So, apparently I'm a Paulbot

[JWBooth]

Holy shit. You did not get a single thing correct! That's amazing!

So, you're a Christian, a failure, and a democrat?

Damn, your posts indicate otherwise....

Bwahahahahahahaha

 

[eflatminor]

That video does not, in my opinion, provide an example of Libertarian ideals at work but of a company scared to death that their employees may violate rules that could lead to lawsuits and/or retribution from government authorities.

Alright, but back up a second......profit lifeguarding company? I guess there's a little more that might not be easily apparent to someone who isn't familiar with the aquatics industry. But here's a hint for you:

Not trying to be obtuse here, but I'm not sure what you're trying to say. I'll try to answer honestly:

What happens when a lifeguard responds to an emergency within their zone?

Hopefully, he saves the person from drowning. What am I missing?

Where's the coverage?

Wherever the company providing the service is contracted to cover.

How is the liability absent in that kind of situation?

The potential for liability is never absent. It depends on who is considered liable following an disputed incident. This is why company's buy liability insurance.

Bottom line, I still don't understand why you think the video is an example of libertarianism, much less a knock against it.

 

[Soulless65]

Well here's mine

 

[Uncensored2008]

Did you know that Libertarians are okay with gays getting married? And in this, we agree. That's one of those "small l" libertarian things I believe in.

And?

I feel that if the federal government is giving cash and prizes to married couples, it is unconstitutional to withhold them from gay marriages.

So all wealth belongs to the state, and if taxes are lower on one group, that is the state giving them "cash and prizes?"

Libertarians differ in that they don't believe the state should be involved in marriage at all.

Or that the federal government has no constitutional authority over how states and communities see fit to structure civil society.

And I really have no problem with that. I believe in equality. So if nobody gets a tax break for being married, that's equality, too.

Should business get a tax break for losses?

Should gamblers get a tax break for losing at craps?

Why or why not?

So suck on that. Your illogic requires you to believe all libertarians are gay.

No moron, your sig leads me to believe you're gay. No one gives enough of a shit to put it in the sig except a gay man with a chip on his shoulder.

Further, you're not a L or l libertarian. You're extremely hostile to libertarian ideas. From what I can tell you are far left, yet you don't openly join the dims. Thus the logical assumption is that you have a certain level of success and seek to protect your revenue stream from predation by the leftists. You love em, but they want to bleed you dry.

 

[auditor0007]

I side with Barack Obama on most issues in the 2012 Presidential Election.
Candidates you side with...
76%
Barack Obama
on foreign policy, science, and social issues.
75%
Jill Stein
on healthcare issues.
63%
Stewart Alexander
on healthcare, economic, and social issues.
60%
Jimmy McMillan
on healthcare, social, and domestic policy issues.
57%
Gary Johnson
on foreign policy, social, and domestic policy issues.
43%
Ron Paul
on domestic policy issues.
39%
Mitt Romney
on domestic policy issues.
6%
Virgil Goode
no major issues.
64%
Ohio Voters
on social and domestic policy issues.
71%
American Voters
on social and domestic policy issues.
Who you side with by party...
76%
Democratic
75%
Green
52%
Libertarian
39%
Republican
Friends you side with...
Click the "connect" button to see which Facebook friends you side with.
Connect
If a friend has already taken the quiz, enter their name and results page url to see which issues you both side on.

Who you side with by issue...
Most
important to me
Foreign Policy
I side the most with Gary Johnson on 79% of foreign policy issues.
Most
important to me
Healthcare
I side the most with Jill Stein on 94% of healthcare issues.
Most
important to me
Science
I side the most with Barack Obama on 84% of science issues.
More
important to me
The Economy
I side the most with Stewart Alexander on 79% of economic issues.
More
important to me
Social
I side the most with Barack Obama on 96% of social issues.
Somewhat
important to me
Immigration
I side the most with Gary Johnson, Mitt Romney, Jimmy McMillan, and Ron Paul on 75% of immigration issues.
Somewhat
important to me
Domestic Policy
I side the most with Mitt Romney on 99% of domestic policy issues.
Somewhat
important to me
The Environment
I side the most with Barack Obama, Stewart Alexander, and Jill Stein on 75% of environmental issues.

 

[g5000]

Now...where was I. Oh, yeah.

Unless you believe we should eliminate the Fed, the FDA, the USDA, the IRS, the 17th amendment, all federal laws regarding child labor and workplace safety and gun control and the environment, and all federal social safety nets, as well as shrink our military to about one tenth its current size, then you are most assuredly NOT a Paulbot or a Libertarian.

They have a web site, you know. They have a platform. They have miles and miles and miles of speeches, papers, and books. So why would you fall for what a push poll tells you about them instead?

Think. About it.

You're welcome.

 

[PredFan]

Now...where was I. Oh, yeah.

Unless you believe we should eliminate the Fed, the FDA, the USDA, the IRS, the 17th amendment, all federal laws regarding child labor and workplace safety and gun control and the environment, and all federal social safety nets, as well as shrink our military to about one tenth its current size, then you are most assuredly NOT a Paulbot or a Libertarian.

They have a web site, you know. They have a platform. They have miles and miles and miles of speeches, papers, and books. So why would you fall for what a push poll tells you about them instead?

Think. About it.

You're welcome.

Exaggerate much?

 

[g5000]

I feel that if the federal government is giving cash and prizes to married couples, it is unconstitutional to withhold them from gay marriages.

So all wealth belongs to the state, and if taxes are lower on one group, that is the state giving them "cash and prizes?"

You have no idea what federal benefits come with getting married, do you. Have you read my signature?

Cash and prizes. A death benefit is cash in a survivor's pocket. That's not a tax break. That's cash.

No moron, your sig leads me to believe you're gay. No one gives enough of a shit to put it in the sig except a gay man with a chip on his shoulder.

Good lord, you are dumb. Just packed with preconceived notions and bigotries.

The one thing I hate above all other things is bigotry. THAT is why that stuff is in my sig.

I go after racists, too. I guess that makes me black, huh?

That's me. A gay, black, Jew. Or something.

Your image of me tells me you'd be shocked if you ever met me in my natural surroundings.

 

[there4eyeM]

Even though it is difficult to agree with everything Paul, he would be preferable to a Republican or a Democrat (yes, I KNOW he is in the Republican Party, but not a Republican in the Bush-Romney sense).

 

[g5000]

Now...where was I. Oh, yeah.

Unless you believe we should eliminate the Fed, the FDA, the USDA, the IRS, the 17th amendment, all federal laws regarding child labor and workplace safety and gun control and the environment, and all federal social safety nets, as well as shrink our military to about one tenth its current size, then you are most assuredly NOT a Paulbot or a Libertarian.

They have a web site, you know. They have a platform. They have miles and miles and miles of speeches, papers, and books. So why would you fall for what a push poll tells you about them instead?

Think. About it.

You're welcome.

Exaggerate much?

Not one bit. I documented every bit of that. Those are the LP's aims.

Libertarians don't deny it. Notice that none of them have?

Libertarians will argue quite forcefully to explain and defend every one of those goals. They are nothing if not dedicated to their principles.

Too bad they can't be more honest about it in their polls.

 

[dblack]

Inthemiddle, out of curiosity, where did you get the idea that libertarians celebrate misfortune?

Not celebrate misfortunte, per se. But libertarian ideals, when taken to full fruition, end up having alot of "misfortune" along the way.

Libertarians are particular about the proper role of government. Because government has the exclusive power to use force to achieve its ends, we believe it should be limited to only those functions where force is called for. The net result of that is that we don't believe government should (or can, for that matter) eliminate all misfortune.

But saying that the government shouldn't be responsible for all our problems doesn't mean that we are opposed to coming together as a community to solve problems. We just don't believe in force as the answer to every question.

In health care, for example, it's not a choice between government mandates to buy insurance or letting people die in the street. We can be a compassionate society and solve our problems without having predetermined solutions rammed down our throats via force of law. Moreover, if free to solve our problems without mandate, we are likely to find more efficient solutions that address more immediate needs - rather than being bound by the constraints of centralized authority.

 

[Inthemiddle]

That video does not, in my opinion, provide an example of Libertarian ideals at work but of a company scared to death that their employees may violate rules that could lead to lawsuits and/or retribution from government authorities.

Alright, but back up a second......profit lifeguarding company? I guess there's a little more that might not be easily apparent to someone who isn't familiar with the aquatics industry. But here's a hint for you:

Not trying to be obtuse here, but I'm not sure what you're trying to say. I'll try to answer honestly:



Hopefully, he saves the person from drowning. What am I missing?

Where's the coverage?

Wherever the company providing the service is contracted to cover.

How is the liability absent in that kind of situation?

The potential for liability is never absent. It depends on who is considered liable following an disputed incident. This is why company's buy liability insurance.

Bottom line, I still don't understand why you think the video is an example of libertarianism, much less a knock against it.

Okay, let me explain it then. I worked in aquatics for about a decade. Everything from lifeguarding, teaching swimming lessons, managing aquatic facilities, and doing private contract work. An aquatic facility that is properly managed will have Emergency Action Plans (EAPs) for their facility to deal with emergency situations, that describe how the lifeguarding team as a whole should respond. Part of the response is communication with the rest of the team, and automatic adjustments that need to be executed when a lifeguard has to come down from their post to respond to an emergency.

Part of an EAP is to ensure that there is NEVER a time when any portion of covered water is suddenly not being scanned by lifeguards. There are several components that go into this. The first, integral, part is communication. When a lifeguard has to respond to an emergency s/he needs to communicate that fact to the rest of their team. This can be done by employing whistle signals, radios, and other means. Often times, the first response is for other nearby lifeguards to extend their coverage zone, so as to incorporate part of the responder's zone into theirs temporarily. Meanwhile, another lifeguard who is not on a stand at the moment should report to the stand of the responder, and take over coverage responsibilities. In the background, a decision may already be being made about whether to call 911, or whether to await further details, while additional lifeguards not on a stand may be responding as well in preparation to offer aid to the initial responder.

Sometimes, particularly on open water or beachfront facilities, lifeguards are stationed in pairs to a single zone. This way, if an emergency develops, one can respond to the emergency while the other maintains coverage. However, emergencies should still be reported in the same way as discussed above, because depending on the emergency there may still arise the need for both lifeguards to render aid, and the rest of the team has to be prepared to react accordingly. When lifeguards are paired, those pairs may break up when an emergency happens, so that guards can shift themselves as needed in order to ensure that 100% coverage is maintained.

The details of such plans will always vary from facility to facility, and will be dependent on alot of things, including the unique qualities of the facility. But the point is the "concern" about the water being unguarded, and the company being open to liabilities, is completely bogus. When young Tomas left his stand, as long as he initiated EAP procedures, there would have been no lapse in coverage, and no particular liability that would have opened up. If there was, it would have been due to the failure of other team members to respond properly, or due to failures of the EAP itself (which is a failure on the part of management). The real reason Tomas was fired was money. Tomas responded to an area that Ellis is not being paid to guard. Ellis doesn't want to extend any services to that area, without being paid more. In essence, his company views Tomas' actions as the equivalent of working at Wal-Mart, and failing to ring up a big screen TV that someone brings through the register line.

And that is libertarianism for you. Let him die.

 

[GuyPinestra]

This is one of those bogus polls you see once in a while which attempts to make you believe that most Americans are Libertarians.

It is revealing in what it does not ask.

More than 90 percent of Americans' alignment with Ron Paul would drop dramatically if it asked their opinions on the Libertarians more controversial beliefs.

For instance, "Do you believe we should eliminate the FDA?"

I have posted evidence this is what the LP wants already.

Do you believe we should shrink our military down to the strength of a cub scout troop?

Evidence:


Libertarian Party on Defense








Evidence:


Platform | Libertarian Party










Evidence:
[ame=http://www.amazon.com/End-The-Fed-Ron-Paul/dp/B006J3V150/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1342640332&sr=8-1]End the Fed[/ame]









Evidence already provided.









Evidence:



Libertarian Party on Environment








Evidence:


National Platform of the Libertarian Party











I have posted the evidence for this one already as well.






Other things:



1972 Libertarian Party Platform - LPedia

We advocate the abolition of the Federal Aviation Administration, which has jeopardized safety by arrogating to itself a monopoly of safety regulation and enforcement. We call for privatizing the air traffic control system and transferring the FAA's other functions to private agencies.

1992 National Platform of the Libertarian Party - Critiques Of Libertarianism

We advocate the abolition of the Food and Drug Administration and particularly its policies of mandating specific nutritional requirements and denying the right of manufacturers to make non-fraudulent claims concerning their products.

1992 National Platform of the Libertarian Party - Critiques Of Libertarianism




You all still feel like Paulbots?

The FDA isn't there to protect citizens, it's there to protect BigAg & BigPharma.

Reducing our 'defense' budget by 75% would be a good thing. It can be done without jeopardizing our own national defense, in fact it would strengthen it. We don't need 100+ military bases flung across the planet like confetti, let's bring our troops HOME.

The 'War on Drugs' is an abject failure. You can't legislate morality. We've spent over $1 TRILLION and yet today drugs are both cheaper and more abundant than ever. Our ridiculous policy is what allows the Mexican cartels to flourish. Legalizing drugs and treating them just like alcohol and tobacco would eliminate the cartel's profits, increase our tax collections and remove tens of thousands of innocent people from the grip of our for-profit prison slavery industry.

Eliminate the Fed - For it

Repeal gun control laws and re-establish the 2nd Amendment - For it

After seeing what the EPA did to those poor folks trying to build a home - Nuke 'em

OSHA is a beast, and does little to protect workers. If you've ever had to wade through 50 pounds of regulations to build a frigging motel you'd know that.

Haven't looked at the child labor laws, but keeping kids from working in their spare time is ludicrous

CPSC - Not sure

FAA - disagree

FDA - covered up top ^^^

 

[Shelzin]

*tags last*

Well... I took the thing... but quite honestly I really don't care what he would have said about me, it's not like it's going to change my vote.

Now... If something like that would change your vote... I'm guessing you are a fuck'n zombie republican/democrat that is arguing for what they feel is their team without actually having any clue of what they are about. There is nothing wrong with being a republican or democrat or voting that way... So long as they ACTUALLY represent your values.

I can't tell you about your values. But I can tell you neither Obama or Mitt represent mine.

 

[eflatminor]

Alright, but back up a second......profit lifeguarding company? I guess there's a little more that might not be easily apparent to someone who isn't familiar with the aquatics industry. But here's a hint for you:

Not trying to be obtuse here, but I'm not sure what you're trying to say. I'll try to answer honestly:



Hopefully, he saves the person from drowning. What am I missing?



Wherever the company providing the service is contracted to cover.

How is the liability absent in that kind of situation?

The potential for liability is never absent. It depends on who is considered liable following an disputed incident. This is why company's buy liability insurance.

Bottom line, I still don't understand why you think the video is an example of libertarianism, much less a knock against it.

Okay, let me explain it then. I worked in aquatics for about a decade. Everything from lifeguarding, teaching swimming lessons, managing aquatic facilities, and doing private contract work. An aquatic facility that is properly managed will have Emergency Action Plans (EAPs) for their facility to deal with emergency situations, that describe how the lifeguarding team as a whole should respond. Part of the response is communication with the rest of the team, and automatic adjustments that need to be executed when a lifeguard has to come down from their post to respond to an emergency.

Part of an EAP is to ensure that there is NEVER a time when any portion of covered water is suddenly not being scanned by lifeguards. There are several components that go into this. The first, integral, part is communication. When a lifeguard has to respond to an emergency s/he needs to communicate that fact to the rest of their team. This can be done by employing whistle signals, radios, and other means. Often times, the first response is for other nearby lifeguards to extend their coverage zone, so as to incorporate part of the responder's zone into theirs temporarily. Meanwhile, another lifeguard who is not on a stand at the moment should report to the stand of the responder, and take over coverage responsibilities. In the background, a decision may already be being made about whether to call 911, or whether to await further details, while additional lifeguards not on a stand may be responding as well in preparation to offer aid to the initial responder.

Sometimes, particularly on open water or beachfront facilities, lifeguards are stationed in pairs to a single zone. This way, if an emergency develops, one can respond to the emergency while the other maintains coverage. However, emergencies should still be reported in the same way as discussed above, because depending on the emergency there may still arise the need for both lifeguards to render aid, and the rest of the team has to be prepared to react accordingly. When lifeguards are paired, those pairs may break up when an emergency happens, so that guards can shift themselves as needed in order to ensure that 100% coverage is maintained.

The details of such plans will always vary from facility to facility, and will be dependent on alot of things, including the unique qualities of the facility. But the point is the "concern" about the water being unguarded, and the company being open to liabilities, is completely bogus. When young Tomas left his stand, as long as he initiated EAP procedures, there would have been no lapse in coverage, and no particular liability that would have opened up. If there was, it would have been due to the failure of other team members to respond properly, or due to failures of the EAP itself (which is a failure on the part of management). The real reason Tomas was fired was money. Tomas responded to an area that Ellis is not being paid to guard. Ellis doesn't want to extend any services to that area, without being paid more. In essence, his company views Tomas' actions as the equivalent of working at Wal-Mart, and failing to ring up a big screen TV that someone brings through the register line.

And that is libertarianism for you. Let him die.

You clearly understand the lifeguard business. I won't argue that. However, I strongly disagree that the reason that kid was fired was Libertarianism. It may very well have been for financial reasons or perhaps simply contractual reasons. Bottom line, Ellis (the lifeguard company I assume) wasn't being paid to guard beyond a certain zone. That someone needed help outside that zone would seem to me to be a shortcoming of the city or county who was paying to have the beach guarded. They left an area unguarded, not Ellis. I respect your understanding of how the business of lifeguards should work, but I do not see how this incident has anything to do with Libertarianism. Besides, the kid did NOT let anyone die! Let's not forget that.

I don't know why he was fired really. Perhaps he didn't follow the rules you outlined above. Perhaps Ellis is run by dicks...I really don't know. But either way, this does not, in my opinion, speak at all to the values of Libertarians.

Anyway, I appreciate your candor. All the best.

 

[Shelzin]

Here's another example of libertarianism gone amuck.

Tomas Lopez, fired for saving a man. We NEED Tort Reform. - YouTube

That doesn't have anything to do with libertarianism. Or any other political 'ism for that matter.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Bottom line, Ellis (the lifeguard company I assume) wasn't being paid to guard beyond a certain zone. That someone needed help outside that zone would seem to me to be a shortcoming of the city or county who was paying to have the beach guarded.

And how is that not libertarianism? Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that Ellis had any responsibility to post guards beyond what their territory. But what we have here is a company that willfully let's people drown, because they want to first be paid to render aid. And they're willing to fire employees who under take heroic actions that might ever so slightly undermine the integrity of a future bottom line.

I don't know why he was fired really. Perhaps he didn't follow the rules you outlined above. Perhaps Ellis is run by dicks...I really don't know. But either way, this does not, in my opinion, speak at all to the values of Libertarians.

The reason he was fired is because Ellis runs his contract sites under the premise that beachline is money. You quote a price, he'll give you a portion of beach he's willing to cover for that price, and he'll adamantly refuse to do anything outside of that zone. He'll then come back to you and try to sell you on extending that zone for a higher price. All the talk about liability is smoke and mirrors.

 

[Paulie]

More important to me
Domestic policy

I side the most with Ron Paul and Gary Johnson on 97% of domestic policy issues.

I'm not sure I buy this. Ron Paul would get rid of all forms of welfare. I know you don't agree with that.

 

[Paulie]

That was kinda cool. I really tried not to game the questions, just answered honestly. Not surprised by moist of the results except 90% Mitt...that was much higher than I expected.

I side with Ron Paul on most issues in the 2012 Presidential Election.

Candidates you side with...

96% Ron Paul on economic, healthcare, domestic policy, foreign policy, immigration, social, and science issues.

95% Gary Johnson on economic, domestic policy, healthcare, foreign policy, science, and social issues.

90% Mitt Romney on economic, healthcare, domestic policy, foreign policy, immigration, environmental, and social issues.

7% Barack Obama no major issues.

96% Libertarian
90% Republican
7% Democratic
6% Green

Yeah but how could you really be sure if you're siding with Mitt on anything, he doesn't even know where he stands himself

 

[Dr.Drock]

Bottom line, Ellis (the lifeguard company I assume) wasn't being paid to guard beyond a certain zone. That someone needed help outside that zone would seem to me to be a shortcoming of the city or county who was paying to have the beach guarded.

And how is that not libertarianism? Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that Ellis had any responsibility to post guards beyond what their territory. But what we have here is a company that willfully let's people drown, because they want to first be paid to render aid. And they're willing to fire employees who under take heroic actions that might ever so slightly undermine the integrity of a future bottom line.

I don't know why he was fired really. Perhaps he didn't follow the rules you outlined above. Perhaps Ellis is run by dicks...I really don't know. But either way, this does not, in my opinion, speak at all to the values of Libertarians.

The reason he was fired is because Ellis runs his contract sites under the premise that beachline is money. You quote a price, he'll give you a portion of beach he's willing to cover for that price, and he'll adamantly refuse to do anything outside of that zone. He'll then come back to you and try to sell you on extending that zone for a higher price. All the talk about liability is smoke and mirrors.

And these problems are done away with when more gov't steps in, in your view?