HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > Non-Sports > Political Discussion - "on-topic & unmoderated"
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Political Discussion - "on-topic & unmoderated" Rated PG13, unmoderated but threads must stay on topic - that means you can flame each other all you want as long as it's legal

All-Purpose Libertarian Thread

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
04-18-2014, 06:51 PM
  #1
TesseracT
Kesler, Not KesSler
 
TesseracT's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 6,998
vCash: 500
All-Purpose Libertarian Thread

Might as well start this up. Post away, fellow libertarians.

-----------------------
Libertarianism

Libertarianism is the belief that each person has the right to live his life as he chooses so long as he respects the equal rights of others. Libertarians defend each person’s right to life, liberty, and property. In the libertarian view, voluntary agreement is the gold standard of human relationships. If there is no good reason to forbid something (a good reason being that it violates the rights of others), it should be allowed. Force should be reserved for prohibiting or punishing those who themselves use force, such as murderers, robbers, rapists, kidnappers, and defrauders (who practice a kind of theft). Most people live their own lives by that code of ethics. Libertarians believe that that code should be applied consistently, even to the actions of governments, which should be restricted to protecting people from violations of their rights. Governments should not use their powers to censor speech, conscript the young, prohibit voluntary exchanges, steal or “redistribute” property, or interfere in the lives of individuals who are otherwise minding their own business.

http://www.cato.org/research/libertarianism

---------------------------------------
Eight myths about libertarians

It seems the “reformed libertarian” has become a regular feature in left-wing magazines like Salon. Yet all they show is a sad failure to grasp what libertarianism really means, and a curious vindictiveness to go with it. So, here are a few pointers for the editors at leftie rags.


I recently had occasion to write a lengthy column to fisk an anti-libertarian screed on Salon.com by Richard Eskow, of a leftist think tank Campaign for America's Future that heavily influences the US Democratic Party. Perhaps it was too closely modeled on the piece it was critiquing, but upon re-reading it I found it lacks clarity.

My fault. Since other journalists, knowing I’m a self-proclaimed libertarian, keep sending me such pieces with snide requests for comment, let me try to remedy that lack. I propose to answer a new article on Salon, by Edwin Lyngar. This time, I’ll do it in point form.

“Why I fled libertarianism — and became a liberal,” is what Lyngar calls his piece. It does an excellent job demonstrating that he never really was a libertarian, and still doesn’t understand it. I don’t know much about him, except that he looks dangerously insane in his photograph. (Hey, if he can call libertarians “****ing nuts”, his biker goatee is fair game.)

For context, let me repeat my definition from last time:

“Libertarians, to my mind, are people who advocate freedom. In particular, they believe in both socio-political and economic freedom. How exactly this is to be achieved is a matter of robust debate among libertarians themselves, but for the most part, they seek a small government dedicated to upholding laws protecting life and property, freedom from coercive regulations, and low taxes to fund this minimal state.”

Now, let’s address the myths and misconceptions evident in Lyngar’s petty and vindictive rant.

1. Libertarians are conspiracy theorists

This is Lyngar’s primary charge, and is perhaps the most serious one. The reason is that many conspiracy theorists really are attracted to a political philosophy that distrusts both government and corporate power, and espouses freedom of thought, speech and conscience.

It is, in fact, a major public relations problem for libertarians, because they cannot really fix it without contradicting the principles of freedom they do hold. So all a true libertarian can say if you believe aliens abducted your mother, or politicians are lizard people, is that it’s your problem as long as you don’t force others to act accordingly.

Lyngar’s error is in assuming that because libertarians are tolerant of people with different beliefs, that those beliefs are characteristic of libertarianism. Not so. Just because some libertarians are conspiracy theorists does not imply most are. The same is true for religion, or atheism. Some libertarians are evangelical Christians, and some are rabid atheists. Neither belief is characteristic of libertarians, or required of them.

You’re free to believe what you want, and more importantly, no government ought to restrict your freedom of thought, of expression or conscience, provided that you do not infringe on the commensurate rights of others.

2. Advocating the gold standard is of a kind with conspiracy theories.

One of the reasons that one ought not to suppress conspiracy theories is that a theory is not false simply by virtue of being a conspiracy theory. Some are obvious “hokum”, as Lyngar notes, but others are uncomfortably close to the truth.

Witness the recent revelations about the US National Security Agency, which really did conspire to spy on everyone, without any judicial oversight, and really did go so far as to install malware on thousands of networks to do so.

Witness the complex interaction between legislators, banking regulators, credit ratings agencies, banks, and federal home loan agencies that caused the 2008 economic crisis.

Both of these cases are as close to widespread government-corporate conspiracies as anyone outside of Hollywood dared to imagine.

Perhaps because it sounded crazy and conspiracist, very few people in the economic mainstream were willing to heed the warnings of US congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul when as early as 2001 he predicted exactly how post-dotcom fiscal stimulus and lax monetary policy would result in a housing boom that would inevitably also collapse. Yet, in the mainstream, it is a claim to fame for economists (such as Nuriel Roubini) to have predicted the 2008 crash as late as 2006.

Support of a particular economic theory about monetary policy, public debt, and legal tender, might be wrong, and it might be worth debating, but it is hardly equivalent to believing the 9/11 attack was a false flag operation, or the US government assassinated John F. Kennedy.

3. Libertarians are selfish and cruel.

“If you think that selfishness and cruelty are fantastic personal traits, you might be a libertarian,” writes Lyngar. Well, that’s as rude and ad hominem as it is false.

There are strains of libertarian thought – perhaps most notably Ayn Rand’s objectivism – that explicitly celebrate selfishness. If you take the time to read what she meant, it would be clear in what sense it can be considered a virtue, and libertarians certainly won’t judge you for being selfish with what belongs to you.

But there is nothing in libertarianism that requires anyone to be selfish in the sense Lyngar understands it.

Economic freedom, in the classic definition quoted by James Gwartney and Robert Lawson in the 1996 Economic Freedom of the World Report, means this: “Individuals have economic freedom when property they acquire without the use of force, fraud, or theft is protected from physical invasions by others and they are free to use, exchange, or give their property as long as their actions do not violate the identical rights of others. An index of economic freedom should measure the extent to which rightly acquired property is protected and individuals are engaged in voluntary transactions.”

The right to give away your property, or keep it, as you see fit, only translates to “selfishnesss and cruelty” in the dark recesses of a bitter and twisted, or sadly uninformed, mind.

Moreover, Lyngar contrasts this with the notion that the government is “supposed to help”. By that, he means that government ought to have the right to expropriate your property by force, only to give it away on your behalf. That is the same right, in a lesser degree, that slave-owners claimed over the fruits of their chattels’ labour. It can also be described as “selfish” on the part of the recipients of this largesse – who include not only the needy poor, but also for-profit companies and non-profit organisations of all kinds, that benefit financially from subsidies, grants and loan guarantees. Equally, it could be considered “cruel” towards those who worked hard to earn that money in the first place.

In short, Lyngar is very confused about the character of libertarians. Many are profoundly generous, but just don’t think it very charitable if it is required by law. If it conflicted with his idea of libertarianism to “think about real people, like my neighbors and people less lucky than me”, or he thought libertarians do “want those people to starve to death”, Lyngar hasn’t the faintest clue what libertarianism is.

4. Libertarians are intolerant racists.

It is true that some racists are attracted to libertarian notions of individual liberty and private property, because they think it gives them an excuse to discriminate against whomever they wish, on grounds of freedom of association or trespass law. However, racism is not a libertarian principle, and in fact, flatly contradicts it.

Libertarianism grants equal freedom to everyone, no matter their race, sex, gender, nationality or religion. As Lyngar does notice: “They are generally supportive of the gay community, completely behind marijuana legalization and are often against ill-considered foreign wars.”

Why would libertarians oppose foreign wars if they are cruel and bigoted racists? Why would they be supportive about sexual orientation but intolerant of race? He doesn’t even try to square this circle, which is a shortcoming of his analysis, not a valid criticism of libertarianism.

In fact, there’s a good argument to be made that even if libertarian self-interest were defined harshly as “selfish greed”, that it would preclude racism. Harry Binswanger, an Ayn Rand objectivist writing in Forbes magazine, recently made exactly that argument: if your racism trumps your economic self-interest, you are not a libertarian. He makes a good case that “selfish greed wipes out racism”.

5. Libertarians are Ayn Rand objectivists.

Many libertarians came to the belief that individual liberty – both social and economic freedom – is the best organising principle for a productive and prosperous society by reading Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand’s philosophical treatise disguised as a ponderous novel. It is an emotionally appealing introduction, especially if you’re a young student infused with revolutionary zeal.

Many others, however, found her philosophy of “objectivism” to be rather grating and somewhat cultish, and prefer their libertarianism expressed in the words of Friedrich Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, Frédéric Bastiat, Henry Hazlitt or Murray Rothbard.

Lyngar probably wouldn’t be able to tell you who they were, or how they differed. After all, anything that makes libertarians a varied and dynamic community, nuanced in their views and often debating their differences, doesn’t fit his simplistic caricature.

6. Libertarians defend big business.

Confusing free market capitalism for crony-capitalist corruption is perhaps the most pervasive misconception about libertarianism, and Lyngar duly falls into the trap.

Libertarians view companies as groups of people who agree to cooperate in pursuit of goals that they cannot achieve separately. They welcome such cooperation, no matter on what scale it occurs, since they view human cooperation and the division of labour as fundamental to economic progress.

The only proviso a libertarian would have is that companies operate on a level playing field in which customers voluntarily transact with them. They would oppose any group that benefits from theft, fraud, legal advantages that others do not enjoy, or a corrupt relationship with politicians.

Because libertarians are well aware that larger companies are more likely to seek such a corrupt relationship and lobby for protectionism, they are more likely to defend the competitive nature and entrepreneurial spirit of small businesses than they are to defend big business.

Libertarians defend the natural rights of everyone, whether “capitalist elite” or not. They never “justify the excesses” of anyone, whether “capitalist elite” or not.

Lyngar notes with approval that: “Libertarians were (rightly) furious when our government bailed out the banks,” but then adds: “but they fought hardest against help for ordinary Americans... isn’t government supposed to help? Isn’t that the lesson of the Great Depression?”

It doesn’t occur to him that libertarians are merely consistent. They disapprove of theft, fraud, and cronyism, no matter who does it. They oppose redistribution in favour of anyone. Lyngar is free to make an argument that banks are somehow less deserving of government help than, say, pension funds or health insurers, but the onus is on him to explain the contradiction, instead of assuming that it is a flaw of libertarian principle.

As for the lesson of the Great Depression, it is far from clear that the New Deal was both morally justified and practically effective. An excellent revision of the mainstream economic opinion on this period is the history by Amity Shlaes, The Forgotten Man. Paul Krugman thought it was crap, and I can’t think of higher praise.

7. Libertarians don’t care about the poor.

Self-proclaimed “liberals” like Lyngar suppose that because libertarians distinguish between mugging and charity, and don’t see government as the solution to all the world’s problems, that they don’t care about the plight of the poor.

This is very far from the truth. The rich don’t need any help from libertarians. The poor do, and there is a wealth of literature in which libertarians discuss the causes of and solutions to poverty. All the best libertarian economic theory, from Bastiat to Von Mises, emerged in times of economic hardship, when widespread poverty was an overriding concern.

Henry Hazlitt wrote a book, entitled The Conquest of Poverty (and the selfish, greedy ******** at the Mises Institute made it available free of charge).

Libertarians have written articles such as State Splendor and Public Poverty: From Rome to Washington, and The State Causes the Poverty It Later Claims to Solve.

Peruvian economist Hernando de Soto devoted a book to the question of why poverty persists in some countries, while free-market capitalism has vanquished it in others.

“Libertarians, everybody knows, care about the rich to the utter neglect of the poor and vulnerable. But everybody is wrong,” writes Matt Zwolinsky, associate philosophy professor at the University of San Diego, in a piece entitled How libertarianism helps the poor. He started a website called Bleeding Heart Libertarians to elaborate on this idea.

“The poor would have more in a libertarian society,” writes Mary Ruwart, an author on ethics in a free society. (Direct link, if subscribing to her newsletter to receive the password “libertyworks” is too much to ask.)

Arnold Kling at the Cato Institute, a free-market think tank, writes that the libertarian approach to poverty is not to “leave them in the gutter”, and even admits that he’d be willing “to give up a little bit of freedom in order to see a meaningful reduction in poverty,” but that he believes government programmes do more harm than good.

It doesn’t even occur to people like Lyngar that libertarians might oppose government policies intended to address the plight of the poor not only because they would infringe on the rights of others, but because they are not good solutions. In his analysis, that liberal politics has good intentions is sufficient to earn his loyalty.

But good intentions imply nothing about the consequences. Accusing libertarians of not caring about the poor is a false and vindictive attack. Someone who claims to have been a libertarian ought to know better.

8. Libertarianism is unnatural.

Now where have I heard that phrasing before? Wait, don’t tell me. It was when my best friend came out as gay. A bigot told me it was unnatural. And Lyngar calls libertarians “crazy” for their “unquestioning religious fervor”!

His conclusion: “Libertarianism is unnatural, and the size of the federal government is almost irrelevant. The real question is: what does society need and how do we pay for it?”

That’s a rhetorical question, of course. He’s already answered it by saying the size of the government doesn’t matter to him. In his view, we pay for whatever society claims to need (wasn’t there something wrong with “greed”?) by a welfare state that steals from the rich to give to the poor (wasn’t there something wrong... but I repeat myself).

Any other answer that achieves the same goal, but without violating personal liberty by the use of force, is wrong, Lyngar feels. That is his “unquestioning” belief laid bare.

It just goes to prove that he never was a libertarian to begin with.

http://www.dailymaverick.co.za/opini.../#.U1G44_lkSSo


Last edited by TesseracT: 05-22-2014 at 05:31 PM.
TesseracT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-18-2014, 09:09 PM
  #2
Xelebes
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,961
vCash: 692
Doesn't address the "9th myth", whether or not libertarian ideology is utterly paternalist. Perhaps because it is.

Xelebes is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-18-2014, 10:02 PM
  #3
Lethargic
Cthulhu 2016
 
Lethargic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Isle of Misfit Toys
Country: Somalia
Posts: 10,604
vCash: 500
Also, there are Libertarians and libertarians.

Then you've got people from Glen Beck and Bill Maher claiming to be one.

Lethargic is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-18-2014, 10:10 PM
  #4
TesseracT
Kesler, Not KesSler
 
TesseracT's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 6,998
vCash: 500
Maher is the ultimate Liberal. The capital L is extremely important.

TesseracT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-18-2014, 11:00 PM
  #5
ECL
Very slippery slope
 
ECL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Middle America
Country: United States
Posts: 79,584
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to ECL
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive Bixby View Post
Maher is the ultimate Liberal. The capital L is extremely important.
Maher is absolutely libertarian in some respects.

__________________
"Of course giving Sather cap space is like giving teenagers whiskey and car keys." - SBOB
"Watching Sather build a team is like watching a blind man with no fingers trying to put together an elaborate puzzle." - Shadowtron
I still think there should be a section of people at MSG behind the visiting bench, in curly wigs, and dark rimmed glasses, calling themselves the Pidtophiles. - Zamboner
ECL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-18-2014, 11:11 PM
  #6
TesseracT
Kesler, Not KesSler
 
TesseracT's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 6,998
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bird Law View Post
Maher is absolutely libertarian in some respects.
In which respects? Because he's an advocate of marijuana?

TesseracT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-18-2014, 11:20 PM
  #7
Ilkka Sinisalo
Amazing American
 
Ilkka Sinisalo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Perth, W.A.
Country: Australia
Posts: 12,728
vCash: 500
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vid...arianism_.html

Ilkka Sinisalo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-18-2014, 11:34 PM
  #8
TesseracT
Kesler, Not KesSler
 
TesseracT's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 6,998
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ilkka Sinisalo View Post


Yeah, let's take his word for it. That dude has been a mouthpiece for the democrat party for years and years now.

TesseracT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-18-2014, 11:37 PM
  #9
Xelebes
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,961
vCash: 692
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive Bixby View Post


Yeah, let's take his word for it. That dude has been a mouthpiece for the democrat party for years and years now.
The. . . libertarian wing of the democrat party, also as you describe them: the liberals.

Xelebes is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-18-2014, 11:47 PM
  #10
TesseracT
Kesler, Not KesSler
 
TesseracT's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 6,998
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xelebes View Post
The. . . libertarian wing of the democrat party, also as you describe them: the liberals.
No, the Liberal part of the Democrat party. With a capital L.

TesseracT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-18-2014, 11:48 PM
  #11
Xelebes
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,961
vCash: 692
Sure, whatever bud.

Xelebes is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-18-2014, 11:51 PM
  #12
TesseracT
Kesler, Not KesSler
 
TesseracT's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 6,998
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xelebes View Post
Sure, whatever bud.


How is he not?

TesseracT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-18-2014, 11:51 PM
  #13
Xelebes
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,961
vCash: 692
How is he what?

Xelebes is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-18-2014, 11:53 PM
  #14
TesseracT
Kesler, Not KesSler
 
TesseracT's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 6,998
vCash: 500
At any rate, here's good-ole California driving jobs out of the state.

http://reason.com/blog/2014/04/17/sr...ant-mulls-move

Sriracha Plant Mulls Move, Providing Valuable Lesson to Government Meddlers

"I have had the bad luck to move into a city with a government that acts like a local king." That’s what David Tran, founder of Huy Fong Foods and producer of Sriracha hot sauce, said to the Los Angeles Times after the Irwindale, California, City Council last week unanimously declared his factory a "public nuisance" due to the alleged smell.

Baylen Linnekin wrote in December about the history of the factory’s issues and the regulatory troubles Tran has faced in California. Back then Linnekin wondered if the company might move out of California to escape its issues with regulators and the meddling government. The possibility seems more likely now. From the Times:

Huy Fong Foods' Executive Operations Officer Donna Lam said that Alabama, Pennsylvania, Louisiana, Kansas, Ohio, Georgia, Iowa, Arizona, New Mexico and West Virginia have offered to host factories. A cadre of local officials also have thrown their support behind the hot sauce maker, including state Sen. Ed Hernandez.

U.S. Rep. Tony Cardenas, whose district includes the San Fernando Valley, joined the chorus of voices clamoring to host Sriracha production on Wednesday.

It’s worth pointing out that Irwindale is a tiny, little industrialized cog in the greater Los Angeles area, with a population of less than 1,500. Yet 40,000 people are employed there. It is a place where people work, not live. From the city’s own demographic data, less than 1 percent of Irwindale’s land is used for residential purposes. By contrast, 43 percent of land in the city is used for industrial purposes and 31 percent of the land is open space. Roads take up more space in Irwindale than housing.

Yet, as of 2007, Irwindale boasted 134 city employees and its own police force of 27. According to its stats in 2007, the little town had a monthly payroll of more than $777,000. Dennis Romero of LA Weekly noted the odd relationship between Tran’s company and Irwindale:

It is a strange tale. As Tran has told it, Irwindale actually lobbied to get Huy Fong to move from its old digs in Rosemead to Irwindale, which it did in 2010. But when Tran got a bad feeling about initial odor complaints he decided to take preemptive action.

He was essentially paying Irwindale for $250,000 a year for 10 years to use the factory. But he surprised City Hall by buying it outright, depriving Irwindale of millions in future rent.

Most of the odor complaints have come from four nearby homes, one of which is occupied by the relative of a city councilman. That councilman, Hector Ortiz, recused himself from discussion and voting on the matter because, he says, he owns property near the plant.

At the same time, the city was looking to sell property it owns next door to Huy Fong to a waste-management facility, which could be ironic given the odors sometimes associated with those kinds of facilities.

Romero also noted that two current council members and a former council member face conflict-of-interest charges for using taxpayer funds for a lavish trip to New York City.

Now that the discussion of the Sriracha plant moving is taking on tones of actual possibility, Irwindale’s city attorney is acting confused about Tran's response:

Irwindale City Atty. Fred Galante said he was confused and disappointed by Tran's actions. Galante said Irwindale officials just want an action plan to be submitted, and Tran has not proposed any solutions for the city to reject.

"This seems very extreme," Galante said. "It's disappointing given that [air quality officials] have explained that there are readily available solutions."

He seems to have forgotten the fact that Irwindale is already suing Tran’s company. Maybe that’s the origin of Tran’s lack of trust?

TesseracT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-18-2014, 11:54 PM
  #15
TesseracT
Kesler, Not KesSler
 
TesseracT's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 6,998
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xelebes View Post
How is he what?
How is he not a mouthpiece for the Democrat party? How the hell was that hard to follow?

TesseracT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-18-2014, 11:56 PM
  #16
Ilkka Sinisalo
Amazing American
 
Ilkka Sinisalo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Perth, W.A.
Country: Australia
Posts: 12,728
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive Bixby View Post


Yeah, let's take his word for it. That dude has been a mouthpiece for the democrat party for years and years now.
Says the guy who uses the Limbaugh-popularized slur of "Democrat party."

Ilkka Sinisalo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-18-2014, 11:57 PM
  #17
Xelebes
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,961
vCash: 692
Smell issues can be a problem. It may not be like the pleasant smell you can get from a packer factory or a bread factory.

Xelebes is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-18-2014, 11:57 PM
  #18
TesseracT
Kesler, Not KesSler
 
TesseracT's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 6,998
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ilkka Sinisalo View Post
Says the guy who uses the Limbaugh-popularized slur of "Democrat party."
Never listened to Limbaugh in my life. Sorry, guy.

TesseracT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-18-2014, 11:58 PM
  #19
Xelebes
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,961
vCash: 692
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive Bixby View Post
How is he not a mouthpiece for the Democrat party? How the hell was that hard to follow?
What?

Xelebes is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-19-2014, 12:01 AM
  #20
TesseracT
Kesler, Not KesSler
 
TesseracT's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 6,998
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xelebes View Post
What?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xelebes View Post
Smell issues can be a problem. It may not be like the pleasant smell you can get from a packer factory or a bread factory.
You're a brilliant troll. Seriously.

TesseracT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-19-2014, 12:03 AM
  #21
Ilkka Sinisalo
Amazing American
 
Ilkka Sinisalo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Perth, W.A.
Country: Australia
Posts: 12,728
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive Bixby View Post
Never listened to Limbaugh in my life. Sorry, guy.
It's still a right-wing slur for Democrats, so not surprising that you're repeating something that originated from one of the prominent right-wing mouthpieces.

Ilkka Sinisalo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-19-2014, 12:03 AM
  #22
Xelebes
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,961
vCash: 692
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive Bixby View Post
You're a brilliant troll. Seriously.
The same could be said about you so let's not go down that path.

When I talk about smell, California is a rather crowded place with prevailing winds being corraled in by mountains. There may be other advantages to moving to Texas than just regulations.

Xelebes is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-19-2014, 12:07 AM
  #23
TesseracT
Kesler, Not KesSler
 
TesseracT's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 6,998
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ilkka Sinisalo View Post
It's still a right-wing slur for Democrats, so not surprising that you're repeating something that originated from one of the prominent right-wing mouthpieces.
Democrat party is a slur for Democrats? Just need to verify this, thanks.

TesseracT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-19-2014, 12:09 AM
  #24
ECL
Very slippery slope
 
ECL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Middle America
Country: United States
Posts: 79,584
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to ECL
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive Bixby View Post
No, the Liberal part of the Democrat party. With a capital L.
No, you're just incorrect. There are libertarians (or guys who'd lean it, anyway) in both parties.

I lol @ libertarians who think you have to be a right winger to be libertarian. Such a simplistic view.

ECL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-19-2014, 12:10 AM
  #25
TesseracT
Kesler, Not KesSler
 
TesseracT's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 6,998
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xelebes View Post
The same could be said about you so let's not go down that path.

When I talk about smell, California is a rather crowded place with prevailing winds being corraled in by mountains. There may be other advantages to moving to Texas than just regulations.
You think the owners of the factory are moving out of California under their own volition due to the "smell"?

TesseracT is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:29 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2015 All Rights Reserved.