On June 26th, 2008 at 12:59 pm, see-dubya said:

Dimsdale #163–the “a Constitution we are expounding” line quoted by the Kossack is actually from John Marshall in McCulloch v. Maryland.

In considering this question, then, we must never forget, that it is a constitution we are expounding.

Nobody really knows what that means, but it is often invoked as some sort of mystical incantantaion before liberal judges make a new law.

But is a “kossack” smart enough to know that?

Somehow, I doubt it.

“If embracing the same values as our founding fathers makes one a part of the “lunatic fringe,” then so be it.”

That’s not what makes you a member of the lunatic fringe.

“Unlike many so-called Republicans”

You aren’t even a “so-called” republican.

“and unlike many so-called conservatives here (you McCainaanites), libertarians actually DO support limited government,”

Well by effectively supporting Obama you have got a strange way of showing it. I am for smaller, more financially responsible government. If you take a look at what the current front runner proposes in spending, mostly in new entitlements, you will realize that it has to be stopped. We can’t add another TRILLION dollar entitlement program to the defect spending when our debt is approaching the 10 trillion dollar mark. That, along with the other disgusting waste will bankrupt (Literally) the country.
Our currency is not backed by a gold or silver standard, it is “backed” by our national productivity as measured by our GDP. If our debt is greater then our gdp we are going to be in for some serious difficulties in trying to pawn off our paper.

“personal responsibility, abolition of the income tax, and preservation of the Constitution.”

It is so courageous of you to take on the pro-irresponsibility, pro-tax, pro-trashing the Constitution lobby. Actually you are not, because you and your second string Ron Paul are probably going to help elect Barry O.

“however, given the RINOs,”

The term RINO has become a democrat weasel word to try to help split the Republicans. Seriously, Regan would be shouted down as a RINO by some of the same idiots using the term now.

“. You guys are the very reason why I can’t describe myself as conservative; freedom and liberty are radical and frightening ideas, and very young ideas in the history of civilization. Clearly these ideals and values frighten and threaten you, too.”

And we also burn witches and seek to slug “people of color” with our new testament. Please, spare me your Starbucks fueled sanctimony. I am not afraid of “freedom and liberty”, I am on guard against threats against them. The major threat I see against them as of now (aside from the glassy eyed zombies that do their bidding) are the likes of Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama as well as the likes of Osama Bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
All of those threats to my liberty and freedom (not to mention the fact that Bob Barr is no libertarian) are why I am voting for McCain.

A couple of things to keep in mind rather than jumping to assumptions:

1. I’ve never claimed Nader (or Perot) is a libertarian.

2. I never claimed I was a libertarian when I voted Perot and Nader.

3. I said that I vote based on my principles. As I’ve grown older and taken more interest in the goings-on of government, civics, our nation’s founding, etc., I’ve reexamined them and found that a few have changed over the past 20 years. At the heart of it, though, the motivations for those votes were partly still rooted in my libertarian beliefs, although at the time I would be unable to articulate them or identify them as libertarian (they were first stirred during that election year by the Libertarian candidate, though, but this was before the internet for me, and I had no interest in researching him). Now that I think of it, I voted for Nader in ‘00 as well. If I had seen Nader for what he is today, or if he were the kook then that he is now, I would never have voted for him.

We could spend another day doing this, but unfortunately, you are immune to logic and reason.

On June 27th, 2008 at 1:29 am, atheling said:

On June 27th, 2008 at 12:14 am, Concerned Citizen said:

Here’s the warning signs.
1. I’m Independent/Libertarian
2. I vote for the best candidate, not a party
3. I used to be a Republican, but Bush…

And those actually mean:

1. I like to think of myself as “original”.

2. I vote contrary to conventional wisdom.

3. My parents are Republican, but I’m still rebelling against them.

Priceless.

I’ve never seen one of these “Independents” turn out to be anything other than liberal. Except for Khan. He’s happy out there on the lunatic fringe.

Now we need to work on every county that is strict at refusing to allow hand guns to law abiding citizens…one by one is how we do it.

Stay vigilant.

Like you, I find the 5/4 split very disturbing. It should have been a slam-dunk, based on the Constitution, and certainly clarified by the intent of the Framers. We hear all the time from the leftists that the U.S. Constitution is a “living and breathing document”. I completely agree, but not in the way that they mean. The “living and breathing” aspect is covered by the amendment process – not the faux-interpretation of words in the context of current events. One question I always put forth to those that use the “living and breathing” argument: If the Constitution was amended to enforce cessation of making, selling, transporting, importing, and exporting of intoxicating liquors (18th amendment), why wasn’t it similarly amended in regard to illegal drugs? …and who can possibly argue that the Federal effort to quash illegal drugs does not dwarf what the Feds did in the speak-easy days? The answer is this: the U.S. Constitution does not need official amending if the meaning of the Founders can be ignored, twisted, or shown as naive, ignorant, or racist. Now there are some really great things that U.S. government is doing. Some of those things are allowed by the Constituion. Most of those things are not allowed (in my opinion), yet they are very good things that probably need doing. Why was the Constitution not amended to allow those good things to be done? I can’t answer that, but the Founders, in their wisdom, provided the amendment process to cover those situations. Now we have rampant acts by the Federal government to do all sorts of “good” things that no one (in significant enough numbers) questions. As I see it, the fundamental problem is that, if the Federal government can do “good things” that are un-Constitutional (and unquestionably, they are good things), doesn’t that open the door for them to do “bad” things??? Shouldn’t the U.S. Constitution, as the Founders meant it, be the definitive guide on how this country should be run?

I suspect that the four, who voted against this decision, are in the no-amendment camp. That is, they see that the amendment process is too slow and inefficient, and that they need to do little tricks to speed things along, so as to do the “right” thing. Thomas Jefferson would have answered them thusly:

In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.