Libertarian Thread #2: We Shall Never Die!

The T wrote: Nice. I just learned that compromising in your principles is desirable.

I thought that was a necessity to be allowed in politics?

That holocaust denial part reminded me....Obama has been such a flopper, he even pulled a 180 on recognizing the Armenian Genocide!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_the_Armenian_Genocide#Position_of_the_United_States
And that makes System of a Down sad... though Serj can't fully admit it.


As a flaming liberal it IS hard at first but when you learn to accept Obama's failure it gets easier

JJLehto wrote: The T wrote: Nice. I just learned that compromising in your principles is desirable. I thought that was a necessity to be allowed in politics?

...

JJLehto wrote: regulating the width of railroad tracks

That's actually important.  Mismatched railroad gauge was one of the failures in Operation Barbarossa. 

JJLehto wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: JJLehto wrote: The T wrote: Nice. I just learned that compromising in your principles is desirable. I thought that was a necessity to be allowed in politics? ... Obviously sarcasm! And man IDK. I would ask you the same question but I know you'd like probably 97% of laws to be removed I don't know, I cant give a %. There are so many laws we don't even really think about, stuff like regulating the width of railroad tracks, farming laws, sh*t I probably can't guess.

I think that's telling in itself. I'm just saying that Congress very rarely needs to do anything. The fact that they do something leads to trouble. I think we would be better off if Congress were only in session 40 days or so a year.

I guess I can't disagree, I know I've said in the past I'd be A OK with a government that actually...governs. Instead of doing stuff (or more like pretending to do stuff) just do your job. I had a wake up call during the BP incident when some guy on MSNBC (go figure) said there's plenty of effective laws in place. Not just for regulation but moreso in general and we don't need to pass "new" things if they just governed what was already there.

So stupid it's brilliant!

JJLehto wrote: I guess I can't disagree, I know I've said in the past I'd be A OK with a government that actually...governs. Instead of doing stuff (or more like pretending to do stuff) just do your job. I had a wake up call during the BP incident when some guy on MSNBC (go figure) said there's plenty of effective laws in place. Not just for regulation but moreso in general and we don't need to pass "new" things if they just governed what was already there. So stupid it's brilliant!

The government could also not step in and cap damages when one of their big business buddies screws over thousands of people. I find that to be more important than enacting the laws currently in place.

Also it's easy to hate the government when it takes 2 hours at the DMV.
Especially when I don't have a car at the moment and am waiting on someone to get home with it!

2 motherf**kin hours? He went to do a routine thing (I think) wtf?

I'll be perfectly honest: I'm extremely happy with the results.

Obviously, I don't think Santorum can sustain this. Granted, I still think Romney will unfortunately eek it out over Ron, but he'll give him a hell of a fight.


Edited by horsewithteeth11 - January 03 2012 at 22:32

James wrote: Serious question: what's the point of voting for a 76 year old?

stonebeard wrote: James wrote: Serious question: what's the point of voting for a 76 year old? Sense of right and wrong?

If by some miracle Ron Paul becomes President, there's a chance he'll die in office.

What's the point, seriously?