Obama's Electric Car Aid Goes Bust

No one, no matter how bright, can possibly know what is in the best interest of everybody.

If Tolkien was right that the burned hand teaches best, then a question arises: Will President Obama ever learn?

In a recent appearance on 60 Minutes, Obama traded in his old analogy about the car in the ditch for a new one, about a ship in rough seas. No matter how well the captain—Obama—steers it, if the ship is being tossed about with violent abandon, then the passengers will not enjoy the ride.

The implication is that Obama is doing a fine job, so don’t blame him. The president is right, in part: The voters should not blame him. But he is wrong about why. It’s not because the president is a great economic helmsman. He is an awful one. Consider his performance in just one sector: energy. The Obama administration has shoveled boxcars full of money to “green” energy, with demonstrably deplorable results.

Those results go well beyond Solyndra. Take the administration’s policy of pushing electric cars, in which it has invested billions of taxpayer dollars. As The Washington Post reported recently, “analysts say the risk is rising that taxpayers in many cases will not see a return on their money soon, if ever. Instead, they warn that some federally subsidized companies could be forced to shut down in coming months.” A123 Systems, a battery maker the administration supported to the tune of nearly $400 million, recently announced layoffs “instead of up to 3,000 new Michigan jobs as Obama and the company had predicted,” the story reported.

Despite a $7,500 tax credit for each vehicle sold, in October GM unloaded about 1,000 Chevy Volts out of 187,000 total cars sold that month. Even if the administration’s rosy prediction of 1 million electric vehicles by 2015 proves correct, that is a drop in the bucket in a nation with 250 million cars, so the effect on greenhouse-gas emissions—the ostensible justification for all this intervention—would be negligible.

What’s more, electric cars get their juice largely from coal-fired power plants, making claims about emissions highly dubious. Battery disposal is a huge environmental problem. Electric cars and plug-in hybrids are dangerous and expensive to work on. (Ask your local mechanic for an education on that score.) And they are hugely impractical. The Volt, a four-door compact, averages 30-40 miles on battery power alone. Then it needs to recharge for 10 hours.

Clara Ford, Henry Ford’s wife, owned an electric car. There’s a reason the idea has been collecting dust for the past century. Electric cars one day may take their place alongside the Internet as one of the great life-changing innovations of our time. But right now it looks as though they will join what Jimmy Carter called the “keystone” of his energy policy, the Synthetic Fuels Corporation, in the rogues’ gallery of gawdawful government flops.

In short, then, the president is using political power to reallocate economic resources to make people adopt an inferior technology that nobody wants. So much for his stellar performance as captain of the economy.

But Obama is less concerned with what the public wants than what he thinks is best for it. This is modern liberalism’s chief project: empowering a cognitive elite to correct what it sees as the poor choices of the stupid, venal masses. (Energy Secretary Steven Chu neatly summarized this approach when he argued for new lightbulb standards by saying, “We are taking away a choice that continues to let people waste their own money.”) And the president is more cognitively elite than most. Or at least he thinks he is, referring sometimes to “teachable moments," i.e., occasions for people to be given the gift of his enlightenment.

As California Rep. Dennis Cardoza, a Democrat, wrote recently in The Hill, “President Obama has behaved more like Professor Obama,” constantly lecturing others about their shortcomings and trying to impose his will on them. “In the president’s first year in office, his administration suffered from what I call ‘idea disease.’ Every week, and sometimes almost every day, the administration rolled out a new program for the country.” You don’t get to the Oval Office through a surplus of humility. Still, it takes a remarkable amount of hubris to come up with so many great new ideas about how other people ought to live their lives.

No one, no matter how bright, can possibly know what is in the best interest of everybody. Nor can any government, no matter how large, possibly manage the monumental complexity of the modern economy, or even one sector of it. Much of the current economic mess is indeed beyond Obama’s control. The trouble is, he doesn’t think so. And the harder Washington tries to run everything, the more likely it will bollix everything up. The pages of history are littered with case studies, which now include Solyndra and (probably) electric cars.

Perhaps one day Obama will look back on them as teachable moments, too.

A. Barton Hinkle is a columnist at the Richmond Times-Dispatch, where this article originally appeared.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    Obama traded in his old analogy about the car in the ditch for a new one, about a ship in rough seas. No matter how well the captain—Obama—steers it, if the ship is being tossed about with violent abandon, then the passengers will not enjoy the ride.

    Maybe all the passengers can escape on lifeboats, and he can go down with the ship.

  • ||

    The first Republican candidate to capitalize on this poorly planned metaphor will get a huge boost. I sure hope it's Paul.

  • wareagle||

    what they ought to capitalize on is the 60 Minutes interview that even CBS thought was too stupid to air - the part in which Obama assessed his administration as history's 4th most successful. Considering two of the other three were FDR and LBJ, "success" is a subjective scale. Still, the hubris is astounding even by Obamian standards. One might ask if he has been so damn successful, why have all those bad things he "inherited" gotten worse?

  • ||

    Have they attributed that interview to "fatigue" or some other such bullshit yet?

  • Maxxx||

    what they ought to capitalize on is the 60 Minutes interview that even CBS thought was too stupid to air - the part in which Obama assessed his administration as history's 4th most successful.

    How long before they claim that dear leader gets multiple holes-in-one per golf outing or that he doesn't defecate?

  • Tony||

    "No one, no matter how bright, can possibly know what is in the best interest of everybody."

    Except libertarians.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tony the you know what,

    Except libertarians.


    Certainly NOT you, nitwit.

  • sarcasmic||

    Being that Tony believes not taking equals giving, that not giving equals taking, and that inaction equals violence, it is no surprise that believes freedom of choice is something to be imposed by force.

  • Tony||

    Yeah, well, I am stupid after all.

  • Klamidia Jones||

    At least two muffins short of a dozen.

  • ||

    Then that means Tony has 10 muffins. And since I have no muffins, that's not fair. Tony should have to give me at least three of his muffins since they are unnecessary.

  • 35N4P2BYY||

    Deca-Muffin?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Tony is the Muffin Man?

  • ^Cranky City-STATIST syndrome^||

    The agricultural city-Statists' gambol lockdown is imposed by force.

    Libertarians love aggression. (Although they whitewash the aggression necessary to impose big-Government regulations on the surface of the earth to restrict free movements of Non-State societies.)

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: White Imbecile,

    Libertarians love aggression.


    Apart from the fact that you would cry like a little girl at the sight of a thorn sticking on your thumb if having to be in your beloved "original affluent society," you're a goddamned liar.

  • OldMex, the Nanny city-Statist||

    Keeping that fear-of-wilderness going, city-Statist?

    And no, I'm not lying.

    Libertarians glibbly whitewash the aggression necessary to "protect" property "rights" as good, while they amplify all other aggression as bad.

    It's what libertarian economists whore themselves out to do for their paymasters: justify government for me, but not for thee.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    Don't feed it.

  • Audrey the Liberal||

    Do not feed the trolls. Especially ones named Tony.

  • CalebT||

    Yikes, this reminds me of a thread of comments I saw last night on Big Think's Facebook page regarding "Ron Paul's Moment in the Sun: Is it Finally Cool to be a Libertarian."

    (sorry for the length):

    Larry Wood Nope, he's just the flavor of the moment.
    18 hours ago · Like

    Angelica Juliette He's only "hip" by people who's being fooled by that "Libertarian" label and his drug policy views. The truth is that he's GOP like the other candidates.
    18 hours ago · Like · 2

    Maty Aksenton It is indeed becoming increasingly "cool" to be a libertarian, just like it became "cool" to be an atheist over the previous decade. Which is both good things. It is indeed way overdue for the barbaric statist ideology to die. It will probably take a few more decades, but it will eventually die, as it should, along with the rest of the discredited beliefs of the old.
    18 hours ago · Like · 7

    Dawn Chandler Young Theres NOTHING cool about RON PAUL. he is a laissez faire economist and his sort of thinking is what got us into this mess. Id like to run his ass out on a rail.
    18 hours ago · Like · 1

    Dawn Chandler Young and BTW he thinks the civil rights act was a mistake, and I think his mother not getting an abortion was a mistake we are all paying for
    18 hours ago · Like

    Tammy Mackenzie-Marshall That is just not true, he is far from GOP on almost everything. And he is more than the flavor of the moment. He has been "trying" to serve his country, and help turn it around and in the the right direction for some time now. But the masses are afraid to think for themselves, they think big government telling you what you can and should do it how a democracy is supposed to be ran. And forget all that Constitutional nonsense, even though Paul knows more about the constitution than all the other candidates combined. He especially knows far more about it than our current president.
    18 hours ago · Like · 7

    Steve Reynolds Sure, Tammy. Radical racist nutjobs always say the 'masses are afraid to think for themselves', yada yada yada. Well, the masses are afraid, alright. Afraid of you radicals who are hell-bent on turning America into another 3rd world hell hole. No thank you!
    18 hours ago · Like

    Sylvia Pesek Via: Ethical Reporters Against Faux News
    (ron) Imagine if all US currency were declared worthless overnight. Your bank account, your salary, all of it gone, with no new alternative in place. Immediate and complete wholesale destruction of the economy. What member of Congress would be crazy enough to propose such a thing? Take a guess.
    Bill Summary & Status - 110th Congress (2007 - 2008) - H.R.2756 - THOMAS (Library of Congress)
    thomas.loc.gov
    *¬◊
    (please tell me you didn't even have to click on it to know who it was ...)
    18 hours ago · Like

    Cliff Dalton http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul118.html
    18 hours ago · Like

    Clint Warren Libertarianism has unfortunatley morphed into a not so cleverly disguised veil covering a sinister christian agenda to promote states rights in the hope of banning abortion and homosexually... not to mention "teach the controversy" between evolution and creationsim. Libertarianism is watered down conservatism.
    18 hours ago · Like · 1

    Clint Warren Haha... homosexually.
    18 hours ago · Like

    Kahill Jay Monk He isn't your "typical" Conservative and he's a conspiracy theorist, that is his appeal and why he's "hip". His rhetoric is slightly different than his colleagues, people are intrigued by that
    18 hours ago · Like · 1

    Maty Aksenton ‎@Dawn:
    " he is a laissez faire economist and his sort of thinking is what got us into this mess"

    I had no idea America had a "laissez faire economy". I must have been asleep, because all I remember is growing statism, skyrocketing spending and massive government expansion under George W. Barack Hussein Bushbama. But it is not untypical for a typical establishment bootlicker statsit with a severe case of eleutherophobia such as yourself to consider the policies of Bushbama a "laissez faire economy".
    18 hours ago · Like · 1

    Jeff Sherry Makes me wonder if the youths that support Paul are looking beyond the surface of the drug and anti-war stance? Paul isn't very appealing on many of his so called libertarian stands of womens rights...or race ideas.
    18 hours ago · Like · 2

    Victoria Bilyeu FINALLY!!!
    18 hours ago · Like · 1

    Maty Aksenton ‎*statist
    18 hours ago · Like

    Rebecca Rhoden Williams I hope not.
    18 hours ago · Like

    Maty Aksenton ‎" Libertarianism has unfortunatley morphed into a not so cleverly disguised veil covering a sinister christian agenda to promote states rights in the hope of banning abortion and homosexually"

    Liberalism has unfortunately morphed into a not so cleverly disguised veil covering a sinister agenda of centralization to promote a central government in the hope of banning peaceful human activity to benefit a small group of elites at the expense of the rest of us.

    There, I fixed it for you. That lesson in reality was free of charge ;-)
    17 hours ago · Like · 3

    Rebecca Hartman sure, if 'hip' and 'cool' now mean accepting the perverse logic that the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which is a milestone piece of anti-discrimination legislation, is actually taking away "our" liberties. Gosh, that pesky 'statism' makes it darned hard for me to deny a job to a Negra, or, ick, a woman. I love how the ill-informed wingnuts set themselves above what they term "the masses," meaning anyone who's actually read and thought about something beyond the twittering double-speak of a neocon like Paul.
    17 hours ago · Like · 1

    Maty Aksenton ‎" Well, the masses are afraid, alright. Afraid of you radicals who are hell-bent on turning America into another 3rd world hell hole."

    You mean, like Bushbama, and many presidents who preceded them, by increasingly consolidating power at the hands of the Federal Government? Becuase they sure as hell did a good job at not only bringing America closer to a "3rd world hellhole", but also successfully indoctrinated uncritical sheeple like you into thinking they are their friends.
    17 hours ago · Like · 2

    Maty Aksenton ‎@Rebecca:
    Your labeling of Ron Paul a "neocon" is a riot, which shows how little you, like the typical establishment bootlicker that you are, know.
    Obviously, like any other pathologically eleutherophobic establishment bootlicker, you have very little regard for property right and freedom of association, which makes your own mindset far more bizarre than of any racist. After all, if you think racists are so bad, why would you want to use the guns of the state to force other people to associate with them, or force them to associate with others? It makes no sense. But then, statism has never been about making sense. It's been about producing uncritical and unthinking drones. And boy, how well they succeeded, when seeing all the establishment meatheads here exposing their ignorance and eleutherophobia for all to see by parroting all the discredited cookie-cutter non-arguments for statism and centralization, while thinking of themselves as being oh so radical.
    17 hours ago · Like · 1

    Tom Gilmore So what most of you are saying is that you like him?
    17 hours ago · Like · 2

    Steve Eckhouse I can't stand Obama, but Ron Paul scares the hell outta me!!!!!!!!!
    17 hours ago · Like

    Phillip Zezulak The American Sun, Bush and Obama took us Supernova with overspending and expansion and now Ron Paul will take us to Whitedwarf - tiny small mindedness, could care less about the rest of the world attitude. Is there no better approach on the horizon?
    17 hours ago · Like

    Deborah Riethmeier Libertarians can not agree on anything and Ron Paul is not cool, he is coo coo. Obama and his love affair with statism is horrendous. Both=epic fail.
    17 hours ago · Like

  •  ||

    Another vote for comment word-limits.

  • ||

    Me too!! If you want to publish something that freakin long - start your own damn blog!

  • ryan||

    Yes, I swear that that took me a full 2 seconds to scroll past.

  • ­||

    Steve's right. Tammy shouldn't be allowed to spew racist hate speech like that. It should be illegal.

  • Arcaster||

    Maty Aksenton put up a good fight. Too bad the rest of those people are clueless.

  • Klamidia Jones||

    War and Peace called...

  • in other words||

    herpda herp derp derp

  • Sevo||

    Tony|12.20.11 @ 12:10PM|#
    "No one, no matter how bright, can possibly know what is in the best interest of everybody."
    Except libertarians."

    Do you ever post without lying shithead?
    Are you dumb enough to even fantasize that's true, shithead?
    We're you born this stupid, or did it take years of work, shithead?

  • sarcasmic||

    He's not stupid. He's a liar.

  • WTF||

    He's both stupid and a liar.

  • ||

  • ||

    Jimmy Buffett?! I am dissapoint.

  • ||

    This one is better.

  • ||

    If I'd have known you were here, Banjos, I would have tried harder. As it stands, I'm working my ass off today and haven't the time to focus.

  • ||

    Obvious spoof.

  • Arcaster||

    Shouldn't you be mourning the loss of another statist dictator?

  • DLM||

    Shouldn't you be mourning the loss of another statist dictator?

    Why? There are plenty more to take his place.

  • Barack Obama||

    "PRESENT!!!"

  • Restoras||

    The irony of this statement is blinding.

    Libertarians DON'T presume to know what's best for every else, Tony. Now run off back to HuffPo and tell 'em you really gave us what for.

  • Tony||

    Of course you do! You think what you call freedom is what's best for everyone. The problem is your definition of freedom is fucked.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tony the slave,

    You think what you call freedom is what's best for everyone.


    "What your people call freedom, my people call 'La Vida Loca.'"

    By the way, there's only one version of freedom, sockpuppet, which means "NOT A SLAVE."

  • wareagle||

    no Tony,
    what most people here call freedom is very simple - the right of adults to make adult decisions for themselves. It is something liberals cannot abide because the left cannot survive without the stupid and/or apathetic. Freedom means the right to make my own choices, even if those choices prove wrong, so long as I do not harm anyone else or infringe on another's rights in exercising my choices.

  • Tony||

    Nobody's against that. The problem is you don't really want to be treated like an adult. Adults have responsibilities. You want what a teenager living with parents calls freedom: the ability to do whatever you want and not pay rent.

  • Restoras||

    You want what a teenager living with parents calls freedom: the ability to do whatever you want and not pay rent

    Wrong again, as usual.

  • Matrix||

    Libertarian freedom: You're free to do or not do as you see fit so long as you do not infringe on the rights of others. The benefits or negative consequences of your choices are yours to bear. You're free to share the benefits with others if you choose, and others are free to accept part of the burden of the consequences, if they choose.

    Tony's freedom: You must do what I think is right, and all the benefits or negative consequences that come will be shared by all.

  • Tony||

    There are very few things people do that don't affect other people. In all such cases I'm in total agreement with you. Beyond that it is you who wants to limit freedom, namely the freedom to accomplish things in common. On top of that, you think people should be able to pollute my property and make me pay for it.

    We believe in the same premises, you just are shackled to an ideology that rewards simplicity, and so you miss a whole bunch of gray area.

  • Mitch||

    In addition to Tony's Freedom...it means having lick some government lackeys boot to get a entitlement, or said government lackey has all rights to tell people what the should buy, where they should live, how much money they should earn, or have the lackey tell you that your 1st Amendment rights only apply to "correct" speach or thought.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Your definition of freedom is fuckeder, Tony. It's almost, if not as, bad as the socon definition.

  • ||

    Tony is busy trolling. He is also an asshole. Don't feed the asshole troll. Its a rule.

  • Restoras||

    It's like scratching your anus and then sniffing your finger - you know you shouldn't do it, and usually you don't, but sometimes you can't help yourself.

  • ||

    As long as your finger doesn't enter the meatus, you're OK, right? Right?

  • Paul||

    "No one, no matter how bright, can possibly know what is in the best interest of everybody."

    Except libertarians.

    Name a time when libertarians claimed they would force people into a certain lifestyle?

    Oh, right, libertarians want that all the time by NOT telling people what to do. We force them into a life of liberty, freedom, choice and personal responsibility.

  • Matrix||

    Libertarians don't believe we know what's best for everyone. That's why we'd leave the decisions up to those individuals.

  • Old Mexican||

    The implication is that Obama is doing a fine job, so don’t blame him.


    Yes, he has this issue with being blamed for anything he did wrong...

  • DLM||

    Yes, he has this issue with being blamed for anything he did wrong...

    IOW, a typical politician...only moreso.

  • CatoTheElder||

    Obama can do no wrong.

    Other people are just too lazy and stupid to pay attention when their teachable moments arrive.

  • Mitch||

    They didn't eat their peas either.

  • Mike M.||

    Perhaps one day Obama will look back on them as teachable moments, too.

    He won't, because he cares not a whit about whether his ideas are "good" in the way you and I consider them. In fact, many of his ideas are specifically intended to have bad outcomes.

  • AlmightyJB||

  • Matrix||

    Anyone with half a brain would want Ron Paul over Newt "I'll ****ing kill you for smoking pot" Gingrich

  • Apatheist||

    This is just Coulter playing the Pro-Romney game. Romney himself is playing the same cards. He has his sights targeted firmly on Newt assuming that after that he'll carry the day against Paul.

  • ||

    I don't think so. I don't think Coulter plays that game. She has made her career out of saying what other people are thinking but don't have the balls to say. You may not agree with her or like her. But I don't think you can call her a fake. And I see no reason why she would have any lover for Mittens either.

  • Apatheist||

  • AlmightyJb||

    I don't disagree about her playing the pro-Romney game. It's just funny how she is the queen of the right until she gives one half complement to RP and all of the sudden she's "crazy".

  • CatoTheElder||

    Conservative Republicans worship the State just as much liberal Democrats and other socialists.

    Newt is running to be high priest of the State.

    Ron Paul is a heretic because he asserts that the State is not god.

  • Bee Tagger||

    if the ship is being tossed about with violent abandon, then the passengers will not enjoy the ride.

    Even within a metaphor that breaks down after a few seconds of thought, he managed to describe the boat-rocking weather as outside human control which means he can't even scapegoat the banksters anymore. He managed to box himself in by a metaphor that didn't even require a passing semblance to reality.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Until he amends the metaphor as the ship being in a sea with Team RED using a wave machine to artificially create said waves.

  • Statist||

    "No one, no matter how bright, can possibly know what is in the best interest of everybody."

    But, but...that's our whole premise about everything.

  •  ||

    Will President Obama ever learn?

    He will "learn" when the blog commentariat "learn" from one another, i.e. never.

  • Tony||

    Fossil fuel extractors, burners, and consumers think they get to tell me to live in a future of severe climate disruptions. Everyone who ever has an idea about how people should live is guilty of what you blame Obama here for. You're essentially saying as president he shouldn't support any policies that might change the current composition of the market, which means pretty much anything. What it mostly means is that we shouldn't ever attempt to do anything that places a single dime of oil company profits in jeopardy.

    Animosity toward green energy, from energy production to light bulbs, is so strange coming from libertarians, who in this case, rather than celebrating human ingenuity (as that is supposedly the engine of the world), defend to the death 19th century technologies that are harming us. Guess that's what happens when ideals conflict with underwriters.

    People want to drive gas-guzzling automobiles and not have to think about the harm they are causing. That's not surprising. But they want to do it and have cheap gas, which can't last forever and is artificially low anyway. Change that and people will start liking the sound of electric cars. And isn't it better to attempt to head off that disruption responsibly than just to wait around for it to happen?

    All markets are influenced by governments. Ours seriously underprices oil and coal because of government policy. Nothing argued here is a defense of the free market, it's a defense of the status quo, and five more years of record profits for oil.

  • Sevo||

    Tony|12.20.11 @ 12:20PM|#
    "Fossil fuel extractors, burners, and consumers think they get to tell me to live in a future of severe climate disruptions...."

    That's a lie, shithead.

  • ­­Tony||

    No it's not. And I never consume fossil fuels in any way, obviously.

  • Sevo||

    Tony|12.20.11 @ 12:25PM|#
    "No it's not."

    Another lie, shithead.

  • Loki||

    So, you never use electricity (rhetorical question, since you obviously have a computer which runs on -wait for it- electricity)? You do realize that most of the electricity you use comes from burning fossil fuels, right?

    Try thinking before spewing forth such mental diarrhea, you're making it really smelly in here shit for brains.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Try thinking before failing to recognize a spoof.

  • Loki||

    Normally I would think that noone could possibly be stupid enough to claim that they "never consume fossil fuels in any", but you never know when dealing with progressive fucktards.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Even the "obviously" didn't give it away?

  • ||

    I'm telling you, it's impossible to tell spoof Tony from real Tony. Probably because there never was a "real" Tony.

  • Brother Grimm||

    "No it's not."

    Well, seeing as how catastrophic man-made global warming is a big fat global scam.... yes, it is a lie.

  • Matrix||

    Tony, are you full of shit or are you just full of shit?

    Libertarians want to see market competition and see new technologies develop on their own without government intervention. The government does not have the foresight to know what is the best energy policy. They just make a decision and **** everyone else. Let the market decide and people will pick out what gives them the best value. With the government if it looks good on paper, they will run with it, not caring about what third or fourth order negative effects will happen.

    Oil is underpriced? Oh because the Brits are paying the same per litre that we are per gallon is proof, nevermind the tax policy that Britain has on their oil... nope, just looking at the price is enough, right?

  • Tony||

    There is not and can never be a "free market" in energy. Libertarians consistently cannot understand that, and can't tell the difference between a free market and the status quo. Of course people will choose the cheapest and most convenient option, but that option is heavily subsidized because energy policy is essentially written by fossil fuel energy industries. You guys have yourselves backed into a corner where you can't support any alteration to the market status quo, not even to make it freer with more correct price signals.

    Defend massive government handouts to oil and coal if you wish, just don't pretend it's a freer market.

  • #||

    sure there are subsidies in the energy industry - but i seem to also recall royalty taxes, income taxes on oil companies and gasoline taxes on oil. Not to mention the artificial restrictions on where and how they can drill also drives the price up.

    Its quite within the realm of the theoretical window that fossil fuels are already being taxed or restricted at or even beyond the amount that one would put in place to correct fro any externality.

  • Tony||

    Not to mention the artificial restrictions on where and how they can drill also drives the price up.

    Like property laws and national sovereignty? I must have missed the part in the libertarian handbook that explains why a particular industry ought to have domain over a limited fuel source created by nature.

    Since carbon emissions are not going down, it is clearly not the case that externalities have been accounted for.

  • #||

    no tony - like publicly owned land where oil drilling is banned that if it were private property probably would have sold its drilling rights.

    Add on that most of the worlds oil production is done by inneficient and corrupt national oil companies that are not maximizing output and a giant cartel that restricts output to drive up the price, oil probably already has a huge price increase to cover any externality.

    There are all ready tons of restrictions and leveys placed on oil production that drive its price well above the actual cost of production. Theres no way in hell anyone can honestly claim the oil industry is a free market.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    +1 for #.

  • Sevo||

    Tony|12.20.11 @ 1:09PM|#
    ..."I must have missed the part in the libertarian handbook that explains why a particular industry ought to have domain over a limited fuel source created by nature."

    No, shithead, you missed almost everything, including a requirement to post with some degree of honesty instead of one lie after the other, shithead.

  • ||

    Standard liberal BS -- we've regulated energy to some extent, so it's not a free market, and since it's not a free market we may as well pile on all the regulations we want. Inch, mile.

  • Tony||

    Standard libertarian BS: after a century of subsidizing one particular industry, we're gonna stop all market intervention and call it free. If you can't compete with the entrenched industries, it means you fail at the market.

  • wareagle||

    it's Tony's new and improved liberal BS - the combination of straw and misdirection. NO ONE here advocates subsidizing ANY energy industry...not oil, not natural gas, not coal, not wind, not solar, not anything else. But you already knew that, meaning more typical liberal BS - if you cannot compete on facts, change the discussion. Or lie outright.

  • Brandon||

    Tony is probably relying on HuffPo talking point #7: Allowing oil companies to deduct depletion= SUBSIDIES!!!!!!!!!!!

    On the other hand, most libertarians favor abolishing the income tax altogether, which would render the question of that particular deduction moot.

  • Matrix||

    It's not wholly fair, but the market is not necessarily fair. Besides, other sources of energy will benefit from other countries giving subsidies and special sanctions to their favored forms of energy while vexing the ones they do not like. The market will not be wholly free until all governments get out of the way. But we can do our best to get our government out of the way of the market here.

  • Tony||

    Whatever helps the oil industry most, in other words.

    There is no consistency or logic in this policy field for libertarians. They cannot help but defend every cent in profit for the petroleum industry. At best it's for cultural bigotry reasons (liberals and hippies like solar power, that means I'm against it!)

  • Sevo||

    Tony|12.20.11 @ 5:26PM|#
    "Whatever helps the oil industry most, in other words."

    That's a lie, shithead.

  • ||

    By all means let's stop ALL subsidies and see if solar can compete with coal or oil. Hint: it can't.

  • Tony||

    And I just told you why. The entire modern world is set up on fossil fuel energy. You want clean energy to compete on a playing field built for its competitor.

    Never mind that the market is clearly not factoring in the harm fossil fuels do, and everyone who's not a dishonest hack oil whore or stupid Limbaugh sheep knows there is no choice but to reduce fossil fuel use, no matter what the market spirits say.

  • ||

    We're not telling you how to live. Buy a Chevy Volt if you want one. Get solar panels for your house. Who is stopping you?

    The collectivist mindset is just weird. My being left alone is somehow telling you how to live. Strange.

  • Tony||

    What you call being left alone I call being allowed to pollute the environment I share with you with impunity and tacitly supporting Middle Eastern wars that disrupt and destroy millions of lives. This is the 21st century. It's hard to be left totally alone, and impossible when we're talking about energy consumption.

  • ||

    And there you have it, the environmental movement as an expression of raw political power.

  • #||

    theres a reason why the enviromental movement found its home on the left - it was another excuse to control peoples actions in the name of some common good.

  • Matrix||

    Your inane rambling is a burden I bear because I and most of this country believe that you have the right to spout your ridiculous nonsense.

  • Sevo||

    Tony|12.20.11 @ 12:41PM|#
    "What you call being left alone I call being allowed to pollute the environment.."

    Yes, shithead. You always lie, shithead.

  • SFC B||

    They want to live their lives telling you what to do. So by you living your life how you want you're preventing them from living their life they way THEY want to.

    It's logic. Can't deny it.

  • Tony||

    So you don't want to change tax policy or social safety net programs?

    I'm not going to cry about you wanting to tell others how to live, as that is the basic point of any political discussion. But you have to admit it.

  • n8||

    I have no objection with you or any other group of people banding your finances together in the form of taxes or the creation of a social security fund, so long as I don't have to be a part of it. That's the essence of libertarianism, do whatever shit you want to do, even if it's collectivist, I don't care. Just PLEASE DON'T MAKE THE REST OF US GO ALONG! In return, I won't leave coal in your stocking...unless you buy a Chevy Volt. Then it's just like a gas card.

  • Tony||

    But you want me to go along with your system, which would result in significant changes to how everybody lives.

  • Jordan||

    "He forced me to be free!"

  • Tony||

    Libertarian freedom = tyranny of capitalism.

  • Restoras||

    Liberal Freedom = Tyranny of Bureacracy

  • Concerned Citizen||

    The dictators of Eastern Europe adapted, maybe you can too.

  • n8||

    No, you can keep your system, just not the part of it that requires my money. If you and co. want to set up a health insurance fund, go for it. In return I can't come crawling to you when I need chemo. Deal?

  • Tony||

    No deal. A society in which one's pockets are checked for insurance cards before one is treated for a heart attack is one that potentially negatively affects me. I'm sorry if it's an imposition to have medical treatment for all who need it. You want a more barbaric custom, convince others to vote for it.

  • n8||

    It only negatively affects you if you don't pay for health insurance...You can even use the money from your health care collective fund to support the local ER ward and ensure no one gets turned away from it.
    I shouldn't have to convince 51% of America that I should be allowed to choose how I spend my own money, and not just "a big chunk of it." Barbaric is relying on the authority of the state to govern all of human interaction.

  • Tony||

    You only have the ability to make and keep money because of government, and I doubt you'd be against all the "handouts" that allow for it.

    A non-barbaric healthcare system that is not socialized is one that allows for rampant freeloading. I don't want you checked for insurance before you're given emergency treatment because I don't want the same burden on myself. You are asserting the right to freeload.

  • Destrudo||

    How is too much to need, gaywad? Where is the line? Will you take 20% of my income to pay for someone else's treatment? What about 40%? 60%? Is it moral to seize 80% of my income to pay for the medical treatment of someone I care nothing for?

  • Tony||

    You're obviously too poor for any change in tax policy I favor to affect you.

  • Destrudo||

    I'm a statistician, so I doubt that. You can't answer the question, can you?

  • Restoras||

    shorter Tony - I am make more money dan you and I am wicked smaaaht to so sit down and do what I say, prole!

    Does that sum up your idea of freedom, Tony?

  • Tony||

    I define freedom as the ability to act unimpeded. Lots of things can restrict that besides being taxed.

  • Restoras||

    Well if that is the case then you are one of us!

  • ||

    and you are too stupid to see the irony of the contradictions in your own argument -- which are straight out of the 1984 playbook. If this is a joke then you are brilliant. Since it is not, and you are shit stupid serious, then shit stupid it is.

  • Tony Translated||

    You continue to choose to live, therefore you are significantly changing how I live! herpity derp!

  • KOCH-suckers||

    "defend to the death 19th century technologies that are harming us"

    Have a Koch and a cancer.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tony the Schizophrenic,

    Fossil fuel extractors, burners, and consumers think they get to tell me to live in a future of severe climate disruptions.


    If you took your Thorazine as prescribed, you would not be haunted by all those voices talking to you.

    Animosity toward green energy, from energy production to light bulbs, is so strange coming from libertarians,


    Yes, we're strange in that way - we respect people's economic decisions instead of being nosey assholes and backseat drivers like you. Fancy that.

    All markets are influenced by governments.


    So governents should dictate what markets should do! Right?

    WOW! Talk about the mother of all question-begging assertions!

    Go play with your dolls or something.

  • Atanarjuat||

    Old Mexican, you should stop by the Huffington Post, DailyKos, or somewhere just for a day to wreak havoc. And link to it so we can see or join in.

  • The Ingenious Hidalgo||

    Nothing argued here is a defense of the free market, it's a defense of the status quo, and five more years of record profits for oil.

    I wonder, when was the last time you argued with a position that wasn't a straw man?

  • Paul||

    Animosity toward green energy, from energy production to light bulbs, is so strange coming from libertarians, who in this case, rather than celebrating human ingenuity (as that is supposedly the engine of the world), defend to the death 19th century technologies that are harming us

    Funny stuff indeed. I live in a hyper-progressive city which is desperate...DESPERATE I say-- to introduce this nifty 19th century technology called Street Cars, even though no one rides them. Please, Tony, don't preach to us about "hanging on to 19th century technology". Especially when it's been demonstrated that the this particular 19th century technology is cheaper, lasts longer, and produces superior results to the government-mandated new technology.

    A government mandated technology which Obama claims will create jobs, while factories lay off people in other factories to produce this superior technology that no one likes. So at best, his "jobs" claim will be an even wash.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Not even your own peple are going with that bullshit "END UV DA WURLD" bullshit anymore.

    From one of the global warming high priests: "While 0.45 degrees C of warming [over the last 33 years] is noticeable in climate terms, it isn’t obvious that it represents an impending disaster," followed, in the same report (though said by yet another of the high priests), "How much of that underlying trend is due to greenhouse gases? While many scientists believe it is almost entirely due to humans, that view cannot be proved scientifically."

    Take your bullshit fabrications and fuck the fuck off.

  • mad libertarian guy||

  • Sevo||

    "Everyone who ever has an idea about how people should live is guilty of what you blame Obama here for."

    That's a lie, shithead.

  • Sevo||

    "You're essentially saying as president he shouldn't support any policies that might change the current composition of the market, which means pretty much anything."

    That's a lie, shithead.

  • Sevo||

    "What it mostly means is that we shouldn't ever attempt to do anything that places a single dime of oil company profits in jeopardy."

    That's a lie, shithead.

  • Sevo||

    "Animosity toward green energy, from energy production to light bulbs, is so strange coming from libertarians, who in this case, rather than celebrating human ingenuity (as that is supposedly the engine of the world), defend to the death 19th century technologies that are harming us."

    Your presumption is false, shithead.

  • Matrix||

    :-)

  • ||

    Energy Secretary Steven Chu neatly summarized this approach when he argued for new lightbulb standards by saying, “We are taking away a choice that continues to let people waste their own money.”

    To be lectured about wasting money by a government official borders on Kafkaesque.

    It also leads me to think that he may be burdened with a warped view of how a consumer measures value. An unsatisfactory product is unsatisfactory and thus a waste to purchase even if it "saves" money.

  • ||

    I think drinking Dominus is a waste of money when Mount Veeder is available at half the price. Outlaw Dominus to save Steve Chu from overspending on his wine cellar.

  • ||

    It isn't on the borders, it drives right over them. It is Kafkaesque.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    Yep. Chu was just looking at accounting cost (price), and not considering economic cost (value). For lunch today, I have two choices. I can get orange chicken with noodles from China Express for $2.99, or I could get a pulled pork BBQ sandwich and a delicious beer from Beachwood BBQ for $9.00. According to Chu, I will "waste" $6 if I buy the BBQ sandwich and beer. What Chu fails to understand is that I value the flavor and experience at about $9. I'm not wasting money, I'm using my money to buy the product that I want. The only scenario where I would waste my money is if I spent $2.99 on the chicken, despite my colon begging me "no"!

  • Paul||

    It also leads me to think that he may be burdened with a warped view of how a consumer measures value. An unsatisfactory product is unsatisfactory and thus a waste to purchase even if it "saves" money.

    This couldn't be better said. This must be posted far and wide, in every public venue possible.

  • seguin||

    "The Volt, a four-door compact, averages 30-40 miles on battery power alone. Then it needs to recharge for 10 hours."

    This is a little confusing. It's technically true, I suppose, just the phrasing of it makes it sound like you absolutely have to charge it after 40 miles. You can drive it in hybrid mode as long as there's gas in the tank after the first 40...unlike, say, the Leaf, which has no hybrid backup.

  • Sevo||

    "People want to drive gas-guzzling automobiles and not have to think about the harm they are causing."

    There may actually be some truth in there, shithead.
    Shitheads like you, OTOH, hope to implement policies at gunpoint without ever considering the harm your policies cause.

  • sarcasmic||

    Harm caused by bad policy is an opportunity to create more bad policy.
    That's the beauty of having policy for everything.
    It fucks everything up and creates opportunity for more policy which fucks everything up and creates opportunity for more policy which fucks everything up and creates opportunity for more policy which fucks everything up and creates opportunity for more policy which fucks everything up and creates opportunity for more policy which fucks everything up and creates opportunity for more policy which fucks everything up...

  • Loki||

    And dont' forget the opportunities for the politically connected cronies to profit from everyone elses misery.

  • Tony||

    But you think you aren't required to acknowledge the harm your policies cause because you slap a bumper sticker on them that reads "freedom."

    What about an energy policy set up by and for fossil fuel energy industries is the product of a free market?

  • Sevo||

    Tony|12.20.11 @ 12:29PM|#
    "But you think you aren't required to acknowledge the harm your policies cause because you slap a bumper sticker on them that reads "freedom."

    That's a lie, shithead.

  • sarcasmic||

    You can't have an honest debate with a dishonest person.

  • Tony||

    Bullshit. If you had your way the lives of millions of people would be significantly altered. Do you deny that? Libertarians do defend the status quo as the freest possible world when we're talking about specific things like energy, but mostly you favor major changes to policy that would affect people, most of them negatively. The only differences are: my ideas are better, and I'm man enough to tell the truth about it.

  • sarcasmic||

    Libertarians do defend the status quo as the freest possible world

    straw man / lie

    and I'm man enough to tell the truth about it.

    I don't think you've ever told the truth about anything.

  • Tony||

    So you don't want to change a single law? I suppose sitting around calling others stupid liars and never saying anything of substance is, in fact, doing nothing, but it's not much in the way of a political philosophy.

    Everyone wants to change how others live, libertarians included. In fact, you want to change how people live much more significantly than I do.

  • sarcasmic||

    So you don't want to change a single law?

    Moving the goal posts. You sure love your phalluses fallacies, don't you?

    I suppose sitting around calling others stupid liars

    Pointing out lies is different than calling someone a liar, liar.

    never saying anything of substance

    What's the point in attempting honest debate with a dishonest person like you?

    Everyone wants to change how others live

    Lie.

    In fact, you want to change how people live much more significantly than I do.

    Another lie.

    Like I said. Honest debate is not possible with a dishonest person.

  • Tony||

    So there's no point to debating me, but there is a point to posting substance-free insults?

  • ||

    You're absolutely correct Tony. All of the millions of poor minorities in prison for consensual crimes, I want to change how they live significantly: I'd like to see them free and with their families for the holidays.

    I'd also like to see Americans live as responsible adults unafraid of jack-booted baby burners busting down their doors for the slightest infraction or for offending the puritanical sensibilities of the nannies among us. Nannies like you Tony.

    But then again, how would you get your jollies if it weren't the big scary government men and their big scary guns.

  • Tony||

    Thank you for admitting that the argument that I want to do things to alter the choices people can make is pointless since you want to do the same thing.

    Believe it or not the single thing that motivates the changes I favor is increasing individual freedom. I just don't get why I have to answer for every single bad thing governments do, but you don't, even though both of us want government to do things to change people's lives.

  • ||

    Believe it or not the single thing that motivates the changes I favor is increasing individual freedom seeing masked g-men shooting puppies *gush*.

  • Tony||

    I want legislators to change tax policy, so do you. Obviously, we're both in favor of g-men shooting puppies.

  • ||

    Um what?

    I hate to pile on here, Tony, but are you really that fucking stoopid?

  • Jordan||

    The difference of course being that you want to remove choices, and we want to add them.

  • Tony||

    No Jordan, the opposite is true. You want to make poor people more poor, thus removing choices for them. I want to make them less poor, giving them more choices.

  • sarcasmic||

    You want to make poor people more poor, thus removing choices for them.

    Lie. We want poor people to not be burdened by all the regulations, licenses, and other government barriers to economic liberty, so they can better their own lives.

    I want to make them less poor, giving them more choices.

    What about the people you want to rob in order to finance your schemes, and what happens when they run out of money? What about their freedom of choice?

  • Tony||

    Oh poverty exists because of regulations and licenses. How stupid I am. I thought it existed because some people didn't have enough money to meet their basic needs. I suppose it is significantly cheaper to start a profitable business than it is to feed oneself, so your plan sounds like a winner.

    I don't want to rob anyone. I want to stop the wholesale theft of wealth from the lower classes in favor of the ultrarich. (What you call the free market.)

  • sarcasmic||

    I want to stop the wholesale theft of wealth from the lower classes in favor of the ultrarich.

    I see. Amassing wealth through voluntary action is theft, while using force to redistribute wealth is not.

    Is that about it?

    Voluntary transfer is theft, and forceful transfer is justice.

    You've got a warped mind there little liar.

  • sarcasmic||

    I'll have to add that to my list of Tonyisms.

    Not taking is giving.
    Not giving is taking.
    Inaction is violence.
    Voluntary transfer is theft.
    Forceful transfer is justice.

  • Restoras||

    Not taking is giving.
    Not giving is taking.
    Inaction is violence.
    Voluntary transfer is theft.
    Forceful transfer is justice.

    You forgot:
    All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.

  • Tony||

    If you can write the laws, then anything can be defined as "voluntary." Highly concentrated wealth is undemocratic because money is power. I doubt you'd say that the distribution of wealth in this country is the result of the free market, since we don't have a free market. Yet somehow all the wealth at the top was earned legitimately, and much of that at the bottom was stolen. Even though it's not the people at the bottom who write tax policy.

    I know this will come as a shock to you, but the market doesn't get everything right all the time, and absent controls can produce wildly unfair and unjust outcomes. That's obvious to anyone who doesn't worship market outcomes as divine truth.

  • Restoras||

    I presume you have a sense of what a "fiar" distribution of national wealth would be. Care to share it with us?

  • Mitch||

    If the poor do not have any wealth...then how can that wealth be stolen from them?

    I do see a government handout as a form or tyranny....keeping the serfs on the farm and such by so called virtuous benelovence.

  • Brother Grimm||

    "Oh poverty exists because of regulations and licenses. How stupid I am."

    Yes. And yes.

    " I thought it existed because some people didn't have enough money to meet their basic needs."

    Nope.

    " I suppose it is significantly cheaper to start a profitable business than it is to feed oneself, so your plan sounds like a winner."

    Stupid and irrelevant.

    "I don't want to rob anyone. I want to stop the wholesale theft of wealth from the lower classes in favor of the ultrarich. (What you call the free market.)"

    Forced and violent confenscation of legaly aquired property is theft. So this is a lie. Shithead.

  • Tony||

    Theft is a crime defined by statute. Taxation is not theft. It's how civilization is paid for.

  • Brother Grimm||

    "Theft is a crime defined by statute."

    Wrong. It is a crime as defined... by definition. Statute only catagorizes the severity of the crime.

    "Taxation is not theft."

    If the taxation is done by the forced and violentconfenscation of legaly aquired property, then yes it it. See above. That is not the only kind of taxing avaliable.

    "It's how civilization is paid for."

    Wrong again. Hence why this country grew and prospered by leaps and bounds when there was no income tax. And would again.

  • Brandon||

    The wholesale theft of wealth from the lower clases in favor of the ultrarich is government, Tony. See GE, TARP, ARRA, and every other government foray into economic meddling. It's the reason why a dollar doesn't buy as much food as it used to, why Wall Street got bailed out while "Main Street" didn't, why so many millions of people are rotting in prison despite having done no actual harm to anyone else, why college keeps becoming more and more unaffordable, and there really is no end to how long this list could go. Face it, Tony, the status quo is government, that is what you are arguing for, and no amount of Orwellian doublespeak is going to change that. For God's sake, instead of trying to change the meaning of words to fit your preconceived notions, wouldn't it be easier to just change the notions?

  • Tony Translated||

    You wan tto make poor people more poor, while I want to make everyone poor! We'd all be equal then, see?

    herpity derp derp.

  • JoJo Zeke||

    You want to make poor people more poor, while I want to make everyone poor! We'd all be equal then, see?

    Amusingly, Spoof Tony is actually more honest than "Real" Tony. ;)

  • Restoras||

    Believe it or not the single thing that motivates the changes I favor is increasing individual freedom

    You're right, I don't beleive it. This is another one of your hard-core lefty lies.

  • Tony Translated||

    herpda herp derp derp...

    You want to give people choice! I want to take that choice away! See, we're the same! Herdity derp!

  • Destrudo||

    Believe it or not the single thing that motivates the changes I favor is increasing individual freedom.


    Hahahahaha, all that semen go to your head, dude?

  • ||

    well, I suppose Tony is less annoying than the While Gamboler.

  • The Ingenious Hidalgo||

    Everyone wants to change how others live, libertarians included. In fact, you want to change how people live much more significantly than I do.

    But you know you're equivocating, surely! You're using "change how people live" to mean the same thing as what this argument is actual about, which was using state power to control people's lives and make their decisions for them, all so you can slander people who are explicitly against controlling people's lives and making their decisions for them as being guilty of the same sin. Moron or liar, your choice.

  • Tony||

    Whatever the rhetorical distinction, it is not big enough to matter. You want government to enact or repeal laws in order to make a society you claim is best for everyone. It may very well have less government intervention in the economy, but that doesn't mean it is without costs. Sometimes significant and devastating costs for people. And to boot, nobody is allowed to vote for anything differently. You actually believe in less freedom than I do. You just define freedom entirely as the right not to be taxed, which hasn't been a right anywhere or at any time.

  • Restoras||

    Beware the army of wildly gyrating strawmen!

  • Brandon||

    Jesus Christ, this may be a new low. Strawman, abject lie, goalpost shift, false choice, all crammed into one paragraph. Tony, everyone on earth, except apparently you, defines freedom as the right to make your own choices, even if it's scary and you have to live with the consequences. A free person has the right to the product of his labor, which includes the right to dispose of said product however he chooses. The catch is that you also have to respect others' right to do the same, even if their choices aren't what the "experts" want. There really is no other way to define it. Forcing everyone to choose something that they don't want, on the basis that you managed to convince 50.1% of them that you were the lesser of two evils prior to aforementioned forcing, is not freedom.

  • Tony||

    A free person has the right to the product of his labor, which includes the right to dispose of said product however he chooses.

    [[::blink::]

    [::blink::]

    [::blink::]

  • Restoras||

    Still waiting for you to tell me what you beleive a 'fair" distribution of national wealth would look like. How would you split it up?

  • Mitch||

    Hes looking at the old Soviet Union's Five Year Plans for the answer.

  • The Ingenious Hidalgo||

    Whatever the rhetorical distinction, it is not big enough to matter.

    Amazing. You don't care what your opponent's position is? What a fucking moron you are.

    You want government to enact or repeal laws in order to make a society you claim is best for everyone. It may very well have less government intervention in the economy, but that doesn't mean it is without costs.

    Well, that's obvious. Every policy has downsides against some utility function. If you let tobacco be legal, some people are going to kill themselves with it. And they won't deserve it, and it will be tragic and terrible. On the other hand, if you put people in prison for smoking, you're a fucking thug.

    And to boot, nobody is allowed to vote for anything differently.

    Well, I don't actually recommend jailing people for disagreeing with me. In fact, as a libertarian, I obviously believe the opposite. But even if 99% of people want to enslave the other 1%, they're still fucking evil.

    You actually believe in less freedom than I do. You just define freedom entirely as the right not to be taxed, which hasn't been a right anywhere or at any time.

    Lies. Lies here. You are a liar. You did a lie. I also think that freedom is the freedom not to be murdered, for example. And I don't think that means I support "less freedom" than someone who thinks murder should be legal. Murder is freedom-destroying. Theft, too. It enslaves the victim. Which is why I think there's a right not to be taxed, which has been there for every person throughout history - it just hasn't been respected, the same way peoples' right not to be murdered or enslaved hasn't been respected.

  • Sevo||

    Tony|12.20.11 @ 12:53PM|#
    "Everyone wants to change how others live, libertarians included"

    That's a lie, shithead.
    Further, what ever 'how people live' is favored by libertarians, no libertarian hopes to enforce it with force, shithead.

  • Jeff||

    The only differences are: my ideas are better, and I'm man enough to tell the truth about it.

    No, Tony. You're a fucking retard, and you're retarded enough to think that your stupid ideas are good.

  • Jeff||

    While we're at it, you're also stupid enough to think that your way (i.e., violent coercion) is the moral equivalent of leaving people the fuck alone. You really are a shithead, Tony.

  • Tony||

    You don't get a free pass by ignoring the details and realities of "leaving the people the fuck alone." Like I said, freedom is a bumper sticker to you guys. I believe in freedom too, I just think it should actually mean increased mobility and opportunity for humans.

  • Restoras||

    I just think it should actually mean increased mobility and opportunity for humans

    This is a lie. You do not beleive in this whatsoever, no hard-core lefty does.

  • Tony||

    It's kind of the entire point of liberal thought.

  • Restoras||

    The entire point of liberal thought is state control, Tony, or at least is has been for the last 100 years.

    If you are referring to classical liberalism, then yes, but you are no classical liberal.

  • Tony||

    You're describing fascism, but it's easy to get confused on that point if all the information you consume comes from fat men on right-wing radio.

  • Restoras||

    Classical liberalism is fascims now? My God are you insufferably ignorant. It was your side in the early 20th century, under the lovely moniker of 'progressivism', that was gaga of Stalin, Hitler, and Mussolini. Tell me again who is the fascist? Be sure you are looking in the mirror when you do.

  • Tony||

    Classical liberalism is... classical liberalism. The precursor to modern liberalism, which as a pragmatic political philosophy has allowed itself to evolve with time.

    Libertarianism is a utopian ideology dreamed up by 4th rate philosophers and quack economists meant to give sociopaths justification for their attitude toward life. It fails immediately because it doesn't allow any flexibility for changing circumstances.

  • Restoras||

    John Locke is a 4th rate philosopher? Got it Tony and thanks for putting your stupidity and arrogance on dispaly yet again. You will make an excellent kapo.

    Modern liberalism took hold in the early 20th century and was widely praised and embraced by all manner of people, including Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini. And all the modern progessives were in thrall to these people because it represented enlightened thinking. This is what you sound like, complete with the arrogance.

  • Tony Translated||

    I believe in freedom, too... the freedom to do what I think is right and the freedom to stop you from making decision I think are wrong.

    herpity derp!

  • Tony||

    Anonymous pussy is projecting again. Libertarians want to restrict people's choices hugely... like their choice to democratically enact social programs.

  • Tony Translated||

    I think democracy is great, when we "the wolves" get to decide that "the sheep" get to be our dinner!

    herpity derp!

  • Tony||

    And unrestricted capitalism is a paradise for all wherein nobody ever gets abused!

  • Restoras||

    And no one EVER gets abused in Tonyland!

  • sarcasmic||

    like their choice to democratically enact social programs use the government as an instrument of plunder.

    ftfy

  • #||

    yeah i wonder if tony would be fine with people being free to democratically elect to institute slavery. It is democratic afterall.

  • Matrix||

    or how about democratically electing to get rid of all the gays?

  • Tony||

    Thus we should just make you dictator?

  • Restoras||

    That's what you want for yourself, not what we want.

  • Restoras||

    my ideas are better

    This tells you all you need to know about Tony. The arrogance of the hard left knows no bounds, and is well documented in the 20th century's worst excesses.

  • Tony||

    So you don't think your ideas are better?

  • T||

    Your ideas have been tried and found wanting.

  • sarcasmic||

    But T, they didn't work because they didn't have the right people in charge.
    Now we've got the right people in charge, so they'll work.
    And if they don't work then we'll put the right people in charge.
    See?

  • Tony||

    So you don't want politicians to do anything to implement your system, you just want to jerk off to free market fantasies? If that's what works for you, I guess, I just don't know why I get demerits for being honest about the fact that changing social policy requires that legislators do things.

  • Restoras||

    my ideas are better

    This tells you all you need to know about Tony. The arrogance of the hard left knows no bounds, and is well documented in the 20th century's worst excesses.

    Like I said.

  • Matrix||

    If you had your way the lives of millions of people would be significantly altered. Do you deny that?
    Not at all. They would be free to choose how they lived their lives, so long as what they did would not infringe on the rights of others.

    Libertarians do defend the status quo as the freest possible world when we're talking about specific things like energy, but mostly you favor major changes to policy that would affect people, most of them negatively.
    Bullshit! Libertarians would prefer the people vote with their feet and their wallets. And what negative thing would be affected? People would be free to help their fellow person how they saw fit instead of having a gun held to their heads and their pockets emptied.

    The only differences are: my ideas are better, and I'm man enough to tell the truth about it.

    Bullshit! Your ideas are why people like Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Kim Jong Il, and Pol Pot come to power. Slavers like you can go **** yourselves and stop trying to **** the rest of us!

  • Tony||

    You want to fuck me a lot more than I want to fuck you. I like having a basic social safety net. It means that no matter what I cannot go into devastating poverty and hunger, and neither can my neighbors. You, through a half-witted reliance on slogans (but not thoughts), want to remove the safety net because you think freedom means the freedom to live a life with much greater risk.

    If that makes me the same as Hitler in your eyes, then I think that speaks to your childlike ignorance of everything more than my love of totalitarianism and genocide.

  • Restoras||

    No government program will EVER remove the spectre of poverty from the existence of mankind. Ever. You about to get a lesson of that truth across the Atlantic.

  • Tony||

    And that means what exactly?

    States with strong safety nets are not doing any worse than states with weak ones. They're doing a lot better for people at the bottom of the economic scale, for obvious reasons. Safety net spending has absolutely nothing to do with economic crises going on. You people just blame them because you've always wanted to get rid of them and it seems like a convenient time.

  • Restoras||

    When the bill comes due, Tony, and others smarter and more introspective than you begin to see the light, they (don't worry, not you though, becasue you are too one-dimensional and arrogant) will realize that you actually can't spend other peoples money forever.

    Safety net spending has everything to do with what's going on - in fact it is the very cause of what's going on. You're stupidity on this matter is absolutely stunning - but I really shouldn't be shocked, every piker liberal I know beleives the same thing.

  • JoJo Zeke||

    no matter what I cannot go into devastating poverty and hunger

    Sadly, not everyone outgrows the constant need for a Mommy.

  • DLM||

    That's a lie, shithead.

    You should really try to expand your vocabulary a little.

  • CatoTheElder||

    Some expressions are so succinctly perfect that they simply cannot be improved.

  • Matrix||

    +1

  • Sevo||

    DLM|12.20.11 @ 2:50PM|#
    That's a lie, shithead.

    You should really try to expand your vocabulary a little."
    --------
    Got anything that says it better?

  • ||

    Amazing that you can this Tony when the current administration is blocking the Keystone pipeline. I guess the oil companies are against that, too? Oh and we have shoveled billions to pointless projects like Solyndra. I guess Arch Coal was behind that? Same for not drilling ANWAR, Chevron doesn't want that oil I guess.

  • Arcaster||

    hope to implement policies at gunpoint without ever considering the harm your policies cause.

    This.

  • Sevo||

    "And isn't it better to attempt to head off that disruption responsibly than just to wait around for it to happen?"

    No, it isn't, shithead.

  • Sevo||

    "All markets are influenced by governments."

    Only because of shitheads like you.

  • ||

    Wait, isnt Barry the most intelligent guy to ever draw breath?

    Tony - I would tell you to go fuck yourself, but you already do that everytime you speak.

  • ||

    Speaking of lessons unlearned,

    Even before the fatal Alaska crash, there were numerous complaints from pilots that the jet's oxygen systems weren't feeding them enough air — which caused wooziness in flight. Because of this, the entire fleet of F-22s was grounded for nearly five months beginning in May. But even after the grounding was lifted, investigators still had no answers as to why the malfunctions occurred.

    And since mid-September when the order was lifted, the Air Force said, there have been 14 episodes in which pilots have experienced "physiological incidents" that may have been caused by a lack of oxygen.

    The Air Force has spent months addressing issues with the oxygen system with inspections, additional training and enhanced protective gear. The Air Force also has a scientific advisory board and a safety investigation board studying the oxygen issues. The study was initially scheduled to conclude by November but now is expected to be finalized this winter.

    "We continue to implement improvements to the aircraft's life support systems and are carefully collecting and analyzing operational, maintenance and physiological data for all Raptor flights," said Maj. Chad Steffey, an Air Force spokesman.

    Experts had hoped that a yearlong investigation into the Alaska crash would provide new insights into the problems with the oxygen system. Instead, the Air Force concluded that Haney, one of its top pilots, was to blame because he was too distracted by his inability to breathe and should have engaged the F-22's emergency oxygen system.

    Last week's report generated much debate over whether the Air Force turned Haney, an experienced and award-winning aviator, into a scapegoat to escape more criticism of the F-22.

    ----------

    Barr said the Air Force blamed Haney because the brass doesn't want more criticism of the F-22 program, which will cost an estimated $77 billion and whose need was called into question even before its first test flight.

    "They've taken all the heat they want to," Barr said. "They paid a lot of money for an aircraft that doesn't work."

    Why hasn't anybody from the Air Force been executed over this?

  • Auric Demonocles||

    additional training

    Okay time for the breath holding excersize. Ready? Go!

  • Loki||

    "Haney, one of its top pilots, was to blame because he was too distracted by his inability to breathe"

    Seems like a pretty valid fucking distraction to me...

    "Why hasn't anybody from the Air Force been executed over this?"

    Because that would require someone within the AF to acknowledge failure, not to mention throw their precious Lockheed Martin under the bus.

  • DJF||

    “””and should have engaged the F-22's emergency oxygen system.””’

    I have read that the emergency oxygen system control was badly designed and difficult to operate especially for someone already suffering from loss of oxygen.

    It would be like having brake failure due to faulty design and the emergency brake handle was out of reach and still they blame the driver for the accident

  • ||

    And you guys think liberals will break and vote for Ron Paul why?

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    I worked with people involved with the F22 program when I was in California. The plane is basically an electronics platform with wings, engines, and a cockpit. It's a highly complicated machine that is apparently very prone to failure.

    I also met one of the F22 demonstration teams at the airport one time. It took a team of about 2 dozen in order to support one plane. I was told it took 36 man hours in order to get one flight hour. With a team of two dozen, than comes out to about 1.5 hours of maintenance to 1 hour of flight time. In other words, the plane is a maintenance nightmare.

  • Gray Ghost||

    Scruffy,

    How do those figures compare to 1970-s era multifunction A/C like the F-15 or F-16? Serious question, I don't know.

    Is a lot of the problem that, because the Air Force never got around to buying a ton of them, they're consequently treated like they're irreplaceable? And therefore the AF follows absolutely every line in the maintenance checklist, rather than defer the maintenance if the operational tempo requires it? Not like the U.S needs F-22s to ensure air superiority over most of its current enemies anyway.

    I had thought that the avionics on the F-22 were largely self-checking/diagnosing, and modular, to avoid the electronics issues you mention. At least the a/c can fly in the rain and snow, unlike the B-2. (I know the issues are overstated with the B-2, but still.)

  • Paul||

    With a team of two dozen, than comes out to about 1.5 hours of maintenance to 1 hour of flight time. In other words, the plane is a maintenance nightmare.

    I had a guarantee military sale with ED 209. Renovation program. Spare parts for 25 years. Who cares if it worked or not?

  • Sevo||

    "Nothing argued here is a defense of the free market, it's a defense of the status quo, and five more years of record profits for oil."

    That's a lie, shithead.

  • ||

    Can you believe that Exxon is making money . . . selling us stuff we all want and use every day? It's an outrage, I tells ya.

  • Restoras||

    They net a whole $0.08 for for every dollar of revenue! Those bastards!

  • Klamidia Jones||

    You are a valuable resource. Thanks.

  • ||

    To be honest, if they brought the Secretary of the Air Force and Lockheed's Chairman of the Board of Directors out to midfield at halftime of the super bowl and put a bullet in the back of each of their heads, I wouldn't worry about it too much.

  • Rob||

    That reminds me of that old 70's movie. Sniper, I think it was called.

  • *||

    "the burned hand teaches best"

    Tolkein? This isn't Middle Earth.

    The hand is in a nerve induction box - the whole point is to leave it in there as long as possible.

  • Pip||

    This Mad Magazine cover says it all:

    http://www.dccomics.com/media/.....50x600.jpg

  • Alfred E. Obama||

    What, me worry?

  • DJF||

    """If Tolkien was right that the burned hand teaches best,""'

    The problem is that its not the governments hand which is burned, its the taxpayer or some other persons hand which the government shoved in the fire. If the actual government employee which made the bad decision got their hand burnt then they might learn a lesson but usually they just get promoted to another job.

    Obama just like the other modern Presidents will in the end be called President for the rest of his life, with a big pension, lots of speaking engagements, 24 hour security and lots more benefits no matter how bad he screws up.

  • NotSure||

    So is this the real Tony or a spoof, difficult to tell. I wonder if Tony drives a volt, and if not, why not ?

  • sarcasmic||

    Because people like Tony believe that individual action is meaningless, so they do not take action unless they are forced.
    For this same reason they advocate that everyone be forced.
    Force is all they understand.

  • Tony||

    No means yes, yes means anal.

  • Restoras||

    He doesn't - he just wants all the sheeple to drive one while he is chauffered about in his government taxpayer forcibly funded limo.

  • ||

    Here's a (slightly more on topic) question:

    How well does a VOLT/Prius/Leaf work in blizzard conditions, as you're driving across eastern Colorado attempting to get to Aspen for your trendy Xmas ski vacation?

  • sarcasmic||

    An electric car would never make the trip to Aspen. Too far.
    Better to go to Eldora.

  • Apatheist||

    How is the electricity that charges the VOLT/Leaf produced? I'll wait.

  • ||

    Last night my wife and her buddies had their xmas party and as much as I didnt want to go, I went and played designated driver. A few minutes after the first couple of rounds started to kick in, the 25 y/o daughter of one of her friends announced that she would be voting for Obama in 2012. Further discussion revealed that she supported socialism in certain cases, like for the practice of medicine. The 20 or so other people at the table tried to talk to her about it, but the more they talked the more the girl got mad and more adamant in her support for pinko shit.

    I didnt bother saying anything to her. She is mildly retarded and has an IQ of around 85. She is a perfectly typical example of an Obama supporter or of a believer in socialism.

    See also Tony.

  • Tony||

    You believe in socialism in certain instances too. Or do you think the armed forces, police, and courts ought to be abolished?

  • ||

    Jesus dude, that's just ludicrous.

  • Tony||

    It's not socialism when you benefit, right?

  • Concerned Citizen||

    Armed forces, police, and courts are constitutional. Joining them is also voluntary. Nothing socialist about them.

  • Tony||

    Oh I didn't realize that socialist programs stop being socialist because an old piece of paper says so. And interacting with the police and courts is voluntary?

  • Concerned Citizen||

    The key word being "join". No one is forced to join the police or work for the courts. Very telling, that you refer to the Law of the Land as an old piece of paper.

  • Tony||

    Is there some profession in this country that one is forced to join?

  • Concerned Citizen||

    Yes - taxpayer, and social security

  • Tony||

    Nobody's forced to be a taxpayer (which is not a profession, btw). Just don't buy anything, earn an income, or live anywhere.

    Because otherwise you seem to be asserting the right to live off the fruits of the civilization I help pay for, but not pay anything yourself.

  • Sevo||

    Tony|12.20.11 @ 5:47PM|#
    "Nobody's forced to be a taxpayer (which is not a profession, btw). Just don't buy anything, earn an income, or live anywhere."

    IOWs, shithead, if you care to live, you are forced to be a taxpayer. Shithead.

  • Tony||

    No, if you care to partake of the things other taxpayers have paid for and continue to pay for, you are thus forced. Sorry about the force, but you clearly would freeload without it.

  • NotSure||

    Tony logic: police are socialist therefore we must fund green cars. Tony you really are a buffoon, what degree do you have again, clearly it did not involve much logical thinking.

  • Tony||

    Logical means being against socialism, except certain socialist programs, and the distinction is you benefit from them so they're OK?

  • T. Jefferson||

    ...all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

    Tony, have a grown up read this to you.

  • Tony||

    You left off the part that says "but people aren't allowed to give their to consent to socialist programs except the police, courts, and armed forces, because Ayn Rand says so."

  • Concerned Citizen||

    Take your Consitution off the toilet paper roll and read the damn thing.

  • NotSure||

    Like I said logic defies you. With your logic, everything is possible, here are some examples:
    The police are socialist, therefore the government needs to own all property.
    The police are socialist, therefore all cars must be green.
    The police are socialist, therefore the government needs to nationalise Hollywood.
    The police are socialist, therefore the government needs to (insert anything you want here).

    Like I asked, what do you have a degree in, sociology ?

  • Tony||

    Those straw men are not my point, it's: "the police are socialist, so you're not against socialism."

  • NotSure||

    Thats exactly your point, because the idea of the police is not a socialist concept. Unless of course you going to now um and ah about how all of human history was in fact socialism, and explain how the idea of a police, which predates the idea of socialism by thousands of years, is actually not true.

  • sarcasmic||

    NotSure - Tony's argument is that since a policeman pays his bills with money collected with taxes, and do-nothing welfare recipients pay their bills with money collected with taxes, that there is no difference between police and welfare.

  • Sha'neq'ua||

    Do nothing?? You try collecting child support from five baby daddies while keeping your nails looking great and crack and Hennessey on hand.

  • Tony||

    Someone always comes along to confirm the nasty racist underpinning to ALL anti-safety-net rhetoric.

  • Sevo||

    Tony|12.20.11 @ 1:48PM|#
    "Those straw men are not my point, it's: "the police are socialist, so you're not against socialism."

    No, shithead, those are NOT strawmen; your claims are. Shithead.

  • MJ||

    Why does Tony's and White Indian's logic have such a similar flavor to it?

  • Sevo||

    Tony|12.20.11 @ 1:22PM|#
    "Oh I didn't realize that socialist programs stop being socialist because an old piece of paper says so."

    Not surprising, shithead, that you didn't "realize" that the constitution means something, shithead.

  • ||

    You are telling me what I believe in? Go ahead, now tell me what I like.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tony the you know what,

    Or do you think the armed forces, police, and courts ought to be abolished?


    Only those that are not private. I would never ever advocate for the abolishion of Judge Judy, for instance. And I already have plenty of shot and powder, and musket, to defend my country - thank you not at all, sockpuppet.

  • Old Mexican||

    Now all I have to do is wait for Tony to argue against private anything despite the fact he concedes the public versions are socialist. Let's watch...

  • Tony||

    Your country? I think you mean your shack in the woods.

    I suppose claiming to be consistent on opposing socialism is better than nothing. I'm not sure why you're so confident you'd come out on top in an anarchist hellhole, though. I doubt you have the most guns and least scruples.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tony the Slave,

    Your country? I think you mean your shack in the woods.


    What would be the difference?

    I suppose claiming to be consistent on opposing socialism is better than nothing.


    It's far better than consistently wanting to be a slave.

    I'm not sure why you're so confident you'd come out on top in an anarchist hellhole, though.


    Are you a betting man?

    I doubt you have the most guns and least scruples.


    You're right - I'm not like government.

  • Sevo||

    "I suppose claiming to be consistent on opposing socialism is better than nothing"

    No, shithead, it's better than anything you've ever proposed. Shithead.

  • Tony Translated||

    Everything the government does is socialism, so if you support anything the government does, you're a socialist!

    herpity derp!

  • ||

    You believe in socialism in certain instances too. Or do you think the armed forces, police, and courts ought to be abolished?

    Tony, what do you think "socialism" means?

  • Tony||

    It means collective ownership of the means of production and collective management of the economy. Typically people refer to specific programs as socialistic, like universal healthcare (services provided by a collective single payer). That definitely includes police and the armed forces. If they aren't socialist programs, nothing in the US is.

  • Sevo||

    Tony|12.20.11 @ 5:50PM|#
    "It means collective ownership of the means of production and collective management of the economy. Typically people refer to specific programs as socialistic, like universal healthcare (services provided by a collective single payer)."
    Amazing! No lies (yet)

    "That definitely includes police and the armed forces. If they aren't socialist programs, nothing in the US is."
    Now, shithead, are you actually dumbb enough *not* to see the contradiction between those two statements?
    Hint, shithead: The last one is a lie.

  • NotSure||

    It probably had more to provoke and get attention at the gathering.

  • Mike M.||

    Ugh, I just love this new retard argument from Reason's pre-eminent retard: now you're either a pure anarchist, or by definition you're a socialist!

  • ||

    +1

  • ||

    Giant Rabbits and Double Rainbows: The 10 Most Insane Delusions of Kim Jong-il

    Now with some delightful Gawker comments, as a special Christmas treat.

    drunkexpatwriter Mon 19 Dec 2011 7:32 AM
    Are any of these really any crazier than thinking that you can get out of a recession by cutting taxes and destroying the social safety net? Or that austerity will help grow businesses and erase debt crises?
  • ||

    The daughter of my wife's friend from the post above is single. Maybe I should try to set her up with drunkexpatwriter.

  • ||

    Is she hot-dumb, or intolerable-dumb? 'Cuz dumb girls can be all sorts of fun.

  • ||

    Not really very hot. she is a mouth breather and socially inept. You can see in her face that she is just not right.......On the other hand I hear she screws like a rabbit.

  • Apatheist||

    I've never understood the appeal. I find idiocy to be very unattractive.

  • ||

    I think hot-dumb means good looking girls of average intelligence who play dumb to get attention, at least that is what came to my mind. This girl is the real thing, and not really very good looking, average at best. All she would ever have to do to kill a boner for me, assuming she could give me one in the first place, is voice support for Obama.

  • ||

    I think hot-dumb means good looking girls of average intelligence who play dumb to get attention, at least that is what came to my mind.

    I guess that's a good way to characterize it.

  • ||

    You don't marry them, retard.

  • Apatheist||

    I used the word "unattractive" instead of "bad marriage material" for a reason. I understand the hot girls playing ditsy for attention thing though. Those girls aren't actually dumb though. I guess I would distinguish between ditsy and dumb. Ditsy is more of an absent minded thing.

  • ||

    Unless she is functionally retarded, what is the big deal as long as she is good looking and a good person? Better a dimwitted nice person than some genius bitch.

  • ||

    I dunno, I have had some genius bitches be wicked good in bed.

  • ||

    It doesn't take a lot of brains to be good in bed. It just takes some energy and few inhibitions.

  • ||

    Unless she is functionally retarded

    Ahem.

    announced that she would be voting for Obama in 2012

  • ||

    Well yeah, that question does kind of answer itself Warty.

  • Apatheist||

    Bitchiness is a disqualifier too. I'm only limited two qualities when judging the attractiveness of a person? Yeah I'm picky but that pickiness got me a hot engineer as a fiancee so it worked out just fine.

  • ||

    bitchiness can be tamed

  • ||

    Nerd queens for a day in math class are a dime a dozen.

  • Klamidia Jones||

    6. He imprisoned relatives of convicts because he is convinced "the stain of criminality" persists for three generations

    So genetically speaking, Kim Jong Un is a criminal?

  • CatoTheElder||

    My favorite Kim Jong-il story is from
    http://www.pyongyangtrafficgir.....with-links

    On doctor's orders, Kim was told to give up smoking.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new.....oking.html
    So he did. And, at the same time, he decided to make every single other North Korean quit.
    (By the way, if you're looking to quit smoking, I think the "quit smoking or we'll kill you and your family" plan might be slightly more effective than Nicorette gum.)

  • Matrix||

    It is easy to rebel against the regime when it's your own life at risk. But when they threaten to murder your whole family if you protest, people become far more accepting of the shit their governments dump on them...

  • ||

    In that LAT article about the F-22, there was a claim made about the pilot, Haney, never having experienced lack of oxygen. I'm pretty sure a standard part of Air Force pilot training is being stress tested in a hypo?baric chamber.

  • Gray Ghost||

    Not just Air Force training. 14 CFR 61.31(g) has requirements for pilots to who wish to be certified for aircraft that fly higher than 25,000 ft MSL. There's an extensive laundry list of aviation physiology that high-flying pilots like those need to be aware of.

    From pilots I know who have been type certified for those types of aircraft (bizjets like various models from Lear; it was awhile ago), part of their training was time in a hypobaric chamber. Their most memorable comment about the experience that I remember was how much flatulence everyone had, as well as how fast hypoxia could sneak up on you.

    Surprising that the F-22 is having so many issues. I had thought that supplemental oxygen, even in a high-performance military aircraft, was a mature technology.

  • ||

    Go ahead, read Gawker's moronic nonsense; just don't expect any sympathy from me.

  • Mainer||

    I see Tony got what he wanted. Attention from the adults. Way to go.

  • Matrix||

    it's not Thursday, yet

  • Jordan||

    Don't forget that GM is now having to pay people to return their Volts since they have a habit of bursting into flames.

  • Apatheist||

    Cain: Bachmann's win-win-win talk is disrespectful to my totally serious 9-9-9 plan.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/.....bert-costa

  • Neu Mejican||

    Slightly off topic...but I hadn't heard of this...Fred Singer used faked data to argue against the idea of AGW back in 2008. Why was there no outrage expressed by Josh Corning et al over the fraud?

    the graph on the 2008 NIPCC report, not the version available now has been faked. The original 2008 NIPCC report is available from here: http://www.webcitation.org/644I9wv52.

    On page 3 the graph is from Keigwin 1996, but it’s not in the original form. The Axes have been faked and the line itself has been horizontally flipped.

    See the manipulation here.

    http://i40.tinypic.com/34pxm38.jpg

    Of course this was quickly caught. As I have said repeatedly, the science is self-correcting. Faking data never pans out in the long-run.

  • ||

    So don't listen to Fred Singer anymore. Regardless, it was quickly caught. Singer didn't hide the files and the faking in some university data bank and then violate FOIA laws to keep it hidden.

    And yes, science is self correcting. The truth always comes out. It just takes a while, sometimes decades. And it is correcting itself against the AGW theory and all of the various doomsday predictions as we speak.

  • ||

    Or the short one either

  • ||

    Speaking of science, if it really is possible to create a pandemic flu in the lab and any idiot can do it, we are doomed anyway.

    http://www.foreignpolicy.com/a.....?page=full

  • ||

    Tell me how to find the Army of the 12 Monkeys!

  • Restoras||

    Great flick.

  • ||

    Mary Conchita Alonzo is my new favorite actor.

    "I go 'Hello,' and he smiles and says, 'Oh, you lost your bag too?" Alonso told Steve Malzberg on WMAL. "And I'm like, 'No, my mother (lost her bag).' And at that moment he recognizes me because he didn't recognize me before, and he goes, 'Oh, it's you.'"

    Alonso says she calmly told Penn she wanted to speak with him about the tension over Chavez when Penn blew up at her.

    "He goes, 'I don't want to talk to you. You speak badly about me. You insult me on TV," Alonso said.

    Alonso says the conversation escalated when Penn accused Alonso's brother of attempting to assassinate Chavez, which Alonso says is not true.

    "So I'm like, 'You are in favor of Hugo Chavez and [Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad.' Because I also saw a picture of footage from TV where Chavez and Ahmadinejad are together and Sean Penn is next to them. And, you know, he's like 'I've never said that about Ahmadinejad. You're a pig.' And I go to him, 'And you are a communist, Sean Penn!'"

    http://wmal.com/Article.asp?id=2357687

  • ||

    "The second time I called him a communist, I said 'You're a communist a**hole," Alonso said. She added that she later regretted using profanity, but is not sorry.

  • Klamidia Jones||

    Some say she fellates monkeys:

    http://151.215.238.68:15871/cg.....3594211865

  • ||

    Now she really is hot, and obviously not a ditz.

  • ||

    I must've bumped my head last night whilst intoxicated because none of that makes any fucking sense to me. Is it a google translate?

  • ||

    They were both waiting to pick up lost bags at the airport and an argument ensued. All you need to know is that she called Penn a communist asshole.

  • ||

    Do you think Sean Penn realized being called a Communist was an insult?

  • ||

    Doubtful

  • CatoTheElder||

    Being Cuban, she thought "communist" was the ultimate insult. But, when a communist asshole gets called a communist, he takes it as a compliment that recognizes his political awareness and sophistication. She should have called him an asshole if she wanted to insult him.

  • ||

    Then she called the pope Catholic and declared in a confident voice that bears shit in the woods.

    Wonder if that dickhead is wearing a black band on his arm for his fallen comrade Kim Jong Il.

  • ||

    It is Hollywood. There is a pretty low bar for admirable intelligence. Stating the obvious to that asshole's face definitely clears the bar.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Apparently, she "smeared" Penn:

    http://www.democraticundergrou.....89x8049468

    Hah.

  • ||

    I don't think Obama is going to be learning much any time soon. To fix a mistake you have to be smart enough to know it was a mistake.

    The “60 Minutes Overtime” video shows Obama telling correspondent Steve Kroft:

    “The issue here is not going be a list of accomplishments. As you said yourself, Steve, you know, I would put our legislative and foreign policy accomplishments in our first two years against any president — with the possible exceptions of Johnson, F.D.R., and Lincoln — just in terms of what we’ve gotten done in modern history. But, you know, but when it comes to the economy, we’ve got a lot more work to do.”

    http://www.politico.com/news/s.....70684.html

  • ||

    Defining "legislative accomplishment" as bills passed without regard to quality or consequences, he kinda has a point, seeing as he rammed through the biggest spending bill AND semi-socialized medicine.

    Of course, you should net out against that his complete failure to do the basics, like get a budget passed. You realize that since Obama took office, not one budget bill has been signed into law?

    As for foreign policy, I'm at a total loss as to what accomplishments he can point to. Meeting Bush's timeline for withdrawing from Iraq seems so . . . derivative.

  • ||

    Come on RC, he personally capped Bin Ladin and Gadafi.

  • ||

    Someone came to Barry and said "We know where Bin Laden is, should we kill him?"

    Obama said " Uh...no"

    They replied " Well we are gonna do it anyway. We will let you know how it turns out."

    "Goddammit!" Barry throws his golf club into the rough.

    That hardly seems like an accomplishment.

  • Tony||

    I guess even outright making shit up is OK in the service of hating Obama.

  • Restoras||

    Jeez dude, it's called parody. If you saw the same thing on SNL but it was George Bush the subject of mockery you wouldn't think twice about laughing you ass off.

  • Tony||

    Funny is a requirement.

  • Sevo||

    Tony|12.20.11 @ 5:52PM|#
    "I guess even outright making shit up is OK in the service of hating Obama."

    Dunno, shithead, you tell us.
    You offer strawmen, false-equivalences, -dichotomies and outright lies to support your love of murdering people.
    Maybe you can tell us how that's justified. Shithead.

  • Audrey the Liberal||

    Another perfectly acceptable thread derailed by dickbag Tony.

  • ||

    How dare he ruin our playpen by disagreeing with the prevailing zeitgeist!

  • Applause...||

    for your objectively pro-troll stance.

  • ||

    And they are hugely impractical. The Volt, a four-door compact, averages 30-40 miles on battery power alone. Then it needs to recharge for 10 hours.

    Funny, my car, and every car I've ever driven, averages 0 miles on battery power alone. I guess those are really impractical vehicles.

    Recharging only takes 3 hours with the proper outlet, btw.

  • Mainer||

    As I've pointed out to you on other threads, electric cars are still trying to surmount the same hurdles they faced 100 years ago. A century of development, same limitations.

  • ||

    You'll know that the technology is mature & superior when the coppers prowl around in electric Interceptors.

  • ||

    Not long ago I was going down the interstate near Gonzales and passed a prius. He was in the right lane hunkered down in the seat with a white-knuckle grip on the wheel. He had to be going at least 55....There was a semi on his bumper and many cars whizzing past him in the left lane. I bet his ass was biting holes in the seat.

    Electric cars my ass. My four-door jeep is large and comfortable, cant get stuck, and has a 400+ mile range on a $50 tank of gas.
    It is at least $10k cheaper to buy, it doesnt create half the pollution of an electric and the damn thing doesnt catch fire in my garage.

  • ||

    Not catching fire in the garage is a really important selling point---can't be overstated.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    I haven't seen any problem or speed problems with the Pruis, but it's also not electric.

  • ||

    Prii actually have a bit of pep to them off the line with a full battery. Electric motors have a lot of torque for their power and precisely control it better than any mechanical transmission. Its why the first 'hybrids' were diesel-electric locomotives...lol.

    On side note, where Prii 'lose' the worst is out west huffing and puffing up mountain passes (think Teton Pass size and up). When the battery craps out - and it does crap out quick going up mountains - you now have a 100HP econobox about half-ton heavier than 'typical' 130hp econobox. And it hurts. Hurts real bad going up those passes. Chug-a-chug-a-chug. That's when a dual hybrid is at its worst.

    Volt would be interesting in that kind of test given its converting moving pistons into electrons all the time, even when its battery is dead, for motive power. Would have the torque to not make that 4-popper feel like a 4-popper. But I bet if you flog the POS it sounds like a RC airplane motor huffing and puffing turning the generator going up a mountain.

    Either way, its interesting tech with interesting applications. And the Prius proved there is a market and certain advantages to it. With private industry you get the Prius. With government-industry you get the Volt - higher tech but overpriced and not built to a real market but a political one. Too bad.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Energy Secretary Steven Chu neatly summarized this approach when he argued for new lightbulb standards by saying, “We are taking away a choice that continues to let people waste their own money.”

    Said the guy who is responsible for Solyndra and any number of other green boondoggles?

    Fuck you, fuckstick.

  • first||

    With breasts that seem to defy gravity Gabriella was surely destined to be a nude model. One hundred percent natural, Gabriella tells us she inherited her incredible assets from her mother. Although mum’s are apparently twice the size!

    This Brazilian beauty is as passionate and temperamental as they come and has lots of life experience for her age. She loves to dance, can mix the best cocktails and at the end of a long day likes to relax by sucking on a fine cigar! The only problem for Gabriella appears to be that she is unlucky in love...

    Although established as a popular model for car shows around the world this was her first time ever doing full nudes. Gabriella however took it all in her stride - as the results show!

    And you won’t want to miss her videos, when the camera started rolling Gabriella turned into a wild cat in the springtime.

  • ||

    and temperamental

    Is she good with the knife or does she have to resort to firearms when a fit of temperament comes over her?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    "Tony Translated" makes a lot of sense.

  • ||

    You meant George W Bush's electric car aid didn't you?

    After all it was Geoerge W Bush that implemented the $7500 plug in tax credit in 2007 that is currently in effect today.

    Why let the truth get in the way of a good headline?

  • OBD2 Scanner||

    our shop http://www.obd2works.com/ supply obd2 scanner

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement