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.

(Yahoo)   Ron Paul narrowly misses his chance to RON PAUL the Republican National Convention (if it wasn't for those meddling Nebraskans...)   ( divider line
    More: Followup, Ron Paul, Nebraska, Republican Liberty Caucus, Joint Economic Committee, Sunnyvale, California, insurgents, political convention, Mitt Romney  
•       •       •

3139 clicks; posted to Politics » on 15 Jul 2012 at 11:49 AM (5 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»

Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2012-07-15 05:40:38 PM  
3 votes:

iawai: Flappyhead: Had a conversation with a Rontard a few months back who proposed, straight faced, competing currencies. They would each be independent and their value would be based on whatever the people behind it could come up with. Better still, the population would invest in those currencies, inflating the ones they felt were better. That's right, he was proposing a stock market monetary system.


Out of all the Paul-tardiness in this thread, that's actually a reasonable idea.

Yeah, because the stock market is completely stable and not open to manipulation at all. Wall Street can always be trusted to maintain our money openly, honestly, and fairly. Also, the market place is always 100% rational in determining winners and losers, and artificial bubbles that cause specific currencies to overvalue due to hype and marketing will never happen.

Money is supposed to be a medium of exchange. It is not supposed to be treated as an investment in itself. Yes, there are many people who make money off the currency exchange, but that does not mean that a currency exchange is the purpose of having money.

The problem with Ron Paul's competing currency proposal is that it doesn't actually mean anything, because it's never explained in detail. Ron Paul is simply taking an open ended phrase, so that people are free to describe it however they imagine it to be. The fact is, you are already free to create your own local currency, so long as 1) you peg it to the dollar for the sake of paying your taxes, and 2) you do not confuse people into thinking that it's US currency. Which means that most of the people calling for competing currency are looking to avoid paying taxes.

The idea of competing currency is, "Both parties are free to use an alternative currencies, as long as both parties agree." The thing is, they can do that right now. So why do we need competing currencies at all, to achieve this thing that can already be achieved?

The reason we need money isn't for situations where both parties agree. It's for situations where both parties don't. i.e., let's say that the grocery store demands you pay your bill in gold eagles. You are free to refuse that transaction, so there's no harm. And the thing is, a lot of businesses can do that right now. For instance, a stamp collector can refuse to sell you a rare stamp unless you give him something rare in return. Perfectly legitimate.

But what if it's a cop writing out a parking ticket? Obviously, you don't get to refuse that transaction. So if the cop demands you pay in gold eagles, then you're screwed. The purpose of legal tender laws is to make sure this doesn't happen. Ron Paul wants to repeal legal tender laws. How do you determine parking tickets in the absence of legal tender? How do you determine taxes?
2012-07-15 02:57:22 PM  
3 votes:
The REAL conspiracy is that Ron Paul worked with the Republican Party to be the "outsider" candidate, knowing full well he had no plans to run 3rd party. He would keep those votes from REALLY going third party, or even looking at an alternative candidate outside the Republican Party.

Ron Paul supporters fell for it. You've been bamboozled... hoodwinked...

There are several 3rd party candidates that could be invited to the presidential debates if Ron Paul supporters had backed them, instead of another lifelong Republican. We could actually have a national debate about alternative candidates. Ron Paul made sure that didn't happen.
2012-07-16 10:38:55 AM  
2 votes:

Deftoons: First off:

-What examples are you talking about, specifically, where a free country creates feudalism and aristocracy? You realize that a free country, where the government protects rights (not entitle services), and feudalism, have nothing to do with each other? And you're the guy calling ME a fool, what an utterly laughable response.

How quickly the ignorant forget their history. Wage slavery happened in your "free" country, the result of unfettered private capitalism.

As for aristocracy, do the names DuPont, Rockefeller, Vanderbilt, etc. sound familiar? How about Koch or Romney or Bush? You don't need an official noble title to be an aristocratic elite.

Deftoons: -As far as I'm aware, it's because of countries with freer markets, instead of heavily regulated nationalist countries, that have the greatest inventions that bring quality to our lives, not Atilla the Hun feudalism.

Inventions only indirectly create quality of life. What directly creates quality of life is a lack of oppression, deprivation and misery - all of which are created by unregulated capitalism just as much as by totalitarianism. Go back and listen to that song again, and realize it is based on real events, and then tell me again how the people experiencing those conditions had a good quality of life due to inventions and living in a free country. Freedom to be ground in to the dirt by the wealthy is no freedom at all for the majority of the population.

Deftoons: You're like Republican of the left - when they call Obama and the Democrats "socialists" and "communists," except on your end you are calling anyone who advocates a free country with extreme sound bytes like "feudalism" and "aristocracy" and "anarchy" when you don't even know what those words even mean.

Fool. I have studied those terms in detail, and I clearly understand them far better than you do. I'm a sociologist by training, and I reiterate that I am a pragmatist. Results are what matter, not your penny-ante ideology. Ideologies are easy to come by, and in the end they tell you nothing about the actual consequences of their claims. Reality deals with what is, not what ideologues think should be.

Freedom to starve is not freedom. Freedom to be a wage slave is not freedom. Freedom to see the fruits of your labor enrich the already ultra-rich is not freedom. Freedom to watch the middle class wither away is not freedom. All of these things are direct results of unregulated privatization and capitalism put into action, and this has been demonstrated over and over throughout history. As I already pointed out to you, a pragmatic evaluation of real world situations based on the goal of maximizing actual freedom for society at large clearly demonstrates that a mix of regulated private enterprise and direct government action is what gets the best results.

That you remain ignorant of this is evidence of either willful partisan blindness or colossal stupidity. I don't care enough about your obviously uninformed opinion to bother figuring out which is the case.

Deftoons: Compared to a nationalized army, where you get millions of dead people for political reasons (under questionable-at-best causes), veterans with PTSD, and countries in ruin?

Are you really this much of a fool? Nationalized armies in Europe reduced some of those things, because they had a markedly lower tendency to engage in wholesale slaughter, rapine and pillage of innocent civilians. So you had less random death and destruction, and better win-loss ratios. Go read up on the Hundred Years war in Europe, especially the campaigns of Gustavus Adolphus, who more or less invented the modern professional army.

As far as PTSD goes, any combat can create it. The perceived incidence is higher now because we know what to look for and how to treat it. It used to be called shell-shock, or the shakes, or any number of other colloquial terms. You can get it from getting mugged in the street, not just from seeing combat.

Deftoons: Note the irony when you kinda just supported my point in your post before you accuse me of being ignorant.

Fool again. I just pointed out the only reason the Americans won the revolution was due to communications lag and logistics problems - problems which are solvable now with modern warfare techniques. Or are you under the impression that the Iraq insurgency beat the US Army? Because the last time I checked, they were surviving because of the aforementioned local supply and support which lets them replenish their arms and numbers, but the loss ratios were enormously skewed in the favor of the modern professional national army.

Militias cause trouble and do damage. However, they do not win wars against professional armies in a modern setting. Heck they do not win against professional armies in a historical setting when the supply and communications lines are not prohibitively long, or where the commanders are willing to be ruthless.
2012-07-15 06:45:04 PM  
2 votes:
Once again, Deftoons, please answer the following questions, including one new one:

1) What currency do people use to pay the government under competing currencies?
2) What happens if people do not have access to the currency that government requires?
3) What currency does the government use to pay their employees?
4) What happens if people refuse to accept the currency of government employees, which they can do when you repeal legal tender?

If you seriously have any sensible answer to these questions, then it won't take you more than 20 seconds to type. For instance, you could type in "US dollars," or you can type in "gold," or you can type in "whatever you want."

The problem is, you know and I know that you have no answer for these questions. And these questions are really, really basic. If you answer "US dollars," then you have no explanation on what happens on question #4. If you answer "gold," then you have no explanation on what happens in question #2. In other words, you're screwed. You know it, and I know it.

The only way for you to answer this questions is to invent an entirely new form of currency, one that has never existed before on planet Earth (or else you would have simply typed it in), and one which you have no idea how it will work. You want to imagine that the free market will come up with a currency that will magically answer both #2 and #4. But you don't know how that will come to be. Also, the answer apparently doesn't exist anywhere on the internet, or else you could simply copy and paste a link. Which basically means that you have to come up with an answer that no other libertarian on the internet has ever come up with before. And I have to take you on your word that you have this answer, despite your inability to share it with us right now.

In other words, you're full of shiat.
2012-07-15 06:14:37 PM  
2 votes:

Deftoons: Dude, it HAS been explained in detail - to YOU, many times.

Saying that the free market will magically find a way is not an explanation.

Here, let me ask you three basic questions as a starting place:

1) What currency do people use to pay the government?
2) What currency does the government use to pay their employees?
3) What happens if people refuse to accept the currency of government employees, which they can do when you repeal legal tender?

You need to create a currency that is in high demand, and accepted everywhere. But that same currency also has to be in high supply, so people can pay their taxes with it. Please come up with a currency that is both in "high supply" and "high demand" without using fiat currency or legal tender laws, and without appealing to libertarian market.

After awhile, people get sick and tired of retreading the same points with you because you choose obtuse reasons to be enlightened on the subject (I remember recommending a book about a subject to you, and you refused to read it because it didn't have enough reviews on Amazon to your liking (there were over 40 reviews on Amazon, by the way)).

Wrong. The problem is that just saying "pay your own money to read this 300 page book" is not an answer. No matter what I point to and respond to, you will merely insist that I am focusing on the wrong chapters or on the wrong point. It's a dodge. If I tell you to read Paul Krugman's books and refute them line by line before arguing with you, is that a valid argument? Because if it is, then I dare you to do it.

If you have an argument to make, then make it in the thread. Don't demand that other people jump through hoops because you're too lazy or too stupid to state your own argument in your own words.
2012-07-15 02:17:53 PM  
2 votes:

vegasj: well. This sucks.

back to a douche and a turd sammich

RON PAUL was both so I don't see what we were missing anyway.
2012-07-15 01:39:29 PM  
2 votes:

StokeyBob: There could come a time when no matter how much money you and your friends can bring together to build your world they way you want, others can fire up the fake money presses and print up what ever it takes to buy their way.

Or is that fact ancient history?

[ image 448x600]

Have you been bought and paid for or are you still searching for a truth?

Take your pick.
2012-07-16 09:41:32 PM  
1 vote:

iawai: I appreciate the time you took in putting together such a well reasoned post.

But it seems to be contradictory in saying that (1) current govt is influenced by big business and is ran in the interest of "the nation" and not the people, and then that (2) the path to take is to reform govt and by playing the "abolish it" card, we're being useful idiots to the rich and powerful.

No. First they control and subvert government, to reduce confidence and gain priviledges. Then they cast government as the source of the trouble, and advocate for it's elimination, because whatever advantags they gain pale besides the possibility of eliminating all taxation and regulation. And note that this is not some machiavellian plot all thought out in advance. This is simply seeking advantage by whatever means using all available resources. Subvert and exploit when possible, eliminate completely when possible.

This is not an either-or situation. This kind of corruption and subversion does not go unopposed, and generally speaking there are forces at work that seek to limit this kind of activity, often traditional leftist but also some centrist and leftist libertarians. It's just that currently there is a huge ideological push for hard right libertarianism that plays into this problem.

iawai: So not only are these contradictory, but lets look at the evidence. Where is big business money being spent? Was it funneled to astro-turf efforts to elect people like Ron Paul (who is as close to the "abolish it" as anyone has been since the Haymarket Square bombings), or is it being given to the same-old establishment candidates?

Your conjecture assumes coordination and planning that isn't present. There is no grand conspiracy. There is only powerful social actors seeking advantage, by any means. Some will seek to exploit government to gain priviledge. Others will seek to undercut it to remove restrictions. The only commonality is that all will seek to subvert the ability of the government to limit their actions. Ron Paul isn't useful in the sense that he can actually accomplish the abolishment of central government. What he is useful for is to marshal a group that will attack any attempt by the government to limit the actions of business, without the businesses appearing to be the ones promoting the attack.

In short, the current right-libertarian movement are useful idiots because they distract from the real problems and tie up social and political resources that could otherwise be marshalled more effectively to address the problem of corporate subversion of government, not because they have any realistic chance of actually doing away with centralized government.

iawai: And if big businesses are supporting the likes of Obama and Romney to the tune of many thousands of times the amount they are willing to to support a Ron Paul, who is the useful idiot, the Paul supporter who wants to take away their plaything, or the Obama supporter who thinks more regulation will somehow, magically, help the people and hurt big business, despite the fact that big business lobbies heavily for MORE regulation to shut out competitors.

Again, big businesses are not a monolithic block. They are a group of powerful social organizations that perform as individual social actors seeking their own best advantage. They usually do not coordinate closely, but their shared primary goal (maximum possible profit) drives them to many similar actions and often informal collusion. That does not mean that there will not be many seemingly separate activities that appear to confuse the issue as to what they actually want. Each business wants to maximize its own profits, but doesn't really care about the profits of anyone not a direct competitor unless it somehow affects them. Exploit, subvert, or eliminate depending on what impedes their particular profit margins.

The point is that it remains true that the only agency capable of counterbalancing the social power of a large national or multinational business is a central government.

iawai: You are logical and coherent, but I can't believe that you actually believe the contradictory things that you say. I'm not working from a knee-jerk reaction here, and I may have been in your position a long time ago. I've had a long, studious path that has convinced me that the mainstream game isn't worth playing. I'm not saying that there needs to be a massive revolution or that "we should all do X."

First, you are, as I have already mentioned, grossly oversimplifying and misunderstanding the point, and implying things that simply are not the case. There is only contradiction if you somehow assert a grand unified conspiracy, as opposed to a large group of powerful social actors (businesses) seeking their direct advantage by whatever means. Second, this is not controversial material. It's basic sociology. Feel free to go check my information elsewhere.

iawai: I'm just saying that I don't care about the federal govt, or state monopolies in general, and that I have control and responsibility for my own life. I'd appreciate it if you tried your theories of "pragmatic rule" without involving me. I encourage you to try, just as I encourage the communists to go start communes, and the theocrats to go live according to god. Just don't hurt people or force them to go along.

And in so doing, you are a useful idiot who contributes to the larger problem, because "Fark you I got mine" is detrimental to society as a whole, and you depend on that society for your well being and continued livelihood whether you realize it or not. Put simply, you're part of the problem, not part of the solution.
2012-07-16 11:29:57 AM  
1 vote:

Deftoons: Poor people in free countries earn 10 times more than they do in least free countries. You don't even need to look this up in a study to see the difference - here in America, people have access to open wifi networks, can buy a beater car for a couple hundred bucks, have access to homeless shelters ran by charities to keep them off the streets, and can get cellphones for cheap or even free in certain situations. Compare that to places like India and China where the poorest of the poor have a tough time finding basic needs like food and shelter.

Right. And all those things are possible due to regulation of private industry, regulation that is notably absent from the countries like China and India. In terms of unfettered capitalist activity, that is, lack of regulation or government control, both China and India are more free by the standard you use.

Deftoons: And...I ask you to cite some historical sources that relate to your argument, and you link me to a Tennessee Ford song?? Wtf?!?! For a person who has "studied them in detail" you have done nothing to cite much of anything . Then you constantly say "Fool!! FOOL!!!" redundantly like it's an actual argument of substance, making nonsensical convoluted equivalences like "freedom to starve" and "freedom to be a wage slave" (what exactly do you even mean?) short, I'm utterly lost.

Ah, so you then assert that the song is based on fiction? Are you sure that argument?

(As an aside, what I did there is often colloquially referred to as "giving someone enough rope to hang themselves". A cursory Google search would have found all the supporting references you could ever want, were you not too stupidly partisan to make the effort.)

You are indeed utterly lost, fool. That much is quite clear. Your staggering ignorance of the historical realities of capitalism would be quite comical if it was not so completely typical of right-wing ideologues.
2012-07-16 04:55:06 AM  
1 vote:
Oh, and Paultards: Ron Paul was never going to legalize weed. That's just something he told ya'll to sell books because his fellow Republicans (yes, he is still a Republican) over-saturated the Tea Party market and he went for the mostly untapped "Libertarian" crowd.

It's still amazing that you guys can look at a career Republican and think he's some kind of outsider.
2012-07-16 12:20:17 AM  
1 vote:
Wastleland and Schrodinger: 1
Deftoons and iawai: 0
2012-07-15 09:39:56 PM  
1 vote:

iawai: I'm not moving. I own my property, right? Why can't I keep it and live peacefully on it? I like my geographical location. I like my neighbors. I like my job. Am I not entitled to keep these things while advocating peace?

You're not your own island. If you want to live where you live, you have to live and work with the people around you. This is a critical flaw in libertarianism.

No man is an island.
2012-07-15 08:32:30 PM  
1 vote:

iawai: 1) Who gives a shiat. The govt doesn't deserve to be paid.

Oh, so you're advocating for total anarchy then, where the government is completely unable to pay for basic services like public roads and public police. Great platform, I'm glad we cleared that up.

2) What happens when they don't "have access" to dollars? This is a stupid and meaningless question

People will have access to dollars. Unfortunately, Ron Paul's proposal is to make the US dollar worthless and gold the de-facto currency by repealing legal tender laws.

3) The govt currently pays with what? Would you call it scrip?

The government currently pays for services in legal tender. Which Ron Paul hopes to repeal.

I don't care how the internal machinations of a firm in a free market work, as long as they aren't out there threatening and hurting people. If they wanted to pay their employees in camel hairs, it's not my business.

Well, it is sort of your business, because you're the one relying on government paid services. If government can't find a viable currency to build roads with, then that means no roads for you.

4) SO THE FARK WHAT? Let people turn away customers.

Businesses can't refuse legal tender as payment on debt. It's against the law. If you owe the tow company $500 and attempt to pay them in US dollars, the tow company does not have the legal right to refuse it and keep your car unless you give them a pile of gold. Under the law, once you pay the tow company in legal tender, the debt has been cleared. Ron Paul wants to give businesses the power to refuse legal tender.

Or he might decide that it's just too much of a burden to accept camel hairs and then trade them for a currency that's more useful to him, so he will refuse to accept them. THAT'S NOT AN ARGUMENT AGAINST COMPETING CURRENCIES.

So tell us... what is a currency that Bob is universally willing to accept, and that his customers are universally able to pay? It's easy to list a currency that fulfills one burden or the other. It is exceedingly difficult to find a currency that fulfills both. Which is why we invented fiat currency and legal tender laws.

Don't just tell us that the free market will magically come up with a universal currency in the absent of fiat and legal tender laws. Actually tell us what the currency will be.

The rest of your post addressed to Deftoons is hogwash and deserves no further comment based on my answers to your childish, strawman, and distracting questions that assume that the govt is the be-all, end-all of a functioning economy instead of its mortal enemy.

So once again, you're advocating from a position of anarchy. Great. Move to Somalia.
2012-07-15 06:30:35 PM  
1 vote:

Deftoons: schrodinger: Wrong. The problem is that just saying "pay your own money to read this 300 page book" is not an answer. No matter what I point to and respond to, you will merely insist that I am focusing on the wrong chapters or on the wrong point. It's a dodge.

While not only is your answer a massive strawman, I would at least give you credit for actually reading the book.

But seeing you have not even actually contradicted my answer, you just proved what I said to be correct.

Me telling you that you're wrong is not the same thing as contradicting you? Wow. You're really stupid.

So let me get this straight. You refuse to spend 20 seconds copying and pasting your previous responses to my questions, or 2 minutes re-typing them.

But you expect me to spend $20 to order a book on Amazon, wait several days for the book to arrive, read through several hundred pages, and write out a line by line response for every page in the hopes that I will address any possible argument that you hope to cite from that book, because you refuse to simply post the argument directly.

Seriously. If you can't even take the time to post the specific argument you want me to address from your book, then why should I bother taking the time and money to order it?
2012-07-15 05:37:03 PM  
1 vote:

So can Gary Johnson have the Ron Paul supporters now?

Gary Johnson

2012-07-15 05:22:52 PM  
1 vote:

StokeyBob: When I started looking into where the money was coming from to buy off the politicians and subvert the immigration laws of the world, I came across what may be the root of many of our problems. Fiat Money.

Yeah, this is the type of promise we hear from scam artists and quacks all the damn time. "Oh, I have this bottle of snake oil. It will singlehandedly treat all the major health problems that Americans are experiencing, from diabetes to AIDS!"

They're convinced that they and they alone see the answers to the problems, and if anyone says otherwise, then it's because they're in on the conspiracy.

Also, they never go into any real detail on how the answers actually work. They create an incredibly simplified model that picks one or two scenarios completely out of context, but then when you ask them to address more complex issues, or even elaborate on the scenarios they already presented, they attempt to handwave it away.
2012-07-15 04:17:58 PM  
1 vote:
2012-07-15 04:00:45 PM  
1 vote:

StokeyBob: Why couldn't an honest fiat maintain a stable value and expand with the amount of stuff we have? If you double your stuff and double the money supply it should remain stable and something people could once again save and bank on.

Currency is a medium of exchange. The purpose of currency is to encourage the flow of goods.

An inflationary currency encourages the flow of goods by punishing people who refuse to participate. Ergo, an inflationary medium of exchange is one that encourages exchanges. This is a feature.

~No matter where you aunt Martha hid the sugar jar with here savings in it others are able to slither in like vampires in the night and suck the strength out of it.

How does hiding money in a sugar jar help the economy? How does being kept in a sugar jar fulfill the purpose as a medium of exchange?

~Sure if the double the money supply your Uncle Phil gets twice as much when he sells his stocks but he is getting twice as many of something worth half as much. Plus some of the very people that counterfeited the money supply have now cut themselves in on his stuff with capital gains taxes.

According to the west egg inflation calculator, it takes about 25 years for inflation to double.

Which means that Uncle Phil's company stayed flat relative to inflation for 25 years. It didn't become more profitable. It didn't sell more product. It didn't attract more customers. It is exactly the same place it is now that it was when Phil started. In other words, Phil made a bad investment. And he is being punished accordingly. If bad investments aren't punished, then there is no risk. And if there is no risk, then why do we reward the winners?

But let's look at how much Phil actually lost. The capital gains tax is 15% of the profit, which is 50% of the final value. Which means that Phil lost 7.5% on a bad investment over the course of 25 years. Which amounts to basically a 0.3% loss per year.

Question: If Phil saw that his stock price wasn't changing at all relative to inflation for 25 years, why would he continue to hold onto it? Phil must be an idiot. If it went down and went back up, then Phil should have gotten out as soon as the stock returned to normal. If it went up and then went back down, then Phil should have sold the stock when it was up. It's the job of the investor to take inflation into account. If he can't do that, then he must be really bad at it, so why are we rewarding him?

So Phil made a bad investment, and lost a rather insignificant amount of money after 25 years. Rather than saying, "Gee, maybe Phil should have made a better investment that was capable of beating inflation," your solution is "Let's create a monetary policy where Phil doesn't lose any money." Because, you know, screw personal responsibility.
2012-07-15 03:19:32 PM  
1 vote:

LordJiro: downpaymentblues: Karac: Because those would be some damn small coins and I'd rather not lose a years pay in the cushions of my couch.

It's important we base our economy on a metal used primarily for jewelery.

After all, gold has inherent value that is in no way exactly as arbitrary as any other currency! Shininess equals VALUE.

I say we go back to using salt as currency. PLENTY of that.
2012-07-15 03:05:10 PM  
1 vote:

Karac: Because those would be some damn small coins and I'd rather not lose a years pay in the cushions of my couch.

It's important we base our economy on a metal used primarily for jewelery.
2012-07-15 02:08:14 PM  
1 vote:
well. This sucks.

back to a douche and a turd sammich
2012-07-15 02:02:34 PM  
1 vote:
Psst Ron Paul. Leave the GOP and run third party. Watch Romney squirm.
2012-07-15 01:12:23 PM  
1 vote:
Hell, I even thought I was dead 'til I found out it was just that I was in Nebraska

2012-07-15 12:09:23 PM  
1 vote:

bloobeary: Entrenched power doesn't like upstart challengers. Romney's coronation will go ahead, exactly as planned.


The guy's been in Congress for 30+ years and ran for President in 1988, 2008 and now 2012.

Upstart doesn't mean what you think it means...
2012-07-15 11:10:10 AM  
1 vote:
Republicans still remember 1992 and Ross Perot. They were never going to allow a repeat.

// Perot taunted Bush senior all through the election, stole many votes from him, which helped Clinton get elected.
2012-07-15 08:54:02 AM  
1 vote:
RON PAUL was going to lose in Nebraska, no matter what.

Entrenched power doesn't like upstart challengers. Romney's coronation will go ahead, exactly as planned.
2012-07-15 08:53:12 AM  
1 vote:
From a purely objective view, that article sucked for now having some key pieces of information, like how many he needed to win and what the threshhold was.
2012-07-15 08:40:21 AM  
1 vote:

Captain Steroid: Once again, the United States has been screwed over by Nebraska. -_-

If you mean not being able to see the amusing hijinx of the GOP convention being usurped by Ron Paul's minions.... I guess we have been screwed out of that sideshow.
2012-07-15 01:49:02 AM  
1 vote:
Once again, the United States has been screwed over by Nebraska. -_-
Displayed 29 of 29 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter

Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  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.