What They Meant

July 26, 2012

Consumer Product Safety Commission: Stop the lawsuit against and banning of magnetic desk toy Bucky Balls

“The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) ordered a halt to sale of Buckyballs magnetic toys on Wednesday, calling them a serious hazard in the panel’s first stop-sale order in 11 years.” (Source)

The Federal Government has overstepped its bounds. It is now, more than ever, telling consumers what they can and cannot purchase in the interest of “public safety”. Banning a magnetic toy because there have been incidences of children swallowing them and having surgery? I ask you, where’s the ban on swimming pools? I’d wager that swimming pools account for more children accidental deaths than these toys account for accidental injury.

I ask this: What’s next? Where does the Fed stop? How about they stop here. Stop telling the People what TOYS we can and cannot purchase for ourselves.

(Source: heylookitsjon)

8:49pm | URL: http://tmblr.co/ZSdqNwQAPQXN

(Notes: 4)

July 26, 2012

speedlimitzero:

Buckyballs are off the shelves!

“We should start suing kids for swallowing shit and ruining it for the rest of us.” - Colin

“Magnets don’t kill children; dumb, magnet-eating kids do.” - Munch Hausen

8:48pm | URL: http://tmblr.co/ZSdqNwQAPEnC

(Notes: 5)

July 26, 2012

Buckyballs Magnets Have Been Banned by the Feds

igotkittypryde:

Idiot parents can’t be trusted to keep these away from their idiot kids. So NO ONE can have them. ARGH.

8:48pm | URL: http://tmblr.co/ZSdqNwQAPAIj

(Notes: 6)

May 20, 2012

(Source: impuls3, via disaffected-libertarian)

12:02am | URL: http://tmblr.co/ZSdqNwLoOANj

(Notes: 9,329)

May 10, 2012

lalibertarienne:

FUCK STATISTS of all political stripes (I am starting to go toward anarchism, gradually but surely)

Nothing wrong with anarchism! Initiation of coercion is wrong, always.

8:38pm | URL: http://tmblr.co/ZSdqNwLFhz5z

(Notes: 12)

May 10, 2012

I truly question the mental health and/or sanity of anyone who thinks Ron Paul is in any way, shape, or form a worthy presidential candidate.

freebroccoli:

mirandaadria:

…seriously….

Believe me, we all think the same thing about people who think the warmonger-in-chief should be in office.

I don’t think it is a matter of mental health or sanity. People have different (and subjective) values, so some people might value party affiliation more than others, or some people might value certain ideological positions, or they might want leadership or charisma or a million other variables.

I value candidates who regard the state’s coercive powers as dangerous and in need of severe limitations.

(via lalibertarienne)

7:40pm | URL: http://tmblr.co/ZSdqNwLFSHGO

(Notes: 26)

May 9, 2012

"I don’t support gay marriage.
I support get-the-government-the-hell-out-of-voluntary-associations-between-individuals."

—

STATE HATE:

Exactly.

9:26pm | URL: http://tmblr.co/ZSdqNwLCCXGh

(Notes: 224)

May 9, 2012

fralcon:

Sound familiar? This is basically the U.K. version of Ron Paul 2012 with a bit more overt racism. And big surprise, it’s the 20 point plan of the far right, aka fucking fascists. Hitler used mainly anti-capitalistic and anti-state rhetoric too, until he rose to power. Will we ever learn the lessons of history?

Asinine. Has Ron Paul ever said “Halt and turn back all aspects of Islamisation of America” or “Promote American values and assimilation, rather than multiculturalism and division” or “Ensure that a no schedule-1 drugs policy is enforced” ?

Has he said any of those things? No, he hasn’t. These Brits (a very small party, look them up) want to use the force of government to create a society they like. Ron Paul wants to limit the force of government, and let society do what it will. If you can’t understand the difference, it is because you don’t want to.

(Source: mochente)

7:57pm | URL: http://tmblr.co/ZSdqNwLBo1df

(Notes: 10)

May 1, 2012