CELTICEMPIRE
Reaction score
33

Profile posts Latest activity Postings About

  • I wouldn't have even voted for Cain. For one thing, he was involved in the Federal Reserve, for another, he was an ultra-warmongerer. And his "9-9-9" plan frankly kind of sucked.
    In 2008 I believed Obama was the antichrist because he supported abortion and gay marriage:p

    I thought John Mccain (Please laugh, hard) was our nation's only hope, due to not being Obama. I knew NOTHING.

    Why the crap did you support Cain over Paul at any point? I assume you wouldn't still support Herman Cain over either Paul?
    You definitely have changed since 2012;) So did I BTW, I went through a brief period of being a moderate. No longer:p

    McBomber was much, MUCH worse than Obama was at the time. Considering how much of a disappointment Obama was (I at least wish he had been better at foreign policy, which he would have sounded good on in 2008) I can only imagine how bloodthirsty McBomber would be. McBomber was something of a flip flop as well.

    If we're talking "Mainstream" Republicans I'd pick Bachmann or Palin before either of those guys in a heartbeat. At least they're actually conservative (Bachmann also, interestingly, claims to read Mises.)
    That's funny actually. Republicans who are actually against Afghanistan are a rarity indeed. Only one comes to mind, and he supported it back in 2001.
    Going away or staying with your family?

    I'll be staying at home for 2 years but then I don't know what I'm doing. I'd kind of like to go back to Florida but who knows...
    I just noticed you were in the chess group, you should so join TempestChess.com. Its real time chess and its tons of fun. Plus, I need someone to beat since most of the players online are absolute freaks:p
    It would probably still hurt me but I'll take that. I wouldn't want to win if I had to become like the rest of the system to do it.
    Strategically it would make sense to just lie, but I wouldn't do that because integrity matters more to me than winning (Rand did fail at this point, while Ron stuck by his position.) But I wouldn't mention it unless asked.
    It was always unjust, and its still unjust today. No, it isn't my first priority but if I had an opportunity to overturn it I would since its morally wrong.

    At least you don't think I'm a racist for disagreeing with you on the issue, many people do:p
    I think less people would have segregated if the Jim Crow laws were not forcing them to segregate. Of course some people still would but there was a huge market to get rich off of by not segregating, I think someone would have taken advantage of it.

    Even if not though, I'm not really utilitarian and I still consider freedom of association to be a human right. Even if you go for utilitarianism though, the Civil Rights Act (Well, that one section anyway) have outlived their usefulness.
    I'm not talking about the Civil Rights Movement in general, I support the vast majority of what they did, I'm talking about one very specific clause in the Civil Rights Act, namely the one that banned discrimination on private property. Gay rights advocates are trying to do the same thing (Not ALL of them mind, but a lot of them) and someday it is likely to come to the churches (Both regarding race AND sexual orientation). Granted, I think discrimination based on race is always wrong, while discrimination based on sexual orientation is only sometimes wrong (I see nothing morally wrong with discriminating against a gay person when hiring a pastor or deciding who your church is going to marry, but it would be morally wrong to refuse to hire a janitor or something just because he was gay, but it would be wrong to discriminate based on race for ANY of these things) but the law doesn't really care about those moral distinctions. Nor should it. Private property is private property
  • Loading…
  • Loading…
  • Loading…
Top Bottom