Libertarian Party ... How I Wish....

[NuTcAsE]

Okay, now let me get this straight. It is okay to abort a child concieved in a rape?

But not okay to abort a child concieved in the back seat of a car?

I really do not see the moral difference here.

Let the lesbos and fags get married, it does not effect anything.

I didn't say it was O.K. or any moral differences.

[Im Neero]

You just implied that if a woman gets raped it's her fault so screw her. Nice.

[NuTcAsE]

You just implied that if a woman gets raped it's her fault so screw her. Nice.

No I didn't.

[Im Neero]

I know sh*t happens the best you can do, but if Susie had prepared a little better, packed some heat, avoid situations. Then maybe she wouldn't have a pregnancy to worry about.

Care to explain what you were implying with that statement?

[NuTcAsE]

Care to explain what you were implying with that statement?

Sure, We all have responsibility for ourselves, Let' say "Susie" stopped at an A.T.M. at 1 in the morning got mugged and raped. Terrible situation. All I'm saying here is don't put yourself in that position, go in the daytime, take somebody with you, know how to defend yourself. Applying that same situation to me and I get mugged & raped I feel that I should have made a better decision. Now had said slime bag suddenly died of acute lead poisoning We all here would be cheering "Susie" and rightfully so, and there would have been pregnancy to deal with. I'm not trying to lay fault just point out responsibility. I think that in itself would render a lot of these "social issues" irrelevant. Now, say "Susie" had been prepared, bum got the drop on her, she was mugged and raped, baby on the way. Horrible circumstance, it's gonna happen. Abortion?, I don't know that's for her to decide. Is it moral to abort a baby conceived in these circumstances? I say no, but I can understand if she did, and I'm O.K. with that. I don't, in this situation, think that anyone has any say but her.

I can see where you thought I was laying blame on the woman. My apologies I should have explained better. I'm not trying to be "Holier than Thou", I think we as a people need to put it to rest and move on.

[strickj]

Besides,who really doesn't enjoy seeing two lesbos kissing

[Guest unreconstructed1]

Besides,who really doesn't enjoy seeing two lesbos kissing

and there you go.

from a discussion about the three party system, to McCain/MILF '08, to 2 women kissing. now if someone would kindly mention a manage a trois (sp?) the conversation will have come full circle back to the third party system...impressive....

[Guest Abominable_Hillbilly]

She does look awfully limber.

[wjh2657]

Most folks here are specifically worried about firearms rights ... which makes perfect sense, given the nature of the forum.

I see firearms rights as being essentially equally in danger regardless of whether the old fart or the young whippersnapper is elected.

Your liberties are equally at risk, whether from left leaning "do-gooders", or right leaning "patriots".

Perhaps in extended ways you haven't considered, this Patriot Act tendency is perhaps the most dangerous single threat to your liberty and privacy. In ways Bin Laden never considered, it may be the Jihad's biggest victory in the long run.

"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel."

- Samuel Johnson

The next logical step in the "Patriot Act " mentality is to disarm the citizenry, this would come from the Right Wing. Both sides are a threat to gun owners!

The argument of the Pro-Life group (I cannot find irrefutable logic in either religion or medicine, I think it must be on the individual's conscience) is that the government must step in to prevent a murder. This exactly the argument of the left on the anti-gun movement. The governent can prevent a death by removing the source, a weapon. If the gun isn't there , nobody gets hurt, ergo the government should remove guns. If everybody could be forced to give up guns, would it work is a moot question. It has already been decided by our forefathers in the Constitution that we are allowed to have guns.

It is the law, so be it!

[strickj]

This exactly the argument of the left on the anti-gun movement. The governent can prevent a death by removing the source,

Then would they want to ban goobers

[wjh2657]

Then would they want to ban goobers

Probably got a group out there working that one up!

[Guest mikedwood]

Let me ask a simple question.

Forget about why we,where we,what we,and who we did what to.

Are we safer,better yet is this world safer,and much better without the dictator Saddam in power?The same man that throughout history lead a reign of terror on not only his people,but others as well

I think the world is more dangerous without Saddam. We need an enemy and Saddam was a great enemy. Basically harmless and quite humorous at times.

Now we have went from from Russia -> Saddam -> terrorists to Russia and terrorists.

Yep I miss Saddam.

As for the topic, I am voting Libertarian to get the numbers up. 10% or better would make the Republicans (perhaps both parties) take another look and at least think about giving face value to restoring some rights. Then they would be pandering to us....

[Guest Abominable_Hillbilly]

Basically harmless and quite humorous at times.

............to Russia and terrorists.

The Russians have never been our friends. It's just that the past two decades have seen such social upheaval there that they were hobbled for a while.

Saddam was selling oil for cash to the Russians throughout the entirety of Clinton's reign. Most of these deals were brokered by Kojo Annan. Saddam was also the leader of a terror state who was most likely to not only secure yellow cake, but to actually spin it down. For these reasons alone, Saddam was a very dangerous man. I don't understand your reasoning here.

[Guest mikedwood]

Maybe not our friends but doing a joint Space Station with them is a far cry from fallout shelters and Duck and Cover videos.

Yes Saddam was selling oil under the table, he was donating money to suicide bombers in Israel (All the Muslim countries do in one way or another), he was not training terrorists nor was he involved with Al Kahad. Saddam was running a dictatorship not a terror state. He was for one thing Saddam.

I never felt threatened by them. Did you? I mean seriously? Iraq scared you?

As far as yellow cake that was a fabrication as were the WMD's. If you want to worry about terrorists getting nuclear weapons be more cautious of the former Soviet Republics. Several loose nukes around there.

Iraq was harmless, now it is a great training ground for terrorists. If Saddam had WMD's and was so dying to use them why didn't he?

[Guest Abominable_Hillbilly]

Maybe not our friends but doing a joint Space Station with them is a far cry from fallout shelters and Duck and Cover videos.

The fact that we have a joint space station mission with the Russians hasn't seemed to deter them from flouting Georgia in the face of the west. Nor did it make much mind to them in the Ukraine during the Orange Revolution. Nor were they particularly bothered by such feeble ties when they began a systematic assassination campaign against dissidents living in foreign lands a few years ago.

Yes Saddam was selling oil under the table, he was donating money to suicide bombers in Israel (All the Muslim countries do in one way or another), he was not training terrorists nor was he involved with Al Kahad. Saddam was running a dictatorship not a terror state. He was for one thing Saddam. I never felt threatened by them. Did you? I mean seriously? Iraq scared you?

He was funding suicide bombers, but he wasn't a state sponsor of terrorism?

Yes. I feared Saddam and Iraq. Exactly in the same way I fear unstable governments in lands of strategic interest all over the world.

As far as yellow cake that was a fabrication as were the WMD's. If you want to worry about terrorists getting nuclear weapons be more cautious of the former Soviet Republics. Several loose nukes around there.

Actually, Joe Wilson lied. Saddam was running centrifuges in the early 80's until Israel destroyed them, and more than one Nigerian uranium broker said that he had been approached by Iraqi envoys about purchasing more in recent years. Again, Joe Wilson is a liar.

Iraq was harmless, now it is a great training ground for terrorists. If Saddam had WMD's and was so dying to use them why didn't he?

Iraq was hardly "harmless". If anything, they were funding UN corruption and generally making a laughing stock of international law. That's a pretty dangerous thing to do when the entire civilized world is engaged in thwarting the very real threat of the establishment of a global caliphate.

What would it have profited Saddam to use WMD during a war with the US? Nothing. His best and only hope was to attempt to wait us out and see if we'd actually crush his regime. Using WMD's would have done him absolutely no good. Against the Kurbs and Iranians maybe, but not against us.

It wasn't my intent to stir a hornet's nest with you. Your initial assertion, though, is false. As I stated, the Russians didn't suddenly morph into our enemies. They've always been jealous competitors and have never sought cooperative, consensual influence with us in world politics. Additionally, Saddam was a very active and wealthy source of terror funds, and he acted as a major player in the destabilization of the region. He was, therefore, quite dangerous.

[Guest jackdog]

Hey hillbilly can you back up the Joe Wilson verb age with some real facts?

[Guest mikedwood]

Apparently we aren't going to change each others mind. I feel every report is suspect in today's media coverage. So some of my points are wrong and I'm sure some of yours are. Through no fault of our own.

My main question out of all of it is "Why do we always have to have an enemy?'

[Guest Abominable_Hillbilly]

Hey hillbilly can you back up the Joe Wilson verb age with some real facts?

You mean do I have a clipping from the Lagos Times that reads like this?

"Cash principal wishes to purchase yellow cake uranium. Contact Saddam in Baghdad at xxx-xxx-xxxx-xxx-xx."

What about a lengthy feasibility report from the Nigerians about a long-term contract to trade illegal cash for nuclear precursors with the world's most notorious despot? No. Don't have that either. As a matter of fact, I have no smoking gun nor do I have video. But you knew that. Your question might as well be rhetorical. You knew the answer when you asked it.

Consider this, though. I know Joe Wilson and his wife to be beltway players and liars from their history. This old post from powerline pretty much sums up what I have discerned to be the truth about the entire matter.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/007135.php

[Guest jackdog]

Unless you have actual facts calling some one a liar is pretty chicken **** from where I sit. As far as beltway players go, damn man they are all players, that proves nothing

[Guest Abominable_Hillbilly]

Unless you have actual facts calling some one a liar is pretty chicken **** from where I sit. As far as beltway players go, damn man they are all players, that proves nothing

Well, you're essentially calling me a liar. Are you chicken****, or do you have facts to suggest that Wilson is telling the truth, and that the others are liars? If you don't have something other than Wilson's claims, then you, according to your values system, don't have any facts and therefore have no business leveling accusations.

Read the link I posted. You should plainly see that even the Senate reports more than cast doubt on Wilson, his motives, and his "findings" when he went on that extended vacation to Nigeria.

So. They're all players. That would suggest that you believe Wilson and Plame are players. How is this a defense of their integrity? I attacked their integrity by saying they're players, and then you repeat what I said. You're agreeing with me.

Edit: Niger. Not Nigeria.

Edited September 12, 2008 by Abominable_Hillbilly

[towerclimber37]

I saw that whole debacle on television and judging from the reactions and body language of Plame and Wilson I believe that Wilson lied. I believe that Plame lied. I believe that he and his wife tried to pull a set up...they let their party affiliations need to discredit the president interfere with the business of protecting the country.

I also know FIRSTHAND, how nasty Saddam Hussein was.

Mikedwood..make no mistake. that man would and was able to hurt Americans.

what the media didn't speak about was the fact that he was sponsoring Al Queda training camps in his country.

He was also brokering deals for oil contracts with the French and working to get the embargo's lifted in the U.N through the French.

define WMD btw...would that be...say a tractor trailer with centerfuges, like the one that we destroyed during the first gulf war? If he had centerfuges on an 18 wheeler..what ELSE did he have?

Its easy to wish for something when you don't know what you're wishing for.

as for asking why we need enemies at all...well I don't care to have em...but you know the old saying .

there are lots of things you can refuse to do with a fella, but if he wants to fight you..you have to oblidge him

[Oh Shoot]

Back on thread topic some ... the prevailing view on TGO has been that "a vote for Barr is a vote for Obama" -- well, I think it's now quite moot as to who it may actually benefit.

- OS

[Guest 44M]

The party does have a chance. Now more than ever. There are lots of people out there that are dissollusioned with GOP's policies and stances. Vote Libertarian if your values and beliefs are more closely aligned with the party platform than that of the Republicans. It certainly is this the case for me and a lot of others. If Obama wins it won't be the end of the world. We didn't like Clinton but we got through it. The Dems and the GOP aren't really all that different. Legislative support of FISA, the Patriot Act, and other liberty eroding BS included members of the left and the right. If enough of us vote Libertarian it'll force the GOP to take us into account next time.

I will not be voting for McCain. Some will say that it's the same as a vote for Obama. I say BS. It's not my job to fall in line and goosestep side by side with the rest of the GOP. For me to fall in line with the GOP completely violates the concept of self-determination.

I believe very strongly in self-determination, freedom of expression, personal privacy, right to bear arms, Laissez-faire capitalism, etc. And some will tell you the GOP does too. I say BS. And my main sticking point is religion and the idea of moral values that only exist if they are aligned with the religious right.

Let me keep my guns, let me keep my earnings, and stay the hell out of life and my house (especially my bedroom), and don't worry about what I do on Sunday mornings. Don't bother me and I won't bother you. Then you'll get my vote.

that is very interesting argument. After I try to understend my own feelings and ideas I understand that I`m more social-democrat than enything else. I`m 100% on the side of the working man and his rights. I agree with some republican ideas and with some democrats ideas, neither parties are 100% perfect. I believe in fair capitalism as long as it`s fair, when goverment starts using working man money to bail out greedy corporations that is not fair. Middle class and working man and women need to be protected and for one country to be successful and prosper, it`s middle class has to be healthy and successful. I believe in 2nd amandment and I hope people of US will never let anyone take it away. Now more than ever, the whole great nation of USA should stand together and try to get out of this mess we are in, how we do that, I don`t know.It is obvious that our politicians (republicans same as democrats) don`t know what to do, at this point I can really care or less if Palin had charged goverment with $45 000 for working from home or not, our economy is crumbling, debt of 10 trillion dollars and ongoing war will soon push the whole US in the depression if something doesn`t change.I don`t know what, but something has to be done by someone, who would that someone be, I don`t know...

Db

[Guest AeroEngrSoftDevMBA]

I don`t know what, but something has to be done by someone, who would that someone be, I don`t know...

Db

Wow!!!! Atlas Shrugged flashback anyone???

Well worth the couple weeks (or months) it'll take you to read it.

[Guest 44M]

voters should vote for a person and his ideas and not considering only wich party they belong....to vote for a bad republican over a good democrat,just because he is a republican, or vice versa, is not very smart....

Db