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.

truthseeker2083: And who would the gop replace them with? Forrest Gump and Cletus from the simpsons?

Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann.

/So yeah, you were right.
//No comment on TFA, never heard of her.

Lando Lincoln: The GOP House running an Ethics Committee. Now that's funny.

Yea because Joe Crowley, Charlie Rangel, and Laura Richardson saints, right?

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.

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: 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: 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.

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.

See, that's where you're wrong. I would vote republican... if they weren't batshiat crazy. When the republicans stop trying to tell me who I can love, stop telling me taxes to support the country are taken at gun point, stop trying to legislate women's bodies, stop trying to shove jebus down outlr throats, etc, etc, etc, I'll vote for one. Until then, I'll vote for the candidate who doesn't sound schizophrenic.

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

Mildot: 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?

it would be an improvement.

Waters, I can understand. But what, pray tell, is so horrible about Pelosi? Besides being a strong, Democratic woman, that is. She was MUCH better at her job than the Weeping Orange Drunk is, for starters.

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.