If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Guardian)   Thanks to Gary Johnson and the potheads, Colorado could get all nadered-up next Tuesday   (guardian.co.uk) divider line 230
    More: Spiffy, Colorado, potheads  
•       •       •

3755 clicks; posted to Politics » on 03 Nov 2012 at 10:59 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



230 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-11-03 08:53:16 AM  
i1121.photobucket.com

"Third Party? Nonsense. You already have a choice."
 
2012-11-03 09:05:15 AM  
I don't think that it's going to matter. Romney's chances of taking enough states to get to 270 are very, very low.
 
2012-11-03 09:39:12 AM  
Inb4 Libertarian bashers muck up this thread with their confusion of Libertarianism and Conservatism
 
2012-11-03 10:22:42 AM  
You can't have Libertarianism without the 'Lib'. Obama's support in this state is about to be flipped upside down and I'd like to take a minute to tell you why. In Hawaii where he spent many a day, he could often be found advocating for the hip and cool. Then he gets in a heated argument one day and his Mom sends him overseas to a radical ISLAMISIST school in Indonesia. Drinking fresh-squeezed durian out of a wooden cup he starting having grandiose notions about whether the common people lived like this and whether it would be alright for all manner of social strata to live this way. Now Gary comes up with some fresh ideas and its no dice for Obama. All libs have to do is look in the mirror...

Now on election night around 7 or 8 Obama and Johnson will look around Colorado to see what finally happened there - and Romney will be sitting in the oval office as the prince of bel air!
 
2012-11-03 10:34:40 AM  
"You know you're a libertarian when you hate speed limits," he said, earning cheers.


The essence of the libertarian argument: I don't give a crap if it might endanger other people, you can't stop me doing what I want.
 
2012-11-03 10:39:53 AM  

Amos Quito: [i1121.photobucket.com image 631x615]

"Third Party? Nonsense. You already have a choice."


i1121.photobucket.com

Twas brillig.
 
2012-11-03 10:41:40 AM  

DammitIForgotMyLogin: The essence of the libertarian argument: I don't give a crap if it might endanger other people, you can't stop me doing what I want.


And governments would never keep speed limits artificially low as a revenue generator.
 
2012-11-03 10:46:23 AM  

DammitIForgotMyLogin: The essence of the libertarian argument: I don't give a crap if it might endanger other people, you can't stop me doing what I want.


You know how I know that you know jack farking shiat about Libertarianism?
 
2012-11-03 10:50:00 AM  

DammitIForgotMyLogin: The essence of the libertarian argument: I don't give a crap if it might endanger other people, you can't stop me doing what I want.


There's a bit more than that. A freedom to oppress, as long as you can frame it in the name of business. Openly choosing not to help people because they should help themselves, something that applies to natural disasters as well. No real Libertarian would have an agency like FEMA, or would have government for a second help coordinate personal relief efforts. Infrastructure sure, but feeding people? Not a Libertarian's job.
 
2012-11-03 11:05:38 AM  
The best example that was explained to me about libitarians and their ideas is an airport.

You have an airport with all your rights flying around (planes) and the air traffic control (government) gets to decide where those planes can go to and when. This is to avoid planes from running into each other or some planes getting special treatment.

Libitarians would want to remove the air traffic controller for ultimate freedom, but fail to realize in by doing do, all the planes would eventually start running in to each other.
 
2012-11-03 11:06:04 AM  
If it weren't for the serious damage it would cause, it'd almost be worth giving them a Libertarian president, just to demonstrate how bad things can get without a central government. Well, assuming that a Libertarian president could actually get anything done, which would be insanely unlikely.
 
2012-11-03 11:06:12 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson: DammitIForgotMyLogin: The essence of the libertarian argument: I don't give a crap if it might endanger other people, you can't stop me doing what I want.

You know how I know that you know jack farking shiat about Libertarianism?


What's to know? A candidate runs in the primary as a Republican, loses said primary, claims he's now a Libertarian, mentions something about wanting to legalize weed, the Paultards eat it up, and suddenly he's bypassed his way onto the general ballot.

It's like how a lot of 2-time Bush voters I know suddenly started referring to themselves as Libertarians back in 2006.
 
2012-11-03 11:06:32 AM  

Gulper Eel: DammitIForgotMyLogin: The essence of the libertarian argument: I don't give a crap if it might endanger other people, you can't stop me doing what I want.

And governments would never keep speed limits artificially low as a revenue generator.


I think it is more about insurance for the state. If I get into an accident at 80 mph in a section where the limit is 85 mph, I might be able to sue the state. Accidents under 65 on straighter roads are probably less fatal.

/I do 80 mph
 
2012-11-03 11:08:42 AM  

GAT_00: DammitIForgotMyLogin: The essence of the libertarian argument: I don't give a crap if it might endanger other people, you can't stop me doing what I want.

There's a bit more than that. A freedom to oppress, as long as you can frame it in the name of business. Openly choosing not to help people because they should help themselves, something that applies to natural disasters as well. No real Libertarian would have an agency like FEMA, or would have government for a second help coordinate personal relief efforts. Infrastructure sure, but feeding people? Not a Libertarian's job.


Of course, they swear up and down that they would personally help others if need be, because they're such nice guys. So long as you never test them. Or ask them to do so when it's personally inconvenient. Or ask them without promising to be forever in their debt.
 
2012-11-03 11:10:05 AM  
Imagine what a great country we could be, if only we were more like the great Libertarian paradise of Somalia.

/Seriously though, has this crazy shiat ever worked? Anywhere?
 
2012-11-03 11:10:32 AM  

AnonAmbientLight: The best example that was explained to me about libitarians and their ideas is an airport.

You have an airport with all your rights flying around (planes) and the air traffic control (government) gets to decide where those planes can go to and when. This is to avoid planes from running into each other or some planes getting special treatment.

Libitarians would want to remove the air traffic controller for ultimate freedom, but fail to realize in by doing do, all the planes would eventually start running in to each other.


The ultimate Libertarian response to every argument - "that's fine in practice, but in theory it just won't work."
 
2012-11-03 11:10:56 AM  
I'm excited for this prospect, especially in VA where I believe Johnson and Goode are on the ballot.
 
2012-11-03 11:13:54 AM  

AnonAmbientLight: The best example that was explained to me about libitarians and their ideas is an airport.

You have an airport with all your rights flying around (planes) and the air traffic control (government) gets to decide where those planes can go to and when. This is to avoid planes from running into each other or some planes getting special treatment.

Libitarians would want to remove the air traffic controller for ultimate freedom, but fail to realize in by doing do, all the planes would eventually start running in to each other.


After a bunch of crashes, the pilots who were really good at avoiding other planes would still be in business, and be able to reap the profits because demand for seats on those planes would go way up! Supply and demand, man! Best skilled pilots would reap the most gain.

Also, Darwinism! Watching evolution in action in our skies! It would be spectacular!

If your pilots weren't so good, and might crash, you could at least sell tickets to people who wanted to watch the spectacular crashes, and make money that way!
 
2012-11-03 11:13:59 AM  
So, it's still a horse race?
 
2012-11-03 11:15:37 AM  

Bhruic: If it weren't for the serious damage it would cause, it'd almost be worth giving them a Libertarian president, just to demonstrate how bad things can get without a central government. Well, assuming that a Libertarian president could actually get anything done, which would be insanely unlikely.


They'll just bury their heads in the sand, again, and claim the failure of a liberterian president rest on not putting jesus in their platform
 
2012-11-03 11:15:40 AM  
Oh, and another thing. It makes no sense whatsoever to vote for someone who literally has no chance of actually winning the election - that's just throwing your vote away. Think about that before you pull that lever for Romney!
 
2012-11-03 11:19:44 AM  

stoli n coke: What's to know? A candidate runs in the primary as a Republican, loses said primary, claims he's now a Libertarian, mentions something about wanting to legalize weed, the Paultards eat it up, and suddenly he's bypassed his way onto the general ballot.

It's like how a lot of 2-time Bush voters I know suddenly started referring to themselves as Libertarians back in 2006.


THIS

There are two explanations for being a libertarian: stupid or lying. If you want to be generous, you can rebrand the "stupid" category as "naive."
 
2012-11-03 11:19:46 AM  
Years ago, some farker said that Michael Z. Williamson's Freehold was the best example of why Libertarianism is the shiat.

You can read it here, for free.

Actually, don't, it was the dumbest book I have ever read.
 
2012-11-03 11:20:47 AM  
Did you hear that? HUNDREDS packed the auditorium. DOZENS couldn't find seats and filled the rows. Obama must have seen that and gone to respond to Johnsons impending upheaval!
 
2012-11-03 11:20:55 AM  

BMulligan: Oh, and another thing. It makes no sense whatsoever to vote for someone who literally has no chance of actually winning the election - that's just throwing your vote away. Think about that before you pull that lever for Romney!


You sir, just made my morning.
 
2012-11-03 11:21:52 AM  

CokeBear: Imagine what a great country we could be, if only we were more like the great Libertarian paradise of Somalia.

/Seriously though, has this crazy shiat ever worked? Anywhere?


It works in very small tribal communities where the pressure of social norms are great enough that formal government isn't really needed because if you act in a manner the rest of the tribe doesn't like, you're cast out... something physically but often only socially, which is enough to keep most from becoming a problem. Once the community grows to over about fifty people, formal governance is needed.
 
2012-11-03 11:22:11 AM  

BMulligan: Oh, and another thing. It makes no sense whatsoever to vote for someone who literally has no chance of actually winning the election - that's just throwing your vote away. Think about that before you pull that lever for Romney!


Well, it makes sense if you literally think neither Obama nor Romney is better than the other AT ALL. If you are 100%, truly and completely indifferent between Obama and Romney, then it makes sense to vote for a third party.
 
2012-11-03 11:25:49 AM  
fta Some Democrats, haunted by Ralph Nader's torpedoing of Al Gore in 2000,

That's arguable. Two or three times more Florida Democrats voted for Bush than for Nader. Also, Gore lost his home state. That said, I think the public would be well served by having at least two third-party candidates in the presidential debates. I think having at least a Green and a Libertarian would turn what is now essentially a mutual press conference into an actual debate, with interesting and exciting ideas being discussed and argued. Seems simple enough. You'd only need a few extra microphones.
 
2012-11-03 11:26:43 AM  

theteacher: Gulper Eel: DammitIForgotMyLogin: The essence of the libertarian argument: I don't give a crap if it might endanger other people, you can't stop me doing what I want.

And governments would never keep speed limits artificially low as a revenue generator.

I think it is more about insurance for the state. If I get into an accident at 80 mph in a section where the limit is 85 mph, I might be able to sue the state. Accidents under 65 on straighter roads are probably less fatal.

/I do 80 mph


In this Libertarian Universe, you would contract with a company to provide road services, As part of that contract you would absolve them from liability and any disputes would be taken of in arbitration.
 
2012-11-03 11:28:03 AM  

cman: Inb4 Libertarian bashers muck up this thread with their confusion of Libertarianism and Conservatism


How about their deliberate confusion of libertarianism and Ayn Rand's cult? Am really tired of that shiat.
 
2012-11-03 11:29:15 AM  
I was just out in Colorado Springs. I saw only one Obama sign the whole time I was there; it was like a forest of Romney/Ryan signs. One house had a Romney sign and a hand scrawled "Who is John Galt?" sign. In the NORTHCOM parking lot, there was a truck with a bumper sticker that said, "END OPPRESSION. DEFEAT OBAMA." Yeah, I thought to myself, I feel really oppressed by these huge stacks of money I have sitting around what with the stock market doubling over the past four years, and taxes being about the lowest they've ever been, I can see how terrible that must be for most folks.
 
2012-11-03 11:30:17 AM  
hey this guy that likes weed is running! Let's vote for him even though he has no chance of winning, so the guy who expressly says that he is against weed can win! Brilliant!!
 
2012-11-03 11:32:02 AM  

DamnYankees: BMulligan: Oh, and another thing. It makes no sense whatsoever to vote for someone who literally has no chance of actually winning the election - that's just throwing your vote away. Think about that before you pull that lever for Romney!

Well, it makes sense if you literally think neither Obama nor Romney is better than the other AT ALL. If you are 100%, truly and completely indifferent between Obama and Romney, then it makes sense to vote for a third party.


I'm not sure you read my entire post - that, or your snark detector is on the fritz.
 
2012-11-03 11:32:35 AM  

Notabunny: That said, I think the public would be well served by having at least two third-party candidates in the presidential debates. I think having at least a Green and a Libertarian would turn what is now essentially a mutual press conference into an actual debate, with interesting and exciting ideas being discussed and argued. Seems simple enough. You'd only need a few extra microphones.


A few extra microphones, along with a few cowboys to rope the democratic and republican candidates and drag them onto stage with the hoi palloi. Maybe a few cattleprods too to actually get them to respond to their lessers.
 
2012-11-03 11:33:44 AM  
Obama faces stiff task to blunt Gary Johnson's challenge in Colorado 

You know who else faced a stiff johnson. Aiken knows.
 
2012-11-03 11:33:51 AM  
More wishful thinking. If he drains off any significant number of votes, they won't be from Obama.
Wouldn't make any difference if he did.
Neeeeeext!
 
2012-11-03 11:34:38 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson: You know how I know that you know jack farking shiat about Libertarianism?


Libertarianism is fundamentally unworkable and incoherent. But true believers will tell you that you are just not familiar with the true libertarian philosophy that can be found in a particular sub-sect/cult.

Do you know that there are Catholic Libertarians who believe in the submission of the individual to the authority of the Church because it is done willingly? Their main short term goals seem to be to get government funding for Catholic schools and abolish birth control and abortion (on libertarian grounds), though many would ultimately be ok with no publicly funded education or health care plus government restrictions on things that go against Catholic teaching.
 
2012-11-03 11:35:41 AM  

BMulligan: DamnYankees: BMulligan: Oh, and another thing. It makes no sense whatsoever to vote for someone who literally has no chance of actually winning the election - that's just throwing your vote away. Think about that before you pull that lever for Romney!

Well, it makes sense if you literally think neither Obama nor Romney is better than the other AT ALL. If you are 100%, truly and completely indifferent between Obama and Romney, then it makes sense to vote for a third party.

I'm not sure you read my entire post - that, or your snark detector is on the fritz.


I are a sad dumb dumb.
 
2012-11-03 11:36:19 AM  

Jarhead_h: cman: Inb4 Libertarian bashers muck up this thread with their confusion of Libertarianism and Conservatism

How about their deliberate confusion of libertarianism and Ayn Rand's cult? Am really tired of that shiat.


The distinction is that while Objectivism is autism expressed as an existential philosophy, Libertarianism is autism expressed as a political philosophy.
 
2012-11-03 11:39:08 AM  

cman: Inb4 Libertarian bashers muck up this thread with their confusion of Libertarianism and Conservatism


I meant to say this in another thread. The reason why that confusion happens is because, at least in my experience, there are a whole slew of Libertarian sorts who, when push comes to shove, will side with their fiscal conservativism over their social liberalism.

People who say "yeah, I'd like to see drugs legalized / gays allowed to marry / religion out of politics, but I'm voting based on fiscal issues."
 
2012-11-03 11:39:35 AM  
Libertarianism: Because everything will be sweet once everybody operates on the Honor System. Particularly businesses. They always do what's right.
 
2012-11-03 11:40:03 AM  
Obama could solve this problem with three words: "Let's legalize pot".
 
2012-11-03 11:40:32 AM  
Anybody who's not an under 25 white middle-class (Or higher) male and still a Libertarian is just an idiot. It's a phase that some white guys who've never known poverty go through. Most grow out of it, some don't.
 
2012-11-03 11:40:53 AM  
"You know you're a libertarian when you hate speed limits," he said, earning cheers.

So ... Libertarians are basically people with an overdeveloped suite of pet peeves, then??

I often drive faster than the speed limit, especially on divided highways when conditions are good, but I don't get all red-faced and ragey because there's a sign on the side of the road with a number on it.

Going through life perpetually annoyed at the universe doesn't sound like much fun.
 
2012-11-03 11:42:09 AM  
The one thing Florida in 2000 taught me, was that if the voting was very close, re-counts would be stopped and the Supreme Court step in and award a winner.
 
2012-11-03 11:42:26 AM  

phaseolus: So ... Libertarians are basically people with an overdeveloped suite of pet peeves, then??


Yeah. Nerds.
 
2012-11-03 11:42:31 AM  
I'm voting Libertarian because I don't want anyone telling me not to stare directly at the Sun.
 
2012-11-03 11:44:10 AM  

Jarhead_h: How about their deliberate confusion of libertarianism and Ayn Rand's cult? Am really tired of that shiat.


When the overlap in membership between the two groups falls below 95%, people might start to notice the slight differences.
 
2012-11-03 11:44:23 AM  
Abolish the IRS, the income tax and the corporate tax. Fund the entire federal government off of a consumption tax.

Gee, how could anyone conclude libertarians fall in to one of two categories, naive or selfish. Or perhaps we should say retarded or regressive.

STFU and stay home sucking bong water, the grownups are trying to have an election here.
 
2012-11-03 11:46:27 AM  

LectertheChef: Anybody who's not an under 25 white middle-class (Or higher) male and still a Libertarian is just an idiot. It's a phase that some white guys who've never known poverty go through. Most grow out of it, some don't.


QFT
By far the best medicine to cure anyone of Libertarianism is, ironically, medical bills.
 
2012-11-03 11:47:26 AM  

Jarhead_h: How about their deliberate confusion of libertarianism and Ayn Rand's cult? Am really tired of that shiat.


This is like a Southerner complaining that different parts of the south have different accents and thus there is no such thing as a Southern accent. Viewed from the outside they are all pretty much the same.

I doubt many self called libertarians can explain the difference between their views and Randianism, and of the sub-cults of libertarianism those that do make a distinction they each do it in a different way.
 
2012-11-03 11:48:02 AM  

LectertheChef: Anybody who's not an under 25 white middle-class (Or higher) male and still a Libertarian is just an idiot.


No, just a self-centered jackass.
 
2012-11-03 11:48:56 AM  

StrangeQ: Obama could solve this problem with three words: "Let's legalize pot".


Last I heard, Initiative 502 actually had some chance of passing here in Washington State. That would make us the first state to legalize recreational (as opposed to medical) marijuana.
 
2012-11-03 11:49:12 AM  

Zerochance: Libertarianism: Because everything will be sweet once everybody operates on the Honor System. Particularly businesses. They always do what's right.


They will with one caveat. If they mess up, we hang them. That's what most libertarians and all rapeblicans and demoncrats don't understand. The carrot and stick approach is how you make Libertarianism work. Play fair, make money, don't hurt other people or we hang you. No exceptions.
 
2012-11-03 11:50:37 AM  

stoli n coke: It's like how a lot of 2-time Bush voters I know suddenly started referring to themselves as Libertarians back in 2006.


Some of them even come up with tortured arguments government money to churches a la "faith based initiatives", opposition to gay marriage or even the existence of gay people, etc. are consistent with "libertarianism".
 
2012-11-03 11:51:34 AM  
Q: How many libertarians does it take to stop a Panzer division?

A: None. The market forces will take care of that.
 
2012-11-03 11:52:20 AM  
I'd be more open to Libertarianism if it's supporters weren't such asshats.
Vocal libertarians are about as appealing as vocal vegetarians.
Same sanctimonious bullshiat. Same attempt at winning you over with browbeating.

You get more flies with honey, people.
 
2012-11-03 11:52:54 AM  

Karac: Notabunny: That said, I think the public would be well served by having at least two third-party candidates in the presidential debates. I think having at least a Green and a Libertarian would turn what is now essentially a mutual press conference into an actual debate, with interesting and exciting ideas being discussed and argued. Seems simple enough. You'd only need a few extra microphones.

A few extra microphones, along with a few cowboys to rope the democratic and republican candidates and drag them onto stage with the hoi palloi. Maybe a few cattleprods too to actually get them to respond to their lessers.


You may be on to something. Think of the ratings!
 
2012-11-03 11:53:03 AM  
WAIT wait wait.

You mean the potheads are finally realizing they have been getting cock-punched by the Democrats all these years?

What has happened to the quality of weed these days? I thought it was getting stronger in order to prevent that realization
 
2012-11-03 11:53:18 AM  

cman: Inb4 Libertarian bashers muck up this thread with their confusion of Libertarianism and Conservatism


Yeah we should let the libertarians do that first.
 
2012-11-03 11:53:34 AM  

Jarhead_h: cman: Inb4 Libertarian bashers muck up this thread with their confusion of Libertarianism and Conservatism

How about their deliberate confusion of libertarianism and Ayn Rand's cult? Am really tired of that shiat.


Libertarians love Ayn Rand, she hated them because they didn't go far enough.

Oh wait I forgot, there aren't any libertarian scotsmen.
 
2012-11-03 11:53:35 AM  
Just like in 2000, the dirty hippies and 20something morons who are going to vote for this guy weren't going to vote before.
 
2012-11-03 11:55:09 AM  

Smeggy Smurf: They will with one caveat. If they mess up, we hang them. That's what most libertarians and all rapeblicans and demoncrats don't understand. The carrot and stick approach is how you make Libertarianism work. Play fair, make money, don't hurt other people or we hang you. No exceptions.


Do you hang the actual people who did the bad stuff, or just the "corporation", leaving the people alive to do more bad stuff? If the former, do you hang the rank-and-file-we-were-only-following-orders employees, or the CEO?
 
2012-11-03 11:57:25 AM  
There's about a 25% chance Obama will legalize pot.

There's a 0% chance Romney will legalize pot.

There is a 0% chance Gary Johnson will become president.

Think about the odds...
 
2012-11-03 11:57:30 AM  

Sergeant Grumbles: By far the best medicine to cure anyone of Libertarianism is, ironically, medical bills.


THIS. I had libertarian yearnings once, then I became an unemployed diabetic. Thank the State for COBRA!
 
2012-11-03 11:58:09 AM  

Smeggy Smurf: Zerochance: Libertarianism: Because everything will be sweet once everybody operates on the Honor System. Particularly businesses. They always do what's right.

They will with one caveat. If they mess up, we hang them. That's what most libertarians and all rapeblicans and demoncrats don't understand. The carrot and stick approach is how you make Libertarianism work. Play fair, make money, don't hurt other people or we hang you. No exceptions.


And what stops the corporation from enforcing its decisions through armed force? What happens when its the businesses who have the leverage to decide who gets hanged and who doesn't? They'll just give up out of a sense of fairness?

Slavery and child labor are the most profitable systems, and left to its own devices the market will gravitate toward them. Go ahead and threaten it with torches and pitchforks. They'll have tanks and machine guns, and afterward they'll take away your torches and pitchforks.
 
2012-11-03 11:59:09 AM  
I was actually considering voting for Johnson as a "protest vote" simply because I don't like either Obama or Romney. THEN I watched the "Third Party Candidate" debate.

Now I'm voting for Obama again.

The debate crystalized for me why third party candidates are little more than also-rans and spoilers. They run on platforms that appeal to a small contingency but sound too radical to the public at large. Remember, the general populace is used to the "safe" zone the major candidates stick to and when you start jumping up and down about "legal weed", that turns off a lot of people. (Me included because I am against legal weed.)

Until someone comes along that can offer up something that combines common sense and workable solutions, third parties will never be a significant factor in politics, other than to be also-rans and spoilers.
 
2012-11-03 11:59:16 AM  

TheBigJerk: Oh wait I forgot, there aren't any libertarian scotsmen.


Sure there are (NSFW man-butt)
 
2012-11-03 11:59:32 AM  

cman: Inb4 Libertarian bashers muck up this thread with their confusion of Libertarianism and Conservatism


Libertarians did that to themselves by going all in on the Obama SOSHULLISTMOOSLINCOMMIEFARTBONGOGARRBLE in 2010.
 
2012-11-03 12:01:06 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: LectertheChef: Anybody who's not an under 25 white middle-class (Or higher) male and still a Libertarian is just an idiot. It's a phase that some white guys who've never known poverty go through. Most grow out of it, some don't.

QFT
By far the best medicine to cure anyone of Libertarianism is, ironically, medical bills.


They are still better than the LaRouche's. God I hated those ass holes when I was in college. And my God! the lies they told...
 
2012-11-03 12:01:16 PM  

Granny_Panties: There's about a 25)% chance Obama will legalize pot.

There's a 0% chance Romney will legalize pot.

There is a 0% chance Gary Johnson will become president.

Think about the odds...


We do not elect dictators in the U.S. (yet)

Only Congress can legalize it.

At most Obama can lobby Congress to do it, and no way is he going to take that kind of political chance. That would take too much political courage.
 
2012-11-03 12:01:26 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: DammitIForgotMyLogin: The essence of the libertarian argument: I don't give a crap if it might endanger other people, you can't stop me doing what I want.

You know how I know that you know jack farking shiat about Libertarianism?


We don't live in a third world shiathole because we pay taxes and have rules and regulations?
 
2012-11-03 12:02:39 PM  

pciszek: Smeggy Smurf: They will with one caveat. If they mess up, we hang them. That's what most libertarians and all rapeblicans and demoncrats don't understand. The carrot and stick approach is how you make Libertarianism work. Play fair, make money, don't hurt other people or we hang you. No exceptions.

Do you hang the actual people who did the bad stuff, or just the "corporation", leaving the people alive to do more bad stuff? If the former, do you hang the rank-and-file-we-were-only-following-orders employees, or the CEO?


You hang the bad people who implimented the bad stuff. I advocate starting with the CEO and working down until you get to the asshole exec that did it. The same goes for police. One bad cop beats the hell out of a disabled kid, hang the chief first, then the shift supervisor then the bad cop. And so forth. As long as there is evidence that the bad policy/actions/whatever have the approval of the higher ups, they're dead as well.

This does not go to say that a mail room thief hurts the CEO. Only the immediate supervisor. It would take quite a bit of work getting the particulars worked out but we have enough smart people with devious minds who can figure it out.

The whole idea is to have a solution. The assholes that hurt people without consequences will either hang or change their ways. Mostly I suspect that for the first year they'll hang. After a while though, the number of shiatheads hurting people will be reduced to the point where they no longer are a factor. Of course this will mean banks won't run as effeciently for a while but the bad apples won't be hurting the economy any more.
 
2012-11-03 12:04:47 PM  

HairBolus: Do you know that there are Catholic Libertarians who believe in the submission of the individual to the authority of the Church because it is done willingly? Their main short term goals seem to be to get government funding for Catholic schools and abolish birth control and abortion (on libertarian grounds), though many would ultimately be ok with no publicly funded education or health care plus government restrictions on things that go against Catholic teaching.


Um, do they mean having everyone "voluntarily" submit to the authority of the Church?

Oh, and how do they plan to finance this government crackdown on birth control?
 
2012-11-03 12:05:20 PM  

tomWright: Granny_Panties: There's about a 25)% chance Obama will legalize pot.

There's a 0% chance Romney will legalize pot.

There is a 0% chance Gary Johnson will become president.

Think about the odds...

We do not elect dictators in the U.S. (yet)

Only Congress can legalize it.

At most Obama can lobby Congress to do it, and no way is he going to take that kind of political chance. That would take too much political courage.


That's actually a common misconception. The executive can move drugs around on the drug schedule. Obama could move marijuana to schedule 5 tomorrow if he wanted. I can't link bc I'm on my phone but this article http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2012/04/28/jimmy-kimmel-whcd-p ot_n_1462140.html?1335705946 a little ways down quoting Eric Holder saying exactly that.
 
2012-11-03 12:06:23 PM  
Most of the Libertarians I know also identify as Conservative. Although they take this "better than thou" attitude and speak endlessly about "The Constitution", they know they're not going to win so they count on the Republicans to hopefully do their work for them...little realizing that Republicans are not even close to being Libertarian. Yet, they soothe themselves with the idea that the Republicans will do the job they can't do, which is get rid of Fartbongo, then they go back to feeling "superior" and bashing the two major parties once the election is over.

Libertarianism...sounds great when you're 23...when you're 63, not so much.
 
2012-11-03 12:07:18 PM  

pciszek: HairBolus: Do you know that there are Catholic Libertarians who believe in the submission of the individual to the authority of the Church because it is done willingly? Their main short term goals seem to be to get government funding for Catholic schools and abolish birth control and abortion (on libertarian grounds), though many would ultimately be ok with no publicly funded education or health care plus government restrictions on things that go against Catholic teaching.

Um, do they mean having everyone "voluntarily" submit to the authority of the Church?

Oh, and how do they plan to finance this government crackdown on birth control?


I think you made the mistake of assuming they're not "libertarians of convenience".
 
2012-11-03 12:07:42 PM  
Obama faces stiff task to blunt Gary Johnson's challenge in Colorado.

hehehe
 
2012-11-03 12:08:07 PM  
"I want you to make sure you sign, seal and deliver this election to Barack Obama," Bill Clinton told a rally in Denver on Tuesday night. The outcome could pivot on a handful of votes in Colorado, he said.

Gore's big problem in 2000 was not so much losing votes to Nader as it was not letting Bill campaign for him.

Seriously, the more I see Bubba out on the trail stumping for Obama the more that realization sinks in.

He's good.

Will GJ voters in CO constitute enuff of a block to influence the outcome of the election there or will the left/right vote drain off come out as a wash at the end of the day making this yet another overly speculative horse race narrative piece by the Guardian?

Guess we'll find out soon enuff.

/Anyone else find the use of "snuff out" in the piece a little over the top?
 
2012-11-03 12:09:26 PM  

Notabunny: fta Some Democrats, haunted by Ralph Nader's torpedoing of Al Gore in 2000,

That's arguable. Two or three times more Florida Democrats voted for Bush than for Nader. Also, Gore lost his home state. That said, I think the public would be well served by having at least two third-party candidates in the presidential debates. I think having at least a Green and a Libertarian would turn what is now essentially a mutual press conference into an actual debate, with interesting and exciting ideas being discussed and argued. Seems simple enough. You'd only need a few extra microphones.


I think we should do this, even though it's so unlikely. Imagine if we did do it this way though... in 2008 you would've had Bob Barr and Cynthia McKinney up there with Obama and McCain.
 
2012-11-03 12:09:51 PM  

Granny_Panties: There's about a .25% chance Obama will legalize pot.

There's a 0% chance Romney will legalize pot.

There is a 0% chance Gary Johnson will become president.

Think about the odds...

 

Obama's been no friend to the legalization of pot.
 
2012-11-03 12:10:55 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: And what stops the corporation from enforcing its decisions through armed force? What happens when its the businesses who have the leverage to decide who gets hanged and who doesn't? They'll just give up out of a sense of fairness?


I expect that in Libertaria, when you go shopping for a private police force you find that every one of them has a clause in their terms of service stating "If you piss off Walmart, we will hand you over to them because you are not paying us enough to commit suicide on your behalf."
 
2012-11-03 12:11:38 PM  
I love some of the arguments I'm hearing from Colorado about why folks are against legalizing pot.

My favorite is that Coloradians (is that what you call them?) don't want people coming to their state to buy weed and smoke. Or in other words, "please don't come to our state and spend your tourist dollars here."
 
2012-11-03 12:12:06 PM  

tomWright: WAIT wait wait.

You mean the potheads are finally realizing they have been getting cock-punched by the Democrats all these years?

What has happened to the quality of weed these days? I thought it was getting stronger in order to prevent that realization


Potheads have never been a coherent voting block.
 
2012-11-03 12:12:48 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: You know how I know that you know jack farking shiat about Libertarianism?


You should give a listen to the libertarian talk show Free Talk Live.

This is exactly the kind of thing they biatch about.
Those idiots even rail against stop signs as a form of government fascism.
 
2012-11-03 12:13:10 PM  

Loucifer: Obama faces stiff task to blunt Gary Johnson's challenge in Colorado.

hehehe


[ilol'd]

/Yo, peace to Pack Pistol Posse, the 4,5,6
 
2012-11-03 12:16:14 PM  

Communist_Manifesto: That's actually a common misconception. The executive can move drugs around on the drug schedule. Obama could move marijuana to schedule 5 tomorrow if he wanted.


After Tianamen square, Bush Sr. announced that the INS would not be deporting anyone back to China for a while. Reagan fired all of the air traffic controllers. Presumable Obama could affect which laws get enforced and which ones get ignored. I think he could have scored BIG earlier in this race by firing everyone in the TSA and not replacing them with anyone.
 
2012-11-03 12:16:33 PM  
I voted for Gary Johnson.

I live in a state where Obama has a greater-than 10% lead over Rmoney. My big issues this election are opposing another war (Iran, Syria, etc.), civil rights (marriage equality and women's rights), and ending the "war" on drugs. I was extremely impressed with Jill Stein during an interview that I heard with her on my local NPR affiliate, but I was much less impressed with her and especially unimpressed with her running mate during an interview with Bill Moyers. I am receptive to arguments in favor of publicly-funded campaigns and nationalized healthcare. I especially like the Green Party's stance on not taking corporate donations. However, I am disappointed that the Green Party refuses to make intellectual, economist-driven arguments about economics; they use emotion and hyperbole, rather than reason.

I don't support Libertarian, laissez-faire. BP and the financial collapse of 2008 knocked that craziness out of me. But I do support getting government out of the morality business, endless wars and world policing, and laws which stifle all but the very largest corporations adept at using the government to limit competition. And, we desperately need a new party to end the GOP/Dem monopoly over our political system.

I voted for ZERO GOPers because I cannot morally justify supporting representatives of a party that gives refuge and voice to Theocrats, bigots, and anti-intellectaulists. And if I lived in most of the other states, I would've voted for Obama. But I decided to throw away my vote for President in the hopes of, one day, there being an alternative for Americans. I'm hoping that the Libertarian Party can become a (truly) fiscally-conservative and secular party of reason...for reasonable people. It isn't now, but it may be closer than the other parties.
 
2012-11-03 12:18:01 PM  

delysid25: hey this guy that likes weed is running! Let's vote for him even though he has no chance of winning, so the guy who expressly says that he is against weed can win! Brilliant!!


Let's face it, neither mainstream candidate is pro-weed. Obama has stepped up marijuana enforcement, if anything; medical dispensaries have been closed down at a greater rate than under Bush. Plus, whenever he's been asked about legalizing it, all he does is laugh. Obama is not pro-pot, and I doubt his position will "evolve" like his position on gay marriage did.

That said, I'm pulling for Obama anyway because I'm an adult and I realize that weed is not the only issue in the world that matters.
 
2012-11-03 12:21:53 PM  

thornhill: My favorite is that Coloradians (is that what you call them?) don't want people coming to their state to buy weed and smoke. Or in other words, "please don't come to our state and spend your tourist dollars here."


Coloradoans like to make a show of detesting tourists, but tourists are infinitely better than the people who come here, buy property, and build housing developments on it. No one should have been allowed to move to Colorado after I got here.
 
2012-11-03 12:22:08 PM  

HeartBurnKid: delysid25: hey this guy that likes weed is running! Let's vote for him even though he has no chance of winning, so the guy who expressly says that he is against weed can win! Brilliant!!

Let's face it, neither mainstream candidate is pro-weed. Obama has stepped up marijuana enforcement, if anything; medical dispensaries have been closed down at a greater rate than under Bush. Plus, whenever he's been asked about legalizing it, all he does is laugh. Obama is not pro-pot, and I doubt his position will "evolve" like his position on gay marriage did.

That said, I'm pulling for Obama anyway because I'm an adult and I realize that weed is not the only issue in the world that matters.


This. I love pot and think it's farking stupid it's not legal like alcohol is but life is more than just getting stoned.
 
2012-11-03 12:23:56 PM  

thornhill: I love some of the arguments I'm hearing from Colorado about why folks are against legalizing pot.

My favorite is that Coloradians (is that what you call them?) don't want people coming to their state to buy weed and smoke. Or in other words, "please don't come to our state and spend your tourist dollars here."


I want your weed smoking tax dollars! I'd love for Denver to be the New Amsterdam, Amsterdam is an awesome city.

/already voted yes on 64
 
2012-11-03 12:24:11 PM  
Why are you concerned? Romney is going to lose VA thanks to Johnson and Goode so it balances out.
 
2012-11-03 12:24:56 PM  

pciszek: HairBolus: Do you know that there are Catholic Libertarians who believe in the submission of the individual to the authority of the Church because it is done willingly? Their main short term goals seem to be to get government funding for Catholic schools and abolish birth control and abortion (on libertarian grounds), though many would ultimately be ok with no publicly funded education or health care plus government restrictions on things that go against Catholic teaching.

Um, do they mean having everyone "voluntarily" submit to the authority of the Church?

Oh, and how do they plan to finance this government crackdown on birth control?


Silly, if birth control is illegal then enforcing it is a police matter just like the police are responsible for catching murderers and thieves.

Most libertarians, while against paying for government "services" in general, still concede that a government needs to be responsible for police and military forces--.
 
2012-11-03 12:25:46 PM  

Communist_Manifesto:
That's actually a common misconception. The executive can move drugs around on the drug schedule. Obama could move marijuana to schedule 5 tomorrow if he wanted. I can't link bc I'm on my phone but this article http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2012/04/28/jimmy-kimmel-whcd-p ot_n_1462140.html?1335705946 a little ways down quoting Eric Holder saying exactly that.


Huh. I had not considered that. I would want to know more details though. I know next to nothing about the different levels in the 'Schedule'.

What would rescheduling it to 5 get us? Could it be imported and treated under the law like alcohol is?

IMO, nothing short of equal treatment with alcohol is sufficient.
 
2012-11-03 12:26:52 PM  

IntertubeUser: I voted for Gary Johnson.

I live in a state where Obama has a greater-than 10% lead over Rmoney. My big issues this election are opposing another war (Iran, Syria, etc.), civil rights (marriage equality and women's rights), and ending the "war" on drugs. I was extremely impressed with Jill Stein during an interview that I heard with her on my local NPR affiliate, but I was much less impressed with her and especially unimpressed with her running mate during an interview with Bill Moyers. I am receptive to arguments in favor of publicly-funded campaigns and nationalized healthcare. I especially like the Green Party's stance on not taking corporate donations. However, I am disappointed that the Green Party refuses to make intellectual, economist-driven arguments about economics; they use emotion and hyperbole, rather than reason.

I don't support Libertarian, laissez-faire. BP and the financial collapse of 2008 knocked that craziness out of me. But I do support getting government out of the morality business, endless wars and world policing, and laws which stifle all but the very largest corporations adept at using the government to limit competition. And, we desperately need a new party to end the GOP/Dem monopoly over our political system.

I voted for ZERO GOPers because I cannot morally justify supporting representatives of a party that gives refuge and voice to Theocrats, bigots, and anti-intellectaulists. And if I lived in most of the other states, I would've voted for Obama. But I decided to throw away my vote for President in the hopes of, one day, there being an alternative for Americans. I'm hoping that the Libertarian Party can become a (truly) fiscally-conservative and secular party of reason...for reasonable people. It isn't now, but it may be closer than the other parties.


Cool story Bro.
 
2012-11-03 12:30:15 PM  
If college students are stupid enough to vote for Johnson and give the election to Romney they deserve everything that's coming to them.
 
2012-11-03 12:30:36 PM  

rthanu: Granny_Panties: There's about a .25% chance Obama will legalize pot.

There's a 0% chance Romney will legalize pot.

There is a 0% chance Gary Johnson will become president.

Think about the odds... 

Obama's been no friend to the legalization of pot.


If his odds are anything above 0%, the equation still applies
 
2012-11-03 12:31:49 PM  

Summer Glau's Love Slave: IntertubeUser: I voted for Gary Johnson.

I live in a state where Obama has a greater-than 10% lead over Rmoney. My big issues this election are opposing another war (Iran, Syria, etc.), civil rights (marriage equality and women's rights), and ending the "war" on drugs. I was extremely impressed with Jill Stein during an interview that I heard with her on my local NPR affiliate, but I was much less impressed with her and especially unimpressed with her running mate during an interview with Bill Moyers. I am receptive to arguments in favor of publicly-funded campaigns and nationalized healthcare. I especially like the Green Party's stance on not taking corporate donations. However, I am disappointed that the Green Party refuses to make intellectual, economist-driven arguments about economics; they use emotion and hyperbole, rather than reason.

I don't support Libertarian, laissez-faire. BP and the financial collapse of 2008 knocked that craziness out of me. But I do support getting government out of the morality business, endless wars and world policing, and laws which stifle all but the very largest corporations adept at using the government to limit competition. And, we desperately need a new party to end the GOP/Dem monopoly over our political system.

I voted for ZERO GOPers because I cannot morally justify supporting representatives of a party that gives refuge and voice to Theocrats, bigots, and anti-intellectaulists. And if I lived in most of the other states, I would've voted for Obama. But I decided to throw away my vote for President in the hopes of, one day, there being an alternative for Americans. I'm hoping that the Libertarian Party can become a (truly) fiscally-conservative and secular party of reason...for reasonable people. It isn't now, but it may be closer than the other parties.

Cool story Bro.


Thanks!

But, in all honesty, it wasn't some of my best work. I wish that I could fix a few grammar issues and/or had more coffee in me before posting.
 
2012-11-03 12:33:31 PM  

Notabunny: fta Some Democrats, haunted by Ralph Nader's torpedoing of Al Gore in 2000,

That's arguable. Two or three times more Florida Democrats voted for Bush than for Nader. Also, Gore lost his home state. That said, I think the public would be well served by having at least two third-party candidates in the presidential debates. I think having at least a Green and a Libertarian would turn what is now essentially a mutual press conference into an actual debate, with interesting and exciting ideas being discussed and argued. Seems simple enough. You'd only need a few extra microphones.


Democrats in the Florida panhandle are really just southern Democrats; they're conservative and always vote Republican.
 
2012-11-03 12:34:25 PM  
Wow. Apparently this is one topic everyone is allowed to openly hate from every angle with gusto.

Enjoy your Saturday morning of hate.

/scary
 
2012-11-03 12:35:28 PM  
Has anyone ever noticed how libertarians on fark bash liberals with the gusto of a dittohead, yet rarey, if ever, bash republicans?
 
2012-11-03 12:35:53 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: You know how I know that you know jack farking shiat about Libertarianism?


Stupid, selfish, and naive is no way go through to life, son.
 
2012-11-03 12:37:56 PM  
Its Obama's own fault. He promised compassion for medical MJ users and instead stepped up the DOJ/DEA thuggery.
 
2012-11-03 12:38:02 PM  

BafflerMeal: Wow. Apparently this is one topic everyone is allowed to openly hate from every angle with gusto.

Enjoy your Saturday morning of hate.

/scary


Yep. we're allowed to hate Republicans who are too cowardly to call themselves Republicans.
 
2012-11-03 12:38:05 PM  

ifarkthereforiam: Has anyone ever noticed how libertarians on fark bash liberals with the gusto of a dittohead, yet rarey, if ever, bash republicans?


Why should we? There are enough folks to bash republicans here already, it would be unnecessary overkill

The Dem bashers though, they need help, not as many of them around here.
 
2012-11-03 12:39:38 PM  

Bhruic: If it weren't for the serious damage it would cause, it'd almost be worth giving them a Libertarian president, just to demonstrate how bad things can get without a central government. Well, assuming that a Libertarian president could actually get anything done, which would be insanely unlikely.


Consider...

1) Tie Electoral College
2) Tea Party in House vote Johnson instead of Romney
3) Media Orgasm
4) Profit

*shudder*
 
2012-11-03 12:40:56 PM  

Lunchlady: If college students are stupid enough to vote for Johnson and give the election to Romney they WE deserve everything that's coming to them US.



FYFY?
 
2012-11-03 12:46:24 PM  

TheBigJerk: Jarhead_h: cman: Inb4 Libertarian bashers muck up this thread with their confusion of Libertarianism and Conservatism

How about their deliberate confusion of libertarianism and Ayn Rand's cult? Am really tired of that shiat.

Libertarians love Ayn Rand, she hated them because they didn't go far enough.

Oh wait I forgot, there aren't any libertarian scotsmen.


Ayn Rand called libertarians dirty hippies who stole her ideas.

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/libertarians.html
 
2012-11-03 12:47:45 PM  
If it's true Libertarianism, isn't it the state's right to legalize and not the federal government's?
 
2012-11-03 12:48:19 PM  

HeartBurnKid: Obama has stepped up marijuana enforcement, if anything; medical dispensaries have been closed down at a greater rate than under Bush.


Personally I have no problem with making marijuana legal and putting the same restrictions on it that we have on tobacco. Having said that, here in California medical dispensaries have been their own worst enemies. Voters enacted Prop. 215 based on compassion for medical users. Medical dispensaries popped up like crazy and without proper regulation instead of cancer and glaucoma patients you had a bunch of eighteen year old kids with prescriptions for "back pain" which fed into the arguments of the opponents and got the Fed and local authorities cracking down on them.

Look, just make the shait legal already but until then police your own industry.
 
2012-11-03 12:49:03 PM  

Lost Thought 00: rthanu: Granny_Panties: There's about a .25% chance Obama will legalize pot.

There's a 0% chance Romney will legalize pot.

There is a 0% chance Gary Johnson will become president.

Think about the odds... 

Obama's been no friend to the legalization of pot.

If his odds are anything above 0%, the equation still applies



Really .25 is the same as 25 is the same as 0 in that all three are completely made the fark up and the "equation" is meaningless. The only thing you are assuredly correct on is Johnson not winning.

If people want to make a statement that recreational use of marijuana is the one and only(or most important by a mile) thing that matters to them, then they should vote for Johnson so as to make their voice heard.

Obama flirted with them by talking up decriminalization and states rights on the issue in 2008 and stabbed them in the back with his (or his appointees) policies. I'm marginally pro legalization but find other issues far more important. Therefore I still think Obama is the best candidate, but it still doesn't make Obama anything more than dishonest on the issue.
 
2012-11-03 12:50:37 PM  

Bigdogdaddy: If it's true Libertarianism, isn't it the state's right to legalize and not the federal government's?


Libertarianism is not the same as State's Rights politics.
 
2012-11-03 12:51:01 PM  

organizmx: We don't live in a third world shiathole because we pay taxes and have rules and regulations?


LOL Somalia?
 
2012-11-03 12:51:42 PM  

Bigdogdaddy: If it's true Libertarianism, isn't it the state's right to legalize and not the federal government's?


Yes, and that's part of the problem with the current parties in power. Even states that have legalized medical marijuana have had federal agents knocking down doors of dispensaries for violating federal law, even though what they are doing is legal in that state.
Sadly, this has increased under the Obama administration, which really perplexes me. He technically could say "Holder. Your DOJ is going to knock that shiat off right now." and that would be the end of it.
 
2012-11-03 12:52:49 PM  

Amos Quito: Lunchlady: If college students are stupid enough to vote for Johnson and give the election to Romney they WE deserve everything that's coming to them US.


FYFY?


Unfortunately
 
2012-11-03 12:54:08 PM  

rthanu: then they should vote for Johnson so as to make their voice heard.


The only voice that is ever heard in an election is that of the victor. There are no examples in history of a loser ever having their platform taken up by the winner. So, no, voting for Johnson won't send a message to anyone.
 
2012-11-03 12:55:47 PM  

Bigdogdaddy: If it's true Libertarianism, isn't it the state's right to legalize and not the federal government's?



That would not Libertarianism, but just following the US Constitution.
 
2012-11-03 12:56:56 PM  

HeartBurnKid: delysid25: hey this guy that likes weed is running! Let's vote for him even though he has no chance of winning, so the guy who expressly says that he is against weed can win! Brilliant!!

Let's face it, neither mainstream candidate is pro-weed. Obama has stepped up marijuana enforcement, if anything; medical dispensaries have been closed down at a greater rate than under Bush. Plus, whenever he's been asked about legalizing it, all he does is laugh. Obama is not pro-pot, and I doubt his position will "evolve" like his position on gay marriage did.

That said, I'm pulling for Obama anyway because I'm an adult and I realize that weed is not the only issue in the world that matters.


Obama said he would stop busting clinics that were operating legally according to the laws of the particular states. The clinics that have been shut down under him were done so mostly as a result of the state requesting help from the DEA in shutting them down due to the fact they weren't really operating as clinics and were just mass distribution outlets operating under the guise of providing medicinal pot.

The number has gone up because the number of outlets operating illegally under state laws has increased.

Don't get me wrong-I think it should be completely legal and regulated. But let's not misstate what Obama said he was going to do.
 
2012-11-03 12:58:00 PM  

Amos Quito: Bigdogdaddy: If it's true Libertarianism, isn't it the state's right to legalize and not the federal government's?


That would not Libertarianism, but just following the US Constitution.


Commerce clause, biatches
 
2012-11-03 01:01:21 PM  
imageshack.us
 
2012-11-03 01:03:26 PM  

Lost Thought 00: rthanu: then they should vote for Johnson so as to make their voice heard.

The only voice that is ever heard in an election is that of the victor. There are no examples in history of a loser ever having their platform taken up by the winner. So, no, voting for Johnson won't send a message to anyone.


So you are telling them that they should do what then? Vote for one of the other two candidates that have either stated they will support their position or the other who has shown in practice that he will not support their position?

fark that. Even if no one listens to them, they should let their voices be heard.
 
2012-11-03 01:04:33 PM  

rthanu: So you are telling them that they should do what then? Vote for one of the other two candidates that have either stated they will not support their position or the other who has shown in practice that he will not support their position?


sorry
 
2012-11-03 01:08:07 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Amos Quito: Bigdogdaddy: If it's true Libertarianism, isn't it the state's right to legalize and not the federal government's?


That would not Libertarianism, but just following the US Constitution.

Commerce clause, biatches


Today's libertarians reject the modern interpretation (SCOTUS) of the commerce clause.

They also seem to want to reject that "Provide for the common good" clause as well.

Gee, it's almost as if they prefer picking cherrys
 
2012-11-03 01:09:25 PM  

ifarkthereforiam: Has anyone ever noticed how libertarians on fark bash liberals with the gusto of a dittohead, yet rarey, if ever, bash republicans?


That's pretty par for the course for libertarians anywhere. Which is one of the reasons I'm not one.
 
2012-11-03 01:11:48 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Amos Quito: Bigdogdaddy: If it's true Libertarianism, isn't it the state's right to legalize and not the federal government's?


That would not Libertarianism, but just following the US Constitution.


Commerce clause, biatches



Yeah. The Authoritarian Wet Dream.

You like authoritarians, cameroncrazy1984?
 
2012-11-03 01:17:15 PM  

BafflerMeal: Wow. Apparently this is one topic everyone is allowed to openly hate from every angle with gusto.

Enjoy your Saturday morning of hate.

/scary


Don't confuse derision with hate.
 
2012-11-03 01:25:46 PM  
the only wasted vote is the vote cast in cynicism

it's your vote. you should feel good about your decision after making it.

i vote my conscience. you should too
 
2012-11-03 01:28:55 PM  

HeartBurnKid: ifarkthereforiam: Has anyone ever noticed how libertarians on fark bash liberals with the gusto of a dittohead, yet rarey, if ever, bash republicans?

That's pretty par for the course for libertarians anywhere. Which is one of the reasons I'm not one.


You can trace the origins of this back to the 1980 election, where Ed Clark and David Koch (both founders of Reason Magazine/Foundation among other active, conservative think tanks) brought a shiat load of BIRCHER mud slinging into the campaign and wound up taking slightly less than 1% of the popular vote.

Both Koch and Clark were booted from the Libertarian party following that debacle, mostly because the LP founder, Murray Rothbard (of the Austrian school of economics) and his deputy, Ed Crane, were aghast that Ed Clark let slip the truth about the LP:

Clark had early in the campaign acknowledged that libertarians wish to eliminate the state. This disclosure made Crane "livid at this disclosure of truth to the media and to the public; how can they be conned into liking us if they know our real views?

The writings of Murray Rothbard, condensed by Lew Rockwell


Ed Crane and David Koch got their revenge by buying the libertarian party organizations and using them to infiltrate the republican party.

You'll know that Ed Crane and David Koch still sit on many "conservative" think tank boards and exert significant influence on today's republican party.
 
2012-11-03 01:31:03 PM  

Amos Quito: cameroncrazy1984: Amos Quito: Bigdogdaddy: If it's true Libertarianism, isn't it the state's right to legalize and not the federal government's?


That would not Libertarianism, but just following the US Constitution.


Commerce clause, biatches


Yeah. The Authoritarian Wet Dream.

You like authoritarians, cameroncrazy1984?


A government authoritarian who is charged with protecting citizens and can be, periodically, removed from office by those citizens?

Or, do you prefer the corporate authoritarian who exists only to fleece the American citizen and can only be removed from office by the corporate board?

There is no longer any in-between.
 
2012-11-03 01:31:35 PM  

Granny_Panties: There's about a 25% chance Obama will legalize pot.

There's a 0% chance Romney will legalize pot.

There is a 0% chance Gary Johnson will become president.

Think about the odds...


there is a 0% chance that Obama would do that. 0.

He has been tougher on medical marijuana in 4 years than Bush was in 8.

Obama is not in favor of a lot of liberal social issues and as a result there is some backlash amongst those who advocate for the right to be let the fark alone to engage in activities that do no harm
 
2012-11-03 01:33:32 PM  

IntertubeUser: I voted for Gary Johnson.

I live in a state where Obama has a greater-than 10% lead over Rmoney. My big issues this election are opposing another war (Iran, Syria, etc.), civil rights (marriage equality and women's rights), and ending the "war" on drugs. I was extremely impressed with Jill Stein during an interview that I heard with her on my local NPR affiliate, but I was much less impressed with her and especially unimpressed with her running mate during an interview with Bill Moyers. I am receptive to arguments in favor of publicly-funded campaigns and nationalized healthcare. I especially like the Green Party's stance on not taking corporate donations. However, I am disappointed that the Green Party refuses to make intellectual, economist-driven arguments about economics; they use emotion and hyperbole, rather than reason.

I don't support Libertarian, laissez-faire. BP and the financial collapse of 2008 knocked that craziness out of me. But I do support getting government out of the morality business, endless wars and world policing, and laws which stifle all but the very largest corporations adept at using the government to limit competition. And, we desperately need a new party to end the GOP/Dem monopoly over our political system.

I voted for ZERO GOPers because I cannot morally justify supporting representatives of a party that gives refuge and voice to Theocrats, bigots, and anti-intellectaulists. And if I lived in most of the other states, I would've voted for Obama. But I decided to throw away my vote for President in the hopes of, one day, there being an alternative for Americans. I'm hoping that the Libertarian Party can become a (truly) fiscally-conservative and secular party of reason...for reasonable people. It isn't now, but it may be closer than the other parties.


Same here, although I'm a VA resident (but since I'm in Afghanistan, my vote won't really be counted until afterwards anyway, so meh).

I'm not all hook, line, and sinker libertarian. I just really hate what the Republican party has become. If there was a party that actually stood for what the Republican party claims it stands for (with the exception of the most idiotic foreign policy bluster in the history of potato, and the bible grenades), I guess I'd be on board.

My political leanings have disintegrated into "everyone is a steaming pile of lies and platitudes."

Democrats and Republicans are the same slaves to different abhorrent masters. Both sides are bad, yes the GOP is worse in practice but (sorta) better in theory, but they ain't getting my vote.

sigh... can't wait until this farce is over in a week.
 
2012-11-03 01:35:52 PM  
Oooh, Nader as a perjorative. You're SO edgy, subs!
 
2012-11-03 01:36:00 PM  

IntertubeUser: I voted for Gary Johnson.

I live in a state where Obama has a greater-than 10% lead over Rmoney. My big issues this election are opposing another war (Iran, Syria, etc.), civil rights (marriage equality and women's rights), and ending the "war" on drugs. I was extremely impressed with Jill Stein during an interview that I heard with her on my local NPR affiliate, but I was much less impressed with her and especially unimpressed with her running mate during an interview with Bill Moyers. I am receptive to arguments in favor of publicly-funded campaigns and nationalized healthcare. I especially like the Green Party's stance on not taking corporate donations. However, I am disappointed that the Green Party refuses to make intellectual, economist-driven arguments about economics; they use emotion and hyperbole, rather than reason.

I don't support Libertarian, laissez-faire. BP and the financial collapse of 2008 knocked that craziness out of me. But I do support getting government out of the morality business, endless wars and world policing, and laws which stifle all but the very largest corporations adept at using the government to limit competition. And, we desperately need a new party to end the GOP/Dem monopoly over our political system.

I voted for ZERO GOPers because I cannot morally justify supporting representatives of a party that gives refuge and voice to Theocrats, bigots, and anti-intellectaulists. And if I lived in most of the other states, I would've voted for Obama. But I decided to throw away my vote for President in the hopes of, one day, there being an alternative for Americans. I'm hoping that the Libertarian Party can become a (truly) fiscally-conservative and secular party of reason...for reasonable people. It isn't now, but it may be closer than the other parties.


so much this
 
2012-11-03 01:38:11 PM  

daveUSMC: Same here, although I'm a VA resident (but since I'm in Afghanistan, my vote won't really be counted until afterwards anyway, so meh).

I'm not all hook, line, and sinker libertarian. I just really hate what the Republican party has become. If there was a party that actually stood for what the Republican party claims it stands for (with the exception of the most idiotic foreign policy bluster in the history of potato, and the bible grenades), I guess I'd be on board.

My political leanings have disintegrated into "everyone is a steaming pile of lies and platitudes."

Democrats and Republicans are the same slaves to different abhorrent masters. Both sides are bad, yes the GOP is worse in practice but (sorta) better in theory, but they ain't getting my vote.

sigh... can't wait until this farce is over in a week.


Just imagine if it comes down to the absentees. On the one hand, your vote will count; on the other, we'll be dealing with this crap for weeks to come.
 
2012-11-03 01:40:23 PM  

Elzar: Now on election night around 7 or 8 Obama and Johnson will look around Colorado to see what finally happened there - and Romney will be sitting in the oval office as the prince of bel air!


7/8, would get BelAired again...
 
2012-11-03 01:47:23 PM  
Libertarianism: the erroneous philosophical assertion that getting rid of all traffic lights and laws will make people better drivers.
 
2012-11-03 01:47:52 PM  
Tough shiat. If you want somebody's vote, represent their interests; not just be LesserEvil tm
 
2012-11-03 01:50:41 PM  

Ishkur: Libertarianism: the erroneous philosophical assertion that getting rid of all traffic lights and laws will make people better drivers.


this is just another strawman argument from a butthurt bootlicking partisan tool.

so many strawmen here today
 
2012-11-03 01:58:42 PM  
www.raptorled.com

Voted on Thursday, not sure it will pass, gonna be close just like the POTUS vote. And Johnson will be pulling votes from both Obama and Romney, not likely to change who takes Colorado's 9 EV.
 
2012-11-03 02:00:12 PM  

Kid the Universe: Ishkur: Libertarianism: the erroneous philosophical assertion that getting rid of all traffic lights and laws will make people better drivers.

this is just another strawman argument from a butthurt bootlicking partisan tool.

so many strawmen here today


You tell us what you want the government to do less of then.
 
2012-11-03 02:03:18 PM  

Jarhead_h: cman: Inb4 Libertarian bashers muck up this thread with their confusion of Libertarianism and Conservatism

How about their deliberate confusion of libertarianism and Ayn Rand's cult? Am really tired of that shiat.


Libertarian is just another way for Republicans to lie and say "I'm not a Republican. I'm a Libretarian. Really." See Bob Barr, RON PAUL, cman.
 
2012-11-03 02:09:29 PM  

IntertubeUser: I voted for Gary Johnson.

I live in a state where Obama has a greater-than 10% lead over Rmoney. My big issues this election are opposing another war (Iran, Syria, etc.), civil rights (marriage equality and women's rights), and ending the "war" on drugs. I was extremely impressed with Jill Stein during an interview that I heard with her on my local NPR affiliate, but I was much less impressed with her and especially unimpressed with her running mate during an interview with Bill Moyers. I am receptive to arguments in favor of publicly-funded campaigns and nationalized healthcare. I especially like the Green Party's stance on not taking corporate donations. However, I am disappointed that the Green Party refuses to make intellectual, economist-driven arguments about economics; they use emotion and hyperbole, rather than reason.

I don't support Libertarian, laissez-faire. BP and the financial collapse of 2008 knocked that craziness out of me. But I do support getting government out of the morality business, endless wars and world policing, and laws which stifle all but the very largest corporations adept at using the government to limit competition. And, we desperately need a new party to end the GOP/Dem monopoly over our political system.

I voted for ZERO GOPers because I cannot morally justify supporting representatives of a party that gives refuge and voice to Theocrats, bigots, and anti-intellectaulists. And if I lived in most of the other states, I would've voted for Obama. But I decided to throw away my vote for President in the hopes of, one day, there being an alternative for Americans. I'm hoping that the Libertarian Party can become a (truly) fiscally-conservative and secular party of reason...for reasonable people. It isn't now, but it may be closer than the other parties.


This is about the only sensible post I've seen so far on the subject of Johnson's candidacy.

I'm particularly irritated by the morons who feel that Somalia is a libertarian paradise. The major plank in the libertarian political platform is the absolute proscription against force and fraud. This should be the primary function of domestic government. Libertarians would not do away with cops or the military. They would not do away with reasonable public safety regulations. Only the nutbags would sell the National Parks to private interests. What people are doing when discussing the philosophy in negative terms is exactly what is done to the mainstream parties by their opponents-- framing the philosophy in terms of its most unpalatable adherents. Not all Republicans are like Akin or Romney. Not all Democrats are like Sharpton.

I live in a closely fought swing state, so I have to vote for Obama, because the idea of a Romney presidency is terrifying-- I think it would lead to the destruction of the country's most cherished remaining values. But I wish the GOP candidate were not so repellent,; if he weren't, my vote would go to Johnson, a decent human being who understands the tragic toll the drug war has taken on our country.
 
2012-11-03 02:12:08 PM  

Smeggy Smurf: pciszek: Smeggy Smurf: They will with one caveat. If they mess up, we hang them. That's what most libertarians and all rapeblicans and demoncrats don't understand. The carrot and stick approach is how you make Libertarianism work. Play fair, make money, don't hurt other people or we hang you. No exceptions.

Do you hang the actual people who did the bad stuff, or just the "corporation", leaving the people alive to do more bad stuff? If the former, do you hang the rank-and-file-we-were-only-following-orders employees, or the CEO?

You hang the bad people who implimented the bad stuff. I advocate starting with the CEO and working down until you get to the asshole exec that did it. The same goes for police. One bad cop beats the hell out of a disabled kid, hang the chief first, then the shift supervisor then the bad cop. And so forth. As long as there is evidence that the bad policy/actions/whatever have the approval of the higher ups, they're dead as well.

This does not go to say that a mail room thief hurts the CEO. Only the immediate supervisor. It would take quite a bit of work getting the particulars worked out but we have enough smart people with devious minds who can figure it out.

The whole idea is to have a solution. The assholes that hurt people without consequences will either hang or change their ways. Mostly I suspect that for the first year they'll hang. After a while though, the number of shiatheads hurting people will be reduced to the point where they no longer are a factor. Of course this will mean banks won't run as effeciently for a while but the bad apples won't be hurting the economy any more.


Historically speaking, you lynch some guy that nobody really liked anyway even though he had nothing to do with it, and probably gang-rape his women (who are property) for good measure. Meanwhile the local lordCEO indulgently pays for the torches and pitchforks, and makes it back by foreclosing on and taking the lynched fellow's property.
 
2012-11-03 02:15:20 PM  

jso2897: Jarhead_h: cman: Inb4 Libertarian bashers muck up this thread with their confusion of Libertarianism and Conservatism

How about their deliberate confusion of libertarianism and Ayn Rand's cult? Am really tired of that shiat.

The distinction is that while Objectivism is autism expressed as an existential philosophy, Libertarianism is autism expressed as a political philosophy.


Man, that's mean.

People with autism have enough problems without you comparing them to Objectivists or Libertarians.
 
2012-11-03 02:16:12 PM  

Kevin72: Jarhead_h: cman: Inb4 Libertarian bashers muck up this thread with their confusion of Libertarianism and Conservatism

How about their deliberate confusion of libertarianism and Ayn Rand's cult? Am really tired of that shiat.

Libertarian is just another way for Republicans to lie and say "I'm not a Republican. I'm a Libretarian. Really." See Bob Barr, RON PAUL, cman.


Well, I am technically a registered Republican, but I hate the Republican Party of 2012. And I voted for Gary Johnson, but I wouldn't consider myself full-blown Libertarian. Am I a liar? WTF is so awful about not contorting myself into fitting into these Dem and Rep boxes? Is that such a travesty and foreign to you?

All my GOP friends are so mad at me for "giving Obama the election" and all my lib friends (and wife) are mad at me for giving it to Rmoney.

Give me a candidate I WANT to vote for from one of the two parties, and I'll do it.

GOP - when you stop trying to invade every country in the Middle East, actually live up to some semblance of fiscal restraint, and stop smacking me with your bible penii, I might come back. But I will not be a Fox News Republican. I will not knob slob on St. Reagan. And I won't support sending me to Iran/Pakistan/Libya/Potatoland. So until then, I'll either vote for a Libertarian that I like, or not vote at all.

In conclusion, go nibble on a receptacle of dongs.
 
2012-11-03 02:17:51 PM  

DamnYankees: BMulligan: Oh, and another thing. It makes no sense whatsoever to vote for someone who literally has no chance of actually winning the election - that's just throwing your vote away. Think about that before you pull that lever for Romney!

Well, it makes sense if you literally think neither Obama nor Romney is better than the other AT ALL. If you are 100%, truly and completely indifferent between Obama and Romney, then it makes sense to vote for a third party.


I live in Wyoming. There is zero chance Obama wins and so, with that knowledge, I'm free to vote for whomever I want with no impact to any national race.
 
2012-11-03 02:17:55 PM  

joonyer: Oooh, Nader as a perjorative. You're SO edgy, subs!


Yes Nader is a pejorative. While 12 years later he is probably not the most hated man in America, it will not be forgotten that Nader gave the keys to the white house to the man who was vacationing in Crawford until the DAY BEFORE 9/11, lost the war on terror to clusterfark up Iraq, and put flushed our economy down the toilet after putting it in the toilet.
 
2012-11-03 02:23:18 PM  

daveUSMC: Kevin72: Jarhead_h: cman: Inb4 Libertarian bashers muck up this thread with their confusion of Libertarianism and Conservatism

How about their deliberate confusion of libertarianism and Ayn Rand's cult? Am really tired of that shiat.

Libertarian is just another way for Republicans to lie and say "I'm not a Republican. I'm a Libretarian. Really." See Bob Barr, RON PAUL, cman.

Well, I am technically a registered Republican, but I hate the Republican Party of 2012. And I voted for Gary Johnson, but I wouldn't consider myself full-blown Libertarian. Am I a liar? WTF is so awful about not contorting myself into fitting into these Dem and Rep boxes? Is that such a travesty and foreign to you?

All my GOP friends are so mad at me for "giving Obama the election" and all my lib friends (and wife) are mad at me for giving it to Rmoney.

Give me a candidate I WANT to vote for from one of the two parties, and I'll do it.

GOP - when you stop trying to invade every country in the Middle East, actually live up to some semblance of fiscal restraint, and stop smacking me with your bible penii, I might come back. But I will not be a Fox News Republican. I will not knob slob on St. Reagan. And I won't support sending me to Iran/Pakistan/Libya/Potatoland. So until then, I'll either vote for a Libertarian that I like, or not vote at all.

In conclusion, go nibble on a receptacle of dongs.



At least you are honest enough to admit that you're a Republican and that GOP2012 has a problem (or two or three).
 
2012-11-03 02:24:24 PM  

HeartBurnKid: delysid25: hey this guy that likes weed is running! Let's vote for him even though he has no chance of winning, so the guy who expressly says that he is against weed can win! Brilliant!!

Let's face it, neither mainstream candidate is pro-weed. Obama has stepped up marijuana enforcement, if anything; medical dispensaries have been closed down at a greater rate than under Bush. Plus, whenever he's been asked about legalizing it, all he does is laugh. Obama is not pro-pot, and I doubt his position will "evolve" like his position on gay marriage did.

That said, I'm pulling for Obama anyway because I'm an adult and I realize that weed is not the only issue in the world that matters.


My view is that I neither want nor need the President to be pushing for pot reform. That's up to ordinary people. It's up to things like Initiative 502 in Washington State - not because state legalization actually makes it legal (it'd remain a federal crime no matter what WA does), but because a popular vote in favor of legal weed makes it clear to the political world that being pro-weed isn't necessarily the electoral death sentence it's considered to be now.

I don't need a President who will lead on pot. I do want one who will follow. If the cultural tide in this country turns in favor of legalizing pot, I think there's at least some chance Obama will follow. That's not something I could say of Romney.
 
2012-11-03 02:24:44 PM  

Ow! That was my feelings!: [www.raptorled.com image 346x345]

Voted on Thursday, not sure it will pass, gonna be close just like the POTUS vote. And Johnson will be pulling votes from both Obama and Romney, not likely to change who takes Colorado's 9 EV.


Isn't it polling mid-50's? I heard some Sheriff on KUNC talking it up from a law enforcement perspective.
 
2012-11-03 02:25:48 PM  

knobmaker: IntertubeUser: I voted for Gary Johnson.

I live in a state where Obama has a greater-than 10% lead over Rmoney. My big issues this election are opposing another war (Iran, Syria, etc.), civil rights (marriage equality and women's rights), and ending the "war" on drugs. I was extremely impressed with Jill Stein during an interview that I heard with her on my local NPR affiliate, but I was much less impressed with her and especially unimpressed with her running mate during an interview with Bill Moyers. I am receptive to arguments in favor of publicly-funded campaigns and nationalized healthcare. I especially like the Green Party's stance on not taking corporate donations. However, I am disappointed that the Green Party refuses to make intellectual, economist-driven arguments about economics; they use emotion and hyperbole, rather than reason.

I don't support Libertarian, laissez-faire. BP and the financial collapse of 2008 knocked that craziness out of me. But I do support getting government out of the morality business, endless wars and world policing, and laws which stifle all but the very largest corporations adept at using the government to limit competition. And, we desperately need a new party to end the GOP/Dem monopoly over our political system.

I voted for ZERO GOPers because I cannot morally justify supporting representatives of a party that gives refuge and voice to Theocrats, bigots, and anti-intellectaulists. And if I lived in most of the other states, I would've voted for Obama. But I decided to throw away my vote for President in the hopes of, one day, there being an alternative for Americans. I'm hoping that the Libertarian Party can become a (truly) fiscally-conservative and secular party of reason...for reasonable people. It isn't now, but it may be closer than the other parties.

This is about the only sensible post I've seen so far on the subject of Johnson's candidacy.

I'm particularly irritated by the morons who feel that Somalia ...


From the libertarian party platform:

2.8 Education

Education is best provided by the free market, achieving greater quality, accountability and efficiency with more diversity of choice. Recognizing that the education of children is a parental responsibility, we would restore authority to parents to determine the education of their children, without interference from government. Parents should have control of and responsibility for all funds expended for their children's education.


This sums up my disagreement with the libertarian party. They talk about personal responsibility and personal rights as paramount above all others. They brush aside the fact that outcomes in peoples' lives often times have nothing to do with their actions. Poor children should absolutely be provided an education of the same quality as the baseline in America. This should not be even open for debate.

Yes the Somalia argument is retarded. But so is the uncompromising attempt at applying a theoretical ideal to real world situations, which accurately describes the aims of the libertarian party.
 
2012-11-03 02:36:56 PM  

knobmaker: I'm particularly irritated by the morons who feel that Somalia is a libertarian paradise. The major plank in the libertarian political platform is the absolute proscription against force and fraud.


Smeggy Smurf: Play fair, make money, don't hurt other people or we hang you. No exceptions.


rthanu: Yes the Somalia argument is retarded. But so is the uncompromising attempt at applying a theoretical ideal to real world situations, which accurately describes the aims of the libertarian party.


The Somalia argument is REALITY. It is what happens when you don't have a government, you get the one you didn't want most of all. It is the simplest, most concise refutation of every "rational actor, no force, freedumb!" argument put forth. You don't like it because it the truth hurts.
 
2012-11-03 02:40:48 PM  

TheBigJerk: knobmaker: I'm particularly irritated by the morons who feel that Somalia is a libertarian paradise. The major plank in the libertarian political platform is the absolute proscription against force and fraud.

Smeggy Smurf: Play fair, make money, don't hurt other people or we hang you. No exceptions.

rthanu: Yes the Somalia argument is retarded. But so is the uncompromising attempt at applying a theoretical ideal to real world situations, which accurately describes the aims of the libertarian party.

The Somalia argument is REALITY. It is what happens when you don't have a government, you get the one you didn't want most of all. It is the simplest, most concise refutation of every "rational actor, no force, freedumb!" argument put forth. You don't like it because it the truth hurts.


There are about 5 million other factors that seperates Somalia from a theoretical Libertarian America, and you would know this if you weren't as intellectually dishonest as the rightiest of the right. I'm not a big L or a little l or an Independent in any way, but the Somalia argument is R-E-T-A-R-D-E-D.
 
2012-11-03 02:49:40 PM  
Libertarians take more votes from Republicans than Democrats. If anything Johnson is helping Obama.
 
2012-11-03 02:52:27 PM  
There are plenty of socialist potheads, and we they are voting Obama.
 
2012-11-03 02:59:13 PM  

rthanu: There are about 5 million other factors that seperates Somalia from a theoretical Libertarian America, and you would know this if you weren't as intellectually dishonest as the rightiest of the right. I'm not a big L or a little l or an Independent in any way, but the Somalia argument is R-E-T-A-R-D-E-D


Because you say so?
 
2012-11-03 03:02:53 PM  

rthanu: There are about 5 million other factors that seperates Somalia from a theoretical Libertarian America, and you would know this if you weren't as intellectually dishonest as the rightiest of the right. I'm not a big L or a little l or an Independent in any way, but the Somalia argument is R-E-T-A-R-D-E-D.


Funny how you can't list those 5 million other factors or go into more detail than saying, "It's retarded!" over and over. Almost as if those differences don't have any relevance.

Kind of UNlike how democrats can point out all the ways they're different from Republicans, and very much like how libertarians somehow manage to spend a lot of time attacking democrats but very little attacking republicans and when allowed into official debates are most likely just going to play spoiler for one side or the other (lol j/k it will be supporting the GOP every damn time).

But then you're trying to pretend Obama is worse for weed than Dubya, so really accusations of intellectual dishonesty are just more Republican projection. Oh wait you don't belong to whatever party I think you do. Whatever that party or non-party might happen to be.
 
2012-11-03 03:03:35 PM  

Tommy Moo: Libertarians take more votes from Republicans than Democrats. If anything Johnson is helping Obama.


Well in Colorado they're more concerned about college students in Boulder and Denver voting for Johnson when they would normally be voting for Obama. The major reason for this is the University of Colorado is probably the biggest stoner school in the country and weed legalization is on the ballot.

Personally I think it's probably overblown. Take the votes Ron Paul got in Colorado, add 1,00 and shift them to Johnson and you have his votes for Tuesday.

But again, if college students vote for Johnson and give the election to Romney they deserve the unlubed dicking that's coming to them.
 
2012-11-03 03:13:11 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: rthanu: There are about 5 million other factors that seperates Somalia from a theoretical Libertarian America, and you would know this if you weren't as intellectually dishonest as the rightiest of the right. I'm not a big L or a little l or an Independent in any way, but the Somalia argument is R-E-T-A-R-D-E-D

Because you say so?


Because look at their platform that I linked to and tell me how that would make America into Somalia. I'm not the one making the positive claim that Libertarianism = Somalia. At worst(and most likely) it would turn us into Gilded Age 2.0. Somalia would bust a farking nut if it was Gilded age 2.0
 
2012-11-03 03:16:30 PM  

Tommy Moo: Libertarians take more votes from Republicans than Democrats. If anything Johnson is helping Obama.


Eh, maybe. Thing is right-wingers don't tend to "protest vote" much, they'll badmouth people and rant in favor of a TPC but they'll still vote GOP when they're in the booth because part of the Republican idiom is "pragmatism over idealism." It may be as dubious as their claim to religion and morality (or the claim that those two are the same thing) but it's an established and accepted meme and it means that people who VALUE pragmatism are going to be, and vote, Republican. And in case it wasn't clear, voting D or R instead of third party is kind of the definition of pragmatism over idealism.

But maybe all those pothead idealists buying into the Gary Johnson scam (seriously, parties aside Gary Johnson is nothing but a profiteering Nigerian Prince) would have voted Republican, and maybe a Mitt Romney Presidency WOULDN'T result in military action against Iran, and maybe I'll win the lottery next time I decide to waste some money playing it.

Not bloody likely though.
 
2012-11-03 03:19:14 PM  

knobmaker: IntertubeUser: I voted for Gary Johnson.

I live in a state where Obama has a greater-than 10% lead over Rmoney. My big issues this election are opposing another war (Iran, Syria, etc.), civil rights (marriage equality and women's rights), and ending the "war" on drugs. I was extremely impressed with Jill Stein during an interview that I heard with her on my local NPR affiliate, but I was much less impressed with her and especially unimpressed with her running mate during an interview with Bill Moyers. I am receptive to arguments in favor of publicly-funded campaigns and nationalized healthcare. I especially like the Green Party's stance on not taking corporate donations. However, I am disappointed that the Green Party refuses to make intellectual, economist-driven arguments about economics; they use emotion and hyperbole, rather than reason.

I don't support Libertarian, laissez-faire. BP and the financial collapse of 2008 knocked that craziness out of me. But I do support getting government out of the morality business, endless wars and world policing, and laws which stifle all but the very largest corporations adept at using the government to limit competition. And, we desperately need a new party to end the GOP/Dem monopoly over our political system.

I voted for ZERO GOPers because I cannot morally justify supporting representatives of a party that gives refuge and voice to Theocrats, bigots, and anti-intellectaulists. And if I lived in most of the other states, I would've voted for Obama. But I decided to throw away my vote for President in the hopes of, one day, there being an alternative for Americans. I'm hoping that the Libertarian Party can become a (truly) fiscally-conservative and secular party of reason...for reasonable people. It isn't now, but it may be closer than the other parties.

This is about the only sensible post I've seen so far on the subject of Johnson's candidacy.

I'm particularly irritated by the morons who feel that Somalia ...



A lot of people in this thread (and in general) confuse "Libertarian" with "Anarchist".
 
2012-11-03 03:21:38 PM  
Glicky: In this Libertarian Universe, you would contract with a company to provide road services, As part of that contract you would absolve them from liability and any disputes would be taken of in arbitration.

See, this is the thing I've gotten from libertarian friends. I'd state that there is most certainly a place for proper governance and effective regulation; the response I got was that this is why we have the courts, so that those wronged could file suit against the responsible companies.

They didn't tak into account that, though this could work, those already farked will remain farked; moreover, the companies against whom the people are fighting have infinitely more resources at their disposal and will simply grind the complainants into dust, wipe their hands clean, and continue doing what they want to do.
 
2012-11-03 03:22:10 PM  

BMulligan: Oh, and another thing. It makes no sense whatsoever to vote for someone who literally has no chance of actually winning the election - that's just throwing your vote away. Think about that before you pull that lever for Romney!


Actually, it makes no sense whatsoever to go out and vote if your vote literally has no chance of deciding the election. "Ooh, Obama's margin of victory was 118,032 instead of 118,031!" What a waste of time.

/But hey, my time is my own to waste, and Oregon lets me vote by mail. 
//Besides, it's not like either main party is actually trying to fix the problem of spoilers, namely the stupid plurality voting system.
 
2012-11-03 03:23:06 PM  

TheBigJerk: rthanu: There are about 5 million other factors that seperates Somalia from a theoretical Libertarian America, and you would know this if you weren't as intellectually dishonest as the rightiest of the right. I'm not a big L or a little l or an Independent in any way, but the Somalia argument is R-E-T-A-R-D-E-D.

Funny how you can't list those 5 million other factors or go into more detail than saying, "It's retarded!" over and over. Almost as if those differences don't have any relevance.

Kind of UNlike how democrats can point out all the ways they're different from Republicans, and very much like how libertarians somehow manage to spend a lot of time attacking democrats but very little attacking republicans and when allowed into official debates are most likely just going to play spoiler for one side or the other (lol j/k it will be supporting the GOP every damn time).

But then you're trying to pretend Obama is worse for weed than Dubya, so really accusations of intellectual dishonesty are just more Republican projection. Oh wait you don't belong to whatever party I think you do. Whatever that party or non-party might happen to be.


Yeah 5 million is hyperbolic. but lets enumerate a few
1. Somalia's strife is largely the result of their poverty, not their form of governance.
2. Somalia's poverty is the result of having few resources compared to non-african countries. It's not as bad as Ethiopia or Chad, but they are pretty effing poor.
3. Somalia has not made the technological advancements the West and East have made in recent centuries due to # 2.

Compared to us, they are poor and technologically backward, just like much the rest of Africa. This is not the result of them democratically electing people who put the ideals of personal responsibility over all else. It's farking retarded to argue that.

I'm a democrat and align 60ish percent with their policies. But since I dare say that Obama is not God's gift to potheads i'm a closet republican. Obama's administration has done nothing to advance the cause of legalization, while doing just as much if not more to shiat on dispensaries.
 
2012-11-03 03:28:50 PM  

CokeBear: Seriously though, has this crazy shiat ever worked? Anywhere?


Yea, the United States from 1787 to about 1933, it had its ups and downs but the Depression and New Deal ended it.
 
2012-11-03 03:28:55 PM  

TheOther: Tough shiat. If you want somebody's vote, represent their interests; not just be LesserEvil tm


I take offense at your post. I will always be the better choice on the ballot.
 
2012-11-03 03:29:38 PM  
"Young people who are disappointed with the president are listening to what I have to say."

Yeah Gary, I know. And they won't shut up about how, if elected, you will magically fix all of our problems within the first six months of you being in office. Something tells me these are the same naive kids that expected Obama to fix everything in the first year and were pissed when he failed to meet their crazy expectations.
 
2012-11-03 03:30:25 PM  

GhostFish: I'd be more open to Libertarianism if it's supporters weren't such asshats.
Vocal libertarians are about as appealing as vocal vegetarians.
Same sanctimonious bullshiat. Same attempt at winning you over with browbeating.

You get more flies with honey, people.


Maybe I shouldn't be butting in here, but you can catch the most with dead squirrels.
 
2012-11-03 03:32:10 PM  

Fart_Machine: HeartBurnKid: Obama has stepped up marijuana enforcement, if anything; medical dispensaries have been closed down at a greater rate than under Bush.

Personally I have no problem with making marijuana legal and putting the same restrictions on it that we have on tobacco. Having said that, here in California medical dispensaries have been their own worst enemies. Voters enacted Prop. 215 based on compassion for medical users. Medical dispensaries popped up like crazy and without proper regulation instead of cancer and glaucoma patients you had a bunch of eighteen year old kids with prescriptions for "back pain" which fed into the arguments of the opponents and got the Fed and local authorities cracking down on them.

Look, just make the shait legal already but until then police your own industry.


THIS. People wanna biatch about Obama cracking down on dispensaries, but if they aren't even following their own laws, then, as much as I disagree, I understand why he would bust up the ones that aren't on the up-and-up. Why do you think they haven't ALL been busted anyway?
 
2012-11-03 03:32:31 PM  

thekingcobra: A lot of people in this thread (and in general)libertarians confuse "Libertarian" with "Anarchist".


fixed.
 
2012-11-03 03:34:51 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: DammitIForgotMyLogin: The essence of the libertarian argument: I don't give a crap if it might endanger other people, you can't stop me doing what I want.

You know how I know that you know jack farking shiat about Libertarianism?


Sorry, I have had to listen to too many libertarians rant about how DUI laws are a violation of their fundamental human rights (which apparently include driving).
 
2012-11-03 03:36:49 PM  

Blue_Blazer: Why do you think they haven't ALL been busted anyway?


Because there are too farking many of them?
 
2012-11-03 03:38:17 PM  

Notabunny: fta Some Democrats, haunted by Ralph Nader's torpedoing of Al Gore in 2000,

That's arguable. Two or three times more Florida Democrats voted for Bush than for Nader. Also, Gore lost his home state. That said, I think the public would be well served by having at least two third-party candidates in the presidential debates. I think having at least a Green and a Libertarian would turn what is now essentially a mutual press conference into an actual debate, with interesting and exciting ideas being discussed and argued. Seems simple enough. You'd only need a few extra microphones.


I'm actually coming around to the idea that we shouldn't do the debate format. Instead you have each candidate come out one at a time and answer questions. Meanwhile, the other candidate(s) are sequestered in the green room. Then it's not about who gets in a zinger in response, but who can answer the moderator's questions. And the two parties might not mind including the L and G candidates, too, since they wouldn't be eating into their screen time.
 
2012-11-03 03:41:33 PM  

stoli n coke: Dancin_In_Anson: DammitIForgotMyLogin: The essence of the libertarian argument: I don't give a crap if it might endanger other people, you can't stop me doing what I want.

You know how I know that you know jack farking shiat about Libertarianism?

What's to know? A candidate runs in the primary as a Republican, loses said primary, claims he's now a Libertarian, mentions something about wanting to legalize weed, the Paultards eat it up, and suddenly he's bypassed his way onto the general ballot.

It's like how a lot of 2-time Bush voters I know suddenly started referring to themselves as Libertarians back in 2006.


That's a bit unfair to Gary Johnson. I know him, and I just can't believe he's this kind of opportunist. I think he's a true Republican, in the purest sense, and that his party has abandoned him.

He's always been a supporter of decriminalization/legalization of most drugs, including pot. He even said so when he ran and won the governorship of New Mexico. I think his beliefs to tend to run a bit more libertarian than republican, at least today's republican party. He's a good guy and if he were the Republican candidate, I'd probably be voting for him. He did an AMAZING job in New Mexico - cut the government, attracted private sector jobs, cut taxes, left a surplus, and all while working with a democratic legislature. I think he set a record on governor vetoes, and the democrats learned a hard lesson on government spending - which is still being felt in New Mexico. He changed politics there, and I think in a good way.

And for the record, I'm one of the liberalist liberals who ever libbed. He's the only Republican I've ever pushed a button for, and I don't regret those votes at all.
 
2012-11-03 03:44:35 PM  

Kevin72: joonyer: Oooh, Nader as a perjorative. You're SO edgy, subs!

Yes Nader is a pejorative. While 12 years later he is probably not the most hated man in America, it will not be forgotten that Nader gave the keys to the white house to the man who was vacationing in Crawford until the DAY BEFORE 9/11, lost the war on terror to clusterfark up Iraq, and put flushed our economy down the toilet after putting it in the toilet.


LMAO. Yes, all a guy's fault just for running for office. Brilliant.

Yes, it's a truly horrible thing to run for office, and for people to vote their conscience. Who would ever want people to do such a thing?

Keep rootin' for "your team". No matter how rigged the game is.
 
2012-11-03 03:46:46 PM  

daveUSMC: All my GOP friends are so mad at me for "giving Obama the election" and all my lib friends (and wife) are mad at me for giving it to Rmoney.


That makes no sense. Your lib friends and your wife should be thanking you for giving Obama the election. As do I; good show, and I encourage you to persuade other Republicans to vote for Johnson as well.
 
2012-11-03 03:47:01 PM  

thornhill: I love some of the arguments I'm hearing from Colorado about why folks are against legalizing pot.

My favorite is that Coloradians (is that what you call them?) don't want people coming to their state to buy weed and smoke. Or in other words, "please don't come to our state and spend your tourist dollars here."


Well, people in Amsterdam have complained quite vocally about that.

One of the better arguments is that it's in a constitutional amendment, and very specific about license fees and such, so it'd be hard to tinker with. Now, it's in an amendment because that's the only way the legislature is mandated to act on it.
 
2012-11-03 03:48:01 PM  

pciszek: Blue_Blazer: Why do you think they haven't ALL been busted anyway?

Because there are too farking many of them?


I don't think it's that simple. I might be wrong.
Unless they are out there every day busting up places and just can't keep up.
I'll try to study it out.

Oh and, because I am on their side:
They got the guns but, we got the numbers,
Gonna win yeah we're taking over.
 
2012-11-03 03:49:51 PM  

rthanu: Yeah 5 million is hyperbolic. but lets enumerate a few
1. Somalia's strife is largely the result of their poverty, not their form of governance.
2. Somalia's poverty is the result of having few resources compared to non-african countries. It's not as bad as Ethiopia or Chad, but they are pretty effing poor.
3. Somalia has not made the technological advancements the West and East have made in recent centuries due to # 2.

Compared to us, they are poor and technologically backward, just like much the rest of Africa. This is not the result of them democratically electing people who put the ideals of personal responsibility over all else. It's farking retarded to argue that.

I'm a democrat and align 60ish percent with their policies. But since I dare say that Obama is not God's gift to potheads i'm a closet republican. Obama's administration has done nothing to advance the cause of legalization, while doing just as much if not more to shiat on dispensaries.


Somalia's poverty is largely because the nation's wealth was extracted by the already-rich, who then took it and ran instead of a rising tide lifting all boats. 2 and 3 are the result of that. Somalia is the result of a weak central government collapsing, which is the goal of the LP. They waffle on whether or not they're willing to ADMIT that, but they have in the past and will again.

Obama's been better for weed than the GOP, I know it ain't much and I agree we could do with more, but let's not lie about who's been tepidly enforcing laws and who's been pushing for tougher laws and tighter enforcement.
 
2012-11-03 03:50:53 PM  

dr_blasto: I heard some Sheriff on KUNC talking it up from a law enforcement perspective.


Is he going to be allowed to keep his job? Police departments have become dependent on the asset forfeitures that illegal marijuana provides.
 
2012-11-03 03:54:21 PM  

Ishkur: Libertarianism: the erroneous philosophical assertion that getting rid of all traffic lights and laws will make people better drivers.


Coupled with the belief that any system more complicated than elementary school playground rules is dangerously incomprehensible, and must be scrapped and rebuilt from the ground up.
 
2012-11-03 03:56:06 PM  

rthanu: There are about 5 million other factors that seperates Somalia from a theoretical Libertarian America


The biggest ones are education and widespread literacy. If we eliminate public education entirely, as the libertarian party platform requires, within a generation we will go a long way towards something like Somalia.
 
2012-11-03 03:57:17 PM  

pciszek: rthanu: There are about 5 million other factors that seperates Somalia from a theoretical Libertarian America

The biggest ones are education and widespread literacy. If we eliminate public education entirely, as the libertarian party platform requires, within a generation we will go a long way towards something like Somalia.


Agreed. Anybody who wants to get rid of free public education is an enemy of the people.
 
2012-11-03 03:58:49 PM  

Blue_Blazer: pciszek: Blue_Blazer: Why do you think they haven't ALL been busted anyway?

Because there are too farking many of them?

I don't think it's that simple. I might be wrong.
Unless they are out there every day busting up places and just can't keep up.
I'll try to study it out.

Oh and, because I am on their side:
They got the guns but, we got the numbers,
Gonna win yeah we're taking over.


From the L.A. Times
Link
In the early days of President Obama's tenure, Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr. announced that prosecutors would not target medical marijuana users and caregivers as long as they followed state laws. But as the risk of prosecution diminished, storefront dispensaries and enormous growing operations proliferated in California, often in defiance of zoning laws and local bans.

Last year, California's four U.S. attorneys announced that they were taking aim at large-scale growers.
 
2012-11-03 04:00:37 PM  

Skirl Hutsenreiter: I'm actually coming around to the idea that we shouldn't do the debate format. Instead you have each candidate come out one at a time and answer questions. Meanwhile, the other candidate(s) are sequestered in the green room. Then it's not about who gets in a zinger in response, but who can answer the moderator's questions. And the two parties might not mind including the L and G candidates, too, since they wouldn't be eating into their screen time.


I recall them doing that in 2008, the Republicans cheating, the moderator being in the tank for McCain, and the "liberal media" whining about the moderator being "in the tank for Obama."
 
2012-11-03 04:02:02 PM  
Being knows as a Libertarian here on Fark, I am willing to give my main concern with the philosophy of my party. As someone earlier in the thread stated, It does not scale very well if only implemented at the federal level. Society nowadays waaaaay too complex. For it to work, all three levels have to implement it. With the federal level only role to enforce basic human rights, defense, and "true" interstate commerce (infrastructure and best practice standards and regulations).
 
2012-11-03 04:02:26 PM  

pciszek: The biggest ones are education and widespread literacy. If we eliminate public education entirely, as the libertarian party platform requires, within a generation we will go a long way towards something like Somalia.


That's exactly the point of that "Atlas Shrugged" movie. Randians understand that if they get their way, then the next generation won't be able to read Ayn Rand; hence to have a consistent philosophy, they must put it all in action movie form.
 
2012-11-03 04:02:27 PM  

Blue_Blazer: Fart_Machine: HeartBurnKid: Obama has stepped up marijuana enforcement, if anything; medical dispensaries have been closed down at a greater rate than under Bush.

Personally I have no problem with making marijuana legal and putting the same restrictions on it that we have on tobacco. Having said that, here in California medical dispensaries have been their own worst enemies. Voters enacted Prop. 215 based on compassion for medical users. Medical dispensaries popped up like crazy and without proper regulation instead of cancer and glaucoma patients you had a bunch of eighteen year old kids with prescriptions for "back pain" which fed into the arguments of the opponents and got the Fed and local authorities cracking down on them.

Look, just make the shait legal already but until then police your own industry.

THIS. People wanna biatch about Obama cracking down on dispensaries, but if they aren't even following their own laws, then, as much as I disagree, I understand why he would bust up the ones that aren't on the up-and-up. Why do you think they haven't ALL been busted anyway?


Not to mention that far more dispensaries here have closed due to city ordinances banning them than any federal enforcement. I got particularly annoyed at my city, which has been in a decades-long and failing struggle to revitalize their struggling retail district, banning dispensaries from every available retail area. I guess they were too chicken to just ban them like all the neighboring towns in the county. I'd look at that and see a great opportunity to draw dollars from outside the community, but I guess pot is scary and you should be scared of it.
 
2012-11-03 04:05:07 PM  

GAT_00: LectertheChef: Anybody who's not an under 25 white middle-class (Or higher) male and still a Libertarian is just an idiot.

No, just a self-centered jackass.


I'm 28, and every four years I get a free reminder why I'm a libertarian.

/Have fun arguing about the douche and the turd sandwich
 
2012-11-03 04:07:18 PM  

TheBigJerk: rthanu: Yeah 5 million is hyperbolic. but lets enumerate a few
1. Somalia's strife is largely the result of their poverty, not their form of governance.
2. Somalia's poverty is the result of having few resources compared to non-african countries. It's not as bad as Ethiopia or Chad, but they are pretty effing poor.
3. Somalia has not made the technological advancements the West and East have made in recent centuries due to # 2.

Compared to us, they are poor and technologically backward, just like much the rest of Africa. This is not the result of them democratically electing people who put the ideals of personal responsibility over all else. It's farking retarded to argue that.

I'm a democrat and align 60ish percent with their policies. But since I dare say that Obama is not God's gift to potheads i'm a closet republican. Obama's administration has done nothing to advance the cause of legalization, while doing just as much if not more to shiat on dispensaries.

Somalia's poverty is largely because the nation's wealth was extracted by the already-rich, who then took it and ran instead of a rising tide lifting all boats. 2 and 3 are the result of that. Somalia is the result of a weak central government collapsing, which is the goal of the LP. They waffle on whether or not they're willing to ADMIT that, but they have in the past and will again.

Obama's been better for weed than the GOP, I know it ain't much and I agree we could do with more, but let's not lie about who's been tepidly enforcing laws and who's been pushing for tougher laws and tighter enforcement.


That same song about the flight of wealth could be sang about the rest of Africa as well, but some of those states still have a strongish functional central government. Should we then argue paces like Uganda and Zimbabwe are the analog to the current American government? No, because that is absurd. So is the Libertarianism leads to Somalia argument. As an aside, can we even say that life under Mugabe is significantly better than life in Somalia? Not really.

Obama talked in 2008 somewhat pro pot. But actions speak louder than words. His actions have deviated from American policy on marijuana 0% from what I've seen. If you have evidence to the contrary I'd be happy to see it and withdraw my argument.

Do I think Libertarianism is the answer for America? Hell no.
Do I hate bad arguments? Yes.
 
2012-11-03 04:09:44 PM  

Skirl Hutsenreiter: Blue_Blazer: Fart_Machine: HeartBurnKid: Obama has stepped up marijuana enforcement, if anything; medical dispensaries have been closed down at a greater rate than under Bush.

Personally I have no problem with making marijuana legal and putting the same restrictions on it that we have on tobacco. Having said that, here in California medical dispensaries have been their own worst enemies. Voters enacted Prop. 215 based on compassion for medical users. Medical dispensaries popped up like crazy and without proper regulation instead of cancer and glaucoma patients you had a bunch of eighteen year old kids with prescriptions for "back pain" which fed into the arguments of the opponents and got the Fed and local authorities cracking down on them.

Look, just make the shait legal already but until then police your own industry.

THIS. People wanna biatch about Obama cracking down on dispensaries, but if they aren't even following their own laws, then, as much as I disagree, I understand why he would bust up the ones that aren't on the up-and-up. Why do you think they haven't ALL been busted anyway?

Not to mention that far more dispensaries here have closed due to city ordinances banning them than any federal enforcement. I got particularly annoyed at my city, which has been in a decades-long and failing struggle to revitalize their struggling retail district, banning dispensaries from every available retail area. I guess they were too chicken to just ban them like all the neighboring towns in the county. I'd look at that and see a great opportunity to draw dollars from outside the community, but I guess pot is scary and you should be scared of it.


Oh sweet, real actual boots-on-the-ground evidence. Thanks for adding this to the conversation.
 
2012-11-03 04:12:15 PM  

rthanu: TheBigJerk: rthanu: Yeah 5 million is hyperbolic. but lets enumerate a few
1. Somalia's strife is largely the result of their poverty, not their form of governance.
2. Somalia's poverty is the result of having few resources compared to non-african countries. It's not as bad as Ethiopia or Chad, but they are pretty effing poor.
3. Somalia has not made the technological advancements the West and East have made in recent centuries due to # 2.

Compared to us, they are poor and technologically backward, just like much the rest of Africa. This is not the result of them democratically electing people who put the ideals of personal responsibility over all else. It's farking retarded to argue that.

I'm a democrat and align 60ish percent with their policies. But since I dare say that Obama is not God's gift to potheads i'm a closet republican. Obama's administration has done nothing to advance the cause of legalization, while doing just as much if not more to shiat on dispensaries.

Somalia's poverty is largely because the nation's wealth was extracted by the already-rich, who then took it and ran instead of a rising tide lifting all boats. 2 and 3 are the result of that. Somalia is the result of a weak central government collapsing, which is the goal of the LP. They waffle on whether or not they're willing to ADMIT that, but they have in the past and will again.

Obama's been better for weed than the GOP, I know it ain't much and I agree we could do with more, but let's not lie about who's been tepidly enforcing laws and who's been pushing for tougher laws and tighter enforcement.

That same song about the flight of wealth could be sang about the rest of Africa as well, but some of those states still have a strongish functional central government. Should we then argue paces like Uganda and Zimbabwe are the analog to the current American government? No, because that is absurd. So is the Libertarianism leads to Somalia argument. As an aside, can we even say that life ...


What about what I posted above from the L.A. Times? I know it's just some reporting claiming to repeat what Holder said, but if it's true, then what? Will you concede that the ones being busted are the ones breaking local laws and not just the ones that Mr. Sinister Obama decided to bust because he's a mean lying poopyhead?
 
2012-11-03 04:15:16 PM  
Blue_Blazer:Mr. Sinister Obama

Will someone with good photoshop skills please shop that image for me? I would save it forever.
 
2012-11-03 04:17:41 PM  
I'm trying to get drunk then drive and go vote for Romney in my wife beater. Fark you if you want to vote for someone who has the same interests as you.
 
2012-11-03 04:18:52 PM  

Blue_Blazer: What about what I posted above from the L.A. Times? I know it's just some reporting claiming to repeat what Holder said, but if it's true, then what? Will you concede that the ones being busted are the ones breaking local laws and not just the ones that Mr. Sinister Obama decided to bust because he's a mean lying poopyhead?


Yes. I was posting what I posted while yours was posted. I concede that Obama is not as anti pot as his predecessors.

How about you tone down the Mr. Sinister Obama blah blah blah... Tell me where I came within a mile of saying anything about that. I'm voting for him, I like him, I agree with him more often than not.

I have to be honest. I feel more more aligned with the left than the right, but I don't agree with the left 100% of the time. Those rare times that I do disagree with the left and I vocalize it, I get shiat on by the rest of you like I'm just as bad as tenpoundsocheese. It's disheartening. Knock it off.
 
2012-11-03 04:20:09 PM  

TheOther: Tough shiat. If you want somebody's vote, represent their interests; not just be LesserEvil tm


But I like LesserEvil™. It's delicious.

lesserevil.com
 
2012-11-03 04:22:50 PM  

Fart_Machine: HeartBurnKid: Obama has stepped up marijuana enforcement, if anything; medical dispensaries have been closed down at a greater rate than under Bush.

Personally I have no problem with making marijuana legal and putting the same restrictions on it that we have on tobacco. Having said that, here in California medical dispensaries have been their own worst enemies. Voters enacted Prop. 215 based on compassion for medical users. Medical dispensaries popped up like crazy and without proper regulation instead of cancer and glaucoma patients you had a bunch of eighteen year old kids with prescriptions for "back pain" which fed into the arguments of the opponents and got the Fed and local authorities cracking down on them.

Look, just make the shait legal already but until then police your own industry.


My mom uses medical marijuana to help her with the pain caused by her arthritis and her lupus. There's a ton of other stuff it's good for, too. If you think that cancer and glaucoma patients are the only ones that need it, you're the problem, not the dispensaries.
 
2012-11-03 04:24:44 PM  

rthanu: Blue_Blazer: What about what I posted above from the L.A. Times? I know it's just some reporting claiming to repeat what Holder said, but if it's true, then what? Will you concede that the ones being busted are the ones breaking local laws and not just the ones that Mr. Sinister Obama decided to bust because he's a mean lying poopyhead?

Yes. I was posting what I posted while yours was posted. I concede that Obama is not as anti pot as his predecessors.

How about you tone down the Mr. Sinister Obama blah blah blah... Tell me where I came within a mile of saying anything about that. I'm voting for him, I like him, I agree with him more often than not.

I have to be honest. I feel more more aligned with the left than the right, but I don't agree with the left 100% of the time. Those rare times that I do disagree with the left and I vocalize it, I get shiat on by the rest of you like I'm just as bad as tenpoundsocheese. It's disheartening. Knock it off.


I appreciate your willingness to do exactly what you said and withdraw your argument, and I was just using "Mr. Sinister Obama" as pure hyperbole. But Mr. Sinister is one of my favorite Marvel villains and I would sincerely like to have a picture of Obama as him. Not kidding a bit.
 
2012-11-03 04:25:49 PM  
I voted for Gary Johnson already (absentee ballot). Of course, I live in Maryland so there's no chance that will help Romney's chances. If I lived in a swing state, I'd have voted for Obama - no question.

I've been a Republican for all my adult life, but I just can't stand the party any more. I wanted to send them a message by shifting Republican votes to another party. I don't want my dissatisfaction with the Republican party to help Romney though, but luckily I don't have to worry about that. Obama's not a BAD president, I give him a C+/B-, but I'm sick of the corrupt, oligarchical two-party system we have now. Not a fan of the Libertarians per se, but I do think them becoming stronger and bringing a little more competition in to the mix would be a good thing in the long run. Keep the other two parties a little more honest.

But our current dichotomy of different flavors of robber baron scumbags is no good for our country.
 
2012-11-03 04:26:15 PM  

Blue_Blazer: rthanu: Blue_Blazer: What about what I posted above from the L.A. Times? I know it's just some reporting claiming to repeat what Holder said, but if it's true, then what? Will you concede that the ones being busted are the ones breaking local laws and not just the ones that Mr. Sinister Obama decided to bust because he's a mean lying poopyhead?

Yes. I was posting what I posted while yours was posted. I concede that Obama is not as anti pot as his predecessors.

How about you tone down the Mr. Sinister Obama blah blah blah... Tell me where I came within a mile of saying anything about that. I'm voting for him, I like him, I agree with him more often than not.

I have to be honest. I feel more more aligned with the left than the right, but I don't agree with the left 100% of the time. Those rare times that I do disagree with the left and I vocalize it, I get shiat on by the rest of you like I'm just as bad as tenpoundsocheese. It's disheartening. Knock it off.

I appreciate your willingness to do exactly what you said and withdraw your argument, and I was just using "Mr. Sinister Obama" as pure hyperbole. But Mr. Sinister is one of my favorite Marvel villains and I would sincerely like to have a picture of Obama as him. Not kidding a bit.


And I was perhaps tough on you, but I've seen this same argument in this thread about ten times (not saying it was you every time) and so yeah I did want to see an actual response, which you willingly gave and I graciously accept.
 
2012-11-03 04:30:59 PM  

HeartBurnKid: Fart_Machine: HeartBurnKid: Obama has stepped up marijuana enforcement, if anything; medical dispensaries have been closed down at a greater rate than under Bush.

Personally I have no problem with making marijuana legal and putting the same restrictions on it that we have on tobacco. Having said that, here in California medical dispensaries have been their own worst enemies. Voters enacted Prop. 215 based on compassion for medical users. Medical dispensaries popped up like crazy and without proper regulation instead of cancer and glaucoma patients you had a bunch of eighteen year old kids with prescriptions for "back pain" which fed into the arguments of the opponents and got the Fed and local authorities cracking down on them.

Look, just make the shait legal already but until then police your own industry.

My mom uses medical marijuana to help her with the pain caused by her arthritis and her lupus. There's a ton of other stuff it's good for, too. If you think that cancer and glaucoma patients are the only ones that need it, you're the problem, not the dispensaries.


/facepalm.

Is that seriously what you got out of what I said? Really?
 
2012-11-03 04:39:33 PM  

Blue_Blazer: Blue_Blazer: rthanu: Blue_Blazer: What about what I posted above from the L.A. Times? I know it's just some reporting claiming to repeat what Holder said, but if it's true, then what? Will you concede that the ones being busted are the ones breaking local laws and not just the ones that Mr. Sinister Obama decided to bust because he's a mean lying poopyhead?

Yes. I was posting what I posted while yours was posted. I concede that Obama is not as anti pot as his predecessors.

How about you tone down the Mr. Sinister Obama blah blah blah... Tell me where I came within a mile of saying anything about that. I'm voting for him, I like him, I agree with him more often than not.

I have to be honest. I feel more more aligned with the left than the right, but I don't agree with the left 100% of the time. Those rare times that I do disagree with the left and I vocalize it, I get shiat on by the rest of you like I'm just as bad as tenpoundsocheese. It's disheartening. Knock it off.

I appreciate your willingness to do exactly what you said and withdraw your argument, and I was just using "Mr. Sinister Obama" as pure hyperbole. But Mr. Sinister is one of my favorite Marvel villains and I would sincerely like to have a picture of Obama as him. Not kidding a bit.

And I was perhaps tough on you, but I've seen this same argument in this thread about ten times (not saying it was you every time) and so yeah I did want to see an actual response, which you willingly gave and I graciously accept.


It's not that you were extra mean or anything. It's just that if I disagree with Democratic policy X or things that the Fark left takes as gospel(Libertarianism = Somalia) that I'm automatically a rightist or "Fark Independent" or Libertarian or whatever else. It's not that I'm butthurt about it(maybe I am it's hard to be perfectly self reflective) I just get worn down by it a bit.
 
2012-11-03 04:40:22 PM  

joonyer: Kevin72: joonyer: Oooh, Nader as a perjorative. You're SO edgy, subs!

Yes Nader is a pejorative. While 12 years later he is probably not the most hated man in America, it will not be forgotten that Nader gave the keys to the white house to the man who was vacationing in Crawford until the DAY BEFORE 9/11, lost the war on terror to clusterfark up Iraq, and put flushed our economy down the toilet after putting it in the toilet.

LMAO. Yes, all a guy's fault just for running for office. Brilliant.

Yes, it's a truly horrible thing to run for office, and for people to vote their conscience. Who would ever want people to do such a thing?

Keep rootin' for "your team". No matter how rigged the game is.


"Voting one's conscience" would make sense but for the fact that the Green Party's conscience is environmentalism, their raison de être. And the Democratic candidate, Al Gore, had done more to promote environmental issues in one month than Ralph Nadir did in a lifetime. So we get the most anti-environmental administration ever instead. But you know, both sides are bad, so vote Republican or Green, or Libertarian, just not Democratic.
 
2012-11-03 04:43:28 PM  

Fart_Machine: HeartBurnKid: Fart_Machine: HeartBurnKid: Obama has stepped up marijuana enforcement, if anything; medical dispensaries have been closed down at a greater rate than under Bush.

Personally I have no problem with making marijuana legal and putting the same restrictions on it that we have on tobacco. Having said that, here in California medical dispensaries have been their own worst enemies. Voters enacted Prop. 215 based on compassion for medical users. Medical dispensaries popped up like crazy and without proper regulation instead of cancer and glaucoma patients you had a bunch of eighteen year old kids with prescriptions for "back pain" which fed into the arguments of the opponents and got the Fed and local authorities cracking down on them.

Look, just make the shait legal already but until then police your own industry.

My mom uses medical marijuana to help her with the pain caused by her arthritis and her lupus. There's a ton of other stuff it's good for, too. If you think that cancer and glaucoma patients are the only ones that need it, you're the problem, not the dispensaries.

/facepalm.

Is that seriously what you got out of what I said? Really?


Yeah, it is. You want to throw anecdotes at me about "18 year old kids with back pain" getting phony MM cards (let me guess, they're the kids of all the welfare queens in Cadillacs, right?) and act like that means something? And, for that matter like that's something the dispensaries are responsible for in the first place? You want to talk about how the voters were snowjobbed with stuff about cancer and glaucoma like those are the only things pot is good for? You want to talk about how too many medical dispensaries popped up when there's a Walgreen's or a Rite-Aid on every street corner peddling Vicodin, Percocet, and Soma? And then you facepalm when I call you out on your ignorance? You're a very silly person, my friend. Silly, or sad; I don't know which yet.
 
2012-11-03 04:44:20 PM  

rthanu: Blue_Blazer: Blue_Blazer: rthanu: Blue_Blazer: What about what I posted above from the L.A. Times? I know it's just some reporting claiming to repeat what Holder said, but if it's true, then what? Will you concede that the ones being busted are the ones breaking local laws and not just the ones that Mr. Sinister Obama decided to bust because he's a mean lying poopyhead?

Yes. I was posting what I posted while yours was posted. I concede that Obama is not as anti pot as his predecessors.

How about you tone down the Mr. Sinister Obama blah blah blah... Tell me where I came within a mile of saying anything about that. I'm voting for him, I like him, I agree with him more often than not.

I have to be honest. I feel more more aligned with the left than the right, but I don't agree with the left 100% of the time. Those rare times that I do disagree with the left and I vocalize it, I get shiat on by the rest of you like I'm just as bad as tenpoundsocheese. It's disheartening. Knock it off.

I appreciate your willingness to do exactly what you said and withdraw your argument, and I was just using "Mr. Sinister Obama" as pure hyperbole. But Mr. Sinister is one of my favorite Marvel villains and I would sincerely like to have a picture of Obama as him. Not kidding a bit.

And I was perhaps tough on you, but I've seen this same argument in this thread about ten times (not saying it was you every time) and so yeah I did want to see an actual response, which you willingly gave and I graciously accept.

It's not that you were extra mean or anything. It's just that if I disagree with Democratic policy X or things that the Fark left takes as gospel(Libertarianism = Somalia) that I'm automatically a rightist or "Fark Independent" or Libertarian or whatever else. It's not that I'm butthurt about it(maybe I am it's hard to be perfectly self reflective) I just get worn down by it a bit.


I honestly thought that by adding "poopyhead" to the end of my post it was fairly clear that I wasn't trying to call you a monster. I just don't like the whole "Obama is worse on pot" narrative when it is mainly the local authorities in Cali asking for federal help in places where zoning does not permit dispensaries. Also, refuting that argument takes the wind out of some of the GanJa advocates.
 
2012-11-03 04:53:28 PM  

phaseolus: I often drive faster than the speed limit, especially on divided highways when conditions are good, but I don't get all red-faced and ragey because there's a sign on the side of the road with a number on it.


And how about when you get popped for a $100 fine plus costs plus surcharges plus court costs plus court surcharge cost fees plus a little something for the judge plus a surcharge on that...all for doing a perfectly safe 55 on a road engineered for 70 that's marked 45?

Speed limit laws are increasingly more about revenue than they are about safety.

I commute during overnight hours, and I'm constantly stopping at multiple red lights at shopping centers where every store has been closed for hours and not even taking deliveries for hours after I pass. 30 seconds idling here, 60 there, 15 at another one, 30 at the next one...four or five times on any given morning. That shiat adds up. I figure in any given year I burn through at least full tank of gas just sitting at empty intersections. I would kind of like that $70 or so to spend on my kids, y'know? I've biatched and moaned to the town and state officials along the route, and I've been able to get the DOT to move its ass and fix exactly ONE light.

So why such inertia? They know there's a problem, they know it doesn't make anybody safer and in fact makes things MORE dangerous because it bunches up the few cars that are on the road...and let me tell you that's a real joy when you're on a downhill stretch at 4am in a motherfarking ice storm and everybody has to jump on their brakes because the light at the farking empty strip mall with the Walgreens turned red...and yet they don't fix the problem. Instead they post cops at the empty strip malls to shake a couple hundred bucks out of anybody who sees one of these lights turn orange and hits the gas because they are sick of being caught at that farking light 200 times a year.

I'm not a capital-L Libertarian, but you know what? Power corrupts. The greater the power, the greater the corruption. And by corruption I don't mean simply penny-ante hundred-grand-in-the-freezer and no-show-patronage-job stuff. Corruption also means calculated inaction, as noted above. I mean also that It gets those with power believing their own press clippings and that every grandiose idea that comes into their heads (or is put there by a handler, more likely) is the most transcendently brilliant idea in the history of ever, and would become increasingly wonderful the more money was spent on it. And thus we get a military-industrial complex, a medical-industrial complex, a prison-industrial complex, an education-industrial complex and so forth. Power corrupts the officials you like, the ones I like, it corrupts Obama, Romney, and Gary Johnson too. At least Johnson realizes this and wants to give presidential power away before he does something with the power that's at best well-meaning but stupid. (At least that's what he says.)

Maybe that sounds like I have trust issues, but if you've lived in New York (my state) or Illinois or California or New Jersey or Texas or Florida or Louisiana or Massachusetts or (you get the idea) and don't have trust issues with politicians you haven't been paying attention. You know that lovefest the other day between Obama and Chris Christie? Most people got all misty about bipartisanship. I saw some smooth political calculations. Obama gets some GOP help in hanging on to his power Tuesday, Christie gets some Democratic help to help in hanging on to his power next yearwhen he's up for re-election, and Cory Booker gets to stay in Newark shoveling people's sidewalks and will learn to know his place if party leadership has anything to say about it.

Obviously we still need government to handle the big situations that nobody else can handle, but ideally the idea behind being a small-L libertarian is that that list of big situations and the list of big situations that require federal involvment (as opposed to strictly local or state action) is a lot shorter than either Republicans or Democrats say it is.
 
2012-11-03 04:54:50 PM  

Dafatone: cman: Inb4 Libertarian bashers muck up this thread with their confusion of Libertarianism and Conservatism

I meant to say this in another thread. The reason why that confusion happens is because, at least in my experience, there are a whole slew of Libertarian sorts who, when push comes to shove, will side with their fiscal conservativism over their social liberalism.

People who say "yeah, I'd like to see drugs legalized / gays allowed to marry / religion out of politics, but I'm voting based on fiscal issues."


Which is weird because there isn't anything fiscally conservative about Libertarianism. How does running up debt infringe on people's liberty? It doesn't.
 
2012-11-03 04:55:54 PM  
We need a Johnson in the White House after the last two dicks we've had in office. (Yeah, pun intended.)

Really? We need Johnson in the White House.
It seems the GOP got to Ron Paul as he has been too quiet lately (despite being blacked out). Paulites ought to really consider Johnson.
(And Paul should throw his support for Johnson to slap the GOP upside their head.)

/I want a third party.
 
2012-11-03 04:58:14 PM  

thornhill: I love some of the arguments I'm hearing from Colorado about why folks are against legalizing pot.

My favorite is that Coloradians (is that what you call them?) don't want people coming to their state to buy weed and smoke. Or in other words, "please don't come to our state and spend your tourist dollars here."


The Dutch are struggling with that too.
 
2012-11-03 04:58:37 PM  

Stoker:

/I want a third worldparty.


FTFY.

Yes, getting rid of public education, public roads, public everything, would lead to total collapse and extreme suffering.
 
2012-11-03 05:09:12 PM  

HeartBurnKid: There's a ton of other stuff it's good for, too.


I am a bit skeptical when one of the more popular recreational drugs is claimed to be a cure for nearly everything (and yes, that is pretty much what hemp advocates claim). Patent medicines used to contain cocaine and opium; there was no denying that they made the patient feel better, no matter what their ostensible ailment was. I suspect the same is true of medical marijuana.
 
2012-11-03 05:15:38 PM  

ilambiquated: thornhill: I love some of the arguments I'm hearing from Colorado about why folks are against legalizing pot.

My favorite is that Coloradians (is that what you call them?) don't want people coming to their state to buy weed and smoke. Or in other words, "please don't come to our state and spend your tourist dollars here."

The Dutch are struggling with that too.


I know the Dutch have been cracking down on things in Amsterdam a bit (technically, pot isn't actually legal in Amsterdam -- there's just a tradition of not enforcing the drug laws).

I've been to the Netherlands several times -- last time 2009 -- and I will say that some tourists -- mostly college students -- use the lack of drug enforcement as an excuse for public bad behavior. They basically treat the Red Light District like Bourbon St. in New Orleans. Or to put it another way, people seem to go out of their way to be a douche bag because pot is legal, and ruin it for everyone else.
 
2012-11-03 05:16:07 PM  

pciszek: HeartBurnKid: There's a ton of other stuff it's good for, too.

I am a bit skeptical when one of the more popular recreational drugs is claimed to be a cure for nearly everything (and yes, that is pretty much what hemp advocates claim). Patent medicines used to contain cocaine and opium; there was no denying that they made the patient feel better, no matter what their ostensible ailment was. I suspect the same is true of medical marijuana.


Nothing wrong with smoking a little opium with your pot.

/maybe I misunderstood
//on purpose
///pot has lots of positive effects, study it out
 
2012-11-03 05:28:20 PM  

HeartBurnKid: Yeah, it is. You want to throw anecdotes at me about "18 year old kids with back pain" getting phony MM cards (let me guess, they're the kids of all the welfare queens in Cadillacs, right?) and act like that means something? And, for that matter like that's something the dispensaries are responsible for in the first place? You want to talk about how the voters were snowjobbed with stuff about cancer and glaucoma like those are the only things pot is good for? You want to talk about how too many medical dispensaries popped up when there's a Walgreen's or a Rite-Aid on every street corner peddling Vicodin, Percocet, and Soma? And then you facepalm when I call you out on your ignorance? You're a very silly person, my friend. Silly, or sad; I don't know which yet.


No I'm face-palming because of your Wharrgarbl and lack of reading comprehension. I was using Cancer and Glaucoma as examples. I know Marijuana is wonderful for chronic pain since my late Father-in-Law, who didn't even drink, used it until he passed away. When he used prescription pain killers it made him more stoned that when he took carefully regulated doses of pot. I voted for Prop 215. I would have voted to legalize it for recreational use if given the chance (I guess you missed that part too). I never said anything about welfare queens or voters being snow-jobbed. I'm talking about a lack of regulations in the industry that makes it look bad like this shait. If you want to deny this plays into the hands of opponents that's fine, but you're displaying your own ignorance not mine.
 
2012-11-03 05:33:39 PM  

pciszek: HeartBurnKid: There's a ton of other stuff it's good for, too.

I am a bit skeptical when one of the more popular recreational drugs is claimed to be a cure for nearly everything (and yes, that is pretty much what hemp advocates claim). Patent medicines used to contain cocaine and opium; there was no denying that they made the patient feel better, no matter what their ostensible ailment was. I suspect the same is true of medical marijuana.


I'm not saying it's a cure for everything. I'm saying it's great for symptomatic relief of anything that causes pain or nausea. And a hell of a lot better for you than the narcotics they usually give you for pain (seriously, my mom popped Vicodin like Pez before she got on marijuana).
 
2012-11-03 05:35:46 PM  

Fart_Machine: HeartBurnKid: Yeah, it is. You want to throw anecdotes at me about "18 year old kids with back pain" getting phony MM cards (let me guess, they're the kids of all the welfare queens in Cadillacs, right?) and act like that means something? And, for that matter like that's something the dispensaries are responsible for in the first place? You want to talk about how the voters were snowjobbed with stuff about cancer and glaucoma like those are the only things pot is good for? You want to talk about how too many medical dispensaries popped up when there's a Walgreen's or a Rite-Aid on every street corner peddling Vicodin, Percocet, and Soma? And then you facepalm when I call you out on your ignorance? You're a very silly person, my friend. Silly, or sad; I don't know which yet.

No I'm face-palming because of your Wharrgarbl and lack of reading comprehension. I was using Cancer and Glaucoma as examples. I know Marijuana is wonderful for chronic pain since my late Father-in-Law, who didn't even drink, used it until he passed away. When he used prescription pain killers it made him more stoned that when he took carefully regulated doses of pot. I voted for Prop 215. I would have voted to legalize it for recreational use if given the chance (I guess you missed that part too). I never said anything about welfare queens or voters being snow-jobbed. I'm talking about a lack of regulations in the industry that makes it look bad like this shait. If you want to deny this plays into the hands of opponents that's fine, but you're displaying your own ignorance not mine.


So what you're saying is that, because Channel 4 found one fraudulent clinic, that means that medical marijuana as a whole is a sham and all the dispensary closings are completely justified and not at all the result of federal, state, and local authorities directly contradicting the will of the voters by closing up dispensaries (which, btw, do not have any connection with the clinics that NBC 4 was investigating in the first place).
 
2012-11-03 05:47:35 PM  

HeartBurnKid: Fart_Machine: HeartBurnKid: Yeah, it is. You want to throw anecdotes at me about "18 year old kids with back pain" getting phony MM cards (let me guess, they're the kids of all the welfare queens in Cadillacs, right?) and act like that means something? And, for that matter like that's something the dispensaries are responsible for in the first place? You want to talk about how the voters were snowjobbed with stuff about cancer and glaucoma like those are the only things pot is good for? You want to talk about how too many medical dispensaries popped up when there's a Walgreen's or a Rite-Aid on every street corner peddling Vicodin, Percocet, and Soma? And then you facepalm when I call you out on your ignorance? You're a very silly person, my friend. Silly, or sad; I don't know which yet.

No I'm face-palming because of your Wharrgarbl and lack of reading comprehension. I was using Cancer and Glaucoma as examples. I know Marijuana is wonderful for chronic pain since my late Father-in-Law, who didn't even drink, used it until he passed away. When he used prescription pain killers it made him more stoned that when he took carefully regulated doses of pot. I voted for Prop 215. I would have voted to legalize it for recreational use if given the chance (I guess you missed that part too). I never said anything about welfare queens or voters being snow-jobbed. I'm talking about a lack of regulations in the industry that makes it look bad like this shait. If you want to deny this plays into the hands of opponents that's fine, but you're displaying your own ignorance not mine.

So what you're saying is that, because Channel 4 found one fraudulent clinic, that means that medical marijuana as a whole is a sham and all the dispensary closings are completely justified and not at all the result of federal, state, and local authorities directly contradicting the will of the voters by closing up dispensaries (which, btw, do not have any connection with the clinics that NB ...


Yeah, that's exactly what I'm saying. /rolleyes

This guy who is an advocate warns about the same issues. I give up. I'll leave you to your broad-brushing derp where anyone who points out any problems in the industry is a rabid anti-drug zealot who wants to close all clinics, blames welfare mothers, and believes medical marijuana is a sham even though I stated completely the opposite.
 
2012-11-03 05:47:55 PM  

Kevin72: joonyer: Kevin72: joonyer: Oooh, Nader as a perjorative. You're SO edgy, subs!

Yes Nader is a pejorative. While 12 years later he is probably not the most hated man in America, it will not be forgotten that Nader gave the keys to the white house to the man who was vacationing in Crawford until the DAY BEFORE 9/11, lost the war on terror to clusterfark up Iraq, and put flushed our economy down the toilet after putting it in the toilet.

LMAO. Yes, all a guy's fault just for running for office. Brilliant.

Yes, it's a truly horrible thing to run for office, and for people to vote their conscience. Who would ever want people to do such a thing?

Keep rootin' for "your team". No matter how rigged the game is.

"Voting one's conscience" would make sense but for the fact that the Green Party's conscience is environmentalism, their raison de être. And the Democratic candidate, Al Gore, had done more to promote environmental issues in one month than Ralph Nadir did in a lifetime. So we get the most anti-environmental administration ever instead. But you know, both sides are bad, so vote Republican or Green, or Libertarian, just not Democratic.


Both sides are bad, so there needs to be more sides.
 
2012-11-03 05:52:10 PM  

thornhill: ilambiquated: thornhill: I love some of the arguments I'm hearing from Colorado about why folks are against legalizing pot.

My favorite is that Coloradians (is that what you call them?) don't want people coming to their state to buy weed and smoke. Or in other words, "please don't come to our state and spend your tourist dollars here."

The Dutch are struggling with that too.

I know the Dutch have been cracking down on things in Amsterdam a bit (technically, pot isn't actually legal in Amsterdam -- there's just a tradition of not enforcing the drug laws).

I've been to the Netherlands several times -- last time 2009 -- and I will say that some tourists -- mostly college students -- use the lack of drug enforcement as an excuse for public bad behavior. They basically treat the Red Light District like Bourbon St. in New Orleans. Or to put it another way, people seem to go out of their way to be a douche bag because pot is legal, and ruin it for everyone else.


People in border towns like Venlo occasionally stage demonstrations against the flood of German dopers. However tolerance has improved production methods (the Dutch are great at gardening) and the methods have spread (via internet) across the border to Germany, so I think that traffic's dying down.
 
2012-11-03 08:34:12 PM  

Amos Quito: [i1121.photobucket.com image 631x615]
"Third Party? Nonsense. You already have a choice."


It's almost cute that you think the answer to our 2 party system is someone who was a Republican last year and only became a Libertarian so he could keep running.

/maybe Romney can be come a Libertarian in 2016 and be a fresh new alternative to the status quo
 
2012-11-04 12:21:04 AM  
Huh. I guess Obama shouldn't have laughed at all those people asking about legalizing marijuana.
 
2012-11-04 12:52:42 AM  
Libertarians are conservatives too ashamed to call themselves Republicans. It's probably been said already, but I'm repeating it because it's true.
 
2012-11-04 03:09:34 AM  

Fart_Machine: Yeah, that's exactly what I'm saying. /rolleyes

This guy who is an advocate warns about the same issues. I give up. I'll leave you to your broad-brushing derp where anyone who points out any problems in the industry is a rabid anti-drug zealot who wants to close all clinics, blames welfare mothers, and believes medical marijuana is a sham even though I stated completely the opposite.


Yes, yes, I get it. You're just concerned.
 
2012-11-04 04:25:16 AM  

verbaltoxin: Libertarians are conservatives too ashamed to call themselves Republicans. It's probably been said already, but I'm repeating it because it's true.


Anybody should be ashamed to call themselves a member of either of the two major parties.
 
2012-11-04 08:01:46 AM  

The AlbinoSaxon: Something tells me these are the same naive kids that expected Obama to fix everything in the first year and were pissed when he failed to meet their crazy expectations.


Uh, no. They're the Ron Paullies.
 
2012-11-04 08:56:09 AM  

verbaltoxin: Libertarians are conservatives too ashamed to call themselves Republicans. It's probably been said already, but I'm repeating it because it's true.


I am small-l libertarian, and indeed am ashamed to be a registered Republican. You are right. And I am conservative in more ways than not. Although, I am liberal or ambivalent on social issues. What's your point?

You sound awfully proud of yourself for deducing this. I am going to go ahead and postulate that you are kind of a dick.
 
2012-11-04 02:14:42 PM  

HeartBurnKid: Fart_Machine: Yeah, that's exactly what I'm saying. /rolleyes

This guy who is an advocate warns about the same issues. I give up. I'll leave you to your broad-brushing derp where anyone who points out any problems in the industry is a rabid anti-drug zealot who wants to close all clinics, blames welfare mothers, and believes medical marijuana is a sham even though I stated completely the opposite.

Yes, yes, I get it. You're just concerned.


Yes I get it. You're an idiot.

Ploink
 
2012-11-04 03:11:19 PM  

rthanu: There are about 5 million other factors that seperates Somalia from a theoretical Libertarian America, and you would know this if you weren't as intellectually dishonest as the rightiest of the right. I'm not a big L or a little l or an Independent in any way, but the Somalia argument is R-E-T-A-R-D-E-D.


Tell that to the
 
2012-11-04 04:00:20 PM  

Fart_Machine: HeartBurnKid: Fart_Machine: Yeah, that's exactly what I'm saying. /rolleyes

This guy who is an advocate warns about the same issues. I give up. I'll leave you to your broad-brushing derp where anyone who points out any problems in the industry is a rabid anti-drug zealot who wants to close all clinics, blames welfare mothers, and believes medical marijuana is a sham even though I stated completely the opposite.

Yes, yes, I get it. You're just concerned.

Yes I get it. You're an idiot.

Ploink


Right, you throw a pile of specious reasoning at me, link to sources that don't back up the point you're trying to make, and believe that somehow, not only do a few anecdotes point to a massive problem, but that this massive problem is somehow worse than people who actually have a medical need for a specific substance not getting it, and I'm the idiot. Sure.
 
Displayed 230 of 230 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report