- Joined
- Mar 27, 2009
- Messages
- 11,963
- Reaction score
- 3,543
- Location
- Naperville, IL
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
At the time of Roeder’s arrest Sunday afternoon along Interstate 35 in Johnson County, a television station captured the vehicle on video. There on the dashboard was a note that read “Cheryl” and “Op Rescue” with a phone number.
Cheryl Sullenger, senior policy adviser for Operation Rescue out of Wichita, said Tuesday that she has spoken to Roeder in the past, but she said he would initiate the contact. She said she hasn’t had any recent contact with him.
Sullenger served about two years in prison after pleading guilty to conspiring to bomb an abortion clinic in California in 1988. She has since renounced violent action.
I don't want to unfairly associate Scott Roeder with any pro-life group or organization, but this story definitely raises some eyebrows about Operation Rescue-- or, at the very least, this one particular advisor.
Operation Rescue adviser helped Tiller suspect track doctor's court dates
I certainly hope the police are questioning this woman, checking her phone and computer records etc.
Rational people must unite against all their flavors, no matter what they're trying to prohibit - alcohol, sex, drugs, rock'n'roll, mere copying of kiddy porn, drunk driving (as opposed to dangerous driving), dog fighting, individual health choices like abortion, or anything else they might come up with. By allowing them to prohibit one, you make it easier for them to prohibit an other.
No victim, no crime!
Giving libertarianism a good name I see. :roll:Prohibitionists are a dangerous cult.
Especially after they get their way.
Rational people must unite against all their flavors, no matter what they're trying to prohibit - alcohol, sex, drugs, rock'n'roll, mere copying of kiddy porn, drunk driving (as opposed to dangerous driving), dog fighting, individual health choices like abortion, or anything else they might come up with. By allowing them to prohibit one, you make it easier for them to prohibit an other.
No victim, no crime!
Giving libertarianism a good name I see. :roll:
So libertarianism does not seek truth?Kiddie porn is at most a picture of a crime, not the crime itself.
Causing an accident is a crime, in the sense that you are responsible for damages. Whether that accident was caused because you were drunk, old, young, sleepy, stupid, stressed out about the kids in the back, momentarily destructed by a billboard, or whatever else is your problem. In a free society all roads would be privately owned, and the road owners would make whatever rules they see fit to restrict access to those roads, but there's no reason for the law to be involved preemptively.
And dogs don't have rights.
My allegiance is to the pursuit of objective truth, not popularity.
So libertarianism does not seek truth?
Kiddie porn is at most a picture of a crime, not the crime itself.
Causing an accident is a crime, in the sense that you are responsible for damages. Whether that accident was caused because you were drunk, old, young, sleepy, stupid, stressed out about the kids in the back, momentarily destructed by a billboard, or whatever else is your problem. In a free society all roads would be privately owned, and the road owners would make whatever rules they see fit to restrict access to those roads, but there's no reason for the law to be involved preemptively.
And dogs don't have rights.
My allegiance is to the pursuit of objective truth, not popularity.
IT's this flavor fo Libertarianism that makes me not embrace them.
Don't pay attention to him. Most of us are not living in a fantasy land like Alex. All political groups have their extreme kooks.
True, but there are other reasons... I'm not a down with a few things they push.. and until the Libertarian party gets serious about winning elections not just making noise, I just cannot support them.
I can't believe that I agree with both you and American on the same f'n day. This is some bull****.
Kiddie porn is at most a picture of a crime, not the crime itself.
Causing an accident is a crime, in the sense that you are responsible for damages. Whether that accident was caused because you were drunk, old, young, sleepy, stupid, stressed out about the kids in the back, momentarily destructed by a billboard, or whatever else is your problem.
In a free society all roads would be privately owned, and the road owners would make whatever rules they see fit to restrict access to those roads, but there's no reason for the law to be involved preemptively.
And dogs don't have rights.
Kiddie porn is at most a picture of a crime, not the crime itself.
True, but there are other reasons... I'm not a down with a few things they push.. and until the Libertarian party gets serious about winning elections not just making noise, I just cannot support them.
I would have to qualify that by saying that I believe a lot of libertarians want a smaller government than the Founders even envisioned, while I believe constitutionalist are more pure about adhering to the Constitution and the Founder intent.I have to admit the only reason I am a member of the Constitution party over the Libertarian party is they have some unrealistic expectations about to many issues, as stated above by other posters.
Many libertarians are quite serious about winning. The system is purposefully set up against third parties, however, so it's tough to gain the national presence necessary to really get a message out. But I think it's selling the LP short to say they aren't interested in winning, they happen to have strong principles which can also be a handicap when facing off against a corrupted main party hell bent on maintaining power through exclusion and other underhanded techniques.
libertarianism bases itself on the restriction of government. The reason I think that some "conservatives" and "liberals" stay away from libertarians is because the libertarian will call for abuses to be done away with which is supported by one of the sides. But in the end, libertarians tend to stick to their guns and ideology; which can't necessarily be said of the main parties. While there is certainly an amount of extremism, I think the overall belief in limited government which is not echoed by either "conservatives" or "liberals" is well worth the investment of time and effort to promote. Reasonable, limited, and constrained government is not outlandish and only the libertarians call for it. There is a wide breadth of specific ideology out there in the libertarian party, but the fundamental we all agree on is that government needs to be constrained, that the People are in charge and must be recognized as the sovereigns. I don't think it's such the bad thing you're trying to make it out to be.
Whether that accident was caused because you were drunk, old, young, sleepy, stupid, stressed out about the kids in the back, momentarily destructed by a billboard, or whatever else is your problem. In a free society all roads would be privately owned, and the road owners would make whatever rules they see fit to restrict access to those roads, but there's no reason for the law to be involved preemptively.
No, the reason people stay away from Libertarians is this
That's just plain naive and unworkable. Drunk driving should be a crime. Libertarians tend to be just as naive and idealistic as communists, with similarly Utopian views. And, just like communism, the systems that most of the libertarians I've ever talked to support are completely unrealistic
I would have to qualify that by saying that I believe a lot of libertarians want a smaller government than the Founders even envisioned, while I believe constitutionalist are more pure about adhering to the Constitution and the Founder intent.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?