Oh, so that is why Palin quit? She couldn't legislate and run for office at the same time? So, by that logic, anyone running for re-election should quit their current office.
Politicians have been doing their jobs and campaigning at the same time since politics was invented. Why can't Failin' Palin do what every other politician in the history of the world did?
Seriously, that's the worst excuse I have ever heard.
Reducing government may actually be an example of preserving the status quo, if the parts you are reducing (regulatory agencies) are in fact trying to change the status quo. One part of the status quo is, polluters generally get away with it. Removing the EPA would not be changing the status quo, it would be preserving it.
Most people are good people. They would stand up to injustice, if they believed it were happening. They would work to make their country great, if it weren't. But they are also lazy. And so, they have a choice, believe the comforting illusion that nearly everyone else believes, or get up off their lazy asses and make a difference.
I'm no less lazy. I'm no better than anyone else. Due to my upbringing, I never had a choice to believe the comforting illusion that the US is the best country ever. I was raised by college hippie radicals.
Now I have a choice. Continue to believe that the US needs work, or admit that I have wasted much of my life. Do you see why I am forced to admit I am no better than people who believe the US is the best? We all have our lazy, selfish reasons for believing what we do.
I, however, can at least look at my own laziness and selfishness honestly. Now that I've admitted that my beliefs, true or not, are self serving, can you admit the same?
You are more than likely building an ultralight in your garage. Or a kit plane. If you want to build an unproven, untested flying vehicle above a certain weight in America, you will need to pass rigorous tests. You can build an ultralight and fly it in almost any first world country.
Remember Yves Rossy? The "Jet wing guy?" Yeah, he was Swiss. He did not build that airplane in America.
So, got any examples that actually apply to the real world?
Yes, I am assuming that other first world countries do not torture. They no longer invade other sovereign nations. They do not kidnap sovereign citizens of other nations in 'extraordinary rendition.' They do not launch drone attacks into neutral nations. They do not overthrow democratically elected governments.
We are not better than all other countries. Why is it so important to you that we are? Would it hurt you personally if we were merely the same as other first world countries? If we were worse, as a nation, would that reflect on you, personally? Do you also feel personally emasculated when your favorite sports team loses? Do you base your self esteem on comparisons with others, or do you base it on how well you measure up to your own ideals?
You can't "do nothing" in government. You see, we already have a system in place. Doing nothing is the same thing as supporting the status quo. You are still doing something. In fact, you are actively saying "We must keep doing EXACTLY the same thing!"
Of course Biden displays intelligence. Please, how about YOU prove he is an idiot, you are the one making outrageous claims.
As a wise man once said, "What is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." And so, until you provide evidence, you are dismissed. Buh bye.
So what? Of course the rich vote for Republicans, who promise to pander to the rich. So what if the tiny percentage of Americans who make over $100,000 tend to vote slightly more for Republicans (55%) than Democrats (42%)? The middle class (those making 50-100k per year) vote Democrat.
Let me list my points, so you can attempt to actually refute them rather than go off on a distracting tangent, which I'm sure was not your goal.
* There are certain states that historically vote Republican, even though they are poor.
* These states pay less in taxes than they receive from the federal government.
* Republicans are in control of those states. If they wanted what they say they want, they could easily put their money where their mouth is.
* They do not do so, therefore, they do not want fiscal responsibility. They do not want to take care of themselves. They do not want smaller government.
Finally, it is incorrect to say, based on the numbers you show, that Dems base is nonwhite and female while Reps base is white and male. I'm white and male. Those numbers are very close, and when you factor in age, you will see that the primary difference is actually that Republicans tend to be old. Old white men vote Republican. Young white men vote Democrat. Women vote Republican, too. If they are old.
Generally, all you are showing is that old white people do not want things evened out, they really enjoyed being top dogs, and they want their unearned privilege back. Yet more evidence that the Republican Base is defined not by sex, or race, but by being selfish assholes who don't want to share power with anyone else.
That's just it, there is no such animal as a small government type, in government. Whatever they were before they got into government, once they are there, they are for "big government." Republicans do not want a small government, they just want to do away with the parts they don't want (social programs, regulatory agencies, pork for other states) and increase the parts they do want (farm subsidies, the military, pork for their state.) If Republicans wanted small government, they could have it. Al they would have to do is stop taking federal money taken from the taxes of the rich, blue states. They could have their small government quite easily.
Take a look at who pays, and who receives. Poor Republican states are leaching off the rich Democratic states. If Republicans wanted small government and fiscal responsibility, they would pay their own way in their own states. http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/266.html
Nope, sorry, you do not understand what even the most idiotic person looks for in a leader. People want energy in a leader, they want someone who will follow through, who will work hard and never quit. Palin has demonstrated she is a quitter. No one, not even the stupidest, want a quitter for a leader.
A social safety net is absolutely prohibited by libertarian philosophy, specifically the philosophy of absolute property rights. Libertarians believe every property owner should be the king of his land, a sovereign with absolutely no limits on what he may do therein. That means that no one ever has the right to tax a property owner for anything. Ever. Unless he agrees, basically purchasing whatever protections he wants a la carte.
Libertarians believe in ABSOLUTELY NO government regulation of the free market. None, zip, zero, zilch. If you believe in even a little regulation, by definition, you are not a libertarian.
Many libertarians do not believe the government has a role protecting us from each other and foreign threats, they believe there should be a free market in justice. Go to the court and police system that you pay for if you have a problem. Don't have the money to pay? Better hope someone thinks they can profit off of your case, or it won't go anywhere.
But it is in the definition of "rights" themselves that I have the most problems with libertarianism. Libertarians have a very narrow view of rights, for instance, there is no real right to life. There is a right to attempt to maintain your life, but if you can not do so on your own, you should DIE, NOW. For the good of the rest of us. Libertarian philosophy is rooted in social Darwinism and the idea that the weak should die to make room for the strong. The strong are by definition better, and the weak have no place resisting the strong. The weak are weak because they are inferior. The strong are strong because they are superior. This is the dark, cruel heart of modern American libertarianism, and why I fight it.
Must be nice living in a Blue state and getting all those benefits and food of the farm subsidies to the Red States.
You fail to see the bigger picture and are more interested in the us vs. them mentality.
You mean, the socialist farm subsidies used to pay farmers NOT to grow food? And that is just part of the welfare the red states get. What about all the homeland defense spending on states with no real targets?
Who cares what Sarah Palin thinks? This isn't news, for anybody.
Oh, but it is entertainment. Watching smug retards make fools of themselves is always funny, especially when they don't even realize, we are not laughing with them, we are laughing at them. If she stood any chance of being elected to any public office anywhere, she would be scary rather than funny, but as it is, she is just hilarious.
You are not a libertarian. You may be some other sort of anarchist, but you are not a libertarian by any stretch of the definition. You may want to educate yourself on the history and different branches of anarchism, I'm sure you will find a branch that better suits your philosophy than the libertarian branch.
Anarchism means "no archons" or no rulers. It does not mean "no state" which would be anocracy. Libertarianism (in America) is a specific branch of individualistic anarchism, which believes primarily in the free market and absolute property rights. In other parts of the world "libertarian" is generally understood as a synonym for anarchism in general, but here it has a VERY specific meaning, derived from the Boston school of Anarchism in particular.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, so that is why Palin quit? She couldn't legislate and run for office at the same time? So, by that logic, anyone running for re-election should quit their current office.
Politicians have been doing their jobs and campaigning at the same time since politics was invented. Why can't Failin' Palin do what every other politician in the history of the world did?
Seriously, that's the worst excuse I have ever heard.
Reducing government may actually be an example of preserving the status quo, if the parts you are reducing (regulatory agencies) are in fact trying to change the status quo. One part of the status quo is, polluters generally get away with it. Removing the EPA would not be changing the status quo, it would be preserving it.
Very insightful.
Most people are good people. They would stand up to injustice, if they believed it were happening. They would work to make their country great, if it weren't. But they are also lazy. And so, they have a choice, believe the comforting illusion that nearly everyone else believes, or get up off their lazy asses and make a difference.
I'm no less lazy. I'm no better than anyone else. Due to my upbringing, I never had a choice to believe the comforting illusion that the US is the best country ever. I was raised by college hippie radicals.
Now I have a choice. Continue to believe that the US needs work, or admit that I have wasted much of my life. Do you see why I am forced to admit I am no better than people who believe the US is the best? We all have our lazy, selfish reasons for believing what we do.
I, however, can at least look at my own laziness and selfishness honestly. Now that I've admitted that my beliefs, true or not, are self serving, can you admit the same?
Prostitute? But in my hypothetical universe, she looks like Janet Reno...
Lesbian Prostitute?
Meaning, you thought she was a quitter who couldn't take the heat of real politics. Did Clinton fold under attacks ten times that ferocity? Nope.
You are more than likely building an ultralight in your garage. Or a kit plane. If you want to build an unproven, untested flying vehicle above a certain weight in America, you will need to pass rigorous tests. You can build an ultralight and fly it in almost any first world country.
Remember Yves Rossy? The "Jet wing guy?" Yeah, he was Swiss. He did not build that airplane in America.
So, got any examples that actually apply to the real world?
Please provide an example of Ron Paul voting against funding for his own district.
Yes, I am assuming that other first world countries do not torture. They no longer invade other sovereign nations. They do not kidnap sovereign citizens of other nations in 'extraordinary rendition.' They do not launch drone attacks into neutral nations. They do not overthrow democratically elected governments.
We are not better than all other countries. Why is it so important to you that we are? Would it hurt you personally if we were merely the same as other first world countries? If we were worse, as a nation, would that reflect on you, personally? Do you also feel personally emasculated when your favorite sports team loses? Do you base your self esteem on comparisons with others, or do you base it on how well you measure up to your own ideals?
I've made it through every significant challenge I have taken on to date. Stay crazy, tho.
You can't "do nothing" in government. You see, we already have a system in place. Doing nothing is the same thing as supporting the status quo. You are still doing something. In fact, you are actively saying "We must keep doing EXACTLY the same thing!"
Of course Biden displays intelligence. Please, how about YOU prove he is an idiot, you are the one making outrageous claims.
As a wise man once said, "What is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." And so, until you provide evidence, you are dismissed. Buh bye.
So what? Of course the rich vote for Republicans, who promise to pander to the rich. So what if the tiny percentage of Americans who make over $100,000 tend to vote slightly more for Republicans (55%) than Democrats (42%)? The middle class (those making 50-100k per year) vote Democrat.
Let me list my points, so you can attempt to actually refute them rather than go off on a distracting tangent, which I'm sure was not your goal.
* There are certain states that historically vote Republican, even though they are poor.
* These states pay less in taxes than they receive from the federal government.
* Republicans are in control of those states. If they wanted what they say they want, they could easily put their money where their mouth is.
* They do not do so, therefore, they do not want fiscal responsibility. They do not want to take care of themselves. They do not want smaller government.
Finally, it is incorrect to say, based on the numbers you show, that Dems base is nonwhite and female while Reps base is white and male. I'm white and male. Those numbers are very close, and when you factor in age, you will see that the primary difference is actually that Republicans tend to be old. Old white men vote Republican. Young white men vote Democrat. Women vote Republican, too. If they are old.
Generally, all you are showing is that old white people do not want things evened out, they really enjoyed being top dogs, and they want their unearned privilege back. Yet more evidence that the Republican Base is defined not by sex, or race, but by being selfish assholes who don't want to share power with anyone else.
That's just it, there is no such animal as a small government type, in government. Whatever they were before they got into government, once they are there, they are for "big government." Republicans do not want a small government, they just want to do away with the parts they don't want (social programs, regulatory agencies, pork for other states) and increase the parts they do want (farm subsidies, the military, pork for their state.) If Republicans wanted small government, they could have it. Al they would have to do is stop taking federal money taken from the taxes of the rich, blue states. They could have their small government quite easily.
Take a look at who pays, and who receives. Poor Republican states are leaching off the rich Democratic states. If Republicans wanted small government and fiscal responsibility, they would pay their own way in their own states.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/266.html
How do you know Obama made errors if he was not called out on those errors?
More like "The Newlywed Game." Badump-cha!
I believe that would be "ur mom's face is the cube root of 27"
Maybe you should ask it, "What are you doing for lunch?" and see if it replies "Your mom's face are doing for lunch."
Biden says some thoughtless things sometimes, but in general, he displays intelligence, and persistence. Sarah displays neither, ever.
Nope, sorry, you do not understand what even the most idiotic person looks for in a leader. People want energy in a leader, they want someone who will follow through, who will work hard and never quit. Palin has demonstrated she is a quitter. No one, not even the stupidest, want a quitter for a leader.
She fucking well quit halfway through her first term, for no good reason. She is a joke. I'd rather be a nameless nobody than a proven joke.
A social safety net is absolutely prohibited by libertarian philosophy, specifically the philosophy of absolute property rights. Libertarians believe every property owner should be the king of his land, a sovereign with absolutely no limits on what he may do therein. That means that no one ever has the right to tax a property owner for anything. Ever. Unless he agrees, basically purchasing whatever protections he wants a la carte.
Libertarians believe in ABSOLUTELY NO government regulation of the free market. None, zip, zero, zilch. If you believe in even a little regulation, by definition, you are not a libertarian.
Many libertarians do not believe the government has a role protecting us from each other and foreign threats, they believe there should be a free market in justice. Go to the court and police system that you pay for if you have a problem. Don't have the money to pay? Better hope someone thinks they can profit off of your case, or it won't go anywhere.
But it is in the definition of "rights" themselves that I have the most problems with libertarianism. Libertarians have a very narrow view of rights, for instance, there is no real right to life. There is a right to attempt to maintain your life, but if you can not do so on your own, you should DIE, NOW. For the good of the rest of us. Libertarian philosophy is rooted in social Darwinism and the idea that the weak should die to make room for the strong. The strong are by definition better, and the weak have no place resisting the strong. The weak are weak because they are inferior. The strong are strong because they are superior. This is the dark, cruel heart of modern American libertarianism, and why I fight it.
Must be nice living in a Blue state and getting all those benefits and food of the farm subsidies to the Red States.
You fail to see the bigger picture and are more interested in the us vs. them mentality.
You mean, the socialist farm subsidies used to pay farmers NOT to grow food? And that is just part of the welfare the red states get. What about all the homeland defense spending on states with no real targets?
What do you think she'd be doing with her life? Truck stop waitress?
Wait, wait, that was not the real kristopeit, he did not insult your mom's face! It's an imposter!
Who cares what Sarah Palin thinks? This isn't news, for anybody.
Oh, but it is entertainment. Watching smug retards make fools of themselves is always funny, especially when they don't even realize, we are not laughing with them, we are laughing at them. If she stood any chance of being elected to any public office anywhere, she would be scary rather than funny, but as it is, she is just hilarious.
You are not a libertarian. You may be some other sort of anarchist, but you are not a libertarian by any stretch of the definition. You may want to educate yourself on the history and different branches of anarchism, I'm sure you will find a branch that better suits your philosophy than the libertarian branch.
Anarchism means "no archons" or no rulers. It does not mean "no state" which would be anocracy. Libertarianism (in America) is a specific branch of individualistic anarchism, which believes primarily in the free market and absolute property rights. In other parts of the world "libertarian" is generally understood as a synonym for anarchism in general, but here it has a VERY specific meaning, derived from the Boston school of Anarchism in particular.