Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 5678 LastLast
Results 181 to 210 of 226

Thread: Campaign Evaluation: Johnson / Weld Ticket (POTUS)

  1. #181
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    I'm all for your vision for society. If you were running for President and voting for you would help in any way, I would vote for you, unless you were running against somebody like Ron Paul and they were doing significantly better in the polls.
    Thank You, dannno. Ron Paul, for the record, agrees with me that the TPP is an illegal transfer of power. The statesman also agrees that one shouldn't sacrifice the constitution. The constitution provides congress the power to regulate commerce but it doesn't provide them the power to give the President a free pass to do whatever he wants. This is compounded by the fact that the policy itself says that anything in it can be keep it classified. That means no consent. Which is effectively a repatriation of our form of governance, therefore, it is an aggressive attack toward a destruction of our sovereignty. He also agrees that it isn't free trade at all; rather protectionist policy. Not only that, but, equality in Legal Justice (a fundamental principle) is also out the door given that we're also dealing with private courts that are set up and overseen by the very entities who are writing the thing.





    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    I would much rather have 95% liberty than 5% liberty.
    Then you openly consent that you're content to have none at all. The foundation for Individual Liberty as well as Individual Liberty's fundamental principles must be accepted in whole, together, in order to make a legitimate claim to its benefit fully. This is not a purist position. It is a fundamental truth. Again, Liberty, itself, is defined by its fundamental principles. Liberty is not defined by policies.
    Last edited by Natural Citizen; 07-28-2016 at 04:31 PM.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #182
    Quote Originally Posted by Bryan View Post
    Originally Posted by Natural Citizen
    Thanks for explaining the site's Campaign Evaluation System for recognizing overall classification of candidates. In terms of evaluating a Liberty candidate, however, I'm of the view that the task should premise its terms upon the idea that Liberty itself is based upon fundamental principles and not philosophies or policies. The CRA is a policy. It is not relative to my previous thoughts here. Nor have I once mentioned the CRA in any way at all aside from providing the courtesy of a response whenever it has been projected into the terms of controversy by another.

    Anyway. Thank You.
    I brought up the CRA since Johnson supports at least parts of it, I thought that was what you getting after. I see philosophies and principles pretty much the same (strategic viewpoint), but policies are different, as they are tactical.
    No, I dont really care about the CRA. It's a policy. I was coming from a fundamental perspective in Liberty itself. Policies, I maintain, do not and should not determine Liberty. And I reject any notion that they can, do or should. Granted, however, some policies may certainly be premised in Liberty's principles and foundation. Although, such policy has observably been few and far between. In terms of philosophies and principles being pretty much the same, yeah, I agree that they are. I likely shouldn't have worded it that way so thanks for pointing the shortcoming out to me. Philosophies and principles indeed are much the same. Of course, the traditional American philosophy of governance is a fundamental philosophy itself which is established and supported by its founding documents. The founding documents, themselves, being the product of specific moral foundation and principles thereof.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bryan View Post
    Originally Posted by Natural Citizen

    Do you accept the underlined to be true? Yes or No will suffice. I've no interest in debating you about it. I just want to know if you accept it to be true.

    The right to property is an indispensable and principal material support, not only of Man's God-given unalienable rights, but of Man's right to Liberty itself.

    I agree with this 100%. It is also principal in support of Man's life itself.
    Good. Agreed. Thanks for addressing that point. I'll change my status back to "Supporting Member" from "Member" since you agree that property is an indispensable and principal material support, not only of Man's God-given unalienable rights, but of Man's right to Liberty itself as well as the primary principal in support of Man's life. I got nice and pissed off when Individual Liberty's most fundamental supporting principle was openly and jokingly reduced to "cake" around here as a matter of activisim under the banner of Liberty. This, in my view, seemed like a rather shallow, obtuse, means of projecting the matter. It didn't/doesn't seem like a particularly responsible means to project one's position in Liberty either. You may have noticed me popping my mouth off several times with regard to my distaste for such a reckless reduction of Individual Liberty's most critical, fundamental, supporting principle. Adherence to this primary supporting principle, while it has been labeled as a purist position of late, is, of course, not purist at all. It is merely a fundamental position given that the principle serves as Individual Liberty's primary mechanism of support/legitimacy.
    Last edited by Natural Citizen; 07-28-2016 at 05:17 PM.

  4. #183
    Staff - Admin
    Houston, TX
    Bryan's Avatar


    Blog Entries
    6
    Posts
    8,669
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Based on this:
    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...luation-System


    Can anyone make an argument for a C-F on an "Individual Issue Rating"

    Can anyone make an argument for an overall "F" rating?
    This site has a specific purpose defined in our Mission Statement.

    Members must read and follow our Community Guidelines.

    I strive to respond to all queries; please excuse late and out-of-sequence responses.

  5. #184
    Quote Originally Posted by Bryan View Post

    Can anyone make an argument for an overall "F" rating?
    Since Johnson openly says he does not want to govern based on an ideology, than he must be an F as a "Liberty" candidate. He might have some liberty positions but it is not a "Liberty" campaign.



  6. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  7. #185
    Quote Originally Posted by specsaregood View Post
    Since Johnson openly says he does not want to govern based on an ideology, than he must be an F as a "Liberty" candidate. He might have some liberty positions but it is not a "Liberty" campaign.
    3:00
    I think that people need to be able to make their own choices in their own lives as long as those decisions don't adversely affect others.



    I might give him a "B-" on promotes liberty - he promotes liberty all the time even though other times he says he uses a pragmatic approach to get there.

    As far as issues go, I don't know if any issues that he deserves below a C on. There are many issues he deserves an 'A'. Overall I still think B or B- is pretty fair.
    Last edited by dannno; 07-29-2016 at 11:32 AM.
    "He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
    "dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc
    "You don't need a medical degree to spot obvious bullshit, that's actually a separate skill." -Scott Adams
    "When you are divided, and angry, and controlled, you target those 'different' from you, not those responsible [controllers]" -Q

    "Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    "Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."

  8. #186
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    3:00




    I might give him a "B-" on promotes liberty - he promotes liberty all the time even though other times he says he uses a pragmatic approach to get there.

    As far as issues go, I don't know if any issues that he deserves below a C on. There are many issues he deserves an 'A'. Overall I still think B or B- is pretty fair.
    That's a good assessment.
    Partisan politics, misleading or emotional bill titles, and 4D chess theories are manifestations of the same lie—that the text of the Constitution, the text of legislation, and plain facts do not matter; what matters is what you want to believe. From this comes hypocrisy. And where hypocrisy thrives, virtue recedes. Without virtue, liberty dies. - Justin Amash, March 2018

  9. #187
    He wants to force a private property owner to do something with their property that they do not want to do.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COItiKtHWyg

    He said he would sign the TPP.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFJFx-f_flk

    Those two alone are enough reason for him not to be classified as a "liberty candidate".
    Last edited by LibertyEagle; 07-29-2016 at 12:37 PM.
    ================
    Open Borders: A Libertarian Reappraisal or why only dumbasses and cultural marxists are for it.

    Cultural Marxism: The Corruption of America

    The Property Basis of Rights

  10. #188
    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    He wants to force a private property owner to do something with their property that they do not want to do.
    You mean like giving it to a real estate mogul?
    "And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works." - Bastiat

    "It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." - Voltaire

  11. #189
    Quote Originally Posted by CaptUSA View Post
    You mean like giving it to a real estate mogul?
    To be fair this thread is not about Trump. It's about Johnson/Weld. And though it may be hypocritical of a Trump supporter to point this out while ignoring Trumps belief in the forced taking of others property it does make a point. But, Gary's position isn't that a baker has to bake a gay wedding cake. Just that they have to bake wedding cakes for gays.

  12. #190
    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    He wants to force a private property owner to do something with their property that they do not want to do.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COItiKtHWyg
    C - status quo, businesses have not been allowed to discriminate for 50 years.


    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    He said he would sign the TPP.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFJFx-f_flk
    He said he would sign the TPP if, AND ONLY IF it freed up trade. That's actually a libertarian response and could be graded as an 'A'. I wouldn't grade it as an 'A' because a good libertarian should be aware of the globalist plot and know that the trade deals they develop will never free up trade. But you can't grade him that poorly on it considering it is actually a libertarian response.
    "He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
    "dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc
    "You don't need a medical degree to spot obvious bullshit, that's actually a separate skill." -Scott Adams
    "When you are divided, and angry, and controlled, you target those 'different' from you, not those responsible [controllers]" -Q

    "Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    "Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."

  13. #191
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    C - status quo, businesses have not been allowed to discriminate for 50 years.
    What about discriminating against the business owner? Even if you want to give him a pass for forcing them to do something with their private property that they do not want to do, what about forcing them to do something with that property that is against their religious beliefs? How is that a liberty position?

    He said he would sign the TPP if, AND ONLY IF it freed up trade. That's actually a libertarian response and could be graded as an 'A'. I wouldn't grade it as an 'A' because a good libertarian should be aware of the globalist plot and know that the trade deals they develop will never free up trade. But you can't grade him that poorly on it considering it is actually a libertarian response.
    That's not exactly what he said, Danno.
    ================
    Open Borders: A Libertarian Reappraisal or why only dumbasses and cultural marxists are for it.

    Cultural Marxism: The Corruption of America

    The Property Basis of Rights

  14. #192
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    C - status quo, businesses have not been allowed to discriminate for 50 years.




    He said he would sign the TPP if, AND ONLY IF it freed up trade. That's actually a libertarian response and could be graded as an 'A'. I wouldn't grade it as an 'A' because a good libertarian should be aware of the globalist plot and know that the trade deals they develop will never free up trade. But you can't grade him that poorly on it considering it is actually a libertarian response.
    Agreed on both points. Except, I think there are some pretty serious sovereignty issues with TPP. Most people opposed to TPP oppose it from a protectionist viewpoint and that is most definitely NOT libertarian. Ron Paul opposes it like many of us do - because they should be unnecessary.

    But Cato and Reason have both been receptive - based purely on the trade aspect. (They seems to glide right over the sovereignty implications.)
    "And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works." - Bastiat

    "It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." - Voltaire



  15. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  16. #193
    Quote Originally Posted by CaptUSA View Post
    Agreed on both points. Except, I think there are some pretty serious sovereignty issues with TPP. Most people opposed to TPP oppose it from a protectionist viewpoint and that is most definitely NOT libertarian. Ron Paul opposes it like many of us do - because they should be unnecessary.

    But Cato and Reason have both been receptive - based purely on the trade aspect. (They seems to glide right over the sovereignty implications.)
    That's not the only reasons Ron Paul doesn't support it. He has detailed the reasons many times.
    ================
    Open Borders: A Libertarian Reappraisal or why only dumbasses and cultural marxists are for it.

    Cultural Marxism: The Corruption of America

    The Property Basis of Rights

  17. #194
    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    That's not the only reasons Ron Paul doesn't support it. He has detailed the reasons many times.
    Ron Paul has said that these deals violate our sovereignty and are unnecessary. He has said that the US should unilaterally drop ALL trade restrictions, period. Regardless of what other countries may do. Because individuals trade; not governments.

    But Ron Paul is by no means a protectionist. In any shape or form.
    "And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works." - Bastiat

    "It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." - Voltaire

  18. #195
    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    What about discriminating against the business owner? Even if you want to give him a pass for forcing them to do something with their private property that they do not want to do, what about forcing them to do something with that property that is against their religious beliefs? How is that a liberty position?
    The government has been discriminating against business owners for 50 years. Gary Johnson takes the status quo position on the issue, which is a C.


    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    That's not exactly what he said, Danno.
    He didn't say that he would vote for TPP if it freed up trade? I thought that was exactly what he said.. his support for TPP was conditional on that, and previously he was against TPP, that was only 4 or 5 months ago.
    "He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
    "dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc
    "You don't need a medical degree to spot obvious bullshit, that's actually a separate skill." -Scott Adams
    "When you are divided, and angry, and controlled, you target those 'different' from you, not those responsible [controllers]" -Q

    "Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    "Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."

  19. #196
    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    That's not the only reasons Ron Paul doesn't support it. He has detailed the reasons many times.
    But none of his reasons are protectionistic. He doesn't want higher tariffs like Trump does.

    Trump isn't even against trade agreements in principle. He just wants to renegotiate them so he can charge us all higher tariffs. He's on the opposite end of the spectrum from Ron Paul.

  20. #197
    Quote Originally Posted by erowe1 View Post
    But none of his reasons are protectionistic. He doesn't want higher tariffs like Trump does.

    Trump isn't even against trade agreements in principle. He just wants to renegotiate them so he can charge us all higher tariffs. He's on the opposite end of the spectrum from Ron Paul.
    Why when every time Johnson is evaluated, a couple of you bring up Trump? Do you think that in some way negates a poor position that your boy, Johnson, holds? This evaluation of Johnson is not surprisingly, ABOUT JOHNSON. Try to stay on topic.
    ================
    Open Borders: A Libertarian Reappraisal or why only dumbasses and cultural marxists are for it.

    Cultural Marxism: The Corruption of America

    The Property Basis of Rights

  21. #198
    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    Why when every time Johnson is evaluated, a couple of you bring up Trump? Do you think that in some way negates a poor position that your boy, Johnson, holds? This evaluation of Johnson is not surprisingly, ABOUT JOHNSON. Try to stay on topic.
    Trump is one of the people Johnson is running against. And there are still people here like you who actually support Trump over Johnson. So it's relevant.

  22. #199
    Quote Originally Posted by CaptUSA View Post

    But Ron Paul is by no means a protectionist. In any shape or form.
    Well. That's not precisely true. Ron, admittedly, takes a protectionist position when it comes to matters of national security. So, then, it is patently false to contend that he is by no means a protectionist in any shape or form

    Which he, himself, confirms here...

    Last edited by Natural Citizen; 07-29-2016 at 03:50 PM.

  23. #200
    Again, though, the TPP is an illegal transfer of power. Period. And to accept an illegal transfer of power is to a sacrifice the Constitution itself.

    For the life of me, I don't know why this should have to be explained to people here. These are fundamentals. Gosh.

    Although I do get that many here reject the validity of the Constitution, too. Perhaps that's where the disregard for the sacrifice of the Constitution comes from. I hadn't considered that. Hm.
    Last edited by Natural Citizen; 07-29-2016 at 04:21 PM.



  24. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  25. #201
    I don't really believe Johnson is a "liberty" candidate. Over-all I'd give him a "C." He is certainly the "Libertarian Party Candidate." But, not necessarily a "liberty" candidate. If one were to vote for him I suppose one could justify it by believing it might throw a curve-ball into the two-party system with the hopes that a good showing would garner the L.P. a standing in the next election cycle. Otherwise, I don't much see myself voting for him. Looks like it is going to be another "write-in" election season. In the one election year in which the L.P. could have presented a memorable figure they chose Johnson. The conspiracy theorist in me thinks that it was "managed." Especially with Weld on the ticket. Why, oh why, wasn't Derrick Grayson chosen? Though McAfee was my choice, simply because he would have "rocked out with his cock out" in ayear that it seems fitting, Grayson would have been a great contender on a national stage.

  26. #202
    Quote Originally Posted by phill4paul View Post
    In the one election year in which the L.P. could have presented a memorable figure they chose Johnson. The conspiracy theorist in me thinks that it was "managed." Especially with Weld on the ticket.
    Mm. I'm with you here. This came up in the other thread. As was mentioned, the 2014 Mid-Term turnout for Third Party/Independents/Green Party candidates produced the largest numbers that we've seen in modern history.

    No way that the esablishment didn't notice it and no way they weren't going to do something about it. I maintain, though it is speculation (albeit educated speculation), that where we traditionally have had two parties functioning as one, that we likely now have one party functioning as three. Take it for what it's worth.

    That aside, Constitution Party, in my view, has offered the only principled candidate.
    Last edited by Natural Citizen; 07-29-2016 at 04:20 PM.

  27. #203
    Quote Originally Posted by Natural Citizen View Post
    Mm. I'm with you here. This came up in the other thread. As was mentioned, the 2014 Mid-Term turnout for Third Party/Independents/Green Party candidates produced the largest numbers that we've seen in modern history.

    No way that the esablishment didn't notice it and no way they weren't going to do something about it. I maintain, though it is speculation (albeit educated speculation), that where we traditionally have had two parties functioning as one, that we likely now have one party functioning as three. Take it for what it's worth.

    That aside, Constitution Party, in my view, has offered the only principled candidate.
    Not a fan of the party but Castle himself seems to break with the party lines on most of the issues I have trouble with. I don't know if he will be on the ticket in N.C.
    And, yeah, infiltration of liberty movements is what the Fed. does best. Not at all happy with the L.P. and honestly, at this point, don't plan to vote for their candidates.

  28. #204
    Quote Originally Posted by Natural Citizen View Post
    Well. That's not precisely true. Ron, admittedly, takes a protectionist position when it comes to matters of national security. So, then, it is patently false to contend that he is by no means a protectionist in any shape or form

    Which he, himself, confirms here...
    Wow. I can't believe that's the message you got from that video.

    Ok, Ron Paul believes that if we are under attack by someone and have declared war, we should suspend trading with them. Otherwise, no protectionism.

    (which, by the way, is NOT protectionism as it is understood economically.)
    "And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works." - Bastiat

    "It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." - Voltaire

  29. #205
    Quote Originally Posted by CaptUSA View Post
    Wow. I can't believe that's the message you got from that video.
    I didn't get any message from that video. Nor was I looking to find one. Please stop projecting. Not only is it dishonest to make projections, projection is not consistent with functional debate principles. So roll your eyes at someone else, please. Your point here is moot.



    Now. This...

    Originally Posted by CaptUSA

    Ok, Ron Paul believes that if we are under attack by someone and have declared war, we should suspend trading with them. Otherwise, no protectionism.

    (which, by the way, is NOT protectionism as it is understood economically.)
    Again, it is a patently false contention, as you did openly contend, that he is by no means a protectionist in any shape or form. So, please refrain from false contention. It's dishonest.

    To be clear, Ron was precisely asked "Are you a protectionist?"

    To be abundantly clear, Ron responded by saying "only when it becomes national security reasons"

    You made a false claim with no support for your claim. I corrected your claim. And I provided legitimate support for the correction. Right from the man's mouth in response to its direct question, no less. Is what it is. It's nothing personal, Capt. If one makes a claim, however, one is generally expected to support the claim. This is a fundamental principle of functional debate.

    If you'd like to debate it further, then let me know, please. I'll be in the neighborhood. I like to think that I'm rather well versed on the consequences of the TPP. Of course, I'm also open to any corrections provided that they are supported. We've discussed The TPP previously around the board, you and I. And I'm certain that you likely recall.

    Thank you, CaptUSA
    Last edited by Natural Citizen; 07-29-2016 at 07:49 PM.

  30. #206

  31. #207
    A-

    Pro-Liberty Positions:
    • end the fed, return to gold standard
    • balance the budget through spending cuts
    • replace all existing taxes with single FairTax
    • abolish Dept. of Education
    • opposes governmental efforts to mitigate climate change
    • opposes all business subsidies
    • opposed TARP
    • opposed auto company bailouts
    • opposes Keynesian stimulus spending
    • opposed Obamacare
    • opposed the Medicare Part D expansion under Bush
    • favors cutting social security, medicare, and medicaid
    • opposes labor unions
    • wants to eliminate the minimum wage
    • opposes immigration restrictions/deportation
    • favors tree trade, opposes tariffs
    • opposes governmental regulation of internet
    • opposes PATRIOT Act and NSA spying
    • opposed Iraq and Libya Wars
    • opposes involvement in Syria Civil War
    • opposes involvement in Ukraine Civil War
    • favors immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan
    • favors cuts in defense spending
    • supports 2nd Amendment
    • opposes War on Drugs
    • favors legalization of assisted suicide


    Anti-Liberty Positions
    • favors extension of the Civil Rights Act to gays
    Last edited by r3volution 3.0; 08-11-2016 at 04:17 PM.

  32. #208
    Libertarians for Drug Prohibition?

    During a CNN town hall last week, a member of the audience asked Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate for president, about heroin legalization. Although the former New Mexico governor correctly pointed out that prohibition makes heroin use more dangerous, he disclaimed any interest in repealing it, saying his legalization agenda is limited to marijuana. He thereby undercut the utilitarian case against drug prohibition and missed an opportunity to make a moral case for individual freedom.


    The Libertarian Party's platform states that "we favor the repeal of all laws creating 'crimes' without victims, such as the use of drugs for medicinal or recreational purposes." Johnson therefore was deviating from the party line when he declared that "we are not espousing the legalization of any drugs outside of marijuana." That was the easy way out, since most Americans recognize that marijuana is less hazardous than alcohol and think it should be legal. But what is the point of a Libertarian presidential campaign if it does not encourage voters to think about public policy issues in a more consistent and principled way?

    With regard to alcohol and marijuana, Johnson said, "When it comes to choices in your own life, you should be able to make those choices as long as you're not doing harm to others." But he declined to extend that tolerance to other drugs, which makes no sense from a libertarian perspective. Either using force to protect people from their own risky decisions is legitimate, or it is not. If it is not, the specific nature of the decisions—whether they concern drugs, say, rather than food, sex or gambling, or heroin rather than alcohol or marijuana—should not matter. A government that respects individual freedom only insofar as it pertains to familiar or safe activities does not really respect individual freedom. Johnson should have said that any kind of drug prohibition violates the principle that each individual is sovereign over his own body and mind.

    In addition to favoring political pragmatism over principle, Johnson's answer obscured the ways in which prohibition aggravates the problems it is aimed at solving. He alluded to some of those side effects but did not clearly connect them to the question he was asked, and he shied away from the logical conclusion that the problems caused by prohibition can be eliminated only by eliminating prohibition.

    The heroin question came from Maureen Morella, a New Jersey woman whose 16-year-old son, Jesse, suffered brain damage after snorting heroin with his friends in 2004. "He became very sick and vomited," she explained. "He aspirated and was left with brain damage so severe that now, 12 years later, he remains in a wheelchair with no ability to eat or speak, and he is fed through a tube in his stomach."

    One important point to make about this incident is that something very similar could have happened with alcohol. People who drink too much and pass out on their backs can (and periodically do) choke on their vomit, which can result in death or permanent disability. The possibility of such outcomes is not usually considered an argument for bringing back alcohol prohibition, possibly because prohibition did not protect drinkers from fatal or disabling accidents. If anything, it made such incidents more likely by encouraging quick consumption of potent beverages on the sly.

    ....
    http://reason.com/archives/2016/06/2...ug-prohibition
    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Paul View Post
    The intellectual battle for liberty can appear to be a lonely one at times. However, the numbers are not as important as the principles that we hold. Leonard Read always taught that "it's not a numbers game, but an ideological game." That's why it's important to continue to provide a principled philosophy as to what the role of government ought to be, despite the numbers that stare us in the face.
    Quote Originally Posted by Origanalist View Post
    This intellectually stimulating conversation is the reason I keep coming here.



  33. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  34. #209
    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...398-Good-grief


    Libertarian VP nominee calls rifles 'weapons of mass destruction'

    [...]
    William Weld:

    “The five shot rifle, that’s a standard military rifle; the problem is if you attach a clip to it so it can fire more shells and if you remove the pin so that it becomes an automatic weapon, and those are independent criminal offenses. That is when they become, essentially a weapon of mass destruction. The problem with handguns probably is even worse than the problem of the AR15.”

    Amrit Singh:

    “What can you do to help control this flow of guns, if anything?”

    William Weld:

    “You shouldn’t have anybody who is on the terrorist watch list buy any gun at all.”
    The libertarian candidate for vice president just argued for removing a Constitutional right from individuals on a government list without due process.
    Terrific.
    Based on the idea of natural rights, government secures those rights to the individual by strictly negative intervention, making justice costless and easy of access; and beyond that it does not go. The State, on the other hand, both in its genesis and by its primary intention, is purely anti-social. It is not based on the idea of natural rights, but on the idea that the individual has no rights except those that the State may provisionally grant him. It has always made justice costly and difficult of access, and has invariably held itself above justice and common morality whenever it could advantage itself by so doing.
    --Albert J. Nock

  35. #210
    A-

    Pro-Liberty Positions:
    end the fed, return to gold standard
    balance the budget through spending cuts
    replace all existing taxes with single FairTax
    abolish Dept. of Education
    opposes governmental efforts to mitigate climate change
    opposes all business subsidies
    opposed TARP
    opposed auto company bailouts
    opposes Keynesian stimulus spending
    opposed Obamacare
    opposed the Medicare Part D expansion under Bush
    favors cutting social security, medicare, and medicaid
    opposes labor unions
    wants to eliminate the minimum wage
    opposes immigration restrictions/deportation
    favors tree trade, opposes tariffs
    opposes governmental regulation of internet
    opposes PATRIOT Act and NSA spying
    opposed Iraq and Libya Wars
    opposes involvement in Syria Civil War
    opposes involvement in Ukraine Civil War
    favors immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan
    favors cuts in defense spending
    supports 2nd Amendment
    opposes War on Drugs
    favors legalization of assisted suicide


    Anti-Liberty Positions
    favors extension of the Civil Rights Act to gays
    Re-stated from another thread: Stacking the deck with a lot of positions that lack context or show the direction of those issue points, does not convey an accurate picture of Johnson/Weld's "libertarian" views. I'm speaking as one who supports Gary and the LP, but really, a lot of items on the list amount to neocon hijackings or mutations of the liberty agenda upon scrutiny, not principled positions.

    The "fair tax" is not pro-liberty, it's a replacement of one version of legalized theft with another. TPP, which Johnson supports, is not "free trade," it's managed trade via international big government. Free immigration does not equal no lawful naturalization procedures to process migrants in a manner that protects both their and current citizens' safety or property from force and fraud. Etc., etc.
    Last edited by Peace&Freedom; 08-13-2016 at 05:19 AM.
    -----Peace & Freedom, John Clifton-----
    Blog: https://electclifton.wordpress.com/2...back-backlash/

Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 5678 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. I will no longer link to Liberty Pulse
    By bobbyw24 in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 02-09-2010, 01:13 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •