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 69
    More: Spiffy, Colorado, potheads  
•       •       •

3756 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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-11-03 10:34:40 AM  
12 votes:
"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 11:36:19 AM  
8 votes:

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 11:06:12 AM  
8 votes:

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 11:05:38 AM  
6 votes:
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 11:57:25 AM  
5 votes:
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 08:53:16 AM  
5 votes:
i1121.photobucket.com

"Third Party? Nonsense. You already have a choice."
2012-11-03 11:46:27 AM  
4 votes:

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 10:50:00 AM  
4 votes:

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 11:40:03 AM  
3 votes:
Obama could solve this problem with three words: "Let's legalize pot".
2012-11-03 11:25:49 AM  
3 votes:
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 11:15:40 AM  
3 votes:
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 11:08:42 AM  
3 votes:

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 10:46:23 AM  
3 votes:

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 04:07:18 PM  
2 votes:

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 03:44:35 PM  
2 votes:

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 01:47:52 PM  
2 votes:
Tough shiat. If you want somebody's vote, represent their interests; not just be LesserEvil tm
2012-11-03 01:47:23 PM  
2 votes:
Libertarianism: the erroneous philosophical assertion that getting rid of all traffic lights and laws will make people better drivers.
2012-11-03 12:38:05 PM  
2 votes:

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 12:18:01 PM  
2 votes:

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 12:16:33 PM  
2 votes:
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 11:57:30 AM  
2 votes:

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 11:52:20 AM  
2 votes:
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 11:47:26 AM  
2 votes:

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 11:40:53 AM  
2 votes:
"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 11:40:32 AM  
2 votes:
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 11:21:52 AM  
2 votes:

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 11:10:56 AM  
2 votes:
I'm excited for this prospect, especially in VA where I believe Johnson and Goode are on the ballot.
2012-11-03 10:41:40 AM  
2 votes:

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.
2012-11-04 08:56:09 AM  
1 votes:

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 04:25:16 AM  
1 votes:

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.
2012-11-03 04:43:28 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:46:46 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:41:33 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:28:50 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:23:06 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:22:10 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:19:14 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:40:48 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:12:08 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:09:29 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:03:18 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:50:41 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:33:32 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:25:46 PM  
1 votes:
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 01:03:26 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:56:56 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:35:28 PM  
1 votes:
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 12:30:15 PM  
1 votes:
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 12:05:20 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:01:26 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:01:06 PM  
1 votes:

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 11:59:09 AM  
1 votes:
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 11:58:09 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:55:09 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:53:03 AM  
1 votes:
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 11:52:54 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:51:34 AM  
1 votes:
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 11:44:23 AM  
1 votes:
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 11:44:10 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:39:35 AM  
1 votes:
Libertarianism: Because everything will be sweet once everybody operates on the Honor System. Particularly businesses. They always do what's right.
2012-11-03 11:32:35 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:19:44 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:15:37 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:13:54 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:10:05 AM  
1 votes:
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 11:06:04 AM  
1 votes:
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 10:39:53 AM  
1 votes:

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

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


i1121.photobucket.com

Twas brillig.
2012-11-03 10:22:42 AM  
1 votes:
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 09:39:12 AM  
1 votes:
Inb4 Libertarian bashers muck up this thread with their confusion of Libertarianism and Conservatism
 
Displayed 69 of 69 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report