Posted on 11/08/2002 8:35:05 AM PST by pabianice
* means NRA endorsment. Grade is the NRA grade.
Alabama:
*(D) Siegelman 674,052 A+
(R) Riley 670,913 A
(L) Sophocleus 23,242
Oregon:
(D) Kulongoski 493,385 C+
(R) Mannix 490,745 A
(L) Cox 47,444
Wisconsin:
(D) Doyle 800,958 F
*(R) McCallum 732,781 A
(L) Thompson 185,085
Wyoming:
(D) Freudenthal 89,407 A-
*(R) Bebout 85,556 A+
(L) Dawson 3,800
Not to mention that Thune will probably lose South Dakota Senate seat by a smaller margin that the Libertarian in that race got...
(D) Johnson 167,481 C+
*(R) Thune 166,954 A
(L) Evans 3,071
So basically Libertarians brought 2 anti-gun governors, and possibly kept Daschle's clone in power. My question is why Libertarians run against good pro-gun candidates? I realize that there are other issues besides guns. Meanwhile people of Wisconsin have to wait another 4 years for gun licenses...
Lets look at it. You agree that two parties to a business arrangement can make a contract. They can agree on conditions of employment. For example, what to wear, etc.
But they cannot agree on other conditions. Like drug use and verification of the terms of the agreement. On those items, you seem to say that they are not allowed to come to agreement, that somehow the use of force by a third party, in this case government, will be invoked to make sure that one party does not insist on terms which the other party finds objectionable.
In a society where free association is valued, and no one is forced to make an agreement they find objectionable, neither side is forced to make the deal. Either side may decide not to be involved.
People who are libertarians do not believe in the use of force to get what they desire. The issue is one of free association minus force.
We do. We are very mean with the Ds.
I know the answer to that one... Dad was a Democrat, his dad was a Democrat, his dad was a Democrat...
I don't think I ever insulted Rs. But I have been insulted.
However, I think that sensible level of regulation is about 98% less than what it is now.
It's a play on your screen name, Walter. You know, like a little funny thing. You know about little funny things, don't you Walter? Walter, put down that knife!
A simple solution to my anti-drug testing position is to apply the 4th amendment to business (as it should be in my book) That is ... unless it is a critical circumstance ... no unreasonable search and seizure by ANY entity.
In a democracy voters have a choice of whom they want to represent them. I won't presume to dictate those choices to others and would expect the same in return.
Non-voters on the other hand don't make any choices. If you need to assign blame for a particular outcome, its the non-voters in your own party who are responsible.
How are the libertarians supposed to know that the republicans aren't going to show up for their own candidate?
I wonder what they call the Green party?
Just face it: unless the Republican finds a way to appeal to the liberatarian voters, the Republican isn't going to get his vote. Most likely, if there isn't a Libertarian on the ballot, rather than vote for either one of the two Socialists, he's going to stay home.
Libertarians vote Libertarian specifically to send a message to the Socialists of both flavors: look at the votes you could have had but didn't earn.
If election voting results were everything they could be, then we would not only get the total vote count for each race on the ballot, we'd also get the total number of ballots cast, and a tally of how many ballots contained no vote in a given race, as well as the number of ballots that were ignored for a given race because they voted for more than the limit on that race allowed (or other countable irregularities).
LOL, a commabutt.
there is the "force" of hunger.
Hungry people do not have legitimate rights which contented people don't have.
Taken to it's logical conclusion ... (and which is one of the reasons that I am not a Libertarian).
Logic is a obstacle when trying to work through problems if you are trying to reach a pre-determined conclusion.
Thud industries does not hire women ...
And? Therefore someone with a gun is needed to make sure party A hires all the people desired by party B?
the jobs they have could easily be performed by women but they feel that a womans place is in the home.
Why is this relevant? Surely you don't believe in thought police.
The prevailing political / socialogical atmosphere in this mythical world is that all men (very Taliban like huh) feel that women should not work and NO industry or company will hire them.
You are correct, it is a mythical world you are talking about. In a world devoid of Taliban with weapons and the will to use them, no employer would be forced to hire or not hire anyone. The government is the problem in this example, Taliban or US government. (see Jim Crow LAWS)
You see in the Libertarians view that's perfectly ok due to free association. I DON'T BUY IT. You would say ... oh the women could open there own business ... sorry no company does business with a company that employs women ... so now what.
Absent government coersion, business will do what it takes to make money. If they gain an advantage over their competition by hiring women, they wiil, absent force. History is the judge of this, it's not a mythical concept.
A person has to eat/work/have a roof over their head. I know that it's NOT in the constitution but I'm a fraid that there are several modern day circumstances that are NOT covered by the constitution.
So you think that the constitution should provide for EAT/WORK/ROOF?
I'm not saying that the constitution is a living document ... BUT some common sense has got to apply with a 230 year old document that could NOT possibly be expected to cover nor anticipate all the circumstances of todays modern world.
The constitution was not meant to cover all circumstances, then or now. The constitution is a document that lays out the way the Federal government is to be organised. It is a limiting document. It limits government power. It is not meant for any other purpose.
A simple solution to my anti-drug testing position is to apply the 4th amendment to business (as it should be in my book) That is ... unless it is a critical circumstance ... no unreasonable search and seizure by ANY entity.
Private business cannot and does not do any searches without employee approval. They cannot therefore be unreasonable by their very nature. They are voluntary.
I don't do that. It seems that a lot of people here say libertarians get Ds elected, and then they insult us.
I disagree ... but I have to leave now for a training class. I would not mind continuing this discussion at another time ...
However on last thought I believe the one right not enumerated by our forefathers in the BofR is the right to privacy. I suspect they meant to imply it in the 4th but given the day they lived in, they could not possibly have anticipated todays society and it's addiction for prying into peoples lives. But also remember that they didn't say women could vote either.
My gosh! Abortion is murder.
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.