Support NeoGAF

[Snaku]

So if I'm reading this right...you'd like to kill Obama and his (entire) family too?

Yup, that's what he said!

 

[Averon]

Suddenly, I find myself liking that new multi-racial Spiderman a little more:



:bow

I guess I'm gonna have to buy me some Ultimate comics. Now's a good time to jump in, right?

 

[gcubed]

Obviously, I mean, who wouldn't!

Seriously, I never got that attitude. I have strong political views, sure, but it's not personal. I actually think Obama comes off as very likable, very well meaning. He's a bit awkward and can sound like a bit of an academician at times but that's because of his background. For ANYONE to call for ANYTHING like what that woman called for is just craziness. I will argue against Obama's policies whenever I disagree with them but he's still my President even though I never voted for him and doubt very seriously I will in 2012.

So you're saying there's a chance?!

 

[TacticalFox88]

I found this amusing

 

[Cyan]

Heh. I remember when that joke was about Dubya and Cheney. And I'm sure they told it about Bill and Hillary, George the First and Quayle, etc.

Funny, how Laura was a-ok, but Michelle gets chucked out the plane beside her husband. Interesting sociological experiment.

 

[jamesinclair]

Damnit poligaf, I leave for a few hours and people start plotting on how to kill the president.

SS will have neogaf on lockdown any second now.

 

[Gaborn]

So you're saying there's a chance?!

I've maintained for a while that one scenario where I would vote for Obama is if he were to announce the discovery of alien life. Short of that? Bachmann being the Republican nominee would certainly make voting for Obama look extremely tempting...

 

[Mortrialus]

I've maintained for a while that one scenario where I would vote for Obama is if he were to announce the discovery of alien life. Short of that? Bachmann being the Republican nominee would certainly make voting for Obama look extremely tempting...

Really? I figured she was right up your alley; anti regulation and states rights over that of individuals.

 

[Gaborn]

Really? I figured she was right up your alley; anti regulation and states rights over that of individuals.

Bachman has farrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr far too much religious social conservatism for my taste. I mean, Ron Paul is religious, and VERY much against abortion but his issue for YEARS and YEARS has been spending spending spending (and some stuff about gold and the federal reserve that is not going to happen). Bachman is paying lip service to spending like EVERY Republican does but I absolutely do not trust her at ALL

Spoiler

Plus, she has the crazy eyes

. I'd vote for Romney before her and I've long loathed Romney.

Realistically though I don't think Bachmann will be the nominee, nor Ron Paul and I'll likely just end up voting Libertarian.

 

[Mortrialus]

Bachman has farrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr far too much religious social conservatism for my taste. I mean, Ron Paul is religious, and VERY much against abortion but his issue for YEARS and YEARS has been spending spending spending (and some stuff about gold and the federal reserve that is not going to happen). Bachman is paying lip service to spending like EVERY Republican does but I absolutely do not trust her at ALL

Spoiler

Plus, she has the crazy eyes

. I'd vote for Romney before her and I've long loathed Romney.

Realistically though I don't think Bachmann will be the nominee, nor Ron Paul and I'll likely just end up voting Libertarian.

And Ron Paul's statements that there isn't a separation of church and state and that states can regulate religion (And sodomy)as they see fit = not religious social conservatism how?

 

[besada]

Either Rick Perry's purported campaigning acumen doesn't translate well to the national stage, or he's got some strategy to consume the far right vote to secure the nomination and then plans to bank on the apathetic illl-informed electorate turning on Obama because of the economy regardless of who the opposition is...

That's exactly what I said he was going to do. He's trying to ride the Tea Party vote to the nomination, and then he'll switch tack from saying stupid things to beating on Obama about jobs and the economy.

Again, very few people are paying any attention to the Republican nomination process at this point. In particular, very few independents.

 

[Plinko]

I found this amusing

As a Christian, it appalls me to see the GOP getting Christian support when the Democrats and their attitude toward helping the poor come FAR closer to the actual message Jesus gives in the Bible. I won't vote for another Republican again until that "Go Go Corporate and forget the dirty poors" attitude changes.

 

[Gaborn]

And Ron Pauls statements that there isn't a separation of church and state and that states can regulate religion (And sodomy)as they see fit = not religious social conservatism how?

Look at his record. Ron Paul yes, has a record of championing states rights over federal rights (even to an unrealistic degree I would say). In practice what would happen under a Paul Presidency? Do I think he would be ABLE to somehow lower the barrier between church and state from the federal level? Not really. Do I think any state can adopt sodomy laws? Hell no, Lawrence v Texas overturned them whether or not Paul thought that was an approriate question for the Supreme Court (I believe he would have preferred it to be dealt with at the state level).

However, there are OTHER issues where his federalist view would come into play. President Paul for example would, and I am 100% fully confident in this have absolutely NO problem with states medical marijuana dispensaries nor would he have an issue if a state legalized marijuana (or any other drug, hell, he argued for the legalization of heroin in a presidential debate).

I think when you attack Paul's federalist positions you forget there are certainly areas where liberals and libertarians agree it would be GREAT if states were left to their own devices. And I think a President Paul would too.

 

[KtSlime]

Pretty much the latter. The ill-informed will be the DEATH of this country, along with the greed of the top 1 percent.

The ill-informed will be the death of the world/human race. Hopefully we get over ourselves and start using science, logic, and reason to determine the course of humanity and all the lifeforms we affect along with it.

 

[Gaborn]

Actually, since it touched on the question about Paul and his position on states rights/religion I'm going to post this video of him defending heroin, prostitution, etc.

 

[GaimeGuy]

prostitution should be legal IMO.

 

[TacticalFox88]

prostitution should be legal IMO.

It should be. Porn is basically professional prostitution that's distributed all over the country legally.

 

[Gaborn]

prostitution should be legal IMO.

Of course it should be legal, there is absolutely no argument in which a system where prostitution is illegal is better or safer for those involved in it (and no way to stop people from being involved in it if you were inclined to try to do so). What we should do is legalize and regulate brothels. Impose health standards, establish a registry for sex workers that mandates regular STD screenings, encourage a good working relationship with local law enforcement. Essentially, adopt Nevada style brothels nation wide.

 

[Suikoguy]

prostitution should be legal IMO.

Yep, should be legalized and regulated.

 

[Mortrialus]

Look at his record. Ron Paul yes, has a record of championing states rights over federal rights (even to an unrealistic degree I would say).

And human rights.

In practice what would happen under a Paul Presidency? Do I think he would be ABLE to somehow lower the barrier between church and state from the federal level?

You don't believe that if the opportunity arose he could and likely would appoint antifederalist judges and judges similar to Scalia who feels the federal government has no say in how states regulate religion? Second, Bush managed to greatly erode the separation of church and state with his faith based initiatives, which allow church run torture facilities to escape prosecution. Ron Paul might not be able to destroy it in one fell swoop, but he could very well damage it further, and I am confident that he would given what he has said on the matter.

Do I think any state can adopt sodomy laws? Hell no, Lawrence v Texas overturned them whether or not Paul thought that was an approriate question for the Supreme Court (I believe he would have preferred it to be dealt with at the state level).

Again, Ron Paul's views pose a huge threat to human rights should he be allowed to appoint Supreme Court justices. What is the better outcome here: The Supreme Court ruling that states cannot make laws outlawing homosexual intercourse in one fell swoop, or allowing states to decide the matter on their own, allowing Texas and several other states to continually persecute homosexuals as they see fit? Texas still has the law on the books by the way, even though they are prevented from enforcing it. You seriously don't think Ron Paul would appoint judges who would overturn that precedent in favor of states rights?

However, there are OTHER issues where his federalist view would come into play. President Paul for example would, and I am 100% fully confident in this have absolutely NO problem with states medical marijuana dispensaries nor would he have an issue if a state legalized marijuana (or any other drug, hell, he argued for the legalization of heroin in a presidential debate).

Ending the War on Drugs is one area where I agree with Ron Paul and that is an area where I would be fine with states deciding for themselves. But I still feel the dangers of Ron Paul outweigh that positive.

 

[empty vessel]

Of course it should be legal, there is absolutely no argument in which a system where prostitution is illegal is better or safer for those involved in it (and no way to stop people from being involved in it if you were inclined to try to do so). What we should do is legalize and regulate brothels. Impose health standards, establish a registry for sex workers that mandates regular STD screenings, encourage a good working relationship with local law enforcement. Essentially, adopt Nevada style brothels nation wide.

Hmm, are you sure you're a Libertarian?

You don't believe that if the opportunity arose he could and likely would appoint antifederalist judges and judges similar to Scalia who feels the federal government has no say in how states regulate religion?

Just for the record, it's Clarence Thomas who has managed to convince himself that the establishment clause does not apply to the states despite the 14th Amendment.

 

[eznark]

Hmm, are you sure you're a Libertarian?

Actually that is fairly Libertarian. It sure as shit isn't libertarian though.

 

[KtSlime]

Look at his record. Ron Paul yes, has a record of championing states rights over federal rights (even to an unrealistic degree I would say). In practice what would happen under a Paul Presidency? Do I think he would be ABLE to somehow lower the barrier between church and state from the federal level? Not really. Do I think any state can adopt sodomy laws? Hell no, Lawrence v Texas overturned them whether or not Paul thought that was an approriate question for the Supreme Court (I believe he would have preferred it to be dealt with at the state level).

However, there are OTHER issues where his federalist view would come into play. President Paul for example would, and I am 100% fully confident in this have absolutely NO problem with states medical marijuana dispensaries nor would he have an issue if a state legalized marijuana (or any other drug, hell, he argued for the legalization of heroin in a presidential debate).

I think when you attack Paul's federalist positions you forget there are certainly areas where liberals and libertarians agree it would be GREAT if states were left to their own devices. And I think a President Paul would too.

I don't buy this argument. If it weren't for the people that have been educated into voting against their own interests and the corporations that manipulate the law to benefit themselves, I see no need to have states with hugely divergent laws. State rights are a joke, they were a method to convince states to join the union hundreds of years ago, and play very little role other than being able to coerce businesses to leave other states and disenfranchise 'the other'.

Could you explain to me why state rights are the holy grail of libertarians and not county rights? Or not city rights? What is it about the arbitrary unit that is called 'state' that makes you want to defend their ability to define law.

I imagine that most all the liberals that wish states had more freedoms come to this decision not from the odd distinction that is made between what is state and what is federal, but rather come from the fact that the under-educated are attempting to push their ill-informed religious-corpratist agenda into a national scale.

So please inform me what a state needs more freedom to do, aside from ban gay marriage, segregate blacks, block immigration, undercut corporate taxes from other states, and lower the minimum wage.

 

[empty vessel]

Actually that is fairly Libertarian. It sure as shit isn't libertarian though.

Ha. I actually get this.

I refuse to use libertarian to describe any Libertarian, though, because real libertarians have to be socialists. Capitalists are inherently authoritarian, they just prefer their dictatorships be private and rooted in economic power rather than public and rooted in political power.

 

[TacticalFox88]

you forget there are certainly areas where liberals and libertarians agree it would be GREAT if states were left to their own devices. And I think a President Paul would too.

See this is where I disagree strongly. I think states as they are now are unsustainable, and were it not for the complications involved, get rid of the idea of a "state" completely.

 

[Mortrialus]

Just for the record, it's Clarence Thomas who has managed to convince himself that the establishment clause does not apply to the states despite the 14th Amendment.

Scalia has also contributed to eroding of Jefferson's Wall as well.

 

[empty vessel]

Scalia has also contributed to eroding of Jefferson's Wall as well.

I agree, but he has specifically declined to sign on to some of Thomas's extreme First Amendment opinions that ironically interpret the amendment as if the Civil War never occurred.

 

[RustyNails]

What we should do is legalize and regulate brothels. Impose health standards, establish a registry for sex workers that mandates regular STD screenings, encourage a good working relationship with local law enforcement. Essentially, adopt Nevada style brothels nation wide.

Why do we need to regulate brothels? It's a pure free market element. Johns get HIV from Brothel A, news spreads, Johns don't go the Brothel A anymore. Freeeeeeeeeeee market regulating itself!

 

[Byakuya769]

As a Christian, it appalls me to see the GOP getting Christian support when the Democrats and their attitude toward helping the poor come FAR closer to the actual message Jesus gives in the Bible. I won't vote for another Republican again until that "Go Go Corporate and forget the dirty poors" attitude changes.

You would have loved to see my debate with another Christian on whether or not they should agree with objectivism.

I agree, but he has specifically declined to sign on to some of Thomas's extreme First Amendment opinions that ironically interpret the amendment as if the Civil War never occurred.

With Thomas there's no irony there.

 

[Particle Physicist]

Heh. I remember when that joke was about Dubya and Cheney. And I'm sure they told it about Bill and Hillary, George the First and Quayle, etc.

Funny, how Laura was a-ok, but Michelle gets chucked out the plane beside her husband. Interesting sociological experiment.

I may just not have been aware of it, but it seems to me that Michelle has been demonized way more than other first ladies.

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

I may just not have been aware of it, but it seems to me that Michelle has been demonized way more than other first ladies.

More than Hillary? No way.

 

[Byakuya769]

More than Hillary? No way.

Yea, Hillary still has her beat by far. Though she was much more politically involved.

 

[speculawyer]

If you talk to most conservatives (except the ones actually in the energy industry), they'll tell you that we have energy problems because Obama, the Dems, and all those tree-hugging liberals stop us from drilling.

Here is an interesting graph . . .

Reality has a well-known . . .

 

[Chichikov]

Disgusting. I disagree strongly with Obama's policies but he's still the President.

Yes, he's the president, not a king.
We can make jokes about presidents.
And that same exact joke was made for pretty much every elected official in history.
Fuck, I made it back in home.

Of course it should be legal, there is absolutely no argument in which a system where prostitution is illegal is better or safer for those involved in it (and no way to stop people from being involved in it if you were inclined to try to do so). What we should do is legalize and regulate brothels. Impose health standards, establish a registry for sex workers that mandates regular STD screenings, encourage a good working relationship with local law enforcement. Essentially, adopt Nevada style brothels nation wide.

You don't think the market can regulate itself in this field?
Honest question, not trolling or anything, it just that this position (that I wholeheartedly agree with) seem to be a bit at odds with your stance on other regulations.

 

[Particle Physicist]

More than Hillary? No way.

That's true, I keep forgetting about Hillary lol.

I guess Republicans are just shameless when it comes to talking crap about Democratic First Ladies.

 

[speculawyer]

As a Christian, it appalls me to see the GOP getting Christian support when the Democrats and their attitude toward helping the poor come FAR closer to the actual message Jesus gives in the Bible. I won't vote for another Republican again until that "Go Go Corporate and forget the dirty poors" attitude changes.

People don't actually read the Bible. That is too much work. They just listen to what their preachers tell them. And as the fact that we have thousands of branches of Christianity will attest, you can interpret and emphasize things many different ways.

 

[Clevinger]

Yes, he's the president, not a king.
We can make jokes about presidents.
And that same exact joke was made for pretty much every elected official in history.
Fuck, I made it back in home.

Jokes are supposed to be funny, not cartoonishly violent fantasies.

 

[Mortrialus]

People don't actually read the Bible. That is too much work. They just listen to what their preachers tell them. And as the fact that we have thousands of branches of Christianity will attest, you can interpret and emphasize things many different ways.

And when they do you end up with Fred Phelps.

 

[Gaborn]

And human rights.

Such as... opposing the PATRIOT Act (which Paul does) and torture (which again, Paul opposes) and the TSA (again...) I mean, implying that Paul is somehow anti-human rights when fundamentally he just wants people to leave you alone in your personal decision making...

You don't believe that if the opportunity arose he could and likely would appoint antifederalist judges and judges similar to Scalia who feels the federal government has no say in how states regulate religion? Second, Bush managed to greatly erode the separation of church and state with his faith based initiatives, which allow church run torture facilities to escape prosecution. Ron Paul might not be able to destroy it in one fell swoop, but he could very well damage it further, and I am confident that he would given what he has said on the matter.

Like Scalia? Like the decision reached in the Gonzalez v Raich casee? With the concurrence by Scalia? Hellllllllll no. Someone noted already that Thomas you might have a CLOSER argument and even there I'm not sure they'd see eye to eye but Scalia in no way at all can be said to represent Paul's beliefs. Scalia is your classic law and order conservative who talks about federalism but when a judicial case conflicts with his political beliefs the law goes out the window. Paul isn't known for compromising his principles in the same way.

I think there's a bizarre notion that somehow Scalia is well liked in libertarian circles and... it's simply not true. I think the man has a sharp legal mind but I think he's been embarassingly inconsistent in the principles he claims to espouse. I think Thomas as I said is closer, but all too often his definition of "originalism" means the original consitution and not, for example, the attitude of individuals when the amendment the case turns on was adopted.

Reason actually had a nice quick blog post that sums up this point with a couple relevant examples for why Thomas is NOT a particularly good model for a libertarian jurist.

Again, Ron Paul's views pose a huge threat to human rights should he be allowed to appoint Supreme Court justices. What is the better outcome here: The Supreme Court ruling that states cannot make laws outlawing homosexual intercourse in one fell swoop, or allowing states to decide the matter on their own, allowing Texas and several other states to continually persecute homosexuals as they see fit? Texas still has the law on the books by the way, even though they are prevented from enforcing it. You seriously don't think Ron Paul would appoint judges who would overturn that precedent in favor of states rights?

Suppose prior to Roe v Wade a state that ALLOWED abortion was sued on the grounds that a clinic was violating a fetus's right to life. Assume as well that there was a unanimous conservative majority on the court. Could the Supreme Court rule in such a way to invalidate a state's right to allow abortions? In other words, could we see a reverse Roe v Wade making abortion illegal in all 50 states? I say no because it would be dificult to establish grounds for a legal suit. It's a bit like, to use a more relevant gay rights example, even though conservatives in Massachusetts disagreed strongly with the Goodrich decision which legalized marriage equality in Massachusetts, without a federal question the US supereme court had no power to review the issue of marriage in Massachusetts. (now there ARE federal questions being raised in the Prop 8 situation which will be interesting to watch).

However, I can think of no scenario where, intimate sexual relations between unrelated consenting adults being declared constitutionally protected, a court would be able to just arbitrarily strip them of that protection just because. It doesn't work that way. Paul's concerns were more process oriented, not for the actual result in any case.

Ending the War on Drugs is one area where I agree with Ron Paul and that is an area where I would be fine with states deciding for themselves. But I still feel the dangers of Ron Paul outweigh that positive.

I just really don't see the "dangers"

I don't buy this argument. If it weren't for the people that have been educated into voting against their own interests and the corporations that manipulate the law to benefit themselves, I see no need to have states with hugely divergent laws. State rights are a joke, they were a method to convince states to join the union hundreds of years ago, and play very little role other than being able to coerce businesses to leave other states and disenfranchise 'the other'.

Could you explain to me why state rights are the holy grail of libertarians and not county rights? Or not city rights? What is it about the arbitrary unit that is called 'state' that makes you want to defend their ability to define law.

No, because I think you misunderstand what Paul and what I am saying.

It's not so much that libertarians exclusively favor states rights at the expense of county or city rights or even individual rights. Rather, it's that while we acknowledge there are many legitimate roles for the government to play, it is better and more ideal for powers to be as decentralized as possible. You might say on average I would prefer a state to perform a function than the federal government, better a local government having the control than the state, and best of all is leaving it to the individual where possible.

Now that is NOT an endorsement of anarchy and it is NOT suggesting the different levels of government do not have roles they are uniquely suited for. There is a good deal of government most libertarians have little to no issue with, or if they do it isn't necessarily a big priority for them.

I imagine that most all the liberals that wish states had more freedoms come to this decision not from the odd distinction that is made between what is state and what is federal, but rather come from the fact that the under-educated are attempting to push their ill-informed religious-corpratist agenda into a national scale.

So please inform me what a state needs more freedom to do, aside from ban gay marriage, segregate blacks, block immigration, undercut corporate taxes from other states, and lower the minimum wage.

Bit of a loaded question, isn't it?

States ideally are laboratories for democracy. If a state wants to legalize prostitution (as, personally I think all SHOULD as a matter of policy) they should be free to do so. Or a state like Oregon with it's laws allowing for physician assisted suicide which the federal government has been fighting for years to the best of my knowledge, that should be left up to Oregon.

Or drugs, or... essentially any decision the federal government isn't mandated to make the states should be allowed to tweak. Another one, the Constitution sets out a maximum federal drinking age, but I don't believe in tying highway funding to the drinking age to coerce states to adopt federal standards. Really, I think we should join the majority of the world and our drinking age should be ABSOLUTELY no higher than 18.

Why do we need to regulate brothels? It's a pure free market element. Johns get HIV from Brothel A, news spreads, Johns don't go the Brothel A anymore. Freeeeeeeeeeee market regulating itself!

Because libertarians are not anarchists and good government often requires at least some degree of regulation. It would be nice to do without the snark though if I'm going to have to take on all of you.

 

[TacticalFox88]

People don't actually read the Bible. That is too much work. They just listen to what their preachers tell them. And as the fact that we have thousands of branches of Christianity will attest, you can interpret and emphasize things many different ways.

I recently sat in a church as a favor for my uncle, and as a chance to observe. Oh, boy, you wouldn't believe the amount of hive minded thinking ness. They literally called up the children ages 3-12 and asked them questions about the Bible. They were being indoctrinated already! It was absolutely disgusting. And then the Pastor read a passage that I had to follow closely to understand, but everyone was throwing out amens like it was the greatest thing since slice bread. I doubt very seriously they got the meaning of what he said. They just nod their heads as if it's routine while he takes shots at gays, abortion, the government....ugh.

 

[KtSlime]

People don't actually read the Bible. That is too much work. They just listen to what their preachers tell them. And as the fact that we have thousands of branches of Christianity will attest, you can interpret and emphasize things many different ways.

If people read the bible, there'd be a lot fewer Christians. I encourage everyone to actually sit down and read it cover to cover.

 

[Piecake]

If people read the bible, there'd be a lot fewer Christians. I encourage everyone to actually sit down and read it cover to cover.

I think I'll pass. I tried reading it once for the hell of it though. I got about 30 pages in before I just got too damn bored.

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

If people read the bible, there'd be a lot fewer Christians. I encourage everyone to actually sit down and read it cover to cover.

I tried reading the entire Bible straight through once. I made it to Ezra and got bored. I should try again sometime to see what it's all about.

 

[RustyNails]

Because libertarians are not anarchists and good government often requires at least some degree of regulation. It would be nice to do without the snark though if I'm going to have to take on all of you.

Sorry Gabs, I didn't mean to be snarky. It's just that when it comes to regulation, you selectively decide what needs to government intervention and what doesn't, but when it comes to military intervention, you're mind is set like a line on a rock.

 

[thekad]

How can you vote for someone who doesn't believe in evolution?

 

[Piecake]

Sorry Gabs, I didn't mean to be snarky. It's just that when it comes to regulation, you selectively decide what needs to government intervention and what doesn't, but when it comes to military intervention, you're mind is set like a line on a rock.

Its pretty obvious that he trusts corporations a whole lot more than women. Women need regulation, not corporations *mostly joking*

 

[speculawyer]

I tried reading the entire Bible straight through once. I made it to Ezra and got bored. I should try again sometime to see what it's all about.

It is real hard read if you read the KJV. The language is so annoying. And if you read more modern friendly versions . . . it is just not that interesting.

 

[tanod]

I tried reading the entire Bible straight through once. I made it to Ezra and got bored. I should try again sometime to see what it's all about.

Start with the New testament. The New testament is the substance. The Old testament is only still included to provide the historical context for the teachings in the New.

 

[Chichikov]

Jokes are supposed to be funny, not cartoonishly violent fantasies.

Is this a dig against Crank 2: High Voltage?
Cause those are some fighting words.

Maybe we have very different sense of humor, but I really like cartoonishly violent jokes.
And as I said, I made the exact same jokes before (though usually in the short form of "Bush and Cheney crash a plane into the chamber of commerce, who is spared? the US"; yeah, it works slightly better in Hebrew).
And I made much much meaner jokes than this, usually involving Michelle Bachmann and a tire iron; you didn't?

So I honestly don't see what's the big deal.

Heh. I remember when that joke was about Dubya and Cheney. And I'm sure they told it about Bill and Hillary, George the First and Quayle, etc.

Funny, how Laura was a-ok, but Michelle gets chucked out the plane beside her husband. Interesting sociological experiment.

I can attest that this joke goes back at least to 1981 (and I'm quite certain it's older).

 

[Gaborn]

Sorry Gabs, I didn't mean to be snarky. It's just that when it comes to regulation, you selectively decide what needs to government intervention and what doesn't,

I think to some extent everyone makes choices as to what they feel it is appropriate for the government to regulate and what isn't. I think for me in general when you have things dealing directly with the health and safety of the general population (such as meat inspection, or making sure we have clean drinking water, or hell the clean air act regulating pollutants in our atmosphere) there is absolutely a government role, and I see nothing inappropriate about regulating prostitutes to make sure they provide as sanitary a service as possible, same as I don't have a big issue with restaurants dealing with health inspectors.

We can certainly quibble with the degree of specific regulations in specific circumstances on specific issues but I'm not reflexively going to say all regulation is inherently bad. Regulation DOES impose a cost and it is worth at times making a simple cost benefit analysis (example: Louisiana, in a sop to the florist business actually required a license and a state exam before a business could legally sell floral arrangements). You're right, frequently I do find regulations onerous and irrational but I hardly see why some basic regulation to make more certain the health of sex workers would be problematic.

but when it comes to military intervention, you're mind is set like a line on a rock.

Yes, it is on principle. I would be a LOT less bitchy about Libya if Obama went to Congress and got authorization though.