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.

(Guardian)   Thanks to Gary Johnson and the potheads, Colorado could get all nadered-up next Tuesday   (guardian.co.uk) divider line 230
    More: Spiffy, Colorado, potheads  
•       •       •

3750 clicks; posted to Politics » on 03 Nov 2012 at 10:59 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-03 12:34:25 PM
Wow. Apparently this is one topic everyone is allowed to openly hate from every angle with gusto.

Enjoy your Saturday morning of hate.

/scary
 
2012-11-03 12:35:28 PM
Has anyone ever noticed how libertarians on fark bash liberals with the gusto of a dittohead, yet rarey, if ever, bash republicans?
 
2012-11-03 12:35:53 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: You know how I know that you know jack farking shiat about Libertarianism?


Stupid, selfish, and naive is no way go through to life, son.
 
2012-11-03 12:37:56 PM
Its Obama's own fault. He promised compassion for medical MJ users and instead stepped up the DOJ/DEA thuggery.
 
2012-11-03 12:38:02 PM

BafflerMeal: Wow. Apparently this is one topic everyone is allowed to openly hate from every angle with gusto.

Enjoy your Saturday morning of hate.

/scary


Yep. we're allowed to hate Republicans who are too cowardly to call themselves Republicans.
 
2012-11-03 12:38:05 PM

ifarkthereforiam: Has anyone ever noticed how libertarians on fark bash liberals with the gusto of a dittohead, yet rarey, if ever, bash republicans?


Why should we? There are enough folks to bash republicans here already, it would be unnecessary overkill

The Dem bashers though, they need help, not as many of them around here.
 
2012-11-03 12:39:38 PM

Bhruic: If it weren't for the serious damage it would cause, it'd almost be worth giving them a Libertarian president, just to demonstrate how bad things can get without a central government. Well, assuming that a Libertarian president could actually get anything done, which would be insanely unlikely.


Consider...

1) Tie Electoral College
2) Tea Party in House vote Johnson instead of Romney
3) Media Orgasm
4) Profit

*shudder*
 
2012-11-03 12:40:56 PM

Lunchlady: If college students are stupid enough to vote for Johnson and give the election to Romney they WE deserve everything that's coming to them US.



FYFY?
 
2012-11-03 12:46:24 PM

TheBigJerk: Jarhead_h: cman: Inb4 Libertarian bashers muck up this thread with their confusion of Libertarianism and Conservatism

How about their deliberate confusion of libertarianism and Ayn Rand's cult? Am really tired of that shiat.

Libertarians love Ayn Rand, she hated them because they didn't go far enough.

Oh wait I forgot, there aren't any libertarian scotsmen.


Ayn Rand called libertarians dirty hippies who stole her ideas.

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/libertarians.html
 
2012-11-03 12:47:45 PM
If it's true Libertarianism, isn't it the state's right to legalize and not the federal government's?
 
2012-11-03 12:48:19 PM

HeartBurnKid: Obama has stepped up marijuana enforcement, if anything; medical dispensaries have been closed down at a greater rate than under Bush.


Personally I have no problem with making marijuana legal and putting the same restrictions on it that we have on tobacco. Having said that, here in California medical dispensaries have been their own worst enemies. Voters enacted Prop. 215 based on compassion for medical users. Medical dispensaries popped up like crazy and without proper regulation instead of cancer and glaucoma patients you had a bunch of eighteen year old kids with prescriptions for "back pain" which fed into the arguments of the opponents and got the Fed and local authorities cracking down on them.

Look, just make the shait legal already but until then police your own industry.
 
2012-11-03 12:49:03 PM

Lost Thought 00: rthanu: Granny_Panties: There's about a .25% chance Obama will legalize pot.

There's a 0% chance Romney will legalize pot.

There is a 0% chance Gary Johnson will become president.

Think about the odds... 

Obama's been no friend to the legalization of pot.

If his odds are anything above 0%, the equation still applies



Really .25 is the same as 25 is the same as 0 in that all three are completely made the fark up and the "equation" is meaningless. The only thing you are assuredly correct on is Johnson not winning.

If people want to make a statement that recreational use of marijuana is the one and only(or most important by a mile) thing that matters to them, then they should vote for Johnson so as to make their voice heard.

Obama flirted with them by talking up decriminalization and states rights on the issue in 2008 and stabbed them in the back with his (or his appointees) policies. I'm marginally pro legalization but find other issues far more important. Therefore I still think Obama is the best candidate, but it still doesn't make Obama anything more than dishonest on the issue.
 
2012-11-03 12:50:37 PM

Bigdogdaddy: If it's true Libertarianism, isn't it the state's right to legalize and not the federal government's?


Libertarianism is not the same as State's Rights politics.
 
2012-11-03 12:51:01 PM

organizmx: We don't live in a third world shiathole because we pay taxes and have rules and regulations?


LOL Somalia?
 
2012-11-03 12:51:42 PM

Bigdogdaddy: If it's true Libertarianism, isn't it the state's right to legalize and not the federal government's?


Yes, and that's part of the problem with the current parties in power. Even states that have legalized medical marijuana have had federal agents knocking down doors of dispensaries for violating federal law, even though what they are doing is legal in that state.
Sadly, this has increased under the Obama administration, which really perplexes me. He technically could say "Holder. Your DOJ is going to knock that shiat off right now." and that would be the end of it.
 
2012-11-03 12:52:49 PM

Amos Quito: Lunchlady: If college students are stupid enough to vote for Johnson and give the election to Romney they WE deserve everything that's coming to them US.


FYFY?


Unfortunately
 
2012-11-03 12:54:08 PM

rthanu: then they should vote for Johnson so as to make their voice heard.


The only voice that is ever heard in an election is that of the victor. There are no examples in history of a loser ever having their platform taken up by the winner. So, no, voting for Johnson won't send a message to anyone.
 
2012-11-03 12:55:47 PM

Bigdogdaddy: If it's true Libertarianism, isn't it the state's right to legalize and not the federal government's?



That would not Libertarianism, but just following the US Constitution.
 
2012-11-03 12:56:56 PM

HeartBurnKid: delysid25: hey this guy that likes weed is running! Let's vote for him even though he has no chance of winning, so the guy who expressly says that he is against weed can win! Brilliant!!

Let's face it, neither mainstream candidate is pro-weed. Obama has stepped up marijuana enforcement, if anything; medical dispensaries have been closed down at a greater rate than under Bush. Plus, whenever he's been asked about legalizing it, all he does is laugh. Obama is not pro-pot, and I doubt his position will "evolve" like his position on gay marriage did.

That said, I'm pulling for Obama anyway because I'm an adult and I realize that weed is not the only issue in the world that matters.


Obama said he would stop busting clinics that were operating legally according to the laws of the particular states. The clinics that have been shut down under him were done so mostly as a result of the state requesting help from the DEA in shutting them down due to the fact they weren't really operating as clinics and were just mass distribution outlets operating under the guise of providing medicinal pot.

The number has gone up because the number of outlets operating illegally under state laws has increased.

Don't get me wrong-I think it should be completely legal and regulated. But let's not misstate what Obama said he was going to do.
 
2012-11-03 12:58:00 PM

Amos Quito: Bigdogdaddy: If it's true Libertarianism, isn't it the state's right to legalize and not the federal government's?


That would not Libertarianism, but just following the US Constitution.


Commerce clause, biatches
 
2012-11-03 01:01:21 PM
imageshack.us
 
2012-11-03 01:03:26 PM

Lost Thought 00: rthanu: then they should vote for Johnson so as to make their voice heard.

The only voice that is ever heard in an election is that of the victor. There are no examples in history of a loser ever having their platform taken up by the winner. So, no, voting for Johnson won't send a message to anyone.


So you are telling them that they should do what then? Vote for one of the other two candidates that have either stated they will support their position or the other who has shown in practice that he will not support their position?

fark that. Even if no one listens to them, they should let their voices be heard.
 
2012-11-03 01:04:33 PM

rthanu: So you are telling them that they should do what then? Vote for one of the other two candidates that have either stated they will not support their position or the other who has shown in practice that he will not support their position?


sorry
 
2012-11-03 01:08:07 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Amos Quito: Bigdogdaddy: If it's true Libertarianism, isn't it the state's right to legalize and not the federal government's?


That would not Libertarianism, but just following the US Constitution.

Commerce clause, biatches


Today's libertarians reject the modern interpretation (SCOTUS) of the commerce clause.

They also seem to want to reject that "Provide for the common good" clause as well.

Gee, it's almost as if they prefer picking cherrys
 
2012-11-03 01:09:25 PM

ifarkthereforiam: Has anyone ever noticed how libertarians on fark bash liberals with the gusto of a dittohead, yet rarey, if ever, bash republicans?


That's pretty par for the course for libertarians anywhere. Which is one of the reasons I'm not one.
 
2012-11-03 01:11:48 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Amos Quito: Bigdogdaddy: If it's true Libertarianism, isn't it the state's right to legalize and not the federal government's?


That would not Libertarianism, but just following the US Constitution.


Commerce clause, biatches



Yeah. The Authoritarian Wet Dream.

You like authoritarians, cameroncrazy1984?
 
2012-11-03 01:17:15 PM

BafflerMeal: Wow. Apparently this is one topic everyone is allowed to openly hate from every angle with gusto.

Enjoy your Saturday morning of hate.

/scary


Don't confuse derision with hate.
 
2012-11-03 01:25:46 PM
the only wasted vote is the vote cast in cynicism

it's your vote. you should feel good about your decision after making it.

i vote my conscience. you should too
 
2012-11-03 01:28:55 PM

HeartBurnKid: ifarkthereforiam: Has anyone ever noticed how libertarians on fark bash liberals with the gusto of a dittohead, yet rarey, if ever, bash republicans?

That's pretty par for the course for libertarians anywhere. Which is one of the reasons I'm not one.


You can trace the origins of this back to the 1980 election, where Ed Clark and David Koch (both founders of Reason Magazine/Foundation among other active, conservative think tanks) brought a shiat load of BIRCHER mud slinging into the campaign and wound up taking slightly less than 1% of the popular vote.

Both Koch and Clark were booted from the Libertarian party following that debacle, mostly because the LP founder, Murray Rothbard (of the Austrian school of economics) and his deputy, Ed Crane, were aghast that Ed Clark let slip the truth about the LP:

Clark had early in the campaign acknowledged that libertarians wish to eliminate the state. This disclosure made Crane "livid at this disclosure of truth to the media and to the public; how can they be conned into liking us if they know our real views?

The writings of Murray Rothbard, condensed by Lew Rockwell


Ed Crane and David Koch got their revenge by buying the libertarian party organizations and using them to infiltrate the republican party.

You'll know that Ed Crane and David Koch still sit on many "conservative" think tank boards and exert significant influence on today's republican party.
 
2012-11-03 01:31:03 PM

Amos Quito: cameroncrazy1984: Amos Quito: Bigdogdaddy: If it's true Libertarianism, isn't it the state's right to legalize and not the federal government's?


That would not Libertarianism, but just following the US Constitution.


Commerce clause, biatches


Yeah. The Authoritarian Wet Dream.

You like authoritarians, cameroncrazy1984?


A government authoritarian who is charged with protecting citizens and can be, periodically, removed from office by those citizens?

Or, do you prefer the corporate authoritarian who exists only to fleece the American citizen and can only be removed from office by the corporate board?

There is no longer any in-between.
 
2012-11-03 01:31:35 PM

Granny_Panties: There's about a 25% chance Obama will legalize pot.

There's a 0% chance Romney will legalize pot.

There is a 0% chance Gary Johnson will become president.

Think about the odds...


there is a 0% chance that Obama would do that. 0.

He has been tougher on medical marijuana in 4 years than Bush was in 8.

Obama is not in favor of a lot of liberal social issues and as a result there is some backlash amongst those who advocate for the right to be let the fark alone to engage in activities that do no harm
 
2012-11-03 01:33:32 PM

IntertubeUser: I voted for Gary Johnson.

I live in a state where Obama has a greater-than 10% lead over Rmoney. My big issues this election are opposing another war (Iran, Syria, etc.), civil rights (marriage equality and women's rights), and ending the "war" on drugs. I was extremely impressed with Jill Stein during an interview that I heard with her on my local NPR affiliate, but I was much less impressed with her and especially unimpressed with her running mate during an interview with Bill Moyers. I am receptive to arguments in favor of publicly-funded campaigns and nationalized healthcare. I especially like the Green Party's stance on not taking corporate donations. However, I am disappointed that the Green Party refuses to make intellectual, economist-driven arguments about economics; they use emotion and hyperbole, rather than reason.

I don't support Libertarian, laissez-faire. BP and the financial collapse of 2008 knocked that craziness out of me. But I do support getting government out of the morality business, endless wars and world policing, and laws which stifle all but the very largest corporations adept at using the government to limit competition. And, we desperately need a new party to end the GOP/Dem monopoly over our political system.

I voted for ZERO GOPers because I cannot morally justify supporting representatives of a party that gives refuge and voice to Theocrats, bigots, and anti-intellectaulists. And if I lived in most of the other states, I would've voted for Obama. But I decided to throw away my vote for President in the hopes of, one day, there being an alternative for Americans. I'm hoping that the Libertarian Party can become a (truly) fiscally-conservative and secular party of reason...for reasonable people. It isn't now, but it may be closer than the other parties.


Same here, although I'm a VA resident (but since I'm in Afghanistan, my vote won't really be counted until afterwards anyway, so meh).

I'm not all hook, line, and sinker libertarian. I just really hate what the Republican party has become. If there was a party that actually stood for what the Republican party claims it stands for (with the exception of the most idiotic foreign policy bluster in the history of potato, and the bible grenades), I guess I'd be on board.

My political leanings have disintegrated into "everyone is a steaming pile of lies and platitudes."

Democrats and Republicans are the same slaves to different abhorrent masters. Both sides are bad, yes the GOP is worse in practice but (sorta) better in theory, but they ain't getting my vote.

sigh... can't wait until this farce is over in a week.
 
2012-11-03 01:35:52 PM
Oooh, Nader as a perjorative. You're SO edgy, subs!
 
2012-11-03 01:36:00 PM

IntertubeUser: I voted for Gary Johnson.

I live in a state where Obama has a greater-than 10% lead over Rmoney. My big issues this election are opposing another war (Iran, Syria, etc.), civil rights (marriage equality and women's rights), and ending the "war" on drugs. I was extremely impressed with Jill Stein during an interview that I heard with her on my local NPR affiliate, but I was much less impressed with her and especially unimpressed with her running mate during an interview with Bill Moyers. I am receptive to arguments in favor of publicly-funded campaigns and nationalized healthcare. I especially like the Green Party's stance on not taking corporate donations. However, I am disappointed that the Green Party refuses to make intellectual, economist-driven arguments about economics; they use emotion and hyperbole, rather than reason.

I don't support Libertarian, laissez-faire. BP and the financial collapse of 2008 knocked that craziness out of me. But I do support getting government out of the morality business, endless wars and world policing, and laws which stifle all but the very largest corporations adept at using the government to limit competition. And, we desperately need a new party to end the GOP/Dem monopoly over our political system.

I voted for ZERO GOPers because I cannot morally justify supporting representatives of a party that gives refuge and voice to Theocrats, bigots, and anti-intellectaulists. And if I lived in most of the other states, I would've voted for Obama. But I decided to throw away my vote for President in the hopes of, one day, there being an alternative for Americans. I'm hoping that the Libertarian Party can become a (truly) fiscally-conservative and secular party of reason...for reasonable people. It isn't now, but it may be closer than the other parties.


so much this
 
2012-11-03 01:38:11 PM

daveUSMC: Same here, although I'm a VA resident (but since I'm in Afghanistan, my vote won't really be counted until afterwards anyway, so meh).

I'm not all hook, line, and sinker libertarian. I just really hate what the Republican party has become. If there was a party that actually stood for what the Republican party claims it stands for (with the exception of the most idiotic foreign policy bluster in the history of potato, and the bible grenades), I guess I'd be on board.

My political leanings have disintegrated into "everyone is a steaming pile of lies and platitudes."

Democrats and Republicans are the same slaves to different abhorrent masters. Both sides are bad, yes the GOP is worse in practice but (sorta) better in theory, but they ain't getting my vote.

sigh... can't wait until this farce is over in a week.


Just imagine if it comes down to the absentees. On the one hand, your vote will count; on the other, we'll be dealing with this crap for weeks to come.
 
2012-11-03 01:40:23 PM

Elzar: Now on election night around 7 or 8 Obama and Johnson will look around Colorado to see what finally happened there - and Romney will be sitting in the oval office as the prince of bel air!


7/8, would get BelAired again...
 
2012-11-03 01:47:23 PM
Libertarianism: the erroneous philosophical assertion that getting rid of all traffic lights and laws will make people better drivers.
 
2012-11-03 01:47:52 PM
Tough shiat. If you want somebody's vote, represent their interests; not just be LesserEvil tm
 
2012-11-03 01:50:41 PM

Ishkur: Libertarianism: the erroneous philosophical assertion that getting rid of all traffic lights and laws will make people better drivers.


this is just another strawman argument from a butthurt bootlicking partisan tool.

so many strawmen here today
 
2012-11-03 01:58:42 PM
www.raptorled.com

Voted on Thursday, not sure it will pass, gonna be close just like the POTUS vote. And Johnson will be pulling votes from both Obama and Romney, not likely to change who takes Colorado's 9 EV.
 
2012-11-03 02:00:12 PM

Kid the Universe: Ishkur: Libertarianism: the erroneous philosophical assertion that getting rid of all traffic lights and laws will make people better drivers.

this is just another strawman argument from a butthurt bootlicking partisan tool.

so many strawmen here today


You tell us what you want the government to do less of then.
 
2012-11-03 02:03:18 PM

Jarhead_h: cman: Inb4 Libertarian bashers muck up this thread with their confusion of Libertarianism and Conservatism

How about their deliberate confusion of libertarianism and Ayn Rand's cult? Am really tired of that shiat.


Libertarian is just another way for Republicans to lie and say "I'm not a Republican. I'm a Libretarian. Really." See Bob Barr, RON PAUL, cman.
 
2012-11-03 02:09:29 PM

IntertubeUser: I voted for Gary Johnson.

I live in a state where Obama has a greater-than 10% lead over Rmoney. My big issues this election are opposing another war (Iran, Syria, etc.), civil rights (marriage equality and women's rights), and ending the "war" on drugs. I was extremely impressed with Jill Stein during an interview that I heard with her on my local NPR affiliate, but I was much less impressed with her and especially unimpressed with her running mate during an interview with Bill Moyers. I am receptive to arguments in favor of publicly-funded campaigns and nationalized healthcare. I especially like the Green Party's stance on not taking corporate donations. However, I am disappointed that the Green Party refuses to make intellectual, economist-driven arguments about economics; they use emotion and hyperbole, rather than reason.

I don't support Libertarian, laissez-faire. BP and the financial collapse of 2008 knocked that craziness out of me. But I do support getting government out of the morality business, endless wars and world policing, and laws which stifle all but the very largest corporations adept at using the government to limit competition. And, we desperately need a new party to end the GOP/Dem monopoly over our political system.

I voted for ZERO GOPers because I cannot morally justify supporting representatives of a party that gives refuge and voice to Theocrats, bigots, and anti-intellectaulists. And if I lived in most of the other states, I would've voted for Obama. But I decided to throw away my vote for President in the hopes of, one day, there being an alternative for Americans. I'm hoping that the Libertarian Party can become a (truly) fiscally-conservative and secular party of reason...for reasonable people. It isn't now, but it may be closer than the other parties.


This is about the only sensible post I've seen so far on the subject of Johnson's candidacy.

I'm particularly irritated by the morons who feel that Somalia is a libertarian paradise. The major plank in the libertarian political platform is the absolute proscription against force and fraud. This should be the primary function of domestic government. Libertarians would not do away with cops or the military. They would not do away with reasonable public safety regulations. Only the nutbags would sell the National Parks to private interests. What people are doing when discussing the philosophy in negative terms is exactly what is done to the mainstream parties by their opponents-- framing the philosophy in terms of its most unpalatable adherents. Not all Republicans are like Akin or Romney. Not all Democrats are like Sharpton.

I live in a closely fought swing state, so I have to vote for Obama, because the idea of a Romney presidency is terrifying-- I think it would lead to the destruction of the country's most cherished remaining values. But I wish the GOP candidate were not so repellent,; if he weren't, my vote would go to Johnson, a decent human being who understands the tragic toll the drug war has taken on our country.
 
2012-11-03 02:12:08 PM

Smeggy Smurf: pciszek: Smeggy Smurf: They will with one caveat. If they mess up, we hang them. That's what most libertarians and all rapeblicans and demoncrats don't understand. The carrot and stick approach is how you make Libertarianism work. Play fair, make money, don't hurt other people or we hang you. No exceptions.

Do you hang the actual people who did the bad stuff, or just the "corporation", leaving the people alive to do more bad stuff? If the former, do you hang the rank-and-file-we-were-only-following-orders employees, or the CEO?

You hang the bad people who implimented the bad stuff. I advocate starting with the CEO and working down until you get to the asshole exec that did it. The same goes for police. One bad cop beats the hell out of a disabled kid, hang the chief first, then the shift supervisor then the bad cop. And so forth. As long as there is evidence that the bad policy/actions/whatever have the approval of the higher ups, they're dead as well.

This does not go to say that a mail room thief hurts the CEO. Only the immediate supervisor. It would take quite a bit of work getting the particulars worked out but we have enough smart people with devious minds who can figure it out.

The whole idea is to have a solution. The assholes that hurt people without consequences will either hang or change their ways. Mostly I suspect that for the first year they'll hang. After a while though, the number of shiatheads hurting people will be reduced to the point where they no longer are a factor. Of course this will mean banks won't run as effeciently for a while but the bad apples won't be hurting the economy any more.


Historically speaking, you lynch some guy that nobody really liked anyway even though he had nothing to do with it, and probably gang-rape his women (who are property) for good measure. Meanwhile the local lordCEO indulgently pays for the torches and pitchforks, and makes it back by foreclosing on and taking the lynched fellow's property.
 
2012-11-03 02:15:20 PM

jso2897: Jarhead_h: cman: Inb4 Libertarian bashers muck up this thread with their confusion of Libertarianism and Conservatism

How about their deliberate confusion of libertarianism and Ayn Rand's cult? Am really tired of that shiat.

The distinction is that while Objectivism is autism expressed as an existential philosophy, Libertarianism is autism expressed as a political philosophy.


Man, that's mean.

People with autism have enough problems without you comparing them to Objectivists or Libertarians.
 
2012-11-03 02:16:12 PM

Kevin72: Jarhead_h: cman: Inb4 Libertarian bashers muck up this thread with their confusion of Libertarianism and Conservatism

How about their deliberate confusion of libertarianism and Ayn Rand's cult? Am really tired of that shiat.

Libertarian is just another way for Republicans to lie and say "I'm not a Republican. I'm a Libretarian. Really." See Bob Barr, RON PAUL, cman.


Well, I am technically a registered Republican, but I hate the Republican Party of 2012. And I voted for Gary Johnson, but I wouldn't consider myself full-blown Libertarian. Am I a liar? WTF is so awful about not contorting myself into fitting into these Dem and Rep boxes? Is that such a travesty and foreign to you?

All my GOP friends are so mad at me for "giving Obama the election" and all my lib friends (and wife) are mad at me for giving it to Rmoney.

Give me a candidate I WANT to vote for from one of the two parties, and I'll do it.

GOP - when you stop trying to invade every country in the Middle East, actually live up to some semblance of fiscal restraint, and stop smacking me with your bible penii, I might come back. But I will not be a Fox News Republican. I will not knob slob on St. Reagan. And I won't support sending me to Iran/Pakistan/Libya/Potatoland. So until then, I'll either vote for a Libertarian that I like, or not vote at all.

In conclusion, go nibble on a receptacle of dongs.
 
2012-11-03 02:17:51 PM

DamnYankees: BMulligan: Oh, and another thing. It makes no sense whatsoever to vote for someone who literally has no chance of actually winning the election - that's just throwing your vote away. Think about that before you pull that lever for Romney!

Well, it makes sense if you literally think neither Obama nor Romney is better than the other AT ALL. If you are 100%, truly and completely indifferent between Obama and Romney, then it makes sense to vote for a third party.


I live in Wyoming. There is zero chance Obama wins and so, with that knowledge, I'm free to vote for whomever I want with no impact to any national race.
 
2012-11-03 02:17:55 PM

joonyer: Oooh, Nader as a perjorative. You're SO edgy, subs!


Yes Nader is a pejorative. While 12 years later he is probably not the most hated man in America, it will not be forgotten that Nader gave the keys to the white house to the man who was vacationing in Crawford until the DAY BEFORE 9/11, lost the war on terror to clusterfark up Iraq, and put flushed our economy down the toilet after putting it in the toilet.
 
2012-11-03 02:23:18 PM

daveUSMC: Kevin72: Jarhead_h: cman: Inb4 Libertarian bashers muck up this thread with their confusion of Libertarianism and Conservatism

How about their deliberate confusion of libertarianism and Ayn Rand's cult? Am really tired of that shiat.

Libertarian is just another way for Republicans to lie and say "I'm not a Republican. I'm a Libretarian. Really." See Bob Barr, RON PAUL, cman.

Well, I am technically a registered Republican, but I hate the Republican Party of 2012. And I voted for Gary Johnson, but I wouldn't consider myself full-blown Libertarian. Am I a liar? WTF is so awful about not contorting myself into fitting into these Dem and Rep boxes? Is that such a travesty and foreign to you?

All my GOP friends are so mad at me for "giving Obama the election" and all my lib friends (and wife) are mad at me for giving it to Rmoney.

Give me a candidate I WANT to vote for from one of the two parties, and I'll do it.

GOP - when you stop trying to invade every country in the Middle East, actually live up to some semblance of fiscal restraint, and stop smacking me with your bible penii, I might come back. But I will not be a Fox News Republican. I will not knob slob on St. Reagan. And I won't support sending me to Iran/Pakistan/Libya/Potatoland. So until then, I'll either vote for a Libertarian that I like, or not vote at all.

In conclusion, go nibble on a receptacle of dongs.



At least you are honest enough to admit that you're a Republican and that GOP2012 has a problem (or two or three).
 
2012-11-03 02:24:24 PM

HeartBurnKid: delysid25: hey this guy that likes weed is running! Let's vote for him even though he has no chance of winning, so the guy who expressly says that he is against weed can win! Brilliant!!

Let's face it, neither mainstream candidate is pro-weed. Obama has stepped up marijuana enforcement, if anything; medical dispensaries have been closed down at a greater rate than under Bush. Plus, whenever he's been asked about legalizing it, all he does is laugh. Obama is not pro-pot, and I doubt his position will "evolve" like his position on gay marriage did.

That said, I'm pulling for Obama anyway because I'm an adult and I realize that weed is not the only issue in the world that matters.


My view is that I neither want nor need the President to be pushing for pot reform. That's up to ordinary people. It's up to things like Initiative 502 in Washington State - not because state legalization actually makes it legal (it'd remain a federal crime no matter what WA does), but because a popular vote in favor of legal weed makes it clear to the political world that being pro-weed isn't necessarily the electoral death sentence it's considered to be now.

I don't need a President who will lead on pot. I do want one who will follow. If the cultural tide in this country turns in favor of legalizing pot, I think there's at least some chance Obama will follow. That's not something I could say of Romney.
 
Displayed 50 of 230 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report