Your home for discussing politics, the restored gospel of Jesus Christ, and the principles of liberty.
https://ldsfreedomforum.com/
I won't vote for someone that can't set up a functional website. If they can't manage a website how can I expect them to manage policy. I've never seen a Con. Party candidate meet this low bar.Aprhys wrote: ↑April 29th, 2019, 6:53 am I have been a Con. Party member for years. I used to be a county delegate. However, I would have to side with the Libertarian Party as far as electibility goes. I don't know where the Con. Party gets it's candidates. No offense but they may be the most intelligent and learned men and women but they look like slobs. They are usually really, really old. Seriously. They may be the exact men needed to turn America around but if they look like your old uncle, you know, the one with the rancid breath who gives you copies of "An enemy hath done this," for your wedding gift then who would listen to them much less vote for them.
We may find ourselves in complete agreement after a careful discussion of his message. But I will not resort to attacking the messenger based completely on his outward physical appearance.
Let me help you. ParticleMan said this above - "The question is about principles. Electability wasn't a criterion. if it were, one is left with the false dichotomy, and seemingly controlled opposition, of the present system. That being said, candidates rough around the edges indeed do not stand a chance in a culture of vanity."
Touche. I see your point in context. Without context your response was a classic ad honimen and I jumped too quick.EmmaLee wrote: ↑April 30th, 2019, 11:23 amLet me help you. ParticleMan said this above - "The question is about principles. Electability wasn't a criterion. if it were, one is left with the false dichotomy, and seemingly controlled opposition, of the present system. That being said, candidates rough around the edges indeed do not stand a chance in a culture of vanity."
Then I said this in response to his comment to show that, while I would normally agree with ParticleMan, in today's culture (which is more Satanically-driven than vanity-driven, IMO), candidates rough around the edges, like Bernie, actually DO stand a very good chance - "Yet look how popular wrinkled, messy-white-hair, can't-speak-intelligibly, old fart Bernie is."
My point was to show that a popular (fact), wrinkled (fact), old (fact) fart, with messy white hair (fact), who can't speak intelligibly (fact, unless maybe you grew up in Vermont) - in other words, someone who is "rough around the edges", does indeed stand a chance in the society we are now in. Bernie Sanders is a public figure - he's not your dear beloved uncle who posts on LDSFF. Public figures, and especially political figures, are fair game for any/all type of discussion. So you see, justme, politician's outward physical appearances ("culture of vanity") and the manner they come across to the public ("rough around the edges") is what I was addressing in relation to the post above mine.
Would you consider this statement below a "classic ad hominem"?justme wrote: ↑April 30th, 2019, 11:59 amTouche. I see your point in context. Without context your response was a classic ad honimen and I jumped too quick.EmmaLee wrote: ↑April 30th, 2019, 11:23 amLet me help you. ParticleMan said this above - "The question is about principles. Electability wasn't a criterion. if it were, one is left with the false dichotomy, and seemingly controlled opposition, of the present system. That being said, candidates rough around the edges indeed do not stand a chance in a culture of vanity."
Then I said this in response to his comment to show that, while I would normally agree with ParticleMan, in today's culture (which is more Satanically-driven than vanity-driven, IMO), candidates rough around the edges, like Bernie, actually DO stand a very good chance - "Yet look how popular wrinkled, messy-white-hair, can't-speak-intelligibly, old fart Bernie is."
My point was to show that a popular (fact), wrinkled (fact), old (fact) fart, with messy white hair (fact), who can't speak intelligibly (fact, unless maybe you grew up in Vermont) - in other words, someone who is "rough around the edges", does indeed stand a chance in the society we are now in. Bernie Sanders is a public figure - he's not your dear beloved uncle who posts on LDSFF. Public figures, and especially political figures, are fair game for any/all type of discussion. So you see, justme, politician's outward physical appearances ("culture of vanity") and the manner they come across to the public ("rough around the edges") is what I was addressing in relation to the post above mine.
Or are those things perfectly okay to say about someone if you don't like them?justme wrote:"As one that is convinced that the president is mentally unstable, I see nothing wrong with this. Have you read his tweets today. Absolutely disgusting that this person is our president."
No I do not see that as an ad hominem attack. His mental instability directly affects his performance and thus the "message". Likewise his immaturity as evidenced ad nauseum in his tweets. Now if I were to say that he wasn't a good president or that his policies were wrong because of the orangeness of his skin, the wierdness of his hairstyle, or the smallness of his hands then that would be ad hominem.EmmaLee wrote: ↑April 30th, 2019, 12:19 pmWould you consider this statement below a "classic ad hominem"?justme wrote: ↑April 30th, 2019, 11:59 amTouche. I see your point in context. Without context your response was a classic ad honimen and I jumped too quick.EmmaLee wrote: ↑April 30th, 2019, 11:23 amLet me help you. ParticleMan said this above - "The question is about principles. Electability wasn't a criterion. if it were, one is left with the false dichotomy, and seemingly controlled opposition, of the present system. That being said, candidates rough around the edges indeed do not stand a chance in a culture of vanity."
Then I said this in response to his comment to show that, while I would normally agree with ParticleMan, in today's culture (which is more Satanically-driven than vanity-driven, IMO), candidates rough around the edges, like Bernie, actually DO stand a very good chance - "Yet look how popular wrinkled, messy-white-hair, can't-speak-intelligibly, old fart Bernie is."
My point was to show that a popular (fact), wrinkled (fact), old (fact) fart, with messy white hair (fact), who can't speak intelligibly (fact, unless maybe you grew up in Vermont) - in other words, someone who is "rough around the edges", does indeed stand a chance in the society we are now in. Bernie Sanders is a public figure - he's not your dear beloved uncle who posts on LDSFF. Public figures, and especially political figures, are fair game for any/all type of discussion. So you see, justme, politician's outward physical appearances ("culture of vanity") and the manner they come across to the public ("rough around the edges") is what I was addressing in relation to the post above mine.
Or are those things perfectly okay to say about someone if you don't like them?justme wrote:"As one that is convinced that the president is mentally unstable, I see nothing wrong with this. Have you read his tweets today. Absolutely disgusting that this person is our president."
ad ho·mi·nem
adjective
1.
(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
adverb
1.
in a way that is directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
2.
in a way that relates to or is associated with a particular person.
I see.justme wrote: ↑April 30th, 2019, 1:00 pmNo I do not see that as an ad hominem attack. His mental instability directly affects his performance and thus the "message". Likewise his immaturity as evidenced ad nauseum in his tweets. Now if I were to say that he wasn't a good president or that his policies were wrong because of the orangeness of his skin, the wierdness of his hairstyle, or the smallness of his hands then that would be ad hominem.EmmaLee wrote: ↑April 30th, 2019, 12:19 pmWould you consider this statement below a "classic ad hominem"?justme wrote: ↑April 30th, 2019, 11:59 amTouche. I see your point in context. Without context your response was a classic ad honimen and I jumped too quick.EmmaLee wrote: ↑April 30th, 2019, 11:23 am
Let me help you. ParticleMan said this above - "The question is about principles. Electability wasn't a criterion. if it were, one is left with the false dichotomy, and seemingly controlled opposition, of the present system. That being said, candidates rough around the edges indeed do not stand a chance in a culture of vanity."
Then I said this in response to his comment to show that, while I would normally agree with ParticleMan, in today's culture (which is more Satanically-driven than vanity-driven, IMO), candidates rough around the edges, like Bernie, actually DO stand a very good chance - "Yet look how popular wrinkled, messy-white-hair, can't-speak-intelligibly, old fart Bernie is."
My point was to show that a popular (fact), wrinkled (fact), old (fact) fart, with messy white hair (fact), who can't speak intelligibly (fact, unless maybe you grew up in Vermont) - in other words, someone who is "rough around the edges", does indeed stand a chance in the society we are now in. Bernie Sanders is a public figure - he's not your dear beloved uncle who posts on LDSFF. Public figures, and especially political figures, are fair game for any/all type of discussion. So you see, justme, politician's outward physical appearances ("culture of vanity") and the manner they come across to the public ("rough around the edges") is what I was addressing in relation to the post above mine.
Or are those things perfectly okay to say about someone if you don't like them?justme wrote:"As one that is convinced that the president is mentally unstable, I see nothing wrong with this. Have you read his tweets today. Absolutely disgusting that this person is our president."
ad ho·mi·nem
adjective
1.
(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
adverb
1.
in a way that is directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
2.
in a way that relates to or is associated with a particular person.
By this logic you would've condemned the Ammonites and Nephites for booting Korihor out of their lands.gigarath24 wrote: ↑April 29th, 2019, 11:18 pm As a point of reference, I am biased so my answer will be too. I have been a dues paying member to the LNP since I could first vote. I have been a delegate to the LP Texas Convention 4 times, and have served in various capacities with local and county LP affiliates. Currently I am the membership coordinator for the Libertarian Party of Bexar County Texas.
As far as I know, there are only two things that all Libertarians can agree on, which is saying quite a lot. First, is that all members of the Libertarian Party must abide and believe in the NAP (Non-Aggression Principle) every dues paying member on the national level and many if not all the states have to declare that "I hereby certify that I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social goals". The second thing that all Libertarians can agree on is that the only laws that should be enacted are those that protect individuals against immediate and direct threats to a person's Life, Liberty, and Property. What this means in application is that unless someone is trying to kill you, abduct you, or destroy/take your stuff without your permission then you should mind your own business.
Having said that, as for me personally, and I would imagine most Libertarians as well would agree that the right for a person to say no always supersedes the right for someone to say yes. Meaning the right for a person to sell themselves as a prostitute supersedes your right to tell them that it is illegal. The right of you to take whatever drugs you want supersedes your right to tell them that they can't. A doctor's right to refuse services to a patient supersedes the right for a patient to demand services. With these rights comes responsibility. I have the right to life, therefore I have the right to defend my life with whatever means I deem necessary. I have the right to liberty, which means I have the right to protect my liberty. I have the right to property, which means I have the right to defend my property.
The rights of human beings is derived from the fact that they are an autonomous, sovereign, independent entity. Therefore the good of society must always be secondary to the good of the individual. Now that is not to say that individuals acting in their own best interests never act on behalf of the society, on the contrary. An individual to adequately protect their property directly effects in most if not all cases positively with regards to the security of the property of those in their vicinity. This is most notably the reason why the military consisting of a well trained and maintained militia is considered a public good. One who sees it in their best interest to fight for their homeland also protects those residing within their homeland, which is why the government should have the authority and duty to properly train and raise a military. On the other hand, dictating what another person does in their home with another adult would be a gross infringement upon their property, and their liberty. This is why when it comes to adults doing what they will so long as they are not harming the life, liberty, and/or property of other adults without or against their consent is of no concern to me or should it be of you.
Should the government even have a say what is or isn't marriage when it is a religious issue between consenting adults? I would say no.
Should the government prevent a corporation from polluting the air I breathe and water I drink thus endangering my life and my property? I would say yes to a certain extent.
Should the government tell anyone what they can and cannot put in their own body? I would say no.
Should the government have regulations for the welfare of children, when they are not considered old enough to consent to anything? I would say yes to a certain extent.
I think y'all get the idea.
Yes, I would agree that this is most correct -- Libertarian party is most compatible at the national level and Constitution party / Independent American party type of principles at the State level... although I don't belong to any of those parties and don't think any of them are 100% pro-liberty but they are much closer than the Democrats & Republicans.Jakealdrich5 wrote: ↑April 29th, 2019, 8:41 pm : As for me I like certain aspects of both. I think the best parts of both would make the perfect party. As for me I'm a libertarian on the national but a member of the constitution party of Texas on the state level.
No I do not. Here's why, the difference is that the land of the Nephites and the Ammonites were run only by those with the priesthood power. The United States is not. I believe that a government that only employs those who are authorized to act and speak in the name of God are allowed to set up a society in the manner of the Nephites. (i.e. The United Firm, Law of Consecration, Zion, etc.). Until such a time as a society is set up in such a manner, religion has no place in the laws of the land. Personally, I believe this is the reason why the United Firm no longer exists, because when Utah was handed over to the American authorities the power of God no longer ran the area.Moss Man wrote: ↑April 30th, 2019, 11:39 pmBy this logic you would've condemned the Ammonites and Nephites for booting Korihor out of their lands.gigarath24 wrote: ↑April 29th, 2019, 11:18 pm As a point of reference, I am biased so my answer will be too. I have been a dues paying member to the LNP since I could first vote. I have been a delegate to the LP Texas Convention 4 times, and have served in various capacities with local and county LP affiliates. Currently I am the membership coordinator for the Libertarian Party of Bexar County Texas.
As far as I know, there are only two things that all Libertarians can agree on, which is saying quite a lot. First, is that all members of the Libertarian Party must abide and believe in the NAP (Non-Aggression Principle) every dues paying member on the national level and many if not all the states have to declare that "I hereby certify that I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social goals". The second thing that all Libertarians can agree on is that the only laws that should be enacted are those that protect individuals against immediate and direct threats to a person's Life, Liberty, and Property. What this means in application is that unless someone is trying to kill you, abduct you, or destroy/take your stuff without your permission then you should mind your own business.
Having said that, as for me personally, and I would imagine most Libertarians as well would agree that the right for a person to say no always supersedes the right for someone to say yes. Meaning the right for a person to sell themselves as a prostitute supersedes your right to tell them that it is illegal. The right of you to take whatever drugs you want supersedes your right to tell them that they can't. A doctor's right to refuse services to a patient supersedes the right for a patient to demand services. With these rights comes responsibility. I have the right to life, therefore I have the right to defend my life with whatever means I deem necessary. I have the right to liberty, which means I have the right to protect my liberty. I have the right to property, which means I have the right to defend my property.
The rights of human beings is derived from the fact that they are an autonomous, sovereign, independent entity. Therefore the good of society must always be secondary to the good of the individual. Now that is not to say that individuals acting in their own best interests never act on behalf of the society, on the contrary. An individual to adequately protect their property directly effects in most if not all cases positively with regards to the security of the property of those in their vicinity. This is most notably the reason why the military consisting of a well trained and maintained militia is considered a public good. One who sees it in their best interest to fight for their homeland also protects those residing within their homeland, which is why the government should have the authority and duty to properly train and raise a military. On the other hand, dictating what another person does in their home with another adult would be a gross infringement upon their property, and their liberty. This is why when it comes to adults doing what they will so long as they are not harming the life, liberty, and/or property of other adults without or against their consent is of no concern to me or should it be of you.
Should the government even have a say what is or isn't marriage when it is a religious issue between consenting adults? I would say no.
Should the government prevent a corporation from polluting the air I breathe and water I drink thus endangering my life and my property? I would say yes to a certain extent.
Should the government tell anyone what they can and cannot put in their own body? I would say no.
Should the government have regulations for the welfare of children, when they are not considered old enough to consent to anything? I would say yes to a certain extent.
I think y'all get the idea.
The libertarian party seems better organised in the national level than the constitution party.B. wrote: ↑April 30th, 2019, 11:42 pmYes, I would agree that this is most correct -- Libertarian party is most compatible at the national level and Constitution party / Independent American party type of principles at the State level... although I don't belong to any of those parties and don't think any of them are 100% pro-liberty but they are much closer than the Democrats & Republicans.Jakealdrich5 wrote: ↑April 29th, 2019, 8:41 pm : As for me I like certain aspects of both. I think the best parts of both would make the perfect party. As for me I'm a libertarian on the national but a member of the constitution party of Texas on the state level.