Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?

[kaz]

LOL, you're such a clown. But you already know that. Your avatar is so accurate, it screams you're an idiot. And this is one of your stupid liberal tricks

Of course it is, they were elected to Congress, idiot. How do they not have a "right" to vote against a budget bill? What does that even mean?

Positive rights are an oxymoron, and you're just the clown for the moron job

And you voted for that clown to be president.



Getting to vote in Congress is a privilege, not a right. It's a pity you're not capable of understanding that. Barring a threat to others, rights can't be taken away. Meanwhile, members of Congress can be removed from office. That wouldn't be permissible if getting to vote in Congress was a right.

And while my avatar is that of a Republican clown, your posts continuously prove incontrovertibly that you're a fucking imbecile.

You voted for a hard core Marxist, well done on that. You're a true patriot, not. And you're definitely a clown, you chose your avatar well

I take it from this you still have no fucking clue what the difference is between a right and a privilege.

Positive rights are privileges, not rights. Only negative rights are rights

Non-sequitur which in no way supports your moronic claim that members of Congress have the right to vote on bills.

Going to congress is neither a privilege nor a right. You have to earn it. You have the right to run if you're eligible, but from there you have to be picked by the voters.

However, once they do that, they have the right to vote on bills. It's what the job is, moron. Of course congressmen have the right to vote on bills. They earned that right by being elected.

And seriously, that's your argument? That Obama can get whatever he wants because congressmen don't have a right to vote no? What does that even mean? They have to vote yes? If they don't it doesn't pass. And how does your privilege argument not apply to Obama? How does he by your own reasoning have a right to his budget?

 

[kaz]

Obama is a Marxist by the definition of Marxism, the Communist Manifesto. It's the Democratic party platform.

You voted for a Marxist, your posts reveal you're a flaming imbecile, and your avatar shows you know you're a clown

More idiocy as Obama is not a Marxist. Also more idiocy about my avatar as it represents the rightie clown you saw fit to lead the nation.

I gave you my standard, the Marxist you voted for is a Marxist by the definition of Marxism, the Communist manifesto. You just can't think of any way he isn't, that doesn't mean he isn't one, LOL. Yeah, it does. Clowns like you shouldn't be voting. I'd pay you $20 not to

 

[Faun]

And you voted for that clown to be president.



Getting to vote in Congress is a privilege, not a right. It's a pity you're not capable of understanding that. Barring a threat to others, rights can't be taken away. Meanwhile, members of Congress can be removed from office. That wouldn't be permissible if getting to vote in Congress was a right.

And while my avatar is that of a Republican clown, your posts continuously prove incontrovertibly that you're a fucking imbecile.

You voted for a hard core Marxist, well done on that. You're a true patriot, not. And you're definitely a clown, you chose your avatar well

I take it from this you still have no fucking clue what the difference is between a right and a privilege.

Positive rights are privileges, not rights. Only negative rights are rights

Non-sequitur which in no way supports your moronic claim that members of Congress have the right to vote on bills.

Going to congress is neither a privilege nor a right. You have to earn it. You have the right to run if you're eligible, but from there you have to be picked by the voters.

However, once they do that, they have the right to vote on bills. It's what the job is, moron. Of course congressmen have the right to vote on bills. They earned that right by being elected.

And seriously, that's your argument? That Obama can get whatever he wants because congressmen don't have a right to vote no? What does that even mean? They have to vote yes? If they don't it doesn't pass. And how does your privilege argument not apply to Obama? How does he by your own reasoning have a right to his budget?

Voting on bills is still not a right. Your argument is as stupid as claiming driving is a right because people "earn" a drivers license. Getting to vote on bills in Congress is a privilege, not a right. You should know this since rights, barring potential threats to society, can't be taken away -- yet members of Congress can be thrown out of office.

Are ya learning? Anything at all sinking in?

 

[kaz]

You voted for a hard core Marxist, well done on that. You're a true patriot, not. And you're definitely a clown, you chose your avatar well

I take it from this you still have no fucking clue what the difference is between a right and a privilege.

Positive rights are privileges, not rights. Only negative rights are rights

Non-sequitur which in no way supports your moronic claim that members of Congress have the right to vote on bills.

Going to congress is neither a privilege nor a right. You have to earn it. You have the right to run if you're eligible, but from there you have to be picked by the voters.

However, once they do that, they have the right to vote on bills. It's what the job is, moron. Of course congressmen have the right to vote on bills. They earned that right by being elected.

And seriously, that's your argument? That Obama can get whatever he wants because congressmen don't have a right to vote no? What does that even mean? They have to vote yes? If they don't it doesn't pass. And how does your privilege argument not apply to Obama? How does he by your own reasoning have a right to his budget?

Voting on bills is still not a right. Your argument is as stupid as claiming driving is a right because people "earn" a drivers license. Getting to vote on bills in Congress is a privilege, not a right. You should know this since rights, barring potential threats to society, can't be taken away -- yet members of Congress can be thrown out of office.

Are ya learning? Anything at all sinking in?

You aren't elected to office to get a drivers license, comparing that to a Congressman is a false analogy.

Explain how being elected doesn't give you the right to vote on bills, including spending bills?

And if they don't, how does Obama have the right to dictate the budget?

 

[Faun]

I take it from this you still have no fucking clue what the difference is between a right and a privilege.

Positive rights are privileges, not rights. Only negative rights are rights

Non-sequitur which in no way supports your moronic claim that members of Congress have the right to vote on bills.

Going to congress is neither a privilege nor a right. You have to earn it. You have the right to run if you're eligible, but from there you have to be picked by the voters.

However, once they do that, they have the right to vote on bills. It's what the job is, moron. Of course congressmen have the right to vote on bills. They earned that right by being elected.

And seriously, that's your argument? That Obama can get whatever he wants because congressmen don't have a right to vote no? What does that even mean? They have to vote yes? If they don't it doesn't pass. And how does your privilege argument not apply to Obama? How does he by your own reasoning have a right to his budget?

Voting on bills is still not a right. Your argument is as stupid as claiming driving is a right because people "earn" a drivers license. Getting to vote on bills in Congress is a privilege, not a right. You should know this since rights, barring potential threats to society, can't be taken away -- yet members of Congress can be thrown out of office.

Are ya learning? Anything at all sinking in?

You aren't elected to office to get a drivers license, comparing that to a Congressman is a false analogy.

Explain how being elected doesn't give you the right to vote on bills, including spending bills?

And if they don't, how does Obama have the right to dictate the budget?

I've already explained why it's not a right. You didn't understand the last time so there's no hope you'll understand if I repeat myself. If you could comprehend the difference between a right and a privilege, maybe that would help you.

 

[kaz]

Positive rights are privileges, not rights. Only negative rights are rights

Non-sequitur which in no way supports your moronic claim that members of Congress have the right to vote on bills.

Going to congress is neither a privilege nor a right. You have to earn it. You have the right to run if you're eligible, but from there you have to be picked by the voters.

However, once they do that, they have the right to vote on bills. It's what the job is, moron. Of course congressmen have the right to vote on bills. They earned that right by being elected.

And seriously, that's your argument? That Obama can get whatever he wants because congressmen don't have a right to vote no? What does that even mean? They have to vote yes? If they don't it doesn't pass. And how does your privilege argument not apply to Obama? How does he by your own reasoning have a right to his budget?

Voting on bills is still not a right. Your argument is as stupid as claiming driving is a right because people "earn" a drivers license. Getting to vote on bills in Congress is a privilege, not a right. You should know this since rights, barring potential threats to society, can't be taken away -- yet members of Congress can be thrown out of office.

Are ya learning? Anything at all sinking in?

You aren't elected to office to get a drivers license, comparing that to a Congressman is a false analogy.

Explain how being elected doesn't give you the right to vote on bills, including spending bills?

And if they don't, how does Obama have the right to dictate the budget?

I've already explained why it's not a right. You didn't understand the last time so there's no hope you'll understand if I repeat myself. If you could comprehend the difference between a right and a privilege, maybe that would help you.

The Constitution says bills have to be passed by congress. So just to clarify, Democrats in Congress don't have a right to vote on spending either?

 

[Faun]

Non-sequitur which in no way supports your moronic claim that members of Congress have the right to vote on bills.

Going to congress is neither a privilege nor a right. You have to earn it. You have the right to run if you're eligible, but from there you have to be picked by the voters.

However, once they do that, they have the right to vote on bills. It's what the job is, moron. Of course congressmen have the right to vote on bills. They earned that right by being elected.

And seriously, that's your argument? That Obama can get whatever he wants because congressmen don't have a right to vote no? What does that even mean? They have to vote yes? If they don't it doesn't pass. And how does your privilege argument not apply to Obama? How does he by your own reasoning have a right to his budget?

Voting on bills is still not a right. Your argument is as stupid as claiming driving is a right because people "earn" a drivers license. Getting to vote on bills in Congress is a privilege, not a right. You should know this since rights, barring potential threats to society, can't be taken away -- yet members of Congress can be thrown out of office.

Are ya learning? Anything at all sinking in?

You aren't elected to office to get a drivers license, comparing that to a Congressman is a false analogy.

Explain how being elected doesn't give you the right to vote on bills, including spending bills?

And if they don't, how does Obama have the right to dictate the budget?

I've already explained why it's not a right. You didn't understand the last time so there's no hope you'll understand if I repeat myself. If you could comprehend the difference between a right and a privilege, maybe that would help you.

The Constitution says bills have to be passed by congress. So just to clarify, Democrats in Congress don't have a right to vote on spending either?

Of course Democrats do.

 

[kaz]

Going to congress is neither a privilege nor a right. You have to earn it. You have the right to run if you're eligible, but from there you have to be picked by the voters.

However, once they do that, they have the right to vote on bills. It's what the job is, moron. Of course congressmen have the right to vote on bills. They earned that right by being elected.

And seriously, that's your argument? That Obama can get whatever he wants because congressmen don't have a right to vote no? What does that even mean? They have to vote yes? If they don't it doesn't pass. And how does your privilege argument not apply to Obama? How does he by your own reasoning have a right to his budget?

Voting on bills is still not a right. Your argument is as stupid as claiming driving is a right because people "earn" a drivers license. Getting to vote on bills in Congress is a privilege, not a right. You should know this since rights, barring potential threats to society, can't be taken away -- yet members of Congress can be thrown out of office.

Are ya learning? Anything at all sinking in?

You aren't elected to office to get a drivers license, comparing that to a Congressman is a false analogy.

Explain how being elected doesn't give you the right to vote on bills, including spending bills?

And if they don't, how does Obama have the right to dictate the budget?

I've already explained why it's not a right. You didn't understand the last time so there's no hope you'll understand if I repeat myself. If you could comprehend the difference between a right and a privilege, maybe that would help you.

The Constitution says bills have to be passed by congress. So just to clarify, Democrats in Congress don't have a right to vote on spending either?

Of course Democrats do.

No, Democrats don't have a right to vote on spending bills in congress. Don't you know the difference between a right and a privilege?

 

[RKMBrown]

So the OP was a lie? 300 pages of you denying gays the right to marriage and all you really meant to say is who cares about gay marriage, we need flat tax?

The OP post doesn't say I'm against the flat tax, Holmes

Correct. It says you're against gay marriage.

True, I'm against straight marriage too.

So since you're not a liberal, why does a thread mocking liberals for not having consistent standards bother you so much again?

What bothers me is a person claiming to be a libertarian ... turning around and saying "I'm against two people getting married." It's none of your BUSINESS IF TWO CONSENTING ADULTS WANT TO GET MARRIED YOU POS.

So it bothers you that someone calling themselves a "libertarian" would be against government validation of their relationship and access to unequal treatment under the law



Um ... OK?

How is government involvement in contracts between consenting adults unequal treatment under the law? WTF are you talking about?

 

[kaz]

The OP post doesn't say I'm against the flat tax, Holmes

Correct. It says you're against gay marriage.

True, I'm against straight marriage too.

So since you're not a liberal, why does a thread mocking liberals for not having consistent standards bother you so much again?

What bothers me is a person claiming to be a libertarian ... turning around and saying "I'm against two people getting married." It's none of your BUSINESS IF TWO CONSENTING ADULTS WANT TO GET MARRIED YOU POS.

So it bothers you that someone calling themselves a "libertarian" would be against government validation of their relationship and access to unequal treatment under the law



Um ... OK?

How is government involvement in contracts between consenting adults unequal treatment under the law? WTF are you talking about?

Asked and answered a hundred times. Government marriage was between a man and a woman. Gays and straights had equal access to that. Gays want something else, and they want it decreed by courts violating the Constitution and legislating from the bench.

Now in your liberal mind you hear that means gays can't have gay marriage. No, it just means they have to do what everyone else does, convince the legislature, which the people have the power to do by electing the representatives they want

 

[WorldWatcher]

Asked and answered a hundred times. Government marriage was between a man and a woman. Gays and straights had equal access to that. Gays want something else, and they want it decreed by courts violating the Constitution and legislating from the bench.

Now in your liberal mind you hear that means gays can't have gay marriage. No, it just means they have to do what everyone else does, convince the legislature, which the people have the power to do by electing the representatives they want

Since same-sex marriage has been passed by legislatures and approved by voters at the ballot box, then you admit that government marriage can be man/woman, man/man, and woman/woman right?


>>>>

 

[kaz]

Asked and answered a hundred times. Government marriage was between a man and a woman. Gays and straights had equal access to that. Gays want something else, and they want it decreed by courts violating the Constitution and legislating from the bench.

Now in your liberal mind you hear that means gays can't have gay marriage. No, it just means they have to do what everyone else does, convince the legislature, which the people have the power to do by electing the representatives they want

Since same-sex marriage has been passed by legislatures and approved by voters at the ballot box, then you admit that government marriage can be man/woman, man/man, and woman/woman right?


>>>>

In the cases where it was passed by the legislature or popular referendum, yes. The cases where it was imposed by the courts, no. I've said that all along, it's not anything new

 

[RKMBrown]

Correct. It says you're against gay marriage.

True, I'm against straight marriage too.

So since you're not a liberal, why does a thread mocking liberals for not having consistent standards bother you so much again?

What bothers me is a person claiming to be a libertarian ... turning around and saying "I'm against two people getting married." It's none of your BUSINESS IF TWO CONSENTING ADULTS WANT TO GET MARRIED YOU POS.

So it bothers you that someone calling themselves a "libertarian" would be against government validation of their relationship and access to unequal treatment under the law



Um ... OK?

How is government involvement in contracts between consenting adults unequal treatment under the law? WTF are you talking about?

Asked and answered a hundred times. Government marriage was between a man and a woman. Gays and straights had equal access to that. Gays want something else, and they want it decreed by courts violating the Constitution and legislating from the bench.

Now in your liberal mind you hear that means gays can't have gay marriage. No, it just means they have to do what everyone else does, convince the legislature, which the people have the power to do by electing the representatives they want

No such thing as government marriage. There are only marriages between two consenting adults, that's it.

Governments merely provide a license to those two consenting adults. The license merely records the contract that the two consenting adults enter. The government is not an a part of the contract... it merely records the contract. No one is getting a "government marriage" there is no such thing.

As for your full of shit comment that Gays and straights had equal access marriage... OMFG ass hole. No, gays did not have access to marry a consenting adult of their choice, they were only allowed to marry a consenting adult of another sexual orientation that they did not want to marry. Given that half the country is male, the other half female, government was restricting them from marrying HALF THE COUNTRY. More particularly they were being restricted from marrying anyone IN THE HALF THAT THEY WANTED TO CHOOSE FROM.

As for your total bullshit that gays want some violation to the constitution or legislation from the bench... omfg YOU ARE DUMB. They want the opposite, they want the laws banning them from being married to be thrown out. IOW they want unconstitutional laws thrown out. Which btw is the purpose of the SCOTUS. They don't need to "re-define" marriage to throw out unconstitutional laws. That is a bullshit strawman.

As for your second strawman that I'm a liberal. No, ya DUMB ASS LIAR I'm conservative, I'm more conservative than you are. Your problem is you think liberty is your liberty to put your JACK BOOT ON GAYS.

 

[kaz]

True, I'm against straight marriage too.

So since you're not a liberal, why does a thread mocking liberals for not having consistent standards bother you so much again?

What bothers me is a person claiming to be a libertarian ... turning around and saying "I'm against two people getting married." It's none of your BUSINESS IF TWO CONSENTING ADULTS WANT TO GET MARRIED YOU POS.

So it bothers you that someone calling themselves a "libertarian" would be against government validation of their relationship and access to unequal treatment under the law



Um ... OK?

How is government involvement in contracts between consenting adults unequal treatment under the law? WTF are you talking about?

Asked and answered a hundred times. Government marriage was between a man and a woman. Gays and straights had equal access to that. Gays want something else, and they want it decreed by courts violating the Constitution and legislating from the bench.

Now in your liberal mind you hear that means gays can't have gay marriage. No, it just means they have to do what everyone else does, convince the legislature, which the people have the power to do by electing the representatives they want

No such thing as government marriage. There are only marriages between two consenting adults, that's it.

Governments merely provide a license to those two consenting adults. The license merely records the contract that the two consenting adults enter. The government is not an a part of the contract... it merely records the contract. No one is getting a "government marriage" there is no such thing.

As for your full of shit comment that Gays and straights had equal access marriage... OMFG ass hole. No, gays did not have access to marry a consenting adult of their choice, they were only allowed to marry a consenting adult of another sexual orientation that they did not want to marry. Given that half the country is male, the other half female, government was restricting them from marrying HALF THE COUNTRY. More particularly they were being restricted from marrying anyone IN THE HALF THAT THEY WANTED TO CHOOSE FROM.

As for your total bullshit that gays want some violation to the constitution or legislation from the bench... omfg YOU ARE DUMB. They want the opposite, they want the laws banning them from being married to be thrown out. IOW they want unconstitutional laws thrown out. Which btw is the purpose of the SCOTUS. They don't need to "re-define" marriage to throw out unconstitutional laws. That is a bullshit strawman.

As for your second strawman that I'm a liberal. No, ya DUMB ASS LIAR I'm conservative, I'm more conservative than you are. Your problem is you think liberty is your liberty to put your JACK BOOT ON GAYS.

You insult me by telling a libertarian that I'm a conservative than insult me again by telling me I'm not really conservative you are...



When you make up your mind, let me know.

As for your post, wow. You're a conservative who thinks that government not giving validation and tax breaks to gays for mating is putting a "JACK BOOT ON GAYS." Sure, a conservative thinks people have to be given whatever they tell government to give them. Sure sounds like quacking, liberal

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Asked and answered a hundred times. Government marriage was between a man and a woman. Gays and straights had equal access to that. Gays want something else, and they want it decreed by courts violating the Constitution and legislating from the bench.

Now in your liberal mind you hear that means gays can't have gay marriage. No, it just means they have to do what everyone else does, convince the legislature, which the people have the power to do by electing the representatives they want

Since same-sex marriage has been passed by legislatures and approved by voters at the ballot box, then you admit that government marriage can be man/woman, man/man, and woman/woman right?


>>>>

In the cases where it was passed by the legislature or popular referendum, yes. The cases where it was imposed by the courts, no. I've said that all along, it's not anything new

Rights aren't up for a popular vote, so sad for you. And in this case what the voters voted for was unconstitutional, like banning Islam, which I'm sure you would approve of eh?

We know, you like Mob Rule, as long as they are on your side, which the mob on this issue no longer is...

 

[kaz]

Asked and answered a hundred times. Government marriage was between a man and a woman. Gays and straights had equal access to that. Gays want something else, and they want it decreed by courts violating the Constitution and legislating from the bench.

Now in your liberal mind you hear that means gays can't have gay marriage. No, it just means they have to do what everyone else does, convince the legislature, which the people have the power to do by electing the representatives they want

Since same-sex marriage has been passed by legislatures and approved by voters at the ballot box, then you admit that government marriage can be man/woman, man/man, and woman/woman right?


>>>>

In the cases where it was passed by the legislature or popular referendum, yes. The cases where it was imposed by the courts, no. I've said that all along, it's not anything new

Rights aren't up for a popular vote, so sad for you. And in this case what the voters voted for was unconstitutional, like banning Islam, which I'm sure you would approve of eh?

We know, you like Mob Rule, as long as they are on your side, which the mob on this issue no longer is...

Um..I like mob rule, not you? A libertarian likes mob rule, not the socialist. Who writes your material? You should fire them, they suck and they are massively stupid.

And a libertarian would vote to ban Islam. You're retarded, bitch

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Asked and answered a hundred times. Government marriage was between a man and a woman. Gays and straights had equal access to that. Gays want something else, and they want it decreed by courts violating the Constitution and legislating from the bench.

Now in your liberal mind you hear that means gays can't have gay marriage. No, it just means they have to do what everyone else does, convince the legislature, which the people have the power to do by electing the representatives they want

Since same-sex marriage has been passed by legislatures and approved by voters at the ballot box, then you admit that government marriage can be man/woman, man/man, and woman/woman right?


>>>>

In the cases where it was passed by the legislature or popular referendum, yes. The cases where it was imposed by the courts, no. I've said that all along, it's not anything new

Rights aren't up for a popular vote, so sad for you. And in this case what the voters voted for was unconstitutional, like banning Islam, which I'm sure you would approve of eh?

We know, you like Mob Rule, as long as they are on your side, which the mob on this issue no longer is...

Um..I like mob rule, not you? A libertarian likes mob rule, not the socialist. Who writes your material? You should fire them, they suck and they are massively stupid.

And a libertarian would vote to ban Islam. You're retarded, bitch

Libertarian, is that what you believe yourself to be? Boy that must really, you stupid faggots never win anything beyond think like that moron Ayn Rand contest.

 

[kaz]

Asked and answered a hundred times. Government marriage was between a man and a woman. Gays and straights had equal access to that. Gays want something else, and they want it decreed by courts violating the Constitution and legislating from the bench.

Now in your liberal mind you hear that means gays can't have gay marriage. No, it just means they have to do what everyone else does, convince the legislature, which the people have the power to do by electing the representatives they want

Since same-sex marriage has been passed by legislatures and approved by voters at the ballot box, then you admit that government marriage can be man/woman, man/man, and woman/woman right?


>>>>

In the cases where it was passed by the legislature or popular referendum, yes. The cases where it was imposed by the courts, no. I've said that all along, it's not anything new

Rights aren't up for a popular vote, so sad for you. And in this case what the voters voted for was unconstitutional, like banning Islam, which I'm sure you would approve of eh?

We know, you like Mob Rule, as long as they are on your side, which the mob on this issue no longer is...

Um..I like mob rule, not you? A libertarian likes mob rule, not the socialist. Who writes your material? You should fire them, they suck and they are massively stupid.

And a libertarian would vote to ban Islam. You're retarded, bitch

Libertarian, is that what you believe yourself to be? Boy that must really, you stupid faggots never win anything beyond think like that moron Ayn Rand contest.

You love to say that, then when I ask you what policies I have that aren't libertarian, I hear crickets. You got anything but empty bluster this time or is it your usual fare?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Since same-sex marriage has been passed by legislatures and approved by voters at the ballot box, then you admit that government marriage can be man/woman, man/man, and woman/woman right?


>>>>

In the cases where it was passed by the legislature or popular referendum, yes. The cases where it was imposed by the courts, no. I've said that all along, it's not anything new

Rights aren't up for a popular vote, so sad for you. And in this case what the voters voted for was unconstitutional, like banning Islam, which I'm sure you would approve of eh?

We know, you like Mob Rule, as long as they are on your side, which the mob on this issue no longer is...

Um..I like mob rule, not you? A libertarian likes mob rule, not the socialist. Who writes your material? You should fire them, they suck and they are massively stupid.

And a libertarian would vote to ban Islam. You're retarded, bitch

Libertarian, is that what you believe yourself to be? Boy that must really, you stupid faggots never win anything beyond think like that moron Ayn Rand contest.

You love to say that, then when I ask you what policies I have that aren't libertarian, I hear crickets. You got anything but empty bluster this time or is it your usual fare?

You never asked me but why would I give a fuck? Libertarians are ignorant selfish children whose opinions don't matter a damn.

 

[kaz]

In the cases where it was passed by the legislature or popular referendum, yes. The cases where it was imposed by the courts, no. I've said that all along, it's not anything new

Rights aren't up for a popular vote, so sad for you. And in this case what the voters voted for was unconstitutional, like banning Islam, which I'm sure you would approve of eh?

We know, you like Mob Rule, as long as they are on your side, which the mob on this issue no longer is...

Um..I like mob rule, not you? A libertarian likes mob rule, not the socialist. Who writes your material? You should fire them, they suck and they are massively stupid.

And a libertarian would vote to ban Islam. You're retarded, bitch

Libertarian, is that what you believe yourself to be? Boy that must really, you stupid faggots never win anything beyond think like that moron Ayn Rand contest.

You love to say that, then when I ask you what policies I have that aren't libertarian, I hear crickets. You got anything but empty bluster this time or is it your usual fare?

You never asked me but why would I give a fuck? Libertarians are ignorant selfish children whose opinions don't matter a damn.

So your normal fare, you still have no idea how I'm not a libertarian. That's some pretty happening material there. You're not a libertarian kaz! How so? Doesn't matter, libertarians are selfish. I asked how I'm not a libertarian. Crickets... When you buy a clue, get back to me. Here's a quarter to start your fund. And seriously fire your writer, they are stupid and they suck