I would say that because of all of the people that WORK for buisnesses, that the majority of them would rather not see their livelyhoods dwindle away, but rather that they would flourish.
Jefferson was a very intelligent man and had tremendous foresight. You are of course right about separating business from government, but it would be nice to separate lobbyist money from politicians.
No, I'm not. Practical and personal reasons have taken me away from that goal. I didn't sign-up, because I didn't know if I could venture to NH with my interests at hand. Although I believe there's one that's going to happening in WY....a split-off from the original group. That maybe feasible for me. Maybe. They have to be careful, though. I think in any state, you really don't want to just kick out one of the two main parties. You want to make the closest party resemble your views. Atleast that's how I see it...or else you get the least desired candiate winning. Small government to me is probably my most deepest shared value with the Freestateproject. I'm actually more scared of that than almost anything else, because it's a systematic kick-to-the-ass to our Constitution and our reputable values. I sincerly think our founders would be incredibly disheartened of our direction after the 60's, and maybe even as early as 1913. On some level, I think the average American doesn't even know what 'freedom' is.
Mmmm. I was under the impresion that they were specifically not going to, as a group, support any candidte or party, but rather just the values of small government and personal responcibility.
Red herring. And the strategy isn't working. "The whole" has never been in question, until you recently resorted to it to cover up your denial. Let me reword that for you: You can't do it, yet you claim they were taken out of context. I knew you couldn't, that's why I asked. I also knew you never read them in the first place. You didn't care then, you don't care now. Nor did you even take the time to read what I took issue with. The problem is, you know I was right. Those verses are there, but you are so afraid of being "politically incorrect" that you aren't man enough to admit it. You have no ability to put them in context. But you are sure they are taken out of context. I had a feeling you'd go this route. It's like a chess game. You move a piece, see an opening and go for it. Your point is a failed point. Three times in this very post, you've indicated you cannot and will not put them in context, because you know that you cannot. Yet you believe you are superior in knowledge than the USC and the three islamic scholars I provided translations for. If that's not denial, I don't know what is. I've not represented anything. They are not my translations. You continue to try and pin something on me, but the only thing I'm guilty of is the thing you fear the most...being informed. For example, you seek to use your supposed history of various groups, but were probably not aware of the most recent edict being enforced in Somalia. Probably just "taken out of context," eh? Denial. Again, you are trying to pin the hatred of the verses on me. They are not my translations. Being aware of them is not politically incorrect. Sweeping them under the floor of "political correctness" through denial is your only counter. Right, and suddenly when all other cards are played and failed, you chose to bring that *supposed* history into the discussion. Yeah, right, KLB. That's your choice.
I sincerly think that if each party actually took a look at their demographics they could make a much closer resemblance of current american culture. I'd much rather have America be like NH or Maine (generally). On the other hand, the rather split views also set-up usual liberal-leaning in the presidency. It's not that you guys lean one way or the other, but independence usually comes at a price. That's the oddity of our presidental process...it awards partisanship in certain states, and penalizes indepedence.
You have to be involved in the nic-nacks of the whole thing to understand. They'll not official anoint such plans, as they don't want to have problems with their 'non-partisan.org' status. But people must realize this 'org' thing is often artificial, and very partisan when you look into it. There's too much 'libertarian this' or 'libertarian that' conversations within the leadership. Not enough effort on keeping the neutrality of the situation to what it should be, imo.
Josh, you are one very sharp cookie. (I'm serious) Indeed, this is what I am trying to express. I'm not denying those quotes may very well exist, but I do not believe that they represent the whole and I believe that trying to use them to represent all of Islam is very poor form. I've ignored it because I see it as a diversionary bait that is irrelevant to the greater discussion because I as I have said, I believe this to be a gross misrepresentation of Islam. This is another reason I ignored it. Things were very different 1,600 years ago and what was important to say back then bares no relevance today. Religions evolve as societies and cultures change. We can not hold Islam to the standards it had 1,500 years ago any more than we can hold Christianity to its teachings during the Dark Ages. Think about if we tried to literally apply some of the rules, laws or preachings of the Old Testament of the Bible without a filter to adapt those teachings to modern circumstances. Someone could get thrown in jail really quick for breaking some modern law (like murder). Lets face facts, when one really looks at it, the Old Testament is a pretty violent piece of literature.
*sigh* The context of any verse of the Quran is the Quran as a whole, as well information about the time and place when the events in the Quran occurred. Therefore, any verse reads, spoken, or discussed without an understanding of the rest of the Quran is, by nature, out of context.
Ouch, I have a friend that at least considered joining at some point. Next time I see him I'll fill him in if I remember. Thanks for the heads up Rick.
I believe you take religious people on a one-by-one basis. But to be honest, I'm weary of the unhindered spread/immigration of people from the middle-east....especially in Europe, where I tend to view them as being too liberal on that issue. I think muslims in general are under deep philosophical questions, and many have adopted the most reasonble positions I can expect....while others are leaning to a spectrum I very much dislike and almost fear. Although the same could be said about other religious people as well.
Where is the context? You cannot stand on a theoretical principle and not be able to back it up. In essence, you're acting as a cheerleader for KLB (of which I have no problem with). To read your statement above, you've run so far out of denial, that you are now claiming everything in the quran is out of context. Weak argument. Very week. Let's summarize this, again: KLB posts that no one should have a problem with it and anyone that does is a religious wacko. Can we agree on this? This is bigotry. Lest ye accept my own view, you are a wacko. While I do not take issue with either of you, or numerous others (including Rick) who do not have a problem with it, KLB (with cheerleader in tow) have taken issue that I have taken issue. I've presented a foundation for why. You both have attempted to, in so many ways, to discredit the facts, make excuses for the scriptures in question, deny them, admit they are there but taken out of context, refuse to show what context they are in and basically hold me personally accountable for their translations. In the end, I have tolerance for your views. Others have noted the same. But you have no tolerance for my view and have gone to great lengths to undermine the source of the foundation that my view comes from. With complete failure. In summary, it might be that the two of you are the true bigots here, for not accepting other's views. I believe KLB more than made that clear with his initial post. Agree with me, or you are a whacko. Perhaps you both need to reflect on your own intolerances and bigotry, that you demand others do. You've both demonstrated an extreme intolerance to other's views, even though they have legitimate foundation. Being aware is not politically incorrect. No one should *have* to tolerate a religious book that calls for their death.
Please don't let that disuade your view of the organization. In marketing the idea, the leadership primarily looks toward libertarians,...but obviously they know they have to expand their horizons and even allow more 'conservative-like' individuals within leadership. It's that way, because when an organization starts-off with libertarians, they usually tend to only trust libertarians. The same could be said of liberal or republican organizations.
True, but one of the big calling points for him was that it would not be tied to a particular political party...
Not to sound sour, but it's going to be very hard to find a truely non-partisan organization these days. Maybe I'm wrong!?
The following quote is an excerpt. No, I am claiming that when one takes a book, and quotes from it, the book it's self is the majority of the context, but that the life, and experience of the author are also part of the context. The fact that J.J.R. Tolkien lived during one of the World Wars is a part of the context of his work, and therefore a part of the context from any line of his book. The book it's self, however, provides the PRIMARY frame of reference for anything in it, unless it references another book, or is part of a series of books. However, when taken as an excerpt from the book as a whole, any line has been removed from all of it's surrounding context, the book it's self. The line "Gandalf said 'Don't you lose him Samwise Gamgee' and I don't mean to Mr. Frodo, I don't mean to." is a very powerful line when one recalls the context Sam's relationship with Frodo, as established throughout tokens works, but when taken simply on it's own, much of the meaning of this line is lost, no matter how faithful the translation is into whatever language the line is read in.
Fair enough. Normally an organization has at least have a LEANING to one party or another, due to similarities in philosophy. I'm just saying that if the organization is already thinking Libertarian this, Libertarian that, and is only recruiting from Libertarians... it's going to be hard for it to be any thing BUT a libertarian political sub-group.
I agree completely. I would add that religions then have to look at the individual writings in the context of the entire scripture and deemphasize those things that are no longer relevant or appropriate. In the cases that GTech keeps trying to use to paint all of Islam as evil (my words not his), they may have made great sense when one was being hunted down and killed for following Mohammad and his teaching. In the greater context where he was preaching it was wrong to kill (my understanding is that the ten commandments of the Old Testament of the Bible are also in the Koran) in this case Mohammad may have been saying it is okay to kill to defend one's self (my supposition). Today these verses are totally irrelevant because our civilization has mostly gotten past the need to persecute and/or kill one for their beliefs (at least if it is one of the major religions). Thus modern teachings mostly ignore, deemphasize or simply say these passages really are not relevant in our society. This is the problem between trying to take a literal word for word meaning from any ancient scripture and taking a philosophical or spiritual meaning from said scripture and this is why each of the major religions is broken down into so many different sects. Nobody can really agree about how these ancient scriptures should be interpreted. Now granted each major religion has a fanatical fundamentalist faction that interpret their scriptures in the most intolerant way and often times use a twisted interpretation of the scriptures they believe in to justify committing violence on non-believers, but no religion should be judged by those fanatics that make up a minority of any religion. I'll agree with this. The point being that religions are made up of people and some people are peace loving and tolerant and others believe they have some greater obligation to cram their beliefs down the throats of others and commit violence on those who do not convert. This is a problem with individuals although the mainstream of any religion needs to do what it can to put pressure on the violent/intolerant fringes. I think the problem isn't religious so much as cultural. The massive immigration between poorer parts of the world to richer parts of the world is so fast and so massive that it is putting tremendous strain on societies and peoples. Nothing has time to adapt and/or assimilate. We can't blame people for wanting to move their families to places where they could have a better life, but the scale of this immigration is putting such great strains on society that we are seeing a lashing out against the changes this brings (like a Congressman wanting to take an oath holding a Koran). Nothing is non-partisan: 1) it is not in human nature and 2) society has become so devise that it is impossible to overcome human nature.
I believe it's possible to have a non-partisan organization, but that requires a rather open system. Well, that is to say if you consider open to be non-partisan.