Meet your new thread, same as the old thread.

[Atticus Grinch]

It's time for all us Democrats to do what Hank thinks we do best: suck Islamofacist cock. So, in my continuing quest to pander to overseas extremism in my choice of presidential candidates, I have to ask, which is worse for inflaming hatred of us overseas? Unveiled lesbian? Or Muslim apostate? We gotta think defensively here.

Until someone issues a fatwa against plaintiff-side PI lawyers, it seems Edwards is the safest choice overall, no?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Can you parse this for me? "Transitional Action: Repeal all laws that presume government knows better than the individual how to run that person’s life." Link. If you don't start with Article III, there's nowhere to start at all.

Actually, the piece of the section you selected is quite vague, and the section read in totality clearly contemplates the continuation of a court system.

But I'm not defending that crazy thing. Speaking generally, the libertarian principles most people who call themselves libertarians favor include the maintenance of minimal protections necessary to preserve property and individual rights from interference. That requires a court system.

You knew that already.

ETA: And to a reasonable libertarian-leaning individual, yes, a Federal Court system.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
2. All government is essentially a risk pool. Either you want low premiums or you want covered claims. Can't have both. Period.

Huh. That's odd, because I've now heard about six candidates speak tonight about having excellent coverage and low premiums.

For the record, I'll take the low premiums.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Actually, the piece of the section you selected is quite vague, and the section read in totality clearly contemplates the continuation of a court system.

But I'm not defending that crazy thing. Speaking generally, the libertarian principles most people who call themselves libertarians favor include the maintenance of minimal protections necessary to preserve property and individual rights from interference. That requires a court system.

You knew that already.

Sure, but I was pointing out that all decision-making is either collective or individualist. A court system is both a check on unbridled collectivism and is itself a collective enterprise. What's more collectivist than a jury trial? Libertarians can't harmonize a "court system" with their views. At best, they like judges who are Philosopher Kings. Think any will get elected if they're honest about that?

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Huh. That's odd, because I've now heard about six candidates speak tonight about having excellent coverage and low premiums.

For the record, I'll take the low premiums.

Bullshit. If you really had the courage of your convictions, you would move your family to a state with a lower tax burden. Market sez: You gets what you pays for and you pays for what you gets.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Sure, but I was pointing out that all decision-making is either collective or individualist. A court system is both a check on unbridled collectivism and is itself a collective enterprise. What's more collectivist than a jury trial? Libertarians can't harmonize a "court system" with their views. At best, they like judges who are Philosopher Kings. Think any will get elected if they're honest about that?

We could point out the gaps in any pure ideology for days. Of course, pure Libertarianism has deep conceptual problems. No one in his right mind would argue for it's radical application. When people argue under the banner today they're basically saying "I want the govt gelded and I want it to be shrunk to the size that was contemplated in the Constitution." You could say it's the rabid, socially liberal wing of the GOP that never existed.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Bullshit. If you really had the courage of your convictions, you would move your family to a state with a lower tax burden. Market sez: You gets what you pays for and you pays for what you gets.

That's not even a good joke.

And that's not what the market sez because that's not even close to a free market transaction.

ETA: The only way for that to be a free market transaction would be to allow me to purchase services ala carte, or not at all. Then you'd gets what you pays for.

[LessinSF]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Can you parse this for me? "Transitional Action: Repeal all laws that presume government knows better than the individual how to run that person’s life." Link. If you don't start with Article III, there's nowhere to start at all.

Who are you addressing? No one here subscribes to the official Lib platform, just like (I suspect) you don't subscribe hook, line and sinker to the official Dem. platform. I don't know why the delegates go through the fucking exercise of creating one; it only exposes them to attack, and has no relationship to reality.

Interestingly, if you read,for example, the Volokh Conspiracy at times, you will see that this group of "libertarianeque" law professors exhibit a range of beliefs - none of which conform to your easy attempts to knock down strawmen - which are generally worthy and valid of debate. But your easy, but ultimately casuistical, reactions here disappoint me.

[LessinSF]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
2. All government is essentially a risk pool. Either you want low premiums or you want covered claims. Can't have both. Period.

Libertarians don't have a good answer for who provides the schizophrenics with the padded room and who takes custody of the abused kids. Life ain't Little House on the Prairie. If you thought Victorian London was a paradise, vote Paul.

Putting aside that I have no problem dealing if I was King with the schizos and the psychos, what is your solution; i.e where do you draw the line? I realize this is a metaphor, but at what point do I have to pay for the fuck-up from my high school to sit at home with his 42-inch TV doing meth because he has "ADHD?" Put another way, at what point do I have to stop paying for a 400-pound person's mobile chair to get around the Mall of America?

Someone mentioned starvation earlier. IT DOES NOT EXIST IN THE U.S. You can order something like 8 choices off the dollar menu at McDonalds that provide over 500 calories per item; i.e. 2000 calories per day for $4.00. The minimum wage here in CA just went to $8.00 per hour. I'm not saying they are good calories or a great life, but no one is starving, unless by choice.

[Icky Thump]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I'm biased, but Obama rocked tonight, didn't he?

Do you know which way to face to pray to Mecca? Obama does.

[Icky Thump]

Originally posted by LessinSF


Someone mentioned starvation earlier. IT DOES NOT EXIST IN THE U.S. You can order something like 8 choices off the dollar menu at McDonalds that provide over 500 calories per item; i.e. 2000 calories per day for $4.00. The minimum wage here in CA just went to $8.00 per hour. I'm not saying they are good calories or a great life, but no one is starving, unless by choice.

When did you find out about pony's lunch menu?

[LessinSF]

Originally posted by Icky Thump
Do you know which way to face to pray to Mecca? Obama does.

Dude, you are embarassing yourself.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
didn't he say he wants to attack Iran?

No. I thought you didn't read lgf.

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
or is flat out lying okay for you guys?

Of course, just like it is for you.

We'll see what happens in NH. Some analysts were saying pre-primary that Iowa's caucus format made it a very tough state for Clinton (even more liberal than party primaries). We'll see what happnes in NH and beyond. It should be interesting.

S_A_M

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by LessinSF
Someone mentioned starvation earlier. IT DOES NOT EXIST IN THE U.S. You can order something like 8 choices off the dollar menu at McDonalds that provide over 500 calories per item; i.e. 2000 calories per day for $4.00. The minimum wage here in CA just went to $8.00 per hour. I'm not saying they are good calories or a great life, but no one is starving, unless by choice.

Wrong, Less. Wrong to the point of infuriating absurdity.

So, where do little kids get their money? Where do parents with very little money (some do exist) get enough to feed both their kids AND themselves? How do families with no cars (there are some) drive to McDonalds for their dollar menu feast?

There are no Ethopian style-famines here, but there is plenty of hunger in America.

S_A_M

P.S. But yes, of course, Hank is right that, across the U.S. population obesity is more of a health problem.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Icky Thump
Do you know which way to face to pray to Mecca? Obama does.

Yes. Glad to hear Obama is geographically and culturally literate.

S_A_M