Tag Archives: Republican Party

Sarwark/LP could be “serious competition”

The Washington Times picked up on our “stunning” announcement of the new LNC chair:

Republicans and Democrats, who pine to woo the all-important young, restless and disengaged demographic, have some serious competition for this sizable voting bloc, which now numbers about 45 million.

In what onlookers described as a “stunning” upset during their recent national convention, the Libertarian Party elected Nicholas Sarwark as their chairman. He is 34, hails from Denver, serves as a deputy public defender, is a prolific blogger and is intent on positioning the Libertarian Party as “the only choice for pro-freedom young people.”

The party itself is getting feisty. The 43-year-old organization also intends to be recognized as the official “real deal” libertarians, which may not sit well with a spate of assorted Republicans, tea partyers and independents who also claim influence with the growing “less government, lower taxes, more freedom” crowd. The articulate Mr. Sarwark himself may be a serious draw for undecided or disengaged folk out there.

Libertarians and Democrats have seemingly been the only parties able to escape their middle-aged comfort zones — to attract and register younger voters.

If that fervor for unblemished voters emerges as a core theme of Sarwark’s leadership, it could prove to be a problematic second front for Republicans who are already struggling in this key demographic.

( -)-(- )Comments Off

My, my, my sexy Sheriff Maketa

Could a county coroner soon arrest scandal-ridden Sheriff Maketa and his accused subordinates for whoring?

The Colorado Springs Gazette reports on the growing investigation:

El Paso County Sheriff Terry Maketa is embroiled in accusations of sex with subordinates, abusive treatment of employees and dismantling oversight of the office budget that could stain his 12-year career and sink future prospects for one of the most powerful local Republicans. see more…

( -)-(- )2 comments

POV: Why the Caucus is Ca-Ca


NOTE: This article is part of a series on the Colorado GOP process from the caucuses onward.

COLORADO SPRINGS, COLORADO — I recently participated in my first caucus. I thought, “What the hell? I’d like to see David Kelly, candidate for El Paso County Treasurer in Colorado, get the nomination.” The only way to get that to happen is for him to get enough delegates. So I went on down to my local caucus thinking I’ll put my name in, speak my piece, and at a minimum I can make people aware of a County Treasurer sure to expose where every single tax dollar goes.

To this, I have to say mission accomplished. People were favorable to the idea of a completely audited funds dispersal process, and though I did not get a delegation seat, I got information on an often unimportant seat as well as the opportunity to get these members to think.

When I walked in I knew I had little hope of winning. see more…

( -)-(- )Comments Off

Introducing HoT’s newest contributor: Chad Ginsburg

In fact, I’ll let Chad Ginsburg introduce himself with this fantastic video presented at Liberty First earlier this month. It gets a little long with the Q&A going on towards the end, but it’s one of the best examples of the Colorado Springs political scene (Liberty First is a bi-monthly meeting often frequented by GOP candidates seeking votes and “buzz”). Chad’s a genial libertarian and a natural showman and I’m eager to exploit nurture that.

Welcome aboard Chad, and thanks for being a rock star by helping hand out a bajillion Hammer of Truth stickers already.

( -)-(- )Comments Off

GOP “wave” building in 2014?

It may be a little early for the prediction game, but the tea leaves (no pun intended) on 2014 are starting to look pretty good for the GOP.

First it’s next to impossible for the Democrats and their leader, President Barack Obama, to separate themselves from Obama’s signature legislation, commonly known as Obamacare.

With Obamacare the polling approval numbers are bleak. A majority (50%) view it as a disaster, wanting a full repeal — with that same Rasmussen Poll showing a staggering 81% Favor Repealing or Changing the Health Care Law.

These are not some outlier pollsters either.

Over at Real Clear Politics the RCP average of all the polls shows that a full 19% more people disapproving of the Health Care Law over approving of it.

Second, these numbers are likely to get much worse before the 2014 mid-term elections. see more…

( -)-(- )5 comments

Life and death: Hyperbole is a politician’s best friend

Not random enough

I’ve been non-watchdogging the political world for a few weeks, nay a month. I feels *sane* to be more productive rather than ranting about our continuous loss of freedoms. Freedoms wrought from us by an incompetent bureaucracy and powerful police state being erected in contempt of America’s history. We’re galloping into 2013, the Chinese year of the snake. Maybe the Gadsden flag will get dusted off for Tea Party 2.0. Wherein I expect some under-appreciated discontents will finally undigitize the revolution.

Mankind is currently having an identity crisis between eloquent promises of liberty-loving (mostly for themselves) and outright distaste for their fellow man (through their actions of edict and decree). Me? I’m just a programmer coding the shit out of PHP making glorious websites and sometimes issuing my own decree (this is one).

Maybe I’m a selfish prick too, just looking out for #1. Nah, I’ve somehow managed to rope others (ahem, dad) into helping us all tag-team the Revolution while I pretend to do that work thing in an office for pay, (and probably drink too much with coworkers and potential clients).

{cue laugh track with smattering of claps}

Colorado, COLORADO… oh sweet ***Colorado***

I hardly know you, but I’m concerned with your bureaucratic parasites sucking away the freedoms of guns, god and gold (and apparently ganja). Pretty soon they’ll be taking your whiskey away and then it’s back after the weed. How in the world would you fight that again without guns? You wouldn’t, so you shouldn’t back down now.

Dudes… are you smothering them with pot smoke, in which case okay kudos.

The Pueblo and Colorado Springs scene sucks my breath away. Not just because I’ve previously been bopping my head to Ohio’s Yeah Yeah Yeahs and Kid Cudi. But because with indifference and 5000ft altitude, we here also suck when we give them the power over our bodies and minds. But we’re not.

We have the resistance rising up out of antipathy, and it’s going to come from people like you and me, dontchaknow.

So I want you to wish deeply and….

aaaaaaaand…..

aaaaaaaaannnnnnnnnnnddddd…..

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAANNNNNNNNNNNNNDDDDDDDDD!!!!!….

….

…AND THAT’S WHY I TURNED OFF THE ADS AT HAMMER OF TRUTH.

{cue theme song, roll credits}

Seriously though, the rest of the editors around here suck, you’re all fired. Just kidding, maintain your post sitting there consuming Hammer of Truth instead of driving it while I was gone, but without ad revenue no one’s ever getting paid, ever… mwuahahahaha…. /our remaining readers are probably laughing at you

( -)-(- )Comments Off

CBS bans SodaStream SuperBowl ads in favor of soda duopoly

It’s not just politics that the mainstream media has a duopoly problem with. CBS has decreed that the only fizzy sugar drink ads it will be airing during the Super Bowl are Coke or Pepsi:

CBS banned SodaStream’s Super Bowl spot because, apparently, it was too much of a direct hit to two of its biggest sponsors, Coke and Pepsi.

Please pause and read that sentence again.

I am shocked that CBS would ban a spot for being too competitive. But I’m even more shocked that the advertising world isn’t up in arms about it.

The media’s job isn’t to judge.
SodaStream has a product that could be wildly disruptive to the soda industry, if successful. As in, the “automobile” to the soda industry’s “buggy whip.” If SodaStream takes off, Coke and Pepsi would have a lot to worry about, for sure. But isn’t that what progress is all about?

CBS is protecting its relationship with Coke and Pepsi. Those two brands spend big bucks on the Super Bowl and on the network, in general. I get it. But all CBS would have to do, if Coke and Pepsi put the pressure on, is say, “Hey, we’re just the unbiased middle man here. It’s not up to us what competitors of yours say about you.” There’s no need for the medium to have a say in the message. […]

No more ‘Davids’ allowed.
I also called veteran creative director, David Baldwin, of Baldwin&, to get his take with CBS’s move. He nailed it. “That’s a disturbing turn of events. No more Davids allowed I guess at CBS.”

And it’s so unnecessary. If CBS had simply played the “unbiased middleman” card in this case, there’s very little Coke and Pepsi could have done. They certainly would not have pulled their Super Bowl ads. Instead, Coke and Pepsi would have been forced to retrench and figure out a marketing way to solve this SodaStream problem and not a mafia way (I mean that metaphorically, of course).

Now, CBS has essentially opened the door for its biggest advertisers to forever complain about those “annoying little competitors” that are trying to steal share. “Take them off the air. Make them stop!” is what they will scream. “You did it for Coke and Pepsi.”

And it won’t only be CBS. All media will have to bear the burden of this biased, un-capitalistic, anti-progress, move. But, guess what? This isn’t the first time in recent months CBS has overplayed its hand.

Libertarians have long complained of their blackout in the media, yet we’ve seen a more and more blatant bias towards Democrats and Republicans in news coverage at outlets such as CBS. “We told you so” has become the standard refrain from libertarians when it comes to voting for the lesser of two evils presented as the only viable choices.

Thankfully, corporations like SodaStream won’t take the affront lying down, and I expect a major campaign is in the works similar to when UK broadcaster ClearCast also banned them:

Clearcast said in a statement that the ad “denigrated other soft drinks.” In response, SodaStream U.K.’s managing director Fiona Hope called the move “absurd” and said that Clearcast clearly gives priority to soft drink giants.

But it seems SodaStream will have the last laugh. Bloomberg reports that the company is enjoying considerable levels of success on the stock market this year. In the U.K., the video has been viewed more than a millon times online. Jim Chartier, an analyst from research firm Monness Crespi Hardt & Co., explains the obvious — that “SodaStream got a ton of free advertising and publicity because the ad was banned.”

Regardless of whether or not SodaStream portrayed big soda companies unfairly in this ad, it can’t be denied that it has baited big outfits in the past. This past summer, SodaStream erected a caged display of used soft drink and water bottles in South Africa — including Coca-Cola products — to illustrate the wastefulness of bottled drinks. Similar SodaStream exhibits have popped up across the globe in the last two years, with stops in Times Square and Union Square in New York City.

Coca-Cola responded with a cease and desist letter — after which SodaStream announced plans to build a used bottle display not far from Coca-Cola headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia.

Score for the little(r) guy, I hope they are planning to stick it to CBS as well.

Update by Stephen VanDyke: This ban is actually a little stale (over a week old), but SodaStream has capitalized on this in the best way possible, splashing the ad (over 2.2M views as of this update) on the front page of their website.

And no, it’s not low quality stuff that makes Ronco look good.

( -)-(- )3 comments

The GOP isn’t fracturing, it’s transforming into libertarians

The Week has a three-point list of divisions the Republican Party is currently squabbling over:

1. Libertarians vs. social conservatives

These two GOP strains have never gotten along with each other. One group says government should stay out of people’s personal lives while the other tries to impose its own morality on others.

2. Right wing populists vs. the pro-business crowd

Despite campaign rhetoric, pro-business Republicans are usually just fine with government subsidies, liberal immigration policies, and bailouts — as long as they help keep the profits flowing. But the populist strain in the party sees big business as no better than big government.

3. Deficit reduction hawks vs. small government activists

Though it would seem these two groups have a lot in common, real deficit hawks recognize we must raise taxes along with cutting spending to get the country out from under the debt burden. But the small government fanatics are against all tax increases for any reason.

Republicans have been able to paper over their differences for decades, mainly by uniting the party against the common enemy of “big government.” But when the GOP controlled all branches of government during the Bush years, they actually did nothing to shrink government. It just got larger, helping to exacerbate the tensions between the various factions.

Of course, the real story isn’t GOP factions fighting over these issues, but that libertarians have filled their ranks and converted minds since the the Ron Paul revolution began in earnest back in 2007. Libertarians are flanking GOP statists from all sides and enthusiastically showing the errors and results of the Republican establishment’s deviations from their core principles.

After all, it hasn’t been mainstream Republicans spearheading a Federal Reserve audit, corporate entitlement cuts (opposing bailouts) and ending foreign entanglements, but it’s something that even John Boehner can no longer ignore. The fights that once belonged to libertarians, until the Tea Party movement began forcing those issues into the mainstream, are not something party leaders are willing to come to terms with, but they will.

Now, the Tea Party brand has obviously crested and is being re-enveloped by the indefatigable libertarian brand. In its wake is a generation of liberty activists who have grown up and come of age having failed to see the Republican revolution of the 90s keep its promises. These libertarians now threaten to either: topple the Republican establishment from within towards limited government principles; Further implode it into a powerless vacuum of dissent and antipathy.

This isn’t fracturing, it’s a war of transformation back to small-government principles, and libertarians are riding a tsunami of discontent all the way to victory.

( -)-(- )7 comments

Republicans allege election rigging in Pueblo, CO

Here’s the bombshell press release from Pueblo county GOP chairwoman Becky Mizel as forwarded to us:

The Pueblo County Republican Party with support of members of the Constitution Party and Democrat Party requested a recount on December 5th, 2012, due to the following areas of concern:

  • Critical election anomalies were observed in at least 25 precincts. Based on data posted on the Secretary of State’s web site identifying voter turn-out by Precinct and a report provided by Pueblo County Clerk’s office on active Mail in Ballots that were compared and found to have potential voter turnout to exceed 100% of the registered voters. It was verified by phone with both the Secretary of State and the Pueblo County Clerk’s office that this could not have occurred due to provisional ballots replacing mail in ballots. A sample of these precincts is attached. In attempt to further cross check these results, audit calls were made to these precincts, at least 6 voters in one precinct stated they had not voted which substantiated that the election results should be recounted.
  • Election data provided later differed from the canvassing board summary created by the Pueblo County Clerk’s office.
  • It was observed and reported to the County Clerk Gilbert Ortiz groups and individuals were observed picking up more than 10 mail-in ballots and delivering them to the County Clerk’s office. PCRP registered a complaint due to potential voter fraud. Mr. Ortiz stated he was aware this had occurred, to remedy this situation if a person delivered over 10 ballots he was having the individuals sign in on a sheet located at the election department. At the time of canvassing the Republican canvassing member asked to receive these lists of persons delivering more than 10 ballots. The Democrat canvass member stated, “This list is under investigation, so you may not have access to the lists”. No such investigation has been reported to the Secretary of State’s office to date nor is any record of the investigation available by the Pueblo County District Attorney.
  • The integrity of the chain of custody of main in ballots was not preserved. Mail- in ballots were seen being carried into Democrat headquarters. Ballots were being collected by door knocking. Two judges were not present at all times at drop off locations for mail in ballots. No system was in lace to detect if one individual dropped off more than 10 mails- in ballots over the course of the election.
  • It is the expectation the election department has limited access of individuals and security measures to protect voting machines, ballots and ballot processing. Mr. Ortiz gave the candidates a tour of the election department stating only limited personnel had access to keys to the election department. When various people were observed entering the election department after hours and through varying entrances that are not under video surveillance Mr. Ortiz later stated “All personnel have keys and access to the department”. During early voting, lights were observed on in the election department after hours of operation as late as 9:00PM to 11:00 PM at night with people inside the department to include cleaning crews file storage boxes were also seen leaving the department after hours. Upon inquiry of this breach of security, the county attorney’s office sent written notification housekeeping personnel were not allowed in the election department, Mr. Ortiz stated his staff cleaned the election office. Upon observation of the video surveillance cameras unsupervised cleaning crews were inside of the election department after working hours on at least two occasions. Furthermore, areas of the election department are not under camera surveillance to include a storage area where voting cartridges are stored. These oversights compromise the integrity and confidence of the voting public no matter what party affiliation.
  • Once a candidate is elected is our belief that they represent equally all the people. In the spirit of cooperation, Mr. Ortiz was put on notice on 11/21/12 that we planned to ask for a recount of the election so that he was not caught off guard. It is our belief that it was as beneficial to the County Clerk as it was to our candidates to conduct a recount given the questions. A great deal of research was done to attempt to determine what the cost would be as no guidance or help was provided from the County Clerk. The result was a $6,000-$8,000 price. We were prepared for it to be double that cost. The price to us was $29, 385. We checked the validity of this price through various sources and were told this price was not appropriate. PCRP filed the final recount request on 12/5.12Mr. Ortiz then informed us at 7:00 PM that we needed to have the money to his office at 5:00 PM on the 6th. Mr. Ortiz had known for two weeks that we planned to ask for a recount but found no need to give us any guidance on how we make this happen and represent all the people of Pueblo County.
  • These areas and other factors such as difficulties with poll watcher access prompted a recount request. These actions serve to disenfranchise election transparency and accountability by making fees for a recount unrealistic. A report of other county recount costs is attached as is a sample of the data that we sought to clarify.

According to a sampling of precincts, there is a major discrepancy in voter turnout (when non-voters are counted it goes well over 100%), which should be enough to raise eyebrows with the Colorado Secretary of State.

From my own personal investigation into the matter and speaking with several witnesses (who will gladly testify under oath, but fear reprisal if this investigation doesn’t take hold) they saw people loading mail-in ballots into cars and trucks at all hours of the night in the days prior to the election.

Worse, the people doing the “dirty deeds” were not even election officials, but complete unknowns that gladly flaunted the presence of security cameras.

Democrat Pueblo County Clerk Gilbert Ortiz has clearly showed a lax standard for ballot chain of custody and we’d love him to answer for it (again, we’ve gone after Republicans for the same scandals in the past).

We here at Hammer of Truth would love to see a formal inquiry launched into the matter. And to again be clear: if it were Republicans doing such dirty deeds, we’d be just as interested in a full investigation.

Becky Mizel, the Pueblo County GOP Chairwoman has being adamant that they aren’t trying to overturn the outcome (and indeed has conceded that Obama remains the president no matter the outcome here), but is seeking to ensure that there are elections free of impropriety now and in the future. She’s also claiming that a recount request was improperly handled, causing the GOP to miss the deadline.

[A full list of attached documents have been uploaded to Scribd as one file: The Pueblo County Attorney’s Office response for requested video tapes, a sampling of precincts showing OVER 100% TURNOUT (ye gads), and the cost of a full recount as requested by the Pueblo County GOP.]

( -)-(- )4 comments

Add another star, Puerto Ricans want statehood (or not)

In October, we informed you that Puerto Rico would be voting on whether to become the 51st member of the United States of America. It appears the majority of voters there may get their wish, but only if Republicans don’t drag their heels and block the process for purely political reasons:

VOTERS may have voted for more of the same in America on election day, but in Puerto Rico they opted for decisive change. In a two-stage plebiscite—the island’s fourth referendum regarding its relationship with the United States—54% of the electorate voted to change Puerto Rico’s current status as a self-governing “commonwealth”, and 61% wanted the new form of government to be full American statehood.

[…] The vote will not have immediate consequences. Congress would have to pass a law admitting Puerto Rico for it to become a state. With a fiscal squeeze looming at the start of 2013 lawmakers will have their hands full in the coming months. And the island’s government is unlikely to push the issue aggressively following the election as governor of Alejandro García Padilla, who supports a continued commonwealth.

Moreover, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives has little incentive to address the topic. According to exit polls, 83% of boricuas on the mainland voted for Barack Obama. Statehood would add two Senate seats and a House delegation of five, the same size as Oregon’s and probably as reliably Democratic.

Unless the island holds another vote that yields a different result, however, Puerto Rico has now officially requested statehood. If Democrats retake the House in 2014, they would be well-advised to try to add a 51st star to the flag.

As a libertarian-republican with Puerto Rican friends dotted across the country, I say give the people what they voted for.

After all, once Puerto Ricans become full-blown hard-working Americans subjugated by the IRS like the rest of us, they will certainly not be so enthused about the Democrat Party’s nonsense core tenet of redistribution of wealth.

Update: A commenter here at HoT aptly points out that all is not as it appears.

José writes, “Puerto Ricans did not vote for statehood. When you add the votes in favor of independence as well as the blank votes which were casted [sic] in protest, along with those also casted [sic] in protest in favor of a sovereign comonwealth [sic], statehood just got the typical 45%.”

He continues, “Now, you’re probably asking yourselves why would anyone vote a certain way in protest? The answer is very simple: the Commonwealth option was NOT incuded [sic] in the referendum.”

The status referendum results do indeed show that while a majority chose to change the status of their country, a minority actually chose statehood with 480,749 casting blank protest ballots. “55% of the residents of Puerto Rico REPUDIATED statehood.”

“They just want to fix what they have so they can sustain their own economy without having to endure the indignity of Washington’s handouts.” I couldn’t agree more.

And yes José, I like spending words (especially for making corrections and clarification), I hope you’ll oblige a few more.

( -)-(- )6 comments

GOP civil war: Herman Cain calls for new third party

Not content with getting his ass handed to him by the Ron Paul supporters over his comments on the Federal Reserve (“there were plenty of internal audits”), and being forced to walk away from the 2012 Republican primary campaign trail in disgrace over multiple alleged sex scandals, Herman Cain is now calling for a civil war within the GOP which will culminate in a new third party full of social conservatives:

“I never thought that I would say this, and this is the first time publicly that I’ve said it: We need a third party to save this country. Not Ron Paul and the Ron Paulites. No. We need a legitimate third party to challenge the current system that we have, because I don’t believe that the Republican Party … has the ability to rebrand itself,” Cain said.

You can listen to the whole radio interview here.

It’s pretty clear from his actions that Cain has no interest in building anything other than a gold palace to himself in his lifetime, so I say let him start off down the third party road to failure so many have traveled.

Cain’s Pro War and Racist Pizza Party can ignore the Federal Reserve’s deplorable fiscal policy of printing fiat money by the truckload, offer to leverage the government to force people to conform to socially conservative policies that are widely rejected, and we can all laugh when this inexperienced upstart third party fails miserably behind the Constitution Party due to the ridiculous ballot access laws.

The media sneering will of course be bipartisan in nature, but maybe we’ll come to like him again in Internet memes if he’ll flash that creepy smile at us some more.

( -)-(- )3 comments

One million libertarians, two million libertarians

Libertarian Party presidential candidate and former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson did the unbelievable this Tuesday: he created the new high-water mark for Libertarians by earning over 1.1 million votes in the general election.

But — to paraphrase Kanye West, “Yo Johnson, I’m really happy for you, Imma let you finish, but Ron Paul had one of the biggest libertarian campaigns of all time.”

That’s right. Ron Paul, who ran as a Republican Party primary candidate for president, was this year’s actual winner of the highest libertarian campaign vote get, with over two million votes.

Now, big “L” purists would argue that Ron Paul’s campaign doesn’t count — but I’m busy counting libertarian votes, not Libertarian votes. And of course I’m coming from the position of wanting to elect libertarians; not merely paint a new, but otherwise meaningless, high-water mark.

( -)-(- )3 comments

2012 election results

I’ll be away from the blog this evening, but I encourage everyone to use the Google elections map, just because it’s probably the best tool out there created by some incredibly smart coders.

And just for giggles, here’s my predictions, cross-posted from IPR:

Romney wins.

Johnson breaks 1M, barely. Gets credit for handing wins to Romney in Colorado and possibly Ohio. Time for democrats to hate libertarians.

Amendment 64 passes in Colorado with surprisingly strong republican support. Battle lines drawn for 10th amendment showdown with federal government.

I’m basing my judgement on the Romney/Obama matchup on an apparent gaffe by the president during the Town Hall debate when he (mis)stated “when I was president.”

I am rather certain he was being prophetic in that utterance.

Update: You can track Colorado’s Amendment 64 / marijuana legalization issue here, on the very last page (use the dropdown). Colorado polls close at 7PM MST / 9PM EST.

Here’s to “the entire country getting on airplanes to go to Denver for the weekend to chill out.” Good call GJ.

Update 11/7: Obama gets another four years, GJ got over 1M (yep, barely) and Amendment 64 passed (1,027,893 Yes to 898,317 No with 23 of 64 Colorado counties reporting)… two out of three predictions ain’t so bad, all things considered. I really should have stuck with my original assessment I told a few people (not on any record) that Obama would get re-elected if he convinced people the economy was rebounding by June, but I guess my time hanging out with Republicans had tinted my view. C’est la vie.

( -)-(- )Comments Off

XKCD infographic of 224 years of Congress

Follow the yellow line on the right to see who had the majority. SOURCE:

Interesting to note that Republicans have only had control of the President, House and Senate for a relatively short period (106th, 108th, 109th) and chose to enact tax cuts rather than repeal government largess. And of course that trend quickly reversed when Obama took office and enjoyed a Democrat majority during which his major “reform” measure was to expand government into the healthcare industry.

Is it any wonder that libertarians find themselves better aligned within the GOP than the DNC (when they aren’t piddling with the always marginalized LP)? One is actually willing to give your money back to you and let the government peons flip out over how to pay for things (ahem, fire some bureaucrats please), while the other eventually succumbs to the reality that Obamacare is a massive tax hike.

( -)-(- )Comments Off

LibertyManiacs presents the Veep debate drinking game

I’ll be live-blogging the Vice Presidential debate (sober, unlike the press in Kentucky), but friend of the site Dan McCall of LibertyManiacs has put out a timely rules chart for how you might want to “enjoy” the show the duopoly tag team has in store.

“If you’re going to drink the Kool-Aid, you might as well spike it.” Well said:

Also, one side-show to keep an eye out for is Libertarian Party Vice Presidential candidate Judge Jim Gray — who promises to make his own stand online by answering the same questions as the other candidates. Go ahead and drink if he mentions “Obamney”, “The Federal Reserve” or that neither party is “following the constitution”.

Yes, that drinking game is much more depressing.

Whether you’ll be drinking or not tonight, brace yourself, the internet is going to be slammed with drunk libertarians and independents…

( -)-(- )Comments Off