Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(NPR)   Republican college students spell doom for the GOP: Many are leaning Libertarian because the GOP is medieval on social issues, and even those who parrot Fox News talking points admit the party may have lost voters for the next 50 years   (npr.org) divider line 467
    More: Obvious, Fox News, GOP, Republican, talking points, lecture hall, political parties in the United States, students  
•       •       •

3762 clicks; posted to Politics » on 01 Mar 2013 at 11:39 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-01 12:45:35 PM  
Oh, and this...

i301.photobucket.com
 
2013-03-01 12:46:03 PM  

Zerochance: Being a musician myself, I also know a good deal of Libertarians. Not all are drug users, but all are self-important narcissists who seem to feel any sort of communal living is a HUGE infringement on their liberties.


I've seen this phenomenon, as well. Been in bands since I was 16, and a band is pretty much a perfect example of communist philosophy in practice. Every member working towards a singular goal, pooling their resources and earnings for the "greater good"... Sometimes even living and eating communally, especially on road trips. There's usually a leader, of course, but I've never seen a situation where "the leader" gets more cash from a gig than any other member, even if they write all the songs.

I guess that changes once you start making a lot of money and record companies get involve... Never been in that situation, myself. : ) Every band I've been in that has parted ways was usually because of clashing egos and one member thinking they're more important than the others.
 
2013-03-01 12:46:07 PM  

Ow! That was my feelings!: libertarianism is fine as a personal political philosophy, it makes little sense as a governing philosophy.


Maybe if you are one who believes that all social relations are business relations. But then you wind up with no real friends and have to buy friends. Maybe this is why Libertarians favor prostitution.
 
2013-03-01 12:46:57 PM  

skullkrusher: the aspect of corporations that is incompatible with libertarianism, imo, is the limited liability of the ownership. If you own a plumbing contractor that is set up as an llc and you flood a person's house destroying their priceless collection of Beanie Babies, barring criminal negligence, they can only hope to recoup from the business and not you and your partners. This is incompatible with libertarianism in my view as it hinders a person's recourse in response to a rights violation. People should not be able to shield themselves from liability in that way. Making the corporation a separate entity from the people who own and run it is contrary to the most basic right-libertarian principle of protection of property rights.


Ahhhh... ok, I gotcha.  It's interesting but it makes me wonder what would happen to the cost of everyday services.  For example, would the price of a plumber be very high because so many plumbers would have lost their shirts in court (making supply lower) and that existing plumbers would have to charge more to build up a reserve fund in case they're ever sued?

I guess there's nothing about libertarianism that would prevent insurance companies from existing so it might end up coming out in the wash.
 
2013-03-01 12:47:43 PM  

slayer199: Mercutio74: skullkrusher: abolition of corporations as we know them is entirely compatible with libertarianism and I'd argue necessary under it.

Please proceed governor...

/I am truly interested in hearing you elaborate on that point, even though this is Fark
//I mean actually do elaborate, how would you stop people from making de facto corporations, even if you couldn't form them under law

The problem with corporatism as it relates to libertarianism is that there's no personal responsibility or accountability.

If a CEO was held legally and criminally liable for the actions of corporate misconduct, we'd see a lot less corporate misconduct. As it stands a company is only responsible to their stockholders and the stockholder's primary interest is to see the stock increase and/or pay dividends.


right. Shareholders should also be liable for misconduct or damages of the companies they own stock in. Theoretically. This would probably hinder growth a metric shiatton though
 
2013-03-01 12:48:14 PM  

slayer199: If a CEO was held legally and criminally liable for the actions of corporate misconduct, we'd see a lot less corporate misconduct.


I don't know if that conclusion necessarily follows from your premise but I don't know of any Libertarian candidates who have advocated that CEO's should somehow be above the law. I would suggest its political cronyism that makes them untouchable, and I can certainly think of manifestations of that in both Republican and Democratic political machines in American history.
 
2013-03-01 12:48:59 PM  

Somacandra: GAT_00: Because industrial feudalism is a really bad way to run the world.

Not all Libertarianism is equivalent to some Randian dystopia. There are many flavors and varieties of Libertarianism as there are of other kinds of American politics.

/registered Green


Well, yes, there are.  24, to be exact.

www.leftycartoons.com
 
2013-03-01 12:50:33 PM  

Somacandra: I don't know if that conclusion necessarily follows from your premise but I don't know of any Libertarian candidates who have advocated that CEO's should somehow be above the law.


You can't have a successful party in the US that openly wants to make life harder for corporations.  The Super PACs would buy more tv time than can exist in the space time continuum.
 
2013-03-01 12:50:45 PM  

dr_blasto: Look back to the last financial crisis and imagine how much more often and how much worse those incidents would be without the very light regulation we have today.


You people do not get it, do you?
 
2013-03-01 12:51:24 PM  

keylock71: Some of them certainly are... I keep telling a friend of mine that calling people "ignorant, lazy statist leaches" because they won't vote the way you want them to isn't really the best way to get them to accept your political ideologies. They're really good at telling you what is wrong with Democratic and Republican policies, what is wrong with Socialism etc., yet their rhetoric is amazingly light regarding how they plan to put their ideology in place in the democratic republic we currently live in.


That's the beauty of Libertarianism.  They keep trying to make the party viable from the top down, rather than from the ground up, an approach that pretty much dooms them to single-digit irrelevancy.  But, since their precious ideology can never actually be put into practice, it cannot be fully disproven, and that allows them to endlessly speculate about how much better off everything and everyone would be if we operated on what is pretty much the Honor System.
 
2013-03-01 12:51:34 PM  
FTFA:


Sophomore Miranda Onnen says after graduation, fiscal realities will begin to take hold for her generation and priorities will shift.

"We're also the ones who are going to have to pay for Obamacare," Onnen says. "A lot of people don't necessarily connect those things. They say, 'Oh, well, health care is great. I get to be on my parents' health-care plan until I'm 26.' Well, once you turn 27, you have to pay for that. And especially with the joblessness rates being what they are, I think that's going to hit kids our age pretty hard."
How does the existence of HCR or not change this reality?  Regardless of whether or not it existed, you would still be facing a time in your life when you would not be able to be on your parents healthcare, you would need it yourself and you would have to pay for it.  Obamacare gives you an opportunity to not be raped by the for-profit industry by applying controls and exchanges.

/she be a kollage stoodent
 
2013-03-01 12:54:59 PM  

Somacandra: /registered Green


A green is just a left-winger too embarrassed to call themselves a Democrat.

am i doing this right?
 
2013-03-01 12:56:43 PM  

Mercutio74: skullkrusher: the aspect of corporations that is incompatible with libertarianism, imo, is the limited liability of the ownership. If you own a plumbing contractor that is set up as an llc and you flood a person's house destroying their priceless collection of Beanie Babies, barring criminal negligence, they can only hope to recoup from the business and not you and your partners. This is incompatible with libertarianism in my view as it hinders a person's recourse in response to a rights violation. People should not be able to shield themselves from liability in that way. Making the corporation a separate entity from the people who own and run it is contrary to the most basic right-libertarian principle of protection of property rights.

Ahhhh... ok, I gotcha.  It's interesting but it makes me wonder what would happen to the cost of everyday services.  For example, would the price of a plumber be very high because so many plumbers would have lost their shirts in court (making supply lower) and that existing plumbers would have to charge more to build up a reserve fund in case they're ever sued?

I guess there's nothing about libertarianism that would prevent insurance companies from existing so it might end up coming out in the wash.


right. Insurance would be big(ger) business
 
2013-03-01 12:58:04 PM  

Glenford: Sounds like the GOP needs someone hip and cool to reach out to the youngster. What happened to this guy?[3.bp.blogspot.com image 700x556]


He apparently got his brain out of escrow after stepping down and is at MSNBC.

/no really, the guy makes a bit of sense every now and then, far more than when he was chair of the RNC
 
2013-03-01 12:58:28 PM  

Somacandra: GAT_00: Because industrial feudalism is a really bad way to run the world.

Not all Libertarianism is equivalent to some Randian dystopia. There are many flavors and varieties of Libertarianism as there are of other kinds of American politics.

/registered Green


Every single candidate I have ever seen run as a Libertarian, including some actual libertarians, has supported significant de-regulation for corporations. Every one of them. They usually argue that the government has too much power and limits freedom and de-regulation will change that.

I would like to say, outside of my time in the military, the government has never bother to give me a piss test to find out what I've done over the last few weeks. Corporate invasion of my free time is already way too much and, in order to participate in this market, I have no choice but to comply. The government seems to have a reactionary take on violations, corporations have a pre-emptive "prove you're innocent" approach and get away with it. I'd hate to give them another picogram of power.
 
2013-03-01 01:00:22 PM  

HMS_Blinkin: "May have" lost voters for the next 50 years?  I'm 24 years old, and I can speak for myself and the vast majority of my friends (most of whom weren't particularly politically inclined before) when I say that the GOP has, without question, lost voters for 50 years at a minimum.  I currently don't plan to vote for any Republican at any level of government for the rest of my life, period.   I'm not saying I'm an automatic Democratic vote, but I'll vote for anyone short of Neo-Nazis before I vote GOP.

The GOP is profoundly screwed when the old people start dying off in droves.


I dunno, poor white people tend to vote republican because Jesus, the illusion of being "middle class", and race issues.

Sadly there the ones that get farked the most from these policies but follow the new GOP like it was a religion.

/Democrats ain't better
//The banks have bought out congress and we're too socially isolated to give a damn
 
2013-03-01 01:01:15 PM  

Mercutio74: skullkrusher: the aspect of corporations that is incompatible with libertarianism, imo, is the limited liability of the ownership. If you own a plumbing contractor that is set up as an llc and you flood a person's house destroying their priceless collection of Beanie Babies, barring criminal negligence, they can only hope to recoup from the business and not you and your partners. This is incompatible with libertarianism in my view as it hinders a person's recourse in response to a rights violation. People should not be able to shield themselves from liability in that way. Making the corporation a separate entity from the people who own and run it is contrary to the most basic right-libertarian principle of protection of property rights.

Ahhhh... ok, I gotcha.  It's interesting but it makes me wonder what would happen to the cost of everyday services.  For example, would the price of a plumber be very high because so many plumbers would have lost their shirts in court (making supply lower) and that existing plumbers would have to charge more to build up a reserve fund in case they're ever sued?

I guess there's nothing about libertarianism that would prevent insurance companies from existing so it might end up coming out in the wash.


Everyone would maintain malpractice insurance, and services would cost more.  Alternately, there'd be legal clauses in the contract you sign to get service that eliminates their liability, or caps it at a certain amount.

Eventually, though, it could be difficult to get some services, because the risk to reward ratio is too high.  If you could only afford $200 for services, but there's a 1% chance he'd screw up and flood things, owing $30K, it's just not worth it.
 
2013-03-01 01:03:04 PM  

The Name: And even then, "Libertarian" is often just a stop on the road to outright "liberal."  It'll probably take just a couple more years of college (and if not by then, certainly grad school) for some of these kids to realize that libertarianism is just a big of a crock as regular old Republicanism.


Truth.
 
2013-03-01 01:03:23 PM  

jigger: dr_blasto: Look back to the last financial crisis and imagine how much more often and how much worse those incidents would be without the very light regulation we have today.

You people do not get it, do you?


Get what? Get that I believe there's too much leeway and we need to regulate? I know many think regulations are too stiff already, I simply disagree. De-regulation has led to failure for society throughout history while empowering the already powerful. If that's your thing, fine. I just don't like that kind of a future.
 
2013-03-01 01:03:44 PM  

slayer199: Ah, good to see all the Fark libs and conservatives hating on the LP.  Republicans hate us because of our social liberalism and Democrats hate us because of our fiscal conservatism.     Both sides do everything they can to exclude the LP (and the Green Party) from the process.  Why?  Fear.  A party that promotes social liberalism, fiscal conservatism, personal responsibility and smaller government will resonate with voters.

 Oh sure, especially when it's populated by lunatics.
 
2013-03-01 01:04:55 PM  

jigger: Somacandra: /registered Green

A green is just a left-winger too embarrassed to call themselves a Democrat.

am i doing this right?


Nah, it just doesn't work the same way over on the left, sorry.

If anything, that's backwards.  A lot of nominal Democrats are at base Greens, but either too embarrassed or too pragmatic to vote (or register) that way.
 
2013-03-01 01:06:17 PM  

Noam Chimpsky: The only "libertarian" principles these Libertarians have is drugs and samer weddings.


And abortions
 
2013-03-01 01:07:22 PM  

HeartBurnKid: Somacandra: GAT_00: Because industrial feudalism is a really bad way to run the world.

Not all Libertarianism is equivalent to some Randian dystopia. There are many flavors and varieties of Libertarianism as there are of other kinds of American politics.

/registered Green

Well, yes, there are.  24, to be exact.

[www.leftycartoons.com image 650x976]


24 kinds, all beating each other over the head with "No True Scotsman" sticks in internet forums.

An internet, by the way, that exists because of the government.
 
2013-03-01 01:07:39 PM  

Wadded Beef: "F-you, I got mine" is social liberalism?


You're confused between social liberalism and fiscal conservatism.

Social liberalism means you can do whatever you'd like so long as you don't infringe on someone else's rights to do whatever they'd like.  Who you sleep with, who you marry, what drugs you like to do...is not a concern of a libertarian.  An individual is ultimately responsible for the choices they make, NOT the government.  That also extends to the poor choices as well.  If an individual makes poor life choices, that's on them...not on other citizens vis a vis the government bailing them out (and it also applies to corporations).

Fiscal conservatism relates to government spending.  Libertarians recognize the need for government when it comes to things like infrastructure, defense (though FAR smaller than it is now), and enforcement of laws/contracts.  The government is FAR too large, inefficient, and yes...we have a spending problem.

Your "Fark you, I got mine" is nothing more than an appeal to emotion.  Libertarians believe that people should be able to reap the rewards of success and if they so choose, donate their time or money to any cause they'd like.  Being are forced to do so at gunpoint (government) that is something libertarians would object to.  There will always be poor people but pretending that more government or government redistribution of wealth leads to prosperity is naive.  There's been a War on Poverty going on for 80 years and it hasn't made a dent in the average 14-15% that live in poverty.  In short, dramatically reduce spending and taxes across the board.
 
2013-03-01 01:08:38 PM  

RexTalionis: Libertarians are Republicans who are embarrassed to call themselves Republicans.


This is scarily close to the actual truth. From the blinding arrogance they displayed towards Ron Paul at the RNC, to their support of Draconian ideals on social issues, to the utter cluelessness they displayed in unabashedly running the veritable poster-child for corporate greed as their presidential candidate, they managed to lose my vote as well.
 
2013-03-01 01:09:45 PM  

Somacandra: I don't know if that conclusion necessarily follows from your premise but I don't know of any Libertarian candidates who have advocated that CEO's should somehow be above the law. I would suggest its political cronyism that makes them untouchable, and I can certainly think of manifestations of that in both Republican and Democratic political machines in American history.


True.  On occasion CEO's are held accountable for fiscal misconduct.  I was referring more to criminal negligence.  Making a product that they know to be harmful because it's profitable.
 
2013-03-01 01:10:02 PM  

verbaltoxin: 24 kinds, all beating each other over the head with "No True Scotsman" sticks in internet forums.


Eventually any large group of libertarians ends up with the More Libertarian Than Thou types calling everyone else statists
 
2013-03-01 01:10:20 PM  

give me doughnuts: It might be refreshing to vote for a candidate, rather than vote against one.


Yeah, I thought it would be refreshing too. I once supported a guy who had no real chance, but he was a likeable guy with solid centrist ideas and a refreshing background story.

But then he got some traction, pulled an upset victory in the primaries and won the general election. So I've spent the past 4 years being labeled a thoughtless 'bot and a starry-eyed cultist. At best.

So, yeah... less refreshing than you might imagine.
 
2013-03-01 01:11:02 PM  
graphics8.nytimes.com
Says all you need to know about the Libertarian Party.
 
2013-03-01 01:11:36 PM  

dr_blasto: jigger: dr_blasto: Look back to the last financial crisis and imagine how much more often and how much worse those incidents would be without the very light regulation we have today.

You people do not get it, do you?

Get what? Get that I believe there's too much leeway and we need to regulate? I know many think regulations are too stiff already, I simply disagree. De-regulation has led to failure for society throughout history while empowering the already powerful. If that's your thing, fine. I just don't like that kind of a future.


You don't get that because of and despite the massive piles of regulations, shiat like this is going to happen when banks and huge corporations run the government. How did these banks get so farking big and powerful? farking government. They got so big because they own congressmen, they send their cronies into the regulatory agencies (only the big ones get to do this), they have the explicit guarantees from the government (and the winks and nods) that their assets will be protected, so gamble away, we've got your back. You think deregulation empowers the already powerful? You think they want deregulation? Hell no, they love regulations. That's what gives the powerful few the most power.
 
2013-03-01 01:13:18 PM  

palelizard: cubic_spleen: Mercutio74: dittybopper: So remind me again why I shouldn't vote libertarian?

The only thing that libertarian fiscal policy leads to is a failed nation?  That's a good enough reason for most.

What Libertarians/GOP (like there's a difference in this country) really want is to live in Somalia, except without all the black people.

And fewer pirates.


No - they'd just be corporations.
 
2013-03-01 01:13:38 PM  

BSABSVR: verbaltoxin: 24 kinds, all beating each other over the head with "No True Scotsman" sticks in internet forums.

Eventually any large group of libertarians ends up with the More Libertarian Than Thou types calling everyone else statists



At the end of the day there are only three kinds of Libertarians: corporatists, crypto-racists and weed-smokers.
 
2013-03-01 01:13:48 PM  

BSABSVR: verbaltoxin: 24 kinds, all beating each other over the head with "No True Scotsman" sticks in internet forums.

Eventually any large group of libertarians ends up with the More Libertarian Than Thou types calling everyone else statists


well, anarcho-capitalists are pretty much the only "pure" right-libertarians. That is taking the ideology to the logical conclusion. They kinda have the right to call everyone who is not an AC not libertarian
 
2013-03-01 01:14:06 PM  

Wasteland: jigger: Somacandra: /registered Green

A green is just a left-winger too embarrassed to call themselves a Democrat.

am i doing this right?

Nah, it just doesn't work the same way over on the left, sorry.


Ah, well, you say so. You must be right.
 
2013-03-01 01:15:51 PM  

slayer199: Wadded Beef: "F-you, I got mine" is social liberalism?

You're confused between social liberalism and fiscal conservatism.

Social liberalism means you can do whatever you'd like so long as you don't infringe on someone else's rights to do whatever they'd like.  Who you sleep with, who you marry, what drugs you like to do...is not a concern of a libertarian.  An individual is ultimately responsible for the choices they make, NOT the government.  That also extends to the poor choices as well.  If an individual makes poor life choices, that's on them...not on other citizens vis a vis the government bailing them out (and it also applies to corporations).

Fiscal conservatism relates to government spending.  Libertarians recognize the need for government when it comes to things like infrastructure, defense (though FAR smaller than it is now), and enforcement of laws/contracts.  The government is FAR too large, inefficient, and yes...we have a spending problem.

Your "Fark you, I got mine" is nothing more than an appeal to emotion.  Libertarians believe that people should be able to reap the rewards of success and if they so choose, donate their time or money to any cause they'd like.  Being are forced to do so at gunpoint (government) that is something libertarians would object to.  There will always be poor people but pretending that more government or government redistribution of wealth leads to prosperity is naive.  There's been a War on Poverty going on for 80 years and it hasn't made a dent in the average 14-15% that live in poverty.  In short, dramatically reduce spending and taxes across the board.


That is exactly what, "F*ck you, got mine," means. Someone's poor choices can add up and have catastrophic effects on others' well being. So after awhile, it can affect you and yours. Hence I do give a sh*t about people shooting themselves up with guns and/or heroin, or defaulting on their loans, because eventually those bad choices f*ck with everyone's ability to own guns, buy drugs and borrow money.

You just proved my f*cking point.
 
2013-03-01 01:17:04 PM  

slayer199: Ah, good to see all the Fark libs and conservatives hating on the LP.  Republicans hate us because of our social liberalism and Democrats hate us because of our fiscal conservatism.     Both sides do everything they can to exclude the LP (and the Green Party) from the process.  Why?  Fear.  A party that promotes social liberalism, fiscal conservatism, personal responsibility and smaller government will resonate with voters.


In 2008, Libertarians picked a nominee whose pinnacle of public service was trying to remove a sitting president for a blowjob.

I don't think that made your party look socially liberal. Sure, you say you are, but Republicans also say they're fiscally responsible.
 
2013-03-01 01:18:09 PM  

verbaltoxin: That is exactly what, "F*ck you, got mine," means. Someone's poor choices can add up and have catastrophic effects on others' well being. So after awhile, it can affect you and yours. Hence I do give a sh*t about people shooting themselves up with guns and/or heroin, or defaulting on their loans, because eventually those bad choices f*ck with everyone's ability to own guns, buy drugs and borrow money.

You just proved my f*cking point.


So we should ban drugs and guns so that people can't fark with other's decision to buy guns and drugs.
 
2013-03-01 01:18:56 PM  

jigger: dr_blasto: jigger: dr_blasto: Look back to the last financial crisis and imagine how much more often and how much worse those incidents would be without the very light regulation we have today.

You people do not get it, do you?

Get what? Get that I believe there's too much leeway and we need to regulate? I know many think regulations are too stiff already, I simply disagree. De-regulation has led to failure for society throughout history while empowering the already powerful. If that's your thing, fine. I just don't like that kind of a future.

You don't get that because of and despite the massive piles of regulations, shiat like this is going to happen when banks and huge corporations run the government. How did these banks get so farking big and powerful? farking government. They got so big because they own congressmen, they send their cronies into the regulatory agencies (only the big ones get to do this), they have the explicit guarantees from the government (and the winks and nods) that their assets will be protected, so gamble away, we've got your back. You think deregulation empowers the already powerful? You think they want deregulation? Hell no, they love regulations. That's what gives the powerful few the most power.


Legislative capture is bad. So let's make it easier and deregulate some more!

That's your argument.

If you want corruption ended, then you need laws that will punish the powerful. To enforce those laws, you need..............government.

Not the magical free market that grants wishes and makes dreams come true.
 
2013-03-01 01:19:09 PM  

Zerochance: That's the beauty of Libertarianism. They keep trying to make the party viable from the top down, rather than from the ground up, an approach that pretty much dooms them to single-digit irrelevancy. But, since their precious ideology can never actually be put into practice, it cannot be fully disproven, and that allows them to endlessly speculate about how much better off everything and everyone would be if we operated on what is pretty much the Honor System.


It's brilliant... If you prefer to sit around mentally masturbating with like-minded college students instead of getting drunk/stoned and trying to get laid. : )
 
2013-03-01 01:20:05 PM  

jigger: How did these banks get so farking big and powerful? farking government. They got so big because they own congressmen, they send their cronies into the regulatory agencies (only the big ones get to do this), they have the explicit guarantees from the government (and the winks and nods) that their assets will be protected, so gamble away, we've got your back. You think deregulation empowers the already powerful? You think they want deregulation? Hell no, they love regulations. That's what gives the powerful few the most power.


I often see this type of open-ended rant. Here's where it always evaporates into thin air...

Please name for me the specific financial regulations whose elimination would result in a government less (not more) beholden to the banking industry. Pretty please. With mutherfarking sugar on top.
 
2013-03-01 01:20:51 PM  

verbaltoxin: Legislative capture is bad. So let's make it easier and deregulate some more!


Make it easier to do what? Make regulations?

verbaltoxin: If you want corruption ended, then you need laws that will punish the powerful. To enforce those laws, you need..............government.


I guess it's watchers all the way down.
 
2013-03-01 01:22:28 PM  

jigger: verbaltoxin: That is exactly what, "F*ck you, got mine," means. Someone's poor choices can add up and have catastrophic effects on others' well being. So after awhile, it can affect you and yours. Hence I do give a sh*t about people shooting themselves up with guns and/or heroin, or defaulting on their loans, because eventually those bad choices f*ck with everyone's ability to own guns, buy drugs and borrow money.

You just proved my f*cking point.

So we should ban drugs and guns so that people can't fark with other's decision to buy guns and drugs.


No, that's not what I said; it's what you pretend liberals think, like we're all one hivemind.

I can find you liberals that want to ban assault rifles, or what are really just semiautomatic rifles with high capacity magazines. I can also find you liberals that don't. It isn't hard to do. Advocating background checks, mental healthcare access for more people and things pro-gun advocates already agree with and aren't controversial at all is not, "We're gonna take your guns away."

In the end though, liberals tend to compromise and adjust as scenarios change.

I'd like for you libertarians to just ONCE explain to me how the buddy system would actually work in terms of governance.
 
2013-03-01 01:22:39 PM  
I know I will never vote Republican again, and the nature of our voting system means I'll be voting Democratic for the foreseeable future because the reality of third parties is that you put the option you like least into power.

Sorry, that's just how it is.

Get some instant runoff voting in place, and I'd have put Jill Stein as my first choice and Obama as my second in 2012.

//Might have instant runoff voting confused with something else, my brain is burnt out after a long week of coding at the moment.
 
2013-03-01 01:24:04 PM  

jigger: verbaltoxin: Legislative capture is bad. So let's make it easier and deregulate some more!

Make it easier to do what? Make regulations?

verbaltoxin: If you want corruption ended, then you need laws that will punish the powerful. To enforce those laws, you need..............government.

I guess it's watchers all the way down.


"Waa, I can't get my way whenever."

Welcome to being an adult. Your choices have consequences, and yes they affect others. When that happens, guess what? You face the consequences.

Unless you're a bank, apparently, and then in libertarian world, they should just get to do whatever they want.
 
2013-03-01 01:25:08 PM  

Mr_Fabulous: Please name for me the specific financial regulations whose elimination would result in a government less (not more) beholden to the banking industry. Pretty please. With mutherfarking sugar on top.


Oh you want a list? Here let me thumb through the Title 12 of the US Code.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12

It's no sweat. I've got all day to hang out on Fark with you good people.

Chapter 3 would be a start though.
 
2013-03-01 01:26:39 PM  

verbaltoxin: jigger: verbaltoxin: That is exactly what, "F*ck you, got mine," means. Someone's poor choices can add up and have catastrophic effects on others' well being. So after awhile, it can affect you and yours. Hence I do give a sh*t about people shooting themselves up with guns and/or heroin, or defaulting on their loans, because eventually those bad choices f*ck with everyone's ability to own guns, buy drugs and borrow money.

You just proved my f*cking point.

So we should ban drugs and guns so that people can't fark with other's decision to buy guns and drugs.

No, that's not what I said; it's what you pretend liberals think, like we're all one hivemind.

I can find you liberals that want to ban assault rifles, or what are really just semiautomatic rifles with high capacity magazines. I can also find you liberals that don't. It isn't hard to do. Advocating background checks, mental healthcare access for more people and things pro-gun advocates already agree with and aren't controversial at all is not, "We're gonna take your guns away."

In the end though, liberals tend to compromise and adjust as scenarios change.

I'd like for you libertarians to just ONCE explain to me how the buddy system would actually work in terms of governance.


Well, since we're all putting words into each other's mouths, tell me what my "buddy system" entails?
 
2013-03-01 01:28:40 PM  
Drew Stroemple, 20, also a Republican, says the party has lagged behind Democrats in use of social media and technology - two things critical to reaching potential voters. But he says that can be fixed. He argues that no big policy changes are needed as long as the focus is on fiscal responsibility. And he says potential candidates Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, Paul Ryan and others give the GOP a DERP bench.

FTFY, Mr. Stroemple.

Fact is--Young people aren't religious, think that petroleum usage harms the environment, have no problems with gays or weed, and don't think fighting pre-emptive wars are a good idea, especially since they have to fight said wars. Oh yeah, they are also usually crippled with student loan debt RIGHT OFF THE BAT with very little job prospects or security. That and they believe in things like Science and that Mexicans and Muslims aren't bad people. And let's not forget they are not exactly pro-gun either.

No amount of "Major Overhaul" will convince people under the age of 25 to vote GOP for at least a generation.
 
2013-03-01 01:29:13 PM  

jigger: verbaltoxin: jigger: verbaltoxin: That is exactly what, "F*ck you, got mine," means. Someone's poor choices can add up and have catastrophic effects on others' well being. So after awhile, it can affect you and yours. Hence I do give a sh*t about people shooting themselves up with guns and/or heroin, or defaulting on their loans, because eventually those bad choices f*ck with everyone's ability to own guns, buy drugs and borrow money.

You just proved my f*cking point.

So we should ban drugs and guns so that people can't fark with other's decision to buy guns and drugs.

No, that's not what I said; it's what you pretend liberals think, like we're all one hivemind.

I can find you liberals that want to ban assault rifles, or what are really just semiautomatic rifles with high capacity magazines. I can also find you liberals that don't. It isn't hard to do. Advocating background checks, mental healthcare access for more people and things pro-gun advocates already agree with and aren't controversial at all is not, "We're gonna take your guns away."

In the end though, liberals tend to compromise and adjust as scenarios change.

I'd like for you libertarians to just ONCE explain to me how the buddy system would actually work in terms of governance.

Well, since we're all putting words into each other's mouths, tell me what my "buddy system" entails?


Well to start, it involves getting rid of Title XII.

Brilliant.
 
2013-03-01 01:30:01 PM  

meat0918: I know I will never vote Republican again, and the nature of our voting system means I'll be voting Democratic for the foreseeable future because the reality of third parties is that you put the option you like least into power.

Sorry, that's just how it is.

Get some instant runoff voting in place, and I'd have put Jill Stein as my first choice and Obama as my second in 2012.

//Might have instant runoff voting confused with something else, my brain is burnt out after a long week of coding at the moment.


heh how does one go from being a Republican to voting for Jill Stein? :)
 
2013-03-01 01:31:15 PM  

verbaltoxin: No, that's not what I said; it's what you pretend liberals think, like we're all one hivemind.


to be fair, no one pretends liberals think anything except other liberals

/jk
 
Displayed 50 of 467 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
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