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.

(Telegraph)   The IMF makes a suggestion that will cause US libertarians to crawl into a fetal position tightly clutching their copies of Atlas Shrugged softy murmuring "Ron Paul will save us. Ron Paul will save us"   (telegraph.co.uk ) divider line
    More: Unlikely, Atlas Shrugged, Ron Paul, International Monetary Fund, fiat moneys, intrinsic value, types of business, fractional reserve, money creation  
•       •       •

25357 clicks; posted to Main » on 22 Oct 2012 at 1:10 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2012-10-22 03:08:49 PM  
I think these deck chairs would look great over there.
 
2012-10-22 03:09:30 PM  
img1.fark.net It's all deficit spending.
 
2012-10-22 03:12:31 PM  

ourbigdumbmouth: Slaves2Darkness: This is a really stupid idea because we would be bankrupting ourselves.


Here's a quick and fascinating breakdown by total amount held and percentage of total U.S. debt, according to Business Insider:

The U.S. Treasury: $1.63 trillion (11.3 percent)
Social Security trust fund: $2.67 trillion (19 percent)
U.S. households: $959.4 billion (6.6 percent)
Private pension funds: $504.7 billion (3.5 percent)
State and local governments: $506.1 billion (3.5 percent)
Mutual funds: $300.5 billion (2 percent)
Commercial banks: $301.8 billion (2.1 percent)
State, local and federal retirement funds: $320.9 billion (2.2 percent)
Money market mutual funds: $337.7 billion (2.4 percent)


Hong Kong: $121.9 billion (0.9 percent)
Caribbean banking centers: $148.3 (1 percent)
Taiwan: $153.4 billion (1.1 percent)
Brazil: $211.4 billion (1.5 percent)
Oil exporting countries: $229.8 billion (1.6 percent)
United Kingdom: $346.5 billion (2.4 percent)
Japan: $912.4 billion (6.4 percent)
China: $1.16 trillion (8 percent)

We owe foreign firms, countries, and other entities about 4.5 trillion dollars and we owe US firms, people, and entities 9.8 trillion dollars.

Why the fark would we the American People cancel the debt or default? How does that make any sense at all?

Now that is a good question.


because, at least we'll have a chance to build something better over the rubble?
 
2012-10-22 03:14:38 PM  
because a massive contraction in the money supply over night could in no way have adverse consequences.
 
2012-10-22 03:14:47 PM  
it is clear that the OP and many people on the thread know nothing about Libertarianism/libertarianism.

Many fell back to the same generalizations they claim the liberals/progressives/conservatives do.
 
2012-10-22 03:16:55 PM  

mizchief: Under the current system the banks have no problem letting people default since the money wasn't real to begin with and they end up with the actual property without really doing anything, while the rest of us work our asses off to either build the house or work for other bank-owned corporations hard enough to squat in the bank-owned house for 30 years.


We're all working for the company store and it's all company scrip. P.S. I'll need your full name to ink onto the ballot this Nov.
 
2012-10-22 03:17:48 PM  

misanthropologist: Amos Quito: Sounds like a great idea... but


[2.bp.blogspot.com image 578x522]


Coming from the IMF???

I know, right? This is the New World Order that was prophesied years ago. This is Obama's black helicopters and white tanks rolling through American cities to implement universal communism the day after he gets re-elected. This is the end of the world as we know it, friends, and the beginning of the Tribulation.

Or so Mitt's big money backers will have us believe, soon enough. Why have they not seized on this as part of their anti-Obama ad campaigns?



You don't know much about the games the IMF plays with nations, peoples, industry and capital, do you?
 
2012-10-22 03:18:08 PM  
The idea that you could "painlessly" end fractional banking in anything less than several decades is a pipe dream
 
2012-10-22 03:23:32 PM  

david_gaithersburg: Hey dickhole, try reading what I was responding too.

Reading, wtf is it?


Ohh, so he started it and that makes you totally justified... You've totally got the high ground here, that's for sure.
 
2012-10-22 03:24:41 PM  
What we really need is a cap on what a single entity can earn and own. It is not right that a single person can be given hundreds of millions a years and own billions and another person, who works just as hard, if not harder can only just put a roof over their head and food on the table.

That is all. Go back to your puppet wars again.

/"I think the puppet on the right reflects my views, you are stupid for preferring the other puppet"
//"I prefer the puppet on the left, it speaks to my heart, you are stupid for preferring the other puppet"
///I see that there are 2 puppets being operated by the same guy and don`t give him my money...
 
2012-10-22 03:28:20 PM  

TDBoedy: because a massive contraction in the money supply over night could in no way have adverse consequences.


Same as a massive expansion in the money supply (quantitative easing) wouldn`t devalue the cash in your pocket by the same amount...
 
2012-10-22 03:29:46 PM  

bunner: DerAppie: Don't you have friends or family?

You know how rich people tend to be related to rich people?


Yeah, except that my parents aren't rich. While growing up they made less than the national median income. Beyond that it is about being smart with your money. I'm currently without a full time jobs (work 15 hours a week as a cleaner just to make ends meet) and live on €155 a week. The only reason I'm not on government aid is because I refuse to apply for as long as I can pay my own bills. This means that I have less than €5 Euro a day to spend on food. Which is very, very easy by the way. If an appliance breaks, or I need new clothes, I have money in the bank from when times were better. Once I find full time employment I will replenish what I used to prepare for the next downturn. Is it that strange to expect the government or a bank to work on the same principle? Don't spend what you don't have.

/Yeah, I'm very rich and on top of the world
 
2012-10-22 03:30:19 PM  

Kazan: slayer199: Uh, no. Ron Paul is supported by libertarian-leaning Republicans, not Libertarians. I don't know any Libertarians that support Ron Paul. He's a Republican with some libertarian-leaning ideas....

almost every farking Libertarian i have ever met is just a randite republican embarassed to call themselves republican.

there are almost not "little l" libertarians in the united states. which you're trying to claim to be. and quite frankly i don't buy what you're selling based on your posting history.


I think I am, I know the "free market" will not cure all ills, we still need some government and regulation, I think pot should be legal but not necessarily all drugs. I also believe in universal health care because it levels the playing field and makes it easier for the average joe to start his own business.

I decided to shed labels though, it's all loaded bullshiat.
 
2012-10-22 03:32:16 PM  

DerAppie: bunner: DerAppie: Don't you have friends or family?

You know how rich people tend to be related to rich people?

Yeah, except that my parents aren't rich. While growing up they made less than the national median income. Beyond that it is about being smart with your money. I'm currently without a full time jobs (work 15 hours a week as a cleaner just to make ends meet) and live on €155 a week. The only reason I'm not on government aid is because I refuse to apply for as long as I can pay my own bills. This means that I have less than €5 Euro a day to spend on food. Which is very, very easy by the way. If an appliance breaks, or I need new clothes, I have money in the bank from when times were better. Once I find full time employment I will replenish what I used to prepare for the next downturn. Is it that strange to expect the government or a bank to work on the same principle? Don't spend what you don't have.

/Yeah, I'm very rich and on top of the world


Um, no, that wasn't the point. I was trying to say that, conversely, poor people tend to be related to poor people with very little venture capital handy.
 
BHK
2012-10-22 03:32:43 PM  
Yeah, that's a great idea, let's copy the Romans of the 5th century! In another hundred years we'll have a return to feudalism as debt/tax slaves sell their lives to their oligarchic overlords in order to gain protection from those taxes and debt.
 
2012-10-22 03:36:28 PM  
I love how libertarians tell us we don't know how "the real world works".

There isn't a single place on Earth where their ideas have created a decent society.
 
2012-10-22 03:41:38 PM  
Paul Ryan is not a libertarian!
People who self-identify as "libertarian" or "libertarian-leaning" but who are in favor of Paul Ryan have no concept of genuine liberty. They are nothing more than goddamn sons of farking biatches eating shiat and farking their got damm mothers in the back of a farking trailer farking farkers from farkland in farksauce with farking double cream farking gott damm anti-evolutionary religious American Christian taliban farkorama mcfarkers with shiatting monkey brained bullshiat moranic multi-arsed basterds.
Seriously.
 
2012-10-22 03:42:51 PM  

Arkanaut: BTW:

We return to the historical norm, before Charles II placed control of the money supply in private hands with the English Free Coinage Act of 1666.

Yeah, this isn't going to alarm any conspiracy theorists.


Didn't the zenith of the British Empire start right around 1666? Seems private control of the money supply in general worked out well for what was otherwise a backward, inhospitable little island that even the Vikings didn't particularly want.
 
2012-10-22 03:43:01 PM  

jaytkay: I love how libertarians tell us we don't know how "the real world works".

There isn't a single place on Earth where their ideas have created a decent society.


There isn't a single place on earth where it's been tried....and no, Somalia isn't one of them.
 
Ant
2012-10-22 03:44:48 PM  

DerAppie: Elegy: No fractional reserve banking? Good luck getting credit....

Live within your means and you won't need credit.


Good luck living within your means when everyone else except you is buying everything on credit, and the prices rise accordingly.
 
2012-10-22 03:45:49 PM  

skullkrusher: If I am a bank and you came to me with $500 and I promised to give you $550 a year from now, I can lend that $500 out without violating the 100% reserve requirement. However, if you came to me with $500 which you could demand at any time, I would be in violation if I were to lend out that money.


Banks already do this. It's called safe deposit boxes.

The catch is that they charge you interest, not the other way around.
 
2012-10-22 03:46:15 PM  
d23
This isn't a contradiction of my point. The current Republican "libertarians" only really care that their precious corporations don't have to abide by any rules and that's it. They are as far from classic libertarianism as you can get. They couldn't care less about the liberty of the individual.

Then that's not Anarchy. May I suggest "Corporatocracy" or "Corporate Feudalism"?


jigger
The people who made this movie have been promulgating this plan for decades.

I like how the title specifies "international" bankers. As if domination by domestic bankers would be OK. I've yet to figure out the exact reason of the nationalist tendency among so-called "Libertarians". You can't be pro-unrestrained free-market capitalism and pro-national borders. Without being a racist, I mean.


Suede head
These bastards - private companies - literally have a license to print money.

I'll say this after your comment because it's particularly naive:

No. No they don't. You don't understand what financing is. The same reasoning that says "BANKS AM PRINTIN MONIEZ!!" might as well be saying "MONEY'S JUST LITTLE GREEN PIECES OF PAPER!! IT'S NOT REAL!!!".
 
2012-10-22 03:47:28 PM  
Replacing all Fed-issued US Dollars with state-issued New US Dollars is not a panacea.

That's why MY crackpot plan is better; it calls for all money to be replaced by a currency called "Panacea".

/the bills are shaped like isosceles triangle and the obtuseness of the largest angle reflects its value.
 
2012-10-22 03:49:05 PM  

slayer199: There isn't a single place on earth where it's been tried....and no, Somalia isn't one of them.


And why hasn't it been tried anywhere? Nowhere in the real world real enough to be compatible with libertarianism?
 
2012-10-22 03:49:23 PM  

slayer199: I don't know any Libertarians that support Ron Paul


Except, you know, the actual Libertarian Party, which nominated him for President in the 1988 election.
 
2012-10-22 03:50:15 PM  
snorkblaster
People who self-identify as "libertarian" or "libertarian-leaning" but who are in favor of Paul Ryan have no concept of genuine liberty. They are nothing more than goddamn sons of farking biatches eating shiat and farking their got damm mothers in the back of a farking trailer farking farkers from farkland in farksauce with farking double cream farking gott damm anti-evolutionary religious American Christian taliban farkorama mcfarkers with shiatting monkey brained bullshiat moranic multi-arsed basterds.
Seriously.


Tell us how you really feel.


skullkrusher
If I am a bank and you came to me with $500 and I promised to give you $550 a year from now, I can lend that $500 out without violating the 100% reserve requirement. However, if you came to me with $500 which you could demand at any time, I would be in violation if I were to lend out that money.

Yeah it sucks how everyone always demands all their money back immediately after depositing it, thus preventing banks from just having enough cash on hand to cover day-to-day withdrawals and using the rest to make loans.
 
2012-10-22 03:50:35 PM  
Yeah, I don't believe in these:

www.ppc.bz
 
2012-10-22 03:50:44 PM  

YixilTesiphon: OK, but why did any company need to buy it? The banks clearly didn't learn the lesson, which they would have had they been allowed to self-destruct.

GM was ridiculous too. It had actual hard assets that people would have been interested in acquiring had it gone under, but instead the thing was kept alive.


1. The value whole was worth more than the collection of scrap iron that was the physical assets. Chrysler's remains were purchased for pennies on the dollar.
2. There exists value in retaining American ownership in at least some auto manufacturers. Had GM been sold, Ford would have been the last one standing, and even Ford was looking shaky at the time. From a purely national defense standpoint, GM represents a lot of potential manufacturing capacity that would disappear.
3. You're overlooking somewhat the difficulty of wholly absorbing one of the largest companies on Earth. GM's full scale is hard to understand, and they are very employee-heavy.
 
2012-10-22 03:52:35 PM  

clyph: Except, you know, the actual Libertarian Party, which nominated him for President in the 1988 election.


Which I wasn't at the time. I'm talking in my time as a libertarian (going back to '92), I don't know any libertarians that support him. The party has evolved whether you choose to believe it or not.
 
2012-10-22 03:54:03 PM  

BHK: Yeah, that's a great idea, let's copy the Romans of the 5th century! In another hundred years we'll have a return to feudalism as debt/tax slaves sell their lives to their oligarchic overlords in order to gain protection from those taxes and debt.


If you actually read the source you would know they were referencing a Roman monetary system that lasted from the 5th Century BCE to around the 2nd Century BCE

FTFA:

"Solon's reforms were so successful that, 150 years later, the early Roman republic
sent a delegation to Greece to study them. They became the foundation of the Roman
monetary system from 454 BC (Lex Aternia) until the time of the Punic wars (Peruzzi
(1985))."

"Many historians (Del Mar (1895)) have partly attributed the eventual collapse of the
Roman republic to the emergence of a plutocracy that accumulated immense private
wealth at the expense of the general citizenry. Their ascendancy was facilitated by the
introduction of privately controlled silver money, and later gold money, at prices that far
exceeded their earlier commodity value prices, during the emergency period of the Punic
wars."
 
2012-10-22 03:58:17 PM  

RanDomino: The same reasoning that says "BANKS AM PRINTIN MONIEZ!!" might as well be saying "MONEY'S JUST LITTLE GREEN PIECES OF PAPER!! IT'S NOT REAL!!!".


Not to put too fine a point on it, but it sort of isn't. It has weight and takes up space, but IOUs backed by "the full faith and credit" of a bunch of workaday monkeys who are up to *their* eyeballs in hock and looking for work is pretty much Monopoly money.
 
2012-10-22 04:00:58 PM  

bunner: poor people tend to be related to poor people with very little venture capital handy.


You need venture capital? Do you know what rich people like? becoming even richer. Write a decent business plan and get your idea out there. If you can convince people that you can make a profit there will be someone willing to invest. Also: DerAppie. Bottom paragraph.
 
2012-10-22 04:01:18 PM  
Even Ron Paul can't save us on his own. It is going to take us saving ourselves.

The thing is though, the game is rigged.

No matter how much hard earned honest money the, "We the People" of the world could gather together to build their world the way they want, others can fire up the fake money presses and print up what ever it takes to get their way.
 
2012-10-22 04:01:51 PM  

This text is now purple: Arkanaut: BTW:

We return to the historical norm, before Charles II placed control of the money supply in private hands with the English Free Coinage Act of 1666.

Yeah, this isn't going to alarm any conspiracy theorists.

Didn't the zenith of the British Empire start right around 1666? Seems private control of the money supply in general worked out well for what was otherwise a backward, inhospitable little island that even the Vikings didn't particularly want.


Eh, these kinds of things are always subjective. If you mean the absolute height of British power, that's generally regarded as the late Victorian Era, when they controlled all of India, Canada, Australia, and various African possessions. If you're talking about when they started edging past France / Spain etc. in colonizing the world, you might be a bit closer, but I personally would place that after the War of the Spanish Succcession, which would be a few decades (and one revolution) after what you said.
 
2012-10-22 04:02:06 PM  

muck4doo: slayer199: ghare: No, we understand the LP just fine: nuts, who used to be Republicans but are now embarrassed to admit it. But mostly nuts.

mr lawson: man...don't even try. The left will never understand and the right just thinks we are godless heathens.

Good advice.

Yeah, never argue with an idiot. Ghare certainly is one, and he is always concerned about Mexicans as well.


Ghare isn't an idiot, he's a troll.

slayer199: Kazan: yes. you've voted US Libertarian party. thank you for proving my point you that are NOT a little-l libertarian but a united states "big-L" libertarian.

I'm still a small-l libertarian who votes LP. That also means we don't support Ron Paul, we're not all Randites, and we're not all minarchists. But thanks for the generalizationconclusions based upon observation of nearly all self-identifying LP supporters.



what you do more important than what you say. and what you do and what you say are two different things.

shortymac: I think I am, I know the "free market" will not cure all ills, we still need some government and regulation, I think pot should be legal but not necessarily all drugs. I also believe in universal health care because it levels the playing field and makes it easier for the average joe to start his own business.

I decided to shed labels though, it's all loaded bullshiat.


most real-libertarians don't self-identify as "Libertarian" was part of my point
 
2012-10-22 04:03:17 PM  

poot_rootbeer: And why hasn't it been tried anywhere? Nowhere in the real world real enough to be compatible with libertarianism?


Because the idea of individual liberty and smaller government scares people. One only needs to look at the reactions in this thread. People WANT to be taken care of. People are fearful of the personal responsibility aspect of individual liberty. So to many, ceding individual liberty for government power is an acceptable choice.

That isn't to say government is NOT necessary. It's just that there's few limitations on the power of the Federal government at this point. People want to wave a flag for their party and say, "My Guy is different, when he gets in things will change!" The truth is that neither party returns government powers taken by their predecessor. Look at Obama's promise not to use federal resources for going after states that have legalized medical marijuana. Gitmo is still open. He's increased drone strikes. Has he been more transparent? No. I'm not just pinning this only on Obama, it's just the way our two-party system is functioning. There's very little difference between the two parties. They both increase the size and power of the federal government at the expense of individual liberty. Will Romney remove the HCRA? No.
 
2012-10-22 04:03:41 PM  
Yeeeaaaahhh.....and just like that, suddenly national debts are erased. Sure.

I'm more interested in what's behind this being put forward by the IMF......since, as the article says, this "Chicago Plan" goes back to the Constitution of Solon in ancient Athens, and historically, it was done for a long period. If this was a workable system, sure, consider going back to it. But if, as the article alludes to, the present "fractional banking" system may be a far more efficient way of capitalizing growth, how is that supposed to help the moribund world economy?

I agree with TFA where it states "Let the arguments begin," and we shall see.
 
2012-10-22 04:04:15 PM  

slayer199: jaytkay: I love how libertarians tell us we don't know how "the real world works".

There isn't a single place on Earth where their ideas have created a decent society.

There isn't a single place on earth where it's been tried....and no, Somalia isn't one of them.


Some people tout medieval Iceland as a "libertarian" society.
 
2012-10-22 04:04:30 PM  

DerAppie: You need venture capital? Do you know what rich people like? becoming even richer. Write a decent business plan and get your idea out there. If you can convince people that you can make a profit there will be someone willing to invest.


For a huge chunk of the business and a hefty margin over a guaranteed time. So, essentially, I can either shoestring it, work for a bank, or work for a VC collective. I think maybe I'll try and shoestring it or even try kickstarter.
 
2012-10-22 04:04:55 PM  

TDBoedy: because a massive contraction in the money supply over night could in no way have adverse consequences.


What makes you think the US Congress would issue less currency? If anything they'll issue more as a sort of vote buying scheme.
 
2012-10-22 04:06:19 PM  

Slaves2Darkness: We owe foreign firms, countries, and other entities about 4.5 trillion dollars and we owe US firms, people, and entities 9.8 trillion dollars.

Why the fark would we the American People cancel the debt or default? How does that make any sense at all?


Where do you think money that we pay on those debts comes from? (Hint: I'm looking for something deeper than 'taxes')
 
2012-10-22 04:06:32 PM  

Kazan: most real-libertarians don't self-identify as "Libertarian" was part of my point


Let me ask you this. Do you agree with everything your party stands for? I don't, but the Libertarian party is the closest thing to small-l libertarianism around.

I took the party to task for nominating Bob Barr (I wrote in Gary Nolan in the General Election) who was a HORRIBLE candidate. Unlike Gary Johnson, he didn't have any legitimate history of leaning libertarian.
 
2012-10-22 04:07:00 PM  

This text is now purple: skullkrusher: If I am a bank and you came to me with $500 and I promised to give you $550 a year from now, I can lend that $500 out without violating the 100% reserve requirement. However, if you came to me with $500 which you could demand at any time, I would be in violation if I were to lend out that money.

Banks already do this. It's called safe deposit boxes.

The catch is that they charge you interest, not the other way around.


no, it's called time deposits and in the absence of FRB, it would be the norm, not the exception.
 
2012-10-22 04:10:51 PM  

slayer199: 1. Ron Paul is not a libertarian, is not widely supported by libertarians.
2. Libertarianism is not the same as Randianism.


blog.americanfeast.com

"G'day, mate, it's a bonzer avo for a logical fallacy. 'Course I'm a True Scotsman, bloody oath! Got any tinnies in the Esky, y'drongo?"
 
2012-10-22 04:10:56 PM  

RanDomino: Yeah it sucks how everyone always demands all their money back immediately after depositing it, thus preventing banks from just having enough cash on hand to cover day-to-day withdrawals and using the rest to make loans.


for an alleged anarchist, you sure do seem to love our private oligarch enriching federal reserve system. Might wanna re-read your talking points, chum
 
2012-10-22 04:13:12 PM  

mizchief: jigger: TDBoedy: because a massive contraction in the money supply over night could in no way have adverse consequences.

What makes you think the US Congress would issue less currency? If anything they'll issue more as a sort of vote buying scheme.

fark it. Lets just use bitcoins


I totally missed the bus on those. When I first heard of them they were worth about 50 cents. I didn't see any use in buying any. A year and a half later they bubbled up to $30! Damn, if I had only taken advantage of that. If I had sunk $5000 into it, I could have turned it into $200-300k. Then they sunk back to about $2, but now they're up to $12 again. If I had perfect future vision, I could have turned $200k into $1.2M. Oh well, hindsight is 20/20.
 
2012-10-22 04:15:51 PM  

SageC: Ricardo Klement: AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRGGGHHHHH!
*sploosh*

Now that my head exploded, fractional reserve banking is not some magical power to conjure forth money. It is a mathematical side-effect of lending out money and accepting deposits. If I lend Bob $20, and he buys a bottle of cheap whiskey from Jack, who then asks me to hang on to the cash for him because he doesn't have pockets, and then I lend that $20 to Bill, I just created money. And I am not a bank, and I am not regulated by the feds.

No you didn't! You just gave Bill the money Jack told you to hang on to even though it wasn't yours to give. You're not a money creator, you're a jerk who spends other people's money! Go get Jack's money back before he hears about what you did and deposits his fist into your face.


I may be a jerk, but I still created money.
 
2012-10-22 04:16:28 PM  

mr lawson: Ricardo Klement: And I'm a supply-side classical economist.

There is no such thing as "supply-side" or "demand-side" economics. Only Capital-side economics.


Thanks, Karl.
 
2012-10-22 04:16:48 PM  

slayer199: poot_rootbeer: And why hasn't it been tried anywhere? Nowhere in the real world real enough to be compatible with libertarianism?

Because the idea of individual liberty and smaller government scares people. One only needs to look at the reactions in this thread. People WANT to be taken care of. People are fearful of the personal responsibility aspect of individual liberty. So to many, ceding individual liberty for government power is an acceptable choice.

That isn't to say government is NOT necessary. It's just that there's few limitations on the power of the Federal government at this point. People want to wave a flag for their party and say, "My Guy is different, when he gets in things will change!" The truth is that neither party returns government powers taken by their predecessor. Look at Obama's promise not to use federal resources for going after states that have legalized medical marijuana. Gitmo is still open. He's increased drone strikes. Has he been more transparent? No. I'm not just pinning this only on Obama, it's just the way our two-party system is functioning. There's very little difference between the two parties. They both increase the size and power of the federal government at the expense of individual liberty. Will Romney remove the HCRA? No.


I will wave a flag for anyone who runs for president on a platform of making lobbies illegal, 2 years mandatory military service, capping military spending on anything other than the actual military to 10% of the spending budget, requiring any companies that build or maintain "security" forces and equipment to have a sole and single contract with our federal and state governments, dismantling health insurance models that function on healthcare as a profit industry and move it into an education and infrastructure model, provide reliable public transport, revoke any and all religious privilege from all state and federal government levels, redact Constitutional Amendment 17, ban any and all secondary income for elected officials for a period of 10 or more years leaving elected office and banning people who use cell phones to text and drive from ever using an electronic device, or driving, ever again. Just kidding, I couldn't figure out how to work in that Eddie Izzard flag skit.
 
2012-10-22 04:20:21 PM  
Funny thing about commies. They print money, too.
 
Displayed 50 of 388 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | 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








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