Scott Stantis | February 15, 2008

Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!
Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.
might as well have drawn "libertarians".
That said, WTF is up with all of these libertarians supporting
Obama? Is the war that important to you people? Do you actually
*know* anyone who has been killed in Iraq?
I get that you hate the war, but Obama has expressed a willingness
to attack Iran, so if you're thinking he's going to take away
Osama's motivation you are shit out of luck. To extend Romney's "we
are not France" analogy, remember that the planning for 9/11
happened on Clinton's watch. The democratic party may be
anti-business, but really they are for the type of "crony
capitalism" filled with pork-barrel earmarks and glad-handed
subsidies. Think of the Paris riots and the battle of
algiers.
If you think the Democrats' version of cultural imperialism is
going to stop the Islamofascists you are nuts.
McCain wants to extend the tax cuts. Nuff said.
While Reason completely ignores the biggest story of the day,
the rioting in Denmark against the Danish Cartoons depicting
Muhammed. 5th night of rioting by "Youths". And the entire
libertarian media is silent on this Radical Muslim onslaught
against free speech.
Way to go there Reason. Free speech rights only for Americans, 'eh?
Can't have those pesky Euros excercising their free speech rights,
particularly when it might offend Islam.
Eric, at this point I'd be all for your pesky free speech rights
being suppressed in the name of Islam.
Or any other ideology for that matter.
David Rollins, I'd give back every penny of the tax cuts if the
war were never started. I'd give up any future versions of the Bush
tax cuts for it to end today.
The $300/yr I got from the tax cuts are not worth the thousands of
dead service members or the thousands of innocent Iraqis.
(That doesn't mean I'm voting for Obama, but yes I hate the war
that much.)
Of the many obnoxious things Dondero does, posting a comment
before 7 AM in order to tweak still-sleeping Reason writers for not
having covered a story is pretty high on the list.
That's at least twice now. What a douche.
This is like the third of fourth time this week I've agreed with joe. Must be a leap year.
David Rollins, Obama may or might not attack Iran, but I think it's a nearly 100% chance that warmonger McCain will.
This just in, doctors in Texas are studying a strange pharmaceutical reaction. Patient Eric Dondero, after ingesting viagra, grew significantly taller.
joe,
Don't forget: Eric is posting from the central time zone, so it's
before 6am (i.e., pre-dawn) when he's posting that crap.
David Rollins,
how are we going to afford tax cuts when we are pouring gazillions
of dollars into a bottomless pit in Iraq (and, if McCain has his
way, Iran)? That $600 check I'm gonna get as "stimulus" is going to
be worth less than the $300 check I got a few years ago (thanks to
the irresponsible spending of the Republicans).
I'm all for tax cuts, but they just aren't possible when the
spending doesn't come down, too.
Did the death of Robert Jastrow create a hole in the space-time continuimum? How did three posts get in before the timestamp of the original post?
Just a point from Dondero's bio on his Mainstream Libertarians
site:
"Eric Dondero has traveled to 25 nations worldwide on 5 continents.
He speaks over 10-15 languages."
Hmm, OVER 10-15? What exactly does that mean?
Also, Eric Dondero's tears can cure cancer.
Why should actions of every Muslim, everywhere be any of our
concern?
One reason is that the same type of profits-at-any-price Corporate
Welfare Queens that worked with the far-left to encourage massive
Muslim immigration to Europe are doing the same thing here with
other forms of immigration that have their own particular
downsides.
David Rollins,
Do you actually *know* anyone who has been killed in Iraq?
Yes. Ergo, McCain can FOAD.
Also, Eric Dondero's tears can cure cancer.
Unfortunately, the fumes from his panic-farts actually
cause cancer, so it's a wash.
I don't appreciate David Rollins downplaying opposition to war.
Let's not forget that this whole rigmarole was started because Bush
& Co. convinced Americans that it was part of the war on
terror, a war that had its Pearl Harbor in NYC, and the vast
majority of Americans didn't know a damn person affected.
Why would a person have to personally know a dead soldier to be
opposed to the war? That's the dumbest thing I've heard today, and
it's late.
OK, I'll grant that the "knowing someone who died" is a bit
cheesy.
But think about this: given the choice between spending on
entitlements and spending on war, which would you choose? War
spending can be turned off fairly rapidly.
I hate the war as much as anyone, but I still can't believe Barack
is the libertarian's choice.
If you haven't noticed, the establishment GOP is not offering
that choice. We get profligate spending on the war ($100B per
year), plus radical expansions of establishment programs (think
"Medicare part D", which increased Medicare expenses by over $50B
per year).
War spending could be cut off "fairly rapidly", but it
won't be- especially if we "bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran".
I think the medicare prescription benefit under a Democrat would
have been much worse (think price controls and free fertility
coverage), but let's just say you're right about the false
choice.
Would you rather have tax-and-spend or tax-cuts-and-spend? I submit
that under the first option the economy is in the shitter, whereas
under the second at least I get to keep my job. Of course that
means the debt balloons and the dollar declines even further, but
at least this risk can be hedged through international investments.
At a minimum it will constrain future spending due to the enormous
debt service.
Both Reagan and GWB played this card, and while I'd rather have
smaller government I think history will prove it a shrewd play
given the alternatives.
The light of a new day.
The light of
a new day
solicits a blackbird
in the care
of a craving,
in the beautiful
darkness of a
sunny concept,
in the songs
of my heart, like
a tender idea
now reflecting
the straw.
Francesco Sinibaldi
Would you rather have tax-and-spend or tax-cuts-and-spend? I
submit that under the first option the economy is in the shitter,
whereas under the second at least I get to keep my job. Of course
that means the debt balloons and the dollar declines even further,
but at least this risk can be hedged through international
investments. At a minimum it will constrain future spending due to
the enormous debt service.
Both Reagan and GWB played this card, and while I'd rather have
smaller government I think history will prove it a shrewd play
given the alternatives.
In other words, pass the crisis on to your grandkids (after making
it much, much worse). And, of course, keep the executive and
legislative branches from having to face the results of profligate
spending today, when something could be done to stop it.
After all, in the future we'll all be dead, right? "Shrewd," but
morally contemptible.
These so-called tax cuts and corresponding refunds make me think of
somebody who purchases a big house on his credit card, then smugly
pats himself on the back for making the first minimum monthly
payment.
To be honest, if I can't have don't tax and don't spend, I'd
prefer tax and spend. Out of control deficit spending causes
inflation and distortion of the capital markets that is just as
damaging to my purchasing power and the economy in general as any
tax.
I'd prefer that the pols had the balls to be fiscally responsible.
Unfortunately, it's much easier to bribe people with money stolen
via a backdoor tax, than with upfront robbing Peter to pay
Paul.
I hate the war as much as anyone, but I still can't believe Barack is the libertarian's choice.
Obama is not/b> the libertarian's choice! A tiny handful
of cosmo bloggers do not define the libertarian movement. Who some
numbnut at Cato plans to vote for is no more relevant than who
Dondero plans to vote for. Neither represent
libertarians.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245