Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Fark's Drew Curtis Running For Governor of Kentucky

Posted by timothy on from the dark-horse dept.

New submitter AlCapwn writes [Fark founder] Drew Curtis announced on Friday that he will be running for governor of Kentucky. "We have a theory that we're about to see a huge change in how elections and politics work. Across the country, we have seen regular citizens stepping up and challenging the status quo built by political parties and career politicians. They have been getting closer and closer to victory and, here in Kentucky, we believe we have a chance to win and break the political party stronghold for good."

81 of 120 comments (clear)

  1. Still no cure for cancer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think this should be his campaign motto.

    1. Re: Still no cure for cancer. by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 1

      If he used "Duke Sucks" it would lose him some votes.

    2. Re: Still no cure for cancer. by rwa2 · · Score: 1

      Hah, boobies!

      No, they always called it foobies, and moved that stuff to their own domain once they got "serious".

      http://foobies.com/

      They also used to have a "weeners" tag for the ladies (and dudes of a certain persuasion), but not sure what happened to all that content after they cleaned up.

    3. Re: Still no cure for cancer. by TWX · · Score: 1

      They were never called 'foobies' until they moved them to their own domain.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
  2. "getting closer and closer to victory..." by jeffb+(2.718) · · Score: 2

    In the same sense that I'm getting closer and closer to Alpha Centauri.

    1. Re:"getting closer and closer to victory..." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You'll never make it. Life on Earth will be consumed in a global warming fireball, according to St. Albert of Gore.

  3. Official Caturday by Ksevio · · Score: 5, Funny

    As his first act - Caturday will be a recognized (weekly) holiday and Kentucky will adopt the squirrel as it's mascot.

    1. Re:Official Caturday by Rei · · Score: 3, Funny

      Haha, yeah, I remember back when all that was on fark.com was a picture of that squirrel with the oversized genitals. Heck, I knew him before Fark.com, when he was the wizard Cletus on the mud Three Kingdoms.

      God I feel old...

      --
      Crowd: What do we want? Fry: Fry's dog! Crowd: When do we want it? Fry: Fry's dog!
    2. Re:Official Caturday by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 4, Funny

      As a native son of the Great State of Kentucky, it is my solemn duty to inform you that the squirrel is already our state bird.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    3. Re:Official Caturday by BubbaJonBoy · · Score: 1

      and he will officially be at odds with Florida.

  4. He'll win in a landslide by paiute · · Score: 3, Funny

    All he has to do is shadowban all the voters in the other party.

    --
    If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
    1. Re:He'll win in a landslide by plopez · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The Republicans are already working on that.

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    2. Re:He'll win in a landslide by circletimessquare · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Voter fraud is a nonissue fearmongered and blown out of proportion to enact the real disenfranchisement: Republicans pass laws making voting harder for blacks and the poor.

      http://www.theatlantic.com/pol...

      It's interesting because it's a last ditch desperate effort to preserve a voting base of old white conservative people which is quite literally dying off.

      Then there is the gerrymandering to make sure the Republican voters always dominate in any given Rorschach ink blot of a voting "district."

      But after that, Republicans have a real problem keeping and growing a voter base.

      Long term, they either die off, or they radically change their ideology.

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    3. Re:He'll win in a landslide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      And yet the Democrats won't be satisfied if you help the poor get IDs or anything... no, they want people to be able to vote with no ID at all, so we can't tell what's going on. They bus people around to every which polling place and scream that people are oppressing them if you try to call them on the voter fraud. You note that they're just as happy as the Republicans to keep voting unaccountable.

    4. Re: He'll win in a landslide by Peter+Simpson · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Fraud by ineligeable voters is a ridiculously inefficient and costly way to rig an election. Unpredictable, too. Anyone wanting to fix an election would either mess with the voting machines or the totals if they wanted to guarantee success.

    5. Re: He'll win in a landslide by JeffOwl · · Score: 1

      Fraud by ineligeable voters is a ridiculously inefficient and costly way to rig an election.

      You sound like you think that either party would consider that a reason not to do something.

    6. Re:He'll win in a landslide by TWX · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Until government-issue ID is completely free and requires almost no effort on the part of the individual to attain it, then the mandate for that ID in order to vote is a form of disenfranchisement. The right to vote predates the mandate to have ID.

      I think that voting should be mandatory, and to get an exemption one needs to file to be a voting-equivalent of a conscientious objector.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    7. Re:He'll win in a landslide by ixidor · · Score: 2

      so the same ID that the majority of the population already has, because you already need it for so many things, like: voting driving id to get a job id to buy alcohol id to buy firearms id to verify age for other things etc... costs $10 and a stand in line at the DMV. heck, here you can schedule an appointment. Oh, they cant be bothered to go spend the $10, and spend time at the dmv, for something you might use atleast once a week for the rest of your life... and you want them voting?...

    8. Re:He'll win in a landslide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "but do you consider that as big a problem as purposefully disenfranchising poor and black people with ridiculous id hurdles, [...]"

      I tried to understand the real issue about these hurdles, but I feel I still do not have a satisfying explanation. Let me explain briefly what is the source of my puzzlement. Please bear with me.

      During the civil rights movement it is well documented that people black and white (the latter from the North) who fought for desegragation and for the voting rights for blacks (in the South) paid a heavy price. Some gave their lives in fact. (For one reference I recommend watching the Independent Lens episode Spies of Mississipi.)

      It seems to me that the hurdles that is being talked about today is dwarfed by what used to be in place. For example, whites who paid the poll tax for blacks could expect a visit from the KKK (their identity was spied on shared by the government and the police stood by watching without stopping the thugs.) A black man who wanted to go to college was framed for stealing $20 worth of chicken feed and went to jail for 7 years (and of course this also meant that he could not vote).

      So I wish not to play down that difficulties that voter id laws etc. can mean to a segment of the population. However in comparison to what folks went through during the fight for voting rights these seem much easier to be dealt with.

      Furthermore pragmatically, it would seem that instead of spending all this time talking about these voter ID-s maybe some activist work on the ground would pay off much better buy helping the people get past these administrative barriers. (The law of the land today is that all citizens are equal and have the right to vote unless they lose it due to a felony conviction etc.)

      And while we are on this topic. It is also puzzling me why the mid-term election participation rates were 15% in Ferguson? One would think that it is much easier and less risky to go to the ballot box than to the streets and burn police cars. I would assume it would be much less disruptive to property and lives if those folks would vote the kind of people into office who would do their bidding instead of organizing protests against the white rule. Pragmatically, I also think it has a much higher chance of success.

      (I post this anonymously. The reason: I will be probably called a racist by some fucktard. I am an immigrant white who do not classify oneself as a democrat or republican. Most of my friends think I am a liberal though.)

    9. Re:He'll win in a landslide by Talderas · · Score: 1

      An ID card is free in some states.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    10. Re:He'll win in a landslide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Literally every state in the union does this; it is not limited to either party. Look at the "redistricting" that took place in Maryland a few years ago in order to eliminate a Republican-held congressional seat. Maryland was gerrymandered toward the interests of black Democrats in Prince George's and Montgomery counties and Baltimore City, so does that mean that Maryland those people are racist against whites? Obviously not.

      It's just politics.

    11. Re:He'll win in a landslide by TWX · · Score: 1

      There is no requirement for one to drive or to buy alcohol, and no ID requirement to rent a home, to perform some kinds of work, or to transact business with cash. There's no ID requirement to file your federal or state taxes, and one's social security card for the tax filing number doesn't cost anything and is issued at-birth. You don't even need that card to file taxes, though some states require that card, that was freely issued, to be presented when beginning most forms of employment so that the employer can file taxes.

      It's possible to live a full life without resorting to criminality without ever having ID. It's not the kind of life that I want to live, but for those that want to live that way, who am I to tell them not to?

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    12. Re: He'll win in a landslide by Peter+Simpson · · Score: 2

      Fraud by ineligeable voters is a ridiculously inefficient and costly way to rig an election.

      You sound like you think that either party would consider that a reason not to do something.

      Nope, I'm thinking from the point of view of someone who wants to win an election. Counting on ineligeable voters to show up is risky, and if I wanted to make sure my guy came out ahead, I wouldn't bet all the marbles on that scheme. I'd mess with the machines or the accounting software. Much cleaner and, if done right, leaves no trace. Or, I'd take advantage of defects in the voting system itself (hanging chads, for example).

      Whatever you might think of political parties (and I probably share your feelings, but perhaps not about the same party), they employ some very smart people. Smart enough to realize that "voter fraud" is and always has been, a non-issue. Voter ID laws are about one thing and one thing only: raising the bar high enough so the people you don't want voting...can't. It's literacy tests all over again. To claim otherwise is to insult the intelligence of the people you're talking with.

    13. Re: He'll win in a landslide by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      In Pennsylvania there were issues because you needed a special exemption to have a birth certificate without a raised seal count.

      Unfortunatly for the poor Philadelphia and delco residents, many were birthed by midwives in the segregated south.Those certificates didn't have raised stamps.

      This probably cost tens of thousands of votes in a state where it really may have been relevant.

      I think on principal, id shouldn't be needed, but that it also in general is not a big deal and a whole lotta fighting about nothing.

      Real fraud happens without someone showing up, old fashioned ballot stuffing is the ideal way to commit it.

      The old people without access it ids are also dieing off, in ten years it won't be an issue.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
  5. Where Does He Stand On the Issues? by ohnocitizen · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This isn't new, we've seen candidates from outside the political establishment try to break in before. What irks me is here is a guy saying "I'm an outsider, support me" as if that and net neutrality ought to be enough. It isn't. I don't know where this guy stands on various matters of civil and human rights, taxation, health care, education, the environment, separation of church and state, etc.

    I'm even more suspicious when I see someone railing against "special interest groups", since many of the groups opposing net neutrality (like the EFF) count as special interest groups. That is just a catch all term for groups of people with money that spend it to influence politics. That includes groups we might oppose (like the Koch Brothers or "The Family") and groups we might support (FFRF and the EFF).

    If he is serious about winning, he needs to put his cards on the table and let the people he is running to represent know how he will support them on the things they care about. Even if it is simply "I will hold public opinion polls and honor their conclusion". Because right now he is a closed book.

    1. Re:Where Does He Stand On the Issues? by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Comparing the EFF to someone like the Koch industries is kind of funny. It's kind of like comparing an ant to a steamroller. Even if the EFF is incredibly strong it isn't going to win.

    2. Re:Where Does He Stand On the Issues? by ScentCone · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Even if it is simply "I will hold public opinion polls and honor their conclusion"

      So, you'd be OK with him supporting mandatory labeling on all foods that contain DNA? Because 80% of the population says they support their government helping them out with that.

      I'd never support a politician who says he'll do what the majority say they want. We don't need mob rule directly, or by proxy, either.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    3. Re:Where Does He Stand On the Issues? by microcars · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "No experiments. Leave people alone. And don't spend money that you don't have."

      Reference: http://bizlex.com/2015/01/excl...

      It should be noted that he is not scheduled to make a formal announcement until Monday (tomorrow).

      --
      I like microcars
    4. Re:Where Does He Stand On the Issues? by nitehawk214 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Also, in that comparison, one of the entities is pure evil and the other is at least trying to do the right thing.

      Also, the GP says that the EFF opposes net neutrality. That is not the case. I think what the oppose is the current FCC's flawed attempts at implementing it with a bunch of special case provisions that completely gut the idea of it.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    5. Re:Where Does He Stand On the Issues? by rwa2 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      http://fark.com/ is as close to a bipartisan "internet tavern" as I've ever seen. They used to have a "political balance meter" to try to link to a roughly equal number of stories / threads with a "leftist" and "rightist" spin. Anyway, it's useful to (occasionally) see well-articulated thoughts and opinions from "the other side", or even just discussion of news events from different perspectives... stuff that more often devolves into flamewars or gets stuck or pigeonholed on other social media.

      That said, yeah, I know next to nothing about Drew, but it sounds like he might be a good moderator of useful discussion. Over beer.

    6. Re:Where Does He Stand On the Issues? by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

      "No experiments. Leave people alone. And don't spend money that you don't have."

      OK, so just that last part alone sounds a lot more like one party than the other. But we can't be uncool and admit that other people had ideas before us.

    7. Re:Where Does He Stand On the Issues? by ljw1004 · · Score: 1

      So, you'd be OK with him supporting mandatory labeling on all foods that contain DNA? Because 80% of the population says they support their government helping them out with that. I'd never support a politician who says he'll do what the majority say they want. We don't need mob rule directly, or by proxy, either.

      Correction: 80% of people said they agreed with the government's food labelling policy on food including DNA.

      That's literally the exact opposite of what you said. That's the majority following the lead of the government.

    8. Re:Where Does He Stand On the Issues? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      "No experiments. Leave people alone. And don't spend money that you don't have."

      It seems to me that governments should do more experiments, gather data on whether programs are actually working, and base future policies on empirical evidence.

      "Leave people alone" sounds great in theory, but where does he draw the line? If someone is robbing a gas station at gunpoint, should we leave them alone? What if they refuse to pay their taxes? What if they are dumping methyl mercury into a creek that flows into Louisville's water supply?

      "Don't spend money that you don't have" is already the law in Kentucky. The state government is required to balance the budget every year.

    9. Re:Where Does He Stand On the Issues? by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Most politicians who are up to date on their PR/Marketing consider branding to be a key part of their campaign strategy.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    10. Re:Where Does He Stand On the Issues? by slaker · · Score: 4, Interesting

      To be honest, most of the politics tab trolls (GaryPDX, HellBentForLeather, Bevets) have up and left or been banned and a lot of the former right-wing true believers with a shred of integrity (Weaver95, HubieStewart) of now have pinned some form of "I'm not a republican, I'm a libertarian" badge on in its place. Fark's Politics tab is mostly moderates and left-of-center types condemning republican talking points and making fun of the obvious trolls. That MIGHT change as we move closer to election season, but I think those with truly opposing viewpoints have scuttled off to Reddit or Freeperland.

      --
      -- I wanna decide who lives and who dies - Crow T. Robot, MST3K
    11. Re:Where Does He Stand On the Issues? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      That would be because there is no such thing as a Republican with integrity any more. That's not to say that the Democrats are a bastion of honesty or anything, but the Republican party has become the most repugnant major party in American political history. They are literally cartoon villains at this point. I hope that some day an actual left-wing party (as in, European left-wing) comes into existence, the Democrats can slide about half an inch to the right and take over where the Republicans left off as the right-wing party, and the Republicans can become the equivalent of a European nationalist party, existing only to suck extremist facist votes away from legitimate parties.

    12. Re:Where Does He Stand On the Issues? by mjm1231 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Leave people alone" is a statement so broad that it is completely meaningless. It is impossible to live in a manner that has no impact on other people. The hard and real question is always where the lines should be drawn.

      --
      Ideology: A tool used primarily to avoid the bother of thinking.
    13. Re:Where Does He Stand On the Issues? by davydagger · · Score: 1

      the EFF opposes net neutrality, what?

    14. Re:Where Does He Stand On the Issues? by ohnocitizen · · Score: 1

      Oops that was a typo. Thanks nite hawk!!! I meant to say supporting Net Neutrality.

    15. Re:Where Does He Stand On the Issues? by ohnocitizen · · Score: 1

      I never said I was ok with it, just that even something that crazy would count as at least letting people know how you would govern.

    16. Re:Where Does He Stand On the Issues? by ohnocitizen · · Score: 1

      Sorry, that was a typo! They clearly support it.

    17. Re:Where Does He Stand On the Issues? by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      So you oppose representative government https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/..., hmm, interesting, have you been investigated lately because I am sure that there are a few people that would like to talk to you after that kind of statement. So you oppose the idea of a government of the people, by the people and for the people, interesting.

      So democracy is mob rule, hmm, OK.

      I am sure all the kings and queens of this world agree with you. All the leaders of police states. All those self serving autocrats.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    18. Re:Where Does He Stand On the Issues? by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      So democracy is mob rule, hmm, OK.

      Yes, it is. Which is why the very smart people who wrote the US constitution chartered the country as a republic, not a democracy. And a good thing, too.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    19. Re:Where Does He Stand On the Issues? by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      Aha, I thought perhaps you were seeing something in there position that I was not. :)

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    20. Re:Where Does He Stand On the Issues? by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      You want to know who also agrees with you, terrorists agree with you, which is why they use terror to force people to do things that the terrorists want them to do. Democracy ie representing the majority and informing them sufficiently so that they can make sound decisions was all about putting an end to the rule of the minority who kept power and maintained power via terror, the terror of public executions. Whether they call themselves kings or emperors or gods, we just call them all terrorists today and their descendants are just narcissistic ass hats or worse psychopaths who should be behind bars.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    21. Re:Where Does He Stand On the Issues? by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      You want to know who also agrees with you, terrorists agree with you, which is why they use terror to force people to do things that the terrorists want them to do.

      Really? You equate our constitutional system of checks and balances to terrorism? Terrorism is the simple majority deciding that they can tell you what to do. Are you OK with 51% of the population deciding that you no longer get to speak freely, because they don't like what you have to say? That's democracy. A constitutional republic (which we are, that's not really open for debate, even when you confuse it with something else, like a monarchy - and you're very confused, here) has tools in place to prevent people like you from rallying 51% of the people who vote to do things like have the other 49% enslaved, or killed, or whatever you'd like to see done in the name of your having the majority of simple votes on the matter.

      Democracy ie representing the majority

      The majority is not always right, and the people who wrote our constitution knew that. It's why the country isn't run like one bit PTA meeting or a dog club. We have three branches of government, and the legislative branch is broken up in to two houses specifically to blunt the tyranny of the majority. You either haven't ever studied the basics of how the constitution is structured, or you have, and your pretending you haven't so that you can make your really bad analogies. Please try to get it straight.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    22. Re:Where Does He Stand On the Issues? by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      But that's not the only form democracy could take. There are several versions where the number of votes a person has on a given law gets increased the more he or she will be personally affected BY that law.

      So even if you get 90% of the people to vote that all gays should be put to death on a funeral pyre the law STILL wouldn't pass because the 10% voting against it would include the gay people and because they are only ones affected, and the way they are affected is so extreme - they would easily still get 60% of the total vote.

      Democracy doesn't have to mean tyranny of the majority - there are many ways to avoid that. Many types of checks and balances one could imagine and many of those have been tried. The Republic is just one possibility out of quite a large list, and it probably isn't the best (or even a particularly good) example from it.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    23. Re:Where Does He Stand On the Issues? by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      I really wanted to do the "boycott the reds and blues" thing last November. So I seriously looked at my alternative for my state governor. It was a libertarian who wanted to establish our own state currency backed by gold. Sigh.

      Great, so now instead of Fucker vs Fucker it's Fuckers vs Nuts. Is there somebody worth electing, anywhere?

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    24. Re:Where Does He Stand On the Issues? by steelfood · · Score: 1

      Democrats can slide about half an inch to the right and take over where the Republicans left off as the right-wing party

      That's already been the case. It's just not the perception.

      There is no left, or even left of center in the U.S. There's only right and far-right.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    25. Re:Where Does He Stand On the Issues? by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      So even if you get 90% of the people to vote that all gays should be put to death on a funeral pyre the law STILL wouldn't pass because the 10% voting against it would include the gay people and because they are only ones affected, and the way they are affected is so extreme

      Really? So, you'd be in favor of the government making sure they know who is and who isn't gay in order properly run skewed elections and referenda? How about simply having a clause in your constitution that says (as ours does) that everyone is treated equally under the law? Isn't that simpler than getting the government involved in keeping lists of who is on which part of a given spectrum of sexual orientation or skin color, etc?

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    26. Re:Where Does He Stand On the Issues? by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Firstly - I never declared myself in favor of anything at all - I merely mentioned the existence of these ideas. Acknowledging that a concept exists is not, in and of itself, an endorsement of that concept.

      Secondly - this particular version comes from anarchist philosophy. So there is no fear of what the government may or may not know as there IS no government at all.
      Or alternatively - since all people get to vote on all laws and nobody ever has to live under any law they didn't get a direct say in... I suppose you could say it's the biggest government of them all - the entire population is in it.

      Either way - in the absence of authority, there is no reason to fear the abuse of authority.

      And, yet again, merely knowing that these systems of thought exists and even recognizing their potential does not constitute an endorsement of them.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    27. Re:Where Does He Stand On the Issues? by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Either way - in the absence of authority, there is no reason to fear the abuse of authority.

      That's not really a system of thought, though, because it doesn't define a system. It describes the way that some people may, out of pure irrationality, imagine the world to work in their childish fantasies. When you get a bunch of people together and decide (look, a group decision!) that there will be no group decisions (?) forming any sort of authority or formal structure governing how they all interact, you're basically walking away from civilization. At best, you're setting up for medieval feudalism. True, you don't have to fear abuse from an authority you establish ... instead, you have to fear abuse from anyone who feels like using force to abuse you, and you've got no recourse because you've already decided that recourse beyond your own ability to withstand the use of force against by one or a thousand or a million other people is too organized and authoritative for your taste. By not establishing authority, one cedes authority to anyone else who feels like claiming it. So, people espousing that point of view are basically twits.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    28. Re:Where Does He Stand On the Issues? by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Erm... yes it does.
      Anarchism does not equal chaos, it is not the absence of a system at all. It is merely doing away with one aspect of the system: the concept of wielding power over another.

      That doesn't mean giving the ability to use power to everybody, it means giving it to NOBODY, and having systems and mechanisms to ensure that nobody CAN exercise power over anybody.

      Anarchism isn't an absence of laws and rights, or even of law and rights enforcement, it's merely a system for passing laws, establishing rights and enforcing those without any individual wielding power over another.
      You still have courts, you still have appeals. You still have punishment for crimes.

      It's not by any means the absence of social order, it is merely the absence of government and authority.
      In an anarchist state, for example, you could still have a police service but instead of answering to politicians - they would report directly to the electorate that appointed them.

      In such a system the kind of thing that just happened in Fergusson would, theoretically, be impossible since the people who are now protesting in the street would be capable of - themselves, arranging to have the entire local police force fired and replaced.

      Many anarchist systems DO have elected officials who speak on behalf of small communities in larger regional forums (which can in turn send delegates to larger national forums etc. etc.) but unlike in a republic they hold no power, and have no decision making position on those forums - they are there solely to represent the views ALREADY VOTED ON in the communities they represent and can be instantaneously recalled at any time if their community felt they even slightly misrepresented them.
      These ideas, however, predate modern communications technology -such representatives really wouldn't serve any purpose at all today.

      Most people don't realize this but history is full of successful anarchist societies that did not turn out as you predict. The biggest was the Roman republic. Yes Rome was not a republic as YOU know the concept, the Republic of Rome was, in fact, an anarchist society. Why ? Because they practised direct democracy - which is literally the sole requirement to be an anarchism.

      That is also why there are as many visions of anarchist societies as there are and have ever been anarchists - because so little is set in stone, everything else is up for debate, up for adjustment - meant ot be scientifically investigated and changed whenever a better idea comes along.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
  6. Not a career politician? by the_skywise · · Score: 3, Insightful

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...
    > I don't care what anyone says, the masses are morons. My own grandmother is an idiot. You can't count on them to pick good stuff. Just check out Network TV to see what the masses want for entertainment. There's certainly a place for that kind of thing but it's not on Fark. Now go away and let me finish taking a crap!

    And now he wants the "masses" help to elect him?

    Do you think that's air you're breathing? Hmmm...

    1. Re:Not a career politician? by Livius · · Score: 2

      He clearly has less contempt for the masses that most other politicians, so he has that going for him.

    2. Re:Not a career politician? by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      At least he's honest enough to call you a whore when he nuts in your face rather than whisper sweet nothings in your ear while he fucks you in the ass.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
  7. DEAR RICHARD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    This can't be allowed to go unpunished. Lowtax needs to run for governor of Missouri...then Missouri should invade Kentucky.

  8. Kentucky by Greyfox · · Score: 4, Funny

    If you live outside of Kentucky you might only know them for their derby. What many people don't know is that Kentucky also makes some of the finest jelly around, and that many stores outside the state carry it. So if you've never had the experience, you should pop 'round to your local grocer and ask about Kentucky jelly today!

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    1. Re:Kentucky by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2, Funny

      Jelly? WTF?

      Whiskey.
      Let's get adult here.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:Kentucky by Pokey.Clyde · · Score: 3, Funny

      KY jelly.

    3. Re: Kentucky by AgNO3 · · Score: 1

      Whisky wtf? BURBON. Florida

      --
      OMG Ponies!!! with Glitter!!!! I miss Pink :-(
    4. Re:Kentucky by steelfood · · Score: 1

      Jelly is the natural end-product of bourbon.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
  9. Re:This has happened before. by Dragon+Bait · · Score: 1

    But war, war never changes.

    I'm not sure about that. Just before Gulf II, Bush the lesser was incredibly popular. By the time that 2008 rolled around, most people didn't want war. So war is just one of those things that goes in and out of fashion.

  10. US politics are tainted with money by sinij · · Score: 4, Insightful

    US politics, thanks to judicial rule-writing, is forever tainted with money. "Regular citizens" have absolutely no chance to get elected, unless they sell-out in exchange for campaign contributions.

    If Jesus Christ returned and was running for congress today, we would probably see attack adds smearing his family, alleging connections to Romans, and questioning the time he spent on the cross.

    1. Re:US politics are tainted with money by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 2

      If Jesus Christ returned and was running for congress today, we would probably see attack adds smearing his family, alleging connections to Romans, and questioning the time he spent on the cross.

      Turning water into wine? Bootlegging; producing alcohol without a license or paying taxes on it.

      Healing the sick? Practicing medicine without a license, and violating FDA rules.

      Walking on water? Illegally operating an unlicensed water vessel, without a license.

      Feeding a crowd with just two fish? McDonald's and Burger King would sue him, and demand an FDA inquiry into his kitchen methods.

      And, of course the racist crew would call him a "Jewish Bastard", which is kinda sorta technically correct.

      That's probably why he hasn't come back . . .

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    2. Re:US politics are tainted with money by mjm1231 · · Score: 1

      Notably missing from Mr. Curtis' statement is anything that would prevent him, or any other "citizen candidate", from taking campaign contributions from the same special interests, lobbyitsts, PACs, and corporate interests as the usual assortment of candidates.

      --
      Ideology: A tool used primarily to avoid the bother of thinking.
    3. Re:US politics are tainted with money by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      >Turning water into wine? Bootlegging; producing alcohol without a license or paying taxes on it.

      And not charging for it. Clearly anti-capitalist.

      >Healing the sick? Practicing medicine without a license, and violating FDA rules.
      Also didn't charge or demand medical insurance - clearly an Obamacare socialist !

      >Feeding a crowd with just two fish? McDonald's and Burger King would sue him, and demand an FDA inquiry into his kitchen methods.

      Feeding the hungry sounds an awful lot like foodstamps to me.

      Basically, as Bill Maher pointed out, Jesus couldn't get elected in the Jesus party !

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    4. Re:US politics are tainted with money by vandamme · · Score: 1

      Telling the truth about the established politicos? That's a crucifyin'.

  11. Re:1st Post by myowntrueself · · Score: 1, Funny

    1st past the post.

    --
    In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
  12. Re:1st Post by Radak · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Don't you mean boobies?

  13. Re:1st Post by bytesex · · Score: 1

    He was just testing out to see if slashdot has started transmogrifying posts through filters yet.

    --
    Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
  14. If Drew were to rule Kentucky by bytesex · · Score: 1

    I dread to think: what's the IRL equivalent of a shadow-ban?

    --
    Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
    1. Re:If Drew were to rule Kentucky by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Not having your own lobbyists.

  15. "game changer" by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1, Funny

    we believe we have a chance to win and break the political party stronghold for good

    That'll last all of about 5 minutes after election, should he win. Then he realizes he has to spend all but about 1/2 hour a day asking rich people for money. One of the senior members of the state legislature will sit him down and explain how everything works and the next thing you hear from Mr Fark is how climate change is a hoax, coal is the cleanest form of energy and the Second Amendment was passed down to Moses direct from God. And how human life starts at the very moment the man's sperm endows the less-important woman's egg with the glory of Jesus, so STFU, you reproductive choice cows.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  16. I think I know how this will go by Headw1nd · · Score: 1

    I assume his plan will be introduce a lot of "original" legislation, which is really just copied legislation he found somewhere else and slapped a huge watermark on.

  17. Re:foods that contain DNA by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Why can't we know if there are genetically modified organisms in the food supply?

    You can know that. Just look for packages that say "No GMO", or "Organic", as thousands of products do.
    You are free to exercise your phobias. Just don't impose them on other people.

  18. Re:Hey it looks like politics is a circus by rogoshen1 · · Score: 1

    I think we'd need Rich Kyanka to join the race and oppose Drew Curtis.

  19. Running Mate? by DrunkenTerror · · Score: 1

    Who would you run alongside Drew Curtis? Maddox to bring the conservative gravitas or moot for his free speech credentials?

  20. I can't wait for his first CNN interview by Revek · · Score: 2

    The ever changing image for CNN has included -4600 for wolf blitzers epic fail on jeopardy to the current one here. The story as I read it was that CNN wanted him to pay for use of their logo and he decided to create his on.

  21. florida by AgNO3 · · Score: 1

    Florida

    --
    OMG Ponies!!! with Glitter!!!! I miss Pink :-(
  22. Re: This Stunt is Cheap Advertising for His Websit by AgNO3 · · Score: 1

    You can subscribe to fark? I always thought it was just slashdot for those other then nerds.

    --
    OMG Ponies!!! with Glitter!!!! I miss Pink :-(