[tvtimeout]

There's no doubt that this administration is doing it's best to increase the cost of coal to make wind and solar more attractive. Just as they would like to see the cost of oil remain high so it will help the sells of smaller hybrid cars.

Question in '06-'08 gas prices were once again high, do you think G.W. wanted to sell hybrid cars too?

[tvtimeout]

I'm sorry but, reading your posts is a little like watching somebody trying to ram their own head into a pencil sharpener. Where you see the ultimate conspiracy theory I just see agendas. Naturally we are going to agree on some things after all, you are an educator, right?

Governance should neccessarily be done from the middle, otherwise great unrest would ensue. You correctly define my politics as conservative, for the most part. The problem in my mind is that the majority doesn't rule on some very explosive issues. For instance, the majority of Americans don't support abortion on demand, (which again, is a case where liberals are legislating Americans into a submissive posture, they may not ever be converted to a view of moral acceptance but, in this manner they can certainly be controlled). By the way, I think the majority should rule over all matters not just the explosive ones.

I can accept a liberal democratic admistration, including the present one, because the will of American voters should and did prevail in the last election. What I don't like is their thinly veiled attempts to advance the agendas eminating from the extreme left wing such as the Weather Underground. If asked, the liberal reformers of our time would say that of all things they cherish the laws of our land above all else. I say that in fact they have little or no respect for any law or doctrine that doesn't facilitate movement to their extreme left agenda, and further would have no compunction what ever in going around or over any of those laws that were to get in the way of the fundamental transformation of this land. All that has to be done, is declare the law blocking the way outdated. That is exactly the case being made against the language and the integrity of the US Constitution document.

I am not ready to abandon the political structure which has served this country so well. If that structure were suddenly removed the resulting vacuum would draw in what ever was nearby. In other words in my opinion, we need to police the system we have, if not, we certainly won't be able to police the one that would replace it. Hence, my contempt for all these new laws being enacted. There is layer upon layer of bureaucracy (new law intrepteters) at the state and federal level trying to make sense of all these overlapping and layered laws we already have. That's like getting a mortgage with a dozen or so lenders, the proverbial Philadelphia Lawyer/Accountant wouldn't stand a chance of keeping it all staightened out. When one imagines this lunacy at the federal level it becomes easy to see how waste, fraud and stupidity would ensue. If we indeed live in a day when common sense will not be allowed to rule, then we will fall into chaos IMO. I'd guess that things were not that dissimilar in the Roman Senate during the inexplicable collapse of that once great empire.

Hopefully we didn't escape the destruction that once loomed over this land during the war years and cold war years so we could literally just throw it all away someday. Arguing to the point of impasse over every little thing that comes to the floor of the House and Senate.

My opinion is based on the fact that our nation has stood the test of time and tribulation. History bears out our success. The two party system isn't broken but I certainly agree that some respect among legislators, a tune-up and a brush up on what works wouldn't hurt.

First bolded part, I would contend that there is nothing to police the two political parties as is. They (both parties) dance that one group or another group wants to here but do nothing in office, other than to continue to give more power to the Fed. Government. People would say that I am just thinking of the left. I would contend that it also comes from the right, with prgrams such as military, boarder security, war on drugs (completely failed, in my opinion), homeland security. By the way, I think the left is just as bad.

More and more Americans do not vote...why? I would contend they were just lazy:Cheerlead No, they see that they do not fit neatly in one package, Republicans or Democrats. They also see it, they are one in the same.

Why did Pres. Obama get the youth out, he promised change, why would that be appealing? How many times do you hear a politician who say I want to work with both sides of the aisle, only to fall in the rank in file.

I would agree with President G. Washington, when he warned that political parties would be the doom to our freedom! ( I paraphrased)

[Old School]

Question in '06-'08 gas prices were once again high, do you think G.W. wanted to sell hybrid cars too?

Sorry, in my post I said hybrid cars, I intended to say electric cars.

Obama has stated that he wants to be the first country to have 1 million electric cars on the road by 2015.

[tvtimeout]

Sorry, in my post I said hybrid cars, I intended to say electric cars.

Obama has stated that he wants to be the first country to have 1 million electric cars on the road by 2015.

OK! I agree with you on that point! I don't think the government should be anywhere near the private industries... on taxes or tax breaks, nor should it try to influence me on my choices.

[TheRealThing]

First bolded part, I would contend that there is nothing to police the two political parties as is. They (both parties) dance that one group or another group wants to here but do nothing in office, other than to continue to give more power to the Fed. Government. People would say that I am just thinking of the left. I would contend that it also comes from the right, with prgrams such as military, boarder security, war on drugs (completely failed, in my opinion), homeland security. By the way, I think the left is just as bad.

More and more Americans do not vote...why? I would contend they were just lazy:Cheerlead No, they see that they do not fit neatly in one package, Republicans or Democrats. They also see it, they are one in the same.

Why did Pres. Obama get the youth out, he promised change, why would that be appealing? How many times do you hear a politician who say I want to work with both sides of the aisle, only to fall in the rank in file.

I would agree with President G. Washington, when he warned that political parties would be the doom to our freedom! ( I paraphrased)

You really don't get it do you? When I say police the system, I'm talking about using the model of success we have. Our nation's historical record. People of integrity, moral and just common people, would have to do the policing through the concept of we the people,by the people, for the people, or self governance. That's what George Washington was talking about.

When Lyndon Johnson took up the cause started by JFK to establish the "Great Society" is when we as a nation took the fork in the road and got ourselves off of the path. In a nutshell, entitlements have us between a rock and a hard spot. Why? As is demonstrated by our present state of affairs, once you start letting the state take care of people there just isn't any way to stop at some point. Who can we say no to? You can't say no to anybody. Johnson was wrong, instead of things getting better they have gotten much worse. I submit most people don't work and don't vote because they are in fact lazy. This is the fight in Washington right now, elected congresspeople are using the promise of continued entitlements against the ones that want to cut spending as a way to expand and guarantee their voting base. They get on TV and make any unethical charge they can dream up to get an edge. Everybody in Washington, Dems and Reps, were onboard with entitlements, but now, the gravity of steely missles of fiscal reality have caused some to wake up. In your mind the Libertarians have all the answers, you explain to me how they are going to get people to vote for any of them in this political environment.

Our government gives money away to anyone who will immigrate here or will hold out their hand where ever they may be world wide. We give a free education to anyone who wants to come here from about anyplace on the globe. Our citizens have to get a loan, scholarship or by some means pay for it on their own. Until we can figure out a way to put the whoa on the runaway spenders in our state and federal legislatures we are in trouble. If the Libertarians could do anything they would have done it already. Not enough people listen to them, even though I think they have some, maybe 50%, good ideas. I'll say it again, you have to work within the system we have.

And as for getting the youth out, with all due respect, most youth can be manipulated if you're clever enough, and professor Obama is certainly clever. The liberal nutzo college profs from all over this land got the youth out as never before because the knight in shinning armor had finally arrived.

[tvtimeout]

You really don't get it do you? When I say police the system, I'm talking about using the model of success we have. Our nation's historical record. People of integrity, moral and just common people, would have to do the policing through the concept of we the people,by the people, for the people, or self governance. That's what George Washington was talking about.

When Lyndon Johnson took up the cause started by JFK to establish the "Great Society" is when we as a nation took the fork in the road and got ourselves off of the path. In a nutshell, entitlements have us between a rock and a hard spot. Why? As is demonstrated by our present state of affairs, once you start letting the state take care of people there just isn't any way to stop at some point. Who can we say no to? You can't say no to anybody. Johnson was wrong, instead of things getting better they have gotten much worse. I submit most people don't work and don't vote because they are in fact lazy. This is the fight in Washington right now, elected congresspeople are using the promise of continued entitlements against the ones that want to cut spending as a way to expand and guarantee their voting base. They get on TV and make any unethical charge they can dream up to get an edge. Everybody in Washington, Dems and Reps, were onboard with entitlements, but now, the gravity of steely missles of fiscal reality have caused some to wake up. In your mind the Libertarians have all the answers, you explain to me how they are going to get people to vote for any of them in this political environment. Our government gives money away to anyone who will immigrate here or will hold out their hand where ever they may be world wide. We give a free education to anyone who wants to come here from about anyplace on the globe. Our citizens have to get a loan, scholarship or by some means pay for it on their own. Until we can figure out a way to put the whoa on the runaway spenders in our state and federal legislatures we are in trouble. If the Libertarians could do anything they would have done it already. Not enough people listen to them, even though I think they have some, maybe 50%, good ideas. I'll say it again, you have to work within the system we have.

And as for getting the youth out, with all due respect, most youth can be manipulated if you're clever enough, and professor Obama is certainly clever. The liberal nutzo college profs from all over this land got the youth out as never before because the knight in shinning armor had finally arrived.

You ask an excellent question... first thing that has to happen is that we have to get equal access to the ballot (by the way, why do you think we don't have equal access to the ballot, but the big two do... kinda of a good way to make sure that the two stay in power...maybe...) . Second, stick to our message, I disagree with some of what Libertarians do stand for, but I think it is the best alternative we have to the dark side (aka, Republicans and Democrats)

[tvtimeout]

You really don't get it do you? When I say police the system, I'm talking about using the model of success we have. Our nation's historical record. People of integrity, moral and just common people, would have to do the policing through the concept of we the people,by the people, for the people, or self governance. That's what George Washington was talking about.

When Lyndon Johnson took up the cause started by JFK to establish the "Great Society" is when we as a nation took the fork in the road and got ourselves off of the path. In a nutshell, entitlements have us between a rock and a hard spot. Why? As is demonstrated by our present state of affairs, once you start letting the state take care of people there just isn't any way to stop at some point. Who can we say no to? You can't say no to anybody. Johnson was wrong, instead of things getting better they have gotten much worse. I submit most people don't work and don't vote because they are in fact lazy. This is the fight in Washington right now, elected congresspeople are using the promise of continued entitlements against the ones that want to cut spending as a way to expand and guarantee their voting base. They get on TV and make any unethical charge they can dream up to get an edge. Everybody in Washington, Dems and Reps, were onboard with entitlements, but now, the gravity of steely missles of fiscal reality have caused some to wake up. In your mind the Libertarians have all the answers, you explain to me how they are going to get people to vote for any of them in this political environment.

Our government gives money away to anyone who will immigrate here or will hold out their hand where ever they may be world wide. We give a free education to anyone who wants to come here from about anyplace on the globe. Our citizens have to get a loan, scholarship or by some means pay for it on their own. Until we can figure out a way to put the whoa on the runaway spenders in our state and federal legislatures we are in trouble. If the Libertarians could do anything they would have done it already. Not enough people listen to them, even though I think they have some, maybe 50%, good ideas. I'll say it again, you have to work within the system we have.

And as for getting the youth out, with all due respect, most youth can be manipulated if you're clever enough, and professor Obama is certainly clever. The liberal nutzo college profs from all over this land got the youth out as never before because the knight in shinning armor had finally arrived.

We are working hard to get this message out... people in power don't like us though...wonder why?

[tvtimeout]

You really don't get it do you? When I say police the system, I'm talking about using the model of success we have. Our nation's historical record. People of integrity, moral and just common people, would have to do the policing through the concept of we the people,by the people, for the people, or self governance. That's what George Washington was talking about.

When Lyndon Johnson took up the cause started by JFK to establish the "Great Society" is when we as a nation took the fork in the road and got ourselves off of the path. In a nutshell, entitlements have us between a rock and a hard spot. Why? As is demonstrated by our present state of affairs, once you start letting the state take care of people there just isn't any way to stop at some point. Who can we say no to? You can't say no to anybody. Johnson was wrong, instead of things getting better they have gotten much worse. I submit most people don't work and don't vote because they are in fact lazy. This is the fight in Washington right now, elected congresspeople are using the promise of continued entitlements against the ones that want to cut spending as a way to expand and guarantee their voting base. They get on TV and make any unethical charge they can dream up to get an edge. Everybody in Washington, Dems and Reps, were onboard with entitlements, but now, the gravity of steely missles of fiscal reality have caused some to wake up. In your mind the Libertarians have all the answers, you explain to me how they are going to get people to vote for any of them in this political environment.

Our government gives money away to anyone who will immigrate here or will hold out their hand where ever they may be world wide. We give a free education to anyone who wants to come here from about anyplace on the globe. Our citizens have to get a loan, scholarship or by some means pay for it on their own. Until we can figure out a way to put the whoa on the runaway spenders in our state and federal legislatures we are in trouble. If the Libertarians could do anything they would have done it already. Not enough people listen to them, even though I think they have some, maybe 50%, good ideas. I'll say it again, you have to work within the system we have.

And as for getting the youth out, with all due respect, most youth can be manipulated if you're clever enough, and professor Obama is certainly clever. The liberal nutzo college profs from all over this land got the youth out as never before because the knight in shinning armor had finally arrived.

If the system works, we should have a voice, especially since we are the third largest party in America.

[Hoot Gibson]

We are working hard to get this message out... people in power don't like us though...wonder why?

People out of power don't care for the Libertarian Party either. There are good reasons why it remains a fringe party despite its relatively long existence. That lost much of my respect when they decided to run johnny-come-lately Bob Barr on their ticket instead of one of the true-believers who was more deserving of the honor.

[tvtimeout]

People out of power don't care for the Libertarian Party either. There are good reasons why it remains a fringe party despite its relatively long existence. That lost much of my respect when they decided to run johnny-come-lately Bob Barr on their ticket instead of one of the true-believers who was more deserving of the honor.

The republicans lost mine when they decided to start bailouts, increased gov't by adding new departments such as Homeland Security, Drug Benefit for Seniors, put Sarah Palin as VP, passed the Patriot Act, put us into two conflicts (one was deserved). That was all in the last 10 yrs. Basically, since I was able to vote.

Also, I disagree with them on the War on Drugs... silly at best.

Now, I could also list how bad I dislike the democrats, so that the republicans don't feel lonely. But, I have never voted for Democrat...ever.

[tvtimeout]

People out of power don't care for the Libertarian Party either. There are good reasons why it remains a fringe party despite its relatively long existence. That lost much of my respect when they decided to run johnny-come-lately Bob Barr on their ticket instead of one of the true-believers who was more deserving of the honor.

Just curiousity: who would you have recommended?

[Hoot Gibson]

Just curiousity: who would you have recommended?

I don't follow Libertarian Party politics closely but I would have nominated a real libertarian. Nobody the party nominated was going to win anyway, so why not nominate somebody like Wayne Allyn Root (again) who has devoted much of his life to building the party?

[TheRealThing]

If the system works, we should have a voice, especially since we are the third largest party in America.

People don't like you? No, people don't agree with you. Take for example the Lemming and their occassional bent toward self destruction by jumping into the sea. Some ideas just aren't for everybody.

You have the same voice everybody else has. Vote people in you want, thereby voting out those you don't like. This method though passe costs nothing extra for the taxpayer and has the merit of not needing to fundamentally change/transform America, to which, I believe you aspire. The system, can't be improved on, no matter how disgruntled the populace. The PEOPLE rise up and change things they don't like through the electorial process.

Hence, the grassroots attempts by the academia to brainwash students coming through at the high school and college level. In this manner the influential youth of our land can be ambushed before they have a chance to develope. It's a tried and true technique, effectively demonstrated by Hitler, Stalin and Kruschev. Parents would do well to make very sure their children know the what, why and how, of holding to their beliefs. The world is trully changing by migrating away from basic the morality and eithics upon which our country was built. And though I believe this to be true beyond debate (if anything is beyond debate these days) I am equally convinced that what was morally wrong 10 or 20 years ago is still just as wrong today. The point is, highjack the minds of the youth for your own cause and most of the work is already done. That's ultimately why the number of people that become christians drops off the chart after the 18 to 20 yr old range. By that time, their mind is made up. Then it's the exception rather than the rule if they were to turn to Christ as the days of their life tick by.

[tvtimeout]

People don't like you? No, people don't agree with you. Take for example the Lemming and their occassional bent toward self destruction by jumping into the sea. Some ideas just aren't for everybody.

You have the same voice everybody else has. Vote people in you want, thereby voting out those you don't like. This method though passe costs nothing extra for the taxpayer and has the merit of not needing to fundamentally change/transform America, to which, I believe you aspire. The system, can't be improved on, no matter how disgruntled the populace. The PEOPLE rise up and change things they don't like through the electorial process.

Hence, the grassroots attempts by the academia to brainwash students coming through at the high school and college level. In this manner the influential youth of our land can be ambushed before they have a chance to develope. It's a tried and true technique, effectively demonstrated by Hitler, Stalin and Kruschev. Parents would do well to make very sure their children know the what, why and how, of holding to their beliefs. The world is trully changing by migrating away from basic the morality and eithics upon which our country was built. And though I believe this to be true beyond debate (if anything is beyond debate these days) I am equally convinced that what was morally wrong 10 or 20 years ago is still just as wrong today. The point is, highjack the minds of the youth for your own cause and most of the work is already done. That's ultimately why the number of people that become christians drops off the chart after the 18 to 20 yr old range. By that time, their mind is made up. Then it's the exception rather than the rule if they were to turn to Christ as the days of their life tick by.

You may or may not know that election laws prohibit my voice. For an example, a libertarian can run for President, but in some states ( I can not remember the number) we can not get on the ballot, therefore, my voice can possible be not heard. However, if I was a Republican or Democrat my voice would be heard. It is just another way to keep the party down.

Luckily, in this Commonwealth, local elections we have access. I am considering to head up the fifth congressional district. We all ready have representatives in the other 1st, 2nd, and 4th. The more independents out there that have realized that both major parties, just does not include what they believe in, might be able to find a home with us.

[TheRealThing]

You may or may not know that election laws prohibit my voice. For an example, a libertarian can run for President, but in some states ( I can not remember the number) we can not get on the ballot, therefore, my voice can possible be not heard. However, if I was a Republican or Democrat my voice would be heard. It is just another way to keep the party down.

Luckily, in this Commonwealth, local elections we have access. I am considering to head up the fifth congressional district. We all ready have representatives in the other 1st, 2nd, and 4th. The more independents out there that have realized that both major parties, just does not include what they believe in, might be able to find a home with us.

You'll count on one hand future Independent converts. Consider this, almost all of the practical issues/goals of your platform could conceivably be reallized within the conservative Teaparty movement of our time. The social planks of the Libertarian platform are "off the wall". John Lennon's song "Imagine" really does roll up the Libertarian view in a nice little navel lint ball. No right or wrong, nothing to live and die for and no religion too, etc.

The founding fathers gave us a constitutional government framed with moral principal. Honoring the Almighty put us in a position to be blessed by Him over the years in peacetime and war. Supporting open drug use and a host of other rediculous, destructive and deviant acts isn't going to endear most folks around the midwest. Sidestepping personal responsibility and supposing a nation could live in a sublimely sterile, amoral, social landscape are the musings of fiction. Best example of the society (you all say world) evisioned by the Libertarian I can think of are the Eloi in HG Wells' "Time Machine". Sublimely indiffernt to everything, and everybody doing whatever they want until those old nasty Morlocks came to eat them. Man is fallen, sin will always cause war and strife, mendacity will always be his defining characteristic. There will always be a price to pay for choosing to ignore our Creator, and in case you haven't noticed the payments are getting too big to manage.

[tvtimeout]

You'll count on one hand future Independent converts. Consider this, almost all of the practical issues/goals of your platform could conceivably be reallized within the conservative Teaparty movement of our time. The social planks of the Libertarian platform are "off the wall". John Lennon's song "Imagine" really does roll up the Libertarian view in a nice little navel lint ball. No right or wrong, nothing to live and die for and no religion too, etc.

The founding fathers gave us a constitutional government framed with moral principal. Honoring the Almighty put us in a position to be blessed by Him over the years in peacetime and war. Supporting open drug use and a host of other rediculous, destructive and deviant acts isn't going to endear most folks around the midwest. Sidestepping personal responsibility and supposing a nation could live in a sublimely sterile, amoral, social landscape are the musings of fiction. Best example of the society (you all say world) evisioned by the Libertarian I can think of are the Eloi in HG Wells' "Time Machine". Sublimely indiffernt to everything, and everybody doing whatever they want until those old nasty Morlocks came to eat them. Man is fallen, sin will always cause war and strife, mendacity will always be his defining characteristic. There will always be a price to pay for choosing to ignore our Creator, and in case you haven't noticed the payments are getting too big to manage.

Based upon some of the ideas of John Locke...ideas of liberty...freedom...
I agree some of the ideas were biblically based... but you can not over what Locke's influence over some of our founding fathers... inparticular Franklin and Jefferson.

Who has ever said sidestepping personal responsiblity... but since you wish to go there... who was in favor of bailing out corrupt banks with Americans money intsead of letting the free market work ,(we all know the Republican Party, would never do this) and who is in favor a medicaid payments (both parties, especially in this state... just ask David Williams).

Just because we would like to give you the freedom to choose, (which I thought was a basic tenant of being a christian... you know the stuff that says "follow me") does not mean there does not mean their are consquences for that action.

I think it is insane on the part of some to try to legislate morality... morality comes from a greater source than any law maker could possibly dream.

You point out open drugs that many libertarians are for and you use the words "destructive, ridiculous, and deviant acts"... (I ask is this because you brought the idea of sin into the picture). Is drug use no better than gluttany? I mean it is destructive, ridiculous and deviant, to your body (you could die) and to your peers because they will have to pay higher insurance premiums. because the more people that over eat, higher the heart disease, higher the Dr.'s bill, etc.

So, let us regulate the food industry, put everyone on a calorie restriction diet.

When I see the midwest folks take stands like the one above, they would aleast have my attention, but then again, we are only going to call something "bad" and make it "immoral" because we said so...

So much for the idea of freedom.

[tvtimeout]

You'll count on one hand future Independent converts. Consider this, almost all of the practical issues/goals of your platform could conceivably be reallized within the conservative Teaparty movement of our time. The social planks of the Libertarian platform are "off the wall". John Lennon's song "Imagine" really does roll up the Libertarian view in a nice little navel lint ball. No right or wrong, nothing to live and die for and no religion too, etc.

The founding fathers gave us a constitutional government framed with moral principal. Honoring the Almighty put us in a position to be blessed by Him over the years in peacetime and war. Supporting open drug use and a host of other rediculous, destructive and deviant acts isn't going to endear most folks around the midwest. Sidestepping personal responsibility and supposing a nation could live in a sublimely sterile, amoral, social landscape are the musings of fiction. Best example of the society (you all say world) evisioned by the Libertarian I can think of are the Eloi in HG Wells' "Time Machine". Sublimely indiffernt to everything, and everybody doing whatever they want until those old nasty Morlocks came to eat them. Man is fallen, sin will always cause war and strife, mendacity will always be his defining characteristic. There will always be a price to pay for choosing to ignore our Creator, and in case you haven't noticed the payments are getting too big to manage.

I do agree with some of the teaparty, but they have to be stronger on the military issues, but over the idea of fiscially conservative, I would tend to agree with you.

[tvtimeout]

[quote=TheRealThing]You'll count on one hand future Independent converts. Consider this, almost all of the practical issues/goals of your platform could conceivably be reallized within the conservative Teaparty movement of our time. The social planks of the Libertarian platform are "off the wall". John Lennon's song "Imagine" really does roll up the Libertarian view in a nice little navel lint ball. No right or wrong, nothing to live and die for and no religion too, etc.

The founding fathers gave us a constitutional government framed with moral principal. Honoring the Almighty put us in a position to be blessed by Him over the years in peacetime and war. Supporting open drug use and a host of other rediculous, destructive and deviant acts isn't going to endear most folks around the midwest. Sidestepping personal responsibility and supposing a nation could live in a sublimely sterile, amoral, social landscape are the musings of fiction. Best example of the society (you all say world) evisioned by the Libertarian I can think of are the Eloi in HG Wells' "Time Machine". Sublimely indiffernt to everything, and everybody doing whatever they want until those old nasty Morlocks came to eat them. Man is fallen, sin will always cause war and strife, mendacity will always be his defining characteristic. There will always be a price to pay for choosing to ignore our Creator, and in case you haven't noticed the payments are getting too big to manage.[/QUOTE]

Just my opinion on this one... Luckily, I believe that the price was to big for all of mankind to pay, in fact we coud not pay it at all, but, because my Creator sent his Son to pay that price. However, I believe that I should like my Creator should give man the choice to choose, instead of forcing my personal belief on to man. I will help my fellow man in any way that I can not even because I want to, because I am commanded to do so, or at least I believe that I am.

Also, on a personal note, I would have left S.Ky, long ago, if I did not believe that it is a responsiblity for myself to be here and try to make life better for my fellow citizens. Just for the record, we have 2 out of the top 15 poorest counties in the entire U.S., forget, third world, look at our back door. We have people who choose to do nothing, yet, there are is no responsiblity to be held by them.

The drug thing:

We have people who do drugs, yet, I am forced to take care of them once they go to jail, then, they go right back to doing the exact same thing, and I will once again be forced to take care of them in jail, where is the responsiblity in this. Would it not be better to legalize it, they will die, yes, that is more than likely of an outcome for these people. However, it will still be the outcome for these people the way it currently is as well. So why should I burden a tax payer until that person dies, because I believe it is wrong? Instead, should I not try with a local church help break the addiction of an individual who chooses to do so.

I would rather die a free man to choose the way I live than to be forced to live a way I disagree with... I know many of you feel the same way... because of that belief I am a Libertarian.

[TheRealThing]

[quote=TheRealThing]You'll count on one hand future Independent converts. Consider this, almost all of the practical issues/goals of your platform could conceivably be reallized within the conservative Teaparty movement of our time. The social planks of the Libertarian platform are "off the wall". John Lennon's song "Imagine" really does roll up the Libertarian view in a nice little navel lint ball. No right or wrong, nothing to live and die for and no religion too, etc.

The founding fathers gave us a constitutional government framed with moral principal. Honoring the Almighty put us in a position to be blessed by Him over the years in peacetime and war. Supporting open drug use and a host of other rediculous, destructive and deviant acts isn't going to endear most folks around the midwest. Sidestepping personal responsibility and supposing a nation could live in a sublimely sterile, amoral, social landscape are the musings of fiction. Best example of the society (you all say world) evisioned by the Libertarian I can think of are the Eloi in HG Wells' "Time Machine". Sublimely indiffernt to everything, and everybody doing whatever they want until those old nasty Morlocks came to eat them. Man is fallen, sin will always cause war and strife, mendacity will always be his defining characteristic. There will always be a price to pay for choosing to ignore our Creator, and in case you haven't noticed the payments are getting too big to manage.[/QUOTE]

Just my opinion on this one... Luckily, I believe that the price was to big for all of mankind to pay, in fact we coud not pay it at all, but, because my Creator sent his Son to pay that price. However, I believe that I should like my Creator should give man the choice to choose, instead of forcing my personal belief on to man. I will help my fellow man in any way that I can not even because I want to, because I am commanded to do so, or at least I believe that I am.

Also, on a personal note, I would have left S.Ky, long ago, if I did not believe that it is a responsiblity for myself to be here and try to make life better for my fellow citizens. Just for the record, we have 2 out of the top 15 poorest counties in the entire U.S., forget, third world, look at our back door. We have people who choose to do nothing, yet, there are is no responsiblity to be held by them.

The drug thing:

We have people who do drugs, yet, I am forced to take care of them once they go to jail, then, they go right back to doing the exact same thing, and I will once again be forced to take care of them in jail, where is the responsiblity in this. Would it not be better to legalize it, they will die, yes, that is more than likely of an outcome for these people. However, it will still be the outcome for these people the way it currently is as well. So why should I burden a tax payer until that person dies, because I believe it is wrong? Instead, should I not try with a local church help break the addiction of an individual who chooses to do so.

I would rather die a free man to choose the way I live than to be forced to live a way I disagree with... I know many of you feel the same way... because of that belief I am a Libertarian.

Okay we have some common ground. Your Libertarian position on choice is redundant though. Our Creator gave us the gift of choice when we were born into this world. Whether or not someone says THEY offer the option to choose is irrelevant. Further, this power of choice, is the basis for The Judgement awaiting us all. We choose Christ, which is the only route to savation, or we follow our own star, which puts one on one of the many routes to destruction.

Either way, saying that government should provide a user friendly evironment for those who would drug themselves into a life long twilight zone is absurd on the face of it. Tax payers become burdened as you put it because the drug users create an undersireable and unsafe environment for the rest of us and our children. Ensuring safe and secure cities, shopping malls, schools and in our case, the whole USA, really is a true function of government. People are free to choose in our country. They can freely go out, get drunk and then unfortunately drive their car. That's when they violate my rights, and I believe they should suffer for that choice. That's what our government does, enforce laws to protect the people.

I believe in choice, I'm all about choice. For instance, I am all for women's rights to Choose when it comes to their body, so I'm pro choice. What I stand totally against is this; a woman chooses to engage in behavior that causes her to become pregnant, she then decides to abort the child within her citing her right to choose. May I further demonstrate the point? If one drives drunk and kills somebody, he should lose his right to be free and go to jail. If one decides to be sexually involved and becomes pregnant she should not be allowed to kill the innocent unborn within her. In other words when personal choices hurt other people they are wrong. A woman's right to choose doesn't mean she has the right to decide to abort her baby, that's another PERSON we're talking about.

Here we come to common ground again, government does not have the right, and should not have the authority, to make it legal or otherwise assist people, including funding abortion, to do things that are wrong.

Now, getting back to nuclear power. Again, I think it is justifiably a function of government to oversee and regulate the use of nuclear power. I believe nuclear power is a much needed source of energy in our country. Additionally, I believe the risk involved can be made low enough to be a safe energy source for the USA, by government oversight.

[tvtimeout]

[quote=tvtimeout]

Okay we have some common ground. Your Libertarian position on choice is redundant though. Our Creator gave us the gift of choice when we were born into this world. Whether or not someone says THEY offer the option to choose is irrelevant. Further, this power of choice, is the basis for The Judgement awaiting us all. We choose Christ, which is the only route to savation, or we follow our own star, which puts one on one of the many routes to destruction.

Either way, saying that government should provide a user friendly evironment for those who would drug themselves into a life long twilight zone is absurd on the face of it. Tax payers become burdened as you put it because the drug users create an undersireable and unsafe environment for the rest of us and our children. Ensuring safe and secure cities, shopping malls, schools and in our case, the whole USA, really is a true function of government. People are free to choose in our country. They can freely go out, get drunk and then unfortunately drive their car. That's when they violate my rights, and I believe they should suffer for that choice. That's what our government does, enforce laws to protect the people.

I believe in choice, I'm all about choice. For instance, I am all for women's rights to Choose when it comes to their body, so I'm pro choice. What I stand totally against is this; a woman chooses to engage in behavior that causes her to become pregnant, she then decides to abort the child within her citing her right to choose. May I further demonstrate the point? If one drives drunk and kills somebody, he should lose his right to be free and go to jail. If one decides to be sexually involved and becomes pregnant she should not be allowed to kill the innocent unborn within her. In other words when personal choices hurt other people they are wrong. A woman's right to choose doesn't mean she has the right to decide to abort her baby, that's another PERSON we're talking about.

Here we come to common ground again, government does not have the right, and should not have the authority, to make it legal or otherwise assist people, including funding abortion, to do things that are wrong.

Now, getting back to nuclear power. Again, I think it is justifiably a function of government to oversee and regulate the use of nuclear power. I believe nuclear power is a much needed source of energy in our country. Additionally, I believe the risk involved can be made low enough to be a safe energy source for the USA, by government oversight.

I said the government should stay out of the drug market period. What happens to a drug if it becomes decriminalized? It costs less, less profit, eventually, people will die, and a less of a market appears. In time there will be no money to be made, due to lack of demand, due to death. Cost of the product goes down.

Now I do agree with you, they do not have the right to violate your right as a citizen and that is a practical function of the government. When a violation occurs, you prosacute, such as the drunk driving case.

Abortion should not ever be funded by the government, planned parenthood should be destroyed. However, if an individual wishes to open a clinic up, then by all means, do it.

As far as the abortion issue considering if it is a life. I know what my religious impluses are, but, I don't know if I can force my opinion on someone else. I know I am not God or Jesus, so I guess I would leave it up to them. I would tell that woman, how precious life is and there are other alternatives, but I think I would leave it up to her.