Fail: Cuccinelli vs "Sodomites"

[Swampman]

@gunderwood makes a valid point. However, while this may be a human being issue, the human issue gets fuel for that fire from the political party issue. People vote for free stuff for themselves. They don't vote for free stuff for you, they couldn't care less about you and what you want. The formation of political parties is the natural order that results from the discovery that power is derived by satisfying the desire of the population for whatever it is they want.

It is, therefore, not only a human being issue, but also a political issue.

[gunderwood]

@gunderwood makes a valid point. However, while this may be a human being issue, the human issue gets fuel for that fire from the political party issue. People vote for free stuff for themselves. They don't vote for free stuff for you, they couldn't care less about you and what you want. The formation of political parties is the natural order that results from the discovery that power is derived by satisfying the desire of the population for whatever it is they want.

It is, therefore, not only a human being issue, but also a political issue.

What is politics but that which is relating to citizens? Human beings have been misusing ALL forms of government since the beginning of time. It just so happens to be that in systems based on democratic majority for determining policy or representatives who determine policy that forming groups/parties provides leverage in the system. Make all the changes to the parties you want, but without a restoration of the primary ideal upon which this country was founded on, which is liberty, the system will continue to crumble. We may joke about our politicians being corrupt, but in a democratic system the leaders only gain power from the people and as such reflect the people. A people returning to liberty will toss out these bums very quickly, otherwise we'll keep voting for them. Politicians only get away with this corruption because we let them.

As long as the average American continues to vote for whomever gives away the most stuff they want (both R & D), all other changes are superficial at best.

[Swampman]

Sounds like we're making similar arguments from slightly different viewpoints. You will have no argument from me regarding the fact that a return to liberty must be the goal if improvements to the system, and to society, are to be meaningful. I am a conservative with a libertarian lean, and want to live my life as I choose. However, I am not willing to give up the rule of law in order to have unfettered liberty. Anarchy is the likely result of a true and pure libertarian society, and is not my preference.

[SHMIV]

Anarchy only works until the meanest and scariest guy decides he wants power.

My sister had an anarchist friend in college; she always refered to him as " The King of the Anarchists". He hated that.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Swampman]

Anarchy only works until the meanest and scariest guy decides he wants power.

My sister had an anarchist friend in college; she always refered to him as " The King of the Anarchists". He hated that.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

True enough. He must not have been the meanest and scariest.

[ShotgunBlast]

Anarchy only works until the meanest and scariest guy decides he wants power.

My sister had an anarchist friend in college; she always refered to him as " The King of the Anarchists". He hated that.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

Agreed. Anarchy is just a transitional and temporary form of government (usually from one dictator to another or a democracy or republic to a dictator).

Libertarians in general are not looking for anarchy, but more a return to our limited Constitutional republic that we have strayed so far away from. The Founders got it right with a government that provides a basic framework to handle life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It's just small enough without having it be lawlessness. Some people promote an extreme measure like anarchy because we have strayed so far away from the Founder's vision that they think we need an extreme voice in the opposite direction to eventually land us somewhere in the middle. I prefer to take a page from the Democrat's playbook of incrementalism, but they have by far perfected that tactic.

[gunderwood]

Sounds like we're making similar arguments from slightly different viewpoints. You will have no argument from me regarding the fact that a return to liberty must be the goal if improvements to the system, and to society, are to be meaningful. I am a conservative with a libertarian lean, and want to live my life as I choose. However, I am not willing to give up the rule of law in order to have unfettered liberty. Anarchy is the likely result of a true and pure libertarian society, and is not my preference.

Liberty only works within the rule of law. In a way you could argue that liberty is the rule of the supreme law as Rights granted by a Creator. Only the enemies of liberty and the ignorant characterize it as anarchy. Why bring anarchy up at all? No one here has ever proposed it to my knowledge.

It's the easy way out to justify a particular statist view. Classic statist argument: we can't have firearms unregulated by the Federal government because that would be anarchy! This ignores the reality that those who shouldn't have firearms acquire them regardless and with relative ease. All the background check/FFL system does is infringe on law abiding citizens and provide the Federal government with the beginnings of a firearm registration database. It also ignores the reality that federal background checks only came about in the 90s with the Brady Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_Hand ... ention_Act). Somehow we did just fine without it and the BATFE's own stats show the Brady check is practically useless. Of course, because we can't have liberty, that's just the beginning of the statism. Now the same justification is being given for disqualifying people the government merely doesn't approve of such as returning veterans or requiring universal checks. On and on with the statism.

Bringing up anarchy when discussing liberty is intellectually dishonest.

Liberty is NOT a synonym of anarchy. Never was.

[FiremanBob]

I repeat: Cuccinelli (the product) has not failed at all. You who are making a mountain out of this anthill are being duped by the Democrats. Just goes to show that there are people who can't think at both ends of the political spectrum.

Anyone who rejects Cuccinelli because of this fabricated issue has the right to vote for Sarvis. I'd even fight to preserve your right to vote for whomever you want. But you will not escape your culpability if the carpetbagger steals this election.

I'd like to see this thread die now, for two reasons:

1) Obviously nobody is going to change anyone's mind ere.

2) Perpetuating the thread only continues to spread the canard.

[ShotgunBlast]

There's more of that "it's your fault if my guy loses" mentality. *sigh*

Gonna be some more bumpy years in store for the Republicans.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Swampman]

I'm done. Looks like some are getting pissed off and that's not the intent. Never meant to offend anyone and I hope I haven't done so. If I have, I apologize.

[SpanishInquisition]

Sweep harder Bob. It ain't all under the carpet yet.

Fabricated? Fact!

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[j1mmyd]

I repeat: Cuccinelli (the product) has not failed at all. You who are making a mountain out of this anthill are being duped by the Democrats. Just goes to show that there are people who can't think at both ends of the political spectrum.

Anyone who rejects Cuccinelli because of this fabricated issue has the right to vote for Sarvis. I'd even fight to preserve your right to vote for whomever you want. But you will not escape your culpability if the carpetbagger steals this election.

I'd like to see this thread die now...

My original point with this posting was that I was disappointed in seeing how KC allowed himself to be played on this issue, not that it made him unsuitable to govern.

And while I'd love to vote for *The Celestially Ordained Best-est Most Awesome-est Candidate*, that person (whoever he/she is) is too smart to stick his head up.

Even if I knew his name, writing it in has the exact same net effect as voting for an unelectable third choice. My "conscience" would feel great, but my country would still be in this downward spiral.