Romney calling Trump 'phony,' urging Republicans to shun him

[dixierose]

It is hypocritical when in both instances he was speaking to Trump's character. He can't be both and great guy and outstanding business man while also being a scam artist and a charlatan.

I understand that. To be honest, I haven't read his entire statement...so I was making an incorrect assumption on what Romney said.

[Hawkgirl]

"Oh hay guys, I didn't know you had seats on this plane too."

That's such a great find..I need to save it and post to my FB page...

[USA4ME]

Do you see the difference between not supporting consensual behavior that does not directly harm another, and expecting the State to enforce my opposition to consensual behavior that does not directly harm another?

Who decides what is and isn't "consensual behavior that doesn't directly harm another"? Maybe the behavior harms society as a whole but the participants aren't willing to admit it.

Yes, I understand their position. But my religious convictions require more.

This is likely one of those agree to disagree topics.

.

[Big Dog]

Who decides what is and isn't "consensual behavior that doesn't directly harm another"? Maybe the behavior harms society as a whole but the participants aren't willing to admit it.

Yes, I understand their position. But my religious convictions require more.

This is likely one of those agree to disagree topics.

.

Probably so, my friend.

There is one thing I'd like to point out. There is no such critter as "society as a whole". It is an imaginary construct.

And your religion may require more from the government, but my liberty is not subordinate to your religion. That way lies sharia.

[RobJohnson]

And your religion may require more from the government, but my liberty is not subordinate to your religion. That way lies sharia.

I agree

[USA4ME]

There is one thing I'd like to point out. There is no such critter as "society as a whole". It is an imaginary construct.

I would mean that in the religious sense, that is, all the world. For instance, Jesus commanded his apostles to "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations." If someone were to say "all the nations" and "society as a whole" when having a religious conversation, I would think of them as the same.

.

[Ken8521]

Libertarians want to legalize drugs and prostitution, not outlaw abortion, and permit homosexual marriage and the like. As a Christian, I can't support these types of things.

.

^5

Totally agree.

[Duke Nukum]

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRB8Jor8tPs[/youtube]

[Big Dog]

I would mean that in the religious sense, that is, all the world. For instance, Jesus commanded his apostles to "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations." If someone were to say "all the nations" and "society as a whole" when having a religious conversation, I would think of them as the same.

Thanks! I understand your position better.

[USA4ME]

Thanks! I understand your position better.

And thanks to you and your understanding.

As far as Libertarians and their viewpoint, I generally understand what they're saying. But what happens is it butts up against the idea of "Can I belong an entity that would ask me to permit something of which I find to be morally wrong?" And I can't get past that.

That's one reason I could never be a Dem. Even if I agreed with them economically and was a socialist/communist, if I held the same religious convictions I do now and they continued to hold to "abortion is ok" and "homosexual marriage is ok" (just to name two prominent examples), for me to join them would be for me to indirectly approve.

It's also one reason I'm a registered Independent now, besides the fact that the GOP is trying to be a somewhat less liberal Dem party.

.

[Big Dog]

And thanks to you and your understanding.

As far as Libertarians and their viewpoint, I generally understand what they're saying. But what happens is it butts up against the idea of "Can I belong an entity that would ask me to permit something of which I find to be morally wrong?" And I can't get past that.

That's one reason I could never be a Dem. Even if I agreed with them economically and was a socialist/communist, if I held the same religious convictions I do now and they continued to hold to "abortion is ok" and "homosexual marriage is ok" (just to name two prominent examples), for me to join them would be for me to indirectly approve.

It's also one reason I'm a registered Independent now, besides the fact that the GOP is trying to be a somewhat less liberal Dem party.

 

[CollectivismMustDie]

Libertarians and conservatives disagree on the proper role of government. For us, government's legitimate role is to safeguard individual liberty, not to enforce morality, try to control culture and society, or redistribute wealth.

It's ok that we disagree, my friends. If we agreed all the time, we'd be as dull as DUmmies!

Well said Big Dog.



CMD

[CollectivismMustDie]

As far as Libertarians and their viewpoint, I generally understand what they're saying. But what happens is it butts up against the idea of "Can I belong an entity that would ask me to permit something of which I find to be morally wrong?" And I can't get past that.

That speaks a bit to your view of where and how the onus lies, and what the 'default' of things is. The default state for everything is "not prohibited", and there really isn't a more precise way to put it. Government can not "allow" anything. It can only prohibit. That may seem like a distinction without a difference, but it is far from one.

So the proper question is, can you belong to an entity which does not prohibit everything you think should be prohibited? And that question should be carefully considered against the fact that while you like the morality government might be enforcing today, you may not like it next term when someone elses morality if being enforced on you. And also, considered against a background of sharia, like Big Dog said. Why is your want of certain prohibitions based on your morals, different than someone elses wants for a different set based on their morals rather than yours?

The libertarian position (if I understand it correctly) is that we expect government to 'allow' nothing, since 'allowing' isn't governments place. We expect government to 'forbid' almost never, as governments proper role is to protect the rights of the individual rather than interfere with them. When those rights become endangered or interfered with, only then is it governments proper place to step in. Either way, that is my own personal opinion. A right jackboot in your ass has no greater appeal than a left jackboot in your ass. I have no claim against any ones life or liberty, and I reject any claims made against mine, openly or furtively. I resent both with equal measure.

“To secure these rights, governments are instituted among men”, with one of those rights being 'liberty'.

(I took no offense by your post, and intend none by this one, but I do think liberty in America need to be discussed far more than it is)


CMD

[USA4ME]

So the proper question is, can you belong to an entity which does not prohibit everything you think should be prohibited?

Once again, I'm speaking of my specific religious beliefs. And I explained why I view things the way I do to BD and he accepted. I don't expect him to agree nor does he expect me to agree with him. So I can only answer your question according to my own personal religious beliefs.

Let's say, for example, Sam's Club sold the morning after pill and I was opposed to that, would that mean I can't be a Sam's Club member? I would say I could, because when I signed up with Sam's I didn't sign up that I agreed with their moral viewpoint on the morning after pill.

For me to sign on with a political party that supported the morning after pill would mean that I have signed on with their moral viewpoint. That's the distinction to me. I don't hold anyone else to that standard.

That's why I'm an Independent; now I can just look at candidates individually and decide.

Why is your want of certain prohibitions based on your morals, different than someone elses wants for a different set based on their morals rather than yours?

They aren't.

.

[Big Dog]

Let's say, for example, Sam's Club sold the morning after pill and I was opposed to that, would that mean I can't be a Sam's Club member? I would say I could, because when I signed up with Sam's I didn't sign up that I agreed with their moral viewpoint on the morning after pill.

If Sam's Club sells morning-after pills, is that a moral decision or a business decision?  And if it is a moral decision, then whose moral decision is it?

[USA4ME]

If Sam's Club sells morning-after pills, is that a moral decision or a business decision?

I suppose to clarify what you're saying, I could have said "when I signed up with Sam's I didn't sign up that I agreed with all their business decisions, one of which would be to sell a product of which I believe is morally wrong."

OK everyone, before this gets too far, I'm not going to change my mind over any of this. I simply explained why I couldn't be a Libertarian.

.

[Carl]

I am a small "l" libertarian,some of the official party stuff is too far around the bend for me and what practicality is.

[Big Dog]

I am a small "l" libertarian,some of the official party stuff is too far around the bend for me and what practicality is.

I am libertarian and registered to vote LP. I don't agree with some Party positions. The Kansas state LP doesn't agree with some positions of the national party.

[CollectivismMustDie]

OK everyone, before this gets too far, I'm not going to change my mind over any of this. I simply explained why I couldn't be a Libertarian.

.

I wasn't looking to change your mind, no worries there, and no offense taken.



CMD

[Big Dog]

I suppose to clarify what you're saying, I could have said "when I signed up with Sam's I didn't sign up that I agreed with all their business decisions, one of which would be to sell a product of which I believe is morally wrong."

OK everyone, before this gets too far, I'm not going to change my mind over any of this. I simply explained why I couldn't be a Libertarian.

I'm not trying to change your mind or convert you. I already won the toaster oven for this month.

 

(Anybody want a toaster oven, cheap? I have a garage full of 'em.)

[Big Dog]

That speaks a bit to your view of where and how the onus lies, and what the 'default' of things is. The default state for everything is "not prohibited", and there really isn't a more precise way to put it. Government can not "allow" anything. It can only prohibit. That may seem like a distinction without a difference, but it is far from one.

So the proper question is, can you belong to an entity which does not prohibit everything you think should be prohibited? And that question should be carefully considered against the fact that while you like the morality government might be enforcing today, you may not like it next term when someone elses morality if being enforced on you. And also, considered against a background of sharia, like Big Dog said. Why is your want of certain prohibitions based on your morals, different than someone elses wants for a different set based on their morals rather than yours?

The libertarian position (if I understand it correctly) is that we expect government to 'allow' nothing, since 'allowing' isn't governments place. We expect government to 'forbid' almost never, as governments proper role is to protect the rights of the individual rather than interfere with them. When those rights become endangered or interfered with, only then is it governments proper place to step in. Either way, that is my own personal opinion. A right jackboot in your ass has no greater appeal than a left jackboot in your ass. I have no claim against any ones life or liberty, and I reject any claims made against mine, openly or furtively. I resent both with equal measure.

“To secure these rights, governments are instituted among men”, with one of those rights being 'liberty'.

(I took no offense by your post, and intend none by this one, but I do think liberty in America need to be discussed far more than it is)


CMD

Couldn't have said it better myself. High five.

[RobJohnson]

If Sam's Club sells morning-after pills, is that a moral decision or a business decision?  And if it is a moral decision, then whose moral decision is it?

I have no problem with the morning after pill, it's not like an abortion in a box.

It prevents conception, like several other forms of contraceptives. If plan A does not work out, there is always plan B. Heck pulling out could be a considered a form of contraception. So could quickly switching to oral sex.