This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Liberal Or Libertarian? Take The World's Shortest Political Quiz
Unsure of your political leanings? Then take this brief quiz and all will become clear...
Click image for link to take test...
LIBERTARIAN
Libertarians support maximum liberty in both personal and economic matters. They advocate a much smaller government; one that is limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence. Libertarians tend to embrace individual responsibility, oppose government bureaucracy and taxes, promote private charity, tolerate diverse lifestyles, support the free market, and defend civil liberties.
»
- 34416 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
LTER,
I think the problems with offshoring are mostly created by the government. Regulations covering payroll, unemployment, "safety" (I know of a company that was going to be fined $1,000,000 by the EPA for having an "improperly labeled" 5 gallon pail of solvent that anybody could buy from Home depot. They got the fine down to $200,000 after spending $500,000 on lawyers. Another had to pay $10,000 to have an entire dumpster of construction material treated as hazardous waste because someone put one broken fluorescent tube in it.
These sorts of things are no big deal for a large company, but can and do wipe out a small company. Intellectual property is another area that has been turned into just one more scam by the government. 90% of the patents issued are only valuable for intimidating competitors. Have you heard about the Apple patent on a rectangular screen with rounded edges? I wish I was smart enough to think up brilliant new ideas like that.
It is not the small businesses that are damaging the country by offshoring, it is the large bloated companies that would mostly be broken up or out of business, if they didn't have the government fighting for them to destroy competition from the small businesses that create jobs here in the US.
One word: BP. Actually one more word: TEPCO. Private companies that didn't do the right thing and did massive environmental damage for profit.
"Competitive" companies gobble up other companies, right? Growth for competitive private companies is imperative and non-negotiable, right?
monopolies, duopolies, cartels
They did not do massive environmental damage for profit. I challenge you to find the insider BP plan entitled "Having a massive underwater oil spill for fun and profit. Our new plan for future expansion." It doesn't exist and you know it. No one in BP wanted a gigantic oil spill any more than anyone else.
In the leftist world nothing bad ever happens. There is no risk. Nothing ever spills, breaks, blows up, short circuits, crashes, burns or otherwise malfunctions. It is a fantasy world. Just like the government moon shot a few space ships blew up on the way to the moon as part of the learning curve.
Every single thing the government knows about anything in order to regulate it comes from the people who actually have learned how to do it, i.e., the free nongovernmental people. These people have had to learn through sometimes fatal errors how to do stuff and what surprises can come up to bite you.
Why didn't the government just step in and close the well on it's own? Why didn't the genius government just do it all by itself? Because it did not know how. It did not have either the engineering expertise, equipment or even people who knew how to do it. Private companies are the only ones who know.
Leftist libs like battery powered cars, windmills, etc. without counting the extremely dirty process of making, using, powering and then disposing of the batteries. It is a part of their energy fantasies.
BP is government.
See?
Neither one did massive environmental damage for profit. They cut corners for profit, and that caused massive environmental damage.
I rent space in a building made in the 30's or 40's with asbestos cement ceiling panels that would take thermite to burn through, and the A-hole fire inspector made me remove all the top shelves I installed because having boxes higher than the sprinkler heads violated some code, but the government limits liability on oil spills and nuclear "accidents" so BP and TEPCO don't need to worry about destroying entire countries.
I put accidents in quotes, because I had read that the height of sea wall that was supposed to protect the reactors was based on a 1000 year event. Well guess what? Japan had 50 reactors, so a 1000 year event would be expected to happen at one of them in 20 years. They had an engineer that specified a proper sea wall, but they told him to shut the fuck up and had someone else OK a shorter one to save a few Yen.
Don't you think there would be a lot less of this behaviour if the company executives had to pay the price for gross negligence?
"Don't you think there would be a lot less of this behaviour if the company executives had to pay the price for gross negligence? "
Make 'em all live inside or next door to the facilities/reactors/on the wells, etc....
Seal the doors if anything happens. No exit for the Executives and their families until fire is out/leak is plugged/waste is contained and safely remediated, etc...
You're not the only lefty/libby...you don't need to defend what's correct. It is self evident to those with a brain. The rest just are just temporarily embarrassed millionaires that vote red out of hate. Like I said about the brain thing...
I will take on the merits of offshoring. The way you ask the question is loaded with meaning.
I will bet you that all your problems with offshoring still relate to government.
Let's throw in fake trade deficits for fun, too.
Still looking for the party that is an amalgam of Lysander Spooner and Ian Paisely.
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/l/lysander_spooner.html
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/ian-paisley-never-never-never-an...
Ian Paisley....
Best recruiter the IRA could have hoped for!
Why do you think he lived so long?
Peter King approves that comment? I may be remembering wrong, but from your posts I've seen before, I thought you are a man of logic/reason aka an atheist.
I said no to that and I still got libratarian
Actually, no.
The only fundamental litmus test for whether you are libertarian is whether you adhere to the non-aggression principle (NAP). Policy preferences which overtly conflict with the NAP are certain evidence that any person(s) holding them is not libertarian, regardless of other preferences which may give that superficial appearance. For example:
Ron Paul is libertarian; Rand Paul is not.
Swiss foreign policy is libertarian; American is not.
A person favoring drug legalization isn't "libertarian" if he also supports armed intrusion in the affairs of other countries. He's merely "conservative", "liberal", or "libertine". Nothing to do with being "libertarian".
No prescribed set of specific policy preferences defines libertarianism and libertarians need agree about nothing other than the NAP. This is why libertarians cannot be firmly leg-ironed to any particular policy position along the traditional left-right political spectrum.
Yeah, BKbroiler, I agree with you on that, and also stumbled on the "no draft" question. I think all citizens should form militias, and keep and bear arms for their society.
Bogus test is bogus.
I answered no to free trade and it rated me Libertarian, which, as it happens, I am.
If you can sell an apple to someone across the street, you should be free to sell an apple to someone across the ocean. The fact that government involvement and subsidies fuck this balance up and screw the job market is not really part of this equation and not a libertarian's fault. End of story.
do you support social liberal programs yes or no
do you want t pay for thm yes of no
answer no to question one you are conservative
answer yes to both you are a liberal
answer yes to one and no to two you are a libertarian, i.e a liberalwho dosn't want pay for it
You don't have to support it, you just have to not support the idea of holding a gun to people's heads to prevent them from outsourcing jobs at their own companies. There are other ways to discourage the overseas flow of jobs other than the threat of violence, you know.
I'm almost to 2nd base!
Run Forrest, run!
Likewise.
Welcome to the database.
I got to thrid base, but then she smacked me in the mouth. Such is life.
al qaeda?
why am i aroused by your graphic, bunghole?
Because you have a pulse?
i just passed second base and onto 3rd.
Bring on MeatLoaf....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmPMMitJDYg
What if you're a gay black woman who practices Satanism, and you have a perfect libertarian score; does it still count?
No but you can play golf on someone else's dime
I supported the right of gay couples to protect their pot farm with automatic weapons.
Look me up.
Somewhere out there Ricky-Bob and Meatloaf are thanking you.
I don't vote, but if you can get on the ballot, I may reconsider.
I'm a half Australian Aborigine/ Half Eskimo Bisexual Midget. Where's MY parade?
I don't know. I think it depends on your score.
You only get a parade if you're a transgender transexual.
Which generally means you discovered that your a woman in a man's body, switched genders, then discovered that you're now a man trapped in woman's body, or vice-versa, which generally means you're really fucked up in the head.
So the score doesn't count.
Only if you're into gender bending.
Speaking of........has anyone seen the Tranny In Chief?
And we're not talkin bout Sasquatch, a.k.a The Wookie.
Of course the score doesn't count. Does anyone care what the score was to the Superbowl last year?
People only care about the illusion of winning.
Cut me some slack, Bob.
You get a 10 from me!
Perfect score!
Your key to Slack!
Why the fuck does everything need a parade anyway?
One question that I must ask....
How did your parents meet?
Circus tent is thataway ------>
Identity politics is very non-libertarian. We treasure individuals,
but in any case, she's comped on the Satanism;)
selecting "disagree" all the way down is 100% Statist.
Does anybody have the answer key to this test?
Sure. The key to this test is to ignore it.
Pretty lame quiz. The questions are clearly very weighted.
That is no where close to the "World's Shortest Political Quiz.
Here's mine: "Should any good or service be provided at the barrel of a gun?"
Yes. Revolution.
Tree of Liberty needing to be refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants.... and all that jazz. Tree of Liberty is looking a little dried out lately. I suspect watering time draws nearer.
I went to the first "Tea Party" event on April 15th the first year of the current administration.
I left after the speaker got a standing ovation when he said that we must make our government pay for its military and guarantee the SS's payment to senior citizens.
100% libertarian on test
I have been to several in the past, when they first came to prominence. The myth is that they have any unifying philosophy. They have no particular philosophy. They are pretty good on what they are against but have not a clue as to what they are for. There were usually some libertarians there but they were not dominant. In Oklahoma it was like fire breathing evangelical revival. I had to leave.
I DO think they could be persuaded and led down a smaller government path as they are open to that, but if you threaten S.Security many will bolt and go off the deep end. If I had to classify I'd say they are sort of responsible centrist fiscal conservatives. However, they actually have no answers to anything.
I knew it. Anarchist.
Libertarians are nothing but a ragtag bunch of brain dead ideology regurgitating cultish sheep.
You forgot to mention UFO's.
Yeah. Good refutation of their arguments and rationales. It's a good thing the leftists don't do that.
Why argue with crazy, just call it what it is and go on about your business...
People thought they could argue, reason and refute leftist ideology and look at where that got us.
All ideologies are political force with the intent of making the world over into some preconceived notion of prefection, where everybody believes and acts accordingly. In that respect, there is absolutely no difference between Libertarians and Communists.
I took the test imagining I was Ayn Rand, and my real score was higher than hers.
Suck it, Ayn!
The hardest part of being a libertarian is living it.
that was good, i need that !
So, you're a libertarian! How many politicians have you slayed?
Slain..., and we should all take the Fif;)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4vf8N6GpdM
Have a good weekend, everyone.
Precision in language is important if you want to make a point in a clear and concise manner.
WIN
English is not my first language, so I get a free our of jail card. I actually appreciate corrections. Thanks.
It's easier said than done. Rome burned, not because of collectivism.
Rome burned from within... The walls were breached long before the " Trojan Horse".
Faith and Honesty were compromised. Men & Women took advantage of the most impenetrable strength.(honesty)
The walls of honesty can never be breached. That is the foundation of a Republic, and what our forefathers envisioned.
Tyranny will always be at our doorstep. It's our responsibilty as individuals, to have faith in one another... If the time comes to protect our way of life.
Lol.
The walls of honesty have been torn down and used for ballast for the Ship Of Fools.
The walls of honesty are alive and well my friend. You've obviously been duped, or would have no knowledge of such transgressions.
The point I'm trying to make is... Men respect each other if they are honest with each other.
Honesty?
Not one politician or bureaucrat in a thousand is honest.
Wall St. is a den of thieves.
Medical/pharma/insurance industries?
America is suffering a decades long drought of honesty from north to south and from sea to shining sea...
I am pretty sure that if Barrack Obama took this quiz, he would write in 'Present' all the way down.
The test is bullshit. No questions reflecting conservative values, like 2nd Amendment, abortion, immigration, adherence to the Constitution. No questions reflecting liberal values, like screw your neighbor out of his money, suck off the gov't from cradle to grave, let all the criminals out of jail and don't put anymore in jail, stick a pair of scissors in every infants' skull, never win a war, kill all the cops in Ferguson, watch Honey Boo Boo on TV because you miss your family, don't ask any questions about Obama and Kenya, believe every lie the government tells you, rewrite history to show Lincoln and Washington were bi-sexual trannies, and donate money (someone else's) to PBS. The test is bullshit.
Here, this quiz may be more your speed.
Or maybe this one.
Don't need a quiz or a label to know who I am and what I stand for.
I should hope not!
Especially if you're a Nazi.
But would you stand for free Chik Fil-A sandwiches for a year?
Standing for the National Anthem says a lot about a person.
"Standing for the National Anthem says a lot about a person."
I've never seen a politician that didn't stand for the National Anthem.
You need better litmus tests...
When I grew up in the 1950s, the question was this:
When watching a game on TV, to you rise off your arse in the livingroom and sing the National Anthem.
This quiz presupposes the existence (or need) of government. Filled with double binds.
It is therefore invalid.
For example, the concept of "free speech" is only valid on government owned property. In a world of private property ONLY, free speech wouldn't be an issue.
All militaries should be private, not government.
Not smaller governments, NO governments.
Pitchforks, not reforms.
Guillotines, not ballots.
Go big or go home, baby!
This test is mis-labeled.
It should be titled "Are you a Libertarian or a DemoPublican" ?
Even though "libertarian" and "liberal" share the same Latin root (libertas), they are worlds apart in philosophy.
Really?
Classical liberalism is a political philosophy and ideology belonging to liberalism in which primary emphasis is placed on securing the freedom of the individual by limiting the power of the government.....lol
Maybe they should read that again forward?
Do you know anything about history?
It's a thing.
That existed.
Despite your ignorance.
Who me? Is it the study of past events, particularly in human affairs? thing?
I thought the fact that most self important righteous liberals couldn't make ends meet without the bloated goverment they're appearently against.
I didn't thumb you down even though I'm ignorant (lacking knowledge or awareness in general). Probably a liberal?
You've read 1984, right? Isn't it still required; I mean certainly not by the public school system, but by anyone who has concerns with oppressive government?
Words. Have. Meanings.
By perverting these meanings, by creating your your own dictionary to subvert these meanings, you are engaging in the creation of the real Newspeak Dictionary - even if it is through simple ignorance.
I'm concerned that you're also working on a little Two Minutes Hate here as well.
I'm not Goldstein.
I have not read 1984. I'm more of a non-fiction guy.
No hate, just some guy reading (for the most part) common allies comments about a common enemy.
Read it.
It is non-fiction.
Peace, man.
1984 is NON-fiction.
These new smart-TVs watch YOU.
I'm so old that it WAS required reading, along with Brave New World.
History provides perspective. "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" -- and become Progressives
Or conservatives.
Classical liberalism = Libertarianism
"Liberals" stole the brand and the meme of classical liberalism because they consciously changed it after the terms "Socialist" and "Communist" were hopelessly damaged after WWII and during the Cold War. Liberalism is supposed to mean maximum personal freedom but these book burning militants have always been control freaks.
"Liberals" have since changed their name again back to the turn of the century retro term "Progressives" because they had trashed tne "Liberal" monniker after several decades. They'll change their label again to something else after Obama leaves office.
Yes!!! High fives. Our founders were almost universally called "liberals" and it was a good word. They were socially and economically liberal. They believed in freedom on both sides of the coin.
The modern liberal might favor gay marriage and legal marijuana but is otherwise a statist. They would have been monarchists at the time of the revolution as they would have been in favor of phrases like "Men must be ruled." and they would talk about how to rule wisely and benefit the nation state. They would not even question the whole "ruled" thing.
It got turned around in the early 20th century as best I can tell. Liberalism became associated with the leftist progressive movements. This is when conservatives became the Constiitutionalists so both terms flipped.
When you use the proper terms as in classical liberalism all the terms propertly align, i.e., Liberal=Libertarianism=Liberty
Right now we are left with the absurd proposition of Liberal=Statist=Leftist=Autocracy. The modern liberal works toward autocracy or complete control of all things by the state. That is the ridiculous proposition.
Well, done.
Uhmm, look at your history of book burnings in the US.
can't give u a point since u R catty and don't teach anything.
You missed the point?
Let me spell it out:
Book censorship in the US is historically a conservative activity.
Ah yeah I see more info or teachings by u below.
- Modern fascism seems to hold the sub sets of both democrats & republicans. I suggest we have a fascist, military republic, upheld by both dems & reps, includes suppression of US constitution, foreign prisons, torture, cutting human rights, alliance to Prime dealers for fed, alliance to wealthy, subordination of congress to banks & elites, ...congress giving up war powers, budget powers, legislative powers to lobbyist... no prosecution of justice in bank fraud for TBTF, and government subsidies and tax breaks to big corporations...
- both dem & rep are book sensors now, they sensor msm, free press, encourage elimination of investigative reporters, and provide the talking points to the press... in return for power and control over talking points
Maybe u got it... but it seems worse than what u say.
Well... and no liberals or conservatives are standing up for whistleblowers offering them employment or living expenses.
Living in this world is the test and none of us will make it out alive. But it would be nice to do it with class.
See what happens if it everyone for themselves .
http://andreswhy.blogspot.com/2013/04/social-collapse-to-below-family-le...
Like it or not , if you do not look after the poor , they and their children toughen up an come and take what they feel is their due .
Or you can genocide them .
Much easier to short-circuit the problem by incorporating them .
Something the Romans an 1946 Americans new how to do.
"Grasping all , you lose all"
It's called bribery.
simplistic and childish...perfect for the mass media and online sites
So who won? I'm pretty sure if "I" (margarine commercial with crown music here) took the test "I" (margarine commercial with crown music here) would get to run things. Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what a coup can do for your country.
The test is designed around a flawed premise: that "good guys" (libertarians) want no government and that "bad guys" (statists) want lots of government.
News bulletin: libertarians like capitalism, capital is the object of predation and needs protection. And in a civilized societly, protection means laws, police forces, courts, and jails.
The fundamental social-economic paradigms that liberatarians ought to be camparing are not "Libertarian vs Statist" but "Foragers vs. Farmer/Herders".
10,000 years ago, all humans made their living as hunter/gathers, lived in tribal groups, shared the results of their hunts "fairly', and looked to their alpha male leader/war lord/shaman as the maker of laws and leader of the hunt. The tribe hunted where it wanted to hunt, and other tribes were either enemy predators or prey. The tribe hunted to satisfy immediate consumption needs. These people were "foragers".
Then, some intelligent outliers hit upon the idea of DEFERRING consumption of grain or animals, planting or breeding their stock, and increasing their supply over time, and providing abundance for future consumption. These people were "farmer/herders". Today, we would recognize them as the original "capitalists".
The farmer/herders produced more grain or livestock than they could consume, and benefited from trading their excess production with other farmer/herders.
Farmer/herders needed private property to have their fields or pastures, they needed protection for the crops and livestock from marauding foragers, and they needed marriage to provide rules for the peaceful transfer of assets to the next generation.
Bottom line, the transition of human existence from foraging to agriculture created the basis for two profoundly different social-economic-political survival models.
"Marriage" and "inheritance" are important elements of the farmer/herder social-ecomonic model.
"Promiscuity" and "communal sex" are attributes of a forager economic model where no one needs to care about owneship of assets or inheritance.
Consumption of drugs is a luxury for foragers whose existence is centered around immediate consumption and no contemplation of the future. Farmers and herders have continual responsibilities and drug "enjoyment" are risks to the health and security of their herds or crops
The libertarian's "Smallest Political Quiz" is really a pretty shallow exercise which really doesn't get at what a person's core "social-economic-political" paradigm is.
I would like a "Smallest Political Quiz" to tell me whether a person wants to trade with me, or form a war party and take what I have.
You used paradigm outside of a mathematical context.
Your argument is invalidated.
So, if I don't understand the mathematics of gravity, does that mean I'm going to float off into outer space?
What a load of hogwash you just tried to sell.
With your thinking a fee is NOT a tax!
What would I have to believe to be as smart as you?
Not exactly true. Libertarians want virtually no government. Anarchists want no government.
Libertarians divide the world into producers and plunderers (Read Bastiat). All relationships should be voluntary. It is not legal for government to do things that are illegal for you, as in steal stuff which is the basis of both welfare and corporate welfare.
You own yourself and no one should force you to serve the purposes of others. Accordingly, your purpose in life is not to be ruled by others.
Your foragers are fine and free to forage. They are not allowed through government to steal from the farmers/herders when they come up short. They are free to ask for actual charity which is not the same as a government program. Charity is voluntary and temporary.
You last sentence gets closer. Government is a war party formed to come get your stuff for the forager.
Problem I got is that Libertarians forget that people will always commit fraud, human nature is greedy, envious, and criminal... so you need rules, laws, regulations, audits.
And Libertarians don't deal with the Incentives and Disincentives... for war, government subsidies for corporations, advantages for Bankers who can help political movers, the power of lobby money & campaign money... the incentives for US Executives to loot the corporations of money which maybe belong to investors or stakeholders ... or the pensions that would seem to belong to the loyal employees.
Whatever...
People have been the same for 5,000 year. Clerks, Bankers, Royalty, Elites, Slaves, chattel, virgins, crops, animals, money (shekels), contracts, compensation for loss of property, social programs, educational programs... read this stuff:
- 5000 years of laws written in stone, we still can't get this straight since Power & Money corrupts the laws.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Ur-Nammu
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi
The problem is Lawyers, bankers, Accounting, Auditing, and Black Market Labor, Black Market Shadow Banking, and Free Trade is a Fraud perpetrated by Money in Politics.
You need to read more libertarian works. None of that is true.
Libertarians are well aware of those things. The difference is who does them and how they are solved. Government does virtually every evil act you name on a giant scale. A libertarian would use government to protect person and property which includes enforcing contracts. That is all. Free people determine the terms of trade which elimnaties all those things like fraud. When fraud is committed it is still illegal and punished. What you cannot do it use government to set the terms of trade.
Read some Bastiat. The Law essentially becomes a tool of the government connected to establish a legal set of advantages and favors.
I don't think anything I've said contradicts Bastiat. Bastiat is not an anarchist. He recognizes the need for government to protect capital.
Capitalists WANT a legal set of advantages and favors to protect trade and protect capital from marauding foragers.
And that legal set of advantages and favors includes the moral authority to use force against marauding foragers.
In a forager society, the foragers are "the government". Foragers rule.
And the "rule" of forager society is that the alpha male/leader/shaman/witch doctor/warlord makes the rules. It is a "cult of personality".
Tribe members support the "leader" and the leader ensures fairness. Any tribe member who doesn't support the leader is eaten.
Your idea that "they are not allowed though government to steal from the farmers/herders" is not a rule that any forager would recognize or respect. They are not "libertarians".
The majority of humans that have ever lived were foragers. And realistically, the majority of people alive today have the culture and values of foragers.
The Democrat Party is really a forager culture. "Tax the rich" is forager behavior. "The rich" just means any enemy tribe.
Look, this whole "forager" analogy was not set by me. I was more or less going with the way they were presented. They are ficticious. Frankly, what you describe would be called a "pillager" and in that we mostly agree.
All, this tribal cult stuff is BS. Government is force. I think Jefferson put it that way and he was spot on.
The only way the disloyal tribal member is eaten is by the cooperation of other tribal members. No one person can do any form of autocracy on their own. Kim Jong, Mao, Hitler, Stalin and all the statists of history needed millions of others to create their police states. In that sense, all who cooperate are enablers. It is why I really cannot hang out with government people any more.
They are all overpaid enablers of our loss of liberty on the way to their full pension retirements.
At what point was money invented by lazy jews? Then armys could be formed.
Your thinking seems binary. Black and white. Right and Wrong.
But often there are more than two sides to an issue... plus the gray areas between. Cognitive Distortion.
Science provides a footing that is the best we know.
But much history is lost so we are making it up.
If we were exactly alike with people 5-6000 years ago... through evidence carved in stone... who is to say some people 13000 years ago were not just like us... after all modern man is 200,000 years old.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Ur-Nammu
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi
Bitumen, Naphta, Alcohol, Lacquer, Kiln are all words that are 5000 years old. Medicine, Laws, Socialism, contracts, eye for an eye, Property, Money, Clerks, Accounting... all 5000 years old.
It's absurd. I reject having only two choices.
I object to the questions.
They are far too simple and without context.
For example
"End government barriers to international free trade."
So if we follow the euro -- barriers come down but financial centers can redirect energy to centers of power through various money shortage events (recessions and depressions)
A money shortage forces you to export your wealth.
This is not free trade.
Yes BS. There is no context for people that have been indoctrinated, who don't know US History, US military history, Who never traveled in other countries, who never heard of slave labor, who never heard of sweatshops or child labor being used for pennies an hour work...
How does the average libertarian understand economics, accounting, finance, fraud, business environments, government capture, regulation capture, market exchange fraud...
Do typical libertarians know modern fascism?
Zero hedge like people need a crash Eimar O Duffy course.
Eimar and other social creditors has transformed my perspective.
http://vimeo.com/40673989
I love you.
Steady on chap - Eimar is a boys name.
It's not love in a gay way.
But your picture is a little bit sexy.
You can get up now. We know when we're licked.
Nice one!
There are a few exceptions, but mostly, inconvenient writers are quickly forgotten (hidden?)
How come every time I make a selection in the survey I get a pop up ad from Google asking me if I’m really sure?
In fact, I’m on my tenth iteration of the first question already. The pop up is asking if I am really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really sure.
Third box from the libertarian peak. No fucking surprise.
I took the test and scored in the upper left side of the centrist box FWIW. I would have to agree with the result.
I posted this earlier in the week.
Picture of pregnant woman's belly with the words State Owned written across it. Liberals are incensed, Conservatives likey. (actual picture was on HuffPo)
Picture of fat woman's belly with the words State Owned written across it. Liberals likey, Conservatives incensed.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
LIBERTY comes out of the end of a gun===== <"liberty">
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX_
XXXXXXX \ ]
xxxxxxx \ ]
XXXXXXX
XXXXXXX
XXXXXXX
mao tse tung said "all power comes out of the barrel of a gun". he would know!
This can be shortened to one question:
"Do you believe anyone has the right to initiate violence against you when you have harmed no one."
The kicker to this though is most every liberal and conservative I know will agree "Of course not." but will quickly clam up when you point out every government related activity they support involves that initial violence against the innocent.