I didn't know Willie Aames was in politics now.

I don't take any of the candidates seriously. Why would any sane person?

So the guy is a dope smoking Poli-Sci Prof. He's got my vote.

sepuku2: So the guy is a dope smoking Poli-Sci Prof. He's got my vote.

anything's better than another blue blood harvard/yale boy.

camacho for president!!!

sepuku2: So the guy is a dope smoking Poli-Sci Prof. He's got my vote.

Yes, but a prof at DUKE University.

Among the 5 people in my state who know who he is, he's less popular than John Edwards (both are actually pretty decent guys).

Wow. There are some absolutely mind boggling pictures on this guy's blog:

http://mungowitzend.blogspot.com/



I think this serves as a good reminder that there are some things free market capitalism simply cannot fix.

And to think that I chose to live in North Carolina.


*shakes head morosely*

Seperated at birth?

I regularly say that the American voter is far to shallow to look past the outer appearance of a candidate. You guys prove it.
This guy has very little chance of any real career in politics.
Why, because his political position is wrong? No because he doesn't look like he was just mashed out of a Democrat/Republican cookie cutter.
Think about these guys:
Romney
Edwards
Obama
Huckabee
Your next president will be either Hillary or one of them. (or Gore if he runs)
Now think of the doofus we have and the guys he beat to get there.
All are the product of cookie cutter politics.
Huckabee understands this and that's why he lost a thousand pounds or whatever before he started his campaign.
Americans are shallow and want all their presidents too look like they just stepped off the campus of Harvard or Yale.

All Adult Males Must Conform (pops)

The last thing that any Libertarian candidate needs is to be taken seriously, the attack machines would be on them instantly (led mostly by those who insist that they would never support the big 2 parties). Change is unfamiliar and dangerous, rooting for the team you're used to is safe.

submitter: "This is why nobody takes Libertarian candidates seriously (pic)"

Well yeah, that, and his name.

Munger? Eww.

Haw, that's actually a rare picture of Munger with his hair washed. I had to sit next to him once at a meeting and swore he needed a bath. Too bad, because he's actually pretty smart.

Considering the crop of loser crooks we always have as candidates, this guy is a refreshing change. It's too bad that we base our vote on these important issues: (listed by order of importance to the American voter)

1. White ... check - male ... check
2. Party affiliation
2. Party affiliation
2. Party affiliation
3. How his hair looks
4. Sound bites

/farking sheep

Its too bad he has funny hair. Reading his website he seems like a pretty smart guy. His platform and issues are well written and thought out.


But hey. We Americans are shallow. A candidate with funny hair is laughable and therefore should not be considered.

Har har.

But there are some great qualified, educational and down-to-earth Libertarian candidates running right now, like Sue Jeffers, Libertarian candidate for Governor of Minnesota.



If I was living in Minnesota, I would gladly donate and work for her campaign.

Deftoons: But there are some great qualified, educational and down-to-earth Libertarian candidates

Like the guy who turned himself blue by taking ionic silver, because he thought there would be so much Y2K chaos that antibiotics would disappear.

We... Must.. All.. Look... THE SAME!

I will only vote for someone with a $400 hair cut.

This is why nobody takes Libertarian candidates seriously

Because property rights don't extend into the atmosphere?

(pic)

Or that.

To be fair, Jesse Ventura was elected Gov in Minnesota, not as a Libertarian but still in a 3rd party. Being in the public eye, aspiring politicians need to understand they are literally the face of their product. Does he appeal to voters? If not, do not pass go.

Deftoons: But there are some great qualified, educational and down-to-earth Libertarian candidates running right now, like Sue Jeffers, Libertarian candidate for Governor of Minnesota.

Except that you made some modest errors. First, she is not running for governor of Minnesota, she ran last year (which makes sense, since that's when the election was). Next, she is a libertarian but she is not a Libertarian -- she declined the LP's nomination (which is a sign that you are correct and that she is sane). She ran in the Republican primary.

The problem with Libertarians (as opposed to libertarians) is not their haircuts or even some or most of their positions. It's that everyone who gets high enough up in the party to get a nomination to any office of consequence is nucking futz like that blue guy.

You need a candidate you can take seriously.



Because This thead (new window) was awesome

Wow, I lol'd instantly.

Manfred J. Hattan: Deftoons: But there are some great qualified, educational and down-to-earth Libertarian candidates running right now, like Sue Jeffers, Libertarian candidate for Governor of Minnesota.

Except that you made some modest errors. First, she is not running for governor of Minnesota, she ran last year (which makes sense, since that's when the election was). Next, she is a libertarian but she is not a Libertarian -- she declined the LP's nomination (which is a sign that you are correct and that she is sane). She ran in the Republican primary.

The problem with Libertarians (as opposed to libertarians) is not their haircuts or even some or most of their positions. It's that everyone who gets high enough up in the party to get a nomination to any office of consequence is nucking futz like that blue guy.

*shrug* Alright, fine, I don't live in Minnesota, I'm not totally up to date on those things. Whatever. I'm just saying she was a great libertarian candidate that anyone can support.

I wouldn't be surprised if she went for the Republican Party nomination because there's more money/support there, kinda like what Ron Paul did.

And I would refrain those blanket statements, yes?

MrCab
I see your LOLCat and raise you...




8~P

I didn't expect that. I just burst out laughing at that picture. I'm glad I'm not at work.

Yes because making sure you have the haircut everyone else has is the surest indicator that your ideas are sound.

Deftoons: And I would refrain those blanket statements, yes?

About the LP? No. They're nucking futz. They drive many actual libertarians crazy with their antics. People like Sue Jeffers, who I agree seems to be an attractive candidate -- business owner, fiscal conservative, social liberal, and smart enough to know that she'd never be anything but a fringe candidate if she ran with the LP. Not because of her views, but because the party is nuts. The major party parallel would be if the Democrats made Pete Stark their presidential candidate.

If the LP were smart, they'd run on the stuff they can attract new voters with, like decreasing regulation of normal people and small businesses, like lowering taxes, like common sense regarding marijuana consumption. And they'd dial back the part about legalizing heroin and private currency and eliminating property taxes altogether. But they're not smart, they're nuts.

Yeah, thats why no one takes us seriously. We always want to be the third party candidate for governerships and presidential elections. You know, because the country has been screwed over for the past 20 years and we're the only assholes who are tired of it enough to actually do something about it.

But in everyone else's eyes we're all just hippies who smoke way too much pot and want everything "relaxed" like our lifestyles.

Way to go, Asshat Submitard.

That's the biggest Oompa Loompa I've ever seen. At least we have a candidate with a strong position on the Wangdoodle problem.

bitteroldman: I regularly say that the American voter is far to shallow to look past the outer appearance of a candidate. You guys prove it.
This guy has very little chance of any real career in politics.
Why, because his political position is wrong? No because he doesn't look like he was just mashed out of a Democrat/Republican cookie cutter.

[WIN]

So true.

This is why having a black man and a woman running for president is so damn important. We need one of the 2 in the White House next year. We have to start some change. Something different.

I'd prefer a good candidate, but there aren't any of those.

Deftoons: Har har.

But there are some great qualified, educational and down-to-earth Libertarian candidates running right now, like Sue Jeffers, Libertarian candidate for Governor of Minnesota.



If I was living in Minnesota, I would gladly donate and work for her campaign.

If I was living in Minnesota, I would gladly hit it.

No, we don't take Libertarians seriously because even their farking political science professors are unable to articulate why the magical free market can handle externalities, the tragedy of the commons, and the reality of limited rationality (as opposed to the perfect rationality required for the free market to be effective).

There's a reason government was instituted among men. Blue skin dude, this political science professor who couldn't hire a teenager to make his official campaign site not obnoxious-looking, and Ron Paul all seem to not be able to figure it out.

It's uncanny. This is what I see in my mind when I visualize most Farkers.

Meanwhile, the progressives are trying to decide whether they want CHANGE (Obama) or EXPERIENCE (Clinton).

Real serious issues there, guys. What a heaping pile of steaming shiat.

Meanwhile the Neocons are debating whether they want to continue Bush's policies or continue Bush's policies.

/except Paul.

Dems and Repubs constantly try to paint Libertarians into a corner by narrowly defining their platform. (IE: free market as someone jsut did above) Meanwhile, the same D & R's go on and on about how inclusive and broad-minded their own party is.

I'm tired of seeing it every election for the last 25+ years...

Christopher Atkins, where is he now?



/apparently running under an assumed name.

Manfred J. Hattan: Deftoons: And I would refrain those blanket statements, yes?

About the LP? No. They're nucking futz. They drive many actual libertarians crazy with their antics. People like Sue Jeffers, who I agree seems to be an attractive candidate -- business owner, fiscal conservative, social liberal, and smart enough to know that she'd never be anything but a fringe candidate if she ran with the LP. Not because of her views, but because the party is nuts. The major party parallel would be if the Democrats made Pete Stark their presidential candidate.

If the LP were smart, they'd run on the stuff they can attract new voters with, like decreasing regulation of normal people and small businesses, like lowering taxes, like common sense regarding marijuana consumption. And they'd dial back the part about legalizing heroin and private currency and eliminating property taxes altogether. But they're not smart, they're nuts.

I'm glad you at least agree with the overall platform of libertarians, but you would do well not to blanket them like that. For a number of reasons-

A.) Even without Sue Jeffers, there is Bob Barr, and the late Harry Browne, Michael Badnarik, there are plenty of "Big L" Libertarians worth voting for (or at least worth looking into). Harry Browne's essays are still worth reading now, and make for great libertarian rhetoric.

B.) Promoting that line of thought will only keep your stereotype a reality. If you keep wanting people to believe they're all crazy, then the good Libertarians won't run because they may buy into thinking no one will take them seriously. And there are plenty of elections out there that desperately need a "small government, socially liberal" candidate; no one wants to be in the "vote for the lesser of two evils" situation.

Do you agree with me there?

captainktainer: No, we don't take Libertarians seriously because even their farking political science professors are unable to articulate why the magical free market can handle externalities, the tragedy of the commons, and the reality of limited rationality (as opposed to the perfect rationality required for the free market to be effective).

"Libertarianism" isn't a single, monolithic philosophy, and there are a lot of variants. Geolibertarianism/Georgism handles externalities and the tragedy of the commons fairly well.

Ah, and the truth comes out.

All the people here constantly bashing creationism in favor of Darwinism are so quick to point the finger at how nutty free-market ideas are because they... OH MY - support things like competition and survival of the fittest, which are--> Darwinist!!

Legalize heroin. Do it. Or are you so afraid of that thing called Natural Selection you constantly defend.

Sounds like this: "Oh, it's okay when it's in nature and biological, but the minute Darwinism or Natural selection extends into society or economics, THEN we need a saftey net."

fark that.

I can never understand why people who are so pro evolution and natural selection all of a sudden discard it when it comes to economics and sociology.

I can never understand why people who are so pro evolution and natural selection all of a sudden discard it when it comes to economics and sociology.

Hahaha, thats funny. Because you are kidding with that, right?

HeHeHe: I can never understand why people who are so pro evolution and natural selection all of a sudden discard it when it comes to economics and sociology.

Hahaha, thats funny. Because you are kidding with that, right?

No, I'm not.

How are natural market forces different from natural selection in the wild?

Are we not animals?

Hank Rearden: Are we not animals?

Well, some of us cannibals who cut other people open like cantaloupes.

We believe physicists when the talk about entropy, an expanding universe, disorder, and how out of chaos things fall to order.

Biologists talk about natural selection and evolution, and we accept it. You throw enough shiat out there, and some of it sticks - others die off.

Then, we get to socio-economics, and all of a sudden we're tip-toeing through the world of political correctness and how everything has to be handled ever so gently.

Why are we so afraid of just being free to do what we want?

OK, lets say that somehow, I'm arguing with a libertarian. I grow frustrated and rip the libertarians throat out. While it may seem like natural selection, well, it is, bad example.

Market forces are never "natural" and the survival of the fittest becomes survival of the most ruthless. Markets are not like nature, getting rich is not surviving, and making market choices is not adaptation.

While there are some similarities, evolution has produced a self sustaining system with species adapting to find a niche in their environment. The market produces Rupert Murdock.

Why are we so afraid of just being free to do what we want?

Alright, just stay in school, Cartman.