Hydra: truthseeker2083: And if you think I'm being mean, or insensitive, just look at the video of the mentally ill woman in front of the city council a couple weeks ago. Everything she said was taken from the gop playbook. The only difference was that at least she was diagnosed mentally ill and had a reason to spout nonsense, unlike the rest of the gop.

Hence why in the end, you don't care about corruption in politics - as long as it's your guy who's being corrupt. Don't bother trying to vote for someone who's at least principled and who might be persuaded to listen to reason; nope, because you bought into the lip service they've made to the few issues you care about, you'll look past the privileged lives these people have led at YOUR direct expense and that you will never have the chance to experience.

Drain the swamp*

*just so long as it stays nice and marshy on your side of the aisle

/by the way, that litany of issues you rattled off that you disagree with Republicans about? The vast majority of them wouldn't be federal issues (or issues at all) - and thus more easily addressed and changed if left to the states - if people like you stopped giving Washington progressively more power

I know it's a state issue. I live in a state where republicans sponsored and passed an amendment to the state constitution saying my partner and I can't get married. Why would I vote for the same people that think I'm scum? Corruption is something to be worried about, but when it comes down to it, who am I going to vote for? A person who used tax dollars, d.c. connections and power wrong? Or the people who think I'm scum because of who I love? Hhhmmm? Which one has a more direct influence on my day to day life?

So, your bs assertion that things would be better left to the states is just that:bs. My state has been taken over by republicans and the 'small gubment' republicans have decided to get into my life. But let me guess, now that I've shown that republicans are shiat-eaters at the state level, now I should focus on them at the city level, huh?

Should these people live like kings? Hell no. Should I vote R, when they are not only living like kings, but also trying to make what life I do have hell, or vote for those who live like kings and at least throw a scrap every now and then? Ibwish there were more choices, but that's the state of the country, and I'll do what I need to keep us afloat until things really change. Voting for any R right now would just drag us down further. Once the Rs are done tearing themselvesbaprt, maybe we'll be able to rebuild from the ashes a party that actaully cares about the people and their right to live a life of happiness. Until then, I'll go with the lessor of two evils.

/sorry if there are any mistakes. I'm typing on a new phone and the keyboard sux.

Yay Maxine! Damn, it was getting kind of boring and stuffy up in here.
I love Congress and all its characters. Better than any sitcom on TV these days. This is like Kramer come busting through Jerry's door! Health Care Reform? Fast and Furious? Heavy, serious stuff. Cue the comic relief!

Another thing about it being left up to states in regards to my partner and I marrying: why should my marriage be subject to the whims of every state, when my parent's marriage isn't? And before someone says something idiotic like 'just move, derp', my partner is a truck driver and I go with him. If we marry in New York, and he or I get hurt in Wisconsin, the douche of a republican governor has done his best to make sure I wouldn't be able to visit my SPOUSE in the hospital. So I guess your 'states should be able to decide' point is b.s. in that reguard as well.

Hydra: Fart_Machine: Hydra: truthseeker2083: Mildot: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: /whole gop just stinks of desperation

desperate to get rid of stupid coonts like her and pelosi, then yes, yes we are desprate.

And who would the gop replace them with? Forrest Gump and Cletus from the simpsons?

How about a Democrat with principles? Primary the biatch and get someone better in there. But no challenger stands a chance against her either in a primary or a general election because all of the entrenched interests getting rich off of her would have their gravy train stop. They don't want that to happen, so they'll have waterfalls of money to keep the partisans in line. No outside challenger within the party stands a chance, and because so many people in LA think exactly like you ("we can't EVER vote for a Republican; they're ALL equally bad"), we're stuck with her.

Uh the 39th District was Republican until a decade ago. Are you even old enough to vote?

That's interesting - too bad she's in the 35th.

She was first elected to Congress in 1991. She's been in Congress for 21 years when there's a goddamn election every two. What about LA's demographics makes you think the Republicans/outside-principled-Democrat-challenger ever have a chance of voting this coont out?

Ah you got me of the number. The 35th was held by a Republican until 1992. So yeah they never ever have voted Republican.

Hydra: Try explaining that to your average Farker, though. She's easily one of the most corrupt politicians in Washington, but because she has a D after her name and she's a minority, to Farkers (and the idiot voters in LA, of course) she's automatically better than every single Republican.

Then you have Nathan Deal, who was considered the most corrupt member of congress. The Ethics Committee was about to release a damning report on him but he resigned just in time for it to not become public. A few months later he was elected governor of Georgia because he had an (R) behind his name on the ballot.

Let's face it, in the world of partisan politics the real morons are the people who keep electing these obviously corrupt jerks while making excuses for them.

Hydra: dickfreckle: In this case, Waters is a walking, talking c-word. I support her politics but can't support the person behind them. So we can agree on that.

Good; I'm glad (no sarcasm).


But we usually laugh (or cry) when the most cogent anti-Obama argument at a Tea rally is some vague claim about the Constitution being usurped or reclaiming our country from the jaws of recently invented socialism.

Sounds to me like you need to read further into the actual arguments made by some of his more coherent detractors with legitimate arguments and stop broad-brushing everyone into a single group. That'd be like me saying that people like me laugh when the most cogent argument at an Occupy Wall Street rally is some vague anti-capitalism crap and then me lumping you in with the actual Marxists who showed up at those things.


GO ahead, keep complaining about being called a racist.

Or we could, y'know, try elevating the level of discussion above name-calling and mud-slinging.

Or you can keep calling everyone who disagrees with the president a racist; it's up to you.


But you need to look at your friends and be honest with yourself. What's motivating all the people attacking the POTUS armed with nothing but being uneasy with his occupancy of the White House?

You should seriously check out some libertarian publications that write on this stuff - there's PLENTY more than simply "being uneasy with his occupancy of the White House."

Broad-brushing Tea Party - Bad
Broad-brushing the entire city of Los Angeles for a particular district - Awesome

stolibro: JosephFinn: She's still better than any of the racists in the tea parties.

The irony in your post has reached critical mass

What irony?

truthseeker2083: Hey, same here. *Internet fist bump*

[place_high_five_here.jpg]

truthseeker2083: I know it's a state issue. I live in a state where republicans sponsored and passed an amendment to the state constitution saying my partner and I can't get married. Why would I vote for the same people that think I'm scum?

The odds of Hydra caring about our rights are roughly zero. His response will be either "You have the right to marry somebody of the opposite gender, just like anybody else" or "That's your fault for choosing to be gay."

Hydra: dickfreckle: In this case, Waters is a walking, talking c-word. I support her politics but can't support the person behind them. So we can agree on that.

Good; I'm glad (no sarcasm).


But we usually laugh (or cry) when the most cogent anti-Obama argument at a Tea rally is some vague claim about the Constitution being usurped or reclaiming our country from the jaws of recently invented socialism.

Sounds to me like you need to read further into the actual arguments made by some of his more coherent detractors with legitimate arguments and stop broad-brushing everyone into a single group. That'd be like me saying that people like me laugh when the most cogent argument at an Occupy Wall Street rally is some vague anti-capitalism crap and then me lumping you in with the actual Marxists who showed up at those things.


GO ahead, keep complaining about being called a racist.

Or we could, y'know, try elevating the level of discussion above name-calling and mud-slinging.

Or you can keep calling everyone who disagrees with the president a racist; it's up to you.


But you need to look at your friends and be honest with yourself. What's motivating all the people attacking the POTUS armed with nothing but being uneasy with his occupancy of the White House?

You should seriously check out some libertarian publications that write on this stuff - there's PLENTY more than simply "being uneasy with his occupancy of the White House."

For example?

Fluorescent Testicle: truthseeker2083: Hey, same here. *Internet fist bump*

[place_high_five_here.jpg]

truthseeker2083: I know it's a state issue. I live in a state where republicans sponsored and passed an amendment to the state constitution saying my partner and I can't get married. Why would I vote for the same people that think I'm scum?

The odds of Hydra caring about our rights are roughly zero. His response will be either "You have the right to marry somebody of the opposite gender, just like anybody else" or "That's your fault for choosing to be gay."

Well, it's someone who thinks Red Skull is a god..

Hydra: truthseeker2083: And before someone says something idiotic like 'just move, derp', my partner is a truck driver and I go with him.

Now you know how I feel when that exact reply is commonly given in reference to onerous federal taxes and regulations.

And it sounds to me like you just need to remove yourself from the D vs. R, right vs. left pissing contest (considering, like you said, both parties are rife with corruption).

/by the way, you do understand how federalism works, right? Or know the history behind why we have it here in the US or the underlying political philosophy behind its development?

I am as removed from the r vs. d crap as I can be. As far as I can tell however, at least on the national level, I could waste my vote on a candidate who will be lucky to get 1% of the vote, or I can choose one of the two that will win, and go for the one that wants to screw me over the least.

Yes, I understand federalism, but I also realize there are issues that need to be dealt with above the state level. Marriage is one of those issues. As I said in my other post above, my parents can go through each individual state and not have to worry about their marriage. I on the other hand have to hop over hillbillies to get to states that recognize that everyone has rights. Human rights shouldn't be left up to the states. If they were, Alabama would still have fields crowded with slaves. A state wants to make it's own tax rates, rules of the road, requirement to paint houses purple? Fine. A state wants to claim groups of citizens are second class because of who they are? The feds need to step in.

Hydra: Do either of you even really know what libertarians stand for?

"You should seriously check out some libertarian publications that write on this stuff - there's PLENTY more than simply "being uneasy with his occupancy of the White House."

For example?

To add to my post since the text box wouldn't let me add to the end, to say that I know how being told to move because of historically low taxes and regulations that on the whole protect society because I have had people say that to me so I can marry the man I have been with and loved for over 5 years is insulting. That, in my mind, would be like a white man saying he understood the black man's struggles in the 1850's because he had worked a double shift. I understand what you were trying to say, but paying another percentage in taxes, or not being allowed to dump toxic waste in a river is nowhere near being denied a right because of who you are. That is something that impacts my day to day life. Unless you own your own business/contract through a company (which my partner does as a truck driver) taxes and regulations are probably nowhere near the top of your list like being denied your rights would be. We have been dealing with new DOT regulations, but I promise you, the bigger problem with the govt for us is being denied the right to join our lives together.

Hydra: Fart_Machine: Broad-brushing Tea Party - Bad
Broad-brushing the entire city of Los Angeles for a particular district - Awesome

Good god... what, you want me to narrow it down to "idiot voters in the Westchester District of the City of Los Angeles and the neighborhoods of Inglewood, Hawthorne, Gardena and Florence-Graham" for you, or are you going to try to nitpick every single goddamn comment to show off the size of your e-penis? I took that cheap shot about your 39th district comment in response to your previous nitpicky comment and because I know how you operate. Would you mind acting like an adult?

(Careful; now you have to come back with another nitpicky comment lest you get zinged by some stranger on the internet in front of other strangers - maybe I made a typo you can bring up!)


EngineerAU: Then you have Nathan Deal, who was considered the most corrupt member of congress. The Ethics Committee was about to release a damning report on him but he resigned just in time for it to not become public. A few months later he was elected governor of Georgia because he had an (R) behind his name on the ballot.

Let's face it, in the world of partisan politics the real morons are the people who keep electing these obviously corrupt jerks while making excuses for them.

Yup, which is exactly why I voted for the Libertarian candidate. We have the same breed of simpletons who will swipe "D" out in California out of reflex here in GA - just replacing the "D" with an "R," of course. Easy-to-win elections for these people are breeding grounds for corruption because they aren't ever held accountable.


Fluorescent Testicle: truthseeker2083: I know it's a state issue. I live in a state where republicans sponsored and passed an amendment to the state constitution saying my partner and I can't get married. Why would I vote for the same people that think I'm scum?

The odds of Hydra caring about our rights are roughly zero. His response will be either "You have the right to marry somebody of the opposite gender, just like anybody else" or "That's your fault for choosing to be gay."

Do either of you even really know what libertarians stand for?

I know what it stands for, and while some ideas of libertarian origin may sound nice, they rely on humans acting in a truthful, undeceptive way. It'll never happen outside of a Hyatt conference room, or the pages of a blindly propagandized novel.

I'm just responding to the last part of this, but I can't cut out the rest on mobile site (take a hint drew, we could use that on phones...)

I already have your number little guy. You're one of those people who biatch about civility while accusing anyone who criticizes your broad-brush points as being a party shill or an idiot. The fact is that the 35th District was held by a Republican for over a decade before Waters was elected and became the incumbent. But yes I know it's not nitpicking when you do it. Love the projection though.

Hydra-

Garden variety trolling, sorry I responded.

What I said was "She's not the worst based on the article you linked". That's it. Everything else is you assuming things in order to create an argument.

Hydra: 404 page not found: For example?

Peruse some articles on reason.com or mises.org. Here's Reason's youtube channel. The stuff's out there; just have to give it a look and judge it for what it is rather than what others have said it is.

So you're too busy GIS'ing "UGA" and green-lighting football articles and sheep-farking to provide an example of how you're not just "being uneasy with his occupancy of the White House."?

I've got plenty of complaints with this motherfarkin' RADICAL CENTRIST of a president. Mainly, that he keeps stealing ideas from the right.

1. Stole George W. Bush's foreign policy and put it on steroids.
2. Stole RomneyCare and put it on steroids.
3. Stole Rubio's DREAM-act redux and, well, that was actually pretty funny.
4. etc.

But you have just been sitting around on Fark for 7 years greening foosball articles and sheepføcking and all of a sudden you're a farkin' libertarian? Come on, man. If there are plenty of examples out there, provide one. Just one.

Hydra: Do either of you even really know what libertarians stand for?

1. Masturbating to Ayn Rand.
2. Sticking it to the libs.
3. Me-tooing the GOP while claiming to be independent.
4. Smoking a whole lot weed.

I can only agree with one of these four positions.

/This opinion is based on behaviour, not dictionary definitions.
//Will stop responding to the boring troll now.

Fluorescent Testicle: ... lot of weed.

/FTFM.
//My typing sucks today.

Althoug I'd hate to see the GOP or teabaggers land any more seats in the house, this is one woman I would be happy never to hear from again. She's like the polar opposite of Michele Bachmann and that is bad.

Hydra: truthseeker2083: To add to my post since the text box wouldn't let me add to the end, to say that I know how being told to move because of historically low taxes and regulations that on the whole protect society because I have had people say that to me so I can marry the man I have been with and loved for over 5 years is insulting. That, in my mind, would be like a white man saying he understood the black man's struggles in the 1850's because he had worked a double shift. I understand what you were trying to say, but paying another percentage in taxes, or not being allowed to dump toxic waste in a river is nowhere near being denied a right because of who you are. That is something that impacts my day to day life. Unless you own your own business/contract through a company (which my partner does as a truck driver) taxes and regulations are probably nowhere near the top of your list like being denied your rights would be. We have been dealing with new DOT regulations, but I promise you, the bigger problem with the govt for us is being denied the right to join our lives together.

Then move. Or get over it.

/this is why you don't give government too much power - because when people you don't like get elected, they use it, too
//this is the world people like you have given us - now live in it


truthseeker2083: I know what it stands for, and while some ideas of libertarian origin may sound nice, they rely on humans acting in a truthful, undeceptive way.

Not at all, actually. Free market principles take greed as a given and go from there - unlike progressive/pseudo-marxist principles which rely on the omniscience and benevolence of central planners.

If you want to see a philosophy that relies on humans acting in a truthful, undeceptive way in order to work, look no further your own (and check out some public choice theory on the way to understand how those central planners' good intentions were doomed from the get-go).

So you're too busy GIS'ing "UGA" and green-lighting football articles and sheep-farking to provide an example of how you're not just "being uneasy with his occupancy of the White House."?

I've got plenty of complaints with this motherfarkin' RADICAL CENTRIST of a president. Mainly, that he keeps stealing ideas from the right.

1. Stole George W. Bush's foreign policy and put it on steroids.
2. Stole RomneyCare and put it on steroids.
3. Stole Rubio's DREAM-act redux and, well, that was actually pretty funny.
4. etc.

But you have just been sitting around on Fark for 7 years greening foosball articles and sheepføcking and all of a sudden you're a farkin' libertarian? Come on, man. If there are plenty of examples out there, provide one. Just one.

Hydra: truthseeker2083: To add to my post since the text box wouldn't let me add to the end, to say that I know how being told to move because of historically low taxes and regulations that on the whole protect society because I have had people say that to me so I can marry the man I have been with and loved for over 5 years is insulting. That, in my mind, would be like a white man saying he understood the black man's struggles in the 1850's because he had worked a double shift. I understand what you were trying to say, but paying another percentage in taxes, or not being allowed to dump toxic waste in a river is nowhere near being denied a right because of who you are. That is something that impacts my day to day life. Unless you own your own business/contract through a company (which my partner does as a truck driver) taxes and regulations are probably nowhere near the top of your list like being denied your rights would be. We have been dealing with new DOT regulations, but I promise you, the bigger problem with the govt for us is being denied the right to join our lives together.

Then move. Or get over it.

/this is why you don't give government too much power - because when people you don't like get elected, they use it, too
//this is the world people like you have given us - now live in it


truthseeker2083: I know what it stands for, and while some ideas of libertarian origin may sound nice, they rely on humans acting in a truthful, undeceptive way.

Not at all, actually. Free market principles take greed as a given and go from there - unlike progressive/pseudo-marxist principles which rely on the omniscience and benevolence of central planners.

If you want to see a philosophy that relies on humans acting in a truthful, undeceptive way in order to work, look no further your own (and check out some public choice theory on the way to understand how those central planners' good intentions were doomed from the get-go).

So... let me get this straight. I point out how saying 'states rights11!1' is b.s., and the response I get is that giving the states that option is my fault I'm discriminated against. Yup, that sounds like right wing logic to me. See, I was sitting here thinking you were able to make logical arguments, but it just boils down to the same crap. 'I'm right winger, I spout crap. What?! You prove my crap is wrong? It's your own fault you tried to follow my advice!!! I complain about $50 a month, you have rights violated... mine more important and life scarring!!'

People like me have had to go to the federal government, because all you 'state's rights' people have trampled over us. Way to blame those on the short end of the stick. I guess the tactic of victim blaming is still alive and well in the republican party right , Mr. libertarian?

Hydra: Jamesac68: Hydra-

Garden variety trolling, sorry I responded.

What I said was "She's not the worst based on the article you linked". That's it. Everything else is you assuming things in order to create an argument.

Meh, I took it hook-line-sink. Poe's Law and all.

/it's late


404 page not found: If there are plenty of examples out there, provide one. Just one.

Farking happy now?

Jesus, go back on the meds. I don't know you, but you seem to be a tad obsessed with sheep-farking; might want to see a shrink about that.


Fluorescent Testicle: 1. Masturbating to Ayn Rand.
2. Sticking it to the libs.
3. Me-tooing the GOP while claiming to be independent.
4. Smoking a whole lot weed.

I can only agree with one of these four positions.

/This opinion is based on behaviour, not dictionary definitions.
//Will stop responding to the boring troll now.

1. Strawman
2. Strawman
3. Strawman
4. Kinda have a point - which happens to be the one we agree.

Seems like you've only been reading about what others have been saying instead of studying it for what it actually is, which is sort of like what you accuse the GOP of doing when they conflate Obama's progressive agenda with outright socialism (which is not what it actually is, but you already knew that).

LOL You link an article that is barely 5 months into Obama's first term? What do YOU have against Obama, Mister enlightened libertarian guy?

Fart_Machine: Hydra: dickfreckle: In this case, Waters is a walking, talking c-word. I support her politics but can't support the person behind them. So we can agree on that.

Good; I'm glad (no sarcasm).


But we usually laugh (or cry) when the most cogent anti-Obama argument at a Tea rally is some vague claim about the Constitution being usurped or reclaiming our country from the jaws of recently invented socialism.

Sounds to me like you need to read further into the actual arguments made by some of his more coherent detractors with legitimate arguments and stop broad-brushing everyone into a single group. That'd be like me saying that people like me laugh when the most cogent argument at an Occupy Wall Street rally is some vague anti-capitalism crap and then me lumping you in with the actual Marxists who showed up at those things.


GO ahead, keep complaining about being called a racist.

Or we could, y'know, try elevating the level of discussion above name-calling and mud-slinging.

Or you can keep calling everyone who disagrees with the president a racist; it's up to you.


But you need to look at your friends and be honest with yourself. What's motivating all the people attacking the POTUS armed with nothing but being uneasy with his occupancy of the White House?

You should seriously check out some libertarian publications that write on this stuff - there's PLENTY more than simply "being uneasy with his occupancy of the White House."

Broad-brushing Tea Party - Bad
Broad-brushing the entire city of Los Angeles for a particular district - Awesome

I grew up in the Los Angeles region. Any negative broad brush used on that city is probably an understatement.

Fluorescent Testicle: Hydra: Do either of you even really know what libertarians stand for?

1. Masturbating to Ayn Rand.
2. Sticking it to the libs.
3. Me-tooing the GOP while claiming to be independent.
4. Smoking a whole lot weed.

I can only agree with one of these four positions.

/This opinion is based on behaviour, not dictionary definitions.
//Will stop responding to the boring troll now.

1. I can't stand Any Rand. Her books are crap.
2. I stick it to the right, too.
3. More of, "no farking way", to both parties.
4. I don't smoke pot.

But I'm a little 'L' libertarian.

Hydra: Jesus, go back on the meds.

I've yet to meet a "libertarian" who can explain to me why, all of a sudden, something has to be done about the direction this country is headed. Own up to your shiat, bro. Fact is, you can't come up with one single coherent argument of your own on why President Obama goes against your new-found libertarian principles. Own it man. farkin' own it.

Hydra: truthseeker2083: To add to my post since the text box wouldn't let me add to the end, to say that I know how being told to move because of historically low taxes and regulations that on the whole protect society because I have had people say that to me so I can marry the man I have been with and loved for over 5 years is insulting. That, in my mind, would be like a white man saying he understood the black man's struggles in the 1850's because he had worked a double shift. I understand what you were trying to say, but paying another percentage in taxes, or not being allowed to dump toxic waste in a river is nowhere near being denied a right because of who you are. That is something that impacts my day to day life. Unless you own your own business/contract through a company (which my partner does as a truck driver) taxes and regulations are probably nowhere near the top of your list like being denied your rights would be. We have been dealing with new DOT regulations, but I promise you, the bigger problem with the govt for us is being denied the right to join our lives together.

Then move. Or get over it.

/this is why you don't give government too much power - because when people you don't like get elected, they use it, too
//this is the world people like you have given us - now live in it


truthseeker2083: I know what it stands for, and while some ideas of libertarian origin may sound nice, they rely on humans acting in a truthful, undeceptive way.

Not at all, actually. Free market principles take greed as a given and go from there - unlike progressive/pseudo-marxist principles which rely on the omniscience and benevolence of central planners.

If you want to see a philosophy that relies on humans acting in a truthful, undeceptive way in order to work, look no further your own (and check out some public choice theory on the way to understand how those central planners' good intentions were doomed from the get-go).

And to respond to the second part of this crap, let me get this right... because I know the right wing is full of shiat-eating poo nuggets, and I think marriage should be recognised throughout the states, that makes me a pseudo-marxist? Because I know that taking regulations away from businesses, and wanting a tax rate that can sustain our country, I want central planners? WTF is wrong with someone to make them think that a 'free market' (controlled by the mob of course... you just think no government interference, wait until the other guys with guns show up) is the best way to go? We should let companies do what they want.... if you don't like that lead in your beef? Go somewhere else to get beef... what's that? All companies put it in to fill it out to stretch profits because no one told them they can't? Oh, well, I guess a little lead won't hurt.

That's assuming we're stable enough at that point to even afford beef. My partner has a student from Somalia right now. From what the student has told him, that place sounds like your paradise. No govt interference, no taxes ( of course the war lords come through, with an actual gun, not a badge that says IRS, and take what they want, but hey, at least you don't have to pay taxes for a military) and no regulations.

You wouldn't last a day in your paradise.

Hydra: truthseeker2083: So... let me get this straight. I point out how saying 'states rights11!1' is b.s., and the response I get is that giving the states that option is my fault I'm discriminated against. Yup, that sounds like right wing logic to me. See, I was sitting here thinking you were able to make logical arguments, but it just boils down to the same crap. 'I'm right winger, I spout crap. What?! You prove my crap is wrong? It's your own fault you tried to follow my advice!!! I complain about $50 a month, you have rights violated... mine more important and life scarring!!'

People like me have had to go to the federal government, because all you 'state's rights' people have trampled over us. Way to blame those on the short end of the stick. I guess the tactic of victim blaming is still alive and well in the republican party right , Mr. libertarian?

Meanwhile, Connecticut became the 17th state to legalize medical marijuana this year, and the death penalty remains effectively abolished (either outright illegal or never used) in about a dozen states or so. Without federalism or "state's rights", none of this would've happened. There's a reason we had it at the country's founding and why it exists in the first place.

And yet, marijuana, which I smoke and support, still isn't the same as a persons right to marry. So again, state's rights on policy: good. 'State's rights' on personal rights: bad. I never said I wanted only a federal government. Only that they need to come in when people like you and those you pull the lever for screw things up just because someone is different. We have tried the state's rights path for people's rights and it goes wrong, because people are pricks. The feds had to stop slavery, segregation, and now they will undo the wrong done by every state with a one-man-one-woman amendment. Sucks for bigots, old cranks, and every other unempathetic son of a biatch out there hiding behind the republican or 'libertarian' label

truthseeker2083: You wouldn't last a day in your paradise.

Fluorescent Testicle: truthseeker2083: You wouldn't last a day in your paradise.

Exactly... but with roaming bands of men with big, big guns...

404 page not found: Hydra: Jesus, go back on the meds.

I've yet to meet a "libertarian" who can explain to me why, all of a sudden, something has to be done about the direction this country is headed. Own up to your shiat, bro. Fact is, you can't come up with one single coherent argument of your own on why President Obama goes against your new-found libertarian principles. Own it man. farkin' own it.

For almost 30 years I've been saying that government spending needed to be brought under control because one day we're going to wake up and discover we've spent ourselves so deeply into dept that there is no way out. Nobody listened, but now they accuse people like me of never saying anything. I tried. And to all the people who thought we could spend ourselves into prosperity -- FARK YOU.

Hydra: 404 page not found: I've yet to meet a "libertarian" who can explain to me why, all of a sudden, something has to be done about the direction this country is headed. Own up to your shiat, bro. Fact is, you can't come up with one single coherent argument of your own on why President Obama goes against your new-found libertarian principles. Own it man. farkin' own it.

Spending more money than the government receives in taxes leads to diminished economic progress and higher inflation after part of it is financed with money crowded out of the private market and the remainder printed up at the central bank. Persistent fiscal deficits financed this way leads to a weakening of confidence in the currency. The only reason the US has been able to run deficits the size it has been under Obama is because of our world reserve currency status. Once that happens, those dollars come flooding back home and drive prices through the roof.

There. Are you farking satisfied now? It's late, and you turned out to be kind of a dick, so I won't bother elaborating since arguing with you is like arguing with a wall.

Oh I get all that. I'm just wondering why, after you've been on Fark for 7 years, that all of a sudden you've found your voice. Don't be mad. Just have some respect for yourself.

OgreMagi: 404 page not found: Hydra: Jesus, go back on the meds.

I've yet to meet a "libertarian" who can explain to me why, all of a sudden, something has to be done about the direction this country is headed. Own up to your shiat, bro. Fact is, you can't come up with one single coherent argument of your own on why President Obama goes against your new-found libertarian principles. Own it man. farkin' own it.

For almost 30 years I've been saying that government spending needed to be brought under control because one day we're going to wake up and discover we've spent ourselves so deeply into dept that there is no way out. Nobody listened, but now they accuse people like me of never saying anything. I tried. And to all the people who thought we could spend ourselves into prosperity -- FARK YOU.

"Iraq - Saddam Hussein was an evil bastard who needed killing, but I think it was a mistake to get involved at the time, especially since we were still busy in Afghanistan. To leave prematurely, however, would be a great injustice to the people of Iraq. We started this mess, we must stay until their country is stable enough to stand on its own." - OgreMagi

Maybe we should follow the libertarian model... if they had their way, black people who lived in the sputh would be slaves, the rivers would be toxic with waste runoff (who needs the EPA, right?), states would have individual highway systems (if at all, and you'd pay a crapload to travel them), you'd never know what the hell your eating (who needs the FDA, companies wouldn't mess would the food would they?), that car you just bought may burst into flames due to no regulation and it's cheaper if we don't put saftey measures in.... if it explodes, yeah you may die, but you'll teach them by buying elsewhere, damn it!

You know, living in that hellhole, maybe I woild pray for an exploding car to get me away from it...

So, i guess no response... I know taking right-wing beliefs to their logical conclusion is a bit scary, but hey, it's ok to finally understand just how damaging those thoughts are. If I'm wrong and I get a reply, I'll see it in the morning... unless the warlords come, oh that's right, my taxes went to the police and I can sleep knowing I'm safe. It's a pity those in countries with no stable government can't say the same.

Most self-described libertarians can never seem to offer an alternative as to why they're "better" apart from not being part of a major party. They were "independent" before it was cool, man.

Lorelle: Ooooh...this should be good.

/waits for Teabaggers to make racist comments while denying that they're racists.
//Damn Teabaggers

/ waits for coonts to make coont comments while denying they are coonts.
// shiat... too late.

Jamesac68: Hydra- the article you linked to is garden-variety douchebaggery of the kind you see happening in Washington on a regular basis. For "most corrupt" you're going to need a bit more than that. Yes, it was wrong and sleazy, but an abuse of power, but nowhere near Most Corrupt Cngresscritter USA 2012 territory.

She's being investigated for misappropriating funds for personal gain (or, rather, attempting to), that's pretty corrupt. Albeit I'm not really sure how one would measure a 'unit' of corruption so 'most corrupt' seems kinda non-sequitir without expanding on what exactly they mean. Most instances of corruption? Most public money abused, maybe?

Jim_Callahan: Jamesac68: Hydra- the article you linked to is garden-variety douchebaggery of the kind you see happening in Washington on a regular basis. For "most corrupt" you're going to need a bit more than that. Yes, it was wrong and sleazy, but an abuse of power, but nowhere near Most Corrupt Cngresscritter USA 2012 territory.

She's being investigated for misappropriating funds for personal gain (or, rather, attempting to), that's pretty corrupt. Albeit I'm not really sure how one would measure a 'unit' of corruption so 'most corrupt' seems kinda non-sequitir without expanding on what exactly they mean. Most instances of corruption? Most public money abused, maybe?

"Being a politician while Democrat".

It's the same reason they call the Obama administration "the most corrupt EVAR!!!11"