Is this the year of the Libertarian Party?

[toobfreak]

I've listened to Stossel and heard him make real good points, then he will turn right around and say something really stupid. The problem with Libertarians is that anything goes, they have no up or down, no right or wrong, just whatever you want to do. Be and Let Be. Intellectual Hippies. Their absence of principles is their principle.

That's not true. The principle is to maximize liberty. The unwarranted or unjustified taking of one's liberty is the ultimate wrong. How could that be consistent with "anything goes"?

Thank you for making my point. The unwarranted or unjustified taking of another one's liberty is the ultimate relative. One may have liberty to do most anything! If I want to torture little puppies and you stop me, then you are taking away my liberty, who is to say it was warranted or justified? You? A judge? Some nun? PETA? Then it all comes right back to one group's values being imposed on another. So to the ultimate, true Libertarian, anything goes, and the absence of principles IS their principle. So long as what you do doesn't bother, concern or affect a Libertarian, they say: GO FOR IT. By the Libertarian stance, we should just pack up and leave the sea of Japan, go home and not care what KJU does with North Korea (or South Korea for that matter). Libertarianism is the ultimate middleman of total non-committal.

 

[g5000]

It's not the federal government fucking up health care, it's insurance companies who each face 50 different state-based regulations. So you point to health care, but doing so helps make my case for me:

Wrong again.

Auto insurance faces 50 different state-based regulations. And yet auto insurance rates have been decreasing while health insurance has been increasing astronomically.

So it isn't insurance companies which are the problem.

The problem is staring you in the face.

It's the federal government.

The federal government is the biggest player in the health insurance market, and it gets to write the rules for its private sector competitors.

HOW'S THAT BEEN WORKING FOR YOU?

 

[The Derp]

Yeah. Let's give Donald Trump and the GOP total control over your lives.
I am sure the Emperor thinks that is a terrific idea.

Well, here's the thing; we have these things called elections where we can vote people like the GOP and Trump out of power. That's the beauty of our democracy; nothing is permanent. If you don't like the way Donald Trump or the GOP are running things, then get off your fat ass and vote them out.

We only get about 55% turnout in this country. The higher the turnout, the more accountable elected officials are to you.

I don't see what your endgame is. You lament special interests crafting legislation, yet you oppose public campaign finance. So you're really just exercising cognitive dissonance, and arguing for the sake of arguing to make yourself feel better. Get over yourself.

 

[g5000]

I can call any auto insurance company in the country to buy my auto insurance. This gives me maximum leverage, because they know I can hang up and call any of a constellation of competitors.

And that keeps insurance rates low.

Also, I am not held hostage by my employer and forced into a take-it-or-leave-it situation with my auto insurance.

If I transfer to a different company, I don't automatically lose my auto insurance.

I can also bundle my auto insurance with my life and home insurance to get discounts.

I also get long term customer discounts.

I am not able to not one bit of that with my health insurance.

And why is that, Derp?

BECAUSE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WON'T LET ME!!!

 

[The Derp]

"Big Pharma".

"Big Oil."

"Wall Street".

"The One Percent."

That is who owns our central government. Just ask any liberal.

And that is who The Derp thinks should be running our lives for us.


It's amazing to me their heads don't explode from cognitive dissonance.

AND WHY DO THEY OWN OUR CENTRAL GOVERNMENT? BECAUSE THEY PAID FOR IT WITH THEIR LOBBYING AND CAMPAIGN DONATIONS.

YOU OPPOSE PUBLIC CAMPAIGN FINANCE WHICH WOULD ELIMINATE LOBBYING AND CAMPAIGN DONATIONS.

SO YOU'RE JUST MENTALLY MASTURBATING ON THIS THREAD.

 

[The Derp]

Here is an example. In Arizona, it is illegal to drive a car into a river. Do you know why? In Louisiana, it is NOT illegal. In fact, that would be seriously life-prohibitive.

How is driving a car into a river a states-rights issue? It's not. You're just thinking up laws that contradict from state-to-state. W

Let's let the federal government decide and give us ALL a blanket rule, shall we?

Not sure your example serves your argument. Try again. What is a state issue that is specific to only one state? Is there anything? Doesn't seem like it since you can't seem to articulate anything.

 

[g5000]

"Big Pharma".

"Big Oil."

"Wall Street".

"The One Percent."

That is who owns our central government. Just ask any liberal.

And that is who The Derp thinks should be running our lives for us.


It's amazing to me their heads don't explode from cognitive dissonance.

AND WHY DO THEY OWN OUR CENTRAL GOVERNMENT?

Because you made it so easy to capture. You centralized power in one place.

It astonishes me that you tards keep centralizing power, and then you whine and whine when it gets captured! Then you demand MOAR centralized power!

Jesus H. Christ, man! WAKE UP!

 

[g5000]

YOU OPPOSE PUBLIC CAMPAIGN FINANCE WHICH WOULD ELIMINATE LOBBYING AND CAMPAIGN DONATIONS.

See?

You treat the symptoms instead of the disease. Just as I said at the top.

You dumbasses have had HALF A CENTURY of campaign finance reform and court decisions, and have not made one DENT in the fucking problem.

Because you are TREATING THE SYMPTOMS AND NOT THE DISEASE.

You have, in fact, EXACERBATED the problem.

There is more money in politics now than ever before. Because there is more centralized power than ever before.

WAKE UP!

 

[The Derp]

Guns. Abortion. Health care. Speed limits. Recreational drugs. Voting. Roads. Anything not enumerated as federal powers.Next!

How are those states-rights issues? They're not. Guns operate across state borders don't they? You can buy a gun in OK and it'll still shoot if you take that gun across the border to AR, right?

Abortion? How is that a states-rights issue? Do people get a different kind of pregnant in ND than they do in SC?

Health care? How is that a states-rights issue? Do people get a different kind of colon cancer in NV than they do in RI?

Speed limits? How's that a states-rights issue? Do people's cars operate differently in CT than they do in MS?

Recreational drugs? How is that a states-rights issue? Do people get a different kind of high if they smoke pot in DC than they do if they smoke pot in KS?

Voting is a states-rights issue, how? Didn't the Voting Rights act cement federal authority over election integrity? Wasn't that it's purpose?

Roads? INTERSTATE HIGHWAY SYSTEM. NEXT!

"Anything not enumerated as federal powers." - all the shit you mentioned would fall under the general welfare clause. And it would be up to you in a court of law to prove that federal authority harms you...and you won't be able to do that.

 

[g5000]

No matter what campaign finance law the tards have written, the special interests have found a way to keep buying our government at will.

And the tards keep centralizing more and more power, giving the federal government more control over our lives, and are just baffled why more and more money is used to capture control over their lives.

 

[g5000]

Guns. Abortion. Health care. Speed limits. Recreational drugs. Voting. Roads. Anything not enumerated as federal powers.Next!

How are those states-rights issues? They're not.

Wrong. They are. How are they not?

The federal government has no business in those issues.

Why do you want Big Pharma and Big Oil and the One Percent to own and control you?

 

[The Derp]

Deciding whether prostitution is legal? That's local.

Why? Why is it a local issue? What would be the purpose of making it a local issue? DISCRIMINATION. That's the only reason anyone would want to make something a local issue; because they want to dilute authority in order to abridge the rights of someone else, whom that authority protects.

That was the whole reason the South seceded and used "states rights" as the argument to do so.

Deciding whether or not voting stations are open for 7 days or 14? That's local.e how easy this is?

Why is that local? What would be the purpose of making it a local issue? DISCRIMINATION. You want to dilute the authority that protects the vote in order to rig the election in your favor by discriminating against voters by limiting access.

"States' Rights" always comes back to discrimination.

 

[The Derp]

What the fuck does government have to do with breast cancer?

Exactly. What the fuck does a state border have to do with breast cancer? Nothing. That's my point.

 

[The Derp]

Do you want to allocate tax dollars to help women with breast cancer? That's local.See how easy this is?

Why is that local? Do women not get breast cancer outside your locality?

 

[g5000]

If I smoke marijuana in Michigan, that has no fucking effect on someone in Florida.

Recreational drugs are a local issue.

If I want to own an AR-15 in Iowa, that has no fucking effect on someone in Virginia.

Gun control is a local issue.

If I want to drive 250 mph in Kansas, that has no fucking effect on someone in Massachusetts.

Speed limits are a local issue.

See how easy this is?

 

[The Derp]

Liberals think it should be decided thousands of miles away whether or not to spend your tax dollars to give free puppies to hookers."Do you have a different kind of hooker in Alaska than you do in Florida?"

The only reason you would want to exert local control is to discriminate. When it comes down to it, you cannot articulate a single issue that is specific to one state. Because you rightly recognize that our inter-connected economy transcends state borders, just like a virus does, just like cancer does, just like guns do, just like pot does.

There doesn't seem to be a single legitimate states-only issue out there. Simply because we live in a centralized economy.

 

[g5000]

Do you want to allocate tax dollars to help women with breast cancer? That's local.See how easy this is?

Why is that local? Do women not get breast cancer outside your locality?

If a woman in Arizona gets cancer and is treated in a hospital, that has no effect on someone in New Hampshire.

Why are you stuck in this logical fallacy? It's weird.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

So if you're a customer in, say, New Hampshire...then a typical Amazon order for you involves four different states. That kind of interstate commerce isn't something the founders had ever thought of in the 18th century. Back then, states competed against one another for commerce...today, they don't. Today, interstate commerce is the standard, and intrastate commerce is the rarity. That wasn't the case in the 18th century...so our society has changed. We need to change our thinking to keep up with the technological advances.

The founders SPECIFICALLY formed the union to deal with interstate commerce.


Here is a list of the oldest corporations in America. Many were engaged in interstate commerce in 1789.
List of oldest companies in the United States - Wikipedia

 

[g5000]

Liberals think it should be decided thousands of miles away whether or not to spend your tax dollars to give free puppies to hookers."Do you have a different kind of hooker in Alaska than you do in Florida?"

The only reason you would want to exert local control is to discriminate.

Nope. Bullshit straw man fallacy.

You want someone thousands of miles away to exert control over me. YOU are a control freak.

 

[The Derp]

Appeal to emotion. Bring out the cancer lady to justify a federal takeover of health care. Then waste hundreds of billions on free puppies for hookers, using the cancer lady as a human shield.

Yeah, because people don't get cancer and it's not one of the leading causes of death. And your hyperbolic, highly emotional and reactionary comment about giving puppies for hookers is an example of sophistry usually reserved for the right-wing Conservative blowhards.