6
   

WHICH Candidate for the Republican Nomination Is the MOST LIBERTARIAN ON the 2nd AMENDMENT?

 
 
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Sep, 2011 10:57 am
@engineer,
What engineer said.
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Sep, 2011 12:14 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

David wrote:
One of the reasons that he (Ron Paul)appears not to be electable,
is that he 's indicated that a nuclear armed Iran is OK with him.
9/11/1 was dramatic enuf without a nuclear element involved.
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
How does his isolationism inform his position on 2nd Amendment rights?
The Iranians have no rights under the US Constitution.

I think that was Finn's point. Neither issue has anything to do with the other, and the question for your thread concerned only one: Second-Amendment rights.

On the issue you were asking about, Ron Paul would have been my guess as well.

And on that other issue: The US constitution is not the only source of righs on this planet.
RABEL222
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Sep, 2011 03:12 pm
@Thomas,
You are about to be attacked by the Constitutionalsts who put it just one step above the Bible.
OmSigDAVID
 
  2  
Reply Sun 25 Sep, 2011 03:46 pm
@JTT,
David wrote:
One of the reasons that he appears not to be electable,
is that he 's indicated that a nuclear armed Iran is OK with him.
9/11/1 was dramatic enuf without a nuclear element involved.
JTT wrote:
Iran has never invaded the US and dumped its government and installed their own dictator.
It is the duty of the President of the US to defend their national security;
tolerating a nuclear-armed Iran is very inconsistent with that,
inasmuch as Moslem fanatics WILL nuke us as soon as thay r ABLE to do so.
The only reason that 9/11/1 did not include a nuclear attack on us
is that the Moslems were not ABLE to do that. Only American interests r of any significance.
Aliens r not even worth spitting on, J.

A candidate for the Presidency will lose a lot of votes
if he openly declares that he will not actively defend America from such a threat.




JTT wrote:
Iran has never used nuclear weapons on innocent civilians, twice,
and lied [ ?? ] about why they did so.
Neither did America.
For the record:
note that I have always supported and I continue to eagerly support
American nuclear attacks on Japan
; it was the obvious thing to DO.
If Truman had interfered with that:
he 'd have been a traitor who gave aid n comfort to the enemy.
He WAS a traitor for his assistance to the Chinese communists,
but not in regard to the Japs. ( However, I do not support President Bush going over there and throwing up on them.)





JTT wrote:
Iran didn't come close to using nuclear weapons against the people of Korea.
America SHOUD HAVE nuked the Korean commies, a long time ago.
If it were MY decision, we 'd nuke the communists ` NOW. ( We have yet to field test our Neutron Bom. )




JTT wrote:
Iran hasn't been selling armaments all over the planet causing enormous problems.
That is no excuse for tolerating a nuclear armed Iran.




JTT wrote:
Iran hasn't been supporting brutal right wing dictators planet wide.
That is no excuse for tolerating a nuclear armed Iran, either.




JTT wrote:
Iran hasn't invaded numerous countries worldwide, causing the deaths of millions.
That ALSO is no excuse for tolerating a nuclear armed Iran.





David
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Sep, 2011 04:00 pm
@engineer,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
One of the reasons that he appears not to be electable,
is that he 's indicated that a nuclear armed Iran is OK with him.
9/11/1 was dramatic enuf without a nuclear element involved.
engineer wrote:
If you believe that the right to self defense is God given,
why would you not support nuclear arms for all countries on Earth?
Nuclear arms are to countries as hand guns are to people.
It is the duty of the President of the US to be concerned with DEFENDING America, not concerned with the rights of aliens who WILL nuke us as soon as possible, nor concerned with the rights of aliens who will nuke us at any time thereafter.

If Ron Paul wants to concern himself
with the rights of Iranians,
then he shoud run to be elected President of Iran
.

Incidentally, so far as I have become aware,
the Iranians have not raised the argument that thay got the right to nukes from "Allah".





David
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Sep, 2011 04:01 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:
What engineer said.
What I said, in response to him.





David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Sep, 2011 04:22 pm
@Thomas,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
One of the reasons that he (Ron Paul)appears not to be electable,
is that he 's indicated that a nuclear armed Iran is OK with him.
9/11/1 was dramatic enuf without a nuclear element involved.
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
How does his isolationism inform his position on 2nd Amendment rights?
David wrote:
The Iranians have no rights under the US Constitution.
Thomas wrote:
I think that was Finn's point.
Thank u, Thomas.
I was not entirely clear about that.




Thomas wrote:
Neither issue has anything to do with the other,
and the question for your thread concerned only one: Second-Amendment rights.
It did. It looks like it got expanded.
There have been some off-topic remarks,
but I have not objected, in that I thawt that thay were interesting,
and thay were not appallingly off-topic.






Thomas wrote:
On the issue you were asking about, Ron Paul would have been my guess as well.
I wonder where Gary Johnson stands on a nuclear-armed Iran.
Some libertarians appear to be pacifistic extremists.




Thomas wrote:
And on that other issue:
The US constitution is not the only source of righs on this planet.
It is not,
but the candidacy of a man who says:
"Yeah, we can accept a future NUCLEAR 9/11 attack.
That 's OK because of the rights of the aliens that are nuking us" will lose viability.

He will very swiftly become a joke; deservedly so.
Leno & Letterman 'd have a great time with THAT; don 't u think??

I have a hunch that many registered voters
do not want their families to awaken
under a nuclear Moslem mushroom cloud, regardless of any alien rights.

On the other hand:
maybe its just me.





David
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Sep, 2011 04:31 pm
@RABEL222,
RABEL222 wrote:
You are about to be attacked by the Constitutionalsts who put it just one step above the Bible.
Yeah, well it IS the Supreme Law of The Land.
It IS the fundamental rules of the game.





David
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  3  
Reply Sun 25 Sep, 2011 04:32 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
Aliens r not even worth spitting on, J.

As an alien living in the US, I sure find it reassuring to know that you won't spit on me.
MontereyJack
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Sep, 2011 04:43 pm
Come on, david, use your gigantic intellect and your Spock-like logic on this. Since you maintain that everybody has the right to self-defense, and you've extended that right beyond the US to people like members of the Mexican drug cartels, who certainly have reason to fear for their lives. then surely you must conclude that AlQaeda has a perfect right to have and use nuclear weapons, since somebody is very obviously successively killing all their leaders. And certainly Iran has the same right. You've maintained it's a natural right, right? and the 2nd amendment just codifies it for us. Well then, it's only logical that anybody the world over who wants any arms, up to and including nukes, should have the right to purchase or build one. It's only logical, and you are proud of your logic.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Sep, 2011 05:07 pm
@Thomas,

OmSigDAVID wrote:
Aliens r not even worth spitting on, J.
Thomas wrote:
As an alien living in the US, I sure find it reassuring to know that you won't spit on me.
I wish to apologize to u, Thomas.





David
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Sep, 2011 05:08 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Torturing logic yet again, eh, Om?
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Sep, 2011 05:15 pm
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:
Come on, david, use your gigantic intellect and your Spock-like logic on this. Since you maintain that everybody has the right to self-defense, and you've extended that right beyond the US to people like members of the Mexican drug cartels, who certainly have reason to fear for their lives. then surely you must conclude that AlQaeda has a perfect right to have and use nuclear weapons, since somebody is very obviously successively killing all their leaders. And certainly Iran has the same right. You've maintained it's a natural right, right?
Right.



MontereyJack wrote:
and the 2nd amendment just codifies it for us.
Right, again!



MontereyJack wrote:
Well then, it's only logical that anybody the world over who wants any arms, up to and including nukes, should have the right to purchase or build one. It's only logical, and you are proud of your logic.
Our own self defense shoud and WILL govern our conduct, in and out of the voting booth.





David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Sep, 2011 05:15 pm
@JTT,
JTT wrote:
Torturing logic yet again, eh, Om?
No.
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Sep, 2011 05:32 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:
One of the reasons that he appears not to be electable,
is that he 's indicated that a nuclear armed Iran is OK with him.
9/11/1 was dramatic enuf without a nuclear element involved.
engineer wrote:
If you believe that the right to self defense is God given,
why would you not support nuclear arms for all countries on Earth?
Nuclear arms are to countries as hand guns are to people.
It is the duty of the President of the US to be concerned with DEFENDING America, not concerned with the rights of aliens who WILL nuke us as soon as possible, nor concerned with the rights of aliens who will nuke us at any time thereafter.

The Iranians have made it clear that they believe their constitution allows them to have nuclear weapons. The question is whether the President of the US has the right to deny them their constitutional rights (as per their constitution) and if he does, then does someone have the right to deny you yours. I think it also calls into your question your repeatedly stated belief that everyone has a right to self defense. Does Iran have a right to self defense? If so, they have a right to nucs. While the President might not take that position for other reasons I would have expected you to. This is the second thread where you have deviated from what was a pretty clear position. Are you going liberal on us?
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Sep, 2011 05:38 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
Some libertarians appear to be pacifistic extremists.

Far from pacifists, I find that true libertarians (including Paul) are almost universally non-interventionist with a position that as long as you don't attack us you can do whatever you want. That position goes all the way back to the founding fathers.
engineer
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Sep, 2011 05:45 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

"Yeah, we can accept a future NUCLEAR 9/11 attack.
That 's OK because of the rights of the aliens that are nuking us" will lose viability.

But that is your exact position on hand guns. It is ok that every passerby has a gun because after they shoot you you can shoot them back, right? You've already defended the rights of convicted killers to have guns so why wouldn't you support the rights of "hostile" countries to have nucs? How is saying that the US can have nucs but no one else not analogous to saying that the police can have guns but no one else?
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Sep, 2011 05:51 pm
Quote:
Who, Precisely, Is Attacking the World?

Posted By Paul Craig Roberts On November 30, 2010 @ 11:00 pm

The stuck pigs are squealing. To shift the onus from the U.S. State Department, Hillary Clinton paints WikiLeaks’ release of the “diplomatic cables” as an “attack on the international community.” To reveal truth is equivalent, in the eyes of the U.S. government, to an attack on the world.

It is WikiLeaks’ fault that all those U.S. diplomats wrote a quarter of a million undiplomatic messages about America’s allies, a.k.a. puppet states. It is also WikiLeaks’ fault that a member of the U.S. government could no longer stomach the cynical ways in which the U.S. government manipulates foreign governments to serve, not their own people, but American interests, and delivered the incriminating evidence to WikiLeaks.

The U.S. government actually thinks that it was WikiLeaks’ patriotic duty to return the evidence and to identify the leaker. After all, we mustn’t let the rest of the world find out what we are up to. They might stop believing our lies.

The influential German magazine Der Spiegel writes: “It is nothing short of a political meltdown for U.S. foreign policy.”

This might be more a hope than a reality. The “Soviet threat” during the second half of the 20th century enabled U.S. governments to create institutions that subordinated the interests of other countries to those of the U.S. government. After decades of following U.S. leadership, European “leaders” know no other way to act. Finding out that the boss badmouths and deceives them is unlikely to light a spirit of independence. At least not until America’s economic collapse becomes more noticeable.

The question is: how much will the press tell us about the documents? Spiegel itself has said that the magazine is permitting the U.S. government to censor, at least in part, what it prints about the leaked material. Most likely, this means the public will not learn the content of the 4,330 documents that “are so explosive that they are labeled ‘NOFORN,’” meaning that foreigners, including presidents, prime ministers, and security services that share information with the CIA are not permitted to read the documents. Possibly, also, the content of the 16,652 cables classified as “secret” will not be revealed to the public.

Most likely the press, considering their readers’ interests, will focus on gossip and the unflattering remarks Americans made about their foreign counterparts. It will be good for laughs. Also, the U.S. government will attempt to focus the media in ways that advance U.S. policies.

Indeed, it has already begun. On Nov. 29, National Public Radio emphasized that the cables showed that Iran was isolated even in the Muslim world, making it easier for the Israelis and Americans to attack. The leaked cables reveal that the president of Egypt, an American puppet, hates Iran, and the Saudi Arabian government has been long urging the U.S. government to attack Iran. In other words, Iran is so dangerous to the world that even its co-religionists want Iran wiped off the face of the earth.

NPR presented several nonobjective “Iranian experts” who denigrated Iran and its leadership and declared that the U.S. government, by resisting its Middle Eastern allies’ call for bombing Iran, was the moderate in the picture. The fact that President George W. Bush declared Iran to be a member of “the axis of evil” and threatened repeatedly to attack Iran and that President Obama has continued the threats – Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, has just reiterated that the U.S. hasn’t taken the attack option off the table – are not regarded by American “Iran experts” as indications of anything other than American moderation.

Somehow it did not come across the NPR newscast that it is not Iran but Israel that routinely slaughters civilians in Lebanon, Gaza, and the West Bank, and that it is not Iran but the U.S. and its NATO mercenaries who slaughter civilians in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, and Pakistan.

Iran has not invaded any of its neighbors, but the Americans are invading countries halfway around the globe.

The “Iranian experts” treated the Saudi and Egyptian rulers’ hatred of Iran as a vindication of the U.S. and Israeli governments’ demonization of Iran. Not a single “Iranian expert” was capable of pointing out that the tyrants who rule Egypt and Saudi Arabia fear Iran because the Iranian government represents the interests of Muslims, and the Saudi and Egyptian governments represent the interests of the Americans.

Think what it must feel like to be a tyrant suppressing the aspirations of your own people in order to serve the hegemony of a foreign country, while a nearby Muslim government strives to protect its people’s independence from foreign hegemony.

Undoubtedly, the tyrants become very anxious. What if their oppressed subjects get ideas? Little wonder the Saudi and Egyptian rulers want the Americans to eliminate the independent-minded country that is a bad example for Egyptian and Saudi subjects.

As long as the dollar has enough value that it can be used to purchase foreign governments, information damaging to the U.S. government is unlikely to have much affect. As Alain of Lille said a long time ago, “Money is all.”

http://original.antiwar.com/roberts/2010/11/30/who-precisely-is-attacking-the-world/

0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  2  
Reply Sun 25 Sep, 2011 06:36 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
I wish to apologize to u, Thomas.

Apology accepted.

Independent of that, I don't understand the relevance of the US constitution to your argument. Being a constitution, it governs the legal relationship between American citizens and their federal government, and between the various branches of the US government. The legal relationship between America and Iran, by contrast, is governed by international law, not the US constitution. What part of international law says Iran needs the US government's permission to build the bomb? And why didn't the same part of international law require that America get Iran's permission before building her own?
RABEL222
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Sep, 2011 10:22 pm
@Thomas,
logic rather than emotion? Your going to bring these sites to a screeching halt.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/31/2024 at 09:28:22