Tab Content
  • cajuncocoa's Avatar
    Today, 04:47 PM
    For whatever reason, the news story says "Google searches for the words "Libertarian Party" exploded late Tuesday..." Maybe it wasn't Cruz supporters searching for LP. Maybe all of Cruz supporters didn't support him for all the reasons you think they did. Who knows? For whatever reason it happened, I think it's great news.
    8 replies | 137 view(s)
  • cajuncocoa's Avatar
    Today, 04:20 PM
    If they wanted a wall, they would have supported Trump in the first place. And those socons won't be any happier with Trump's wishy-washy stances on social issues....unless they only care about his opinion over the last 12 months.
    8 replies | 137 view(s)
  • cajuncocoa's Avatar
    Today, 04:15 PM
    Thank God there's that difference between them. :rolleyes:
    8 replies | 54 view(s)
  • cajuncocoa's Avatar
    Today, 03:32 PM
    Has he spoken to Ron lately? Has he missed all of Ron's warnings about The Donald? Did he slip and fall on his head at some point?
    28 replies | 198 view(s)
  • cajuncocoa's Avatar
    Today, 02:21 PM
    I think you missed my meaning completely.
    21 replies | 322 view(s)
  • cajuncocoa's Avatar
    Today, 02:19 PM
    I'm in favor of this. It's a good idea if for no other reason than to try to get a bigger following for the Libertarian Party (and hence the Liberty Movement in general) for the future. Even if they nominate someone we consider less than stellar, how can it be worse than Trump or Hillary (especially since we know the LP has no chance of actually winning the WH)? Let's just try to help them build their party so liberty has a chance.
    26 replies | 198 view(s)
  • cajuncocoa's Avatar
    26 replies | 198 view(s)
  • fisharmor's Avatar
    Today, 01:35 PM
    Thanks for clarifying. From a God-fearing standpoint, I see the concept of rights as a secular way to enshrine Christ's admonition to love our neighbors as ourselves. We ought not openly to try to mold a heterogeneous society by Christ's words. Natural rights is a neat way to do just that, but in a manner that those who do not fear God can stomach. So it's two-fold enshrining his admonition: once, by extending love (in the form of protections) to our neighbors, and again, by not forcing our religious viewpoints on them, but couching them in secular terms. Because I wouldn't want someone forcing religion on me, either.
    31 replies | 354 view(s)
  • fisharmor's Avatar
    Today, 01:21 PM
    I certainly hope you're not talking about me.
    31 replies | 354 view(s)
  • fisharmor's Avatar
    Today, 01:18 PM
    It's gonna take a hell of a money bomb to invent a time machine go back two years and unsay all the things he said to disenfranchise those independent voters.
    32 replies | 367 view(s)
  • fisharmor's Avatar
    Today, 01:12 PM
    Right, that's what I started off on. I read it, and that section called "Religious Nature" points out that "no other people in all history have ever made this principle the basis of their governmental philosophy". That does not make it correct. If anything, it suggests that it is in fact not correct. It is in man's nature to walk. Would you argue that it is against man's nature to walk? There are abundant examples of men who do not walk. Yet no sane man would look at those exceptions and state "This is the nature of man, not to walk". Yet this is exactly what the natural rights arguer does. He looks at humanity, which for thousands of years either didn't know about or didn't respect natural rights, and which only has had one country in over one hundred even pay lip service to the concept - and that country has done an abjectly horrible job at respecting natural rights, by the way - he takes all that in, and says "No, the man who believes in natural rights, that is what is natural; that is man's nature." It is the same as if he had said "the man who rolls around in a chair and does not use his legs, that is what is natural".
    31 replies | 354 view(s)
  • fisharmor's Avatar
    Today, 12:43 PM
    Well if there's one point we both agree on, it's a disdain for autocorrect software. I'm with you on the idea that rights are a great idea. I'm with you on the fact that it sucks nobody else thinks so. Where I'm not with you, is on the idea that this is all irrefutable. It's totally refutable. I can refute it on the same basis that I refute Sola Scriptura: it was never man's understanding until a few people pushed the idea and it caught on. In the case of Sola Scriptura, it's an idea that mankind pulled out of thin air after 1500 years of relevant recorded history: in the case of natural rights, it's similarly pulled out of thin air, but after... all of recorded history across all continents, up to the 17th century. How can we say men have natural rights, when men didn't even have a concept for them for about five millennia? Mind you this is mainly playing Devil's Advocate... but the natural rights concept is a large plot point in the same fairy tale that includes the DoI, the Constitution, and the United States, and I stopped believing in that fantasy a long time ago.
    31 replies | 354 view(s)
  • angelatc's Avatar
    Today, 11:55 AM
    Well, that was the problem then. Rookie mistake.
    16 replies | 157 view(s)
  • cajuncocoa's Avatar
    Today, 11:47 AM
    The quote....the small print is difficult to read....
    38 replies | 449 view(s)
  • cajuncocoa's Avatar
    Today, 11:46 AM
    In 2008, I correctly predicted Barack Obama would set race relations back decades. Donald Trump has divided us even further.
    21 replies | 322 view(s)
  • Todd's Avatar
    Today, 11:02 AM
    Whatever happens...you all are witness to history. There has never been a bigger more entertaining Circus about to unfold in this great nation's history than what is going to be the 2016 Presidential race......After all.... this country is nothing but bread and circuses and this is about as epic as you can get. I don't know if I should cry, or enjoy and savor every single bit of it.
    45 replies | 420 view(s)
  • acptulsa's Avatar
    Today, 10:36 AM
    That is a mystery, isn't it? Near as I can tell, that reference is to Ron Paul saying nice things about Martin Luther King, Jr. I could be wrong, but as long as it remains a vague aspersion instead of a hard allegation, I guess mine is as good a working theory as any...
    275 replies | 5409 view(s)
  • angelatc's Avatar
    Today, 10:35 AM
    Then they need to stop voting for progressives.
    11 replies | 196 view(s)
  • fisharmor's Avatar
    Today, 10:34 AM
    NBC news is reporting that "multiple sources" have confirmed Kasich is suspending. Who are those sources? Nobody seems to know. In the same article, NBC reported: That's from ​LAST NIGHT.
    32 replies | 367 view(s)
  • acptulsa's Avatar
    Today, 10:32 AM
    What isn't a very 'Libertarian way to think'? It isn't a 'Libertarian way to think' to advocate voting Libertarian? I beg to differ. Or are you saying it isn't a very libertarian way to think? What isn't a very libertarian way to think? It isn't a very libertarian way to think to say that people spreading their votes thin over a dozen different parties will dissipate the power of those votes? If not, then libertarianism is fated to always lose elections, because it's a very realistic way to think. And it has nothing to do with whether you and I agree on anything. And when you begin the sentence with 'Because...' what are you referring to? Splitting our votes is sarcastically a 'heck of an idea' because you don't like the LP? And...? So why don't you convince me your third party of choice is better, so we can coalesce around that? If you think coalescing and consolidating our votes is a bad idea, why don't you explain why? Or did you take that statement as a--a what, exactly? A personal attack? Or did you take my 'Let's spread our power out...' as a serious suggestion? Even if you did, why are you blaming that--or me--if you don't like it? You are the one who rejected my suggestion that we focus on the LP without proposing an alternative, after all. In short, what, if anything, are you saying? And now we return to your regularly scheduled assertion that Rand Paul is solely responsible for all our woes, and that the Establishment making a lightning rod of Trump by promoting him 24/7/365 with a gazillion hours of programming and a gazillion watts of broadcast power had nothing to do with it:
    55 replies | 546 view(s)
  • fisharmor's Avatar
    Today, 10:23 AM
    Read what he said carefully. He's not sorry it happened. He's not trying to get to the bottom of it. He's not pledging a full investigation or reinforcing that this isn't normal behavior. He's not pleased that people can see it. That's it. That's all we get. He's not happy that everyone found out. That's his main concern with this, and every other case involving cops. ETA G**Damn, the more I think about it, the more I wonder why people don't burn his station down with him in it.
    5 replies | 86 view(s)
  • fisharmor's Avatar
    Today, 10:20 AM
    Where's the link, guys? I just saw that one of his staffers says he plans to suspend, but nothing official.
    32 replies | 367 view(s)
  • fisharmor's Avatar
    Today, 10:17 AM
    Here's the proof it's happening soon: http://www.cnbc.com/2016/05/04/john-kasich-campaign-latest-news.html but then it goes on to say So there's still another guy in the race, and we have genuine confusion as to what his plans are for the near future since some people say he's out but the candidate himself hasn't said anything of the sort, so if history is any guide, it's the perfect time for Rand to endorse. I mean, I realize he's not related to Kasich, but all the other factors are there.
    38 replies | 449 view(s)
  • acptulsa's Avatar
    Today, 10:11 AM
    Great. Let's split our vote as widely as we can. None of them will win even if we concentrate ourselves and our votes on one of them, but at least that party will have some momentum and some matching funds and some name recognition. But let's not do that. Let's spread our power out as thin as we can because gay wedding cakes and a thousand other things that are back burner issues at best in the face of diminishing liberties and the rising police state and endless imperialistic war. Heck of an idea. Absolutely. And we did begin that process. But is it a twenty year process when you're swimming against the current? I'm not convinced the GOP is the correct venue for this. And I'm sure that a great many people, who have gotten involved and gotten incredibly frustrated, would agree with me. By nominating Trump, some five percent of the American population (although the credit probably actually belongs to the mainstream media propaganda machine) has given us the best opportunity we've had to bury the GOP in a shallow grave right next to the bones of the Whig Party. I can't think of a better thing to focus on this summer.
    55 replies | 546 view(s)
  • acptulsa's Avatar
    Today, 10:06 AM
    Strategic thinking about the future does not involve refusing to build the LP's momentum and refusing to secure them ballot access and matching funds because the best candidate they can come up with advocates one or two things you hate. Especially if that candidate is unlikely to win anyway. The liberty movement is not in any imminent danger of dying. And if it does, no one is going to carve Johnson's picture on its tombstone. That's what would fall under the heading of 'unrealistic emotional fantasy', and it's not going to stop any serious liberty advocate from doing his or her damnedest to help the LP break new ground. Strategic thinking about the future is something other than daydreaming about the death of the liberty movement and working toward an honorable end to it. Unless you're a neocon. For those who actually care about liberty, strategic thinking about the future involves finding ways around the silly-assed wedges that the powers that be use to divide us one against another, and concentrating on building coalitions which can concentrate on things that are actually important to more than three dozen evangelist bakers. I have no doubt that the Establishment infiltrators will double down on their campaign to encourage us to apply our purity tests to everyone in the country, and chase everyone out of our big tent until there are only three people left in it. But it won't work. Less than five percent of the population has, by stealing this nomination, handed us a golden opportunity on a silver platter. By focusing on something that affects less than a hundred small businessmen--by focusing on anything that is a back burner issue at best, and possibly not an issue at all--when we need to be focusing on horrific wars, police state massacres, massive violations of the Constitution, the deliberate trashing of the economy, the loss of opportunity brought on by laws that prevent small businesses from competing with corporations, and a thousand important things, we snatch defeat from the jaws of the greatest opportunity for victory to come our way in at least half a century.
    147 replies | 4288 view(s)
  • acptulsa's Avatar
    Today, 09:43 AM
    The foundation has to be built first. Beyond that, the design has to remain fluid, if the building is to be built around the obstructions that keep magically appearing. If the powers that be would rather destroy the GOP than let us have it, fine. We don't need it. We just need it out of our way. Stooges will be in the RNC even unto the day that the three members of the RNC are the last three Republicans left in the country. We have an opportunity this cycle to catapult the Libertarian Party into a position to rival the GOP. That opportunity is right now, this summer, and can be done long before next year's GOP precinct meetings. So, that is what we should be focused on now.
    55 replies | 546 view(s)
  • acptulsa's Avatar
    Today, 09:28 AM
    Strategic thinking about the future does not involve refusing to build the LP's momentum and refusing to secure them ballot access and matching funds because the best candidate they can come up with advocates one or two things you hate. Especially if that candidate is unlikely to win anyway. The liberty movement is not in any imminent danger of dying. And if it does, no one is going to carve Johnson's picture on its tombstone. That's what would fall under the heading of 'unrealistic emotional fantasy', and it's not going to stop any serious liberty advocate from doing his or her damnedest to help the LP break new ground. Strategic thinking about the future is something other than daydreaming about the death of the liberty movement and working toward an honorable end to it. Unless you're a neocon. For those who actually care about liberty, strategic thinking about the future involves finding ways around the silly-assed wedges that the powers that be use to divide us one against another, and concentrating on building coalitions which can concentrate on things that are actually important to more than three dozen evangelist bakers. I have no doubt that the Establishment infiltrators will double down on their campaign to encourage us to apply our purity tests to everyone in the country, and chase everyone out of our big tent until there are only three people left in it. But it won't work.
    275 replies | 5409 view(s)
  • angelatc's Avatar
    Today, 09:20 AM
    I don't always agree with Milo but he's indeed right about the fact that it's Shapiro's wing of the party that failed to protect us from the left. This article is more about them repositioning themselves to be leaders in what rises from the ashes. They did it with the TEA Party, and they'll do it again. All while the libertarians run purity tests and denounce everybody except Ron Paul as fit to hold office.
    36 replies | 489 view(s)
  • acptulsa's Avatar
    Today, 09:19 AM
    Can they? Or will the teleprompter suspend the vote? The last time a convention actually voted on a VP pick was, ironically enough, 1984, when that vote went to, ironically enough, an ex head of the CIA named George H.W. Bush.
    44 replies | 647 view(s)
More Activity

35 Visitor Messages

  1. View Conversation
    O I C
  2. View Conversation
    Say wut? I didn't get what you wrote there.
  3. View Conversation
    I forgive you.
  4. View Conversation
    just so you know, when a thread is started in the guest subforum (even by a member) it has to be approved before its publicly seen, so Yes I Am A Liberal is telling the truth
  5. View Conversation
    Since when is the "We got a badass over here" meme "gay"? It's been all over the interwebz for many moons and it's used by all sorts of folks. There are several samples in the various "bestest picture thread evarrr"-s.
  6. The reason I have no use for monarchies is it's complete pot luck what you get. If your generation gets a Victoria, you could be in worse shape (assuming her advisors aren't lying to her about what they're doing), but if you get an Ivan the Terrible you're screwed. I prefer a system that at least holds out hope for nonviolent revolution, whether people are generally smart enough to use it or not.

    And I'm pretty sure you meant neither Bismarck nor the kaiser.

    Chancellor von Bismarck
    President von Hindenburg
  7. Bismarck
    Hindenburg

    That help get the rust out of your history? 'Cause those who get rusty on history are liable to re-live the bad parts...
  8. View Conversation
    You're right, I should have said the Kaiser, not Bismarck. :/ (My WWI history is rather rusty...I do remember Hitler suffered from mustard gas inhalation during that war and a bunch of other factoids) Yeah, monarchs have been somewhat fascist in certain occasions, but they always had incentive not to destroy their subjects' economy or their own respective societies as presidents and prime ministers or even legislators do. (such elected officials almost always leave office very wealthy and almost never face justice for their misdeeds) Generally speaking, the best to worst scale goes- voluntary association with government>hereditary monarchy>monarchy>classical republicanism>modern constitutionalism>democracy etc.
  9. View Conversation
    "Can you not see that he's talking monarchy" (per your rep message) No, he was talking about National Socialism. Hitler was not a monarch at all. He nationalized industry and introduced a sort of fascism to Germany. If you read Hitler, he had no intention of taking the responsibility of a monarch. He was in fact critical of Bismarck, who was closer to a monarch than Hitler. (though he did try to stay in Otto's good graces while he was alive)
  10. View Conversation
    Glad I could help you out on that trebuchet thang
Showing Visitor Messages 1 to 10 of 35
Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
About acptulsa

Basic Information

Profile Sidebar Configuration

Profile Sidebar Configuration

Activist Reputation (Self-Rated):
1

Signature


Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
Trump just set himself up to win the GOP nomination by completely ruining any chance he ever had to win the general election. If the GOP has devolved itself into a thing which cannot nominate a candidate unless that candidate first destroys his or her general election chances, then the GOP is completely irrelevant, and needs to be replaced. All we need to do now is replace it. Our job is clear.

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
40,776
Posts Per Day
13.39
Visitor Messages
Total Messages
35
Most Recent Message
11-11-2014 06:28 PM
General Information
Last Activity
Today 02:17 PM
Join Date
01-02-2008
Referrals
0

38 Friends

  1. angelatc angelatc is offline

    RPF Addict

    angelatc
  2. asimplegirl asimplegirl is offline

    Member

    asimplegirl
  3. AxXiom AxXiom is offline

    Member

    AxXiom
  4. brandon brandon is offline

    SINO

    brandon
  5. Brick-in-the-Wall
  6. cajuncocoa cajuncocoa is offline

    Member

    cajuncocoa
  7. CapitalistSooner CapitalistSooner is offline

    New Member

    CapitalistSooner
  8. CaseyJones CaseyJones is offline

    Member

    CaseyJones
  9. cheapseats cheapseats is offline

    Banned

    cheapseats
  10. Deborah K Deborah K is offline

    Member

    Deborah K
Showing Friends 1 to 10 of 38
Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
View acptulsa's Blog

Recent Entries

We're So Lucky to Have Such Great Choices

by acptulsa on 09-23-2012 at 10:16 AM
Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
I just can't decide who to vote for in the presidential race. They're both just so perfect! I can't believe it. Things are just going so well I never considered firing the president, but this Romney guy is just such a temptation!

Romney promises us more war. Obama promised us just the opposite, but that's ok, because he saw Dubya's two wars and raised us three police actions. I think that's a wonderful thing, and can't wait for the next one. I heard somewhere that with six you

Read More

Categories
Uncategorized

Intercity Passenger Rail

by acptulsa on 09-23-2012 at 10:14 AM
Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
Once upon a time, there was a thing called the Interstate Commerce Commission. It was founded to prevent kamikaze capitalism amongst railroads in a day when their efficiencies and primitive technology pretty much guaranteed them a monopoly in viable transportation.

The best thing Reagan did, in my opinion, and the one time I felt some hope for a moment that he would prove to be the libertarian he claimed to be, was when he abolished this bureau. But it was a decade too late to save

Read More

Categories
Uncategorized

Who are you mad at really?

by acptulsa on 06-26-2011 at 08:29 AM
Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
'What your daddy did to you was abuse.'

'How dare you talk that way about my daddy?!'

What has it to do with politics? Everything. Politicians piss us off, then try to misdirect our anger 'across the aisle' to people who are fundamentally exactly the same, but wear a different party label. The game is age old, but still works.

People are angry, but they are often in denial about it. They know they're angry, but they don't want to admit they're angry

Read More

Categories
Uncategorized

04-07-2016

  • 06:12 PM - Hidden

03-25-2016


Page 1 of 20 12311 ... LastLast

05-04-2016


05-03-2016



Page 1 of 20 12311 ... LastLast