Posted on 11/06/2019 9:48:30 AM PST by Erik Latranyi
While incumbent Matt Bevin has not conceded the Kentucky governor's race, Democrat Andy Beshear declared ...
Different title. That is why it did not come up in a search before I posted.
Most take the position that government has no business regulating marriage of any sort or in any way
RE: Most take the position that government has no business regulating marriage of any sort or in any way
I gather that they would then not be in favor of our tax system favoring joint filing of tax returns by spouses ( same-sex included )?
That what you get when you insiste on running a bad candidate GOPE instead of cutting your dead wood.
Stop making sense.
Sir yes Sir!
over 500K missing votes. i agree. there needs to be a manual recount.
and today’s Libertarianism is totally open borders ...
I really think the P.O.’d teachers’ unions were a much bigger factor than pot, in the overall vote. The Libertarians may have been the proverbial “straw”, but the main drag on Bevin was mishandling of the the pension issue: Bevin got tagged with the poor way the Pubs leadership in the KY State House and Senate handled the legislation, and his legal team gave him poor advice on some of the legalities, as well. Bevin was the only Pub who really got linked solidly to that issue.
The good news is that Beshear will now be hamstrung by the unsolved pension issue too (see: Quinn, Illinois), and, assuming the new KY AG is worth 2 cents, he can tie up Beshear in all sorts of fun ways, too. Beshear is really pretty isolated...
It’s been more than a decade since I have been active in the Libertarian Party. I was unaware that they opposed Article V reforms. Thanks for the update. I will check it out.
thank you Rand Paul
As a Fair Tax supporter I object to the very concept of income tax as well. If they must tax incomes I would have no issue with each individual paying their own taxes.
I always vote for whichever candidate has a chance to win, and best supports my libertarian philosophy. It is a waste of time and an ego trip to vote third party.
Maximum liberty, it is only a crime if it directly harms another. That is my view of libertarianism. Unborn life, is still life. The crime against abortion would be first on the one who pulled the trigger, and secondly on she/he who hired the assassin. OTOH, no breathalyzer or blood tests or refusal to take them should be evidence against a driver. If the police cannot use common sense and their eyewitness testimony to convict, their isn’t a crime. After an accident, the only chance to decide intoxication is medical evidence of course. That would make checkpoints illegal, but maybe set up a single lane with cones in a snakelike pattern, and watch drivers go through. Evidence could be hitting or running over cones. A just system would be citizen against citizen is a criminal case. No State v blahbla blah. It should be moheetum v blahbla blah, or there is no crime, except in cases of murder.
>
Libertarian Party to me is an intellectual fraud.
As long as they are pro abortion they are flat out liars and intellectually dishonest.
Liberty’s very definition is to be free from oppression. That means, your rights can never be used to oppress another... To claim your “liberty” allows you to oppress another human being and deny them their inalienable right to life... is a complete blasphemy to the very concept of liberty.
Until the libertarian party is willing to be intellectually honest on that issue, it remains nothing more than a bunch of folks stuck in selfish teenage world view mode.
>
Now do the (R)N(C) whom funds PP while lying to your face re: over-turning (aka returning to the States) RvW; numerous years of FULL (R) control of D.C. & ZERO done re: illegals, budget\debt...let alone ‘smaller govt’. Stones. Glass houses, no?
Fact, the (R)N(C) gave us Constitutional violations of: NSA, Patriot Act, TSA, NCLB, $1T+ deficits, cheap-labor express & support of the continuing coup (ZERO push-back, ZERO subpoenas\committees) and, BEST of all, Socialism+ being looked upon favorably by the majority.
Maybe, IF/when the (R)N(C) ran candidates that actually adhere/follow their own platform (let alone the CONSTITUTION), we ‘fringe’ electorate would be glad to pull the lever for your candidate.
But, please, continue w/ the ‘lesser of 2 evils’ logical fallacy....it’s been “working” SWIMMINGLY so well these last 40yrs+ that I can see *rolls eyes*
So, while I’ll happily ply changing the (L) party in the *FEW* instances where they are wrong (abortion), it’s a MUCH smaller gap to close than the chasm of the ‘flat out liars & intellectually dishonest’ (R)N(C)
Not sure what your point is, did I defend the GOP? No I did not... I said the Liberarian party is INTELLECTUALLY FRAUDULANT.. .which it is, 100%... its continued attempts to say you can use your liberty to oppress another has NOTHING to do with Liberty... If they cannot be intellectually honest about that, do you really, really think they will be intellectually honest if and when they actually have the ability to make policy?
The Libertarian party has no representation of any significance at any level of government, so they can’t be held accountable for bad policy or law... all they have are their claims of what they believe.... but even in that they are completely dishonest.
Sorry, but the Libertarian party in the US, is basically nothing more than folks stuck in teenager I can do whatever I want mentality.
They OPENLY declare, that one can use ones liberty to oppress another... that’s not libertarian. If they can’t be intellectually honest in their ideological claims, they sure as hell will never be honest in their governing actions should they ever actually win an election.
I'm one of the few people who thinks driving while intoxicated shouldn't even be illegal unless it is tied to another crime or serious motor vehicle offense. This idea that the state can legally determine intoxication based on a blood-alcohol level that may have nothing to do with driving capability is preposterous.
That idea of criminal charges only involving individuals vs. criminals sounds nice, but it makes no sense. A crime is a crime not just against an individual, but against society as a whole. That approach you propose actually sounds very similar to the way criminal charges are adjudicated under sharia law.
Eventually, however, when Libertarians step out of their emotional haze of mental discordance that "Liberty" and "Leftism" are at opposite ends of the political spectrum, and that helping the Left win elections produces results they purport to abhor, they'll discover the bodily fluid they tasted wasn't tears.
I am just of average intelligence on this place. Libertarian is what our founders envisioned man striving towards. The opposite is collectivism. Like group rights versus individual rights. I know that the law should be simple, and we shouldn’t need full time judges, cops and lawyers. Elected sheriffs, with deputies and maybe a sheriffs posse of volunteers. Basically, empower people to police their own neighborhoods. Like open source police, open source intelligence gathering for the replacement of CIA. Make the people responsible for information. Instead of snitching, it is taking care of your own.
I remember when forums were wide open discussions of philosophy as well as news comment. It was much better then. It is all too much like a smarter FB in 2019.
The Left has hijacked “Libertarian” just like they hijacked the term “Liberal” from Classical Liberalism.
The 90/0 party strikes again.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.