Conversation Between jmdrake and Christian Liberty

16 Visitor Messages

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
  1. At least until every county or so willingly decided to submit to Christ, which I think will happen eventually because I'm a postmillennialist.
  2. I wish things were a lot more local too. I'm really not looking for a country of 300 million at all. I think that's too big. Those who didn't want to live by Christian law could live somewhere else and choose God's judgment over his blessings.
  3. And while I do believe the BIble requires civil authorities to punish homosexuality, and with death as the maximum penalty, I don't think it would be legitimate even for the government to just round up people in a gay bar.

    My reasons on the bearing arms bit are much closer to yours (resistance against tyranny.)
  4. To be perfectly clear, I absolutely oppose vigilantism. I know you were joking around but I just want you to be clear on where I stand.
  5. I just about lost it with Sola.... I don't even know what the heck he's doing now. It takes a lot to get me to side with any Arminian over a Calvinist (if they call themselves that or not) in a theological debate... but I seriously just about lost it. At least the OTC people he got his theology from are consistent with their bizarre formulation... Sola is inconsistent with it and doesn't actually know what he's trying to argue for. Its maddening. I'm about ready to block him for driving me nuts
  6. You greatly overestimate my desire to stone people
  7. We're basically not allowed to criticize Rand in his subforum. Its not just that its not considered acceptable, its downright forbidden in at least some cases.

    As for the strategic end, Rand is not going to suddenly get more libertarian if/when he gets elected. That seems obvious to me. But... maybe I'm wrong. I can't play that game though. The thing I most loved about Ron was his consistency and honesty. Even before I actually agreed with him I felt that way. Rand is playing moderate on almost everything and its starting to get to me.

    To each his own, of course.

    Rand's answer on Guantanamo was, of course, awful. There's also this neat little gem that I just found:
  8. Anyway, I believe the ultimate strategy Rand is following is one of stealth while trying to gradually turn the ship around. (See: It so far has worked better than I expected. There has been infighting, which I predicted back in 2010 would happen (nobody listened to me). But Rand has been far better positioned to champion liberty than I expected he would. So I'm still cautiously optimistic about all of this.
  9. Hey FF. Back in 2009 / 2010, when Rand was running for senate, I saw a YouTube of an interview between him and Ron. In that interview they were both asked about military tribunals. Rand's answer didn't sit to well with me. (See: After that, while I continued to support Rand, I started openly questioning the strategy of cozying up to the teocons. Some folks got quite angry at me even though I never directly attacked Rand. In truth, criticism of Rand in general seems to be much more tolerated these days. I don't hang out in the Rand subforum so I don't know what it's like there.
  10. I don't know the answers to all of this, so I don't judge the pro-Rand people here, but I don't think I can reward his pandering. We need somebody who will go into the debates and actually stand up for liberty. I don't expect anyone to get every single issue right, but Rand's deviations are pretty severe. Ted Cruz is more libertarian than he is on economic issues, and Obama is less hawkish than Rand against Iran. Now, I'd agree that Rand is better than either of those when you put all the issues together, but when you factor in the inevitable shift towards the center that occurs in general elections, and then factor in the compromises made during governing, its really not much. Or, at least, I don't think it is.
Showing Visitor Messages 1 to 10 of 16
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast