rather live with Republican politicians in charge than Democrats. Maybe you don't care, but I have a life I have to live. And before you say, it, no all things are not equal.

pcosmar
10-31-2013, 05:57 PM
Ron Paul and Rand Paul care about keeping Cuccinelli in office. How does mean nothing to you?

Nope.. nothing.
I do not live in Virginia.

And I saw what happened in Michigan when we threw out the undoubtedly horrible Democrat.

We got a Republican Dictator with Fascist overtones.

Sorry,, I am not impressed.

AuH20
10-31-2013, 05:59 PM
I'd much rather live with Republican politicians in charge than Democrats. Maybe you don't care, but I have a life I have to live. And before you say, it, no all things are not equal.

Not all republicans are equal however. You don't simply pull the lever for (R) for the sake of pulling (R). But Cuccinelli has the potential to be the most anti-establishment governor in the land and move the dial.

pcosmar
10-31-2013, 06:01 PM
OH,, and my pet issue is not sodomy, pot, or abortion.

The guy has an A rating from the NRA,, that concerns me,,
The guy likes locking folks up for "illegal guns".

When he makes gun laws illegal,, let me know.

TaftFan
10-31-2013, 06:03 PM
Not all republicans are equal however. You don't simply pull the lever for (R) for the sake of pulling (R). But Cuccinelli has the potential to be the most anti-establishment governor in the land and move the dial.

No, not all Republicans are equal. Some are quite good and others are bad. Democrats are always worst though. It isn't my nature to promote ideas that will put the worst people in power.

AuH20
10-31-2013, 06:03 PM
OH,, and my pet issue is not sodomy, pot, or abortion.

The guy has an A rating from the NRA,, that concerns me,,
The guy likes locking folks up for "illegal guns".

When he makes gun laws illegal,, let me know.

I'm more impressed by GOA's backing of him. GOA is usually spot on.

phill4paul
10-31-2013, 06:04 PM
Nope.. nothing.
I do not live in Virginia.

And I saw what happened in Michigan when we threw out the undoubtedly horrible Democrat.

We got a Republican Dictator with Fascist overtones.

Sorry,, I am not impressed.

In N.C. we ended the century old Democratic hold and got a pretty much the same. Color me unimpressed too.

AuH20
10-31-2013, 06:04 PM
No, not all Republicans are equal. Some are quite good and others are bad. Democrats are always worst though. It isn't my nature to promote ideas that will put the worst people in power.

For example, if I lived in Kentucky, I'm voting for Bevin, then Grimes. Mitch is such a phony traitor that he needs his walking papers.

Saint Vitus
10-31-2013, 06:17 PM
When I think of the so-called "liberty movement," herding cats come to mind.

The liberty movement is losing... big shocker



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pk7yqlTMvp8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pk7yqlTMvp8



Maybe the liberty movement shouldn't be herded into the Republican Party. Maybe there is a reason why people on here aren't quick to support some shitty Republican candidate. If you look back far enough on these forums there were plenty of posters stumping for Scott Brown on here, and look how he turned out. There are a bunch of Republican party operatives who just want to turn this movement into a bunch of straight-ticket voting Republicans. Well I'm glad to see that is not happening.

AuH20
10-31-2013, 06:18 PM
Maybe the liberty movement shouldn't be herded into the Republican Party. Maybe there is a reason why people on here aren't quick to support some shitty Republican candidate. If you look back far enough on these forums there were plenty of posters stumping for Scott Brown on here, and look how he turned out. There are a bunch of Republican party operatives who just want to turn this movement into a bunch of straight-ticket voting Republicans. Well I'm glad to see that is not happening.

What imposters were stumping for Scott Brown? Secondly, Brown and Cuccinelli aren't even in the same galaxy, in terms of policies.

FrankRep
10-31-2013, 06:21 PM
Maybe the liberty movement shouldn't be herded into the Republican Party. Maybe there is a reason why people on here aren't quick to support some shitty Republican candidate. If you look back far enough on these forums there were plenty of posters stumping for Scott Brown on here, and look how he turned out. There are a bunch of Republican party operatives who just want to turn this movement into a bunch of straight-ticket voting Republicans. Well I'm glad to see that is not happening.

Ron Paul and Rand Paul has the best strategy: Take over/influence the Republican Party.


I wish RonPaulForums would actually listen to Ron Paul.

pcosmar
10-31-2013, 06:21 PM
In N.C. we ended the century old Democratic hold and got a pretty much the same. Color me unimpressed too.

I have been watching this shit since Ronald fucking Reagan

Every time
Much like this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N85-WXRf1qM

NIU Students for Liberty
10-31-2013, 06:23 PM
Ron Paul and Rand Paul care about keeping Cuccinelli in office. How does mean nothing to you?

And I thought libertarians/anarchists were supposed to be the cultists...

NIU Students for Liberty
10-31-2013, 06:24 PM
Ron Paul and Rand Paul has the best strategy: Take over/influence the Republican Party.

And selling out for someone like Cuccinelli accomplishes the opposite of that.

phill4paul
10-31-2013, 06:25 PM
I have been watching this shit since Ronald fucking Reagan

Every time
Much like this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N85-WXRf1qM

Lol. About fking right.

Voluntarist
10-31-2013, 06:26 PM
xxxxx

cajuncocoa
10-31-2013, 06:26 PM
The Libertarian strategy for victory:

http://www.christianrenaud.com/.a/6a00d8341e26ef53ef015434681e61970c-800wiThe GOP strategy for victory:

http://canonbury.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/gun-to-head.jpg


Wait, you're only against Cuccinelli because of "sodomy"? Please tell me that libertarians aren't that stupid.



Learn the facts...


Cuccinelli and other defenders of the law, including local prosecutors, have said that it is a vital tool for stopping child predators. Cuccinelli has said that the law “is not — and cannot be — used against consenting adults acting in private.”

SOURCE:
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-10-07/local/42786051_1_terry-mcauliffe-child-predators-virginia-s


Washington Post
October 07, 2013

Until someone else comes along and decides that it can indeed be used against consenting adults in private...and the VA supreme court agrees with that person.

No thanks.

NIU Students for Liberty
10-31-2013, 06:27 PM
No, not all Republicans are equal. Some are quite good and others are bad. Democrats are always worst though. It isn't my nature to promote ideas that will put the worst people in power.

How are Democrats always worse when Republicans are stereotypically war mongers and rail against civil liberties?

FrankRep
10-31-2013, 06:27 PM
And selling out for someone like Cuccinelli accomplishes the opposite of that.

Selling out to Cuccinelli? I like Cuccinelli. What has he done that's sooo terrible?

phill4paul
10-31-2013, 06:30 PM
Once upon a time liberty Republicans wanted other members to vote for Romney. I mean, after all, Rand did endorse him. I wrote in Ron Paul.
The same split is seen here in these Virginia gubernatorial threads.

A shit sandwich is a shit sandwich. Doesn't matter if it is chock full of peanuts.

AuH20
10-31-2013, 06:30 PM
Ron Paul and Rand Paul has the best strategy: Take over/influence the Republican Party.


I wish RonPaulForums would actually listen to Ron Paul.

But that doesn't mean vote for every R that comes along. Use your brain. With that said, Cuccinelli is hated by the two party criminal mafia, so he's golden in my book. One's enemies are very revealing.

AuH20
10-31-2013, 06:31 PM
Once upon a time liberty Republicans wanted other members to vote for Romney. I mean, after all, Rand did endorse him. I wrote in Ron Paul.
The same split is seen here in these Virginia gubernatorial threads.

A shit sandwich is a shit sandwich. Doesn't matter if it is chock full of peanuts.

Romney is Cuccinelli? Surely you jest. I didn't even vote for Romney BTW.

AuH20
10-31-2013, 06:32 PM
Selling out to Cuccinelli? I like Cuccinelli. What has he done that's sooo terrible?

Nothing. He's just not PURE enough. He doesn't want to bulldoze the federal roads just yet.

pcosmar
10-31-2013, 06:33 PM
Democrats are always worst though.

As I recall,, this man was a Democrat.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BPhYEFGaGM

TaftFan
10-31-2013, 06:34 PM
How are Democrats always worse when Republicans are stereotypically war mongers and rail against civil liberties?

Democrats and Republicans typically get along when it comes to those issues, more or less, with exceptions on each side.

TaftFan
10-31-2013, 06:34 PM
As I recall,, this man was a Democrat.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BPhYEFGaGM

He would not be elected as a Democrat today.

AuH20
10-31-2013, 06:35 PM
As I recall,, this man was a Democrat.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BPhYEFGaGM

Wasn't that 20 years ago? There are no more democrats like that. They were expelled.

phill4paul
10-31-2013, 06:38 PM
Romney is Cuccinelli? Surely you jest. I didn't even vote for Romney BTW.

So you are the one to blame for Obamacare? :p I'm talking the "lesser of two evils", "but he is endorsed by Rand", "we need Republicans to win to help further our cause" bullshit mindset.
I'm of a mind that a statewide "No Confidence" vote movement needs to get underway. If enough individuals voted "No Confidense" to out vote the candidates then the parties have to go back to the drawing board.

pcosmar
10-31-2013, 06:40 PM
Wasn't that 20 years ago? There are no more democrats like that. They were expelled.

As are Republicans like Ron Paul.

I am an Independent voter.. Fuck this stupid partisan bullshit.

Rudeman
10-31-2013, 06:40 PM
Maybe the liberty movement shouldn't be herded into the Republican Party. Maybe there is a reason why people on here aren't quick to support some shitty Republican candidate. If you look back far enough on these forums there were plenty of posters stumping for Scott Brown on here, and look how he turned out. There are a bunch of Republican party operatives who just want to turn this movement into a bunch of straight-ticket voting Republicans. Well I'm glad to see that is not happening.

Not okay to support a shitty Republican candidate.

Perfectly okay to support a shitty Libertarian candidate, because 3RD PARTY!!


What good is a 3rd party if they're just going to have shitty candidates as well?

AuH20
10-31-2013, 06:41 PM
So you are the one to blame for Obamacare? :p I'm talking the "lesser of two evils", "but he is endorsed by Rand", "we need Republicans to win to help further our cause" bullshit mindset.
I'm of a mind that a statewide "No Confidence" vote movement needs to get underway. If enough individuals voted "No Confidense" to out vote the candidates then the parties have to go back to the drawing board.

The right republicans. Not just any Republican. Cuccinelli isn't the problem here. It's the McConnells, Rubios, Grahams and Ayottes of the world.

FrankRep
10-31-2013, 06:42 PM
As I recall,, this man was a Democrat.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BPhYEFGaGM

Here's the background about Ron Paul and Larry McDonald.


http://www.thenewamerican.com/images/stories/History/larrymcdonald.001.jpg (http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/history/item/4684-kal-flight-007-remembered)
Ron Paul: "[Larry McDonald] was the most principled man in Congress."
- The Philadelphia Inquirer


Ron Paul on Congressman Larry McDonald (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_McDonald), the President of the John Birch Society (http://www.jbs.org/).



Ron Paul went to Congressman Larry McDonald, a Democrat, for advice on running for Congress. McDonald said, "Run in the party you think you can WIN because political parties are irrelevant." This made Ron Paul become a Republican.


Ron Paul explains: (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94MUDQc1L9c)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94MUDQc1L9c
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94MUDQc1L9c

AuH20
10-31-2013, 06:42 PM
As are Republicans like Ron Paul.

I am an Independent voter.. Fuck this stupid partisan bullshit.

Liberty can only be found in one remnant of the two political parties. There is nothing partisan about this fact.

AuH20
10-31-2013, 06:43 PM
Not okay to support a shitty Republican candidate.

Perfectly okay to support a shitty Libertarian candidate, because 3RD PARTY!!


What good is a 3rd party if they're just going to have shitty candidates as well?

Bullseye.

Rudeman
10-31-2013, 06:44 PM
So you are the one to blame for Obamacare? :p I'm talking the "lesser of two evils", "but he is endorsed by Rand", "we need Republicans to win to help further our cause" bullshit mindset.
I'm of a mind that a statewide "No Confidence" vote movement needs to get underway. If enough individuals voted "No Confidense" to out vote the candidates then the parties have to go back to the drawing board.

There's a big difference between a shitty Republican candidate like Romney or McCain and a decent Republican candidate like Cuccinelli. Not all Republicans are alike, this reminds me of all those Dems and Inds who liked Ron but refused to vote for him because he was a Republican, did you support that?

phill4paul
10-31-2013, 06:46 PM
Liberty can only be found in one remnant of the two political parties. There is nothing partisan about this fact.

http://www.murderati.com/storage/calvin_hobbes-laughing.jpg

AuH20
10-31-2013, 06:50 PM
http://www.murderati.com/storage/calvin_hobbes-laughing.jpg

Prove me wrong. Show me the faction in the democratic party with the bonafides of Rand and Co? Where is the liberty wing of the democratic party? Is it hidden below the floors of the Congressional chamber?

phill4paul
10-31-2013, 06:51 PM
There's a big difference between a shitty Republican candidate like Romney or McCain and a decent Republican candidate like Cuccinelli. Not all Republicans are alike, this reminds me of all those Dems and Inds who liked Ron but refused to vote for him because he was a Republican, did you support that?

I supported their right to make their own choice based on their personal convictions. Do you have a problem with that?

pcosmar
10-31-2013, 06:51 PM
McDonald said, "Run in the party you think you can WIN because political parties are irrelevant."

And Ron chose "R".

I do not hold that against him, and supported him despite that,, not because of it.

Rudeman
10-31-2013, 06:55 PM
I supported their right to make their own choice based on their personal convictions. Do you have a problem with that?

So you didn't encourage any of them to vote for Ron Paul?

phill4paul
10-31-2013, 06:57 PM
Prove me wrong. Show me the faction in the democratic party with the bonafides of Rand and Co?

Sorry, I overlooked the word "remnant." Though that isn't exactly true either. As a "remnant" is "a small remaining quantity of something." Rand and Co., as you call them, aren't a "remaining quantity." They are quite new. Though they are indeed "small."
Still doesn't mean I, or anyone, needs to vote Republican.

AuH20
10-31-2013, 07:00 PM
Sorry, I overlooked the word "remnant." Though that isn't exactly true either. As a "remnant" is "a small remaining quantity of something." Rand and Co., as you call them, aren't a "remaining quantity." They are quite new. Though they are indeed "small."
Still doesn't mean I, or anyone, needs to vote Republican.

They are a minority trapped by the party bosses. Yet they still exist in the Republican Party. There isn't such a pocket in the democratic party. In fact, you'd be hard-pressed to find a single individual who would fit such a bill. The parties are basically identical at the top in terms of entrenched leadership and lobbyists which filters down below. However, that's where the similarities stop.

phill4paul
10-31-2013, 07:01 PM
So you didn't encourage any of them to vote for Ron Paul?

To an extent. But, you can't squeeze blood from a turnip. These threads have been endless banter for the last week. I really don't think anyone at this point is going to throw their hands in the air and say "Praise be I have seen the light. And that light is a "meh" Republican."
I also think that, at most, perhaps 10 of forums members in these threads actually live and vote in Virginia.

pcosmar
10-31-2013, 07:10 PM
The parties are basically identical at the top in terms of entrenched leadership and lobbyists.

And that in itself is a good reason to support third parties,,

And as I said,, I am not in Virginia,, but a quick read through the "Issues" for both,, I liked what I saw in Sarvis.

On several points..
http://www.robertsarvis.com/issues/gun-rights
http://www.robertsarvis.com/issues/civil-liberties
http://www.robertsarvis.com/issues/farm-freedom

GunnyFreedom
10-31-2013, 07:14 PM
http://weknowmemes.com/generator/uploads/generated/g1358398315944891010.jpg

GunnyFreedom
10-31-2013, 07:16 PM
And that in itself is a good reason to support third parties,,

And as I said,, I am not in Virginia,, but a quick read through the "Issues" for both,, I liked what I saw in Sarvis.

On several points..
http://www.robertsarvis.com/issues/gun-rights
http://www.robertsarvis.com/issues/civil-liberties
http://www.robertsarvis.com/issues/farm-freedom

Yeah, it's weird. Apparently his website says one thing, but everything out of his mouth says another. Ben Swann did a report on this guy. His website says "Amash" but his lips say "Obama."

phill4paul
10-31-2013, 07:19 PM
They are a minority trapped by the party bosses. Yet they still exist in the Republican Party. There isn't such a pocket in the democratic party. In fact, you'd be hard-pressed to find a single individual who would fit such a bill. The parties are basically identical at the top in terms of entrenched leadership and lobbyists which filters down below. However, that's where the similarities stop.

The democratic party doesn't need libertyarians. They give enough gifts and have the whole indoctrination process down. The Republican party is having a fun time playing with them.

GunnyFreedom
10-31-2013, 07:20 PM
Sorry, I overlooked the word "remnant." Though that isn't exactly true either. As a "remnant" is "a small remaining quantity of something." Rand and Co., as you call them, aren't a "remaining quantity." They are quite new. Though they are indeed "small."
Still doesn't mean I, or anyone, needs to vote Republican.

They are the Douglass, Taft, Goldwater, Paul remnant. Remnant is the right word. This platform, believe it or not, has been a part of the GOP since day 1. They were glad to have us as long as we shut up and supported the status quo (myself, personally, I never did mind you) but the moment we became a danger of winning, they decided that we had to go. But we only got stronger for it. Silly Streisand-like effect.

pcosmar
10-31-2013, 07:22 PM
Yeah, it's weird. Apparently his website says one thing, but everything out of his mouth says another. Ben Swann did a report on this guy. His website says "Amash" but his lips say "Obama."

"Read my lips"
G Bush

jmdrake
10-31-2013, 07:22 PM
Ron Paul endorsed Lenora Fulani once. Would you vote for her?

Really? When? When they were both running for president in 1988 (http://articles.philly.com/1988-10-20/news/26273545_1_dukakis-supporters-new-alliance-party-lenora-b-fulani)? Link?

AuH20
10-31-2013, 07:22 PM
They are the Douglass, Taft, Goldwater, Paul remnant. Remnant is the right word. This platform, believe it or not, has been a part of the GOP since day 1. They were glad to have us as long as we shut up and supported the status quo (myself, personally, I never did mind you) but the moment we became a danger of winning, they decided that we had to go. But we only got stronger for it. Silly Streisand-like effect.

They use OUR rhetoric to get elected and then expel us from the party or at least keep us away from leadership and committee posts. That's how it works.

Rudeman
10-31-2013, 07:22 PM
To an extent. But, you can't squeeze blood from a turnip. These threads have been endless banter for the last week. I really don't think anyone at this point is going to throw their hands in the air and say "Praise be I have seen the light. And that light is a "meh" Republican."
I also think that, at most, perhaps 10 of forums members in these threads actually live and vote in Virginia.

Why is a "meh" Libertarian any better? Just because he's in a 3rd party? This isn't really just limited to Virginia because similar arguments are made in different races.

I get voting for a "meh" Libertarian if the other options are a horrendous Republican or Democrat (Romney and Obama) but when there's a decent candidate as good as the Libertarian to me it just seems silly and sort of a cut my nose to spite my face type of deal.

I'm not disillusioned to think I will change anyone's opinion but it doesn't mean I won't make my argument. I've done it with Democrats, I've done it with Republicans and I have no problem doing it with Libertarians/independents/libertarians.

GunnyFreedom
10-31-2013, 07:25 PM
"Read my lips"
G Bush

I tend to believe his unscripted responses probably match his heart better than a professionally done website.

Feeding the Abscess
10-31-2013, 07:26 PM
Why is a "meh" Libertarian any better? Just because he's in a 3rd party? This isn't really just limited to Virginia because similar arguments are made in different races.

I get voting for a "meh" Libertarian if the other options are a horrendous Republican or Democrat (Romney and Obama) but when there's a decent candidate as good as the Libertarian to me it just seems silly and sort of a cut my nose to spite my face type of deal.

I'm not disillusioned to think I will change anyone's opinion but it doesn't mean I won't make my argument. I've done it with Democrats, I've done it with Republicans and I have no problem doing it with Libertarians/independents/libertarians.

People saying Cuccinelli is bad probably aren't going to vote Sarvis, either.

Voluntarist
10-31-2013, 07:26 PM
xxxxx

Tywysog Cymru
10-31-2013, 07:28 PM
Why can't we get a good third party candidate in New Jersey, whose governor is an open enemy of liberty. That would send a greater message than in Virginia.

phill4paul
10-31-2013, 07:28 PM
Why is a "meh" Libertarian any better? Just because he's in a 3rd party? This isn't really just limited to Virginia because similar arguments are made in different races.

I get voting for a "meh" Libertarian if the other options are a horrendous Republican or Democrat (Romney and Obama) but when there's a decent candidate as good as the Libertarian to me it just seems silly and sort of a cut my nose to spite my face type of deal.

I'm not disillusioned to think I will change anyone's opinion but it doesn't mean I won't make my argument. I've done it with Democrats, I've done it with Republicans and I have no problem doing it with Libertarians/independents/libertarians.

A "meh" Libertarian isn't any better. Never said it was. I wouldn't vote for any of the candidates.

Feeding the Abscess
10-31-2013, 07:28 PM
They use OUR rhetoric to get elected and then expel us from the party or at least keep us away from leadership and committee posts. That's how it works.

And then our rhetoric gets conflated with the Republican party. That's how it has worked for the entirety of the party's history. There never was an Old Right. There were a few guys who actually believed it, the party establishment took up the rhetoric and went the opposite direction in policy. Repeat in the 50s, Goldwater movement, Reagan 'Revolution,' 1994, 2000, and they're doing it with the Ron Paul Revolution.

Sadly, many in the liberty movement are not only letting it happen, but they're contributing to the takeover.

Tywysog Cymru
10-31-2013, 08:08 PM
And then our rhetoric gets conflated with the Republican party. That's how it has worked for the entirety of the party's history. There never was an Old Right. There were a few guys who actually believed it, the party establishment took up the rhetoric and went the opposite direction in policy. Repeat in the 50s, Goldwater movement, Reagan 'Revolution,' 1994, 2000, and they're doing it with the Ron Paul Revolution.

Sadly, many in the liberty movement are not only letting it happen, but they're contributing to the takeover.

How is the Liberty movement going the opposite direction of Ron Paul.

(And Goldwater was an epic Neocon, advocated using nukes in Vietnam).

AuH20
10-31-2013, 08:18 PM
How is the Liberty movement going the opposite direction of Ron Paul.

(And Goldwater was an epic Neocon, advocated using nukes in Vietnam).

Goldwater was opposed to AIPAC and a host of Israeli lobby groups. He is what you would call an anti-Neocon. Nelson Rockefeller, a forebearer of the modern neoconservative movement was his mortal enemy at the 1964 convention.

Voluntarist
10-31-2013, 08:24 PM
xxxxx

phill4paul
10-31-2013, 08:34 PM
By the way, what did Cuccinelli specifically mean by "in private". There's one definition which means "by oneself hidden from others", which kind of rules out performance of the carnal knowledge unless you're flexible enough to perform it on yourself.

Would "in a tent on a camping trip" count as "in private"?
Would "in a hot tub on your own property" count?
How about the passenger compartment of a limo with tinted windows?
How about groups of more than two?

Would you eat them
in a box?
Would you eat them
with a fox?
Would you? Could you?
in a car?
Eat them! Eat them!
Here they are.
A train! A train!
A train! A train!
Could you, would you
on a train?
Say!
In the dark?
Here in the dark!
Would you, could you, in the dark?

Cooch doesn't like green eggs and ham.

Rudeman
10-31-2013, 08:34 PM
People saying Cuccinelli is bad probably aren't going to vote Sarvis, either.


If that were the case there wouldn't be so many threads/articles about this race. There are in fact many people who say Cuccinelli is bad and are willing to vote for Sarvis (some on this forum don't live in VA and can't vote for him). Just look at the first page of this thread and you'll see Sarvis supporters.

Brett85
10-31-2013, 09:27 PM
I really don't think that Sarvis is getting much support from libertarians in Virginia. I think the vast majority of his support is coming from moderate, "pro choice" Republicans. I think the vast majority of conservative and libertarian Republicans are voting for Cuccinelli.

cajuncocoa
10-31-2013, 10:03 PM
I've read through §18.2-361 (http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-361) section A (and the rest of the sections) and don't see the exclusion.


Did Cuccinelli provide a rationale for why it couldn't be used against consenting adults acting in private? All it takes to initiate the charges would be a busybody neighbor with a grudge witnessing a private act, or an overzealous prosecutor getting a surveillance warrant because there's a reasonable expectation of a felony being committed.

Never give any government official a law that makes a felony crime out of something that the vast majority of the population engages in; and then leave it up to the government official to use it to selectively prosecute people based on his own whims and prejudices.

Bingo.

Keith and stuff
10-31-2013, 10:09 PM
How is the Liberty movement going the opposite direction of Ron Paul.

(And Goldwater was an epic Neocon, advocated using nukes in Vietnam).

Goldwater hated and wanted to murder millions of innocent people, yes. However, he wasn't a neocon. A neocon is in favor of big government locally and abroad. Goldwater just supported big government abroad so he couldn't have been a neocon.

TaftFan
10-31-2013, 10:19 PM
Let's not keep liberal LBJ myths about Goldwater alive, please...

Senator Barry Goldwater (R-Arizona), running for the Republican Party nomination in the upcoming presidential election, gives an interview in which he discusses the use of low-yield atomic bombs in North Vietnam to defoliate forests and destroy bridges, roads, and railroad lines bringing supplies from communist China. During the storm of criticism that followed, Goldwater tried to back away from these drastic actions, claiming that he did not mean to advocate the use of atomic bombs but was "repeating a suggestion made by competent military people." Democrats painted Goldwater as a warmonger who was overly eager to use nuclear weapons in Vietnam. Though he won his party's nomination, Goldwater was never able to shake his image as an extremist in Vietnam policies. This image was a key factor in his crushing defeat by opponent Lyndon B. Johnson, who took about 61 percent of the vote to Goldwater's 39 percent.
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/goldwater-suggests-using-atomic-weapons

cjm
10-31-2013, 10:36 PM
By the way, what did Cuccinelli specifically mean by "in private". There's one definition which means "by oneself hidden from others", which kind of rules out performance of the carnal knowledge unless you're flexible enough to perform it on yourself.


I appreciate everyone's concern about us Virginians being prosecuted under this law, but it's been struck down. It's academic now. If you want to complain about Cuccinelli, why don't you complain that his proposed tax cuts (income tax cut from 5.75% to 5% and business income tax from 6% to 4%) not going far enough?

Keith and stuff
10-31-2013, 10:44 PM
I appreciate everyone's concern about us Virginians being prosecuted under this law, but it's been struck down. It's academic now. If you want to complain about Cuccinelli, why don't you complain that his proposed tax cuts (income tax cut from 5.75% to 5% and business income tax from 6% to 4%) not going far enough?

Good point! Let's lower and reduce taxes. Ken supports cutting taxes and that's a good thing.

r123
10-31-2013, 11:11 PM
Sarvis a Libertarian? Nope (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/362690/sarvis-libertarian-nope-charles-c-w-cooke)
The Virginia gubernatorial candidate is a social liberal. : http://www.nationalreview.com/article/362690/sarvis-libertarian-nope-charles-c-w-cooke
NBC12 Decision Virginia Ken Cuccinelli on the closing days of the campaign : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Idc9CQmrxZs

Keith and stuff
10-31-2013, 11:25 PM
Sarvis a Libertarian? Nope (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/362690/sarvis-libertarian-nope-charles-c-w-cooke)
The Virginia gubernatorial candidate is a social liberal. : http://www.nationalreview.com/article/362690/sarvis-libertarian-nope-charles-c-w-cooke
NBC12 Decision Virginia Ken Cuccinelli on the closing days of the campaign : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Idc9CQmrxZs

Fair enough. But your delivery might be misplaced. That's not the best way to influence people reading this. Depending on how you look at it, you have to be socially liberal (at least you have to think the laws should be) to be a libertarian. While Ron Paul might not be socially liberal personally, his views on government could be described as socially liberal, depending on how you look at it.

He is socially liberal on guns and drugs and the death penalty and a dozen other issues.

r123
10-31-2013, 11:32 PM
virginia governer debate october 24th 2013: http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/Gubernatio Research shows: Abortion increases crime rate: http://unitedfamiliesinternational.wordpress.com/2010/04/30/… (http://unitedfamiliesinternational.wordpress.com/2010/04/30/%E2%80%A6)
the birth control Review volumes 1 through 3 edited by Margaret Sanger. More children from the fit less from the unfit is the cheif issue in birth control. The emphasis is on control rather then prevention: http://books.google.com/books?id=k0IsAAAAYAAJ&pg=RA3-PA3&dq=… (http://books.google.com/books?id=k0IsAAAAYAAJ&pg=RA3-PA3&dq=%E2%80%A6)
Birth Control Review, Volumes 5-6 Margaret Sanger editor: Birth Control: to create a race of thoroughbreds: http://books.google.com/books?id=qAkiAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA56&dq=%22… (http://books.google.com/books?id=qAkiAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA56&dq=%22%E2%80%A6)
Correspondence between Sanger and McCormick: Where the present need of financial support is most needed, and B. What the present prospects are in contraceptive research. I will answer B. first because I consider that the world and almost our civilization for the next twenty-five years, is going to depend upon a simple, cheap, safe contraceptive to be used in poverty stricken slums, jungles, and among the most ignorant people. Even this will not be sufficient, because I believe that now, immediately, there should be national sterilization for certain dysgenic types of our population who are being encouraged to breed and would die out were the government not feeding them. Contraceptive research needs tremendous financial support: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:zhSYABm… (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:zhSYABm%E2%80%A6)

r123
10-31-2013, 11:34 PM
Another example of how the ACLU uses the downtrodden for their political agendas was “Jane Roe” from Roe vs. Wade. In 1969, an impoverished unmarried, pregnant girl was approached in a Dallas courthouse by two ACLU feminist lawyers who convinced her to claim her pregnancy was the result of rape – the only way to obtain a legal abortion at the time.
The problem was that it wasn’t true, so the Texas court refused the abortion. This is the case the ACLU took to the Supreme Court resulting in abortion becoming a form of birth control in the United States.
The ACLU lawyers persuaded “Roe” she was a lesbian and for several years was kept by lesbian handlers. When she grew up in the 1980s, she asserted that she had been the “pawn” of the ACLU. She never wanted an abortion — she was seeking a divorce from her husband — but the feminist attorney Sarah Weddington used the case as a means of attempting to overturn a Texas’ law making most abortions illegal. Weddington took the case all the way to the Supreme Court, which invalidated every pro-life state law in the nation protecting unborn children and the rest is history.
“Roe” actually never had an abortion – she gave the baby up for adoption. Many years later, she exposed the seamy, manipulative side of the ACLU and lesbian networking in a published book (http://www.ronpaul.com/books/) in 1984, ‘I Am Roe’. She ‘came out’ with her real name of Norma McCorvey, renouncing lesbianism and abortion.
In 2005 she petitioned the Supreme Court to overturn the abortion law, arguing that the case should be heard once again in light of evidence that the procedure harms women, but the petition was denied. She was arrested on the first day of U.S. Senate hearings for the confirmation to the Supreme Court of the United States of Sonia Sotomayor

r123
10-31-2013, 11:36 PM
Communist Goals of (1963). Congressional Record–Appendix, pp. A34-A35
January 10, 1963 Current Communist Goals EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. A. S. HERLONG, JR. OF FLORIDA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, January 10, 1963. Some of the 45 communist goals of 1963: Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them “censorship” and a violation of free speech and free press. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books (http://www.ronpaul.com/books/), magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.”: http://www.uhuh.com/nwo/communism/comgoals.htm

r123
10-31-2013, 11:36 PM
Clenard Childress of BlackGenocide.org discusses how The Negro Project was the foundation of today’s industrialized abortion industry and how its pioneer, Margaret Sanger, who is still lauded by liberals as a human rights crusader, deliberately set out to sterilize blacks and encourage abortion of black babies in pursuit of a eugenicist drive to create a racially superior master race, a goal she shared with her close friend Adolf Hitler, and one that continues to reverberate through the generations as over 1,700 black babies are killed in the United States every day.

Childress explains how the public school system’s encouragement of adolescents to have sex by handing out condoms is circumventing the authority of parents, which has led to an epidemic of sexually transmitted diseases, unwanted pregnancies and promiscuity. Childress leads the fight against the normalization of abortion, noting that after just a few weeks it’s now established that babies in the womb have heart beats and brain waves. Childress highlights how the Negro Project, Margaret Sanger’s eugenics plan for black Americans, targeted the systematic genocide of blacks through the promotion of abortion.
Childress explains how Sanger, a devout racist who wrote letters to and received praise from Hitler, was an advocate of social Darwinism and believed that a master race should be bred while ethnic groups deemed inferior, including African-Americans, needed to either be exterminated or their numbers reduced greatly. Sanger’s sterilization and abortion programs targeting the African-American community were set up in such a way so that the victims did not become suspicious of her true intentions. Sanger knew that to offset any distrust of her motives she would have to hire black religious leaders to deliver her programs and message, which is exactly what transpired as Childress highlights.
The eugenics drive to cull the black population was also achieved by withholding benefits from blacks who refused to be sterilized or have their baby aborted, thereby using coercion to force compliance with eugenics programs. After the end of the odious Tuskeegee experiments, wherein which African-American sharecroppers were deliberately and unwittingly infected by the U.S. Public Health Service with syphilis and not treated, eugenics went underground and re-emerged through organizations like Planned Parenthood.
Sanger worked closely with members of the Third Reich and yet she is still celebrated and honored today by liberals as a pioneer of women’s rights. Childress labels Sanger’s origins and her background as “the best kept secret in America” but notes that people are gradually becoming aware of her providence and her deep connections to today’s neo-eugenics movement and its adjutant abortion industry.
Sanger’s legacy lingers on in the modern era now that the African-American birth rate has dipped below the replacement rate thanks to industrialized abortion. Childress labels this process “genocide” and points out that Sanger’s program has been successful – around 52 per cent of all African-American pregnancies now end in abortion: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnjCUVgW0hc&feature=youtu.be

r123
10-31-2013, 11:39 PM
In an Oct. 27, 1999 speech to Congress, Ron Paul said:

“I am strongly pro-life. I think one of the most disastrous rulings of this century was Roe versus Wade. I do believe in the slippery slope theory. I believe that if people are careless and casual about life at the beginning of life, we will be careless and casual about life at the end. Abortion leads to euthanasia. I believe that.”

In order to “offset the effects of Roe v. Wade”, Paul voted in favor of the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. He has described partial birth abortion as a “barbaric procedure”.

At the same time, Ron Paul believes that the ninth and tenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution do not grant the federal government any authority to legalize or ban abortion. Instead, it is up to the individual states to prohibit abortion
Ron Paul argued that his pro-life position was consistent with his libertarian values, asking, “If you can’t protect life then how can you protect liberty?” Additionally, Ron Paul said that since he believes libertarians support non-aggression, libertarians should oppose abortion because abortion is “an act of aggression” against a fetus.
Ron Paul was asked what he will do to restore legal protection to the unborn:

“As an O.B. doctor of thirty years, and having delivered 4,000 babies, I can assure you life begins at conception. I am legally responsible for the unborn, no matter what I do, so there’s a legal life there. The unborn has inheritance rights, and if there’s an injury or a killing, there is a legal entity. There is no doubt about it.”
Ron Paul was asked what a woman would be charged with if abortion becomes illegal and she obtains an abortion anyway:

“The first thing we have to do is get the federal government out of it. We don’t need a federal abortion police. That’s the last thing that we need. There has to be a criminal penalty for the person that’s committing that crime. And I think that is the abortionist. As for the punishment, I don’t think that should be up to the president to decide.”: http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/abortion/

GunnyFreedom
11-01-2013, 05:03 AM
How is the Liberty movement going the opposite direction of Ron Paul.

(And Goldwater was an epic Neocon, advocated using nukes in Vietnam).

OK Lyndon Johnson. :rolleyes:

It's amazing the effect of propaganda even on supposedly enlightened people.

GunnyFreedom
11-01-2013, 05:07 AM
Goldwater hated and wanted to murder millions of innocent people, yes. However, he wasn't a neocon. A neocon is in favor of big government locally and abroad. Goldwater just supported big government abroad so he couldn't have been a neocon.


No, he really didn't.

GunnyFreedom
11-01-2013, 05:09 AM
Goldwater was opposed to AIPAC and a host of Israeli lobby groups. He is what you would call an anti-Neocon. Nelson Rockefeller, a forebearer of the modern neoconservative movement was his mortal enemy at the 1964 convention.

Propaganda is clearly a powerful thing.

FrankRep
11-01-2013, 05:48 AM
As Ken Cuccinelli rebounds, Terry McAuliffe warns he could lose (http://washingtonexaminer.com/as-cuccinelli-rebounds-mcauliffe-warns-he-could-lose/article/2538282)


Washington Examiner
OCTOBER 31, 2013


As the polls tighten in the Virginia gubernatorial race, Democrat Terry McAuliffe is dropping his front-runner swagger and warning that he could lose.

In an email to supporters meant to inspire them to vote, he said simply: “Ignore the polls.”

Some polls show that the race is getting close, with Republican Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli getting to as close as three points in one poll, though most still show McAuliffe with a significant lead.

But the former Democratic Party chairman is worried about turnout in a year when voters are turned off by both candidates and there is no other headline-grabbing election dragging voters to the polls.

“No matter what pollsters are reporting, newspapers are writing, and your friends might be telling you — we're facing two hard truths,” said McAuliffe’s email.
...

Voluntarist
11-01-2013, 06:41 AM
xxxxx

FrankRep
11-01-2013, 06:44 AM
Building on what I said previously: Never support anyone who thinks it permissible to give any government official a law that makes a felony crime out of something that the vast majority of the population engages in; and who then leaves it up to the government official to use it to selectively prosecute people based on his own whims and prejudices. Regardless of who you support in the race, ask yourself if you would want their opponent having that type of power and authority.

Are stopping child predators considered "prejudice"?


===

Cuccinelli and other defenders of the law, including local prosecutors, have said that it is a vital tool for stopping child predators. Cuccinelli has said that the law “is not — and cannot be — used against consenting adults acting in private.”

SOURCE:
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-10-07/local/42786051_1_terry-mcauliffe-child-predators-virginia-s


Washington Post
October 07, 2013

cajuncocoa
11-01-2013, 06:49 AM
Are stopping child predators considered "prejudice"?


===

Cuccinelli and other defenders of the law, including local prosecutors, have said that it is a vital tool for stopping child predators. Cuccinelli has said that the law “is not — and cannot be — used against consenting adults acting in private.”

SOURCE:
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-10-07/local/42786051_1_terry-mcauliffe-child-predators-virginia-s


Washington Post
October 07, 2013
It is not necessary to have sodomy laws on the books in order to outlaw pedophilia or sexual abuse of children. As for Cuccinelli's remark that the law "cannot be used against consenting adults acting in private" there is nothing in the text of the law to backup that claim.

FrankRep
11-01-2013, 07:04 AM
It is not necessary to have sodomy laws on the books in order to outlaw pedophilia or sexual abuse of children. As for Cuccinelli's remark that the law "cannot be used against consenting adults acting in private" there is nothing in the text of the law to backup that claim.


Daily Beast Lies About Cuccinelli's Appeal of Sodomy Case, Scoffs at Notion He's Generally Libertarian (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2013/10/31/daily-beast-snarks-notion-ken-cuccinelli-libertarian-friendly)


News Busters
October 31, 2013

....
What Cuccinelli, the state's attorney general, did do was seek to prosecute an alleged sex offender for attempting to force an underage girl to perform fellatio on him. Cuccinelli argued that the Supreme Court's decision in Lawrence v. Texas did not apply to prosecuting acts of sodomy. From the Associated Press (http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/state-regional/government-politics/court-won-t-hear-cuccinelli-sodomy-law-appeal/article_e51dc47a-2f59-11e3-90f0-0019bb30f31a.html):



WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court won't hear an appeal of a lower court ruling striking down Virginia's anti-sodomy law.

The high court on Monday refused to hear from Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, who wanted to get the state's ban reinstated.

In March, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond declared Virginia's law unconstitutional.

In 2005, a judge convicted William Scott MacDonald of criminal solicitation for allegedly demanding oral sex from a 17-year-old girl. His conviction occurred two years after the landmark Lawrence v. Texas decision effectively struck down anti-sodomy laws in that state and several others.

Virginia officials said the Texas ruling did not apply to sex acts between adults and minors. The lower court rejected that interpretation and justices won't reconsider that decision.


Indeed, as noted in the writ of certiorari (http://ag.virginia.gov/Media%20and%20News%20Releases/News_Releases/Cuccinelli/116364_Moose-vs-MacDonald-FINAL-6-24-13.pdf) -- basically the document you use when you ask the Supreme Court to take up your case -- Cuccinelli's office quoted from the ruling in Lawrence v. Texas that the decision in that case did NOT address sodomy committed by someone of consenting age upon a minor, as was the case in Moose v. MacDonald (http://ag.virginia.gov/Media%20and%20News%20Releases/News_Releases/Cuccinelli/116364_Moose-vs-MacDonald-FINAL-6-24-13.pdf):



QUESTION PRESENTED

In 2003, this Court took up the question “[w]hether
Petitioners’ criminal convictions for adult consensual
sexual intimacy in the home violate their vital interests
in liberty and privacy protected by the Due Process
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment,” in the context of
a challenge to a Texas statute that prohibited “‘deviate
sexual intercourse with another individual of the same
sex.’” Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 563-64 (2003)
(quoting Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 21.06(a) (2003)). This
Court answered that question in the affirmative, but
stressed what it was not deciding. Id. at 578. “The present
case does not involve minors. It does not involve persons
who might be injured or coerced or who are situated in
relationships where consent might not easily be refused.
It does not involve public conduct or prostitution. . . . The
case does involve two adults who, with full and mutual
consent from each other, engaged in sexual practices
common to a homosexual lifestyle.” Id.

The question presented in this case is whether the Virginia courts unreasonably applied Lawrence in determining that Virginia’s “crimes against nature” statute is not facially unconstitutional or unconstitutional as applied to an adult male’s solicitation of a minor female, outside the home, to perform oral sodomy.

This was a case not about reversing Lawrence v. Texas and the resulting unconstitutionality about the legality of oral and anal sex between consenting adults. This case was about upholding the conviction of a sex offender, something that should not be troubling to anyone, regardless of whether they are liberal, conservative, moderate, or libertarian.
...

speciallyblend
11-01-2013, 07:06 AM
is the republican a republican? no! dog chasing its tail, bottom line is the gop didn't field a candidate that would sway the lp vote to come over, but the gop will not even account for their own failure. They will say the lp caused them to lose instead of fielding a candidate to sway their vote. The failure is on the gop not the lp. If the gop wants the lp vote that badly . Then run a f'in candidate they could vote for. If the gop loses? it is their own damn fault. Same will be true in Colorado, if you cannot run a candidate that is for the 2/3 voter majority in colorado. Then that gop candidate is dead in the water before the election.

FrankRep
11-01-2013, 07:19 AM
is the republican a republican? no! dog chasing its tail, bottom line is the gop didn't field a candidate that would sway the lp vote to come over, but the gop will not even account for their own failure. They will say the lp caused them to lose instead of fielding a candidate to sway their vote. The failure is on the gop not the lp. If the gop wants the lp vote that badly . Then run a f'in candidate they could vote for. If the gop loses? it is their own damn fault. Same will be true in Colorado, if you cannot run a candidate that is for the 2/3 voter majority in colorado. Then that gop candidate is dead in the water before the election.

What has Ken Cuccinelli done that is soo terrible?

Ron Paul and Rand Paul like him so much that they are campaigning for him.


Things are looking good in the polls for Cuccinelli.

===


As Ken Cuccinelli rebounds, Terry McAuliffe warns he could lose (http://washingtonexaminer.com/as-cuccinelli-rebounds-mcauliffe-warns-he-could-lose/article/2538282)


Washington Examiner
OCTOBER 31, 2013


As the polls tighten in the Virginia gubernatorial race, Democrat Terry McAuliffe is dropping his front-runner swagger and warning that he could lose.

In an email to supporters meant to inspire them to vote, he said simply: “Ignore the polls.”

Some polls show that the race is getting close, with Republican Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli getting to as close as three points in one poll, though most still show McAuliffe with a significant lead.

But the former Democratic Party chairman is worried about turnout in a year when voters are turned off by both candidates and there is no other headline-grabbing election dragging voters to the polls.

“No matter what pollsters are reporting, newspapers are writing, and your friends might be telling you — we're facing two hard truths,” said McAuliffe’s email.
...


http://i40.tinypic.com/nx5l5j.jpg

Voluntarist
11-01-2013, 07:32 AM
xxxxx

fisharmor
11-01-2013, 07:42 AM
Are stopping child predators considered "prejudice"?

Fortunately here in VA we have some people who are politically active who are able to follow a legal argument.

Last MLK day I stood talking to Delegate Dave Marsden in his office with five other armed citizens. (Because Virginia kicks ass that way.)
Marsden is a liberal Democrat who is what we would call anti-gun.
Well, a coworker I was with - who lives in Marsden's district - was trying to take him to task over a law he got passed that held parents accountable if their children used their guns without permission.

Marsden did not back down. He explained to my coworker that the law he had passed treated this as a tort, not a crime.
My coworker also did not back down claiming "that's not the way I read it".
So I pulled him back and said I understand what he's saying, because a tort is different from a crime. I added the caveat that I don't agree with it, but I understand what he's saying.

Marsden gave us a material issue to counter what we were saying. For a tort is indeed not necessarily also a crime. He gave himself wiggle room there - legally.

Cuccinelli isn't doing anything of the sort with the sodomy law support. There is nothing in the verbiage that says that it will only apply to minors. There is nothing in the verbiage that says it will only apply to child predators. There is nothing in the verbiage saying that prosecutors will only be able to apply this if the guy really really deserves it.
It was to be an open-ended ban on oral and anal sex.
And he supported it.

Either you are deliberately pissing in our faces and telling us it's raining, or you're genuinely incapable of processing that.
Either way, you ought to remain silent on the issue. It's embarrassing.

Keith and stuff
11-01-2013, 08:59 AM
If I lived in Virginia then I might applaud Cuccinelli's proposals to cut the personal and business income taxes; it depends on how it would actually weigh against Cooch's proposals (in January) to raise sales taxes. It's a matter of which costs me more.

But as someone from outside Virginia, who visits Virginia, the sales tax increase would impact me more than the income tax decrease.

And the anti-sodomy law being struck down doesn't transition Cooch's support for the law to an irrelevant academic condition. Nor is the matter moot. Cooch's support for the law is an indicator of how he perceives the power of government and the fashion with which government officials are allowed to wield it. That it to say, he believes in giving broad powers to government and allowing the decent, wise, moral, and benign officers of government to wield that power with indiscriminate authority. That impacts me even if I'm not a voting citizen of Virginia but merely passing through it.

Building on what I said previously: Never support anyone who thinks it permissible to give any government official a law that makes a felony crime out of something that the vast majority of the population engages in; and who then leaves it up to the government official to use it to selectively prosecute people based on his own whims and prejudices. Regardless of who you support in the race, ask yourself if you would want their opponent having that type of power and authority (because your guy is not always going to the the one wielding it).

The current GOP governor of VA did support and help pass massive tax increases in VA. But, I thought Ken was opposed to those massive GOP tax increases?

FSP-Rebel
11-01-2013, 10:56 AM
It was to be an open-ended ban on oral and anal sex.
And he supported it.

Either you are deliberately pissing in our faces and telling us it's raining, or you're genuinely incapable of processing that.
Either way, you ought to remain silent on the issue. It's embarrassing.
If, in fact, that is the way it would have legal standing then I agree it's weak. But, in adult situations both consenting parties would be in violation of said forms of sex and likely wouldn't rat on the other person so this could be a moot point. However, during his tenure as AG when he was on this case he did make it clear from his perspective what the law should be used for, not necessarily what the state courts would agree on. Problem is, backing off this sodomy case publicly means getting into the proverbial weeds and bringing sexual specifics to the table which would likely be more embarrassing for him among party conservatives than attempting to thread the needle w/ libertarians on this. God knows that McAulliffe and his cash masters would go to town w/ any or all of that talk. I presume both of the Pauls have had chats with Ken about the issues and they feel comfortable that he's the best option for VA and for Rand's future. The many positives vastly outweigh a vague issue that won't prevent or penalize (by default) any adult for engaging in it.

angelatc
11-01-2013, 11:28 AM
Romney is Cuccinelli? Surely you jest. I didn't even vote for Romney BTW.

LOL - lots of Republicans didn't vote for Romney.

Keith and stuff
11-01-2013, 11:38 AM
Latest poll shows Ken down by 2 with the liberty guy getting 13.

pcosmar
11-01-2013, 11:53 AM
Are stopping child predators considered "prejudice"?




17-year-old girl.

I find it offensive that anyone would force anyone into any sex act,, but 17 is hardly a child..

At 20 yrs old,, I learned a lot about sex from a 15 yr old girl.. And she had been sexually active (by her own choice) since she was 11.

She was proficient at 15,, and I still love her to this day (though we parted company years ago)

People who prey on children are despicable,, But marriage and sex in teens is normal and common.
And has been since the dawn on time.

FrankRep
11-01-2013, 12:04 PM
I find it offensive that anyone would force anyone into any sex act,, but 17 is hardly a child..


Here's the great evil that Libertarians hate Cuccinelli for: Prosecuting a sex offender who tried to rape an underage girl.




What Cuccinelli, the state's attorney general, did do was seek to prosecute an alleged sex offender for attempting to force an underage girl to perform fellatio on him.


SOURCE:

Daily Beast Lies About Cuccinelli's Appeal of Sodomy Case, Scoffs at Notion He's Generally Libertarian
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2013/10/31/daily-beast-snarks-notion-ken-cuccinelli-libertarian-friendly

pcosmar
11-01-2013, 12:45 PM
Here's the great evil that Libertarians hate Cuccinelli for: Prosecuting a sex offender who tried to rape an underage girl.



Not me.. And I don't hate him..
I am just not inclined to support an Authoritarian.. He is First of all,,, a Lawyer.. And Not a Defense Lawyer.. a Fucking Prosecutor.

The State Attorney General.

That does not impress nor inspire me.

cajuncocoa
11-01-2013, 12:51 PM
Here's the great evil that Libertarians hate Cuccinelli for: Prosecuting a sex offender who tried to rape an underage girl.



What Cuccinelli, the state's attorney general, did do was seek to prosecute an alleged sex offender for attempting to force an underage girl to perform fellatio on him.


SOURCE:

Daily Beast Lies About Cuccinelli's Appeal of Sodomy Case, Scoffs at Notion He's Generally Libertarian
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2013/10/31/daily-beast-snarks-notion-ken-cuccinelli-libertarian-friendly

Why was it necessary for KC to take that tactic to prosecute the rapist? Was the evidence in the case not sufficient?

pcosmar
11-01-2013, 01:00 PM
Why was it necessary for KC to take that tactic to prosecute the rapist? Was the evidence in the case not sufficient?

I never followed the case,,and have no idea. Seems like a pretty flimsy "rape" Case.

It seems that was all they had to convict him on and the case got thrown out.. and he is pushing to have it reinstated.

However,,,, that is not what this thread was about,, It is simply a straw man distraction.


This thread is about Bashing the Libertarian Candidate.

Is The Virginia Gov. Libertarian Candidate Even A Libertarian?

Brett85
11-01-2013, 01:18 PM
He hasn't advocated abolishing the police, so of course he isn't a libertarian. :)

cjm
11-01-2013, 01:23 PM
Not me.. And I don't hate him..
I am just not inclined to support an Authoritarian.. He is First of all,,, a Lawyer.. And Not a Defense Lawyer.. a Fucking Prosecutor.

The State Attorney General.

That does not impress nor inspire me.

As AG, he was in a position to sue the federal government over obamacare and issue official opinions like this:


On the heels of his recent opinion holding that "self-defense" is "good and sufficient reason" to carry a gun to church, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli now says that state colleges like the University of Virginia cannot ban the carriage of concealed handguns by proper license holders. The opinion was written in response to a question by Senator Emmett Hanger (R-Mount Solon).

Cuccinelli reasoned that concealed handgun permit holders were explicilty entitled by law to carry concealed handguns throughout the Commonwealth except where prohibited "by law," and therefore state agencies like UVA could not ban concealed carry even in campus buildings and medical facilities by mere "policy."

more: http://www.examiner.com/article/virginia-attorney-general-says-uva-cannot-ban-gun-carry

fisharmor
11-01-2013, 01:47 PM
Here's the great evil that Libertarians hate Cuccinelli for: Prosecuting a sex offender who tried to rape an underage girl.

Seriously... are you
a) deliberately attempting to mislead,
b) not reading the thread, or
c) genuinely dim?

Those are the only three choices you have at this point.

It has been pointed out that the law was a general ban.
http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?041+vot+S03V0137+SB0477
SB 477 Crimes against nature; certain provisions not considered a crime.NAYS--Norment, Reynolds, Mims, Rerras, Cuccinelli, Obenshain--6.

Not only did the law NOT EXCLUDE ANYONE from potential prosecution, Cuccinelli explicitly voted against ammending the law so as to exclude the very acts people here are complaining about in 2004.

This is a matter of record. That means that Cuccinelli is all of the following:

a) A horrible lawyer, because he claimed the law was something it isclearly not (i.e., a law to protect children)

b) A fucking liar, because he claimed the law was something it is clearly not

c) A dirty opportunist, because he didn't have that inconvenient little thing we like to call proof of an actual crime, and so had to resort to anti-gay legislation in order to pin anything on these people

d) A homophobe

e) Someone entirely content to ruin people's lives by having them put on a sex offender list for getting a blowjob
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/17/ken-cuccinelli-website_n_3610362.html

The site, www.vachildpredators.com (http://www.vachildpredators.com/), calls the state's law an "Anti-Child Predators Law" and claims that 90 "sexual predators" could be let off the state's sex offender registry if the Supreme Court does not overturn a decision striking down the law.

Seriously, FrankRrep, if you're honestly trying to support Cuccinelli, then you really ought to just shut the fuck up.
Every time you bring this up, you make one of us go look into it - and the farther we research, the less likely it is than anyone in their right mind in the liberty movement will vote for this monster.

mad cow
11-01-2013, 02:04 PM
VCDL just called me minutes ago urging me to vote for Cuccinelli.
Are they not in their right mind?Is Ron Paul in the Liberty movement?Is he not in his right mind?

cajuncocoa
11-01-2013, 02:28 PM
Seriously... are you
a) deliberately attempting to mislead,
b) not reading the thread, or
c) genuinely dim?

Those are the only three choices you have at this point.

It has been pointed out that the law was a general ban.
http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?041+vot+S03V0137+SB0477
SB 477 Crimes against nature; certain provisions not considered a crime.

NAYS--Norment, Reynolds, Mims, Rerras, Cuccinelli, Obenshain--6.

Not only did the law NOT EXCLUDE ANYONE from potential prosecution, Cuccinelli explicitly voted against ammending the law so as to exclude the very acts people here are complaining about in 2004.

This is a matter of record. That means that Cuccinelli is all of the following:

a) A horrible lawyer, because he claimed the law was something it isclearly not (i.e., a law to protect children)

b) A fucking liar, because he claimed the law was something it is clearly not

c) A dirty opportunist, because he didn't have that inconvenient little thing we like to call proof of an actual crime, and so had to resort to anti-gay legislation in order to pin anything on these people

d) A homophobe

e) Someone entirely content to ruin people's lives by having them put on a sex offender list for getting a blowjob
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/17/ken-cuccinelli-website_n_3610362.html


[/FONT][/COLOR]Seriously, FrankRrep, if you're honestly trying to support Cuccinelli, then you really ought to just shut the fuck up.
Every time you bring this up, you make one of us go look into it - and the farther we research, the less likely it is than anyone in their right mind in the liberty movement will vote for this monster.

can't rep you again right now...I hope another one of the "purists" will cover for me.

fisharmor
11-01-2013, 02:29 PM
Anyone who is aware that this man created a website for the sole purpose of keeping people who got a blowjob on the sex offender registry, and yet continues to urge us to vote for him, is, in fact, not in his right mind.

cajuncocoa
11-01-2013, 02:33 PM
VCDL just called me minutes ago urging me to vote for Cuccinelli.
Are they not in their right mind?Is Ron Paul in the Liberty movement?Is he not in his right mind?

I had to Google that one: Virginia Citizens Defense League...looks like a pro-gun group, right? In case you didn't know there are many people who are pro-2nd Amendment who differ greatly with some of us on other issues (foreign policy being one example; keeping gov't out of the bedroom perhaps being another :p)

pcosmar
11-01-2013, 02:41 PM
As AG, he was in a position to sue the federal government over obamacare and issue official opinions like this:



Yup,,
Not at all impressed. I like the other Guy's position better.
http://www.robertsarvis.com/issues/gun-rights


Gun violence and violent crimes have declined dramatically over the last two decades. If we want to reduce gun violence and violent crime further, the first place to look is at our drug laws. Just as the Prohibition Era was time of organized crime and gun violence, so today has our War on Drugs produced well-financed, well-armed, violent gangs and organized criminal enterprises. Before we even think about burdening our law-abiding gun-owners with ineffective regulations and intrusions, we should reform our drug laws to put an end to this self-inflicted madness.

I also object to the Republican Party's attempts to get the information of all concealed-carry permit holders in Virginia. Republicans claim to be in favor of freedom, gun rights, and privacy, but this once again shows that the Republican Party's self-interest comes before the rights of the people.

In contrast, I support Constitutional Carry, which several states already recognize without harm to the safety of their citizens.

http://www.robertsarvis.com/issues/civil-liberties

I am committed to restoring and protecting civil liberties. As Governor, I will:

Protect freedom of religion, speech, press, and assembly.
Reverse the militarization of law-enforcement tactics.
Reform asset-forfeiture laws.
Restore Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Restore voting and gun rights for those convicted of non-violent drug offenses.
Fight against federal overreach and government spying programs.
Restrict law-enforcement use of general surveillance technologies.
Protect internet freedom.

I believe an important part of restoring civil liberties is ending the drug war.

Brett85
11-01-2013, 02:45 PM
Yup,,
Not at all impressed. I like the other Guy's position better.
http://www.robertsarvis.com/issues/gun-rights

http://www.robertsarvis.com/issues/civil-liberties

What he's written on his website is almost 180 degrees opposite of what he's said to reporters.

pcosmar
11-01-2013, 02:52 PM
What he's written on his website is almost 180 degrees opposite of what he's said to reporters.

Really,, I haven't heard much of anything about him before this thread. Other than Both Parties trying to keep him out of debates.

Can you post some? Direct Quotes,, or even better video with full context.

Are you saying he has called for more intrusive police?
More restrictive Gun Laws?
More invasive Government?

Please post some direct quotes.

Brett85
11-01-2013, 03:01 PM
Really,, I haven't heard much of anything about him before this thread. Other than Both Parties trying to keep him out of debates.

Can you post some? Direct Quotes,, or even better video with full context.

Are you saying he has called for more intrusive police?
More restrictive Gun Laws?
More invasive Government?

Please post some direct quotes.

http://thefederalist.com/2013/10/25/virginia-gubernatorial-candidate-robert-sarvis-libertarian-name/

"That last position is particularly nonsensical to me: a VMT, which generally requires a government GPS to be installed in your car to track your miles driven, is about the most anti-libertarian transportation tax you can think of – even those radical libertarians at Brookings think it’s a bad idea, and it was one of the potential bad ideas in McDonnell’s transportation plan that got killed over it: “The biggest concern may be privacy. Eighty-six percent of area commuters would oppose having a GPS device installed in their car to track their miles, according to a study by the Council of Governments Transportation Planning Board released last week.” Big government technocrats may like such steps, but I cannot think of a single coherent libertarian case for such an invasion of individual privacy."

pcosmar
11-01-2013, 03:09 PM
http://thefederalist.com/2013/10/25/virginia-gubernatorial-candidate-robert-sarvis-libertarian-name/


Where is the direct quote from Sarvis?

What did he say in response to what? Direct quote,, and in context.

Come on,, You said he had made statements to the press,, Post his exact statement,,, not just a hit piece that does not even interview him.

Rudeman
11-01-2013, 03:15 PM
can't rep you again right now...I hope another one of the "purists" will cover for me.

lol at calling yourself a "purist" when you support Sarvis. A "purist" wouldn't support either candidate.

Rudeman
11-01-2013, 03:20 PM
Where is the direct quote from Sarvis?

What did he say in response to what? Direct quote,, and in context.

Come on,, You said he had made statements to the press,, Post his exact statement,,, not just a hit piece that does not even interview him.


The link you're quoting does have sources to direct comments, for example the interview with Chuck Todd: http://video.msnbc.msn.com/daily-rundown/53145353#53145353

Feeding the Abscess
11-01-2013, 03:26 PM
lol at calling yourself a "purist" when you support Sarvis. A "purist" wouldn't support either candidate.

I've gotten reps from her when I post that the libertarian path is the one that chooses none of Sarvis, Cuccinelli, or McAuliffe.

cjm
11-01-2013, 03:29 PM
Yup,,
Not at all impressed. I like the other Guy's position better.
http://www.robertsarvis.com/issues/gun-rights



http://www.robertsarvis.com/issues/civil-liberties

I like constitutional carry better too, but Sarvis won't be elected on Tuesday. Cuccinelli or McAuliffe will. I appreciate your high standards, but I have to live with the next Governor, you don't. I'll take status quo plus minor expansion of gun rights today over gun bans today with the hope of constitutional carry via the LP tomorrow.

pcosmar
11-01-2013, 03:36 PM
I like constitutional carry better too, but Sarvis won't be elected on Tuesday. Cuccinelli or McAuliffe will. I appreciate your high standards, but I have to live with the next Governor, you don't. I'll take status quo plus minor expansion of gun rights today over gun bans today with the hope of constitutional carry via the LP tomorrow.

And that is why, he won't be elected. and why those pushing for more Police State will.

I don't live in Virginia,, I have no vote there.
but it appears to me that there is a candidate,, that no one wants to give a chance to,, simply because he is not an "R".

cajuncocoa
11-01-2013, 03:43 PM
lol at calling yourself a "purist" when you support Sarvis. A "purist" wouldn't support either candidate.

You may have missed it when I openly changed my mind after some of his anti-liberty positions started to surface. I've since stated that I would stay home on election day.

Brett85
11-01-2013, 03:45 PM
Where is the direct quote from Sarvis?

What did he say in response to what? Direct quote,, and in context.

Come on,, You said he had made statements to the press,, Post his exact statement,,, not just a hit piece that does not even interview him.

The link that I posted contains links that have direct quotes from Sarvis.

cjm
11-01-2013, 03:50 PM
And that is why, he won't be elected. and why those pushing for more Police State will.

I don't live in Virginia,, I have no vote there.
but it appears to me that there is a candidate,, that no one wants to give a chance to,, simply because he is not an "R".

I have stated on other threads that both Cuccinelli and Sarvis would advance liberty even if only incrementally. They are both flawed candidates, but both acceptable. I will support the candidate that has the best chance of winning while meeting minimum acceptable standards. If Sarvis' and Cuccinelli's percentages were reversed, I would be supporting Sarvis. If I found Cuccinelli unacceptable, I would be supporting Sarvis. But I have found Cuccinelli to be an acceptable candidate (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?431950-libertarian-Virginians-should-vote-for-Cuccinelli) and he's within reach. So I'm going with Ken.

Tywysog Cymru
11-01-2013, 03:51 PM
Extreme social conservatism is no longer a threat to liberty.

mad cow
11-01-2013, 03:55 PM
The latest Ron Paul email,just got it minutes ago:


The details have just been set.

I'm hoping you'll come out and see me and Republican Governor candidate Ken Cuccinelli on Monday!

The event will take place at the Greater Richmond Convention Center, Hall C and kicks off at 8:00 p.m.

The address is 403 North Third Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.

I do hope you'll be able to make it. Please bring as many people as you can!

You can RSVP by clicking here.

I know it's going to be a great time.

As I've told you before, the Virginia Governor's race is incredibly important to me.

And the great news is, Ken Cuccinelli has been surging in the polls over the past week. Now the race is a toss-up!

I can't help but think that's because of you and me.

I believe you and I have the opportunity to put him over the top with a big turnout on Tuesday.

That's why I've agreed to come to Richmond for this important event with Ken.

The truth is, Ken Cuccinelli has been a longtime ally of our Liberty Movement in Virginia. He's proven he's willing to stand up to federal government encroachment to fight for the limited government principles you and I hold so dear.

If you and I are going to turn our country around, we must have more men and women of principle at the state level who are willing to say "NO!" to unconstitutional federal power grabs.

Ken Cuccinelli has proven he'll do just that.

Of course, this race is important to me for another reason, as well.

If you and I can deliver an incredible come-from-behind win in Virginia, it will send the message to BOTH parties that they can no longer ignore our Liberty Movement.

If there's one thing politicians care about, it's their political careers. No politician in his or her right mind wants to cross a powerful constituency that's proven to be decisive at the ballot box.

So please come out and see me and Ken Cuccinelli on Monday, November 4, and bring as many people as you can.

If you can't make it, please make sure you get out and vote for Ken Cuccinelli on Tuesday, November 5.

Thank you so much for all you do!

For Liberty,
Ron Paul Signature
Ron Paul

P.S. Please come out and see me and Republican Governor candidate Ken Cuccinelli on Monday, and bring as many people as you can!

The event will take place at the Greater Richmond Convention Center, Hall C and kicks off at 8:00 p.m.

You can RSVP by clicking here.

The address is 403 North Third Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.

I hope to see you there. But if you can't make it, please get out and vote for Ken Cuccinelli on Tuesday, November 5!


Another Cuccinelli supporter claiming to be in the Liberty Movement.
He's obviously not in his right mind. :p

cajuncocoa
11-01-2013, 04:06 PM
The latest Ron Paul email,just got it minutes ago:


Another Cuccinelli supporter claiming to be in the Liberty Movement.
He's obviously not in his right mind. :pRon is jumping the shark on this one IMO.

AuH20
11-01-2013, 04:13 PM
VCDL just called me minutes ago urging me to vote for Cuccinelli.
Are they not in their right mind?Is Ron Paul in the Liberty movement?Is he not in his right mind?

Don't forget the GOA, who wrote a very convincing letter endorsing him. Unlike the NRA, you have to earn a GOA endorsement.


GOA’s Political Victory Fund (PVF) is proud to endorse the current Attorney General, Ken
Cuccinelli, in his race for Governor of Virginia.

Gun owners know that Ken Cuccinelli has made a career of taking a strong stand for our 2nd Amendment rights in the Old Dominion.

“I strongly believe in protecting the 2nd Amendment rights of our law-abiding citizens,” Cuccinelli says on his website. “I have been an advocate for law-abiding sportsmen, gun collectors, and gun owners throughout my time in the state Senate and as Attorney General. As
Governor, I will continue to protect our rights.”

Cuccinelli has lived up to those words. Among his many accomplishments, Cuccinelli:

* Helped get HB 2144 passed, which keeps Virginia concealed carry records private and out of the hands of pesky newspaper reporters (2009).

* Filed an amicus brief before the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff in the Woollard v. Gallagher -- fighting the statists in Maryland who want law-abiding gun owners to show a “good and substantial reason” to exercise their rights (2013).

* Informed churches in the state that they have to follow the law and stop denying people their right to carry concealed (2011).

* Fought to get the restriction on guns in bars and restaurants repealed, while serving as both a state senator and Attorney General (2009-2010).

* And finally, as a state senator, he voted for SB 58, which banned localities from fingerprinting concealed carry applicants (2006). Plus, he led the fight against SB 807, which would have put
onerous laws on gun shows, banning private sales of firearms at gun shows if they didn’t first go through a background check (2005).

We need men like Ken in the Virginia statehouse to stop the Democrats from doing to Virginia what they’ve done in Maryland where people have to show a “good and substantial reason” to exercise their
rights.

And if all the reasons above weren’t reason enough to help elect Ken Cuccinelli, there’s one more BIG reason gun owners need him: His opponent.

Ken is running against long-time party operative and political hack Terry McAuliffe, who was the one time head of the Democrat National Committee.

Terry McCauliffe is an F- candidate with Gun Owners of America, as he has supported:

* So-called “assault weapons” bans on semi-automatic firearms,

* The reinstitution of the “one gun a month rule,”

* And, bans on private sales of firearms (that don’t first pass through a government registration background check).

Like most gun-grabbers, he’s perfectly willing to grab your guns, even while keeping them for himself. After all, he’s now the owner of a Beretta shotgun worth almost $1,900 dollars.

But in addition to all of McAuliffe’s anti-gun views, what should disturb gun owners the most is that Mr. McAuliffe recently met with New York City Michael Bloomberg, presumably to get his support and his money.

To be sure, Bloomberg has committed himself to supporting gun control advocates across the country. Consider these headlines and news reports:

* “Bloomberg May Court McAuliffe to Bring Gun Control to Virginia,” Breitbart, September 11, 2013

* “New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is asking others to help in the gun debate by rewarding lawmakers who favor stricter controls and punishing those who don’t.” Bloomberg.com, June 13, 2013

Do you want New York-style gun laws in the Old Dominion? If not, then please do everything you can to help Ken Cuccinelli become governor on November 5.

So please tell your friends and family about Ken’s record of fighting for them.

Better yet, please volunteer your time and help the Cuccinelli campaign with a contribution to help stop McAuliffe in his tracks.

You can find out more at Ken’s website here: http://www.cuccinelli.com

So remember, vote for a true friend of the 2nd Amendment on November 5. Vote for Ken Cuccinelli!

Sincerely,

Tim Macy
Vice-Chairman
Gun Owners of America Political Victory Fund

Brett85
11-01-2013, 04:15 PM
Ron is jumping the shark on this one IMO.

It doesn't seem like it. It seems like Ron and Cuccinelli probably agree on 95% of the issues, and that's good enough for Ron.

AuH20
11-01-2013, 04:15 PM
Ron is jumping the shark on this one IMO.

More that Ron isn't susceptible to the bullshit. He sees right through it. Does anyone think Ron would stick his neck out for someone wanting to patrol another's bedroom?

cajuncocoa
11-01-2013, 04:21 PM
More that Ron isn't susceptible to the bullshit. He sees right through it. Does anyone think Ron would stick his neck out for someone wanting to patrol another's bedroom?

Yes. He is doing just that. That may not be the reason KC wanted that law upheld, but that's the reality of it nevertheless. Never give government the power to do something like that....one day, it will be used against you by political enemies. Anyone who advocates laws like that is an enemy of liberty, not a friend.

Feeding the Abscess
11-01-2013, 04:21 PM
It doesn't seem like it. It seems like Ron and Cuccinelli probably agree on 95% of the issues, and that's good enough for Ron.

If this is true, why didn't Cuccinelli endorse and campaign for Ron?

cajuncocoa
11-01-2013, 04:21 PM
It doesn't seem like it. It seems like Ron and Cuccinelli probably agree on 95% of the issues, and that's good enough for Ron.

Perhaps, but I'm more than a little disappointed in him over it.

Brett85
11-01-2013, 04:23 PM
Perhaps, but I'm more than a little disappointed in him over it.

Why? You think there should have to be 100% agreement before you can support someone?

Brett85
11-01-2013, 04:24 PM
If this is true, why didn't Cuccinelli endorse and campaign for Ron?

Maybe he didn't think he had any realistic chance of winning. I'll bet that if he becomes Governor, he'll return the favor and endorse Rand for President.

cajuncocoa
11-01-2013, 04:25 PM
Why? You think there should have to be 100% agreement before you can support someone?

Let me repeat what I said a few posts up:

Never give government the power to do something like that (anti-sodomy law)....one day, it will be used against you by political enemies. Anyone who advocates laws like that is an enemy of liberty, not a friend.

cajuncocoa
11-01-2013, 04:26 PM
Maybe he didn't think he had any realistic chance of winning. I'll bet that if he becomes Governor, he'll return the favor and endorse Rand for President.

Of course he will!! That's what every compromise and bad decision is about these days!! I sure hope Rand turns out to be worth all this.

Brett85
11-01-2013, 04:27 PM
Let me repeat what I said a few posts up:

Never give government the power to do something like that (anti-sodomy law)....one day, it will be used against you by political enemies. Anyone who advocates laws like that is an enemy of liberty, not a friend.

He doesn't have the power to bring back that law anyway, since the Supreme Court ruled that it's unconstitutional. It's a complete non issue.

cajuncocoa
11-01-2013, 04:31 PM
He doesn't have the power to bring back that law anyway, since the Supreme Court ruled that it's unconstitutional. It's a complete non issue.
LOL....that doesn't get him off the hook for WANTING the law upheld.

pcosmar
11-01-2013, 04:39 PM
The link that I posted contains links that have direct quotes from Sarvis.

Ok,, I listened to him.
What was your point? What did you oppose that he said?

I would have liked to hear more on his proposals,, Tax and health care especially. but time is limited in interviews.

What did you find so horrible?

AuH20
11-01-2013, 04:44 PM
What type of libertarian would vote for McAuliffe? This is just baffling on the part of the Washington Post unless there are thousands upon thousands of Bill Mahers running around...


One problem Cuccinelli could face is that even though there’s a sizeable bloc of Sarvis voters up for grabs, they aren’t necessarily the type who would turn out for republican rallies—even rallies headlined by a member of the Paul family. The Washington Post survey found that this group disproportionately identifies as independents and are more likely to back McAuliffe as their second choice.

Regardless, if one would not vote for Cuccinelli, how would they philosophically explain a vote for a statist criminal like McAuliffe? If so, people need to start claiming the libertarian mantle back.

Rudeman
11-01-2013, 04:48 PM
You may have missed it when I openly changed my mind after some of his anti-liberty positions started to surface. I've since stated that I would stay home on election day.

Didn't see that. I'll take back my previous statement and already gave you rep for misconstruing your current position.

Brett85
11-01-2013, 04:52 PM
What type of libertarian would vote for McAuliffe? This is just baffling on the part of the Washington Post unless there are thousands upon thousands of Bill Mahers running around...

Not all or even a majority of Sarvis's supporters are libertarians. A large number of them are moderate, pro choice Republicans or independents.

Rudeman
11-01-2013, 04:52 PM
What type of libertarian would vote for McAuliffe? This is just baffling on the part of the Washington Post unless there are thousands upon thousands of Bill Mahers running around...



Regardless, if one would not vote for Cuccinelli, how would they philosophically explain a vote for a statist criminal like McAuliffe? If so, people need to start claiming the libertarian mantle back.

From what I gather the majority of Sarvis supporters are socially liberal and that is a primary priority for them (or at least they care enough about it to not consider Cuccinelli). So that would explain why McAuliffe would be the 2nd choice.

AuH20
11-01-2013, 04:56 PM
From what I gather the majority of Sarvis supporters are socially liberal and that is a primary priority for them (or at least they care enough about it to not consider Cuccinelli). So that would explain why McAuliffe would be the 2nd choice.

So you're saying that they would gladly live in a 8x8 prison cell as long as gay marriage and abortion is fully legalized. Gotcha. Those type of voters.

Brett85
11-01-2013, 04:59 PM
Ok,, I listened to him.
What was your point? What did you oppose that he said?

I would have liked to hear more on his proposals,, Tax and health care especially. but time is limited in interviews.

What did you find so horrible?

So you don't have a problem with Medicaid expansion and a vehicle miles driven tax?

Rudeman
11-01-2013, 05:07 PM
So you're saying that they would gladly live in a 8x8 prison cell as long as gay marriage and abortion is fully legalized. Gotcha. Those type of voters.

whoa there, can't forget the legalized weed.

AuH20
11-01-2013, 05:18 PM
whoa there, can't forget the legalized weed.

The weed would help with the uncomfortable confinement of an 8x8 cell. heh.

pcosmar
11-01-2013, 05:30 PM
So you don't have a problem with Medicaid expansion and a vehicle miles driven tax?

Actually,, Medicaid expansion has been a Republican position. And Socialized medicine is a reality pushed by both parties.
All the way back to Reagan.
He spoke of getting more health care workers (Doctors and Nurses) by incentives and cutting regulation to deal with what will be mandated anyway.

And use tax is an idea that is being thrown around,, but he was opposed to one that would impact people unfairly.
Oh,, and btw,, there is already a "miles driven tax".. I pay it every time I buy gasoline.

Instead he was talking about cutting spending as a way of lowering tax requirements. Which is not on the table for either of the other parties who both want to increase government.

pcosmar
11-01-2013, 05:36 PM
The weed would help with the uncomfortable confinement of an 8x8 cell. heh.

An end to the War On Drugs would both cut crime and taxes,, Both in Police cuts,,Closing and selling off Jails,,Freeing up courts.
Of course,, many people will have to get productive jobs, rather that as tax leaches..

But with Freedom comes prosperity.

pcosmar
11-01-2013, 05:50 PM
So you don't have a problem with Medicaid expansion and a vehicle miles driven tax?

For your short term memory loss,,

http://www.nytimes.com/1987/02/15/weekinreview/political-medicine-reagan-apostle-less-assures-expanded-health-care-for-elderly.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm


RONALD Reagan, twice elected on a promise to cut back social programs, may be remembered as the President who set in motion a historic expansion of Medicare, the Federal health insurance program for 31 million elderly and disabled people.

It was Mr. Reagan, at 76 the country's oldest Chief Executive, who raised the issue in his State of the Union Message last year, calling on Dr. Otis R. Bowen, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, to develop recommendations. When hot disputes between factions in the Administration delayed a specific proposal, Congress began a bipartisan stampede to develop one.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/a-short-history-of-americas-gas-tax-woes/2011/08/24/gIQAjyfXdJ_blog.html

By December, Reagan had relented. The new gas tax would fund highways, bridges, and mass transit and was predicted to create 320,000 jobs. Reagan argued that it wasn’t really a tax, anyhow, but a “user’s fee.” What’s more, Reagan told reporters, “we’d be doing this if there were no recession at all.”

GunnyFreedom
11-01-2013, 06:00 PM
For your short term memory loss,,

http://www.nytimes.com/1987/02/15/weekinreview/political-medicine-reagan-apostle-less-assures-expanded-health-care-for-elderly.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/a-short-history-of-americas-gas-tax-woes/2011/08/24/gIQAjyfXdJ_blog.html

So you are OK with a black box that tracks your every move and reports back to big brother now? :confused:

Feeding the Abscess
11-01-2013, 06:01 PM
What type of libertarian would vote for McAuliffe? This is just baffling on the part of the Washington Post unless there are thousands upon thousands of Bill Mahers running around...



Regardless, if one would not vote for Cuccinelli, how would they philosophically explain a vote for a statist criminal like McAuliffe? If so, people need to start claiming the libertarian mantle back.

1. That's what happens when the hardcore libertarian element leaves, as it largely did to support Ron Paul.

2. Why the kvetching? Looks like Sarvis is taking support from McAuliffe, not Cuccinelli. You should be happy.

pcosmar
11-01-2013, 06:19 PM
So you are OK with a black box that tracks your every move and reports back to big brother now? :confused:

Who said I am OK with it?

I have been watching this shit for years..

I restore old cars,, I don't like computers.. (I use it,, I do not like it)

My point is,, The "R"s and "D"s have been at this for a long time. I have no objection to alternatives.. The Republicans are selling us out again.

Hey,, Hows that balanced Budget thing going? You know,, the Debt Ceiling thing? :(

Brett85
11-01-2013, 06:22 PM
For your short term memory loss,,

http://www.nytimes.com/1987/02/15/weekinreview/political-medicine-reagan-apostle-less-assures-expanded-health-care-for-elderly.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/a-short-history-of-americas-gas-tax-woes/2011/08/24/gIQAjyfXdJ_blog.html

Ronald Reagan isn't running in this race, Ken Cuccinelli is. Cuccinelli is opposed to Medicaid expansion in Virginia. (And you won't ever hear me say that Reagan was a good President.)

pcosmar
11-01-2013, 06:29 PM
Who said I am OK with it?

I have been watching this shit for years..

I restore old cars,, I don't like computers.. (I use it,, I do not like it)

My point is,, The "R"s and "D"s have been at this for a long time. I have no objection to alternatives.. The Republicans are selling us out again.

Hey,, Hows that balanced Budget thing going? You know,, the Debt Ceiling thing? :(

Oh,,and BTW,, What party was Richard Nixon again??
When did the NHTSA get created?
Proposed new federal rule could put 'big brother' in your driver's seat
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/08/12/proposed-new-federal-rule-could-put-big-brother-in-your-driver-seat/

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration rule requires all light passenger vehicles be equipped with an EDR by Sep.1, 2014.

pcosmar
11-01-2013, 06:30 PM
Cuccinelli is opposed to Medicaid expansion in Virginia.
That is what Reagan said too.

cjm
11-01-2013, 07:10 PM
LOL....that doesn't get him off the hook for WANTING the law upheld.

I'm not concerned about his thought crimes. I'm concerned about what I can reasonably expect from his governorship. The courts will tie his hands on that issue so it's a moot point.


That is what Reagan said too.

And from thought crimes we go to pre-crimes. Guilty because we think he'll probably support medicaid expansion when he says he doesn't? The guy openly supports an anti-sodomy law and you think he's being sneaky about medicaid expansion? really?

pcosmar
11-01-2013, 07:20 PM
And from thought crimes we go to pre-crimes. Guilty because we think he'll probably support medicaid expansion when he says he doesn't? The guy openly supports an anti-sodomy law and you think he's being sneaky about medicaid expansion? really?

Well,, first of all,, this thread was about the Libertarian Party Alternative.. Not about the Republican Candidate..

And there has been a concerted effort to smear and disparage the Libertarian Candidate. Which was after all, the purpose of this thread.

I don't have a vote in Virginia.. But I do favor voting outside of the two historically corrupt Parties, and was merely reminding of history.


Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

cajuncocoa
11-01-2013, 08:35 PM
I'm not concerned about his thought crimes. I'm concerned about what I can reasonably expect from his governorship. The courts will tie his hands on that issue so it's a moot point.

So you'll just depend on someone else (the courts) to keep him from making behavior between consenting adults a felony. OK...good thing the Supreme Court overturned Obamacare, too...that was really worrying me.

Oh....wait.....

mad cow
11-01-2013, 08:39 PM
So you'll just depend on someone else (the courts) to keep him from making behavior between consenting adults a felony. OK...good thing the Supreme Court overturned Obamacare, too...that was really worrying me.

Oh....wait.....

Now that you bring it up,Ken Cuccinelli was the first AG to try to bring Obamacare to the Supreme Court.

cajuncocoa
11-01-2013, 08:39 PM
I don't care who Virginians vote for....if you're not interested in said behavior between consenting adults and you don't care about people who do, then by all means, vote for Cuccinelli. He's probably solid on everything else.

But when you call someone who wanted to make this behavior a felony A LIBERTY CANDIDATE, you water down what it means to be a Liberty Candidate yet again. When someone wants to make a crime out of something that happens between consenting adults in the bedroom (that hurts neither party, I might add) that person is NOT a Liberty Candidate!

Happy Voting, Virginia. And good luck; you're gonna need it.

cajuncocoa
11-01-2013, 08:40 PM
Now that you bring it up,Ken Cuccinelli was the first AG to try to bring Obamacare to the Supreme Court.

We'll give him a cookie.

AuH20
11-01-2013, 08:45 PM
I don't care who Virginians vote for....if you're not interested in said behavior between consenting adults and you don't care about people who do, then by all means, vote for Cuccinelli. He's probably solid on everything else.

But when you call someone who wanted to make this behavior a felony A LIBERTY CANDIDATE, you water down what it means to be a Liberty Candidate yet again. When someone wants to make a crime out of something that happens between consenting adults in the bedroom (that hurts neither party, I might add) that person is NOT a Liberty Candidate!

Happy Voting, Virginia. And good luck; you're gonna need it.

Consenting adults? I'm pretty certain 'consenting adults' weren't the handful who were affected by this law. In puritarian land, man is always that misunderstood angel held down by the vengeful authorities.

No one is ever held responsible for acting like a ruthless animal who will violate the liberties of others. Sex offenders? Bah. Child Rapists? That's what psychiatrists are for. Why can't a grown man pursue happiness with a 5 year old boy? Only a statist would think otherwise.

Brett85
11-01-2013, 08:45 PM
I don't care who Virginians vote for....if you're not interested in said behavior between consenting adults and you don't care about people who do, then by all means, vote for Cuccinelli. He's probably solid on everything else.

But when you call someone who wanted to make this behavior a felony A LIBERTY CANDIDATE, you water down what it means to be a Liberty Candidate yet again. When someone wants to make a crime out of something that happens between consenting adults in the bedroom (that hurts neither party, I might add) that person is NOT a Liberty Candidate!

Happy Voting, Virginia. And good luck; you're gonna need it.

Can't you vote for someone or support someone without calling them a "liberty candidate?" I've never heard heard anyone refer to Cuccinelli as a liberty candidate. I've just seen some people say that he's far better than McAuliffe and more libertarian than Sarvis.

cajuncocoa
11-01-2013, 08:55 PM
Can't you vote for someone or support someone without calling them a "liberty candidate?" I've never heard heard anyone refer to Cuccinelli as a liberty candidate. I've just seen some people say that he's far better than McAuliffe and more libertarian than Sarvis.Me? I wasn't speaking about what *I* call him. References to him being a liberty candidate are all over this board! Even in the text of the email Ron Paul sent out today. A few of the topics about KC are being placed in the "Liberty Candidates" subforum. This is how a movement gets hijacked.

cajuncocoa
11-01-2013, 08:57 PM
Consenting adults? I'm pretty certain 'consenting adults' weren't the handful who were affected by this law. In puritarian land, man is always that misunderstood angel held down by the vengeful authorities.

No one is ever held responsible for acting like a ruthless animal who will violate the liberties of others. Sex offenders? Bah. Child Rapists? That's what psychiatrists are for. Why can't a grown man pursue happiness with a 5 year old boy? Only a statist would think otherwise.
Once again, there is no guarantee (other than KC's words, which may or may not mean anything to lawmakers in VA down the road once he's out of office) that this law will only be used against sexual predators. Even that isn't necessary. It's already illegal to commit rape or sexual abuse on adults or children.

cajuncocoa
11-01-2013, 08:59 PM
**Strong suspicions that those who most vigorously defend KC and his anti-liberty stance on sodomy are part of Ron Paul Inc. (and I've thought so for quite a while, to be honest). **

Brett85
11-01-2013, 08:59 PM
Me? I wasn't speaking about what *I* call him. References to him being a liberty candidate are all over this board! Even in the text of the email Ron Paul sent out today. A few of the topics about KC are being placed in the "Liberty Candidates" subforum. This is how a movement gets hijacked.

Ron said in his email that Cuccinelli is an ally of the liberty movement. That's not the same as calling him a "liberty candidate."

AuH20
11-01-2013, 09:00 PM
Me? I wasn't speaking about what *I* call him. References to him being a liberty candidate are all over this board! Even in the text of the email Ron Paul sent out today. A few of the topics about KC are being placed in the "Liberty Candidates" subforum. This is how a movement gets hijacked.

Define liberty candidate. Therein lies the problem. I think too many are expecting Thomas Woods to walk through that door when he's not coming. With that said, based on Cuccinelli's CFL form, I would consider him a liberty candidate.

Brett85
11-01-2013, 09:00 PM
Once again, there is no guarantee (other than KC's words, which may or may not mean anything to lawmakers in VA down the road once he's out of office) that this law will only be used against sexual predators.

Sure there is. The Supreme Court has ruled that it's unconstitutional to enforce the law.

Brett85
11-01-2013, 09:01 PM
Define liberty candidate. Therein lies the problem. I think too many are expecting Thomas Woods to walk through that door when he's not coming. With that said, based on Cuccinelli's CFL form, I would consider him a liberty candidate.

How did Cuccinelli answer the questions on the form?

AuH20
11-01-2013, 09:03 PM
How did Cuccinelli answer the questions on the form?

Surprisingly well. Someone has the link.

cajuncocoa
11-01-2013, 09:04 PM
Sure there is. The Supreme Court has ruled that it's unconstitutional to enforce the law.

OK, we keep going around in circles on this...I've answered this before. The fact that KC WANTED this to be the law of Virginia is enough to disqualify him from being a Liberty Candidate. It doesn't disqualify him from being the Gov. of VA if that's what voters want, but it definitely disqualifies him as a Liberty Candidate.

Good on him for being fiscally conservative, but liberty is about more than just keeping what's in your wallet.

AuH20
11-01-2013, 09:04 PM
**Strong suspicions that those who most vigorously defend KC and his anti-liberty stance on sodomy are part of Ron Paul Inc. (and I've thought so for quite a while, to be honest). **

If I worked for Ron Paul, Inc, I wouldn't be so hard on McConnell and Benton. Benton is just an embarrassment all around.

cajuncocoa
11-01-2013, 09:05 PM
Surprisingly well. Someone has the link.

I'm sure he hit all of the economic questions out of the park. Yay.

AuH20
11-01-2013, 09:06 PM
I'm sure he hit all of the economic questions out of the park. Yay.

Actually, you would like his answers on a host of issues.

mad cow
11-01-2013, 09:07 PM
How did Cuccinelli answer the questions on the form?

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?431950-libertarian-Virginians-should-vote-for-Cuccinelli#post5288076

Brett85
11-01-2013, 09:10 PM
Surprisingly well. Someone has the link.

I think I found it.

https://www.campaignforliberty.org/surveys/virginia-statewide-candidate-survey-results/

Question #5 is absolutely stupid. You can be opposed to the TSA and be opposed to the existence of the TSA without being in favor of charging the TSA agents with sexual assault for patting down even one passenger.

AuH20
11-01-2013, 09:11 PM
But but I thought Cuccinelli was a heartless authoritarian with no understanding of liberty? That's what the TV told me:


he was against expanding the death penalty when the state GOP wished to make it part of their platform; he fought hard against the smoking ban

Brett85
11-01-2013, 09:12 PM
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?431950-libertarian-Virginians-should-vote-for-Cuccinelli#post5288076

Thanks.

cajuncocoa
11-01-2013, 09:12 PM
Actually, you would like his answers on a host of issues.

I do. But his attempt to uphold sodomy laws is a deal-breaker for a liberty candidate. I wouldn't vote for him if I lived in VA. He's probably the kind of guy who does or says whatever he needs to get what he wants (which is what he did to try to prosecute that child sex abuser).

But if you want to take a chance on him, but all means go for it.

AuH20
11-01-2013, 09:13 PM
I think I found it.

https://www.campaignforliberty.org/surveys/virginia-statewide-candidate-survey-results/

Question #5 is absolutely stupid. You can be opposed to the TSA and be opposed to the existence of the TSA without being in favor of charging the TSA agents with sexual assault for patting down even one passenger.

Horrible question. Something more appropriate would be to pull funding.

AuH20
11-01-2013, 09:14 PM
I do. But his attempt to uphold sodomy laws is a deal-breaker for a liberty candidate. I wouldn't vote for him if I lived in VA. He's probably the kind of guy who does or says whatever he needs to get what he wants (which is what he did to try to prosecute that child sex abuser).

But if you want to take a chance on him, but all means go for it.

That's perfectly fine. You should vote your conscience. What I despised were all the falsehoods levied against the guy, especially the Santorum and Romney comparisons.

No1butPaul
11-01-2013, 10:12 PM
Ron Paul feels that Cuccinelli will advance the cause of liberty and I agree and respect Ron Paul's opinion. Finally, a post I can agree with. I'm not just following Ron Paul on this. He's expressed why he's supporting Cuccinelli and I agree with his view. He's looking at the bigger picture and I wish others here could see it the same way ... "my people" can be so stubborn sometimes! :p

Michael Landon
11-02-2013, 07:43 AM
Honestly, I don't care if he's the biggest liberal or the biggest libertarian, as long as he hits the benchmark to allow instant ballot access for all future libertarians, that's all I care about. He may not be a true libertarian, but maybe in future elections there will be some libertarians who will benefit from his success in this election. Republicans, at least here in Minnesota, have been very clear that they don't want libertarians in their party.... and I quote here " they have their own party why don't they work in that party and get out of ours? They're not Republicans." If the Republicans don't want libertarians in their party, then they can't complain when they lose elections because the Libertarian candidate gets a large percentage of votes, enough to cause the Republican to lose. I wish Sarvis the best of luck and he has my full support.

- ML

Voluntarist
11-02-2013, 07:48 AM
xxxxx

FrankRep
11-02-2013, 07:51 AM
Honestly, I don't care if he's the biggest liberal or the biggest libertarian, as long as he hits the benchmark to allow instant ballot access for all future libertarians, that's all I care about. He may not be a true libertarian, ...

The "Party of Principle"

Time to change that slogan. That idea just flew out the window.

Voluntarist
11-02-2013, 09:35 AM
xxxxx

thoughtomator
11-02-2013, 10:48 AM
I think I found it.

https://www.campaignforliberty.org/surveys/virginia-statewide-candidate-survey-results/

Question #5 is absolutely stupid. You can be opposed to the TSA and be opposed to the existence of the TSA without being in favor of charging the TSA agents with sexual assault for patting down even one passenger.

Perhaps, but that still makes you indifferent to all the victims of TSA sexual assault. Why exactly should such an assault be treated any differently if done by a person on the government payroll?

Voluntarist
11-02-2013, 11:58 AM
xxxxx

RonPaulGeorge&Ringo
11-02-2013, 12:27 PM
Horrible question. Something more appropriate would be to pull funding.

How can a state governor pull funding from a federal agency?

I absolutely think TSA agents should be prosecuted for sexual assault. However, Cuccinelli had his chance to act on this issue and prosecute TSA perverts when he was Attorney General. He obviously failed to do his duty in protecting Virginians from sexual assault by the federal government.

If there is a weakness in the question it is that sexual assault is already illegal; though I suppose legislation explicitly outlawing sexual assault by federal agents wouldn't hurt...

Voluntarist
11-06-2013, 08:55 PM
xxxxx

Feeding the Abscess
11-06-2013, 08:59 PM
If what you mean by "device" is "odometer" then it's already in your car. If what you mean, instead, is "GPS Black Box" then Sarvis said he wouldn't back the VMT if that's what was involved.

In terms of privacy, PRB, on another thread, pointed out that it was Ron Paul who asserted that the Constitution grants no right to privacy (http://archive.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul120.html). So I'm a bit confused as to what the official position of Ron Paul's Liberty movement is with respect to privacy.

If I have to be taxed for road maintenance, then I'd much rather such a tax take the form of a use tax (which the VMT approximates) rather than a sales tax on my ice cream or other general purchases, or even a sales tax on my gasoline purchase (which would allow "hybrid vehicles" much lower costs for their usage of roadways). One o fthe big problems with a sales tax is that tax receipts automatically rise as inflation increases.

The correct and logically consistent view of privacy for the liberty movement is that the State has no right to exist, and therefore has no right to search your belongings, install black boxes, etc.

Your username and avatar show you knew that already, but I wanted to post it for others who may not know.

mad cow
11-06-2013, 09:09 PM
The correct and logically consistent view of privacy for the liberty movement is that the State has no right to exist, and therefore has no right to search your belongings, install black boxes, etc.

Your username and avatar show you knew that already, but I wanted to post it for others who may not know.

Suppose that all roads in the USA were privately owned tomorrow.Do you have a problem with the owner outlawing cars over 3 years old,insisting on 5 point harnesses and helmets,enforcing a 20mph speed limit,drug and alcohol testing and a GPS black box that sent all of your driving info to his headquarters?

NIU Students for Liberty
11-06-2013, 09:12 PM
Suppose that all roads in the USA were privately owned tomorrow.Do you have a problem with the owner outlawing cars over 3 years old,insisting on 5 point harnesses and helmets,enforcing a 20mph speed limit,drug and alcohol testing and a GPS black box that sent all of your driving info to his headquarters?

Um, choose another road?

cajuncocoa
11-06-2013, 09:13 PM
Um, choose another road?

Obvious answer is obvious.

GunnyFreedom
11-06-2013, 09:16 PM
Um, choose another road?

yeah, that dude's gonna take a massive loss on his road when people route around it. When he goes bankrupt someone with some sense will pick it up in a fire sale.

Feeding the Abscess
11-06-2013, 09:17 PM
Suppose that all roads in the USA were privately owned tomorrow.Do you have a problem with the owner outlawing cars over 3 years old,insisting on 5 point harnesses and helmets,enforcing a 20mph speed limit,drug and alcohol testing and a GPS black box that sent all of your driving info to his headquarters?

No, because that's a terrible business model. The owner of the road will need to change their policies to prevent from going broke, and I'd be able to choose an alternative anyway.

mad cow
11-06-2013, 09:17 PM
Um, choose another road?
What if that was your best or only choice?Do you have a problem with those restrictions with you driving on his road?

Ender
11-06-2013, 09:21 PM
Suppose that all roads in the USA were privately owned tomorrow.Do you have a problem with the owner outlawing cars over 3 years old,insisting on 5 point harnesses and helmets,enforcing a 20mph speed limit,drug and alcohol testing and a GPS black box that sent all of your driving info to his headquarters?

Your talking government- no private company would be stupid enough to lose business so easily.

NIU Students for Liberty
11-06-2013, 09:23 PM
What if that was your best or only choice?Do you have a problem with those restrictions with you driving on his road?

I would but at least I have a choice to travel elsewhere. The state having a monopoly does not provide me with that opportunity.

cajuncocoa
11-06-2013, 09:24 PM
yeah, that dude's gonna take a massive loss on his road when people route around it. When he goes bankrupt someone with some sense will pick it up in a fire sale.


No, because that's a terrible business model. The owner of the road will need to change their policies to prevent from going broke, and I'd be able to choose an alternative anyway.


Your talking government- no private company would be stupid enough to lose business so easily.

Duh!

And that's the reason private enterprise > government!

kcchiefs6465
11-06-2013, 09:40 PM
People say things like that all the time... "choose another road".. or "choose another job." What if they all do the same? What if "they" come to the conclusion, knowing that the roads wouldn't be bought up by mom and pop operations, that the few who do own the roads would come to an understanding of terms. They could all choose the rate at which to charge, the companies of which to benefit, (after all, who is making these safety features or other mandates) etc. Then what? Roads are different than regular businesses. Without crony capitalism ensuring the path to starting a business as costly, businesses challenging the monopolization of a given industry wouldn't be rare. It would be a free market check against cartelization. I am not seeing how it would all work out (to be any less tyrannical than what we have). Eminent domain needs to go, though, clearly, unless of course the terms would be mutually agreeable. It's issues as this and the privatization of the police that lose me. I ought be free to travel. Naturally, so. That I am not, currently, under this system, will not excuse the latter system's injustices. For me, at the moment, roads being controlled locally would be agreeable.

I haven't much studied the issue so I am curious if anyone could point out a few fallacies or misconceptions of what I've said. I see problems with private roads. I know problems of the public roads. Are private roads really liberating?

Ender
11-06-2013, 09:45 PM
People say things like that all the time... "choose another road".. or "choose another job." What if they all do the same? What if "they" come to the conclusion, knowing that the roads wouldn't be bought up by mom and pop operations, that the few who do own the roads would come to an understanding of terms. They could all choose the rate at which to charge, the companies of which to benefit, (after all, who is making these safety features or other mandates) etc. Then what? Roads are different than regular businesses. Without crony capitalism ensuring the path to starting a business as costly, businesses challenging the monopolization of a given industry wouldn't be rare. It would be a free market check against cartelization. I am not seeing how it would all work out (to be any less tyrannical than what we have). Eminent domain needs to go, though, clearly, unless of course the terms would be mutually agreeable. It's issues as this and the privatization of the police that lose me. I ought be free to travel. Naturally, so. That I am not, currently, under this system, will not excuse the latter system's injustices. For me, at the moment, roads being controlled locally would be agreeable.

I haven't much studied the issue so I am curious if anyone could point out a few fallacies or misconceptions of what I've said. I see problems with private roads. I know problems of the public roads. Are private roads really liberating?

The right to travel is a an inalienable right. No public or private company should stand in the way. Licensing cars and people, plus making insurance mandatory, is unconstitutional.

mad cow
11-06-2013, 10:01 PM
I have absolutely no problem with every road being privately owned.I just think that anybody thinking rules and regulations would be radically different are perhaps wrong.

If we ever ended up with 27 parallel I-95's in Virginia,25 or more would go bankrupt and the survivor(s) would have speed limits,toll booths and/or EZ pass black boxes(they ain't gonna have a gas tax) and restrictions on what type/condition of vehicle driven by how competent/sober/tested a driver with what sort of safety equipment,lights,brakes,wipers on board and how fast they can drive on that road.I think,at best they would end up with rules for their private roads that mirrored the average State laws of 50 years ago.

You only have to go into privately owned bars,say,to see that they have their own private codes of conduct over and above whatever the State enforces.

And unlike potential I-95's,Virginia can afford to support thousands of them.

kcchiefs6465
11-06-2013, 10:03 PM
The right to travel is a an inalienable right. No public or private company should stand in the way. Licensing cars and people, plus making insurance mandatory, is unconstitutional.
Well sure; But because it is Constitutional mean it is adherent to Natural Law? A document ascribing slaves to be property, the Three/Fifths clause, eminent domain, etc. I understand some of the issue lies on compromise but frankly I don't find the framers to be particularly Righteous. Would the Constitution not be illegitimate except to those who subscribe to it?

I find it unbelievable that private roads would not issue a license of sorts and make the driver pay a premium for insurance while traveling on their road. This idea that roads would be abundant or that you could just choose another is a little naive to me. You can't have a road everywhere. (The limitations on sellers of land being a particularly burdensome constraint.) How does that get resolved to be comparable to other free market creations? I see a scenario where a few elite, who have earned their wealth unduly through the current system, will control the roads. The temptation, (created because they are ensured a limitation on market "intrusion",) to create a pact between the other few who overwhelmingly owned the roads, would create a problem. And again, as we both agree, people have the Right to travel. Because this system is inherently fucked does not excuse what would predictably occur if the roads were privatized. I am not an expert on the system but am hesitant to subscribe to it. My imagination, (or lack thereof perhaps,) of solutions probably has something to do with it.

kcchiefs6465
11-07-2013, 09:14 PM
Bump, in case someone more knowledgeable than I on the subject can alleviate a few concerns. I am swamped with work and other reading so I do not have the time to read a book on the matter at the moment. If anyone is able to summarize the just of the argument, I'd appreciate it. I am concerned mainly with how cornered the market will become. That because there is scarcity with regards to the amount of roads able to be constructed that a monopolized tyranny will undoubtedly be the result.

gwax23
11-07-2013, 09:55 PM
Well sure; But because it is Constitutional mean it is adherent to Natural Law? A document ascribing slaves to be property, the Three/Fifths clause, eminent domain, etc. I understand some of the issue lies on compromise but frankly I don't find the framers to be particularly Righteous. Would the Constitution not be illegitimate except to those who subscribe to it?



I havent read this whole thread yet but I read this bit and I have to agree with you 110%. While I respect self described constitutionalists they tend to worship this document as if it has no flaws when that is far from correct. It was revolutionary for its time but im sure modern day Libertarians could come up with a far better constitution.