-
-
This is actually intelligent compared to many of the teenagers I've met.
-
-
Generalizations are fun!
-
♪┏(・o･)┛♪┗ ( ･o･) ┓♪┏ ( ) ┛♪┗ (･o･ ) ┓♪┏(･o･)┛♪
-
The autism is strong with this one.
-
Of course. Without tadpoles, we wouldn't have frogs or toads.
-
Neither. I'd rather leave this planet, to be honest. ¬_¬
-
-
-
When answering this question, one must keep in mind that Obama was handed the worst economy since the Depression and managed to improve it, whereas Bush was handed a booming economy and completely wrecked it. While I loathe Obama's decision to sign the National Defense Authorization Act, I would have to say that, overall, he has done an admirable job.
-
I think gender roles are an outdated and archaic concept that only serve to cause confusion and harm.
-
There are no other countries like Somalia. Even calling it a country is a stretch: it's a lawless hell-hole ruled by pirates and warlords, with no economy other than the black market drug trade. But, hey, at least there's no "big evil gub'mint" telling anyone what to do. Right, Teabaggers?
-
Somalia is a perfect example of what Ron Paul would have America turn into. I honestly think we should just export the entire Tea Party over there and see how they like it. Or, perhaps, If the neo-Confederates and Paultards like anarcho-capitalism so damn much, then they can move to China, where the air is black with smog and the rivers burn with toxic sludge. That horrific, soul-crushing smell? Oh, that's just the smell of pure, unregulated capitalism.
-
The people who push libertarianism doctor history so it looks like the gilded age was a utopia and that the government was responsible for everything from the cost of healthcare to the existence of monopolies and corporations. It's a brilliant scam, actually more like a religion. The ideology is self-reassuring: you start out with the assumption that libertarianism is right and anything that is wrong is caused by government intervention, then you cherry pick whatever facts you can get ahold of to prove it. Leaving out all the context that refutes said assertion, of course. You can't argue with people like that. At best, you can simply out all the myriad ways that they are wrong and hope fence-sitters take notice.
-
I was not aware.
-
That would be just about any Republican. As I said before, the "pro-life" lobby isn't really about concern for life, but about controlling women. Once you're born, you're just another maggot sucking the life out of the free market as far as the GOP is concerned.
-
I'm pro-choice. If abortion is murder, then male masturbation would be genocide. It's funny how fetuses are the only people conservatives care about. Ultimately, their agenda is not fueled by moral obligation, but by a deep-seated desire to control and debase women. And what's more controlling than telling her what she can and cannot do with her own body?
-
SO KAWAII UGUU~~~ ^______________^
-
They might have a chance with Monoko.
-
Barack Obama all the way. Here's why.
Ron Paul's "revolution" would mean NO:
1. Public schools
2. EPA
3. Social security
4. Federal Pell Grants
5. Medicare
6. Social safety net
7. Department of Energy
8. Department of Education
9. Federal Reserve
10. Civil Rights Act
11. Civil rights in general
Ron Paul would privatize most of our public services and put all of the power in the hands of corporations.
Paultards often like to parrot that, if we removed all economic regulations, the rising tide would lift all boats. But, since they're Paultards, they don't even think about the 19th century implementation that resulted in slavery, wage slavery, poorhouses, slums, child labor, and numerous economic crashes. Having no government does not equal greater freedom. Quite the opposite, in fact. Paul is a conservative in the true sense of the word, in that, if he had his way, he would send our economy back as far as the 9th century. It's utterly stupefying how anyone could consider that progress. Our economy may not be in the best shape right now, but retooling it into primitive fuedalism certainly wouldn't be helping anyone. That's like eating glass because you don't like the cake you got. Ron Paul is a misguided extremist with ZERO chance of ever stepping foot into the White House, yet, for some reason, his cult is so deluded that they've actually convinced themselves he can win, despite the fact that the Republican Party would never even consider nominating someone with psuedo-Libertarian beliefs.
To me, seeing a leftist defending Paul is very much akin to seeing a Jew defend Hitler. You really must wonder if they're stupid, misguided, self-loathing, or just very much stoned. It's pathetic how many "liberals" support Paul without even knowing what he truly stands for. Ron Paul is a psuedo-Libertarian who cares about one thing and one thing only: corporations. In his eyes, government agencies are only getting in the way of corporations screwing over hard-working Americans. Ron Paul may oppose regulations on drugs, but he also opposes regulations on corporations, Wall Street, the Voting Rights Act, and the economy. Because, after all, "liberty" means corporations should have total control over the entire country in the twisted view of Paul and his basement-dwelling cult. And this, my friends, is why it's important to attack any "liberal" who is willing to mindlessly drink the Ron Paul Kool-Aid.
And yes, I did write all of this myself.
-
lkjuiouhidhihspewzdpgawtxolokq
None of your goddamn business.
lkjuiouhidhihspewzdpga...’s Bio
Who am I?
Wants Questions About
- Psychology
- Arts
- Philosophy
- Politics
