Libertarian vs. Constitution Party Debate

[suijuris]

A few have mentioned their interest in the Constitutional party in the past, and I have had nothing to say, mainly, due to my lack of familiarity with the party. Sure, I knew who their candidates were, but I have had a hard time really getting a feel for what their goals and their plans to implement those goals are.



That changed last week when I had the opportunity to attend a debate right here in South Carolina between US Senatorial Candidates Reb Sutherland, Libertarian Party, and Patrick Tyndall, Constitution Party.



www.reb4liberty.com

www.tyndallforsenate.com



The debate was held at at a steak house in Greenville, and there was a decent turnout. The food was good, and once we had finished eating, the debates began.



As to the actual debate, there was little to debate over. On many of the issues raised that would have a bearing on my vote, such as income taxation, welfare, public education, and gun control, the Libertarian and Constitution Party seemed to have the same stated goals. The candidates of course had differing opinions on the best way to reach some of these goals, and even though I was able to respect both candidate's implementation plans, I found myself aligning more with the Libertarian Party candidate.



One topic that there was a stark difference of opinion on is a regional issue, although it could effect citizens of other states if left unchecked. The problem is the current state of affairs in South Carolina regarding the storage of 37 million gallons of nuclear liquid legacy waste at the Savannah River Site. These wastes are being stored in a facility that was intended only for temporary containment, in "secondary" containers, sitting on the soil with nothing but dirt between them and the the underground aquifers connecting 5 states, called the the Southeastern Coastal Plain Aquifer System.



Says Reb, "Cracking tanks, which hold 37 million gallons of highly toxic liquid nuclear waste, sitting on top of an earthquake fault in sandy soil, is an accident waiting to happen. When will the accident happen? We don't know. Let's hope we have time to process that waste into a solid glass form and get it out of the state and down deep into Yucca Mountain before trouble comes."



Now, living in the region, I would love to be able to brush off this warning as a politician creating a problem so they can fix it. But Reb is a nuclear laboratory scientist and is trained to dissect and interpret this data, which she has first hand knowledge of due to her current classified position at the Westinghouse Savannah River Company.



Tyndall, the Constitution candidate, displayed an alarming position on the subject, which was simply to state that he contacted somebody within the South Carolina DHEC (Department of Health and Environmental Control), who told him that everything was safe, as the containment tanks were built to do what they were being used for.



Reb's response to Tyndall was simple: "He lied to you." Personally, I tend to believe the candidate with first hand knowledge. I cannot align myself with a candidate who relies on a government agency as his sole source of information on any issue, least of all an issue that will effect the lives of millions of people in 5 states.



Other than that, I was able to respect most of the Constitution candidate's goals. According to his bio, Tyndall is a former pastor. In my opinion, he still is a preacher. His speaking style, and even his message, was very "preachy" and religious in nature. Tyndall spent a good deal of time discussing himself and his proving his deep Christian religious beliefs and convictions, while his Libertarian opponent displayed the conviction needed to provide the reassurance that she would fight to protect my rights, regardless of my religion or lack thereof. Reb also stated that she is a Christian, although that did not seem to be the central focus of her campaign.



As the end of the debate neared, I found myself gaining more and more respect for Tyndall. Other than his mixing preaching with politics and displaying an indefensible position on the nuclear waste issue, I had no complaint and had the utmost respect for the man.



But then he blew it. Completely. It was time for their closing statement, and Reb went first. She made her final promises and pleas. Then it was Tyndall's turn. Knowing that his opponent would have no opportunity to rebut his final statements, he ripped into the Libertarian Party and their candidate, saying the Libertarian party "believes in individual rights that do not come from God, but some unknown ethereal source", and that the Libertarians want to lift the ban on all drugs which would "result in any 14 year old child being able to go into a drug store and buy any drug without a prescription", that voting for Libertarians will result in "child *****graphy" and they would promote "NAMBLA".



I wish I could remember everything he said, I cannot recall some of the other remarks that were made by Tyndall, but those few statements stuck out, and are complete lies. I lost all respect for that man and the party he represented right then and there. I do not know if Tyndall and his message is an accurate portrayal of the Constitution Party or not. But he was rather quick to point out Reb's position on illegal immigration which varied from her party's position, so I would assume that at least he believes to be an accurate portrayal of his party.



When I choose my senator, congressman, governor, or president, I must be sure that the candidate will not only protect my rights, but the rights of every American, and he or she must also convince me they believe in separation of church and state.



Once I have done my part to secure the liberty of future Americans, if so inclined, I will exercise my right to visit a church.



Anyway, vote your flavor. I know I will!



Go Reb! Go Badnarik! Go Libertarian!

[Ice]

The people that make such negative statements against the Libertarian Party, as Tyndale did, demonstrate a total lack of knowledge and understanding in regards to the Libertarian Party and in regards to True Freedom.



How many people agree that there would be less crime if we all packed a pistol as is our constitutional right ? It is true ... there would be less crime. So, where does Tyndale get the idea that Freedom would be a bad thing ?

[RickA]

"How many people agree that there would be less crime if we all packed a pistol as is our constitutional right ? It is true ... there would be less crime. So, where does Tyndale get the idea that Freedom would be a bad thing ?"



Hello all. First time poster.



I found this website several months ago and for the most part like what I see.



I tend to agree with what I have read from Ice, but I feel that Ice is incorrect with the above statement. According to Tyndall's website, he would act according to the constitution and only the constitution. With that part of the Constitution party's platform having been stated, he is well in support of the second amendment. If the constitution is followed as it was intended, there could ONLY be smaller government. Based on what I read from Tyndall's website, he is in agreement with presidential candidate Michael Peroutka's Constitution party platform.



Thanks for a forum for this kind of disussion.



Rick

[Ice]

Please reread Tyndale's remarks and you will have a better understanding of my statement. It is obvious that Tyndale would place "restrictions" on the freedom of others to make certain choices. Is any restriction other than "not infringing on anothers rights" considered "Freedom" ?

[RickA]

"Is any restriction other than "not infringing on anothers rights" considered "Freedom" ?"



No, it's not freedom.





"Please reread Tyndale's remarks and you will have a better understanding of my statement. It is obvious that Tyndale would place "restrictions" on the freedom of others to make certain choices. "



I did re-read his remarks and could not find where he would place any restrictions on choices that people could make.

[Ice]

" ... and that the Libertarians want to lift the ban on all drugs ... "



If there is a "ban" on something then you couldn't get it if you wanted it, right ? Well, it is obvious that Tyndale would keep the "ban on drugs" and therefore deny people their choice to "do or not do" drugs.



Personally, I believe that if the ban on drugs were lifted we would see an immediate reduction in the population and after awhile things would level off and there would actually be fewer users than there are today.



I could give a very lengthy talk on this one issue alone. . . but I'm not gonna do it here. ( That's one that ya'll would have to pay to hear ! )

[RickA]

<font color=red>"Personally, I believe that if the ban on drugs were lifted we would see an immediate reduction in the population and after awhile things would level off and there would actually be fewer users than there are today.

"[/color]



Do you really think there would be an immediate reduction in the population? I suppose there would be some who would succomb just from the celebration.font>



<font color=red>"If there is a "ban" on something then you couldn't get it if you wanted it, right ? Well, it is obvious that Tyndale would keep the "ban on drugs" and therefore deny people their choice to "do or not do" drugs.

"



Keeping the ban does not infringe on people choosing to, or not to, do drugs, it just makes it illeagal.



I do not think the number of users would grow substantially if there was no ban. Yes, there would be some, but it would be those people that likely would not have made it there life with the ban.



There are those who will do drugs and those who will not and the illeagality of it will not substantially change the numbers, it will only change the frequency that those who do not use drugs see those who do, use it in public.

[suijuris]

Originally Posted by RickA

Keeping the ban does not infringe on people choosing to, or not to, do drugs, it just makes it illeagal.

Ha! Tell that to the thousands who sit in prison or now or have felonies that prevent them from ever voting again, or being able to pick up a gun to defend themselves when the government is unable or unwilling to do so.



Are you telling me it is not a gross violation of my rights not be be able to vote? Is that a privilege that you feel you have the right to legislate away from me?



Or how about my right to own a weapon, how do you apply the second amendment to a person with a felony handed out for a non-violent, victimless "crime"? Either gun ownership is an unalienable right for all, or it is a just another privilege that can also be legislated away.



Now, answer those questions and you will see the true differences between the Libertarians and the Constitution/Republican parties.



What am I saying? The Constitution and Republican Parties both profess to support gun rights. However, until they stop criminalizing an adult's choice of what they will do with their body, which is one's property, (i.e.: drug use) then legislating away the Rights they claim to support IS A BAN THAT DOES INFRINGE ON THE PEOPLE WHO CHOOSE TO DO DRUGS.



The Constitution Party believes all Rights come from God. So they must believe they are God if they can take those Rights away from somebody who uses drugs!



And it also effects the rest of us "good moral Christian taxpayers". Do you have any idea the cost involved in incarcerating somebody in federal prison? It was around $35,000 yearly the last I checked. That does not include the cost of trial, surveillance, and after their incarceration ends, the cost to the taxpayer is still not over. Probation/Supervised Release are NOT free.



Where do you think all this money comes from? The taxpayer. As a taxpayer, do you think this does not infringe on my Right to keep my property, my labor?



According to www.prisonsucks.com, at the time of this writing, there are over 2.1 million people in US prisons and jails. Want to guess how many of that mass are their for non-violent, drug-related "crimes"? Want to guess how much that costs the taxpayers every year? Do you know anything about the agency commissioned to collect the needed funding for this enterprise, and the tactics they will use on you to extract those funds from your paycheck?



The Constitution Party wants to abolish the IRS. Where the hell do they think the money for the multi-billion dollar war on drugs will come from?



The war on drugs boils down to a forced welfare system. It is being forced on BOTH sides. The American taxpayer is being forced to part ways with their property so that others can be forced to live in confinement and receive food, clothes, housing, medication, rehabilitation, and treatment.



Look at the results of the Constitution Party's stance on drugs, and tell my now that they are against welfare, unneeded taxation, and that they believe the Right to vote and to own guns is an unalienable right!

Originally Posted by RickA

I do not think the number of users would grow substantially if there was no ban. Yes, there would be some, but it would be those people that likely would not have made it there life with the ban.



There are those who will do drugs and those who will not and the illeagality of it will not substantially change the numbers, it will only change the frequency that those who do not use drugs see those who do, use it in public.

I tend to agree. That being said, you have just made an excellent case for abolishing the drug laws.



If they are not "improving society" by greatly reducing the numbers of people who use drugs, and nobody is being hurt, why do we need these costly laws?



RickA, which side of this thing are you on, I am not sure anymore.

[Ice]

RickA,



I don't see any place in your post that you disagree with me. Yep, there will be a lot of "casualties" when / if the ban is initially listed. And that will last for quite a few months. But, drug prices would drop like a rock. No need for "gang" type activity for something you could grow at home. Look at all that is abolished just by removing this ban.



Now, there are some parents out there that are probably freakin' out on this position. But, if you use your head you can make damn sure that your children will not fall for the temptation.



We need clear minds to protect our sovereignty . . . your children are the future . . . do all that you can to educate them about the dangers involved, the risk to their future as well as the risk to their health.



I am not a "user". I will have a cold "Ice" now and then. But I am more interested in having a clear head at all times so that I may properly defend myself, my family and my property. This needs to be stressed to our children. In the not too distant future I hope to actually show my youngest some of the possible futures if he were to make the wrong choices regarding this issue. Create a solid relationship with your children, gain their respect so that they will respect your words and trust that you know the "real deal".



Ice

[RickA]

WOW!, where to begin.



For starters "I" believe in freedom. There is no doubt in my mind. I may not be stating my beliefs clear here.



I would like to take some time to study the Constitution party's "platform" on the issues you have stated so I can be absolutely sure.