more than you, yes.. case in point
how can you even pretend to be for liberty and be for those kinds of gov't infringement? The fact is you can't. Which is why you are not a real libertarian, you've just gloomed onto the word to hide the (R) streak in you.. the same way you gave 'Huntsmen' for you presidential candidate answer.. When in practice, you vote for someone like Rick Scott. You can't be both, but you want to seem less partsian, when we both know you're not.. not in any way shape or form. But what about me? Am I partisan? Not as much as you think I am and more than I think I am.. huh, look at that, I can admit that along with being ok with being hypocritical on some (not most, but nice try) issues..
I'm not sure what that is supposed to mean. I gave Huntsman as an answer but in practice it's Rick Scott. Are you saying that I never really supported Huntsman and he was merely my cover to vote for ... Rick Scott for President? I'm not sure what your point is supposed to be. Just a tangle of thoughts I supposes since it doesn't have anything to do with partisanship; they're both Republicans.
I'll answer your 'why don't you can when Obama does it' question again.. These things are the law of the land now,that horse has left the stable.. it would like re-arguing the Peterson trial.. The outcome is the same, the law was passed.. and in practice.. what good does re-hashing it do? Am I going to change the Peterson conviction? nope? and I ain't going to change the Pat Act or TSP program either.
You'll never get it since you are OK with giving up these liberties.. the fight is before it's given because once it's handed over, there ain't no going back...
what you are looking for now, the ONLY thing you are looking for, is to nit-pick, nothing more-nothing less..
you are simply the person Starla overheard after Obama's election when they said "lets see how you like it".. I'm not playing that game, if you've got something new? fine, let's talk.. but my arguments on those topics remain the same...
I didn't think the TSP was unconstitutional during Bush and I don't think it's unconstitutional now under Obama. And unless your understanding of the issue has greatly improved since we've discussed it on the Muche I don't think we'll accomplish anything by re litigating that. But if I understand your argument, anything that you thought Bush did that was unconstitutional that Obama is currently doing is
"the law of the land now,that horse has left the stable.. it would like re-arguing the Peterson trial." I have a hard time wrapping my head around such an argument since controversial issues like that are
never settled. At least as long as their constitutional.
Meanwhile I point out violations of the constitution occurring now and you're mad at me for pointing it out! You're a mess of inconsistencies.
