Libertarian Thread #2: We Shall Never Die!

manofmystery wrote: Slarti ought to be smiling tonight: the media managed to bring the evangelicals out for the most ridiculous candidate in the entire race.  Goes from drawing crowds of 20 people to 20,000+ votes.  Something stinks here.

His poll numbers soared in the last week, the evangelicals finally decided he was the one they wanted to go with. Anyway, I'm enjoying the gnashing of teeth around the internet.

True.

He's a loony anyway, so it won't make much difference.

Yeah, that's just 1 term.

I'm referring to 2 terms.

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?

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

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

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?

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.

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: 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.