If you have been mocked, then I apologize. If you are mocked again, please report it on the reporting forum.
As far as I know, you’ve only been threatened when your challenges were threadjacks or when they’ve been insulting, mocking confontations like your post which I quoted above.
… liberty from physical aggression, and speech free from physical aggression. The servers on which this forum resides are private property. LvMI, whether directly, or through its proxies (moderators) can do with its property as it sees fit.
I’m in Northern Kentucky. I can tell you that Rand is not nearly as libertarian as his father. I don’t understand what you mean by a “bunning-mcconnell republican.” Bunning is totally different than McConnell. Bunning at least has some principle to him, even though it’s standard conservative principle. McConnell is just a special interest feeding neo-con with no principle whatsoever. McConnell just gets special interest money and votes to bring in money. McConnell and Bunning are both less than ideal, but don’t try and conflate the two together. They are very different politically. Remember, Bunning blamed McConnell for controlling the special interests and pulling campaign money from Bunning’s reelection campaign. That’s why Bunning chose not to run.
The problem is, the McConnell republicans have a stranglehold on the Republican party in Kentucky. Everyone thought Trey Grayson was the handpicked man for the job, but Rand showed up and now he’s in a statistical dead heat with Trey Grayson in the polling. If Rand wins the primary he might have to pay some lip service to McConnell republicans to get some funding for the general election. A lot of times republicans that win the primary that aren’t part of the McConnell camp get no funding during the general election and lose.
This is why all of these Republican Liberty Caucus and Campaign For Liberty attempts to take over the GOP are a waste of time. It will never happen. The neo-cons control the party and will never be uprooted from their control. That’s why the best long term strategy for building liberty through any sort of political means is the Libertarian Party of Kentucky. The Libertarian Party of Kentucky is building strong organization. It has organization in District 1, 3, 4, and 6. It is getting off the ground in 2 as well. If you’re in Bowling Green, you should try to make a monthly meeting for the district 2 group in Elizabethtown. The Libertarian Party is setting up for a long term approach to acheiving liberty politically. We’re building organization and running candidates in local offices that liberty-minded candidates can actually win. Be sure to check out the website at http://www.lpky.org. We could really use your support to get District 2 up and running.
I think if people tortured you for several years all the while claiming you are a terrorist, then honestly how much would it take for you to become what they say you are under such conditions?
No one’s mocked you at all; you’ve simply been outed as the troll you’ve been and put in your place. You can do something about that by changing your behavior.
Well you have just repeated another lie about me. “Putting in your place” to you means censoring dissenting opinion by lying and calling them a troll. I could become brainwashed and agree with everything you say or do what I have always done, think for myself. I choose the latter and I am sure everyone else here does as well.
Rand Paul is a politician first and foremost. I think it’s rather presumptuous to try to project him as a libertarian savior - as if a politician can even be that.
The legal system in the United States is an absolute mess. Not really sure what “Constitutional Protection” is supposed to mean any more the way judges get to interpret it to mean almost anything at a whim. It also tends to be biased against the poor.
The great terrorist round-up has created yet another mess and international fiasco. The alleged terrorists/combatants have been put in the classifications that are neither war criminals nor civil criminals - but probably most similar to agents of espionage (spies). The tradition has been to execute spies after a cursory trial (if at all) - typically a sham trial to protect national secrets. Not that this is right, it’s just the way it’s been done for centuries. Since no official war has been declared, we get this messy little situation. Holding them indefinitely to rot seems to have been the decided course of action.
Alleged acts of torture against alleged terrorists/combatants needs to be proven on a case by case basis. In addition, some one needs to have the balls to actually define what constitutes an act of torture, and this definition cannot be used ex post facto. So if the Executive branch, with Congressional oversight, published specific policies and instructions, such as an Interrogation Manual, then one could consider that the State has made legal certain acts of torture. Trying the case under U.S. law may in fact prevent those who may have been tortured from getting justice. But of course, when the State gets to make the law, interpret the law, enforce the law, and declare such a law as just, then it can do whatever it wishes to whomever it is displeased with. We can’t have much faith in the State to do what is just or right.
The most immediate problem with bringing the people at Guantanamo into a U.S. criminal trial is the judge(s) would have to throw the case(s) out before the trial could even start. The U.S. has already acted to deny the defendants certain rights under U.S. criminal justice. They have created a condition which makes the Guantanamo defendants different from others who participate in the system - and by definition there is to be equal treatment under the law. Trying to undo the damage done from the earlier decisions by parading the defendants through U.S. criminal court treats the defendants unjustly (via a railroaded trial) and puts those already under the U.S. criminal system at risk for similar treatment (since the State loves to declare precedence). For these reasons I do not think it’s appropriate to bring these people into the U.S. criminal system.
A more proper way of handling this is to return the people to the countries from which they were detained. They must be secured the proper resources for their security and advocacy for a trial in that country of origin. If they are found not guilty, and there were alleged acts of torture under U.S. policy, then they should be provided the proper forum to adjudicate just compensation - most likely via arbitration. As for criminal prosecution of agents of the State, we aren’t very likely to see that unless someone is doing it for political reasons. It’s similar to not allowing prosecution of U.S. soldiers for alleged war crimes. The State protects the State at all costs.
Well not exactly. I don’t know if I can speak for the other ancaps, but my support of Paul has more to do with the idea that if we’re going to have a guy in government, he should support the least amount of government possible to be in government. His oath of office is to uphold the constitution, and that’s pretty much all he’s doing, that’s all he’s obliged to do. I’m not holding out for Dr. Paul to have any legislative victories, or nullify the charters of any institutions (irs, department of education) if anything, he serves as more of an educator of both the house members/ political watchers, and functions just an all-round wrench in the gears of the federal government. To me, his service is to be a visible opponent of government in that venue, and the only way he can get in there is to serve and protect the constitution as legitimate. I disagree with his belief in government, but I’m not out to tear him down. He poses 0 threat to me. In fact, he’s attracting more libertarians through his message than anyone, and creating nearly no statists in the process. In aggregate, he’s dissolving more of the state than he’s creating, and that’s good no matter how you look at it.
The point where I’m actually debating with Ron about his “big government” probably won’t come in either of our lifetimes - but I’d like nothing more than to have Ron become am actual threat to liberty eventually, him and his crummy constitution. I would be thrilled to say to him: “No sir, you may not tax .0001% of my paycheck to pay for your fascist postal roads!” because a world in which that was a pressing issue would be a much would be a freer place.
He really is a remarkable man. He’s taking the state’s ill-gotten money and using it against itself. He’s forgone A LOT of bribe money and a lot of power to stick to his principles. And I’m glad his legacy is finally being realized with HR 1207. It will be gutted for sure, but for the first time in 90 years or so, people are actually starting to take an honest look at the fed.
As for Rand, I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt for a bit, but if he’s really supporting our current legal “process” used to bring terror suspects to justice, I might decide he’s doing more harm than good - especially if he gets real power, enough to harm (cls.)liberalism in this country. But, if he turns out to be the 2nd biggest wrench in the gears of government, I’ll be sure to support him.
“Those subjected to waterboarding were suspected September 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and senior al Qaeda leaders Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri.”
The government also tells us that the stimulus package has saved thousands of jobs and that we are going to all die in 20 years if we don’t stop burning fossil fuels.
I highly doubt that. Do you actually believe what the CIA reports about its own torture activities? If you do, I have some oceanfront property in Kansas I’d like to sell you.