Supreme Court strikes down most of the Arizona Immigration law

We get it COG, your a one-trick pony....and why the LP can't win national / statewide elections.

Like I said. How many Tea Partiers supported NDAA? If they supported that, they are no friend of liberty. They have achieved no results. They have been corrupted by the elitist Republican party. ..... Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Hey Eccentric, why didn't you tell the entire story? Yes, the SCOTUS did strike down most of the Arizona law but they also said that the federal government was absolutely responsible for controlling illegal immigration which is what conservatives have been saying for a few years now. Then you forgot to mention that even though the SCOTUS said the federal government was responsible they have decided to double down on NOT doing their jobs.

I would think you would point out how the Obama justice department has failed to do any of its due diligence. This is not really an indictment of the law, it is an idictment of Obama and Holder. The law can be rewritten but Obama can't go back to saying that they have no responsibilty. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

you are aware this administration has deported more illegals than any prior one?

This administration has also refused to deport more illegals than any prior one !

Ok, WW, explain how a vote for indefinite detention without due process or probable cause is a vote for liberty?

FF, do you know all the Tea Party candidates? I didn't think so... Remarkable that you know where they stand on the hobby even though I have never heard one asked a question about the hobby. I am a conservative and I don't care who is screwing who as long as everyone is a volunteer. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

No I do not know every tea party candidate. I did not claim to. You are correct they are not asked directly about the hobby. I believe my statements, while generalized, to be a fact based on what is available.

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1903/tea...tive-christian

The above link describes poling done on issues and breaks it up into several categories. The tea party movement began as a non partisan movement embraced by people of all ends of the political spectrum. As it developed and became rooted in the Republican Party, it began to form opinions on issues outside of economic issues. While still predominately known for economic issues the opinions of the majority on social issues tend to be similar in nature to the religious right and/or the Republican party.

My original statement was intended to be a generalization of the opinion of most of there candidates based on what they say on similar issues of personal liberty when it contradicts organized religious opinion.

I should have made this more clear in my post. Thank you for keeping me honest. I do not claim to be a gifted writer, but I do try to ensure my words portray my thoughts as best as possible!

I don't think Rick Santorum, Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann or other Tea Party candidates would look favorably on the hobby. Family values, you know.

It can't be, but only a wacko Libertian makes it THE litmus test on political party affiliation.

Like I said, with your kind of thinking it is no wonder the LP can't win national or state elections.........even Ron Paul knows that poiltics is about power, and he abandoned the LP for the GOP. Ron Paul has accomplished more within the GOP than he ever did in the LP... and he opposes NDAA presumably.

Another good Conservative Constitutionalist (and Republican) is Rep. Gohmert, he supports NDAA, but works within the party to improve the legislation. That is called winning COG; something the LP knows nothing about. The Tea Party understands it. We know the stakes are high; and calvalierly tossing in with the LP on some high minded principal isn't gonna do the country any good. Like I have been saying, it is all about incremental changes.

Ok, WW, explain how a vote for indefinite detention without due process or probable cause is a vote for liberty? Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

So how's Gohmert been doing on that, WW? Yup, got a winner there, don't we. They had a chance to defeat the offending provision outright. How did Gohmert vote on that?

The NDAA is the most offensive attack on liberty we have ever seen, and no one talks about it, and it's supporters lie about it. Even the Tea Party.

That's not winning, WW. That's caving. There is no way that this should have ever come to the floor for a vote, and when it did, the Tea Party went in hiding. And if the Republicans win? We have statists in control. Romney and Rubio both support indefinite detention without due process. That's a win?

The only incremental change will be toward tyranny, not away from it. How do you compromise on this? How do you decide between arsenic and hemlock? The Tea Party is over. They are establishment Republicans. They let the Republicans change them, not the other way around. Ron Paul was successful and the Tea Party did not support him. They knew he was not a true Republican. His gains will be gone after the convention.

You are as blind toward the Republicans as the Obamatons are for the Democrats. At least you prove mindless loyalty affects both sides.

Hey, WW. How many Tea Partiers have co-sponsored or committed to voting for S. 2175/H.R. 5936? I'd like to know.

https://ssl.capwiz.com/aclu/issues/a...4ndaa_redirect

The blindless loyalty is you and your LP; you admit they don't get political traction, can't win elections, and have little influence over the policies you care about.....

So, what's your answer? The other guys are worse and small change is meangingless. You prove that libertarian politics isn't about winning but about being right 100% of the time.

I'll take some loses along with the few wins...........you can sit on the sideline like the old fool and blow raspberries as you get passed by...no skin off my nose.

And your hyperbole is astounding - "NDAA is the most offensive attack on liberty we have ever seen.." Maybe no one talks about it because it isn't as you claim. Many reasonably argue that Obamacare is worse, while others say Roe v. Wade is and has been, but ole COG knows otherwise....

I can't figure out if your Statler or Waldorf ......

I'm right. What part of "indefinite detention without due process of law" do you not understand? What freedom do we have if that is left in place? None. Zip. Zilch. Nada. The military can throw us in jail for an indefinite (one hour to life) period of time, on their own volition, with NO oversight. How valuable is your freedom of speech, religion, association, privacy etc. then? It is non-existent. Obamacare is a takeover of a significant part of the economy. NDAA is takeover of EVERYTHING! Put that in your Pea-sized Tea Party brain of yours, if you can pull it out of your ass.

Again, how many Tea Partiers have signed on to repeal the offensive language from the NDAA? They are a bunch of lying hypocrites, posing a patriots, but supporting the Patriot Act and other infringements on liberty, including the NDAA.

So how many, WW? How many Tea Partiers will stand for freedom? Or will they stand with their banking and corporate supporters? Which will it be?

Your emotional anti-NDAA arguements, are also those of the Pro Lifers who say "how valuable is life, liberty, freedom of speech, religion, etc.," if tens of millions of innocent unborns can be executed without rights - no tial by jury, no legal represntation, no bill of attanider, no rights to appeal, nothing !

A far worse actual crime than your NDAA boogeyman; where is your Libertarian party standing up for those defenses of liberty and freedom ?

Actual victims of government sanctioned deaths without legal protections.

That's the spirit, WW! Deflect. Ignore the question, and change the subject.

Now, how many Tea Partiers have signed on to repeal the offensive language from the NDAA?

No deflection, just pointing out that your over the top hyperbole is a joke...and that Libertarians are as well.

Very much on the subject of individual liberties......How many Libertarians have signed on to repeal Roe ?

But I guess your fidelity to individual liberties and freedoms isn't so committed.

Why do you refuse to answer my question?