Huckabee threatens to leave GOP over gay marriage

[RPfan1992]

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee isn’t too happy with the GOP — so unhappy that he just may leave his party.

"[I]f the Republicans wanna lose guys like me, and a whole bunch of still God-fearing Bible-believing people, go ahead and just abdicate on this issue, and go ahead and say abortion doesn't matter either," he said in an interview with the American Family Association’s radio show Tuesday morning.

The one-time presidential hopeful said he was “utterly exasperated” with Republicans for not standing up to the Supreme Court’s decision Monday that paved the way for new states to offer same-sex marriage.

"I'll become an independent, I'll start finding people that have guts to stand. I'm tired of this,” Huckabee threatened. Huckabee also guaranteed the Republican Party would continue to lose people like him if it did not change its actions toward same-sex marriage.

Thirty states plus the District of Columbia can now issue marriage licenses for same-sex couples

http://washingtonexaminer.com/huckabee-threatens-to-leave-gop-over-gay-marriage/article/2554606

[Ender]

Huckabee threatens to leave GOP over gay marriage

Buh-bye! :rolleyes:

[Uriah]

Hmm, maybe we will see a split of the Republican party. If the Christian right left the party we'd be left with a much more 'libertarian' GOP. There wouldn't really be a need for the Libertarian party anymore.

[CPUd]

He is sizing up his support.

[anaconda]

Does this mean Huck won't be campaigning for or endorsing any Republicans? He'll get a free pass on this but imagine if Rand also said he was "exasperated" and thinking of going independent. Rand would be excoriated from all directions.

[dannno]

http://www.prosebeforehos.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/joe-rogan-gay-marriage.jpg

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Well that is one step in the right direction. At least then we can get back to fighting the Rockefeller Repubs along with the Neo-cons. Less of the theocrats the better (here I am pretty much in agreement with Goldwater on that issue).

[otherone]

Huckabee threatens to leave GOP over gay marriage

Sucks for him...
who are they making him marry?

[Mr.NoSmile]

"The one-time presidential hopeful said he was “utterly exasperated” with Republicans for not standing up to the Supreme Court’s decision Monday that paved the way for new states to offer same-sex marriage."

You mean fighting a battle that they're increasingly not going to win if they keep talking about sanctity of marriage, being painted as intolerant and on the wrong side of history? That kind of standing up? Good luck.

[Cleaner44]

Please let this happen. If Huck and his army leave, the GOP will be some much more attractive to a much larger group of voters. Huck and his ilk are the Achilles heel of the GOP. Just image if the GOP stood for freedom instead of force and statism according to his version of Christianity.

[Christian Liberty]

Well that is one step in the right direction. At least then we can get back to fighting the Rockefeller Repubs along with the Neo-cons. Less of the theocrats the better (here I am pretty much in agreement with Goldwater on that issue).

Don't insult actual theocrats by comparing them with neoconservative hacks like Huckabee.

[erowe1]

Hmm, maybe we will see a split of the Republican party. If the Christian right left the party we'd be left with a much more 'libertarian' GOP. There wouldn't really be a need for the Libertarian party anymore.

That's ridiculous. The Christian right are the libertarians greatest allies in the party, and they are much more libertarian than the typical moderate Republican. It's them and us against the big-government neocon establishment. If they leave the party, we should join them. And we should make sure that we have more of a voice in the phoenix that rises out of the ashes than Huckabee does.

[Christian Liberty]

That's ridiculous. The Christian right are the libertarians greatest allies in the party, and they are much more libertarian than the typical moderate Republican. It's them and us against the big-government neocon establishment. If they leave the party, we should join them. And we should make sure that we have more of a voice in the phoenix that rises out of the ashes than Huckabee does.

Generally when I hear "theocrat" I think of the theonomists, who are indeed far more libertarian than the average Republican. Its not even close, really. Of course, there aren't really that many of them.

The paleocons are also a lot more libertarain than the average Republican.

But the average in the "Religious right" is a warmongering federal drug warrior these days, I don't think most of them support that much liberty.

[erowe1]

Generally when I hear "theocrat" I think of the theonomists, who are indeed far more libertarian than the average Republican. Its not even close, really. Of course, there aren't really that many of them.

The paleocons are also a lot more libertarain than the average Republican.

But the average in the "Religious right" is a warmongering federal drug warrior these days, I don't think most of them support that much liberty.

The moderate GOP establishment is definitely hell bent on being war mongering drug warriors. But I don't see either of those issues as being among the ones the Christian right defines itself with. Of all the candidates in 2008, Huckabee was probably less of both of those things than any of the more socially moderate establishment guys. Pat Robertson is for legalizing marijuana. So are Pat Buchanan and Tom Tancredo. The biggest drug warriors are the neocons, the same Giuliani types that the Christian right wants to distance itself from that we also want to.

[HOLLYWOOD]

Since we all know that TAX HIKE MIKE Huckabee is FOR SALE...


I say he goes Independent to split the conservative vote, so the Marxist can have their Radical Progressive Hillery in office... her husband won with only 40% of the voters.

[ifthenwouldi]

Here's to hoping that the frustration of guys like Huckabee will turn into a general frustration with The State.

<-- Optimist

[Cleaner44]

The moderate GOP establishment is definitely hell bent on being war mongering drug warriors. But I don't see either of those issues as being among the ones the Christian right defines itself with. Of all the candidates in 2008, Huckabee was probably less of both of those things than any of the more socially moderate establishment guys. Pat Robertson is for legalizing marijuana. So are Pat Buchanan and Tom Tancredo. The biggest drug warriors are the neocons, the same Giuliani types that the Christian right wants to distance itself from that we also want to.

Have you forgotten what a violent war monger Huckabee is? He wants more war against more Muslims and is a full blown interventionist.

[Cleaner44]

Mike Huckabee is a violent dipshit...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAK1Gyb6ra0

[specsaregood]

Have you forgotten what a violent war monger Huckabee is? He wants more war against more Muslims and is a full blown interventionist.

Its too bad we banned the guy on rpfs exposing that all the biggest war mongers in D.C. are closet homosexuals. I wonder how many times Huckabee met privately with the RNC chairman during the bush years...

[erowe1]

Have you forgotten what a violent war monger Huckabee is? He wants more war against more Muslims and is a full blown interventionist.

No I haven't. I'm no fan of his. But looking at the groups that make up the Republican coalition as a whole, I see the Christian Right as the one we most need on our side and the one that's closest to us ideologically.

[cajuncocoa]

Hmm, maybe we will see a split of the Republican party. If the Christian right left the party we'd be left with a much more 'libertarian' GOP. There wouldn't really be a need for the Libertarian party anymore.
I think you mean there wouldn't be a need for the GOP anymore. ;)

[Matt Collins]

Hmm, maybe we will see a split of the Republican party. If the Christian right left the party we'd be left with a much more 'libertarian' GOP. There wouldn't really be a need for the Libertarian party anymore.
This is discussed at length and indepth here... it's really quite worth the listen:
http://www.cato.org/events/republican-partys-civil-war-will-freedom-win

[ZENemy]

I wish the liberty movement had the ability to co-opt the gay marriage movement and twist it into a "get government out of marriage" campaign. The political power that they have could be used for good instead of more government intrusion.

[tangent4ronpaul]

Makes me want to dress up in drag, look him up and personally thank him for the GOP embracing the ***** community while hitting on him...

Short black mini or something more conservative... should I shave my legs... decisions, decisions... :D

-t

[erowe1]

I wish the liberty movement had the ability to co-opt the gay marriage movement and twist it into a "get government out of marriage" campaign. The political power that they have could be used for good instead of more government intrusion.

The anti-gay marriage people will eventually join us in this. But that won't happen until they've already lost and gay marriage becomes entrenched as the law of the land. And when that happens it will be too late to get rid of it.

[VIDEODROME]

Well, at least Gay people aren't having abortions Mike.

[torchbearer]

Well, at least Gay people aren't having abortions Mike.


Good point. Huckabee join the Log Cabin Republicans.

[outspoken]

Good, we need to start separating from the neocon wing. There are plenty of people who lean slightly to the left that are so turned off by these socially conservative yet liberal with the use of military goons that voting republican is still not an option. We really need a 3rd party but this would be the next best thing.

[erowe1]

Good, we need to start separating from the neocon wing. There are plenty of people who lean slightly to the left that are so turned off by these socially conservative yet liberal with the use of military goons that voting republican is still not an option. We really need a 3rd party but this would be the next best thing.

The neocon wing is socially liberal.

[GunnyFreedom]

The neocon wing is socially liberal.

You must have a different brand of neocons where you live. Here, most of the neocon faction are also Pharicons.

[euphemia]

That's ridiculous. The Christian right are the libertarians greatest allies in the party, and they are much more libertarian than the typical moderate Republican. It's them and us against the big-government neocon establishment. If they leave the party, we should join them. And we should make sure that we have more of a voice in the phoenix that rises out of the ashes than Huckabee does.

From my point of view, the Christian right is more libertarian than a lot of libertarians. That's certainly my experience.

Part of the problem is that very few people seem to understand the purpose and scope of marriage. It's like health insurance. it's not a panacea. It has a limited purpose and scope and will not resolve every relational issue that comes up. Even codified, legally married people aren't protected by marriage very much these days. The so-called right to privacy prevents me from knowing a lot of things about my husband.

Government intrusion has taken away the so-called right to privacy because they know whatever they want to know. They have used the so-called right to privacy to control how the information flows.

[loveshiscountry]

Bye Huck Don't let the door hit ya where the good Lord split ya.

[Cleaner44]

No I haven't. I'm no fan of his. But looking at the groups that make up the Republican coalition as a whole, I see the Christian Right as the one we most need on our side and the one that's closest to us ideologically.

But looking at the Republican coalition as a whole, I see a failed party that needs to be reforged. Let the BIG GOVT groups in the Republican coalition leave and let's replace them with people that currently avoid the mess that is the GOP. There are tons of Americans that avoid the whole disgusting Republicrat mess. Those people are the ones we most need on our side, in my opinion.

[parocks]

You must have a different brand of neocons where you live. Here, most of the neocon faction are also Pharicons.

You're using the blanket Ron Paul supporter use of the word neocon, invented in 2007.

Erowe1 is using the original definition from 1973.

Neocon does not equal everyone who doesn't agree with Ron Paul on military issues.

If you're in North Carolina, you don't have many neocons.

The first neocon was Irving Kristol, Bill Kristol's dad. He was famous in 1968 when he supported Humphrey, and it was a big deal when he announced that he'd be supporting Nixon in 1972.

Used in a sentence. Today, most regular GOP agree with the neocon foreign policy.

[GunnyFreedom]

You're using the blanket Ron Paul supporter use of the word neocon, invented in 2007.

Pretty sure I know what a neocon is. :rolleyes:

I will not dignify petty and false assumptions by addressing them. If you actually want to discuss the subject, then you shouldn't do that, because that's offensive.


Erowe1 is using the original definition from 1973.

Neocon does not equal everyone who doesn't agree with Ron Paul on military issues.

If you're in North Carolina, you don't have many neocons.

The first neocon was Irving Kristol, Bill Kristol's dad. He was famous in 1968 when he supported Humphrey, and it was a big deal when he announced that he'd be supporting Nixon in 1972.

Used in a sentence. Today, most regular GOP agree with the neocon foreign policy.

[TheCount]

I wish the liberty movement had the ability to co-opt the gay marriage movement and twist it into a "get government out of marriage" campaign. The political power that they have could be used for good instead of more government intrusion.

It won't happen so long as people like Huckabee want to use government to enforce their religious beliefs on others.

[Christian Liberty]

The moderate GOP establishment is definitely hell bent on being war mongering drug warriors. But I don't see either of those issues as being among the ones the Christian right defines itself with. Of all the candidates in 2008, Huckabee was probably less of both of those things than any of the more socially moderate establishment guys. Pat Robertson is for legalizing marijuana. So are Pat Buchanan and Tom Tancredo. The biggest drug warriors are the neocons, the same Giuliani types that the Christian right wants to distance itself from that we also want to.

I guess this really depends on the person. I know some people who are "Christian right" who are mostly just worried about protecting life and marriage and are either close to libertarians or indifferent to most other issues. But I know others who are hell-bent on more war and making sure drugs are never legalized, as well as being in favor of lots of spying. I'd say I know more people in the second category than the first.

[LibertyEagle]

Please let this happen. If Huck and his army leave, the GOP will be some much more attractive to a much larger group of voters. Huck and his ilk are the Achilles heel of the GOP. Just image if the GOP stood for freedom instead of force and statism according to his version of Christianity.

I don't agree. Huck may very well be an ass, in fact I most assuredly believe he's a big government leftist. But, from reading a lot on the forum his supporters created back when he ran, they are in fact very close to who have been Ron's supporters through the many years before supporting him became the "in" thing. In other words, many of them are great folks who thought Huckabee stood for many of the things that Dr. Paul did, but without the crazy factor. This crazy factor being created mostly by MSM's twisting of Dr. Paul's words, but also from fumbling by Dr. Paul himself, unfortunately.

[Brett85]

If the Christian right left the party we'd be left with a much more 'libertarian' GOP.

Not hardly. The Christian right is generally more libertarian than most other elements of the Republican Party. You would probably just be left with a bunch of Rockefeller Republicans if the Christian right left the party.

[euphemia]

I think it would be very helpful if secular libertarians would be intellectually honest and try to learn more about the faith of their Christian libertarian friends. Most of the Christians I know do quite well at reading the Constitution and applying the principles in a very objective way.

Dr. Paul is a Christian.

[GunnyFreedom]

There is a pretty big difference between Christians and Pharisees, and it would probably serve my fellow Christians well to understand that.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9hICx8JIGg

[Christian Liberty]

I think it would be very helpful if secular libertarians would be intellectually honest and try to learn more about the faith of their Christian libertarian friends. Most of the Christians I know do quite well at reading the Constitution and applying the principles in a very objective way.

Dr. Paul is a Christian.

I hate to rain on the parade here, but I see no reason to think Ron Paul actually understands the gospel after he wrote this:


When I last talked to Murray, a few days before his untimely death, he urged me to run for office again. Recent elections or not, he said, our side needs an uncompromising anti-statist voice in Washington, D.C. The founder of modern libertarianism and an economist, historian, and political philosopher of extravagant accomplishments, Murray also loved—and was an expert in—Dixieland jazz, the religious paintings of the Renaissance, basketball, Baroque church architecture, and the nitty-gritty of politics. With tremendous zest for life and for the battle, he defended our freedom and our property, and built the ideas that are their foundation.

Although a Jew and not a man of faith, he loved Christianity— he was also an expert in theology and church history—and saw it as the source of almost everything good in Western civilization. Murray N. Rothbard is now for the ages. My heart goes out to Joey, his wife of 41 years, and to all of us. We have lost a matchless champion of freedom. But I have no concerns for Murray himself. The Lord God knows His own.


By contrast, John 3:18 says believers are not condemned but unbelievers are condemned.

I love Ron Paul and I think he applies Christian principles to politics better than pretty much any Christian I've ever seen, but if he actually thinks Rothbard is in heaven despite being an atheist I do not actually think he is a Christian.

[Brett85]

There is a pretty big difference between Christians and Pharisees, and it would probably serve my fellow Christians well to understand that.

Mike Huckabee might be a "Pharisee," but not every Christian conservative or social conservative is. Someone like Chuck Baldwin is a Christian conservative and a social conservative, but he's also very much a friend of the liberty movement, and he endorsed Ron Paul twice for President.

[Christian Liberty]

Mike Huckabee might be a "Pharisee," but not every Christian conservative or social conservative is. Someone like Chuck Baldwin is a Christian conservative and a social conservative, but he's also very much a friend of the liberty movement, and he endorsed Ron Paul twice for President.

There's a big difference between Baldwin and Huckabee. Probably bigger than the difference between Baldwin and me.

[Brett85]

There's a big difference between Baldwin and Huckabee. Probably bigger than the difference between Baldwin and me.

But I think the similarity would be that neither one of them would want to belong to a party that supports gay marriage.

[Christian Liberty]

But I think the similarity would be that neither one of them would want to belong to a party that supports gay marriage.

True. Not all who oppose gay marriage are Pharisees.

[Brett85]

For me, the abortion issue is the social issue that I really have a litmus test on. I don't have a litmus test on the gay marriage issue. I wouldn't support the Republican Party if they became a pro choice party, just like I don't support the Libertarian Party because of their pro choice stance on the abortion issue. I wouldn't ever consider joining that party unless they change their stance on that.

[GunnyFreedom]

Mike Huckabee might be a "Pharisee," but not every Christian conservative or social conservative is. Someone like Chuck Baldwin is a Christian conservative and a social conservative, but he's also very much a friend of the liberty movement, and he endorsed Ron Paul twice for President.

Baldwin (as you already know) is not a Pharisee. He does not seek to implement Christian mores at gunpoint. Christianity itself will have a bigger impact on society and individual salvation by driving the Pharisees out of power and influence. Pharisees taking their ball and going home is one of several ways that will happen. The best thing that could happen for the spread and growth of Christianity, is for fake Christians like the Huckster to beat feet. He has too many people fooled about what he actually stands for. The reason he is in a position to fool Christians that he is one of them, is because he has so much power and influence in one of the two Majors. Him going the third party route will accomplish two things -- 1) a more intimate level of communication with his fans will help to unmask him and reveal his true nature, and 2) without the bully pulpit bullhorn actual Christians in the GOP will be less likely to be misled into Phariseeism.

[GunnyFreedom]

I hate to rain on the parade here, but I see no reason to think Ron Paul actually understands the gospel after he wrote this:




By contrast, John 3:18 says believers are not condemned but unbelievers are condemned.

I love Ron Paul and I think he applies Christian principles to politics better than pretty much any Christian I've ever seen, but if he actually thinks Rothbard is in heaven despite being an atheist I do not actually think he is a Christian.

Keep applying that level of judgement, and when it comes time for you to stand in the Judgement don't be surprised if you are denied entry based on the way you comb your hair. "For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again."

[GunnyFreedom]

True. Not all who oppose gay marriage are Pharisees.

Nobody said they were.

[euphemia]

I hate to rain on the parade here, but I see no reason to think Ron Paul actually understands the gospel

Just snipping for brevity. I would not make a judgment on that. It is published that Dr. Paul attends an evangelical church and that his faith informs his thinking and practice.

What I was addressing is the hostility toward Christian libertarians. Many of us here make very reasoned and Constitutional arguments about the balance of faith and Constitutional liberty. True Constitutional liberty gives government limited power, and gives the people the right to self-govern. In order for this to happen, the people must self govern. Failure to do so creates a space the government is only too happy to fill.

Back to the regularly scheduled topic.

[Cutlerzzz]

I don't think Neocons have any fixed position on social issues. Neocons can be socially conservative or liberal.

[euphemia]

Interesting how the labels get thrown around.

[Brett85]

I don't think Neocons have any fixed position on social issues. Neocons can be socially conservative or liberal.

Yes. For instance, Jennifer Rubin has been attacking social conservatives like Huckabee and Cruz for opposing gay marriage and continuing to fight for traditional marriage. Also, Dick Cheney, Rudy Giuliani, Liz Cheney, and John Bolton are all in favor of gay marriage.

[GunnyFreedom]

I don't think Neocons have any fixed position on social issues. Neocons can be socially conservative or liberal.

That's certainly true. Neocons can be either/or. Around here, nearly all the neocons are pharisees, and nearly all the pharisees are neocons.

[Christian Liberty]

Keep applying that level of judgement, and when it comes time for you to stand in the Judgement don't be surprised if you are denied entry based on the way you comb your hair. "For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again."

I hate even posting this because I like Ron Paul so much, but you really think saying "Murray Rothbard is in heaven even though he is an atheist" is actually comparable to combing your hair wrong?

Are there ANY core doctrines in your view, doctrines which no Christian can oppose?


Just snipping for brevity. I would not make a judgment on that. It is published that Dr. Paul attends an evangelical church and that his faith informs his thinking and practice.

What I was addressing is the hostility toward Christian libertarians. Many of us here make very reasoned and Constitutional arguments about the balance of faith and Constitutional liberty. True Constitutional liberty gives government limited power, and gives the people the right to self-govern. In order for this to happen, the people must self govern. Failure to do so creates a space the government is only too happy to fill.

Back to the regularly scheduled topic.

Good points. I'd love to ask Ron about his Rothbard statement if I ever get the chance. I love Rothbard but unfortunately he was an atheist, and thus not saved unless he repented.

[GunnyFreedom]

I hate even posting this because I like Ron Paul so much, but you really think saying "Murray Rothbard is in heaven even though he is an atheist" is actually comparable to combing your hair wrong?

You passed judgement against Paul as "not a Christian" because of his compassion for another man. Having compassion for someone who is not perfect, is in fact less sinful than combing your hair. So yes, the comparison is apt.


Are there ANY core doctrines in your view, doctrines which no Christian can oppose?

I oppose all kinds of different doctrines. I don't cast people into hell for superficial nonsense.

Also, I think it is more than possible that non-Christians can survive the Great White Throne. Not very many of them will, of course, but some. Surviving the Great White Throne does not imply that they will stand before the Bema Seat. There is no opinion in any of that regarding Rothbard. I can't make any kind of judgement of someone whom I never actually met.

[RandallFan]

Rand would definitely lose to Clinton if Huckabee ran third party.

Gary Johnson only got .99%. Huckabee with his bigger profile, a different set of issues and the socons could get 3 or 4% easily.

[RandallFan]

Yes. For instance, Jennifer Rubin has been attacking social conservatives like Huckabee and Cruz for opposing gay marriage and continuing to fight for traditional marriage. Also, Dick Cheney, Rudy Giuliani, Liz Cheney, and John Bolton are all in favor of gay marriage.

None of them are popular with the current GOP primary voters.

Steve King is a big neocon and super popular in a key state. So are Santorum, Huckabee and even Paul Ryan. Im pretty sure Paul Ryan is still a social conservative after coming out in the open as a big spending RINO. Chuck Grassley is a neocon and social conservative.

[Brett85]

Im pretty sure Paul Ryan is still a social conservative after coming out in the open as a big spending RINO.

I don't know. Last year he came out in favor of same sex adoption.

[Legend1104]

I wish the liberty movement had the ability to co-opt the gay marriage movement and twist it into a "get government out of marriage" campaign. The political power that they have could be used for good instead of more government intrusion.

The gay marriage issue is a big government trap. Those that are libertarians that support "allowing" gay marriage are on the wrong side of the issue and it is a trap. We should never believe the government has the right to "allow" marriage because we should never concede that the government is in control over it. I am a Christian and I believe that marriage is an institution sanctioned by God and that gay marriage is anti-Biblical. Thus, I do not believe God honors it and thus it is not really a true marriage, but I don't think the government has anything to do with it. This is actually a great winning point. As more states start to fall for the gay marriage trap, we should be more and more able to convince those on the Christian right that the only way that they can "stop it" is to end government/state sanctioned marriage. You are wrong if you believe that the Christian right leaving the party is good. Rather, we are losing a large potential ally in the fight for freedom. I have seen a lot of my Christian right friends turn on issues of war, big government, etc. I believe that gay marriage is another avenue of the freedom movement that we can win on if we push it the right way.

[Brett85]

The gay marriage issue is a big government trap. Those that are libertarians that support "allowing" gay marriage are on the wrong side of the issue and it is a trap. We should never believe the government has the right to "allow" marriage because we should never concede that the government is in control over it. I am a Christian and I believe that marriage is an institution sanctioned by God and that gay marriage is anti-Biblical. Thus, I do not believe God honors it and thus it is not really a true marriage, but I don't think the government has anything to do with it. This is actually a great winning point. As more states start to fall for the gay marriage trap, we should be more and more able to convince those on the Christian right that the only way that they can "stop it" is to end government/state sanctioned marriage. You are wrong if you believe that the Christian right leaving the party is good. Rather, we are losing a large potential ally in the fight for freedom. I have seen a lot of my Christian right friends turn on issues of war, big government, etc. I believe that gay marriage is another avenue of the freedom movement that we can win on if we push it the right way.

Do you think that Rand will start pushing this position? I don't see why he doesn't. It would make him more popular with younger voters, while at the same time he wouldn't be promoting government recognition of same sex marriages and wouldn't be taking the liberal position on the issue.

[GunnyFreedom]

That's certainly true. Neocons can be either/or. Around here, nearly all the neocons are pharisees, and nearly all the pharisees are neocons.


http://glenbradley.net/share/neopharisees.jpg

[Legend1104]

Do you think that Rand will start pushing this position? I don't see why he doesn't. It would make him more popular with younger voters, while at the same time he wouldn't be promoting government recognition of same sex marriages and wouldn't be taking the liberal position on the issue.

I think that will be the best position he can have but at the moment it seems like he treats the issue like Adrian Monk and a whore house. He ain't going near it.

[William Tell]

Do you think that Rand will start pushing this position? I don't see why he doesn't. It would make him more popular with younger voters, while at the same time he wouldn't be promoting government recognition of same sex marriages and wouldn't be taking the liberal position on the issue.

Rand does not seem to like trying to totally change peoples ways of thinking, like Ron does. It's just not his style it seems. He tries to find common ground. Ron brought up things and ideas most people had never heard of.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Just snipping for brevity. I would not make a judgment on that. It is published that Dr. Paul attends an evangelical church and that his faith informs his thinking and practice.

What I was addressing is the hostility toward Christian libertarians. Many of us here make very reasoned and Constitutional arguments about the balance of faith and Constitutional liberty. True Constitutional liberty gives government limited power, and gives the people the right to self-govern. In order for this to happen, the people must self govern. Failure to do so creates a space the government is only too happy to fill.

Back to the regularly scheduled topic.

You guys must be delusional if you think the Christian 'Values' folks in the GOP are even in the same stadium as libertarianism. You do know where Paul did his worst in 08 and 12 right? The Southern Bible belt where a majority of these folks live. Where did he do the best? In that godless Northeast that everybody hates. Hate to break it to you, but the Christian Values folks in the GOP are rabid authoritarian theocrats for the most part - ready for a second Crusades, a State-based upon the Sharia Christian equivalent, and a host of other Puritanical non-sense. They're not even remotely close to any friend to a libertarian. I regularly get into arguments with these folks, and because their whole entire being is wrapped in the religion, it's impossible to have a rational merit-fact based conversation with these folks. I'll be glad when they leave - just as Goldwater prophesied they'd be a pox on the GOP. I have nothing against Christian libertarians, in fact I am often in much agreement even with some of their theological arguments (Say....Christian Anarchists).

[cindy25]

he is planning to run 3rd party, and needs an excuse? maybe Rand should learn from him

[LibertyEagle]

You guys must be delusional if you think the Christian 'Values' folks in the GOP are even in the same stadium as libertarianism. You do know where Paul did his worst in 08 and 12 right? The Southern Bible belt where a majority of these folks live. Where did he do the best? In that godless Northeast that everybody hates. Hate to break it to you, but the Christian Values folks in the GOP are rabid authoritarian theocrats for the most part - ready for a second Crusades, a State-based upon the Sharia Christian equivalent, and a host of other Puritanical non-sense. They're not even remotely close to any friend to a libertarian. I regularly get into arguments with these folks, and because their whole entire being is wrapped in the religion, it's impossible to have a rational merit-fact based conversation with these folks. I'll be glad when they leave - just as Goldwater prophesied they'd be a pox on the GOP. I have nothing against Christian libertarians, in fact I am often in much agreement even with some of their theological arguments (Say....Christian Anarchists).

You are painting with way too broad a brush. Sure, I agree that there are some who were brought into the Republican Party when Reagan ran, whose sole interest is using big government to shove their own agenda down everyone's throats. But, this is only a small faction. There are many Christians who want our Constitution followed and desire the very limited government that goes along with that.

The Libertarian Party was started by disgruntled conservatives. Many of whom were Christians. I think people have forgotten that.

[LibertyEagle]

Rand does not seem to like trying to totally change peoples ways of thinking, like Ron does. It's just not his style it seems. He tries to find common ground. Ron brought up things and ideas most people had never heard of.

Ron already got those. But, unfortunately, after Larry McDonald died, he lost his biggest conservative friend. From seeing Dr. Paul in both of the last elections, it was clear to me that he had forgotten how to speak in terms that conservatives could hear. Yet, in more than one circumstance, I have seen Rand push the very same ideal to conservatives and see them stand up and cheer, while they had the totally opposite reaction when Ron pushed it. Fact is, Rand is making inroads with people who Ron could not.

[euphemia]

Hate to break it to you, but the Christian Values folks in the GOP are rabid authoritarian theocrats for the most part - ready for a second Crusades, a State-based upon the Sharia Christian equivalent, and a host of other Puritanical non-sense. They're not even remotely close to any friend to a libertarian.

That's a pretty broad brush you are using. Please don't aim in my direction. I am both a Christian and a libertarian. Sweeping generalizations do not help.

[Wooden Indian]

Huckabee threatens to leave GOP over gay marriage

http://memedepot.com/uploads/2000/2339_bye.jpg

[HOLLYWOOD]

So study this whole "GAY" American society... it mounts to ~2% of the population, but 25% of the news and attention. The media and government are yet once again catagorizing and dividing the people on their differences.

Tax Hike Mike Huckabee is just another self enriching media clown to drive groups further apart. The former governor of Arkansas and NEWSCORP puppet would play the part and incite whomever & whatever his masters in media tell him.

Huckabee has made millions over the years at FOX NEWS playing the Divide Game.

[TheCount]

So study this whole "GAY" American society... it mounts to ~2% of the population, but 25% of the news and attention. The media and government are yet once again catagorizing and dividing the people on their differences.

It wouldn't even be an issue if theocrats weren't trying to impose their religious beliefs on their neighbors via violence.

[LibertyEagle]

It wouldn't even be an issue if theocrats weren't trying to impose their religious beliefs on their neighbors via violence.

So, you are advocating more federal government control, eh? Because that is what this is about. Whether the federal government can impose their will on the states.

[TheCount]

So, you are advocating more federal government control, eh? Because that is what this is about. Whether the federal government can impose their will on the states.

Federal government control of marriage was originally instituted by "values voters" trying to prevent interracial marriage. It's their fault twice now.

[Brett85]

It wouldn't even be an issue if theocrats weren't trying to impose their religious beliefs on their neighbors via violence.

I don't recall those who support traditional marriage ever advocating "violence" against homosexuals. I don't recall gay marriage ever being a crime either. I don't recall SWAT teams ever being sent in to break up gay marriage ceremonies and arrest gay couples.

[euphemia]

It wouldn't even be an issue if theocrats weren't trying to impose their religious beliefs on their neighbors via violence.

Excuse me?

[Working Poor]

The thing is many people pushed to legalize gay marriage it is a right now and I think there are far more important issues at hand right now than gay marriage. Like maybe the ever encroaching police state and our military fighting in many different countries. If gays want the government all up in their personal business I say let them have it. And, so what, and who cares if the Huckster is leaving the GOP?

[TheCount]

Excuse me?

You're excused. I didn't realize that you had someplace to be.

[euphemia]

Who is doing that? Who is forcing anything down your throat or accusing you of doing the same with your unbelief?

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

That's a pretty broad brush you are using. Please don't aim in my direction. I am both a Christian and a libertarian. Sweeping generalizations do not help.

Do you self-identify as one of the Christian Values folks? No, then I'm not talking about you - am I? It's like people are totally ignoring that Paul got <3% in the Bible Belt where a majority of these folks live. Meanwhile he gets double digits in NH and ME. Yeah....you can take your Christian Values folks and shove them where the sun don't shine. Let's not forget all those mighty SC Christian folk booing the Golden Rule. Bomb baby Bomb. Kill those brown folk and any and all Muslims. HOLY WAR BABY!

[twomp]

Hey Huckabee, can you take this guy with you when you go?

http://www3.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Ted+Cruz+Christian+Activists+Hold+Rally+Release+_2 wpuF3F2Udl.jpg

[TheCount]

Who is doing that? Who is forcing anything down your throat or accusing you of doing the same with your unbelief?

The government when used as a weapon by those members of the religious right who seek to enforce their beliefs on their neighbors.

I don't see how I can possibly make this more clear.

[euphemia]

The government when used as a weapon by those members of the religious right who seek to enforce their beliefs on their neighbors.

I don't see how I can possibly make this more clear.

I'm not seeing your point. You said religious people used violence to cram religion down your throat, yet you give no proof. Please prove what you are saying and give verifiable sources. You are accusing people of a very serious thing, and that seems not to bother you. That's more of a way to shut down discourse, not promote it. Not exactly liberty minded.

[TheCount]

I'm not seeing your point. You said religious people used violence to cram religion down your throat, yet you give no proof. Please prove what you are saying and give verifiable sources. You are accusing people of a very serious thing, and that seems not to bother you. That's more of a way to shut down discourse, not promote it. Not exactly liberty minded.

Okay, I want to buy liquor on a sunday. I can't, it is illegal. Enforced by the government via violence.

[TheCount]

SECTION 61-4-120.
Sunday sales; exception.

(A) It is unlawful for a person to sell or offer for sale wine or beer in this State between the hours of twelve o'clock Saturday night and sunrise Monday morning.


SECTION 61-4-130.
Seizure of contraband beer or wine; retention of possession upon posting of cash bond; forfeiture of bond.

If beer or wine is sold or delivered to a person from a place of business between the hours of twelve o'clock Saturday night and sunrise Monday morning, all beer and wine found in the place of business is contraband and must be seized by a peace officer and handled as contraband liquor.


SECTION 61-4-140.
Open containers on Sundays.

A person who drinks beer or wine or possesses beer or wine in an open container between the hours of twelve o'clock Saturday night and sunrise Monday morning at a place licensed to sell beer or wine is considered guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, must be fined not more than one hundred dollars or be imprisoned for not more than thirty days.



The special (more expensive) permit required to sell beer and wine in your restaurant on a Sunday is called a Sabbath permit. :rolleyes:

[euphemia]

Okay, I want to buy liquor on a sunday. I can't, it is illegal. Enforced by the government via violence.

#whatafirstworldproblem #getorganizedbeforesunday #buyacalendar

[TheCount]

#whatafirstworldproblem #getorganizedbeforesunday #buyacalendar

#yourreligionenforcedviaviolence #theocracy

[twomp]

#whatafirstworldproblem #getorganizedbeforesunday #buyacalendar
#gotprovenwrong #couldntthinkofabetterreply

[kcchiefs6465]

The special (more expensive) permit required to sell beer and wine in your restaurant on a Sunday is called a Sabbath permit. :rolleyes:
Source?

I googled it and didn't find any references to a "Sabbath Permit."

Not that your point is invalid, I'm simply curious as to if that is what they actually call it.

State I used to live in, no where sold on Sundays. Until a couple did. I'd imagine a more expensive permit (I asked the one liquor store owner and he said most simply opted not to... if I told 99% of the people back there that a store does sell above 40 proof on Sunday they'd bet money against it, sure enough, two stores, and I've been all around the state, did). Here it is not an issue.

[TheCount]

Source?

http://www.sctax.org/NR/rdonlyres/19D77CE3-BBD0-4135-8015-2B4BC57E3006/0/ABL901Pack_03062014.pdf

[euphemia]

#askWalMarttostayopenlater

[kcchiefs6465]

http://www.sctax.org/NR/rdonlyres/19D77CE3-BBD0-4135-8015-2B4BC57E3006/0/ABL901Pack_03062014.pdf
Can't access that site at the moment, thanks though, I'll look at it later.

[kcchiefs6465]

#askWalMarttostayopenlater
You previously (like five posts ago) said something about shutting down discourse...

Is the irony lost on you?

[euphemia]

No. But this is not a case of religious people cramming anything down TheCount's throat. There are laws in his town he doesn't like, so he blames it on all Christians and calls it violence. There is nothing Christian or violent about the law. He's using a false premise to accuse people of something they did not do.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Good riddance, dumbass.

[kcchiefs6465]

No. But this is not a case of religious people cramming anything down TheCount's throat. There are laws in his town he doesn't like, so he blames it on all Christians and calls it violence. There is nothing Christian or violent about the law. He's using a false premise to accuse people of something they did not do.
It's not usually towns, (though sometimes they have stricter ordinances in place), but rather the state itself.

If someone sold liquor on Sunday, in a state that disallowed it, what do you suppose would happen? That it would simply be tolerated and bygones could be bygones? No, the ABC would conduct undercover buys, the store would be fined, their liquor license revoked, and them possibly put in a cage. And if said person decided that they were being persecuted and wished nothing to do with a cage or the fine, what then? Would the ABC agents, and various policing agencies simply say, "Well, let's let bygones be bygones." No, they would forcibly arrest the person. And what if that person resisted said unjust arrest? Well a lot could happen. Needless to say, violence would be used to bring that person into submission or death.

Let's not nitpick on what is actually occurring. If you sell liquor on Sunday in certain states, the government has granted itself, largely because of self-described Christians, the right to murder you.... if need be.

[oyarde]

Where I am , Huck would be a Dem .

[euphemia]

It's not usually towns, (though sometimes they have stricter ordinances in place), but rather the state itself.

If someone sold liquor on Sunday, in a state that disallowed it, what do you suppose would happen? That it would simply be tolerated and bygones could be bygones? No, the ABC would conduct undercover buys, the store would be fined, their liquor license revoked, and them possibly put in a cage. And if said person decided that they were being persecuted and wished nothing to do with a cage or the fine, what then? Would the ABC agents, and various policing agencies simply say, "Well, let's let bygones be bygones." No, they would forcibly arrest the person. And what if that person resisted said unjust arrest? Well a lot could happen. Needless to say, violence would be used to bring that person into submission or death.

Let's not nitpick on what is actually occurring. If you sell liquor on Sunday in certain states, the government has granted itself, largely because of self-described Christians, the right to murder you.... if need be.

Then do something about changing the law. Don't cast a wide net of blame and say Christians are violent because someone forgot to restock the liquor cabinet before Sunday.

This stuff here is why libertarians are losing. They don't hesitate to make up stuff and blame it on people who had nothing to do with it.

[kcchiefs6465]

Then do something about changing the law. Don't cast a wide net of blame and say Christians are violent because someone forgot to restock the liquor cabinet before Sunday.

This stuff here is why libertarians are losing. They don't hesitate to make up stuff and blame it on people who had nothing to do with it.
Umm. Yes, "Christians" in a loose and general sense had everything to do with it. Why Sunday? Why is it not Tuesday that they don't sell liquor? I believe his point was that "Christian values" were being forced upon him. He then proceeded to prove that point, and you, after triumphing discourse, stifled it with Twitter like mockeries (which was rightly called out).

And my gripe isn't so much with not being able to buy liquor in certain states (that I'd never want to step foot in regardless) on Sunday, my gripe is more with the Israel firsters who equate modern day Israel to scripture, actively control the conversation by shear number and ignorance, blindly support the state of Israel as well as other crusades, and actively and often openly promote an apocalypse leading to their supposed rapture.

But it isn't as if Resolutions and Bills pass unanimously to blindly support a particular country because of a certain religious majority's affection for said country. Because then your point would be proven wrong yet again.

[TheCount]

And they call me the troll.

[LibertyEagle]

Okay, I want to buy liquor on a sunday. I can't, it is illegal. Enforced by the government via violence.

Move to a different state then that has laws more to your liking; vote with your feet. Either that, or run for office, or otherwise try to get the law changed where you live.

[TheCount]

Then do something about changing the law. Don't cast a wide net of blame and say Christians are violent because someone forgot to restock the liquor cabinet before Sunday.

I purposely chose something that wasn't a major issue. I imagined you salivating over all the major issues where religious norms are being enforced (see the root word there?) upon the non-religious via government edict. Unlike contraception, marriage, and some educational issues, there is no grey area; I doubt anyone would argue that there is a compelling social problem solved by outlawing liquor sales on Sundays.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

And they call me the troll.


You're still a troll. You're just a heathen lib who sees a troll opening in a thread like this. Nice try, though.

[Christian Liberty]

It's not usually towns, (though sometimes they have stricter ordinances in place), but rather the state itself.

If someone sold liquor on Sunday, in a state that disallowed it, what do you suppose would happen? That it would simply be tolerated and bygones could be bygones? No, the ABC would conduct undercover buys, the store would be fined, their liquor license revoked, and them possibly put in a cage. And if said person decided that they were being persecuted and wished nothing to do with a cage or the fine, what then? Would the ABC agents, and various policing agencies simply say, "Well, let's let bygones be bygones." No, they would forcibly arrest the person. And what if that person resisted said unjust arrest? Well a lot could happen. Needless to say, violence would be used to bring that person into submission or death.

Let's not nitpick on what is actually occurring. If you sell liquor on Sunday in certain states, the government has granted itself, largely because of self-described Christians, the right to murder you.... if need be.

Even many theonomists would disagree with such laws per Romans 14:5. I agree with you that those laws are awful. I don't like that many Christians support those laws either. Even during my minarchist days I remember someone (older guy) suggesting reinstating blue laws in a Sunday School class once, and while it was someone I otherwise respect, I was disappointed that the comment wasn't corrected. His intentions were good (from my standpoint), he wanted people to go to church, but an unjust means to an end is just not OK.

[TheCount]

Move to a different state then that has laws more to your liking; vote with your feet.

Oh, I will. I'm here for work, and when the opportunity comes, I'll be gone.

Changing the law is incredibly unlikely. There's a lot of money involved. The state profits from licenses, restaurants and bars profit from having a monopoly on alcohol sales on Sundays, the number of licenses is limited (and grandfathered) so there's a barrier to entry to opening a new restaurant or bar, and also there's an exception for wine that's made in the state. You can imagine how many lobbying groups are involved there, above and beyond the religious groups. No one will ever touch that law.

[euphemia]

I purposely chose something that wasn't a major issue. I imagined you salivating over all the major issues where religious norms are being enforced (see the root word there?) upon the non-religious via government edict. Unlike contraception, marriage, and some educational issues, there is no grey area; I doubt anyone would argue that there is a compelling social problem solved by outlawing liquor sales on Sundays.

But you are blaming Christians for something they have nothing to do with. How do you know Christians are enforcing the law? It might be non-Christians for all you know, yet you blame Christians because you can't buy liquor on Sunday.

Instead of whining about not being able to buy liquor on Sunday, either buy a calendar or ask your city council to change the law. Don't get mad at people who had nothing to do with this.

And play the sports card. It is amazing what a sports franchise can do to change laws. It happened here. I think it was a dumb thing to do because either it's okay for people to purchase liquor on Sunday or it isn't. Don't change the law to affect only people who are wealthy enough to buy season tickets for pro football.

[oyarde]

Oh, I will. I'm here for work, and when the opportunity comes, I'll be gone.

Changing the law is incredibly unlikely. There's a lot of money involved. The state profits from licenses, restaurants and bars profit from having a monopoly on alcohol sales on Sundays, the number of licenses is limited (and grandfathered) so there's a barrier to entry to opening a new restaurant or bar, and also there's an exception for wine that's made in the state. You can imagine how many lobbying groups are involved there, above and beyond the religious groups. No one will ever touch that law.The liquor store owners do not want to have to be open on Sun.

[kcchiefs6465]

The liquor store owners do not want to have to be open on Sun.
I'm sure a few do.

Especially this time of year.

[Natural Citizen]

I think of Huckabee in the way that I think of Cruz. I just don't like his general vibe. And I almost always end up correct whenever I make those kinds of assessments with regard to the energy of a person. That's probably all I have to say about Mike Huckabee. Next...

[euphemia]

I do not generally appreciate people who choose a single issue or a group of issues to try to get support. It means they focus more on those issues than the general principles of Constitutional liberty. It goes both ways abortion, same-sex marriage, government mandated health insurance.

It is not the issue, but how one views the role of government that frames the real libertarian. That's why I never turn in those polls the Republicans send out. Establishment Republicans believe in government permissions and protections that are outside the framework of the Constitution.

[rg17]

Good, take all of the neocons with him.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Instead of whining...

TheCount isn't whining; he's trolling. Just look at his posting history. He probably couldn't care less about liquor on Sunday.

TheCount is just trying to ingratiate himself to a portion of RPF so that his trolling goes undetected. He even picked up on some liberty vocabulary like violence from the state.:rolleyes:

His trolling is basic stuff. He sees an opening, and he jumps in. His motivation for being on this forum is an attempt to belittle people. Just take a look at his posting history. His motivation in this thread is his disdain for religious people. It has nothing to do with liberty. He probably never even heard of concepts like state violence before being on this thread. Government is his god.

[TheCount]

The liquor store owners do not want to have to be open on Sun.

They don't seem to mind in other, saner states.

[Christian Liberty]

No. But this is not a case of religious people cramming anything down TheCount's throat. There are laws in his town he doesn't like, so he blames it on all Christians and calls it violence. There is nothing Christian or violent about the law. He's using a false premise to accuse people of something they did not do.


To quote Bastiat "the law is force."

I'm not saying blame Christians for this (heck I'm a Christian myself, and one of the most vocal on this forum) but it is violent, and unfortunately, its predominately Christians that support this law in particular.

[euphemia]

I'm not willing to go that far.

In my opinion, there probably was a time when blue laws were necessary. I tend to think most laws should not be open ended. There should be a date certain when that law is brought up for review. if there is no longer a need for the law, or if there have been successive laws attempting to go around existing law, then the original law and all auxiliarly law should go away.

Such is the law in my town. Stores cannot sell liquor on Sundays, and restaurants can't sell before noon on Sundays. Until a sports franchilse came to town and now that place can sell liquor whenever it wants, but restaurants and stores still have the restriction. That's just dumb and it applies the law unequally. It should be abolished so everyone can sell.

Ironically, the county where Jack Daniels is made is a dry county. Even the distillery can't sell their own product unless they have a specially taxed bottle. They call it commemorative. Again, that's just dumb.

[Brett85]

It's not usually towns, (though sometimes they have stricter ordinances in place), but rather the state itself.

If someone sold liquor on Sunday, in a state that disallowed it, what do you suppose would happen? That it would simply be tolerated and bygones could be bygones? No, the ABC would conduct undercover buys, the store would be fined, their liquor license revoked, and them possibly put in a cage. And if said person decided that they were being persecuted and wished nothing to do with a cage or the fine, what then? Would the ABC agents, and various policing agencies simply say, "Well, let's let bygones be bygones." No, they would forcibly arrest the person. And what if that person resisted said unjust arrest? Well a lot could happen. Needless to say, violence would be used to bring that person into submission or death.

Let's not nitpick on what is actually occurring. If you sell liquor on Sunday in certain states, the government has granted itself, largely because of self-described Christians, the right to murder you.... if need be.

What evidence do you have that only "Christians" support laws banning liquor sales on Sunday?

[euphemia]

Just so you all know, not all Christians agree on liquor laws.

[Brett85]

The liquor store owners do not want to have to be open on Sun.

I've talked to liquor store owners who support laws banning liquor sales on Sunday, because doing away with those laws would force them to be open, and they like to have a day off. These people actually go out and vote against allowing liquor sales on Sunday when the issue is on the ballot and voted on.

[GunnyFreedom]

#whatafirstworldproblem #getorganizedbeforesunday #buyacalendar

Just because you don't personally care about a person's liberty, doesn't mean that freedom should be considered irrelevant. And I am a hard-core Christian. Maybe you don't care about Sunday liquor sales or blue laws. Frankly, neither do I. Nevertheless, it is an example of gunpoint moralizing, and the practice ought to be abolished.

[GunnyFreedom]

I've talked to liquor store owners who support laws banning liquor sales on Sunday, because doing away with those laws would force them to be open, and they like to have a day off. These people actually go out and vote against allowing liquor sales on Sunday when the issue is on the ballot and voted on.

You know that's silly, right? Hire a minimum wage flunky to watch the shop on Sundays and chances are you make way more profit than being closed, and you never climbed out of your pajamas.

[Brett85]

You know that's silly, right? Hire a minimum wage flunky to watch the shop on Sundays and chances are you make way more profit than being closed, and you never climbed out of your pajamas.

You might be right. I don't know. I just know that the guy who owns a liquor store in my town has said that he doesn't want liquor sales to be allowed on Sunday. I'm not in favor of these laws, but many liquor store owners are.

[euphemia]

Hey, I'm not arguing about whether liquor stores should be open Sundays or whether stores and restaurants should be able to sell before noon on Sundays. I'm saying that Christians cannot be blamed for the extremes to which government goes to enforce laws that maybe shouldn't be there in the first place. Not all Christians agree on the use and sale of alcohol. In the meantime, get organized and buy your liquor on a different day.

Christians have been specifically targeted by this administration by the IRS and Obamacare. We get it. It's a misuse of power.

[GunnyFreedom]

But you are blaming Christians for something they have nothing to do with. How do you know Christians are enforcing the law? It might be non-Christians for all you know, yet you blame Christians because you can't buy liquor on Sunday.

Instead of whining about not being able to buy liquor on Sunday, either buy a calendar or ask your city council to change the law. Don't get mad at people who had nothing to do with this.

And play the sports card. It is amazing what a sports franchise can do to change laws. It happened here. I think it was a dumb thing to do because either it's okay for people to purchase liquor on Sunday or it isn't. Don't change the law to affect only people who are wealthy enough to buy season tickets for pro football.

I like you, but this is a horrible argument. "Don't like a law based on a religous more? Well, deal with it."

One of the reasons I respect the liberty movement so much is because we fight to defend freedoms for others that we ourselves individually may not care about. I am a hard-core Christian and I am still capable of defending the liberties of other people that I do not myself care about. This argument reminds me of the status quo people saying, "Don't like drug prohibition? Well then, don't do drugs!"

That's just not the way liberty works.

[GunnyFreedom]

You might be right. I don't know. I just know that the guy who owns a liquor store in my town has said that he doesn't want liquor sales to be allowed on Sunday. I'm not in favor of these laws, but many liquor store owners are.

They are either being blinded by the "we've always done it this way" thing, or they are taking a political position that they may or may not necessarily agree with because they worry that advocating the repeal of blue laws would negatively impact their sales due to anger from the churches.

[GunnyFreedom]

Hey, I'm not arguing about whether liquor stores should be open Sundays or whether stores and restaurants should be able to sell before noon on Sundays. I'm saying that Christians cannot be blamed for the extremes to which government goes to enforce laws that maybe shouldn't be there in the first place. Not all Christians agree on the use and sale of alcohol. In the meantime, get organized and buy your liquor on a different day.

Christians have been specifically targeted by this administration by the IRS and Obamacare. We get it. It's a misuse of power.

The laws exist in the first place because of gunpoint moralizers, specifically ones calling themselves "Christians." Otherwise the banned day would be Saturday, or Friday, or Tuesday, or whatever. That was the salient point of the argument. It wasn't the Darwin Club who wrote and passed Blue Laws.

[kcchiefs6465]

Hey, I'm not arguing about whether liquor stores should be open Sundays or whether stores and restaurants should be able to sell before noon on Sundays. I'm saying that Christians cannot be blamed for the extremes to which government goes to enforce laws that maybe shouldn't be there in the first place. Not all Christians agree on the use and sale of alcohol. In the meantime, get organized and buy your liquor on a different day.

Christians have been specifically targeted by this administration by the IRS and Obamacare. We get it. It's a misuse of power.
Well I don't agree with Christians being targeted by this administration if they even should not be targeted by this administration but until the day comes where they aren't targeted, get organized. Don't go to H&R Block, hire qualified CPAs. Save receipts.

Either that or move. Moving usually works. Just pack up all your belongings, separate from your family, and go somewhere where Christians aren't being targeted.

I mean seriously, what's the big deal?

[GunnyFreedom]

My solution to the dilemma, is that I refuse to consider people who would hold a gun to someone elses head and demand that they behave according to their understanding of 'morality' are not Christians at all, they are pharisees. I have zero problem with Christians wielding influence in government. I have a HUGE problem with pharisees wielding influence in government.

[kcchiefs6465]

I've talked to liquor store owners who support laws banning liquor sales on Sunday, because doing away with those laws would force them to be open, and they like to have a day off. These people actually go out and vote against allowing liquor sales on Sunday when the issue is on the ballot and voted on.
And why would this person be forced to have their store open on Sunday, again?

Are you referring to states where you have to go to a "State Store" to buy liquor?

If so, that problem could be solved rather easily.

[euphemia]

I like you, but this is a horrible argument. "Don't like a law based on a religous more? Well, deal with it."

Except that's not what I said. There is no proof that *existing* laws and their penalties are based on religious mores. My church certainly doesn't teach that, and never has. Our own family has to make our own choices based on what the laws are. If I am buying more than two cans of spray paint, I have to have ID. Do I like that? No. I always pay cash so I don't need to carry a license into the store--especially if I didn't drive there. But I know the law and if I want paint, I have to produce ID. Even if I am working on a project for church, which is nobody's business anyway.

I'm furious about the laws dealng with allergy medication. I have very serious allergies and need decongestants almost all the time. I am seriously being harmed by laws limiting purchases of pseudoephedrine. I consider this an infringement of my liberty. I have to manage my serious health issues because someone wants to abuse the substance. That's way more of an infringement than limiting alcohol sales one day a week.

Believe me, I get it. I'm not blaming huffers and meth heads for the infringement of liberty. That rests squarely with our state legislature and the governor.

[kcchiefs6465]

Except that's not what I said. There is no proof that *existing* laws and their penalties are based on religious mores.
Why is the day Sunday?

I could think of a few reasons why a liquor store would rather be closed on a Tuesday than on a Sunday. It being mandated from selling liquor on Sunday seems a little bit coincidental to a certain religion's Holy Day and most probably has its roots with a rather religious temperance movement of do gooders.

[Brett85]

And why would this person be forced to have their store open on Sunday, again?

I think they would feel like they would be forced to open on Sunday in order to compete with bars and restaurants that serve alcohol.

[GunnyFreedom]

Except that's not what I said. There is no proof that *existing* laws and their penalties are based on religious mores.

Seriously? SERIOUSLY??



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_law

Blue laws —known also as Sunday laws—are laws designed to restrict or ban some or all Sunday activities for religious standards, particularly the observance of a day of worship or rest.

...

Some Islamic nations may ban on Fridays.

...

In the United States, the U.S. Supreme Court have held blue laws as constitutional numerous times due to secular rationales, even though the origin of the blue laws were for religious purposes.

...

In his 1781 book General History of Connecticut, the Reverend Samuel Peters (1735–1826) used it to describe various laws first enacted by Puritan colonies in the 17th century that prohibited various activities, recreational as well as commercial, on Sunday (Saturday evening through Sunday night).

...

As Protestant moral reformers organized the Sabbath reform in nineteenth-century America, calls for the enactment and/or enforcement of stricter Sunday laws developed. Numerous Americans were arrested for working, keeping an open shop, drinking alcohol, traveling, and recreating on Sundays.

...

Canada
The Lord's Day Act, which since 1906 had prohibited business transactions from taking place on Sundays, was declared unconstitutional in the 1985 case R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd. Calgary police officers witnessed several transactions at the Big M Drug Mart, all of which occurred on a Sunday.



You don't seriously believe that blue laws have no religious origin??? Please tell me that you are just arguing that in an attempt to deflect the point, and that you don't actually believe that Sunday Laws have no Christian origin. Surely you are smarter than that.


My church certainly doesn't teach that, and never has. Our own family has to make our own choices based on what the laws are. If I am buying more than two cans of spray paint, I have to have ID. Do I like that? No. I always pay cash so I don't need to carry a license into the store--especially if I didn't drive there. But I know the law and if I want paint, I have to produce ID. Even if I am working on a project for church, which is nobody's business anyway.

I'm furious about the laws dealng with allergy medication. I have very serious allergies and need decongestants almost all the time. I am seriously being harmed by laws limiting purchases of pseudoephedrine. I consider this an infringement of my liberty. I have to manage my serious health issues because someone wants to abuse the substance. That's way more of an infringement than limiting alcohol sales one day a week.

Believe me, I get it. I'm not blaming huffers and meth heads for the infringement of liberty. That rests squarely with our state legislature.

[GunnyFreedom]

I'm furious about the laws dealng with allergy medication. I have very serious allergies and need decongestants almost all the time. I am seriously being harmed by laws limiting purchases of pseudoephedrine. I consider this an infringement of my liberty. I have to manage my serious health issues because someone wants to abuse the substance. That's way more of an infringement than limiting alcohol sales one day a week.

So, liberty only matters when it' something that you, personally, care about? If it's something that you, personally, don't care about then it just doesn't matter? So I take it that you are the only real person in the universe, and everyone else is just a figment of the imagination?

[kcchiefs6465]

I think they would feel like they would be forced to open on Sunday in order to compete with bars and restaurants that serve alcohol.
I would imagine that it would be rather lucrative for them considering bars and restaurants have higher premiums. Especially during football season and holidays.

"State Stores" might be forced to be open on Sunday though in some states (I'm not sure) and that would obviously be ridiculous.

[euphemia]

You can blame it on relgious people all you want, but you cannot say that blue laws are anything other than an oportunistic and deliberate intrusion into the personal liberties of citizens. They are not the product of a Christian government because we have never had one. I do not believe for a minute that Christians ran the governments that passed them. Religious mores might have been an excuse to pass them, but they were progressive attitudes designed to control people.

Read a little deeper. I do not believe that personal liberties should be infringed. I think all law should be applied equally. Legal products should be legal every day.

In the meantime, manage life so the law doesn't get in the way and work to get the law changed.

[euphemia]

We live in a secular day and age. If secular government wanted to change those laws, it could. Unfortunately, it's easier to control people than to write laws that apply fairly to everyone.

That's why I say *existing* law.

[GunnyFreedom]

You can blame it on relgious people all you want, but you cannot say that blue laws are anything other than an oportunistic and deliberate intrusion into the personal liberties of citizens. They are not the product of a Christian government because we have never had one. I do not believe for a minute that Christians ran the governments that passed them.

You really need to go back and re-study history. Just because I am a hard-core Christian does not mean that I turn a blind eye to the massively stupid and counterproductive things that Christians have done in the past.

Right now you are denying blatantly obvious truths that even the vast majority of Christians recognize. That is actually harmful to the Great Commission because from the outside it makes it look like Christians are divorced from reality, making the uptake of the Christian faith appear deeply unattractive to rational people.


Religious mores might have been an excuse to pass them, but they were progressive attitudes designed to control people.

Read a little deeper. I do not believe that personal liberties should be infringed. I think all law should be applied equally. Legal products should be legal every day.

In the meantime, manage life so the law doesn't get in the way and work to get the law changed.

And you are dodging the point. You claimed that there was no example of "christians" enforcing morality at gunpoint. (I use "christians" because I do not believe that an actual Christian would hold a gun to someone's head and demand that they behave morally.) Blue Laws are a clear and unequivocal example of nominal "christians" doing just that.

You are doing the Christian Faith no favors to subsist in denial of reality.

[TheCount]

Except that's not what I said. There is no proof that *existing* laws and their penalties are based on religious mores.

Wow. Just... wow. Really?


The law of the colonies to the time of the Revolution and the basis of the Sunday laws in the States was 29 Charles II, c. 7 (1677). It provided, in part:

"For the better observation and keeping holy the Lord's day, commonly called Sunday: be it enacted . . . that all the laws enacted and in force concerning the observation of the day, and repairing to the church thereon, be carefully put in execution; and that all and every person and persons whatsoever shall upon every Lord's day apply themselves to the observation of the same, by exercising themselves thereon in the duties of piety and true religion, publicly and privately; and that no tradesman, artificer, workman, laborer, or other person whatsoever, shall do or exercise any worldly labor or business or work of their ordinary callings upon the Lord's day, or any part thereof (works of necessity and charity only excepted); . . . and that no person or persons whatsoever shall publicly cry, show forth, or expose for sale any wares, merchandise, fruit, herbs, goods, or chattels, whatsoever, upon the Lord's day, or any part thereof. . . ."


And then:



84. A Bill for Punishing Disturbers of Religious Worship and Sabbath Breakers

...
If any person on Sunday shall himself be found labouring at his own or any other trade or calling, or shall employ his apprentices, servants or slaves in labour, or other business, except it be in the ordinary houshold offices of daily necessity, or other work of necessity or charity, he shall forfeit the sum of ten shillings for every such offence, deeming every apprentice, servant, or slave so employed, and every day he shall be so employed as constituting a distinct offence.


http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-02-02-0132-0004-0084


And that's how we ended up with this:


Appellants, employees of a large department store on a highway in Anne Arundel County, Md., were convicted and fined in a Maryland State Court for selling on Sunday a loose-leaf binder, a can of floor wax, a stapler, staples and a toy, in violation of Md. Ann. Code, Art. 27, 521, which generally prohibits the sale on Sunday of all merchandise.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=366&invol=420

[TheCount]

I think they would feel like they would be forced to open on Sunday in order to compete with bars and restaurants that serve alcohol.

You have a very strange definition of forced.

[Natural Citizen]

There are places in America where business owners can legally refuse doing business with a non-christian based solely upon their religious conscience. There are some threads around here specific to said states/counties and laws that are on the books. I'm not looking for them, though. This is just the first thread that I've read since logging on and so recalled the skullduggery.

[TheCount]

I do not believe for a minute that Christians ran the governments that passed them. Religious mores might have been an excuse to pass them, but they were progressive attitudes designed to control people.

How progressive do you think the Virginia legislature was in 1779?

[Brett85]

You have a very strange definition of forced.

I'm just explaining what some liquor store owners have said about the issue.

[GunnyFreedom]

There are places in America where business owners can legally refuse doing business with a non-christian based solely upon their religious conscience. There are some threads around here specific to said states/counties and laws that are on the books. I'm not looking for them, though. This is just the first thread that I've read since logging on and so recalled the skullduggery.

What's wrong with a private non-Christian citizen, refusing to do business with Christians?

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

You can blame it on relgious people all you want, but you cannot say that blue laws are anything other than an oportunistic and deliberate intrusion into the personal liberties of citizens. They are not the product of a Christian government because we have never had one. I do not believe for a minute that Christians ran the governments that passed them. Religious mores might have been an excuse to pass them, but they were progressive attitudes designed to control people.

Read a little deeper. I do not believe that personal liberties should be infringed. I think all law should be applied equally. Legal products should be legal every day.

In the meantime, manage life so the law doesn't get in the way and work to get the law changed.

So do you not consider the Plymouth colony a Christian ran Government? I'm certainly ameniable to the Christian anarchist folks and it is probably the correct interpretation of Jesus' teachings, but honestly, you doth protest a bit too much. Can't you just accept that at the very least it is people proclaiming themselves believers in Jesus doing it in his name and Bible, no? I get along just fine with Gunny. Unlike you, he knows I'm not talking about him when I talk about Christian Values folks in the GOP. You seem to think that any criticism of their behavior and morays are reflective of you. You also keep dismissing the fact that Paul did the absolute worst in the Bible Belt where these people come from. Yet, ungodly, hedonistic, NH and ME (and the Western States too mind you) Paul did the best in. In all of history, the books are more than clear - for the most part I'd rather be around the outlaws and pioneers, who have more often than not, not been Christians (certainly more-so the outlaws). Can you accept that your view and position is the minority - and help us fight together to rid us of those folks who give your religion a terrible impression and name, or are you going to reflexively defend them as if I am talking specifically about you?

[Natural Citizen]

What's wrong with a private non-Christian citizen, refusing to do business with Christians?

Shouldn't need the government to enforce personal bias via legislation in my view. They can do what they want as far as I'm concerned. But they don't need the government to enforce religious prejudice. Why do you tinker with me, Gunny Freedom? I just said I didn't feel like bumping those threads but now I kind of have to go and do that just so the issue , if it is to be debated, can be done so from within the more relevant context.

[GunnyFreedom]

So do you not consider the Plymouth colony a Christian ran Government? I'm certainly ameniable to the Christian anarchist folks and it is probably the correct interpretation of Jesus' teachings, but honestly, you doth protest a bit too much. Can't you just accept that at the very least it is people proclaiming themselves believers in Jesus doing it in his name and Bible, no? I get along just fine with Gunny. Unlike you, he knows I'm not talking about him when I talk about Christian Values folks in the GOP. You seem to think that any criticism of their behavior and morays are reflective of you. You also keep dismissing the fact that Paul did the absolute worst in the Bible Belt where these people come from. Yet, ungodly, hedonistic, NH and ME (and the Western States too mind you) Paul did the best in. In all of history, the books are more than clear - for the most part I'd rather be around the outlaws and pioneers, who have more often than not, not been Christians (certainly more-so the outlaws). Can you accept that your view and position is the minority - and help us fight together to rid us of those folks who give your religion a terrible impression and name, or are you going to reflexively defend them as if I am talking specifically about you?

Aye, I do however wish you would be more cognizant of the fact that despite calling themselves "Christians," gunpoint moralists are about as far from Christ as it gets. I call them "gunpoint moralists," "pharisees" or "pharicons" (for pharisee conservatives). We clearly recognize that a hyper-authoritarian is not 'libertarian' even if they should call themselves such, and we would not typically refer to that person as a 'libertarian' even if they claimed the title.

This is not a "no true scotsman" fallacy, because there are, in fact, "true scotsmen." However, a Korean is clearly not a Scotsman, even if he should call himself one. Recognizing that is not fallacious.

[GunnyFreedom]

Shouldn't need the government to enforce personal bias via legislation in my view. They can do what thay want as far as I'm concerned. But they don't need the government to enforce religious prejudice. Why do you tinker with me, Gunny Freedom? I just said I didn't feel like bumping those threads but now I kind of have to go and do that just so the issue , if it is to be debated, can be done so from within the more relevant context.

It appeared to me in your post that you were complaining about Christian business owners who refused to do business with non-Christians. Such a thing doesn't bother me at all, and in an attempt to illustrate that I put the shoe on the other foot, to demonstrate that I have not problem with the reverse situation either, despite being Christian myself.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Aye, I do however wish you would be more cognizant of the fact that despite calling themselves "Christians," gunpoint moralists are about as far from Christ as it gets. I call them "gunpoint moralists," "pharisees" or "pharicons" (for pharisee conservatives). We clearly recognize that a hyper-authoritarian is not 'libertarian' even if they should call themselves such, and we would not typically refer to that person as a 'libertarian' even if they claimed the title.

This is not a "no true scotsman" fallacy, because there are, in fact, "true scotsmen." However, a Korean is clearly not a Scotsman, even if he should call himself one. Recognizing that is not fallacious.

Yeah, but that wasn't what I was aiming at. I'm going to refer to these people by what they self-identify as, even if it is egregiously not what they are. Just as I'd mock 'Libertarian' Bill Maher, I do so these folks. However, you have to understand that for most of Christianities history - that's what most of its adherents have done. Use force and the State as their bully stick. That was my point about how Paul has fared in the 'Bible Belt', and the booing of the Golden Rule. To say these people are our 'best ally' in the GOP is such a laughingstock as to render myself in complete state of humor hysteria (as what Tobis did). I'd much rather stake myself with the GOP folks in NH and ME for instance (if I absolutely had to) than to the folks in Alabama and South Carolina. Guess where there are more so-called 'Christian's' living and voting?

[Natural Citizen]

It appeared to me in your post that you were complaining about Christian business owners who refused to do business with non-Christians. Such a thing doesn't bother me at all, and in an attempt to illustrate that I put the shoe on the other foot, to demonstrate that I have not problem with the reverse situation either, despite being Christian myself.

Oh. Yeah, I wasn't complaining, per se. Was just a matter of fact kind of scribble there in my posting. Any more I'm just like screw it...whatever. Do you ever get like that?

[GunnyFreedom]

Yeah, but that wasn't what I was aiming at. I'm going to refer to these people by what they self-identify as, even if it is egregiously not what they are. Just as I'd mock 'Libertarian' Bill Maher, I do so these folks. However, you have to understand that for most of Christianities history - that's what most of its adherents have done. Use force and the State as their bully stick. That was my point about how Paul has fared in the 'Bible Belt', and the booing of the Golden Rule. To say these people are our 'best ally' in the GOP is such a laughingstock as to render myself in complete state of humor hysteria (as what Tobis did). I'd much rather stake myself with the GOP folks in NH and ME for instance (if I absolutely had to) than to the folks in Alabama and South Carolina. Guess where there are more so-called 'Christian's' living and voting?

Well, to be fair, an actual Christian would be Paul's greatest ally. Problem is only some 1-3% of nominal "christians" bear any kind of resemblance to Christ at all.

BOTH points are valid. The fact that an actual Christ-like Christian would be Paul's greatest ally is 100% true. The fact that the majority of those claiming the title "christian" are Paul's biggest enemies, is also 100% true. In order to arrive at the truth in this particular debate, it is important to distinguish between nominal christians and Christ-like Christians, otherwise you have two groups arguing without realizing they are arguing from different premises. That's an exercise in futility.

[GunnyFreedom]

Oh. Yeah, I wasn't complaining, per se. Was just a matter of fact kind of scribble there in my posting. Any more I'm just like screw it...whatever. Do you ever get like that?

To be honest, not that I know of. I mean, sometimes I will interject salient facts that I am personally neutral on, but which I feel are important to the discussion at hand -- which may have been what you were going for -- but I just didn't perceive a fundamental relevance to statutory enforced morality in private market discrimination...except to say that laws banning private market discrimination are themselves a form of moral enforcement initiated by values arising from a philosophy other than Christian.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Wow. Just... wow. Really?





I know, right? Wow, you hit the jackpot! You'll probably even pick up a + rep or even two. This thread will go a long way to disguise your real intent of trolling on this board. Except that you'll continue to get neg reps from me. Wow!

[Ender]

I wish the liberty movement had the ability to co-opt the gay marriage movement and twist it into a "get government out of marriage" campaign. The political power that they have could be used for good instead of more government intrusion.

Exactly my POV.

Gov does NOT belong in marriage and what consenting adults do should be their business and not the government's.

[Christian Liberty]

My solution to the dilemma, is that I refuse to consider people who would hold a gun to someone elses head and demand that they behave according to their understanding of 'morality' are not Christians at all, they are pharisees. I have zero problem with Christians wielding influence in government. I have a HUGE problem with pharisees wielding influence in government.

My, this is bold. Where do you draw the line? How much statism can a so-called Christian support before they aren't one?

The biggest struggle I have WRT politics is whether people who are pro-war should be considered Christian. I have posted on this before. I've pretty much given up on actually expecting most people to think through the implicit violence behind "safety' laws and the like, even though its really obvious.

\

[Ender]

My, this is bold. Where do you draw the line? How much statism can a so-called Christian support before they aren't one?

The biggest struggle I have WRT politics is whether people who are pro-war should be considered Christian. I have posted on this before. I've pretty much given up on actually expecting most people to think through the implicit violence behind "safety' laws and the like, even though its really obvious.

\

Well, Jesus was an anarchist- so should be an easy answer. ;)

[TheCount]

I know, right? Wow, you hit the jackpot! You'll probably even pick up a + rep or even two. This thread will go a long way to disguise your real intent of trolling on this board. Except that you'll continue to get neg reps from me. Wow!

The reputation system must mean a lot to you.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

The reputation system must mean a lot to you.


It must mean a lot to you when your sock puppet accounts rep one another.

[TheCount]

It must mean a lot to you when your sock puppet accounts rep one another.

Provably untrue. Please discuss it with the site staff; they have my permission to give you a list of all the people I've ever repped.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Provably untrue.

LOL.



Please discuss it with the site staff; they have my permission to give you a list of all the people I've ever repped.


Why don't you want to discuss it? You're not even sure if it's true or not.

I can help you if you'll let me.

[bunklocoempire]

Since we all know that TAX HIKE MIKE Huckabee is FOR SALE...


I say he goes Independent to split the conservative vote, so the Marxist can have their Radical Progressive Hillery in office... her husband won with only 40% of the voters.

This.

[satchelmcqueen]

buh bye huck. word of warning though. the independents wont have your lying ass.

[TheCount]

Bump: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?462841-Brewery-Serves-15-Soup-with-a-Fork-to-Skirt-Liquor-Law

[Natural Citizen]

Bump: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?462841-Brewery-Serves-15-Soup-with-a-Fork-to-Skirt-Liquor-Law

I was listening to a recent discussion on the evangelical conservatives and what needed to be done to kind of keep them around. It's some place in here. Toward the middle maybe. Of course, we still see 50% of voters leaving both establishment parties all together with 3rd party/independent candidates receiving upwards of 30% of the vote in their respective races which is historic so the GOP remains in crisis. May need to work better with the evangelicals to stay above water.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQwocJaAz_Y#t=307

[GunnyFreedom]

I was listening to a recent discussion on the evangelical conservatives and what needed to be done to kind of keep them around. It's some place in here. Toward the middle maybe. Of course, we still see 50% of voters leaving both establishment parties all together with 3rd party/independent candidates receiving upwards of 30% of the vote in their respective races which is historic so the GOP remains in crisis. May need to work better with the evangelicals to stay above water.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQwocJaAz_Y#t=307

The biggest problem with Evangelicals is totally out of our control. Nearly all Evangelical churches are 501(c)3 for whom government is god rather than God. Because they want an all powerful god, they advocate for the country to go around killing people. They may call themselves "Evangelicals" but they have absolutely nothing to do with Christ. Until we end 501(c)3 and restore the Church, or until there is some kind of great Revival, I'm sorry but i can't imagine these people supporting anything but Satan. Remember, these are the same people who booed the Golden Rule in South Carolina in early 2012.