One candidate's statement on the pledge

[nkb]

So, I'm sensing that you're not a big fan of Libertarians, Phil.

PhilOchsLives wrote

I find that Libertarians are almost wholly right wing fuckwads who wish only to enable corporations, screw the environment, deny civil rights (to everyone but themselves and their white buddies), have sex with their guns, and engage in the most self-centered politics imaginable. That ranks them with old-style brownshirts. If fact, most Libertarians I've met would have fit right in with 30s-era right wing extremists.

As for "positive change", only a fucking dumbass Libertarian would think for one fucking second that anything proposed by a witless Libertarian would be "positive".

Libertarians are pretty much a religion unto themselves. Fuck religion and fuck Libertarianism.

That's what I thought. You're the ignorant one, and your hatred is misguided. You hate people just because they hold a different opinion than you. You've created a negative stereotype for people you don't understand. What's next? Are you going to declare a jihad against libertarians?


I'm still laughing at your comment about libertarians denying people their civil rights. Educate yourself, and stop spewing your ignorant, misdirected hatred.

PhilOchsLives wrote

I find that Libertarians are almost wholly right wing fuckwads who wish only to enable corporations, screw the environment, deny civil rights (to everyone but themselves and their white buddies), have sex with their guns, and engage in the most self-centered politics imaginable. That ranks them with old-style brownshirts. If fact, most Libertarians I've met would have fit right in with 30s-era right wing extremists.

As for "positive change", only a fucking dumbass Libertarian would think for one fucking second that anything proposed by a witless Libertarian would be "positive".

Libertarians are pretty much a religion unto themselves. Fuck religion and fuck Libertarianism.

It's Socialism that is the religion, libertarians are for freedom, socialists are for tyranny.
I don't agree with Libertarians on several issues, but I respect where they are coming from.

[nkb]

gop atheist wrote

It's Socialism that is the religion, libertarians are for freedom, socialists are for tyranny.

I love when people buy into stereotypes, hook, line and sinker. Good job, Phil and gop atheist.

[Rhinoqulous]

In Libertarianism, Man exploits man. In Socialism, it's the other way around.

[dogpet]

gop atheist wrote

It's Socialism that is the religion, libertarians are for freedom, socialists are for tyranny.
I don't agree with Libertarians on several issues, but I respect where they are coming from.

Amazing

Where on earth do you get your ideas about socialism from? I realise it's an alien concept in USA but religion tyranny gimmie a break.

Is the Libertarian party not the last refuge of the weirdest nutters from each & every other extreme?
That's not an opinion BTW.

[Irreligious]

Pardon my ignorance, but aren't labels like conservative, liberal and libertarian entirely subjective to the point of being meaningless?

[dogpet]

Irreligious wrote

Pardon my ignorance, but aren't labels like conservative, liberal and libertarian entirely subjective to the point of being meaningless?

They are generalisations, but without labels we might eat dog food.

[DrunkMonkey]

StillSurviving wrote

I'm still laughing at your comment about libertarians denying people their civil rights. Educate yourself, and stop spewing your ignorant, misdirected hatred.

Buh... buh... but RON PAUL!!?!?!?!

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/...l.newsletters/

Even if he didn't write that stuff his nutty libertarian supporters did.

dogpet wrote

Amazing

Where on earth do you get your ideas about socialism from? I realise it's an alien concept in USA but religion tyranny gimmie a break.

Is the Libertarian party not the last refuge of the weirdest nutters from each & every other extreme?
That's not an opinion BTW.

So socialism is against the government nationalizing parts of the private sector?

[dogpet]

gop atheist wrote

So socialism is against the government nationalizing parts of the private sector?

You say that as though there is something wrong with public ownership.

[Sternwallow]

dogpet wrote

You say that as though there is something wrong with public ownership.

Yes, when socialist public ownership excludes the public from ownership. An example result is committee decreed, "one shape fits all" uniform gray underwear.

[dogpet]

Sternwallow wrote

Yes, when socialist public ownership excludes the public from ownership. An example result is committee decreed, "one shape fits all" uniform gray underwear.

That's an old fashioned viewpoint.

To get back on topic. If I were voting in USA I don't think I would feel good about voting for anyone who pledges allegiance to a higher authority while pimping themselves for the job of emperor. With the choice of two retards do you vote for the least retarded, or encourage the biggest one to get even more ridiculous in the hope that more see it for what it is.

I think I'd vote democrat in the absence of any sensible alternative & pester them to stop pretending to be cristards.

Oh! & it's grey

dogpet wrote

That's an old fashioned viewpoint.

To get back on topic. If I were voting in USA I don't think I would feel good about voting for anyone who pledges allegiance to a higher authority while pimping themselves for the job of emperor. With the choice of two retards do you vote for the least retarded, or encourage the biggest one to get even more ridiculous in the hope that more see it for what it is.

I think I'd vote democrat in the absence of any sensible alternative & pester them to stop pretending to be cristards.

Oh! & it's grey

Sad, ain't it? But then, judging who is most retarded is challenging enough for a lot of people. I'd like to think that the candidates are as cynical as any xtian "leader". They are politicians, after all, and must know that the real reason for religion is to keep the common folks in line. Getting them to admit non-belief in public, though, would cause outrage among those same unwashed. Pols know they'd never get back into a public office with that admission.

[dogpet]

Rat Bastard wrote

I'd like to think that the candidates are as cynical as any xtian "leader". They are politicians, after all, and must know that the real reason for religion is to keep the common folks in line.

Is this seriously a political consideration in 21st century USA?

What do they think would happen without it?