185 votes

Open Thread: Free & Equal Third Party Debate

Vote for who you think won at FreeAndEqual.org.

Thank you to everyone who tuned in.

http://youtu.be/5EcaX12h46k (Thanks Maeve for the link)

Video & Book:

  • Grand Illusion: The Myth of Voter Choice in a Two-Party Tyranny - Including a letter of support by Ron Paul


  • Trending on the Web

    Comment viewing options

    Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

    Good job Larry King

    King did a much better job than the "Grunter," Anderson.

    Virgil Goode 2012

    "The Yankee is compelled to toil to make the world go around."
    -Admiral Raphael Semmes, CSN
    http://standrewsnews.org

    Gary Johnson's

    Pro-choice everything ie abortion, and gay marriage comments aren't libertarian.

    Neither are federal issues, and government shouldn't be licensing marriage.

    And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

    You're spreading lies...

    Gary Johnson has said it should be a state issue, you're twisting his positions into something they're not. You just want pro drug war, unconstitutionalist "Goode".

    You obviously don't know the

    You obviously don't know the positions of your own candidate very well. He wants to force the states via federal mandate to accept his definition of gay marriage. He has also said that abortion is best left to women doctors instead of government at any level. Those are his positions.

    He also supports a massive tax hike on the poor in the form of his 23% national sales tax, which would make every small business a federal tax collector and every citizen a welfare recipient with his so called prebate.

    He has also flipped flopped more times and more issues than the master flip flopper, Mitt.

    Those are not lies, those are facts. And that is why I am writing in Ron Paul.

    Ron Paul 2012 - It's Almost Here!

    "He wants to force the states

    "He wants to force the states via federal mandate"

    Because if one takes the position you should be free to marry whoever you want his point is it's a constitutional right.

    But regardless of one's opinion of gay marriage, civil unions, whatever your term of choice is, any topic related to this matter is hardly the most important issue affecting (and hurting) the nation.

    No, having a right does not

    No, having a right does not make it a constitutional or federal issue.

    Have you even read the constitution?

    And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

    I'm saying his position is

    I'm saying his position is it's a guaranteed matter under the constitution.

    There's no need for sarcasm, show a shred of respect. I didn't arrive to the party in 2007, some of us have been awake much longer than that.

    Apparently not, since

    Apparently not, since Johnson's position is obviously unconstitutional, and he is pandering to homosexual activists, per my original message.

    And I've been in the liberty movement more than 30 years.

    And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

    Is Ron Paul also pandering

    Is Ron Paul also pandering when he states he doesn't have a problem with gay people being legally bound but he prefers the term civil union?

    It's a quite a leap to say a candidate is pandering to gay activists. It's not like they are throwing gobs of money his way. If that's your argument then any and every position taken by a candidate could be considered pandering to some group, organization, etc.

    Ron Paul's actual stance on marriage

    Paul has been a cosponsor of the Marriage Protection Act in ... of the Defense of Marriage Act. Speaking in support of the ...

    And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

    Yes, he cosponsored the MPA.

    Yes, he cosponsored the MPA. This isn't news and it has nothing to do with the question posed.

    The question is Ron Paul

    Your question is Ron Paul pandering to homosexual activists?

    No.

    Gary Johnson is not being libertarian or constitutional on this issue. Just more of the same creepy stuff. The federal government should now be in the marriage business.

    And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

    RP isn't pandering when he

    RP isn't pandering when he states he's in favor of civil unions? That's hypocritical, you can't have it both ways.

    Actually it is libertarian and as far as he's concerned constitutional. Freedom to engage in "marriage" or a "civil union" if you prefer is pro-liberty. Restricting such an action is anti-liberty. Even the LP would disagree with you as would recent candidates like Browne (r.i.p.) and Badnarik. Sorry, saying "more of the same creepy stuff" isn't a real answer. You obviously don't like gays and find them creepy, that comes through clearly in your posts, and that's your prerogative. I do agree licensing of marriage is nonsense but one doesn't have to get a marriage license to be married anyway contrary to popular thought.

    And not that I'm a fan of abortion but you're wrong that being pro-choice isn't libertarian. It was even once a part of the LP's platform. Then they amended their platform to essentially say "this is a difficult issue which should be up to the individual" which isn't exactly a pro-life position.

    Bottom Line

    Bottom line: Gary Johnson wants to redefine marriage and Virgil Goode wants to preserve it. Both of them will use the Fed to this end.

    Virgil Goode 2012!

    "The Yankee is compelled to toil to make the world go around."
    -Admiral Raphael Semmes, CSN
    http://standrewsnews.org

    If you want to argue the

    If you want to argue the definition of marriage go look it up in a dictionary. You'll be disappointed to find a union between a man and woman is a definition, it's not the only definition. Webster has defined it for you.

    As a Catholic, there is and

    As a Catholic, there is and always will be only one definition of marriage.

    "The Yankee is compelled to toil to make the world go around."
    -Admiral Raphael Semmes, CSN
    http://standrewsnews.org

    As a Catholic, there is and

    As a Catholic, there is and always will be only one definition of marriage.

    That is until the politics in Rome change so much that they redefine it, or( since you didn't say what kind of Catholic you are) a different type of Catholic church say ok to gay marriage. I bet we see the Anglican Catholics in the USA eventually being ok with it; they (the Episcopal Church) already okay'd Same Sex Blessings.

    Definitions change all the time. The Liberal of the 19th century is very different from the Liberal of today. Perhaps the Marriage of today will be different from the marriage of tomorrow.

    If you're anti-gay union you

    If you're anti-gay union you need your own definition because the unpleasant truth is it's not the only definition. GJ isn't looking to redefine anything. Marriage already has its own definitions.

    He's straight up said he is against the decision

    In Roe v. Wade. I'm not sure how he's flip flopped.

    Also you're just plain lying in regards to the Fair Tax as you have to spend more than a certain amount for the tax to even hit you at all.

    Plus if it gets rid of the income tax, that's hardly "raising" taxes. Just switching to a different type of taxation. Besides, it would never get the 2/3rds majority required for a constitutional amendment.

    Just because he "thinks" something, doesn't change his legal positions which are pretty much exactly the same as Ron Paul's on abortion.

    I also don't think it is entirely unreasonable to make the argument the 14th Equal Protection Clause would force the states to treat people equally in terms of marriage licenses regardless of sexual orientation. That being said, I'm pretty sure he thinks this should be a state issue too. I forget honestly, because this just isn't an issue I care about and anyone hung up on just comes across as self-righteous and possibly a bigot.

    So in caring for the

    So in caring for the preservation of marriage or a baby's life is "self-righteous" and "bigot(ed)"? That's the difference between Constitutionalists and Libertarians. With y'all it's "whatever goes." With Constitutionalists it's "whatever's right." Economy takes a back-burner to these issues.

    "The Yankee is compelled to toil to make the world go around."
    -Admiral Raphael Semmes, CSN
    http://standrewsnews.org

    You're spreading slander

    Lying requires intent. So your post is a slanderous attack. I don't lie.

    Gary Johnson did not say in the debate it should be a state issue. He said in the part that I listened to it was a civil rights issue.

    That's several cuts below Ron Paul, who doesn't even think the civil rights act was constitutional. The actual one, not some made up "gay rights".

    Real rights are universal. They don't apply to one class.

    And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

    If you really believed what you said...

    Then it would be a universal right to get married to whoever you wish. So, I really don't see how you're making any sense at all.

    If this is your one hangup issue... I don't know what to say... other than you and your friend DarthJ sound like theocrats who try to masquerade as libertarians.

    On come the denunciations....

    On come the denunciations.... But really, we are not "theocrats" (though you display many Robespierrian-type thoughts). If anything it is GJ Libertarians that have made a god of "absolute, unrestrained freedom."

    "The Yankee is compelled to toil to make the world go around."
    -Admiral Raphael Semmes, CSN
    http://standrewsnews.org

    You can call your dogs getting together marriage if you like

    Spoken like someone gay trying to sound libertarian.

    A) The federal government shouldn't be involved in marriages. It doesn't get any more obvious than that, except to Johnson.
    B) As a southern constitutionalist, there isn't any such thing as civil rights. The constitution is a compact between the States.
    C) States shouldn't be issuing marriage certificates either.
    D) You can call your dogs getting together marriage if you like, but don't expect anyone else to. And you can't force people to call it that.

    And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

    Virgil Goode 2012!

    Another Southern Constitutionalist! I told y'all this would come down on cultural lines! ;)

    "The Yankee is compelled to toil to make the world go around."
    -Admiral Raphael Semmes, CSN
    http://standrewsnews.org

    So now I'm gay?

    Hahaha. That's funny.

    Anyway, I agree with C and D. And mostly A, although honestly I can see the argument that the 14th Equal Protection Clause might apply to states supplying marriage licenses. Although, I don't even think GJ takes this position.

    As far as "B" goes, Civil Rights are simply rights protected by the government. I think the right to be treated equally under the law is something which should be a "Civil Right". Although I would be opposed to stuff like affirmative action as this seems contradictory to other Civil Rights.

    Social Contract, read about it sometime.

    Apparently MaxK

    Doesn't know the difference between "Natural Rights" and "Civil Rights". Although, it's not surprising given how important making sure them gays can't marry is to him.

    Tim - "Civil Rights are

    Tim - "Civil Rights are simply rights protected by the government."

    No, that is not what a civil right is. See below message again.

    And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

    A Civil Right is basically

    A Civil Right is basically nothing more than a right derived by the social contract, which isn't "from God" but from the government/state/country. So I'm not sure how I'm wrong... as functionally this is exactly what a Civil Right is. These are however entirely different from "Natural Rights".

    I think you're just trying to start trouble and keep an argument going is all I can figure at this point.

    Troll on dude. Troll on.

    No, that isn't what a civil

    No, that isn't what a civil right is.

    An unalienable right is a right that exists from God, and can't be taken away by a government. It's part of nature. You always have it. It's what makes right and wrong right and wrong.

    A civil right is something specifically from being a citizen of a country. A civil right might include voting - but that is completely different depending on which type of country you live in and if you are a citizen of not.

    Under our *actual*, the way it is suppose to be, government, we don't have a national government, but a federal government - and the constitution is a compact between the States, which means it is quite a bit different than what it is commonly thought of as being.

    And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.