Thanks buddy. You've made my previous point perfectly. You could have simply stated your yes/no answers, but you have to qualify them, based on your own view. Everything MUST be filtered through you in order for it to be viable. Government, to you, is not the will of the people, because it is not YOUR will all the time. We govern via democracy, and sometimes that goes against what you want, but if you don't want it, that makes it wrong and dangerous.undercoverjoe wrote:Yes, but why should they care what some government has to say or not say about it.
Yes, but I should not have to pay for it. People who disagree with it on religious reasons should not have to pay for it either.
No
No, this bloated government owns over 30% of the land. Ridiculous.
No, not Constitutional at the federal level. Let the states do it.
Clarify question.
Needs to provide ID as stated in that little ole Constitution.
Already happens daily. We are basically a social democracy.
I will answer any question any way I want to, and your presumptions prove nothing.
Gays can marry, you say, but the govt can't make the choice. You are utterly alone on your side of the fence on that one. Your team says that gay marriage is immoral, and an abomination of your God. If you were to carry a pro-gay-marriage sign to a Ron Paul rally, you'd be escorted out (if you're lucky).
Abortion is a right, you say. But you don't pay for it. How many abortions do you think the US govt pays for? I have never personally heard of anyone getting a federal-funded abortion. I have heard of local people paying for it themselves, though. Rightwing media misinformation.
You hate that the govt owns 30% of the land. Read a history book. The govt bought up all that land, taxpayers paid for it. We own it, because we govern ourselves. WE ARE THE GOVERNMENT, if you don't like your current govt, vote them out... if you have enough support from your countrymen, it will change, if a majority of Americans feel differently, too bad for you. That land is NOT there to provide cheap resources so trans-national corporations can exploit them. It belongs to all of us, not the richest. You couldn't even approve the question as it stood.
Your answer that federal healthcare isn't constitutional shows that I must accept YOUR definition of what is, in fact, constitutional. Everything is measured against The Libertarian's yardstick, no other definition is possible. Exactly my point. Incidentally, Barack Hussein Obama taught constitutional law, and edited the Harvard Law Review. Your qualifications are...?
To clarify the question you didn't get: Do Americans have a collective right to, say, get tired of paying so much profit to gasoline speculators, and bypass the existing system, creating a non-profit or low-profit system using govt resources, or are we constitutionally bound to keep paying too much to oil co's and Wall St?
And of course you're going to say the President has to keep jumping through your hoops. You outrank him, just by being Joe. King Joe, Emperor of the Cosmos. Thanks again, my original point that you require complete unyielding control is now the loudest, brightest object in the room.
Finally, if you believe and support that liberal thought is both allowed and viable, exactly which liberal idea do you accept (even reluctantly), much less support? Why do you reject the results of the 2008 election? Why do you support the Tea Party?
You have to wonder, if Libertarians are so tolerant of others' ideas, why don't they ever say that?
