Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Salon)   Kid who gave a speech at CPAC writes an op-ed about no longer being a Republican. "These are scorned right-wingers showing all the maturity of a little boy. No wonder I fit in so well when I was 13"   (salon.com ) divider line
    More: Followup, CPAC, Republican  
•       •       •

5980 clicks; posted to Politics » on 09 Jul 2012 at 12:20 AM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



271 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2012-07-09 09:48:23 AM  

stoli n coke: Noam Chimpsky: He does sound like an inquisitive kid. He'll be a liberal for about 6 months and then he'll be telling anyone who'll listen that he's a libertarian. I don't think the liberal lockstep Borg mindset is going to take with this one.

You seem to have a vested interest in winning back this 17 year old boy. You trying to tell us something?


No actual conservative has ever devolved into a liberal before so the notion of "winning back" is non sequitur for that example.
 
2012-07-09 09:49:20 AM  
In the future, a good rule of thumb might be: If you're not old enough to have consensual sex, you're probably not old enough to make consequential political statements.

No, kid if you are not at least 35 then you are not old enough to make consequential political statements and that is not just me talking out my ass, but the wisdom of the founding fathers.
 
2012-07-09 09:50:00 AM  

maxx2112: hipster douchebag


yeah look at that hipster, wearing clothes and having hair
 
2012-07-09 09:50:38 AM  

Calmamity: Same thing with Ayn Rand. I thought Objectivism was a viable political philosophy when I was 13.

But then I grew the fu*k up.


What really cracks me up about Objectivism is that it is just Satanism repackaged in a non-offensive form.
 
2012-07-09 09:50:55 AM  

mrshowrules: Sock Ruh Tease: mrshowrules: Ted Nugent
Grover Norquist
Rush Limbaugh
Joe the Plumber
Sarah Palin
Michelle Bachman
Rinsed Penis
Rick Sanoturum

Those people are acting against the GOP's long-term interests (survival/maintaining relevance over the long term), whether they know it or not.

Republicans need to begin facing the fact that they're a dying breed, and either start moving toward the left or split up into other new or existing parties: Libertarian, Conservative, Christian, and Fascist (call it National Front or something, to sound better). The former two will become more popular than the latter two (which mostly serves to contain the crazies) and actually have a chance at becoming major parties if that split happens. Democrats would then move to the left in response and actually become a liberal party. Then we'll have more of the political balance you see in places like Canada and western European countries.

Except Canada farked up by splitting the Liberal vote across two-parties which got Canadian Conservative Stephen Sweater-vest (Rick Santorum-lite) in charge.


Splitting the Republicans across two or more parties actually makes sense, since that party is full of people with different ideas conforming to each other's ideas. With several parties they can actually better represent what they stand for. Though I agree that they would probably not split up if it meant never getting the White House again due to split votes.

The Democrats have a good chance of staying intact simply because of the divisions that already exist in that party. The Blue Dogs would probably move into a major Conservative party but they could largely stay intact and move slightly left.
 
2012-07-09 09:52:31 AM  

Slaves2Darkness: In the future, a good rule of thumb might be: If you're not old enough to have consensual sex, you're probably not old enough to make consequential political statements.

No, kid if you are not at least 35 then you are not old enough to make consequential political statements and that is not just me talking out my ass, but the wisdom of the founding fathers.


So the founders thought only the President should be of the age required to make consequential political statements, not Representatives or Senators?
 
2012-07-09 09:52:55 AM  

NewportBarGuy: Calmamity:
......
It's nice to see clearly now. However, some days... I wish I took the blue pill.


That's what He said.

/been waiting to make that joke.
 
2012-07-09 09:56:16 AM  

acefox1: Oh no he DI'INT!!!?!?!

Good for him!

If you grew up and still parrot all of the exact same politics as your parents you probably need some time apart. Spending a few months travelling around Europe and the third world would be a good start.


I don't know about you, but my views do reflect my parents. I'm betting that this is just a teenage/young adult rebellion against mommy and daddy and he will come back to the conservitard fold when he starts to have kids.

That is the way it usually works, sure the little bastard will try on lots of different pants when he is a young man just starting out in the world, but the reality is very few break away from those old comfortable pants that their parents wear.

I imagine in about another 13 years he will have a rebirth and a joyous return to the derpturd fold.
 
2012-07-09 09:57:20 AM  

Sock Ruh Tease: mrshowrules: Ted Nugent
Grover Norquist
Rush Limbaugh
Joe the Plumber
Sarah Palin
Michelle Bachman
Rinsed Penis
Rick Sanoturum

Those people are acting against the GOP's long-term interests (survival/maintaining relevance over the long term), whether they know it or not.

Republicans need to begin facing the fact that they're a dying breed, and either start moving toward the left or split up into other new or existing parties: Libertarian, Conservative, Christian, and Fascist (call it National Front or something, to sound better). The former two will become more popular than the latter two (which mostly serves to contain the crazies) and actually have a chance at becoming major parties if that split happens. Democrats would then move to the left in response and actually become a liberal party. Then we'll have more of the political balance you see in places like Canada and western European countries.


You can't have more than two parties for very long unless either
1) some of the parties are highly regionalized (Bloc Quebecois, Scottish National)
2) you have runoff voting, proportional representation, or some other similar system that is very uncommon in English-speaking countries.

In other words, one more election cycle like the last and the NDP will become Canada's de-facto liberal party.
 
2012-07-09 09:59:00 AM  

MrLint: serial_crusher: Step 1: Call your opponents childish for thinking a 13 year old has great ideas.
Step 2: Fawn over the great ideas of a 17 year old.

Democratic plan for success

Step 3: Block 18 yr oldsthe poor from voting

Republican Plan for success.


ftfu.
 
2012-07-09 10:00:23 AM  
problems with the two party system... you get to choose between warmongers or communists

but its all just a facade.... really we live in a global corporate-ocracy
 
2012-07-09 10:00:47 AM  

Slaves2Darkness: acefox1: Oh no he DI'INT!!!?!?!

Good for him!

If you grew up and still parrot all of the exact same politics as your parents you probably need some time apart. Spending a few months travelling around Europe and the third world would be a good start.

I don't know about you, but my views do reflect my parents. I'm betting that this is just a teenage/young adult rebellion against mommy and daddy and he will come back to the conservitard fold when he starts to have kids.

That is the way it usually works, sure the little bastard will try on lots of different pants when he is a young man just starting out in the world, but the reality is very few break away from those old comfortable pants that their parents wear.

I imagine in about another 13 years he will have a rebirth and a joyous return to the derpturd fold.


I think it's better to say that views are typically influenced by parents rather than a reflection of parents' views.

It's possible to adopt your parents' views. It's also possible to look at your parents' views, and say to yourself, "Wow. These are the most despicable views a human being could possibly have. I think I will find something less retarded to believe in." And there's everything in the middle of those two. Regardless of how that turns out, your views were influenced by your parents.

Granted, it can take a strong will to break things like political and religious indoctrination. But it happens.
 
2012-07-09 10:01:53 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Slaves2Darkness: In the future, a good rule of thumb might be: If you're not old enough to have consensual sex, you're probably not old enough to make consequential political statements.

No, kid if you are not at least 35 then you are not old enough to make consequential political statements and that is not just me talking out my ass, but the wisdom of the founding fathers.

So the founders thought only the President should be of the age required to make consequential political statements, not Representatives or Senators?


There are more then enough Representatives and Senators that the founders assumed we would not elect that the old folks could keep the young-ens in line.
 
2012-07-09 10:02:11 AM  

Slaves2Darkness: In the future, a good rule of thumb might be: If you're not old enough to have consensual sex, you're probably not old enough to make consequential political statements.

No, kid if you are not at least 35 then you are not old enough to make consequential political statements and that is not just me talking out my ass, but the wisdom of the founding fathers.


The minimum age to be elected to the House of Representatives is actually 25. Thanks for playing.
 
2012-07-09 10:02:33 AM  

thrgd456: problems with the two party system... you get to choose between warmongers or communists

but its all just a facade.... really we live in a global corporate-ocracy


What do you suggest we do?

Sitting around biatching about it all the time isn't going to solve this issue and make things any better.

What do you actually suggest we do to fix this?
 
2012-07-09 10:04:55 AM  

Slaves2Darkness: MrLint: serial_crusher: Step 1: Call your opponents childish for thinking a 13 year old has great ideas.
Step 2: Fawn over the great ideas of a 17 year old.

Democratic plan for success

Step 3: Block 18 yr oldsthe poor from voting

Republican Plan for success.

ftfu.


Step 3: Block 18 yr oldsthe poor from voting TWICE

FTFU
 
2012-07-09 10:09:06 AM  
All together now:

noobstore.com
 
2012-07-09 10:10:12 AM  

Sock Ruh Tease: mrshowrules: Sock Ruh Tease: mrshowrules: Ted Nugent
Grover Norquist
Rush Limbaugh
Joe the Plumber
Sarah Palin
Michelle Bachman
Rinsed Penis
Rick Sanoturum

Those people are acting against the GOP's long-term interests (survival/maintaining relevance over the long term), whether they know it or not.

Republicans need to begin facing the fact that they're a dying breed, and either start moving toward the left or split up into other new or existing parties: Libertarian, Conservative, Christian, and Fascist (call it National Front or something, to sound better). The former two will become more popular than the latter two (which mostly serves to contain the crazies) and actually have a chance at becoming major parties if that split happens. Democrats would then move to the left in response and actually become a liberal party. Then we'll have more of the political balance you see in places like Canada and western European countries.

Except Canada farked up by splitting the Liberal vote across two-parties which got Canadian Conservative Stephen Sweater-vest (Rick Santorum-lite) in charge.

Splitting the Republicans across two or more parties actually makes sense, since that party is full of people with different ideas conforming to each other's ideas. With several parties they can actually better represent what they stand for. Though I agree that they would probably not split up if it meant never getting the White House again due to split votes.

The Democrats have a good chance of staying intact simply because of the divisions that already exist in that party. The Blue Dogs would probably move into a major Conservative party but they could largely stay intact and move slightly left.


Back in 2004, it seemed to make sense to split the Democratic party. Being in power does a lot to help a party seem to be unified. Democrats can also have factions. They are an umbrella group of many causes: Feminism, LGBT, anti-poverty, pro increased labor market protections, increased minimum wage, national healthcare, national education, environmental protection, anti-war, pro-war but only for UN-approved humanitarian causes, etc. There are some Democrats who believe in all of these things, and many who only believe in a few.
 
Bf+
2012-07-09 10:12:53 AM  
barkingbookreviews.com
 
2012-07-09 10:13:36 AM  

xanadian: Let's also not forget that it was Eisenhower (I believe), a Republican, who warned us about catering too much to the military-industrial complex.


You might want to take a listen to This. From the man, Gil Scott-Heron...Gotta work for peace.
 
2012-07-09 10:14:59 AM  

Slaves2Darkness: acefox1: Oh no he DI'INT!!!?!?!

Good for him!

If you grew up and still parrot all of the exact same politics as your parents you probably need some time apart. Spending a few months travelling around Europe and the third world would be a good start.

I don't know about you, but my views do reflect my parents. I'm betting that this is just a teenage/young adult rebellion against mommy and daddy and he will come back to the conservitard fold when he starts to have kids.

That is the way it usually works, sure the little bastard will try on lots of different pants when he is a young man just starting out in the world, but the reality is very few break away from those old comfortable pants that their parents wear.

I imagine in about another 13 years he will have a rebirth and a joyous return to the derpturd fold.


Many people's parents are also split so it becomes a matter of which parent has most influence on you. More importantly though are two factors, life experience/ignorance and capacity for empathy.

Ignorance and lack of empathy is typical amongst Conservatives.

Most Conservatives are pro-"enhanced interrogation" except for McCain, because he had less ignorance on this subject and could apply his limited empathy.

Same sex marriage, because Cheney had a gay daughter (see above).

Mark Rubio on immigration etc... etc...

A definite pattern of Conservatives taking Liberal positions when their life experience has taught them something allowing what limited empathy they are capable to take effect.
 
2012-07-09 10:22:44 AM  
FTFA:"...like the conservative Macauley Culkin, except I've never had a drug problem or dated Mila Kunis, unfortunately."

Well kid, I've got good news and bad news for you. First, the bad news. You're right, you'll never date Mila Kunis. Now for the good news. You're the perfect age to develop a drug problem.
 
2012-07-09 10:23:28 AM  

randomjsa: There's a reason that Obama's domestic policies have been abhorrent to most people on the right, and no, its not because they're all extremists, or racists, or anything else.


I call bullshiat. It was noticed early and pointed out repeatedly when it happened that the "Right" hated Obama from the get-go and would oppose anything he did. They even said on election night that getting him out of office was their only goal. They've opposed him on things he adopted after they proposed them in the first place. So, yeah, you are incorrect.

If you're for real, remember what really happened and don't rewrite history.

If you're a troll, choke on it.
 
2012-07-09 10:32:34 AM  

thrgd456: Slaves2Darkness: MrLint: serial_crusher: Step 1: Call your opponents childish for thinking a 13 year old has great ideas.
Step 2: Fawn over the great ideas of a 17 year old.

Democratic plan for success

Step 3: Block 18 yr oldsthe poor from voting

Republican Plan for success.

ftfu.


Step 3: Block 18 yr oldsthe poorGov. Scott from voting TWICE


FTF...oh nevermind
 
2012-07-09 10:35:35 AM  
"An open mind and critical thought are like a metaphorical AA after a long bender on ideological wine."
 
2012-07-09 10:37:26 AM  

MrBallou: randomjsa: There's a reason that Obama's domestic policies have been abhorrent to most people on the right, and no, its not because they're all extremists, or racists, or anything else.

I call bullshiat. It was noticed early and pointed out repeatedly when it happened that the "Right" hated Obama from the get-go and would oppose anything he did. They even said on election night that getting him out of office was their only goal. They've opposed him on things he adopted after they proposed them in the first place. So, yeah, you are incorrect.

If you're for real, remember what really happened and don't rewrite history.

If you're a troll, choke on it.


i'm not condoning what the republican noise machine does, but c'mon folks... *newsflash* the republicans didn't like the democrats long before Obama got elected
 
2012-07-09 10:47:14 AM  

thrgd456: problems with the two party system... you get to choose between warmongers or communists

but its all just a facade.... really we live in a global corporate-ocracy



thrgd456
2007-03-03 08:29:07 AM

blame bush. blame bush. blame bush. You idiots, he isn't the one that's gonna spank you guys in the 2008 presidential election.

The only way you libs could lose in 2008 is to run a woman or an african american.
 
2012-07-09 10:49:23 AM  

animal color: List of People Conspiring Against the GOP, and therefore, America
(LOPCATGOPATA for short):
Liberals
Democrats
Socialists
Community Organizers
Geologists
Biologists
Meteorologists
Climatologists
Atheists
Muslims
Jews
Satan
ABC
NBC
CNN
CBS
PBS
All of cable news except FNC
The New York Times
The LA Times
The Washington Post
The Associated Press
Reuters
BBC
The Guardian
Black People
Mexicans
Human Rights Activists
SCOTUS
Europe
Movie Industry
Television Industry
Environmentalists
ACLU
The United Nations
Labor Unions
Colleges
Teachers
Professors
ACORN
National Endowment for the Arts
Gays
Judges
NPR
Paleontologists
Astrophysicists
Museums (*except Creationism Museum)
WHO
WTO
Inflated tires
The Honolulu Advertiser
The Star Bulletin
Teletubbies
Sponge Bob and Patrick
Nobel Prize Committee
US Census Bureau
NOAA
Sesame Street
Comic Books
Little Green Footballs
Video Games
The Bible
CBO
Bruce Springsteen
Pennies
The Theory of Relativity
Comedy Central
Young People
whatever the hell a Justin Beiber is
Small Business Owners
Math
CPAC
Navy SEALs
The Economist
The Muppets
Iowa Republicans
Low-Flow Toilets
Breast Cancer Screenings
Chrysler
Clint Eastwood.
Robert Deniro
Tom Hanks
Glenn Frey
Norman Rockwell
James Cameron
Dr. Seus
Nuns
Supreme Court Justice John Roberts
Jonathan Krohn at age 17


You forgot one:

Bears -- godless killing machines
 
2012-07-09 10:50:14 AM  

AdamK: MrBallou: randomjsa: There's a reason that Obama's domestic policies have been abhorrent to most people on the right, and no, its not because they're all extremists, or racists, or anything else.

I call bullshiat. It was noticed early and pointed out repeatedly when it happened that the "Right" hated Obama from the get-go and would oppose anything he did. They even said on election night that getting him out of office was their only goal. They've opposed him on things he adopted after they proposed them in the first place. So, yeah, you are incorrect.

If you're for real, remember what really happened and don't rewrite history.

If you're a troll, choke on it.

i'm not condoning what the republican noise machine does, but c'mon folks... *newsflash* the republicans didn't like the democrats long before Obama got elected


True, they did the same evil, dishonest Goebbels-esque crap to Clinton. Doesn't make it any less phony and reprehensible.
 
2012-07-09 10:53:03 AM  

whizbangthedirtfarmer: Clarence Thomas spoke at our local university a few years ago. He spoke, naturally, to an all-Republican crowd, many of whom openly thanked him for "preserving the conservative agenda" (re: not the Constitution). One of his first statements was that he was a liberal, but then he grew up.


Clarence Thomas didn't go from liberal to conservative. Clarence Thomas went from liberal to "I got mine..... F*CK Y'ALL!" He knows that he has a job for as long as he wants it, and does as little as possible in that capacity.
 
2012-07-09 10:54:17 AM  

Jim_Callahan: BeesNuts:
I guess they just invited him to speak at CPAC because they weren't able to fill all the time slots?

More or less, yes.


So you're doubling down on your claim that making him a featured speaker at CPAC doesn't mean Conservatives were interested in what he thought?
 
2012-07-09 10:54:18 AM  

Jim_Callahan: People care about what he has to say about as much as they care about the star wars kid's fencing technique. Conventions are not really the srs bzns they're made out to be, they're like 90% social occasions, 8% victory lap for recent political victories, and 2% actually talking policy.


I don't recall the star wars kid ever having a book deal or being touted as the future of conservatism by fawning GOP pundits and politicians.
 
2012-07-09 10:56:26 AM  

GAT_00: xanadian: All that having been said, there's nothing wrong with reducing the size of the Federal government, controlling spending, reducing the government's reach into people's lives, etc.

I can think of half a trillion in spending that can go with a cost of maybe 200,000 jobs. We've shed a million government jobs for just a couple of billion in savings. All that military spending goes to pointless production, not jobs.


It's retarded to think that winding it down wont cost jobs, and good ones at that. There are a lot of engineers working to make sure that they can unstealthify on a whim the stealth material they spent 5 billion making. That said, it needs to happen.

Also, keep naval spending as is. Having a Navy with ridiculous amounts of power is a very good thing and for example has current benefits of keeping Iran, Pirates, China (especially), etc... in check.
 
2012-07-09 10:58:35 AM  

The Why Not Guy: Jim_Callahan: BeesNuts:
I guess they just invited him to speak at CPAC because they weren't able to fill all the time slots?

More or less, yes.

So you're doubling down on your claim that making him a featured speaker at CPAC doesn't mean Conservatives were interested in what he thought?



If that's his argument:
What's worse, that they couldn't fill time slots at arguably the most important conference for conservatives, or that the best choice they could make was to fill it with a 13-year old?
 
2012-07-09 11:10:18 AM  

Lupine Chemist: GAT_00: xanadian: All that having been said, there's nothing wrong with reducing the size of the Federal government, controlling spending, reducing the government's reach into people's lives, etc.

I can think of half a trillion in spending that can go with a cost of maybe 200,000 jobs. We've shed a million government jobs for just a couple of billion in savings. All that military spending goes to pointless production, not jobs.

It's retarded to think that winding it down wont cost jobs, and good ones at that. There are a lot of engineers working to make sure that they can unstealthify on a whim the stealth material they spent 5 billion making. That said, it needs to happen.

Also, keep naval spending as is. Having a Navy with ridiculous amounts of power is a very good thing and for example has current benefits of keeping Iran, Pirates, China (especially), etc... in check.



We can cut spending without losing the high-level R&D jobs. Let's get our troops out of Western Europe. They don't need to be protected from the Red Menace anymore. And we can cut the bullshiat extra jet engines the Pentagon didn't ask for, but Senator Fiscally Conservative still wants in his hometown.
 
2012-07-09 11:14:33 AM  

that bosnian sniper: Roosevelt was an ardent progressive and reformist, and -- get this -- an environmentalist.


Admittedly, he was an environmentalist primarily so the animals he wanted to hunt wouldn't go extinct before he shot them.
 
2012-07-09 11:17:08 AM  

Mrtraveler01: thrgd456: problems with the two party system... you get to choose between warmongers or communists

but its all just a facade.... really we live in a global corporate-ocracy

What do you suggest we do?

Sitting around biatching about it all the time isn't going to solve this issue and make things any better.

What do you actually suggest we do to fix this?


First, give your life to Christ
Second, adopt a philosophical viewpoint. Mine is like Judge Fang,"be like the cork..."
 
2012-07-09 11:20:01 AM  

Chotchkie's: "An open mind and critical thought are like a metaphorical AA after a long bender on ideological wine."


Yeah, kid got too fancy there. First of all, it's obviously metaphorical, so it's silly to flag it as such. Secondly...painful metaphor.

He's 17 though, so whatever.
 
2012-07-09 11:29:22 AM  

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Chotchkie's: "An open mind and critical thought are like a metaphorical AA after a long bender on ideological wine."

Yeah, kid got too fancy there. First of all, it's obviously metaphorical, so it's silly to flag it as such. Secondly...painful metaphor.

He's 17 though, so whatever.


He's mixing up a simile with a metaphor. That's what editors are supposed to catch. He should be playing video games and experimenting with different types of masturbation at that age.
 
2012-07-09 11:34:11 AM  

thrgd456: Mrtraveler01: thrgd456: problems with the two party system... you get to choose between warmongers or communists

but its all just a facade.... really we live in a global corporate-ocracy

What do you suggest we do?

Sitting around biatching about it all the time isn't going to solve this issue and make things any better.

What do you actually suggest we do to fix this?

First, give your life to Christ
Second, adopt a philosophical viewpoint. Mine is like Judge Fang,"be like the cork..."


So in other words, you got nothing?

Praying to Christ isn't going to change government.
 
2012-07-09 11:43:17 AM  

Jim_Callahan: BeesNuts:
I guess they just invited him to speak at CPAC because they weren't able to fill all the time slots?

More or less, yes. Then the media went into "fluffy human interest story" mode and he ended up spread around a bit.

People care about what he has to say about as much as they care about the star wars kid's fencing technique. Conventions are not really the srs bzns they're made out to be, they're like 90% social occasions, 8% victory lap for recent political victories, and 2% actually talking policy.

Him popping back up now is, to extend the analogy a bit, equivalent to the month or so of random follow-up where we learned that the Star Wars Kid grew up to be a lawyer. Kind of interesting in a fuzzy-human-interest-story way, but not something to actually be cared about.


Star Wars Kid didn't have Newt Gingrich say he was "Sure to be a leader of his generation's return to conservatism the dark side."

Star Wars Kid wasn't also given subsequent speaking engagements for the following year and a half at TEA Party Rallies Wookie-Cons across the country.

Star Wars Kid didn't make the rounds to be interviewed by Niel Cavuto, Bill Bennet, Mark Levin or Rush Limbaugh. He didn't get to make live appearances on ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, and Syndicated Radio.

I don't get it. Why reinvent this episode of history? Fully *half* of the kids life since 2009 has been consumed by peddling the stuff he was selling at CPAC. The remaining 2 appear to have been spent being a somewhat normal kid. Good for him. Regardless of what he believes today, good for him.

I didn't like the cynical way he was "used" 4 years ago, and hopefully this doesn't signify some kind of re-entry into the arena unless he himself wills it.
 
2012-07-09 11:50:44 AM  

Mrtraveler01: thrgd456: Mrtraveler01: thrgd456: problems with the two party system... you get to choose between warmongers or communists

but its all just a facade.... really we live in a global corporate-ocracy

What do you suggest we do?

Sitting around biatching about it all the time isn't going to solve this issue and make things any better.

What do you actually suggest we do to fix this?

First, give your life to Christ
Second, adopt a philosophical viewpoint. Mine is like Judge Fang,"be like the cork..."

So in other words, you got nothing?

Praying to Christ isn't going to change government.


A National 24 hour uninterrupted praying marathon on November 6th might?
 
2012-07-09 12:06:25 PM  
LOL! The difference is that at least the kid grew up.
 
2012-07-09 12:16:54 PM  

maxx2112: The kid was a smart ass at 13 and a hipster douchebag at 17 . . . why does anyone care one way or the other?


Both ages are bad. Vote Republican.
 
2012-07-09 12:30:10 PM  

Skleenar: Important question: Thumbs up or thumbs down on the Robb Stark beard?


He's cute. Thumb up.
 
2012-07-09 01:14:40 PM  

Jim_Callahan: wademh: Damned education. It keeps turning them into liberals.

Honestly... probably, in this case. Dude's just not capable of thinking things through on his own and goes with whatever his peer group is saying. It'll wear off when he gets a real job-- once the primary metric for your success involves what you do for a living and not everyone liking you you tend to take a step back and actually consider your political opinions instead of just researching them.

And he'll probably end up in the center somewhere like an increasing majority of Americans. Which means he'll still be voting Dem, yeah, but likely not for entirely the same reasons.

//Not down on researching your politics, it's a good first step. For undergrads, though, it tends to just kind of... stop at that step.


I think you said once you start considering your pocket book instead of what is otherwise right or wrong.
 
2012-07-09 01:43:25 PM  
Hahahahahaha.

Oh my, hahahahaha.
 
2012-07-09 02:13:30 PM  

Ambivalence: Noam Chimpsky: He does sound like an inquisitive kid. He'll be a liberal for about 6 months and then he'll be telling anyone who'll listen that he's a libertarian. I don't think the liberal lockstep Borg mindset is going to take with this one.

You think liberals are lockstep? you clearly don't understand liberals. I believe the term "Herding cats" was used to describe thier tendancy for unity.


What makes those cats herdable?
 
2012-07-09 02:42:38 PM  

Guntram Shatterhand: Who the hell bases the feasibility of their ideology on some prepubescent spouting their talking points?


I'd say it's pretty much part of their playbook:

...He will not judge by what he sees with his eyes, or decide by what he hears with his ears; 4 but with righteousness he will judge the needy, with justice he will give decisions for the poor of the earth. He will strike the earth with the rod of his mouth; with the breath of his lips he will slay the wicked. 5 Righteousness will be his belt and faithfulness the sash around his waist.

6 The wolf will live with the lamb, the leopard will lie down with the goat, the calf and the lion and the yearling together; and a little child will lead them.


Isaiah 11:3-6
 
2012-07-09 02:53:46 PM  

BeesNuts: I don't get it. Why reinvent this episode of history?


Because the Emperor's Clothes are still real to him!
 
Displayed 50 of 271 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






Loading...
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report