What's new
By:
Filters

Libertarians- “keep getting your 3% every four years”

[486] said:
gobbless borther
our boys on patrol gotta get some SUPPORT they keep the clibbins off the road so we don't gotta layerdown
oughta be a law against questioning the GOVERNMENT us of A not us of GAY, ok?

-------------------------------------------------
1955 bel air 350/350
2023 husqvarna 46" mower
2021 hoveround xxxl comfortscooter
1987-1988 USPS medical discharge carpal tunnel full disability
buck ofama, heh heh
don't tell the wife but this here computer lets you look at pretty ladies too
Click to expand...
:shaking:
OOOOOOOKAYYYYYY
 
[486] said:
generally progressives like you
Click to expand...
PLEASE tell me how you know ANYTHING about me, to label me as a Progressive.
Maybe I suffer from "Doesn't translate via text" syndrome, but I am anything BUT a Progressive Liberal POS
 
to put it most succinctly,
a progressive gives the state power over the individual, forcing their moral codex upon others through coercion
a Progressive is a member of a political faction and nothing more concrete than that.

The same is to be said for conservatives and Conservatives. One argues for the continuance of last year's progressive's policies and the other is a member of a political faction and nothing more concrete than that.
Conservatives are progressives every moment they can be, same as how Progressives are conservative every moment it suits their goals.

left and right are a red herring, entirely meaningless, a distraction kept alive to keep idiots arguing between two statist options nobody wants
 
Animalmother said:
Its obvious from this thread that even libertarians cant agree what a libertarian is. Long standing problem among the party. Yes some want open borders, some are for transing the kids. Its a mixed bag of nuts. I said before, give them some ground on the drug issue and you win 90 percent over.

Also noticed people acknowledging that their party is being hijacked. Hijacking a party seems alot more feasible than breaking through on a 3rd party candidate. Trump did it. Thats why its the MAGA republican party now. The time to get your guy in is in the Republican primary.

Fully enjoying this thread so far. Its the equivalent of vegans threatening the world they wont eat meat.
Click to expand...
The issue is modern reporting.

Sure, this guy is a faggot and his flag pose is fucking retarded...but the libertarian stance that the state doesn't need to tell you NOT to transition genders....because what the fuck? Not am issue for millenia, suddenly the state must act :confused:

That's very different in reality from "the state must transition your kids" as the modern Democrat party supports and "the state must make a law saying any hormones therapy is illegal" as the modern republican party states.

The libertarian answer of "the state doesn't need to have an opinion on your kids" gets blasted in the news as "see!?!??! They support the thing!!!!" :shaking:
 
[486] said:
I never said you were a Progressive, I said you were a progressive.
Click to expand...
Now I feel better about myself
:shaking:
If people can't agree that there are certain functions that need to be administered by a ".Gov", then please tell me how that works.
Let a Mafia become ".Gov"?

I'm no special person, and I know you all don't know anything about me. I'll be in the Park.
 
Bogus One said:
If people can't agree that there are certain functions that need to be administered by a ".Gov", then please tell me how that works.
Click to expand...
See? Lowercase-P progressive.
"Humans couldn't ever peaceably assemble without my gun held to their heads."
 
45acp said:
Transitioning kids is wrong and should be illegal. Both doctors and parents involved should serve prison time.

- a libertarian
Click to expand...
A state large enough to imprison your enemies is large enough to imprison you.

You could always just kill the doctors.

Without the state, transitioning kids would be a rare instance of child abuse, to be lamented as an oddity at the circus
 
Bogus One said:
Now I feel better about myself
:shaking:
If people can't agree that there are certain functions that need to be administered by a ".Gov", then please tell me how that works.
Let a Mafia become ".Gov"?

I'm no special person, and I know you all don't know anything about me. I'll be in the Park.
Click to expand...
It's like the creation of the universe. We can see what we believe as to be very near creation, but cannot see creation.

We know there are some things the state is useful for with societies in conflict and sizes of populations, but we don't know how little we need.

Libertarian stance isn't anarchy.

It is more of "let's see if we can exist without these new state things" instead if "let's see how we can use the state to enrich just us"
 
since I'm going to bed, the punchline is "with the state, YOU, the reader, get to fund the transitioning of kids"
 
You're not incorrect, I just can't be sure the point made it across.
1716862096409.png
 
Well the state cant fund anything since they dont make money so you could sell your butthole to whatever gang could shake down the most money
 
Provience said:
The state does make money, in the literal sense, and also confiscates a good bit for redistribution on their whim of the day and to themselves for processing
Click to expand...

Yeah I mispoke on that. But you can sell your butthole anyways if you want:flipoff2:
 
ApeEater said:
Yes, it’s ridiculous. I’d bet you couldn’t find a doctor that would perform that surgery. I’d also bet you couldn’t find a medical system willing to certify said doctor, and I bet further that you couldn’t find an insurance company that would insure them either.

But, if you could, I’m not willing to use government force to stop a medical decision.
Click to expand...
Can't find "yet"
[486] said:
pretty much

if you don't have the right to say if that is right or wrong for your child, then that means someone else is making that exact judgement call for you
Click to expand...
What if your child has the right to accept their uncles penis? Do you now disagree if the state (law enforcement) steps in to prevent that child from accepting the penis?
ApeEater said:
You can’t. You either want the government to make medical decisions for your kid, or you don’t. That’s your only choice.
Click to expand...
Changing sex in a kid is not a "medical decision".
ApeEater said:
The government doesn’t keep anyone from harming anyone else. They just come do the paperwork after it happens.
Click to expand...
Yes. You're actually right. But still, we have laws against harming others... even though we know 'the law' will not prevent bad people from harming us.
Provience said:
A state large enough to imprison your enemies is large enough to imprison you.

You could always just kill the doctors.

Without the state, transitioning kids would be a rare instance of child abuse, to be lamented as an oddity at the circus
Click to expand...

So what do we do? If it's libertarianly okay for my neighbor to change the sex of his 7 year old son, then it's libertarianly okay for my neighbor to insert his penis into his 7 year old son. Because fuck the state.?

I have this feeling that some of you who consider yourselves libertarians are actually anarchists. And I don't think you'd be anarchists more than a week or two if we actually had real anarchy.

So.... do we fucking have fucking goddam laws that punish cocksucking mother fuckers when they harm other fucking people? Or are we supposed to sit and drink a fucking IPA and assume the universe will eventually catch up to those that cause harm? At this point, what's the fucking point of even having a law?

:confused:
 
45acp said:
Can't find "yet"

What if your child has the right to accept their uncles penis? Do you now disagree if the state (law enforcement) steps in to prevent that child from accepting the penis?

Changing sex in a kid is not a "medical decision".

Yes. You're actually right. But still, we have laws against harming others... even though we know 'the law' will not prevent bad people from harming us.


So what do we do? If it's libertarianly okay for my neighbor to change the sex of his 7 year old son, then it's libertarianly okay for my neighbor to insert his penis into his 7 year old son. Because fuck the state.?

I have this feeling that some of you who consider yourselves libertarians are actually anarchists. And I don't think you'd be anarchists more than a week or two if we actually had real anarchy.

So.... do we fucking have fucking goddam laws that punish cocksucking mother fuckers when they harm other fucking people? Or are we supposed to sit and drink a fucking IPA and assume the universe will eventually catch up to those that cause harm? At this point, what's the fucking point of even having a law?

:confused:
Click to expand...

I don't know where the line is, child abuse is a slippery slope.

It makes me want to kill people, so that shouldn't be illegal. :laughing:

Vermin Supreme, boot and all, probably gets my vote over this faggot
 
Actually, the Afghanistan withdrawal and the Mar a Lago raid....gotta remember those two and I'll vote for Trump this go round directly because of them

Vermin Supreme next season :laughing:
 
45acp said:
Can't find "yet"

What if your child has the right to accept their uncles penis? Do you now disagree if the state (law enforcement) steps in to prevent that child from accepting the penis?

Changing sex in a kid is not a "medical decision".

Yes. You're actually right. But still, we have laws against harming others... even though we know 'the law' will not prevent bad people from harming us.


So what do we do? If it's libertarianly okay for my neighbor to change the sex of his 7 year old son, then it's libertarianly okay for my neighbor to insert his penis into his 7 year old son. Because fuck the state.?

I have this feeling that some of you who consider yourselves libertarians are actually anarchists. And I don't think you'd be anarchists more than a week or two if we actually had real anarchy.

So.... do we fucking have fucking goddam laws that punish cocksucking mother fuckers when they harm other fucking people? Or are we supposed to sit and drink a fucking IPA and assume the universe will eventually catch up to those that cause harm? At this point, what's the fucking point of even having a law?

:confused:
Click to expand...
Freedom carries risk. That’s part of it.

Are you ok with vaccine mandates? Especially for your kids.

If not, then keep the government out of the doctor’s office, even if the doctor disagrees with you.
 
[486] said:
to put it most succinctly,
a progressive gives the state power over the individual, forcing their moral codex upon others through coercion
a Progressive is a member of a political faction and nothing more concrete than that.

The same is to be said for conservatives and Conservatives. One argues for the continuance of last year's progressive's policies and the other is a member of a political faction and nothing more concrete than that.
Conservatives are progressives every moment they can be, same as how Progressives are conservative every moment it suits their goals.

left and right are a red herring, entirely meaningless, a distraction kept alive to keep idiots arguing between two statist options nobody wants
Click to expand...
Bingo.
 
45acp said:
Can't find "yet"

What if your child has the right to accept their uncles penis? Do you now disagree if the state (law enforcement) steps in to prevent that child from accepting the penis?

Changing sex in a kid is not a "medical decision".

Yes. You're actually right. But still, we have laws against harming others... even though we know 'the law' will not prevent bad people from harming us.


So what do we do? If it's libertarianly okay for my neighbor to change the sex of his 7 year old son, then it's libertarianly okay for my neighbor to insert his penis into his 7 year old son. Because fuck the state.?

I have this feeling that some of you who consider yourselves libertarians are actually anarchists. And I don't think you'd be anarchists more than a week or two if we actually had real anarchy.

So.... do we fucking have fucking goddam laws that punish cocksucking mother fuckers when they harm other fucking people? Or are we supposed to sit and drink a fucking IPA and assume the universe will eventually catch up to those that cause harm? At this point, what's the fucking point of even having a law?

:confused:
Click to expand...
This is basically what Dave Smith has been saying. Like listen, do you people just want to sit around and debate and talk about how You're going to save the world then talk about hopefully getting 3% of the vote or do you actually want to try to accomplish something in reality? Libertarians bitching about Trump and RFK speaking at the convention just don't get it. What are you afraid of? The non-libertarian taking libertarian votes? You shouldn't be. You should be embracing the former POTUS and highest profile 3rd party candidate in 30+ years speaking a your convention putting more of a spotlight on it than it's ever had. But then you nominate a candidate that shows that well, maybe you should be afraid of those guys taking your votes. :laughing:

I already see where Dave is admitting he fucked up. The Mises Caucus had a lot of momentum and had largely taken over the party. He didn't want to run because he has young kids and honestly just didn't want to run. He didn't think he had to. Now he realizes he actually did have to. That momentum just suffered a massive setback. This dude might not garner enough votes to keep Libertarians on ballots moving forward.
 
east_beast said:
This is basically what Dave Smith has been saying. Like listen, do you people just want to sit around and debate and talk about how You're going to save the world then talk about hopefully getting 3% of the vote or do you actually want to try to accomplish something in reality? Libertarians bitching about Trump and RFK speaking at the convention just don't get it. What are you afraid of? The non-libertarian taking libertarian votes? You shouldn't be. You should be embracing the former POTUS and highest profile 3rd party candidate in 30+ years speaking a your convention putting more of a spotlight on it than it's ever had. But then you nominate a candidate that shows that well, maybe you should be afraid of those guys taking your votes. :laughing:

I already see where Dave is admitting he fucked up. The Mises Caucus had a lot of momentum and had largely taken over the party. He didn't want to run because he has young kids and honestly just didn't want to run. He didn't think he had to. Now he realizes he actually did have to. That momentum just suffered a massive setback. This dude might not garner enough votes to keep Libertarians on ballots moving forward.
Click to expand...
So embrace authoritarians, or risk authoritarians :confused:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Back Refresh