User Profile: Libertarian


Member Since: September 02, 2010


123 To page: Go
  • [5] December 11, 2014 at 10:56pm

    His short message brought tears to my eyes. Sen. Coburn is a great man.

  • [4] November 17, 2014 at 9:47pm


    I hope you are being facetious. Capitalism requires competition. If in fact it was a competition then this man should keep the football. If it was charity and intended for the woman, then it is theft.

  • [19] October 19, 2014 at 1:31pm


    You are absolutely correct.

  • [1] August 25, 2014 at 12:17am

    I follow Marc. He is a good man, he doesn’t walk on water nor should he be expected to. His teachings are sound and biblical.

  • [36] August 21, 2014 at 1:24pm

    I love this guy! Mac & Cheese, mmmm. May I recommend cutting up a hotdog in that pot of Mac & Cheese.

    Liberals and progressives despise wealth, they cherish sharing in equal misery.

    Responses (9) +
  • [-1] August 15, 2014 at 11:07am

    Levin’s idea is a bad one. We have the ability to amend the Constitution, Article V. If we had a constitutional convention we would end up like Europe. Levin wrote a book to sell paper, I respect that – lets uphold the constitution as it is and not recreate a new one.

    Responses (1) +
  • [1] August 12, 2014 at 3:27am

    This guy is a bonehead. He just got back from an excellent adventure, straight out of Bill and Ted’s time-warp phone booth. That is all.

  • [1] July 12, 2014 at 12:13am

    I agree Milton Friedman on immigration, get rid of the welfare state and bring them in like we did during the days of Ellis Island. It will make us a richer country, because people coming are coming for opportunity and to create wealth. When you have a welfare state, those coming will find what is free.

  • [24] June 12, 2014 at 1:29pm

    The day I harvest a cow myself is the day that it becomes cheaper (time and money) for me to do so. Same with chicken or any other meat that I eat.

    I don’t hunt but I don’t begrudge people for doing it. My idea of hunting is going to the grocery store and picking out a nice new york strip steak that somebody killed (cow) for me.

  • March 16, 2014 at 2:20pm


    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


    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


    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.

123 To page: Go