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.

(NPR)   Republican college students spell doom for the GOP: Many are leaning Libertarian because the GOP is medieval on social issues, and even those who parrot Fox News talking points admit the party may have lost voters for the next 50 years   (npr.org) divider line 467
    More: Obvious, Fox News, GOP, Republican, talking points, lecture hall, political parties in the United States, students  
•       •       •

3760 clicks; posted to Politics » on 01 Mar 2013 at 11:39 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-01 12:21:35 PM  

skullkrusher: Mercutio74: skullkrusher: you can't govern a large and diverse country with a anarchistic or even minarchistic government. It just won't work. However, folding aspects of libertarianism into our modern, largely statist government is not a bad thing.

That's a different discussion altogether.

As far as that theory goes, one could argue that the US already has a disproportionately large amount of libertarianism already built into the system.  If it had a moderate to low amount of libertarianism class mobility wouldn't be as difficult as it is right now and there would be more than just the very rich prospering.

If anything, the US needs some more socialism... or more logically... reallocate some of  the socialist funding of the defense industry to infrastructure and the middle class.

abolition of corporations as we know them is entirely compatible with libertarianism and I'd argue necessary under it.


submitted before completing that thought. Abolition of corporations could do a great deal towards reducing income inequality
 
2013-03-01 12:22:02 PM  
I feel like the Congressional gridlock is like a zit, with the GOP at the head. It's really painful and ugly right now, but there's no way it can stand the pressure. We just have to suffer through the pain a little longer until the gridlock pops and lets all that juicy freedom flow forth.
 
2013-03-01 12:22:08 PM  
Hey, I'm still a registered repub, have been for nearly 40 years. I did it so that I can vote for the worst possible candidate in the primaries (I was "Massachusetts Jew for Huckabee" in 2008) and it's sooo easy to say no when they call up and ask for money.
 
2013-03-01 12:22:58 PM  

verbaltoxin: "But the free market!" no it won't. You already have huge, multinational actors with considerable power over resources, labor and governments. What do you think would happen if we took the few chains we have off? You think they'd be gracious benedictors and disband so little guys could compete? No! They'd go to war and the only victors would be modern day Rockefellers. It'd be Standard Oil and Carnegie Steel all over again.


Any Libertarian that says "but the free market!" is, in actuality saying "but the free market except when I'm losing money, then it shouldn't be a free market!"
 
2013-03-01 12:23:26 PM  

Renart: IrateShadow: Libertarians these days aren't much different from mainstream Republicans except for their love of weed and bitcoins.

In Austin I saw a guy at a Ron Paul rally holding up a sign reading "SELF OWNERSHIP" on one side and "RAW MILK" on the other. If that doesn't get the kids fired up about Libertarianism, I don't know what will!


Dude, there is a certain segment of the hipster population that is absolutely up in arms about non pasteurized cheese products.
 
2013-03-01 12:23:29 PM  

skullkrusher: abolition of corporations as we know them is entirely compatible with libertarianism and I'd argue necessary under it.


Please proceed governor...

/I am truly interested in hearing you elaborate on that point, even though this is Fark
//I mean actually do elaborate, how would you stop people from making de facto corporations, even if you couldn't form them under law
 
2013-03-01 12:25:35 PM  

busy chillin': You mean younger people don't hate gays, women, women's freedom to choose, minorities, non-Xtians, and people with less money.

that is fantastic!

You don't have to be an asshole to be a Republican. But it helps.


And when they look past the rhetoric to see that Republican is not the party of fiscal responsibility either...
 
2013-03-01 12:25:37 PM  
So, based on the headline, am I to infer that libertarians aren't midieval on social issues?
 
2013-03-01 12:26:28 PM  

Noam Chimpsky: I never hear the Libertarian Party jump into these fiscal fights. They aren't making noise about the federal government's usurpation of state powers. "Defense of Women Act", and so forth. I bet if you polled all the self-proclaimed "Libertarians", they'd be all in favor of that shiat.


Well, the fundamental problem of the Libertarians in organizational terms (as opposed to philosophical terms) is that they're fundamentally about every person doing what they can do, up to the line where certain things  cannot be done by private enterprise.

Since the whole point is to not rely on centralized anything, and experts are experts by common consensus and thus actively denied by the party's functional philosophy... well, where that "this can't be done by private industry" line is becomes kind of a matter of the individual's personal opinion or knowledge.

The problem (again, from an organizational/vote-getting perspective, not a philosophical perspective, by the libertarian philosophy this is fine) is not that if you asked a libertarian whether (your example) the VAWAct falls under the government overreach category they wouldn't have an answer.  It's that if you asked five libertarians the question, you'd get eight mutually-exclusive answers.
 
2013-03-01 12:26:31 PM  
My cockles are warming up.
 
2013-03-01 12:26:41 PM  

MisterTweak: dr_blasto: skullkrusher: you can't govern a large and diverse country with a anarchistic or even minarchistic government.

Anarchistic government? Is that where you vote for a president and he never shows up to work or immediately quits after election?

Rick Perry and Sarah Palin would like a word...


You're mistaking "Autistic government" for "Anarchistic government" it seems.
 
2013-03-01 12:27:13 PM  

hubiestubert: The sad fact is, many Libertarians are just Republicans who want to smoke pot, and that is not the basis for real progress.


A large majority of my close friends are Libertarian for this reason. They think Democrats are hippies and Republicans are bat-shiat insane so they vote Libertarian/Independent.

Their mostly musicians... they can't help it. Well, they could, but there's pot to smoke!
 
2013-03-01 12:27:23 PM  

Mercutio74: skullkrusher: abolition of corporations as we know them is entirely compatible with libertarianism and I'd argue necessary under it.

Please proceed governor...

/I am truly interested in hearing you elaborate on that point, even though this is Fark
//I mean actually do elaborate, how would you stop people from making de facto corporations, even if you couldn't form them under law



I too would like to see your newsletter SK...
 
2013-03-01 12:27:26 PM  

slayer199: Ah, good to see all the Fark libs and conservatives hating on the LP.  Republicans hate us because of our social liberalism and Democrats hate us because of our fiscal conservatism.     Both sides do everything they can to exclude the LP (and the Green Party) from the process.  Why?  Fear.  A party that promotes social liberalism, fiscal conservatism, personal responsibility and smaller government will resonate with voters.


If there's a viable third party, I'd like to see it. The LP is a disastrous collection of Randians and stoners that have an increasingly loose grip on how politics and economics work. The Greens will never be more than they were under Nader because public perception of the party is, it's a bunch of hippies, PETA folks, and radical environmentalists. Both parties are damaged goods at this point.

/was a member of LP until they went off the deep end in early 2009
 
2013-03-01 12:27:54 PM  
*they're

Motherf*cker, when will I learn to use preview?
 
2013-03-01 12:28:14 PM  

skullkrusher: skullkrusher: Mercutio74: skullkrusher: you can't govern a large and diverse country with a anarchistic or even minarchistic government. It just won't work. However, folding aspects of libertarianism into our modern, largely statist government is not a bad thing.

That's a different discussion altogether.

As far as that theory goes, one could argue that the US already has a disproportionately large amount of libertarianism already built into the system.  If it had a moderate to low amount of libertarianism class mobility wouldn't be as difficult as it is right now and there would be more than just the very rich prospering.

If anything, the US needs some more socialism... or more logically... reallocate some of  the socialist funding of the defense industry to infrastructure and the middle class.

abolition of corporations as we know them is entirely compatible with libertarianism and I'd argue necessary under it.

submitted before completing that thought. Abolition of corporations could do a great deal towards reducing income inequality


It could, but I'd have to hear what you're going to replace it with first.  There does need to be a way to recognize, in a legal fashion, when individuals choose to work collectively.  There's a number of things we'd expect the free market to provide (as it should) that only become profitable/efficient when done on a scale out of reach of most individuals.
 
2013-03-01 12:28:38 PM  

hubiestubert: . I tried for years to try to help steer us out of the hole, but folks kept saying "DIG FASTER! IT'S THE ONLY WAY!"


No, no, dig UP, stupid!

i3.ytimg.com
 
2013-03-01 12:29:13 PM  

keylock71: My Libertarian friends get all bent out of shape when they can barely managed to get double digit numbers of support for their candidates, but they fail to see that they are the ones who have to convince the voters why they should support the LP. They spout platitudes and ideals, but hardly ever explain how these ideals will be achieved in the real world.


It doesn't help that they're smug, condescending bastards, even when their arguments are bottom-of-the-barrel retarded.
 
2013-03-01 12:29:13 PM  

Renart: In Austin I saw a guy at a Ron Paul rally holding up a sign reading "SELF OWNERSHIP" on one side and "RAW MILK" on the other. If that doesn't get the kids fired up about Libertarianism, I don't know what will!


I'm kind of in favor of raw milk, but only because I want really good cheese.  Current law kind of mucks that up.  But what's "self ownership?"  Is that a reference to the conspiracy theory about the fed taking owning you because they out a loan in your name when you're born?
 
2013-03-01 12:30:21 PM  
I'm 34.  In my life time I've moved from voting mostly Republican to trying to avoid voting Republican in any race at any level.
 
2013-03-01 12:31:14 PM  

Zerochance: keylock71: My Libertarian friends get all bent out of shape when they can barely managed to get double digit numbers of support for their candidates, but they fail to see that they are the ones who have to convince the voters why they should support the LP. They spout platitudes and ideals, but hardly ever explain how these ideals will be achieved in the real world.

It doesn't help that they're smug, condescending bastards, even when their arguments are bottom-of-the-barrel retarded.


img.photobucket.com

Image attachment FAIL
 
2013-03-01 12:32:14 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: I'm 34.  In my life time I've moved from voting mostly Republican to trying to avoid voting Republican in any race at any level.


You sound college educated and middle class.
 
2013-03-01 12:32:49 PM  

slayer199: Ah, good to see all the Fark libs and conservatives hating on the LP.  Republicans hate us because of our social liberalism and Democrats hate us because of our fiscal conservatism.     Both sides do everything they can to exclude the LP (and the Green Party) from the process.  Why?  Fear.  A party that promotes social liberalism, fiscal conservatism, personal responsibility and smaller government will resonate with voters.


"F-you, I got mine" is social liberalism?
 
2013-03-01 12:33:21 PM  

CapeFearCadaver: hubiestubert: The sad fact is, many Libertarians are just Republicans who want to smoke pot, and that is not the basis for real progress.

A large majority of my close friends are Libertarian for this reason. They think Democrats are hippies and Republicans are bat-shiat insane so they vote Libertarian/Independent.

Their mostly musicians... they can't help it. Well, they could, but there's pot to smoke!


Being a musician myself, I also know a good deal of Libertarians.  Not all are drug users, but all are self-important narcissists who seem to feel any sort of communal living is a HUGE infringement on their liberties.
 
2013-03-01 12:33:45 PM  

Arkanaut: dittybopper: So remind me again why I shouldn't vote libertarian?

What do you mean by libertarian?


I guess I should explain myself -- my impression is that in general people say they're "libertarian" to mean they're social liberals but economic conservatives (and possible foreign-policy doves / isolationists), but I think from a philosophical perspective there's no necessary basis for that second part.  After all you're calling yourself a "libertarian" and not an "anarchist" -- you must believe in some role for government, and some level of taxation to support those functions.  To a certain extent, a "libertarian" government will over time end up resembling a representative democracy -- at some point, elected representatives from all over society will have to come together to decide what powers or responsibilities to give or take away from government, in response to the world evolving around them, and IMO that could very well include some liberal policies.

Also, as an aside, I'm not sure how a libertarian government would deal with issues of corruption, which I feel is one of the major problems with our current form of government.
 
2013-03-01 12:34:12 PM  

UNC_Samurai: If there's a viable third party, I'd like to see it.


Might look into the Greens.  They're sort of focused on the local/regional level, so their POTUS and congressional candidates are usually the only farkers nuts enough to actually want to run, but the actual local and regional candidates are actually... usually very solid, and aware that they have to build enough cachet to essentially run as an independent candidate, so they often have a lot more practical experience in what they're trying for than the big party candidates.

Not necessarily your cup of tea, but viable enough in context so long as you're willing to actually be politically informed and look at candidates instead of party line.

/was a member of LP until they went off the deep end in early 2009

Um, speaking as someone that's been moderately active in politics since I was an asshole teenager, a better wording for that might be "since I  realized they were off the deep end in early 2009".  They... haven't actually changed substantially in character or craziness since at least the '90s.

No real distinct turning points or platform changes a la the GOP's gradual transition post-big-tent.
 
2013-03-01 12:34:30 PM  
i796.photobucket.com
mission accomplished
 
2013-03-01 12:34:45 PM  
Muta: "... In the 3 years I've been at Liberty University , not once has anyone asked what my political feelings are...."

>implying Liberty University is a real college to anyone but bible thumpers.
 
2013-03-01 12:35:11 PM  

palelizard: Solkar: hubiestubert: It's not just college kids, folks. Unless the party purges the Crazy Train, they're not going to get my vote either, and I'm in my early 40s. At this point, it's not just the social issues, but how economic issues are used to further those social issues, and how the refusal to contemplate prudent fiscal policy is draining the nation's coffers and impacting growth and opportunity. The party isn't just out of touch, the leadership is actively promoting an agenda that is curtailing the nation's future.

Not that a lot Libertarians are any better. The typical Libertarian candidate today promotes an agenda that is naught but a brand of NeoFeudalism that is even worse than their Republican counterparts. I had hopes for the Modern Whigs, but the TEA Party nonsense pretty much ate up their momentum, which is exactly what it was designed to do. The sad fact is, many Libertarians are just Republicans who want to smoke pot, and that is not the basis for real progress. We need better thinking, not just the same old, with a few whistles and bells to draw in the unwary...

Can you read my mind?

I see... mildly deviant smut, and early lunch cravings.


Only *mildly* deviant? Other than that, pretty much spot on.
 
2013-03-01 12:35:41 PM  

skullkrusher: Mercutio74: skullkrusher: you can't govern a large and diverse country with a anarchistic or even minarchistic government. It just won't work. However, folding aspects of libertarianism into our modern, largely statist government is not a bad thing.

That's a different discussion altogether.

As far as that theory goes, one could argue that the US already has a disproportionately large amount of libertarianism already built into the system.  If it had a moderate to low amount of libertarianism class mobility wouldn't be as difficult as it is right now and there would be more than just the very rich prospering.

If anything, the US needs some more socialism... or more logically... reallocate some of  the socialist funding of the defense industry to infrastructure and the middle class.

abolition of corporations as we know them is entirely compatible with libertarianism and I'd argue necessary under it.


Abolition in favor of what, though? Elimination of corporate "personhood" or possibly making their board criminally liable for their actions? Replacement with collectives? I know there's probably a lot of alternatives out there, but no method to implement them exists without spilling lots and lots of blood.

I get some of the libertarian ideals, I can understand the desire to be left alone--especially from those who are already moderately successful. I do, though, believe in heavy regulation of industry and business, which requires a healthy and likely somewhat large (at least not "small") government. Oversight and managed markets, to me, is very much better than laisses-faire capitalism any day. Look back to the last financial crisis and imagine how much more often and how much worse those incidents would be without the very light regulation we have today. I think that would be awful.
 
2013-03-01 12:35:43 PM  
To be fair, a lot of people are self-described libertarians because they think the GOP does not punish the poors sufficiently.
 
2013-03-01 12:36:23 PM  
libertarianism is fine as a personal political philosophy, it makes little sense as a governing philosophy.
 
2013-03-01 12:37:11 PM  

Zerochance: img.photobucket.com

Image attachment FAIL


shiat like that makes me want to punch a baby. I had a libertarian cousin post that exact same thing on their wall and I couldn't resit a response, so I posted

"Yes because the City of Chicago has a giant 50 yard wide moat and 50 foot high steel walls around it, with robotic sentries at all entry points, and laser xray scanning detection equipment that vaporizes any gun it detects"
 
2013-03-01 12:38:02 PM  

Rwa2play: verbaltoxin: "But the free market!" no it won't. You already have huge, multinational actors with considerable power over resources, labor and governments. What do you think would happen if we took the few chains we have off? You think they'd be gracious benedictors and disband so little guys could compete? No! They'd go to war and the only victors would be modern day Rockefellers. It'd be Standard Oil and Carnegie Steel all over again.

Any Libertarian that says "but the free market!" is, in actuality saying "but the free market except when I'm losing money, then it shouldn't be a free market!"


A whole pile of those same people are fully in support of privitization of profit and socialization of risk. The rich fully expect to stay rich, at any cost--it is their right.
 
2013-03-01 12:38:30 PM  

dittybopper: So remind me again why I shouldn't vote libertarian?


Because they're nothing more than tea party dicks who smoke pot.
 
2013-03-01 12:38:39 PM  

Zerochance: keylock71: My Libertarian friends get all bent out of shape when they can barely managed to get double digit numbers of support for their candidates, but they fail to see that they are the ones who have to convince the voters why they should support the LP. They spout platitudes and ideals, but hardly ever explain how these ideals will be achieved in the real world.

It doesn't help that they're smug, condescending bastards, even when their arguments are bottom-of-the-barrel retarded.


Some of them certainly are... I keep telling a friend of mine that calling people "ignorant, lazy statist leaches" because they won't vote the way you want them to isn't really the best way to get them to accept your political ideologies. They're really good at telling you what is wrong with Democratic and Republican policies, what is wrong with Socialism etc., yet their rhetoric is amazingly light regarding how they plan to put their ideology in place in the democratic republic we currently live in.
 
2013-03-01 12:39:07 PM  

Mercutio74: skullkrusher: abolition of corporations as we know them is entirely compatible with libertarianism and I'd argue necessary under it.

Please proceed governor...

/I am truly interested in hearing you elaborate on that point, even though this is Fark
//I mean actually do elaborate, how would you stop people from making de facto corporations, even if you couldn't form them under law


the aspect of corporations that is incompatible with libertarianism, imo, is the limited liability of the ownership. If you own a plumbing contractor that is set up as an llc and you flood a person's house destroying their priceless collection of Beanie Babies, barring criminal negligence, they can only hope to recoup from the business and not you and your partners. This is incompatible with libertarianism in my view as it hinders a person's recourse in response to a rights violation. People should not be able to shield themselves from liability in that way. Making the corporation a separate entity from the people who own and run it is contrary to the most basic right-libertarian principle of protection of property rights.
 
2013-03-01 12:39:33 PM  
FTFA: Leone is a fiscal conservative, but when it comes to the GOP, he thinks the party needs to take a different approach to some issues.
 "They need to change their outlook, especially on social issues, which is why I identify myself more as Libertarian," Leone says. "But I think that they are still very much in the right in terms of economic issues, the Republicans are."

So in other words, you're a moran.
 
2013-03-01 12:39:54 PM  
Tea Party, Libertarian Party, Constitution Party, etc... They're all just regressives that are ashamed of the Republican label.
 
2013-03-01 12:40:01 PM  

dittybopper: So remind me again why I shouldn't vote libertarian?



I can't think of a single reason.
It might be refreshing to vote for a candidate, rather than vote against one. I've been going the "lesser of two evils" route for the last 30 years.
 
2013-03-01 12:40:43 PM  

RexTalionis: hubiestubert: Not that a lot Libertarians are any better.

Libertarians are Republicans who are embarrassed to call themselves Republicans.


Libertarians are what Republicans should be. Instead, it got hijacked by the Christian Right
 
2013-03-01 12:40:48 PM  

TV's Vinnie: dittybopper: So remind me again why I shouldn't vote libertarian?

[i46.tinypic.com image 400x618]


http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ar_libertarianism_qa
 
2013-03-01 12:41:12 PM  

Mercutio74: skullkrusher: abolition of corporations as we know them is entirely compatible with libertarianism and I'd argue necessary under it.

Please proceed governor...

/I am truly interested in hearing you elaborate on that point, even though this is Fark
//I mean actually do elaborate, how would you stop people from making de facto corporations, even if you couldn't form them under law


The problem with corporatism as it relates to libertarianism is that there's no personal responsibility or accountability.

If a CEO was held legally and criminally liable for the actions of corporate misconduct, we'd see a lot less corporate misconduct. As it stands a company is only responsible to their stockholders and the stockholder's primary interest is to see the stock increase and/or pay dividends.
 
2013-03-01 12:42:19 PM  

what_now: slayer199: Ah, good to see all the Fark libs and conservatives hating on the LP.  Republicans hate us because of our social liberalism and Democrats hate us because of our fiscal conservatism.     Both sides do everything they can to exclude the LP (and the Green Party) from the process.  Why?  Fear.  A party that promotes social liberalism, fiscal conservatism, personal responsibility and smaller government will resonate with voters.

It would, if such a party existed. The libretartian party thinks we can simply free market the poor into not existing, which has never worked in the history of humanity, and the majority of this country doesn't think Dickensian England would be a nice place to live.


Well, that's always where the idea tends to go sideways.

We have this collective myth in America- partially embedded in the persuasion rhetoric of the founders- that whenever you remove a measure of power or control from an entity, it automagically defaults back to that nebulous thing called "the People."  It'd be lovely if there was a mechanism by which that would actually happen.  Instead, power does what it usually does- fill a vacuum by defaulting to the next most powerful in line, those best-positioned to take advantage of it with the resources they already have.  That is almost never "the People," at least not as most people would use the term.

To an extent the Republicans and Democrats both acknowledge this, even as they mostly dance around saying it; the argument is which of the two heaviest powermongers, big government or big business, presents the greatest threat to the liberty of the individual and needs to be reigned in.  (Or put another way, the choice is which is the lesser of two authoritarian-leaning approaches to settle for.  And, yes, they also define some of these terms and goals a little differently; but one flu-medication fueled rant at a time, here...)  Libertarians acknowledge the authoritarian leanings of the whole system, rail against it at length...  and then leave us waiting to hear where the magical redistribution of power and liberty will come from, without simply relabeling authoritarianism.

There's an idea that ultimate freedom is actually a pretty good recipe for Hell: do as you please, but brace yourself for a million other unbound devils doing as they please to you.  If there's a core "fear of Libertarianism," it's that unchaining all the giants at once will only drop us all squarely in The Hell of Do As Thou Will, surrounded by the older kids with the bigger sticks.  Their answers as to what might keep that from happening tend to be unconvincing.
 
2013-03-01 12:43:02 PM  

dittybopper: So remind me again why I shouldn't vote libertarian?


Well you wouldn't if you want to see less Democrats in office.

Seriously, third party votes are a waste of time nationally. So if you want to see the opposite ideology in office then by all means vote the third rail. I don't mind, it works for those of us who work towards more and better dems.
 
2013-03-01 12:43:13 PM  

Bad_Seed: The Name: And even then, "Libertarian" is often just a stop on the road to outright "liberal."  It'll probably take just a couple more years of college (and if not by then, certainly grad school) for some of these kids to realize that libertarianism is just a big of a crock as regular old Republicanism.

Personally, I found leaving college and getting a job to be far more effective at shattering any "libertarian" illusions about how the world is run. It's one thing to sit around and talk about how the government is going to take your money and slow down your talents, but once you become a corporate drone and realise that your employer is going to use you and screw you the earliest chance they get, you learn to appreciate some of these "socialist" ideas like workers rights, and social insurance.


Pretty much that.  Nothing disabuses you of any notions of being a Randian superman like the real world.
 
2013-03-01 12:43:47 PM  

keylock71: Here's the thing that keeps me from voting for Libertarians.I do like what a lot of Libertarians say, but there's also a lot of their platform that just strikes me as having a total disregard for those who, for whatever reason, aren't able to "pull themselves up by their boot straps" and "take care of themselves". Their ideology never seems to address that in any detail.


The funny thing is that right wingers will mock participation awards and "everyones a winner" attitudes in schools or wherever. And then claim that in the economy if everyone tried hard enough everyone would be a winner, so their would be no need for socialist welfare payments and the like.

The economy isn't a zero sum game of course, but there will always be people that end up with little marketable skills, and with no negotiating power their wages will be pushed down by the market until they have just enough to survive and no more   (as long as no disasters occur like health problems), the only solution is either unions (which can never cover everything) or government intervention to limit how much advantage can be taken of the economically powerless at the bottom of the system.
 
2013-03-01 12:44:07 PM  

GAT_00: Because industrial feudalism is a really bad way to run the world.


Not all Libertarianism is equivalent to some Randian dystopia. There are many flavors and varieties of Libertarianism as there are of other kinds of American politics.

/registered Green
 
2013-03-01 12:44:12 PM  
deathstarpr.com

You have done THAT to yourself.
 
2013-03-01 12:45:14 PM  

Uranus Is Huge!: Libertarian Party, Constitution Party, etc... They're all just regressives that are ashamed of the Republican label.


I for one would like to see a debate between Libertarian and Constitution party candidates. I think there might be more differences than commonly assumed.
 
Displayed 50 of 467 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report