FDA to Crack Down on Alcoholic Energy Drinks

This is a fault I've found in many "libertarian" types: hypocrisy. Improving public transportation is yet another example of government intervention. I base all of my views on individual liberty and protection of private property, and if there is no basis within these, I don't support it.

And I can tell you that any attempt to implement a public transportation system here would be terribly inefficient and would cost the tax payers a great deal of money. Many people here live an hour or more from their work. I think we'd be better off here just to leave people's driving licenses alone.
 
Public transportation ("public" as in open to the public, not owned by the public - i.e.: government) can be ran very efficiently by private companies. No need to have tax payer money involved.
 
Yes, private companies and individuals can provide transportation services very efficiently. Not here though, no taxis or buses in the boonies.

This is an example of something that should be handled by local governments, as a one-size-fits-all policy clearly would not work.

And when you say improving public transportation, that is something that either has to happen on its own or it would have to be paid for with tax dollars. You said it as if you would make it happen, as in through tax dollars, I may have misunderstood you here, but that was my impression.
 
I'd be willing to bet I live more in the boonies than you... ;)

I didn't mean to imply that I would "make" improvements in public transportation happen - just that we, as a society (not we, as a government) would need to improve our public transportation system before upping the requirements of getting a driver's license.

But as for the idea that public transportation cannot work well "in the boonies", it would if more people were forced to use it (forced, of course, by their inability to drive themselves). If 20 people can purchase vehicles, maintain them, pay for gas, insurance, etc. on them and drive them around when necessary and when they feel like it, 1 person can, ideally, purchase one vehicle and maintain it (gas, insurance, etc.) for cheaper than the price of the twenty other vehicles and drive people around only when necessary.

Granted, this wouldn't work in a world where everyone wants to be able to drive wherever they want at the drop of a dime (my wife and I drove an hour tonight just to go out to eat... no special reason... just decided we wanted to eat at Charlie's Mongolian BBQ, where you always leave with a happy stomach. If we had to rely on public transportation, we'd probably have to settle for something local or *gasp* make dinner ourselves.) It'd be a huge readjustment in life style choices, but it'd be better for the environment, safer on individuals and actually better for taxpayers (less wear-and-tear on public roads).
 
Those are all good points, in my opinion.

My real question is: where in the Constitution does it give the government the power to decide who drives and who dosen't? The general welfare clause? That's a dangerous one as you should know. And say we lived in a world where the government dosen't have these powers, would you really want to give it to them for this?

I just don't think that your view on this is consistent with individual liberty and I urge you to put some more thought into this as I think it's a dangerous idea.
 
We'll just have to agree to disagree. I see nothing wrong with the government requiring proper testing and licensing of individuals before they are allowed to operate a motor vehicle on public property. The testing should make sure that the individual has the proper knowledge, judgment and physical requirements to safely operate the vehicle while on public property. Again, just my opinion on it.
 
Part of my problem here is that I don't think roads should be publicly owned, they should be maintained by private companies that charge for use. It isn't fair that truck drivers pay the same for roads as someone that dosen't drive at all.

This also goes to reflect my difference with most "libertarian" types: I'm an anarcho-capitalist and an extremist, admittedly. My reasoning for this is that I believe that there are two sides to everything, for liberty or for intervention and I don't believe that the government can really help any situation. Minarchists (for small government) I find to be hypocritical in that they would give the government certain powers but not others.

I do believe that a system with governments that are voluntary, as in you voluntarily pay for their services, whether it be roads or protection or whatever could work.

Anyway, I realize that what I want will never happen here. We will always have some form of government over us. And I realize that many with beliefs similar to my own will never see eye to eye with me on everything simply because they believe some government is needed.

I also realize that to ever accomplish anything, that I must be willing to compromise and work with other like minded individuals, even if I don't agree on some of the details. That is one thing that has always held the movement back, it's divisions and squabbling between those divisions.
 
[quote name='Liberty1']Part of my problem here is that I don't think roads should be publicly owned, they should be maintained by private companies that charge for use. It isn't fair that truck drivers pay the same for roads as someone that dosen't drive at all.[/QUOTE]

While road funding would have to change as our fuel methods change, I would prefer a system where 100% of government funding for roads is derived from a sales tax on gasoline purchases. Your truck driver who uses the road 16/7 would then be paying for every bit of driving that he does while grandma who walks to the grocery store wouldn't pay anything (beyond, of course, the increase in the price of goods).

You know what's fun? We're of similar minds, can have a disagreement, and we can be civil about it. Then, you go into other threads (say, the copyright thread) where there are those of similar mindsets, they have a disagreement, and everyone's throwing around personal insults and flames.

Thank you for bringing some class to the forum. You can disagree with resorting to personal attacks. It's nice.
 
[quote name='Clak']I know the difference you moron, but your libertarian ideal of individual freedom and responsibility would imply that drinking and driving should be legal, because what right does anyone have to stop you?

edit- Making the air private property? I'm going to start bleeding out of the ears if this shit continues.[/QUOTE]

How so? On one hand you have a situation that can be a danger to other people, and on the other you have someones choice to drink a four loco.

Four loco doesn't kill people, or make you drive drunk, but if you do drive drunk after drinking four loco, you should be punished. It doesn't matter if it masks your drunkness, as an individual you should be aware and responsible for your actions. If you are drinking alcohal you shouldn't be driving. If you do drive, and kill someone or yourself, ONLY YOU are responsible for it, not the bar, not the company that produces the alcohal, just YOU.

This is the same argument people had back when jello shots, and fruity drinks became popular. "Well, well, people will not realize how much they are drinking because they can't taste the alcohal!".

Banning these drinks are going way overboard, maybe putting a label on the product about the affects alcohal and caffiene, or the alcohal content, but banning is just outright wrong.
 
In my day we used to make this shit ourselves.

Jagermeister and Green Monster Energy Drink was so good.
 
[quote name='Liberty1']Part of my problem here is that I don't think roads should be publicly owned, they should be maintained by private companies that charge for use. It isn't fair that truck drivers pay the same for roads as someone that dosen't drive at all.[/QUOTE]

Presumably the person who "doesn't drive at all" benefits from roads as well.

For example they obviously purchase things brought to stores by said truckers.

I do believe that a system with governments that are voluntary, as in you voluntarily pay for their services, whether it be roads or protection or whatever could work.
Click to expand...


I don't. Google "free rider problem".
 
[quote name='Liberty1']This is a fault I've found in many "libertarian" types: hypocrisy. Improving public transportation is yet another example of government intervention. I base all of my views on individual liberty and protection of private property, and if there is no basis within these, I don't support it.

And I can tell you that any attempt to implement a public transportation system here would be terribly inefficient and would cost the tax payers a great deal of money. Many people here live an hour or more from their work. I think we'd be better off here just to leave people's driving licenses alone.[/QUOTE]

You must be 19. As for the dumbasses that live in BFE, Indiana, you're defending guys that get behind the wheel of a pickup while they're plastered and weave all over country roads. It's personal freedom right?

As for voluntary government, you get the problem with the fire burning down the house and the people complaining that the fire department didn't put out the fire. Most of us "liberals" thought the fire department should put out any fire and sort out the money later. Conservatives and libertarians on the thread basically said, "tough cookies." Which one is better?

Also, what do you do when businesses do everything they possibly can to poison the consumer? Do you allow them to do it and say that the free market will correct itself? How many people should die just because you don't believe in government?

How do you have any sort of economic principle without government to back it up? Does capitalism or communism even work without something regulating it?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Public transportation ("public" as in open to the public, not owned by the public - i.e.: government) can be ran very efficiently by private companies. No need to have tax payer money involved.[/QUOTE]
That isn't even public transportation, it's just private transportation that sells it's services to the public. You know, like a taxi.
 
[quote name='Knoell']How so? On one hand you have a situation that can be a danger to other people, and on the other you have someones choice to drink a four loco.

Four loco doesn't kill people, or make you drive drunk, but if you do drive drunk after drinking four loco, you should be punished. It doesn't matter if it masks your drunkness, as an individual you should be aware and responsible for your actions. If you are drinking alcohal you shouldn't be driving. If you do drive, and kill someone or yourself, ONLY YOU are responsible for it, not the bar, not the company that produces the alcohal, just YOU.

This is the same argument people had back when jello shots, and fruity drinks became popular. "Well, well, people will not realize how much they are drinking because they can't taste the alcohal!".

Banning these drinks are going way overboard, maybe putting a label on the product about the affects alcohal and caffiene, or the alcohal content, but banning is just outright wrong.[/QUOTE]
I already said i don't care either way about stuff, it isn't going to help anything, but I don't see it hurting anything either. My point is that you won't go "all in" on your own beliefs. Individual freedom, personal liberty, blah blah blah, but then you stop short of being uspet that the governemnt has the nerve to stop you from drinking in your own car.

I guess what I'm saying is, just how much governemnt is enough for you and the rest of the constitution riders? Banning a drink is too much, but making drinking and driving illegal is ok? I mean just how much do you want the government to do or not do?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I agree that, if there's going to be a law, it needs to be concrete with little wiggle room for such vagueness.

It's this particular law that I disagree with.

Again, some people are more coherent at .09 than others are at .07. To give the .07's a free pass while locking up the .09'ers seems silly. Hell, considering the closest I've ever come to drinking is gurgling with Listerine, I'd probably be unable to control a vehicle at .008 - let alone coming anywhere near .08.

Then, you get this guy, tested with a BAC almost twice what's considered "dead", able to have a coherent conversation. I'd almost bet this guy could drive better at .08 than the majority of people in the Walmart parking lot sober.

As for drinking and driving making "that kind of shit" more likely to happen - *anything* that takes your mind off the road makes that kind of crap more likely to happen. Playing with the radio/MP3 player. Fixing your hair/make-up. Screaming kids in the backseat. Yet, all of these things are perfectly legal - and all of them have lead to fatal car crashes. Should driving while any of these things are happening be illegal?

You're setting a gray line (.08 might be exact, but the amount at which that effects an individual varies - a lot) and saying that anyone who crosses that line is breaking the law because they could potentially be doing something dangerous.[/QUOTE]

1) That's a problem with every law of that type, there are always exceptions, they have to work on averages. It's based on a percentage to take into account differences in body weight, etc. and it's not like they just pulled a random number out of their ass. Also, when you're drunk you're an idiot and don't know at the time how well you can drive.

2) Most of what you're talking about are momentary actions and are also things that some drunk drivers might do while drunk. Fiddling with your radio doesn't impair your reaction times the entire time you're driving, etc. It's also not something you do beforehand and then decide to drive somewhere.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Clak']I already said i don't care either way about stuff, it isn't going to help anything, but I don't see it hurting anything either. My point is that you won't go "all in" on your own beliefs. Individual freedom, personal liberty, blah blah blah, but then you stop short of being uspet that the governemnt has the nerve to stop you from drinking in your own car.

I guess what I'm saying is, just how much governemnt is enough for you and the rest of the constitution riders? Banning a drink is too much, but making drinking and driving illegal is ok? I mean just how much do you want the government to do or not do?[/QUOTE]

It is called being moderate, I believe there is a need for government, but I also see the government overstepping its established duties.
 
[quote name='Knoell']It is called being moderate, I believe there is a need for government, but I also see the government overstepping its established duties.[/QUOTE]

Dude, you're entitled to believe in whatever you want, but facts are facts and you are not a moderate.
 
[quote name='camoor']Dude, you're entitled to believe in whatever you want, but facts are facts and you are not a moderate.[/QUOTE]

I'd agree. Arguing that drinking and driving should be legal isn't anywhere close to the middle of the political or social spectrum.
 
I just got back from San Francisco. Had a fantastic eggs benedict on Saturday morning, along with a 'beer and espresso' combo (as it was listed on the menu). Served sidecar style, like if you tried to order a double mixed drink in Utah (of course, the espresso poured into a beer would be nasty).

Also of note: a very sweet/sugary espresso (I don't mean sugar added, I mean the coffee itself) roast doesn't go well with Newcastle, which is itself very sweet and caramel-y. Sweet overload.

What's the debate here? I don't have time to go over four pages of this, but I can't imagine anybody supports doing away with boozy energy drinks, from a legal standpoint.
 
Re: Strell: Laws are anti-liberty, therefore I am against laws. Except the Constitution. Which I insist on misinterpreting. Fin.
[quote name='Liberty1']I also realize that to ever accomplish anything, that I must be willing to compromise and work with other like minded individuals, even if I don't agree on some of the details. That is one thing that has always held the movement back, it's divisions and squabbling between those divisions.[/QUOTE]
No, it's because no one wants to live in Sudan. There's many parts of the world devoid of organized governmental interference. Yet rather than rise like phoenix, they correlate almost perfectly to the places considered the biggest festering shitholes on the planet. Funny how strong that correlation is.
 
[quote name='speedracer']No, it's because no one wants to live in Sudan. There's many parts of the world devoid of organized governmental interference. Yet rather than rise like phoenix, they correlate almost perfectly to the places considered the biggest festering shitholes on the planet. Funny how strong that correlation is.[/QUOTE]

Perfect example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjrEQaG5jPM

Really, 99% of Americans need to be forced out of the country for two weeks, sent to different countries, notice how unbelievably shitty things can actually be, and realize when they come back that sales tax on a doublecaf latte isn't exactly the worst thing in the world. Conversely, they need to see how much better things can be, such as with a transit system like Tokyo has or the marvels of Scandinavian society.

Too bad that requires people to not be such nationalistic dickholes that they'd even consider going to some place that wurnt no Mrrrka.
 
Also, what do you do when businesses do everything they possibly can to poison the consumer? Do you allow them to do it and say that the free market will correct itself? How many people should die just because you don't believe in government?
Click to expand...
Businesses do not want to intentionally kill off their customers, they can't make money that way. The best example to say otherwise would be cigarettes, but those exist now don't they? Businesses actually do a good job of regulating themselves today because of the publicity that any incidents get.

I don't. Google "free rider problem".
Click to expand...
Then they don't receive the services.

No, it's because no one wants to live in Sudan. There's many parts of the world devoid of organized governmental interference. Yet rather than rise like phoenix, they correlate almost perfectly to the places considered the biggest festering shitholes on the planet. Funny how strong that correlation is.
Click to expand...
This is a common argument made against my beliefs, but my belief is that Americans are better than that. I'm just arguing for a different way to carry out things, through voluntary services paid by voluntary taxes, or by private businesses providing them.

How do you have any sort of economic principle without government to back it up? Does capitalism or communism even work without something regulating it?
Click to expand...
Natural law is the belief that humans have certain rights, not the Constitution, but something all humans are born with, namely private property to be free from aggression. You also have the right to defend yourself and your property from said aggression.

I've already acknowledged that I'm an extremist, and really, nothing more than an idealist, a political theorist. Nice to see that I am reasonable enough and know myself well enough to acknowledge it.

I do strongly believe that humans have the ability to live peacefully with one another without government. Will it ever happen? No. I simply want to promote a freer world.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Strell']Perfect example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjrEQaG5jPM

Really, 99% of Americans need to be forced out of the country for two weeks, sent to different countries, notice how unbelievably shitty things can actually be, and realize when they come back that sales tax on a doublecaf latte isn't exactly the worst thing in the world. Conversely, they need to see how much better things can be, such as with a transit system like Tokyo has or the marvels of Scandinavian society.

Too bad that requires people to not be such nationalistic dickholes that they'd even consider going to some place that wurnt no Mrrrka.[/QUOTE]
Good grief, I'm going to New Delhi and Jaipur next summer, hope it isn't like that. Though that area doesn't look as developed.
 
[quote name='Liberty1']This is a common argument made against my beliefs, but my belief is that Americans are better than that.[/QUOTE]

Hmmm...
 
What I mean by Americans being better than that is just my pride in the things America was founded on. It has (erm, had) a history of being home to freedom and innovation.

Anyway, I was perhaps wrong in this regard, as I have little faith in your average American today. Americans don't value the things the country was founded on anymore.

Honestly, with the state of our country today, I'm comfortable with the whole rotten structure burning to the ground.
 
Maybe because most of the ideals the country was founded on were BS? Or maybe I should say BS for the vast majority of Americans.

And I know the peanut gallery is going to gfaw at the very idea that the founders of the country weren't saints, but they weren't. They were human like anyone else, full of contradictions like anyone else.

I mean think of it, one of the given reasons for the revolution were the high taxes imposed by Britian, yet what happened not long after the revolution? Yeah, taxes. Were people pissed? Yeah they were. Did they protest? Yeah, and then some. Were they put down? Yep.
 
Part of the reason why I'm so radical is my bad personal experiences with the government here where I live: the public schools are garbage, the public roads eat your tires and the police here spend all their time persecuting victimless crimes, namely drugs.

Here, if you or your house gets robbed, nothing will happen out of it. It's a lot easier to bust someone with a gram of pot then bust someone breaking into houses. I've been robbed and had my house robbed, but I've never got any justice and I'm hardly alone in this regard. But, I have been arrested myself, multiple times, for things that didn't harm a soul. If you want to protect yourself or your property here, you'd better just shoot them, just not in the head (deadly force to protect private property is illegal here).

My views are not solely formed on my experiences here though, I've traveled to most of the country and abroad. I see the wasteful spending and ineffective policies in D.C. and that just strengthens my resolve.
 
[quote name='Liberty1']What I mean by Americans being better than that is just my pride in the things America was founded on. It has (erm, had) a history of being home to freedom and innovation.

Anyway, I was perhaps wrong in this regard, as I have little faith in your average American today. Americans don't value the things the country was founded on anymore.

Honestly, with the state of our country today, I'm comfortable with the whole rotten structure burning to the ground.[/QUOTE]

It also had a history of slavery. Should we bring that back also? Maybe we should take the vote away from women? How can you tell if they're voting while they're on the rag anyway? All those damn hormones just make them vote all wrong.

Like Clak said, the Founding Fathers weren't saints. They left us with an imperfect republic that doesn't really work in the 21st Century.
 
Maybe because most of the ideals the country was founded on were BS? Or maybe I should say BS for the vast majority of Americans.
Click to expand...

How is it that a society based on equality UNDER THE LAW is BS? One person being taxed at a higher rate than another is income equality, but it is not equality by law, it is treating someone different because they make more money.

For the most part, the ones in society that make the most money are the ones that best answer societies needs, and the rest of them use government intervention on their own behalf, which isn't capitalism, believe it or not.

Let's take a scientist that just discovered something that has huge potential to benefit man kind. Should he not receive a great monetary reward for this? Has he not helped the world more than the street urchin? But yet, he should be punished by paying a higher tax rate, and thus, still owes us something? People should be rewarded for innovation, not punished.

And I know the peanut gallery is going to gfaw at the very idea that the founders of the country weren't saints, but they weren't. They were human like anyone else, full of contradictions like anyone else.

I mean think of it, one of the given reasons for the revolution were the high taxes imposed by Britian, yet what happened not long after the revolution? Yeah, taxes. Were people pissed? Yeah they were. Did they protest? Yeah, and then some. Were they put down? Yep.
Click to expand...

You are absolutely right here. The founders had slaves and the Constitution is broken, beyond all repair. I am a believer though, that they had the right idea, in the context of the times. They didn't know that every little word would be interpreted as loosely as possible, and slavery wasn't a hot issue of the times.
 
[quote name='Liberty1']Let's take a scientist that just discovered something that has huge potential to benefit man kind. Should he not receive a great monetary reward for this? Has he not helped the world more than the street urchin? But yet, he should be punished by paying a higher tax rate, and thus, still owes us something? People should be rewarded for innovation, not punished.[/QUOTE]

Nah, most likely that scientist is employed by a company...where he signed a contract stating that they own whatever he comes up with. So, the company makes billions of dollars and poor schmuck who came up with the brilliant discovery continues to make whatever he makes, with no recognition, until the company decides they don't need him anymore.

AMERICA!

- edit Also taxes aren't a punishment.
 
I've already acknowledged that I'm an extremist, and really, nothing more than an idealist, a political theorist. Nice to see that I am reasonable enough and know myself well enough to acknowledge it.
Click to expand...

I even said that myself, buddy. Anyway, I'd love here some good empirical arguments refuting what I say. I'm always open to a friendly debate.
 
"- edit Also taxes aren't a punishment."

Not everyone feels privileged to pay taxes. You are correct it stating that not everyone feels that it is a punishment, but to say that no one feels punished by them, is wrong.

And how is a speeding ticket not punishment? It's the same thing as a tax, as the money goes to the same things.

And so if you rob a rich man at gun point, then give his money to the poor man beside him, you are in no way being unfair or punishing the rich man because he has more money?
 
Nah, most likely that scientist is employed by a company...where he signed a contract stating that they own whatever he comes up with. So, the company makes billions of dollars and poor schmuck who came up with the brilliant discovery continues to make whatever he makes, with no recognition, until the company decides they don't need him anymore.
Click to expand...

In this case, a company has funded the research, risking their own capital, to make it happen. Without funding, it never would have happened.

The risk takers are the ones that make money, for they had the foresight to realize that their was real potential here.

You will find that government grants don't usually go to the riskiest investments, which I don't think is a bad thing, but many things would never come to be if it wasn't for the keen businessman.
 
It is funny how quickly the "the rest of the world is shit, so we should appreciate what we have" argument turns legitimate when it supports your theory.
 
"Conflating breaking the law with paying taxes?"

I don't see where the intent is more important than the actual results? Something done with good intentions isn't necessarily a good deed.
 
[quote name='Liberty1']"- edit Also taxes aren't a punishment."

Not everyone feels privileged to pay taxes. You are correct it stating that not everyone feels that it is a punishment, but to say that no one feels punished by them, is wrong.

And how is a speeding ticket not punishment? It's the same thing as a tax, as the money goes to the same things.

And so if you rob a rich man at gun point, then give his money to the poor man beside him, you are in no way being unfair or punishing the rich man because he has more money?[/QUOTE]

No. This isn't an opinion-based statement. Taxes aren't a punishment. Period. If you think otherwise, you are wrong.

Taxes are the cost of living in a society and the more prosperous you are, the more you pitch back in. Those taxes go towards programs and departments for everybody. Keyword, everybody.

Speeding tickets aren't a tax and your analogy of taking from the rich and giving to the poor is heavily flawed.

[quote name='Liberty1']In this case, a company has funded the research, risking their own capital, to make it happen. Without funding, it never would have happened.[/QUOTE]

Nah, guess you haven't heard of those great contracts which also cover discoveries or inventions made off of company time.
 
The problem with Libertarianism is its philosophy through soundbites. The problem with Libertarians is they literally think in soundbites. Basically single one sounds like they read off a script.
 
[quote name='Liberty1']I don't see where the intent is more important than the actual results? Something done with good intentions isn't necessarily a good deed.[/QUOTE]

I don't think you know just what you are suggesting with your terrible analogies.

Never break the law? Never pay a speeding ticket. On the other hand, taxes are required to keep the government running to afford to pay for services individuals and small groups cannot coordinate, afford, and enact.

They are nothing alike, and setting them up as simple "different ways to make you lose money" is hilariously juvenile.
 
No. This isn't an opinion-based statement. Taxes aren't a punishment. Period. If you think otherwise, you are wrong.
Click to expand...

Enough people have an opinion otherwise, to make it an opinion. What you are doing here is simply regarding what you say as fact, and everything else as false. At least I'm willing to acknowledge that my view is in fact an opinion.

Taxes are the cost of living in a society and the more prosperous you are, the more you pitch back in. Those taxes go towards programs and departments for everybody. Keyword, everybody.
Click to expand...

Welfare isn't for everybody, it's targeted at a certain income group. Funding goes to projects directed towards minorities, which obviously not everyone benefits from. Different people benefit from government programs differently.

Speeding tickets aren't a tax and your analogy of taking from the rich and giving to the poor is heavily flawed.
Click to expand...

Speeding tickets are way for the government to raise money, and thus a tax, they are a punishment as well, yes.

And my analogy isn't flawed because taxes are indeed taken with force, at the threat of a gun.

The problem with Libertarianism is its philosophy through soundbites. The problem with Libertarians is they literally think in soundbites. Basically single one sounds like they read off a script.
Click to expand...

So that makes libertarianism wrong?

Never break the law? Never pay a speeding ticket. On the other hand, taxes are required to keep the government running to afford to pay for services individuals and small groups cannot coordinate, afford, and enact.
Click to expand...

Tickets are avoidable. I don't disagree here, but tickets are still a way of raising revenue. Taxes also go up the more money you make, thus giving people less incentive to make more money. Punishment is perhaps a harsh word and it would be more realistic for me to say take away incentive to make more money.

Anyway, I suppose let the liberal gangbang continue, lmao.
 
Listen: Your analogies are terrible, wrong, illogical, poorly thought out trash. It's sad you are clinging to them, and then pass off their dissection as "a liberal gangbang."

Confirmed for babby's first troll. Nice to see another bag of Sarah Palin walking around here.
 
Listen: Your analogies are terrible, wrong, illogical, poorly thought out trash. It's sad you are clinging to them, and then pass off their dissection as "a liberal gangbang."
Click to expand...

All I was referring to was the fact that I was arguing against 3 different people. I'm not trying passing off your arguments with that statement.

Nice to see another bag of Sarah Palin walking around here.
Click to expand...

Sarah Palin betrayed the libertarian movement when she ran with McCain. People with short memories may vote for her, but I think she is just using the movement as a political tool.
 
You'd have to be really fucking stupid to not want to make more money because the government will take a slightly higher proportion of it. Stupid and already rich.
 
[quote name='Liberty1']Enough people have an opinion otherwise, to make it an opinion.[/quote]

You know what people say about opinions right?

What you are doing here is simply regarding what you say as fact, and everything else as false. At least I'm willing to acknowledge that my view is in fact an opinion.
Click to expand...

Name me a successful country run according to Libertarian ideals... no Somalia doesn't count.

Welfare isn't for everybody, it's targeted at a certain income group.
Click to expand...

Are you willing to state you have never,ever benefited from government spending?

So that makes libertarianism wrong?
Click to expand...

Among other reasons, yes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top