6
   

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

 
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Sep, 2011 11:58 pm
@Thomas,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
I wish to apologize to u, Thomas.
Thomas wrote:
Apology accepted.
Beyond apologizing, my candor and your merit move me to acknowledge
that altho we don 't agree on much, I have found your posted thoughts
to have been the most rational and less influenced by emotion
posts of anyone with whom I disagree in this forum.
Tho I have found your ultimate conclusions, in my opinion,
to be in error, for reasons that I can designate on a case-by-case basis,
I have observed that u have ofen built beautiful, admirable architectural supports
for your intellectual edifices and that u have accomplished this with civility (unlike some people)
in the absence of ad hominem invective. That is close to unique in this forum.
( I suspect that the dispassionate logic of a physicist is showing forth, in large part. )




Thomas wrote:
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,
Yes; it also creates principles of law applicable to curtail the power of State governments
to interfere with the citizens who reside in those States.




Thomas wrote:
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.
I don 't acknowledge much in the way of international law.
There r some treaties; that is about it.
I don 't think much of UN jurisdiction.
I am confident that the US Government does not have authority
to compromize American sovereignty.




Thomas wrote:
What part of international law says Iran needs the US government's permission to build the bomb?
There is nothing that I am aware of, Thomas.
I remain slow and skeptical to acknowledge the very existence of international law,
beyond some treaties from which we can freely withdraw, like the Book of the Month Club or the AAA.
I did not assert an argument that Iran violated any international law
in regard to nuclear weapons.

My argument is that (because we know that Moslem fanatics will nuke us
in a manner similar in principle to the attacks of 9/11/1, as soon as thay possibly CAN)
each candidate for the Presidency shoud promise to be attentive and aggressive in nipping this problem in the bud,
rather than be satisfied with lamenting the consequences AFTER we see the mushroom cloud.

As commander-in-chief of the US Armed Forces, the President shoud do what is necessary to disable that threat, ASAP,
using any tools in the American arsenal that r effective n convenient to the purpose.
His concerns are (or shoud be) limited to the contentment and well being of the citizens of America, not of aliens. (Obviously, Germany is safe.)






Thomas wrote:
And why didn't the same part of international law require that America get Iran's permission before building her own?
I am not aware that there exists any international law to that effect,
but assuming (for the sake of argument) that there IS something,
such a law conflicts with American sovereignty and we shoud deem it unConstitutional and therefore: void.

In other words:
the President 's loyalty is to the Supreme Law of the Land: the US Constitution, not to any international law.





David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Sep, 2011 12:11 am

I hope that Gary Johnson is not another fanatical pacifist, like Ron Paul.
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Sep, 2011 01:09 pm
@engineer,
Non-interventionist, not pacifist.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Sep, 2011 05:42 pm
@engineer,
engineer wrote:
Non-interventionist, not pacifist.
I gotta say:
I 'm very, VERY, pleased that the Jews chose to INTERVENE in 1981,
when thay bomed Saddam 's nuclear production facility.

Having a nuclear-armed Iraq was not my favorite thing.

Non-intervening, when your enemy is getting ready to take u out
can be a big mistake, reaching existential levels.





David
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
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/17/2019 at 12:03:41