Why do the LGBT crowd not support Gary Johnson?

Give some specific examples. Why is that so hard?

Legally married gay couples don't even have the same rights as married heterosexual couples...outside the couples that can't even get legally married.

And you're advocating that gay couples should have rights that single people don't have. Pick any example of any "right" you advocate gay couples have, and that's an example of a right I"m referring to that you advocate gay couples should have over single people.

Fighting discrimination with discrimination. Yes, it's as stupid an idea as it sounds...

What right? You just can't give specifics can you? Seems to be a thing with you.

I was responding to your post, which you haven't been able to site a specific example of. So your standard is that you don't have to back up your own posts, but if someone challenges you then they have to back up theirs.

So, I was challenging you, name an example of what you were referring to, then you shall have your answer to what I was addressing.
 
they all collect social security when the time comes, and they're all as full of shit as a christmas goose

Someone takes your wallet with $100 in it, but before they leave they take a $20 out and hold it in their hand and offer you to take the $20 bill back. If you accept it, does that mean you consented to the robbery?

that would be fine if you weren't in a position to avoid being robbed. there are millions of people who work under the table.

if you believe the horseshit you're spewing, you should be one of them.

try harder, little man

I don't have to pay social security because I can work "under the table." Gotcha. My momma always used to say, moron is as moron does...
 
yes, that's it.

all y'all are noble martyrs to the cause.

asshats that think ayn rand is a philosopher are pretty fucking funny :thup:

as a political philosopher, rand was a decent novelist.

who, of course, lived off of social security when the time came.

just sayin

that's different and not hypocritical in the least.

How so? She said something to the effect that people that lived off SS just strengthened the ability of government to enslave us....so she basically pre-dissed herself.

Oh wait, were you being sarcastic?
 
Someone takes your wallet with $100 in it, but before they leave they take a $20 out and hold it in their hand and offer you to take the $20 bill back. If you accept it, does that mean you consented to the robbery?

that would be fine if you weren't in a position to avoid being robbed. there are millions of people who work under the table.

if you believe the horseshit you're spewing, you should be one of them.

try harder, little man

I don't have to pay social security because I can work "under the table." Gotcha. My momma always used to say, moron is as moron does...

no one knows you quite as well as your mom does, huh?
 
I don't need to be. It's all over this thread. They want the benefits and perks the govt. grants those who turn their relationships over to the state by getting a license and filing the legal work.

And they shouldn't. Which is why the government has no business making such decisions or providing incentives or perks. There is nothing hypocritical about it from my end.

If you knew, you wouldn't be asking, genius.

so i assume that you have never been legally married nor taken any of the benefits?
Not me.

I also haven't signed up for the liabilities, like spending zillions of dollars on looyahs to get a statutory marriage dissolved.

even harder to believe that some lucky lady hasn't scooped you up.
 
This is where I disagree with Johnson...I say government doesn't need to be in marriage AT ALL...its a contract between people...the government needs no say so in it.

What have you actively done to make that change?
Tried to convince folx like you that da gubmint is not your friend.

When you gonna get the message?

folx
da gubmint
gubmint cheese

could Fabian be far behind?

What a dope!

Ron Paul's dick isn't going to suck itself, run along.
 
Obama's stance on marriage equality: leave it to the states
Romney's stance on marriage equality: supports constitutional ban
Johnson's stance on marriage equality: believes it is a civil right for everyone

Just curious.

Incorrect.

The president’s position is consistent with settled case law on the issue, as expressed in Romer and Lawrence:

Attorney General Eric Holder said President Barack Obama has concluded that the administration cannot defend the federal law that defines marriage as only between a man and a woman. He noted that the congressional debate during passage of the Defense of Marriage Act "contains numerous expressions reflecting moral disapproval of gays and lesbians and their intimate and family relationships - precisely the kind of stereotype-based thinking and animus the (Constitution's) Equal Protection Clause is designed to guard against."

Obama: DOMA Unconstitutional, DOJ Should Stop Defending In Court

As we know republicans/conservatives/libertarians are hostile to 14th Amendment jurisprudence applying the rule of law consistently to all the states; where the states do not have the ‘right’ to subject one’s civil liberties to majority rule.

The LGBT community supports the president accordingly.

Johnson himself may believe it’s a right, but as advocates of ‘states’ rights,’ the majority of libertarians do not.
 
Ron Paul's dick isn't going to suck itself, run along.

So Ron Paul is saying he's giving us nothing, go away. We're saying fine, we want nothing, you go away. That to you is "sucking his dick."

You want government to give you perks for your gay partner, make evil companies give you want you want so you don't have to drag your lazy ass across the street to their competitor, take care of your retirement, health care, give you money if you don't feel like working, make sure employers have quotas so people don't have to find their own best job, limit gas prices, give other people's money to your charities so you don't have to take a crowbar to your wallet...

Obama promises that to you, destroys the economy doing it, you vote for him anyway, but that's not "sucking his dick."

:laugh2:

Clown...
 
Ron Paul's dick isn't going to suck itself, run along.

So Ron Paul is saying he's giving us nothing, go away. We're saying fine, we want nothing, you go away. That to you is "sucking his dick."

You want government to give you perks for your gay partner, make evil companies give you want you want so you don't have to drag your lazy ass across the street to their competitor, take care of your retirement, health care, give you money if you don't feel like working, make sure employers have quotas so people don't have to find their own best job, limit gas prices, give other people's money to your charities so you don't have to take a crowbar to your wallet...

Obama promises that to you, destroys the economy doing it, you vote for him anyway, but that's not "sucking his dick."

:laugh2:

Clown...

I don't have a gay partner. If you can't see that giving gay people the SAME benefits given to straight people is the right thing to do, I can't help you. And that is why most Americans won't vote libertarian, btw. You all SELECTIVELY apply the constitution.
 
I don't have a gay partner. If you can't see that giving gay people the SAME benefits given to straight people is the right thing to do, I can't help you. And that is why most Americans won't vote libertarian, btw. You all SELECTIVELY apply the constitution.
The constitution deals with the rights of everyone, not the benefits and privileges of a few.

But thanks for the admission that the whole gay marriage farce is about the loot, rather than all the hairy-fairy crap about love and commitment that you lolberals keep trying ti hide behind.
 
I don't have a gay partner. If you can't see that giving gay people the SAME benefits given to straight people is the right thing to do, I can't help you. And that is why most Americans won't vote libertarian, btw. You all SELECTIVELY apply the constitution.
The constitution deals with the rights of everyone, not the benefits and privileges of a few.

But thanks for the admission that the whole gay marriage farce is about the loot, rather than all the hairy-fairy crap about love and commitment that you lolberals keep trying ti hide behind.
:rolleyes: If you give rights to one set of individuals you can't deny another set the same rights.
 
I don't have a gay partner. If you can't see that giving gay people the SAME benefits given to straight people is the right thing to do, I can't help you. And that is why most Americans won't vote libertarian, btw. You all SELECTIVELY apply the constitution.
The constitution deals with the rights of everyone, not the benefits and privileges of a few.

But thanks for the admission that the whole gay marriage farce is about the loot, rather than all the hairy-fairy crap about love and commitment that you lolberals keep trying ti hide behind.
:rolleyes: If you give rights to one set of individuals you can't deny another set the same rights.

Yet politicians are above the law. Go figure.
 
I don't have a gay partner. If you can't see that giving gay people the SAME benefits given to straight people is the right thing to do, I can't help you. And that is why most Americans won't vote libertarian, btw. You all SELECTIVELY apply the constitution.
The constitution deals with the rights of everyone, not the benefits and privileges of a few.

But thanks for the admission that the whole gay marriage farce is about the loot, rather than all the hairy-fairy crap about love and commitment that you lolberals keep trying ti hide behind.
:rolleyes: If you give rights to one set of individuals you can't deny another set the same rights.
Nobody gives anyone their rights...If you had any idea what you were blabbering about, you'd know that.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top