Libertarian vs. Republican (Emmett vs. Crin)

[emmett]

It would be impossible for me to list all the threads where Crin and I have entered into this conversation. So I won't try however i would think it certainly qualifies us to take up this debate on this thread and start here. I'll ask the first question as I have challenged Crin to this one on one debate. I feel this is an issue that more and more Conservatives should be taking up however not with intention to devide at all but to unite. America continues to move further to the left everyday. I believe we as Conservatives are as much to blame for this as the Liberals we critisize as the culprits. Our positions need "fine tuning" and have become distorted in the sea of confusion created by watching our liberty slip away a little at a time.

For those of you who will read the following posts over the next few months or however long it takes me to convert this gentleman, please take note as to what a "debate" is. If you are looking for namecalling, rhetorical innuendo and hateful behavior, you will no doubt be bored out of your mind and I suugest you make your way back to one of those "other" sites. That will not take place during this discussion. I do however expect it to become quite "heated" at times for I have reached my limit with this gentleman and fully intend to "win" this discussion. :laugh2:

Crin is my friend. He is man of good moral fortitude and conservative values which I respect him for. We have however on many occasions, disagreed about the basic concept of Libertarianism and its value to the political structure of American society. I have called him out so to speak to debate this issue once and for all. We have always agreed to disagree in the past concerning this issue and I realize today that that won't do. I am willing to make the ultimate bet with you Crin. My Libertarian Party card against your Republican one. Sort of like "pink slips" if you may. If I can not convince you to become a card carrying member of the Libertarian Party I will vote Republican in the next election and in each one that follows until the day I can convince you to become a Libertarian. I warn you sir...I have done my homework and stand ready with an arsenol of informative and relevent information which I believe will convince you that I am right and YOU are wrong.

So in parity to the Charlie Daniels classic "The devil came down to Georgia", I am the Libertarian who is already in Georgia and looking for a soul to steal, my first question is this;


Crin, why will you not become a member of the Libertarian party?

[crin63]

It would be impossible for me to list all the threads where Crin and I have entered into this conversation. So I won't try however i would think it certainly qualifies us to take up this debate on this thread and start here. I'll ask the first question as I have challenged Crin to this one on one debate. I feel this is an issue that more and more Conservatives should be taking up however not with intention to devide at all but to unite. America continues to move further to the left everyday. I believe we as Conservatives are as much to blame for this as the Liberals we critisize as the culprits. Our positions need "fine tuning" and have become distorted in the sea of confusion created by watching our liberty slip away a little at a time.

For those of you who will read the following posts over the next few months or however long it takes me to convert this gentleman, please take note as to what a "debate" is. If you are looking for namecalling, rhetorical innuendo and hateful behavior, you will no doubt be bored out of your mind and I suugest you make your way back to one of those "other" sites. That will not take place during this discussion. I do however expect it to become quite "heated" at times for I have reached my limit with this gentleman and fully intend to "win" this discussion. :laugh2:

Crin is my friend. He is man of good moral fortitude and conservative values which I respect him for. We have however on many occasions, disagreed about the basic concept of Libertarianism and its value to the political structure of American society. I have called him out so to speak to debate this issue once and for all. We have always agreed to disagree in the past concerning this issue and I realize today that that won't do. I am willing to make the ultimate bet with you Crin. My Libertarian Party card against your Republican one. Sort of like "pink slips" if you may. If I can not convince you to become a card carrying member of the Libertarian Party I will vote Republican in the next election and in each one that follows until the day I can convince you to become a Libertarian. I warn you sir...I have done my homework and stand ready with an arsenol of informative and relevent information which I believe will convince you that I am right and YOU are wrong.

So in parity to the Charlie Daniels classic "The devil came down to Georgia", I am the Libertarian who is already in Georgia and looking for a soul to steal, my first question is this;


Crin, why will you not become a member of the Libertarian party?


Allow to start off by saying that I voted for Emmett as my favorite DP'er and as the person who makes the best impression on DP in the 2008 year end awards. Emmett is also the person I would most like to sit down over a cup of coffee and just chit chat with all day. I have the utmost respect for Emmett and his opinions. I just disagree with him about a few things and the Libertarian Party.

I'm not saying that it is impossible for me to become a Libertarian, I'm just saying that with their current stands on abortion and homosexual rights I won't.

I'm by no means a hardcore Republican and if I ever found a party that was more aligned with my views and actually had a chance to win, I would jump ship immediately. I almost joined the Constitution party but it didn't even have representation in all states and they were to stupid to vote for a guy who would have brought them national prominence, Judge Roy Moore.

I take exception with Conservatives being defined by what Republicans do. The Republican Party barely represents Conservative views but they still maintain a pro-life position and marriage between a man and woman only. If those things change I will no longer be a Republican. I am far more Libertarian then I am Republican but I cannot in good conscience support any party that is pro-choice or pro gay-marriage.

Clarify something for me Emmett. You keep making Republicans and Conservatives synonymous yet you call yourself a Conservative and slam Republicans. How does that work?

I think I answered your question and I guess we can start here since I'm going to go nap right now, :salute:

[emmett]

I see that as key, myself....I think economically and politically there is little difference between Libertarian and Reagan style Republican, but on social issues the Libertarians are too liberal for my tastes....

i may remind you PMP, with all due respect that this is a ONE on ONE debate in the ONE on ONE thread. With a smile I ask you to please not try and assist me in dispatching Crin as I fully intend to do it myself. :laugh2:


Now to answer your question Crin. I so sometimes slam Republicans who claim to be Conservative. I do also categorize them together in most cases because the republican Party is / was founded in Conservative beliefs. I also think the Republican Party of today has allowed itself to "give in" to far too many of the left's political agenda. They do this to try and elastize their agenda and make it more appealing to borderline voters. It seems that everyone seems to want to "adjust" their philosophy by who will vote for them. Many voters compromise their true beliefs just so thye can get as much of their agenda as possible by voting for a more popular party. Such as yourself! You said you would join a party who didn't support Abortion, Gay Rights and ACTUALLY HAD A CHANCE TO WIN!

That is the main part of your stance that I disagree with. So....I'll ask you this;

Should it be against the law to be gay? What should the penalty be? Prison(?) Ah......I got news for you/ There is a bunch of queers in prison. Hords of them. Should we allow them to occupy a prison cell and support them?

How about Abortion? Illegal? Prison? Should we put the 17 year old in prison? How about her mom? Put her there too. Support them.

Please....I'm dying to hear your argument in this regard.


Prison cells are already scarce. Sentences for theives, robbers and rapists are being reduced all the time to allow the turnover rate to accomodate more prisoners. Am I to understand that by making these other activities illegal you are suggesting we should put these people in prison. What crimes should we slack off on next to accomodate a place for them?


What other lifestyle issues should we outlaw? Prison for them too I suppose. Let's see....we could just legislate our way to everyone living nice clean and pure lives then....could we not?


Your turn.

[crin63]

i may remind you PMP, with all due respect that this is a ONE on ONE debate in the ONE on ONE thread. With a smile I ask you to please not try and assist me in dispatching Crin as I fully intend to do it myself. :laugh2:


Now to answer your question Crin. I so sometimes slam Republicans who claim to be Conservative. I do also categorize them together in most cases because the republican Party is / was founded in Conservative beliefs. I also think the Republican Party of today has allowed itself to "give in" to far too many of the left's political agenda. They do this to try and elastize their agenda and make it more appealing to borderline voters. It seems that everyone seems to want to "adjust" their philosophy by who will vote for them. Many voters compromise their true beliefs just so thye can get as much of their agenda as possible by voting for a more popular party. Such as yourself! You said you would join a party who didn't support Abortion, Gay Rights and ACTUALLY HAD A CHANCE TO WIN!

That is the main part of your stance that I disagree with. So....I'll ask you this;

Should it be against the law to be gay? What should the penalty be? Prison(?) Ah......I got news for you/ There is a bunch of queers in prison. Hords of them. Should we allow them to occupy a prison cell and support them?

How about Abortion? Illegal? Prison? Should we put the 17 year old in prison? How about her mom? Put her there too. Support them.

Please....I'm dying to hear your argument in this regard.


Prison cells are already scarce. Sentences for theives, robbers and rapists are being reduced all the time to allow the turnover rate to accomodate more prisoners. Am I to understand that by making these other activities illegal you are suggesting we should put these people in prison. What crimes should we slack off on next to accomodate a place for them?


What other lifestyle issues should we outlaw? Prison for them too I suppose. Let's see....we could just legislate our way to everyone living nice clean and pure lives then....could we not?


Your turn.

I would treat homosexuals just like any other deviant pedophile. They're not asking to be left alone. They're not just average Americans trying to live their lives. They want to have access to my children and your children so they can corrupt them while in the long term try to recruit them and turn them. Thats the only way they can propagate their specie. I grew up around Lesbians and had friends who were gay. I no what they are and what they want.
I was about 10 the first time I ever encountered one, who sat there drooling and staring at me like I was a treat. I can still see his face some 35 years later. I was 15 the next time one decided to befriend me and he waited a year before he made a move. I was 17 when the next 2 approached me. I had one that was a friend when I was about 26 who preyed on a neighbor that was married and gave him AIDS just before he died from it.

They are in my opinion just as bad as any heterosexual pedophile and should be treated the same, even if that means legislating against them. They are not benign, they are a cancer rotting our society and like any cancer they need to be removed as quickly as possible.

With regards to abortion, yes it should be illegal. Except maybe in the case of the mothers life being at stake, when its one life or another or possibly both then obviously a decision has to be made. In the case of rape, that's tough because God has used the children of rape victims in a marvelous way.

What is your idea of absolute freedom? Apparently you think there should be some restrictions but that has never come across in your posts until I mentioned yelling, "Fire" or killing a neighbor. I know you are a man of character and wouldn't do those things but others would if there were not restrictions and consequences to those actions.

I believe that we should have as much liberty as possible without harming or negatively impacting our neighbors.

I'm gonna be running around tomorrow so I don't know if I'll get back to this until the afternoon or evening.

[emmett]

I've run across homosexuals in my life too. I however see them as no more influencial than anyone else whose agenda I disagree with. For instance a theif, a drug user or anyone who may try and influence me (or my children) to do something I know and have taught my children is wrong. I would not allow a homosexual to influence my decision as to how to align myself politically however as that would be adding a notch to their belt so to speak. By saying I would not want their ac tivity outlawed I do not mean to imply that I condone or agree with their behavior. I simply don't care. Government has no right to dictate how a person lives their personal life.

I believe in serious penalties for pedophiles. A position that one does not think government has a right to dictate personal lifestyle choices does not mean they would be any softer on pedophiles than anyone else. I would probably be much tougher than say...our current laws. I am also aware that there are gay people in every party now, including the Republican one.

You see, to me...I am not about to allow myself to be swayed by this bahavior. It will not influence my life, my political choices or anything. That is the part that like you...bothers so many Conservatives. You are allowing yourself to be limited in political thinking because of them. I refuse to enpower them in that way. So...that is the difference in this regard. What they do to each other is their business. Making it against the law will not change their thinking. Molestation, Pedophilia and the like would always remain against the law. Libertarians don't condone this by saying they are not against freedom of choice.

The personal liberty issues surrounding Americans lives are more important to me than my "fear" of homosexuals. I can teach my children right and wrong. I don't need government to do this. It makes the point of homosexuality moot. It just does not matter. Rather it is or is not against the law...it will take place. It isn't against the law now! Rape, Molestation, and being a pedophile is. So what would change? Nothing! It is of the least influencial items on a political prospective. That is my point. There is far too much to be gained by Conservatives to endorse Libertarian philosophy than to be lost by engaging in homophobia.

A rape victim might have a different prospective than you about being forced to have the child. Again...Freedom of choice.....CHOICE......across the board Crin. Choice is the true LIBERTY. The "right" to make the wrong decision on one's own. Not government! THAT is absolute freedom to me. Being able to choose. How could we take a woman who had been raped and put her in prison for making a decision she was placed in a position to make at no desire of her own? How many prisons do we need to build Crin?

These two subjects in which we are talking about seem to be allowed way too much emphasis in a Conservative's life to be aware of how much collective liberty we are sacrificing to think that way. Abortion is legal....so is being gay. However other matters of importance, such as our liberty is at stake. our failure to unify in these beliefs is causing us to lose more and more "rights" every day. The Republicans cannot win this social war, they are failing. They don't stand for the core beliefs of American life anymore. Libertarians do! Libertarians stand for the philosophical likeness of the political beliefs of our forefathers. We are not willing to com[promise liberty and in doing so must embrace all choice. All of it! Especially the right to teach our children what is right and wrong. If we do that well enough it willnot matter what social choices are and are not against the law. Our children will do right. They will make the right choices and it won't be "illegal" for them to do so. On our current course my friend...it most certainly could become such.

Imagine the possibilities under a National Health care system. Government withholding the most precious commodity we have from selected individuals who do not "conform" and have made bad choices such as rather to smoke or eat unhealthy food. It will happen Crin. That is going to happen to your children!!! The United States is going to decide if they live or die should the need arise. My friend...THAT is a much more important issue than whether we can teach them that the aforementioned sins are right or wrong.

It is counterproductive to continue to allow yourself to prescribe to a party whose agenda does not refuse to compromise on personal liberty. That is all I have ever said here. I do not advocate these choices and never will. That is the freedom I wish to continue to have and am losing every day because people who believe such as I do are afraid to band with me and other Libertarians because they feel they cannot "win". What if John Hancock would have thought like that Crin? What if while during those moments he pondered before placing that signature on that document he would have given into his fear of worrying about winning. he already knew he had very little chance of remaining alive but he knew he was on the side of right.

What about those young soldiers who spent their last moments on earth engaged in an act that would result in their paying with life to protect the liberty we felt so precious to our existance in the forming of our country? Our ability to choose to live the way we want. Do we not discredit their act by not standing up for absolute liberty? Absolute freedom?

[crin63]

If homosexuals kept it just between them, fine, but they don't. They are not satisfied with that. They are insisting on teaching children that it is normal, natural behavior. They want to pound it into their heads in school and make them play games pretending homosexuals are normal. They make children feel bad for thinking homosexuality is wrong. They are trying to do away with terms like mom and dad. I also know how they threaten to rape the children of those who oppose them. My friends were there when they were screaming it the kids and parents. They insist that we accept their deviant behavior as normal and want to silence our opposition to these practices through hate crime legislation.

We didn’t start this, they started it, when they decided to openly start trying to shove their lifestyle down our throats. They brought the war for our childrens minds to us. We didn’t go looking for this and we didn’t want it. They brought the war for our children to us when they tried to change the definition of marriage. What you seem to forget is that when it was just between them they weren’t satisfied.

If they would quit trying to pollute the minds of our children and leave them alone I wouldn't have the problem I have with them regardless of personal experience.

I am not and will not waiver in my opinion of them or how they should be treated until they back off and quit trying to mess with our children. When they quit trying to shove it down our childrens throats and keep it between themselves then I will back off.

When our kids are exposed to a barrage of propaganda day in and day out they end up succumbing to it at some level, regardless of how much we teach them against something. The peer pressure becomes overwhelming.

I have also said that they are welcome to come into my church and sit down quietly like everyone else. They are welcome to come and eat with us afterward so long as they mind their manners and don't cause any problems, just like anyone else. If they caused a problem they would be thrown out or arrested just like anyone else. I would make sure of it, since I deal with the problems that arise. We had a couple of lesbians show up right after prop 8 passed. I personally invited them to stay for food, which they did.

With regards to abortion after rape, thats a very tough position to be in. All I said is that God has wonderfully used some of those children born out of rape.

[emmett]

Your position is well documented. It avoids however the question you were initially asked. I am against homosexuality just as much as you are but it does not stop me from recognizing the advantages of a Libertarian platform and how it can influence my other thinking and contribution.

Homosexuality is not going to go away Crin. It is what it is. Frankly a Libertarian american would not stop communities from voting it to be illegal. Think about that also.

Don't want to taouch that rape / pregnancy issue do you? Don't blame you. It is a toughy. can't be illegal though. That is my argument.

So far Crin I am sorry however I don;t feel your argument. I know what your positions are from economic standpoint, taxes, government intrusions and liberty. YOU my friend are a Libertarian. Now where do I mail this application? LOL.

War on Drugs? This is a category that also prevents many Republicans from subscribing to a Libertarian agenda. What's you position?

[crin63]

Your position is well documented. It avoids however the question you were initially asked. I am against homosexuality just as much as you are but it does not stop me from recognizing the advantages of a Libertarian platform and how it can influence my other thinking and contribution.

Homosexuality is not going to go away Crin. It is what it is. Frankly a Libertarian american would not stop communities from voting it to be illegal. Think about that also.

Don't want to taouch that rape / pregnancy issue do you? Don't blame you. It is a toughy. can't be illegal though. That is my argument.

So far Crin I am sorry however I don;t feel your argument. I know what your positions are from economic standpoint, taxes, government intrusions and liberty. YOU my friend are a Libertarian. Now where do I mail this application? LOL.

War on Drugs? This is a category that also prevents many Republicans from subscribing to a Libertarian agenda. What's you position?

If abortion were illegal you wouldn't be locking up kids as you described previously. You would be eliminating all the doctors that perform abortions ability to do so openly. Yes there would still be some who did it secretly but they would be the ones being prosecuted, not the kids.

If you want a firm answer with regards to rape then I have to say no abortion there either. If you want an emotional answer then I have to its a tough position to be in. But I don't vote or decide my views based on emotion.

I'm going to fight against Homosexual marriages and anything else that has to do with them pretending to be normal and natural so they can get to our kids. Their numbers are growing exactly for this reason, people are allowing them to corrupt our children. I'm not going to quit and I do expect to be locked for hate speech someday because of opposing them.

I think the war on drugs is a waste of tax payer money.

I am opposed to them keeping records of Americans emails, text messages and phone calls, but I don't have a problem with wiretaps, when they are wiretapping incoming calls from suspected terrorists or terrorist countries.

I would also quit housing criminals with life sentences and start executing them. If someone does something so heinous that they cannot be released back into society and there are 2 or more witnesses. Then execute them and make space in the jails. The witnesses can be video, DNA, eye witness and finger prints. But there has to be more than a he said, she said.

[emmett]

10 4 on the executions.

You have to tap innocent calls to find guilty ones.

The War on Drugs is most certainly a waste of money

You are still confusing Morality's right to govern the personal lives and choices of people.

California for instance has a Republican governor but the issue of homo marriage does n ot seem to be going away. Political party affiliation isn't going to make a difference in that area. Republicans have held no more key position against Homosexuality than LIbertarians. The differences are just that Libertarians concentrate on issues of liberty. Like I said the right to make bad social choices. legislating social choices is a terrible encroachment on liberty. If the act is illegal fine....immoral, well, that's different. To make this against the law would lend credit to MB's statement on the comment thread that you would be wishine to legislate choices to Americans. Even the forefathers recognized the need to seperate church and state Crin.

The rape issue is indeed a tough one. Again however your position doesn't allow choice. Also a bit hypocritical to lock up only the doctor. The person who makes the choice to terminate a life is as guilty as the person performing the abortion regardless of the situation.

NONE of these issues restricts me from considering myself a Libertarian. I would wish (in a perfect world) that in each of these situations, people would make the right choices. I would feel howevewr that if they were law to force people to make them that it would be closer to Socialism than we presently live in now.

[crin63]

You are still confusing Morality's right to govern the personal lives and choices of people.

California for instance has a Republican governor but the issue of homo marriage does n ot seem to be going away. Political party affiliation isn't going to make a difference in that area. Republicans have held no more key position against Homosexuality than LIbertarians. The differences are just that Libertarians concentrate on issues of liberty. Like I said the right to make bad social choices. legislating social choices is a terrible encroachment on liberty. If the act is illegal fine....immoral, well, that's different. To make this against the law would lend credit to MB's statement on the comment thread that you would be wishine to legislate choices to Americans. Even the forefathers recognized the need to seperate church and state Crin.

The rape issue is indeed a tough one. Again however your position doesn't allow choice. Also a bit hypocritical to lock up only the doctor. The person who makes the choice to terminate a life is as guilty as the person performing the abortion regardless of the situation.

NONE of these issues restricts me from considering myself a Libertarian. I would wish (in a perfect world) that in each of these situations, people would make the right choices. I would feel howevewr that if they were law to force people to make them that it would be closer to Socialism than we presently live in now.

Well my friend, I'm back from vacation and ready to continue with our one on one. I want to remind everyone that I hold this man in highest regard and nothing in this discussion is going to take from that.


You are still confusing Morality's right to govern the personal lives and choices of people.

California for instance has a Republican governor but the issue of homo marriage does n ot seem to be going away. Political party affiliation isn't going to make a difference in that area. Republicans have held no more key position against Homosexuality than LIbertarians. The differences are just that Libertarians concentrate on issues of liberty. Like I said the right to make bad social choices. legislating social choices is a terrible encroachment on liberty. If the act is illegal fine....immoral, well, that's different. To make this against the law would lend credit to MB's statement on the comment thread that you would be wishine to legislate choices to Americans. Even the forefathers recognized the need to seperate church and state Crin.

California has a Liberal RINO for governor. He was able to suck in the stupid people who paid no attention to what he was saying and just voted for his celebrity status and the, “R” after his name. I personally wanted Grey Davis to stay in for a few more years and shove the Liberal crap down everyone’s throats from an actual admitted liberal. Maybe we could have made a real change to the right had that happened. I never voted for California’s current governor and I wont.

Our Founding Fathers were opposed to a, “church state” not keeping religious views and morality out of government. Our country was founded on Christian values. If you remove Christian values from our governing then you would have complete lawlessness and would have to throw out our founding documents.

Here are a few examples.

Andrew Jackson
“The Bible is the rock on which our republic rests”

John Adams credited pastors for Americas independence: Mayhew, Cooper, Whitefield, and Chauncy to name a few.

The very first session of congress is reported to have spent 3 hours in prayer prior to commencing with any business. It is also reported that even the old Quakers were crying when they were done. Then they had a Bible study. After which John Adams told Abigail that she should read Psalm 35, read it to your friends and read it your father.

Then they called for a day of fasting and prayer. John Adams said “millions will be upon their knees at once before their creator, imploring His forgiveness and blessings: His smiles on American councils and arms.

George Washington said with regards to all the battles that America was winning that
“The hand of Providence has been so conspicuous in all this that he must be worse than an infidel that lacks faith, and more than wicked, that has not gratitude enough to acknowledge his obligations”

Congress also printed the first English language Bible in the U.S.A. 11 months after winning at Yorktown for use in our public schools and said it would be a neat addition to our public schools.

The first public school law ever passed in America (1647 Connecticut and Massachusetts) was, “the old deluder satan act” to make sure The Bible was read in public schools.

In the treaty between the USA and Britain it was either signed or titled (I forget which), “In the Name of the Most Holy and undivided Trinity”. Sounds very Biblical to me.

John Adams also said
“The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the…. General principles of Christianity.

29 of the signers of the Declaration of Independence had seminary degrees.

So yes indeed America was founded on morality. I will be spending the next year studying about the founding of America and how it was founded as a Christian nation by Christians.



The rape issue is indeed a tough one. Again however your position doesn't allow choice. Also a bit hypocritical to lock up only the doctor. The person who makes the choice to terminate a life is as guilty as the person performing the abortion regardless of the situation.

Agreed, but if you take away the doctors and make it illegal, abortions will significantly decrease. I have no problem with prosecuting those who get abortions either if it comes to that. I’m just saying that if we cut off the funding and the source it will significantly reduce the butchery that is currently going on. Then theres the argument that there will be back alley abortions. Sin has consequences.


NONE of these issues restricts me from considering myself a Libertarian. I would wish (in a perfect world) that in each of these situations, people would make the right choices. I would feel howevewr that if they were law to force people to make them that it would be closer to Socialism than we presently live in now

My friend there is no greater liberty than liberty in Christ

[emmett]

Well my friend, I'm back from vacation and ready to continue with our one on one. I want to remind everyone that I hold this man in highest regard and nothing in this discussion is going to take from that.



California has a Liberal RINO for governor. He was able to suck in the stupid people who paid no attention to what he was saying and just voted for his celebrity status and the, “R” after his name. I personally wanted Grey Davis to stay in for a few more years and shove the Liberal crap down everyone’s throats from an actual admitted liberal. Maybe we could have made a real change to the right had that happened. I never voted for California’s current governor and I wont.

Our Founding Fathers were opposed to a, “church state” not keeping religious views and morality out of government. Our country was founded on Christian values. If you remove Christian values from our governing then you would have complete lawlessness and would have to throw out our founding documents.

Here are a few examples.

Andrew Jackson
“The Bible is the rock on which our republic rests”

John Adams credited pastors for Americas independence: Mayhew, Cooper, Whitefield, and Chauncy to name a few.

The very first session of congress is reported to have spent 3 hours in prayer prior to commencing with any business. It is also reported that even the old Quakers were crying when they were done. Then they had a Bible study. After which John Adams told Abigail that she should read Psalm 35, read it to your friends and read it your father.

Then they called for a day of fasting and prayer. John Adams said “millions will be upon their knees at once before their creator, imploring His forgiveness and blessings: His smiles on American councils and arms.

George Washington said with regards to all the battles that America was winning that
“The hand of Providence has been so conspicuous in all this that he must be worse than an infidel that lacks faith, and more than wicked, that has not gratitude enough to acknowledge his obligations”

Congress also printed the first English language Bible in the U.S.A. 11 months after winning at Yorktown for use in our public schools and said it would be a neat addition to our public schools.

The first public school law ever passed in America (1647 Connecticut and Massachusetts) was, “the old deluder satan act” to make sure The Bible was read in public schools.

In the treaty between the USA and Britain it was either signed or titled (I forget which), “In the Name of the Most Holy and undivided Trinity”. Sounds very Biblical to me.

John Adams also said
“The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the…. General principles of Christianity.

29 of the signers of the Declaration of Independence had seminary degrees.

So yes indeed America was founded on morality. I will be spending the next year studying about the founding of America and how it was founded as a Christian nation by Christians.




Agreed, but if you take away the doctors and make it illegal, abortions will significantly decrease. I have no problem with prosecuting those who get abortions either if it comes to that. I’m just saying that if we cut off the funding and the source it will significantly reduce the butchery that is currently going on. Then theres the argument that there will be back alley abortions. Sin has consequences.



My friend there is no greater liberty than liberty in Christ


I think you are right about 1647 being the year of the "Old Deluder Satan Act". I think that was right around the time women in Mass were being burned at the steak in the name of God my friend. Come to think of it, millions have been executed for not believing the right thing or saying the right thing about God. Government orchestrated these acts of horror in God;s name because they were able. Government needs to stay away from God completely. Families and churches should teach their children about God, not public schools

Religion influx into government has NEVER been a constructive thing in free nations. People can always choose their worship practices without government shoving it down their throats. Ah-ha....weren't ready for that out of me were you? I absolutely detest the idea of religion being taught in public schools as a mandate.


In my opinion however the issue is not about whether God and Government should be infused. Personally I think more than government needs God. I would hope that every moment's conscious of any man is steered by the All Mighty. The issue is about converting you to the Libertarian Party and I fully intend to do that. The issue of God and Government isn;t an issue in that regard. A good Libertarian government would certainly need to be full of believers in God as would any government comprised of people with conscious. You are allowing this issue to define too much of your political agenda in my opinion.

God encourages us to give to the less fortunate. He does not as far as I can tell use any of the writers in the Bible to encourage government of peoples to "take" from anyone using the disguise of government for the common good. So being careful not to assume too much here I would think God would be fine with a Libertarian administration in America. I know this because Libertarians give more money and time oer capita than any other group of Americans. Link you say? Well.....Libertarians do give but they don;t ask for recognition Crin. Much in the same way they don;t stand up and pound their chest about their convictions to free market enterprise, liberty and persoanl rights to be free Americans, they don't have to be spotlighters. Libertarians are a unit comprised of like minded people who want a better form of government that is much much smaller and does the simple business of the people Federally and allows states to decide how they live in regard to community and regional area. In a Libertarian America you might be able to locate a state that decided prayer and bible reading did belong in school. The Federal Government would not have the right to restrict that because that is what the people of that area, community, county or state wanted. THAT is Libertarian Crin.

Having said that it could be possible that a state could make abortion illegal. I can tell you right now that if it were allowed, the state of Oklahama would outlaw abortion right now! What is stopping them? Roe vs. Wade and the FEDERAL government. Having a system of government so intrusive as to think that everyone is the same makes us dependent on a Federal Government. A Libertarian form of government would also allow for the voting of legislation by the citizenry. Imagine if the Health care issue we are dealing with now was put to National Vote. Currently it would fail 50% to 43%. That is the latest Rasmussen poll results on that issue.

Just imagine if a US Supreme Court Justice was nominated that was a true Libertarian. Imagine that my friend!!!! A voice of real reason in a judges cloak. I get excited thinking about it. What if all 9 judges were Libertarians. We'd live in a different world my friend. What if everyone was Libertarian?

You have introduced arguments that include the fact that you cannot come to peace with Abortion being legal. You say someone that recieves one shopuld be prosecuted. OK. Guess what......it's legal now. Most Republicans support Abortion now. They talk a tough game but when it comes down to cases they fold. They wiffle waffle more than they do anything else. They know they can say one thing, that it is wrong, but how many introduce legislation each day that would change the law.

To have true faith one must believe God to be the final authority on everything. I sometimes wonder what goes through a doctor's mind right before he sticks that instrument of evil into a young lady and kills the fetus embedded in her womb. I totally trust however that even though I may not have the ability to do anything about it...God does and will. No matter what our laws say....his say it is wrong! No form of government we have will change that. That doctor and that lady will have to go to court one day in the "real Supreme court".

Lastly.....a Libertarian Government would allow allot of personal choice. Some of those choices I would not agree with just like the choices I do not agree with today. Government cannot make these choices one way or another. God even allows us a choice of whether we walk with him or not. The ultimate choice. He does not force us but rather offers us the choice. Why should our government be any different? The opportunity to choose in all that we do and let God be the judge.

Continuing to vote for a Party that has allowed the country to become this screwed up with their negligence is foolish sir. The Republican Party is as crooked as the Democrats. It is about power. A Republican will vote for a special interest so quick it will make your head swim. If you want to look at it from a prospective of how they have represented Christians, well.....I don't think I have to say anything else about that.


Remember....there are other issues. Eminant Domain, Search and Seizure, Taxes, etc,...Republicans AND Democrats have allowed these issues to result in intrusiveness and liberty restricting. Libertarians will not support the crap included in these issues. I feel better to be fighting for liberty from my angle today than I ever did. As I have said, I do not support Abortion but that does not stop me from fightiong it as a Libertarian. So many, yourself included believe that being a Libertarian means that I condone it. I DO NOT! I know many that do not! But as a libertarian I believe that War should be fought in church and by Christians. Who is better qualified? Politicians? Come on! Social Programs instituted by churches are a better weapon than government in stopping these atrosities. Families are a better weapon. Free families, liberty loving families who are strong, free and economically powerful and socially able.

[crin63]

I think you are right about 1647 being the year of the "Old Deluder Satan Act". I think that was right around the time women in Mass were being burned at the steak in the name of God my friend. Come to think of it, millions have been executed for not believing the right thing or saying the right thing about God. Government orchestrated these acts of horror in God;s name because they were able. Government needs to stay away from God completely. Families and churches should teach their children about God, not public schools

Religion influx into government has NEVER been a constructive thing in free nations. People can always choose their worship practices without government shoving it down their throats. Ah-ha....weren't ready for that out of me were you? I absolutely detest the idea of religion being taught in public schools as a mandate.


In my opinion however the issue is not about whether God and Government should be infused. Personally I think more than government needs God. I would hope that every moment's conscious of any man is steered by the All Mighty. The issue is about converting you to the Libertarian Party and I fully intend to do that. The issue of God and Government isn;t an issue in that regard. A good Libertarian government would certainly need to be full of believers in God as would any government comprised of people with conscious. You are allowing this issue to define too much of your political agenda in my opinion.

God encourages us to give to the less fortunate. He does not as far as I can tell use any of the writers in the Bible to encourage government of peoples to "take" from anyone using the disguise of government for the common good. So being careful not to assume too much here I would think God would be fine with a Libertarian administration in America. I know this because Libertarians give more money and time oer capita than any other group of Americans. Link you say? Well.....Libertarians do give but they don;t ask for recognition Crin. Much in the same way they don;t stand up and pound their chest about their convictions to free market enterprise, liberty and persoanl rights to be free Americans, they don't have to be spotlighters. Libertarians are a unit comprised of like minded people who want a better form of government that is much much smaller and does the simple business of the people Federally and allows states to decide how they live in regard to community and regional area. In a Libertarian America you might be able to locate a state that decided prayer and bible reading did belong in school. The Federal Government would not have the right to restrict that because that is what the people of that area, community, county or state wanted. THAT is Libertarian Crin.

Having said that it could be possible that a state could make abortion illegal. I can tell you right now that if it were allowed, the state of Oklahama would outlaw abortion right now! What is stopping them? Roe vs. Wade and the FEDERAL government. Having a system of government so intrusive as to think that everyone is the same makes us dependent on a Federal Government. A Libertarian form of government would also allow for the voting of legislation by the citizenry. Imagine if the Health care issue we are dealing with now was put to National Vote. Currently it would fail 50% to 43%. That is the latest Rasmussen poll results on that issue.

Just imagine if a US Supreme Court Justice was nominated that was a true Libertarian. Imagine that my friend!!!! A voice of real reason in a judges cloak. I get excited thinking about it. What if all 9 judges were Libertarians. We'd live in a different world my friend. What if everyone was Libertarian?

You have introduced arguments that include the fact that you cannot come to peace with Abortion being legal. You say someone that recieves one shopuld be prosecuted. OK. Guess what......it's legal now. Most Republicans support Abortion now. They talk a tough game but when it comes down to cases they fold. They wiffle waffle more than they do anything else. They know they can say one thing, that it is wrong, but how many introduce legislation each day that would change the law.

To have true faith one must believe God to be the final authority on everything. I sometimes wonder what goes through a doctor's mind right before he sticks that instrument of evil into a young lady and kills the fetus embedded in her womb. I totally trust however that even though I may not have the ability to do anything about it...God does and will. No matter what our laws say....his say it is wrong! No form of government we have will change that. That doctor and that lady will have to go to court one day in the "real Supreme court".

Lastly.....a Libertarian Government would allow allot of personal choice. Some of those choices I would not agree with just like the choices I do not agree with today. Government cannot make these choices one way or another. God even allows us a choice of whether we walk with him or not. The ultimate choice. He does not force us but rather offers us the choice. Why should our government be any different? The opportunity to choose in all that we do and let God be the judge.

Continuing to vote for a Party that has allowed the country to become this screwed up with their negligence is foolish sir. The Republican Party is as crooked as the Democrats. It is about power. A Republican will vote for a special interest so quick it will make your head swim. If you want to look at it from a prospective of how they have represented Christians, well.....I don't think I have to say anything else about that.


Remember....there are other issues. Eminant Domain, Search and Seizure, Taxes, etc,...Republicans AND Democrats have allowed these issues to result in intrusiveness and liberty restricting. Libertarians will not support the crap included in these issues. I feel better to be fighting for liberty from my angle today than I ever did. As I have said, I do not support Abortion but that does not stop me from fightiong it as a Libertarian. So many, yourself included believe that being a Libertarian means that I condone it. I DO NOT! I know many that do not! But as a libertarian I believe that War should be fought in church and by Christians. Who is better qualified? Politicians? Come on! Social Programs instituted by churches are a better weapon than government in stopping these atrosities. Families are a better weapon. Free families, liberty loving families who are strong, free and economically powerful and socially able.

I am more Libertarian than Republican, you already know that. However I cannot and will not waver on those 2 issues. For me to waver on those would be for me to abandon my convictions and that won't happen. If it ever comes to it, I hope that I will have the strength to give up my life rather than give up my convictions and beliefs.

I understand your position in having no government involvement in the abortion issue. However in your position you assign no rights to the unborn baby in the womb of the mother. You allow it to become nothing more than property which can either be executed without cause or granted life if the mother sees fit to do so. It has to be one way or the other, either the baby has rights or it does not. If it has rights then it has to be given the right to live. If it does not have rights then you have relegated it to the status of slave or property. Is the baby a person or not? Does it have rights or not?

I guess you disagree with our Founding Fathers then. They wanted The Bible to be read in school because it is the first founding document of this country. The Bible is the source for which we learn the value of man, how men should treat one another and how we should govern.

Apparently you also disagree with the first 150+ years of our country when we had prayer in our schools.

If you boil it down to the essence of your argument, then our Founding Fathers were wrong, they did not know what they were doing and we have been wrong as a country from conception until The Bible and prayer were removed from our schools.

I'm not interested in America being a theocracy. Yes some bad things have happened in the name of God by misguided or non-Christians. Not much of that has happened here though, not the millions you mentioned.

By the way religion is taught in our schools today. Secular Humanism is being taught. When were we better off as a country? When The Bible was read in our schools and we prayed in our schools or now? When was the greatest decline in our country? The last 50 or so years?

I clearly understand your arguments about the difference between Republicans and Libertarians. I also agree with much of what you say about the differences. However like I said before I will not waver on the 2 primary issues we have discussed. So long as Republicans remain pro-life and pro-traditional marriage I will not change. If another party comes along that I align with better I will be gone in a heart beat. I almost went Constitution Party until I researched them further. I will only align myself with a party that is pro-life, that does mean making stand one way or another and anti gay-agenda. I realize that homosexuals are going to win this fight at some point and then this will become a moot issue, but until that happens I have to continue fighting against it.

If I live to eat my words you will be the first to know and the first person I beg forgiveness of. I will then also ask to be put down because I will have abandon my principles and convictions.

[emmett]

I am more Libertarian than Republican, you already know that. However I cannot and will not waver on those 2 issues. For me to waver on those would be for me to abandon my convictions and that won't happen. If it ever comes to it, I hope that I will have the strength to give up my life rather than give up my convictions and beliefs.

I understand your position in having no government involvement in the abortion issue. However in your position you assign no rights to the unborn baby in the womb of the mother. You allow it to become nothing more than property which can either be executed without cause or granted life if the mother sees fit to do so. It has to be one way or the other, either the baby has rights or it does not. If it has rights then it has to be given the right to live. If it does not have rights then you have relegated it to the status of slave or property. Is the baby a person or not? Does it have rights or not?

I guess you disagree with our Founding Fathers then. They wanted The Bible to be read in school because it is the first founding document of this country. The Bible is the source for which we learn the value of man, how men should treat one another and how we should govern.

Apparently you also disagree with the first 150+ years of our country when we had prayer in our schools.

If you boil it down to the essence of your argument, then our Founding Fathers were wrong, they did not know what they were doing and we have been wrong as a country from conception until The Bible and prayer were removed from our schools.

I'm not interested in America being a theocracy. Yes some bad things have happened in the name of God by misguided or non-Christians. Not much of that has happened here though, not the millions you mentioned.

By the way religion is taught in our schools today. Secular Humanism is being taught. When were we better off as a country? When The Bible was read in our schools and we prayed in our schools or now? When was the greatest decline in our country? The last 50 or so years?

I clearly understand your arguments about the difference between Republicans and Libertarians. I also agree with much of what you say about the differences. However like I said before I will not waver on the 2 primary issues we have discussed. So long as Republicans remain pro-life and pro-traditional marriage I will not change. If another party comes along that I align with better I will be gone in a heart beat. I almost went Constitution Party until I researched them further. I will only align myself with a party that is pro-life, that does mean making stand one way or another and anti gay-agenda. I realize that homosexuals are going to win this fight at some point and then this will become a moot issue, but until that happens I have to continue fighting against it.

If I live to eat my words you will be the first to know and the first person I beg forgiveness of. I will then also ask to be put down because I will have abandon my principles and convictions.

OK...let us change the context for a minute. I am an anti-abortion Libertarian. Let me say that again. Anti-Abortion Libertarian. I believe life starts at conception and it is murder to terminate that life at any time. I struggle with the rape issue and I wish I had the answer to that but I don't. I do not feel I have the right to insist a woman has a child that is the product of rape or incest. I am just not qualified as is no man in my opinion. I do feel God is and I would be willing to leave that to him. As for making laws as to the requirements, again, that is why I would never run for public office. My conscience would bother me to think I had lent to the incarceration of a woman who had been raped and decided to terminate the pregnancy.

Convictions are good. Holding true to them is something we all need to do a little more of. My problem with the Republican Party is based in that exact subject. Republicans were supposed to be for small government, something we have all seen is no longer true. They were supposed to be the party that protected privacy, which they no longer do, property, which they no longer do and many other issues showed me that Republicans are nothing more than sleezy politicians like democrats. They chase votes and have thrown their convictions right into the trash can along with their dignity and conviction to serve the people via the US Constitution.

I believe that most of our argument here lies along the lines of Church and State really. It was established early on that it was imperative that Church and State be seperate. If not, we would be living in a society much like that we had abandoned. My reference to people having been murdered in the name of God was merely stated to show how many societies had condemned people to death for issues that questioned their faith in God. It's true you know. I didn;t necessarily mean just here in the US, although thousands were put to death back prior to our nations forming. You mentioned Mass so I mentioned the witch hunts. Sorry but I trumped you on that one!:laugh2:

Furthermore.....if I knew that people like you personally were in charge of government, convicted to running the country from a prospective that the Bible would be the law of the land I would feel fine if I was the same religion as you but what if I was not. I mean personally I think what a wonderful society any land would be if it followed the laws of the Bible. People would not steal, there would be no need for self defense so guns could be outlawed huh? No one would kill so we could eliminate folks' rights to all self defense methods and so forth. There would bo no adultery so no need for divorce courts, no greed, no nothing. What a wonderful world that would be my friend. An imaginary one however but it would be wonderful. The problem is that too much involvement of Church in State matters would lead to every time Church has been the State of a society, there would be useless murder of those who did not follow the doctrine. Simple theft would be considered an act against God and therefore be considered a violation of him and so forth. It has happened enough times throughout history to clearly demonstrate that I am absolutely correct and you know it. people would misuse the "power" that comes with thinking they, because they supposedly believe in God, which people like that do not, have!

Church and State must remain seperated. I say let people choose collectively their way of government socially and let their conscience be directed by their convictions to God or yes, even if they do not believe, their conscience. Not that I think their conscience can be one of propeity if it isn;t based in faith but this is America and that document we continue to discuss, guarentees as well that a citizen does not have to believe in God to live here and have the same rights as everyone else. It is what seperates us from everyone else. It is called liberty. Real Liberty assures us absolute freedom to choose to live our lives the way we want so long os we do not infringe on another's right to do the same. That sir is what America is all about. Absolute Freedom. Something that is being stolen from us each and every day as we live amongst it.

We are currently involved in one of the best debates I have ever seen here on this board or any other. A very fine line seperates two opinions of two people who I think are very convicted to their beliefs. Let us allow ourselves to use our imaginations for a minute to ponder what it would be like to think we were on the Senate floor conducting this argument over whether these issues that seperate us would be law or not. Let's see. Let us further imagine that we had won all our other battles together for all the other issues by which we agree. Liberty in way of privacy, we agree on that. We both agree that no one should ever have the right to come in our home uninvited. Well...I assume we do from our previous conversations, I also assume we agree on the 2nd, we believe in the right to self defense of ourselves and our family. We believe that a person should have the right to choose how they live as long as they do not infringe on another's rights (Abortion and Homosexuality aside). We both do not believe a person's property should be taken for the use of the state or private institution. We both believe government should be only the size necessary to orchestrate the most basic of business, infrastructure care, roadways and the like. We both agree on an awful lot my friend. Where we seem to differ is in whether the Churches law should govern our personal choices and rather people should be prosecuted for not living in accordance with God's law. As a matter of fact, our only disagreement of how to run government seems to be based in that. Which brings me back to my original assertion that you do not believe in the seperation of church and State and i would direct you that document we continue to reference and the core beliefs of our forefathers. America was designed in the context of believing in the complete seperation of church and State.

My assertion of this does not mean that I like our forefathers do not believe God has no place in our lives. To believe in Seperation does not suggest that at all. america has to guarentee individual liberty for ALL citizens, not just those who believe in God. Even atheists are assured the same rights as the rest of us. It has to be that way to assure that our beliefs as a nation are uniform. As believers we have to have the ultimate faith that God will handle it from there and that the ultimate choice he allows them to change by embracing the Lord Jesus Christ's doctrine will change their life. My belief is that if it is good enough for him, it is good enough for me. If we use our government to force people to live a certain way and make their choices for them, well Crin, IMHO, we are overstepping our bounds and operating above our pay grade.

[emmett]

While you are home with your wife this morning caring for your wife whom we wish to be well soon, please examine this;


LUKE 20 thru 26.

Read that and tell me your opinion on the seperation of church and state. Of course this is not meant to compliment my argument. I just felt like a breif "time out" this Sunday morning might be in order to give a couple of battle hardened warrior debators a chance to refresh themselves in some real words of wit might be in order. This way we might think about what we say in this regard while arguing this matter further.

Pay especially close attention to Jesus' words in Luke 25; Render therefore the things unto Ceasar that are Ceasar's, and to God the things that are God's.

Again, a Blessed Sunday to you and yours.

[crin63]

While you are home with your wife this morning caring for your wife whom we wish to be well soon, please examine this;


LUKE 20 thru 26.

Read that and tell me your opinion on the seperation of church and state. Of course this is not meant to compliment my argument. I just felt like a breif "time out" this Sunday morning might be in order to give a couple of battle hardened warrior debators a chance to refresh themselves in some real words of wit might be in order. This way we might think about what we say in this regard while arguing this matter further.

Pay especially close attention to Jesus' words in Luke 25; Render therefore the things unto Ceasar that are Ceasar's, and to God the things that are God's.

Again, a Blessed Sunday to you and yours.

Thank you my friend, my apologies for not getting back to this its been a rough week. My wife finally snapped back Wednesday and seems to be doing quite well now. I felt obligated to jump into another topic a little bit.

Any time we can talk about God and his word its a good day. Those scriptures were talking about taxes as a practical application, however I think they also apply to tithes and offerings. If its proper to give Caesar (government) his due then it is obviously more proper to give God his due which is tithes and offerings above the tithe.

I know its a touchy subject with many people because they have seen what fake preachers/religions have done and they want any excuse to pocket the cash God has declared as His (10% plus offerings). However God declared that those who hold back their tithes and offerings are robbing Him.

Mal 3:8 Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me. But ye say, Wherein have we robbed thee? In tithes and offerings.
Mal 3:9 Ye are cursed with a curse: for ye have robbed me, even this whole nation.
Mal 3:10 Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the LORD of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it.


There are other scriptures that would seem to dictate that we abide by the laws of government, however, no Christian should rightly abide by a law that causes them to sin. Thats where civil disobedience would come into play.

1Pe 2:13 Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme;
1Pe 2:14 Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.
1Pe 2:15 For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men:
1Pe 2:16 As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God.
1Pe 2:17 Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king.
1Pe 2:18 Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.
1Pe 2:19 For this is thankworthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully.
1Pe 2:20 For what glory is it, if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? but if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God.
1Pe 2:21 For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:

I have wrestled with whether or not our Founding Fathers were Biblically correct in the founding of our country. Should they have fought against England, I don't know. Am I glad they did, yes. This is a tough one for me.

[emmett]

Crin...I am happy for you guys in that your wife is feeling better. Man, she had one huh?

Now......address post #13 pal! LOL. I'm filling out this Libertarian Membership card for you right now so it will be ready to mail.

[crin63]

OK...let us change the context for a minute. I am an anti-abortion Libertarian. Let me say that again. Anti-Abortion Libertarian. I believe life starts at conception and it is murder to terminate that life at any time. I struggle with the rape issue and I wish I had the answer to that but I don't. I do not feel I have the right to insist a woman has a child that is the product of rape or incest. I am just not qualified as is no man in my opinion. I do feel God is and I would be willing to leave that to him. As for making laws as to the requirements, again, that is why I would never run for public office. My conscience would bother me to think I had lent to the incarceration of a woman who had been raped and decided to terminate the pregnancy.

Convictions are good. Holding true to them is something we all need to do a little more of. My problem with the Republican Party is based in that exact subject. Republicans were supposed to be for small government, something we have all seen is no longer true. They were supposed to be the party that protected privacy, which they no longer do, property, which they no longer do and many other issues showed me that Republicans are nothing more than sleezy politicians like democrats. They chase votes and have thrown their convictions right into the trash can along with their dignity and conviction to serve the people via the US Constitution.

I believe that most of our argument here lies along the lines of Church and State really. It was established early on that it was imperative that Church and State be seperate. If not, we would be living in a society much like that we had abandoned. My reference to people having been murdered in the name of God was merely stated to show how many societies had condemned people to death for issues that questioned their faith in God. It's true you know. I didn;t necessarily mean just here in the US, although thousands were put to death back prior to our nations forming. You mentioned Mass so I mentioned the witch hunts. Sorry but I trumped you on that one!:laugh2:

Furthermore.....if I knew that people like you personally were in charge of government, convicted to running the country from a prospective that the Bible would be the law of the land I would feel fine if I was the same religion as you but what if I was not. I mean personally I think what a wonderful society any land would be if it followed the laws of the Bible. People would not steal, there would be no need for self defense so guns could be outlawed huh? No one would kill so we could eliminate folks' rights to all self defense methods and so forth. There would bo no adultery so no need for divorce courts, no greed, no nothing. What a wonderful world that would be my friend. An imaginary one however but it would be wonderful. The problem is that too much involvement of Church in State matters would lead to every time Church has been the State of a society, there would be useless murder of those who did not follow the doctrine. Simple theft would be considered an act against God and therefore be considered a violation of him and so forth. It has happened enough times throughout history to clearly demonstrate that I am absolutely correct and you know it. people would misuse the "power" that comes with thinking they, because they supposedly believe in God, which people like that do not, have!

Church and State must remain seperated. I say let people choose collectively their way of government socially and let their conscience be directed by their convictions to God or yes, even if they do not believe, their conscience. Not that I think their conscience can be one of propeity if it isn;t based in faith but this is America and that document we continue to discuss, guarentees as well that a citizen does not have to believe in God to live here and have the same rights as everyone else. It is what seperates us from everyone else. It is called liberty. Real Liberty assures us absolute freedom to choose to live our lives the way we want so long os we do not infringe on another's right to do the same. That sir is what America is all about. Absolute Freedom. Something that is being stolen from us each and every day as we live amongst it.

We are currently involved in one of the best debates I have ever seen here on this board or any other. A very fine line seperates two opinions of two people who I think are very convicted to their beliefs. Let us allow ourselves to use our imaginations for a minute to ponder what it would be like to think we were on the Senate floor conducting this argument over whether these issues that seperate us would be law or not. Let's see. Let us further imagine that we had won all our other battles together for all the other issues by which we agree. Liberty in way of privacy, we agree on that. We both agree that no one should ever have the right to come in our home uninvited. Well...I assume we do from our previous conversations, I also assume we agree on the 2nd, we believe in the right to self defense of ourselves and our family. We believe that a person should have the right to choose how they live as long as they do not infringe on another's rights (Abortion and Homosexuality aside). We both do not believe a person's property should be taken for the use of the state or private institution. We both believe government should be only the size necessary to orchestrate the most basic of business, infrastructure care, roadways and the like. We both agree on an awful lot my friend. Where we seem to differ is in whether the Churches law should govern our personal choices and rather people should be prosecuted for not living in accordance with God's law. As a matter of fact, our only disagreement of how to run government seems to be based in that. Which brings me back to my original assertion that you do not believe in the seperation of church and State and i would direct you that document we continue to reference and the core beliefs of our forefathers. America was designed in the context of believing in the complete seperation of church and State.

My assertion of this does not mean that I like our forefathers do not believe God has no place in our lives. To believe in Seperation does not suggest that at all. america has to guarentee individual liberty for ALL citizens, not just those who believe in God. Even atheists are assured the same rights as the rest of us. It has to be that way to assure that our beliefs as a nation are uniform. As believers we have to have the ultimate faith that God will handle it from there and that the ultimate choice he allows them to change by embracing the Lord Jesus Christ's doctrine will change their life. My belief is that if it is good enough for him, it is good enough for me. If we use our government to force people to live a certain way and make their choices for them, well Crin, IMHO, we are overstepping our bounds and operating above our pay grade.

I disagree on the whole concept of separation of church and state. It was meant to be that we did not create a church state like the Church of England whereby it was mandatory for people and/or pastors to be a part of it. It was not meant to keep Biblical influence out of policy or decision making. I forget, maybe you can show me that in founding documents where it says that there cannot and should not be any Biblical influence.

I know you don't support abortion and what you see as infringing on one groups rights, I see as protecting the other groups rights.

The right for a baby from the time of conception to have life, liberty and to pursue happiness, its not the babies fault that it was conceived. For me its a simple concept. The moment the baby is conceived it should be protected. That should be the safest place in the world for that baby. If the mother doesn't want to keep the baby, put it up for adoption. I know people who waited for years to adopt children and others who would adopt children now except like everything else, there is way to much government intrusion into adoption. I have considered adopting now that my kids are mostly grown up but I wont because of government intrusion.

I also want to protect the rights of children to grow up as normal as possible, without the influence of predatory perverts. From a strictly personal viewpoint without any Biblical perspective. I don't want homosexuals to be given anything that lends to their appearance of normality. It is not normal. If it were normal they would be able to breed between themselves and have more offspring of their own kind. Since they cannot breed and create more of their own kind they have to recruit from the ranks of normal people. In order to recruit they have to have access to our children because they have to start teaching our children that its okay and its normal, just an alternative. Believe me when I say, that all the parental training in the world will not stop children from considering it normal and accepting it as normal because it is shoved down their throats at school and work.


Maybe you will recognize this little excerpt:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men”

[emmett]

And you think that we have made progress in acheiving these goals you speak of by using the system we have now?

Our forefathers were certainly more Libertarian than our politicians today. I think we would agree on that. Yet today we see the environment change to what it is.

If the Libertarian Party had more people with feelings and opinions like yours they could come full circle into a Party that could bring about the type of gradual change into the agenda we both feel would benefit America.

Political parties do adjust their platforms you know. When I joined the party we had no opinion on Imigration. We believed in totally open borders. The Libertarian Party has adjusted that item on the platform. You yourself say that you are more Libertarian than anything else. Ah...Crin.....knock knock brother!

No party is ever going to reflect the exact agenda of all of it's members. Which party represents the majority of yours and would be closer to the eventual agenda you would perceive proper for your country? By being involved you would be able to begin to influence that party to change. Imagine if ALL Republicans joined tomorrow! The agenda would then be majority Anti-Abortion and the party would have to adjust.


I'm done. Where do I mail the card?

PS...lets not let the crickets sing too long OK. They have been working hard on these threads and deserve a break. LOL.

[crin63]

And you think that we have made progress in acheiving these goals you speak of by using the system we have now?

Our forefathers were certainly more Libertarian than our politicians today. I think we would agree on that. Yet today we see the environment change to what it is.

If the Libertarian Party had more people with feelings and opinions like yours they could come full circle into a Party that could bring about the type of gradual change into the agenda we both feel would benefit America.

Political parties do adjust their platforms you know. When I joined the party we had no opinion on Imigration. We believed in totally open borders. The Libertarian Party has adjusted that item on the platform. You yourself say that you are more Libertarian than anything else. Ah...Crin.....knock knock brother!

No party is ever going to reflect the exact agenda of all of it's members. Which party represents the majority of yours and would be closer to the eventual agenda you would perceive proper for your country? By being involved you would be able to begin to influence that party to change. Imagine if ALL Republicans joined tomorrow! The agenda would then be majority Anti-Abortion and the party would have to adjust.


I'm done. Where do I mail the card?

PS...lets not let the crickets sing too long OK. They have been working hard on these threads and deserve a break. LOL.

Sorry but theres no need to mail the form. I won't be leaving the Republican Party until I find the right fit. If I'm gonna have to fight for a party to change like I would the Libertarian Party then why move? I can fight here where I am at for change. I may be beating my head against the wall but its a pretty thick scull.

I will not compromise on my positions. I will not join a party that is not opposed to abortion in its platform. I will not join a party that is pro homosexual rights. If that ever changes, I promise you will be one of the first people to know and a long apology will follow along with eating of crow.

[emmett]

Sorry but theres no need to mail the form. I won't be leaving the Republican Party until I find the right fit. If I'm gonna have to fight for a party to change like I would the Libertarian Party then why move? I can fight here where I am at for change. I may be beating my head against the wall but its a pretty thick scull.

I will not compromise on my positions. I will not join a party that is not opposed to abortion in its platform. I will not join a party that is pro homosexual rights. If that ever changes, I promise you will be one of the first people to know and a long apology will follow along with eating of crow.

Since you said you have a thick skull I'll just agree with you. You sure do. Of course you have a pretty version of a platform to stand on with that thick skull. LOL.

OK. I read your reply. I could say this. You choose to stay with a party that advocated the taking of a man's property so tax generating businesses and condos could be built. You are sticking with a party that allowed and passed a law to intrude upon the privacy of citizens personal conversations due to some lame attempt to detect national security risks. You have stuck with a party that hasn't sent an amendment to the floor to change abortion in years or made any attempte to outlaw homosexuality as you would like. You stay with a party that has its members turncoating one at a time to the other side in a search to gain a say in the power of being popular. Selling out that is.

OK....have it your way. You go ahead and stick with that party my friend. I must say they are making such wonderful progress in attacking those issues you seem to hold dear. I mean just look at the progress we have made in things like personal liberty too.

And as to your statement of how Christian values were prevalent in our original philosophy, I agree. And again I say I remember the executions too in God's name. This is not a government I want of people judging how each should live based on their self appointed right to be God. God is the only judge and we are all accountable to him and him only for the choices we make in the end. Continnuing to subscribe to a philosophy that is helping make life worse for Americans day after day while sitting back and not trying one's best to move toward the philosophy of the forefathers is counterproductive.

[crin63]

Since you said you have a thick skull I'll just agree with you. You sure do. Of course you have a pretty version of a platform to stand on with that thick skull. LOL.

OK. I read your reply. I could say this. You choose to stay with a party that advocated the taking of a man's property so tax generating businesses and condos could be built. You are sticking with a party that allowed and passed a law to intrude upon the privacy of citizens personal conversations due to some lame attempt to detect national security risks. You have stuck with a party that hasn't sent an amendment to the floor to change abortion in years or made any attempte to outlaw homosexuality as you would like. You stay with a party that has its members turncoating one at a time to the other side in a search to gain a say in the power of being popular. Selling out that is.

OK....have it your way. You go ahead and stick with that party my friend. I must say they are making such wonderful progress in attacking those issues you seem to hold dear. I mean just look at the progress we have made in things like personal liberty too.

And as to your statement of how Christian values were prevalent in our original philosophy, I agree. And again I say I remember the executions too in God's name. This is not a government I want of people judging how each should live based on their self appointed right to be God. God is the only judge and we are all accountable to him and him only for the choices we make in the end. Continnuing to subscribe to a philosophy that is helping make life worse for Americans day after day while sitting back and not trying one's best to move toward the philosophy of the forefathers is counterproductive.

Like I said, if I'm going to have to fight within the party I'm affiliated with to change why wouldn't I just stay and fight to change the party I'm already with. It makes no sense to switch to another party and start fighting to change it. If another party emerges that I find I have a better fit with, I will switch.

The homosexual issue will become a moot point politically speaking in the near future. I think its probably to late to stem the tide. They have/had a great game plan and marketing strategy. They laid out their plans in 1973 I think it was and have executed it with precision.

When a Christian points out sin, he is not being judgmental. He is not judging people. God has already judged. The Christians is simply pointing out the violations of what God has already judged to be wrong. Do you tell someone they are dying from cancer or just let them die without trying to help them.

There have been very few executions ever done by actual Christians. They were done by people claiming to be Christians and claiming to be doing it in the name of God. However if you look at their beliefs and who they were acting on behalf of it was not based on biblical beliefs. I'm also not talking about a theocracy, just a return the principles and Godly beliefs of most of our founders.

I have just started doing my research on the faith of our founders. I have not yet verified but have been told that the Declaration of Independence was based on the sermons that were being preached from the pulpits of Americas churches. The whole taxation without representation thing is something of a distraction away from the realities. If taxation was so important and the main reason for our fight for independence then why was it number 17 on the list of grievances?

It was your job to convince me of the error of my ways. I remain unconvinced, guess you will be voting Republican next election. :poke: :coffee:

[emmett]

like i said, if i'm going to have to fight within the party i'm affiliated with to change why wouldn't i just stay and fight to change the party i'm already with. It makes no sense to switch to another party and start fighting to change it. If another party emerges that i find i have a better fit with, i will switch.

yes it does. It makes perfect sense if the new party represents a bit closer to the platform you do.

the homosexual issue will become a moot point politically speaking in the near future. I think its probably to late to stem the tide. They have/had a great game plan and marketing strategy. They laid out their plans in 1973 i think it was and have executed it with precision.

agreed. But you know what. To me i have way too much to worry about than them. I am confident in my ability to teach my children that this behavior is wrong so i don't fret over it too much.

when a christian points out sin, he is not being judgmental. He is not judging people. God has already judged. The christians is simply pointing out the violations of what god has already judged to be wrong. Do you tell someone they are dying from cancer or just let them die without trying to help them.

bad analogy. Has nothing to do with debate. Being a libertarian does not restrict you from pointing out sin to your neighbor if that is what you see fit. It simply means you will be subscribing to a philosophy that promotes more liberty for your fellow american.



there have been very few executions ever done by actual christians. They were done by people claiming to be christians and claiming to be doing it in the name of god. However if you look at their beliefs and who they were acting on behalf of it was not based on biblical beliefs. I'm also not talking about a theocracy, just a return the principles and godly beliefs of most of our founders.

I have just started doing my research on the faith of our founders. I have not yet verified but have been told that the declaration of independence was based on the sermons that were being preached from the pulpits of americas churches. The whole taxation without representation thing is something of a distraction away from the realities. If taxation was so important and the main reason for our fight for independence then why was it number 17 on the list of grievances?

It was your job to convince me of the error of my ways. I remain unconvinced, guess you will be voting republican next election. :poke: :coffee:

not so fast quick draw, i don't give up that easily. You need to go back to your desk and sit down, this lesson isn't over yet

[emmett]

Crin, with all due respect (and you deserve plenty), you have failed to do anything but establish the fact that you think government should be ran strictly by the bible. You have established that there was great influence by Christians in the set up of our founding philosophy. I acknowledge this. I also acknowledge that the vision of our forefathers saw it fit to understand that not everyone who would enter America would be Christian so Freedom of chosen worship was given great consideration in their philosophy as well. They also made sure to make it well known that a State too influenced by the Church would merely lead to the mistakes of the past in other nations. Church and State must remain seperate in order to ensure true liberty.

I have shown however that being a Libertarian falls clearly into the description of what our forefathers envisioned.

The two issues, as you describe them and I agree are Abortion and Homosexuality. I agree with the philosophy that they are both wrong. Abortion was of course illegal in the days of the forming of our nation. I would be good with that frankly and would support the overturning of Roe vs. Wade. On this item we agree. I do not think in some cases, such as rape that a woman should be imprisoned if she had an abortion. I admit, as you do, that this is a very difficult problem and has no simple answer.

Homosexuality was around in those times too but obviously was tucked deep in the closet of those who partook in this incidious activity. It is wrong, the bible says it is wrong, most people think it is wrong. I agree to all of that. What I would not allow it to do is influence me to not align myself with the best philosophy of the rest of the agenda. This would be empowering homos way too much. Libertarians have a much closer agenda to my beliefs in all other areas. If I were to allow the Freedom of Choice issue of Social life to stop me from believing I could do more good as A Libertarian I would be doing exactly that. Which you are! You are empowering homosexuals my friend. You are allowing them to stop you from endorsing the political philosophy you yourself say is closer to your beliefs than that of the liberty evading Republicans.

In closing......

You are being repeticious!

You are being closed minded!

You are trailing in this debate!


Your turn......

[emmett]

Your silence on this issue makes me think you only two points of why you would not vote Libertarian are Abortion and Homosexuality. Well....you said that so I agree it is true. I am especially impressed with how your party has dealt with these issues over the years and made America an obviously better place because of their position.


Here is a question for you. I know you are a fan of Glenn Beck, or at least I had the impression you were, if Glenn Beck ran for President as a Libertarian in 2012 would you vote for him since he shares an almost identical view to your own. Beck is pretty much anti-gay and is wildly supportive of anti-abortion legislation but as all know is a line item Libertarian from there. Sort of like an "Emmett" you might say.

To answer the question in reverse form to myself: Would I vote for Glenn Beck if he were to run as a Republican, the answer is a resounding YES....I would!

[crin63]

Your silence on this issue makes me think you only two points of why you would not vote Libertarian are Abortion and Homosexuality. Well....you said that so I agree it is true. I am especially impressed with how your party has dealt with these issues over the years and made America an obviously better place because of their position.


Here is a question for you. I know you are a fan of Glenn Beck, or at least I had the impression you were, if Glenn Beck ran for President as a Libertarian in 2012 would you vote for him since he shares an almost identical view to your own. Beck is pretty much anti-gay and is wildly supportive of anti-abortion legislation but as all know is a line item Libertarian from there. Sort of like an "Emmett" you might say.

To answer the question in reverse form to myself: Would I vote for Glenn Beck if he were to run as a Republican, the answer is a resounding YES....I would!

No offense my friend but I have actually been quite busy , my mind is focused elsewhere on the things I have to get done and since unless I concede you plan on this going until November 2010, I really didn't see any rush to answer. No offense intended.

[emmett]

No offense my friend but I have actually been quite busy , my mind is focused elsewhere on the things I have to get done and since unless I concede you plan on this going until November 2010, I really didn't see any rush to answer. No offense intended.


Just joggin on you a little. Top of the day to you sir.


Repeat the question: If Glenn Beck (or a similarly likeminded) Libertarian ran for presidsent, would you vote for them?

Then maybe throw in some comment on how your philosophy differs or is strikingly similar to that of a Glenn beck (cause it is).

Don't you think it feasible that a candidate such as a Beck could accomplish the suggestion I made a few posts ago about beginning a tweaking of the Conservative Libertarian political philosophy into something a bit more palletable to more people (such as those Libertarians who are more socially liberal)who share many of "our" beliefs.

Since the three issues seem to be;

1) Abortion
2) Homosexuality / Gay Marriage
3) The War on Drugs

(4. For me - Eminant Domain)

Republicans (as Immanuel mentioned in the Comments thread) have done a poor job of representing the issues you seem passionate about. They certainly haven't made any progress in maintaining Conservatism in their platform. I mean look at the candidate they just ran. He is most certainly the most liberal Republican to ever reach the final ticket. He has been wishy washy on Abortion and clearly endorses Homosexuality since he addresses them in speeches. You voted for him I suppose (?).


Libertarians trump Republicans in my opinion on issues like taxation. We support Tax Reform in the way of either Fair / Flat tax. I think that resonates with almost every Republican on the planet yet I don;t hear Republicans hammering away at this issue (except Ron Paul who is really a Libertarian).

Republicans caved into the left with Medicare Drug benefits which as you know have cost us ten times more than originally predicted.

Republicans not only caved but literally instigated the biggest infringement into our social liberty with the interoduction of the Patriot Act. I don;t see that as being very friendly to personal liberty.

Maybe you could address some of these issues, I'd really like to see your opinions.

Take your time. 2012 is three years away. :laugh2:

[crin63]

Hello my friend.

I have to agree that Republicans have failed miserably, they may never figure it out and I will in all likelihood leave the Republican Party. I was opposed to the Patriot Act because it gave to much power to the government to interfere in our lives, especially in the wrong hands. Laws that go beyond our Constitution are double edged weapons that cut both ways.

Might I vote for a Libertarian Presidential candidate, sure. Will I join the Libertarian Party, not likely, unless the platform changes. I would very likely vote for Beck. Beck/Nugent 2012 would be an interesting ticket.

I'm going to be looking very closely at the different parties in the coming months leading up to the next elections. I will be looking at the Constitution Party again to see if they have made the changes I see as necessary to join them. I almost joined the CP but they were affiliated with the Independent Party, had no representation here and picked the wrong candidate in Chuck Baldwin. Had they picked Judge Roy Moore and had he accepted I probably would have gone that route. Judge Roy Moore could have pulled the votes away from all sides and gave it a serious run I believe.

I voted for McCain yes but only because I saw the great evil coming our way in Barak Obama. Trying to defeat that great evil was more important than voting elsewhere for someone who had absolutely no chance of winning. Even a RINO like McCain would have been better than what we are now saddled with. Although Americans are getting to see the real Democrats right now in this Fascist Socialist President. Maybe this will turn America around and get us back on the right course.

[emmett]

Hello my friend.

I have to agree that Republicans have failed miserably, they may never figure it out and I will in all likelihood leave the Republican Party. I was opposed to the Patriot Act because it gave to much power to the government to interfere in our lives, especially in the wrong hands. Laws that go beyond our Constitution are double edged weapons that cut both ways.

Might I vote for a Libertarian Presidential candidate, sure. Will I join the Libertarian Party, not likely, unless the platform changes. I would very likely vote for Beck. Beck/Nugent 2012 would be an interesting ticket.

I'm going to be looking very closely at the different parties in the coming months leading up to the next elections. I will be looking at the Constitution Party again to see if they have made the changes I see as necessary to join them. I almost joined the CP but they were affiliated with the Independent Party, had no representation here and picked the wrong candidate in Chuck Baldwin. Had they picked Judge Roy Moore and had he accepted I probably would have gone that route. Judge Roy Moore could have pulled the votes away from all sides and gave it a serious run I believe.

I voted for McCain yes but only because I saw the great evil coming our way in Barak Obama. Trying to defeat that great evil was more important than voting elsewhere for someone who had absolutely no chance of winning. Even a RINO like McCain would have been better than what we are now saddled with. Although Americans are getting to see the real Democrats right now in this Fascist Socialist President. Maybe this will turn America around and get us back on the right course.


And a top of this wonderful Sunday evening to you sir.....


Finally a post where the issues of Abortion and Homosexuality didn't highlight your opinion on this issue. :laugh2:

I have to say that the occurances of the past few days should have encouraged all to understand exactly what my point has been. Between 1 and 2 million Americans converging on Washington in a protest of the way government is railroading the liberty and rights of people to be properly represented by their elected officials.

Then again...someone could say.....ONLY 1 or 2 million couldn't they? Well...actually...no they can't. Those folks (mostly Libertarian as I am sure you will agree, not party Libertarian, fundamentally Libertarian) are sure stirring the shitpot. Glenn Beck, whom I am happy to know you would support, and I assure you would run as a Libertarian, would be a fantastic choice.

My point......it dosen't take a majority to win change, just a constant and dedicated minority if the cause is just. And..my friend...their cause IS just!!!

I was delighted to see the Ron Paul shirts all over the place and thought back to how Republicans called him a "kook" and how they made fun of him during the Rally for Liberty last year however I have to think that the major core of the folks on the mall were indeed his supporters from last year, along with other Conservative supporters, Libertarians and concerned Americans. Together, by uniting based on their common ground, NOT arguing over the parts they disagree on, they have sent the loudest civil message ever heard in the country on one given day in rebellion to a government that wishes to ram down our throats a policy that they unilaterally disagree with. I assume you and I would both be in that crowd if able yet we are here "debating" an issue, party affiliation and some topics we "disagree on.

Now my point would be this in closing. In order to accomplish a unilateral objective, would not these folks be wise to "vote" together to accomplish first the important objective first, then "debate" later to eliminate any "holes" in their collective philosophy?

We are in this mess because we failed in the past to properly support Liberty. As voters we allowed ourselves to think it was more important to "win" than to stand up on principle. This huge group of wonderful Americans has proven you don;t have to have a 51% majority to get attention. They cannot be ignored because they insist they cannot.

Liberty and Freedom of Choice must come first!

[crin63]

And a top of this wonderful Sunday evening to you sir.....


Finally a post where the issues of Abortion and Homosexuality didn't highlight your opinion on this issue. :laugh2:

I have to say that the occurances of the past few days should have encouraged all to understand exactly what my point has been. Between 1 and 2 million Americans converging on Washington in a protest of the way government is railroading the liberty and rights of people to be properly represented by their elected officials.

Then again...someone could say.....ONLY 1 or 2 million couldn't they? Well...actually...no they can't. Those folks (mostly Libertarian as I am sure you will agree, not party Libertarian, fundamentally Libertarian) are sure stirring the shitpot. Glenn Beck, whom I am happy to know you would support, and I assure you would run as a Libertarian, would be a fantastic choice.

My point......it dosen't take a majority to win change, just a constant and dedicated minority if the cause is just. And..my friend...their cause IS just!!!

I was delighted to see the Ron Paul shirts all over the place and thought back to how Republicans called him a "kook" and how they made fun of him during the Rally for Liberty last year however I have to think that the major core of the folks on the mall were indeed his supporters from last year, along with other Conservative supporters, Libertarians and concerned Americans. Together, by uniting based on their common ground, NOT arguing over the parts they disagree on, they have sent the loudest civil message ever heard in the country on one given day in rebellion to a government that wishes to ram down our throats a policy that they unilaterally disagree with. I assume you and I would both be in that crowd if able yet we are here "debating" an issue, party affiliation and some topics we "disagree on.

Now my point would be this in closing. In order to accomplish a unilateral objective, would not these folks be wise to "vote" together to accomplish first the important objective first, then "debate" later to eliminate any "holes" in their collective philosophy?

We are in this mess because we failed in the past to properly support Liberty. As voters we allowed ourselves to think it was more important to "win" than to stand up on principle. This huge group of wonderful Americans has proven you don;t have to have a 51% majority to get attention. They cannot be ignored because they insist they cannot.

Liberty and Freedom of Choice must come first!

I missed our little debate here in own little corner of the world, as I always enjoy your point of view even when we disagree. Which still needs to be pointed out is very little.

I'm very encouraged by what we saw the past few days and I am looking forward to seeing where this whole things goes. It will be very interesting to see what party arises out of this.

I was very impressed with the guy who asked the crowd to quiet down so that the CNN reporter could ask her question. He told the crowd that they didn't have to shout her down, it really showed the difference between those who love liberty and the left in this country. Personally I think it is quite telling the difference between how the sides protest. I'm surrounded by cars that have Obama stickers on them. I would never vandalize those peoples cars, however if I had any kind of political sticker on my car that they didn't like, my truck would get keyed, the sticker would be torn off and my truck would get trashed. Someone took my NRA life member emblem off my truck. Those on the left don't want free speech, they just wanna beat us into submission.

I haven't had a chance to watch the Glenn Beck show from Saturday yet but I am looking forward to it. I hope to sit down tomorrow and watch some of it.

I think these last few days have shown that average Americans have not given up on America. That the dream is still alive. I think this the best I have felt about the chance for our country in a couple decades.

[emmett]

I missed our little debate here in own little corner of the world, as I always enjoy your point of view even when we disagree. Which still needs to be pointed out is very little.

I'm very encouraged by what we saw the past few days and I am looking forward to seeing where this whole things goes. It will be very interesting to see what party arises out of this.

I was very impressed with the guy who asked the crowd to quiet down so that the CNN reporter could ask her question. He told the crowd that they didn't have to shout her down, it really showed the difference between those who love liberty and the left in this country. Personally I think it is quite telling the difference between how the sides protest. I'm surrounded by cars that have Obama stickers on them. I would never vandalize those peoples cars, however if I had any kind of political sticker on my car that they didn't like, my truck would get keyed, the sticker would be torn off and my truck would get trashed. Someone took my NRA life member emblem off my truck. Those on the left don't want free speech, they just wanna beat us into submission.

I haven't had a chance to watch the Glenn Beck show from Saturday yet but I am looking forward to it. I hope to sit down tomorrow and watch some of it.

I think these last few days have shown that average Americans have not given up on America. That the dream is still alive. I think this the best I have felt about the chance for our country in a couple decades.

Me too Crin, and it actually does lend something to our debate.....AND....as much as I am pleased to say....supports my side sir. Not that I think you wrong! It simply supports of of the very difficult point I was trying to make in some of the first posts, which I failed on at times to articulate properly which left you with what could have been a miscommunication on my behalf.

Example: I am certain that not all of those over 1 million citizens that congregated to demonstrate this past weekend were in agreement about every single thing on each's agenda. I'm sure many of them had your opinion of a strong religious based society of law, while mine were more liberal in that particular sense and while believers, think it necessary for each to choose his own way so long as it does not immediately infringe on another's liberty. The thing they all had in common was obvious and together they made quite an impression on both you, as you admit you feel better than you have in decades, and me, as I do as well. Hmmmm!

Sort of goes back to the point I made about finding common denominators first! Such as Liberty! Freedom! Choice! Rights! Smaller Government. These are Libertarian core beliefs. I'm sure I need not explain that to you as I have never meant to say you did not understand that. My point has always been to accuse you of being slightly narrow on the religious end and that I felt it was a violation of one's liberty to allow people to decide for others how they should live. That creates BIGGER government and goes against everything liberty stands for. Liberty is not elastic Crin, you can't have Liberty in a country where any sect, Christian or otherwise, has the ability to tell others how to live.

This does meran to suggest that I do not think it is right. I simply refuse to compromise on a belief that Liberty comes first. Absolute Liberty....not a watered down version but real true liberty.

Again...I repeat that in a perfect society there would be no homosexuality or abortions as far as I am concerned.

The folks we saw over the weekend had one thing in common....what was it?

That is my point! AND......they made theirs together while I am sure there differences among them of some regard.

[crin63]

Me too Crin, and it actually does lend something to our debate.....AND....as much as I am pleased to say....supports my side sir. Not that I think you wrong! It simply supports of of the very difficult point I was trying to make in some of the first posts, which I failed on at times to articulate properly which left you with what could have been a miscommunication on my behalf.

Example: I am certain that not all of those over 1 million citizens that congregated to demonstrate this past weekend were in agreement about every single thing on each's agenda. I'm sure many of them had your opinion of a strong religious based society of law, while mine were more liberal in that particular sense and while believers, think it necessary for each to choose his own way so long as it does not immediately infringe on another's liberty. The thing they all had in common was obvious and together they made quite an impression on both you, as you admit you feel better than you have in decades, and me, as I do as well. Hmmmm!

Sort of goes back to the point I made about finding common denominators first! Such as Liberty! Freedom! Choice! Rights! Smaller Government. These are Libertarian core beliefs. I'm sure I need not explain that to you as I have never meant to say you did not understand that. My point has always been to accuse you of being slightly narrow on the religious end and that I felt it was a violation of one's liberty to allow people to decide for others how they should live. That creates BIGGER government and goes against everything liberty stands for. Liberty is not elastic Crin, you can't have Liberty in a country where any sect, Christian or otherwise, has the ability to tell others how to live.

This does meran to suggest that I do not think it is right. I simply refuse to compromise on a belief that Liberty comes first. Absolute Liberty....not a watered down version but real true liberty.

Again...I repeat that in a perfect society there would be no homosexuality or abortions as far as I am concerned.

The folks we saw over the weekend had one thing in common....what was it?

That is my point! AND......they made theirs together while I am sure there differences among them of some regard.

My point or argument as it may be is more of moral stand than actually a religious stand. When I read the founding fathers, there is absolutely no doubt that they intended a moral society for us to live in. As I read their writings I find that they were quite convinced that the only way for our country to survive and our liberties to be preserved was through a moral society. Without a particular guide for morality you end up with what we have now in our society and the losses of liberty that we are seeing from our overreaching, heavy-handed government. Morality cannot be subjective, there has to be a guideline and for our founding fathers that guideline was the Bible.

All I actually want is for our country to be restored to the vision of our founding fathers.

It seems as though your view of liberty is a lawless, immoral society where every man does what is right in his own eyes. Because that is what you will end up with if every man does what is right in his own eyes. Now don't get me wrong, I understand that you oppose the immoralities of our previous conversation, but you would allow them. Where do you draw the line? I would never suggest that we go and check peoples beds to see what they are doing, but it also cant be considered the norm and given free run.

Absolute and unfettered liberty will only result in tyranny because the biggest and baddest with the most people and weapons will rise up and dominate. Its the unchecked nature of man to do so.

My friend, liberty only works in a moral society.

[emmett]

It seems as though your view of liberty is a lawless, immoral society where every man does what is right in his own eyes. Because that is what you will end up with if every man does what is right in his own eyes. Now don't get me wrong, I understand that you oppose the immoralities of our previous conversation, but you would allow them. Where do you draw the line? I would never suggest that we go and check peoples beds to see what they are doing, but it also cant be considered the norm and given free run.


You have hit on my point exactly, WHO draws the line for the standards by which folks live their personal lives? Government or eack individual citizen.

You requesting a pipe dream my friend. History has taught us also that when government is empowered with ANY ability to oversee our lives, we end up with what we have. In my opinion, we either have to have liberty or not. By allowing government to dictate ANY portion of our liberty, we enable them to dictate it all. Read my footer Crin and say it out loud.

I'd love to live in the land you envision and be a productive responsible member of it. I am a realist however and know that to have as close a version of that land as possible there will be our obligation to allow people the ability to make their own decisions. Many will make the wrong ones. Liberty allows people to choose for themselves. The only way to ensure the land you speak of is a Religious based "police state". That is not liberty.

I think the difference here, if there is a difference, since basically we want the same thing, is that I am a wee bit more of a realist than you. Since you admit we cannot live in a land that "checks beds" every evening, well, Crin........what did you just say? We can't! We simply just can't do those things...in any circumstance, so why bother to make it law if it isn;t verifyable? That is all I am saying.

Let us for a moment examine Illegal Imigration. It is against the law. We have both teamed up many times in those threads to repeatedly say, "Enforce the law." Yet it isn't enforced. Writing laws a country does not enforce creates an elasticity in those standards that sends a message of non-compliance to the citizenry.

Finally...liberty is about choice. Absolute liberty is free and complete choice. To restrict that in any way starts the snowball. I don't fool myself into believing there would be no immorality in a Libertarian society Crin but I know laws don;t make us civil. Good choices make us that way.

Have a great day buddy.

[emmett]

How about if we both agree to vote for Ron Paul next time. That way I am voting Republican and you are voting Libertarian. The perfect common Denominator. We'll call it a tie.

[crin63]

How about if we both agree to vote for Ron Paul next time. That way I am voting Republican and you are voting Libertarian. The perfect common Denominator. We'll call it a tie.

I'm willing to call it a tie. However I'm actually hoping for a Palin/Beck, Beck/Nugent, Palin/Nugent ticket or something like that.

Ron Paul's son is running for senate I believe. That should be interesting.

[emmett]

I'm willing to call it a tie. However I'm actually hoping for a Palin/Beck, Beck/Nugent, Palin/Nugent ticket or something like that.

Ron Paul's son is running for senate I believe. That should be interesting.

You're not a big Ron Paul guy are you? I find that strange as he out of all the right side pollys in my opinion comes closer to your "political" side opinion. I would think you a Chuck Baldwin fan too. Am I right?

[crin63]

You're not a big Ron Paul guy are you? I find that strange as he out of all the right side pollys in my opinion comes closer to your "political" side opinion. I would think you a Chuck Baldwin fan too. Am I right?

Its not Ron Pauls politics that keep me from voting for him necessarily. He is unelectable as president. If he was a better communicator and didn't come off as weird, he would gain more ground nationally. I'm not talking about how the media portray him or how he is shunned. He just acts kinda weird and that makes him unelectable as president in my opinion.

Chuck Baldwin belongs to what was and is an obscure party that has no chance at all unless they grow and are actually in every state. Had the CP run Judge Roy Moore as was the initial plan they would gotten considerable attention, traction and my vote.

[Psychoblues]

I am a small government, low tax, powerful regulatory civil libertarian. I refuse to associate myself with the jerks that think the jerks that constantly defy responsible environmental and labor concerns. Fuck 'em.

:beer::salute::beer:

Psychoblues

[crin63]

I stopped by just in case Emmett ever stops by here to let him know that I will be voting for Ron Paul in the primaries. :salute:Emmett

I'm done with Establishment Republicans.

[Neo]

I stopped by just in case Emmett ever stops by here to let him know that I will be voting for Ron Paul in the primaries. :salute:Emmett

I'm done with Establishment Republicans.


Pardon me, but I did a quick read thru on this last page and I was intrigued by the conversation, the length of time in between posts by all, and how the topic is picked back up so easily after all that time. Your last post was especially interesting.

I think you should stick with where you were on Mr. Paul because you were right as rain then and nothing has changed in that regard. The man is unelectable, and he does come off like a nut, and I'll tell you something else, I think he's a bigot.

Anyways, it is a pleasure to meet you. I am in no way attempting to tell you how to vote of course, I actually agree with your earlier assessment, as I mentioned above.

Unfortunately for all of us, the GOP Establishment is in charge of the annointing powers and they have chosen Romney. "Dem are da breaks", as we say in CHicago. Ah hell, it could be worse ya know. We could be looking at another Bush in the form of ole' Jedidiah. I don't think I could stomach another damn Bush in the WH. Talk about your OneWorlders dude!

Even WORSE is letting our Kenyan Comrade get re-elected. That must be prevented at ALL costs, and in my view, by any and all possible means.

Legally speaking of course.......

Like I said, "pleasure to meet you". And Emmitt if you're out there amigo, as well as the rest of you folks.. :salute:

[Neo]

I wanted to apologise for posting on this thread. I just now realized that perhaps I shouldn't have, regardless of its stale date. I meant no offense and please remove with no hard feelings on my part Mr.Jimmy.