Libertarians respond to Hobby Lobby Ruling (Page 2): ================================ I believe you are forming some opinions on the Libertarian party from news media, politicians...

hprinze Loc: Central Florida

DennisDee wrote:

I suppose the issues where we disagree are big ones like terrorism. They believe it should be a police issue not a military issue parroting Kerry from the 2004 debates. I believe both are needed.

Legalizing drugs not just pot.

Neutral foreign policy
Open borders.

================================

I believe you are forming some opinions on the Libertarian party from news media, politicians, punditsm and people who are kinda gossiping about things they don't really understand instead of learning what the Libertarian Party is really about

VladimirPee

I am reading and pasting their positions directly from LP.ORG Trust me I seriously looked at becoming a Libertarian

http://www.lp.org/

hprinze wrote:

================================

I believe you are forming some opinions on the Libertarian party from news media, politicians, punditsm and people who are kinda gossiping about things they don't really understand instead of learning what the Libertarian Party is really about

Olden McGroen Loc: Texas

hprinze wrote:

===================================== br Religion ... (show quote)

=====================================

Well, obviously you're not familiar with the Hobby Lobby lawsuit that clearly objects to the ACA mandating employers to provide insurance coverage that provide the "day after" and "week after" contraception pills on the basis of religious beliefs which are protected under the First Amendment.

So, I beg to differ...in THIS particular law suit that went all the way up to the SCOTUS...it IS about religion ...of which the SCOTUS overturned an appellate federal judge's ruling and granted the exemption to Hobbly Lobby and other businesses of like manner. Chalk up one win for our First Amendment rights! Go ahead, you can applaud.

Now, to the more broader point that you were making about the ACA, I agree. The gov't should not be able to force us to purchase anything. (Not even car insurance)
However, the SCOTUS ruled against us on this one (thanks to Chief Justice Roberts), so we're stuck with it until our representatives in congress and the president decide to repeal it...which is likely not to happen.

Tasine Loc: Southwest US

DennisDee wrote:

I suppose the issues where we disagree are big ones like terrorism. They believe it should be a police issue not a military issue parroting Kerry from the 2004 debates. I believe both are needed.

Legalizing drugs not just pot.

Neutral foreign policy
Open borders.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
O.K. I see better where you are coming from. You think the way I once thought about drugs. I once thought all illicit drugs should be classed illegal, but once I truly thought about liberty and free choices being part of liberty, I changed my thinking. I believe ever adult has the absolute right to eat, drink, smoke, take anything he chooses to if he can afford it. He IS an adult. Laws are already in place to punish if the drug of choice makes him commit a crime or if he damages someone.

When we make a drug illegal, it boosts street crimes, shootings, drug cartels, etc, it drives the cost of the drug up and this creates more crime of theft, and DOES NOT STOP THE SALE OR THE USE OF THE DRUG. So now I take a different view from you on this issue. I respect your stance and always will. That is not to say that any political party will assure your - OR MY - stance.

Terrorism? Actually I thought that police and the feds and the military were active on terrorism. What Bush did was effective. What we are doing now is NOT effective. It has nothing to do with what part of government is taking the action. It has to do with the stance of our nation and its leadership. Obama is a lot of things, including a tyrant, but a LEADER, HE IS NOT. He's weak, he's wishy-washy, he's in over his head.

One does not have to buy a political party's stance 100%. I don't buy into everything that is Libertarian. But that Party represents more of what I believe in than the Republican Party represents. My primary difference with Libertarians is that they believe it is a woman's right to have an a******n any time she wants it. I don't believe that at all. As a matter of fact, I intend to work on that issue within the Libertarian Party to get them to see they have two policies in direct contradiction with each other: right to life and freedom vs the right to take an innocent life in the womb. I believe Libertarians to be far more settled in what they believe than pubbies. Basically they champion less government and more liberty.

All of us are in the same ditch, Dennis. Our political parties have abandoned us. They don't work for us, they work for themselves. They live in the center of corruption. The world is falling apart, and pretty soon I predict there will be a great upheaval as everyone's back is pressed hard against the wall.
We are friends, and I hope we always will be. We think a little differently, but your thinking is not bad and neither is mine - we can work together - and SHOULD.

Striker Loc: Arizona Rockies

Tasine wrote:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There's an answer out there somewhere. Given the fact that the government we were born to is nowhere to be found, it seems to me that we could force the DNC and the RNC to change their rules re who can and who cannot run. We desperately need e******n reform, BIG TIME.

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

As the vast majority is registered either Dem or Rep, They control both Fed and State GOVERNments which are write and enforce such "Laws". Those are designed to maintain Their Monopoly. So to whom are we gonna "Beg"?

The only solution is to replace all governments with a Voluntary System in which "V****g" is irrelevant except within Private associations, made up entirely of sovereign individuals with full freedom to make their own choices to join or not to join, based on their individual objectives.

The happy news is that the Great Collapse will make that possible at long last! The sad news is that us Old Folks are unlikely to live on to realize Pure Liberty at last!

Tasine Loc: Southwest US

Striker wrote:

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! br br As the... (show quote)

I don't recall using the word "beg" in anything I have ever said.

Striker Loc: Arizona Rockies

Tasine wrote:

I don't recall using the word "beg" in anything I have ever said.

True enough, you didn't, but I did! What other options might we have?

BearK Loc: TN

Olden McGroen wrote:

=====================================

However, the SCOTUS ruled against us on this one (thanks to Chief Justice Roberts), so we're stuck with it until our representatives in congress and the president decide to repeal it...which is likely not to happen.

I WONDER IF ROBERTS HAS ANY SECOND THOUGHTS.

rich boise Loc: Idaho

I strongly suspect he thinks about wh**ever it is "they" have against him, that they could use to intimidate him to come up with such a convoluted argument.

BearK wrote:

I WONDER IF ROBERTS HAS ANY SECOND THOUGHTS.

Olden McGroen Loc: Texas

BearK wrote:

I WONDER IF ROBERTS HAS ANY SECOND THOUGHTS.

=====================================

I imagine Roberts v**ed the way he did because they had some dirt on him or someone close to him. There is no other logical explanation of his ruling.

BearK Loc: TN

Olden McGroen wrote:

=====================================

I imagine Roberts v**ed the way he did because they had some dirt on him or someone close to him. There is no other logical explanation of his ruling.

Yes, I heard they had dirt - wonder why it's not still working? You suppose he decided to be true to himself first?

Olden McGroen Loc: Texas

BearK wrote:

Yes, I heard they had dirt - wonder why it's not still working? You suppose he decided to be true to himself first?

=====================================

Don't know. Maybe they don't want to overplay their hand...(of which they do regularly).

The ACA was the holy grail for the Left. I think they used every card they had to get it passed (backroom deals using Stimulus money to bribe congressmen) and the joker (NSA/FBI/CIA intel) was used on Roberts to ensure that it remained in tact.

All speculation, of course, but it writes itself.

BearK Loc: TN

Olden McGroen wrote:

=====================================

Don't know. Maybe they don't want to overplay their hand...(of which they do regularly).

The ACA was the holy grail for the Left. I think they used every card they had to get it passed (backroom deals using Stimulus money to bribe congressmen) and the joker (NSA/FBI/CIA intel) was used on Roberts to ensure that it remained in tact.

All speculation, of course, but it writes itself.

Roberts may have expected the American people to be smart enough not to elect O for a 2nd term. What a blow that was.

Olden McGroen Loc: Texas

BearK wrote:

Roberts may have expected the American people to be smart enough not to elect O for a 2nd term. What a blow that was.

=====================================

Yep, he pretty much said as much. He made an assumption and passed the responsibility back to the people...and the people failed.

Rdjarhead Loc: Oklahoma

Tasine wrote:

FTA
In response to yesterday's Hobby Lobby ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court, Libertarian Party Executive Director Wes Benedict made the following statement:

It's strange that liberals and conservatives are making this ruling out to be a huge deal. All the ruling does is remove a very narrow coverage requirement, in very specific cases; 99.9 percent of Obamacare is upheld.

It's true that closely held corporate entities should not be forced to pay for this particular contraceptive coverage. But focusing on that narrow issue misses the bigger point: No employer should be forced to provide any health coverage at all.

This ruling just draws the line between freedom and regulation arbitrarily. If these employers are free to ignore this particular mandate, why aren't other employers free to ignore other Obamacare regulations? They should be.

Obamacare is unjust and unconstitutional from top to bottom. No employer should be forced to provide health coverage to its employees, or penalized by government if it doesn't.

Religion is not the issue. The fact that these employers have religious motives doesn't matter. Employers have the right to associate freely with their employees, and to come up with any mutually agreeable employment terms, whether their motives are religious, secular, generous, greedy, or wh**ever.

This ruling is a tiny island in a huge sea of Supreme Court rulings that have supported the federal government's desire to regulate and control.

http://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/libertarians-respond-to-hobby-lobby-ruling?utm_source=iContact&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Libertarian%20Party&utm_content=20140701+Hobby+Lobby+Ruling
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I was a Republican loyal v**er and supporter for 50 years - until I decided it was harming the nation by allowing the Democrat Party to run all over them - and us. I joined the Libertarian Party because of the primary principles it supports: minimum government and maximum freedom.

Why try to change how political parties operate? Both major political parties rule the roost - it's hard to get another person elected. Rather than try to change the Democrat Party and the Republican Party, LEAVE them, don't support them, and join me and other patriots in the Libertarian Party - let's give Libertarians an opportunity and our nation a chance to survive.

FTA br In response to yesterday's Hobby Lobby ruli... (show quote)

I think many times we get hung up on the 1st and 2nd amendment when we should really be looking at the 10 amendment. and how far our government has overstepped its bounds