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.

(Talking Points Memo)   Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson fights a horde of Ron Paul supporters in his new ad   (livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 94
    More: Weird, Candidate Gary, fights  
•       •       •

1467 clicks; posted to Politics » on 26 Sep 2012 at 11:03 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-26 11:05:51 AM
imageshack.us
 
2012-09-26 11:07:18 AM
shoulda grabbed the Dem zombies hand, Gary
 
2012-09-26 11:07:32 AM
When the dead walk a libertarian will become president, it is prophecy.
 
2012-09-26 11:07:43 AM
But can he handle the demon sheep?

wwwimage.cbsnews.com
 
2012-09-26 11:08:07 AM

skullkrusher: shoulda grabbed the Dem zombies hand, Gary


Why? He's more closely aligned, ideologically, with the GOP.
 
2012-09-26 11:08:10 AM
I kinda like Gary Johnson...but he's dreaming if he thinks handing control of the internet over to corporations is going to lead to more online freedoms for end users.
 
2012-09-26 11:08:54 AM
This must be what he spent that $900 in media campaigning on.
 
2012-09-26 11:09:11 AM

Dr Dreidel: skullkrusher: shoulda grabbed the Dem zombies hand, Gary

Why? He's more closely aligned, ideologically, with the GOP.


sure, if you ignore 1/2 of the GOP's platform... ya know, the 1/2 they are beating the drums about. Haven't we been over this?
 
2012-09-26 11:09:50 AM

Weaver95: I kinda like Gary Johnson...but he's dreaming if he thinks handing control of the internet over to corporations is going to lead to more online freedoms for end users.


the net was built out using public funds - taint libertarian to hand that over to private enterprise now.
 
2012-09-26 11:11:28 AM
Serious question. When is it ever okay to vote Green or Libertarian? This is not a setup for a joke or anything. I would prefer to have Gary Johnson over Obama, but isn't voting for Johnson just one less vote for whoever wins?
 
2012-09-26 11:12:14 AM
Was the sunset shot with the contrails some sort of veiled reference to chemtrails?
 
hej
2012-09-26 11:13:26 AM
Aren't you supposed to fight zombies with shotguns and chainsaws?
 
2012-09-26 11:14:17 AM

skullkrusher: Dr Dreidel: skullkrusher: shoulda grabbed the Dem zombies hand, Gary

Why? He's more closely aligned, ideologically, with the GOP.

sure, if you ignore 1/2 of the GOP's platform... ya know, the 1/2 they are beating the drums about. Haven't we been over this?


You mean the argument when you ignore the entire economic platform?
 
2012-09-26 11:14:24 AM

Bluemookie: Serious question. When is it ever okay to vote Green or Libertarian? This is not a setup for a joke or anything. I would prefer to have Gary Johnson over Obama, but isn't voting for Johnson just one less vote for whoever wins?


yeah but so? If everyone who is disillusioned with the 2 majors "threw their vote away" and got some meaningful % of the votes for a 3rd party, it might cause some other people who never investigated outside D vs R to wonder what it's all about and could result in thrusting some good 3rd party ideas into the mainstream political discourse.

Only time you throw your vote away is when you don't vote.
 
2012-09-26 11:15:08 AM

spelletrader: When the dead walk a libertarian will become president, it is prophecy.


Will there be a great rubbing of parts?

arago4.tnw.utwente.nl
 
hej
2012-09-26 11:15:23 AM

Bluemookie: Serious question. When is it ever okay to vote Green or Libertarian? This is not a setup for a joke or anything. I would prefer to have Gary Johnson over Obama, but isn't voting for Johnson just one less vote for whoever wins?


It's one less vote for whoever you would have voted for after him. But people like to get up in arms about voting for a nonviable candidate, since they assume you would have otherwise voted for their guy.
 
2012-09-26 11:15:47 AM

Bluemookie: Serious question. When is it ever okay to vote Green or Libertarian?


Third party votes are only meaningful when our political system ceases to be FPTP and/or when one of the two parties is in significant collapse.
 
2012-09-26 11:15:57 AM

skullkrusher: Weaver95: I kinda like Gary Johnson...but he's dreaming if he thinks handing control of the internet over to corporations is going to lead to more online freedoms for end users.

the net was built out using public funds - taint libertarian to hand that over to private enterprise now.


I mean I get what he's saying...he doesn't trust fedgov to behave itself. But I trust comcast FAR less than I trust the federal government. in fact, i'm pretty sure that if we let comcast run the internet, they'd slap a meter on it and parcel it out in small, expensive bits and make it expensive as hell for anyone to use. not to mention that they'd play silly buggers with blogs and make sure to f*ck up online activist communities.
 
2012-09-26 11:16:55 AM

Sock Ruh Tease: This must be what he spent that $900 in media campaigning on.


Looks like they had plenty left over for beer and pizza after the shoot.
 
2012-09-26 11:19:19 AM

Bluemookie: Serious question. When is it ever okay to vote Green or Libertarian? This is not a setup for a joke or anything. I would prefer to have Gary Johnson over Obama, but isn't voting for Johnson just one less vote for whoever wins?


Third party votes make far more sense in local elections. National elections not so much.
 
2012-09-26 11:20:02 AM

Bluemookie: Serious question. When is it ever okay to vote Green or Libertarian? This is not a setup for a joke or anything. I would prefer to have Gary Johnson over Obama, but isn't voting for Johnson just one less vote for whoever wins?


I have remained a registered libertarian in NC because, despite the fact that the party jumped off the deep end on Jan 20, 2009, it's still better to have the party than not - and when it comes to most civil liberties issues - detention at Guantanamo and at secret prisons aboard, warrantless wiretapping, etc.

i haven't voted for a national LP candidate since 2004, but in the last three elections I've tried to vote for at least one or two LP candidates for Lt. Governor, State Insurance Commissioner, or Secretary of State - partly to ensure the LP stays on the ballot, but also because I feel like I'm still inside the libertarian sphere of ideology (even if I'm on the far left edge of that sphere).

I don't know if I can bring myself to vote for any of them this time around, because libertarians just do not seem to understand that restrictions on government aren't the only thing they need to be concerned about - keeping large businesses in check is also vital to give people economic freedom. But Randian philosophy just runs entirely too deep in their line of thinking.
 
2012-09-26 11:20:39 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: Dr Dreidel: skullkrusher: shoulda grabbed the Dem zombies hand, Gary

Why? He's more closely aligned, ideologically, with the GOP.

sure, if you ignore 1/2 of the GOP's platform... ya know, the 1/2 they are beating the drums about. Haven't we been over this?

You mean the argument when you ignore the entire economic platform?


no, that's not what I mean. I mean the fact that 1/2 of the GOP's platform and the one they focus on to a great degree is at odds with Gary Johnson's positions - positions which align much more readily with the Dems the Reps. Oh, I get it. This is the argument where you pretend that the only way to compare political positions is from a 30,000 foot view of economic policy and ignore the implications of that policy. Ya know, the one where you are intentionally dishonest.
 
2012-09-26 11:22:07 AM

Weaver95: skullkrusher: Weaver95: I kinda like Gary Johnson...but he's dreaming if he thinks handing control of the internet over to corporations is going to lead to more online freedoms for end users.

the net was built out using public funds - taint libertarian to hand that over to private enterprise now.

I mean I get what he's saying...he doesn't trust fedgov to behave itself. But I trust comcast FAR less than I trust the federal government. in fact, i'm pretty sure that if we let comcast run the internet, they'd slap a meter on it and parcel it out in small, expensive bits and make it expensive as hell for anyone to use. not to mention that they'd play silly buggers with blogs and make sure to f*ck up online activist communities.


with current tech, the intertubes are almost utility-esque and were funded, in large part, with public money. Nothing wrong with letting the public run public shiat
 
2012-09-26 11:22:23 AM

Bluemookie: Serious question. When is it ever okay to vote Green or Libertarian? This is not a setup for a joke or anything. I would prefer to have Gary Johnson over Obama, but isn't voting for Johnson just one less vote for whoever wins?


It's a complete and total waste of effort to vote for a third party Presidential candidate.
If someone tells you that the major parties will look at the votes for third parties and reconsider their platforms, that person is fooling themselves.

The election has been and will continue to be a battle for the middle - for the moderates and independents. Not the fringes.

And yes, sorry to say, the people voting for Johnson or Stein are on the fringe.

Appealing to them more will not get the Democrats or GOP more votes from the sweet, sweet middle of the electorate.

It's simply a numbers game.
 
2012-09-26 11:22:52 AM
i512.photobucket.com
 
2012-09-26 11:24:07 AM
Both sides are bad, so vote Ash Williams.

i568.photobucket.com
 
2012-09-26 11:24:24 AM

skullkrusher: Weaver95: skullkrusher: Weaver95: I kinda like Gary Johnson...but he's dreaming if he thinks handing control of the internet over to corporations is going to lead to more online freedoms for end users.

the net was built out using public funds - taint libertarian to hand that over to private enterprise now.

I mean I get what he's saying...he doesn't trust fedgov to behave itself. But I trust comcast FAR less than I trust the federal government. in fact, i'm pretty sure that if we let comcast run the internet, they'd slap a meter on it and parcel it out in small, expensive bits and make it expensive as hell for anyone to use. not to mention that they'd play silly buggers with blogs and make sure to f*ck up online activist communities.

with current tech, the intertubes are almost utility-esque and were funded, in large part, with public money. Nothing wrong with letting the public run public shiat


given the lack of alternatives, i'm going to have to agree with you. I don't trust the telcoms to behave themselves without regulation. I'm not entirely sure I trust the FCC either but...they have rules they've gotta follow. the telcom corporations don't seem trustworthy at all.
 
2012-09-26 11:25:24 AM

Weaver95: skullkrusher: Weaver95: skullkrusher: Weaver95: I kinda like Gary Johnson...but he's dreaming if he thinks handing control of the internet over to corporations is going to lead to more online freedoms for end users.

the net was built out using public funds - taint libertarian to hand that over to private enterprise now.

I mean I get what he's saying...he doesn't trust fedgov to behave itself. But I trust comcast FAR less than I trust the federal government. in fact, i'm pretty sure that if we let comcast run the internet, they'd slap a meter on it and parcel it out in small, expensive bits and make it expensive as hell for anyone to use. not to mention that they'd play silly buggers with blogs and make sure to f*ck up online activist communities.

with current tech, the intertubes are almost utility-esque and were funded, in large part, with public money. Nothing wrong with letting the public run public shiat

given the lack of alternatives, i'm going to have to agree with you. I don't trust the telcoms to behave themselves without regulation. I'm not entirely sure I trust the FCC either but...they have rules they've gotta follow. the telcom corporations don't seem trustworthy at all.


down the road when technology is to the point where there are no wires anymore, fine, let them do as they please. For now, let's do it as we currently do it.
 
2012-09-26 11:26:44 AM

Weaver95: I kinda like Gary Johnson...but he's dreaming if he thinks handing control of the internet over to corporations is going to lead to more online freedoms for end users.


That. He seems like a nice guy and has his head on straight, but the stuff he advocates would simply lead to the megacorps taking more and more control of our lives.
 
2012-09-26 11:28:34 AM

Maud Dib: Will there be a great rubbing of parts?


All throughout the lands!
 
2012-09-26 11:29:13 AM

skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: Dr Dreidel: skullkrusher: shoulda grabbed the Dem zombies hand, Gary

Why? He's more closely aligned, ideologically, with the GOP.

sure, if you ignore 1/2 of the GOP's platform... ya know, the 1/2 they are beating the drums about. Haven't we been over this?

You mean the argument when you ignore the entire economic platform?

no, that's not what I mean. I mean the fact that 1/2 of the GOP's platform and the one they focus on to a great degree is at odds with Gary Johnson's positions - positions which align much more readily with the Dems the Reps. Oh, I get it. This is the argument where you pretend that the only way to compare political positions is from a 30,000 foot view of economic policy and ignore the implications of that policy. Ya know, the one where you are intentionally dishonest.


Your honesty in ignoring the economics platform and the fact that Johnson ran for the Republican Nomination and clearly feel close identification with them is truly remarkable. Remarkable in that you think anyone doesn't see how completely full of shiat you are.
 
2012-09-26 11:29:14 AM

skullkrusher: down the road when technology is to the point where there are no wires anymore, fine, let them do as they please. For now, let's do it as we currently do it.


Even then, the government has to control the frequencies, so that bigger companies don't just run over smaller ones. There's only limited bandwidth to be used.
 
2012-09-26 11:30:15 AM

HeartBurnKid: Weaver95: I kinda like Gary Johnson...but he's dreaming if he thinks handing control of the internet over to corporations is going to lead to more online freedoms for end users.

That. He seems like a nice guy and has his head on straight, but the stuff he advocates would simply lead to the megacorps taking more and more control of our lives.


his major issue in this regard is the typical libertarian position that the courts can settle grievances. They can, just not as efficiently or equitably as preëmptive, smart regulation

/bringing back the English diaeresis!
 
2012-09-26 11:31:19 AM

HeartBurnKid: That. He seems like a nice guy and has his head on straight, but the stuff he advocates would simply lead to the megacorps taking more and more control of our lives.


Welcome to Libertarianism. It's a political philosophy that conveniently forgets the nature of the human beast and a lot of the history of the industrial revolution.
 
2012-09-26 11:32:08 AM
Aside from the pro-drug positions, I can't find anything of value in Johnson's positions. I would much rather support him for Senate, than put him in the White House
 
2012-09-26 11:32:14 AM

Bluemookie: Serious question. When is it ever okay to vote Green or Libertarian? This is not a setup for a joke or anything. I would prefer to have Gary Johnson over Obama, but isn't voting for Johnson just one less vote for whoever wins?


People who are attracted or identify with third party ideologies (whether it's right libertarianism/objectivsts on the right or democratic socialism and communitarians on the left) have very few options when it comes to election season. You can

1. cast your vote for someone who actually doesn't represent you, as "the lesser of two evils"
2. not vote, whether by rejecting the idea of voting as it's done now or believing that not voting is a vote that you aren't satisfied with any of the candidates
3. vote for a third party, thus satisfying the inevitable civic guilt that comes with option 2. while it may not have "meant" anything, you can believe that if only more people were like YOU, then we wouldn't have these problems!

and, voting third party in anything but a swing state makes sense too, because your "lesser of two evils" candidate is either locked in or has no chance anyway. Conservatives in Texas, Kansas and Alabama can vote for the constitution party or whatever nut they want because they know Romney will carry their state. At the same time, progressives/leftists can vote for Jill Stein in blue states, without worrying about Obama losing there.

Remember, national elections are actually 50 different small elections that happen at the same time.

/voting Green
 
2012-09-26 11:32:55 AM

GhostFish: It's a complete and total waste of effort to vote for a third party Presidential candidate.
If someone tells you that the major parties will look at the votes for third parties and reconsider their platforms, that person is fooling themselves.

The election has been and will continue to be a battle for the middle - for the moderates and independents. Not the fringes.

And yes, sorry to say, the people voting for Johnson or Stein are on the fringe.

Appealing to them more will not get the Democrats or GOP more votes from the sweet, sweet middle of the electorate.

It's simply a numbers game.


It is absolutely *NOT* a waste to vote third party in many situations.

The two major parties have put many hurdles in place in an effort to deny third parties ballot access. All political parties need to have either 1) a certain percentage of the electorate registered for their party, or 2) attain a certain (usually higher) percentage vote for their candidate in major federal or state-wide elections. If the political party does not achieve automatic ballot access, they must gather signatures in order to field candidates. That is a substantial impediment that makes it harder for alternative viewpoints to be heard.

I have been a registered Green here in California since 2000. Prior to that I was "Decline to State" but the Dems and Reps here gutted our original open primary system so I went Green in protest. It also helps them keep ballot access so they don't have to go through that arduous signature gathering process every election cycle.

So, if you live in a state that is *not* a swing state, go ahead and register or vote third party. If you live in one of the swing states, vote your conscience, but do so knowing your vote is just a bit more valuable in the electoral college.
 
2012-09-26 11:33:10 AM

sprawl15: Bluemookie: Serious question. When is it ever okay to vote Green or Libertarian?

Third party votes are only meaningful when our political system ceases to be FPTP and/or when one of the two parties is in significant collapse.


Fart_Machine: Bluemookie: Serious question. When is it ever okay to vote Green or Libertarian? This is not a setup for a joke or anything. I would prefer to have Gary Johnson over Obama, but isn't voting for Johnson just one less vote for whoever wins?

Third party votes make far more sense in local elections. National elections not so much.


These two. Our voting process really only supports two parties. If you want more than two parties in a national election you first need a constitutional amendment that changes our voting system to one that does that. Otherwise third party runs for president are a waste of votes and the resources of third parties.

Local elections make sense because a third party can replace one of the two national parties in those elections much more easily. Even as sick and crazy as the current GOP is they aren't going to be replaced nationally for at least a couple of election cycles.
 
2012-09-26 11:34:05 AM

The Jami Turman Fan Club: skullkrusher: down the road when technology is to the point where there are no wires anymore, fine, let them do as they please. For now, let's do it as we currently do it.

Even then, the government has to control the frequencies, so that bigger companies don't just run over smaller ones. There's only limited bandwidth to be used.


problem is, that's what I see Gary Johnson advocating. oh not in so many words...but that's the end result of his policy positions - the bigger fish will eat all the smaller ones, and then we're all f*cked. the only organization I see that could mitigate the damage would be the fedgov. I don't like it, I don't trust it...but it's the only viable option I can see. if we let the telcoms run the show, they'll screw over everyone to make a fast buck and we won't have any options at all.
 
2012-09-26 11:35:30 AM

skullkrusher: HeartBurnKid: Weaver95: I kinda like Gary Johnson...but he's dreaming if he thinks handing control of the internet over to corporations is going to lead to more online freedoms for end users.

That. He seems like a nice guy and has his head on straight, but the stuff he advocates would simply lead to the megacorps taking more and more control of our lives.

his major issue in this regard is the typical libertarian position that the courts can settle grievances. They can, just not as efficiently or equitably as preëmptive, smart regulation

/bringing back the English diaeresis!


Yeah, the logic there fails in the real world. For example, in a libertarian world, there would be no pollution controls on automobiles or factories. So, if your kid gets asthma or you get lung cancer, the libertarian solution would be for you to sue every factory and every car owner within fifty miles for the .000000001% responsibility that their little bit of pollution caused the disease. It's stupid and unrealistic to say the least.
 
2012-09-26 11:35:32 AM

skullkrusher: Dr Dreidel: skullkrusher: shoulda grabbed the Dem zombies hand, Gary

Why? He's more closely aligned, ideologically, with the GOP.

sure, if you ignore 1/2 of the GOP's platform... ya know, the 1/2 they are beating the drums about. Haven't we been over this?


If you ignore those parts of the GOP platform that are social engineering - the religion derp - you'll likely find his economics are in line with the GOP, and most everything else is not strictly a Democratic position (held by members of either party, or by no one).

And yes, we have.
 
2012-09-26 11:35:58 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: Your honesty in ignoring the economics platform and the fact that Johnson ran for the Republican Nomination and clearly feel close identification with them is truly remarkable.


I don't ignore it at all. In fact, I love many aspects of it. Improving immigration to allow more workers here on visas. A 2 year grace period for current illegal residents to get those work visas and contribute to the public treasury. Legalizing and taxing marijuana. Ending corporate welfare. Strong, Congressional oversight of the Fed. Ya know, all things that the GOP loves according to pathetic liars.

Philip Francis Queeg: Remarkable in that you think anyone doesn't see how completely full of shiat you are.


hmm... I wonder if anyone is buying your "Johnson got slaughtered in the GOP primaries therefore he is the same as all Republicans" line? You try it a lot. How's that playing to the illogical mouthbreather crowd?
 
2012-09-26 11:36:25 AM

skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: Dr Dreidel: skullkrusher: shoulda grabbed the Dem zombies hand, Gary

Why? He's more closely aligned, ideologically, with the GOP.

sure, if you ignore 1/2 of the GOP's platform... ya know, the 1/2 they are beating the drums about. Haven't we been over this?

You mean the argument when you ignore the entire economic platform?

no, that's not what I mean. I mean the fact that 1/2 of the GOP's platform and the one they focus on to a great degree is at odds with Gary Johnson's positions - positions which align much more readily with the Dems the Reps. Oh, I get it. This is the argument where you pretend that the only way to compare political positions is from a 30,000 foot view of economic policy and ignore the implications of that policy. Ya know, the one where you are intentionally dishonest.


Problem is, libertarians seem to mostly break down into two main single-issue factions... the "legalize weed" guys, who don't really have much of a home on either side of the aisle, and the low/no-tax pro-corporate fan-bois who only call themselves libertarians because they don't give a shiat about the social conservative causes that the GOP is fixated on.

Problem with the the latter is they really "don't give a shiat" about those causes. They seemingly prefer not to be seen supporting them, but those issues won't trump their low/no-tax pro-corporate obsession. So, between the two major parties, they usually default to the Republicans.

"Sure, I believe in separation of church and state, and don't think we should be in so many wars, and I oppose the department of homeland security and torture and warrantless wiretapping and indefinite detention at Guantanamo Bay, and I think you should have the right to be married... but I simply will not subject millionaires and billionaires to the tyranny of allowing a temporary tax cut to end 4 years past schedule, because I believe in liberty."
 
2012-09-26 11:36:57 AM
 
2012-09-26 11:38:47 AM

Geotpf: skullkrusher: HeartBurnKid: Weaver95: I kinda like Gary Johnson...but he's dreaming if he thinks handing control of the internet over to corporations is going to lead to more online freedoms for end users.

That. He seems like a nice guy and has his head on straight, but the stuff he advocates would simply lead to the megacorps taking more and more control of our lives.

his major issue in this regard is the typical libertarian position that the courts can settle grievances. They can, just not as efficiently or equitably as preëmptive, smart regulation

/bringing back the English diaeresis!

Yeah, the logic there fails in the real world. For example, in a libertarian world, there would be no pollution controls on automobiles or factories. So, if your kid gets asthma or you get lung cancer, the libertarian solution would be for you to sue every factory and every car owner within fifty miles for the .000000001% responsibility that their little bit of pollution caused the disease. It's stupid and unrealistic to say the least.


it's sacrificing practicality for idealism. The goal is to protect people's rights - to health, life, property - from infringement. They just want to take the idealistic approach which fails to achieve the ends the way commonsense, practical and preemptive regulations would
 
2012-09-26 11:42:58 AM

technicolor-misfit: "Sure, I believe in separation of church and state, and don't think we should be in so many wars, and I oppose the department of homeland security and torture and warrantless wiretapping and indefinite detention at Guantanamo Bay, and I think you should have the right to be married... but I simply will not subject millionaires and billionaires to the tyranny of allowing a temporary tax cut to end 4 years past schedule, because I believe in liberty."


at the risk of going true scotsman, the social and civil liberties issues should be more important to a "true" libertarian than lower taxes.
 
2012-09-26 11:44:16 AM

GhostFish: HeartBurnKid: That. He seems like a nice guy and has his head on straight, but the stuff he advocates would simply lead to the megacorps taking more and more control of our lives.

Welcome to Libertarianism. It's a political philosophy that conveniently forgets the nature of the human beast and a lot of the history of the industrial revolution.


Giving the megacorps a central govt to lobby and capture has given them more and more control of our lives.

Libertarianism recognizes the nature of the human beast, and says WHY THE FARK would you set up a power structure for the worst of the worst to take control of?

/the history of the industrial revolution was one of vast improvement of the standard of living for the common person, even without govt regulation. The govt merely impeded general progress and allowed pollution and bad behavior from politically connected megacorps
 
2012-09-26 11:45:19 AM
As for third party voters, you guys are idiots. Didn't you learn anything from the 2000 election, where a bunch of idiots like you decided Gore (of all people) wasn't enough of an enviromentalist? It's a first (Fark) past (turns) the (this) post (into) system (Weiners if I don't do this). Voting Green instead of Democratic just means that the Republican gained the equilvalent of half a vote. Also, if you always vote third party, the two major parties can safely ignore you, since you never affect the outcome of the election.

What you should do is vote for (and support financially and with your time) better candidates in the primaries, especially in open races that your side has a chance to win. However, there's an issue there that if you pick a candidate that's too lefty for the mainstream voter, many of those in the middle will then vote for Republican canidate.
 
2012-09-26 11:46:24 AM

GhostFish: HeartBurnKid: That. He seems like a nice guy and has his head on straight, but the stuff he advocates would simply lead to the megacorps taking more and more control of our lives.

Welcome to Libertarianism. It's a political philosophy that conveniently forgets the nature of the human beast and a lot of the history of the industrial revolution.


I thought libertarianism was supposed to appeal to people's greed, which would seem to acknowledge the nature of the human beast.
 
2012-09-26 11:46:30 AM
 
Displayed 50 of 94 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report