[ ]   [ ]   [ ]                        [ ]      [ ]   [ ]

How you coping/dealing with the crisis? - Prodigal_SOB - Apr 8, 2020 - 2:42pm
 
2020 Elections - KarmaKarma - Apr 8, 2020 - 2:39pm
 
Mixtape Culture Club - triskele - Apr 8, 2020 - 2:37pm
 
Environment - R_P - Apr 8, 2020 - 2:32pm
 
Economix - R_P - Apr 8, 2020 - 2:23pm
 
John Prine - Paradise - Peabody Energy on verge of Ch... - lowelltr - Apr 8, 2020 - 2:14pm
 
The Moon - KurtfromLaQuinta - Apr 8, 2020 - 2:08pm
 
The Obituary Page - KurtfromLaQuinta - Apr 8, 2020 - 2:06pm
 
Radio Paradise Comments - BlueHeronDruid - Apr 8, 2020 - 1:36pm
 
Trump - R_P - Apr 8, 2020 - 12:56pm
 
COVID-19 - black321 - Apr 8, 2020 - 11:47am
 
Cryptic Posts - Leave Them Guessing - oldviolin - Apr 8, 2020 - 10:58am
 
Trump Lies - Proclivities - Apr 8, 2020 - 10:10am
 
Republican Party - KarmaKarma - Apr 8, 2020 - 10:07am
 
YouTube: Music-Videos - oldviolin - Apr 8, 2020 - 10:00am
 
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •  - oldviolin - Apr 8, 2020 - 9:56am
 
Counting with Pictures - ScottN - Apr 8, 2020 - 8:45am
 
Amazing animals! - miamizsun - Apr 8, 2020 - 8:38am
 
Breaking News - Red_Dragon - Apr 8, 2020 - 8:27am
 
Bad News / Good News - sunybuny - Apr 8, 2020 - 6:00am
 
Lyrics that strike a chord today... - Proclivities - Apr 8, 2020 - 4:01am
 
Strips, cartoons, illustrations - R_P - Apr 8, 2020 - 1:08am
 
M.A.G.A. - R_P - Apr 7, 2020 - 11:46pm
 
How are you coping/dealing with the crisis? - kurtster - Apr 7, 2020 - 3:58pm
 
What Makes You Laugh? - kcar - Apr 7, 2020 - 3:02pm
 
What Did You Do Today? - Steely_D - Apr 7, 2020 - 1:56pm
 
NASA & other news from space - miamizsun - Apr 7, 2020 - 8:44am
 
Baseball, anyone? - Red_Dragon - Apr 7, 2020 - 8:02am
 
Radiohead - miamizsun - Apr 7, 2020 - 6:37am
 
Chicken your way - jahgirl8 - Apr 6, 2020 - 9:32pm
 
Pernicious Pious Proclivities Particularized Prodigiously - ScottN - Apr 6, 2020 - 8:33pm
 
Things You Thought Today - jahgirl8 - Apr 6, 2020 - 7:00pm
 
Favorite Scriptures...Leave Pontificating at the Door - jahgirl8 - Apr 6, 2020 - 6:29pm
 
Let Him Swing? - jahgirl8 - Apr 6, 2020 - 5:14pm
 
Urban Chickens - jahgirl8 - Apr 6, 2020 - 5:04pm
 
Fake News*  ?  ! - kcar - Apr 6, 2020 - 4:33pm
 
Questions. - jahgirl8 - Apr 6, 2020 - 4:00pm
 
Way Cool Video - miamizsun - Apr 6, 2020 - 9:40am
 
Surfing! - miamizsun - Apr 6, 2020 - 9:34am
 
Photography Forum - Your Own Photos - Blackbirds - Apr 6, 2020 - 3:07am
 
Australia - R_P - Apr 5, 2020 - 8:28pm
 
Canada - R_P - Apr 5, 2020 - 6:00pm
 
• • • BRING OUT YOUR DEAD • • •  - oldviolin - Apr 5, 2020 - 5:09pm
 
Windows app: how to change stream/channel? - BillG - Apr 5, 2020 - 3:33pm
 
Bob Dylan - Steely_D - Apr 5, 2020 - 2:11pm
 
Poetry Forum - ScottN - Apr 5, 2020 - 12:04pm
 
what the hell, miamizsun? - miamizsun - Apr 5, 2020 - 8:25am
 
April Fool's Day - haresfur - Apr 4, 2020 - 7:46pm
 
Vinyl Only Spin List - kurtster - Apr 4, 2020 - 7:00pm
 
What can you hear right now? - haresfur - Apr 4, 2020 - 4:35pm
 
Name My Band - haresfur - Apr 4, 2020 - 4:34pm
 
Amazon Prime Members - Free Streaming of Selected Movies ... - Isabeau - Apr 4, 2020 - 3:42pm
 
Embedding Tweets - miamizsun - Apr 4, 2020 - 12:22pm
 
kurtster's quiet vinyl - kurtster - Apr 4, 2020 - 11:53am
 
Today in History - hayduke2 - Apr 4, 2020 - 8:00am
 
The war on funk is over! - R_P - Apr 4, 2020 - 12:27am
 
Earthquake in So. Cal - kurtster - Apr 3, 2020 - 10:09pm
 
RightWingNutZ - Coaxial - Apr 3, 2020 - 8:52pm
 
Apropos of Nothing - miamizsun - Apr 3, 2020 - 8:44pm
 
Country Up The Bumpkin - Coaxial - Apr 3, 2020 - 7:10pm
 
What Are You Grateful For? - jahgirl8 - Apr 3, 2020 - 6:42pm
 
Photos you have taken of yourself - jahgirl8 - Apr 3, 2020 - 6:33pm
 
Fox Spews - R_P - Apr 3, 2020 - 6:09pm
 
Thanks to BillG & Rebecca! - KTlistening - Apr 3, 2020 - 2:34pm
 
♥ ♥ ♥ Vote For Pie ♥ ♥ ♥ - ScottFromWyoming - Apr 3, 2020 - 1:35pm
 
Things that are just WRONG - Isabeau - Apr 3, 2020 - 1:24pm
 
Graphs, Charts & Maps - NoEnzLefttoSplit - Apr 3, 2020 - 10:07am
 
R.I.P. Bill Withers - westslope - Apr 3, 2020 - 9:54am
 
Art Show - Proclivities - Apr 3, 2020 - 5:20am
 
Derplahoma Questions and Points of Interest - sunybuny - Apr 3, 2020 - 5:12am
 
The alternate universe - BlueHeronDruid - Apr 3, 2020 - 12:26am
 
New Zealand - NoEnzLefttoSplit - Apr 2, 2020 - 11:55pm
 
Last gas price paid? - ScottFromWyoming - Apr 2, 2020 - 10:08pm
 
Rhetorical questions - kurtster - Apr 2, 2020 - 8:38pm
 
Flower Pictures - Antigone - Apr 2, 2020 - 5:54pm
 
Index » Radio Paradise/General » General Discussion » Ask the Libertarian Page: Previous  1, 2, 3, ... 165, 166, 167  Next
Post to this Topic
westslope

westslope Avatar

Location: BC sage brush steppe


Posted: May 30, 2019 - 8:06am

Sir d,

Another 10 years and cannabis will be fully legal across the USA with the exception of some hold-out states.  


Now here's an easy philosophical challenge for Libertarians. 

Many of those in favour of legalization will argue that recreational cannabis should be legal precisely because it is dangerous.   In other words, legalizing cannabis allows the state to expand its influence so it can 'regulate' more effectively.  

So, are Libertarians in favour of a more powerful, effective state?



sirdroseph

sirdroseph Avatar

Location: Yes
Gender: Male


Posted: May 30, 2019 - 2:33am

This is in this thread and not the other because this is much more than weed, this is a libertarians dream on many levels.  JFK got shot over this.   Ron Paul is smiling.



California Senate Passes Revolutionary Bill to Bypass Federal Reserve, Create Cannabis Banking Industry


westslope

westslope Avatar

Location: BC sage brush steppe


Posted: Jan 25, 2019 - 9:50am



 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:

I can agree with pretty well all of that, just, who is behind this social policy you are talking about? some kind of collective? One of those collectives that trample over the rights of individuals executing an ill-conceived inefficient agenda to rob the rich of their well-begotten gains to benefit the poor and needy? You're not some kind of socialist are you?

Re a right to water:  when I grew up (New Zealand) the right to water was enshrined in common law (I am not a lawyer so correct me if I an wrong) which sounded pretty fair at the time. The upshot was you could always get free tap water at any restaurant. In fact we just served it as a matter of course. One of those civilised practices that I kind of like.

The right to water is a pretty good example of how the distinction between rights and policies is pretty grey. Let's say a man dying of thirst in the desert comes upon a wild stream flowing across private property. He drinks his fill. Should he be arrested for theft?  
 
Water.   The right to access flowing water deemed public and crown land in general is common enough in former British colonies.  Though as far as I know, the public cannot willy nilly privatize water from  a public water body.

In the example you give, I cannot imagine somebody being charged with taking a drink of water.  But the individual might be charged with trespassing if she did not vacate the private land immediately.  

Let's talk about the de facto entitlement right to open access sport fishing on public waters.  It is not enshrined in the Canadian charter of rights but is very much a political reality.  As a consequence, this open access set-up means that righteous BC anglers get to bully and intimidate First Nations (native BCers) on the water.  Is that a good state of affairs?  

Actually most of the really outrageous violence on British Columbia salmon flows is between second comer anglers.  Knifings, gaffings, fist fights, smashed in radiators.

The open-access ideologues in the angling world will argue that "free" is important for poor people.  The truth is that poor people cannot afford the vehicles and fossil fuels to get to the best angling.  So as open access mayhem degrades the quality of sport fishing close to large population centres, rich people simply spend more on carbon-emitting fuels to get to the quality angling. 

Naturally, many BCers including anglers spend a lot of air time decrying the cultural inferiority of BC natives just like Israelis constantly point to the cultural inferiority of the non-Jewish residents of the former Palestinian mandate.    The big boot heels fit better that way.
NoEnzLefttoSplit

NoEnzLefttoSplit Avatar

Gender: Male


Posted: Jan 25, 2019 - 1:24am

 westslope wrote:
NoEnzLefttoSplit, Lazy8,

That is definitely weighty material that you are discussing.  

I tend  to go about this by working backwards from social objectives.   In that respect, a minimal set of universally recognized human rights helps get humanity to and stay at a better socio-economic outcome.   

I oppose conferring the status of rights on many human needs and wants.    The right to clean water should not be a human right.  Though it should be an important social policy goal.   The right to nutritious food should not be a human right though clearly it is a policy goal that many support.

Housing should not be a human right.  Owning  a single family home should neither be a `right` nor a social policy objective.  As a matter of social policy, I believe it is important and  very much to our collective advantage to provide safe shelter for the destitute among us.  Not public housing.

Medical care is not or at least should not be a human right.   Publicly funded health care for all is a public policy goal that all rich western nations and many others have adopted.  

The strong rights-based approach leads to entitlement-driven social policy that far too often has very negative consequences.   

I am also concerned about the integrity of our democratic system.  A rights based approach tends to confer political decision making to courts and judges.  That is wrong on many levels.  Policy making should reside with elected representatives.  


 
I can agree with pretty well all of that, just, who is behind this social policy you are talking about? some kind of collective? One of those collectives that trample over the rights of individuals executing an ill-conceived inefficient agenda to rob the rich of their well-begotten gains to benefit the poor and needy? You're not some kind of socialist are you?

Re a right to water:  when I grew up (New Zealand) the right to water was enshrined in common law (I am not a lawyer so correct me if I an wrong) which sounded pretty fair at the time. The upshot was you could always get free tap water at any restaurant. In fact we just served it as a matter of course. One of those civilised practices that I kind of like.

The right to water is a pretty good example of how the distinction between rights and policies is pretty grey. Let's say a man dying of thirst in the desert comes upon a wild stream flowing across private property. He drinks his fill. Should he be arrested for theft?  
westslope

westslope Avatar

Location: BC sage brush steppe


Posted: Jan 24, 2019 - 5:34pm

NoEnzLefttoSplit, Lazy8,

That is definitely weighty material that you are discussing.  

I tend  to go about this by working backwards from social objectives.   In that respect, a minimal set of universally recognized human rights helps get humanity to and stay at a better socio-economic outcome.   

I oppose conferring the status of rights on many human needs and wants.    The right to clean water should not be a human right.  Though it should be an important social policy goal.   The right to nutritious food should not be a human right though clearly it is a policy goal that many support.

Housing should not be a human right.  Owning  a single family home should neither be a `right` nor a social policy objective.  As a matter of social policy, I believe it is important and  very much to our collective advantage to provide safe shelter for the destitute among us.  Not public housing.

Medical care is not or at least should not be a human right.   Publicly funded health care for all is a public policy goal that all rich western nations and many others have adopted.  

The strong rights-based approach leads to entitlement-driven social policy that far too often has very negative consequences.   

I am also concerned about the integrity of our democratic system.  A rights based approach tends to confer political decision making to courts and judges.  That is wrong on many levels.  Policy making should reside with elected representatives.  



NoEnzLefttoSplit

NoEnzLefttoSplit Avatar

Gender: Male


Posted: Jan 24, 2019 - 9:14am

 westslope wrote:
Authority is a social construct, correct?  

Me thinks Lazy8 is carrying this debate so far.....

 
The problem is not that Lazy8 believes in human rights, for we all do to some extent. The problem is that because he assumes they must be universal and logically consistent, he necessarily restricts them to a small subset, which hey presto, absolves rich white guys like me from not being my brother's keeper.

Moreover, because he divorces human rights from any social or historical context, which admittedly has its appeal, he makes an artificial distinction between the individual and the society he or she finds himself in. It's neat, It's tidy. It looks great on paper. But it is woefully inadequate.

When you have guys like Peter Thiel on your team, a guy who sells the tools to government to spy on its citizens, (because it is not the gun right? but the guy who uses it), then it is high time you sat down and thought about your philosophy.

Secondly, whether rights exist in the nether nether or emerge from social discourse and exchange is actually totally irrelevant in practice. What matters in practice is how we decide to get along with each other and what rules we want to play by. But this is not the storybook Lazy is playing by. He argues that we must toss out a whole lot of our social construction because it has no basis on his chosen set of human rights. In the end, his argument is nullified by his own political impotence. Libertarianism will only become a force when enough people consent to its principles and it becomes the guiding principle along which we live, which kind of proves my point, don't you think? 

addendum:  I think the main problem is this: If Lazy remained with the claim that his concept of rights is his belief. I would have no problem with it. But he goes one fatal step further. Because he thinks his set of natural rights is logically consistent and universal it is more than just a system of beliefs he cherishes but something immutable in the nature of the world. Which means he is right and everyone else who differs from his opinion must be wrong. This is just religious dogma wrapped up in different clothes.


westslope

westslope Avatar

Location: BC sage brush steppe


Posted: Jan 23, 2019 - 11:15am

Authority is a social construct, correct?  

Me thinks Lazy8 is carrying this debate so far.....
NoEnzLefttoSplit

NoEnzLefttoSplit Avatar

Gender: Male


Posted: Jan 23, 2019 - 9:25am

 Lazy8 wrote:
I picked this post to respond to because most of the others are unquotable, but they all seem to be repeating the same points.

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:
good luck getting Lazy to do that. Government to him is akin to the beast in Alien.

But, more than ever, Lazy has convinced me over this last little exchange that Libertarianism is not a philosophy but a religion that very conveniently absolves those who struck lucky from any form of social conscience.

The language is an absolute parallel. "universal" "if you don't get that, then pity you" God the concept of natural rights is a necessity"
And to top it off he throws one of the seven deadly sins at us.
When confronted with data that unequivocally refute one his basic tenants, he falls into total denial, etc. etc.

It was an interesting exchange but I see little value in continuing it. It's like trying to argue with a Trump supporter.
A movement of reason? nope. Sorry, can't see it.

Aw, somebody needs a hug!

In earlier exchanges you've based this "libertarianism is a religion" claim on its derivation from the concept of innate, inalienable rights of humans. OK, prove there is such a thing as rights!

Say I did.

That would be based on some other axiomatic foundation, as all logical arguments are. You do understand this, right?

At that point you can then claim "Aha! You based all this on XYZ! Prove there is such a thing as X, Y, and Z!" And this can go on ad infinitum. There is no bottom to this.

For the sake of cutting to the chase and getting on with the matter let's say that the concept of rights is an assumption rather than a conclusion—a set of axioms that, if they were falsified, bring the whole structure to the ground. Do so. Prove humans don't have rights.

Too tough? Fine, I'll make it easier on you: propose a better starting point.

I've asked you this before and all I got was "Well, I, erm...like some things and others I don't, and that's good enough for me, and there's no universal basis for anything and it's all relative and we should all just accept that." Paraphrasing, of course, for brevity.

You realize that denying that there is any basis for just law means that from then on it's all about power, right? Whoever has the most thugs, the biggest clubs, and the fewest reservations about using them gets to make the rules—and there's no basis to challenge that order.

We (libertarians) reject that conclusion. We propose an alternative—one with an actual basis for creating just laws. Feel free to argue with that basis (it's—ahem—your right) or just admit that you're fine with being ruled by whoever wins the next fight.

Just don't smugly pretend to moral superiority about it, as you will have rejected the concept that there is such a thing as moral superiority to be smug about.

 
Lordy, you actually deigned to respond to this (albeit at great delay).

Well you are making my job too easy.  

Firstly, you admit that rights must be based (like all logical arguments) on axioms which runs the risk of being reduced to absurdity (well, there's a thought).
Then you challenge me to "prove that there are no rights" i.e. I should illustrate the logical fallacy in your argument.
Well this is just muddled.

a) your argument is based on a fiction ("let's say I did") and secondly, I can't prove the existence of something absent. Moreover, if I accepted your axioms, which I don't, I would have no dispute with your logical argument, how could I? I would have to deny the fundamental axiom on which it is based.

But it is precisely this type of reasoning that exposes the fundamentally religious / belief-based argumentation you adhere to.

You even put a nail in the coffin:   
You realize that denying that there is any basis for just law means that from then on it's all about power, right?"

Well, this is none other than the classic religious argument against 
nihilism wrapped up in new clothes :  "There has to be a God, otherwise, otherwise, NOTHING! OMG!!"
Sorry, not buying it. Re this power thing... well of course!  where did you grow up?  It's always about power. Just what you have forgotten is the source of power and authority:

Authority is always granted by the individual even when coerced by force of arms. Every one of us has the radical freedom to say no, though this might mean our death. But no one can take that away from us. 

Ultimately, it turns out the most stable power structures and successful societies, by extension, are those where you get the people on board. When they realise they are a hell of a lot better off with a functioning society than without it. Beats totalitarianism any day. A set of constructive rights fits in nicely with this. And guess what, you get to have your own opinion on it!

As I see it your own actions here on this board confirm my standpoint. Here you are on the internet arguing/pleaing for your standpoint. But this is what we all do. In fact it is the best any of us can do. Morals and rights are not chiselled in stone. They arise from discourse and social exchange.. they become manifest when lived in practice. There is nothing in this that runs contrary to holding up a generally agreed set of rights, a set which changes its form over time, as it indeed does, nor one over which we all agree or disagree to varying degrees. Amen.

Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Jan 18, 2019 - 3:36pm

Gary Johnson helps rescue buried skiers after Taos avalanche.
miamizsun

miamizsun Avatar

Location: (3261.3 Miles SE of RP)
Gender: Male


Posted: Jan 15, 2019 - 4:00am



 R_P wrote:
 miamizsun wrote:
 R_P wrote:
 Red_Dragon wrote:
 
Well, it is a private clinic.

 
medical tourism is a thing (...)
 
The stingy bastard messed with the wrong country!

I know Canadians that have their dental work done in Cuba.
 

my hair artist has been totally rebuilt in costa rica

most notably his face and smile

he looks fantastic and he enjoys all the country has to offer

not to mention other personal activities like "buzzing brillos and bonestorming" when possible


R_P

R_P Avatar



Posted: Jan 14, 2019 - 4:06pm

 miamizsun wrote:
 R_P wrote:
 Red_Dragon wrote:
 
Well, it is a private clinic.

 
medical tourism is a thing (...)
 
The stingy bastard messed with the wrong country!

I know Canadians that have their dental work done in Cuba.
miamizsun

miamizsun Avatar

Location: (3261.3 Miles SE of RP)
Gender: Male


Posted: Jan 14, 2019 - 3:51pm



 R_P wrote:
 Red_Dragon wrote:
 
Well, it is a private clinic.

 

medical tourism is a thing

plus canada doesn't have a wall and the tijuana hernia changarro is over-booked

he'll probably waltz right in
westslope

westslope Avatar

Location: BC sage brush steppe


Posted: Jan 14, 2019 - 1:29pm



 R_P wrote:
 Red_Dragon wrote:
 
Well, it is a private clinic.

 
All the rich developed countries with single-payer health systems also offer private health services.  I suspect that should be the teaching moment for US voters.  Translation:   feel like spending lots and lots of money on your own personal or family health?   That is still doable in a so-called 'socialist system'.   

The only reason rich Americans should reject a single-payer system is because they want poor people to suffer.  That and they believe that labour mobility does not matter.  Or they have a vested interest in big pharma company profits.  Besides, the USA is already a socialist country even if the priorities strike many of us as inadequate or strange.

So Rand Paul managed acrimonious relations with his neighbours for 17 years?   

Prosecutors reveal why Rand Paul was attacked by neighbor

Who knows?  Maybe Rene Boucher was simply an unpleasant piece of work.    Tackling him from behind comes across as rather cowardly to say the least.   

Curious to think that even powerful people have lousy relationships with their neighbours.......  

Mr. Paul:  Good luck with the surgery and stop dicking around:  build a wall!   
R_P

R_P Avatar



Posted: Jan 14, 2019 - 10:25am

 Red_Dragon wrote:
 
Well, it is a private clinic.

Red_Dragon

Red_Dragon Avatar



Posted: Jan 14, 2019 - 9:45am

Rand Paul, Enemy Of Socialized Medicine, Will Go To Canada For Surgery
westslope

westslope Avatar

Location: BC sage brush steppe


Posted: Nov 30, 2018 - 11:52am



 Lazy8 wrote:
westslope wrote:
Lazy8:  You raise Pareto Optimality/Pareto efficiency?   Seriously now.

That was rexi. I responded.
 
Thanks for the correction.  FWIW, I agree with you on this 'envy' issue.  

For the worst example of envy-driven politics, see the disasterous socio-economic outcomes of Neo-Marxist guided populist regimes (Argentina, Bolivia, Ecuador, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, South Africa, etc.).

Also note that 'envy' encourages liberals and self-described 'progressives' to stomp on NA natives/First Nations with big, heavy boot heels.   Open access sport fishing for example.  

Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 30, 2018 - 9:27am

westslope wrote:
Lazy8:  You raise Pareto Optimality/Pareto efficiency?   Seriously now.

That was rexi. I responded.
westslope

westslope Avatar

Location: BC sage brush steppe


Posted: Nov 29, 2018 - 2:37pm

Lazy8:  You raise Pareto Optimality/Pareto efficiency?   Seriously now. 

The Neo-Classical models are useful and perfectly competitive markets are indeed a useful theoretical concept.   But frankly the real world is full of non-convexities and externalities.  Market power is the rule, not the exception.   Pareto concepts border on irrelevant for a world where economic agents attempt to maximize rents.   Note that maximizing social rents can be beneficial for all.

In order to engage the public in a debate about social and economic policy, there is no requirement to evoke Pareto efficiency.  Implicit expected net benefit functions and ordinal rankings of outcomes should be sufficient.

We are living in a world, where lay people identify 'economics' with what is good for me, myself and I.   We live in a world where North American self-styled freemarket libertarians still support oppression and boot-heel economics such as the US-supported ethnic cleansing of the Holy Lands despite the apparent and obvious costly blow back.

Economic property rights are indeed key to socio-economic outcomes.   Well-defined, secure economic property rights — individual AND collective — are key.    Many North Americans embrace that yet many continue to believe that ethnic, sectarian and racial criteria should continue to furnish justifiable exceptions to these rights.   Somewhere in this area might be good start to engaging the less ideological and other doubters among us.  

westslope

westslope Avatar

Location: BC sage brush steppe


Posted: Nov 29, 2018 - 2:12pm



 Lazy8 wrote:
......

There is an actual Libertarian Party in Canada. Check them out.

I've met Dennis Young, former chair. He's a bit intense but his heart's in the right place.
 
Yes, been around for a while but never registered with voters.  Not sure the LPC ever garnered more votes than the Marijuana Party or the Canadian Rhinoceros Party.

I am not expecting much with phrases like:  "Our vision is for a more freer and prosperous Canada by getting government out of the way."  



miamizsun

miamizsun Avatar

Location: (3261.3 Miles SE of RP)
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 29, 2018 - 4:45am

 Red_Dragon wrote:

Horrifying, innit?

 
i can see it

bush has a soft head and scott has a soft heart
Page: Previous  1, 2, 3, ... 165, 166, 167  Next