This movement needs to be more tolerant...

[IRO-bot]

an Evan is short for an Evangelical Christian. It is a stereotyping of the type of Christians that believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible.

well crap you had me all up in arms for nothing. Wooh!! Please use something less like my name LOL!!!

 

[EndTheFed]

EndTheFed, I really, really have doubts about your notion that McCain's SCOTUS appointments will be anything to brag about.

Ok... From the point of view that that I am obviously coming from...

"lesser of two evils" for space saving reasons..

which appointments do you think would be better for liberty McCain? or Obama?

One more time. From what I have seen, heard McCain say (at least in the campaign not before that), pressure from the party, previous republican experience verses dems, I think/feel (cant PROVE) that he will be better.
How bout you?

 

[mrkurtz]

Wizard of Oz comments are un called for... Is this an illustration of your logicall reasoning?

Your doing the strawman again and distorting what I've said. It was an allegory... I'm trying to metaphorically phrase my repeated request to you. If you think it's uncalled for, I'd suggest you grow thicker skin.

More to it...

As stated before one of my biggest reasons for voting this way is the supreme court which is important to ALL the issues especially constitutional issues. And Obama will take us further down the road tat will be detrimental to the cause. I would rather be some down (McCain) the road than a lot further (Obama) down that road..

Again, please provide links, YouTube sites, whatever you can you show how McCain's future Supreme Court appointments will further the Campaign for Liberty. All you've done here is rehash your initial claim.

I'm doing all I can to promote the constitution.

By actively campaigning for a candidate that boasts unconstitutional positions?

I do not see the voting for McCain and the the Dampaign for Liberty as being mutually exclusive.. If you do you have the right...

Show us how they correlate. You have the podium; present us with the evidence and logic chain. Please.

 

[mrkurtz]

an Evan is short for an Evangelical Christian. It is a stereotyping of the type of Christians that believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible.

hahahaha... okay, sorry about that. I was thinking maybe Evan Bayh or something.

 

[acptulsa]

Ok... From the point of view that that I am obviously coming from...

"lesser of two evils" for space saving reasons..

which appointments do you think would be better for liberty McCain? or Obama?

One more time. From what I have seen, heard McCain say (at least in the campaign not before that), pressure from the party, previous republican experience verses dems, I think/feel (cant PROVE) that he will be better.
How bout you?

I honestly and deeply don't think their appointments, like their policies, will be different enough to worry about. So, the issue doesn't affect my personal balance scales at all. This makes anything that could promote the rise of non-status quo candidates far weightier to me.

 

[tonesforjonesbones]

I am with EndtheFed on this one. The time is not ripe for the Liberty movement to take over. I sincerely am FOR the Liberty movement...it will take time. I perceive Sarah Palin to be the most libertarian minded candidate of the bunch, too bad she is attached to McCain and has to spew the neo con talking points, but I believe the neocons have miscalculated Palin. I truly think she is the first step in turning around the government. The neo cons believe her to be a "blank slate" that they can mold to their way of thinking. I consider she is playing the game to get her foot in the door. Even if she makes ONE change for Liberty...that's better than we will get voting for third parties who will most definately make NO changes. I have to go with my gut and support Palin. TONES (this thread went to the dawgs about 5 pages in)

 

[tonesforjonesbones]

Is Liberty being in lockstep with C4L?

I am VERY interested to see their Homeschool Program. I want to start a Liberty School in my area. Tones

 

[EndTheFed]

Your doing the strawman again and distorting what I've said. It was an allegory... I'm trying to metaphorically phrase my repeated request to you. If you think it's uncalled for, I'd suggest you grow thicker skin.




Again, please provide links, YouTube sites, whatever you can you show how McCain's future Supreme Court appointments will further the Campaign for Liberty. All you've done here is rehash your initial claim.



By actively campaigning for a candidate that boasts unconstitutional positions?



How us how they correlate. You have the podium; present us with the evidence and logic chain. Please.

I did not say the comments hurt me.. I saidit was uncalled for.

I started this thread about tolerance and trying to get the movementto STOP doing things that run people away instaed of drawing people in to educate them... Itwas not started about campaiging for anyone

Off the top of my head I dont have links... Where are you links that ON THESE ISSUSES FROM THE STANDPOINT OF LESSER OF TWO EVILS and one ofthese two will appoint supreme court judges that Obama would be better on these issues.

I am not psychic I can't predict the future.

So why wont you answer... Who do you think (Between McCain and Obama since one of them is going to win) would make better appointments?

 

[EndTheFed]

I am with EndtheFed on this one. The time is not ripe for the Liberty movement to take over. I sincerely am FOR the Liberty movement...it will take time. I perceive Sarah Palin to be the most libertarian minded candidate of the bunch, too bad she is attached to McCain and has to spew the neo con talking points, but I believe the neocons have miscalculated Palin. I truly think she is the first step in turning around the government. The neo cons believe her to be a "blank slate" that they can mold to their way of thinking. I consider she is playing the game to get her foot in the door. Even if she makes ONE change for Liberty...that's better than we will get voting for third parties who will most definately make NO changes. I have to go with my gut and support Palin. TONES (this thread went to the dawgs about 5 pages in)

Agreed

See around 3:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MV9rW25bT5o&feature=related

 

[JS4Pat]

More to it...

As stated before one of my biggest reasons for voting this way is the supreme court which is important to ALL the issues especially constitutional issues. And Obama will take us further down the road tat will be detrimental to the cause. I would rather be some down (McCain) the road than a lot further (Obama) down that road..

This same logic was used to convince conservatives to support George W. Bush in 2000 & 2004.

Since that time we have had two "arguably" good conservative justices appointed to the Supreme Court.

Since that time we also have had:

A new Federal Department Created "Homeland Secuity"
An expansion of the Federal Department of Education "No Child Left Begind"
An expansion of Medicare "Prescription Drug Benefit"
Passage of The Patriot Act
Passage of the Military Commissions Act
Passage of FISA
Two undeclared Wars
Expansion of the Federal Reserve
Surpluses to deficits
And an unprecented increase in the National Debt


So You tell me "End the Fed" was this a good strategy for voters in 2000 & 2004?
I mean paint for me a significantly worse picture under a Gore or Kerry adminstration.


People who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Don't mean to be intolerant - but this line of reasoning really gets on my nerves...

 

[mrkurtz]

Who do you think (Between McCain and Obama since one of them is going to win) would make better appointments?

They will make appointments based on the following
1) Ensuring that they will get through the Senate (historically, after Robert Bork was shot down in 1985, the president has been very careful in his selection as to ensure not to lose face).
2) Will appease their base (Since neither the GOP nor the Dem platform holds constitutionalism as it's primary cause, you will see slants of social conservativism or socialism with either candidate).
3) Payback for campaign or personal work (as evidenced by GWB's attempt at putting Harriet Miers on the pulpit).

They will not make appointments based on the following
4) The Constitution

Since the scope of my political beliefs don't encompass 1 through 3, then neither will make good appointments.

 

[EndTheFed]

This same logic was used to convince conservatives to support George W. Bush in 2000 & 2004.

Since that time we have had two "arguably" good conservative justices appointed to the Supreme Court.

Since that time we also have had:

A new Federal Department Created "Homeland Secuity"
An expansion of the Federal Department of Education "No Child Left Begind"
An expansion of Medicare "Prescription Drug Benefit"
Passage of The Patriot Act
Passage of the Military Commissions Act
Passage of FISA
Two undeclared Wars
Expansion of the Federal Reserve
Surpluses to deficits
And an unprecented increase in the National Debt


So You tell me "End the Fed" was this a good strategy for voters in 2000 & 2004?
I mean paint for me a significantly worse picture under a Gore or Kerry adminstration.


People who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Don't mean to be intolerant - but this line of reasoning really gets on my nerves...

You did not seem to mention in your post about "What we got"

To use logic from some here on this thread... We got a platform that really put focus on Ron Pauls message..

 

[mrkurtz]

I did not say the comments hurt me.. I saidit was uncalled for.

They are uncalled for because... why? It was a metaphor.

I started this thread about tolerance and trying to get the movementto STOP doing things that run people away instaed of drawing people in to educate them... Itwas not started about campaiging for anyone

I initially responded to your active support of McCain. (McCain will be better with judges... leading to a conclusion to vote for McCain).

Off the top of my head I dont have links... Where are you links that ON THESE ISSUSES FROM THE STANDPOINT OF LESSER OF TWO EVILS and one ofthese two will appoint supreme court judges that Obama would be better on these issues.

I am not psychic I can't predict the future.

Since you were the one making the initial claim, it is now on you to defend your stance. You have the podium; please present us with evidence and a logic chain. And if you truly wish to convert C4L people, try to integrate your logic chain with its foundation.

 

[EndTheFed]

They will make appointments based on the following
1) Ensuring that they will get through the Senate (historically, after Robert Bork was shot down in 1985, the president has been very careful in his selection as to ensure not to lose face).
2) Will appease their base (Since neither the GOP nor the Dem platform holds constitutionalism as it's primary cause, you will see slants of social conservativism or socialism with either candidate).
3) Payback for campaign or personal work (as evidenced by GWB's attempt at putting Harriet Miers on the pulpit).

They will not make appointments based on the following
4) The Constitution

Since the scope of my political beliefs don't encompass 1 through 3, then neither will make good appointments.

So.. now the question... wich you avoided. Between the two which do you believe would make the BEtter appointments?

 

[tonesforjonesbones]

Yep. I have been watching some of Palin's speeches and interviews PRE VP pick. If you really want to know how she thinks...you have to do that. In one interview she said "states rights" 3 times. That is LIBERTARIAN and CONSTITUTIONAL. Tones

 

[SnappleLlama]

Yep. I have been watching some of Palin's speeches and interviews PRE VP pick. If you really want to know how she thinks...you have to do that. In one interview she said "states rights" 3 times. That is LIBERTARIAN and CONSTITUTIONAL. Tones

Yes, but did she say, "I hate states rights," "I would ban states rights," and "I thoroughly abhor states rights?" 'Cause in that case, it's not a good thing.

 

[mrkurtz]

So.. now the question... wich you avoided. Between the two which do you believe would make the BEtter appointments?

EndTheFed, you've missed the point again. It's like asking a beer guy which is the better beer: Michelob or Coors. They both suck, and I'm not drinking either.

 

[SnappleLlama]

EndTheFed, you've missed the point again. It's like asking a beer guy which is the better beer: Michelob or Coors. They both suck, and I'm not drinking either.

ha, ha!

 

[EndTheFed]

They are uncalled for because... why? It was a metaphor.



I initially responded to your active support of McCain. (McCain will be better with judges... leading to a conclusion to vote for McCain).



Since you were the one making the initial claim, it is now on you to defend your stance. You have the podium; please present us with evidence and a logic chain. And if you truly wish to convert C4L people, try to integrate your logic chain with its foundation.

Why uncalled for... un needed ridicule and alianation... antagonism is not a way to win people to the movement.

Support for maccain came as a respone not a thread about campaigning for mccain.

the logic that I have already "presented" is enough for me. Im not tryin to convert anyone.. I am not being the antagonist.. I am simply calling for the movement t be more tolorant of people with differing opinions and work a little smarter... throwing snowballs at sean hanity worked out well didn't it...

 

[EndTheFed]

EndTheFed, you've missed the point again. It's like asking a beer guy which is the better beer: Michelob or Coors. They both suck, and I'm not drinking either.

But we are not talking about beer drinking... I dont drink either...

Not becaue it is a bad thing.. I just think it needs to go through the horse at least a few more tmes... hehe

why wont you answer the question... If i want to participate I need to make a decision...

"When you are the president you can't vote present"