Libertarian wins 250k from TSA for his arrest
FUCK THE TSA. FUCK THE GOVERNMENT.
A Virginia man who wrote an abbreviated version of the Fourth Amendment on his body and stripped to his shorts at an airport security screening area won a trial Friday in his lawsuit seeking $250,000 in damages for being detained on a disorderly conduct charge.
Aaron Tobey claimed in a civil rights lawsuit (.pdf) that in 2010 he was handcuffed and held for about 90 minutes by the Transportation Security Administration at the Richmond International Airport after he began removing his clothing to display on his chest a magic-marker protest of airport security measures.
|by Anonymous||reply 105||02/02/2013|
Good, I'm glad. TSA's security theater is intrusive, barely legal and sucks. But the Libertatian anti-government meme sucks as much or more.
|by Anonymous||reply 4||01/28/2013|
I'd bribe any TSA agent for the nude bodyscans of this guy.
|by Anonymous||reply 6||01/28/2013|
Fine, R5, what have you done lately? Written a letter? OoOOOOHHHHH!!!!
|by Anonymous||reply 7||01/28/2013|
He didn't create the disturbance and he isn't a threat to our civil liberties. They could have cleared him peaceably if they had chosen to.
You can scarcely argue that the sight of his bare torso was offensive to people who were about to examine his nude form on a video screen or else conduct a hands-on investigation that might result in a full strip-search.
|by Anonymous||reply 8||01/28/2013|
Actually R3, there is a huge amount of simple minded young kids that identify as libertarians. They see things as black and white, know it all at 20. So that kid fits right in.
The problem is, they dont see things clearly, only cherry picked facts and concepts. They hate government except when THEY need it. But F everyone else.
Even Ron Paul was doing the cherry picking dance. Do you want private police force? Private fire department? Private emergency care? What happens when you get into a car accident and your payment didnt go through? Should they leave you to die because you didnt save enough money to pay a 40,000 bill from the hospital?
|by Anonymous||reply 9||01/28/2013|
Sure, eliminate the FDA, food safety and protections, R5. And don't forget, if we drown government in the bathtub, we can eliminate taxes on billionaires: no more IRS!
|by Anonymous||reply 10||01/28/2013|
His time would be better spent protesting terrorists.
He'd be the first one in line to sue, if it was his momma that got squashed by the World Trade Center.
|by Anonymous||reply 11||01/28/2013|
You could take that a step farther R9. Assuming half the popluaton will not have enough money, what will they do with all the dead bodies that pie up? Dose governement now have to pay for the clean up through tax dollars?
This is how it will end up, this move has suddenly become for relative.
|by Anonymous||reply 12||01/28/2013|
I am with you R13. I dont have time, or should I say dont want to waste time on people like that anymore. I pass on these guys too when I find out they are Libertarians / Republicans.
There is more then enough sausage in the deli case then there is to try and save a few links in the toilet.
|by Anonymous||reply 14||01/28/2013|
In other words, he got exactly what he was after.
Anyway, what's for dinner? Boy am I beat. Anything good on TV tonight?
|by Anonymous||reply 15||01/28/2013|
Hmmm... you think he has a student loan? Why don't you ask him, R5?
|by Anonymous||reply 16||01/28/2013|
Thanks R12 I am so going to find this movie to watch.
|by Anonymous||reply 17||01/28/2013|
I don't understand why libertarians don't just live in Somalia and see for themselves what libertarianism looks like in real life.
|by Anonymous||reply 19||01/28/2013|
R20 = our resident Randbot.
I hope he pays by the post. Do you type his KKK mailouts as well?
|by Anonymous||reply 21||01/28/2013|
The free market, R20, doesn't give a shit about people. Seriously - explain how it would make the world a far better place? And start with places like Africa where companies such as Shell Oil are making the place so much better (I'm being ironic, for those who can't clue in).
|by Anonymous||reply 22||01/28/2013|
I hate libertarians almost more than anything but apparently I hate the tsa, even more.
|by Anonymous||reply 23||01/28/2013|
Because maybe r23 is smart enough to acknowledge freedom is never absolute, and is traded to some extent for a measure of protection under a social contract. A society without any government is nothing but a vacuum for warlords to fill. How much better off are people in nations where government doesn't have the resources to govern? Is the population of Central African Republic enjoying unbridled freedom and prosperity? Or are beset by poverty and disease, and terrorised by warlords, slavers and madmen? Our government is not without its faults and fundamental reform is needed, but abolishing the federal government entirely is a fool's solution.
|by Anonymous||reply 26||01/28/2013|
r4, r20, r23 - your anti government, fda, irs, ins hasn't worked in any other threads. why here too?
opinions are fine but i'm tired of your baiting.....
|by Anonymous||reply 27||01/28/2013|
The bill creating the Orwellian named Dept of Homeland Security was sponsored by Republican Dick Armey and signed into law by President Bush in 2001.
|by Anonymous||reply 28||01/28/2013|
Come live in me, libertarians! I'm your wet dream! What's that? I'm too real for you?
So much for libertarianism.
|by Anonymous||reply 29||01/28/2013|
You are scarily delusional, R30/31. You've gone on about freedom, but you haven't even answered any questions, such as how the free market would take care of its citizens. Or did they only teach you the rhetorical talking points, and not how to back them up with any sort of substance?
|by Anonymous||reply 32||01/29/2013|
Without a gun to their head people will do the right thing? Yeah, that tells me everything I need to know about you and the planet you live on.
|by Anonymous||reply 34||01/29/2013|
R30 needs to be tracked. He's another Sandy Hook waiting to happen... He'll do it the name of 'freedom' or some other warped ideal.
|by Anonymous||reply 36||01/29/2013|
Libertarian philosophy has a lot of great ideals, none of which would work in the USA though.
|by Anonymous||reply 37||01/29/2013|
Today's Libertarian Circle Jerk(TM) is brought to you by Ayn Rand Cornflakes. Find your own goddamn cereal, you pathetic parasites!
|by Anonymous||reply 39||01/29/2013|
[quote]Until you understand the economics of liberty you will remain ignorant and support stupid politicians and their evil goals. When you can debate Von Mises or Rothbard, come back. Until then, shut up.
How very...Fascist of you.
|by Anonymous||reply 40||01/29/2013|
Yet another case of serious reading comprehension problems.
OP, the article you posted doesn't say that this young man won 250K.
It said the judge ordered the case in which he is seeking 250K in damages to trial
They are two quite different things.
Either you knew that and are being deliberately misleading. Or you need to learn how to read.
|by Anonymous||reply 41||01/29/2013|
Wow. Libertarian trolls with diagnosable personality disorders. I implore you not to click.
|by Anonymous||reply 43||01/29/2013|
Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.
|by Anonymous||reply 45||01/29/2013|
Didn't you mean please turn of Fox News, r46?
Msnbc is the voice of reason compared with that.
|by Anonymous||reply 47||01/29/2013|
There is deep fear of libertarianism because many *incorrectly* think that it will be the end of welfare and social security.
The thing is, is that there are many different types of libertarians. Some are outright socialists who would support free health care, welfare, and education. Others would want to eliminate these things given by government, and have it distributed by charities only (bad idea).
Mostly, though, libertarian means an official policy of equal rights. It is also strongly against U.S. involvement in foreign wars. Regarding Somalia, it was our Democratic and Republican policies under Clinton and Bush that sent the military over there, along with aid. Somalia was destroyed by the Democrats and Repubs, not any Libertarians. LOL!
|by Anonymous||reply 48||01/29/2013|
[quote] Somalia was destroyed by the Democrats and Repubs, not any Libertarians. LOL!
That's because Libertarians don't have any power.
|by Anonymous||reply 49||01/29/2013|
[quote]I've given up trying to explain libertarian philosophy on datalounge. Too many people here have absolutely no understanding of economics ("free education for everyone!") and many others just have no understanding of human rights and liberty ("we have the right to live anywhere we want!").
Translation: I've been proven repeatedly to be a complete idiot, and keep obsessively posting the same idiotic drivel again & again as if nothing happened.
|by Anonymous||reply 50||01/29/2013|
R47 Right. How about suggesting people to turn off the TV entirely and engage in an open and passive debate with someone of a DIFFERENT political conviction? I get to do that more than enough.
Fox News and MSNBC are fucked up, R47. Both of them omit things frequently. Please do not think that MSNBC and CNN are somehow pillars of truth. I can understand how they seem so, though, given that they appear less repugnant and more reasonable in the way they speak.
|by Anonymous||reply 51||01/29/2013|
What color is the sky on your planet, R48? On my planet, Somalia collapsed because it was a failed state.
|by Anonymous||reply 52||01/29/2013|
Libertarians don't want the power to invade and get involved with old tribal conflicts overseas. That is the work of the Demos and Repubs.
Oh, and if the Libertarians were in charge, gay people would be PROTECTED UNDER FEDERAL LAW AGAINST ALL HATE CRIMES AND DISCRIMINATION.
|by Anonymous||reply 53||01/29/2013|
Somalia failed mostly to US aid and military intervention.
|by Anonymous||reply 54||01/29/2013|
Ah, R42, I have a great understanding of economic issues and believe it or not, it doesn't have to be that hard.
First off, everyone should pay taxes. There should be no welfare for the rich and no loopholes.
The 2% makes way, way too much. The 98%, too little. Spread the wealth, the economy will do just fine and our bills will be paid. Funnel everything to the top, you get a third world country and if I could go to war to stop THAT, I would.
|by Anonymous||reply 55||01/29/2013|
By the way, I understand libertarians. They don't care if poor people have to pay for our roadways...as long as THEY don't have to pay. They don't want to pay for public education, they don't want to have to pay for sick children. If they own a business...all part time workers and they only pay minimum wage. That is the philsophy of all libertarians. As long as THEY don't have to pay anything, they are happy..."let the suckers pay!"
|by Anonymous||reply 56||01/29/2013|
R56, you're far worse than someone who's just ignorant of what Libertarians want, you're a pernicious liar.
|by Anonymous||reply 57||01/29/2013|
R56 is wrong, most libertarins want the poor to have equal rights, including minorities. Libertarians are for amnesty of illegal immigrants mostly to recognize them as human beings and stop the exploitation of them as workers. This amnesty will actually be a hardship on small busineees because now they will have to pay them a decent wage and acknowledge lunch breaks, vaction time, etc.
It is the Repubs and Demos that are against amnesty because they are the ones most likey to exploit undocumented workers. Libertarians are the only ones i know that will not profit form slave labor overseas, whereas many liberals make big money off of these practices.
|by Anonymous||reply 58||01/29/2013|
R56 is the same troll posting lies about libertarians and Somalia, never taking into account the historical truths of either issue.
|by Anonymous||reply 59||01/29/2013|
A U.S. District Court judge has accepted a third amended complaint from a woman who got into a tussle with security officials at Bob Hope Airport when they wouldn’t allow her to bring applesauce and other snacks on a flight in 2009.
Nadine Hays of Camarillo claims she was taken into custody after the April 2009 incident based on a falsified citizen’s arrest form and tampered evidence.
U.S. District Court Judge Patrick Walsh said several defendants who have been served, including some airport employees, must now respond to allegations in Hays’ complaint — or enter a plea — by March 1.
The defendants include Tesia Tettah, the Transportation Security Administration employee with whom Hays allegedly got into a tug-of-war. The three arresting police officers from the airport are also named, as are the Burbank city attorney’s office, Burbank Police Department, airport police department and the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority, which oversees the airfield.
All of Hays’ previous complaints were rejected by Walsh, who described her second amended complaint — in which more than 60 defendants were named — as “long and rambling."
|by Anonymous||reply 60||01/29/2013|
R56, that sounds more like a Republican't than a Libertarian.
|by Anonymous||reply 61||01/29/2013|
Wow, R56 has gone crazy. Such a pack of lies. How typical.
|by Anonymous||reply 62||01/29/2013|
R55 Please demonstrate any feasible way in which the rich can pay for almost a trillion dollars in deficits without being taxed on more than 60 percent of their income.
As a person who has seen economic prosperity occur in front of my own eyes through the privatization of his hometown's infrastructure, I doubt that you're talking the talk of a true economist. As a person who's inspired a movement in a country that has turned it around, I believe in what you say about welfare for the rich. We should do away with it indeed! That's what I want.
I want to eliminate corporate welfare entirely. I think it's a feasible political model and that the economy will remain sustainable without corporate welfare. Let them sink when they fail instead of crying to momma.
While I can agree with you on that, I can't agree with the "paying taxes is patriotic" rhetoric.
I can agree with you also on the fact that the rich CAN afford taxes. But do we really want them to pass the taxes onto end-users and consumers? We might as well tax products, not production.
|by Anonymous||reply 63||01/29/2013|
You're right, R54. We should have just let them starve.
I guess I shouldn't get to worked up over Libertarian circle jerks. After all, they have about as much impact on American politics & economics as 9/11 Truthers. And considerably less impact than Tea Party Republicans.
|by Anonymous||reply 64||01/29/2013|
R64 Don't put them all in the same, uh... Teacup.
First of all, foreign aid to any country should be voluntary and with the intention of helping its people. It's not wrong to feed someone. It's wrong to feed someone with money you just nipped from someone without their consent. The problem here is that you eventually run out of other people's money.
|by Anonymous||reply 65||01/29/2013|
Poor, naive R64 thinks that food aid actually goes to the people!! LOL!
All aid goes to the warlords, who use it as a weapon against their own to manipulate them. The US knows about this manipulation and sends them this "aid" TO gain US interests there.
I na perfect world, aid goes to the poor but in the real world, aid goes to the wealthy and powerful.
|by Anonymous||reply 66||01/29/2013|
R66 Right. I would concede to the notion that the government is always acting in its own superior interests, whether it be control over its populace or control over populaces abroad. Feudalism is far from dead.
|by Anonymous||reply 67||01/29/2013|
[quote]The thing is, is that there are many different types of libertarians. Some are outright socialists who would support free health care, welfare, and education. Others would want to eliminate these things given by government, and have it distributed by charities only (bad idea).
As a gay man who has been involved in the Libertarian Party and the libertarian movement for almost 20 years and has worked with the LP at the national level, I can say I have never met one who is an "outright socialist(s) who would support free health care, welfare, and education" and identifies with the libertarian movement.
Yes, there are one or two "libertarian socialists" (Noam Chomsky considers himself one) but he would never fit under even the largest and most generous libertarian umbrella. Chomsky is mainly playing with words when he uses the word "libertarian".
|by Anonymous||reply 68||01/29/2013|
R68 Noam Chomsky is probably just hi-jacking the word "libertarian" to make it more meaningless. They already hi-jacked classical liberalism and turned it into something else. A bunch of Che Guevarra types have joined the liberal movement and made it into something that hard-core hippies wouldn't really agree with. Today's hippies and liberals are yesterday's Stalinists. Yesterday's hippies and liberals are today's libertarians. It's all confusing. MAKE IT STAHP!
|by Anonymous||reply 69||01/29/2013|
Chomsky has some horrible economic ideas (and libertarianism is all about economics) but he does understand the evil nature of empire, and how democrats are just as bad as republicans.
Most people here are too ignorant to understand the relationship between civil liberty and economic liberty, and that one cannot exist without the other. That is why libertarians are the only people that can oppose war and corporate welfare, the drug war and welfare.
|by Anonymous||reply 70||01/29/2013|
"Libertarian socialist." I can't imagine a more ludicrous oxymoron. Socialists want to make themselves serfs to the State. Libertarians want nothing more than a respect for the individual and his rights.
|by Anonymous||reply 71||01/29/2013|
[quote]By the way, I understand libertarians. They don't care if poor people have to pay for our roadways...as long as THEY don't have to pay. They don't want to pay for public education, they don't want to have to pay for sick children. If they own a business...all part time workers and they only pay minimum wage. That is the philsophy of all libertarians. As long as THEY don't have to pay anything, they are happy..."let the suckers pay!"
Where do people get such crazy ideas??? If DL'ers think this is what libertarians believe, they are seriously deluded.
Of course, I think the poster really just wanted to stir up shit. Or he's one of the mentally deranged.
|by Anonymous||reply 72||01/29/2013|
The latter, R72. He's been here for years, although he's far more persistent these days than in his previous outbreaks. I suspect he's posting drunk.
|by Anonymous||reply 73||01/29/2013|
You're the drunk. R72 is DEFENDING liberty.
|by Anonymous||reply 74||01/29/2013|
I hope he wins. And you idiots that hate libertarians, wtf? You wanna just bend over and grab your ankles for the government any ole time?
|by Anonymous||reply 76||01/30/2013|
[quote] And you idiots that hate libertarians, wtf? You wanna just bend over and grab your ankles for the government any ole time?
This is the story of gay politics. The government (both major parties) have screwed us royally for generations. Obama changed his stance on gay marriage only very recently when it was politically expedient. Yet, gay liberals will happily lick up the crumbs brushed from the table as long as the crumbs come from a Democrat.
The deafening silence of the anti-war Left nowadays is telling. Clearly, war and the stripping away of human rights is okie-dokie if it comes from a fellow liberal. Of course, liberals traditionally are more concerned with chimeric "group rights" than with individual rights.
How often do we hear anyone on datalounge question the war in Afghanistan, the lingering occupation of Iraq, or sloppy drone attacks? Who on here questions Obama's grab for power and authority? These are all more than political inconveniences. If what Obama is doing now were done under a Republican administration, we can just the shrieking on datalounge.
The Libertarian Party is the only 2nd-tier party in the United States that has *for years* openly endorse our marriage freedom, and it has done so because it's the right thing to do and not in some cynical attempt to garner votes at the last minute. But most dataloungers prefer to lick the boots of those who hold them captive. So, yes, R76, this is the wrong crowd.
|by Anonymous||reply 78||01/30/2013|
Well said, R78. Never forget who signed DOMA.
|by Anonymous||reply 79||01/30/2013|
[quote]The Libertarian Party is the only 2nd-tier party in the United States that has *for years* openly endorse our marriage freedom
Completely false. The Libertarian Party's official platform is that the government should stay out of marriage completely (which is, of course, impossible, so this aspect of their party platform is a thin veil covering their true agenda which is to deny gays rights), and they are against legal protection for gays against discrimination. This is abhorrent.
Libertarian favorites like Ron Paul and Rand Paul make their hatred of gays and contempt for gay rights more explicit. Ron Paul and Rand Paul, for example, are opposed to the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution, and believe that states should not have to recognize the same-sex marriages performed by other states, in clear violation of the Constitution. They believe that individual states have the right to ban gay marriage in violation of the 14th Amendment. They believe individual states have the right to ban sodomy, in violation of the 4th and 14th Amendments.
Libertarians are not allies of gays, nor are they defenders of the Constitution. These are two myths that the media loves to repeat, but repeating a lie over and over again does not make it true.
|by Anonymous||reply 80||01/30/2013|
[quote]The Libertarian Party's official platform is that the government should stay out of marriage completely (which is, of course, impossible...
And this is just one of the reasons that there's so much contempt for libertarians, because what they want is, frankly, stupid. The cost of not having official government recognition of relationships would be astronomical. There is a reason why there is such official recognition. There's a reason why we have a safety net, public schools, public roads, public libraries, and the like. All you need is just a little knowledge of history.
|by Anonymous||reply 81||01/30/2013|
R80, you're wrong (and holding up the Pauls as shining examples of Libertarianism is as unfortunate as me waving Dennis Kucinich or Maxine Waters in your face. They're just the morons that were able to get elected.
BTW, here's exactly what the Libertarian Platform says about gays (and has said for years):
[quote]Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government's treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships.
So stop attempting to say otherwise.
|by Anonymous||reply 82||01/30/2013|
R82, you just proved R80 correct.
Take some time to re-read what you just posted, specifically, [bold]"Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships."[/bold]
|by Anonymous||reply 83||01/30/2013|
No, R83, R80 tried to assert that the Libertarian platform says "their true agenda which is to deny gays rights" and "they are against legal protection for gays against discrimination" and it wants to leave those issues up to the states, per Ron Paul.
That's simply out-and-out lying.
|by Anonymous||reply 84||01/30/2013|
I love you, R83
People who think that Ron Paul is anti gay, or that libertarians are homophobic, are too stupid to breath. They worship the government and any attack on their beliefs makes them cry.
99% of Libertarians support gay marriage.
|by Anonymous||reply 85||01/31/2013|
Please, R84, show us where in the Libertarian Party platform they propose extending protection from discrimination in the private sector to gays. I want to see it, because that would be fundamentally opposed to the libertarian philosophy.
R85 is more interesting, though, because of his belief that people who think for themselves deserve to die. Libertarians are an interesting bunch.
|by Anonymous||reply 86||01/31/2013|
[quote] are too stupid to breath
|by Anonymous||reply 87||01/31/2013|
[quote]And once again, I thank the Lord that Libertarians have no control whatsoever over US economic policy.
And once again, you'd be wrong. The Libertarian Party is small and wins few significant elections. However, there are many libertarian think tanks around the country that have significant influence. Hundreds of amicus briefs are filed in courts every year by libertarian organizations and you'd be amazed how many politicians at every level of government subscribe to Reason magazine.
[quote] The Libertarian Party's official platform is that the government should stay out of marriage completely (which is, of course, impossible, so this aspect of their party platform is a thin veil covering their true agenda which is to deny gays rights), and they are against legal protection for gays against discrimination. This is abhorrent.
Wow, you're in bad shape. It is not impossible for government to stay out of marriage. For centuries the government had absolutely no say in marriage. Why now? Why ever?
Please tell us in what way our true agenda is to deny us our rights? Please be specific.
|by Anonymous||reply 88||01/31/2013|
Marriage originated as a legal solution to a legal problem. The religious stuff came later. Libertarians are as notorious for their ignorance of history as they are of their ignorance of economics.
|by Anonymous||reply 89||01/31/2013|
[quote]Please tell us in what way our true agenda is to deny us our rights? Please be specific.
Whenever extending the right to marriage to gays is discussed, libertarians do not support it, claiming that they believe that the state has no business being in the marriage business. The consequence is that marriage continues to be a right only enjoyed by heterosexuals. Of course, the very idea of marriage being separate from the state is absurd because marriage has always been an institution of the state. It makes about as much sense as having private police officers, private roads or private firefighters.
Libertarians are also opposed to adding sexual orientation to the list of groups protected from discrimination, because they oppose protection from discrimination in general. In their eyes, it is only the government that shouldn't be allowed to discriminate. They see landlords or employers as having an absolute right to hire, fire or evict whoever they want and for whatever reason they want. This has the consequence of creating a system where only the rights of white men with money are protected. Looking at the demographics of libertarians and seeing that they are overwhelmingly white men with money explains why they fight to protect their own privileged status in society.
Hopefully that's clear enough for you.
|by Anonymous||reply 90||01/31/2013|
That "legal problem" was miscegenation. Racist fucker.
|by Anonymous||reply 91||01/31/2013|
[quote]Libertarian wins 250k from TSA for his arrest
WRONG! OP is too stupid to read his own link or else too stupid to understand it.
|by Anonymous||reply 92||01/31/2013|
I'm 96% sure they had no concept of miscegenation back in the prehistoric era when marriage became a legal institution, R91. Please, read a book sometime.
|by Anonymous||reply 93||01/31/2013|
[quote] Hundreds of amicus briefs are filed in courts every year by libertarian organizations and you'd be amazed how many politicians at every level of government subscribe to Reason magazine.
All you've really shown me is the extent to which you're completely divorced from reality. My original statement stands.
|by Anonymous||reply 94||01/31/2013|
Why the hate for Libertarians? They believe gays should be able to live their lives like everyone else.
|by Anonymous||reply 95||01/31/2013|
Because libertarians fight to prevent gays from gaining rights. Keep up, R95!
|by Anonymous||reply 96||01/31/2013|
I can't tell if the libertarian troll actually believes that marriage didn't exist prior to the 1800s, and if he really believes that marriage originated in the United States. If he does, he's dumber than I thought.
|by Anonymous||reply 97||01/31/2013|
[quote]Why the hate for Libertarians?
Mostly because they are unsympathetic morons, ignorant of history and economics, and totally disconnected from human nature and the real world.
|by Anonymous||reply 98||01/31/2013|
That kid sounds like a fucking CON ARTIST.
He probably also runs in front of cars to purposely get hit.
Seriously, people like him push to see how far they can push so that they can claim their civil liberties are violated. They don't care what their point is. They don't care who is inconvenienced.
A libertarians is often a selfish, spoiled brat with ADD who lashes out on their parents who restricted their creativity as a child, via the US Government. They are petulant, argumentative adult children who don't like rules or being told what to do.
|by Anonymous||reply 99||01/31/2013|
[quote]That "legal problem" was miscegenation. Racist fucker.
LOL.... Wow, you really *don't* know any history, do you?
And from another idiot:
[quote]It is not impossible for government to stay out of marriage.
Yes, actually it is, and for very good reason.
[quote]For centuries the government had absolutely no say in marriage. Why now? Why ever?
And another moron who doesn't know his history.
|by Anonymous||reply 100||02/01/2013|
I want whatever it takes to stop the wars. If this means voting Libertarian, I will.
When you get older, like me, you look around and see how many never make it to your own age. And when you see that so many lives were wasted dying in wars that defy explanation, then you get very angry. If you have a heart, that is.
I want the wars to stop. I have a heart.
|by Anonymous||reply 101||02/01/2013|
Well said, R101. The two main parties are nothing more than War, Inc. Can anyone tell me just WHY we're in Afghanistan???
|by Anonymous||reply 102||02/01/2013|
[quote]I want the wars to stop. I have a heart.
That's nice, because the brain has clearly gone AWOL.
|by Anonymous||reply 103||02/01/2013|
[quote]I want whatever it takes to stop the wars. If this means voting Libertarian, I will.
Voting Libertarian will not stop any wars.
|by Anonymous||reply 104||02/01/2013|
The "Ron Paul" libertarians oppose all wars, foreign and domestic, and want to restore civil liberties stolen by the Big Two parties.
|by Anonymous||reply 105||02/02/2013|