Stay away from this fight, Mr. Lee. She's a South Paw.

[I Willcaptain of 100]

Mike Lee canceled an engagement to debate Cherilyn Eagar on Lonsberry on March second. That's smart. She's a hundred and ten pounds of bad news, Mike. Stay out of the ring with her. Keep refusing to reschedule. Stick with handing out trinkets. The king-makers will do the rest.

[pjbrowniecaptain of 1,000]

Could you tell me the difference between these two candidates and are you being sarcastic.

[I Willcaptain of 100]

Could you tell me the difference between these two candidates and are you being sarcastic.

I know who Cherilyn is. She has been fighting the good fight with amazing adroitness for decades. She does it at great personal cost, because patriotism doesn't pay so well. I've never seen Mike in any such work. He has been in high places (some, very good like Judge Alito's office) I don't know what he has done that he didn't get paid for. I don't know why he is an overnight sensation like Obama. He won't come out and debate Mrs. Eagar on the issues. He might be great, but he is not going to show any of us his stuff. He doesn't have to. Like Obama, he'll win.

[Original_Intentcaptain of 1,000]

The biggest problem I have with Eagar is that from things she has said, I get the impression that she would not contstrain herself by the constitution. She is a great activist on a lot of important issues, but the fact that she appears willing to ignore constitutional constraints (with the best of intentions of course) to me that turned me off from Eagar. I know Bennett has to go, and Eagar was actually my favored candidate early on in the process. As I heard her speak and researched her stances, I saw what I considered red flags. I would still support her over Bennett 7 days a week and twice on Sunday, but I feel that Bridgewater has a much better understanding and commitment to the Constitution.

Mike Lee probably has the best understanding of the Constitution of them all, but the bottom line is that he has worked as a hihg paid lawyer for Energy Solutions, and he seems a little bit to "dialed in" to the GOP machine. He talks a good talk and is a very persuasive speaker, but bottom line is I don't trust him. But like Eagar, I would vote for him over Bennett ANY day.

[pjbrowniecaptain of 1,000]

What about Tim Bridgewater?

[Original_Intentcaptain of 1,000]

Bridgewater is my candidate of choice. In the debate and also when I spoke with him, he showed a solid understanding of the Constitution, although he cannot quote you Article and Section the way that Lee can. All of the candidates have baggage, in my opinion, and Bridgewater's is that he was quite supportive of McCain in '08 - I think he may have even been involved in his campaign. And this was a BIG hurdle for me to overcome, trust me. But he is the candidate that I most trust to keep his oath of office.

[BrianM]

The biggest problem I have with Eagar is that from things she has said, I get the impression that she would not contstrain herself by the constitution. She is a great activist on a lot of important issues, but the fact that she appears willing to ignore constitutional constraints

You're actually correct about this, she has stated supporting actions that are in violation of the Constitution:

From an email Charilyn Eagar sent to State Delegates:
"I support pro-life and pro-family legislation at the federal level."
"...attempts to regulate illicit drugs, alcohol, pornography and gambling are well within the purview of Congress’s powers under our Constitution under the “general welfare” and “necessary and proper” clauses of Article I Section VIII."

If a state wants to regulate and legislate such things as listed above no problem, but the Constitution doesn't grant the federal government that power. Based on her reasoning you could do just about anything you wanted to and dump it into the the "general welfare" and "necessary and proper" clauses.

[Original_Intentcaptain of 1,000]

Yep, which is pretty much the Bennett position. She just isn't as far down that path, but once you start it is a slippery slope that it is hard to tun back from.

She is an outstanding activist and I think at least in teh short term would be an improvement over Bennett, I just found Bridgewater to have a much better understanding and more important committment to the Constitution. Of course he could have jsut been telling me what I wanted to hear, but I don;t think so.

[I Willcaptain of 100]

Original Intent, you seem to think that the Constitution should be sterilized so as to assist in our nation's laws becoming totally amoral. If Eagar's stances toward family values is a "red flag" it is not she that is part of the problem. It is the anti-God, anti-family, nation weakening philosophy of Libertarianism.

Libertarianism is like the cells in a body deciding "We can have clotting blood and an immune system in case of victimization, but it would be tyrannical to have a blood stream that cleans itself." Like the word 'humanism" Libertarianism is a movement that takes a good word and corrupts it into an evil thing by banishing the Author of Liberty.

If the Saints are foolish enough to be boxed in by this drug-culture, free sex philosophy (no decent society was ever Libertarian) then they deserve to collapse with the rest of the nation. If Lee and Bridgewater supported moral lawlessness, ala Libertarianism, I would fight tooth and nail to expose them. They do not. Except for Lee's pro-term limits stance, I expect they are all similar in their views regarding morality in law.

[Original_Intentcaptain of 1,000]

Original Intent, you seem to think that the Constitution should be sterilized so as to assist in our nation's laws becoming totally amoral. If Eagar's stances toward family values is a "red flag" it is not she that is part of the problem. It is the anti-God, anti-family, nation weakening philosophy of Libertarianism.

Libertarianism is like the cells in a body deciding "We can have clotting blood and an immune system in case of victimization, but it would be tyrannical to have a blood stream that cleans itself." Like the word 'humanism" Libertarianism is a movement that takes a good word and corrupts it into an evil thing by banishing the Author of Liberty.

If the Saints are foolish enough to be boxed in by this drug-culture, free sex philosophy (no decent society was ever Libertarian) then they deserve to collapse with the rest of the nation. If Lee and Bridgewater supported moral lawlessness, ala Libertarianism, I would fight tooth and nail to expose them. They do not. Except for Lee's pro-term limits stance, I expect they are all similar in their views regarding morality in law.

Trust me, you are no more disturbed by my libertarianism than I am by your authoritarianism.
I am neither pro drugs, pro free sex, pro pornography or pro gambling. In fact I am personally anti ALL of those things. However there is no basis for making the claim that these are within the purview of the Federal government and based on the Constitution, they certainly are not. Your comparison to the cells of the body is pointless, we can all make up imaginary metaphorical stories all day long. Your community standards arguments would be supportive of the LDS being purged from Missouri, since the biggest concern was that the LDS were beoming too numerous and were threatening to have too big of an influence on local politics. The LDS standards were seen as incompatible with "community standards" so I guess according to you this was justified. Or maybe you will say "No, what they did was not based on correct principles.." If so, tell me, barring the return of Jesus to rule in righteousness, who is going to provide that national standard to which correct or incorrect behavior is going to be measured? You?

Your position is not only wrong it is satanic. Government only has the legitimate power to defend individual liberty, and protect us from others incorrectly using their liberty to deprive of us our own. Your boogey men of drug addicts in every gutter and pimps and prostitutes on every street corner (it seems that's what you expect will happen if we do not have laws against it) are ludicrous. Amazingly, a good many people will use their agency to freely choose the right without being coerced into it under threat of loss of life, liberty or property.

The things that you want to prohibit at the federal level, people can set up covenant communities and people who breach thsoe covenants that they have WILLINGLY ACCEPTED can be prosecuted for breach of contract.

Please point to me in the constitution where the federal government is granted the power. Otherwise I refer you to the 10th amendment. No matter how right you FEEL you are, sorry feeling so does not make it so. Some of the most evil things ever done are accomplished by well intentioned people. The road to hell is indeed paved with good intentions. I am not questioning your intentions - you are just misled.

[patriotsaintcaptain of 1,000]

Original Intent, you seem to think that the Constitution should be sterilized so as to assist in our nation's laws becoming totally amoral. If Eagar's stances toward family values is a "red flag" it is not she that is part of the problem. It is the anti-God, anti-family, nation weakening philosophy of Libertarianism.

Libertarianism is like the cells in a body deciding "We can have clotting blood and an immune system in case of victimization, but it would be tyrannical to have a blood stream that cleans itself." Like the word 'humanism" Libertarianism is a movement that takes a good word and corrupts it into an evil thing by banishing the Author of Liberty.

If the Saints are foolish enough to be boxed in by this drug-culture, free sex philosophy (no decent society was ever Libertarian) then they deserve to collapse with the rest of the nation. If Lee and Bridgewater supported moral lawlessness, ala Libertarianism, I would fight tooth and nail to expose them. They do not. Except for Lee's pro-term limits stance, I expect they are all similar in their views regarding morality in law.

Trust me, you are no more disturbed by my libertarianism than I am by your authoritarianism.
I am neither pro drugs, pro free sex, pro pornography or pro gambling. In fact I am personally anti ALL of those things. However there is no basis for making the claim that these are within the purview of the Federal government and based on the Constitution, they certainly are not. Your comparison to the cells of the body is pointless, we can all make up imaginary metaphorical stories all day long. Your community standards arguments would be supportive of the LDS being purged from Missouri, since the biggest concern was that the LDS were beoming too numerous and were threatening to have too big of an influence on local politics. The LDS standards were seen as incompatible with "community standards" so I guess according to you this was justified. Or maybe you will say "No, what they did was not based on correct principles.." If so, tell me, barring the return of Jesus to rule in righteousness, who is going to provide that national standard to which correct or incorrect behavior is going to be measured? You?

Your position is not only wrong it is satanic. Government only has the legitimate power to defend individual liberty, and protect us from others incorrectly using their liberty to deprive of us our own. Your boogey men of drug addicts in every gutter and pimps and prostitutes on every street corner (it seems that's what you expect will happen if we do not have laws against it) are ludicrous. Amazingly, a good many people will use their agency to freely choose the right without being coerced into it under threat of loss of life, liberty or property.

The things that you want to prohibit at the federal level, people can set up covenant communities and people who breach thsoe covenants that they have WILLINGLY ACCEPTED can be prosecuted for breach of contract.

Please point to me in the constitution where the federal government is granted the power. Otherwise I refer you to the 10th amendment. No matter how right you FEEL you are, sorry feeling so does not make it so. Some of the most evil things ever done are accomplished by well intentioned people. The road to hell is indeed paved with good intentions. I am not questioning your intentions - you are just misled.

As always OI.......Rock solid arguments based on a rock solid foundation.

[I Willcaptain of 100]

If so, tell me, barring the return of Jesus to rule in righteousness, who is going to provide that national standard to which correct or incorrect behavior is going to be measured? You?

What? No moral compass? Trust me, there is such thing as right and wrong which goes beyond your simple victim criterion. You may bad mouth George Washington, Moses and God Himself, because each has violated your Libertarian dogma, but they set up the most perfect governments in history. The most socially Libertarian society on earth is probably the Netherlands. Why are they fiscally so Marxist? Because Libertarians eventually sink to the point where society always ends up carrying more and more of the weight of such people. Think it through. What happens when the moral laissez fairism results in a nation of the useless (and it will)? Do you suppose that when they turn parasitic your amoral nation will survive? Not in the real world. Do you presume that a nation not built on moral principles is going to naturally be virtuous and not burdensome to the point of sinking the nation.

Libertarians: People have no right to restrict private immoral behavior.
Americans: People have no right to pollute society with influences that destroy. Give them that inch and they always take a mile.

No filters, no survival. A body without liver and kidneys is a perfect analogy.

I'm sure that without a moral compass it is difficult to understand the difference between outlawing prostitution and killing Latter-day Saints. Fortunately, many people have moral compasses and can do the one without the other. For the rest, there's Libertarianism.

[Original_Intentcaptain of 1,000]

Yes, you have already demonstrated your great understanding of Libertarianism.

Libertarianism: People should have the ability to choose between right and wrong.
Authoritarianism: There oughta be a law!

You have never demonstrated the slightest understanding between libertarianism and libertine. To you they are one and the same.

Show me the Constitutional authority granted to the federal government?
You think I am bad mouthing Washington, who I chose as my avatar? The fact of the matter is you don't have the least understanding of Washington.

I don't remember which founder said that the Constitution was fit to govern only a moral and religious people - it was unsuitable for any other. It was only suitable for people who were inherently virtuous exactly BECAUSE IT DID NOT PROVIDE THE AUTHORITY TO FORCE THEM TO BE.

Final note and reiteration - show me the constitutional authority to legislate morality at the federal level - which you and Eagar want to do - or admit that you do not want to live by the Constitution, you want a totalatarian dictatorship with you in charge. The central principle of Satan's plan.

[BrianM]

Original Intent, you seem to think that the Constitution should be sterilized so as to assist in our nation's laws becoming totally amoral. If Eagar's stances toward family values is a "red flag" it is not she that is part of the problem. It is the anti-God, anti-family, nation weakening philosophy of Libertarianism.

The problem is not with Eagar's family values, it's with the fact that she wants to use a position within government (US Senate) as the means for enforcing these values. I am all for family values and also support laws that allow us to uphold a high moral standard, however I also recognize that such laws are only proper at the State level, not federal. This is actually a good thing that the Constitution doesn't allow Federal government to be part of making such laws... because it allows to people of the various Republics (states) to decide what type of a community they want to have, and then people are free to live in the state which most represents their standards. It's awesome.

[patriotsaintcaptain of 1,000]

What? No moral compass? Trust me, there is such thing as right and wrong which goes beyond your simple victim criterion. You may bad mouth George Washington, Moses and God Himself, because each has violated your Libertarian dogma, but they set up the most perfect governments in history. The most socially Libertarian society on earth is probably the Netherlands. Why are they fiscally so Marxist? Because Libertarians eventually sink to the point where society always ends up carrying more and more of the weight of such people. Think it through. What happens when the moral laissez fairism results in a nation of the useless (and it will)? Do you suppose that when they turn parasitic your amoral nation will survive? Not in the real world. Do you presume that a nation not built on moral principles is going to naturally be virtuous and not burdensome to the point of sinking the nation.

If you actually think libertarianism is akin to Marxism, you should refrain from posting on the subject. You are digging your hole deeper and deeper.

Libertarians: People have no right to restrict private immoral behavior.
Americans: People have no right to pollute society with influences that destroy. Give them that inch and they always take a mile.

Libertarians: People who believe in agency and responsibility for the consequences of choice.
You: Someone who believes in imposing their beliefs on others and forcing compliance with governments monopoly on violence.

I'm sure that without a moral compass it is difficult to understand the difference between outlawing prostitution and killing Latter-day Saints. Fortunately, many people have moral compasses and can do the one without the other. For the rest, there's Libertarianism.

No moral compass? I'd say the neo-con, control freak doctrine you are teaching is devoid of any moral compass. Ideas like yours are more dangerous than any liberal platform. You are using the cloak of freedom to teach authoritarian ideas that are in direct contradiction with the Gospel. It's the war in heaven all over again.......are you so sure you're on the right side?

[I Willcaptain of 100]

Washington was Federal. He drummed a homosexual out of the Army. Cherilyn Eagar has tried to defend family values and she's a control freak? That's a little inconsistent. Do you have an agenda here? Name one abusive thing (specific) she has said she would do. Are you just throwing mud and hoping some will stick? Why?

Now suddenly you are admitting that you are not really Libertarian on a state and local level, but only on a Federal level. I'm all for federal government getting out of the way.

Why is it that Libertarians are against the right banish morally destructive influences. Destructive implies victimization. Where are the Libertarians on this one? Absent. You see, it is not a libertine principle. Godless people do not recognize spiritual victimization. NAMBLA* is Libertarian through and through. Ask them. Who are you to inflict your morality on adults or consenting children?

* You know, legalize pederasty. NAtional Man-Boy Love Association -- Libertarians.

[BrianM]

Washington was Federal. He drummed a homosexual out of the Army. Cherilyn Eagar has tried to defend family values and she's a control freak? That's a little inconsistent.

That's different because he's the commander in chief of the army and is allowed to make such laws which regulate the army... President is Federal, Army is Federal... no conflict there. Such action is allowed by the Constitution. In fact that's the proper use of exectutive orders, to give orders regarding the army and other things within the scope of the President's powers.

Cherilyn Eagar has tried to defend family values...Name one abusive thing (specific) she has said she would do.

I Will... here's the specifics you wanted quoting Eagar...

In a letter Cherilyn sent out to Republican State delegates she stated:

"With me, there would never be any question whether or not the Federal government should bail-out, own manage or control the private sector, except in cases of illegal force of sale, fraud, monopoly or what our Founders called "debauchery" (drugs, alcohol, pornography, gambling, etc.)."

A Delegate responded with:

"Can you please explain what role the federal government has in regulating the items you've listed under debauchery (drugs, alcohol, pornography, gambling, etc.)? How is this position reconciled with advocating state's rights, the tenth amendment, and a simple reading of Article I Section 8?"

Cherilyn responded:

"I believe that freedom and good government is impossible without strong moral values and principles not only for our government officials, whose private and public values have often been found wanting, but among the people as well and that any and attempts to regulate illicit drugs, alcohol, pornography and gambling are well within the purview of Congress’s powers under our Constitution under the “general welfare” and “necessary and proper” clauses of Article I Section VIII."

Delegate response:

"In short, the general welfare clause grants no additional authority to Congress that is not already specified in the enumerated powers. As you likely know, the general welfare clause is also used as justification for getting involved in health care (among other issues). As the quote goes, "don't give a power to your friend that you wouldn't want your enemy to have". But balance of power aside, the general welfare clause does not grant any additional authority to Congress, and thus could not be legitimately used to support legislation against debauchery (since it is not covered by one of the other provisions)."

- - -

I Will, remember this... at least for me, this discussion is not about whether or not vices and debauchery should or shouldn't be regulated (I think it should at the proper level)... this is about adherence to the Constitution and proper role of government. If Cherilyn was running for State legislature than her stance would be appropriate, but she's running for a Federal office and already declaring her desire to act in opposition to the Constitution.

[patriotsaintcaptain of 1,000]

Why is it that Libertarians are against the right banish morally destructive influences. Destructive implies victimization. Where are the Libertarians on this one? Absent. You see, it is not a libertine principle. Godless people do not recognize spiritual victimization. NAMBLA* is Libertarian through and through. Ask them. Who are you to inflict your morality on adults or consenting children?

Again you show your ignorance of libertarian principles. Do you even know what a right is? Look up Joel Skousen's definition of a right before you use the term anymore.

You think Nambla is consistent with Libertarian ideals? They don't understand libertarianism any better than you do, nor do they live consistent with libertarian principles. Libertarians believe that any individual is free to act according to the dictates of their own conscience as long as that action does not violate the rights of another. In order to understand this, you must correctly understand what a right is (which you apparently do not)

NAMBLA is not merely about spiritual victimization as you try to paint them. They are free to believe whatever they want. The point where they cross the line and violate rights is when they ACT on those beliefs and violate the rights of children. Any action they take that is violating the rights of another should be punished by law. That is what the Book of Mormon teaches as well......or do you not remember the story of Nehor in Alma 17?

Alma explains how damaging false teachings and beliefs were among the people, but then clearly explains that the law could have no hold upon these people, despite the spiritual damage they did until they actually violated someones rights by trespassing the law that protected those rights. Read verse 17 in particular:

16 Nevertheless, this did not put an end to the spreading of priestcraft through the land; for there were many who loved the vain things of the world, and they went forth preaching false doctrines; and this they did for the sake of riches and honor.
17 Nevertheless, they durst not lie, if it were known, for fear of the law, for liars were punished; therefore they pretended to preach according to their belief; and now the law could have no power on any man for his belief.
18 And they durst not steal, for fear of the law, for such were punished; neither durst they rob, nor murder, for he that murdered was punished unto death.

Libertarians believe that everyone should be able to believe as they choose. Libertarians also believe that anyone who violates the rights of another should be punished according to the law. This is consistent with scriptures, so I don't know why you keep bringing it up.

[p51-mustangcaptain of 1,000]

Original Intent, you seem to think that the Constitution should be sterilized so as to assist in our nation's laws becoming totally amoral. If Eagar's stances toward family values is a "red flag" it is not she that is part of the problem. It is the anti-God, anti-family, nation weakening philosophy of Libertarianism.

The problem is not with Eagar's family values, it's with the fact that she wants to use a position within government (US Senate) as the means for enforcing these values. I am all for family values and also support laws that allow us to uphold a high moral standard, however I also recognize that such laws are only proper at the State level, not federal. This is actually a good thing that the Constitution doesn't allow Federal government to be part of making such laws... because it allows to people of the various Republics (states) to decide what type of a community they want to have, and then people are free to live in the state which most represents their standards. It's awesome.

Agreed!

Its called a free market of principles and ideas. If you want to live in marxist California you can move there. If you want to live in a state with low taxes, freedom and good moral values move to Utah (yeah, i know, i wish that were true) But you get my point.

[Mosbycaptain of 1,000]

It is the anti-God, anti-family, nation weakening philosophy of Libertarianism.

I Will, honestly when will you stop showing that you bascially know nothing about Libertarianism? It's painful to watch.

I had hoped that after patriotsaint and O.I's.... uh....umm.........."woodshed lesson" on the subject that you would retreat to the library and do a little research on the subject. However you seem to be content to create arguments against a "ism" that you don't have any knowledge of- nor care to confront facts on the issue.

What gives? Were you abused by Libertarian at some point? Do you have some deep-seated hatred for the movement? I honestly do not understand your wanting to make yourself look like a fool, over and over on this subject.

Here's the funny thing about all your ramblings against Libertarianism- (again for you):

Most of the Founders would adhere more closely with "Libertarian" principles that any other mainstream political party- and they would be labeled "Libertarians" if alive today.

BTW- Thomas Jefferson is often referred to as the "Classic Libertarian"

[p51-mustangcaptain of 1,000]

Why isnt everyone on this forum supporting Scott Bradley. Clearly he is the only one that understands the nature of the bougus wars we are involved in. These other candidates sound like "constitution lite" to me. Why should we vote for any of them. Bradley is rhe real deal like Ron Paul is the real deal.

[MahonriMaster]

Is he still running Mustang? Frankly I am surprise so many so called liberty lovers are supporting Tim, Mike or Eagar. They are all stateists in patriots clothing.

Cooks position on the war is good and Constitutional, Fabiano seems pretty good as well.

Trust me, if the media is pushing someone as the "front runner", that is someone we should run away from. And those that "can't win" are the ones that most likely should

[BrianM]

Cooks position on the war is good and Constitutional

Hmmm.... It was Cooks position on the war that was the main reason why the "ron paul delegates" didn't vote for Cook in the first/second round of the convention in 2008. I think he would have won at the convention, or at least gone to a primary (against Bill Dew) if he would have had better views on the war. Instead we supported Bryan Jenkins in the 1st/2nd round.

[MahonriMaster]

it must have changed, http://www.merrillcookforsenate.com

He is for only going to declared wars that are not UN Wars and are purely defensive wars only.

He is also for ending the Fed, and actually has a record that proves it.

[BrianM]

it must have changed...

It looks more like he's just not mentioning the aspects that the "ron paul delegates" disagreed with him on.

[MahonriMaster]

which parts are those?

[BrianM]

which parts are those?

Regarding the Iraq War... when questioned by the delegates he wasn't willing to take a stance against it.

[MahonriMaster]

He is now. He points out how we should not be there to enforce UN Resolutions, and without a congressional declaration of war.

He does a little bit of what could be called wishy washy by saying they are doing a "good job", but that is so he is not accused of being "against the troops".

[Spencecaptain of 1,000]

I think I am firmly in Lee's camp after hearing Bennett's ad on KSL of him saying that Utah County has just as many thugs as does Afghanistan and we shouldn't be there.

That's the only thing I wasn't certain on him about was the wars, after that ad, I am certain I have a genuine ally. And just because Lee is highest in the polls shouldn't scare people away from him. Rand Paul is also highest. Should we call him an establisment candidate? Hardly not.

C'mon Merril Cook, Really?

[BrianM]

He is now. He points out how we should not be there to enforce UN Resolutions, and without a congressional declaration of war...

Seems like the easy way out of answering the questions about the Iraq war (that we shouldn't be there without a congressional declaration of war)...

Even if there was no UN, and there was a congressional declaration of war on Iraq, it still wouldn't justify us being there.