Is this the year of the Libertarian Party?

[g5000]

Here is how it works.

Kansas enacts a law that says anyone over the age of 16 may acquire a driver's license and they may drive 250 mph on icy roads during thunderstorms.

No problem. This has fuck-all to do with the federal government. This has fuck-all to do with anyone in Maine.

If someone from Maine visits the crazy state of Kansas, they are free to drive 250 mph.

Who knows. 250 mph roads may become a tourist attraction. Whatever.

But then suppose Kansas enacts a law which says everyone over the age of 16, except Negroes, can drive 250 mph?

Then we have a federal issue. This is in direct violation of the "equal protection of the laws" clause in the 14th amendment.

See how easy this is?

 

[g5000]

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.

No, the free puppies for hookers are a rhetorical instrument representing the massive waste which occurs when power is centralized and captured.

All hidden behind your cancer lady human shield.

It is sickening.

 

[The Derp]

It is universally understood the CFMA was a huge contributor to the crash. The CFMA was what prevented the regulation of derivatives, fool.

OK, but that's not what prompted Bush's regulators to cease enforcement of lending standards in 2004, which was *specifically* the cause of the turmoil in the financial markets. You might as well blame trees for forest fires while you're at it.

The crash was exponentially amplified by derivatives. If it was just too many subprime loans, the crash would not have been nearly as bad.

OK, so the CFMA was passed, why? Because the banks lobbyied for it and contributed millions to the campaigns of politicians who voted for it. So public campaign financing wouldn't have prevented that, why? If politicians no longer accepted donations from banks, no longer could be lobbied by special interests, why would they then pass legislation favorable to banks and/or special interests? Take me through where their influence would be in a publicly-financed campaign system.

In fact, it was derivatives which allowed so many subprime loans to be made in the first place!

No, deregulating derivatives isn't what caused subprime loans to suddenly start being issued at nearly twice the rate. Allowing the industry to self-police and directing regulators to cease the enforcement of lending standards is how that happened.

 

[NightFox]

No, you're "telling me" because I pointed out that you were blathering on regarding subject matter you clearly know nothing about and now you're attempting to change the subject in the hopes that it will distract from that fact.

You clearly know nothing about libertarians or libertarianism so either spend the time and effort to educate yourself or continue to provide further evidence of your ignorance and lots of laughs for those that have.

You're trying to tell us that Libertarians are anti-abortion and pro-abortion all at the same time.

Yeah because unlike you partisan drones, libertarians don't operate using a centrally controlled hive mind, they can actually think for themselves and form their own opinions instead of having some party boss wanker do it for them.

You can't be for and against abortion rights at the same time.

Yes individuals that share the same core principles and self identify as libertarians can and do have opposing opinions on the question of abortion.

I realize differences of opinion are impossible in the Borg collective you inhabit but that doesn't mean it isn't a reality outside of it.

I'm just telling you that a Libertarian Party candidate who is not anti-abortion will not get more than the tiniest fraction of the anti-abortion vote,

which means, as I pointed out in my orginal post, that the Libertarian Party has little if any opportunity to make inroads into the core constituency (aka the majority) of Republican Party members, or, into the ranks of pro-life Independents.

What makes you think I care what the LP can or cannot do? as I've already said, I'm not interested in political power, just because you and your flock of sheeple are into authoritarianism and partisan cheerleading doesn't mean everybody is.

"People say being left alone is not a governing principle, to which I say, yeah we know, that's what we like about it" -- Thomas E. Woods Jr.

 

[g5000]

The control freak derps in Washington DC don't think Kansas should be allowed to decide for themselves how fast they can drive.

If you ever wonder why conservatives talk about "nanny state liberals", that's why.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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.

I gave you an example of an issue specific to one state. You ignored it. I can give you many more, if you want.

The only reason you want federal control over local control is tyranny. You are a commie statist, in love with government power and the goodies you can plunder from other people at the point of the government gun. You want to rob productive people of their earnings so you can sit around and be a lazy fuck, or do "art" that nobody wants to buy because it is shit. You want others to pay for your failure. You want to FORCE others to treat you as though you have equal worth, when you don't. You are demanding a Superbowl MVP contract with a scout team resume. THAT is why you want central control. Admit it!!!

 

[The Derp]

Because we gave the federal government that kind of power.

The federal government always had that power. Why was it specifically deregulated by the CFMA, specifically in 2000? Because banks lobbied for it. So public campaign finance would not have prevented that, how?

Take me through where the special interest influence is if candidates were no longer permitted to solicit donations and special interests were no longer permitted to lobby?

 

[The Derp]

On behalf of "Wall Street".

Which means what? That they received donations and lobbying from Wall Street. So if you have publicly-funded campaigns, and Wall Street could no longer donate or lobby, how likely is it that politicians would legislate on their behalf?

 

[g5000]

It is universally understood the CFMA was a huge contributor to the crash. The CFMA was what prevented the regulation of derivatives, fool.

OK, but that's not what prompted Bush's regulators to cease enforcement of lending standards in 2004, which was *specifically* the cause of the turmoil in the financial markets. You might as well blame trees for forest fires while you're at it.

Irony.

The SEC's unanimous ruling regarding Tier 1 capital for the top five broker dealers was certainly a contributing factor. I have talked about that countless times on this forum, and linked to the decision many times.

That's one of the trees in the CFMA forest.

To say that that alone was a cause is as dumb as saying the CRA was the cause, or the GSEs were the cause, or the Democrats were the cause.

There were a HOST of causes.

The CFMA is what kicked off the entire craze. It was the prime mover which opened the door to what followed.

The crash was exponentially amplified by derivatives. If it was just too many subprime loans, the crash would not have been nearly as bad.

OK, so the CFMA was passed, why? Because the banks lobbyied for it and contributed millions to the campaigns of politicians who voted for it.

And if we had not allowed those politicians that kind of central power, then the financial institutions would have been stopped dead in their tracks. And no crash.

See how easy this is?

(Edited to change "anonymous" to "unanimous")

 

[g5000]

On behalf of "Wall Street".

Which means what? That they received donations and lobbying from Wall Street. So if you have publicly-funded campaigns, and Wall Street could no longer donate or lobby, how likely is it that politicians would legislate on their behalf?

If our politicians did not have that power, why would the banks donate to them so they could buy that power?

They wouldn't.

Got it now?

You want to treat the symptoms instead of the disease!

 

[g5000]

Derp, let's say I own a gun and decide to give it to someone else.

Then a third party pays that person to shoot you.

Is the root of the problem the money or that I gave my gun to someone who could be bought?

Once I give up control over my power, anything can and will happen.

I am a better caretaker of my power than someone three thousand miles away who can be bought is.

Got it now?

Trump and Mitch McConnell want to control your gun!

 

[rightwinger]

No nation on earth has embraced Libertarianism

There is a reason......Libertarian "I got mine, fuck everyone else" is not a form of government

 

[The Derp]

If we did not seize state power and give it to the federal government, then no money would have been spent capturing that power.

You're avoiding!!!! You're totally avoiding!!!!

You screech about special interest influence over government, but then oppose the only means by which that special interest influence can be mitigated.

Sorry, pal, we need a strong central authority because our economy is centralized. You have to be realistic.

That's my whole point, dumbass. When you centralize power, you make it easier to capture!

First of all, calling me names is only going to result in you getting it back ten times worse than you give it. So do yourself a favor and calm the fuck down.

Secondly, it's unrealistic to demand a decentralized government when we live in a highly centralized and globalized economy. We're never going back to horse-and-buggy days, and you need to grow up and realize that.

Finally, your cognitive dissonance is showing strongly here. Because you've set an unrealistic standard, you're ignoring what's realistically possible. It's not going to be possible to devolve the US into 50 different states that all operate differently for every single issue that affects all Americans. What is possible is to remove the ability for special interests to influence lawmakers by banning campaign donations and lobbying. If you prevent a special interest from being able to lobby a politician, then why would the politician act in the best interests of that special interest?

The politician no longer takes money from Wall Street, the politician no longer is lobbied by Wall Street, so the politician will...pass laws on behalf of Wall Street, why? There's no quid-pro-quo there anymore in a publicly-funded campaign system. The only quid pro quo are the voters' actual votes.

Take away the power, you take away the incentive to buy it. Problem solved!

Well that's just silly and unrealistic when we have multinational corporations that operate within the United States. So you have a very juvenile view of the world, one that is informed by lack of experience.

 

[The Derp]

You seem really stuck on this logical fallacy.

As opposed to your logical fallacy, which is you being completely unable to articulate any single issue as specific to just one state.

 

[g5000]

If we did not seize state power and give it to the federal government, then no money would have been spent capturing that power.

You're avoiding!!!! You're totally avoiding!!!!

You screech about special interest influence over government, but then oppose the only means by which that special interest influence can be mitigated.

I am not avoiding at all.

And your bullshit about "the only means" is just that. Bullshit. I have been telling you and telling you and telling you the BEST means to mitigate special interest influence, and YOU are avoiding any attempt to hear me.

 

[g5000]

You seem really stuck on this logical fallacy.

As opposed to your logical fallacy, which is you being completely unable to articulate any single issue as specific to just one state.

I have articulated SEVERAL, willfully blind monkey.

It can't be helped you clamped your hands over your eyes.

 

[g5000]

No nation on earth has embraced Libertarianism

There is a reason......Libertarian "I got mine, fuck everyone else" is not a form of government

Bogus meme. Try again.

The Libertarian ideal is that you are a better caretaker of yourself and your neighbors than the government is.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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.

Your whole discrimination argument is loaded with fallacy.

If a local government has constituents made up of a particular race/ethnic/religious background, wouldn't allowing them to have local control prevent their discrimination, rather than having their influence diluted over 50 states and millions of other people with completely different backgrounds and needs?

If Deerborne, Michigan is all Muslim, does it make sense to require a proportional number of Christian churches in the city limits based on a nation-wide percentage?

If a town in Mississippi is 85% black, do nation-wide minority discrimination laws appropriately apply to them? Who is the real racial minority in that situation?

 

[g5000]

It's not going to be possible to devolve the US into 50 different states that all operate differently for every single issue that affects all Americans.

You have not demonstrated that someone smoking pot in Minnesota affects someone in Florida.

You have instead clamped your hands over your eyes, and been struck dumb.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

No nation on earth has embraced Libertarianism

There is a reason

First off, THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA was founded as a libertarian government.


You know why no OTHER nation has ever embraced libertarianism? Because people who want power over the masses will fight libertarianism to the death, with the help of masses of needy, dependent, useful idiots, like yourself.