Four Issues Republicans Could Embrace in 2014 To Stay Relevant

Trying to help the GOP move forward

here's a picture of a catliquidnight\foter.com2014 is another election year, with both Democrats and Republicans hoping to exploit the others’ policy weaknesses to make gains in the congressional midterms. Democrats are being pilloried for the disaster that’s been the healthcare website roll out so far, as well as for President Obama’s numerous second term missteps and scandals. Republicans, in the meantime, are pilloried for appearing to be obstructionists who are “out of touch” with the American populace.

But image isn’t the Republicans’ only problem, or the biggest one. The Republican party is already embroiled in what much of the left relishes as a “civil war”; at stake is the ideological direction the party will take. The division is largely drawn as establishment (read: big government) conservatives vs. grassroots, libertarian, or movement conservatives. But perhaps more importantly it’s a fight between the past and the future. In that spirit, here are five issues Republicans ought to embrace to remain (or become, as the case may be) relevant.

Next: Family values

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.

  • RishJoMo||

    Sometimes man you jsut have to roll with it.

    www.BeinAnon.tk

  • DenverJay||

    Poor 'bot... doesn't even know how to yell "FIRST!11"

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Four issues Republicans will instead run on in future elections:

    1- outlawing abortion/contraception
    2- war with Iran
    3- Obamacare repeal
    4- Societal upheaval "THEM DAMN OTHER 47%".

  • Cytotoxic||

    3- Obamacare repeal

    That alone might outweigh the others.

  • ||

    Not to defend shrike but we are talking about the republican party here.

    The chances that they will ignore the issue that can help them win and focus on issues which are losers is greater then 50%.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Totally see what you're saying but Obamacare is the one thing they have played it right and haven't fucked up...yet.

  • Miley||

    my roomate's half-sister makes 78 USD every hour on the laptop. She has been laid off for 10 months but last month her payment was 13521 USD just working on the laptop for a few hours. try this website ➨➨➨➨➨➨➨➨➨➨➨➨➨➨➨➨WWW.JUMP26.ℭOM

    my roomate's half-sister makes 78 USD every hour on the laptop. She has been laid off for 10 months but last month her payment was 13521 USD just working on the laptop for a few hours. try this website ➨➨➨➨➨➨➨➨➨➨➨➨➨➨➨➨WWW.JUMP26.ℭOM

    my roomate's half-sister makes 78 USD every hour on the laptop. She has been laid off for 10 months but last month her payment was 13521 USD just working on the laptop for a few hours. try this website ➨➨➨➨➨➨➨➨➨➨➨➨➨➨➨➨WWW.JUMP26.ℭOM

    my roomate's half-sister makes 78 USD every hour on the laptop. She has been laid off for 10 months but last month her payment was 13521 USD just working on the laptop for a few hours. try this website ➨➨➨➨➨➨➨➨➨➨➨➨➨➨➨➨WWW.JUMP26.ℭOM

    my roomate's half-sister makes 78 USD every hour on the laptop. She has been laid off for 10 months but last month her payment was 13521 USD just working on the laptop for a few hours. try this website ➨➨➨➨➨➨➨➨➨➨➨➨➨➨➨➨WWW.JUMP26.ℭOM

  • DenverJay||

    Not just "will"; they already did once. By nominating Romney last Pres election, they threw away their biggest (only?) advantage.

  • On The Road To Mandalay||

    Cytotoxic.

    You read like another ass hole (out of millions) who believe that any attempt to work out a health care plan for people is horrible. However, you liars call for war in which thousands and thousands die. Then you claim your are Pro-Life. Fuck all of you pigs forever.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Okay, 15 might have been slightly high. Are you in your teens yet?

  • On The Road To Mandalay||

    Hey Francisco
    As always, f--- A--Hole. Your rebuttals are getting boring. You need some need material.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    You need some need material.

    Big talk coming from someone with your scat fetish, Mary.

  • montana mike||

    Troll alert, ban this brainless fucktard.

    It's against my usual inclinations but this idiot has no interest in honest dabate.

  • Free Society||

    Be careful Francisco. Some random internet dbag with maturity issues might say attack you with partially censored curse words.

  • Cassanov||

    Shut up Troll

  • On The Road To Mandalay||

    Cassanov,

    Make me shut up.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Ten, perhaps?

  • Cassanov||

    Welcome to my Reasonable filter. There, you are now "shut up"

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    +1 adios fucking troll

  • Will4Freedom||

    I'm not a Republican or Libertarian, but this is a Libertarian website.

    Libertarians did not call for wars.

    It is my understanding that only some Libertarians are personally Pro-Life.

    I don't know you, but those who do don't seem to be fans of yours.

    If you have a point or rebuttal, it would probably add more value to the conversation if you would calmly make your point and be open to opposing views.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Four issues your Team Blue will run on in future elections:

    1- Forced redistribution of wealth (evil 1%!)
    2- More "free" shit
    3- War with Iran (let's throw in Syria too)
    4- Gunz

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    3- War with Iran (let's throw in Syria too)


    That is so last year! Southern Sudan is where anyone who's anyone is going to war on!
  • VG Zaytsev||

    The proggy wet dream is War with China. They're evul capitalists and they're stealing our jerbs. Plus, they're a real country that will require total war to beat.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    You're absolutely right. Both Clintons are notorious China hawks, for example.

  • LarryA||

    And we wouldn't have to repay their investments.

  • DenverJay||

    Plus, the Chinese get rid of some of that surplus male population, while boosting nationalistic support for the regime... it's totally win-win!

  • ||

    "Obamacare repeal" That doesn't seem so bad.

  • Thomas O.||

    We're gonna have to go with the "drastic reforms" route instead of "flat out repeal". Continuing to tout the latter will only get us the same "uninsurable children with cancer dying and bankrupting their families" accusations.

    The message needs to be "Obamacare isn't delivering on its promises, but let's keep what few things are working (including no rejections because of preexisting conditions) and overhaul everything else so you really CAN save money".

  • DenverJay||

    you, sir, are too smart to be a member of the GOP; we will send you off to be a libertarian, where your Machiavellian (I didn't need spell-check!) schemes will be of no use!

  • MSD62581||

    There is no Republican movement to outlaw contraception. This is a lie put forward by the left that peddles the myth that if the government doesn't give you something, it is depriving you of it. You aren't deprived of birth control if someone else doesn't buy it for you any more than you are deprived of your right to own a gun if someone else doesn't buy you one. Or condemned to a life of vegetarianism if someone else doesn't buy you a steak. You can buy your own gun, you can buy your own steak and ultimately, you can buy your own birth control.

  • DenverJay||

    Wrong! Because, uh, um, the 1%! Oh, and the Pope! and, uh, don't forget the childrunz! Won't somebody please think about the childrunz? Oh, and rape and patriarchy! So there!

  • XM||

    There's really no evidence that evolving on immigration will help the GOP. The Latino vote in some small red states won't make the difference anyways. More importantly, Latinos are not libertarians who reject the GOP because of immigration issues.

    How can the GOP stay relevant if left leaning immigrants flood the country and add numbers to the Dem voting bloc? And consistently vote against limited government? They're only relevant now because most immigrants flock to the same 3,4 states.

    Merry Christmas, but...... The Democrats already embrace most of these issues AND big government. Game Over.

  • Cytotoxic||

    There's really no evidence that evolving on immigration will help the GOP.

    That's right just ignore the entire state of Texas, where the state GOP stopped being xenophobic idiots and have made big gains in the vote. Nativists don't let the real world get in the way of their axioms.

  • Acosmist||

    Yes, they're the ones being dogmatists.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Yep, CA is going to libertarian any day now that creepy as crackers are a small minority and the republican party has been exterminated.

  • Cytotoxic||

    I hope your using environmentally friendly straw in that man you set afire.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    It's organic and free range.

  • XM||

    When did Texas embrace amnesty? Didn't they just pass restrictions on abortions?

    Texas was red to begin with, so it's not much of gain.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: XM,

    When did Texas embrace amnesty? Didn't they just pass restrictions on abortions [sic]?


    You came to our rescue, Conflator-man!

  • superdestroyer||

    Texas has remained in the red column because whites in Texas vote overwhelmingly for the GOP. However, the Democrats in Texas talk openly about turning Texas by changing the demogrphics. When was the last time that the Democrats talk about improving their appeal to middle class whites.

    Open borders will quickly turn the U.S. into a one party state where politics will be ethnic groups fighting over government entitlements.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Republicans should embrace legalized marijuana as a roll back of the nanny state

    Since when are Republicans AGAINST the nanny state? They're all for banning the "right" things.

  • Rich||

    Yeah, I got a good -- well, bitter -- laugh out of that one, too.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Preferably anything involving consenting adults...

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Since when are Republicans AGAINST the nanny state? They're all for banning the "right" things.

    Some republicans are the only organized political group opposed to the nanny state, as opposed to the Dems who are 110% on board with it.

  • On The Road To Mandalay||

    Francisco,

    Remember me? F U once again.

  • Cassanov||

    shut up, troll

  • On The Road To Mandalay||

    Make me shut up, you a-- wipe butt chunk.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Five?

  • ||

    It's hard to play the tough guy when you won't spell out "ass"

  • ||

    If a troll is ignored, it will go away. If you continue to feed it, it will remain near its source of sustenance.

  • Acosmist||

    Immigration suicide is perhaps not the ideal strategy.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Yeah, because Latinos are more progressive than they are conservative.

    Derp.

  • Acosmist||

    Y...ep.

    I feel like saying an obviously true, empirically-verifiable and verified fact was sarcasm on your part, but why would it be?

  • Cytotoxic||

    I feel like saying an obviously true, empirically-verifiable and verified fact

    Thanks for proving my point about how nativists have their heads totally up their asses and need to be cleaved from the debate.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    obviously true, empirically-verifiable and verified fact

    Woah, woah, woah...hold up, cowboy. Considering that voting in America is anonymous and private, how can we know either way? The only data we have to go by is self-reporting via polls before or after entering the voting booth. This data is skewed for many reasons. Not to say that it is useless, but to say that statement was obviously true and a verified fact is a bit much. However, it would be empirically-verifiable if there were someway to disaggregate voting data by gender or ethnicity.

  • ||

    What would election results have to do with whether one one identifies as progressive or conservative? There's people who identify as conservative that have never cast a Republican vote in their lives and people who identify as liberal and consistently vote R. Perhaps you misread the original statement:

    Yeah, because Latinos are more progressive than they are conservative.

    If we substitute "Hispanic" for "Latino", Pew polling tells us that, indeed, that is true:

    http://www.pewhispanic.org/201.....-religion/

    Hispanics were less likely to identify as conservative or moderate than the general population, and more likely to identify as "liberal", which we can probably use as a proxy for "progressive" in modern parlance. Hispanics were also nearly twice as likely as the general population to say that they would rather have a bigger government with more services (same link).

    Now whether to treat polling data as "empirically-verified fact" is another question, but if you're going to have an honest discussion, sticking your fingers in your ears and pretending the data don't exist isn't a good way to have it.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Your argument that voting in the two-party system is not indicative of being conservative/progressive is more about libertarian criticisms of the Right-Left spectrum than anything else.

    sticking your fingers in your ears and pretending the data don't exist isn't a good way to have it.

    Which is why I bothered to read Wals' study and summarize it down thread, of course.

    Still, the Pew Center's data and Wals' data show an interesting contradiction. As Wals' showed, for Mexicans, at least, the Pew Center's data doesn't hold true. Now considering that Mexicans make up the lion's share of who we describe as Latino/Hispanic (63 percent according to the last census, Wals' data is more than useful in talking about Latino Americans in general.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Hispanics were less likely to identify as conservative or moderate than the general population, and more likely to identify as "liberal", which we can probably use as a proxy for "progressive" in modern parlance.

    I think you have to be careful there. In Latin America "liberal" like in Europe is often more identified with what one means by "classically liberal". There are honest to goodness socialist and communist parties in Latin America that tend to have "progresivo" in their name.

    Still, the Pew Center's finding that "Hispanics were also nearly twice as likely as the general population to say that they would rather have a bigger government with more services" is interesting in light of Wals' data.

    So what do you call self-described "Right-Wingers" who desire a welfare state?

  • Boisfeuras||

    Is there a reason to believe that the Mexicans who immigrate here, legally or illegally, are a distinct group from the voters who have kept PRI in power at home for a century virtually uninterrupted?

    My observation has been that most Mexicans are socially conservative but economically socialist. Assuming that is accurate, if the GOP were to adopt all of the planks advocated here, i.e. abandoning social conservatism (or essentially, becoming LP lite), they would represent nothing appealing to most Mexican immigrants.

    I would like to believe that Mexican Americans are a voting bloc up for grabs, but I don't see that as aligning with reality. It is mindboggling to me that they could be so solidly leftist economically, but I think there is a deeply ingrained aversion to capitalism rooted in Mexican history.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    I think you have to be careful there. In Latin America "liberal" like in Europe is often more identified with what one means by "classically liberal".

    Exactly, that is why I question the right-left self description of immigrants that you cite elsewhere.

  • ||

    I think you have to be careful there. In Latin America "liberal" like in Europe is often more identified with what one means by "classically liberal".

    That is a good point. Yet another great example of how relative terms can be, particularly across cultures. I wish they would frame more questions in terms like the "more services/less services" question in the Pew poll as it tells you a lot more than whatever arbitrary term people pick to describe themselves.

    So what do you call self-described "Right-Wingers" who desire a welfare state?

    Americans? I mean, the staunchest Tea Party conservatives here are only conservative relative to the New Deal. Hands off my social security!

  • Brandon Magoon||

    As I recall, the technical term is fascist.

  • ||

    Your argument that voting in the two-party system is not indicative of being conservative/progressive is more about libertarian criticisms of the Right-Left spectrum than anything else.

    No,not really. Our two party system is such that it can capture voters, particularly single issue voters, even if it otherwise is at odds with their declared personal ideology.

    Still, the Pew Center's data and Wals' data show an interesting contradiction.

    Maybe, maybe not. Could be when you frame the question as "are you right or left?" you get different data than using the terms "conservative" and "liberal" and asking specifically "more government" or "less government". The study, from what you summarized at least, had no good definition for what constituted "right" and "left".

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Without having read Wals' paper I'm skeptical and I suspect there are significant flaws in his methodology. Maybe it's his sampling. Maybe it's his use of "right" and "left" but the voting demographics and now the Pew data just don't agree with his study.

  • Ann N||

    right, latinos vote rightwing. which is why Obama wants to secure the border.

    illegal immigrants value things like jobs and freebies. they dont even understand the premise of USA, let alone allow it to impact their voting preference.

    Look at the last nation they voted at. See a correlation? we dont want them voting here.

    obama and chris christie DO.

  • Cytotoxic||

    DERP

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Ask yourself WHY Latinos vote D, Ann. Ya think it has ANYTHING to do with the Rs wanting to deport all their relatives?

    Latinos are family oriented with a work ethic like like that of an ant colony. You don't get any more conservative than that. Jesus, Republicans are stupid.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Conservatives are stupid. -FIFY

  • Ann N||

    this is like saying 'why do muslims hate us?'.

    if only we adopted sharia law they would love us.

    the reasons for disliking a policy just makes them bigots, it doesnt make the policy wrong.

    if they have blood relatives who are here illegally then they are outlaws, and they support crime on a personal level. if they arent blood relatives then its a racist entitlement attitude.

    either way its not something any sane person would want in their country.

  • Contrarian P||

    "Muslims" do not hate us. There are segments of that religion that do, largely because we have been screwing around in their homelands. This postulate that Muslims are unthinking animals obsessed with religion, and therefore subhuman, is precisely the type of war propaganda responsible for many atrocities in human history. It is the largest religion in the world. You might try doing some reading on it before making blanket statements.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Righht.

    It's all America's fault.

  • Contrarian P||

    Nobody said that at all. But you'll notice there aren't any terror attacks aimed at Switzerland, Sweden, or other countries that mind their own business. This apparent idea that America can engage in heavily interventionist foreign policy in the Middle East since the end of World War II without fomenting resentment, anger, and retaliation from the inhabitants of that region is the height of lunacy.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Nobody said that at all. But you'll notice there aren't any terror attacks aimed at Switzerland, Sweden, or other countries that mind their own business.

    That their is a classic peacenazi lie. Denmark got attacked for cartoons; France has gotten no attacks and it maintains a neo-empire in much of North Africa. There is no merit to the 'they hate because we are over there' notion. The Jihadist rhetoric contradicts it, not that you care.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    But you'll notice there aren't any terror attacks aimed at Switzerland, Sweden, or other countries that mind their own business.

    Or Spain, Indonesia, Thailand or the Phillipines.

    Whoops...

  • ||

    But you'll notice there aren't any terror attacks aimed at Switzerland, Sweden, or other countries that mind their own business.

    Take a walk through Malmo sometime.

  • Kyfho Myoba||

    If by "America" you mean its government, then, yeah, it is.

  • ||

    Islam definitely isn't militaristic and totally didn't spend its formative years with its prophet at the helm of a military juggernaut knocking off countries building an empire...

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    "Muslims" do not hate us. There are segments of that religion that do, largely because we have been screwing around in their homelands."

    I completely reject this assertion. It's convenient but simply doesn't jive with history.

  • Contrarian P||

    Which history are you referring to that shows Muslims to be a group of over one billion people who all hate us because we don't adopt Sharia law?

  • VG Zaytsev||

    The one that shows 1500 years of expansionist wars and conquest?

  • ||

    Latinos are family oriented with a work ethic like like that of an ant colony.

    It's kind of funny how you can't recognize that this is every bit as much a cardboard cutout caricature as the swarthy welfare horde stereotype.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Meby so, but that has been my personal observation. The Mexicans I've had the privilege of associating with are here to work.

  • OneOut||

    And the ones who are here because they are cartel workers just declined to answer your survey ?

  • ||

    Plural of anecdote...

  • ||

    ...is anecdotes.

  • ||

    Have you ever been hit up by a Mexican beggar? Or an Asian one?

    Me neither.

  • Marshall Gill||

    Ask yourself WHY Latinos vote D, Ann. Ya think it has ANYTHING to do with the Rs wanting to deport all their relatives?

    Who has deported more people, Bush or Obama? Obama has, so what the holy fuck are you talking about?

    You are making Cytotoxic look almost coherent.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Oh yeah, you're right MG. It's the Rs who are pro Latino and the Ds who want them deported. I was simply confused.

    *Rolls eyes*

  • ||

    So you're saying the winning strategy is to pretend you give a fuck about immigration, then go on deporting people?

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Do you honestly think the Latinos know Obama has deported more than Bush? They know what they hear on the news.

    The winning strategy is not deporting people, not endorsing deporting people and meaning it. Dear Zod, what a red herring immigration is. They are a net positive to the economy and they are a growing voting bloc. Why in the name of Christ would you alienate them, when you can embrace them? It's not like you can realistically round all 15M illegals up and deport them. Do you have ANY idea what that would cost even if it were possible?

  • ||

    The winning strategy is not deporting people, not endorsing deporting people and meaning it.

    Neither major party is doing that, but one gets significantly more votes. Hence I stand by the statement: the winning strategy is to pretend you give a shit then do whatever you want. Works for any other given issue as well.

    Also, due to the way our legal immigration system works, it seems unbelievably fucked up to give preference to illegal immigrants and recognize their status while people trying to get in on family or work visas sit around for 10-20 years. I know, I know, you don't support that either, but the messaging/optics of "Hey, we know you went through this arduous process, but these guys happen to live geographically close to the border, so they can skirt the rules and stay while you wait it out." is pretty bad.

  • SForza||

    Why can't we just stop deporting anyone who hasn't committed a violent crime, make work visas ridiculously easy to get? I don't see why creating a "path to citizenship" is either necessary or desirable.

  • Cytotoxic||

    BECAUSE MUH BORDERZ

    the winning strategy is to pretend you give a shit then do whatever you want.

    That's basically what FDA said. You guys are running in circles. Rationalization circles.

  • Thomas O.||

    "So you're saying the winning strategy is to pretend you give a fuck about immigration, then go on deporting people?"

    Seems to be working for their marijuana policy. :P

  • XM||

    "Latinos are family oriented with a work ethic like like that of an ant colony."

    They're not more family oriented than Asians or Whites. Where do people get this idea? Some parents might put themselves in danger by crossing the border, but we're not talking about sneaking into China.

    As for work ethics - what work ethics? Latinos certainly take on more physically demanding jobs, but I've seen no evidence they're as significantly more efficient than the Germans or the Japanese, who work longer than a typical Americans. The Latinos I work with waste a good amount of time gossiping, complaining, and checking social sites, just like white people.

    Latinos are NOT conservative. The older ones are a bit socially conservative, but they vote Dem.

  • montana mike||

    I wonder what type of work you do? I worked with many Mexicans in the timber industry, a dangerous job that paid them at least for my company 40 to 60 k a year. 90 per cent were hardworking and valuable. We saw a lot of friends of friends or relatives that didn't work out because they were not up for the hard, dangerous work. None of the hard working mexican dudes defended their co workers who couldn't cut it. I have a lot of good friends that speak Mexican, I doubt that they have a higher percentage of lazy fucks than any other ethnic group.

    Case in point, I had to call a co workers residence 10 years ago, he spoke very accented English but his son answered the phone and he could have been from anywhere, no accent at all, he was in high school then. I have no doubt he will do well for himself and probably contibutes to society. Generalizing is idiotic and I'll be more than happy to give status to hard working people that I know.

  • MSimon||

    Authoritarian Republicans either vote Republican or stay home.

  • ||

    Why do people assume that? You think if they had to choose between someone they hated like Hilary Clinton and a libertarian-ish Republican they'd stay home and let her win?

    I think such Republicans hate Democrats and liberals far more than they'd hate an apostate like Rand Paul.

  • ||

    Agreed. No one really wanted Romney to win, they just liked the other primary candidates even less. Once Romney had the nomination, they backed him like he was their guy all along.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Nope. Turnout for Romney was pathetic and that's why he lost. If he had just gotten the same number of votes McCain got in 2008, he would be president.

    But Paul's a likeable guy and he's got enough social conservatism to placate that wing. He should be a much stronger candidate than Romney was.

  • ||

    I'm not saying it wasn't. I'm saying a big chunk of Republican voters pulled the lever for Romney, despite not liking the guy. There weren't enough to win the election, but most people who voted for Romney didn't like anything about him except the R next to his name on the ballot.

  • Jeff||

    Romney got 1 million more votes than McCain did.

  • XM||

    Romney got more votes than Mccain, and Obama got less votes than he did in 2008. And Romney won the independent vote. Even Cuccinelli won the independent (not libertarian) vote

    The Republicans have a decent shot at winning if people stay home, and their mostly white (still the most reliable voting group) base are motivated. In like 6,7 blue states they have zero chance.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    I stand corrected. Looks like they trickled in well after the election was over.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    The R and D candidate will each automatically get about 40% of the vote. Elections are won on the other 20%.

  • PD Quig||

    And the 20% are dumbf**ks that pay no attention to anything but their peer group, their ethnic spokespeople, celebrities, and other meaningless crap. Ergo, Obama wins two elections.

    Face it: until 1) poll tests are re-instituted (you know, tests where you have to know how many states there are in the union) or 2) only landowners have the franchise, we will live in an Idiocracy.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    First paragraph - it's a little more complicated than that. A lot of people are loosely involved voters and will not vote at all if there is not a candidate that they actively support - which is the group that Romney needed and failed to get that cost him the election.

    Other's in that group are momentum voters and will go with the flow in their locality, still others vote on tribal identity, personal loyalty and or as contrarians - either against the incumbent or the perceived winner, of either party affiliation.

    I've actually come to respect the last most of all.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Second paragraph - a bit overstated. And anyway, the legacy of Jim Crow has eliminated those ideas for at least another hundred years.

  • Thomas O.||

    How many people are renters now that have a foreclosure in their past? If we reinstate "only property owners can vote", all those who wish to tinker with election outcomes will shift their influence to banks and other mortgage lenders, not to mention those who make the mortgage rules. And banks are vilified enough already these days for hoarding precious money.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    immigrants flood the country and add numbers to the Dem voting bloc

    *cue scary music*

  • Ann N||

    classical liberal immigration policy only works if classical liberals are the ones who would enter.

    political annexing only works if the political body you are cannibalizing has your same values.

    simply adding north korea as 51st state wont help the 50 other states. this is what illegal immigration is all about. throwing north koreans into the voting pool.

    if entrants want to be indoctrinated into constitutional values they *may* be allowed to join, in any other case you are just dumping dictatorial expectations into the election booth.

    i may never understand libertarian pov on immigration. its a blind handshake with political strangers, done on their terms (illegal).

    imo the country was founded on a premise. if you cant get on board with that premise stay the fuck out. we got enough communists and statists enjoying the results of liberty as is. we certainly dont need refugees from nations that continuously elect corrupt politicians, into totalitarian style governance.

    unbridled immigration is very *empathetic* towards browns, but it does nothing for our body politic. body politics should act in their own interest, not altruism, and certainly not some abstract sense of 'white guilt'. racism is what currently drives the immigration push. its grotesque, and its undeniable.

  • Cytotoxic||

    this is what illegal immigration is all about. throwing north koreans into the voting pool.

    THIS IS WHAT NATIVISTS ACTUALLY BELIEVE

    body politics should act in their own interest,

    Fuck off. 'Body politics' have no interests or rights only individuals do.

    racism is what currently drives the immigration push. its grotesque, and its undeniable.

    Unintentional honesty on your part.

  • Ann N||

    maybe you could lay out the limitations on contractual agreement.

    IMO 'countrymen' have a right to define themselves as a country and oppose invasion. its a form of contract.

    do you dispute they can own land in common and bar others from entering?

    your general approach seems to be each man is a sovereign and others have no right to contract if it effects his right to wander the earth.

    thats a very weak space to carve out 'contracts' from.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    IMO 'countrymen' have a right to define themselves as a country and oppose invasion. its a form of contract.

    Some might even call it a "social" contract.

  • Cytotoxic||

    You have no idea how contracts or rights or sovereignty works. It's just more MUH BORDERZ bullshit from political losers.

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    I do.

    I

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    As I was saying, I do.

    I know that by law I have to enter a contract consensually and I do this by signing it or the law will invalidate it.

    I never signed no "social contract."

    So how can it be "legal" but by force?

  • VG Zaytsev||

    I inherited stock in GM. I did not choose to buy it but still have contractual rights as a result of inheriting it.

  • Whahappan?||

    Come on, you know this by now. FY, TW.

  • XM||

    What exactly is "nativist" to you? If you're against pathway to citizenship, you're a "nativist"? Does the constitution grant citizenship to a foreign national who crossed the border illegally?

    Of course, there's moral case to be made for amnesty. But it didn't in the past, and it won't now. You can pout and shout, but it doesn't change the fact that most immigrants are statists or at best social conservatives who vote Dem.

    If you hate both parties, then why does any of you care what happens to the GOP? If GOP gains more votes by being another version of the democratic party, what do you gain by it? Believe you me, the folks who ask for amnesty will align themselves with various tax and spending interests.

  • XM||

    "didn't help the GOP in the past"

  • Cytotoxic||

    "didn't help the GOP in the past"

    It helped Canada's Conservatives, it'll help yours. The conversion to pro-immigrant must be total and down to the grassroots.

    If you're against pathway to citizenship, you're a "nativist"?

    Yes.

  • montana mike||

    let's hear your case that immigrants are statists, i'm all ears, i may be naive but i'm guessing many left their homes to avoid statist situations that they decided limited their upward mobility.

  • Ann N||

    statists issue with govt isnt that its too controlling, its that the wrong ppl are in charge.

    these ppl vote for totalitarianism. coming to USA doesnt cure them. they just latch onto whoever promises best freebies.

    say no to illegal immigration by statists.

  • ||

    racism is what currently drives the immigration push. its grotesque, and its undeniable.

    As a libertarian should I give a shit?

    Government is denying free trade and denying individual freedom by outlawing immigration.

    Why on earth should I give a crap about the motivations of TEAM BLUE (or what TEAM RED says their motivations are) in the face of oppression?

  • Ann N||

    political boundaries matter.

    free trade is justification of slavery.

    you buy goods produced by slaves, you sell goods consumed by slaves.

    any political entity you exchange with you enable to operate in their current paradigm.

    any political entity you free trade with puts your citizens IN DIRECT COMPETITION with. That means if its a slave state then your ppl will have to work for similar conditions to compete.

    You might be tempted to think this is all economical BUT ITS NOT. it will invariably lead to importation of practices (that model real law from foreign country) to achieve same results.

    free trade is importation of other countries laws. if the other country is sound thats fine. if the other country is a totalitarian nightmare its unconscionable to do that to the US citizenry.

    interaction with externals will rub off on you. how you define that interaction determines if its poisonous. free trade with slaves states in nothing other than importing slavery.

  • Cytotoxic||

    DERP

  • ||

    Sorry I thought I was debating a sane person.

    My mistake.

    FYI: Allowing people to move freely is the exact opposite of slavery.

    Also:

    any political entity you free trade with puts your citizens IN DIRECT COMPETITION with.

    The law of absolute advantage was disproved over a hundred years ago.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    FYI: Allowing people to move freely is the exact opposite of slavery.

    Sure, let them move here. That doesn't mean that they have to be allowed to vote.

  • ||

    Sure, let them move here. That doesn't mean that they have to be allowed to vote.

    How about 3/5ths of a vote?

    /facepalm

  • VG Zaytsev||

    So you're not talking about labor mobility then right.

    It's all about letting any number of people move here and vote themselves free shit.

    Nothing could possible go wrong with that.

  • Jordan||

    It's all about letting any number of people move here and vote themselves free shit.

    By this logic, we should deny everyone the right to vote, since American citizens are just as likely to vote for free shit.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    I would be in favor of some qualification for the right to vote - except that the history of Jim Crow as made that indefensible.

    That does not mean that everyone in the world should be able to vote in US elections.

    Remember that voting is inherently an act of potential and often real violence.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    How about 3/5ths of a vote?

    Yep, people that voluntarily immigrate are just like slaves.

    / progtard

  • ||

    Yep, people that voluntarily immigrate are just like slaves.

    That was the context in which I was writing. Ann was calling them slaves.

    Anyway given the choice between preserving Democracy and preserving liberty I would choose liberty.

    Also I think preserving the current conditions of election politics, which have a funny way of changing, at the expense of real liberty is short sighted. You have no idea how the electorate will or will not change. You are asking libertarians to bend a lot of their fundamental principles on a maybe.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Christ, the braindead trolls are out today.

  • ||

    There's something in the eggnog.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Here are some more issues: Jobs, Obamacare, jobs, national debt, jobs, Obamacare, and jobs.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Too bad the US Conservative movement has gone totally insane and full-retard regarding immigration. Everything is AMNESTY in the same way everything related to children is autism. There is a select few like Norquist willing to think and they can come to the adult's table the rest will simply be cut out of the debate. If the Texas GOP can be convinced to stop hating on immigrants, then the national one can. The nativists are a political paper tiger.

  • Acosmist||

    Establishment Republicans are trying to jam through amnesty as much as La Raza.

    Perhaps not allowing tens of millions of welfare mooches into a country whose economy is creaking already is, well, a decent idea, if not the only sane idea. FFS, the open borders lobby is the most crony capitalist thing going right now; what in hell is libertarian about doing their bidding while adding millions to the welfare rolls?!

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Immigrants fill jobs in key sectors, start their own businesses, and contribute to a thriving economy. The net benefit of immigration to the U.S. is nearly $10 billion annually. As Alan Greenspan points out, 70% of immigrants arrive in prime working age.[7]

    Due to welfare reform, legal immigrants are severely restricted from accessing public benefits, and illegal immigrants are even further precluded from anything other than emergency services. Anti-immigrant groups skew these figures by including programs used by U.S. citizen children of immigrants in their definition of immigrant welfare use, among other tactics. transplanted into our workforce and will contribute $500 billion toward our social security system over the next 20 years.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Stop confusing him with your facts.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Due to welfare reform, legal immigrants are severely restricted from accessing public benefits, and illegal immigrants are even further precluded from anything other than emergency services.

    Libertarians really need to let go of this bit of wishful thinking and open their eyes to what is actually happening.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I'm not sure what you're getting at here VG. For example, in order for my wife to come her and receive permanent residence status, I had to fill out and send an I-864 (Affidavit of Support) for the two of us before she could even step foot on US soil. As a condition of her living her with me, I had to take full financial responsibility for her until that point she chooses to become a citizen. As part of this, she (and by extension me), are barred from becoming a "public charge". This means we can never benefit from TANF, certain uses of Medicaid, and certain state-level "benefits". Yet, my wife works and pays taxes.

    Those taxes my wife pays supports American "citizens" who choose to sit on their ass, spend their days watching the Maury show, eating lobster paid for by me via SNAP, and the rent for the apartment they lie in all day when not getting fucked by one or more out of ten of their baby-daddies.

    So fuck nativist-populist "Hands off my Medicare!" screeching when hard-working, honest immigrants like my wife have to support the welfare slugs who believe her money is their birthright.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    I'm very familiar with the immigrant community in CA and the theoretical illegality of undocumented getting benefits from any number of welfare programs does not stop them from doing so or stop the state from giving them out no questions asked.

    And sure, I've also seen legal immigrants be extra cautious, not push the envelope, etc. It's almost like being an illegal immigrant increases the likelihood of breaking other laws, or something. It's also not like the democrat party has a 150 year history of vote fraud connected with helping immigrants.

    Nope, that's all nonsense because illegal immigrants are heroic entrepreneurs immune to base motivations and the siren song of the welfare state.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I was following your argument until the last paragraph. Who here is saying that? And it doesn't address my point that from a liberty-minded perspective, the priority should be eliminating the Obamaphone/EBT state and not arguing that it's unfair that some illegal immigrants manage to get benefits. What's unfair is that anyone gets benefits off of someone else's tax dollar, be it illegal immigrant, legal resident, or native-born.

    If you want to make the argument that immigrants legal or not contribute to the welfare state, fine. But show me the data. Too many people, on both sides, are making assertions without backing it up with something concrete.

    Your reference to Tammany Hall is spot-on, and is the way to attack the issue. You want to tackle voter fraud? Fine, I'm right with you. However, a hyperfocus on Juan as opposed to John is fallacious, especially when a lot more Johns can vote.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    And it doesn't address my point that from a liberty-minded perspective, the priority should be eliminating the Obamaphone/EBT state and not arguing that it's unfair that some illegal immigrants manage to get benefits.

    I agree, and would totally support (almost)open borders without the welfare state. But increasing mass immigration, at this point, is going to entrench the welfare state, not weaken it.

    I am open to a compromise that would grant amnesty to illegal immigrants in exchange for their never being able to become citizens (their children born here still would be automatically) and increased immigration with a general curtailment of the welfare state - those are 2 separate propositions.

    I was following your argument until the last paragraph. Who here is saying that?

    Corning|12.25.13 @ 7:52PM|#

    Sure, let them move here. That doesn't mean that they have to be allowed to vote.

    How about 3/5ths of a vote?

    /facepalm

    and

    Francisco d Anconia|12.25.13 @ 7:46PM|#

    Christ, the braindead trolls are out today.
  • Jordan||

    But increasing mass immigration, at this point, is going to entrench the welfare state, not weaken it.

    The welfare state is already entrenched. Perhaps it has escaped your notice, but your fellow citizens are statists. Putting up a wall will accomplish nothing, other than further entrenching the police state necessary to enforce immigration laws in a country of this size. E-verify is a hell of a lot more statist than Food Stamps. The only way to get rid of the Welfare State is to let it collapse under its own weight.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    The welfare state is already entrenched. Perhaps it has escaped your notice, but your fellow citizens are statists.

    And my point is that increasing their numbers is counterproductive.

    E-verify is a hell of a lot more statist than Food Stamps.

    Yes, I agree - which is reason enough to oppose the 'comprehensive immigration reform' package that is working it's way through Congress. The status quo is vastly suprerior to anything that includes E-Verify.

    The only way to get rid of the Welfare State is to let it collapse under its own weight.

    The problem with that theory is that the current situation can, and probably will, last a very long time. As in at least a century. Personally, I don't want to wait that long with ever increasing tyranny in the hope that it will be lessened eventually. That's a little bit like not opposing Mao's rise to power in 1945 because his scheme was destined to fail and lead to a capitalist rebirth - which happened in the lat 1990s.

  • Kyfho Myoba||

    No effin way will this last a century. We'll see total collapse, hyperinflation and full on tyranny in a couple of years, max - the economics demand it.

  • Cytotoxic||

    But increasing mass immigration, at this point, is going to entrench the welfare state, not weaken it.

    There is absolutely no evidence or logical reason to believe this. None. It is just more nativist dogma bullshit.

  • Libertarius||

    What fucking planet are you "native" to? Sure as hell isn't this one.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Ahem! My comment at 7:46.

    Christ, the braindead trolls are out today.

    Was in response to, AND in support of, Corning's 7:15:

    Sorry I thought I was debating a sane person.

    Who was talking about Ann N's 7:01 comment.

    It had NOTHING to do with VGZ's 7:45.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Ok, I apologize, the half assed threading here can be really hard to follow at times.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    You want to tackle voter fraud? Fine, I'm right with you. However, a hyperfocus on Juan as opposed to John is fallacious, especially when a lot more Johns can vote.

    I agree, and I'm not focusing on Juan - per se. Just the reality that mass immigration from socialist societies* is going to involve a lot of socialists - especially when a political party is looking to expand their welfare clients.

    *And the reality is that most societies on earth are communitarian with socialist tendencies.

  • Cytotoxic||

    So VG, I'm guessing you have no hard evidence? Just 'gut feelings'?

  • VG Zaytsev||

    I'm very familiar with the immigrant community in CA and the theoretical illegality of undocumented getting benefits from any number of welfare programs does not stop them from doing so or stop the state from giving them out no questions asked.

    And sure, I've also seen legal immigrants be extra cautious, not push the envelope, etc. It's almost like being an illegal immigrant increases the likelihood of breaking other laws, or something. It's also not like the democrat party has a 150 year history of vote fraud connected with helping immigrants.

    Nope, that's all nonsense because illegal immigrants are heroic entrepreneurs immune to base motivations and the siren song of the welfare state.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

  • VG Zaytsev||

    That's a whole $33 per person in the US.

    Meanwhile, in CA it costs $400,0000 to 'educate' the average illegal immigrant family's children.

    BTW - my primary opposition is to citizenship for illegal immigrants, not expanded immigration or even amnesty without citizenship.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    NET BENEFIT, being the key phrase.

  • ||

    Bear in mind that Sergey Brin and Manoj Bhargava would be included in the group "immigrants" of which "illegal immigrants" is a subset. Because our legal immigration system is largely guided by education and skills, you're going to have outsized benefits since we're basically saying "fuck you" to anybody who doesn't show up with at least a master's in STEM.

    Also depends a bit on who's making the books, as I've seen studies from conservative tanks that come up with almost the same number ($10B), only the other way.

    In either case, it's more or less a rounding error. I've been called every part of a man or beast right here at Reason for suggesting that actually cutting programs in the $10B range would be a worthwhile endeavor by libertarians who say it's not worth worrying about.

  • Azathoth!!||

    "Rational' wiki? Really?

    The entire piece conflates illegal immigration with legal immigration at whim. There's no way to tell just where that 'net benefit' comes from.

    What if it only comes from legal immigration?

  • Pompey||

    God damn you did it the hard way. Was your waiting period something like 18 months? Wide couldn't qualify for a tourist visa?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Yeah, it was about 18 months if I remember it correctly. My wife couldn't qualify for a tourist visa because she didn't meet the income requirement and for Thailand, potential tourist visa applicants also have to show they own property. I'm not sure if that's true today, though. (This was circa 2007-2008).

  • Pompey||

    That is brutal man. 18 months would have killed me personally, and jeopardises many relationships. You are a better man than I.

    We were lucky by means of circumstance -- my wife applied for a tourist visa when we were still dating - which was approved due to her strong ties to her jurisdiction (Hong Kong) as being on the tail end of her Masters Degree work. She would have surely been rejected a US tourist visa based on some form of an income or savings criterion alone, were it not for the ties to higher education.

    Can't say she is thrilled with NH by comparison, we live out by UNH. But hey, at least.a middle aged mainland Chinese couple opened a small market within 10 minutes of us that pulls in some of her favourite snacks. If I was staring in the face the prospect of waiting 18 months like you did, I would strongly have considered uprooting to Hong Kong as soon as possible.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    We were living together in Bangkok at the time, so we were together. You'll get a laugh out of this. We're in NH too and my wife called one of her sisters yesterday to wish her a happy birthday. Her sister complained that it was "cold" in Thailand.

    What's the name of that market, by the way? The only Asian market in Manchester closed a few months ago. There is another in Nashua, but I'm over by UNH/Dover more often.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I should amend that to the only "good" Asian market closed. My wife reminded my that Mrs. Yee's is still open.

  • Pompey||

    Hehe, I proposed to my wife in Koh Pha Ngan. Spent a few days in Bangkok too. Climate-wise, Richmond:Orlando::Hong Kong:Bangkok. Categorically not "chilly" considering the stifling humidity plays a factor.

    To be quite honest, Happy Market is not what one would call a "good" Asian market, but the proprietors are great people, try to special order items if you need them, and adore our daughter. I want to set the expectation, in case you choose to go there, that it's nothing special. They can get you a freshly slaughtered chicken, which is more convenient than getting it instead from Boston Chinatown.

    Happy Market was smart in that they don't have a massive inventory, but they recognised the opportunity of opening a place where all the mainland Chinese grad students that are homesick can come and snap up frozen foods and snacks. Fuckers routinely clean out some of our favourite Taiwan snacks after they "trend" within the community. As far as variety, even Lo's Oriental Seafood Market carries more produce, a more broad selection of pan-East-Asian goods, and thankfully a fair amount of Japanese stuff like okonomiaki flour.

    Saigon Manchester. Saigon is the only place north of Boston we could ever find laksa curry paste, and even Saigon just carries a mediocre brand when they do have it. I want to desperately know, do you have a hookup for curry laksa?

  • Pompey||

    Cont'd

    Lucky Supermarket in Somersworth is operated by Indonesians (I think) and is downright depressing. I hope they renovated recently. Dingy, vacant shelves, not air conditioned to save on costs. I can let you know if it cleans up, but I hate going there. The squandered potential really depresses you.

    Indo-Thai Restaurant in Somersworth, also operated by Indonesians, has the only edible Pad Thai we've found in NH. But they are SLOW to prepare. The business gets its revenue almost exclusively from the Rochester-Somersworth Indonesian community.

    I was under the impression that Saigon Manchester simply closed temporarily for renovation, but now I'm reading some news articles that the landlord declined to renew lease. Bummer. We hit that place up once recently like suckers, only to find the place still shuttered.

    Lowell has a pretty large Thai community. Does your wife ever make it down that way? Why don't you shoot me a note if you would like to continue sharing local resources off-forum. Activating contact link in username momentarily.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Indo-Thai Restaurant in Somersworth, also operated by Indonesians, has the only edible Pad Thai we've found in NH

    I think we ate there once. My wife was a professional chef back in Bangkok, so she makes all that stuff in the house.

    Lowell has a pretty large Thai community. Does your wife ever make it down that way?

    We've been planning a trip recently actually. So we might visit there in the next two weeks to stock up.

    Why don't you shoot me a note if you would like to continue sharing local resources off-forum. Activating contact link in username momentarily.

    Cool. Will do.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Thanks. Next time I'm in town I'll stop by. Saigon is no more, sadly. My wife hasn't been able to get unripe papaya for her somtam in months. As for curry paste of any kind, we're forced to go to Lowell or Boston. Though, there is a huge Arabic/Pakistan market in town now that I hear might be looking to take the market share Saigon left. I'll have to look if they've started to carry Malay foodstuffs other than satay.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Sounds like y'all need to move to SoCal.

  • Pompey||

    Sir, only if I literally double my income via employer, and I would be looking at silicon valley where everyone is vapid, empty, hyper materialistic, and overly competitive. Douchebags always revving their engines and trying to race you at stoplights. Pathetic.

    California has many redeeming qualities, but the myriad drawbacks outweigh the ever-increasing drawbacks.

  • Pompey||

    outweigh the ever-increasing drawbacks decreasing perks.

    FTFM.

  • montana mike||

    that is the irony hm

  • ||

    American "citizens" who choose to sit on their ass, spend their days watching the Maury show, eating lobster paid for by me via SNAP, and the rent for the apartment they lie in all day when not getting fucked by one or more out of ten of their baby-daddies.

    Ah, you know my ex-wife. Add in the alimony-for-life and you have it dead on.

    Why is there not a single significant Asian grocery in the North Suburbs of Chicago? We have to drive up to Milwaukee to shop.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    I'm pro-immigration but this is a fragile argument. Bush II was pro-immigration, fluent in Spanish, and a Texan, and even he couldn't pull 50% of the latino vote. There is a decidedly Left bent to many immigrants from south of the border even though they personally behave economically like fiscal conservatives. I can't explain why other than Hugo Chavez syndrome.

    How about we start with a dramatically expanded guest worker program with a long path to citizenship? Say 15-20 years? That'll give them some time to acclimate and hopefully lose their Big G tendencies.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Bush II was pro-immigration, fluent in Spanish, and a Texan, and even he couldn't pull 50% of the latino vote.

    He got close and might have gotten there if not for his stupid party.

    There is a decidedly Left bent to many immigrants from south of the border

    Not buying it. Texas isn't turning blue and a lot of LA countries are slowly turning to free-markets, Chile aside. Mexico's recent reform was a HUGE deal. The Bolivarian Revolution is a hollow shadow of its former self.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Saying Bush II got close is a bit of a joke. What did Kerry have going for him? Or Gore? Both were whiter than Bush, essentially silent on immigration, and they still out polled him with latinos. In fact I think 44% with all of that is pretty pathetic and telling.

    Texas is a hell of lot closer to blue than CA is to red. Chile is starting to rebel against its free market reforms. Venezuela is a basket case but keeps on chugging. Bolivia ain't changing. Argentina is just setting up its next debt/inflation bomb. And you think Central/Southern America is a success story? Umm, no.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Texas is a hell of lot closer to blue than CA is to red.

    It's still not trending bluer despite more latinos there.

    you think Central/Southern America is a success story?

    Yes and that is not debatable. Venezuela and Chile are exceptions. Argentina is going to leave Kirchnerism behind, and Bolivia and Ecuador are drifting away from socialism. Even Nicaragua isn't socialist under Daniel Ortega.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    And the economic and political state of their countries of origin matters why? The countries of Europe slide further and further into Socialist/Statist shitholeness daily, yet you never hear these folks organizing to ban immigration from Europe. I mean Brits believe in a monarch! The same monarchy we split blood to remove ourselves from!

    DEPORT ALL BRITISH-AMERICANS NOW! You don't want your grandson or daughter speaking Engl...err, wait.

  • Cytotoxic||

    And HM wins the thread.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Yeah I don't want any fucking Scot or Limey socialists immigrating here either.

    Oh noes that can't be true because that doesn't fit the racist narrative.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Bonnie Prince Charles lost, so Scots are Brits, despite their loud denials.

    However, you're missing the point.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    What point?

    My point is that the orange party position that any opposition making illegal immigrants citizens = racist is a sloppy ad hominem attack.

    I don't want any white socialist voting* here and I don't want any brown socialist doing so either. I'm all for anyone becoming a citizen that shares small government values - but that ain't the clients that the dems are trying to recruit. And the situation is further complicated by the fact that government schools are creating new socialist as fast as they possibly can.


    *several people upthread explicitly rejected the idea of increased immigration sans citizenship.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    What point?

    My point is that the orange party position that any opposition making illegal immigrants citizens = racist is a sloppy ad hominem attack.

    Well, let's be fair, my comment above wasn't directed at you, but at Annie, who seemed to think there was something genetic within the fiery Latin race that made them into little Fidels and Raouls. My point was that the same arguments could be made concerning modern-day Europe, but the usual suspects here don't talk about banning immigration from Europe. If their concern were truly about ideological demographics, then they would advocate banning Euros too, yes?

    And while I, too, would like to see potential citizens share a concern for liberty, that's just not how the law was written. There is currently no political test for prospective citizens. And I question if such a test would even be a good thing.

    I agree wholeheartedly with you about the public schools, however. It's worth noting that one of the main purposes of the public school system was to be an engine of assimilation for that first wave of Papist Irish foreigners.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Well, let's be fair, my comment above wasn't directed at you, but at Annie,

    Yeah, Annie had a few good points and then ruined it with her own brand of socialist nonsense.

    BTW - I find America's socialists turn to nationalism very disturbing.

  • DblEagle||

    Come on VG what harm could ever come from a party committed to National Socialist.... goals?
    -sarc-

  • VG Zaytsev||

    There is currently no political test for prospective citizens. And I question if such a test would even be a good thing.

    I assume you mean because the progs and socialist would twist it to their ends - in which case I agree.

    That's why I thing the best solution, at this point in time, is pausing new citizens while we work to roll back socialism in this country. And the primary front should be eliminating government schools.

  • Cytotoxic||

    That's why I thing the best solution, at this point in time, is pausing new citizens while we work to roll back socialism in this country.

    Fighting statism with statism; injustice with injustice-and failing! It's the conservative way!

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    I don't have a problem restricting our European friends either. Yes, they do come from statist shitholes and yes they do bring that philosophy here. Am I generalizing? Sure. Is the US one of the few outlets for free Europeans? Again, sure. But my own personal experience tells me that's a net loser still, but I'm open to having some hard data thrown in my face.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Well here's the doi of a study that looked at Mexican immigrant's political ideologies. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2013.05.032

    If you follow that link, you can read the abstract. My university subscribes to that journal so I can access the full-text through my account. I'm reading it right now and I'll post anything interesting (on either side of the argument).

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Ah, I don't have to read the whole damn thing (but I will). Here's an interview with the researcher talking about his study

    On the translation of political affiliations in their country of origin to political parties in the U.S.:

    WALS: In Mexico there are three main political parties. You would think that the translations would be direct. However, it doesn’t happen like that. You have people who mention an attachment to a party on the left in Mexico and favor the Republicans in the U.S. That requires more research. But immigrants from Mexico, who have spent a year or less in the U.S., if they identify themselves as being on the right, have a 90 percent chance of saying they would like to vote in American elections. If you look at the same figure for their counterparts who identify themselves as leftists, it’s roughly 30 percent. There’s nothing innate in them that says Democrats, or Liberals, or leftist. As a matter of fact, when you look at the distribution of ideology in Mexico, it’s skewed to the right, the center-right. And the population of immigrants that has come to the U.S. mirrors them. There’s more on the center-right and right to begin with. And they’re more willing to participate, pretty much from day one. But they get lost in the process.
  • Heroic Mulatto||

    WALS: You have potential in an ideological predisposition toward some kind of policy preferences. However, how those translate into a partisan attachment is not a direct process, at least in multi-party systems. In the U.S. you basically have two options. For Mexican immigrants, some may come here and not find a direct match—say, those really, really on the left. For those who are more willing to participate, according to my study, on the center-right/right, you have the Republican party, with very visible leaders that more often than not are anti-immigration. I’m referring to the portion of the Latino electorate that’s first generation immigrants. So they may not feel wanted. And every time immigration reform is discussed, I haven’t heard anyone paying attention to the acculturation process. As an expert in this field and an immigrant myself, I can say that one of the harshest things about being an immigrant is the years that come right after moving here. In the process, and it’s a very long process, very few people pay attention, at least from the political arena. I understand that there has to be a period for people to acculturate, to learn about the culture, the history, the language. But we need to make sure that people who are ready, that are eager to do it, have better and quicker access to these means. If we care about democracy and immigration, I think someone has to do something about it.
  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Meh, the abstract and the interview don't tell me much. Conservative Mexicans are 90% likely to vote and Leftest are 30% likely to vote (self-reported, I assume). OK, that's half of the equation. Now tell me what percentage of them are Con vs. Left. If it's 1-99, well, that's still a loser.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    My personal experience is as follows:

    I owned a manufaturcing business that did contract work for Boing, GD and Lockheed for a couple of decades from the late 1980s through the start of Obama's depression. Along the way I employed hundreds of 'undocumented workers', mostly Mexican and Central Americans, but also from a number of Asian countries. They were mostly good hard working people that were trying to improve their own and their family's condition. And like all large groups of people there were a few lazy people, con artists etc., but those were only 10% or so of my employees.

    These hard working immigrants were almost universally receptive to the soft socialist pitches of the left like helping the poor or being for the people etc. I think that it was from a deep cultural experience of real colonialism where a European elite and their descendants oppressed the native population and most successful people were cronies of one sort or another.

    So the idea of a neutral government was literally alien to them, either government was helping you or it was oppressing you. And that attitude was exploited and amplified by racial grievance mongers, ala La Raza and the ilk. So that these people became more entrenched in their views the longer that they were here and their American educated children even more so.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    There’s nothing innate in them that says Democrats, or Liberals, or leftist. As a matter of fact, when you look at the distribution of ideology in Mexico, it’s skewed to the right, the center-right.

    Bullshit.

    The only way that makes sense is with a 1960s era view of left and right where the right = communitarian - statist and the left = individualist - (communist) anarchist.

    Which definitions fit with atual voting patterns. The 2 republicans presidential candidates with the highest percentage of latino vote were Nixon and Bush the lessor.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    The only way that makes sense is with a 1960s era view of left and right where the right = communitarian - statist and the left = individualist - (communist) anarchist.

    Which I assume is where Wals is coming from. I don't think he ever took the World's Smallest Political Test. :)

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    Well, I tend to believe (or at least want to believe) the really smart ones are leaving Europe because the system in their native respective countries don't cater to their needs.

    So. They come to America to feed their entrepreneurial spirit. If that's what's happening - that is their best and brightest are coming - I say bring 'em on.

    The ones who benefit from the welfare state are probably to set in their sloth ways to move anyway. Why leave a good gig, right?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    The ones who benefit from the welfare state are probably to set in their sloth ways to move anyway. Why leave a good gig, right?

    Assuming a rational homo economicus, you'd have to be crazy to give up the European gravy train in exchange for the American one.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Not necessarily. A lower level American welfare state can be more rewarding than a higher level European one because the US is so much wealthier overall. I've seen Scots on the dole and welfare families in America are materially better off.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    That's a good point.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Not to belabor the point but,

    People on the dole in Scotland are also more 'spiritually' or morally impoverished because it is more intrusive - all encompassing and the idea of getting off is completely alien whereas here people do so, breaking the cycle of generational welfare dependence. Again, the difference is largely cultural as America, even today, is much more entrepreneurial.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Sure is debatable. Brazil? Maybe. Venezuela? No Hope. Boliva still a basket case. Chile was the SA miracle and it's losing steam. Hardly shining examples of free marketeering.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    And some actual numbers and analysis:

    http://blog.chron.com/txpotoma.....be-purple/

    http://blog.chron.com/txpotoma.....e-by-2024/

    So much for that Texas-isn't-becoming-blue meme.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    So, very important to run right out and alienate those voters.

    Have the republicans tried deporting cowboys in hopes of staying competitive in TX? Perhaps alienating Texas women would help as well?

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Doesn't change the fact that a friendly GOP candidate, Bush II, could still only manage to get 44%. Let's run down the list again:

    1) Pro-immigration reform
    2) Fluent in Spanish
    3) Familiar and friendly with the culture
    4) Socially conservative

    And in the other corner that supposedly outweighs all of that:

    5) Member of a national party that is generally anti-immigration

    I think it's wildly optimistic to assume that if the GOP were to completely do a 180 on immigration that suddenly the latino vote would flock to them. There is zero evidence to that effect and plenty of anecdotal evidence to the contrary.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I think it's wildly optimistic to assume that if the GOP were to completely do a 180 on immigration that suddenly the latino vote would flock to them. There is zero evidence to that effect and plenty of anecdotal evidence to the contrary.

    Let's play "what-if". Let's say Ted Cruz wins the primary. We have the first Latino with a serious chance at the White House, do you think the Latino vote would vote against him?

    Personally, I don't think many of them could resist, just as many Black Americans who were, at best, politically indifferent came out to vote for Obama purely due to his race. If Obama were a Republican, I believe they would have voted for him regardless. Humans are irrational like that.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Yes. He may be able to achieve Bush II numbers or slightly higher, but I seriously doubt he would win the demographic. Both of us are speculating at this point.

    So if Herman Cain had won the GOP nomination he would have split the black vote with Barry? Don't think so.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Oh, and not picking Rubio as his running mate is just one of a long list of stupid moves by Romney. I think if he had done that he would have polled in the 30's.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    So if Herman Cain had won the GOP nomination he would have split the black vote with Barry?

    Again, speculation, but it would have depended on the type of campaign Cain ran. Due to Obama's multi-racial heritage and international upbringing, Cain could have played (an admittedly dirty) campaign of "the Blackest crow" and alienated Obama from his base by pointing out that Obama wasn't in tune with the culture and concerns of "real" Blacks, whereas Cain grew up poor in the South and is a Baptist.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Come now, you don't honestly think that Cain would have polled above 20%, do you? I think low teens are the most likely. Obama is black regardless of the fact that he's half white (genetically? phenotypically? I don't even know the right adjective to use) and was raised by white relatives in white neighborhoods and in a generally white "culture." You see, he cares. He really does. He gets it. He even has the black preacher voice to prove it!

    There's just no way that Cain would have been able to paint Obama in the light you describe regardless of how true it is.

    But you were/are right before. People are irrational.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Cain would have done really well for a republican (like 40% of the black vote or so) because he's an authentically black american while Obama plays a pseudo black intellectual on TV.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Well, the Democrats were as vicious to Cain in the primary as I speculated Cain might have been in a presidential race. Overall, I do believe Obama would have won, regardless of what Cain did. A more interesting speculation would be Cain or West or even Keyes vs. Hillary.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    The number of Hispanic voters is increasing dramatically, Republicans should:

    A. Appease the population
    B. Attempt to stop the number of Hispanic voters from increasing

    So what if you can't get 50%. Would you rather have 49% or 0%.

    Do you think one guy (Bush II) is going to turn the entire perception around in 8 years? Please.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    But somehow you think that changing one position will completely change the voting behavior of latinos. Please yourself.

    If I can't get 50%, then why would I do my best to increase the size of that demographic? You're just not describing a rational position.

    In order for the GOP to win the hispanic vote it's going to take a LOT more than just voting yes on immigration.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    So, very important to run right out and alienate those voters.

    This is a variation of the blame America first fallacy, which denies latino immigrants of agency.

    Perhaps, they vote democrat because their messaging resonates at a deep cultural level and it has little to do with meany republicans.

    Nope, can't be that because that conflicts with the belief in the heroic immigrant entrepreneur.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Perhaps, they vote democrat because their messaging resonates at a deep cultural level and it has little to do with meany republicans.

    Or perhaps they vote for the party that isn't perceived as ANTI-Latino.

    Think?

  • VG Zaytsev||

    The republican party has more elected Latino office holders that the democrats do.

    So I'm not sure how that party is anti-Latino other than in the same way that they are engaged in a War on Womyn, ie it's all bs demo agit-prop. And that ain't going away is they vote for amnesty.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    That's the point, the media doesn't report on folks like Bill Flores or Raul Labrador, but you get an idiot talking about Mexican drug mules and their "cantaloupes calves" and it's all over the news.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    And it's my contention that is an artifact of a left biased media and that there is very little way to eliminate it.

    If the media were biased in favor of republicans there would be endless stories of democrats' War on Jews and lefty xenophobia and immigrant bashing.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    NO AMNESTIEZ!

    NO PATH TO CITIZENSHIPSEZ!

    We are teh Republicanz and we luvz us sum Mexikinz who iz here to stealz teh welfarez.

    Why dont'z teh Mexikinz luvz us when we gots teh most Latino office holderz and teh Obamaz deportz more than teh Bushez?

  • VG Zaytsev||

    So, this may come as a shock to you but most latino voters are not immigrants or the children of immigrants.

    In CA, and many other states, they've been here longer than teh Angols have.

    Immigration Reforms never polls as one of the top 5 concerns of latino voters.

    The whole issue is bullshit agit-prop aimed at increasing the number of clients for socialist politicians and they aren't going to give it up if Rs agree to help them out.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    So, this may come as a shock to you but most latino voters are not immigrants or the children of immigrants.

    In CA, and many other states, they've been here longer than teh Angols have.

    Immigration Reforms never polls as one of the top 5 concerns of latino voters.

    The whole issue is bullshit agit-prop aimed at increasing the number of clients for socialist politicians and they aren't going to give it up if Rs agree to help them out.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Pathetic. Neither of these articles remotely demonstrates that Texas is turning blue because of Hispanics.

  • Ann N||

    texas wants to secede from the union and is one of the most religious states in USA. immigrants are religious, but politically they vote for tyranny. texas isnt red because of immigrants, but in spite of them.

    they vote for detroit over and over a million times over.

    the problem isnt their humanity, its their political persuasion. we cant have fullscale immigration of radical communists by the 10's of millions. thats obvious right?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    we cant have fullscale immigration of radical communists by the 10's of millions.

    On an immigration visa application, potential immigrants must check a box signifying an oath that they were never a member of a communist party. It's due to Federal law.

    So, calm down.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    So explain Florida. Tons of immigrants fleeing outright communist dictatorship and the state is trending blue anyway.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    So explain Florida.

    Well, considering parts of Florida are just large-scale annexes of New Yorker, mostly Jewish, retirement homes, it's not that hard to figure out.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    So brown immigrants from socialist societies reject those tendencies but Jewish immigrants from a socialist society don't?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    So brown immigrants from socialist societies reject those tendencies

    I don't know. I would guess some do, like some of the Latino immigrants who comment on this very forum, and some don't. Again, I ask if we have the data to show either way.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Obviously, but the state is trending blue.

    I was just observing the irony in saying that one group of people brings the biases of their previous environment with them and assuming that another group of people does not.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I'm not assuming either way. I'm doing a quick read through of Wals' study which was just published 3 weeks ago and it seems that for Mexican's at least, most describe themselves as centrists in both Mexican and American contexts, with a hell of a lot more of them describing themselves as hard right as opposed to hard left (n = 190) for the hard rightists and (n = 75) for the hard leftists in the American context. Part of Wals' study was having Mexican immigrants rate themselves on the Right-Left spectrum with 1 being hard left and 10 being hard right. If we define 1-4 as leftist and 6-10 as rightist then 123 describe themselves as Leftist and 368 describing themselves as Rightist with 262 right down the middle at 5 for a total of 753.

    These data seem to support the narrative of the Stupid Party being its usual self and pissing Mexican votes away due to its own stupidity.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Another interesting finding in Wals' study which I can't cut and paste here is a chart that shows a correlation with placement on the Right-Left spectrum and political participation in US elections is that the further Right the immigrant described him or herself as, the higher predicted probability of their participation in US elections. (Fig. 3 if you have access to full-text).

    Again, further evidence of the Stupid Party being stupid.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    it seems that for Mexican's at least, most describe themselves as centrists in both Mexican and American contexts, with a hell of a lot more of them describing themselves as hard right as opposed to hard left (n = 190) for the hard rightists and (n = 75) for the hard leftists in the American context.

    And what does Wals' mean by left and right?

    Because those terms are in and of themselves meaningless.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    And what does Wals' mean by left and right?

    What Wals' did was for each survey (one for Mexican politics and one for American politics) he asked each person to rate themselves on a Likert scale in response to this question: “In political matters in Mexico/in the United States, people talk of the left and of the right. On a scale that ranges from 1 to 10, where 1 is left and 10 is right, where would you place yourself?”

    So it would be the right-left as viewed in either the American or Mexican context.

    His research question was really if the popular Mexican view of right-left had any influence on the immigrants understanding of popular American right-left spectrum.

    In short, I believe Wals was working with a definition of conservative vs. liberal as defined by talk radio.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    On a scale that ranges from 1 to 10, where 1 is left and 10 is right, where would you place yourself?”

    That actually doesn't address my point in any meantingful way.

    44 years ago the right meant Nixon. Now it means Rand Paul. I doubt that there's one single shared position between the two.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    That actually doesn't address my point in any meantingful way.

    I agree that's a weakness of the study. I pointed out the issues with self-reporting @7:13. Though, I would disagree that when most people think "Right" they're thinking of Rand. They're more likely to think of someone either like Bush or like Santorum. I have always argued that the tent is too damn big.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Though, I would disagree that when most people think "Right" they're thinking of Rand. They're more likely to think of someone either like Bush or like Santorum. I have always argued that the tent is too damn big.

    It's a problem with American politics in general. Both parties have communitarian and individualist constituencies, although IMO the republican party is more individualist than the dems and trending ever more so. For example, I describe myself as right and absolutely despise Santorum and never liked Bush the lessor.

    The problem as I see it is that there is not one overall left-right axis but ten or more. The traditional left-right division that we inherited from 19th century France is completely meaningless because both sides then were almost all statist and they were merely arguing over who would be in charge.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Even the Noland chart is a simplification.

    The multiple axis that I mentioned above would include but not be limited to:

    Communitarianism ---- Individualist
    Statist --------------Anarchy
    Novelty --------------Traditionalist
    Localism -------------Internationalism
    Amoral----------------Moralist

    etc.

    For example, we would say that a locavore vegan would be a leftist, but deconstructing that ideology produces results traditionally associated with both the left and the right, ie moralism, localism on the right and communitarianism and novelty on the left.

  • ||

    On an immigration visa application, potential immigrants must check a box signifying an oath that they were never a member of a communist party.

    With a foolproof system like that...

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Communists never lie.

    Never.

  • ||

    I have to wonder if anybody has ever checked "yes", just to see what would happen.

  • Cytotoxic||

    The Right-Left dichotomy is not perfect but is useful enough for this study. For this study, people can place themselves in a simple politics matrix. It does not have to describe them in detail.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    But that matrix is meaningless without embedded definitions of left and right

    Richard Nixon and Rand Paul are both rightwing devils according to Proggies so which of those two is a self described right-wing immigrant closest to politically?

  • Cytotoxic||

    they vote for detroit over and over a million times over.

    Wow...and yet Toronto, full of immigrants, is not Detroit, while Detroit, which was NEVER full of immigrants FUCKING IS DETROIT.

  • Ann N||

    it seems like you think counterexamples are proofs.

    maybe you would like to explain why ppl are fleeing these countries? maybe you would like to explain which population allows them to be in power?

    the ppls vote them in, their govt gives them socialism.

    they dont want freedom, they want resources. this is why they come to usa. not for freedom, but for economic prosperity. that means job, but it also means freebies.

    they vote the wrong way.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    He got close and might have gotten there if not for his stupid party

    Oh, bullshit. Anyone who thinks Hispanics, particularly 1st or 2nd generation immigrants, would start voting R if Team Red would only provide all immigrants with the full benefits of citizenship within five years is seriously deluded.

    Hispanics--particularly Mexicans and other Central Americans--are almost all economically socialist. It's been this way for decades. And they are a prime target for Dems because Dems have never deviated from their GIBMEDAT economic philosophy.

    Just because they may not like abortions or gays doesn't mean they're just one or two amnesties away from voting Republican.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Hispanics--particularly Mexicans and other Central Americans--are almost all economically socialist. It's been this way for decades.

    You're head is up your ass. Read up the Wals study provided by HM please.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    You're head is up your ass. Read up the Wals study provided by HM please.

    No, your head is up your ass because you're clearly ignoring national voting trends.

  • Azathoth!!||

    Wals study flies in the face of election results.

    Central and South American countries are almost uniformly socialist shitholes. And have been so for decades.

    The 'right' for them, is just another flavor of socialist.

  • montana mike||

    Obviously you are stating this from a theoretical perspective and it's utter bullshit. You obviously have never worked alongside immigrants, I have and you are full of shit.

    You are also full of shit when you call immigrants economically socialist... if they were all socialist they would have stayed home and collected the largesse of the state. Yet millions came up here looking for economic opportunity.

    You are a xenophobe, not a libertarian, bro.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Obviously you are stating this from a theoretical perspective and it's utter bullshit.

    No, I'm stating this from a political perspective. What party do most Hispanics vote for again?

    You are also full of shit when you call immigrants economically socialist... if they were all socialist they would have stayed home and collected the largesse of the state.

    One socialist state has more resources than the socialist state they are currently living in--where exactly do you think they'll end up settling?

    You are a xenophobe, not a libertarian, bro.

    My dad's side of the family is Hispanic. You can take your liberal race-shaming and shove it up your ass.

  • CE||

    How about splitting California into six states? I am definitely voting for this ballot measure, even if it gives the Dems more net seats in the US Senate:

    http://www.mercurynews.com/bus.....ias-ballot

  • ||

    They should call Jefferson State Shasta State.

    But yeah I am all for splitting up California.

    Eastern Oregon and Eastern Washington should also form a new state and be called Columbia.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Every state with a population over 10 million, or so, should be split up.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    I'd argue that we should go even further than that, and cut the average population:rep ratio WAY back to about 50,000 per rep or so.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    That's along the lines of what I was thinking of. There are a number of problems with the scale of government that all lead to tyranny.

  • Tejicano||

    Great! Which ones can we give to North Korea? I am sure a few of them would find it mutually agreeable. The derp only needs to be tweaked a bit during translation.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Reports of Somalia's libertarianism have been somewhat exaggerated.

    Somali government bans Christmas. Supposedly, police have been told to prevent any celebrations.

    http://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaH.....?ID=296213

  • SIV||

    Somali government

    That's your problem right there. How can you have a functioning anarchy with a "government" fucking it all up.
    Somalia needs some sort of clan-based vigilance committee to take that shit out.

  • Almanian!||

    I have some suggestions for what I think are a better four things for Team Red to pursue:

    1) No, fuck you, CUT SPENDING.
    2) Reduce taxes, especially on savings and investment, but also on income and anything else that comes to mind.
    3) No, fuck you, CUT SPENDING some more.
    4) Start repealing any regulations at all. 4a) eliminate or at least reduce the size and scope of some of the three-letter bureaucracies any way you can (defunding, laws, whatever).

    But they won't. Still, a kid can dream...

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Eliminate every regulation that has been enacted since Bill Clinton left office.

    But - OMG America was practically Somalia under Clinton.

  • montana mike||

    We can only wish,the status quo will remain even if team red wins next year. Basically we(our children) are fucked, at least I won't live to see the shitstorm that awaits my nieces and nephews and they have no idea what is coming.

  • Michael Hihn||

    The GOP's libertarian wing has been dead for decades, and totally invisible today. Rand Paul is not as crazy as his father (or Rubio) on gay marriage, but somebody please explain the Ninth Amendment to both Pauls.

    The revolt against big-government conservatives is long overdue, but anti-gubmint slogans and soundbites ain't gonna cut it with the American people. The generic libertarians who walked away from the GOP aren't coming back for Paul, Amash, Cruz et al, the same social conservatism they abandoned in the first place.

    Anyone who supports DOMA, or is unsure of it, explains why the libertarian brand is so toxic -- per the 2005 Cato/Zogby poll. Again, the Ninth Amendment.

  • Cytotoxic||

    The GOP's libertarian wing has been dead for decades

    So Paul and Amash got in there by magic I guess.

  • SIV||

    If by magic you mean thousands and thousands of socon votes. Paul and Amash are pro-life and family values.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Since when is being pro-life and for family values un-libertarian?

    Oh yeah, I forgot you're from the South Shall Rise Again pro-slavery faction of libertarians.

  • SIV||

    Since when is being pro-life and for family values un-libertarian?

    That you're even asking ME that question proves you are one dumb motherfucker.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Right, nothing says non aggression like killing children.

  • Sevo||

    VG Zaytsev|12.25.13 @ 9:57PM|#
    "Right, nothing says non aggression like killing children."

    These would be individual sperm cells?

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Reason dictates that personhood begins somewhere between conception and viability. The point where an individual human being comes into existence is somewhere in there despite the irrational pseudo religious belief about magical vaginas.

    Which actually comports with the revealed preference of actual, dumb, people. Who almost always refer to a miscarriage as losing the baby with some element of mourning and not the callousness of abortionists.

  • Sevo||

    VG Zaytsev|12.25.13 @ 10:26PM|#
    "Reason dictates that personhood begins somewhere between conception and viability. The point where an individual human being comes into existence is somewhere in there despite the irrational pseudo religious belief about magical vaginas."
    Agreed, so it is not the moment of conception. Your opinion is?

    "Which actually comports with the revealed preference of actual, dumb, people. Who almost always refer to a miscarriage as losing the baby..."
    Yeah, I'm watching some family demanding a brain-dead (that's *dead*) daughter be kept on "life support".
    Sorry, people who lose a pregnancy or lose a young child are not the sources I want to decide such issues.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Agreed, so it is not the moment of conception. Your opinion is?

    Viability.

    But I recognize the logical superiority of conception.

    Yeah, I'm watching some family demanding a brain-dead (that's *dead*) daughter be kept on "life support".

    As long as they are spending their own money why should you or I care.

    And if they are demanding that someone else support their child, then it is wrong and doesn't matter if that child is brain dead or not.

  • Sevo||

    "Viability."

    Under what conditions.
    Sorry, that's not an answer, that's a dodge.
    And you whiffed on the point of the brain-dead kid.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Under what conditions.
    Sorry, that's not an answer, that's a dodge.

    Agreed, but now that you've pinned me down, viability with medical intervention outside the womb - currently around 6-1/2 months.

    And you whiffed on the point of the brain-dead kid.

    No I didn't.

    I said that ideally it's none of our business. Perhaps you meant to ask if I would be in favor of a murder prosecution for someone that 'pulled the plug' in that case. But that's not what you asked.

  • Cytotoxic||

    the logical superiority of conception.

    What?

  • Michael Hihn||

    Reason dictates that personhood begins somewhere between conception and viability.

    Sez who???

    In our system of government, that is determined by thee Supreme Court ... as are all other instances where we have competing rights ... for over two centuries now.

    irrational pseudo religious belief about magical vaginas.

    And the equally irrational application of pseudo reason.

    Which actually comports with the revealed preference of actual, dumb, people

    (smile)

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Reason dictates that personhood begins somewhere between conception and viability.

    Sez who???

    Science and the general public.

    The fusion of a sperm and an egg, aka conception, combines genetic material from both parents and produces a unique new life form, ie a human being.

    By five months gestation that human being has developed an unique brain and is capable of feeling pain and autonomous existence - ie the human being is a person.

    As I've previously mentioned, this reality is commonly and spontaneously acknowledged.

    Perhaps it is somewhat irrational, but if so the burden is on you to prove a more rational definition of personhood and get it socially accepted.

  • Michael Hihn||

    @VG:

    The fusion of a sperm and an egg, aka conception, combines genetic material from both parents and produces a unique new life form, ie a human being.

    So you don't know what personhood means. Okay.

    As I've previously mentioned, this reality is commonly and spontaneously acknowledged.

    Well, if you've previously mentioned it then it must be true.

    Perhaps it is somewhat irrational,

    Which is it? Why did you make two opposite and contradictory statements in a single comment.

    but if so the burden is on you to prove a more rational definition

    Already did that. And you even responded! Kinda.

  • Ann N||

    wtf does social acceptance have to do with anything?

    you are saying rule by popularity contest.

  • Michael Hihn||

    @Ann M

    wtf does social acceptance have to do with anything?
    you are saying rule by popularity contest.

    You're being too kind. VG is even more barbaric, claiming that unalienable and/or God-Given Rights are merely a "social construct."

    Who tells Jefferson and the Founders that they were so totally manipulated? (If they ever really existed)

    Perhaps the Constitution itself is yet another myth financed by George Soros?

  • SIV||

    You're digging deeper...

    You are truly one fucking idiot.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    I invite your family for a fun excursion to Catalina. Along the way your screeching infant offends me and I throw it overboard. No big deal because I'm merely evicting a trespasser, right?

  • SIV||

    So you're a racist who believes in infanticide, "Mexicans have a biological affinity for collectivism" and "unborn babies are trespassing in their mother's wombs".

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Reading comprehension - how do it work?

  • Michael Hihn||

    Don't be silly, there is no trespasser.

    The abortion issue includes the woman's unalienable right to Liberty. On what authority do you deny the woman's unalienable rights? You suffer severe denial.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Libertarians commonly defend abortion as a trespass issue.

    So do you think that throwing the baby overboard in my example is a legitimate defense of trespass? If not, why not?

  • Michael Hihn||

    Libertarians commonly defend abortion as a trespass issue.

    Not on this planet.

    So do you think that throwing the baby overboard in my example is a legitimate defense of trespass? If not, why not?

    Already answered. Which part confused you?

  • Azathoth!!||

    I would say that her rights end where those of the person she willingly helped create begin.

    Knowingly engaging in activities that can produce a sentient, yet dependent individual, are a de facto acceptance of the consequences of those actions, in much the way that one who knowingly steps out of an airplane without a parachute accepts the consequences of those actions.

    Intercourse is NOT accidental. This is, thus, not an issue of trespass because the action was sought.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Azathoth,

    I would say that her rights end where those of the person she willingly helped create begin.

    Obviously.

    Knowingly engaging in activities that can produce a sentient, yet dependent individual, are a de facto acceptance of the consequences of those actions,

    Read the Ninth Amendment. Learn what unalienable rights means. Study 200+ years of judicial precedents in the realm of competing and/or conflicting rights. Just for openers.

    in much the way that one who knowingly steps out of an airplane without a parachute accepts the consequences of those actions.

    Terrible analogy. You confuse the consequences of a single person with the equal, unalienable and/or God-given rights of, ummmm, TWO people.

    Intercourse is NOT accidental.

    On what authority do you assert that intercourse allows you to deny unalienable rights?

    This is, thus, not an issue of trespass because the action was sought.

    Trespass is stupid on its own, because it denies the entire concept of unalienable and/or God-given rights in a similar way to your own denial of rights.

    There's not a shred of constitutional backing for your assertions. None at all.

  • Michael Hihn||

    @VG Zaytsev "Right, nothing says non aggression like killing children."

    It's not killing in all cases, unless you deny the woman's unalienable and/or God-give right to Liberty. On what authority?

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Um, I'm not a philosopher or doctor but I'm pretty sure that killing an embryo is always killing something.

    The question is what type of killing it is.

  • Michael Hihn||

    The con man who never stops ticking. Emphasis added for the reading impaired

    @VG Zaytsev "Right, nothing says non aggression like killing children."

    @Michael Hihn "It's not killing in all cases, unless you deny the woman's unalienable and/or God-given right to Liberty. On what authority?"

    @VG Zaytsev "Um, I'm not a philosopher or doctor ....."

    Or a person of integrity ....

    @VG Zaytsev ".... but I'm pretty sure that killing an embryo is always killing something.

    Ummm, your mind games are always so amusing. You continue running away from the question. On what authority do you deny the pregnant woman's unalienable and/or God-given right to Liberty?

    This is not a Rick Santorum rally. Most people here can think.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Zatsev, you may be missing the distinction. It's not anti-libertarian to be pro-life, not necessarily.

    What's anti-libertarian is IF one also denies the woman's unalienable and God-given right to liberty -- which is also anti-American and anti-Christian (to go against the Will of God).

    Typically, the anti-libertarian lies and calls it killing children -- a dishonest argument at best, because they have no authority to deny unalienable and God-given rights. Some of them even deny the Will of God, in God's name!

  • Sevo||

    ..."(to go against the Will of God)."...

    You realize, I hope, that many here are amused at your sky-daddy fantasy, and totally reject ANY appeal based on such fantasy?
    Oh, and did Sandy Claws get you what you wanted last night?

  • Michael Hihn||

    Sevo is kinda dumb. Pay attention, Sluggo.

    I said it was anti-Christian. SEE IT??
    Then I described WHY it is anti-Christian (to go against the Will of God).

    So ... me being an atheist ... tell us how you managed the severe delusion that I had claimed to be a Christian.

    (As a general rule, it's unwise to use sarcasm while making a total public fool of yourself. Just sayin')

  • VG Zaytsev||

    First of all, I'm an atheist.

    Secondly, I realize that an embryo is a unique human being. That is undisputable scientific fact - that is if you accept basic biology and the reality of dna as the building block of life. Which leaves the question of when that life is worth protecting, which is a social construct. To me that point is viability, a conclusion that i reach through reasoning and which I find confirmed by the reality that women who lose a pregnancy at that point mourn their loss and refer to it as losing a baby. Is that last point somewhat irrational? Sure - social norms often are.

  • Michael Hihn||

    First of all, I'm an atheist.

    So what? It's not a social construct. It's a case of conflicting or competing rights. The common examples are that you have no free speech right to yell fire in a crowded theater. Or that your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose.

    In other words, quite a common situation. No rights are absolute, but certain rights are unalienable.

    When these conflicts arise, our judiciary is empowered to resolve them. This means drawing lines, establishing boundaries (like the tip of my nose). That's their responsibility. But they MUST treat each right equally, which is what unalienable means.

    In abortion, the line must best defend BOTH the woman's right to Liberty AND the fetal child's right to Life. Period.

    So it's bat-shit crazy to claim the court has no jurisdiction. The court has SOLE jurisdiction (see Ninth Amendment, which also denies it being a matter for states).

    Currently, constitutional personhood occurs at viability, including by artificial means.

    The reasoning is that the fetal child cannot have an INDEPENDENT right to life until it is viable outside the womb.

    The "argument" that a fetus has rights at conception is true, but meaningless. The mother had rights since HER conception. duh.

    Show me where constitution or legal precedent has acknowledged that fundamental human rights are a mere social construct, which sounds barbaric.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    The "argument" that a fetus has rights at conception is true, but meaningless. The mother had rights since HER conception. duh.

    So my right to property and pursuit of happiness means that I can evict my infant from my home at will - even if doing so means throwing it out of a 10 story window or into a frozen lake.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Why is even an infant-post birth-considered a 'person' anymore than a dog? WTF is so great about babies?

  • Archduke von Pantsfan||

    That's the dumbest thing you've said Cyto.

  • montana mike||

    pretty dumb

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Nah, at least Cyto is being logically consistent.

    He apparently thinks that humans are only worthy of legal protection when they are valuable to the collective and it logically follows that the collective can remove it's protection when the individual is no longer valuable.

  • Michael Hihn||

    So my right to property and pursuit of happiness means that I can evict my infant from my home at will - even if doing so means throwing it out of a 10 story window or into a frozen lake.

    Ummm, are you illiterate? Rejected in what you dishonestly quoted from. It's the part about conflicting equal rights.

    One more time.
    1) You have an unalienable right to the property you mention.
    2) The baby has an unalienable right to life.

    You can't kill the baby. The baby cannot take your property. Which part of THAT confuses you?

    You're asking if you have a "right" to kill the baby after it's born. If you don't want the baby, you should have aborted it. Pre-viability. LOL

    I'm not sure I can dumb everything down to your level ... or put up with your non-stop mind games.

  • Azathoth!!||

    You CAN yell fire in a crowded theater. There is no law against it. In fact, you might even be rewarded--if the theater is on fire....

    The agrument you refer to is not about what one can or can not say--it is about the consequences of what one says.

    As is the question of the woman's liberty.

    If she engages in an action that she knows can produce a dependent sentient, does she have the right to terminate that sentient for any reason other than it becoming a threat to her continued existence?

    SHE engaged in the action. SHE took none of the available precautions*. And she did this all knowingly.

    Further, the sentient has no control over any part of the process, as the sentient does not exist until after the process is complete. Why should it die because SHE was inconvenienced by HER actions?

  • Michael Hihn||

    Azathoth,

    You CAN yell fire in a crowded theater. There is no law against it.

    (sigh) There is no Free Speech right to do so.

    In fact, you might even be rewarded--if the theater is on fire....

    True, but it's not a constitutional right is it?

    The argument you refer to is not about what one can or can not say--it is about the consequences of what one says.

    Un, no. Again, it's an example that no rights are absolute. Just like the other example which you ignore.

    As is the question of the woman's liberty.

    Right. Also not an absolute, just as the fetal child's right to Life is not an absolute.

    If she engages in an action that she knows can produce a dependent sentient, does she have the right to terminate that sentient for any reason other than it becoming a threat to her continued existence?

    Of course, already explained. Learn what "unalienable" means.

    SHE engaged in the action. SHE took none of the available precautions*. And she did this all knowingly.

    yada yada. How does that destroy her unalienable right to Liberty -- which NOBODY ON EARTH has a right to deny?

    Why should it die because SHE was inconvenienced by HER actions?

    Your contempt for unalienable rights is totally devoid of constitutional principles.

    Grasp the moral principles here. Logic would also help.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Secondly, I realize that an embryo is a unique human being. That is undisputable scientific fact - that is if you accept basic biology and the reality of dna as the building block of life.

    You have no meaninful conception of the term 'human being'.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    LOL

    Yep a 'human being' has nothing to do with dna.

    Nope, it's a mystical - religious concept centered on magical vaginas, or something.

  • Michael Hihn||

    VG Zaytsev, still running away from the moral and constitutional issue.

    1) Why do you reject the woman's unalienable and/or God-Given right to Liberty?

    2) How can you dismiss unalienable and/or God-Given Rights as mere "social constructs?"

    3) Is it a "social construct" that forbids your neighbor from blowing your brains out with an AK-47?

    4) Does your moral philosophy trace to the back of a Wheaties box?

  • Michael Hihn||

    VG,

    LOL Yep a 'human being' has nothing to do with dna.

    LOL you never mentioned dna until you were called out. Typical.

  • Ann N||

    I really dont get where you are coming from. On one hand you promote an anarchistic immigration policy and on the other you promote an obviously corrupt party that is diametrically opposed to anarchy. its statist in fact.

    If you support unfettered immigration why do you defend republicans so hard?

    The only logical explanation i can think of is that you love crony capitalism and want minimum wage workers for the corporations.

    fuck the republican party.

  • ||

    anarchistic immigration policy

    Pretty sure the US from 1870 to 1920 was not an anarchy.

  • SIV||

    They kept Chinamen out after '82

  • Contrarian P||

    I missed where any of us (John excepted) spend a great deal of time defending republicans. There are so many things wrong with your above statements that it's difficult to know where to start.

    Advocating for immigration policy that doesn't involve completely arbitrary quotas and hasn't utterly failed to keep millions of people from coming here anyway is not anarchy. You need to look up these words before you use them.

    If that's the only explanation you can think of, that a bunch of libertarians favor crony capitalism, then you're obviously mentally deficient. You seem to just be throwing out the scare words anyway. Corporations! Illegals! Muslims! Anarchy! Boo! Scary, it's so scary!

  • Ann N||

    was directed at cyto, as it was a 'reply'. threading can be difficult to see, but was done correctly.

    cyto has been on the rampage both promoting unfettered immigration (libertarian immigration stance) and vociferously defending the name and honor of the GOP.

    he seems primed to win an award for monocle wearing. who wants unbridled immigration and crony capitalism?

  • Michael Hihn||

    Hihn
    "The GOP's libertarian wing has been dead for decades"

    So Paul and Amash got in there by magic I guess.

    When I said "social conservatism" -- are you really so confused on what libertarianism is? Paul is more statist than Amash (on abortion)

    This is why that 2005 Cato/Zogby poll found the libertarian brand so toxic. And it's getting worse, thanks to people like yourself.

  • Jordan||

    Paul is more statist than Amash (on abortion)

    There is no libertarian position on when personhood begins. Pro-life and pro-choice libertarians are both consistent in their principles.

  • Michael Hihn||

    We have this thing called a ninth amendment. Ever hear of it?
    Pro-life extremists and pro-choice extremists BOTH reject the entire founding principle of Equal, Unalienable and-or God-Given Rights.

    Pro-life extremists (like the Pauls) reject the woman's unalienable right to Liberty. Pro-choice extremists reject the fetal child's unalienable right to Life.

    I'm pro-life myself, but the pro-life extremists seem the wackiest. They reject God-Given Rights ... in the name of God. They keep whining about late-term abortions, which they could have easily banned decades ago -- within Roe/Casey -- but they'd rather play political power games than save babies. Sad.

    The Pauls are among those who shamelessly distort the Tenth Amendment.

    You are correct, there is no libertarian position on unalienable rights. Ummm, that's the problem, rejecting the Constitution and lying about the Tenth Amendment. One major reason that the libertarian brand is so toxic (per 2005 Cato/Zogby poll).

  • Jordan||

    Pro-life extremists (like the Pauls) reject the woman's unalienable right to Liberty. Pro-choice extremists reject the fetal child's unalienable right to Life.

    Umm... this entire post is one giant exercise in question-begging. Everyone look: Michael Hihn has finally solved the age-old philosophical question of when personhood begins. Anyone who disagrees is an extremist.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Jordan is an idiot who lies about what I said. Or is perhaps illiterate. Possibly both.

    Once again for the mentally challenged, all I said was that pro-life extremists deny the woman's unalienable right to Liberty, and pro-choice extremists deny the fetal child's unalienable right to Life.

    1) Where does your mind see anything at all about personhood?

    2) Thomas Jefferson may be an extremist to YOU, when he wrote about unalienable rights endowed by a Creator, but most of us see that as a fundamental founding principle of America.

    3) Do you deny that we all have fundamental rights to Life and Liberty (among other rights. Does your version of fascism recognize any rights? Any at all?

    4) Do you know what "unalienable" means?

    5) How soon until you attend high school?

  • Azathoth!!||

    You don't get Liberty from the consequences of your actions.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Azathoth,

    You don't get Liberty from the consequences of your actions.

    (laughing) You STILL don't know what an unalienable right is. And Liberty is from government, so you don't know what Liberty means either.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    (per 2005 Cato/Zogby poll).

    America 2005 is a helluva lot different than 2013.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Hihn "(per 2005 Cato/Zogby poll)."

    America 2005 is a helluva lot different than 2013.

    Nah. The changes is from 9% for the libertarian brand to 13-15%. The generic libertarians were 59% in 2005, and obviously higher today.

    Do the math and we see little or no change in the LEVEL of toxicity, but still highly toxic as a brand.

    Broadly defined, the general public is now a higher percentage libertarian than the libertarian movement.

  • Sevo||

    ..."They reject God-Given Rights ... in the name of God."...

    I'm an atheist; so do I. Ever heard of the 1st amendment?

  • Michael Hihn||

    You deny the existence of God ... in the name of the same God you deny?

    How does that apply in any way to the 1st Amendment? Any way at all? Ever hear of the Ninth Amendment?

    I'm an atheist myself. I swear to God that I am! (lol)

  • Cytotoxic||

    And it's getting worse, thanks to people like yourself.

    WTF are you talking about?

  • Michael Hihn||

    +HIHN "This is why that 2005 Cato/Zogby poll found the libertarian brand so toxic. And it's getting worse, thanks to people like yourself."


    WTF are you talking about?

    If you don't know what "this" means, then you're beyond help.

  • montana mike||

    It's over your head ann, try again next year

  • VG Zaytsev||

    The generic libertarians who walked away from the GOP aren't coming back for Paul, Amash, Cruz et al

    Yeah and there's no way the can win without that 0.25% of the electorate.

  • ||

    0.25? You are wildly optimistic.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    A brother's gotta dream.

  • Michael Hihn||

    59% of the electorate -- per that same Zogby poll. Meanwhile the extreme social conservatives are 13%. Do the math.

    But thanks for stopping by.

    (Who elected Reagan? Venezuelans?)

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Let me know when a doctrinaire libertarian wins any election anywhere.

    And my comments were a response to OMG Amish isn't a true libertarian.

    Personally, I'd be ecstatic if a majority of elected republicans were simpatico with Amish or Rand Paul

  • Michael Hihn||

    You've confused a doctrinaire libertarian with all libertarians. Strawman fallacy, and rather blatant/

    And my comments were a response to OMG Amish isn't a true libertarian.

    (snicker) That's not what I said.
    And LOL, it's not what you said either!

    So ... NOW you claim that generic libertarians are only 0.25% of the vote .... because you CLAIM I said Amash is not a true libertarian. And you said that in public!

    Personally, I'd be ecstatic if a majority of elected republicans were simpatico with Amish or Rand Paul

    I'm sure you would, but that's not the topic here. Barry Goldwater said the Moral Majority would destroy the GOP, which may have already happened. If not, then a Rand Paul nomination would be the final nail in the coffin.

    And on what authority do you deny unalienable rights to ... anyone at all?

  • VG Zaytsev||

    And on what authority do you deny unalienable rights to ... anyone at all?


    I don't.

    Barry Goldwater said the Moral Majority would destroy the GOP, which may have already happened.

    The GOP is in a stronger position than they have been at any point in time after 1930 - so that a weird kind of destruction.

    And I don't give a shit about the GOP other than as a vehicle to enact liberty friendly policies.

    But reality is what it is and the GOP is stronger as a national political party than it has been in eighty+ years and it will make substantial gains next year too.

  • Michael Hihn||

    +Hihn "And on what authority do you deny unalienable rights to ... anyone at all?"

    "I don't."

    You just told us that you'd like to see a majority of elected Republicans who would deny a pregnant woman's unalienable right to Liberty. I'm quite pleased to see your reversal on that.

    And I don't give a shit about the GOP other than as a vehicle to enact liberty friendly policies.

    Except on social issues, where you also don't give a shit, or on unalienable rights where you also don't give a shit.

    Back in the 70s, when we still had REAL libertarians, we knew to always be pro-liberty and never anti-gubmint. In sales it's called "sell the sizzle, not the steak." It ain't rocket science.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    You just told us that you'd like to see a majority of elected Republicans who would deny a pregnant woman's unalienable right to Liberty. I'm quite pleased to see your reversal on that.

    No i did not.

    I said that logically personhood arrives with brain development concurrent with viability.

    I did not propose any laws to enforce that belief.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Again, watch the con man in action. Emphasis added for the morally impaired.

    VG: Personally, I'd be ecstatic if a majority of elected republicans were simpatico with Amish or Rand Paul

    ...@ Mike Hihn "I'm sure you would, but that's not the topic here. ... And on what authority do you deny unalienable rights to ... anyone at all?"

    VG I don't

    ...@ Mike Hihn "You just told us that you'd like to see a majority of elected Republicans who would deny a pregnant woman's unalienable right to Liberty. I'm quite pleased to see your reversal on that."

    VG No i did not.

    (LOL) Your words are still here!

    VG I said that logically personhood arrives with brain development concurrent with viability.
    I did not propose any laws to enforce that belief.

    (sigh) That's not what you were asked about. Is your handicap in reading, morality or thinking? All three?

    Again, on what authority do you deny the Unalienable and/or God-Given Rights of a pregnant woman? And why do you REPEATEDLY evade the CORE moral and constitutional issue?

    Do you STILL insist that fundamental human rights are a social construct?

    Disclaimer: if you ever stop running away from those, you can tell us when the Ninth Amendment was repealed. Was it repealed by a public opinion poll? (lol)

  • Cytotoxic||

    If not, then a Rand Paul nomination would be the final nail in the coffin.

    ...this is like Mary-level craziness.

  • Michael Hihn||

    ...this is like Mary-level craziness.

    And he'd also bring down the libertarian movement. The majority of Americans are fiscally conservative and socially liberal/tolerant. Do the math.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Here is a nice Cato article on how the Texas GOP is evolving away from nativist influence. If the nativists can't hold the Texas GOP, they can't hold anything.

    http://www.cato.org/publicatio.....ion-policy

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    If this were a 2 hour movie, I'd watch it. No plot, just the three of them driving around looking for weed.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Isn't that already a movie?

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Get-Off-My-Lawn-ism takes no holidays.

  • Sevo||

    Ignoring what GOPers ain't going to do, we have the bullshit that WILL NOT DIE:
    "Cell-phones' link to health problems debated"
    [...]
    "I was observing you on your cell phone," Bocook told a woman after she wrapped up a lengthy call on a recent morning. "I used a cell phone and I got a brain tumor."
    He forgot he drank water, too.
    http://www.sfgate.com/health/a.....php#page-1

  • Sevo||

    Oh, and it looks like CA decided that the fed rules on sign-up deadline can be ignored:

    "Friday will be the end of the grace period to get health insurance starting Jan. 1 for consumers who were frustrated in their attempts to sign up by Monday's deadline,"...

    And the exchange works SOOO well, that:
    ..."We will take their word, on an honor code," he said. "If they made a good-faith effort and cannot prove they went on online, we will help them case by case."...

    How well, you ask?:
    ..."Covered California this week said the number of people signing up for policies through the health insurance exchange had soared past 400,000."...
    Yes, 1/10 the number of the people who got tossed OFF their policies have managed to sign up. That leaved 3,600,000 to get back to where we were.
    Wanna bet there's another extension?

  • Sevo||

  • Ted S.||

    To be fair, why shouldn't states that have their own exchanges be able to set their own deadlines? Federalism and all that shit.

  • Sevo||

    Ted S.|12.25.13 @ 8:59PM|#
    "To be fair, why shouldn't states that have their own exchanges be able to set their own deadlines? Federalism and all that shit."

    I agree, but as I understand it, the exchange MUST operate by the fed rules. Except it seem when someone decides otherwise.

  • sarcasmic||

    Thanks to the ice storm my internet has been out for a couple days.

    Merry Fucking Christmas...

  • SIV||

    Serves you right for living in some Yankee shithole...in the winter.

  • montana mike||

    merry fucking ice storm, lol

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Guess who invited atheists to join bleevers in working for peace?

    http://my.chicago.tribune.com/.....-20131224/

  • SIV||

    The Pope should know better than to trust those guys with their crazy made-up religion.

  • Cytotoxic||

    No he invited atheists not protestants. Not that I want to work with either set of idiots.

  • On The Road To Mandalay||

    Things aren't really going to change much when the next President of the U.S. is installed in 2017. It will be more of the same b s. Call it whatever you want, but it is still b s. What the DemoCRAZIES failed to do to trash the country, the RePOOPlicans will take care of. You can count on it. You can depend on it all the way.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Are you, like, 15?

  • Sevo||

    An embarrassment to 15-year old kids the world over!

  • montana mike||

    16

  • Cassanov||

    shut up, troll

  • VicRattlehead||

    Idiot, they're (D's and R's) the same political orientation known as Statists. Libertarians are those working to end statism and federal dominance because it has been such a miserable failure of a system.
    Statists are those working to control more for the sake of control and lust for power and dominance over all aspects of life.
    these are the only two things you should concern yourself with when looking at the liars in DC, and if you wish to live freely, vote accordingly.
    you're also free to continue life as a mindless slave as well.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Ecumenical News:

    http://bit.ly/19gEo4J

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    A better link to my atheist story above.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Christmas message from Edward Snowden:

    http://vimeo.com/82666985

  • cavalier973||

    Merry Christmas, Eduard!

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    FSM bless us, every one!

    Seriously, though, Happy Christmas* to all, and to all a good night!

    * 11 more days left!

  • cavalier973||

  • cavalier973||

    Fr Reynolds told the US National Catholic Reporter (NCR) website he believed the excommunication also resulted from his support for the gay community. He told NCR that in the last two years, he has attended rallies in Melbourne advocating same-sex marriage and has officiated at mass weddings of gay couples on the steps of Parliament, “all unofficial of course.”

    "Unofficial"? Dude, you're a priest, a servant of the Holy God; you are the one that MAKES marriages official, not some bureaucrat.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    He advocated this, then after losing priestly faculties he continued to celebrate Mass, which is enough in itself for excommunication. Icing on the cake is that, at one his illicit masses, he presided over a literal violation of Matt. 7:6. But we haven't heard from him lately, so he may have taken this season to get into a better attitude. So God Bless Us Every One!

  • Kevin47||

    On social issues, I think the Duck Dynasty flap presents to the GOP an opportunity.

    In 2012, suburban Evangelicals (especially women, by my anecdotal experience) stayed home. Romney's faith was a problem, but his complete unwillingness to speak about social issues was as well.

    Now, we are talking about social issues again, but in the context of left-wing grievance org insisting people talk a certain way. For good measure, there are gay power groups suing florists, photographers, bakers and the like for reasons that are transparently vindictive and petulant.

    GOP candidates can forthrightly claim they will stand between the gay power groups and essential liberty. This message will appeal to the small government Republicans, Libertarians and moderates who support gay marriage, but only because they think people should be left the hell alone.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Good point on gays, but Robertson lied about the Bible, Palin lied that Robertson was quoting the Bible. And the absolute wackiest of all:

    GOP candidates can forthrightly claim they will stand between the gay power groups and essential liberty

    By denying A&Es; essential liberty?

    In this instance, how did "gay power groups" violate anyone's liberty?

    Are you clueless on the Ninth Amendment?

    Are you Rick Santorum posting under an alias?

  • Kevin47||

    On social issues, I think the Duck Dynasty flap presents to the GOP an opportunity.

    In 2012, suburban Evangelicals (especially women, by my anecdotal experience) stayed home. Romney's faith was a problem, but his complete unwillingness to speak about social issues was as well.

    Now, we are talking about social issues again, but in the context of left-wing grievance org insisting people talk a certain way. For good measure, there are gay power groups suing florists, photographers, bakers and the like for reasons that are transparently vindictive and petulant.

    GOP candidates can forthrightly claim they will stand between the gay power groups and essential liberty. This message will appeal to the small government Republicans, Libertarians and moderates who support gay marriage, but only because they think people should be left the hell alone.

  • Kevin47||

    On social issues, I think the Duck Dynasty flap presents to the GOP an opportunity.

    In 2012, suburban Evangelicals (especially women, by my anecdotal experience) stayed home. Romney's faith was a problem, but his complete unwillingness to speak about social issues was as well.

    Now, we are talking about social issues again, but in the context of left-wing grievance org insisting people talk a certain way. For good measure, there are gay power groups suing florists, photographers, bakers and the like for reasons that are transparently vindictive and petulant.

    GOP candidates can forthrightly claim they will stand between the gay power groups and essential liberty. This message will appeal to the small government Republicans, Libertarians and moderates who support gay marriage, but only because they think people should be left the hell alone.

  • Sevo||

    What was that, Kevin?
    Seriously, "This message will appeal to the small government Republicans, Libertarians and moderates who support gay marriage, but only because they think people should be left the hell alone."
    I'm not sure about that. Entirely too many people think the duck guy was "censored", including some folks here. That bit of nuance is not gonna work in either talking points or sound bites; whoever makes that claim is gonna get tweeted to death in a half an hour ("GOP hates gays!")

  • Kevin47||

    Not sure what happened with the triple post.

    People do think Duck guy was censored, and so it's on the Democratic challenger to nuance that issue.

    A million proggy types screaming about how the GOP hates teh gayz is a feature, not a bug...

    *very gingerly hits submit*

  • Sevo||

    "A million proggy types screaming about how the GOP hates teh gayz is a feature, not a bug..."

    OK, but the near-proggies are gonna get suckered by the 'hates the gays!' lie, too.
    I just can't see it as an arrow in the quiver.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Kevin47,

    People do think Duck guy was censored,

    Their total stupidity is their own problem.

    A million proggy types screaming about how the GOP hates the gayz is a feature, not a bug...

    A million conservative troglodytes who are too freaking stupid to know what "censorship" means is a feature not a bug ....

  • VG Zaytsev||

    He was censored in exactly the way that leftards complain about being censored.

    Which, you are correct, is not technically true. But so the fuck what.

    Electoral politics isn't a legal seminar - a point that libertarians continually fail to recognize to their detriment.

  • Michael Hihn||

    VG,

    Electoral politics isn't a legal seminar - a point that libertarians continually fail to recognize to their detriment.

    AHHH! So that is why you claim that fundamental human rights are merely a "social construct"

    Is that also your excuse for denying a pregnant woman's unalienable right to Liberty? As guaranteed by the Ninth Amendment you never heard of?

    Might it also be why you say personhood occurs sometime BETWEEN conception and viability .... and AT viability ... all on the same page?

  • Archduke von Pantsfan||

    SHE’S lived through both World Wars, just got her first tattoo, and loves a bacon sandwich. Oh, and she’s 103 years old. Hilda Kottman is answering your questions, and it’s priceless.

  • ||

    Q: What is the one thing all young men should know about women?

    A: Don't be afraid of a woman who knows how to drink, play cards, eat, and show you her zest for life. She will take you a lot further than some skinnie minnie with no personality. You'll have great things to say to each other and great stories to tell when you're old.

    That is awesome. I really hope this isn't a prank.

  • Archduke von Pantsfan||

    Happy Boxing Day Folks.
    I shall spend my holiday watching World Jr Hockey and EPL.

  • ||

  • Archduke von Pantsfan||

    A whole potato? are you mad?

  • ||

    What can I say? My generosity is only surpassed by my capriciousness.

  • Archduke von Pantsfan||

    Almost 80 years before Monty Python's Ernest Scribbler created the funniest joke in the world, farmer Wesley Parsons had a deadly gag all of his own. He was joking with friends in Laurel, Indiana, in 1893, when he was seized by fits of uncontainable laughter, and couldn't stop. He laughed for nearly an hour, when he began hiccupping. Two hours later he died from exhaustion.

  • Archduke von Pantsfan||

    There are two types of people: Those who like Leo Marvin and those who like Bob Wiley.

  • dinkster||

    Pro gay, immigration, and marijuana? What would Rick Santorum have left to run on?

  • Michael Hihn||

    What would Rick Santorum have left to run on?

    Separation of church and state which, when mentioned by President Kennedy, made Rick Sanitorium feel like puking?

  • dinkster||

    Pro gay, immigration, and marijuana? What would Rick Santorum have left to run on?

  • VicRattlehead||

    So in short, republicans just have to become principled Libertarians in order for them to survive? why not let the GOP beast die and bleed out and vote Libertarian anyways, why help these ancient mystics clinging to their dead doctrines, sweep the floor of this waste and start coming together in support of true Liberty oriented ideals.

  • Thomas O.||

    Probably because the current political machine in place severely enforces the eledonkey duopoly, both in finance and peer pressure. I don't see any major sugar daddies abandoning either of the two parties. And of course if you threaten to vote non-eledonkey, you get THROWAWAY VOTEZ!!!! PARTY SPLITZ!!! and the like.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Because regaining control of the GOP is the shortest route to governance. Not that so many "principled" libertarians ever gave a shit about actually governing.

  • VicRattlehead||

    I agree turning the GOP libertarian would be the fastest route, however i dont think the GOP can be changed until the dusty RINOs like King, Boehner, and Mccain die out, theres too much money invested on helping the dems win and collapsing the GOP by these fuckers. personally i view it as Statist Vs. Libertarian ideals not (R) vs(D) i'm willing to support any man who shows hes honest in pursuing a free society (not a freer society I mean absolutely fucking liberated)which the GOP hasn't been able to conjure up so im sticking to principals and saving my vote for people who represent my ideas

  • Mickey Rat||

    "The Republican Party establishment’s desire to appeal to authoritarian-minded social conservatives (as if they would vote for Democrats otherwise?) instead of maintaining consistency on states’ rights and federalism represents a lost opportunity for the party to have appeared forward-thinking and principled."

    Odd, there's nothing in this article that states what the GOP actually did on this issue was not principled or against state's rights, as if letting the state's actually decide on this issue is not the "bigoted" position on it in December 2013.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Mickey Rat,

    States don't have rights. They have powers, delegated by people. People have rights, enshrined in the Ninth Amendment, superior to state power.

    Where are states empowered to violate unalienable rights? How can rights be "unalienable" but vary from one state to another? Can they vary from county to county? City to city?

    We cannot delegate powers we do not possess (duh), so it's impossible to delegate a power to violate anyone's inherent human rights ... impossible at any level of government.

    Who explains all this to people like Ron and Rand Paul, Ted Cruz and all the others who lie about the Tenth Amendment ... as a lame excuse to impose their own values by force of law?

  • W. Manly Firmness||

    I was surprised the author did not mention the biggie: cutting corporate welfare. It attracts the center, where they desperately need support, and also the free-market types in the more-libertarian wing and/or in the Tea Party and Ron Paul crowds, where again they desperately need support. (Conceded, the prospects for that don't look good this month.)
    Also, some mileage might be gained by calling for better defense in terms of efficiency, streamlining, cutting waste, better protections for women, gays, minorities etc. in military, more focus on U.S. borders than others, that sort of thing.

  • Rach||

    1. Like it or not the Republican party has social conservatives as part of its platform, Gay marriage is not on their list to legalize. Now as a Libertarian calling for government approval of my chosen partner seems silly. I think the correct call is to remove all marriage related taxes, benefits, and penalties out of our federal tax code. Then this becomes moot, as there is not unfair treatment based on sexual preference.

    2. I am a supporter of legal immigration; that said the amnesty programs don't cut it. We think this policy affects only farm or construction labor, it does not, companies have been pushing this for high end tech workers to avoid hiring domestic workers. We are largely to blame on both ends, we devalue tradesmen at the menial end and refuse when we go to college to get the hard mathematics or scientific degrees.

    3. I have no issues with this, other than to say it is a symbolic issue for libertarians; I think the criminalization is s symptom of the greater problem of state control of our lives. I would think as government shrinks this will happen naturally.

    4. Copyright (IMHO) is a civil property issue and has no need to be criminalized (DMCA). Reform is needed, and take law enforcement out of it.

  • Rach||

    So in my opinion, rather than focus on wedge issues (leftist mind traps) the Republicans need to make the case for smaller government, less intrusion in everyday lives. Psst... There is a civil war going on in the GOP, one side wants to shrink government we have missed many opportunities to support that movement.

  • Miley||

    my best friend's half-sister got paid $13253 a week ago. she is making money on the computer and moved in a $315200 house. All she did was get blessed and apply the information explained on this web page

    WWW.JUMP26.COM

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement