Presidential debate...

[rwh11385]

Where do I say no taxes? There you go taking what I said to the extreme again. "Nearly"...

If all you've read is "lower taxes" then you're voting on pure ignorance. Because that's not the Libertarian platform. And that's your problem. Lol, you're confused. I'm for gays having a legal bond. Kind of fucked up your argument there eh. Got any other axes...lmfao.

Oops...I'm not a Republican...lol.

Um, here?

That's a generality. The Tea party and Libertarians want similar things to what I want and that does not include no taxes. Low taxes and small government.

O RLY? Where is your "source" that they don't say lower taxes:

http://www.lp.org/faq

Libertarians advocate freedom in economic matters, so we're in favor of lowering taxes, slashing bureaucratic regulation of business, and charitable -- rather than government -- welfare.

How you gonna argue against that?

Actually... there's a ton of posts of you hating on gay rights:

For the tenth time it is because they want to be able to adopt children. Making those children a risk for HIV and AIDS.

Sure, and that's why marriage should remain the way it is. At least one more reason.

And to that degree it's unnatural.

Gay people have the same rights heterosexuals have. They have the right to *marry* someone of the opposite sex.

Oh yes and if I wish to marry my father who's to stop me? And if I wish to marry an animal who's to stop me? And if I wish to marry my sister, who's to stop me.

Slippery isn't it.

You do know that slippery slope is a logical fallacy.... right?



No, you're just an idiot who says that every other person's political views are wrong even though you don't know your own, besides Obama sucks and hating on gay rights. So how exactly aren't you Republican??

[joshh]

So since you don't know much about the Libertarian platform. I'm going to ask you a question you're going to have to go look up.

How do the Libertarianans plan to educate children?

[smooth]

Where does it say they want no taxes? I've just seen lower taxes. Do you not like lower taxes?

You guys really need to read up on the theory and platform of libertarianism if you're going to continue to refer to it or it's adherents.

http://www.libertarianism.org/publications/essays/constitution-no-authority

[joshh]

I was exaggerating just as much as you were to prove the point that being a simpleton that makes all-or-nothing statements is poor for discussions. Just like I said on the previous page. But you seem to only understand the world in black and white. Like libertarianism = Anarchy.

Where does it say they want no taxes? I've just seen lower taxes. Do you not like lower taxes?

I think your main problem is allowing people to enjoy freedom without socially conservative laws telling them what to do. Like gays being able to marry.

Where do I say no taxes? There you go taking what I said to the extreme again. "Nearly"...

If all you've read is "lower taxes" then you're voting on pure ignorance. Because that's not the Libertarian platform. And that's your problem. Lol, you're confused. I'm for gays having a legal bond. Kind of fucked up your argument there eh. Got any other axes...lmfao.

Oops...I'm not a Republican...lol.

[rwh11385]

Lol, "any elements" yeah because just like the founders I believe in a small government with regulations and taxes not nearly no taxes and nearly no regulation.
Can you keep exaggerating this further?

I was exaggerating just as much as you were to prove the point that being a simpleton that makes all-or-nothing statements is poor for discussions. Just like I said on the previous page. But you seem to only understand the world in black and white. Like libertarianism = Anarchy.

Where does it say they want no taxes? I've just seen lower taxes. Do you not like lower taxes?

I think your main problem is allowing people to enjoy freedom without socially conservative laws telling them what to do. Like gays being able to marry each other. And allowing people to actually be happy would lead to such chaos! You want smaller government and lower taxes, and I don't know of many conservatives who want more regulations, so you align decently enough on that side of things, but the major difference is the social liberty. If people no longer have to choose Democrat to support socially liberal ideals, then the Republican party will continue to take a huge hit - and that is maybe why you are so negative towards giving the people what they want but can't get.

[joshh]

No. But I thought my answer was clear I'm voting for one though.


So if the President removes any elements of government or regulation, then the country instantly spirals downward in a pit of hell and Anarchy?? You certainly go off the walls with ridiculousness. I can't believe you are advocating against freedom from bureaucracy controlling your life.

Lol, "any elements" yeah because just like the founders I believe in a small government with regulations and taxes not nearly no taxes and nearly no regulation.
So then I've been advocating Anarchy this whole time? Is that correct?
Can you keep exaggerating this further?

[rwh11385]

Are you a Libertarian? You can't answer that simple question?

The more government you remove the closer you get to Anarchy. Libertarians want to remove the vast majority of the government we have. It's that simple. Now it's your turn to fly off the handle as you usually do and do all you can to make an opposite argument.

No. But I thought my answer was clear I'm voting for one though.


So if the President removes any elements of government or regulation, then the country instantly spirals downward in a pit of hell and Anarchy?? You certainly go off the walls with ridiculousness. I can't believe you are advocating against freedom from bureaucracy controlling your life.

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the [federal] government." ~ James Madison

So do you think that charity should be a private endeavor and not legislated by the government?

[joshh]

If you have the ability you read, you'll see that a good number of people in this thread are voting for Gary Johnson.

I'm not sure why his policies would mean


But hey, you like making claims based on your tinfoil logic, so we're used to you not making any sense.

Are you a Libertarian? You can't answer that simple question?

The more government you remove the closer you get to Anarchy. Libertarians want to remove the vast majority of the government we have. They want government to be tiny. It's that simple. Now it's your turn to fly off the handle as you usually do and do all you can to make an opposite argument.

[rwh11385]

Wait so is this about facts or sentence construction...oh wait it's about grinding that axe of yours.

Are you a Libertarian?

If you have the ability you read, you'll see that a good number of people in this thread are voting for Gary Johnson.

I'm not sure why his policies would mean

They're as close to Anarchy as you'd ever see and shit would go to hell.

But hey, you like making claims based on your tinfoil logic, so we're used to you not making any sense.

[joshh]

No, just showing that you sound like an idiot when you can't construct an intelligent post based on facts, ever.

Wait so is this about facts or sentence construction...oh wait it's about grinding that axe of yours.

Are you a Libertarian?

[rwh11385]

Are you trolling again.....keep grinding that axe...lol

No, just showing that you sound like an idiot when you can't construct an intelligent post based on facts, ever.

[joshh]

Your sentences aren't really sentences.

Are you trolling again.....keep grinding that axe...lol

[rwh11385]

In a much different way maybe. But that's why I can't vote for Libertarians. Because their ideas aren't really ideas. They're as close to Anarchy as you'd ever see and shit would go to hell. Because we need more government than they preach and we need more regulation than they think.

Your sentences aren't really sentences.

[joshh]

There's no such thing as a perfect economic model, but a 100% unregulated market is just as scary as communism.

In a much different way maybe. But that's why I can't vote for Libertarians. Because their ideas aren't really ideas. They're as close to Anarchy as you'd ever see and shit would go to hell. Because we need more government than they preach and we need more regulation than they think.

[Cliche Guevara]

So what you mean by that is since you know Obama is going to win the vote count in Oregon already you don't need to vote for him so you're going to vote for Gary instead. BUT if Obama was in trouble you'd have voted for him? Is that correct?

That's what I did, I voted for Jill Stein. If I were in a state like Ohio or Nevada, however, strategic voting would be a necessity and I would cast my vote for Obama.