Maine's Question 1

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

So why focus on gay marriage in that case? Why not polygamy?

OK...I say that there's a solution I'd prefer more, but it's not politically feasible, so you ask me why I don't instead focus on something that polls in the single digits?  What

Exactly. This is a massive strawman on the part of the anti-marriage movement: they wouldn't politically support getting the State out of marriage anyway, as they'd know what it'd lead to. But they'll say it in discourse such as this to neglect charges of statism away from themselves.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, absolutely. The government has no right to prevent polygamous marriage, and the only reason it does so today is because of bigotry against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, which you, in all your ecumenical wisdom, ought to be able to understand. There's a reason Utah became a state, and a precondition for it.

And the economic benefits of polygamy would drive most men to get as many wives as possible - we'd wind up bankrupting the government even more!

So? The economic wellbeing of the State is of no concern of mine. If the State goes bankrupt and collapses, so much the better for it.

That sounds more like an anarchist than a libertarian.  So, if you're not a theocrat, you're an anarchist.

Yes, of course. If the American political spectrum weren't so warped, libertarianism would be synonymous with anarchism.

Word.
Every real libertarian on this forum should be seething with rage that Yes on Maine 1 passed.

So you agree that if you're not an anarchist, you have to be a theocrat, and vice versa?

If not a theocrat, then a Giuliani-Nixonian law-and-order fascist, yes.

How was Nixon a fascist?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

So why focus on gay marriage in that case? Why not polygamy?

OK...I say that there's a solution I'd prefer more, but it's not politically feasible, so you ask me why I don't instead focus on something that polls in the single digits?  What

Exactly. This is a massive strawman on the part of the anti-marriage movement: they wouldn't politically support getting the State out of marriage anyway, as they'd know what it'd lead to. But they'll say it in discourse such as this to neglect charges of statism away from themselves.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, absolutely. The government has no right to prevent polygamous marriage, and the only reason it does so today is because of bigotry against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, which you, in all your ecumenical wisdom, ought to be able to understand. There's a reason Utah became a state, and a precondition for it.

And the economic benefits of polygamy would drive most men to get as many wives as possible - we'd wind up bankrupting the government even more!

So? The economic wellbeing of the State is of no concern of mine. If the State goes bankrupt and collapses, so much the better for it.

That sounds more like an anarchist than a libertarian.  So, if you're not a theocrat, you're an anarchist.

Yes, of course. If the American political spectrum weren't so warped, libertarianism would be synonymous with anarchism.

Word.
Every real libertarian on this forum should be seething with rage that Yes on Maine 1 passed.

So you agree that if you're not an anarchist, you have to be a theocrat, and vice versa?

If not a theocrat, then a Giuliani-Nixonian law-and-order fascist, yes.

How was Nixon a fascist?

Wage and price controls, for one. Doesn't make him a bad President, though.

Where's the extreme nationalism?  Where was the imperialsism?  Nixon did nothing more than STAY in Vietnam  it's not like he was attempting to spread an American empire.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

So why focus on gay marriage in that case? Why not polygamy?

OK...I say that there's a solution I'd prefer more, but it's not politically feasible, so you ask me why I don't instead focus on something that polls in the single digits?  What

Exactly. This is a massive strawman on the part of the anti-marriage movement: they wouldn't politically support getting the State out of marriage anyway, as they'd know what it'd lead to. But they'll say it in discourse such as this to neglect charges of statism away from themselves.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, absolutely. The government has no right to prevent polygamous marriage, and the only reason it does so today is because of bigotry against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, which you, in all your ecumenical wisdom, ought to be able to understand. There's a reason Utah became a state, and a precondition for it.

And the economic benefits of polygamy would drive most men to get as many wives as possible - we'd wind up bankrupting the government even more!

So? The economic wellbeing of the State is of no concern of mine. If the State goes bankrupt and collapses, so much the better for it.

That sounds more like an anarchist than a libertarian.  So, if you're not a theocrat, you're an anarchist.

Yes, of course. If the American political spectrum weren't so warped, libertarianism would be synonymous with anarchism.

Word.
Every real libertarian on this forum should be seething with rage that Yes on Maine 1 passed.

So you agree that if you're not an anarchist, you have to be a theocrat, and vice versa?

If not a theocrat, then a Giuliani-Nixonian law-and-order fascist, yes.

How was Nixon a fascist?

Wage and price controls, for one. Doesn't make him a bad President, though.

The secret bombing of Cambodia? Domestic espionage? Sending infiltrators into the isolationist camp to cause it to turn against itself?

And where do you have Nixon spreading a view of Americans as a bettr race?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

So why focus on gay marriage in that case? Why not polygamy?

OK...I say that there's a solution I'd prefer more, but it's not politically feasible, so you ask me why I don't instead focus on something that polls in the single digits?  What

Exactly. This is a massive strawman on the part of the anti-marriage movement: they wouldn't politically support getting the State out of marriage anyway, as they'd know what it'd lead to. But they'll say it in discourse such as this to neglect charges of statism away from themselves.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, absolutely. The government has no right to prevent polygamous marriage, and the only reason it does so today is because of bigotry against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, which you, in all your ecumenical wisdom, ought to be able to understand. There's a reason Utah became a state, and a precondition for it.

And the economic benefits of polygamy would drive most men to get as many wives as possible - we'd wind up bankrupting the government even more!

So? The economic wellbeing of the State is of no concern of mine. If the State goes bankrupt and collapses, so much the better for it.

That sounds more like an anarchist than a libertarian.  So, if you're not a theocrat, you're an anarchist.

Yes, of course. If the American political spectrum weren't so warped, libertarianism would be synonymous with anarchism.

Word.
Every real libertarian on this forum should be seething with rage that Yes on Maine 1 passed.

So you agree that if you're not an anarchist, you have to be a theocrat, and vice versa?

If not a theocrat, then a Giuliani-Nixonian law-and-order fascist, yes.

How was Nixon a fascist?

Wage and price controls, for one. Doesn't make him a bad President, though.

Where's the extreme nationalism?  Where was the imperialsism?  Nixon did nothing more than STAY in Vietnam  it's not like he was attempting to spread an American empire.

Actually, Nixon did a lot more to get out of Vietnam without allowing Vietnam to fall to fascism, to be honest. I wouldn't expect a liberal to recognize that accomplishment, however.

So he was a fascist President who tried to protect other nations from falling into fascism.?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

So why focus on gay marriage in that case? Why not polygamy?

OK...I say that there's a solution I'd prefer more, but it's not politically feasible, so you ask me why I don't instead focus on something that polls in the single digits?  What

Exactly. This is a massive strawman on the part of the anti-marriage movement: they wouldn't politically support getting the State out of marriage anyway, as they'd know what it'd lead to. But they'll say it in discourse such as this to neglect charges of statism away from themselves.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, absolutely. The government has no right to prevent polygamous marriage, and the only reason it does so today is because of bigotry against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, which you, in all your ecumenical wisdom, ought to be able to understand. There's a reason Utah became a state, and a precondition for it.

And the economic benefits of polygamy would drive most men to get as many wives as possible - we'd wind up bankrupting the government even more!

So? The economic wellbeing of the State is of no concern of mine. If the State goes bankrupt and collapses, so much the better for it.

That sounds more like an anarchist than a libertarian.  So, if you're not a theocrat, you're an anarchist.

Yes, of course. If the American political spectrum weren't so warped, libertarianism would be synonymous with anarchism.

Word.
Every real libertarian on this forum should be seething with rage that Yes on Maine 1 passed.

So you agree that if you're not an anarchist, you have to be a theocrat, and vice versa?

If not a theocrat, then a Giuliani-Nixonian law-and-order fascist, yes.

How was Nixon a fascist?

Wage and price controls, for one. Doesn't make him a bad President, though.

The secret bombing of Cambodia? Domestic espionage? Sending infiltrators into the isolationist camp to cause it to turn against itself?

And where do you have Nixon spreading a view of Americans as a bettr race?

Ethnic nationalism != fascism. Mussolini was a corporatist, but he adopted Hitler's anti-Jewish programs only when he needed to rely on Germany to halt the Allied advance. Corporatism and militarism are better hallmarks of fascism than racism.

No - the race aspect is a major tenet of fascism.  Without it, you don't have fascism!

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

So why focus on gay marriage in that case? Why not polygamy?

OK...I say that there's a solution I'd prefer more, but it's not politically feasible, so you ask me why I don't instead focus on something that polls in the single digits?  What

Exactly. This is a massive strawman on the part of the anti-marriage movement: they wouldn't politically support getting the State out of marriage anyway, as they'd know what it'd lead to. But they'll say it in discourse such as this to neglect charges of statism away from themselves.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, absolutely. The government has no right to prevent polygamous marriage, and the only reason it does so today is because of bigotry against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, which you, in all your ecumenical wisdom, ought to be able to understand. There's a reason Utah became a state, and a precondition for it.

And the economic benefits of polygamy would drive most men to get as many wives as possible - we'd wind up bankrupting the government even more!

So? The economic wellbeing of the State is of no concern of mine. If the State goes bankrupt and collapses, so much the better for it.

That sounds more like an anarchist than a libertarian.  So, if you're not a theocrat, you're an anarchist.

Yes, of course. If the American political spectrum weren't so warped, libertarianism would be synonymous with anarchism.

Word.
Every real libertarian on this forum should be seething with rage that Yes on Maine 1 passed.

So you agree that if you're not an anarchist, you have to be a theocrat, and vice versa?

If not a theocrat, then a Giuliani-Nixonian law-and-order fascist, yes.

How was Nixon a fascist?

Wage and price controls, for one. Doesn't make him a bad President, though.

The secret bombing of Cambodia? Domestic espionage? Sending infiltrators into the isolationist camp to cause it to turn against itself?

And where do you have Nixon spreading a view of Americans as a bettr race?

Ethnic nationalism != fascism. Mussolini was a corporatist, but he adopted Hitler's anti-Jewish programs only when he needed to rely on Germany to halt the Allied advance. Corporatism and militarism are better hallmarks of fascism than racism.

No - the race aspect is a major tenet of fascism.  Without it, you don't have fascism!

Not at all. Fascism began as a strange blend of nationalism and anarcho-syndicalism during the run-up to World War I: Mussolini was the first pioneer of fascism, and he advocated nothing more than a strong centralized State (including expanding the wellfare rolls) and militarism. While there were many racialists who were fascists, fascism began as essentially race-neutral, being only extremely nationalistic.

That still doesn't show how Nixon was an imperialist - and moving the war into Cambodia can hardly be considered imperialism.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

So why focus on gay marriage in that case? Why not polygamy?

OK...I say that there's a solution I'd prefer more, but it's not politically feasible, so you ask me why I don't instead focus on something that polls in the single digits?  What

Exactly. This is a massive strawman on the part of the anti-marriage movement: they wouldn't politically support getting the State out of marriage anyway, as they'd know what it'd lead to. But they'll say it in discourse such as this to neglect charges of statism away from themselves.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, absolutely. The government has no right to prevent polygamous marriage, and the only reason it does so today is because of bigotry against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, which you, in all your ecumenical wisdom, ought to be able to understand. There's a reason Utah became a state, and a precondition for it.

And the economic benefits of polygamy would drive most men to get as many wives as possible - we'd wind up bankrupting the government even more!

So? The economic wellbeing of the State is of no concern of mine. If the State goes bankrupt and collapses, so much the better for it.

That sounds more like an anarchist than a libertarian.  So, if you're not a theocrat, you're an anarchist.

Yes, of course. If the American political spectrum weren't so warped, libertarianism would be synonymous with anarchism.

Word.
Every real libertarian on this forum should be seething with rage that Yes on Maine 1 passed.

So you agree that if you're not an anarchist, you have to be a theocrat, and vice versa?

If not a theocrat, then a Giuliani-Nixonian law-and-order fascist, yes.

How was Nixon a fascist?

Wage and price controls, for one. Doesn't make him a bad President, though.

The secret bombing of Cambodia? Domestic espionage? Sending infiltrators into the isolationist camp to cause it to turn against itself?

And where do you have Nixon spreading a view of Americans as a bettr race?

Ethnic nationalism != fascism. Mussolini was a corporatist, but he adopted Hitler's anti-Jewish programs only when he needed to rely on Germany to halt the Allied advance. Corporatism and militarism are better hallmarks of fascism than racism.

No - the race aspect is a major tenet of fascism.  Without it, you don't have fascism!

Not at all. Fascism began as a strange blend of nationalism and anarcho-syndicalism during the run-up to World War I: Mussolini was the first pioneer of fascism, and he advocated nothing more than a strong centralized State (including expanding the wellfare rolls) and militarism. While there were many racialists who were fascists, fascism began as essentially race-neutral, being only extremely nationalistic.

That still doesn't show how Nixon was an imperialist - and moving the war into Cambodia can hardly be considered imperialism.

Imperialism isn't a prerequisite of fascism, either - only militarism, and a glorification of the valors of military combat, is. Antonio de Oliviera Salazar, fascist dictator of Portugal, was an isolationist who refused to support Nazi Germany, but nobody mistakes him for being something other than what he was.

Of course imperialism is.

And the back and forth has been fun, but I hve class in a few hours, so I'm off to bed - I'll be on tomorrow (as always - lol).

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

In case anyone wanted the (almost) full results:

596 of 608 Precincts Reporting - 98%
 Yes 298,787 52.79%
 No 267,188 47.21%