Libertarian spoilage.

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Honest to God, you all have so marginalized what was a terrific movement that I just don't think it's going to ever matter. And don't mistake my tone. I'm really sad about that in an exhausted kind of numb way. I had taken great hope and comfort early on in the idea that this movement back toward the founding philosophy would grow and educate as it spread. But in the end, it's toothless... impotent. You can't stand on the sidelines and claim you're in the fight. You're not.

Listen, I'm not yelling at you. I get it. But there really was no meaningful comparison between the KNOWN socialist quantity that Obama represented and a guy you didn't bother to give a chance to. And he was the ONLY guy who was really in play. You can't walk down the path untaken and tell us what it was like.

There's nothing I can say to you if you think Romney's warmongering corporatist agenda was a step towards libertarianism, and if you think that the only way to be in the fight is electoral politics. Politics is merely a means to an end, not an end itself. Any libertarian worth their salt knows that much. Don't lecture me about being in the fight when you cast your lot with the other side.

What country did Romney bomb without so much as a by-your-leave from Congress? Where was his kill-list? Who were the American citizens that Mitt Romney whacked with drones and without due process? THAT is the path not taken. We already know the commie bastard who did do all those things. And you guys wouldn't even bother to be a speed-bump for him while he rolled over you. C'mon man. Seriously. If the libertarian movement is going to ever account for anything, it's got to be HERE, in the REAL world. Not just on paper.

We don't know what kind of president Romney would've been because he never got the chance to show us.

When did Romney say he wouldn't do any of those things? When did he go after Obama for doing them? Never. In fact, in the third debate, he said he agreed with the Obama's use of drones. Not to mention his overly-aggressive stance towards Iran and China.

 

[Murf76]

On a more comical note:

George Carlin - Why I Don't Vote - YouTube

Reps for the laughs, man. Carlin was killer. But you can't live your life by a comedy bit, no matter how awesome it is. Elections really do have consequences.

 

[LibertyLemming]

On a more comical note:

George Carlin - Why I Don't Vote - YouTube

Reps for the laughs, man. Carlin was killer. But you can't live your life by a comedy bit, no matter how awesome it is. Elections really do have consequences.

Thankfully the idea is a bit older than Carlin's hilarious bit.

 

[Murf76]

We don't know cuz he's a liar and on each side of each issue. We have a decent idea though based on his party affiliation and governorship. Either way, voting is sanctioning their actions and I refuse to sanction evil. You want me to date the rapist instead of the murderer. I'll pass.

But you did. You did "sanction evil". An inaction is just as valid as an action in that respect. If somebody attacks your wife, or your child, or your mom are you just going to stand there because you don't want to get involved? ...No. You're going to kick his ass or he'll kick yours, but either way it's gonna be a fight. Paine was right. Government is innately evil. It's ultimately FORCE. But it's also the cost of civilization and necessary because of it.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

We don't know cuz he's a liar and on each side of each issue. We have a decent idea though based on his party affiliation and governorship. Either way, voting is sanctioning their actions and I refuse to sanction evil. You want me to date the rapist instead of the murderer. I'll pass.

But you did. You did "sanction evil". An inaction is just as valid as an action in that respect. If somebody attacks your wife, or your child, or your mom are you just going to stand there because you don't want to get involved? ...No. You're going to kick his ass or he'll kick yours, but either way it's gonna be a fight. Paine was right. Government is innately evil. It's ultimately FORCE. But it's also the cost of civilization and necessary because of it.

Your analogy is incorrect. The correct analogy would be that there are two people threatening to attack your family, and they let you choose which of them is going to do it.

 

[LibertyLemming]

We don't know cuz he's a liar and on each side of each issue. We have a decent idea though based on his party affiliation and governorship. Either way, voting is sanctioning their actions and I refuse to sanction evil. You want me to date the rapist instead of the murderer. I'll pass.

But you did. You did "sanction evil". An inaction is just as valid as an action in that respect. If somebody attacks your wife, or your child, or your mom are you just going to stand there because you don't want to get involved? ...No. You're going to kick his ass or he'll kick yours, but either way it's gonna be a fight. Paine was right. Government is innately evil. It's ultimately FORCE. But it's also the cost of civilization and necessary because of it.

The problem is your argument suggests I should help the guy attacking my wife the least. Mine is avoiding these people all together. Not even making that situation possible.

I didn't sanction any. I was offered 4 apples and I didt eat any of them. Now you're trying to tell me I ate an apple.

 

[Murf76]

We don't know cuz he's a liar and on each side of each issue. We have a decent idea though based on his party affiliation and governorship. Either way, voting is sanctioning their actions and I refuse to sanction evil. You want me to date the rapist instead of the murderer. I'll pass.

But you did. You did "sanction evil". An inaction is just as valid as an action in that respect. If somebody attacks your wife, or your child, or your mom are you just going to stand there because you don't want to get involved? ...No. You're going to kick his ass or he'll kick yours, but either way it's gonna be a fight. Paine was right. Government is innately evil. It's ultimately FORCE. But it's also the cost of civilization and necessary because of it.

Your analogy is incorrect. The correct analogy would be that there are two people threatening to attack your family, and they let you choose which of them is going to do it.

So you choose the guy who already has rather than the guy who just might. How the hell does that make sense?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

But you did. You did "sanction evil". An inaction is just as valid as an action in that respect. If somebody attacks your wife, or your child, or your mom are you just going to stand there because you don't want to get involved? ...No. You're going to kick his ass or he'll kick yours, but either way it's gonna be a fight. Paine was right. Government is innately evil. It's ultimately FORCE. But it's also the cost of civilization and necessary because of it.

Your analogy is incorrect. The correct analogy would be that there are two people threatening to attack your family, and they let you choose which of them is going to do it.

So you choose the guy who already has rather than the guy who just might. How the hell does that make sense?

You mean the guy who endorses exactly what the other guy did, and then said he'd do even more?

 

[Murf76]

We don't know cuz he's a liar and on each side of each issue. We have a decent idea though based on his party affiliation and governorship. Either way, voting is sanctioning their actions and I refuse to sanction evil. You want me to date the rapist instead of the murderer. I'll pass.

But you did. You did "sanction evil". An inaction is just as valid as an action in that respect. If somebody attacks your wife, or your child, or your mom are you just going to stand there because you don't want to get involved? ...No. You're going to kick his ass or he'll kick yours, but either way it's gonna be a fight. Paine was right. Government is innately evil. It's ultimately FORCE. But it's also the cost of civilization and necessary because of it.

The problem is your argument suggests I should help the guy attacking my wife the least. Mine is avoiding these people all together. Not even making that situation possible.

I didn't sanction any. I was offered 4 apples and I didt eat any of them. Now you're trying to tell me I ate an apple.

You did... through inaction, which is also an action.

 

[Murf76]

Your analogy is incorrect. The correct analogy would be that there are two people threatening to attack your family, and they let you choose which of them is going to do it.

So you choose the guy who already has rather than the guy who just might. How the hell does that make sense?

You mean the guy who endorses exactly what the other guy did, and then said he'd do even more?

Mitt Romney didn't spend 5 trillion dollars over this last four years that we don't have. He didn't whack anybody with a drone. He didn't bomb any other country without congressional approval, he didn't put our State Department personnel in an impossible situation and then LIE to the American people about it. You continue to speak as if you had some crystal ball and could predict the future. But you're completely ignoring the REALITY of the past.

Whatever. Like I said, my disappointment stems from having really believed that libertarianism could make a difference. Instead, it's come to nothing. I came to politics late in life... only six years or so ago. These voices were my first political heroes, and I'm a little crushed today to find them not more than hot air. But I can't even muster up any real outrage over it to be honest. It's made so little difference in the grand scheme of things.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

But you did. You did "sanction evil". An inaction is just as valid as an action in that respect. If somebody attacks your wife, or your child, or your mom are you just going to stand there because you don't want to get involved? ...No. You're going to kick his ass or he'll kick yours, but either way it's gonna be a fight. Paine was right. Government is innately evil. It's ultimately FORCE. But it's also the cost of civilization and necessary because of it.

The problem is your argument suggests I should help the guy attacking my wife the least. Mine is avoiding these people all together. Not even making that situation possible.

I didn't sanction any. I was offered 4 apples and I didt eat any of them. Now you're trying to tell me I ate an apple.

You did... through inaction, which is also an action.

in·ac·tion   [in-ak-shuhn] Show IPA
noun
absence of action; idleness.

Inaction | Define Inaction at Dictionary.com

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

So you choose the guy who already has rather than the guy who just might. How the hell does that make sense?

You mean the guy who endorses exactly what the other guy did, and then said he'd do even more?

Mitt Romney didn't spend 5 trillion dollars over this last four years that we don't have. He didn't whack anybody with a drone. He didn't bomb any other country without congressional approval, he didn't put our State Department personnel in an impossible situation and then LIE to the American people about it. You continue to speak as if you had some crystal ball and could predict the future. But you're completely ignoring the REALITY of the past.

Whatever. Like I said, my disappointment stems from having really believed that libertarianism could make a difference. Instead, it's come to nothing. I came to politics late in life... only six years or so ago. These voices were my first political heroes, and I'm a little crushed today to find them not more than hot air. But I can't even muster up any real outrage over it to be honest. It's made so little difference in the grand scheme of things.

Just going to ignore the fact that he endorsed Obama's foreign policy, and said he'd expand it, huh?

 

[LibertyLemming]

So you choose the guy who already has rather than the guy who just might. How the hell does that make sense?

You mean the guy who endorses exactly what the other guy did, and then said he'd do even more?

Mitt Romney didn't spend 5 trillion dollars over this last four years that we don't have. He didn't whack anybody with a drone. He didn't bomb any other country without congressional approval, he didn't put our State Department personnel in an impossible situation and then LIE to the American people about it. You continue to speak as if you had some crystal ball and could predict the future. But you're completely ignoring the REALITY of the past.

Whatever. Like I said, my disappointment stems from having really believed that libertarianism could make a difference. Instead, it's come to nothing. I came to politics late in life... only six years or so ago. These voices were my first political heroes, and I'm a little crushed today to find them not more than hot air. But I can't even muster up any real outrage over it to be honest. It's made so little difference in the grand scheme of things.

The ideas can make a difference. The first step would be not electing statists. It's hard to do that if you continue voting for them.

 

[Murf76]

You mean the guy who endorses exactly what the other guy did, and then said he'd do even more?

Mitt Romney didn't spend 5 trillion dollars over this last four years that we don't have. He didn't whack anybody with a drone. He didn't bomb any other country without congressional approval, he didn't put our State Department personnel in an impossible situation and then LIE to the American people about it. You continue to speak as if you had some crystal ball and could predict the future. But you're completely ignoring the REALITY of the past.

Whatever. Like I said, my disappointment stems from having really believed that libertarianism could make a difference. Instead, it's come to nothing. I came to politics late in life... only six years or so ago. These voices were my first political heroes, and I'm a little crushed today to find them not more than hot air. But I can't even muster up any real outrage over it to be honest. It's made so little difference in the grand scheme of things.

Just going to ignore the fact that he endorsed Obama's foreign policy, and said he'd expand it, huh?

What he said was that he'd attach strings to the CASH that Obama flings out like it grew on trees and expects nothing in return for. Color me crazy, but that sounds a little better.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

But you did. You did "sanction evil". An inaction is just as valid as an action in that respect. If somebody attacks your wife, or your child, or your mom are you just going to stand there because you don't want to get involved? ...No. You're going to kick his ass or he'll kick yours, but either way it's gonna be a fight. Paine was right. Government is innately evil. It's ultimately FORCE. But it's also the cost of civilization and necessary because of it.

The problem is your argument suggests I should help the guy attacking my wife the least. Mine is avoiding these people all together. Not even making that situation possible.

I didn't sanction any. I was offered 4 apples and I didt eat any of them. Now you're trying to tell me I ate an apple.

You did... through inaction, which is also an action.

Just like not buying health insurance…

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Mitt Romney didn't spend 5 trillion dollars over this last four years that we don't have. He didn't whack anybody with a drone. He didn't bomb any other country without congressional approval, he didn't put our State Department personnel in an impossible situation and then LIE to the American people about it. You continue to speak as if you had some crystal ball and could predict the future. But you're completely ignoring the REALITY of the past.

Whatever. Like I said, my disappointment stems from having really believed that libertarianism could make a difference. Instead, it's come to nothing. I came to politics late in life... only six years or so ago. These voices were my first political heroes, and I'm a little crushed today to find them not more than hot air. But I can't even muster up any real outrage over it to be honest. It's made so little difference in the grand scheme of things.

Just going to ignore the fact that he endorsed Obama's foreign policy, and said he'd expand it, huh?

What he said was that he'd attach strings to the CASH that Obama flings out like it grew on trees and expects nothing in return for. Color me crazy, but that sounds a little better.

Yes, well, correct me if I'm wrong, but he also claimed to want to increase military spending, without actually cutting any spending or raising taxes. Now I'm not for raising taxes, obviously, but something doesn't add up. Also, you're conveniently avoiding addressing the fact that Romney endorsed Obama's foreign policy, but said that he'd expand it in places like Syria.

 

[Murf76]

You mean the guy who endorses exactly what the other guy did, and then said he'd do even more?

Mitt Romney didn't spend 5 trillion dollars over this last four years that we don't have. He didn't whack anybody with a drone. He didn't bomb any other country without congressional approval, he didn't put our State Department personnel in an impossible situation and then LIE to the American people about it. You continue to speak as if you had some crystal ball and could predict the future. But you're completely ignoring the REALITY of the past.

Whatever. Like I said, my disappointment stems from having really believed that libertarianism could make a difference. Instead, it's come to nothing. I came to politics late in life... only six years or so ago. These voices were my first political heroes, and I'm a little crushed today to find them not more than hot air. But I can't even muster up any real outrage over it to be honest. It's made so little difference in the grand scheme of things.

The ideas can make a difference. The first step would be not electing statists. It's hard to do that if you continue voting for them.

We don't get a choice of not electing candidates. We get a choice of who we're going to elect. If you want a libertarian president, get off your ass and find one who CAN win, find one who CAN appeal to the ignorant masses. How can it not be obvious to you after this last election that we've got a REALLY serious education problem in this country and that half those people who went to the polls wouldn't recognize the U.S. Constitution if it jumped up and bit them on the nose? Marginalizing the libertarian movement through ineffectualness isn't going to get that done. You end up looking like the fringe instead of something integral to the process.

 

[Murf76]

The problem is your argument suggests I should help the guy attacking my wife the least. Mine is avoiding these people all together. Not even making that situation possible.

I didn't sanction any. I was offered 4 apples and I didt eat any of them. Now you're trying to tell me I ate an apple.

You did... through inaction, which is also an action.

Just like not buying health insurance…

Piss off. Nobody is being marched to the voting booth at the point of a gun. But ultimately, give the feds enough shit about paying your "taxes" and some uniforms will show up on your porch to escort you to jail. THAT's the fucking difference.

 

[Murf76]

Just going to ignore the fact that he endorsed Obama's foreign policy, and said he'd expand it, huh?

What he said was that he'd attach strings to the CASH that Obama flings out like it grew on trees and expects nothing in return for. Color me crazy, but that sounds a little better.

Yes, well, correct me if I'm wrong, but he also claimed to want to increase military spending, without actually cutting any spending or raising taxes. Now I'm not for raising taxes, obviously, but something doesn't add up. Also, you're conveniently avoiding addressing the fact that Romney endorsed Obama's foreign policy, but said that he'd expand it in places like Syria.

Did he say he was going to thumb his nose at Congress on the way to Syria like Obama did with Libya? And did he say he was going to increase that spending without doing ANYTHING to bring the spending we're already doing under control? You realize, don't you, that there's not one red cent right now of discretionary spending that's not borrowed or printed. Everything we take in goes to non-discretionary spending. It's all gone before the first member of Congress makes a motion to spend.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

What he said was that he'd attach strings to the CASH that Obama flings out like it grew on trees and expects nothing in return for. Color me crazy, but that sounds a little better.

Yes, well, correct me if I'm wrong, but he also claimed to want to increase military spending, without actually cutting any spending or raising taxes. Now I'm not for raising taxes, obviously, but something doesn't add up. Also, you're conveniently avoiding addressing the fact that Romney endorsed Obama's foreign policy, but said that he'd expand it in places like Syria.

Did he say he was going to thumb his nose at Congress on the way to Syria like Obama did with Libya? And did he say he was going to increase that spending without doing ANYTHING to bring the spending we're already doing under control? You realize, don't you, that there's not one red cent right now of discretionary spending that's not borrowed or printed. Everything we take in goes to non-discretionary spending. It's all gone before the first member of Congress makes a motion to spend.

I don't recall him criticizing Obama for not receiving a declaration of war on Libya, Yemen, Pakistan, Somalia, etc... etc... Nor would that make his warmongering any more acceptable than it would be without. And I'll repeat, he had no plan to cut any spending whatsoever.