# Liberty Movement > Liberty Campaigns >  I'm done with Darrell Castle

## Jesse James

I wish somebody had pointed this out to me sooner. He doesn't think gay couples should be able to adopt and he believes in the death penalty. That's too far for me. Now I wonder who to vote for. Guess I'm gonna have to write in ole Ron Paul

----------


## euphemia

[snark]But he's right on so many other issues./[snark]

----------


## Jesse James

> [snark]But he's right on so many other issues./[snark]


he's as good as Gary, whom I also refuse to support

----------


## euphemia

I wasn't snarking you, but was pointing out how inconsistent some so-called Libertarians are.  They will put up with anything from Gary Johnson because he wears a label.

----------


## Jesse James

> I wasn't snarking you, but was pointing out how inconsistent some so-called Libertarians are.  They will put up with anything from Gary Johnson because he wears a label.


gotcha, I thought you were a Johnson supporter making fun of Castle supporters. 

I agree

----------


## farreri

> he's as good as Gary, whom I also refuse to support


Please list your reasons for not supporting Gary and how each of the reasons will destroy the country in the grand scope of how bad things currently are.

----------


## Jesse James

> each of the reasons will destroy the country in the grand scope of how bad things currently are.


we all have different reasons to vote. Gary is not a principled Libertarian so there's no reason for me to support him.

----------


## farreri

> we all have different reasons to vote. Gary is not a principled Libertarian so there's no reason for me to support him.


You think he's a lesser of the evils?! Really?

----------


## Jesse James

> You think he's a lesser of the evils?! Really?


uh ya

----------


## dannno

> I wish somebody had pointed this out to me sooner. He doesn't think gay couples should be able to adopt and he believes in the death penalty. That's too far for me. Now I wonder who to vote for. Guess I'm gonna have to write in ole Ron Paul


Separate opinions from policy - I'm ok with a politician who doesn't think gay couples should be able to adopt, or that organizations should be allowed to have a policy of not adopting out to gay couples, but I don't think there should be a law against gay couples adopting. Do you know how specifically he has come out against it?

Death penalty would be a strike against him.

----------


## ladyjade3

I'm voting for Gary Johnson. Even Jeffrey Tucker is voting this year!  https://tucker.liberty.me/im-voting-...is-the-reason/

It's not so much about voting for Gary as it is adding to the support for the LP, which needs to be supported in the political conversation going into 2020 and 2024.... If we ever want to be a voting bloc to contend with, we have to show up and flex some muscle at the voting booth. We need to grow up and stop being so self-defeating...

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> I wish somebody had pointed this out to me sooner. He doesn't think gay couples should be able to adopt and he believes in the death penalty. That's too far for me. Now I wonder who to vote for. Guess I'm gonna have to write in ole Ron Paul


It's tough being a principled libertarian.

Oh I'm sorry I mean pure, "fringe" and "ineffective".

----------


## farreri

> uh ya


Which of Gary's positions makes him an evil in your mind?

----------


## euphemia

> Which of Gary's positions makes him an evil in your mind?


He's against religious liberty and right-to-life.  Fundamental constitutional freedom has to be there.  The Libertarian Party gave you a fat naked guy and Gary Johnson.  Lose-lose right there.

----------


## Jesse James

> Separate opinions from policy - I'm ok with a politician who doesn't think gay couples should be able to adopt, or that organizations should be allowed to have a policy of not adopting out to gay couples, but I don't think there should be a law against gay couples adopting. Do you know how specifically he has come out against it?
> 
> Death penalty would be a strike against him.


just going off his isidewith page. i didn't know until somebody pointed it out to me. I agree with you on the adoption, but it says he doesn't support gay couples adopting

----------


## Jesse James

> I'm voting for Gary Johnson. Even Jeffrey Tucker is voting this year!  https://tucker.liberty.me/im-voting-...is-the-reason/
> 
> It's not so much about voting for Gary as it is adding to the support for the LP, which needs to be supported in the political conversation going into 2020 and 2024.... If we ever want to be a voting bloc to contend with, we have to show up and flex some muscle at the voting booth. We need to grow up and stop being so self-defeating...


principle over party.

----------


## Jesse James

Pro choice, against freedom to associate, against the NAP, questionable foreign policy. He didn't have a problem with Hiroshima

----------


## undergroundrr

Castle is awesome.  It's just that he's not particularly running for president as far as I can tell.  

Johnson is the only person running who could actually make a positive, liberty-direction impact on life in the United States.  And that's without even winning.

----------


## Jesse James

> Castle is awesome.  It's just that he's not particularly running for president as far as I can tell.  
> 
> Johnson is the only person running who could actually make a positive, liberty-direction impact on life in the United States.  And that's without even winning.


sure, he's awesome if you don't value liberty.

"liberty for me, not for thee"

"we need to protect our kids from the scary gay people!"

----------


## undergroundrr

> sure, he's awesome if you don't value liberty.
> 
> "liberty for me, not for thee"
> 
> "we need to protect our kids from the scary gay people!"


I get your meaning.  I'm more comfortable with a wider range of left- and right-leaning libertarians than perhaps most here.  

Although people like to believe there is one definitive libertarianism, there isn't.  Beyond a certain point, how much government to have, what's an allowable legal restriction, one's moral stances on divisive issues, etc. are influenced by personality, cultural indoctrination, books read at age 19 and momentary blood pressure level.

At heart, I believe both Gary Johnson and Darrell Castle are decent, smart, honest men who want to remove barriers to individual choice, freedom and ultimately prosperity.  I'm good with that.  I support the one who's trying harder and actually seems to care about the result of the election.

It's a simple matter to pick out a few out-of-context quotes one disagrees with and brand either of them as unworthy of support.

----------


## Jesse James

if I'm waving from my political choices I will just support Trump. I don't want to do that though

----------


## 69360

> he's as good as Gary, whom I also refuse to support


I you can't vote for Johnson or Castle, you probably never be able to vote for anyone again. That's just way to nitpicky. 

It's not like either has any chance of winning so your pet issues don't really matter much. 

I think Johnson is mostly ok and I want the LP to get ballot access and matching funds so I'm voting LP.

----------


## undergroundrr

> ...I will just support Trump...


That's a pattern with people who joined this forum about the time you did.  It makes many here suspicious.

----------


## Jesse James

lol. look at my flairs. I'm obviously not supporting Trump. you're the one saying I should waiver from my beliefs

----------


## William Tell

> I wish somebody had pointed this out to me sooner. He doesn't think gay couples should be able to adopt and he believes in the death penalty. That's too far for me. Now I wonder who to vote for. Guess I'm gonna have to write in ole Ron Paul


Darrell doesn't think the death penalty or social issues like adoption should be decided on the federal level.

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

Two minor issues determine your vote?

----------


## RJ Liberty

> At heart, I believe both Gary Johnson and Darrell Castle are decent, smart, honest men who want to remove barriers to individual choice, freedom and ultimately prosperity.  I'm good with that.  I support the one who's trying harder and actually seems to care about the result of the election.


It's the same for me. Castle has some good points, but he didn't really seem to want the job. You've got to go out and campaign, and he spent more time on his weekly webinars than in seriously campaigning for POTUS. Even his "campaign events" were things like "attend church" and "go to a restaurant". He could have done local TV and radio, at the very least. One thing I respect about Johnson is his strong work ethic. He's done up to 20 interviews in a single day.

----------


## William Tell

> In 1999, [Paul] voted for an amendment to HR 2587, the District Of  Columbia Appropriations Act, which would have banned adoption by  same-sex couples and other couples who lacked a marital or familial  relationship in Washington, D.C.[144] The amendment failed, 215–213.[145]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politi...ul#LGBT_rights

----------


## Origanalist

> Darrell doesn't think the death penalty or social issues like adoption should be decided on the federal level.


This seems to be exceedingly hard to get across.

----------


## William Tell

> It's the same for me. Castle has some good points, but he didn't really seem to want the job. You've got to go out and campaign, and he spent more time on his weekly webinars than in seriously campaigning for POTUS. Even his "campaign events" were things like "attend church" and "go to a restaurant". He could have done local TV and radio, at the very least. One thing I respect about Johnson is his strong work ethic. He's done up to 20 interviews in a single day.


Dude, you were a Bernie Sanders supporter.

----------


## 69360

> Darrell doesn't think the death penalty or social issues like adoption should be decided on the federal level.


That's a reasonable constitutional stance. But it typically is a code word that they personally oppose the issue. Like let the states decide is. Not picking on Castle, he's ok. But I like to know their personal opinion.

----------


## William Tell

> That's a reasonable constitutional stance. But it typically is a code word that they personally oppose the issue. Like let the states decide is. Not picking on Castle, he's ok. But I like to know their personal opinion.


Yes he opposes the issue. As did Ron Paul and a lot of us.

----------


## Origanalist

> That's a reasonable constitutional stance. But it typically is a code word that they personally oppose the issue. Like let the states decide is. Not picking on Castle, he's ok. But I like to know their personal opinion.


You can personally oppose something and still believe in the right of the various States to decide for themselves.

----------


## RJ Liberty

> Dude, you were a Bernie Sanders supporter.


He was the better choice on the Democratic side. Hillary Clinton is a lying, corrupt thief who tried and failed to steal the White House furniture.

----------


## William Tell

> He was the better choice on the Democratic side. Hillary Clinton is a lying, corrupt thief who tried and failed to steal the White House furniture.


Well, he was a pure communist, if you're into that kind of thing.

----------


## 69360

> You can personally oppose something and still believe in the right of the various States to decide for themselves.


Of course you can. I'm just saying I would like to know to make a voting decision. Not just Castle, in general. It makes a difference to me.

----------


## Origanalist

> Of course you can. I'm just saying I would like to know to make a voting decision. Not just Castle, in general. It makes a difference to me.


Understandable.

----------


## The Rebel Poet

> just going off his isidewith page. i didn't know until somebody pointed it out to me. I agree with you on the adoption, but it says he doesn't support gay couples adopting


I haven't heard him say anything about the subject, but as a general point, I wouldn't base anything off of Isidewith. As a reference point Gary Johnson said he took the quiz and it said he only agrees with himself something like 93% of the time.

----------


## Jesse James

> Darrell doesn't think the death penalty or social issues like adoption should be decided on the federal level.


that's not what the isidewith thing says. is that true?

----------


## Jesse James

> Two minor issues determine your vote?


not minor imo

----------


## Jesse James

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politi...ul#LGBT_rights


wow. I wonder if he was helping somebody out or what.

----------


## Jesse James

> You can personally oppose something and still believe in the right of the various States to decide for themselves.


like me

----------


## Jesse James

> He was the better choice on the Democratic side. Hillary Clinton is a lying, corrupt thief who tried and failed to steal the White House furniture.


yeah, he was. you can admit that without being a supporter. are you a supporter or not?

----------


## Jesse James

> I haven't heard him say anything about the subject, but as a general point, I wouldn't base anything off of Isidewith. As a reference point Gary Johnson said he took the quiz and it said he only agrees with himself something like 93% of the time.


it says he personally submitted it. I think it's safe to say isidewith isn't lying

----------


## NewRightLibertarian

Castle isn't different than Ron Paul on any of the issues, as far as I can tell. The people denigrating him are primarily Gary Johnson supporters trying to prop up their gaffe-prone bozo of a candidate.

----------


## Origanalist

> that's not what the isidewith thing says. is that true?


I think it is. I would advise more research at any rate just because that is his usual stance on things.

----------


## Jesse James

> it says he personally submitted it. I think it's safe to say isidewith isn't lying


Castle submitted it himself.

----------


## Jesse James

> Castle isn't different than Ron Paul on any of the issues, as far as I can tell. The people denigrating him are primarily Gary Johnson supporters trying to prop up their gaffe-prone bozo of a candidate.


he supports the death penalty, Ron doesn't.

Ron did indeed vote to not allow gay couples to adopt, like Castle believes. so was Ron Paul pandering or does he really think that? doesn't seem likely that he thinks that imo.

----------


## Leaning Libertarian

> I wasn't snarking you, but was pointing out how inconsistent some so-called Libertarians are.  They will put up with anything from Gary Johnson because he wears a label.


As a registered Libertarian Party voter, the Libertarian Party will have to first nominate an actual Libertarian if they want to secure my vote.  There is no way I will vote Johnson.  Much like the OP, I've conceded to likely be voting 'Ron Paul' again.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> As a registered Libertarian Party voter, the Libertarian Party will have to first nominate an actual Libertarian if they want to secure my vote.  There is no way I will vote Johnson.  Much like the OP, I've conceded to likely be voting 'Ron Paul' again.


YOU WILL VOTE FOR VERMIN SUPREME!!!11!!

----------


## lilymc

> Ron did indeed vote to not allow gay couples to adopt, like Castle believes. so was Ron Paul pandering or does he really think that? doesn't seem likely that he thinks that imo.


Why do you say that?  Children need a mother AND father.  Not two of one and none of the other.

----------


## Danke

> I wish somebody had pointed this out to me sooner. He doesn't think gay couples should be able to adopt and he believes in the death penalty. That's too far for me. Now I wonder who to vote for. Guess I'm gonna have to write in ole Ron Paul


As president, he really doesn't have much to say about adoptions, only to veto any bill dealing with Federal agencies.   Death penalty would only be his pardon ability wrt federal cases.  Very unlikely no matter who is president.

----------


## ChaosControl

I disagree with him on those issues but they are not deal breakers for me. Johnson's views on religious liberty and abortion are more likely to be deal breakers for me but everyome has different priorities. Ill never find a perfect match.

----------


## 69360

> Castle isn't different than Ron Paul on any of the issues, as far as I can tell. The people denigrating him are primarily Gary Johnson supporters trying to prop up their gaffe-prone bozo of a candidate.


I think both are fine. Johnson just happens to be doing better. If Castle polled that high I would go with him. I'd like to see a real 3rd choice in the future and the LP seems to be moving towards that. CP will get a fraction of a percent.

----------


## Jesse James

If either candidate were a republican I would vote for them, but if I'm going to be voting third party/writing somebody in it won't be somebody I don't agree with

----------


## Jesse James

> Why do you say that?  Children need a mother AND father.  Not two of one and none of the other.


Gay marriage is gross but I know people who grew up just fine. not asking for your opinion.

----------


## William Tell

> that's not what the isidewith thing says. is that true?


I don't know what isidewith says, I haven't seen it.  Darrell has said multiple times in interviews that these kinds of things are not federal issues. He believes the only issues the government should deal with are the ones the Constitution specifies.




> *This next question ties in with drug policy. Do you see a role for  the federal government in regulating and/or prohibiting things such as  prostitution, gambling, smoking, polygamous relationships or any other  activities made by consenting adults?
> 
> *
> 
>  No I really don’t. The states are  free of course to regulate if their people prefer but I see no  Constitutional role in such things except possibly to control the spread  of pandemic disease or something of that nature.


http://libertyhangout.org/2016/07/in...ion-candidate/

----------


## Jesse James

why would he submit that on his own isidewith page?

----------


## William Tell

I can't even find him on isidewith.

----------


## Jesse James

https://www.isidewith.com/candidate-.../death-penalty

----------


## William Tell

Thanks, yeah, he doesn't say any of those are federal issues he's just giving his opinion. Ron Paul has been on the same page as Castle on both of the issues you are complaining about, he very likely still is on adoption. By all means write in Ron if you want to, but if you held Ron to the same standards you wouldn't have supported him through much of his career.




> Paul stated in August 2007 that at the state level "capital punishment *is a deserving penalty for those who commit crime"*, but he does not  believe that the *federal government* should use it as a penalty.[189]
>  In September 2007, he elaborated: You know over the years, I’ve held pretty rigid to all my beliefs but  I’ve changed my opinion about the death penalty. For federal purposes, I  no longer believe in the death penalty. I believed it has been issued  unjustly. If you are rich you get away with it. If you’re poor and  you’re from the inner city, you’re more likely to be prosecuted and  convicted. And today, with the DNA evidences there’s been too many  mistakes, so I am now opposed to the *federal death penalty.*[190]


 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politi...tal_punishment

----------


## specsaregood

> In 1999, [Paul] voted for an amendment to HR 2587, the District Of Columbia Appropriations Act, which would have banned adoption by same-sex couples and other couples who lacked a marital or familial relationship in Washington, D.C.[144] The amendment failed, 215–213.[145]
> 			
> 		
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politi...ul#LGBT_rights


I don't recall RP's reasoning on that vote, but that analysis isn't 100% accurate.   The amendment in question only *prohibited funding* adoptions for unmarried/unrelated couples:



> Description: H.Amdt. 356 — 106th Congress (1999-2000) 
> Purpose:
> An amendment no. 2 printed in H.Rept. 106-263 to prohibit any funding for the joint adoption of a child between individuals who are not related by blood or marriage.
> https://www.congress.gov/amendment/1...-amendment/356


So it is about funding, this is also somewhat important, because the bill itself that this was an amendment for had money for incentivizing adoptions.  This amendment would have prohibited incentivizing (giving extra money away) for unmarried couples to adopt.

----------


## Jesse James

> Thanks, yeah, he doesn't say any of those are federal issues he's just giving his opinion. Ron Paul has been on the same page as Castle on both of the issues you are complaining about, he very likely still is on adoption. By all means write in Ron if you want to, but if you held Ron to the same standards you wouldn't have supported him through much of his career.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politi...tal_punishment


Do you support the legalization of same sex marriage? _stats_ _discuss_
_Darrell Castles answer: Take the government out of marriage and instead make it a religious decision_ *S*
this is what he said about same sex marriage. he didn't clarify on adoption or death penal56, so without clarification there is no reason to believe that he wouldn't support either of those things on the federal issue. Ron Paul has clarified his position, which is that it is not his duty to decide the law of the land. Castle hasn't done that. 

and Ron Paul has said in interviews that he changed his mind over the years and that he doesn't currently support it. why are you trying to make his views appear different than what they are?

----------


## Origanalist

> Gay marriage is gross but I know people who grew up just fine. not asking for your opinion.


Ya, by posting it here and responding you pretty much are.

----------


## Jesse James

> I don't recall RP's reasoning on that vote, but that analysis isn't 100% accurate.   The amendment in question only *prohibited funding* adoptions for unmarried/unrelated couples:
> 
> 
> So it is about funding, this is also somewhat important, because the bill itself that this was an amendment for had money for incentivizing adoptions.  This amendment would have prohibited incentivizing (giving extra money away) for unmarried couples to adopt.


there you go. comparing Ron Paul to Darrell Castle is just retarded. if Darrell Castle believed in states rights for those issues, he would have clarified

----------


## Jesse James

> Ya, by posting it here and responding you pretty much are.


um, no, I never asked for an argument over any of the issues. if I didn't believe in liberty I wouldn't be on this website.

----------


## Jesse James

Should the military allow women to serve in combat roles? _stats_ _discuss_
_Darrell Castle’s answer: No_ *S

*
Should the government fund space travel? _stats_ _discuss_
_Darrell Castle’s answer: Yes_ *S

*
Should the government be allowed to seize private property, with reasonable compensation, for public or civic use? _stats_ _discuss_

_Darrell Castle’s answer: Yes, as permitted by the Constitution when the seizure is necessary for public use and when fair market value is paid to the property owner

_
Should the government raise the retirement age for Social Security? _stats_ _discuss_
_Darrell Castle’s answer: No_ *S

*

----------


## osan

> Now I wonder who to vote for.


Depends on your objectives.

Possible lesser evil strategy for a candidate with an actual chance to win: Trump

Greater evil strategy of ultimate self-hatred: Clinton

Principled but accomplish nothing of practical value strategy: Ron Paul write-in

Fool yourself strategy: Johnson

Hate yourself and the world strategy: Stein or any of the other communists.

Oh $#@! it strategy: Stay home, crack beer, light spliff, put on net.porn, and say "oh $#@! it".

Insurrection strategy:  Get a good long-distance rifle.  You can guess the rest.

End the agony strategy: Get a good handgun.  You can guess the rest.

Sex strategy with hookers and coke: Self explanatory

Clean the house strategy:  Break out the Hoover and go mad.

God Strategy: Go to church and pray harder.

Voting booth strategy: Vote harder.  MUCH harder.  No, not THAT kind of hard.  Idiot.

Thermonuclear strategy: steal nuke, drive to DC, take one for the team.




As you can see, there are abundant options, this list representing the merest scratch of the surface.

----------


## William Tell

> Do you support the legalization of same sex marriage? _stats_ _discuss_
> _Darrell Castle’s answer: Take the government out of marriage and instead make it a religious decision_ *S*
> this is what he said about same sex marriage. he didn't clarify on adoption or death penal56, so without clarification there is no reason to believe that he wouldn't support either of those things on the federal issue. Ron Paul has clarified his position, which is that it is not his duty to decide the law of the land. Castle hasn't done that. 
> 
> and Ron Paul has said in interviews that he changed his mind over the years and that he doesn't currently support it. why are you trying to make his views appear different than what they are?


 Castle wants *all government* out of marriage due to his religious views, he views it as a sacrament, not a states rights issue.  Adoption and the death penalty are political issues, so far he has been consistent in saying these kinds of things are up to the states. I can't speak for him, but I can tell you what my understanding of his views are. Just like you are doing.

----------


## Jesse James

> Adoption and the death penalty are political issues, so far he has been consistent in saying these kinds of things are up to the states. I can't speak for him, but I can tell you what my understanding of his views are. Just like you are doing.


it's his own words dude. there is an option to put leave it up to the states and he didn't put that, he put yes. you are just trying to feel good about yourself for voting for him I guess, but I don't see how he is any better than Gary Johnson. in fact, I'd actually say he's worse. there's a reason Ron Paul hasn't mentioned him to anybody.

----------


## William Tell

> Should the government raise the retirement age for Social Security? _stats_ _discuss_
> _Darrell Castle’s answer: No_ *S
> 
> *


Now here's a great example of one of Castle's positions that has been misunderstood. Here's his long answer on social security.

----------


## Jesse James

> Now here's a great example of one of Castle's positions that has been misunderstood. Here's his long answer on social security.


still 1/6. I'm not sure I could find 5 things Gary Johnson and I disagreed with, could you?

----------


## William Tell

> still 1/6. I'm not sure I could find 5 things Gary Johnson and I disagreed with, could you?


I'm not you so I can't answer that question. I could find hundreds of things I disagree with Gary about for what it's worth. Because I don't share his worldview, Gary believes in "fiscal conservatism and social liberalism".

I believe that our rights come from God, and that government should be very limited. I agree with Gary on some things but they are incidental, Ron Paul and Darrell are coming from things at the same angle I am. Again, I'm not speaking for you, I can't.

----------


## Origanalist

> um, no, I never asked for an argument over any of the issues. if I didn't believe in liberty I wouldn't be on this website.


Sorry to give you the news, but posting something here will get you an argument. Some things more than others but an argument or a differing opinion is almost guaranteed.

----------


## Jesse James

> I'm not you so I can't answer that question. I could find hundreds of things I disagree with Gary about for what it's worth. Because I don't share his worldview, Gary believes in "fiscal conservatism and social liberalism".
> 
> I believe that our rights come from God, and that government should be very limited. I agree with Gary on some things but they are incidental, Ron Paul and Darrell are coming from things at the same angle I am. Again, I'm not speaking for you, I can't.


I meant from your opinion

----------


## Jesse James

> Sorry to give you the news, but posting something here will get you an argument. Some things more than others but an argument or a differing opinion is almost guaranteed.


thats fine people have the right to try to argue

----------


## r3volution 3.0

Oh, this makes me laugh. 




> I wish somebody had pointed this out to me  sooner. He doesn't think gay couples should be able to adopt and he  believes in the death penalty. That's too far for me. Now I wonder who  to vote for. Guess I'm gonna have to write in ole Ron Paul


The Castle people have been $#@!ting on Johnson for 6 months over nothing...

...and now they're $#@!ting on Castle for nothing.



The death penalty _is_ just, provided there was due process, and deviants including homosexuals _shouldn't_ be allowed to adopt 

(they have no right to adopt, no one does, it's about what's in the best interest of the child)

And I'd still, as I said from Day 1, happily vote for Castle, except that he's not going to be on the ballot in most states.

Well, all I have to say is enjoy the irony Johnson bashers; savor that irritation at people who miss the forest for the trees.

----------


## Jesse James

you people scare me

----------


## osan

> you people scare me


Doesn't tell us much.

Who scares you?

Why?

Are you timid?

You asked a question.  You got answers.  Of what is there to be afraid?  This is the internet, not the real world.  I doubt anyone will show up at your door, armed and looking for trouble, or stalk you until they can get you alone in a dark alley.  So why be afraid?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Oh, this makes me laugh. 
> 
> 
> 
> The Castle people have been $#@!ting on Johnson for 6 months over nothing...
> 
> ...and now they're $#@!ting on Castle for nothing.
> 
> 
> ...


No. And the guy this forum is named after agrees with me.
*Death Penalty is Big Government at Its Worst*  
Ron Paul 
 |
 Posted: Jun 15, 2015 11:30 AM
http://townhall.com/columnists/ronpa...worst-n2012715
Nebraska's legislature recently made headlines when it ended the  state's death penalty. Many found it odd that a conservatives-dominated  legislature would support ending capital punishment, since conservative  politicians have traditionally supported the death penalty. However, an  increasing number of conservatives are realizing that the death penalty  is inconsistent with both fiscal and social conservatism. These  conservatives are joining with libertarians and liberals in a growing  anti-death penalty coalition.
It is hard to find a more wasteful  and inefficient government program than the death penalty. New Hampshire  recently spent over $4 million dollars prosecuting just two death  penalty cases, while Jasper County in Texas raised property taxes by  seven percent in order to pay for one death penalty case! A Duke  University study found that replacing North Carolina's death penalty  would save taxpayers approximately $22 million dollars in just two  years.
Death penalty cases are expensive because sentencing  someone to death requires two trials. The first trial determines the  accused person's guilt, while the second trial determines if the  convicted individual "deserves" the death penalty. A death sentence is  typically followed by years of appeals, and sometimes the entire case is  retried.
Despite all the time and money spent to ensure that no  one is wrongly executed, the system is hardly foolproof. Since 1973, one  out of every ten individuals sentenced to death has been released from  death row because of evidence discovered after conviction.
CARTOONS | Glenn McCoy
 View Cartoon 


The increased use of DNA evidence has made it easier to clear  the innocent and identify the guilty. However, DNA evidence is not a 100  percent guarantee of an accurate verdict. DNA evidence is often  mishandled or even falsified. Furthermore, DNA evidence is available in  only five to 10 percent of criminal cases.
It is not surprising  that the government wastes so much time and money on such a flawed  system. After all, corruption, waste, and incompetence are common  features of government programs ranging from Obamacare to the TSA to  public schools to the post office. Given the long history of government  failures, why should anyone, especially conservatives who claim to be  the biggest skeptics of government, think it is a good idea to entrust  government with the power over life and death?
Death penalty  supporters try to claim the moral high ground by claiming that the death  penalty deters crime. But, if the death penalty is an effective  deterrent, why do jurisdictions without the death penalty have a lower  crime rate than jurisdictions with the death penalty? And why did a 2009  survey find that the majority of American police chiefs consider the  death penalty the least effective way to reduce violent crime?
As  strong as the practical arguments against the death penalty are, the  moral case is much stronger. Since it is impossible to develop an  error-free death penalty system, those who support the death penalty are  embracing the idea that the government should be able to execute  innocent people for the "greater good." The idea that the government  should be able to force individuals to sacrifice their right to life for  imaginary gains in personal safety is even more dangerous to liberty  than the idea that the government should be able to force individuals to  sacrifice their property rights for imaginary gains in economic  security.
Opposition to allowing the government to take life is  also part of a consistent pro-life position. Thus, those of any ideology  who oppose abortion or preemptive war should also oppose the death  penalty. Until the death penalty is abolished, we will have neither a  free nor a moral society.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

re death penalty,

It would costs too much? This is because of the anti death penalty people deliberately making it more difficult to administer over the years by disingenuously citing the "cruel and unusual" clause (which was obviously not intended to preclude the death penalty, since the same was ubiquitous at the time of the drafting of the Constitution) in order to require increasingly complex _and expensive_ (and no more human: arguably less humane) methods of execution. In short, a length of rope adequate to hanging a murderer costs about $10. As for legal costs, the appeals allowed a death row inmate are identical to the appeals allowed any criminal whatsoever. They may be excessive (they probably are), but this is not a problem particular to the death sentence. 

It's unjust because it's irreversible? Prison is equally irreversible. Time served cannot be unserved.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> re death penalty,
> 
> It would costs too much? This is because of the anti death penalty people deliberately making it more difficult to administer over the years by disingenuously citing the "cruel and unusual" clause (which was obviously not intended to preclude the death penalty, since the same was ubiquitous at the time of the drafting of the Constitution) in order to require increasingly complex _and expensive_ (and no more human: arguably less humane) methods of execution. In short, a length of rope adequate to hanging a murderer costs about $10. As for legal costs, the appeals allowed a death row inmate are identical to the appeals allowed any criminal whatsoever. They may be excessive (they probably are), but this is not a problem particular to the death sentence. 
> 
> It's unjust because it's irreversible? Prison is equally irreversible. *Time served cannot be unserved*.


True, but you're still alive at the end. The victim of unjust imprisonment can also sue in some cases. When the accused is dead, there's nothing remotely close to recourse or payment of damages.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> True, but you're still alive at the end. The victim of unjust imprisonment can also sue in some cases. When the accused is dead, there's nothing remotely close to recourse or payment of damages.


The heir of the deceased can sue.

----------


## P3ter_Griffin

It looks like in Texas write in votes are actually documented so I think you could best serve your purpose by writing in Darryl Perry.  He is running to show displeasure with the libertarian nominee and I think provides a rather unmistakable vote in this manner where voting for Castle may be mistaken as 1) nothing in the event the CP doesn't do statistically better then previous elections or 2) SoCon shed from the GOP over the Trump nomination as the CP party itself seems more suited to these individuals.  And voting for Ron may be mistaken that you are an individual who is always going to write in Ron no matter the position the libertarian party candidate takes.

----------


## P3ter_Griffin

> and deviants including homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to adopt
> 
> (they have no right to adopt, no one does, it's about what's in the best interest of the child)


For ze children!!! 

I hope this is said with the understanding that all individual's have the right to enter into contractual agreements, and that the market is best in looking out for the interest of all individuals.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> For ze children!!! 
> 
> I hope this is said with the understanding that all individual's have the right to enter into contractual agreements, and that the market is best in looking out for the interest of all individuals.


The parent-child relationship (whether the parent is adoptive or natural) isn't contractual; minors cannot contract. Adoption (like all things relating to children or other mental incompetents) is a special case to which the normal rules of libertarian ethics are inapplicable (because those rules presuppose mentally competent adults). Prohibiting gays from adopting children is not at all comparable to (for instance) prohibiting them from forming marriage contracts amongst themselves; the latter would undermine freedom of contract, the former would not.

----------


## William Tell

> It looks like in Texas write in votes are actually documented so I think you could best serve your purpose by writing in Darryl Perry.


No. Darryl Perry is not an option in Texas. Texas only counts registered write-ins, he does not appear on the list of registered write-ins.

----------


## PierzStyx

> You can personally oppose something and still believe in the right of the various States to decide for themselves.


People. Stahp. Just stahp. States don't have rights. They have powers. People have rights. Thinking states have rights is what got us into this whole mess.

----------


## PierzStyx

> The parent-child relationship (whether the parent is adoptive or natural) isn't contractual; minors cannot contract. Adoption (like all things relating to children or other mental incompetents) is a special case to which the normal rules of libertarian ethics are inapplicable (because those rules presuppose mentally competent adults). Prohibiting gays from adopting children is not at all comparable to (for instance) prohibiting them from forming marriage contracts amongst themselves; the latter would undermine freedom of contract, the former would not.


I'm with you for the first part, it is the prohibiting part that becomes an issue. If your private adoption agency doesn't want to allow gays to adopt from them, wonderful. But creating a law prohibiting it is against libertarian ethics because you're cretaing a violent force to attack a nonviolent people from nonviolent action.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> This seems to be exceedingly hard to get across.


Has been since 2007.

----------


## PierzStyx

> The death penalty _is_ just, provided there was due process, 
> 
> *No, it is legal. But it isn't justice. Justice isn't about taking from someone what they took, it is about restoring what was taken. The death penalty just provides for two murdered people, one by a private individual and one by the state. If you want justice then you have to work out a way for that person to restore in some measurable way what they took.*
> 
> and deviants including homosexuals _shouldn't_ be allowed to adopt 
> 
> (they have no right to adopt, no one does, it's about what's in the best interest of the child)
> 
> *Sure you do. Adoption rights are property just like any other. It is a market and they can be bought and sold. For you to interfere in a nonviolent market exchange with violence because it offends your morals makes you no better than any other Leftist.
> ...


Responses in bold.

----------


## PierzStyx

> it's his own words dude. there is an option to put leave it up to the states and he didn't put that, he put yes. you are just trying to feel good about yourself for voting for him I guess, but I don't see how he is any better than Gary Johnson. in fact, I'd actually say he's worse. there's a reason Ron Paul hasn't mentioned him to anybody.


Ron did endorse him as VP back in 2008 when he was Chuck Baldwin's running mate.

http://libertyhangout.org/2016/07/in...ion-candidate/

----------


## Origanalist

> People. Stahp. Just stahp. States don't have rights. They have powers. People have rights. Thinking states have rights is what got us into this whole mess.


I stand corrected. The various states have the power under the constitution.

----------


## phill4paul

> The death penalty _is_ just, provided there was due process,


"Due process" is a fallible process, overseen by fallible men. This fallibility leads to the murder of innocents. Murder. When the state murders innocents they call it "collateral damage." Do you believe that "justice" should be served so harshly even though it may result in "collateral damage?"





> and deviants including homosexuals _shouldn't_ be allowed to adopt 
> 
> (they have no right to adopt, no one does, it's about what's in the best interest of the child)


   Why the $#@! is government involved in adoption? That is the question. Not who is acceptable by the government for adoption.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> I'm with you for the first part, it is the prohibiting part that becomes an issue. If your private adoption agency doesn't want to allow gays to adopt from them, wonderful. But creating a law prohibiting it is against libertarian ethics because you're cretaing a violent force to attack a nonviolent people from nonviolent action.


1. Do children have rights?

2. If so, & they cannot defend those rights themselves (e.g. a toddler cannot file a lawsuit), who should be empowered to defend their rights?

----------


## phill4paul

> 1. Do children have rights?
> 
> 2. If so, & they cannot defend those rights themselves (e.g. a toddler cannot file a lawsuit), who should be empowered to defend their rights?


   You do not empower government to defend rights. You restrict it to keep from infringing on them.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> "Due process" is a fallible process, overseen by fallible men. This  fallibility leads to the murder of innocents. Murder. When the state  murders innocents they call it "collateral damage." Do you believe that  "justice" should be served so harshly even though it may result in  "collateral damage?"


That's true of any punishment, not just the death penalty. Sometimes, innocent people will be sent to prison. Sometimes, innocent people will be made to pay fines. Etc Since, as you point out, the legal system is fallible, there's no way to totally eliminate this risk. All we can do is try to minimize it. What we _cannot_ do is abolish any punishment which might be applied wrongly, since that would require that we abolish all punishment altogether, which is absurd. 




> Why the $#@! is government involved in adoption? That is the question. Not who is acceptable by the government for adoption.


I'm talking about what the law should be. 

Who enforces the law is a separate issue; you can imagine that it's PDAs doing the enforcing if you like. 

The ethical question is the same.

----------


## William Tell

> *Sure you do. Adoption rights are property just like any other. It is a  market and they can be bought and sold. For you to interfere in a  nonviolent market exchange with violence because it offends your morals  makes you no better than any other Leftist.*


Respectfully, how is this not slavery?

the think of the children argument is overused. But if there is one place it applies, it is in a situation where kids without parents are being handed/sold off to random strangers.

----------


## phill4paul

> That's true of any punishment, not just the death penalty. Sometimes, innocent people will be sent to prison. Sometimes, innocent people will be made to pay fines. Etc Since, as you point out, the legal system is fallible, there's no way to totally eliminate this risk. All we can do is try to minimize it. What we _cannot_ do is abolish any punishment which might be applied wrongly, since that would require that we abolish all punishment altogether, which is absurd.


  Yes. But, sometimes restitution is made to those individuals when proof of their mal-conviction is made evident. That's kind of hard to do for a dead person. Isn't it? 
  Isn't minimizing the risk of murder not to commit it? Punishment is/should not be the goal. Restitution should be the goal. Rehabilitation should be the goal. 






> I'm talking about what the law should be. 
> 
> Who enforces the law is a separate issue; you can imagine that it's PDAs doing the enforcing if you like. 
> 
> The ethical question is the same.


   "Ethics" are subjective. Kids should never be a ward of state. 

   ETA: What is your definition of PDA? There's a lot out there....http://www.acronymfinder.com/PDA.html

----------


## helmuth_hubener

*"And 'best interest of the child' is an incredibly nebulous term. Who decides it? Why do you get to decide what is best for another person's child? You have no right to interfere."* 

And, with this, you just went all the way down the slippery slope.  No more need to worry about the slippery slope: you are already at the bottom of it.

"So nebulous..."

"Who are you to say?"

"Who is anyone to say?"

"One religion / moral system / ethical sensibility is as good and as valid as another."

And that means:

• Child rape
• Child slavery
• Child beating
• Child euthanasia
• Child spoiling

These are all OK.  These should all be legal.  These all must be permitted.  If a known child-beater -- or worse: a known child-spoiler -- wants to adopt, well, "Sure, man, that's groovy.  That's like, your path.  Who am I to interfere?"

Because: "tolerance."

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Yes. But, sometimes restitution is made to those individuals when proof of their mal-conviction is made evident. That's kind of hard to do for a dead person. Isn't it?


First, emphasis on sometimes; just because a person can conceivably be compensated for wrongful punishment doesn't mean they will be (and the fact that they might not be compensated doesn't mean that the punishment should be abolished). Second, it's not only the death penatly which is irreversible. As I believed I pointed out to another poster earlier, time served in prison cannot be unserved; monetary compensation hardly undoes the damage (though it helps). And before you say that there should be no prison in a libertarian society, this includes debtor's prison (which, if you're not going to have corporal punishment, would be an unavoidable necessity, since otherwise poor people could commit crimes with impunity)

On a related note, do you believe that the use of lethal force is ever justified? In self-defense, for instance? Won't there sometimes be mistakes, resulting in innocents being killed (wife shoots "burgler" not realizing it was actually her husband coming home late)? Does that mean the use of lethal force in self-defense should be illegal? The odds of a mistake are greater here than in the legal system, wouldn't you say (odds of a person mistaking an innocent for threat in a dark alley greater than jury finding innocent person guilty beyond a reasonable doubt)?




> Isn't minimizing the risk of murder not to commit it? Punishment is/should not be the goal. Restitution should be the goal. Rehabilitation should be the goal


The goals should be restitution and deterrence.

I see no place for rehabilitation.




> Kids should never be a ward of state.


I didn't say anything about them being wards of the state.

I didn't say anything about the state at all. 

Once again, I'm talking about the law.

----------


## euphemia

He's not on the ballot in his own home state.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I wish somebody had pointed this out to me sooner. He doesn't think gay couples should be able to adopt and he believes in the death penalty. That's too far for me. Now I wonder who to vote for. Guess I'm gonna have to write in ole Ron Paul


Wow.  I didn't realize he had those stances.  Good for him.  Tell me, is he against allowing men to use the girl's bathroom?  Because that would clinch it for me.  Please get back to me on this.

Note:  Joking aside, I don't think the federal government has any right to intercede in private adoptions.  But, federal agencies, yes.

----------


## phill4paul

> Wow.  I didn't realize he had those stances.  Good for him.  Tell me, is he against allowing men to use the girl's bathroom?  Because that would clinch it for me.  Please get back to me on this.
> 
> Note:  Joking aside, I don't think the federal government has any right to intercede in private adoptions.  But, federal agencies, yes.


  Wut? Fed. Gov, no. But agencies, yes.? I think I'd shoot myself if this were my stance after 9 yrs. at this forum.

----------


## osan

> You do not empower government to defend rights. You restrict it to keep from infringing on them.


Umm... why then do we even have "government"?  The ONLY possible valid purpose of "government" is to guarantee, defend, and enforce (OH MY GOD!  FORCE!!!) human rights.  Given this, the question then proceeds to "what does that mean?", which becomes the question of how it shall do so in practical terms.   That is, in what specific ways shall "government" defend the rights of men?  To me there would be only two: common defense (military), and courts (crimes, torts/equity, contracts). 

What other possible valid purpose could there be?  Muh roads?  Instituting governMENT just for the sake of restricting it doesn't seem to make much sense, does it?  Perhaps I have missed some point of reason?  Help me.

----------


## Jesse James

Maybe the death penalty isn't a big deal after all but he's still dead wrong on the government enforcing who adopts.

----------


## phill4paul

> Umm... why then do we even have "government"?  The ONLY possible valid purpose of "government" is to guarantee, defend, and enforce (OH MY GOD!  FORCE!!!) human rights.  Given this, the question then proceeds to "what does that mean?", which becomes the question of how it shall do so in practical terms.   That is, in what specific ways shall "government" defend the rights of men?  To me there would be only two: common defense (military), and courts (crimes, torts/equity, contracts). 
> 
> What other possible valid purpose could there be?  Muh roads?  Instituting governMENT just for the sake of restricting it doesn't seem to make much sense, does it?  Perhaps I have missed some point of reason?  Help me.


   Yes. If government is instituted then the first process should be to restrict it. This will of course change over time, i.e. a standing Army which should be disbanded and argued for or against will become rote in it's size and scope. Government is the anti-thesis of free men.  Open up your computer window and smell the freedom that government has guaranteed, defended and enforced.

----------


## osan

> Yes. If government is instituted then the first process should be to restrict it. This will of course change over time, i.e. a standing Army which should be disbanded and argued for or against will become rote in it's size and scope. Government is the anti-thesis of free men.  Open up your computer window and smell the freedom that government has guaranteed, defended and enforced.



This speaks not to the reasons for instituting it.  I understand the bit about restriction, but that is not the reason for institution.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> [snark]But he's right on so many other issues./[snark]


Why the snark? He is right on so many other issues.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Maybe the death penalty isn't a big deal after all but he's still dead wrong on the government enforcing who adopts.


Should anyone be allowed to adopt?

How about a convicted child rapist?

How about a homeless crackhead?

How do you envision the adoption process working?

A parent who wants to give up their child can give it to anyone? To the highest bidder? 

You don't see any potential problems in that arrangement?

----------


## nikcers

> Should anyone be allowed to adopt?
> 
> How about a convicted child rapist?
> 
> How about a homeless crackhead?
> 
> How do you envision the adoption process working?
> 
> A parent who wants to give up their child can give it to anyone? To the highest bidder? 
> ...


This is precisely the attitude and reason why so many kids go hungry these days. OMG that homeless crackhead convicted child rapist wants to adopt a child, we must stop him.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> This is precisely the attitude and reason why so many kids go hungry these days. OMG that homeless crackhead convicted child rapist wants to adopt a child, we must stop him.


Children are going hungry because homeless crackheads/child rapists are prohibited from adopting them?

Wut?

----------


## Jesse James

> This is precisely the attitude and reason why so many kids go hungry these days. OMG that homeless crackhead convicted child rapist wants to adopt a child, we must stop him.


+1

----------


## Jesse James

> Should anyone be allowed to adopt?
> 
> How about a convicted child rapist?
> 
> How about a homeless crackhead?
> 
> How do you envision the adoption process working?
> 
> A parent who wants to give up their child can give it to anyone? To the highest bidder? 
> ...


the doctors and owners of adoption agencies will decide. what website do you think you're on? this isn't basicbitchrepublicans.com. we are libertarians

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> the doctors and owners of adoption agencies will decide


...not really sure what that means in practice. 

Let's work through a concrete example. 

Mom, Dad, and little Johnny are walking down the street one day.

Mom and Dad both get hit by a truck and killed instantly, leaving little Johnny on his own, wandering around the street.

Who gets custody of Johnny?

Suppose a complete stranger finds him first, and then later a friend of Johnny's deceased parents discovers what happened and wants custody. 

How is this custody dispute resolved?

Do the two claimants go to court?

If so, what principles does the court use to decide who should get custody?

Might it reasonable for the court to consider which claimant would likely take better care of Johnny?

...based on such factors as their incomes, their lifestyles, their morals, etc, etc?

----------


## Superfluous Man

> And that means:
> 
> • Child rape
> • Child slavery
> • Child beating
> • Child euthanasia
> • Child spoiling
> 
> These are all OK.  These should all be legal.  These all must be permitted.  If a known child-beater -- or worse: a known child-spoiler -- wants to adopt, well, "Sure, man, that's groovy.  That's like, your path.  Who am I to interfere?"


All of those things are very serious issues. They must not be tolerated. Stopping and/or punishing them is of great importance. Too great to let the state be involved.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> All of those things are very serious issues. They must not be tolerated. Stopping and/or punishing them is of great importance. Too great to let the state be involved.


Some of you ancaps keep trying to make this a state v anarchy issue, but it's not.

The question is what the law should say re child custody.

....whether that law is enforced by the state or enforced by private defense agencies is beside the point.

----------


## lilymc

> the doctors and owners of adoption agencies will decide. what website do you think you're on? this isn't basicbitchrepublicans.com. we are libertarians


No, there are a lot of libertines here, not the same thing as libertarian. In fact, they have more in common with lefties or "progressives."

----------


## P3ter_Griffin

> No. Darryl Perry is not an option in Texas. Texas only counts registered write-ins, he does not appear on the list of registered write-ins.


I'll see if I can dig back up the article latter, the article I read stated that Ron Paul both beat out Jesus and Hillary in what I'm guessing was 2016 dem primary in some county.  And so I thought for them to be able to dig up that information (neither Ron or Jesus were registered) that all records must be kept.

----------


## P3ter_Griffin

> The parent-child relationship (whether the parent is adoptive or natural) isn't contractual; minors cannot contract. Adoption (like all things relating to children or other mental incompetents) is a special case to which the normal rules of libertarian ethics are inapplicable (because those rules presuppose mentally competent adults). Prohibiting gays from adopting children is not at all comparable to (for instance) prohibiting them from forming marriage contracts amongst themselves; the latter would undermine freedom of contract, the former would not.


Preventing an individual and an adoption agency from entering into a contracual agreement is indeed prohibiting their freedom of contract.  More than anything though this regulation, which is intend to look out for the best interest of the children, could very well have the opposite effect.  For instance if there is a shortage of heterosexual couples and a glut of orphans, it would relegate them to living at the orphanage instead of potentially going to a plenty loving home of homosexuals.  That is why it is best left in the hands of the adoption agencies, because central decrees usually result in the opposite of their intentions.

----------


## P3ter_Griffin

> Should anyone be allowed to adopt?
> 
> How about a convicted child rapist?
> 
> How about a homeless crackhead?
> 
> How do you envision the adoption process working?
> 
> A parent who wants to give up their child can give it to anyone? To the highest bidder? 
> ...


Good Lord are you really comparing homosexuals with convicted child rapist and homeless crackheads?

----------


## P3ter_Griffin

The idea that you prevent child rape by banning the child rapist from adopting is in the same vain as preventing violent crime by banning the felon from possessing firearms.  If you want to keep a rapist away from children or a felon away from guns you keep them locked in a cage.

----------


## P3ter_Griffin

> I'll see if I can dig back up the article latter, the article I read stated that Ron Paul both beat out Jesus and Hillary in what I'm guessing was 2016 dem primary in some county.  And so I thought for them to be able to dig up that information (neither Ron or Jesus were registered) that all records must be kept.


https://www.texastribune.org/2013/01...-mickey-mouse/

"The Texas Tribune obtained lists of uncertified names receiving write-in votes in Travis and Tarrant counties. Officials in Dallas, Bexar and Harris counties could not provide the lists of uncertified write-in candidates because their electronic voting systems do not keep the names. We mark it as uncertified on our tally sheets but not what it is, explained Jana Onyon of the Dallas County Elections Department."

That explains my confusion.  Worthwhile in a few counties it seems.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Good Lord are you really comparing homosexuals with convicted child rapist and homeless crackheads?


I'm trying to establish (by use of extreme examples) the principle that _some people_ can be justly prohibited from having custody of children. 

...if/when that's established, then we can debate the specifics of just who exactly should fall into that category.

----------


## P3ter_Griffin

> I'm trying to establish (by use of extreme examples) the principle that _some people_ can be justly prohibited from having custody of children. 
> 
> ...if/when that's established, then we can debate the specifics of just who exactly should fall into that category.


Even if we take the most extreme example, the convicted child rapist, the judicial system will have made the decision that this individual is no longer a threat before releasing them, the adoption agency will have made the decision that this individual is a fit parent, and I would trust their decisions having directly dealt with the individual to make a better judgement than a buerocrat.  Like with all things, it is better for justice to be served after a violation of rights have occurred.  An adoption agency found to frequently place children in destructive or harmful homes should be shut down and operators dealt with, individual cases where someone adopts for harmful reasons should be dealt with individually.  And good adoption agencies would look after the children, to make sure they have found a good home, and good and informed people should look to them in finding a child a good home.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Even if we take the most extreme example, the convicted child rapist, the judicial system will have made the decision that this individual is no longer a threat before releasing them, the adoption agency will have made the decision that this individual is a fit parent, and I would trust their decisions having directly dealt with the individual to make a better judgement than a buerocrat.


Where does an adoption agency come into the scenario I laid out?

In that scenario, there are two people claiming custody of the child, one of which has possession of the child b/c hey happened to find him first.

----------


## P3ter_Griffin

> Where does an adoption agency come into the scenario I laid out?
> 
> In that scenario, there are two people claiming custody of the child, one of which has possession of the child b/c hey happened to find him first.



I don't know, I think if someone found a child at the scene of an accident like you mentioned, and just took the child and claimed it, kidnapping charges may be justified.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> I don't know, I think if someone found a child at the scene of an accident like you mentioned, and just took the child and claimed it, kidnapping charges may be justified.


Alright, so who decides who gets custody of that child?

And how do they decide?

----------


## P3ter_Griffin

> Alright, so who decides who gets custody of that child?
> 
> And how do they decide?


Someone (anyone) willing to do an earnest and substantial search for living relatives of the child.  Or more likely first, an earnest and substantial search to find if the parents documented who they wanted to care for their child in the case of their death.  Someone not willing or capable of doing this should not take custody of a child, so for the instance of the fatal crash someone not willing and capable of doing this and not interested in taking the child to a person/place capable of doing this, they should leave the child at the scene.

If no documentation/living relatives/family friends are found or willing to take care of the child, then the child is 'fair game'.  Meaning short of intentionally adopting out or keeping the child with ill intents they should be free to do as they wish.  And I think a good reputation would lead to a greater market share.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Someone (anyone) willing to do an earnest and substantial search for living relatives of the child.  Or more likely first, an earnest and substantial search to find if the parents documented who they wanted to care for their child in the case of their death.  Someone not willing or capable of doing this should not take custody of a child, so for the instance of the fatal crash someone not willing and capable of doing this and not interested in taking the child to a person/place capable of doing this, they should leave the child at the scene.
> 
> If no documentation/living relatives/family friends are found or willing to take care of the child, then the child is 'fair game'.  Meaning short of intentionally adopting out or keeping the child with ill intents they should be free to do as they wish.  And I think a good reputation would lead to a greater market share.


  And if there were multiple claimaints, who couldn't reach an agreement, the issue would be decided by a court, correct?

And in deciding the issue, the court would apply certain legal principles, considering factors such as fitness to raise the child?

----------


## P3ter_Griffin

> And if there were multiple claimaints, who couldn't reach an agreement, the issue would be decided by a court, correct?
> 
> And in deciding the issue, the court would apply certain legal principles, considering factors such as fitness to raise the child?


I do not support a 3rd party interjecting themselves into a family affair unless it is agreed to by the parties in question.  I will concede though that having a reasonable 3rd party interject themselves may lead to the better outcome for the child- if we may shallowly define that as the outcome with more opportunities, taken with the assumption that the claimants want custody because they love and want to care for the child .  But childhood is just a short part of a persons life and most of the opportunities of life come in adulthood by one's own means.  As a 3rd party these 'lost opportunities' do not merit me interjecting myself into the family to declare who gets custody of the child.  For more stark difference between desires of the claimants, one wants the child because they love it and want to care for it, and the other for nefarious reasons, the former would be right in defending the child from the latter.  But again that would not require a 3rd party to declare who gets custody in advance, custody would be settled by the actions and consequences that stems from the dispute.

----------


## Jesse James

> ...not really sure what that means in practice. 
> 
> Let's work through a concrete example. 
> 
> Mom, Dad, and little Johnny are walking down the street one day.
> 
> Mom and Dad both get hit by a truck and killed instantly, leaving little Johnny on his own, wandering around the street.
> 
> Who gets custody of Johnny?
> ...


If it is written in the will who will get him they get him, if not it is up to a private court to decide, in that circumstance, assuming that the family members attempt to sue, of course.

----------


## Jesse James

> Where does an adoption agency come into the scenario I laid out?
> 
> In that scenario, there are two people claiming custody of the child, one of which has possession of the child b/c hey happened to find him first.


A private court may decide that it is best for a child to go in an adoption agency, though based on your current scenario that is unlikely.

----------


## William Tell

> A private court may decide that it is best for a child to go in an adoption agency, though based on your current scenario that is unlikely.


How would a private court have authority over the child?

Can they just ship him overseas if they want?

In r3v's scenario a stranger "finds" the child, and presumably takes custody. I don't see how a private court could have any say.

----------


## Jesse James

> How would a private court have authority over the child?
> 
> Can they just ship him overseas if they want?
> 
> In r3v's scenario a stranger "finds" the child, and presumably takes custody. I don't see how a private court could have any say.


a private court would get involved in the situation he highlighted because the person who is a relative would sue for the custody the kid, like i said.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> This is precisely the attitude and reason why so many kids go hungry these days.


No kids are going hungry these days.  Not in the United States.  This is left-wing propaganda -- blatantly false left-wing propaganda.  20 million kids are going hungry *RIGHT NOW!!*111!11*!*1!1!  In YOUR neighborhood!1!1!1!!  Or is it 30 million?  It's probably 100 million!@!!1  1,000 million!!~!!@!@  Save the CHILDRENS!

It takes a temperament quite far extreme to the left (rabbit) side of the spectrum to even begin to take this bizarre claim seriously.  I mean, the claim makes not the slightest attempt to be true, or to even shoot for plausibility.  Everyone with any awareness of the reality around them and any care about reality whatsoever can immediately -- immediately! -- identify it as false.  Yet, billboards across the country advertise the lie, and it is an accepted talking point.  Leftists never would even think to question it.  Because they're on the left.  And lame-stream right-wingers don't dare to, because the left would call them names.

Thank goodness some of us don't care who calls us names.  Thank goodness some of us care about the *facts*.

----------


## Origanalist

So, is anyone voting for Darrell Castle? He's on my ballot.

----------


## The Rebel Poet

> So, is anyone voting for Darrell Castle? He's on my ballot.


I am.

----------


## nikcers

> No kids are going hungry these days.  Not in the United States.  This is left-wing propaganda -- blatantly false left-wing propaganda.  20 million kids are going hungry *RIGHT NOW!!*111!11*!*1!1!  In YOUR neighborhood!1!1!1!!  Or is it 30 million?  It's probably 100 million!@!!1  1,000 million!!~!!@!@  Save the CHILDRENS!
> 
> It takes a temperament quite far extreme to the left (rabbit) side of the spectrum to even begin to take this bizarre claim seriously.  I mean, the claim makes not the slightest attempt to be true, or to even shoot for plausibility.  Everyone with any awareness of the reality around them and any care about reality whatsoever can immediately -- immediately! -- identify it as false.  Yet, billboards across the country advertise the lie, and it is an accepted talking point.  Leftists never would even think to question it.  Because they're on the left.  And lame-stream right-wingers don't dare to, because the left would call them names.
> 
> Thank goodness some of us don't care who calls us names.  Thank goodness some of us care about the *facts*.


I hope you never have go to without and understand what others go through.

----------


## Origanalist

> I am.


I was pretty close to just saying never again to voting, but I might put in a vote for him. I'm still undecided on this, if he wasn't on the ballot there would be no question. I'm leaning pretty heavily towards not participating in my own subjugation though.

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> So, is anyone voting for Darrell Castle? He's on my ballot.


He's not on mine, unfortunately.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> I hope you never have go to without and understand what others go through.


Yes, "DO NOT ENGAGE WITH HELMUTH ON THIS."  That is indeed your best strategy.

No children in the US are starving.  If you actually think they are (you don't), you are totally delusional.  If you actually think, with the rational part of your brain, this is a major problem in the present-day United States (you don't), then you are totally, totally delusional.

----------


## Origanalist

> Yes, "DO NOT ENGAGE WITH HELMUTH ON THIS."  That is indeed your best strategy.
> 
> No children in the US are starving.  If you actually think they are (you don't), you are totally delusional.  If you actually think, with the rational part of your brain, this is a major problem in the present-day United States (you don't), then you are totally, totally delusional.


I have proof right here helmuth..

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> a private court would get involved in the situation he highlighted because the person who is a relative would sue for the custody the kid, like i said.


And the court would award custody on the basis of which of the several claimants is most fit to raise the child, no?

By the way, I don't think homosexuality should be an absilute bar to adoption, just a negative factor. 

If the only options were a kid being raised by homosexuals or living on the street, the former would obviously be preferable. 

A number of factors should be considered in determining fitness, lifestyle, income, biological relation (if any), etc, etc.

The court's task would be weigh the positives and negatives of each potential candidate to find the best overall.

----------


## H. E. Panqui

> Yes, "DO NOT ENGAGE WITH HELMUTH ON THIS."  That is indeed your best strategy.
> 
> No children in the US are starving.  If you actually think they are (you don't), you are totally delusional.  If you actually think, with the rational part of your brain, this is a major problem in the present-day United States (you don't), then you are totally, totally delusional.




...helmuth writes, essentially, 'no children in the u.s. lack 'food'/nourishment...but that's only true if you count potato chips, candy, ice cream, soda pop, pizza, happy meals inc., etc. ad nauseam, as food/nourishment....

----------


## nikcers

> Yes, "DO NOT ENGAGE WITH HELMUTH ON THIS."  That is indeed your best strategy.
> 
> No children in the US are starving.  If you actually think they are (you don't), you are totally delusional.  If you actually think, with the rational part of your brain, this is a major problem in the present-day United States (you don't), then you are totally, totally delusional.


Believe what you want, I will still wish the best for you and will hope and pray you don't ever have to go without.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

There are certainly malnourished kids in the US, even starving kids. But they aren't malnourished/starving because their parents can't afford to feed them, for lack of a "living wage," blah blah, as the left would have us believe. Between work, private charity, and the massive welfare state, no parent is unable to feed their child. Some _choose_ not to because they prefer to smoke up the food money, and/or sell the food stamps for the same purpose, and/or just disappear for days on end leaving the kid unattended, etc. That's a very different kind of problem, and throwing more free$#@! at it isn't a solution.

----------


## nikcers

> There are certainly malnourished kids in the US, even starving kids. But they aren't malnourished/starving because their parents can't afford to feed them, for lack of a "living wage," blah blah, as the left would have us believe. Between work, private charity, and the massive welfare state, no parent is unable to feed their child. Some _choose_ not to because they prefer to smoke up the food money, and/or sell the food stamps for the same purpose, and/or just disappear for days on end leaving the kid unattended, etc. That's a very different kind of problem, and throwing more free$#@! at it isn't a solution.


I never said we need more government, I merely suggested there was too much government that gets in the way and in some ways causes the systemic problems that we see like hungry kids.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> I never said we need more government


I never said you did, just making a general comment.

----------


## PierzStyx

> 1. Do children have rights?
> 
> 2. If so, & they cannot defend those rights themselves (e.g. a toddler cannot file a lawsuit), who should be empowered to defend their rights?


Whoever owns their guardian rights, biological parents or adoptive.

----------


## PierzStyx

> Respectfully, how is this not slavery?
> 
> the think of the children argument is overused. But if there is one place it applies, it is in a situation where kids without parents are being handed/sold off to random strangers.


I can tell you didn't read the articles. Go back and read them. Then you won't have to ask questions that are already answered.

----------


## PierzStyx

> Where does an adoption agency come into the scenario I laid out?
> 
> In that scenario, there are two people claiming custody of the child, one of which has possession of the child b/c hey happened to find him first.


Society has always settled it by saying the nearest of kin has adoptive rights first. But really that is taking a wild chance. The nearest blood relative may be their adoring aunt who will raise them justly and kindly, or she may be a distant and cold shrew who hates kids. In either case the person who actually _wants_ the child will almost always make the better parent. If that means the person on the side of the road, then so be it.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Whoever owns their guardian rights, biological parents or adoptive.


And how should it be decided who owns those guardian rights?




> Society has always settled it by saying the nearest of kin has adoptive  rights first. But really that is taking a wild chance. The nearest blood  relative may be their adoring aunt who will raise them justly and  kindly, or she may be a distant and cold shrew who hates kids. In either  case the person who actually _wants_ the child will almost always make the better parent. If that means the person on the side of the road, then so be it.


And if multiple people want custody of the child, and can't agree among themselves, how (and by whom) is the issue to be decided?

Wouldn't it decided by a court?

And wouldn't the court make that decision on the basis of the fitness of each would-be guardian to raise the child?

----------


## The Rebel Poet

> I have proof right here helmuth..


Those are all crisis actors.

----------


## Origanalist

> Society has always settled it by saying the nearest of kin has adoptive rights first. But really that is taking a wild chance. The nearest blood relative may be their adoring aunt who will raise them justly and kindly, or she may be a distant and cold shrew who hates kids. In either case the person who actually _wants_ the child will almost always make the better parent. If that means the person on the side of the road, then so be it.


Logical fail. Just the fact that someone really wants a child does not equate to them being a better parent.

----------


## Jesse James

> And the court would award custody on the basis of which of the several claimants is most fit to raise the child, no?
> 
> By the way, I don't think homosexuality should be an absilute bar to adoption, just a negative factor. 
> 
> If the only options were a kid being raised by homosexuals or living on the street, the former would obviously be preferable. 
> 
> A number of factors should be considered in determining fitness, lifestyle, income, biological relation (if any), etc, etc.
> 
> The court's task would be weigh the positives and negatives of each potential candidate to find the best overall.


I don't know how a court would respond.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> I don't know how a court would respond.


I'm asking how you think they _should_ decide. 

Seems to me that the sensible thing is to try to determine who is most fit as a parent. 

I don't know what other standard could be used (who's tallest? who did best in the mock draft last year? who slipped the judge the most cash? ).

----------


## Jesse James

> I'm asking how you think they _should_ decide. 
> 
> Seems to me that the sensible thing is to try to determine who is most fit as a parent. 
> 
> I don't know what other standard could be used (who's tallest? who did best in the mock draft last year? who slipped the judge the most cash? ).


Ok, I will pretend I am in the court voting.

Since the two parties are both fighting for custody I assume they both REALLY want the kid. I would prefer the better living conditions, yes. So, assuming that they will be able to support the kid with shelter, food, water, education, and overall nice living conditions, therefore assuming that all conditions are equal, I would give the edge to the relative I suppose. Assuming the kid is not old enough to decide, because if so I would just let him choose.

I assume what you really want to know is if being gay would go into the "living conditions." Well, I think that depends. I think a boy growing up with two moms might not be the best living condition, and vice versa a girl growing up with two fathers. However, I can't say it would affect my decision. If it effects others personal decision, that's fine, but as far as making a law, that's crazy. 

I would try not to support a adoption agency that doesn't let gays adopt their kids.

But, to answer your question, I would ask the kid, but assuming he is deemed to young or unstable to decide, I would probably pick the relative.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Ok, I will pretend I am in the court voting.
> 
> Since the two parties are both fighting for custody I assume they both REALLY want the kid. I would prefer the better living conditions, yes. So, assuming that they will be able to support the kid with shelter, food, water, education, and overall nice living conditions, therefore assuming that all conditions are equal, I would give the edge to the relative I suppose. Assuming the kid is not old enough to decide, because if so I would just let him choose.
> 
> I assume what you really want to know is if being gay would go into the "living conditions." Well, I think that depends. I think a boy growing up with two moms might not be the best living condition, and vice versa a girl growing up with two fathers. However, I can't say it would affect my decision. If it effects others personal decision, that's fine, but as far as making a law, that's crazy. 
> 
> I would try not to support a adoption agency that doesn't let gays adopt their kids.
> 
> But, to answer your question, I would ask the kid, but assuming he is deemed to young or unstable to decide, I would probably pick the relative.


What would you call court decisions, or the principles underlying them, if not laws?

Look, here's what I'm trying to get at Jesse....

If you think the courts should decide these cases by Principles X, Y, and Z, you are advocating for a law governing who can adopt. 

Just as I am.

If you want to object to the specific law I'm proposing, that's fine, but you can't be objecting to the very idea of having a law.

----------


## Jesse James

Courts in Ancapistan are voluntary. Laws as they are today are not.

If a relative of Little Jimmy discovers his relatives private property was stolen, he will do what it takes to get that kid back. The first step will be suing him for custody, and proving that he has equal stake to get Jimmy as does the person who kidnapped him.

----------


## William Tell

Voluntary goes both ways. The person who kidnapped him has no reason to show up to a voluntary court, only someone who wants to lose custody would show up. He has physical custody already.

----------


## Jesse James

> Voluntary goes both ways. The person who kidnapped him has no reason to show up to a voluntary court, only someone who wants to lose custody would show up. He has physical custody already.


and there is nobody that is under any obligation to protect him if anything happens to him.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> There are certainly malnourished kids in the US, even starving kids.


  Right.  Like ten of them.

Maybe?

Can you find those ten?  Send me a photo dated today?

No.  Neither can any one else.




> the systemic problems that we see like hungry kids.


There is no such systematic problem.

You have never seen a hungry kid.  Never in your life.  Trust me.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> I can tell you didn't read the articles. Go back and read them. Then you won't have to ask questions that are already answered.


Well I wouldn't want to take your valuable time, so I won't ask any questions, I'll just briefly mention:

1. I agree with Darrell Castle on this.
2. So does your church, Pierz.

Gays ought not to be allowed to corrupt children, much less _adopt!_  Unbelievable that this outrageous travesty could even be considered seriously.

----------


## Jesse James

I don't understand how a Ron Paul supporter could agree with Darrell Castle on this.

----------


## nikcers

> Right.  Like ten of them.
> 
> Maybe?
> 
> Can you find those ten?  Send me a photo dated today?
> 
> No.  Neither can any one else.
> 
> 
> ...


dude I had to turn my neighbors in because their 12 year old kid was 30 lbs. I fed him until he got sick and called the cops on the pig. Just because you have never gone hungry doesn't mean real Americans aren't going hungry. I have worked at a foodbank, most people that are hungry are too embarrassed to even ask for help. They work paycheck to paycheck and $#@! hit the fan. There are too many people living paycheck to paycheck to be this ignorant. This is like saying that there aren't too many non violent drug offenders in prison. You are just ignoring a systemic problem that is not going to go away if you sweep it under the rug.

----------


## Origanalist

> dude I had to turn my neighbors in because their 12 year old kid was 30 lbs. I fed him until he got sick and called the cops on the pig. Just because you have never gone hungry doesn't mean real Americans aren't going hungry. I have worked at a foodbank, most people that are hungry are too embarrassed to even ask for help. They work paycheck to paycheck and $#@! hit the fan. There are too many people living paycheck to paycheck to be this ignorant. This is like saying that there aren't too many non violent drug offenders in prison. You are just ignoring a systemic problem that is not going to go away if you sweep it under the rug.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> dude I had to turn my neighbors in because their 12 year old kid was 30 lbs.


 Oh no, I take it all back!  That's inhuman!  The horror!  Only 30 pounds?  Why that means....

https://www.cdc.gov/growthcharts/dat...l/cj41c021.pdf

He was right smack-dab on the 5th percentile.  That means there were, let's see, about 3.75 million out of the 75 million minors in the US who are in an even *lower* percentile than him.

None of whom are starving.




> I fed him until he got sick and called the cops on the pig.


 And you are very proud of this.  Bravo.

As for me, I have had a kid who was well below the _first_ percentile.

If only you were my neighbor!  You could have called the cops on me -- the pig I am! -- and saved him by making him sick.

Maybe next time!

----------


## opal

I miss Ron

----------


## nikcers

> Oh no, I take it all back!  That's inhuman!  The horror!  Only 30 pounds?  Why that means....
> 
> https://www.cdc.gov/growthcharts/dat...l/cj41c021.pdf
> 
> He was right smack-dab on the 5th percentile.  That means there were, let's see, about 3.75 million out of the 75 million minors in the US who are in an even *lower* percentile than him.
> 
> None of whom are starving.
> 
>  And you are very proud of this.  Bravo.
> ...


You wanna take this outside?

----------


## bunklocoempire

> You wanna take this outside?


Quick, someone call the cops.

----------


## nikcers

> Quick, someone call the cops.


Too late I already called them. Now your gonna get it.

----------


## The Rebel Poet

> Logical fail. Just the fact that someone really wants a child does not equate to them being a better parent.



Best...parent...ever

----------


## William Tell

> I can tell you didn't read the articles. Go back and read them. Then you won't have to ask questions that are already answered.


The question isn't answered, they ignore it, or try to rush it aside.




> Nonetheless, I recognize that in a free society, people will do things  of which I disapprove. As immoral and degrading as an explicit “baby  catalog” would be, I find it even more immoral and degrading that the  agents of the state currently will throw people in cages if they are  caught giving money to encourage an activity that is perfectly legal if  done for free.


 In other words, he finds enforcement against the baby trade more troubling than the selling of kids itself.

----------


## Jesse James

some of you would fit in better on ted cruz forums.com me thinks.

----------


## William Tell

> Logical fail. Just the fact that someone really wants a child does not equate to them being a better parent.


Agreed. Tons of foster kids are abused, it's a real issue.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> You wanna take this outside?


I love the outdoors!  I'm just glad there's tireless Do-Gooders like you roaming the streets, vigilant for chances to deprive pigs like us RPFers of our children and instead safely install them into loving homosexual homes.

Kill 'em with kindness, Nikkky!

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Quick, someone call the cops.




nikcers: The Humanitarian with the Guillotine.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Agreed. Tons of foster kids are abused, it's a real issue.


  No, no, no.  Stop it.  You're not supposed to focus on actual, major issues, with massive, duplicatable, provable data showing it's a horrendous problem.

_Especially_ not when it tends to support the conclusion that a child should be raised by his own _father_ and _mother!_  Disgusting!

We need to focus on the Massive Devastating Famine going on in the USA right now.  We need to focus on how all the bad heterosexual bigots are starving their children until they're just 30 pounds and so we need to grab them away so the kind, loving gays can give them ice cream three times a day.  We need to focus on Real Issues that Nikcer cares about.

And has decreed that we'd better care about.

*Or Else.*

----------


## JohnM

> He's not on mine, unfortunately.


I see that it is possible to vote for Castle in any state other than Oklahoma, North Carolina and Massachusetts.  Which one do you vote in?  (I'm registered in NC.)

----------


## Origanalist

> nikcers: The Humanitarian with the Guillotine.

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> I see that it is possible to vote for Castle in any state other than Oklahoma, North Carolina and Massachusetts.  Which one do you vote in?  (I'm registered in NC.)


Kentucky.  Something must have changed I guess.

----------


## Original_Intent

> Oh no, I take it all back!  That's inhuman!  The horror!  Only 30 pounds?  Why that means....
> 
> https://www.cdc.gov/growthcharts/dat...l/cj41c021.pdf
> 
> He was right smack-dab on the 5th percentile.  That means there were, let's see, about 3.75 million out of the 75 million minors in the US who are in an even *lower* percentile than him.
> 
> None of whom are starving.
> 
>  And you are very proud of this.  Bravo.
> ...


You blew this one big time, friend. I couldn't believe ANY chart said a 12 year old kid could weigh 30 lbs. your own chart has the 5th percentile at 30 kilograms, or about 65 lbs. So you may have had a kid below the first percentile, but for a 12 year old to weigh 30 lbs and be OK, they better be about 2 feet tall.

----------


## JohnM

> Kentucky.  Something must have changed I guess.


Castle is not on the ballot in Kentucky, but you can write him in:

http://www.constitutionparty.com/get...ballot-access/

----------


## Zap!

> I wish somebody had pointed this out to me sooner. He doesn't think gay couples should be able to adopt and he believes in the death penalty. That's too far for me. Now I wonder who to vote for. Guess I'm gonna have to write in ole Ron Paul


Good. Do you not know anything at all about the Constitution Party and what we stand for? The CP is a far-right Party. It's like you were about to vote for Stein, and then said "I didn't know she was against the death penalty and for abortion on demand!" That's just not how it works.

----------


## jmdrake

> I wish somebody had pointed this out to me sooner. He doesn't think gay couples should be able to adopt and he believes in the death penalty. That's too far for me. Now I wonder who to vote for. Guess I'm gonna have to write in ole Ron Paul


I think a ban on gay adoption is a bit much, but even (some) gays realize that children are better off with having an actual male and female mother and father.  As for the death penalty, I'm against it but I understand why some people are for it.  I shed no tears when Jeffrey Dahmer was killed in prison.

----------


## jmdrake

> I don't understand how a Ron Paul supporter could agree with Darrell Castle on this.


I don't understand how a Ron Paul supporter could think adoption was a federal issue.    Maybe adoption of kids from China or Russia.  Russia closed the door on U.S. adoption BTW.  (Not sure if they re-opened it.)

----------


## Jesse James

> Good. Do you not know anything at all about the Constitution Party and what we stand for? The CP is a far-right Party. It's like you were about to vote for Stein, and then said "I didn't know she was against the death penalty and for abortion on demand!" That's just not how it works.


he claimed to be libertarian and many of his stances are completely anti-Constitution Party. regardless of his views on gay people he would feel more at home in the LP if he had a chance of winning the nominee

----------


## Jesse James

> I don't understand how a Ron Paul supporter could think adoption was a federal issue.    Maybe adoption of kids from China or Russia.  Russia closed the door on U.S. adoption BTW.  (Not sure if they re-opened it.)


*“Do not be involved with the state in executing criminals or in any way approve the carrying out of the death penalty....

... Believers in the omnipotence of state military power are enthusiastic supporters of the death penalty. It’s strange to me that those who champion best the rights of pre-born are generally the strongest supporters of the death penalty and preventive, that is, aggressive, war. Ironically, those who find the death penalty an affront to life are usually the strongest supporters of abortion. I grant that there certainly is a difference in the life being protected; one is totally innocent—the unborn—and the other usually a person convicted of a horrible crime, like murder or rape. The difference of opinion is usually along the lines of conservative versus liberal.

This is one issue in which my views have shifted in recent years, especially since being elected to Congress. There was a time I simply stated that I supported the death penalty. Now my views are not so clearly defined. I do not support the federal death penalty, but constitutionally I cannot, as a federal official, interfere with the individual states that impose it.

After years spent in Washington, I have become more aware than ever of the government’s ineptness and the likelihood of its making mistakes. I no longer trust the U.S. government to invoke and carry out a death sentence under any conditions. Too many convictions, not necessarily federal, have been found to be in error, but only after years of incarcerating innocent people who later were released on DNA evidence.

Rich people when guilty are rarely found guilty and sentenced to death. Most people believe O. J. Simpson was guilty of murder but went free. This leads to a situation where innocent people without enough money are more likely to get the death penalty while the guilty rich people with good lawyers get off. For me it’s much easier just to eliminate the ultimate penalty and incarcerate the guilty for life—in case later evidence proves a mistaken conviction. The cost of incarceration is likely less than it is for death penalty appeals drawn out not for years but for decades.”*- Ron Paul

----------


## Sumthinorother

> I don't understand how a Ron Paul supporter could agree with Darrell Castle on this.


Did you ever contact Mr. Castle and find out what his actual position is on adoption?  I read through the thread, and it doesn't appear you did, but maybe I missed it.

He gives out the following contact email for his campaign manager in some of his videos: joan@castle2016.com
He also has videos of live Facebook Q and As on his Youtube channel.   Maybe he'll do another one Q and A and you can ask there.

I'd make sure to try and word the question so that you get what he would do as president about it (if anything) and not just his personal view on the matter.

Like some other posters have said, I'd bet he is personally opposed, but as president wouldn't do anything about it because there is nothing about it in the Constitution, and so he'd leave it up to the sates.  However, I admit that I don't know for sure what his position is because the one time I heard him address it, he didn't elaborate, whereas for same sex marriage he made an effort to differentiate between his personal views and how he would act as president. Thus I would not try to encourage people to vote or not vote for him based on this issue without trying to find out his actual stance on it first.

Let us know what you find out.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> You blew this one big time, friend. I couldn't believe ANY chart said a 12 year old kid could weigh 30 lbs. your own chart has the 5th percentile at 30 kilograms, or about 65 lbs. So you may have had a kid below the first percentile, but for a 12 year old to weigh 30 lbs and be OK, they better be about 2 feet tall.


Well, I'm glad you at least waited a week to spoil the joke, so that it's clear to everyone that niKKKi herself was not the one who noticed, indeed would never have noticed this nor figured this out.  Not capable.  Do you really believe niKKKi actually weighed the lad?

Ha, ha, ha!

Obviously not.  O.I., my friend, that is not the way she operates.  This conversation is not about the *facts*.  It's all about the _Feelz_.  She _feelz-ed_ that he was about 30 lbs.  She *feelz-ed* that his parent(s) was(were) mistreating him.   She *feelz-ed* like suddenly stuffing his face until he got sick would be the wise, humane, and helpful thing to do to someone in an actual long-term starvation situation.  She almost certainly doesn't actually _have_ any children (other than the ones she temporarily steals), but she *feelz* she is an expert on children.  She *feelz-ed* like calling the cops on the parents would be the noble thing to do and would lead to bloody _terrific_ consequences!  Because she knows best.  For everyone.  It would set the young man on a whole new successful life path.  She *feelz* that there are starving childrens everywhere in the United States.  Behind every corner.

Thank goodness we have do-gooding Meddlers like NiKKKi.

----------


## Original_Intent

Ah, I see. Had not followed the full conversation and merely saw your statement and thought "That can't be right". I did think that was not characteristic of your posts. So thank you for the explanation, the context.

----------


## P3ter_Griffin

> Well, I'm glad you at least waited a week to spoil the joke, so that it's clear to everyone that niKKKi herself was not the one who noticed, indeed would never have noticed this nor figured this out.  Not capable.  Do you really believe niKKKi actually weighed the lad?
> 
> Ha, ha, ha!
> 
> Obviously not.  O.I., my friend, that is not the way she operates.  This conversation is not about the *facts*.  It's all about the _Feelz_.  She _feelz-ed_ that he was about 30 lbs.  She *feelz-ed* that his parent(s) was(were) mistreating him.   She *feelz-ed* like suddenly stuffing his face until he got sick would be the wise, humane, and helpful thing to do to someone in an actual long-term starvation situation.  She almost certainly doesn't actually _have_ any children (other than the ones she temporarily steals), but she *feelz* she is an expert on children.  She *feelz-ed* like calling the cops on the parents would be the noble thing to do and would lead to blood _terrific_ consequences!  Because she knows best.  For everyone.  It would set the young man on a whole new successful life path.  She *feelz* that there are starving childrens everywhere in the United States.  Behind every corner.
> 
> Thank goodness we have do-gooding Meddlers like NiKKKi.


patsretardonback.gif

Glad to hear there are no kids in your care!  Take care, buddy!

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> <pats retard on back.>
> Glad to hear there are no kids in your care!


Where did you hear that?

Remember the part where niKKKi is _not_ my neighbor?  Where she did _not_ call CPS on me and have my kid(s) taken away?  Sad, I know.  Well, one woman can only "help" so many, can only spread so much do-gooding.  If only she were here to "do her thing," then the children could be safe in the loving arms of homosexuals, safe from *retards* like me.

----------


## P3ter_Griffin

> Where did you hear that?
> 
> Remember the part where niKKKi is _not_ my neighbor?  Where she did _not_ call CPS on me and have my kid(s) taken away?  Sad, I know.  Well, one woman can only "help" so many, can only spread so much do-gooding.  If only she were here to "do her thing," then the children could be safe in the loving arms of homosexuals, safe from *retards* like me.





> Well I wouldn't want to take your valuable time, so I won't ask any questions, I'll just briefly mention:
> 
> 1. I agree with Darrell Castle on this.
> 2. So does your church, Pierz.
> 
> Gays ought not to be allowed to corrupt children, much less _adopt!_  Unbelievable that this outrageous travesty could even be considered seriously.


You've got no leg to stand on HH.  I have no problem in an individual being punished for harming their children.  Purposeful starvation is a legitimate example of someone harming their children.  You are the one advocating 'do-gooding' by the government.

----------


## nikcers

> You've got no leg to stand on HH.  I have no problem in an individual being punished for harming their children.  Purposeful starvation is a legitimate example of someone harming their children.  You are the one advocating 'do-gooding' by the government.


You are not your brothers keeper!

----------

