Site Information
About Us
- RonPaulForums.com is an independent grassroots outfit not officially connected to Ron Paul but dedicated to his mission. For more information see our Mission Statement.
Agreed. He likely doesn't know what the primary supporting principle for Individual Liberty actually is given that he openly rejects this most fundamental supporting principle in Liberty's very name.
So get with him on that. Teach him what it is and get back with us in 4 years. Ought to be a hoot.
Last edited by Natural Citizen; 07-29-2016 at 06:01 PM.
This is a man who wants to place his hand on the Bible while a Supreme Court justice walks him through the oath to "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America." If he does not see religious freedom, as outlined in the Constitution, as one of the most fundamental liberties, then he is not fit to be president.
And let's just be honest. People who self-identify as pro-choice are really only pro-choice when the choice is abortion. They are never pro-choice when the choice is to use conception control at their own expense or otherwise be responsible in their behavior. In any speech at the DNC, the roars and applause were especially loud for abortion. I should have choked back the vomit to count the times they mentioned abortion in speeches. Killing a pre-born infant is the most discriminatory action there is. If Gary wants to bring the full force of government to bear on discrimination, he should consider whether he really dislikes discrimination, or if he really wants to discriminate when it is convenient for him.
Johnson has made himself very clear. There is now no question about what he thinks.
#NashvilleStrong
“I’m a doctor. That’s a baby.”~~~Dr. Manny Sethi
I was thinking you could write it up, and I'll tweet it (and anyone else who wants to) to him everyday until he acknowledges that he has read it.
Honestly if he thinks religious liberty means you can throw a rock through someone's window I don't know how hard it would be to get him pointed in a better direction.... even if not perfect. But with time? The debates haven't even started yet, now is the time to inform him if you desire him to be a better messenger of liberty.
Castle is more libertarian. Did you even know who he was before the recent discussions on this board?
#NashvilleStrong
“I’m a doctor. That’s a baby.”~~~Dr. Manny Sethi
Guillaume, you aren't aware that Johnson is better on most key issues?
Bank bailouts? ---Johnson opposed, Trumpllary for.
Socialized medicine? --Johnson opposed, Trumpllary for.
Keynesian stimulus? --Johnson opposed, Trumpllary for.
PATRIOT Act --Johnson opposed, Trumpllary for.
Libya War -- Johnson opposed, Trumpllary for.
Iraq War -- Johnson opposed, Trumpllary for.
Johnson has opposed all of those policies, Trumpllary has supported all of them.
Johnson is the same as the others?
...as I know you're an honest person, what say you?
Last edited by r3volution 3.0; 07-29-2016 at 07:31 PM.
I agree with most of the posters here that Johnson is wrong on this issue, and yes it should be looked at more from a property rights issue or freedom of association issue. Johnson is probably correct that Muslims would be hit hard and targeted a lot by this issue, I don't personally think blacks would see that much as the stink would hit the fan on anyone that put up a sign against blacks, but support for someone put up anti-muslim signs would be huge currently I think. But with that said I still think people and business should have a right to control their service how ever they see fit.
As for liberty aligned yeah Castle and Johnson are fairly close personally in my opinion, they are both light years better than Trump or Hillary. The difference for me is Castle is like 1 in a million chance to win, where I would put Johnson closer to 1 in 1000 chance, but neither is likely to win so for me its about which parties policies are more pro liberty and to me that is the Libertarian over the Constitution without a doubt, the Constitution parties platform is scary. If Castle had been the Libertarian nominee I would gladly vote for him, same way had peterson or mcafee been the nominee for em.
I think william tell was referring to castle which is a reasonable statement, obviously if he was thinking of Trump or Hillary it would not be.
I don't think the cake issue is the biggest one. It's not as big as free trade and immigration.
But being against trade agreements is better than being for them, regardless. Also, Castle is, as far as I can tell, a lot more serious about ending the Fed. He's also more whole-heartedly non-interventionist.
And on his issues list, nothing protectionist is even mentioned. I wouldn't be surprised if he has some protectionist tendencies, since that's typical of the CP, but it doesn't appear to be high on his agenda, and I'm not even sure if it's accurate.
http://castle2016.com/issues-list/
Not if you are denying me the right to manage my own property and my own faith. Gary Johnson believes the government should come force people, at gunpoint, to act in violation of their consciences because of a cake.
#NashvilleStrong
“I’m a doctor. That’s a baby.”~~~Dr. Manny Sethi
It should say something when so many libertarian leaners like Carney, the guy who did the interview in the original post, or this guy http://thefederalist.com/2016/07/29/...gious-liberty/ think Johnson is just not getting it done.
Well, we'll have to diverge there..
Despite the "UN IS TAKING OVER OMG" retard brigade, lower tariffs are in fact good: and in accordance with libertarian principles.
A. Why?Also, Castle is, as far as I can tell, a lot more serious about ending the Fed. He's also more whole-heartedly non-interventionist.
B. It doesn't matter anyway.
I'm all for lower tariffs. And I agree that in a cost benefit analysis of trade agreements, lower tariffs are decidedly on the benefit side. But there's a lot more to all these agreements than that.
I'm not sure what you mean here. But the question was whether or not Castle was more libertarian than Johnson, and being more anti-fed and more non-interventionist are definitely strong reasons for saying that Castle is more libertarian than Johnson.
Yes, such as hyperbolic, nonsensical speculation.
...but, hey, Alex's got to sell his dickpills somehow.
OMG teh UN iz gunna take yur guns, buy $#@! on infowars.com...
The question was what evidence is there to suggest that Castle is more serious about ending the Fed or non-interventionism than Johnson?I'm not sure what you mean here. But the question was whether or not Castle was more libertarian than Johnson, and being more anti-fed and more non-interventionist are definitely strong reasons for saying that Castle is more libertarian than Johnson.
And, secondly, why does it matter?
That's pretty ridiculous.
These phonebook-sized agreements are not just about lowering tariffs, nor are they even primarily about lowering tariffs. Most of what they do involves coordinating of regulations, and this is pretty much always by way of making the countries with less strict regulations catch up with those with stricter ones.
You should go back and re-read your own words, because you didn't ask that question.
It's clear by comparing both of their words on those issues, which in the case of Castle, we have in statements he's made repeatedly over many years.
It matters, because ending the Fed and noninterventionism are huge issues and tests of libertarianism. And again, the question was whether Castle was more libertarian than Johnson, so you can't just ignore them.
The way you're approaching this discussion is tantamount to admitting that you know Castle is actually the more libertarian of the two. It's like you just want to count whatever minor points might favor Johnson and ignore much weightier points that favor Castle.
Well he certainly isn't thinking the situation through very thoroughly, I have to admit.
The example of the Christian photographer being forced to take photographs at a gay wedding is pretty extreme, he admits, it did happen, he admits, yet he is ok with it because slippery slope we might discriminate against Muslims (a religion that likes to execute gay people and is generally extremely unaccepting of other cultures and lifestyles).. Now, most likely the photographer will go to a wedding like any other wedding, it shouldn't be a problem imo (although in principle that isn't up to me to decide) - but let's take it to the extreme and say the gay wedding turned out to be more like a gay pride parade, a lot of gay men in risque clothing and such, You really want to force a Christian to take photos of not only what they consider immoral behavior on a macro level, but immodest dress and other immoral activity actually occurring at the wedding? That's pretty insane.. I mean, he says he doesn't want to force churches to marry gay people, but why force wedding photographers to be involved?
The thing that sucks, and this is why although I wish he was more principled I'm willing to put up with this stuff somewhat, is there really isn't a good answer to give if he wants to bring in Sanders supporters, which he is doing a pretty good job of doing. If he came out against the CRA almost nobody on the left would support him, he would lose half his support in the polls. So he is essentially taking the status quo position here. If he says it is ok with photographers to discriminate, why not cake bakers? Why not everybody? It might be right, but like he said it's a black-hole issue that will run his campaign into the ground.
"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."
Supporting Johnson/Weld at this point is like supporting Trump/Pence or Hillary/Kaine. In my mind. I just can't do it.
Just like myself, oftentimes, Ron Paul was "a day late and a dollar short."
I can't begin to imagine the support he would recieve this cycle.
Yeah, really. I remember when he ran against Ron in the Rep. primary. I didn't think he was worth a $#@! then, only a distraction from Ron, and I don't think he is worth a $#@! now. If you want to vote for him then go ahead. If Trump or Hillary supporters want to vote for them then go ahead.
I'm glad you found someone.
dannno, we have Christians on this board who advocate that killing gays is a responsibility of government. You understand there are different ways to interpret.... everything I suppose. But especially religious or philosophical texts. Why don't you lay out how you believe a Muslim is commanded to follow his religious scripture... and I'm not just saying link to some $#@!ing video... so that a debate on the understanding you have outlined can commence, instead of taking these stupid ass jabs. I have laid out elsewhere a reasonable scriptural guideline which would suggest that Muslim individuals are capable of living peacefully amongst non-believers. And that is greatly supported by the fact that they do.
My opinion, if he can be convinced that he is wrong (talking Gary Johnson here), his best approach would be to say... to the effect of... that every individual should have full control over their property and who they provide their services to, but that it is an issue for a later administration to address should the American people to decide to continue the Libertarian approach, as there are enough problems to address to consume four years.
Connect With Us