the washington...

[SFAnthem]

I like the name "WarHogs"

It's a nod to the nickname the offensive line had in the 80s and being in Washington DC has the slight undertone to government war profiteering.

 

[NinerSickness]

WarHogs?

That sounds like a Saturday morning cartoon.

 

[RoboticDreams]

Leave the name alone.

 

[NinerSickness]

Leave the name alone.

This.

And Britney too.

 

[SFAnthem]

WarHogs?

That sounds like a Saturday morning cartoon.

Then not much different than renegades I guess

 

[Flyingiguana]

It seems like the only difference between left-wing libertarians and right-wing libertarians is that left wingers support the decriminalization of drugs. And the right-wing libertarians stay out of the marriage debate & the abortion debate whereas the lefties are deeply entrenched in those things.

But for the most part left-wing libertarian is an oxymoron because lefties generally believe in a big federal government.

right wing libertarians scare me. seems more like an anarchist movement than an efficient society. left wing libertarian is bigger govt than right, but smaller than the current regime.

 

[TobyTyler]

I'll make an exception to not replying to the idiotic things you say for the sake of clarity.

You are not describing libertarians; you're describing anarchists. Libertarians do not support anarchy. Even hard core libertarians support the BASIC functions of government, but almost all of those things can be done at a state level (except national defense). Infrastructure like roads, power plants, water & law enforcement are the things liberals point to in order to justify high taxes, but that stuff takes up a tiny portion of STATE budgets; and it takes up next to 0% of the federal budget.

What libertarians don't support are massive, convoluted bureaucratic cluster f#*%s like social security, federal medicare / Obamacare, giving tax money from one state to another & most handouts like unemployment checks. A good portion of them support food stamps, but I'd say most of 'em would prefer they had better restrictions in order to make sure it's not advantageous to be on food stamps for one's entire life; and I'd say just about all libertarians would only support that at the state level. I think how WIC (Women, infants & Children) is structured is something libertarians would prefer to food stamps (as it stands about 1 in 5 households in America have food stamp money coming in).

State governments are enough for about 99% of what people really need the government to do IMO, and it's better to rely on them to do it because they're forced to balance their budgets; they can't borrow money.

Wait a minute, aren't you the clown who was stridently opposed to the 1070 law in Arizona and screaming for the federal government to intervene against these racist Arizonans?

 

[TobyTyler]

right wing libertarians scare me. seems more like an anarchist movement than an efficient society. left wing libertarian is bigger govt than right, but smaller than the current regime.

Isn't it interesting that it was the far left in the 60s who were "tuning in and dropping out", espousing a back to nature lifestyle with no government interference and now it has swung all the way over to the extreme right wing gun nuts who are espousing the same thing? What a world we live in, huh?

 

[Jikkle]

Costas says Redskins name is ?an insult, a slur? | ProFootballTalk

In general I like PFT but this article highlights my biggest issue with them.

They have such an agenda against the Redskins name and just like the issue with homosexual athletes they are going to post any tidbit of "news" that supports their own personal views and nothing else counter to it.

To me that's horrible professionalism. If you're going to run sports news website you shouldn't have any sort of agenda liberal, conservative, or whatever and you especially shouldn't be completely biased to the point of view that you agree with.

Bob Costas has an opinion. Good for him and I respect it but how is that remotely NFL news? I have no issue with them reporting on the Redskin's name as long as it's news. And the sad part is I have 0 confidence that if Costas defended the name they would have even posted it on their site.

 

[h0ckeysk83r]

Costas says Redskins name is ?an insult, a slur? | ProFootballTalk

In general I like PFT but this article highlights my biggest issue with them.

They have such an agenda against the Redskins name and just like the issue with homosexual athletes they are going to post any tidbit of "news" that supports their own personal views and nothing else counter to it.

To me that's horrible professionalism. If you're going to run sports news website you shouldn't have any sort of agenda liberal, conservative, or whatever and you especially shouldn't be completely biased to the point of view that you agree with.

Bob Costas has an opinion. Good for him and I respect it but how is that remotely NFL news? I have no issue with them reporting on the Redskin's name as long as it's news. And the sad part is I have 0 confidence that if Costas defended the name they would have even posted it on their site.

Im not a huge fan of costas lately. He shouldn't be airing out his opinions like that in the middle of SNF. He might as well just not be in sports anymore.

 

[spacedoodoopistol]

What libertarians don't support are massive, convoluted bureaucratic cluster f#*%s like social security, federal medicare / Obamacare, giving tax money from one state to another & most handouts like unemployment checks.

"Libertarian" in modern parlance has turned into a euphemism for "I don't give a fuck about anyone else, just let me keep a few extra bucks on my paycheck". Of course its all social programs he mentions, ignoring horrendous corporate welfare, pointless subsidies, military pork, and a million other programs that shovel money toward the rich. At least welfare toward the poor goes *straight* back into the economy, money spent immediately, maybe the single best way to generate economic activity.

I mean.....against unemployment benefits? In an economic system with structural unemployment that can't really go lower than 5% even in good times, and is a lot higher these days, its basically heartless to say "sorry, you were born in America, we're a filthy rich country but we don't like to share, so you can go hungry". Ugh. Ideology of the self-centered.

 

[spacedoodoopistol]

Oh, and let em keep the name and maybe instead consider doing something that will actually help native Americans, rather than some hollow gesture like this that makes everyone feel like they're helping without actually lifting a finger.

 

[TobyTyler]

"Libertarian" in modern parlance has turned into a euphemism for "I don't give a fuck about anyone else, just let me keep a few extra bucks on my paycheck". Of course its all social programs he mentions, ignoring horrendous corporate welfare, pointless subsidies, military pork, and a million other programs that shovel money toward the rich. At least welfare toward the poor goes *straight* back into the economy, money spent immediately, maybe the single best way to generate economic activity.

I mean.....against unemployment benefits? In an economic system with structural unemployment that can't really go lower than 5% even in good times, and is a lot higher these days, its basically heartless to say "sorry, you were born in America, we're a filthy rich country but we don't like to share, so you can go hungry". Ugh. Ideology of the self-centered.

How could anyone possibly be against Social Security?

 

[spacedoodoopistol]

How could anyone possibly be against Social Security?

Not to mention that the program would be fine, and well-funded, if the SS funds taken in hadn't been raided continually to fund our bloated budget over the past decades. The money is taken from workers, invested, and paid out on the other end. They need to adjust once in a while to account for people living longer and inflation and such, but the program itself is nothing like the cash drain they try to paint it as. The problem is the *rest* of the budget.

 

[TobyTyler]

Not to mention that the program would be fine, and well-funded, if the SS funds taken in hadn't been raided continually to fund our bloated budget over the past decades. The money is taken from workers, invested, and paid out on the other end. They need to adjust once in a while to account for people living longer and inflation and such, but the program itself is nothing like the cash drain they try to paint it as. The problem is the *rest* of the budget.

Yep.

 

[darken65]

I'll make an exception to not replying to the idiotic things you say for the sake of clarity.

You are not describing libertarians; you're describing anarchists. Libertarians do not support anarchy. Even hard core libertarians support the BASIC functions of government, but almost all of those things can be done at a state level (except national defense). Infrastructure like roads, power plants, water & law enforcement are the things liberals point to in order to justify high taxes, but that stuff takes up a tiny portion of STATE budgets; and it takes up next to 0% of the federal budget.

What libertarians don't support are massive, convoluted bureaucratic cluster f#*%s like social security, federal medicare / Obamacare, giving tax money from one state to another & most handouts like unemployment checks. A good portion of them support food stamps, but I'd say most of 'em would prefer they had better restrictions in order to make sure it's not advantageous to be on food stamps for one's entire life; and I'd say just about all libertarians would only support that at the state level. I think how WIC (Women, infants & Children) is structured is something libertarians would prefer to food stamps (as it stands about 1 in 5 households in America have food stamp money coming in).

State governments are enough for about 99% of what people really need the government to do IMO, and it's better to rely on them to do it because they're forced to balance their budgets; they can't borrow money.

Some should look a bit further than the main stream media for real info about how our government is operating......or not.....just keep raising the debt ceiling .

 

[darken65]

I like the name "WarHogs"

It's a nod to the nickname the offensive line had in the 80s and being in Washington DC has the slight undertone to government war profiteering.

Warthogs...like 'Welcome Back Kotter' ? John Travolta could be the mascot.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

You really think so?

Democrats confiscate money from you & me and give it to people like PBS, NPR, give gold-plated retirements to state / federal workers, fund all kinds of superfluous programs almost nobody even knows about (see Stimulous bill). LOTS and LOTS of pork.

Republicans give money to... Who? Military personnel? People in the army start out making like 16 grand a year + benefits or something. And the vast majority of 'em leave after 4 years.

I hate to dredge this up, but saw this post and can't help it. Are you seriously arguing that Republicans aren't in the business of sending enormous amounts of a vast range of people?

As you mention, enlisted men and women make basically nothing. In fact, many of them are on food stamps - a program, incidentally, that I'm sure you would eliminate if given the chance. And there are only about 1.5 million active duty personnel and another 0.85 million reservists. Yet we spend about $700 billion on the military a year. So where's all that money going? Easy. It's lining the pockets of private contractors who supply military technology and equipment. And MANY Republicans are outspoken about protecting those interests. And if you want to talk about superfluous programs, take a look squarely at that inflated military budget and some of the ridiculous projects it funds.

Acting like only one of the two parties is in the business of promoting their own interests...there just aren't words for that kind of willful ignorance.

 

[NinerSickness]

Wait a minute, aren't you the clown who was stridently opposed to the 1070 law in Arizona and screaming for the federal government to intervene against these racist Arizonans?

No.

 

[NinerSickness]

right wing libertarians scare me. seems more like an anarchist movement than an efficient society.

Well anarchists don't believe in ANY government. They want it to be like the jungle with no laws at all.

Libertarians want laws against stealing, murdering, raping, assault, ID theft, mail fraud, etc. and police to enforce those laws & hospitals, untilities (water, sewer, electric), and they want to pay taxes in order to fund those things. They believe 99% of the FEDERAL government isn't necessary and is actually a blight on society / counterproductive. They think state governments are ran much better (because they can't go into debt), but even they fund all kinds of pork as well.

In other words: They want the stuff EVERYONE AGREES the government should do & not the superfluous stuff. That's not anarchist. The problem with them is their record is worse than the Browns' when it comes to winning elections. Democrats love libertarians because all they really do is take votes away from Republicans.