Are you really libertarian at heart?

[henschman]

Freedom of association is the foundation of a free society. People should be able to voluntarily form relationships of EVERY kind -- economic, domestic, sexual, friendship, or any other relationship that everyone involved consents to. Of course this means the right to withhold consent on whatever terms you want, as well. This is a hard pill for modern PC Americans to swallow, because it would mean you couldn't force business proprietors to serve certain races of people if they didn't want to, etc. If you didn't like how someone was exercising his freedom of association, your only remedy would be to withhold association from him, and use of your freedom of speech to speak out against him. However, the power of societal pressure should not be underestimated.

Such a policy would mean that the maintenance of culture is up to individuals and families, rather than the government. Those in government would not be able to take it upon themselves to cure us backward southern hicks of our racism and bigotry and whatnot, just like we couldn't take it upon ourselves to take over the reigns of power and cure the coastal regions of their queer ways.

Unfortunately most Americans see absolutely no problem with forcing their cultural ideals on others through force. I am convinced that the vast majority of folks don't even consider it to be force when the government does it. That is the attitude we need to change.

 

[RickN]

Point 1: Absolutely not! The baker should be free to bake for whom he chooses, in the same spirit that Catholic hospitals should be free to refuse to deny abortions and birth control. Heck, if I were the baker, I would be glad to bake their cake, because that would mean more money for me.

Yet this is happening right now.


Point 2: It is my understanding that Congress has not declared any war since WWII, though we have spent massive treasure, fought and died in the many "kinetic actions" since then. it is my understanding that since the WWII, conflicts were military engagements authorized by United Nations Security Council Resolutions and funded by Congress. Starting with Korea, the United Nations has been controlling our military deployments, Congress just went along for the ride. As Defense Secretary informed a shocked Senator Jeff Sessions, the United Nations and NATO tell us where to fight and Congress is merely ceremonial.

If you've got any link to any declarations of war Congress has made since then, I will follow them and humbly stand corrected.

There are other legal ways for a war to be declared unless the Supreme Court rules otherwise and in case you forgot, we went into Iraq with the UN screaming bloody murder about it.

 

[twoguns?]

I'm a Constitutionalist/classical liberal. Sadly, one is practically extinct and the other is on the endangered species list.

I think I must be a Constitutionalist/leavemealonest....war on drugs...Doesnt work, make some money out of it!
Abortion...depends on the situation, i.e. rape/incest, different that just wanting to get rid of a kid
Homosexuals...as long as theyre not promoting it or Flaming (that just kinda bothers Me) C'est la Vie!
Smaller Government...well...Yeah

 

[E-Rawk]

I want the government out of the people's wallets, gun cabinets, and lifestyles. Start work programs instead of welfare/socialist programs. I believe the Bill of Rights should be the extent of the federal govt. I guess someone else can label me.

 

[flybeech]

There are other legal ways for a war to be declared unless the Supreme Court rules otherwise and in case you forgot, we went into Iraq with the UN screaming bloody murder about it.

OK, I get it. War that doesn't conform to Constitutional requirements, or is desired by the globalists with non-specific goals and changing goals, to change leadership of sovereign nations, gather resources or central banks is cool with you, that's fine. Some feel the endless wars are a better value than others, I guess. I won't attempt to change your mind about the Constitutionality of all the undeclared "conflicts" we have had since WWII or the documented false-flags that led to them. I just personally disagree with undeclared wars, wars ordered by globalist bankers, wars to seize banks and/or resources. I don't need a SCOTUS decision for everything. I'm not an interventionist and some people are.

 

[ronny]

Check yourself out!

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz

 

[RickN]

OK, I get it. War that doesn't conform to Constitutional requirements, or is desired by the globalists with non-specific goals and changing goals, to change leadership of sovereign nations, gather resources or central banks is cool with you, that's fine. Some feel the endless wars are a better value than others, I guess. I won't attempt to change your mind about the Constitutionality of all the undeclared "conflicts" we have had since WWII or the documented false-flags that led to them. I just personally disagree with undeclared wars, wars ordered by globalist bankers, wars to seize banks and/or resources. I don't need a SCOTUS decision for everything. I'm not an interventionist and some people are.

Lets put it this way, if they were unconstitutional old RP as a member of the house would have filed suit and taken it all the way to the Supreme Court. Instead he pretty much just whined about it loud enough to draw in the conspiracy believers.

 

[ignerntbend]

I'd like to know what the constitution says about congress abdicating it's constitutional obligations.
RickN is on his last legs but he probably doesn't remember the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. He was in first grade.
We've waged a bunch of informal wars since then. Just gone in hung our hats up and made ourselves at home.

 

[RickN]

You are right I do not remember that but I do remember the War Powers Act and that neither side of the debate is brave enough to take it to court because it has a 50/50 chance of being constitutional and neither side is willing to risk losing.

 

[okiebryan]

socially conservative libritarian.

How is this even possible? Please enlighten me.