Is this the year of the Libertarian Party?

[flacaltenn]

No, you're "telling me" because I pointed out that you were blathering on regarding subject matter you clearly know nothing about and now you're attempting to change the subject in the hopes that it will distract from that fact.

You clearly know nothing about libertarians or libertarianism so either spend the time and effort to educate yourself or continue to provide further evidence of your ignorance and lots of laughs for those that have.

You're trying to tell us that Libertarians are anti-abortion and pro-abortion all at the same time.

Yeah because unlike you partisan drones, libertarians don't operate using a centrally controlled hive mind, they can actually think for themselves and form their own opinions instead of having some party boss wanker do it for them.

You can't be for and against abortion rights at the same time.

Yes individuals that share the same core principles and self identify as libertarians can and do have opposing opinions on the question of abortion.

I realize differences of opinion are impossible in the Borg collective you inhabit but that doesn't mean it isn't a reality outside of it.

I'm just telling you that a Libertarian Party candidate who is not anti-abortion will not get more than the tiniest fraction of the anti-abortion vote,

which means, as I pointed out in my orginal post, that the Libertarian Party has little if any opportunity to make inroads into the core constituency (aka the majority) of Republican Party members, or, into the ranks of pro-life Independents.

The LParty is completely consistent on abortion. It falls into the basket of being "pro-choice" on damn near everything that does not exert force or coercion on others. The platform plank is

1.5 Abortion

Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.

In practice the priorities are to REMOVE Govt subsidies from the abortion industry. Or at the LEAST -- to make sure those funds for "women's health" are equitably handed to ALL providers. Not just the "big guys" who launder those funds back into political activism on the topic. While at the same time, assuring that RESTRICTIONS on the abortion choice remain medically reasonable and justifiable. This is a neutral ground. And it takes abortion off the table as a PRIMARY political issue.

Reasonable folks on BOTH sides realize that "getting their way" on abortion leaves them with the PRIMARY problems of ineffective, inept and corrupt govt. And it does NO ONE any good to have "their way" on ONE issue when they are losing ground on Civil Liberties, govt accountability, and the ACTUAL primary functions of govt. Such as borders and naturalization, assuring fair and free elections, fiscal responsibility, and rational foreign policy...

 

[g5000]

When someone smokes a legal spliff in Minnesota, blacks everywhere in America are being oppressed.

The World According To The Derp.

 

[The Derp]

You have not demonstrated that someone smoking pot in Minnesota affects someone in Florida.

Because that's not the issue. The issue is simply the fact that someone can legally smoke pot in Minnesota and not in Florida. People in FL smoke pot, right? People in MN smoke pot, right? So in both cases, people smoke pot. So it's a people issue, not a state issue.

You have instead clamped your hands over your eyes, and been struck dumb.

No, you're just using bullshit to make non-existent, juvenile points. But each time you do, you dig yourself deeper into the ambiguous hole in which you're digging yourself.

 

[The Derp]

Would you be happy if the entire world was governed by one government? It sounds like that is what you are really after.Do you think that is a good idea?

Star Trek is the utopia we should be striving towards.

 

[g5000]

Looks like you can't do it, The Derp

You can't explain how 100 mph speed limits in Kansas are discrimination or a federal issue.

You can't explain how legalizing pot in Minnesota is discrimination or a federal issue.

Bummer! I was hoping for something hilarious.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You're trying to tell us that Libertarians are anti-abortion and pro-abortion all at the same time.

Yeah because unlike you partisan drones, libertarians don't operate using a centrally controlled hive mind, they can actually think for themselves and form their own opinions instead of having some party boss wanker do it for them.

You can't be for and against abortion rights at the same time.

Yes individuals that share the same core principles and self identify as libertarians can and do have opposing opinions on the question of abortion.

I realize differences of opinion are impossible in the Borg collective you inhabit but that doesn't mean it isn't a reality outside of it.

I'm just telling you that a Libertarian Party candidate who is not anti-abortion will not get more than the tiniest fraction of the anti-abortion vote,

which means, as I pointed out in my orginal post, that the Libertarian Party has little if any opportunity to make inroads into the core constituency (aka the majority) of Republican Party members, or, into the ranks of pro-life Independents.

The LParty is completely consistent on abortion. It falls into the basket of being "pro-choice" on damn near everything that does not exert force or coercion on others. The platform plank is

.

I never said it wasn't. The people in this thread who are trying to defend the Libertarian party with nonsense are the inconsistent ones.

I said the Libertarians need to draw from the major parties to expand their own base and power and influence,

but they're not going to get the pro-lifers in any number away from the GOP.

 

[g5000]

You have not demonstrated that someone smoking pot in Minnesota affects someone in Florida.

Because that's not the issue.

Yes, that is the issue. Whether or not the people of a state want dope legal is the issue. You have zero justification for making it a federal case.

Just tell us how legalizing pot in Minnesota is discrimination. Go ahead.

 

[g5000]

I want to know what the fuck the people of Florida have to do with pot smoking in Minnesota.

If Florida wants to ban pot, or legalize pot, that's their decision. Minnesota has nothing to do with stoned Floridians.

And vice versa.

State issue.

Clear-cut.

 

[flacaltenn]

[California has an "assault weapons" ban in place. It's illegal to possess a motherfucking BB gun in New Jersey without a permit.

Again, CONGRESS writes laws, not the President.

You simply don't understand how our government works.

A political party's principles and platforms need to work on BOTH a Federal and State/Local level. California is an example of raw political power being concentrated in a ONE party state. Power that HAS NO bounds on principles or platforms but exists MAINLY to perpetuate that Party's existence.

And it USED to be that Congress writes the laws. That's no more. Because Congress has abrogated that responsibility and now writes "fill in the blank" legislation. Leaving it to the "minions of morons" in the ever expanding bureaucracy to take their sweet ass time to make the DETAILS of the law. You see this in the INCOMPLETELY IMPLEMENTED Dodd-Frank financial bill or the ObamaCare Med Insurance bill.

When they do this -- It REMOVES their OWN power to frame the law and places the POWER in the Executive branch that CONTROLS the "minions of morons".

The 2 parties have ruined the Constitutional Separation of Powers by making "work rules" and tasking a bureaucracy to do their job for them. And they they can't exert effective oversight and control on that process.

 

[g5000]

You have not demonstrated that someone smoking pot in Minnesota affects someone in Florida.

Because that's not the issue. The issue is simply the fact that someone can legally smoke pot in Minnesota and not in Florida. People in FL smoke pot, right?

Yes, so?

That has NOTHING to do with legalizing pot in Minnesota. You have made NO connection between the two.

Jesus fucking Christ, you seem to think if two people participate in the same activities, this somehow magically transforms that activity into a federal case!

HOLY SHIT!

In which case, wiping your ass is a federal issue!

You have lost all coherence. As liberal arguments inevitably do.

 

[The Derp]

I have no doubt that if we had much less government in health care, costs would go down. Absolutely.

So here's a perfect example: Medicare Part-D.

Part of Medicare Part-D was that Medicare, the largest buyer of prescription drugs, could not use its leverage as the largest buyer in the marketplace to negotiate for cheaper drug costs. Now, you might ask yourself; what fucking sense does that make? Why shouldn't Medicare use its bargaining power for cheaper drugs? The same reason why banks got the CFMA passed; CORPORATE LOBBYING AND POLITICAL DONATIONS.

If Medicare were able to use its bargaining position to negotiate for cheaper drugs, wouldn't it? And Medicare bargaining for cheaper drugs would lead to cheaper drugs for everyone and all buyers because Medicare used its leverage to negotiate cheaper prices.

That's because the fewer buyers there are, the more leverage those buyers have to negotiate for cheaper costs. A single payer would maximize patients' bargaining power, and the power to determine fees and costs would lie with the patients, not the providers and drug companies. Because, who else are those companies going to sell to if there's only one buyer in the market. And if you've done the double-whammy of eliminating campaign contributions and lobbying, then those companies couldn't lobby for high rates.

 

[g5000]

Well, I think we have just exploded the bejeesus out of the "discrimination" straw man fallacy.

That was easy!

 

[The Derp]

After half a decade of attempts, there is more money than ever in politics. There is more power captured. BECAUSE THERE IS MORE POWER.

NO, BECAUSE OF CITIZENS UNITED THAT REDUCED FEDERAL POWER OVER ELECTION CAMPAIGNS.

Yes, it is being captured because you liberals made it so easy! You put it all in one place!

Sigh...

The only way to "capture" power is through money and the vote. If you take money out of the equation, that leaves just the vote.

It's why you've been unable to articulate how power is captured by any other means than by money and/or the vote.

 

[The Derp]

If a woman in Arizona gets cancer and is treated in a hospital, that has no effect on someone in New Hampshire.

Right, but it's still the same breast cancer no matter what state you're in. Your breast cancer doesn't suddenly become something else if you're in CA and step foot in NV. You don't suddenly become less at risk for breast cancer by moving from Iowa to Minnesota.

So?

SO HEALTHCARE ISN'T A LOCAL ISSUE.

 

[g5000]

It is a well known fact on this forum, far and wide, that I fucking hate racists and bigots. Hate them, bigly.

To accuse me of propounding states rights for the purposes of discrimination is a goddam motherfucking syphilitic pissant little worm tactic.

And if I call one of these fucking pissants a fucking name and hurt his fucking thin-skinned feelings, then GOOD!

 

[The Derp]

If I smoke marijuana in Michigan, that has no fucking effect on someone in Florida.

Right, but people in Florida smoke pot too.

So?

SO SMOKING POT ISN'T A LOCAL ISSUE.

 

[The Derp]

They most certainly did form the Constitution to deal with interstate commerce.
Each state had its own tariffs. This was one of the single biggest drivers of a convention to amend the Articles of Confederation.

So do those states have tariffs today? No. So what the fuck? Back in the 18th century, states were competing against one another for commerce. Today, they don't.

So do you apply 18th century thinking to the rest of your life? Or just arbitrarily to government?

States which had major ports were charging high tariffs on goods whose final destiny was to states which did not have major ports.

Right, and that's not the case today thanks to air travel, interstate trucking, and the internet.

 

[g5000]

They most certainly did form the Constitution to deal with interstate commerce.
Each state had its own tariffs. This was one of the single biggest drivers of a convention to amend the Articles of Confederation.

So do those states have tariffs today? No. So what the fuck? Back in the 18th century, states were competing against one another for commerce. Today, they don't.

So do you apply 18th century thinking to the rest of your life? Or just arbitrarily to government?

That 18th century thinking is what has made this country number one, dumbass.

 

[The Derp]

Nope. Bullshit straw man fallacy.

Fine. Pick an issue, any issue, and I'll tell you how the states' rights argument inevitably falls to discrimination.

I have given you SEVERAL already. Unclamp your hands from your eyes, willfully blind monkey.

Legalizing pot, for example.

I can't wait for you tell us how this discriminates against blacks.

The pot's a great example...

People smoke pot in California, where it's legal.

People smoke pot in Georgia, where it's illegal.

What is the common denominator? People smoking pot.

And fucking shit, if you don't know that drug laws are discriminatory by now, then you have no business being on the internet.

 

[g5000]

If I smoke marijuana in Michigan, that has no fucking effect on someone in Florida.

Right, but people in Florida smoke pot too.

So?

SO SMOKING POT ISN'T A LOCAL ISSUE.

Wrong. You have ZERO logic to explain your non sequitur.

Just because two people in separate states wipe their asses, that doesn't make ass wiping a federal issue. There is no dependency of one on the other. There is no interstate connective tissue.

Jesus Christ, I have lost all esteem for your intelligence in this topic. And believe me, I held you in pretty high esteem until now.