User Profile: Libertarian

Libertarian

Member Since: September 02, 2010

CommentsDisplaying comments newest to oldest.

123 To page: Go
  • March 16, 2014 at 2:20pm

    @squirrel

    I don’t watch much TV. I understand it took a great pilot to land a plane in the Hudson. I don’t doubt a person crazy enough to hijack a plane, would hesitate taking a chance at landing a 777 it in the water.

    Successfully landing such a plane in the water would leave very little or no debris field. It would sink and perhaps never be discovered in the Indian Ocean.

  • March 16, 2014 at 2:14pm

    I believe it was an act against the Malaysian government. No, I don’t think it was an act of piracy. Piracy would include it being for the plane itself for other nefarious purposes, money, prisoner ransom ect…

    In my mind piracy and a suicide mission have been ruled out. It was an act committed by two or three people against the Malaysian gov.

    This is just a guess. =-)

  • March 16, 2014 at 12:36pm

    My theory: The aircraft was ditched in the Indian Ocean, where a ship was waiting. I think the high altitude depressurization of the plane may have been used as a means to eradicate potential threat to the pilots plan. Then the jet was landed on the Indian Ocean just like the plane that landed on the Hudson. This gave the pilot the ability to leave the plane with an accomplice by ship, but allowed the evidence (the plane) to sink slowly.

    Responses (5) +
  • March 11, 2014 at 7:50pm

    You are absolutely correct. I thought it was hilarious. Though this type of marketing doesn’t work to sway votes for individuals like you or me, it does work for a certain uninformed voting bloc.

  • February 24, 2014 at 1:27am

    @cafeconservative,

    You are exactly correct!

  • February 23, 2014 at 12:51pm

    Delta’s plane, Delta’s policy. People are more ignorant of property rights.

  • February 22, 2014 at 8:46pm

    @Stinkydroolface,

    This discussion is more about property rights than it is about the 2nd amendment. Take the first amendment for example, you do not have the right to “peacefully assemble” at any one persons property whether or not they allow public access or commerce. Your speech can be limited on another persons property, be it a bank, restaurant, home or other.

    Your rights end where a private property owners line begins.

  • February 22, 2014 at 8:18pm

    Commercial property is an extension of private property. One should be able to refuse service to anyone, refuse entry to anyone, refuse weapon carry to anyone. Your rights end at my property line even if it is available to the public for commerce.

    I disagree with your first post Monk. Positive rights or liberty cannot be guaranteed. No person, entity or government is required to ensure your safety or protection. Even when a private property owner forbids your ability to self defense on their respective property.

  • February 13, 2014 at 12:44am

    Speech will be taken through incremental regulation.

    The first amendment was not intended to protect common, non controversial speech — though it is, it does not need protected. It was written to protect dissent, offensive and contentious speech.

    Hate speech laws, laws that prohibit individuals from giving legal advice, health advice, psychological advice, nutritional advice, electronic advice, carpentry advice, cooking advice et al will be regulated through “permits” or “licenses”. This is how we will lose our speech. Regulation is the absence of freedom.

  • December 21, 2013 at 5:12pm

    Expect these types of ordinances throughout the country as the environmental agenda of “walking communities” continues. Any kind of “unnatural” water runoff from houses or objects will be heavily regulated if not prohibited. Liberal wackos deem the most abundant resource on the planet as “community property.”

    I live in one of the most beautiful states in the union, though it has an abundance of animals, fish and natural resources it is inhabited by environmental despots. What is happening here in Washington State under our warmist-governor will trickle into your state. Property rights are wrecked by “water protection” issues, prohibited by pocket gophers and marlboro mullet’s. Like the spotted owl decimating our timber industry, it was later discovered through political driven science that the spotted owl was in danger because of the barred owl not the logging industry. Still these restrictive and unnecessary regulation still burden us despite the epiphany of real science.

    We are losing folks. We are losing.

  • November 27, 2013 at 1:14am

    I don’t agree Jeremiad.

    I think the federal government should tax the states according to congressional districts to provide for a uniform federal military. The federal government says we need (X) amount from your state and then the state determines how it wants to collect (property tax, consumption tax ect…) This in conjunction with repeal of the 17th amendment and US Senators will watch every dime our state gives to the feds for military.

  • November 11, 2013 at 2:54pm

    No state law can trump the constitution (4th amendment). Thank the anti-federalists for forcing the federalists to have a Bill of Rights – because those damn liberals have such short memories.

    Responses (1) +
  • November 5, 2013 at 1:05am

    Marriage is a religious ceremony between a man and a woman. The government is not an authority on morality, nor should people who support less government support government tainting our religious ceremonies! Keep politicians away from the pulpits.

    Save marriage by taking it out of government and putting it back into the churches. Marriage is a covenant before God, not before uncle Sam. A moral people will make this country better, morality will not come from behind a podium or from the halls D.C.

    The Declaration of Independence was a promise, the Constitution was the fulfillment of that promise to a moral people, not a moral government. The Constitution was a document to enslave an immoral government. Why then are my fellow conservatives and libertarians that cheer for less government, cheering for government sanction marriage?

    Lets keep marriage in the church.

    Libertarian

    Responses (3) +
  • October 19, 2013 at 1:55pm

    Notice he said “we take an oath to support the country,” clearly as a seasoned politician he forgot it says the “constitution.”

    I am very pessimistic about our future =-(

  • October 13, 2013 at 4:08pm

    I can’t stand Bill Maher, but he is correct on one point. Inconsistency. I saw a poll of people that define themselves as Tea Partiers or supporters of the cause that said they believed “it is worth the cost to taxpayers” in regard to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. I hear over and over from fellow conservatives and tea party people that say they “paid” for it so they are going to use it. In 10 years are we going to have a different opinion of Obamacare after we are forced to “pay for it?”

    It is the epitome of hypocrisy to use and or support the very thing that we despise,… socialism.

    How can we be an example to others if we are using the very system and programs that we stand against? Don’t live off the system that you despise.

  • June 23, 2013 at 2:10pm

    Geeman,

    You are correct. I think it is very important that we win the intellectual arguments because people searching for truth will hear the truth, drones will ask the proverbial queen (government) which way do we go. Keep up the good fight!

  • June 23, 2013 at 1:47pm

    Well I would argue that Republicans (John McCain, Lindsey Graham etc..) and most Democrats are complicit in helping rebels fight. The problem is we will end up with another Afghanistan with a quasi-Taliban dictatorship. I think Sarah Palin had the best remark in regard to Syria – “Let Allah sort it out”

  • June 3, 2013 at 9:25pm

    Great recovery young man!

    @lordjosh

    I don’t agree with your premise. I won’t bore you with the history – google it. I will cut to the chase – the 13 stripes in the flag represent the British Colonies transition into the American Colonies. It was symbolic of our Independence.

    The Declaration of Independence gave us “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”

    Those that violate the constitution, whether they are citizens, government officials or members of the military do so against what the flag stands for. Don’t worship the flag but understand it is a symbol of freedom. You cannot discount a symbol of LIBERTY because of a few tyrants!

    I teach my children that symbolism is great, but one should express himself with words or actions. This young man showed patriotism with action.

  • April 17, 2013 at 2:04am

    @Keatonc666,

    ” A Fetus is not a child because of law.”~Keatonc666

    This is the same argument the south used for slaves. The south viewed certain people as chattels or objects of others, in which case were not granted the rights promised under the constitution – no person can be “…deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;..” . The south denied the rights of others by a simple definition.

    Imperfect people make imperfect laws, therefore not all laws are moral or just. If the mob or a few judges in black robes define a group of people as objects – do we accept this and go about our ways?

    How can you be pro-choice but morally against abortion? This statement insinuates that you view a fetus as a child and therefore disagree with the current law.

    Right now they use the term “viability” meaning that a child can be murdered errr… aborted at a certain age because it cannot live with the assistance of medical technology outside the womb.

    I would ask that if medical technology continues to excel and it allows a child to be “viable” at conception would you concede that the disgusting and unconstitutional act of abortion be removed and banned from our laws books and from this ugly era of history? To the point, would you agree that abortion be prohibited all together?

  • April 9, 2013 at 3:26am

    Keaton666,

    It does not matter what the mob or “majority” wants. The constitution is in place to protect the rights of the minority. The only way to amend the constitution is Article V. “…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

    Staying within the “spirit of the constitution” there should be no infringement on the right for one to bear arms, NONE.

    Working for the government now for 13 years let me walk you through the process of banning something – First you make a “registration” or permit process for gun buyers. Next, government adds 15 pages to the permit application as a requirement to obtain the gun. Next, government adds a 60 day waiting time period to get a gun under the “guise” of safety. Next, you make the permit process so rigorous that you need a lawyer to help you through the process. Finally the permit process becomes so onerous, only law enforcement, the rich and elite get a “legal” gun.

    If you did not recognize, there are already “infringements” to our 2nd amendment rights – as such they should be stricken from any statute under state law (See Supremacy Clause).

    This is a fact of government incrementalism.

    Does this sound familiar?

123 To page: Go