Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ron Paul: A New Beginning
Zerohedge.com ^ | 11-11-2012 | Ron Paul (Via Tyler Durden)

Posted on 11/11/2012 5:29:55 PM PST by Renfield

America is over $16 trillion in debt. The “official” unemployment rate still hovers around 8%.

Our federal government claims the right to spy on American citizens, indefinitely detain them, and even assassinate them without trial.

Domestic drones fly over the country for civilian surveillance.

Twelve million fewer Americans voted in 2012 than in 2008, yet political pundits scratch their heads.

It’s not hard to see why, though.

To go along with endorsing a never-ending policy of bailouts, “stimulus packages,” and foreign military adventurism, the establishment of neither major party questions the assaults on Americans’ liberties I’ve named above.

As my campaign showed, the American people are fed up. Many realized heading into Tuesday that regardless of who won the presidential election, the status quo would be the real victor.

GOP leadership is now questioning why they didn’t perform better.

They’re looking at demographic changes in the United States and implying minorities can only be brought into the party by loudly advocating for abandoning what little remains of their limited government platform and endorsing more statist policies.

My presidential campaign proved that standing for freedom brings people together.

Liberty is popular – regardless of race, religion, or creed.

As long as the GOP establishment continues to not only reject the liberty message, but actively drive away the young, diverse coalition that supports those principles, it will see results similar to Tuesday’s outcome.

A renewed respect for liberty is the only way forward for the Republican Party and for our country.

I urge all my Republican colleagues to join the liberty movement in fighting for a brighter future.


TOPICS: Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: gop; liberty; paul; ronpaul; ronpaul2012
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-152 next last
To: OneWingedShark
You are deliberately lying and exaggerating just to fit your own narrative. There is a world of difference between Romney and Obama and even if there weren't it would still have been worth the risk to change leadership at the top. The "risk" would have been well worth it.

It is not even smart to have rejected the opportunity to replace Obama. You must have some kind of hatred toward your country to deny us the opportunity to rid ourselves of this evil, evil person.

101 posted on 11/13/2012 5:20:37 AM PST by Conservativegreatgrandma
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

You really need to get over yourself. This is about YOU—to hell with your country. Narcissists are dangerous people—be they on the right or the left. I can’t get over how people can put themselves above their country.


102 posted on 11/13/2012 5:22:42 AM PST by Conservativegreatgrandma
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe
If you want to hear a very long story, I can tell you about the crazy dysfunctional Paulbots and the destruction they have brought to the formerly thriving RPI of Iowa. If they are any indication of how Ron Paul would have led, we've dodged a great big bullet.

Santorum won Iowa with Romney a short second. Iowa's nutcase Ron Paul delegates went to Tampa and cast their votes for Ron Paul when he didn't deserve a one of them. Plus, they lied because our loser of a state party chairman, A.J. Spiker told Iowa they would go to Tampa and vote for the party nominee--Romney.

To make matter worse, even Spiker voted for Paul.

103 posted on 11/13/2012 5:28:33 AM PST by Conservativegreatgrandma
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe

“Like removing prayer form the public schools? Like mandating that someone cannot be fired because they are homosexual? That kind of Government?”

No fool....the exact opposite. This is NOT enforceing behavior conducive to the beterment of society but to its degradation. I am advocating that government should be Judeo/Christian morality based...not secular. I do not see that a a violation of the 1st Ammendment because it is NOT setting up a State Religion that the people pay tax to support like in England (original intent of the constitution). I take it we both agree that abuses have been done in the name of goverment....but it cuts both ways.

I do NOT want to become a Christian Taliban, but the pendulum needs to swing the other direction.


104 posted on 11/13/2012 5:48:04 AM PST by Sola Veritas (Trying to speak truth - not always with the best grammar or spelling)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: CaptainKrunch
Minimalist government is the point. At the time of our War for Independence, Americans had grown tired of British restrictions on foreign trade, religious liberties, and migration to uninhabited territories, as well as British interference with colonial governments. Look at the list of grievances in the Declaration of Independence. The Federalist Papers sold the Constitution to the American people as a minimalist government.

Ron Paul is opposed to abortion under any circumstances, but believes that it is a matter properly left to the states, as was the case pre-1973. With respect to homosexual "marriages", he believes the matter is best left outside of the realm of government. Prior to the late 19th Century, marriages were matters handled by the clergy or perhaps a justice of the peace. Genealogists researching ancestors prior to 1880 rely on parish records in the areas of birth and marriage, rather than state or county records.

Were the United States to return to minimalist government, it is likely that abortion would be legal in New York up to the third trimester, illegal in South Carolina except to preserve the life of the mother, and restricted to the first trimester in Virginia. Homosexual "marriages" would be legal in the Northeast (except Pennsylvania), the West Coast, and the Great Lakes states (except Wisconsin).

My primary objection to Paul relates to his naivete regarding America's enemies in the Middle East, his apparent abandonment of long standing alliances (not unlike Obama). Even Jefferson, one of the most anti-interventionist politicians in the early Republic, faced down the Barbary pirates, who were an early version of Muslim terrorists.

105 posted on 11/13/2012 5:59:31 AM PST by Wallace T.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Sola Veritas
I was talking about the government we have, not what it should be.

Government, as viewed by the founders, governed best when it governed least.

The Founders would never have imagined a government that followed them into the privvy, but ours has usurped that power.

Power corrupts, and our Federal Government has hoodwinked, swindled, and outright usurped far too much of the power which rightfully belongs to the several States and the people.

The less it decides for the individual, the better, and the less expensive it will be--both in terms of Rights and treasure.

People today put up with so much petty tyranny, they don't know what freedom is--not the freedom from responsibility, but the freedom to be responsible, unfettered by bureaucratic chains.

Ideally, as written, our government would be moral and just, and follow the Judeo/Christian ethos.

I, too, want government to safeguard my rights, not deprive me of them under colour of law.

The latter is what has been happening as the Government has grown, and the only way to reclaim those Rights is to shrink Government, both in size and scope.

106 posted on 11/13/2012 7:36:20 AM PST by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: Conservativegreatgrandma
You really need to get over yourself. This is about YOU—to hell with your country. Narcissists are dangerous people—be they on the right or the left. I can’t get over how people can put themselves above their country.

Excuse me, but it's not about me -- except insofar as I will no longer vote for somebody, anybody, based on the "the other guy's worse" argument.
That was most of the John McCain bid, and nearly all of the Romney run.

107 posted on 11/13/2012 8:22:31 AM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe

Excellent post.


108 posted on 11/13/2012 8:26:49 AM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: Alaska Wolf
How many states did Ron Paul carry in his flip flop Libertarian/Republican presidential runs?

How many elections has your liberal, mittens ever won?

109 posted on 11/13/2012 3:02:48 PM PST by Sirius Lee (RE SP - Republicans, from Mitt Romney ..to Karl Rove... are said to be concerned she will win.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Sirius Lee
How many elections has your liberal, mittens ever won?

Mine? Liberal mittens? LOL! There is a reason you are known as Paultards/libtards.

110 posted on 11/13/2012 4:15:18 PM PST by Alaska Wolf (USA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe
LIBERTY comes with responsibility

if everyone was honest, honorable and responsible, we wouldn't need so many laws, would we?

111 posted on 11/13/2012 4:28:30 PM PST by Alaska Wolf (USA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe

“The Founders would never have imagined a government that followed them into the privvy, but ours has usurped that power.”

I disagree strongly. NEVER in the COTUS did the founders remotely guarantee a Right to Privacy....the idiot arguements of Roe V Wade.

Also, you cannot convince me that the Founders ever intended immoral behavior (like homosexuality between “conscenting adults”) to be protected by privacy.

The best one can argue is that they felt state or local government could best handle this. However, what if they don’t? The Founders would NEVER have allowed a State like Nevada to have legal prositution.

Libertarian reasoning is terribly flawed and based upon a total misunderstanding of what was intened by those that ratified the constitution. They would NEVER have agreed with the Libertarian sophistry of “two consenting adults”...NEVER EVER. It just wasn’t in the mental make up of the people at the time. Even the irreligious would not expect their vices to be “legal.”

In a perfect world where the people were inately moral, and thus self policing, a need for laws to restrain their behavior would not be necessary. That is NOT the case these days and has not been for decades...probably almost a century.

Government is ALWAYS necessary. In principle I agree the smaller the better. However, I am realistic in knowing people MUST be restrained by law. States cannot be trusted to do so anymore. For that matter, a state can sometimes be more draconian than the federal government. A state or local government can oppress just as much a federal one can.


112 posted on 11/13/2012 5:32:10 PM PST by Sola Veritas (Trying to speak truth - not always with the best grammar or spelling)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Alaska Wolf
if everyone was honest, honorable and responsible, we wouldn't need so many laws, would we?

As if the laws really affect those who are not honest, honorable, and responsible!

A bunch of ink on a sheet of paper isn't much deterrence to anyone who isn't honest, honorable, or responsible. They break the laws wholesale. Otherwise, laws would stop 'crime'.

There'd be no murder, rape, robbery, or assault.

So what do we get with all those laws?

We find homeowners fined and told to tear down their house because they filled in a low spot in the yard.

Those bent on murder and mayhem continue, little abated. You read about it every day, but in places you can end up in jail for just having the means to defend against it--and those are the crimes which are universally accepted as such.

We have far more laws than we need, not because we need them, but because they are a means of ensuring just about everyone in the population is guilty of some infraction,great or small. It is a device for control, far beyond common sense. We also have laws which say it is okay to murder children in the womb, so I wouldn't put too much stock in the law as a saviour of civilization.

113 posted on 11/13/2012 5:38:16 PM PST by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Sola Veritas
I disagree strongly. NEVER in the COTUS did the founders remotely guarantee a Right to Privacy...

Go read the 4th Amendment. You are right, it isn't in the Constitution, it is in the Bill of Rights--amendments without which the Constitution would not have been ratified.

You nitwit. I'm not a Libertarian, I'm a Constitutionalist.

The founders didn't put a right to life in the Constitution, either. Silly chaps, they thought that was self-evident and unalienable. Apparently they couldn't envision the statist mentality which would sanction the murder of its own citizens in the womb, nor spend its time peeking in the window.

Government is ALWAYS necessary. In principle I agree the smaller the better. However, I am realistic in knowing people MUST be restrained by law. States cannot be trusted to do so anymore. For that matter, a state can sometimes be more draconian than the federal government. A state or local government can oppress just as much a federal one can.

Let's get something straight.

If the law was so bloody good at restraining people we'd have an absence of crime. Oh. What? people break the law? Well, I guess it doesn't do so well.

Of course some of the laws we can break now include praying in school or a public place (unless you're Muslim, which is an establishment of Religion, but that's another topic).

Other laws say it is OK to murder a child in the womb.

They say you can't fire a homosexual (unless you can really, really prove some other law was broken) or other members of 'protected classes', but not just for nauseating fellow employees with their 'pride'.

While State and Local government can be oppressive, none can quite pull it off like the Federal Government with it's one-size fits all approach to problems, kinda like blizzard-proofing your home in So Cal, or earthquake codes in North Dakota.

The law is only a device for controlling those willing to submit to it, and with all the laws we have, governing who can cut down a tree, who can or cannot fill in a hole in their back yard--or for that matter, dig one, we have too many laws.

But as I said earlier there are people on this forum who don't even understand freedom, to whom Liberty is such an alien concept they will cling to the robes of their masters, proudly wearing their chains. Enjoy them.

114 posted on 11/13/2012 5:57:27 PM PST by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe
As if the laws really affect those who are not honest, honorable, and responsible!

Then why have laws, limits or restrictions of any kind? Obviously man is incapable of following the Golden Rule. Many are just too stupid and need to be told what not to do. Do you honestly believe that murder, rape, robbery, etc., rates would diminish if there weren't laws against the aforementioned?

115 posted on 11/13/2012 6:16:24 PM PST by Alaska Wolf (USA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
I will no longer vote for somebody, anybody, based on the "the other guy's worse" argument.

Are you married? Is your spouse the most intelligent, beautiful, moral, loyal, loving, caring, patient, humane and humble memebr of the opposite sex?

116 posted on 11/13/2012 6:28:28 PM PST by Alaska Wolf (USA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Renfield
A renewed respect for liberty is the only way forward for the Republican Party and for our country.

Well said.

117 posted on 11/13/2012 6:44:07 PM PST by sargon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alaska Wolf

>>I will no longer vote for somebody, anybody, based on the “the other guy’s worse” argument.
>
>Are you married?

No.

>Is your spouse the most intelligent, beautiful, moral, loyal, loving, caring, patient, humane and humble memebr of the opposite sex?

Given my above answer: yes.


118 posted on 11/13/2012 6:51:22 PM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: Alaska Wolf; Smokin' Joe
>>LIBERTY comes with responsibility
>
>if everyone was honest, honorable and responsible, we wouldn't need so many laws, would we?

Observed in Rome:
“The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws.” – Tacitus

119 posted on 11/13/2012 6:56:59 PM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
No.

I understand why.

120 posted on 11/13/2012 7:28:12 PM PST by Alaska Wolf (USA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: Alaska Wolf

>>No.
>
>I understand why.

Then by all means, please elaborate.


121 posted on 11/13/2012 7:35:22 PM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
Observed in Rome: “The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws.” – Tacitus

Is there a way to unequivocally prove that? Does Illinois, for instance, have more laws than New York, Florida and Massachusetts?

122 posted on 11/13/2012 7:44:52 PM PST by Alaska Wolf (USA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
Then by all means, please elaborate.

No person could ever possibly meet your expectations of perfection.

123 posted on 11/13/2012 7:48:01 PM PST by Alaska Wolf (USA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: gunsequalfreedom
Rand just endorsed "amnesty" for the 12M illegals living here. He thinks they'll assimilate nicely.

No thanks, Rand!

124 posted on 11/13/2012 7:54:52 PM PST by Jane Long ("Miss me yet?" - Mitt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Alaska Wolf
No person could ever possibly meet your expectations of perfection.

Heh -- That might be worth something if I was looking for perfection, I'm not.

125 posted on 11/13/2012 7:55:13 PM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: Alaska Wolf
How about sticking with the basics?

No stealing, assault, murdering, rape, nor treason?

Fraud is stealing (you aren't getting what you pay for). Abortion is Murder.

Even with just a few laws you will still have lawbreakers, but the rules will be easier to understand and harder to circumvent.

Do you honestly think the presence of a few paragraphs in a book somewhere will stop anyone from doing anything they are determined to do?

Only moral people or people who fear losing something or people who just have no desire to break them will obey them, anyway.

But ours isn't a situation where the only choices are literally millions of overlapping and often conflicting laws and regulations, versus no laws at all.

Those powers not granted specifically to the Federal Government were reserved to the States and the people.

There is a broad middle ground which can be far less invasive and overbearing than the mess we have now, more responsive to the needs of an area, and requires far fewer extra-Constitutional Federal agencies and officers to enforce.

Let the Federal agencies return to the task of 'guarding the guards' and guarding the borders, rather than be the primary enforcers of those state laws, and be the bastion against corruption rather than the source of it.

126 posted on 11/13/2012 9:14:04 PM PST by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: Jane Long
Rand just endorsed "amnesty" for the 12M illegals living here. He thinks they'll assimilate nicely. No thanks, Rand!

I'm all for it. There is no practical way to deport 12 million people and anyone that thinks it can be done is delusional.

The GOP had a chance to do something about this issue and did not.

It does not matter either way, GOP voters will continue to bicker over single issues while the only issue that really matters at this point is the deficit and the debt. If that does not get solved - if it can be at this point - no other side issue or concern has a chance.

You better get your priorities straight.

127 posted on 11/13/2012 10:47:03 PM PST by gunsequalfreedom (Conservative is not a label of convenience. It is a guide to your actions.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: gunsequalfreedom

No one in their right mind gives a s**t what he thinks.


128 posted on 11/13/2012 10:51:41 PM PST by Calpublican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: billys kid
I’m sorry but if libertians draw no line in the sand with regards to the murdering of children in the womb, then they become a culture of death not liberty. The child in the womb is a seperate body from that of the mother. Sheesh!

Have you noticed that you are not winning that debate. I agree with you. But if you can't save all of them, do you think you might consider saving some of the unborn. Have you noticed who will be appointing the next Supreme Court justices?

129 posted on 11/13/2012 10:52:20 PM PST by gunsequalfreedom (Conservative is not a label of convenience. It is a guide to your actions.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: dbeall
Rand has no more chance of getting elected than Ron did.

You are correct. The GOP establishment will pounce on him. As Rand said, "The Dems want to cut nothing and the GOP wants to cut next to nothing. Neither party comprehends the magnitude of the problem."

On a side note, what exactly does it mean when the Federal government spend $360 billion more in October than it took received in October?

130 posted on 11/13/2012 10:57:29 PM PST by gunsequalfreedom (Conservative is not a label of convenience. It is a guide to your actions.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Calpublican

Don’t listen to me tonight. I’m in a real crappy mood and just spouting off.


131 posted on 11/13/2012 10:59:44 PM PST by gunsequalfreedom (Conservative is not a label of convenience. It is a guide to your actions.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe
How about sticking with the basics?

I did. You failed to address the question. " Do you honestly believe that murder, rape, robbery, etc., rates would diminish if there weren't laws against them"?

132 posted on 11/13/2012 11:52:05 PM PST by Alaska Wolf (USA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: Alaska Wolf
You might have stuck with the basics, but you apparently didn't read the second line. No stealing, assault, murdering, rape, nor treason?

I also said simply, that no law will stop the determined.

Do you think that people will instantly go on homicidal looting and pillaging sprees without the law?

Do you think another law will cause criminals to stop suddenly and give up their life of crime?

Get it through your head that criminals don't care what the law is. That is why they are criminals--at least the rape, murder, and stealing lot.

There are also "criminals" who, as I said, filled in a low spot in their yard (Failed to file an EIS and damaged an intermittent wetland without a permit), or violated some other arcane regulation, regulations which are being promulgated or amended at the rate of hundreds of pages daily in the Federal Register. Light toilet reading? I don't have the time, nor do most people to keep up with the changing rules. That's too many, when the basic crimes against person and property really haven't changed.

But hey, if you like BIG Government, that's up to you. As for me, give me Liberty.

133 posted on 11/14/2012 12:25:01 AM PST by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe

You still failed to address the question. Another one for you; Are you an anarchist?


134 posted on 11/14/2012 1:07:55 AM PST by Alaska Wolf (USA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: Alaska Wolf
As I have said in this thread I am not an anarchist, I am a Constitutionalist.

I believe the specific duties and powers of the Federal Government were laid out in the Constitution and restricted by the Bill of Rights.

What was not delegated to the Federal Government belongs to the States and the People.

Most of what our (Federal) government is doing is well outside the scope of original intent, even allowing for technological changes.

Restoring those boundaries and reigning in the Federal Government would go a long way toward eliminating Federal deficits and reducing Federal debt, and would encourage the states to be fiscally responsible as well because they would have to take up the slack.

135 posted on 11/14/2012 1:41:17 AM PST by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe
I am not an anarchist, I am a Constitutionalist.

Fine. You still failed to address the question I posed earlier. Without laws and penalties for breaking them, you have anarchy.

136 posted on 11/14/2012 2:04:32 AM PST by Alaska Wolf (USA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe
Most of what our (Federal) government is doing is well outside the scope of original intent, even allowing for technological changes.

Why do you believe people decided we needed zoning laws, littering laws, vehicle laws, hunting and fishing laws, etc.?

137 posted on 11/14/2012 2:22:48 AM PST by Alaska Wolf (USA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: Alaska Wolf
I have never said NO laws. I said stick to the basics. With laws, all you have is a set of rules by which those who break them anyway can be punished. Having laws doesn't stop the laws from being broken any more than a red light can stop a truck with no brakes or an inattentive driver.

Laws will only constrain those willing to abide by them. Too many laws and there is no way for even those most inclined to abide by all of them. That paves the way for tyranny.

138 posted on 11/14/2012 2:22:53 AM PST by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe
I said stick to the basics.

Who determines what is basic? " Do you honestly believe that murder, rape, robbery, etc., rates would diminish if there weren't laws against them"?

139 posted on 11/14/2012 2:28:30 AM PST by Alaska Wolf (USA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: Alaska Wolf
Red herring.

Those are almost all State and local ordinances, not something imposed on the entire population from afar.

If people don't like them they can vote out the SOBs who wrote them and have the laws, etc. removed.

Fat chance with doing that from any election district against a Federal Law.

Why do you think people are fighting Agenda 21--as if we need the UN to tell us what we can do with our back yards.

Zoning laws at best provide for reasonable planning (things like keeping the school from having a chemical plant next door),--at worst decide who can and cannot develop their property to their advantage, but when adjacent property is developed, taxation can be used (with reassessment) to force a sale of that same property to cronies of those on the zoning board, and then the property (after the forced sale) gets the OK to be developed and everyone but the original owner (who wanted to develop in the first place) cashes in. It can work either way, and I have seen both.

Littering laws are a means by which to punish the messy. How often are they enforced, really, except as a petulant imposition by a ticked off police officer who has little or nothing else to charge someone with? No I'm not for littering, just being realistic.

Vehicle laws? Which ones? The ones which say you can't drive a car without a catalytic converter on it if made after 1975 in the middle of nowhere in North Dakota? Or the ones which rationally attempt to limit the speeds at which drivers drive in certain areas where you might get run over if you try to go that slow? Right of way laws (make sense, pity so many don't understand them or ignore them). Licensing laws? (revenue)...Liability Insurance laws? only those with something to lose need apply. They also pick up the tab for 'uninsured motorist' coverage, the laws are so effective.

Hunting and fishing laws: often actually requested by conservationists and hunters to manage game populations. Make sense, but only rarely if enacted by the Federal Government (to limit invasive species)--keep them at the State level.

But again, the laws which make the most sense aren't the one-size-fits-all Federal edicts which can't rationally cover the wide scope of geographic and cultural environs in the US, except for the basics. Leave the details up to the individual States or more local jurisdictions, as the Founders intended.

140 posted on 11/14/2012 2:43:35 AM PST by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: Alaska Wolf
Who determines what is basic? " Do you honestly believe that murder, rape, robbery, etc., rates would diminish if there weren't laws against them"?

Well, duh. You just listed three. Aren't those the offenses that almost everyone would agree are wrong? In fact, I listed them, too. See we can agree on what is a crime!

Stupid question, and I never advocated not having laws against those offenses. I haven't advocated anarchy, just that 'the Government which governs best, governs least'. Now, for extra credit, which of the Founders said that?

141 posted on 11/14/2012 2:57:42 AM PST by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe
But again, the laws which make the most sense aren't the one-size-fits-all Federal edicts

Which of the so-called one size fits all federal edicts are you referring to?

You still haven't addressed this question; " Do you honestly believe that murder, rape, robbery, etc., rates would diminish if there weren't laws against them"?

If people don't like them they can vote out the SOBs who wrote them and have the laws, etc. removed.

We can do that with our senators and congressmen also.

Vehicle laws? Which ones? The ones which say you can't drive a car without a catalytic converter on it if made after 1975 in the middle of nowhere in North Dakota?

Can you post the law to which you are referring? Why do you believe we have speed limits and reduced speed school zones?

142 posted on 11/14/2012 3:05:39 AM PST by Alaska Wolf (USA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe
Well, duh.

What took you so long to come up with that response?

Government which governs best, governs least'.

It has been attributed to Adams, Paine, Jefferson, Thoreau and Emerson.

For extra credit which POTUS said this; "None of the four wars in my lifetime came about because we were too strong. It is weakness that invites adventurous adversaries to make mistaken judgments. America is the most peaceful, least warlike nation in modern history. We are not the cause of all the ills of the world. We're a patient and generous people. But for the sake of our freedom and that of others, we cannot permit our reserve to be confused with a lack of resolve."

143 posted on 11/14/2012 3:23:57 AM PST by Alaska Wolf (USA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: Alaska Wolf
You still haven't addressed this question; " Do you honestly believe that murder, rape, robbery, etc., rates would diminish if there weren't laws against them"?

STUPID, RHETORICAL, QUESTION There's all the answer that BS gets. We can do that with our senators and congressmen also.

The laws are imposed by the same people who you say will repeal them, or the regulations are promulgated at the behest of the selfsame Congress through legislation and their abdication of the legislative fine points to a regulatory (executive) agency.

At that point it is out of the Congress' hands. How many such regulations has the Congress repealed? (and don't even try to tell me that they were all perfect).

As for the chances of getting COngress to repeal it directly, how many one-termers are there in any given Congress?

Will they even bother?

It. Won't. Happen.

There is no precedent.

Can you post the law to which you are referring?

Yes. Right here $25,000 fine, which was three times the price of a nice pickup in 1975. Mechanics would not remove the damned things, nor could individuals, legally, even though they were a fire hazard on the prairie.

Why do you believe we have speed limits and reduced speed school zones?

"Or the ones which

in certain areas where you might get run over if you try to go that slow?"

found here, in the post you either did not read or did not comprehend. Rationally, as in "makes sense". That does not preclude mass civil disobedience, although that is normally on the open highway and not in school zones because no one wants to hit a kid. I actually drive slower there than many of the parents, because I know how kids get excited and don't pay attention.

Now, you didn't answer my question, either.

How about it?

Who said "The Government which governs best governs least."?

144 posted on 11/14/2012 3:46:58 AM PST by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe
STUPID, RHETORICAL, QUESTION

No such critter. Only stupid answers.

Now, you didn't answer my question, either. How about it? Who said "The Government which governs best governs least."?

Already answered. Can't you read?

We the people, elect the lawmakers. It is our responsibility/duty to elect those who will abide by the electorates wishes.

Yes. Right here $25,000 fine, which was three times the price of a nice pickup in 1975. Mechanics would not remove the damned things, nor could individuals, legally, even though they were a fire hazard on the prairie.

I bought a new 1976 Ford F-250 4x4 and a new 1986 Ford E-350 Pathfinder 4x4 van, neither of which had a catalytic converter. The van came stock with dual exhaust and the truck was converted to dual exhaust.

145 posted on 11/14/2012 4:06:29 AM PST by Alaska Wolf (USA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: Alaska Wolf

Ronald Reagan.


146 posted on 11/14/2012 4:07:48 AM PST by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe
Ronald Reagan.

From many of his statements, directives and actions there are those that would accuse him of being a "globalist".

147 posted on 11/14/2012 4:15:05 AM PST by Alaska Wolf (USA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: Alaska Wolf
I can read fine, but when I am doing other things, I lack the psychic ability to see what you wrote before I click on the page.

We the people, elect the lawmakers. It is our responsibility/duty to elect those who will abide by the electorates wishes.

As I said, our State sends a whopping three votes to DC. That's a whopping 1/2 of 1%. When the people on the coasts who have never seen a winter at -30F or colder decide the rest of us (north of the 48th parallel) don't need heat, we can't outvote them, even with the might of our entire Congressional delegation.

Read at the link. If they weren't so equipped, there was nothing to remove. If they had them from the factory (and weren't Canadian vehicles) removing them was a crime, and in areas which have EPA style vehicle emissions inspections, they would have had to be retrofitted to pass.

I am sure everyone in your area suffered interminably because they couldn't breathe the 'healthy' stink of catalyzed exhaust. No wonder we need laws. (that's sarcastic, in case you missed it).

A lot of vehicles, including the Chevrolet 1/2 ton I was driving had 'em in '75.

148 posted on 11/14/2012 4:20:52 AM PST by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: Alaska Wolf
Well, it was his former Veep who was babbling at the podium about a "New World Order". Make of that what you will.

I actually think Reagan was consummate politician, a fine actor, and a good man who was Presidential in every aspect of the word.

That doesn't mean I agree with everything he did, but my views are colored by hindsight.

149 posted on 11/14/2012 4:24:41 AM PST by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe
As I said, our State sends a whopping three votes to DC. That's a whopping 1/2 of 1%

Same as Alaska.

When the people on the coasts who have never seen a winter at -30F or colder decide the rest of us (north of the 48th parallel) don't need heat, we can't outvote them, even with the might of our entire Congressional delegation.

Who decided you North Dakotans didn't need heat? When? I had good friends in the Minnewaukan area and they never mentioned it.

areas which have EPA style vehicle emissions inspections, they would have had to be retrofitted to pass.

I know Anchorage and Fairbanks were both federally mandated to have vehicle emissions testing because of air quality problems. Neither city as FAIK require them now because of advances in vehicle computerized fuel/air mixtures and unleaded fuels. I remember well the problems we had with the moisture absorbing oxygenated fuels

A lot of vehicles, including the Chevrolet 1/2 ton I was driving had 'em in '75.

There have been tremendous operating and mechanical improvements in vehicles since then. I do still own and operate a 78 Bronco and 79 F-250 plow truck.

I am sure everyone in your area suffered interminably because they couldn't breathe

Unfortunately for some in Anchorage and Fairbanks that was indeed a fact.

150 posted on 11/14/2012 5:52:28 PM PST by Alaska Wolf (USA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-152 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson