What is Digg?19 Comments
- Striker101, on 09/16/2008, -0/+17well I'll digg your post, but frankly, we anti-establishment folks are dead in the water this time around, and I've given up on cranking any anti-candidate. Voting this year will have no winners. The largest issue this year is economic collapse, and it appears by election-time it will be all over. Two centuries of altruism cannot be overcome in one month.
- inactive, on 09/16/2008, -1/+17Our only hope in restoring the Republic is return to the Constitution and strict adherence by our representatives. At the same time, western 'christianity' might want to consider repentance so that He can heal our land.
1Pe 4:17 For the time [is come] that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if [it] first [begin] at us, what shall the end [be] of them that obey not the gospel of God?
FORGIVE US OUR DEBTS
VOTE THIRD PARTY!
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog/?p=484 - LumpyRevolution, on 09/17/2008, -1/+14VOTE THIRD PARTY!
- Kent4jmj, on 09/17/2008, -1/+12"Gimli the Dwarf from Lord of the Rings: Certainty of death... Small chance of success... What are we waitin' for?"
Vote Chuck Baldwin. Obama and McCain Stink! - Striker101, on 09/16/2008, -0/+9argggggggg that got away from me - strike centuries insert generations. sorry!
- ConcernedCanuck, on 09/17/2008, -0/+9Agreed on being dead in the water. You just cant compete with Charisma and a Black and/or Female candidate...after years of rich old white men. The people want CHANNNGEE! and HOPE! Not solutions to the economic situation,no not at all... lets just ignore that and keep bailing out the losers.. He's Black for Christ Sakes!!! Yay! lets pat ourselves on the back and continue being the slaves that we are.
Status quo, status quo! yyyyyaaaay more of the same!
p.s. the slipper fits ;). - JDenigma, on 09/17/2008, -2/+9"TNA: Do you find that philosophically, you differ a great deal from the Libertarian Party?
Baldwin: Yes, I do. That's why I'm not a libertarian. Historically, libertarians believe in open borders. Historically, the Libertarian Party believes in free access to drugs of all sorts, and I don't subscribe to that. They take no position on abortion. They take no position on "gay" marriage. And I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I support DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act.
That sums up why I as a Ron Paul supporter and a free market anarchist libertarian, can not support Baldwin and the Constitution party. They come down a little too hard against immigration, drugs, and some of those social issues like gay marriage, for them to be palatable to me.
I know I'm the black sheep in this thread, but I'm past playing the political game and voting as a means of fighting government. I'd rather engage in other activist methods of fighting government that don't involve the old hackneyed trite methods of voting, etc. People who do things like joining http://www.freestateproject.org/ are going to accomplish a lot more than those of you trying to play the political game. I gotta ask you, how's the track record been for that anyway? Perhaps many of you who are a little too hung up on playing the political game, are young and new to politics and therefore naive about your expectations. Good luck though. - Striker101, on 09/17/2008, -0/+6ok folks, moving right along...
AIG nationalized this morning, another facist trend on the loose! - inactive, on 09/16/2008, -0/+6Ok. :) thanks Striker.
- TsuruchiBrian, on 09/17/2008, -0/+5You CAN be in favor of the Constitution and Liberty without believing in The Bible or God.
- Striker101, on 09/17/2008, -0/+5Guess I am too black/white for most of this bunch. When it's over, it's over.
changed my entry-page http://morality101.net/blog/ - inactive, on 09/17/2008, -1/+5We all have our priorities:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trqB6p02Kek - inactive, on 09/18/2008, -0/+3Excellent article / interview!
http://chuckbaldwinlive.com - Kent4jmj, on 09/18/2008, -0/+2From Alan Keyes
"As I argued more fully in a previous essay, "2-party system: No choice but evil," the U.S. Constitution requires that the states maintain a republican form of government. The essential principle of republican self-government, as stated in the Organic Law of the United States, is that "all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights," including, first of all, the right to life. States that adopt laws and policies in defiance of this principle assail the very foundations of the form of government the Constitution requires. Officials who take the position that states should be allowed such actions violate their sworn duty to uphold the Constitution of the United States.
Although I disagree with Keyes on his interventionist foreign policy and his support for the UN he has some rock solid positions. His argument concerning article four which guarantees federal responsibility for states to maintain a republican form of government coupled with his understanding of Declaration assertion that "all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights," is in my estimation Brilliant!
Although murder falls within a state's jurisdiction one would have to recognize the federal gov's. responsibility to protect human life, a citizen, if life were recognized from conception and the states did not. That is why I Ron Paul's legislation to recognize life from conception is equally brilliant. If passed it would be a whole new ball game. - TsuruchiBrian, on 09/17/2008, -0/+2The constitution party supports repealing the 16th and 17th Ammendment of the United States Constitution. So really they only support 92.6% of the constitution.
They support the criminalization of "offensive sexual behavior", pornography, and same sex unions (i.e. the things even Republicans support instead of gay marriage).
They are basically libertarians minus all that liberty stuff. - JDenigma, on 09/17/2008, -2/+3"Disagree with you on your take of Libertarianism. Don't think being Pro life, sovereignty, border control and marriage are incompatible."
Depends upon what you mean by "pro-life". Even if you find abortion immoral and can make the case that it is murder, at the very least it is not supposed to be the providence of the federal government. That would be left to the states. That's what would be done if you have a republican form of democracy with federalism, as long as you have any government around. Now whether abortion should be made illegal and punishable by government at any level, is a tricky matter for reasons I shall not go into here right now. As for me with where I stand now in the political spectrum, I would have a free market world of law and justice without government courts handle these issues. I would prefer that over the government alternative that we have now. I know that sounds crazy and scary to anyone who hears that for the first time and isn't aware of the ideas about how that would work. Government law and justice isn't doing so well right now.
People are naturally adverse to change, which is ironic with all that change rhetoric from the Obama campaign. I just think that alternative paradigm would be a much better, effective method of dealing with any and all issues that come up. Rather than having a government monopoly step in to enforce any abortion laws, I think we would be better off with the voluntary, peaceful world of a free market to deal with people. If abortion is wrong, we're not going to be able to successfully tackle it by forcing any of this upon people. Rather, we need to instead focus on winning over peoples hearts and minds.
Abortion is just a difficult one to deal with when you aren't dealing with a human being that already exists outside the womb and I do believe it is human life at the moment it has brain waves and a beating heart. I don't take the religious point of view that it is human life at conception. This is all I'll say for now on this.
Open borders and sovereignty aren't necessarily mutually exclusive and the illegality issue of immigrants is just simply legalese for the politicians and lawyers. It doesn't matter to me that they're quote unquote "illegals". That's semantics and irrelevant to me. You're not going to be able to stop them from coming in anyway, try as you might. We don't have an immigration problem anyway. It's a welfare state problem we have. Deal with that instead.
We've been dealing with this influx of immigrants for time immemorial. Why is it now it's suddenly a crisis just because the media plays it up as being one? This whole concept of "rule of law" to me only applies to the spirit of Natural Law of doing no harm to people. Only those laws that are intended to protect peoples natural rights from being infringed so the worship of the rule of law, to me does not apply to all the litany of absurd laws we have on the books that have nothing to do with protecting individual rights and that includes all the restrictive immigrant laws. It's the same with how I don't buy into the Social Contract excuse people make. If there was any social contract for our government, it was only meant to be the Constitution, period. Not as some excuse to be used against someone who refuses to pay their taxes for example. Bad immoral laws should be broken and will be broken and I support the civil disobedience of breaking bad laws so I also support these immigrants. They are not a threat to anyone for merely crossing some government border.
As for the institution of family and marriage, I do agree that marriage and monogamy is a decent thing. Its been very successful as an institution. I have no problem with it. It seems to be primarily for children though. You are right that it precedes government, which is all the more reason why you don't need government to protect it in the first place. Marriage isn't going to go down the drain and destroy the world if we don't have the government enact some law for it. What does it say about marriage though if it needs the protection of government? Isn't marriage supposed to be stronger than that? You don't need any blessing from government in order for your marriage to be strong. Allowing other consenting adults to marry who don't fall under the traditional Christian perspective of what constitutes marriage, is not going to affect it. - Kent4jmj, on 09/17/2008, -0/+1Integrity and honesty. Dugg up.
Disagree with you on your take of Libertarianism. Don't think being Pro life, sovereignty, border control and marriage are incompatible.
Does a Libertarian believe in Republican form of Democracy? Then the rule of Law applies Since we are human from conception then, yes I know that is not widely accepted, then we are protected from being killed. Our Constitution concerns our country and its Citizens not illegals. The institution of the Family precedes all forms of Governments and is therefor necessary to any form of government. Attack or undermine it and you are shooting yourself in the foot. - JDenigma, on 09/17/2008, -2/+2Exactly. Deal with that instead of being diverted with any of this theocratic *****!!!!!!!!!!!!!
- JDenigma, on 09/17/2008, -2/+1Some of us with more consistently pro liberty principled priorities than others.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is