blanky, you've got qm using your derogatory euphemism for democracy. If you can convert him to Libertarianism and videotape it, I promise not to make fun of his choppers.

>> ^chilaxe:
Making fun of Cheney's name... glad to see we're on the intellectual high road.


Yes, goodness knows we wouldn't want to disrespect the torturer general by calling him names.

Do you disapprovingly cluck whenever you hear President Nixon referred to as "Tricky Dick", or do you figure he's earned that name?

Technically I think "dick" is a dysphemism. It may have started as a euphemism but these days most people would say "dick" is dirtier than "penis".

Wow...what a blast from the past. I actually went to college with these two guys. Upvote for the personal touch (not a euphemism).

"Handjo" is not a bad euphemism for something else*.


* handjob

^Cute. But, although it was a creative effort, it's flawed because it's inaccurate. I've never advocated the abolishment of a representative government; to the contrary I'd like to see us have more individual power by using the Constitution as the means of limited governance.

I would ask what you mean by a "strong" representative government? What is "strong" supposed to mean? Well funded? Lots of guns? Major world influence? More laws? A mightier military to step on those brown people abroad? Spreading hegemony? A massive police force with tasers and a fuzzy notion of human rights? More legislation in favor of rich corporatists and also some for the working class to, you know, "even" everything out?

It's preposterous and flimsy to suggest by giving us more individual liberty we'd slip into a tyrannical system of serfdom or, how did you put it? Oh yes, economic authoritarianism. Nice euphemism.

Thanks to our current "strong" government we all are forced to pay into a system that gives a very tiny percentage back to us. The majority of money goes to big business, corporatists and the prison and military industrialists, where it's used to further the rich elite's stranglehold on the rest of us... and you call that Capitalism. Ridiculous.

Power comes from the government's might. That's a far more dangerous tool in the hands of the elite rich than individual liberty is in all of our's.

>> ^BansheeX:
>> ^rougy:
"Libertarian Logic" - two words I've rarely seen used together, and for good reason.

Oh?

I guess it escaped your purview that tax codes are not even on the list of why NOM wants to discriminate against homosexuals, or why any social conservative chooses to for that matter.
I guess "Libertarian Logic" is a euphemism for "missing the point."

Swing and a miss. The tax code is not the goal, it's the means by which the goal is accomplished. The religious want to push their concept of "marriage" and marriage itself by giving tax benefits to that particular union for which licensure is required.
>> ^jwray:
You're forgetting about child support, alimony and property that can be disputed before a divorce settlement can be reached. These are some of the protections gays are denied.
No, I'm not. There are people who have children and never got licenses. There are people who live with each other and share property and never got licenses. And their disputes/divides are settled in our court system regardless, or should be. It's mostly the IRS that requires licensure, gays can't get child or marriage credits without it.
Sorry your tax code logic is pretty flawed. If you're a childless couple it's really not much of a difference, if anything the married couple is more likely to get screwed come tax season.
How so? What's the point of seeking government permission to get married then if the tax benefit is negligible? Have a ceremony, swear oaths, profess love, print up your own certificate, you don't need permission from bigots to love someone or live with someone. Licensure is meaningless if not for the fact that it creates inequity by granting superior tax status to one legal choice over another.
If you do have children the system is set up to reward who ever has custody.
If you're referring to child support, that's restitution rather than a tax. Fact is, both parents will then lose their IRS marriage credits, but why would we want to reward/penalize based on marriage status?
As for children, the more dependents you have, the more government services you use, yet the less taxes you pay. We don't want to incentivize people to have children they can't afford by using money taken from other legal behaviors, like being single, being gay, or being childless. Subsidizing one legal choice with another makes no sense and creates tremendous distractions and infighting in this country.
If you're an abused spouse and can prove it,you'll have a better shot and getting custody of any children and recieving child support.

Child support is restitution ordered by the court, it's merely a transfer payment as part of an inferred contract when the child was born. Why are you even adding a child to my scenario? Stop trying to confound the clear example I am giving you. If a marriage is loveless, abusive, dishonest, or some other breakdown, the tax code says "stay in that marriage or we'll penalize you by revoking the subsidy we gave you for being heterosexually married." This is a carrot/stick system from a religious viewpoint that goes back a long ways when divorce for any reason was frowned upon and never seen as the best solution. And this is the system you still support, even when including gays as applicable for licensure. You're not going to worm your way out of this by adding a child and child support to confound the argument.


It's flawed because it is an attempt to reduce marriage to solely a tax issue. There are more rights involved.

I can understand why you feel the tax status is unfair. As I said before it's really a minor change in status, and since I didn't make myself clear earlier, I wouldn't shed a tear if everyone held the same status.

It's not just about divorce protections. Consider hospital visitation, being able to make medical decisions on behalf of an incapacitated spouse, and the ability to inherit valuables in the event death. In the case of an unmarried couple the sick or injured partner's family can step in and essentially screw the healthy one over.

Still, choice is really at the heart of the issue.

>> ^rougy:
"Libertarian Logic" - two words I've rarely seen used together, and for good reason.


Oh?


I guess it escaped your purview that tax codes are not even on the list of why NOM wants to discriminate against homosexuals, or why any social conservative chooses to for that matter.
I guess "Libertarian Logic" is a euphemism for "missing the point."


Swing and a miss. The tax code is not the goal, it's the means by which the goal is accomplished. The religious want to push their concept of "marriage" and marriage itself by giving tax benefits to that particular union for which licensure is required.

>> ^jwray:
You're forgetting about child support, alimony and property that can be disputed before a divorce settlement can be reached. These are some of the protections gays are denied.

No, I'm not. There are people who have children and never got licenses. There are people who live with each other and share property and never got licenses. And their disputes/divides are settled in our court system regardless, or should be. It's mostly the IRS that requires licensure, gays can't get child or marriage credits without it.

Sorry your tax code logic is pretty flawed. If you're a childless couple it's really not much of a difference, if anything the married couple is more likely to get screwed come tax season.

How so? What's the point of seeking government permission to get married then if the tax benefit is negligible? Have a ceremony, swear oaths, profess love, print up your own certificate, you don't need permission from bigots to love someone or live with someone. Licensure is meaningless if not for the fact that it creates inequity by granting superior tax status to one legal choice over another.

If you do have children the system is set up to reward who ever has custody.

If you're referring to child support, that's restitution rather than a tax. Fact is, both parents will then lose their IRS marriage credits, but why would we want to reward/penalize based on marriage status?

As for children, the more dependents you have, the more government services you use, yet the less taxes you pay. We don't want to incentivize people to have children they can't afford by using money taken from other legal behaviors, like being single, being gay, or being childless. Subsidizing one legal choice with another makes no sense and creates tremendous distractions and infighting in this country.

If you're an abused spouse and can prove it,you'll have a better shot and getting custody of any children and recieving child support.


Child support is restitution ordered by the court, it's merely a transfer payment as part of an inferred contract when the child was born. Why are you even adding a child to my scenario? Stop trying to confound the clear example I am giving you. If a marriage is loveless, abusive, dishonest, or some other breakdown, the tax code says "stay in that marriage or we'll penalize you by revoking the subsidy we gave you for being heterosexually married." This is a carrot/stick system from a religious viewpoint that goes back a long ways when divorce for any reason was frowned upon and never seen as the best solution. And this is the system you still support, even when including gays as applicable for licensure. You're not going to worm your way out of this by adding a child and child support to confound the argument.

>> ^BansheeX:
This is more of a tax dispute than anything.
Sorry to blow up your conservative/liberal pissing contest with libertarian logic, but I have a simple rule when it comes to taxes: the tax code should not be used as a social engineering tool to incentivize one legal behavior over another.


"Libertarian Logic" - two words I've rarely seen used together, and for good reason.

I guess it escaped your purview that tax codes are not even on the list of why NOM wants to discriminate against homosexuals, or why any social conservative chooses to for that matter.

I guess "Libertarian Logic" is a euphemism for "missing the point."

Come on, gwiz, that was an act of an uptight a-hole. What the hell?

This is merely a couple of scenes of single-couple softcore with blurry animations to cover it up.

Diesel XXX consists of MANY different scenes of hardcore xxx with animations of existing, sometimes well-known euphemisms for sexual activities (bananas, lipstick, etc.) covering it up. I'd definitely say that as far as children being exposed to porn, the other is a way worse offender. And yet you voted for it. Also, as far as intent to arouse goes, I can't honestly see how this would intend to do so, let alone succeed in that department.

Besides, disregard this - ant has already set precedent for animated eroticism, by submitting a clip of little cartoon girls masturbating.

But thanks for supporting this masterpiece while I was away, folks.

I believe you have a valid, possibly accurate, take on a lot of people who are Libertarians, but I wouldn't know as I don't know too many at all - almost none outside of VideoSift. Most of the people I know who come from privilege are liberals terrified to their very core of a lower class uprising similar to the French Revolution.

I feel like you may be grasping at straws, albeit ever so eloquently and persuasively, when you attack the dichotomous argument of what someone perceives as lifting themselves up by the bootstraps and having supportive parents. I'm not sure I ever led a life of privilege, since you seem to be indirectly insinuating me in this conversation. My father and mother still work even though they should be retired thanks to them blindly believing our social security system they paid into would take care of them. Secondly, I did in fact work in textile mills from high school through college except when I was in the military.

I did have supportive parents, just not financially supportive, which it seems you are eluding to as money and class seems to be an issue with you. I'm not sure whether someone had supportive parents or not should or could ever be used as an argument against volunteerism over coercion. People should be supportive, but only if they choose to do so.

You claim the poor is an effect of the free market. Are you sure you're not confusing the free market with, and forgive my 'isms', capitalism (or rather state capitalism) or corporatism? The free market is simply a mutually beneficial agreement without coercion. If that can (or worse is) destroying any section of society, I think we should all pack it in and get back to hunting and gathering, because we simply will never have a chance as an evolved social species.

I, too, am for smaller business, but you have to support them for them to viably exist. Unfortunately, the consumer chose Walmart instead. It's sad, but... if that's what people want as consumers, who are we to say otherwise?



In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Yep, that's the standard libertarian line on abusive business.

My standard response to that standard respnse is something like:

"The people I'm talking about don't have a choice. It's very easy to sweep other people's misery under the carpet and claim it's their own damned fault, especially when you yourself have (very likely) led a life of (relative) privilege and opportunity (this is usually a tender subject for libertarians, sorry, but it is spot on 99.9999% of the time). The problems I speak of cannot be laid at the feet of the entire lower class, because these problems are systemic, and one of the many, many, many, many, many major failings of the 'free market'.

We'd absolutely be better off without WalMart. They put a lot of small businesses out of business and degrade the culture and quality of life wherever they set up shop. WalMart is the American poster child of free market failure.

I do agree with you that people are rarely satisfied by what they have, but I'm talking about those who make less than 15k for performing grueling, back breaking work, and have little time to spend with their families because they have been bound and gagged by the free market. I'm talking about people who have a right to complain, but usually don't, because no one listens to them."

Usually after that, the libertarian gets miffed and tells me how hard his (always a he) life has been (the adversity is always minimal), and how he has earned everything solely by the sweat of his Galtian brow (which is usually a euphemism for extremely generous and supportive parents and a whole host of various other peoples that are conveniently forgotten). Not saying this is you, but this is what I've encountered in my numerous arguments with libertarians over the years.

Not trying to offend. You are a kick ass intelligent, funny guy, whom I care about. I'm just keepin' it real.

Yep, that's the standard libertarian line on abusive business.

My standard response to that standard respnse is something like:

"The people I'm talking about don't have a choice. It's very easy to sweep other people's misery under the carpet and claim it's their own damned fault, especially when you yourself have (very likely) led a life of (relative) privilege and opportunity (this is usually a tender subject for libertarians, sorry, but it is spot on 99.9999% of the time). The problems I speak of cannot be laid at the feet of the entire lower class, because these problems are systemic, and one of the many, many, many, many, many major failings of the 'free market'.

We'd absolutely be better off without WalMart. They put a lot of small businesses out of business and degrade the culture and quality of life wherever they set up shop. WalMart is the American poster child of free market failure.

I do agree with you that people are rarely satisfied by what they have, but I'm talking about those who make less than 15k for performing grueling, back breaking work, and have little time to spend with their families because they have been bound and gagged by the free market. I'm talking about people who have a right to complain, but usually don't, because no one listens to them."

Usually after that, the libertarian gets miffed and tells me how hard his (always a he) life has been (the adversity is always minimal), and how he has earned everything solely by the sweat of his Galtian brow (which is usually a euphemism for extremely generous and supportive parents and a whole host of various other peoples that are conveniently forgotten). Not saying this is you, but this is what I've encountered in my numerous arguments with libertarians over the years.

Not trying to offend. You are a kick ass intelligent, funny guy, whom I care about. I'm just keepin' it real.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
But, DFT, people have voluntarily sought employment from them and agreed to the hourly salary. They were not coerced by an evil store manager to take that job and settle for lesser pay - it was voluntary. Would you be happier if Walmart disappeared completely and all of those abusive and terrible jobs disappeared from the smaller communities around America?

And that doesn't smell of "I've got mine, fuck everyone else"?

As for the government subsidies, you are further proving my Libertarian point (though I don't know any specifics about the subsidies). I hate the government's intervention in markets - that's what lead us to the mortgage crisis in the first place. If Walmart cannot negotiate a fair pay for its employees with its employees, then they couldn't exist in a free market. But, when the government subsidizes their pay, if that's what they are doing, then that defeats the whole purpose of a free market.

It's important to note: most employees bitch and moan about where they work, and they tend to view their employer as a heartless, greedy monolith. I've heard people making $50k a year, which isn't terrible, moan and piss about how they deserve more and they tend to blame the company for their condition.

Bagel is a euphemism for balls in some cultures.

Newsflash to George Bernard Shaw: We are all Peter. We are all Paul.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
So, are you going to send those men with guns to my house or not?

A government which robs Peter to pay Paul, can always count on the support of Paul. – George Bernard Shaw

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
How very appropriate that the proprietor of the *fear channel would use the fear-laden term 'statism' as a euphemism for democracy.

So, are you going to send those men with guns to my house or not?

A government which robs Peter to pay Paul, can always count on the support of Paul. – George Bernard Shaw

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
How very appropriate that the proprietor of the *fear channel would use the fear-laden term 'statism' as a euphemism for democracy.