CELTICEMPIRE

Not ONE in the senate

I lied a few days ago, although in my defense, I didn't know the truth. There aren't ninety-eight traitors in the senate. There are a HUNDRED of them.

Honestly, I WOULD openly condemn my son and screw his campaign over if he did something like this. I wish Ron Paul would call him out. I don't expect that, but seriously, I'm ticked off as all heck, and I've been convinced that this sham called "Political process" is a joke.

I drew my line in the sand a long time ago, and I'm sticking to it. I said I could live with sanctions, and I could live with vowing to defend allies, but any outright support for wars of aggression I would not tolerate.

Rand Paul just lost my vote, AND my support. I'm sure he'll pick up plenty of neocons to make up for it...

Sorry for the delay, Rand voted for this:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?415057-Senate-to-vote-on-Iran-resolution-on-Wednesday

I can't vote for people who support aggressive war. Therefore, I'm done with Rand.

I was pretty strongly defensive of him before this, I didn't think he was perfect but I was trying to convince people to support him. This is betrayal. I hope the RPI hits him hard for it.

Rand Paul just lost my support. I meant to link this earlier, but he voted for the following anti-Iran bill...

I thought I'd find the RPF link more quickly, but basically, he voted for aggression against Iran under the guise of "Defense."

Vancouver Islands is strategically important to the security of the city of Vancouver, which would become the Empire's main Pacific port. Therefore, the Empire must insist upon its inclusion.

The Empire shall agree to this if the Republic of Arizona can agree not to expand into the former nation of Canada.

Well, we're still at war with the pirates. You know, 100% blockade and stuff.

If the alliance is focused on ARC and piracy, and isn't a general alliance, yes.

If you want, yes.

Only on defense, and at half strength.

You know what... PM coming...

I'd have voted for Obama before I would have voted for Romney. Romney was even worse on foreign policy and just as bad everywhere else.

I don't see how they could vote for a Republican like Romney either. But yeah, I don't know the answer to that particular question. I'll have to ask Keith and Stuff, a libertarian from New Hampshire who's a big fan of the Free State Project on RPF.

Libertarianism being the logical conclusion of conservatism REALLY depends what you're talking about. The small government, tea party conservatives are definitely not the same type of thing as the big government neo-cons, yet both are supposedly "Conservative."

The Tea Party philosophy is fundamentally libertarian with a few, sometimes a lot of, inconsistencies. The neo-con movement, by contrast, is really more like the Nazi movement than anything else...

I don't see voting for Obama as any less sensible than voting for Romney. They both sucked equally. Heck, Jill freaking Stein would have been better than one of those guys. Let alone Virgil Goode, let alone Gary Johnson. And even Gary isn't all that great in the grand scheme of things.

New Hampshire isn't ALL liberty movement people obviously, but they've got an unusually high number of them. They're also a swing state.

Look up the Free State Project.

Have you heard of the Free State Project? If there's anywhere that's free, New Hampshire will be part of it.

Utah, by contrast, backed Mitt Romney predominately. Then again, they do have Mike Lee...

I just want to note that its unfair to lump New Hampshire with the rest of the statist northeast. Vermont, although being extremely left on economics (They elected an ACTUAL socialist to the senate) is better on guns than most other "Left" places, and Maine is good on guns IIRC too. Their governor was a Romney supporter but was among those upset by the treatment of Ron Paul (Who is still the best politician we're EVER going to get. In fact, I'd seriously stack Ron Paul against ANY President in US history and I think he comes out on top. He's that good.)

New York is terrible though. New York should be renamed the Democratic People's Fascist Republic of Bloomberg/Cuomo/Communist/Insert crap here.

'I want to get the crap out as soon as I'm done with college. Florida isn't perfect but I felt MUCH safer down there. New York is burning down first...

Well, California at least nullified NDAA.

New York just gets more statist by the day. I honestly want to get the crap out of here. Although I'll still be here for two years for community college. I would NEVER want to raise a family or buy a home here.

Upstate may be better, not really sure. They probably are though. Long Island and especially NYC are filled to the brim with statists.

I had another question for you, do you agree that drug issues are state level? Granted, I highly doubt a state would legalize meth, but if they did would you recognize their right to do so?

Although there are exceptions, most libertarians don't support legalization of drugs for teenagers and kids. I only believe drugs should be legal for adults, and that's the mainstream libertarian position. I see no good reason why it shouldn't be legal for adults even while it is illegal for kids.

You'll probably need a law degree to get on the court. I might consider going back to where I used to live in Florida if I ever want to run for House, Connie Mack was from there and he was a really good liberty guy. I don't think libertarians will have any success in this state...

Is Meth the only one you're against? How do you feel about crack and heroin? (By that I mean legalization obviously, we both and almost everyone else knows that use is a stupid idea.,)

Who defines "Too dangerous"? Why do you believe that meth is too dangerous? Then again, I support the right to commit suicide too, since its not a violation of the non-aggression principle, so I fail to see why anything short of committing suicide should be illegal either.

How do you actually get on a supreme court? Are they even actually elected?

I don't know much about NAFTA. I think Ron Paul opposed it because it was an arranged trade agreement and wasn't really free trade. I don't know if I agree with him because I don't know much about it. I tend to trust Ron Paul but he isn't right on every single issue.

I agree with you that a ban on immigration is extreme, and is rooted in a lack of economic knowledge on the part of the Constitution Party. I could still vote for an otherwise good candidate who supported that (Heck, I'm still supporting Rand for now, and he's wrong on bigger issues than that) but in reality I don't agree at all.

Are you FULLY on board with legalization of drugs yet?

I genuinely hope we both actually get involved in national level politics. It would be so much fun

I'd learn to actually watch what I say... sort of...