LibertatemBoard

Search

Search

[+] Advanced...

Author:

Region:

Sort:

«12. . .3,8773,8783,8793,8803,8813,8823,883. . .3,9283,929»
LodgedFromMessages


The Republic of Miami Jai-Alai 3

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:Dislike of Reagan is not uncommon amongst libertarians. Reagan was far from a libertarian president, and I have some big examples. The CIA and similar organizations have run all over the constitution and our liberties. Reagan was an enabler.

The one's running over our constitution and our liberties at the moment, are Biden and the leftist, liberal, democrat, progressive politicians, VIPs and the leftist media.

The Road to Serfdom of Highway Eighty-Eight

Miami Jai-Alai 3 wrote:I guess anti Ron DeSantis

I was going to respond to your original interrogation, but put it off, forgot, remembered, and decided I didn’t feel like it. I don’t think I ever described myself as anti-Trump (if anyone here has me on the record using that term to describe myself, my apologies). I do not like the former president, and do not consider myself a member of his camp. I am not particularly inclined to worship or idolize individuals, and my general habit is to not attach myself to politicians. In Trump’s case, aside from him policies as president, I do not have any reason to believe he is an honorable or generally honest man in private life, and the distinction between public and private life is completely arbitrary. His eldest sons come across much worse, although I suppose that’s the norm with men who possess wealth and power in the United States.

I would rather attach my name to an honest, but foolish, gentleman than what I see in the former president, but I try to avoid that too. Men should be respected for their history of morality and integrity, honesty, and honor, rather than policy decisions. Policy decisions might be great, but there are many men who can be found supporting particular political positions. Only a few should be trusted, elevated and respected.



The Road to Serfdom of Highway Eighty-Eight

Miami Jai-Alai 3 wrote:The one's running over our constitution and our liberties at the moment, are Biden and the leftist, liberal, democrat, progressive politicians, VIPs and the leftist media.

Nice dodge. You win.

The Most Serene Free Republics of Auxorii

Miami Jai-Alai 3 wrote:There you go again, anti Trump, anti Reagan and I guess anti Ron DeSantis, I am not surprised or shocked, I expected it. Just like the leftist, liberal, democrat, progressives and real leftists as Therm calls them.

Respond to the points - simply saying he’s “anti this so you must be that” is not enough.



The Republic of Miami Jai-Alai 3

Auxorii wrote:Respond to the points - simply saying he’s “anti this so you must be that” is not enough.

We have discussed this a few times on the points.

Post self-deleted by Highway Eighty-Eight.

The Road to Serfdom of Highway Eighty-Eight

Auxorii wrote:Respond to the points - simply saying he’s “anti this so you must be that” is not enough.

I’m not really very interested. I’m more upset that I forgot to point out that yesterday was the nativity of Saint John the Baptist.

The Free Republic of Suzi Island

Yesterday was a great day for life and justice

Narland, Auxorii, Miri islands, and Miami Jai-Alai 3

The Road to Serfdom of Highway Eighty-Eight

Conservatives reacting to excess should be careful not to go too far and render themselves ridiculous and hypocritical. I’m speaking about the right of churches to perform gay marriages, and the right of homosexuals to be left alone, and the right of any American to be free to live their lives without the state, or their neighbor, snooping in the bedroom.

The Regional Defense Council of New Tampa

Miami Jai-Alai 3 wrote:You are correct on the leftist media. Trump DeSantis President and Vice President 2024. But that darn 14th amendment, The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; Would mean Trump would have to make a deal with DeSantis to be his vice, and move to a safe Republican state in time to qualify on the ballot. But I hear Bush and Cheney had the same and similar problem, and it was fixed through a drivers license, not exactly sure how. But Ron DeSantis would have to resign as the reelected Governor of Florida. So I don't think it will happen, unfortunately so. Viva Trump 2016 2020 2024 and Forever.

DeSantis being vice president is an extreme waste of his talent.

DeSantis 24, plain and simple.



The Republic of Miami Jai-Alai 3

New Tampa wrote:DeSantis being vice president is an extreme waste of his talent.

DeSantis 24, plain and simple.

Trump DeSantis 2024 - Ron DeSantis 2028.

Miri islands

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:Conservatives reacting to excess should be careful not to go too far and render themselves ridiculous and hypocritical. I’m speaking about the right of churches to perform gay marriages, and the right of homosexuals to be left alone, and the right of any American to be free to live their lives without the state, or their neighbor, snooping in the bedroom.

I don't think there is a constitutional case against gay marriage. It's literally a 14th amendment equal protection case. Gay couples have the same right to marriage as a straight couple. I cannot conceive of any reason aside from religious morality that would ban gay marriage

The Road to Serfdom of Highway Eighty-Eight

Miri islands wrote:I don't think there is a constitutional case against gay marriage. It's literally a 14th amendment equal protection case. Gay couples have the same right to marriage as a straight couple. I cannot conceive of any reason aside from religious morality that would ban gay marriage

I think it’s been covered by the first amendment since it was ratified. Church have every right to perform whatever rites or sacraments they so choose, barring any actual violation of rights (and there is no major religious group in the United States pursuing such). While the first amendment might not automatically protect the government recognition of marriage (for tax benefit purposes, which, as an aside, I oppose. The government should not be involved in marriage at all, beyond enforcement of contracts.) these are, as stated, covered elsewhere.

However, there are many conservatives, maybe not a majority, but a sizable percentage, who do wish to end gay marriage or otherwise pass laws or amendments which would restrict the free exercise of religion or access to government benefits (which I mostly disagree with, but if we are going to give benefits, they should be done without discrimination based on religious convictions, and opposition to homosexuality, aside from the most extreme excesses, is almost entirely a religious matter which should be reserved for the churches and voluntary associations.

There is also a good percentage of conservatives (maybe on the smaller end, but enough to be considered sod consequence) who do seek to punish priests and ministers in some way, or keep them from being able to carry out their religious duties, based upon their own religious convictions, within their own denominations, to perform marriages, even without government recognition of those marriages. An anecdote: I am a member of a certain voluntary association. Recently the leaders of a group within this association in another state expelled a member who was a minister or priest in either an Episcopalian or Methodist church (I think I remember right), not for being homosexual, but for performing his religious duty as a cleric within his church, to perform a gay marriage that was acceptable within the bounds of his religious convictions. The irony is that this association prides itself in being a major proponent of, and considers a major foundational tenet to be, religious liberty, and this same association is multireligious in terms of membership. (Another aside: The leadership that expelled this member is, as far as I am aware, entirely Christian)

Auxorii, Rateria, and Miri islands



The Commonwealth of Narland

I am going to push back on all the Reagan dislike out there a bit. Like Trump, Reagan wasn't perfect. Just to be clear, declaring a war on an amorphous abstract concept is asinine. It keeps the War Powers Act, Emergency War Powers Act, Direct Payroll Taxes, and 80% of the Deep State tolerated under the shadow of Constitutional expediency. Get rid of all wars, like Ron Paul was going to do, and they can be declared unconstitutional. I don't think the Cowboy ever got that.

Part of Reagan Ops like VK, and SE under the War on Drugs were to call the CIA in out of the cold -- mostly and seditiously ignored by the alphabet soup agencies. Reagan got the Marines directly involved in wiping out the rogue CIA cells that were laundering money through drugs and counterfeiting. He didn't realize that the Bush machine was going behind his back regarding foreign policy, and there wasn't much he could do about it once finding out. The records about it should be unsealed in the 2050s. You young'uns keep an eye out for it, if we still have a National Archives by then. A lot of the clusterfrags were tipped off cells by Rhodes-ian foreign policy ideologues, the Military Industrial Complex, the so-called "Rational Administrative State," (better called the Deep State) retaliating against our Marines. One of the first things Bush XLI did when gaining the presidency was drop that directive, and channel the war on drugs against enemies of Occidental, continue to allow Afghanistan to grow opium, instead of going after rogue operatives on the taxpayer dole. This is one of the things directly responsible for the rise of the Reform Party (and Trump).

The Leftists were rewriting the history books in real time (very similarly to Trump even now). Just get a video copy of Reagan's Victory Speech and his Inaugural Address as televised by the mainstream media and listen to the news anchors blatantly contradict Reagan's very own words as they are reinterpreting his speech even as he is still talking. I can damn well understand English enough to know what Reagan is saying is contrary to what those ashbins said he said and did. They (ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, the AP and the UPI continued to that on everything Reagan said, and like Trump maligned his motives. Instead of what Reagan actually said, and the policies he actually tried to implement, what the liars in the media and fake state said that he did ended up in my nephew's history books. Unless we are vigilant the same lies about Trump will go into the books as factual as well.

Reagan relied on the expertise of the people he brought with him to DC to be the Goldwater Administration that never was. The the dominant media, the deep state, Democrats and RHINOs amongst him carried out a frighteningly successful character assassination campaign that picked them off one by one. Their malicious tactics were so successful that it continued on to destroy any Disestablishment voice from gaining a foothold including Bork. Thankfully it started getting old with Thomas, but the lies destroyed his reputation. By the time Trump came they decided to attack the Office of the Presidency and Trump directly, as well as his picks. By Regan's 2nd Presidency, most of us couldn't reach him through the fakery of Establishment goons that had surrounded him.

The Reagan Revolution was stillborn, and most Americans didn't realize it because Rockefeller (Liberal) and Moderate (Moderately Socialists) GOP (who have controlled the Party since WW2) had to regroup (As Neoconservatives and Moderates (again moderately Socialist) and (fake) Conservatives) from the realignment of the Religious Right with the Disestablishment Conservatives, the Pro-Market / Anti-Socialist others, and the almost extinct Radical Republicans (of whom I am one) derailed it. Most Liberty loving Conservatives did not realize how vicious and vindictive the Beltway was back then. And they certainly didn't realize that they hated middle America enough to see its extinction. That was inconceivable.

Reagan went to Washington to get taxes down to 20%, end the Dept of Education, Department of Energy, and 5 other agencies, shut down the CIA, return the FBI to being an investigative agency, call our military home from needless places, make the military lean and capable, etc. The reason he didn't get anywhere at returning us to where we were before the cultural revolution of the 60s, because most Americans assumed the news media and DC was as honest and hardworking as they. If they had known what snakes in the grass they were, I am certain the WW2 generation would have risen up in arms against the Socialist bastards here that they were sent over to Europe to destroy 30 years prior.

Reagan (and his cohorts) were successful at stopping the tide of everincreasing overt Socialism until Obama. That is a 40 year reprieve. Biden is just now continuing the hell they were imposing on us before Reagan interrupted. According to their plan we were supposed to be indistinguishable from the Soviet Union within 20 years (by the year 2000.) -- and they believe (as do I) that they would have succeeded. Congress under Tip O'Neill had planed to continue debasing the currency, regulation businesses to death, forcing every Citizen on some sort of government subsidy, make home schooling illegal, force all schools under the Department of Education, enact a British style health, medicine, and hospital rationing scheme, (just of the top of my head). Instead they ended up having to fight Reagan tooth and nail. The fall of the Soviet Union was utterly devastating to an entire generation (30 years worth) of pro-Marxist overeducrats whom were trying to turn us into them.

Reagan failed because the American people were under the delusion they still had a government of the people, by the people, and for the people in DC. They didn't understand that Academia, Media, and the Political Establishment loved the idea of an American Soviet Union more than they loved a free American people.

I will also defend most of what Uncle Ollie was doing, even the couple of missions that went sidewise. Everyone knew what he was doing, and he was doing it in accordance with international law. It was in the daily papers in France, Italy, and Germany, and the free press coverage gave us the ability to conduct most of these missions -- I know because I was over there reading them (or having them read to me). Congress pretending that what he did was some sort of secret subversion just shows how corrupt and disingenuous some in our Senate was even back then. They were willing to through a good man's life and reputation down the drain in the hopes of making Reagan look bad. One may not like what he was doing, I understand that. But they way they lied and twisted the evidence just to cripple the anti-Socialist factions amongst us inexcusable.



The Commonwealth of Narland

Miri islands wrote:I don't think there is a constitutional case against gay marriage. It's literally a 14th amendment equal protection case. Gay couples have the same right to marriage as a straight couple. I cannot conceive of any reason aside from religious morality that would ban gay marriage

Beside marriage being specifically described as the union of a man and woman in the monotheistic religions, it is also a natural law argument. Any (actual) man and woman who are capable and willing to devote the rest of their lives and their bodies to each other are married. Their natural function is to satisfy their emotional and sexual needs, compliment (classical definition) each other, and perpetuate the species by providing a safe haven when bearing and raising children in a familial environment with a(n actual) mother and father. Homosexual unions in and of themselves are naturally an evolutionary dead-end regarding the species. (As are celibacy and making oneself a eunuch).

Men and men, or women and women cannot marry by definition. It is like saying a square circle. It would still be a domestic union/partnership, but it is not a natural marriage in the full sense of the term. To allow men-men, women-women marriages is giving special rights outside of the bounds. The problem is how to rectify this. Should homosexuals be given special rights in order to marry, or should they be considered domestic unions with the full recognition of their contractual obligations to each other without unnaturally redefining marriage?

That being said, the state has a vested interest in leaving law abiding people be.

The Republic of The United States of Patriots

Miami Jai-Alai 3 wrote:Trump DeSantis 2024 - Ron DeSantis 2028.

DeSantis is everything good about Trump, without everything that is bad about Trump.

Dump Don, Choose Ron



The Elder Chronicler of Miencraft

Miri islands wrote:I don't think there is a constitutional case against gay marriage. It's literally a 14th amendment equal protection case. Gay couples have the same right to marriage as a straight couple. I cannot conceive of any reason aside from religious morality that would ban gay marriage

See my opinion is that there's a real simple solution to this, and it's that we've got a couple of choices:

1) Remove the economic and other incentives from marriage altogether, so that the system itself no longer discriminates against couples who either cannot or choose not to be married - What this does is it means anybody can continue to go through the symbolic process of marriage, but it no longer confers any benefits that are off-limits to people who are for one reason or another excluded from marriage.

2) Move the incentives that are currently tied to marriage to the concept of civil union; then, require the government to certify civil unions of any two consenting adults; governments would then be able to, if they so choose, define "marriage" as a civil union between a man and woman with no special distinction otherwise - This allows civil unions to continue to provide benefits for those who choose to go through with them, while maintaining the ability to strictly define "marriage" as requiring one man and one woman without violating equal protection rights for those who want these benefits but are not a pair of one man and one woman.

3) Ditch marriage as a government procedure altogether and have it be a purely religious ceremony, which is like option 1 except in this case the government no longer issues marriage certificates at all.

Because, realistically, a marriage in the United States is little more than a contract that happens to have symbolic importance. Since the main objection to same-sex marriage tends to be based on a concept of marriage wherein it is defined as requiring specifically one man and one woman, and this objection does not necessarily include any objection to the concept of same-sex couples having the same special legal status as opposite-sex couples, the means to address this objection is to either remove the special legal status that comes with marriage (thus removing any particular reason for same-sex couples to seek out a "marriage" for anything other than symbolic reasons), or rename the contract so that any such unions are no longer "marriage". I personally would prefer that no such union confer special legal status on the couple in question, but if we are unwilling to surrender that special status, then we can very easily just call that special status something other than "married" and call the contract that grants that status something other than a "marriage". While the colloquial term used to refer to such unions will in all likelihood remain "marriage", doing this essentially removes any potential to object on the grounds that a marriage must only be one man and one woman, while doing absolutely nothing to obstruct the ability of religious organizations to perform marriages as religious ceremonies according to the specifications of their faith.

As long as it's not called a "marriage", then it shouldn't particularly matter what sorts of couples get these unions - provided, of course, the couple consists of two consenting adults. Constitutionally, by the concept of equal protection, if we're offering special status and benefits to married couples, other couples must be able to get these same benefits and status regardless of the sex of the individuals involved, and if a couple cannot be married on the grounds that they are not an opposite-sex pair, then the exact same benefits that come from being married must be available to them under a different name but with the exact same procedure - go to a clerk, sign a piece of paper, maybe one partner gets a name change, then you're done. That doesn't have to be called marriage, and if we want to continue calling that "marriage" when it's specifically a union of a man and a woman, there's nothing stopping us from doing that either, as long as anyone can get those unions whether it's called a marriage or not.



The Elder Chronicler of Miencraft

Also, option 2 there is literally what a whole bunch of places already do; there are lots of places where gay couples can get the same privileges that come with being married, but through a contract that's identified as a civil union and not a marriage, so it's really a non-issue since the solution is right there already and we can just expand that to be how it works nationwide.



The Republic of Miami Jai-Alai 3

The United States of Patriots wrote:DeSantis is everything good about Trump, without everything that is bad about Trump.

Dump Don, Choose Ron

Hell No. Trump is the original. Trump DeSantis 2024 - Ron DeSantis 2028

The Commonwealth of Narland

The United States of Patriots wrote:DeSantis is everything good about Trump, without everything that is bad about Trump.

Dump Don, Choose Ron

Trump 2024 -- Trump has unfinished business in the Beltway.
DeSantis 2028 -- DeSantis will have a much better future if Trump clears the way for him in 2024

The Free Republic of Suzi Island

Trump needs to let 2020 go. Yes there was sketchy stuff about the election but focusing on the past does no one any good. Let the Dems keep boring us with January 6th coverage and focus on the real issues: Inflation, crime, weakened foreign standing, etc. I worry that Trump will keep harping about 2020 and that won't lead to a win. I also think there needs to be a challenge to Trump in the primary to get him back to his 2016 self

Auxorii, Miri islands, and Miami Jai-Alai 3

Miri islands

Suzi Island wrote:Trump needs to let 2020 go. Yes there was sketchy stuff about the election but focusing on the past does no one any good. Let the Dems keep boring us with January 6th coverage and focus on the real issues: Inflation, crime, weakened foreign standing, etc. I worry that Trump will keep harping about 2020 and that won't lead to a win. I also think there needs to be a challenge to Trump in the primary to get him back to his 2016 self

Someone please for the love of God make Romney primary trump. A grilling of that magnitude would be so enjoyable to watch



The Republic of Miami Jai-Alai 3

Suzi Island wrote:Trump needs to let 2020 go. Yes there was sketchy stuff about the election but focusing on the past does no one any good. Let the Dems keep boring us with January 6th coverage and focus on the real issues: Inflation, crime, weakened foreign standing, etc. I worry that Trump will keep harping about 2020 and that won't lead to a win. I also think there needs to be a challenge to Trump in the primary to get him back to his 2016 self

We strongly agree. I agree with Lindsey Graham, who advices Trump, that he needs to stop talking about 2020 during the 2024 elections, talk about his record, accomplishments and the bad Biden and Bad Democrat leftist policies, to win the 2024 elections. I hope Trump listens to his advice, it is said they are good friends who golf together. Trump DeSantis 2024 and Ron DeSantis 2028.



The Republic of The United States of Patriots

Miami Jai-Alai 3 wrote:Hell No. Trump is the original. Trump DeSantis 2024 - Ron DeSantis 2028

Call me crazy, but why would I choose a 78 year old loose cannon who sometimes chooses to not only shoot his foot, but saw the whole thing off and then hand it on a silver platter to the crocodiles in the mainstream media over a 46 year old former member of congress and current governor who has demonstrated all of the policy goals and fighting spirt of Trump, without the huge draw backs of Trump's personality and moral character?



The Commonwealth of Narland

Miami Jai-Alai 3 wrote:

I cant get telegrams to send. In answer to your question

Reagan had 70 years of Progressive mess to clean up in one administration of 8 years. He did a good job of it considering it was a handful of people standing against the inevitability (in the minds of New Left Academia, Entrenched Media, and Beltway Elite) of a Soviet America by 2000 AD. Most people didn't listen to, or ignored the boasts of the radical Left in that halls of power back then, or perhaps middle-America did not take their claims seriously, regardless it was disconcerting to say the least.

Reagan showed us show us how bad it actually was. At the very least Reagan was the Dutch boy who stuck his finger in the dike until help could arrive, and at most he was one of the 300 who held off the Persian Army at Thermopylae. He was a good stopgap until a Conservative congress in the 1990s could slow the onslaught of the Socialization down even further.

I liked him. He was willing to give anyone the benefit of the doubt until they proved otherwise. He was one of that WW2 generation that learned to live life fully and in so doing were larger than life in real time. He wasn't as Libertarian as I would have liked but he was Liberty loving enough, and instrumental in getting our money supply and taxes tamed. He was not establishment and wouldn't play their reindeer games if it could be avoided. Compared to the authoritarians around him, he certainly was for more Liberty than they were willing to concede back to the people.

«12. . .3,8773,8783,8793,8803,8813,8823,883. . .3,9283,929»