« First « Previous Comments 48 - 74 of 74 Search these comments
stop calling yourself a libertarian,
there you go again!
Yes the world would be a better place if we just adopted your commands on how to think and interpret
Seems clear if the state is going to give benefits to same sex couples they must extend those benefits to all couples
I thought it was about extending the benefits received by heterosexual couples to same-sex couples.
What was I thinking?
Seems clear if the state is going to give benefits to same sex couples they must extend those benefits to all couples
I thought it was about extending the benefits received by heterosexual couples to same-sex couples.
What was I thinking?
Lol that's what i meant!
If the state is going to give benefits to opposite sex couples they have to give them to same sex couples
The statement works either way phrased but same sex couples dont get the same benefits as opposite sex couples
I would do away with Glass steagal too but with the caveat- banks can do what they want and if they fail they fail
Glass-Steagal has already been done away with. It was the banking regulation of the Roosevelt era which prevented banks from running casinos.
If you let banks fail, and depositors suck eggs (buyer beware), you will be presented with a social-welfare problem. I am highly sympathetic to ending deposit protection for anyone, including the usual widows and orphans who always seem to come up in these considerations, but there will be problems on the other side, and private charity has never been sufficient in the United States to cover these people.
Do you want to just let the losers die? I don't know that I do.
As for the usual line about government tyranny: I just like to add that the government is also the greatest guarantor of liberty. Leaded gasoline (and the attendant high crime rates) is now gone, thanks to the government. The air is now far cleaner than it was in the 1970s, thanks to the government (Yay!). I call clean air "liberty".
Yep "good" government in the Ralph Nader mode produces societal benefits sometimes
Usually however the larger govt is the more inept and corrupt it is
Re government as guarantor of liberty
That is in the preamble of US constitutions "to secure the blessings of Liberty"
Government is like fire useful if controlled
Btw how is Bengazi a "right wing" issue?
The facts and circumstances around that incident are not about a political philosophy rather about partisan views as to the interpretation of those facts and circumstances
Usually however the larger govt is the more inept and corrupt it is
Ya know, "larger" is an inept criticism. A small government can be wasteful and oppressive and unfair. In a basketball game it is within the context of rules and structure that excellence in play is constituted. Without structure all you'd need is an 8' troglodyte to goal-tend every shot. Libertarians owe their very identity to the government they despise, much in the same way pacifists owe their security to military protections.
Correct re inept small govt too
Every form of govt or no govt has its downsides
The larger the govt however the larger the corruption schemes and greater damage it can do
Not sure if there are offsetting benefits for larger
Your final points are well taken
Most of the debate is in matter of degree not absolutes
Then that is what they are. Libertarians believe in the non aggression principle so they are really neo cons if they think the Iraq and Afghan wars were good ideas.
Re gay marriage the libertarian position is the state shouldn't tell ANY one who can get married and receive government benefits for having done so. So they would be against state sponsored hetero and homosexual marriage.
Seems clear if the state is going to give benefits to same sex couples they must extend those benefits to all couples
Sactly, although not put as diplomatically as I would have.
Correct re inept small govt too
Every form of govt or no govt has its downsides
The larger the govt however the larger the corruption schemes and greater damage it can do
Not sure if there are offsetting benefits for larger
Don't undersell anarchy Somalia is more hospitable than the media would have you believe.
The more centralized the more corrupt, to answer the question absolutely regarding corruption being worse at the larger scale.
I really have no idea why anyone would think that NBC, CBS, and ABC, as well as the NYT are liberal. Maybe because
..they spout the narrative that you liberals subscribe to, which is why you don't recognize or see it... Simple!
Hydrocabron's point is they don't spout it when it interfers with the war making and banking propaganda that comes from the Democratic sponsors. Wants me to stop pointing out that democrats and republicans are both corrupt.
Please do just one thing for me: can you not retreat into "both parties are just organs of the blah blah blah..." argument for just today? Just for today, please?
YES! Lets suspend reality on Sundays from now on!
Hey, I don't care if he argues a point he believes in - although I'll make fun of that conclusion anyway, because it's horseshit.
But he doesn't even believe both sides are the same, so it would be nice if he dropped the convenient fiction that he does.
But he doesn't even believe both sides are the same
Good nanny state example of telling others what to think, or believe.
I am glad I have people like Hydro Cabron to let me know what I believe.
Every libertarian I worked with - for some reason, our corporate offices are full of them, each talking about how they're the only libertarian in the village - supported the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. Every. Single. One.
You are not working with Libertarians.
Every libertarian I worked with - for some reason, our corporate offices are full of them, each talking about how they're the only libertarian in the village - supported the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. Every. Single. One.
You are not working with Libertarians.
Like having a dog and punishing it for not meowing like a cat like all the other dogs you might know.
But he doesn't even believe both sides are the same, so it would be nice if he dropped the convenient fiction that he does.
The parties are distinctly different, like coke and pepsi; name your poison.
The point I, and I assume most "both parties are the same proclaimers", is that we really have no choice at the voting booth because both parties are beholden to special interests and no matter who we "choose", business will go on as usual.
Tweedle Dee or Tweedle Dum, get it?
You are not allowed to believe that. In fact you don't believe that
Now please be a fox watching rush limbaugh neo con republican so I can use my best criticism on you. :-)
Like having a dog and punishing it for not meowing like a cat like all the other dogs you might know.
Sactly
Its one thing to create straw men and knock them down
Quite another talent to transform real people into strawmen
I guess if you have only one line of argumentation...
I guess if you have only one line of argumentation...
Heheheh: "Fed bad. Fed bad. Fed bad..."
I guess if you have only one line of argumentation...
Heheheh: "Fed bad. Fed bad. Fed bad..."
I forgot the misplaced humor line of attack
I dont see any mention of the fed in this thread
A low-level employee in Cincinnati legitimately demanded extra documentation from some Tea Party (as well as some liberal) groups, as to why they should be considered tax-exempt public service organizations.
The groups were, after some extra hassle, granted the status. Sounds as if he did his job; at worst, he was overzealous. I think the IRS is not doing enough to audit and double-check: I don't like the IRS, but having a toothless IRS just leads to Greece, where everyone cheats while thinking everyone else but them should pay taxes.
There is even a viable argument that the Tea Party groups should not be considered tax-exempt.
You don't know much. Do you?
Here is a little song for you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KohtsEmWY2w
A low-level employee in Cincinnati legitimately demanded extra documentation from some Tea Party (as well as some liberal) groups, as to why they should be considered tax-exempt public service organizations.
The groups were, after some extra hassle, granted the status. Sounds as if he did his job; at worst, he was overzealous. I think the IRS is not doing enough to audit and double-check: I don't like the IRS, but having a toothless IRS just leads to Greece, where everyone cheats while thinking everyone else but them should pay taxes.
There is even a viable argument that the Tea Party groups should not be considered tax-exempt.
You don't know much. Do you?
Here is a little song for you.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-08-12/irs-tried-failed-to-repair-lois-lerner-hard-drive.html
Stop lying to yourself.
The groups were, after some extra hassle, granted the status. Sounds as if he did his job; at worst, he was overzealous. I think the IRS is not doing enough to audit and double-check: I don't like the IRS, but having a toothless IRS just leads to Greece, where everyone cheats while thinking everyone else but them should pay taxes.
There is even a viable argument that the Tea Party groups should not be considered tax-exempt.
You don't know much. Do you?
Here is a little song for you.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-08-12/irs-tried-failed-to-repair-lois-lerner-hard-drive.html
You don't know much. Do you?
Here is a little song for you.
You sound grumpy.
A tax cut on wealthy earners might cheer you up!
You sound grumpy.
A tax cut on wealthy earners might cheer you up!
You can pass on your kool-aid instead.
You don't know much. Do you?
Here is a little song for you.
You sound grumpy.
A tax cut on wealthy earners might cheer you up!
Tax cuts for everyone!
Precisely. What else need they do in order to be re-elected? This ain't about
governing a nation, this is about the identity of a Party. Governance, we don't
need no steenking governance, that's for the black guy to try and for us to
shoot down.
How is the Democrat's brand for "governance" going these days?
- They can't run a website despite spending millions
- They can't run the VA above a 3rd world level
- They politicize institutions like the IRS to target their political enemies
- Can't run cities without going into bankruptcy
When 2016 comes around, I think many Americans will gladly pull the lever for the party that (at least says) it will limit the amount of money and control government can take or inflict on our daily lives.
Seriously, who do you think will be up for MOAR GOVERNMENT after the debacle of the last 6 years?
« First « Previous Comments 48 - 74 of 74 Search these comments
Republicans have spent the past few days busily issuing statements and furiously tweeting and updating their facebook status denouncing Obama's executive action on immigration reform.
Any one think it will amount to anything more than that? (other than a few more rants on Fox by Republican politicians)
Seems to me like pro wrestling without the wrestling.
Podcast Summary:
https://smaulgld.com/obamas-immigration-executive-order/
http://www.youtube.com/embed/lm0Yqm3yi8w
#politics