NEW POLL: Johnson Rises To 1st Place With Young Voters, Trump Last

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Irrelevant. Try again.

Irrelevant?? It's the essence!

Maybe in your marriage. The rest of us can define the essences of our relationships for ourselves. We don't need the government to pat us on the back and tell us our way is the best way.

I totally agree. But that isn't the issue. Legal marriage affords/coerces financial benefits and other privileges. Homo marriages have no need of those benefits because they can't procreate together.

What benefits? Lower taxes? Why do you need a reason for lower taxes, aren't you a conservative? How about just cutting everybody's taxes married or not?

How about letting states take care of themselves with out facists like you telling them how?

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Lower taxes = fascism? Are you a Democrat now?

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

You totally missed one word I very intentionally used which defines the issue; legal marriage.

And you totally miss basic logic. If the libertarian says that gay marriage is fine so long as nobody's property is violated then the logical conclusion ought to be that the libertarian believes gay marriage should be legal.

You're doing a Charlie the Tuna 'good taste' thing. It's not about homo marriage being illegal. It's about the law granting coercion and privilege in the name of a legally decreed marriage rooted in an irrelevant personal behavior choice. Hence, legal homo marriage vs homo marriage as a perception.

Well if that's your argument, then marriage itself, gay or not, is simply a perception. There's no such natural phenomenon as marriage, it's simply an arrangement between people that has historically had religious sanction. Then the state steps in and creates a list of who can or cannot call themselves this completely made up thing.

No, the state steps in to provide support in order to make child rearing easier. Homos can't make babies with each other. Those state-imposed benefits are therefore moot for homo couples.

Yes, getting the state's permission to get married somehow makes child rearing easier.

It's not about permission. It's about subsidies.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Procreation is as coercive as murder. Homo couples can't procreate, heteros can.
Put that in your libertarian pipe and smoke it.

Irrelevant. Try again.

Irrelevant?? It's the essence!

Maybe in your marriage. The rest of us can define the essences of our relationships for ourselves. We don't need the government to pat us on the back and tell us our way is the best way.

I totally agree. But that isn't the issue. Legal marriage affords/coerces financial benefits and other privileges. Homo marriages have no need of those benefits because they can't procreate together.

What benefits? Lower taxes? Why do you need a reason for lower taxes, aren't you a conservative? How about just cutting everybody's taxes married or not?

Go ahead. But why give extra breaks to homos since they can't make babies?

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Irrelevant?? It's the essence!

Maybe in your marriage. The rest of us can define the essences of our relationships for ourselves. We don't need the government to pat us on the back and tell us our way is the best way.

I totally agree. But that isn't the issue. Legal marriage affords/coerces financial benefits and other privileges. Homo marriages have no need of those benefits because they can't procreate together.

What benefits? Lower taxes? Why do you need a reason for lower taxes, aren't you a conservative? How about just cutting everybody's taxes married or not?

How about letting states take care of themselves with out facists like you telling them how?

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Lower taxes = fascism? Are you a Democrat now?

Lower taxes for some means the difference is compensated for by others. Giving homos tax breaks for no good reason causes increases for others to compensate the homo tax break. That is a subsidy. In the name of booger-eating. That is no way libertarian.

 

[dblack]

Maybe in your marriage. The rest of us can define the essences of our relationships for ourselves. We don't need the government to pat us on the back and tell us our way is the best way.

I totally agree. But that isn't the issue. Legal marriage affords/coerces financial benefits and other privileges. Homo marriages have no need of those benefits because they can't procreate together.

What benefits? Lower taxes? Why do you need a reason for lower taxes, aren't you a conservative? How about just cutting everybody's taxes married or not?

How about letting states take care of themselves with out facists like you telling them how?

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Lower taxes = fascism? Are you a Democrat now?

Lower taxes for some means the difference is compensated for by others. Giving homos tax breaks for no good reason causes increases for others to compensate the homo tax break. That is a subsidy. In the name of booger-eating. That is no way libertarian.

Listen guy, libertarians simply don't share your morbid fear of homosexuals. You don't have the slightest clue what it means to be a libertarian.

 

[thanatos144]

I totally agree. But that isn't the issue. Legal marriage affords/coerces financial benefits and other privileges. Homo marriages have no need of those benefits because they can't procreate together.

What benefits? Lower taxes? Why do you need a reason for lower taxes, aren't you a conservative? How about just cutting everybody's taxes married or not?

How about letting states take care of themselves with out facists like you telling them how?

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Lower taxes = fascism? Are you a Democrat now?

Lower taxes for some means the difference is compensated for by others. Giving homos tax breaks for no good reason causes increases for others to compensate the homo tax break. That is a subsidy. In the name of booger-eating. That is no way libertarian.

Listen guy, libertarians simply don't share your morbid fear of homosexuals. You don't have the slightest clue what it means to be a libertarian.

Listen facist it is a state issue and should have been decided per state not by five people in a robe.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

I totally agree. But that isn't the issue. Legal marriage affords/coerces financial benefits and other privileges. Homo marriages have no need of those benefits because they can't procreate together.

What benefits? Lower taxes? Why do you need a reason for lower taxes, aren't you a conservative? How about just cutting everybody's taxes married or not?

How about letting states take care of themselves with out facists like you telling them how?

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Lower taxes = fascism? Are you a Democrat now?

Lower taxes for some means the difference is compensated for by others. Giving homos tax breaks for no good reason causes increases for others to compensate the homo tax break. That is a subsidy. In the name of booger-eating. That is no way libertarian.

Listen guy, libertarians simply don't share your morbid fear of homosexuals. You don't have the slightest clue what it means to be a libertarian.

You have that entirely backwards which explains why you couldn't rebut.

 

[thanatos144]

7 Reasons The Libertarian Ticket Isn't Libertarian At All


Here is a article proving Johnson and his running mate are not even libertarians let alone worth voting for

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

 

[dblack]

7 Reasons The Libertarian Ticket Isn't Libertarian At All

Here is a article proving Johnson and his running mate are not even libertarians let alone worth voting for

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Since all you've ever done was whine about Libertarians, I expect this would be right up your alley!

 

[thanatos144]

7 Reasons The Libertarian Ticket Isn't Libertarian At All

Here is a article proving Johnson and his running mate are not even libertarians let alone worth voting for

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Since all you've ever done was whine about Libertarians, I expect this would be right up your alley!

It is true I am not a libertarian because I am a adult and understand actions have consequences. Yet that is not the point because I would have easily voted for a real libertarian over hillary and Donald in a heartbeat. Gary is just like them . So no I won't vote for another fraud

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

 

[dblack]

7 Reasons The Libertarian Ticket Isn't Libertarian At All

Here is a article proving Johnson and his running mate are not even libertarians let alone worth voting for

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Since all you've ever done was whine about Libertarians, I expect this would be right up your alley!

It is true I am not a libertarian because I am a adult and understand actions have consequences. Yet that is not the point because I would have easily voted for a real libertarian over hillary and Donald in a heartbeat. Gary is just like them . So no I won't vote for another fraud

Huh.. well, I don't believe you. And I'm sure as hell not going take advice on who is a 'real' libertarian from your sorry ass.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

And you totally miss basic logic. If the libertarian says that gay marriage is fine so long as nobody's property is violated then the logical conclusion ought to be that the libertarian believes gay marriage should be legal.

You're doing a Charlie the Tuna 'good taste' thing. It's not about homo marriage being illegal. It's about the law granting coercion and privilege in the name of a legally decreed marriage rooted in an irrelevant personal behavior choice. Hence, legal homo marriage vs homo marriage as a perception.

Well if that's your argument, then marriage itself, gay or not, is simply a perception. There's no such natural phenomenon as marriage, it's simply an arrangement between people that has historically had religious sanction. Then the state steps in and creates a list of who can or cannot call themselves this completely made up thing.

No, the state steps in to provide support in order to make child rearing easier. Homos can't make babies with each other. Those state-imposed benefits are therefore moot for homo couples.

Yes, getting the state's permission to get married somehow makes child rearing easier.

It's not about permission. It's about subsidies.

Right, so cutting taxes is now considered a subsidy by conservatives. You sure you're not a Democrat?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Irrelevant. Try again.

Irrelevant?? It's the essence!

Maybe in your marriage. The rest of us can define the essences of our relationships for ourselves. We don't need the government to pat us on the back and tell us our way is the best way.

I totally agree. But that isn't the issue. Legal marriage affords/coerces financial benefits and other privileges. Homo marriages have no need of those benefits because they can't procreate together.

What benefits? Lower taxes? Why do you need a reason for lower taxes, aren't you a conservative? How about just cutting everybody's taxes married or not?

Go ahead. But why give extra breaks to homos since they can't make babies?

Your obsession with other people's potential procreation is a little weird to say the least.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Maybe in your marriage. The rest of us can define the essences of our relationships for ourselves. We don't need the government to pat us on the back and tell us our way is the best way.

I totally agree. But that isn't the issue. Legal marriage affords/coerces financial benefits and other privileges. Homo marriages have no need of those benefits because they can't procreate together.

What benefits? Lower taxes? Why do you need a reason for lower taxes, aren't you a conservative? How about just cutting everybody's taxes married or not?

How about letting states take care of themselves with out facists like you telling them how?

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Lower taxes = fascism? Are you a Democrat now?

Lower taxes for some means the difference is compensated for by others. Giving homos tax breaks for no good reason causes increases for others to compensate the homo tax break. That is a subsidy. In the name of booger-eating. That is no way libertarian.

And the conservative becomes a socialist making the argument for 100% taxation.

 

[Elusivebutterfly]

most recent nbc online poll. they actually apologized for forgetting johnson n jill stein (120,000 likely voters)

Donald Trump 71861 59%

Hillary Clinton
15178
13%

Jill Stein
21861
18%

Gary Jonhson
11985
10%
......................

abcs online poll

hillary comes in 3rd

The SHOCKING Results of ABC’s Online Presidential Poll

 

[thanatos144]

7 Reasons The Libertarian Ticket Isn't Libertarian At All

Here is a article proving Johnson and his running mate are not even libertarians let alone worth voting for

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Since all you've ever done was whine about Libertarians, I expect this would be right up your alley!

It is true I am not a libertarian because I am a adult and understand actions have consequences. Yet that is not the point because I would have easily voted for a real libertarian over hillary and Donald in a heartbeat. Gary is just like them . So no I won't vote for another fraud

Huh.. well, I don't believe you. And I'm sure as hell not going take advice on who is a 'real' libertarian from your sorry ass.

So gun control and tax money for abortions is libertarian? You might want to look that up .

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

 

[dblack]

7 Reasons The Libertarian Ticket Isn't Libertarian At All

Here is a article proving Johnson and his running mate are not even libertarians let alone worth voting for

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Since all you've ever done was whine about Libertarians, I expect this would be right up your alley!

It is true I am not a libertarian because I am a adult and understand actions have consequences. Yet that is not the point because I would have easily voted for a real libertarian over hillary and Donald in a heartbeat. Gary is just like them . So no I won't vote for another fraud

Huh.. well, I don't believe you. And I'm sure as hell not going take advice on who is a 'real' libertarian from your sorry ass.

So gun control and tax money for abortions is libertarian? You might want to look that up.

Heh... what are you rambling about now? BTW, who are you voting for?

 

[thanatos144]

7 Reasons The Libertarian Ticket Isn't Libertarian At All

Here is a article proving Johnson and his running mate are not even libertarians let alone worth voting for

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Since all you've ever done was whine about Libertarians, I expect this would be right up your alley!

It is true I am not a libertarian because I am a adult and understand actions have consequences. Yet that is not the point because I would have easily voted for a real libertarian over hillary and Donald in a heartbeat. Gary is just like them . So no I won't vote for another fraud

Huh.. well, I don't believe you. And I'm sure as hell not going take advice on who is a 'real' libertarian from your sorry ass.

So gun control and tax money for abortions is libertarian? You might want to look that up.

Heh... what are you rambling about now? BTW, who are you voting for?

So you don't know your candidates platform ...

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

You're doing a Charlie the Tuna 'good taste' thing. It's not about homo marriage being illegal. It's about the law granting coercion and privilege in the name of a legally decreed marriage rooted in an irrelevant personal behavior choice. Hence, legal homo marriage vs homo marriage as a perception.

Well if that's your argument, then marriage itself, gay or not, is simply a perception. There's no such natural phenomenon as marriage, it's simply an arrangement between people that has historically had religious sanction. Then the state steps in and creates a list of who can or cannot call themselves this completely made up thing.

No, the state steps in to provide support in order to make child rearing easier. Homos can't make babies with each other. Those state-imposed benefits are therefore moot for homo couples.

Yes, getting the state's permission to get married somehow makes child rearing easier.

It's not about permission. It's about subsidies.

Right, so cutting taxes is now considered a subsidy by conservatives. You sure you're not a Democrat?

Specifically aimed tax breaks are subsidies.
Why should booger-eaters be subsidized? Nothing libertarian about that.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Irrelevant?? It's the essence!

Maybe in your marriage. The rest of us can define the essences of our relationships for ourselves. We don't need the government to pat us on the back and tell us our way is the best way.

I totally agree. But that isn't the issue. Legal marriage affords/coerces financial benefits and other privileges. Homo marriages have no need of those benefits because they can't procreate together.

What benefits? Lower taxes? Why do you need a reason for lower taxes, aren't you a conservative? How about just cutting everybody's taxes married or not?

Go ahead. But why give extra breaks to homos since they can't make babies?

Your obsession with other people's potential procreation is a little weird to say the least.

You think survival of the species is an obsession?