What is a small government libertarian?

[Contumacious]

BZZ, Wrong. The US was MANY things, but NEVER libertarian, we used the opposite of that

I fully understand that as a dad to three you need our help feeding them, clothing them , educating them, insuring them and quenching their thirst.

Those stupid Libertarians want you to do all those by your lonesome. The Libertarians are so irresponsible.

.

More noise from a nutter. Shocking

My kids are grown

I forgot.

Work ethic bad.

parasitism good.

Work ethic bad

parasitism good

I got it.



NOT.

.

 

[eagle1462010]

I have to give Dad credit for one thing.............

He's stopped cutting and pasting for the moment. Well done.

 

[boedicca]

So you CAN'T give me ANY E/O's SCOTUS overturned. Got it

I updated my post. I was referring to the SCOTUS rulings against actions taken by the Obama Administration. Not all power grabs are via written EO, bub.

Got it, your original premise, like that Canadian guys 'report' was bullshit!

You really are a sad little booby. The SCOTUS has ruled against Obama's power grabs quite a few times. He has also threatened to undo their rulings via Executive Order. We'll see how they respond to that.

 

[boedicca]

I have to give Dad credit for one thing.............

He's stopped cutting and pasting for the moment. Well done.

He has to take a vodka break, you know.

 

[Dad2three]

" Libertarians expect the people to respect the right of the individual "

And allow the bigger, stronger to walk all over the weaker!

That's it in a nutshell. No workers rights, no safety net, no regulations and certainly no doing anything together as a nation. Kind of dumb.

Two posters who don't have a clue on why the Founders created a Republic. The checks and balances main purpose was to ensure a small Majority could enforce it's views on the minority, which could be a minority of 49%...................

One extra vote in a Pure Democracy can lead to Tyranny. Which is why we are a Republic.

You two are trying to push a cart instead of pulling it.

A Republic based on democratic representation!

 

[kaz]

Oh you mean the STRONG FEDERAL GOV'T THING?

They supported a limited Federal government, you have no idea what you are talking about, you never do.

Why don't you Google the definition of the word, "Federal" ...

Nope, they supported, and EVERY US Prez other than TJ (who doubled the size of US on his own) expanded the federal Gov't, lol

Remember Washington putting down those anti taxers during the whiskey rebellion? lol

what does the word "federal" mean?

what do the 9th and 10th amendments mean?

 

[eagle1462010]

I don't support wefare for all, but I don't support corporations shitting on the worker either

Yes, you do, you support a system where the corporations and the rich buy government and do exactly that.

Here in the real world the government does in fact pay tax payer dollars to the private sector to get certain things done. Would you rather it wasn't done???? You see, our government contracts out to the private sector to construct that bridge or that rocket to get to space.

Apples to oranges. In her original posts she said that was part of her beliefs.......And again answering the funding of NASA. Did you just skip by that stuff or ignore it..........

 

[ScienceRocks]

Note that kaz doesn't believe there should be public schools. That in and of itself dismisses libertarianism as idiocy,

if kaz thinks she speaks for what libertarianism is.

That is just for starters. People like him want to do away with
-The clean air act
-Nasa
-Nws/noaa
-Regulations stopping monopolies
-Regulations creating a clean work environment.
-Regulations on all businesses
-Taxing the rich at all
-Epa, cdc, fda and down the list
-Infrastructure funding

This guy is all about fuck you and you better be able to do it all yourselve or die.

From where do you dredge this shit?
None of this is true.
You are now marginalized as a kook.

Idiot, your movement says you don't want GOVERNMENT in anything outside of defense. So I assume that this is what you're saying.

 

[kaz]

We are based on the Constitution. Where in the Constitution does it mention small government?

EVERYWHERE!

You are a clown.

Hey big guy, a two question test.

1) What do the 9th and 10th amendments mean?

2) What does the word "Federal" mean?

9th and 10th? Oh those things the small Gubmnt wingnutters used to TRY to limit SS, Medicare, EPA, HUD, etc. How'd that work out?

Stop deflecting, what do they mean?

 

[rightwinger]

Why would anyone listen to the ten percent nutjob libertarians demanding small government when we can have a right sized government?

 

[dblack]

That's it in a nutshell. No workers rights, no safety net, no regulations and certainly no doing anything together as a nation. Kind of dumb.

Two posters who don't have a clue on why the Founders created a Republic. The checks and balances main purpose was to ensure a small Majority could enforce it's views on the minority, which could be a minority of 49%...................

One extra vote in a Pure Democracy can lead to Tyranny. Which is why we are a Republic.

You two are trying to push a cart instead of pulling it.

A Republic based on democratic representation!

So?

 

[kaz]

Reagan issued 381 executive orders
George W Bush 291
Richard Nixion 346
Herbert Hoover 968
George washington 8

So republicans. You say that these are bad? why didn't you not bring it up 50 years ago????

No one said he cannot issue executive orders, the point is what he's putting in them. Is there any point you can process?

 

[Dad2three]

I updated my post. I was referring to the SCOTUS rulings against actions taken by the Obama Administration. Not all power grabs are via written EO, bub.

Got it, your original premise, like that Canadian guys 'report' was bullshit!

You really are a sad little booby. The SCOTUS has ruled against Obama's power grabs quite a few times. He has also threatened to undo their rulings via Executive Order. We'll see how they respond to that.

You mean conservative SCOTUS has ruled against the US Prez admin policies? Shocking. Better let EVERY US Prez know that... Oh wait, that's happened since SCOTUS ruled against Madison

 

[kaz]

They supported a limited Federal government, you have no idea what you are talking about, you never do.

Why don't you Google the definition of the word, "Federal" ...

Nope, they supported, and EVERY US Prez other than TJ (who doubled the size of US on his own) expanded the federal Gov't, lol

Remember Washington putting down those anti taxers during the whiskey rebellion? lol

The constitution was needed for the very reason that we needed a strong federal government. Before the current constitutions the federal government couldn't even collect taxes to defend this country.

It is true that the articles of confederation were useless. The government could not stop the Brits from endlessly stopping US ships and conscripting our seamen into their Navy. So they created a limited Federal government, which means power is divided between the central government and the States.

What they did: Go from a practically powerless central government to a limited one.

What you heard: Go from a practically powerless central government to a Marxist one.

Once again the all or nothing liberal mind.

 

[Dad2three]

Reagan issued 381 executive orders
George W Bush 291
Richard Nixion 346
Herbert Hoover 968
George washington 8

So republicans. You say that these are bad? why didn't you not bring it up 50 years ago????

No one said he cannot issue executive orders, the point is what he's putting in them. Is there any point you can process?

YOU'D THINK WITH ALL THIS UNCONSTITUTIONAL STUFF, SCOTUS WOULD'VE ALREADY STOPPED HIM? lol

April 30, 2006

Bush challenges hundreds of laws

President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution.


http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/30/world/americas/30iht-web.0430bush.html?pagewanted=all

 

[Dad2three]

Nope, they supported, and EVERY US Prez other than TJ (who doubled the size of US on his own) expanded the federal Gov't, lol

Remember Washington putting down those anti taxers during the whiskey rebellion? lol

The constitution was needed for the very reason that we needed a strong federal government. Before the current constitutions the federal government couldn't even collect taxes to defend this country.

It is true that the articles of confederation were useless. The government could not stop the Brits from endlessly stopping US ships and conscripting our seamen into their Navy. So they created a limited Federal government, which means power is divided between the central government and the States.

What they did: Go from a practically powerless central government to a limited one.

What you heard: Go from a practically powerless central government to a Marxist one.

Once again the all or nothing liberal mind.

lol, You mean they couldn't get taxes so they went STRONG FEDERAL GOV'T? Everything else you posit is just right wing crap

 

[ScienceRocks]

Two posters who don't have a clue on why the Founders created a Republic. The checks and balances main purpose was to ensure a small Majority could enforce it's views on the minority, which could be a minority of 49%...................

One extra vote in a Pure Democracy can lead to Tyranny. Which is why we are a Republic.

You two are trying to push a cart instead of pulling it.

A Republic based on democratic representation!

So?

I am a voter just as much as you!

 

[boedicca]

Reagan issued 381 executive orders
George W Bush 291
Richard Nixion 346
Herbert Hoover 968
George washington 8

So republicans. You say that these are bad? why didn't you not bring it up 50 years ago????

No one said he cannot issue executive orders, the point is what he's putting in them. Is there any point you can process?

YOU'D THINK WITH ALL THIS UNCONSTITUTIONAL STUFF, SCOTUS WOULD'VE ALREADY STOPPED HIM? lol

April 30, 2006

Bush challenges hundreds of laws

President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution.


http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/30/world/americas/30iht-web.0430bush.html?pagewanted=all

Bush didn't go off the deep end by threatening and insulting the SCOTUS, you moron.

Nor did he claim he would go against SCOTUS ruling by issuing executive orders.

 

[kaz]

I don't support wefare for all, but I don't support corporations shitting on the worker either

Yes, you do, you support a system where the corporations and the rich buy government and do exactly that.

Here in the real world the government does in fact pay tax payer dollars to the private sector to get certain things done. Would you rather it wasn't done???? You see, our government contracts out to the private sector to construct that bridge or that rocket to get to space.

That has nothing to do with what I said

 

[Contumacious]

That's it in a nutshell. No workers rights, no safety net, no regulations and certainly no doing anything together as a nation. Kind of dumb.

Two posters who don't have a clue on why the Founders created a Republic. The checks and balances main purpose was to ensure a small Majority could enforce it's views on the minority, which could be a minority of 49%...................

One extra vote in a Pure Democracy can lead to Tyranny. Which is why we are a Republic.

You two are trying to push a cart instead of pulling it.

A Republic based on democratic representation!

where democratic representation means that the government buys the people. An electable candidate must

1- feed his constituents
2- insure " "
3- clothe " "
4- quench the thirst of his constituents
5- work ethic bad
6- parasitism good

.