If Gary Johnson got into the debates,

[BigSkyBob]

But the really important question is whether you can feed the dog rohypnol before you eat it.

There are women whom have been drugged with Rohypnol while on a date and raped. I see your position is to think that  that fact is grist for humor. My position is to say to these women that the people whom sold their rapist the means to rape them is a party to that rape and should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Your position is to label them "businessmen" and except them from legal liability. I am entirely comfortable taking are respective positions to the electorate. Are you?

[argentarius]

Grasping to such a ridiculous strawman belies the intellectual bankruptcy of so-called "libertarianism."   If you can't defend what you are advocating, namely dog farms raising dogs for their meat and hides, in a straightforward manner on its merits then why should we agree with your position? By all means tell us why you believe it ought to be legal in America to form dog farms for the purpose of raising dogs for their meat and hides!

But we're not advocating dog farms, just like we're not advocating drinking fabric softener by keeping lit legal.

[Korwinist]

What should happen is that the moderator should ask Gov Johnson if he believes that the United States ought to join China, Indonesia, Korea, Mexico, Philippines, Polynesia, Switzerland, Taiwan, Vietnam, and the Arctic and Antarctic in the legalization of the slaughter of dogs for human consumption. Presumably, his answer will be, "Yes!," because that is so-called "libertarian" position on the subject.

Presumably, he'd refuse to answer that question, since A.) It has nothing to do with any important issue and B.) The moderator is failing middle school if said moderator thinks Korea, Polynesia, and the Arctic and Antarctic are countries (and if such was legal in those nations, wouldn't it be legal in Alaska already?).

The slaughter of dogs for human consumption isn't an important issue of the day, unless you are for it. Then, it is a pretty much a disqualifier.

I would note that you didn't claim the answer was, "No!" One of the problems with exposing so-called "libertarianism" is that average people tend to think, "Surely, they won't believe something that absurd!" Well, yes they do.

Do you really think that legalizing the consumption of dog will result in pets being abducted into high class dog restaurants?

Grasping to such a ridiculous strawman belies the intellectual bankruptcy of so-called "libertarianism."   If you can't defend what you are advocating, namely dog farms raising dogs for their meat and hides, in a straightforward manner on its merits then why should we agree with your position? By all means tell us why you believe it ought to be legal in America to form dog farms for the purpose of raising dogs for their meat and hides!

Frankly, I think you're an evil, disgusting human being if you believe innocent sheep or cows should be put to death to feed people. Farmers should not be allowed to exploit animals for profit whatsoever because killing innocent creatures is a vile act.

Furthermore, I think all gun making should be made illegal because I can't justify people killing each other in the streets, all drinking because I can't justify destroyed families and self destructive behaviour, and all disrespectful speech in any form because I can't justify verbal cruelty from one person to another.

[Emperor SJoyce]

What should happen is that the moderator should ask Gov Johnson if he believes that the United States ought to join China, Indonesia, Korea, Mexico, Philippines, Polynesia, Switzerland, Taiwan, Vietnam, and the Arctic and Antarctic in the legalization of the slaughter of dogs for human consumption. Presumably, his answer will be, "Yes!," because that is so-called "libertarian" position on the subject.

Presumably, he'd refuse to answer that question, since A.) It has nothing to do with any important issue and B.) The moderator is failing middle school if said moderator thinks Korea, Polynesia, and the Arctic and Antarctic are countries (and if such was legal in those nations, wouldn't it be legal in Alaska already?).

The slaughter of dogs for human comsumption isn't an important issue of the day, unless you are for it. Then, it is a pretty much a disqualifier.

I would note that you didn't claim the answer was, "No!" One of the problems with exposing so-called "libertarianism" is that average people tend to think, "Surely, they won't believe something that absurd!" Well, yes they do.

You do realize that human consumption of dog meat is legal in the United States, right?

[Communists For McCain]

More like BigSkyFail, am I right?

[True Federalist]

You do realize that human consumption of dog meat is legal in the United States, right?

Consumption is, but the sale of it is effectively illegal, much like the sale of horse meat was effectively illegal for a few years because of the lack of meat inspectors at the slaughterhouses.

[Korwinist]

More like BigSkyFail, am I right?

badum-tish

[Mister Mets]

I remember that he was clearly the worst debater in that first Republican primary debate with Bachmann, Pawlenty, Paul and Cain.

But there are a few issues where he does disagree with Romney and Obama. So he might get around seven percent if he were allowed on the debate stage. He might do a little better as a protest vote for people who dislike Obama, but don't want to vote for the rich Mormon.

His problem is that he needs fifteen percent in several polls to be invited on the stage.

[BigSkyBob]

Grasping to such a ridiculous strawman belies the intellectual bankruptcy of so-called "libertarianism."   If you can't defend what you are advocating, namely dog farms raising dogs for their meat and hides, in a straightforward manner on its merits then why should we agree with your position? By all means tell us why you believe it ought to be legal in America to form dog farms for the purpose of raising dogs for their meat and hides!

But we're not advocating dog farms, just like we're not advocating drinking fabric softener by keeping lit legal.

While folks who fancy themselves "libertarians" might take seriously such attempts at disassociating themselves from the consequences of their political advocacy, the average voter will not. The women drugged and raped with Rohypnol will hold those whom advocate the legalization of the sale of Rohypnol morally responsible for their rapes.

[Korwinist]

Grasping to such a ridiculous strawman belies the intellectual bankruptcy of so-called "libertarianism."   If you can't defend what you are advocating, namely dog farms raising dogs for their meat and hides, in a straightforward manner on its merits then why should we agree with your position? By all means tell us why you believe it ought to be legal in America to form dog farms for the purpose of raising dogs for their meat and hides!

But we're not advocating dog farms, just like we're not advocating drinking fabric softener by keeping lit legal.

While folks who fancy themselves "libertarians" might take seriously such attempts at disassociating themselves from the consequences of their political advocacy, the average voter will not. The women drugged and raped with Rohypnol will hold those whom advocate the legalization of the sale of Rohypnol morally responsible for their rapes.

Eating dog is legal, though.