Tweet

Originally Posted by trip

imho, Paul will be the icon of the libertarians for eternity, here's a man who brought the bill to audit the Fed up for a vote for 26 times until he finally won, that's an american, that's gut and grit, he has fired up many many young people, and it will still take a while yet, libertarians will finally win when they can get someone with a little more fire and brimstone and ability to communicate the message, all things Paul is not good at

i got em down for winning in 20 years, yet, it could be sooner,

Freedom is just another word for nothing left too lose, when we hit that point libertarians will triumph, all i see from dem and repubs are parties based on a philosophy of fear versus the belief in freedom and power of the individual to actually triumph

..nothing, dont mean NOTHING HONEY IF IT AINT FREEEEEE...
dude...thaught we was gonna break out some joplin and bobby mcgee?!!

Tweetlove me some texas joplin, read two biographies, have greatest hit cd's, love that line

Tweet

Originally Posted by trip

love me some texas joplin, read two biographies, have greatest hit cd's, love that line

yea...i grew up listening to alot of joplin....she was very good!! you dont really get songs like that anymore.

Tweet

Originally Posted by trip

imho, Paul will be the icon of the libertarians for eternity, here's a man who brought the bill to audit the Fed up for a vote for 26 times until he finally won, that's an american, that's gut and grit, he has fired up many many young people, and it will still take a while yet, libertarians will finally win when they can get someone with a little more fire and brimstone and ability to communicate the message, all things Paul is not good at

i got em down for winning in 20 years, yet, it could be sooner,

Freedom is just another word for nothing left too lose, when we hit that point libertarians will triumph, all i see from dem and repubs are parties based on a philosophy of fear versus the belief in freedom and power of the individual to actually triumph

I disagree with your view of freedom in that it is another word for nothing left to lose. With Freedom you stand to lose everything because you are free. Each law passed is an equal exchange for freedom. The more laws and regulations the less freedom. Freedom is the opposite of government. 100% government (totalitarianism) = 0% freedom and 100% freedom = 0% government (anarchy). The illustration below was taken from www.truthandliberty.com.

Tweetit was a joke js

Tweet

Originally Posted by straydoglogic

I don't like him because he's a fake. He said Ron Paul was a kook and that his supporters could be considered homegrown terrorists, and now he rides Ron Paul jock and the coattails of the grassroots liberty movement.He's a turncoat and can't be trusted. When he was on cnn he said a lot of pro war rhetoric and neo-con garbage, and then he switches sides when it's convenient. That's why I don't like him, but I do like that he's spreading our message.

The very reason you don't like Beck is the reason I like him. When I first started listening to him a few years ago, I disagreed with him on lots of major issues but I don't think Beck is changing when it's convenient - I think he's changing his positions as he learns and the benefit to that is he is taking his audience with him on his journey. It hasn't been very long ago that he would suggest that atheist were detrimental to our country and just a few weeks ago - I heard him defend the atheist position.
The thing is Beck is baby stepping has been conservatives (that would have been initially repulsed by some libertarian positions) into the libertarian position.

I still support the wars we have entered into - I think Paul is wrong on these things but I don't agree with the strategy. I understand he thinks our enemies were created due to blow back from our own actions but the thing is our enemies hate us; we can't undo that - we are at war whether we are actively participating or not.

Tweet

Originally Posted by Klash

The very reason you don't like Beck is the reason I like him. When I first started listening to him a few years ago, I disagreed with him on lots of major issues but I don't think Beck is changing when it's convenient - I think he's changing his positions as he learns and the benefit to that is he is taking his audience with him on his journey. It hasn't been very long ago that he would suggest that atheist were detrimental to our country and just a few weeks ago - I heard him defend the atheist position.
The thing is Beck is baby stepping has been conservatives (that would have been initially repulsed by some libertarian positions) into the libertarian position.

I still support the wars we have entered into - I think Paul is wrong on these things but I don't agree with the strategy. I understand he thinks our enemies were created due to blow back from our own actions but the thing is our enemies hate us; we can't undo that - we are at war whether we are actively participating or not.

But we went to war with the wrong people for the wrong reasons. You know as well as I do that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and was no threat to us. And if you believe everything we were told about the hijackers then we should have been dealing with the Saudis and Egypt. I most certainly don't agree with the war, and that's why in a week I'll be out of the military.

TweetSo stray what do you think about having terriorists being tried on our own soil

TweetI already stated my opinion on that in the other thread Fuzo. I'm not sure that New York was the best place to do it, but the crime was committed in the US against us so where else would we hold the trial. It would be like somebody attacking China and having the trial held here. Where would you propose the trial be held? I mean, if a crime is committed in say New York, you wouldn't have the trial in California would you? And I also think that by having it held in our country it shows the enemy that we're not scared and we're not effing around. The whole point behind terrorism is to influence people and their government through fear. If we show that we're not scared then we win and they lose.

Tweet

Originally Posted by straydoglogic

I already stated my opinion on that in the other thread Fuzo. I'm not sure that New York was the best place to do it, but the crime was committed in the US against us so where else would we hold the trial. It would be like somebody attacking China and having the trial held here. Where would you propose the trial be held? I mean, if a crime is committed in say New York, you wouldn't have the trial in California would you? And I also think that by having it held in our country it shows the enemy that we're not scared and we're not effing around. The whole point behind terrorism is to influence people and their government through fear. If we show that we're not scared then we win and they lose.

The terrorists may have committed the act in the US but it is still a war crime, thus should be punishable in a court martial. Other than that I am with you for the most part.

Tweet

Originally Posted by trip

it was a joke js

Sorry trip, I feel like a jack**s.

Tweet

Originally Posted by straydoglogic

But we went to war with the wrong people for the wrong reasons. You know as well as I do that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and was no threat to us. And if you believe everything we were told about the hijackers then we should have been dealing with the Saudis and Egypt. I most certainly don't agree with the war, and that's why in a week I'll be out of the military.

I agree with what you stated but I also believe tyrants who don't recognize individual rights cannot possess WMD's. I don't see why we need boots on the ground to deter this but we do need to be preemptive in preventing this from happening whether this is Iran, Iraq or North Korea or Russia.

Tweet

Originally Posted by straydoglogic

I already stated my opinion on that in the other thread Fuzo. I'm not sure that New York was the best place to do it, but the crime was committed in the US against us so where else would we hold the trial. It would be like somebody attacking China and having the trial held here. Where would you propose the trial be held? I mean, if a crime is committed in say New York, you wouldn't have the trial in California would you? And I also think that by having it held in our country it shows the enemy that we're not scared and we're not effing around. The whole point behind terrorism is to influence people and their government through fear. If we show that we're not scared then we win and they lose.

I don't have a problem with the trial being held in the US, but it needs to be a Military Trial not in the normal court system- these were acts of war and should be treated as such. Thay are not US citizens and are not due the same rights and representation that you and I are. They are not covered by OUR Bill of rights!