The threat to democracy has never been greater. Or has it? Yes, it probably has. But that is not the point. As a mostly libertarian – a word I still use though it is not necessarily the best due to all the differences within the movement – I am obviously not a fan of total, unfettered democracy. I don’t really understand the ones who claim democracy is universally good – except when those uneducated rubes vote the wrong way. Democracy is a tool which can be used in different ways. In the end, wrongthinkers and yokel and such unfashionable folk only show that noble democracy was somehow corrupted and must be fixed, not that it has inherent problems. Indeed, some people do believe – I do not use the word think because they don’t – democracy is good in itself, for some reason. The ones for which appeal to majority is not a logical fallacy, but an unbeatable argument. They love democracy don’t they, just like they fucking love science. In fact they love it to bits whenever they are in the 51 percent who win. The moment the little hypocrites end up in the 49 percent, they start discovering the wreckers undermining it. And, by George, they know how to fix it.
I am critical of many modern writers on politics, especially the pomo crowd but also the Curtis Yarvin types, because they often use verbose, dense, obscurantist language. In my view, there is too much stuff out there and frankly I do not have time to go through everything, especially if an idea if it is not clearly expressed. I do not want to dig through nonsense to find the essence of the thing. So I prefer expressing ideas short and clear.
For me my prime issue with democracy can be expressed quite in few words that are familiar to libertarians: you don’t get a vote on how I live my life and I don’t get a vote on how you live yours. You may offer a suggestion and I can agree or not. In fact I can tell you to take you suggestion and shove it, if I so choose. That’s the beauty of suggestions, as opposed to orders. To fix democracy for me would be to simply put very clear limits upon the scope of democracy, and that scope should be awfully limited. I believe there is need for some common decision making in all ideologies, anarchy included. But the question is at what “common” is, and this needs be as little as possible.
This led me to thinking. Is the way I express it simple and clear enough? I would say so. Is it persuasive? Because very often libertarian and adjacent people are not necessarily persuasive in the way they express ideas. I would think for progs and socons absolutely not, as they believe they do get to decide how I live, though they occasionally do not say that directly, but with vague appeal to society and the common goo[sic].
So fellow glibbies, how do you express your opposition to limitless democracy – in the modern lefty sense of the word, how do you phrase it and do you feel it is a persuasive phrasing? Do you focus on the individual or is it better to focus on the notion of protecting a minority from the tyranny of majority, like the classic two wolves and a lamb holding a vote. Individuals are, after all, the smallest minority. So do comment [except those of you damn curmudgeons which does not like being told what to do, to you I say do not comment]…
“[except those of you damn curmudgeons which does not like being told what to do, to you I say do not comment]…”
Up yours, pal. I comment where and when I like.
Hey, waitasec…
My rejoinder to limitless democracy is simply “so gang rape is okay because the majority involved approve?”
You’re not my supervisor!
For me my prime issue with democracy can be expressed quite in few words that are familiar to libertarians: you don’t get a vote on how I live my life and I don’t get a vote on how you live yours.
“Scope of authority”. Democracy only works when contained within the boundaries of healthy governance. Style of governance means nothing when scope of authority is not respected.
democratic-socialism is still socialism
‘Scope of Authority’ is a really good way of phrasing it, and I don’t think that the concept is limited to democracy. There are social structures here in the US, right this minute, that are basically autocracies, and everyone involved is perfectly fine with it. Why? Because their scope of authority is clearly defined and delimited.
R.A.H. (speaking as Lazarus Long, natch), said, “Government can work as long as authority and responsibility are equal and coordinate.” I can’t really argue with the sentiment, and I can’t think of any modern government that has anything like such a parity.
One of the failures of the Constitution, IMO, is that it doesn’t outline penalties if its Amendments are violated by public officials, both elected & hired.
(OT I just paid $3.80/gallon with my grocery store discount. So I got that going for me)
I believe the original penalties were tar and feathers.
Fine by me!
They can’t and won’t penalize themselves. The penalty is supposed to be enforced by the citizenry on them either at the ballot box or otherwise.
Unfortunately, we are well past that sort of check on their power being effective.
Mob rule sucks.
The mod tends to like it.
Groovy point, man.
At least they have Vespas and are sharp dressers.
I wear my war-time coat in the wind and sleet.
Gotta drop a link for that masterpiece.
No way.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uS0S5-5JK_w
In all seriousness, good article.
I think to be eligible to vote you should be a libertarian or maybe an anarchist.
One simple question, “Do you hate the state?” if you answer yes you can vote.
No idea how to enforce this.
Maybe we could start with, if you get money from the government you can’t vote?
Paycheck, welfare, pension, or disability pay, any would disqualify you.
Not feeling this one.
Why not?
If you are getting disability payments, your incentives align with expanding payouts.
Being disabled isn’t really a choice, is it?
The rest of them are based on choices.
True, but you’re still getting money from the state.
If I were god-king, I would even expand it to employees of companies that get paid subsidies.
Don’t hate the player, hate the game.
You’re being awfully generous with people on disability payments. Some truly need help, but I imagine a significant percentage, probably a sizeable majority, are just gaming the system. I mean being obese qualifies you and that’s definitely a choice. Or head over to Bogleheads and read where people with 7 figures saved and making 300k/year are trying to figure out how to get their 60 year old mothers on disability.
Remove the State from the equation and the truly disabled people who cannot work at all will still be taken care of. Either through family and friends or from charities (which would rise again with the State removed).
I would even accept a version of caring for the disabled which was common before the nineteenth century. If you’ve worked hard most of your life, and you’ve lived in “our” town, then we’ll support you from public money if you’re physically unable to work.
Sailors/pirates/privateers often made allowances for disabled crewmen, and gave them jobs that they could do.
In some of the documents I’ve been looking at in recent years, there are petitions from local people asking that a townsman who can no longer farm (as an example) be given a license to run a tavern. That way he doesn’t become a burden on a town and also generates some revenue.
To me, that is a hallmark of an advanced society.
Sailors/pirates/privateers often made allowances for disabled crewmen, and gave them jobs that they could do
I think a cook’s warrant was common one.
Sailors/pirates/privateers often made allowances for disabled crewmen, and gave them jobs that they could do.
Whoring?
Being disabled isn’t really a choice, is it?
Sometimes yes, sometimes no.
My mom used to have a guy work for her that was “disabled” so was his wife and daughter.
When the daughter became pregnant at 16 they were so excited and SURPRISE that kid got put on disability also.
That guy “Lazy Larry” as I called him, was a math wiz at knowing how much work he could do without affecting his benefits.
If you are a net tax recipient, no vote.
If you are a net tax contributor, vote.
Sounds fair but the government has its tentacles in so many things it’s probably impossible to calculate.
Expand the franchise by getting off the public teat!
There is also weighted voting. I’ve seen it for tax-increment financing. The vote is weighted by how much your taxes would increase under the new tax.
Eh, what if someone is proposing a licensing scheme whereby I will likely lose my job (zero income, zero taxes?). I don’t necessarily think Bill Gates should have ten thousand votes to my one, especially in issues which are not necessarily financial in their impact.
Taxes are due when you submit your ballot, and there is a question on the ballot of “How much should the government budget be next year?” with options for “stay the same”, “+10%”, “+25%”,”-10%”, “-25%”. Your taxes are calculated based on that number and the budget must be balanced annually. If you can’t pay your taxes, your vote doesn’t count.
I like this system, so long as we’re showing the dollar value they’re going to owe.
I like the idea of everyone pays the amount they think it right, but your choice is made public.
Social pressure, shaming, etc can come into play.
I would rather have social pressure than coercion.
Of course. Society >> Government.
What do you mean? We are the government and the government is us!
So then you end up with a bunch of people who are subject to the laws, but who don’t get a say in them. I see some potential problems here.
I know, but I think it would be better than now.
We already have the problem of people with either no skin in the game or beneficiaries of government spending voting themselves more goodies at the expense of the productive class. You can opt in to vote if you forego enough of your government goodies to become a net taxpayer, your choice. Either have skin in game and have a say, or be on the taxpayer teat and forego the vote.
Uh hold on there. I have no say in the law that I am subject to as things stand now. I have no representation of my views.
Agreed. I live by that rule and no vote, no conflict of interest.
So I prefer expressing ideas short and clear.
So do I. And I agree completely with your assessment of the Yarvin and Yarvin-adjacent thinkers. GET TO THE FUCKING POINT!
Is the way I express it simple and clear enough?
It is. Malice often uses a simple statement that resonates pretty well: You do not speak for me.
I love it when people tell me something is a threat to democracy. My reply: It’s about fucking time!
Thanks, Pie. I enjoyed this!
Democracy is assho.
The left has been very effective in perverting words for their own use. “Democracy” is just another example. Most people still view it favorably, but in practice when the left says “democracy” it means “we get what we want”.
Thanks for writing. This week we’ve had a lot of deep thinking pieces, and I like it.
Dave Smith said something along the lines of “Democracy=good, in those people’s minds.”
Which is a lie. What they really means is democracy=good WHEN it is my party/beliefs in power. Democracy is HORRIBLE when the other party has power.
That they use the word democracy as a stand in for good all the time, was his point.
They don’t consider it democracy when the other team wins.
Yup, keep on holding votes until you get what you want. Then the issue is settled law and should never be revisited. /S
/S?
That’s not sarcastic at all, that’s exactly what they believe. It is so fucking dishonest that they should be smacked in the nose for it.
I just wanted it to be clear that wasn’t my position. It absolutely is theirs.
“ ….because they often use verbose, dense, obscurantist language”
Call it what it is. Verbal diarrhea.
Also thank you for writing this! I enjoyed it.
I need lunch.
Ron, I found a new Stoic friend for you.
Nice.
There definitely have to be limits to democracy, as you all above have discussed. The constitution was meant to be such a limit, but the people have to understand and accept it as such a limiting force, and fewer and fewer seem to every day.
Toddlers don’t like to be told they can’t have what they want.
I don’t think the issue is that libertarian arguments are necessarily unpersuasive as much as it is that you can only convince most people of so much. You are often times fighting a life time of conditioning which has told people to believe the exact opposite of what you are arguing. These things were never presented to them in terms of arguments or rational thoughts, but just as simple and self-evident truths. Why, of course we can’t legalize drugs! It doesn’t matter how simple and rational your arguments are. Or how many ways you can show that person to be a hypocrite. Most will just insist that, well, drugs are different and special.
Why, of course we can’t legalize drugs!
I’ll also point out that the conditioning sometimes goes layers deep.
“Why can’t we legalize drugs?”
“Because then my 15 year old kid will get into drugs in their high school”
How many unthinking presumptions are built into that reply? I can count a few.
– making it illegal makes it not show up in high schools
– your kid getting into drugs is something you have no influence over
– your kid needs to attend a school where drugs are a problem
– preventing children from illegally getting something is a reason to prevent adults from legally getting that thing
etc.
It’s not enough to peel back one layer of the onion. Each layer of faulty presumptions has to be challenged separately.
Not to mention, we can’t even keep drugs out of prisons, how are you going to keep them out of high schools without making them worse then prisons?
how are you going to keep them out of high schools without making them worse then prisons?
Feature, not bug.
Exactly.
How many idiot socons had the response of adding more police and metal detectors to schools because of school shooting?
Fuck you.
Don’t forget “resource officers” and K-9 drug dog sweeps to keep the drugs out. Thankfully they were rare when I was in high school (as in maybe a handful of times over all four years).
It was rare when I was in school, but started my Junior year. Announcing it they stressed, “do not try to pet the dogs!” I had a buddy that was always high and he would bend down trying to pet the dog saying “hiiiii puppyyyy”. The handler always pulled the dog away, and he’d just walked on by while the dog was going, “um, did I smell pot.”
DARE to keep kids off Ritalin.
DARE to resist government force.
The Uvalde shooting has cleaved a number of them off from this knee-jerk response. What good does it do to put more police in schools when there were plenty of police there already who stood around and instead of stopping it, made it worse?
However, they’re probably not going to come around to a libertarian solution. Rotten police can be solved in multiple ways, after all.
Yup. I think many don’t know the horrible details, and those that do might think it was just a bad apple.
We’re just not police stateing hard enough.
Oh it’s even better, because if you ask them “if drugs were legal would you use them?”, they’ll always answer no. So really the law doesn’t matter to them about their own behavior – it’s stopping other people from doing it.
People only want other people to stop doing drugs because they have a whole bunch of assumptions about what people are like on drugs (thanks to the state putting those ideas there) and very little actual experience. Part of what gave me the politics I have today was being in my mid twenties and being exposed to people on different drugs or trying some myself and realizing how much they’ve been intentionally misrepresented. If they would knowingly lie about drugs, their effects and the people who use them, what else would they lie about?
I’m not trying to say that casual drug use is something that should become wide spread or completely destigmatized, but to act like using cocaine one time will turn you into a hopeless addict who’ll steal anything, lie with every breath and start living under bridges is absurd. It does not give anyone the right to completely strip those people of their freedom “for their own good”.
I have this argument with my father nearly every time we see each other.
“Time Jr. did you see that the Chinese are smuggling Fentanyl across the border in Mexicans, the smuggled enough to kill our entire population.” ” We need to kill every drug trafficker that is caught on the border”
“Dad. don’t you think that if this stuff is that potent than we could never stop it?” “By making it harder to get in, we would make the cost that much higher then the drug lords would have even more incentive to get some through.” ” If we made it legal then there would be no incentive to smuggle it and all of the violence would go away.”
“Time Jr. Not with this stuff it makes people die, then Kids would be dying from it.”
“Dad they are dying now, besides they only started smuggling Fentanyl because we made heroin trafficking more difficult” “So the US government made heroin more potent and Fentanyl laced drugs more profitable because they cracked down so hard on the original drug.” ” So if nothing was done to control drugs at the border they would still be using low potency drugs and less people would be dead.”
“Time Jr. you don’t get it you need to stop any drugs from getting in.”
“Dad, when is the game on, do you want a beer.”
Speaking of the fruits of democracy. I’m starting to see joyous posts pop up on my academic friend’s FB feeds: “student loans forgiven” (I know this was talked about on the AM links.
Yes, if you graduate twenty years ago, have worked in a job with higher than median salary, got married, had kids, went on overseas vacations, bought a house, bought cars, we’re going to wipe all the student debt off your account.
Since they don’t care about economic impacts or moral hazards, just declare a debt jubilee for all debts public or private. Imagine what everyone could do if they didn’t have any debt.
Just as legitimate.
How about forgiving all tax debt, and pardoning everybody in federal prison for tax evasion?
I have a PDF file called Toilet_Paper.pdf. My wife clicked on it and saw that was the Constitution and Bill of Rights. She just rolls her eyes. I try to read it yearly.
Thanks for writing this, Pie.
void where prohibited by law
https://www.reddit.com/r/GhettoStreetFights/comments/viyjfo/both_titties_were_out_not_my_video/
nsfw, tiddies.
Those kicks though.
Pretty good outside foot sweep from the clinch by pink.
Rabbit punch FTW!
‘I am critical of many modern writers on politics, especially the pomo crowd but also the Curtis Yarvin types, because they often use verbose, dense, obscurantist language. In my view, there is too much stuff out there and frankly I do not have time to go through everything, especially if an idea if it is not clearly expressed. I do not want to dig through nonsense to find the essence of the thing. So I prefer expressing ideas short and clear.’
Strongly agree Pie. Sounds like some of the ‘moderates ‘or whatever they call themselves really just want a kingdom or other form of semi authoritarian rule. That’s fine, but be man enough to say it without hiding behind words.
Who is Publius?
A traitor to the revolution?
Heh, I guess so, but talk about reviving old conflicts. Long live the antifederalists.
I swear to finish my article today.
So fellow glibbies, how do you express your opposition to limitless democracy – in the modern lefty sense of the word, how do you phrase it and do you feel it is a persuasive phrasing?
“Fuck off, slaver”
Now to get back to work…
Co-sign from AZ. At this point, there just isn’t much benefit in trying to engage irrational, emotionally charged progressives. Waste of time.
I don’t. Several reasons:
1) I can say something pithy with amusement, but probably unpersuasive.
2) I can say something pithy with sarcasm because I’m pissy, but it will be unpersuasive because I’m being bitchy.
3) I can say something pithy and be asked to back it up, and … I can’t. Many things I used to be able to argue well I either forgot, is no longer relevant, or I’ve changed my mind. I haven’t fisked anyone in years and that’s how I constructed arguments.
4) I have too much on my mind to get into pointless arguments.
5) Most of the time, it’s just not worth the effort.
This, especially 3-5.
I’ve found much the same, and also found that arguing is definitely not worth the time or effort. So what I find myself doing these days is challenging assumptions, and then changing the subject (or just dropping it, if we’re talking about online interactions). The idea is to leave a little doubt in their mind, to get them to look more into it, even if only to try and prove you’re wrong.
Related to this, something else I’ve learned is that somebody has to have the last word, and there’s no particular reason it should be you. It’s fine to let them have it. In fact it’s the smart thing to do, once you can see that a conversation is getting overly heated, or going in circles.
Here’s mine: Lynchings and gang rapes are examples of pure democracy in action, so I’m not a fan of any of the three.
Oh they have already got a smug solution for this problem. If the local government won’t do what’s “right”, then use the state/provincial government. If that still doesn’t work, then use the national government. If even that isn’t enough, bring supranational forces (IMF/WTO/EU/AU/UN/etc.) to bear.
All of these are also “democratic” as far as they’re concerned.
‘with vague appeal to […] the common goo[sic].’
I think I’ve seen this documentary.
The Greater Good!
MOSCOW: President Valdmir Putin signed a parliament resolution today, once again raising the cost of living in America.
The cost hike is in the form of a new tax in the resolution called ‘Putin’s Tax Increase’. When asked about the resolution President Putin stated “The American government is run by man who cannot, how you say, even speak. And when he does he informs that I can exert direct control in America’s internal affairs. So I figure, why not? I have war to fund and extra long table to buy.”
President Biden responded by promising “trunalimunumaprzure“ to counter the Putin onslaught against the American people. Further, he has assured that the current economic strife is “not the result of policies of the administration” and is “solely the responsibility of CornPutin and his gang of thu – uh – you know the thing.”. In a forceful, defiant whisper the president added, “Bingo, popcorn, tomato.”
At the time of writing, the president is requesting a trillion dollar aid package for Ukraine in order to “save demuncracy abroad and fight influination at home.”
How the fuck are these idiots managing to lose an economic war against a country with an economy the size of Texas?
Hmmm……..
Sit on a house of cards and procede to play Jenga with those same cards?
Because they are fundamentally unserious people who have no clear strategy outside poking the bear. The Western elite engage in contradictory policies that undercut one another and then just tell their citizens to eat cake.
Because Russia has control of a lot of natural resources that nations really, really need.
I thought for sure this was the Bee. The distinction between satire and reality gets blurrier by the minute.
In a forceful, defiant whisper the president added, “Bingo, popcorn, tomato.”
Which tragically turned out to be the launch code for the nukes pointed at Russia.
A sign of the end times?
Green Sky’s all of the sudden in South Dakota USA …
Ok but the grammar. She’s cringe.
Are the 12 years up already?
Nothing but green skies, smiling at me,
Noting but green skies, do I see.
Today is Robert A. Heinlein’s birthday.
I didn’t even realize, when I quoted him upthread.
Difficult to see what all is going on here…
Police shooting just filmed by a bystander near Beckley, WV.
…but I am sure it will not make national news.
One shot. Guy hits ground. Then everyone unloads on a prone body. Fuck the police.
This x100
What did he do differently that got him shot?
His actions seemed consistent as they were following him through the grass and then they shot him.
They were getting tired.
Well, that doesn’t look good. Even if it’s a good shoot, and it probably was, shooting a guy who’s already down is gonna get talked about.
This is why I advocate that patrol cops should not be armed on-duty.
If he was black, it would be the lead story in the nation.
He was white, so only the alternative commentators will mention it.
See Daniel Shaver for reference, that was one of the worst I have ever seen and nobody in the corporate media acknowledged that it was even questionable.
Well yeah, but we already knew that. White guy from central WV with long hair (no offense) and a heroin problem – the media class couldn’t give any less of a fuck if they tried…
I was born in northern WV, what are you trying to say?
In writing, that looks much more hostile than joking.
it was 100% joking.
Northern WV is just southern Pa.
Be real with yourself bro
I thought Southern PA was just Northern WV?
ron73440 – Seriously? I actually didn’t know that you were a Mountaineers.
But I totally took it as joking, so no worries.
Could be worse, could be from Ohio.
ron73440:
I resemble that. We’re not all Conneaut people or essentially Kentucky!
To complete the thought, the media class ain’t gonna look at this, but rather people like me, who are concerned with police incompetence rather than identity bullshit.
The Twitterati are, of course, drawing all the wrong lessons when they notice it at all.
Obviously they are trained to shoot when anyone else does. I’m just surprised they stopped before their mags were emptied.
If they were trained, they’d be doing exactly the opposite. They wouldn’t shoot until they saw a specific articulable threat. Shooting when your buddy shoots is either a panic reaction.
That, or else the urgent desire to check that ‘Officer Involved Shooting’ box and get a couple weeks of paid leave…
I’d imagine it’s about covering one another’s asses and making sure that no single individual can really be held accountable. What, are you going to prosecute 15 cops who all fired? They’ll all say they feared for their lives and were shooting until they knew the threat was neutralized.
Well, there’s how they should train, and how they really do train. I was being mostly sarcastic, because mag-dump shootings are all too common.
Hell, I saw video of a shooting, I think in Phoenix, where the perp opened fire, the cop took cover behind his car, and then poked his gun over the car hood and just blasted away blindly. Trained to do that? I wouldn’t rule it out.
It looked like at first he was waiving a gun around (including a brief moment where he aimed it at his head), they held off on shooting, then he put the gun in his pocket or belt. I couldn’t tell if he went for the gun right before they shot him or not. Looks like a suicide by cop or a DGAF wasted person.
Yeah, assuming that what looked like a gun in his hand was a gun in his hand, it looked like he wanted to kill himself, but didn’t have the nerve to pull the trigger.
I find it offensive when people post videos of white dudes getting gunned down by police as if it matters.
I’ve heard Steve Harvey* say this never happens.
*I’m lucky enough to get to listen to his god awful radio show in the office every morning
I would blow my brains out in front of everyone in protest. If it saves just one person from listening to Steve Harvey talk, it would be worth it.
Eh, I’m amazed at the restraint at first, and the pants shiting after.
Can’t say I feel too bad for the shootee here.
OT: “They shot Sonny on the causeway. He’s dead.
RIP James Cann
“‘Til that day.”
RIP
RIP
Well that just sucks. RIP
This is weird. His Playboy interview is my current bathroom reading material.
RIP
Reading it for the interviews. In your bathroom. Sure what ever you say.
The interviews were awesome in the peak years.
Decent article.
RIP legend.
Worse trade in history!
I like how she’s admitted she had the dope, but denies intention of breaking the law.
Seems legit. We have to be the most laughed at country
Meh, I’d like to wait and see. People confess to all kinds of things they didn’t do in this country to get more lenient sentences. I’m pretty sure the Russians are worse. She may be guilty but it may also have been “nice life you have there in the US, be a shame to miss it for the next 20 years.”
There was a zero chance of her being acquitted, so why bother with a trial? This creates the possibility of a lighter sentence, and also means negotiations for a prisoner swap can begin sooner, if that’s what the Russians want.
🤡🤡🤡
I’ll need to see what the Browns gave up first.
I like how she’s admitted she had the dope, but denies intention of breaking the law.
Ignorance of the law …
Bwahaha, this is what happens to little people dammit, not to US!
Or if you prefer to avoid the YT link: Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe said an investigation should be launched into how he and former FBI Director James Comey were both selected by the Internal Revenue Service for an intensive tax audit.
Lol fuck off
Don’t read the comments.
People complaining that republicans want people to suffer so that’s why this is happening.
A lot of other ridiculous takes, I had to tap out.
Once a shitstain, always a shitstain.
OT (and I’ll spam this in midday links for a couple of days):
Any Glibs who will be in or near Albuquerque on the 13th of August and would like to attend my 50th anniversary party please send me an email at jemezhobbit at the protonmail and I’ll get you an invitation.
50th? (≖_≖ )
This is simply amazing
Why the everloving fuck are we sending strategic reserves to China?
Why not? The elites need to gain that favor for when we are divided up among the other world powers
Sending or selling?
Can those releases even be used domestically?
Beijing. Biden.
Funny enough, there was a recent Putin tax hike
https://www.rferl.org/amp/russia-to-raise-income-tax-for-high-earners-ahead-of-vote-on-constitutional-changes/30686832.html
I’m thinking the serious people over here are just jealous. He actually pushed through a tax increase on high earners.
Roller Ball and Thief — Caan’s best movies? yes or no.
Thief, maybe.
The Way of the Gun should not be overlooked.
Thief was great, but Godfather is still tops.
Honeymoon in Vegas. Hands down!
Misery.
Good choice
how do you express your opposition to limitless democracy
Get off my lawn.
*Ratchets shotgun*