Demon Rum and Other Excuses

The year's highlights in blame shifting

We've all been there, perhaps as recently as last night. You have a few drinks, and the next thing you know, you're smoking crack.

What? You've consumed alcohol on many occasions, but you've never smoked crack? As it turns out, you're not alone. Survey data indicate that 82 percent of Americans have consumed alcohol, but only 3 percent have tried crack; another 11 percent have consumed cocaine in powder form.

So why did Toronto Mayor Rob Ford think he was helping his case when he confessed in November that he "probably" smoked crack "in one of my drunken stupors"? Rep. Trey Radel (R-Fla.) seemed to have a similar idea after he was busted for cocaine possession a couple of weeks later. "I struggle with the disease of alcoholism," he said, "and this led to an extremely irresponsible choice."

By blaming their occasional cocaine use on their habitual drunkenness, Ford and Radel won a 2013 Bouncing Buck, my award for memorable attempts to deflect responsibility. Here are the other winners:

Mythical Magazines. Last January, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo rammed new gun controls through the state legislature so fast there was no time to read the bill, let alone debate it. Two months later, he admitted the seven-round magazines mandated by the law did not exist but insisted haste had nothing to do with that embarrassing mistake, which he dismissed as a mere "inconsistency" requiring a "technical correction." Anyway, he said, the fix was simple: allow 10-round magazines but tell people not to put more than seven rounds in them.

Plan Obsolescence. Last fall, when millions of Americans began receiving notices that their health insurance had been canceled as a result of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act's mandates, despite President Obama's oft-repeated promise that they could keep their current coverage, White House adviser Valerie Jarrett insisted on Twitter that "nothing in #Obamacare forces people out of their health plans." The president himself blamed the cancellations on "bad-apple insurers."

Lying About Spying. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told a Senate committee in March that the National Security Agency (NSA) does not "collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans." A few months later, after former NSA contractor Edward Snowden revealed that the agency routinely collects every American's phone records, Clapper variously portrayed his answer as an accurate statement, an honest mistake, and a noble lie. That last explanation was an implicit rebuke to Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) for asking about the NSA's snooping at a public hearing, thereby forcing poor Clapper to give the "least untruthful" answer he could.

Shortening Shortage. In a speech last August, Attorney General Eric Holder decried "draconian mandatory minimum sentences," implying that thousands of people in federal prison do not belong there. But that is at least partly the fault of Holder's boss, who has been stingier with commutations than any other president in recent history. Obama himself referred to "thousands of inmates" serving excessively long terms in federal prison when he announced eight commutations last month, raising his grand total to nine. He passed the buck to Congress, even though he had just demonstrated that he need not wait for new legislation to free federal prisoners whose sentences he deems unjust.

Chemical Reactions. In a report issued last June, the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) sounded the alarm about synthetic, quasi-legal drugs such as "spice," "bath salts," and "meow-meow," saying "the international drug control system is floundering" due to "the speed and creativity" of underground chemists. It warned that the new, ever-changing compounds, which are always a step ahead of the latest law, "have not been tested for safety" and "can be far more dangerous than traditional drugs." Those safer, "traditional" drugs would be the ones that governments have arbitrarily chosen to ban, thereby driving consumers to more hazardous substitutes. Not surprisingly, the UNODC blamed creative chemists rather than heedless prohibitionists.

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.

  • ||

    Again, the 7 round magazine mandate is a deliberately calculated attempt to criminalize as many people as possible. It was no mistake.

  • Count Negroni||

    I wonder if we would see a "constructive possession" case like "well, he must have lost count and put more than 7 in it at least once."

  • Agammamon||

    It'll be like DUI .08 per se law - if you're magazine *can* hold more than 7 rounds the law will be written to assume that you *have* put more than 7 in.

  • nancy3998||

    This is certainly the nicest-job I have ever done..I earn up to 500$ per week. Im using an online business opportunity I heard about and I've made such great money. It feels so good making so much money when other people have to work for so much less. I work through this link, www.Buzz95.com

  • ||

    The adults that I knew as a child, while still human and fallible, held honorable behavior up as something to aspire to. People talked about it and you saw it on television all the time. I know a few individuals like that now, but most seem unaware or downright contemptuous of it.
    I rarely hear anyone say " A man is only as good as his word " anymore.

    Last year, while driving from Natchitoches to Alexandria, I ran out of gas. I stopped at a little Exxon station at Chopin and discovered I had forgotten my wallet. I explained to the clerk my predicament and asked if we could work something out. The guy told me to get 5 bucks worth and not to worry about it. I got my 5 bucks worth and drove home. I got my wallet, filled my tank locally, then drove the 20 minutes back to Chopin. I paid the guy his 5 bucks back and offered to buy his lunch. He was stunned, and from his slightly odd reaction I think he was suspicious that I had some kind of ulterior motive. He told the other employees and they all came out to marvel in disbelief. Fuck. That is depressing.

    Now we have a pure Shitweasel who is the nation's role model, and political advisors who write books on how to win people over with lies.

    Maybe I will just build a bunker, stay drunk and throw rocks at anyone who tries to get near.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Now we have a pure Shitweasel who is the nation's role model, and political advisors who write books on how to win people over with lies.

    Maybe I will just build a bunker, stay drunk and throw rocks at anyone who tries to get near.

    It's fucking super depressing that generally smart, thoughtful people demand that we put our faith in these fuckers and the rigged ass system they impose on us. More and more I daydream of moving to Nowhere with the explicit purpose of completely ignoring any and all entities that I wouldn't otherwise voluntarily interact with.

  • GILMORE||

    "Maybe I will just build a bunker, stay drunk and throw rocks at anyone who tries to get near."

    Hey, Neighbor!

  • db||

    Hear, hear!

    It seems like ethical and honorable behavior is no longer the norm. When you have a government dominated by leaders constantly trying to find clever arguments to wriggle out of the constraints the law places on them, rather than accepting them, it sets an example for society.

    How strange that the American people disapprove so strongly of our governing leaders and yet continue to vote for them.

  • 2BlueFrogs||

    Its almost like they are brainwashed, one minute they are telling you they hate chocolate, the next they are eating it like there was no tomorrow.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Now we have a pure Shitweasel who is the nation's role model, and political advisors who write books on how to win people over with lies.

    Well, to be fair, I don't think it ever makes sense to make a politician a role model.

  • 2BlueFrogs||

    True, but, ideally they should be role models. We still get angry with young celebrities that do really stupid things and complain they should be better role models. Maybe we need to start thinking the same way about politicians.

  • BSubversive.com||

    Yes some people suck. Yes politicians are lying sacks of feces. However, the guy gave you the gas. That's a bright spot.

    I've run out of gas a couple of times on my sportster with a 3.5 gallon tank and a not very reliable idiot light to remind me that it's low. I've been helped by nice people each time. It sucks being an idiot and not getting gas at the 100 mile mark but it is nice to encounter decent humans and restore some optimism.

    As long as there are good men and women still around evil hasn't triumphed, so no reason for the bunker yet.

  • Knarf Yenrab (prev. An0nB0t)||

    I know a few individuals like that now, but most seem unaware or downright contemptuous of it.

    I've thought about that same thing but came to the conclusion that it's an issue of self selection. Most of us are libertarians because we grew up in families that held values like forthrightness and fulfilling voluntary obligations to be the best social character a person could have. That's a personal trait rather than a political one.

    It turns out these values aren't common in people who achieve power and never have been--it's not like anyone with a brain ever thought most CEOs were men of good faith, nor Woodrow Wilson or LBJ. That's particularly true in politics, where dissembling and manipulating the gullible is the only way to win office.

    So maybe we're lucky to have learned the values of voluntaryism and individualism at all.

  • ||

    I blame Warty

  • mad libertarian guy||

    We're trying to avoid the obvious here, IFH. Can we at least try and engage in mental masturbation without being smacked by reality?

  • ||

    But my New Year's resolution is to be a better buzz kill

  • ||

    Oh c'mon, have a vodka. The sun is almost up.

  • ||

    well it is 2 January here, so it is time to abandon all New Year's resolutions... aw, fuck it

  • Ted S.||

    So you're in Vic or Tasmania? Or have you finally gone to the dark side and gone to New Zealand?

  • ||

    Sydney, dude, Sydney

  • Stick||

    I moved from the festering bed sore that is known as Sydney 3 years ago. I now live up Mudgee way and have many acres all to myself. Happy, happy, joy, joy.

  • mad libertarian guy||

  • Aloysious||

    I am, man, I am.

  • ||

    Makes me sleepy. Russian Folk Doom. Hmmm....I'm not sure I can say that with a straight face.

  • Bastiat's Burning Rage||

    Listen to Shape of Despair. They're pretty epic

  • Ted S.||

    I presume we're not getting any morning or afternoon links today?

  • ||

    The Reason staff oppose the government mandating holidays, but they are also lazy pricks and will take any excuse they can get.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    HAPPY NEW YEAR, EVERYONE!!!

    What do you mean not so loud? This is a joyful occasion, we should shout at the top of our lungs, and bang cymbals!

  • Count Negroni||

    It's New Years Day, and I neither watched the sun come up on the way home, not have a hangover. Winning.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    This is a joyful occasion, we should shout at the top of our lungs, and bang cymbals!

    Looking forward to another year of being increasingly repressed! Huzzah!

  • BigT||

    I blame Bush for being so blame-worthy.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    I blame Bush

    Without GWB, there would be no President Obama. Blame away.

  • optimusratiostultum||

    ofc then we woulda had Gore

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Whoever lobotomized that woman should get some sort of prize.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I blame the American people.

    So many of us don't seem to care about our rights.

  • Idaho Bob||

    Yeah this.

  • Almanian!||

    I'm with Suthenboy and mad lib - just working to stay the fuck off the radar and to be left alone.

    As others have noted, I blame Bush.

    Also, fried chicken

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Best man for the job; what other explanation could there be?

    Here’s how the China-Montana-Louisiana connection could work:

    Senator Baucus had already announced that he would retire next year, but moving up that calendar by several months could enormously help the Democrat who is seeking to take his place, Montana Lt. Gov. John Walsh.

    Under state law, Montana’s Democratic Gov. Steve Bullock can appoint Mr. Walsh to fill the vacancy left by Baucus’s early departure. That could give Walsh a big leg up in a state that Mr. Obama lost to Mitt Romney by 13 points. Even a few months sitting in Baucus's chair would raise his profile back home and in Washington. As an incumbent, he would already have a Senate staff, be making headlines, and tapping into the fundraising vats in Washington.

    The early departure of Baucus to Beijing would also help Senator Landrieu land a powerful Senate committee chairmanship that’s of central concern to her state. When Baucus leaves the chairmanship of the Senate Finance Committee, he’s likely to be replaced by Sen. Ron Wyden (D) of Oregon. That would create a vacancy in the chairmanship of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, with Landrieu next in line.

    These are the people who have nothing but your best interests in mind.
    Everything they do is based on making America a better place.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    It is this sort of thing that makes a newcomer to this website wonder if some people are the usual Republican friendly 'libertarians' who inevitably migrate to libertarian groups during a Democrat administration. I can understand why a Republican would be interested and upset in this story, but why in the world would a libertarian care about it? Democrat leaves office 'early' to take administration post and is replaced by Democrat Governor with another statewide office holding Democrat, speculation that it is all a plot to give said Democrat appointee some advantage against his eventual Republican opponent. So what?

  • ||

    Yeah! Libertarians should obviously have no interest in national politics or in observing the shady and duplicitous nature thereof. Besides, BUSH DID IT TOO! And when's the last time you ever saw a libertarian criticize the machinations of Republican national politics, huh?

    That about cover it, or had reddit put out any new copypasta?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    First of all, forgive me for not finding these 'machinations' to be rather unexciting. People leave Senate seats for administration posts commonly, and the sitting Governor usually appoints someone of either their or the leaving Senator's party. And the supposed 'machinations' are overwrought: these kind of appointees do not gain some massive advantage (they often lose the seat). If the Dems were capable of such a far ahead planned plot they would just inform these supposed 'Washington vats of cash' that the Lt. Gov is going to be the candidate before his appointment.

    But again, it is silly because, who cares whether a R or a D wins the seat in MT? Why would we think either would be any better than the other. I can see why Republican stalwarts would feel 'oh no, look at this evil Democrat plot,' but libertarians? Meh.

  • PapayaSF||

    One need not be a Republican to want to see the Democrats lose the Senate. Anything that neuters Obama is a step forward for liberty.

  • robc||

    Good point. Bo is engaging in binary thinking. Clearly he doesnt see that the Ds need to lose members if the LP is going to have a plurality in the Senate.

    Got to knock the Ds and Rs down to at least 33.

    And it may help the Ls get a plurality if the Ds lose a seat to the Rs even. Of vice versa, as the case may be.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    What is perhaps more interesting is that I myself have said many times here that I want to see the Democrats lose the Senate in 14.

    But that does not mean that I am going to get worked up about some actually fairly common and pedestrian 'machinations' that supposedly are going to give a run of the mill Democrat Lt. Gov. candidate in MT some slight advantage, especially if the GOP challenger is hardly some defender of liberty.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    The only person that I saw getting worked up was you.

    If you find it uninteresting - like a comment about deep dish pizza or football - then why comment?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I find it interesting that something so uninteresting is of such interest to Brooks, but then conservatives have been upset about this for a few days.

  • ||

    First of all, forgive me for not finding these 'machinations' to be rather unexciting.

    Good for you. Fuck off and don't read about it then. You're the one who decided to make in into an issue, calling out a guy who's been posting here since before you were in LSAT prep courses for being a johnny-come-lately Republican shill because he failed to chastise Team Red in equal measure with Team Blue.

    People leave Senate seats for administration posts commonly

    Yeah, and they often time it opportunistically to give their party the best advantage in securing the seat they are vacating. The Blago affair wasn't really ground-shaking news either; it's politics as usual. But it's still shady.

    who cares whether a R or a D wins the seat in MT?

    Probably nobody besides you, ironically enough. Brooks' only comment in addition to the story snippet from the CS Monitor was:

    These are the people who have nothing but your best interests in mind.
    Everything they do is based on making America a better place.

    Pretty sure his point was that politicians are shady fucks who are solely interested in self and party. That you somehow managed to translate those two sentences into advocating for Team Red in the race for a senate seat in MT says a lot more about you than it does about anybody else.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Very well said.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    The Blago affair actually helps my point: Blago's pick actually guarantee the seat in question changed hands to Kirk (R). The 'advantages' are far-fetched, it is a common practice. Only Team Red enthusiasts are getting worked up about this supposed 'advantage' in MT.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Good observation, child. You're such a good boy.

  • ||

    Only Team Red enthusiasts are getting worked up about this supposed 'advantage' in MT.

    You're actually the only one, here at Reason anyway, getting worked up about it. Which was kinda my point. But way to restate exactly the same thing you said when you started this digression while ignoring the parts you didn't want to hear.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    But again, it is silly because, who cares whether a R or a D wins the seat in MT?

    A republican win incrementally advances the prospect of an end to Obamacare

    So I care.

  • robc||

    There aint a clone of Amash or Paul in the Democratic party as far as I can tell.

    I hypothetical GOP candidate from MT might be though.

    Or not, in which case it might not matter.

  • robc||

    Or put another way, when reason starts running articles entitled "Can the Libertarian Democrat and the Non-Libertarian Democrat Be Friends?" you might have a point.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Two people? Are we supposed to change our 'general ballot' choice over two politicians out of hundreds?

    You guys are not even trying at this point.

  • robc||

    I left out the guy from KY-4 because I cant think of his name right now.

    That is 50% of Senators from my state and 16% of the Reps.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I think you actually have some grasp of how poor this argument is (well, there is this third guy!) with your post directly infra (well, that is 3 more than the D's!).

    That you are willing with a straight face to argue we should dump our 'pox on both their houses' attitude because, hey, 3 guys!, is just sad.

  • robc||

    Ummm...no, Im most definately a pox on both houses kind of guy.

    Except when the house runs the right kind of guy, which they do in my state fairly regularly (starting just recently).

    Ive voted LP over and over again until Paul ran in 2010. I did vote for McConnell exactly once to reward him for switching positions on flag burning. But that was mid-90s. I never voted for the Queen of Pork when she was my congressman.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    "fairly regularly (starting just recently"

    Pretty funny wording there.

  • robc||

    Ummm...no.

    Its been fairly regularly since 2010. I fail to see anything at all wrong with that wording.

    Prior to 2010, it wasnt so good.

  • MSimon||

    The guy from KY? Do I need to protect my posterior with armor?

  • robc||

    Its 3 more than the Ds have.

  • Atanarjuat||

    Those are two of the libertarians. There are also Republicans who are good on some issues, like gun rights, but couldn't be called libertarian.

    I'm as socially liberal as one comes, but am registered as a Republican so I can vote for guys like Paul or whoever is least statist in the primary. I haven't seen evidence of a "least statist" Democrat in recent elections that I have voted in.

  • robc||

    I was a registered D from 1987 to 2007. I switched it to R when I moved in 2007 in anticipation of voting for Ron Paul in the 2008 primary.

    Which I did (and in 2012). It also enabled me to vote for Rand in the 2010 primary against the McConnell crony. Ive kept it around for future similar use.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    There is absolutely nothing wrong with registering as whatever you have to in order to support Paul (either Rand of his father before him).

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Why, I never would have known what to do with myself were it not for your approval, Bo! Thank goodness you're around to reaffirm my decision making processes!

    Dude. Go eat a bag of dicks.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Do you consider this right, BCE? Not legal, right? If so, why?

    I mean, I see you spouting off time and again about Republicans "playing the libertarian". But, honestly, I don't think I've ever seen you take a position that would be any different from the position you'd take if you were a run-of-the-mill Team Blue cheerleader. And right now, as far as I'm concerned, your pronouncements on who is and isn't a real libertarian carry about as much weight as Shreek's insistence that he's a classical liberal.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Actually, I think the most appropriate thing for a sitting governor who has to appoint a replacement in the Senate to do is appoint someone of the same party as the person leaving, as that is seemingly what the voters asked for.

    "I don't think I've ever seen you take a position that would be any different from the position you'd take if you were a run-of-the-mill Team Blue cheerleader"

    Please. My oft stated opposition to the ACA, minimum wage laws, government running things like public parks or research, etc., are surely what the run of the mill Team Blue cheerleader would say.

    You are projecting.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    In other words, you have no problem with it whatsoever.

    "You are projecting."

    No, BCE, I've never made any pretense that I'm not a libertarian Republican.

    And yet, you never seem to show up on any of the threads discussing Obamacare, minimum wages, or the size of government.

    I guess we'll just have to take your word for it that these are your "oft stated" positions.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    "I've never made any pretense that I'm not a libertarian Republican."

    It is pretty transparent.

    As to my often expressed criticisms about the minimum wage, I did so on that on a thread here not two days ago, and if you google my handle and Reason Hit and Run ACA you will see several threads where I denounce it as the greatest threat to liberty going today.

    That sound like a 'Democrat cheerleader' to you?

  • Bill Dalasio||

    And yet, below, you announce your support for one of the ACA's co-authors and cosponsor of a bill to raise and index the minimum wage.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Probably the two most important libertarian positions of mine are areas where Rand Paul and I disagree.

    And yet that has not stopped me from pushing Paul to the point where some here criticized me for irrationally being skeptical of Ted Cruz because he would undercut Paul's run.

    Wyden is bad on some things, in my opinion. You should add to your list his horrible record on 2nd Amendment rights, which actually would be the hardest thing for me to accept.

    Having said that, when a politician bucks their own party line in a way friendly to liberty, as Paul does regularly and as Wyden has done on free trade, taxes, drones, NSA spying and others, that wins them a fair amount of points in my eyes.

    My ideal scenario for liberty's sake in 2016 would be Paul v. Wyden (I would vote for Paul).

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    No one cares about your positions. Shut the fuck up child-troll.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    It is hilarious to see someone take the time to post 'no one cares what you say!' on a discussion board.

    I thought you had me filtered anyway? You used to wander onto discussions with me and loudly proclaim to everyone 'I filtered Bo! I did it!'

    What happened?

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Children must play. See how fucking annoying it is, CHILD?

  • Bill Dalasio||

    +1

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    "+1"?

    No 'circlej*rk' here.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Ahh, does wittwle Bo haz a sad?

    Poor little boy. Just try a little harder and maybe you can get some of the big boys to pay attention to you.

  • MSimon||

    Discipline.

  • robc||

    He is Blue-Tulpa.

    Tulpa accuses us of not supporting the GOP enough, Bo accuses us of doing it too much.

    Im still waiting for Bo to point out the Paul or Amash clone amongst elected Ds.

    Or a graph on the interaction with libertarian democrats with other segments of the D party.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Yes, robc, your expressed sympathy with social conservatives, which can reach some pretty hilarious heights (such as your evasive descent into mental gymnastics in that recent gay marriage debate with me and, of all people, Neoliberal Kochtopus), play no role in your projecting bias onto me. None at all.

  • robc||

    There you go lying again.

    I have never expressed sympathy for socons.

    Well, the people yes, but not positions.

    And there was no mental gymnastics. The state should stay out of marriage. End of story. Just like it should stay out of education.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Answer his question, BCE. Who are the Paul or Amash clones among the Democrats?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    You said explicitly that you were in sympathy with their lifestyle positions.

    As to the gymnastics, it was a wonder to behold. You said you opposed gay marriage because you did not want to see a government benefit expanded by adding gays. When you were challenged by several of us if that meant you would have opposed allowing previously excluded minorities into public schools you started doing flips that would have made John Kerry quite impressed.

  • ||

    Public school was always historically offered universally (and even compulsorily), so it's not a great comparison. If everybody between the ages of 5 and 18 was required to enter into a marriage, but the marriages for blacks, say, offered no spousal immunity and fewer tax deductions, you'd be closer to an analogy. Stick to the "you would have opposed interracial marriage!" script - it works a lot better.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    No, blacks were excluded from white schools for a long time. Their schools were less funded, maintained and staffed.

    What we asked robc was, if you oppose recognition of gay marriage because it would mean in increase in government, would you have opposed desegregation because it would do the same.

    The gymnastics that ensued were so hilarious and blatant that even my long time stalker NeoLiberal Kochtopus had to join me in throwing up our hands in wonderment at robc's evasive and inconsistent justifications.

  • ||

    No, blacks were excluded from white schools for a long time. Their schools were less funded, maintained and staffed.

    Right, they were excluded from white schools; schools were still offered to them, and even compulsory. The quality of education was inferior, which gets to the analogy I drew of mandating universal marriage, but offering different benefits to different races. It's not a good analogue for marriage, because marriage is uniquely discriminatory by design and by intention and by definition. Integrating the public schools didn't extend a legal status or benefit to people who previously didn't have it - it just changed the configuration and quality of a benefit that was already, on paper at least, universal.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    They were segregated to less funded schools. By integrating them into the better funded schools it increased the overall government expenditure, the same thing robc pointed to as the basis of his opposition to recognition of gay marriages.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    What we asked robc was, if you oppose recognition of gay marriage because it would mean in increase in government, would you have opposed desegregation because it would do the same.

    Yes and it has.

    The myth embedded in you question is that segregation was a purely social phenomenon that arose in the South. When in reality it was the result of affirmative laws and government policies.

    Eliminating those laws would have ended segregation in short order. Desegregation by more laws led to a lot of hard feelings on both sides with more resulting problems than would have happened by simply ending segregation.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    VG, we were not talking about busing or the like, just admitting black to the higher funded white schools.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Now your moving the goal posts.

    In any case, the proper course would have been removing any legal barriers to qualified black applicants being admitted to those white schools. Given their application additional weight based solely on their race is in fact racist, caused harm to them and was done solely to benefit the institutions doing so.

    Additionally, it plays into the delusion that attending certain universities is the most important thing that a person can do. Not getting an actual education or what one does with their life. It's a sick mandarin mentality that has infected the US in the last 30 years and caused repeated and accelerating problems.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Do not confuse you not knowing what I was talking about the entire time as me moving the goal posts. I have been talking about Brown v. Board the entire time, you seem to be wandering into some discussion of affirmative action for colleges.

  • MSimon||

    Well, the people yes, but not positions.

    Tits up (C cup or better), legs spread, slot weeping.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    "Im still waiting for Bo to point out the Paul or Amash clone amongst elected Ds."

    He won't. There are none.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    My answer was that it would be exceedingly silly to form a political generalization about a party of hundreds or thousands of elected officials based on two people.

    The Democrats and Republicans are generally statists. There are some tiny glimmers of hope in the GOP, but then again on some issues it is Democrats doing the 'heavy lifting' on many issues we care about (Wyden and Udall on national security state impingements on civil liberties for example). If we must choose between a D and an R, and thankfully we often do not, we have to match up the particular D and R in any given race and vote accordingly. I would take Ron Wyden over Christ Christie or Jeff Sessions any day, for example.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    "I would take Ron Wyden over Christ Christie or Jeff Sessions any day, for example."

    So, you'd vote for the guy who voted for and helped author ACA, is a cosponsor of a bill to raise and index the minimum wage, and supported Stimulus I and II. But, opposition to those things is your "oft stated" position.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    If he was running against Chris 'the National Security State is not Big Enough' Christie or Jeff 'King Nativist' Sessions?

    Yes. You have to choose the lesser of evils sometimes.

    Even Rand Paul, whom I have been accused of unreasonably favoring here, has positions that are contrary to some of my stated positions (immigration and abortion, for example).

  • Bill Dalasio||

    But when it comes to some supporting Republicans, you attack them for not living up to "a curse on both their houses". Nope, no Team Blue Cheerleader here. Move along people. Nothing to see.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I attack them for generally favoring the GOP, you can not see the difference between that and my approach?

    Let us say there were an accepted libertarian 'voters guide.' There probably could not be one because libertarians can disagree over issues like abortion which can mean to a libertarian a great deal to both sides of that issue, and even if we could agree on every issue different issues would weight differently (is a candidate who wants to restrict freedom of movement re: immigration worse than one who wants to restrict freedom of contract re: minimum wage laws?).

    But let us say we could have such a guide. It would be silly in my opinion to just declare the GOP to be generally and better every contest based on the fact that two or three GOP officials score unusually high on the criteria. Much more sensible would be to apply the criteria to all candidates in each specific contest.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Look at me, look at me. Did I mention I made it into law school? I'm a big boy now. See how many posts I make?

    Mommy, mommy, look at how many posts I made. I'm mommy's little man, and I'm important.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Wow, you really are acting deranged.

    First, when you disagreed with me you would launch into fits of cursing vitriol. Then you declared you were filtering me, but that was not enough, you proceeded to follow me around from thread to thread sadly declaring 'I have filtered Bo!' Now it seems you have not filtered me, but are following my every comment, responding with these puerile comments.

    Sad.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Yes, Bo-Bo, it is sad when one person thinks he needs to commandeer a thread. Your inane ramblings constitute 20% of this entire thread. Feel important?

    You fucking child.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Pointing out that the Democrats are using a sleazy political trick in MT isn't "generally favoring the GOP".

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    The practice is so commonplace, and would garner such a slight (if any) 'advantage' that only a paranoid partisan who was always worried about the 'dirty tricks' of the other side would find it noteworthy.

  • ||

    I attack them for generally favoring the GOP, you can not see the difference between that and my approach?

    The only difference is in your perception, where any support for Republican politicians friendly to libertarian ideas is interpreted as blanket support for the Republican party and a slight against Team Blue. Which deeply offends you, even though you totally hate Team Blue just as much as Team Red. It's Republican shills all the way down, buddy. You're the last true independent voice.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    "where any support for Republican politicians friendly to libertarian ideas is interpreted as blanket support for the Republican party and a slight against Team Blue"

    Wrong, because I certainly do not see support for someone like Ron or Rand Paul in that vein. It is when people favor the Republican Party as a general matter that I see trouble.

    "It's Republican shills all the way down, buddy."

    I think most posters here do not favor the Republican party. But there is a vocal minority who do, that is increasingly obvious. And anyone who has been a libertarian for more than a few years know that is very commonplace. Republican rhetoric, if not actions, often appropriates libertarian rhetoric, and especially during a Democrat administration many Republican well wishers will style themselves as libertarians and/or hang out at libertarian sites (after all, you can hate the government in general now because the wrong team is in charge, and that is what makes government bad for people on either team). So the fact that several people might be against me on this is hardly surprising or illustrative of much.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    LOOK AT ME! When I grow up, I'm going to be a lawyer.

  • ||

    I think most posters here do not favor the Republican party. But there is a vocal minority who do, that is increasingly obvious.

    Right, like the guy who you responded to when you started this entire bout of projectile keyboard diarrhea who has been posting here for ages. We need a Reason Un-Libertarian Activities committee to sniff these guys out.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    "who has been posting here for ages"

    This is the kind of self-referential 'circlej*rking' that passes for robust debate that Ms. Postrel was lamenting I think.

  • ||

    What "debate"? That part isn't a debate or a question. It's a relevant fact solely because you accused him of being a Team Red shill who only drifts over to Reason when Team Blue is at the wheel. Way to toss out the ad hominem when you stick your foot in your mouth though. I see you're picking up all the fine lawyerin' skills.

    "When you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. When you have the law on your side, pound the law. When you have neither on your side, pound the table"

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I can only judge Brooks, or anyone, based on what I see them do or present. Remember, Brooks criticized me as a water-carrier for the Democrat Party far before I ever suggested anything like that of him. That seemed ironic given what I see as his near exclusion of comments critical of the GOP.

    To argue 'Brooks is a long timer who acted differently before your time' is kind of exactly what it means to replace self-reference (at the board level) for substantive debate.

  • ||

    Brooks criticized me as a water-carrier for the Democrat Party far before I ever suggested anything like that of him.

    Unless you're referencing a different thread, no, he didn't. You touched off this entire conversion with this post in response to Brooks reposting the CS Monitor article about the Baucus appointment and senate seat.

    To argue 'Brooks is a long timer who acted differently before your time' is kind of exactly what it means to replace self-reference (at the board level) for substantive debate.

    That's not what occurred here. You made this accusation:

    It is this sort of thing that makes a newcomer to this website wonder if some people are the usual Republican friendly 'libertarians' who inevitably migrate to libertarian groups during a Democrat administration.

    Based on a reblogged post that you took as a slight to Team Blue. In point of fact, Brooks has been participating in discussions here at Reason since before the current Democrat administration, and if you have some reason to question his libertarian bona fides, maybe you should have just come out and said so instead of making a passive aggressive inference because he linked to a story that you perceived as an assault on a political party that you ostensibly don't support and don't care about.

  • ||

    Apparently I forgot to close a tag - here's a duplicate with proper formatting for clarity:

    Brooks criticized me as a water-carrier for the Democrat Party far before I ever suggested anything like that of him.

    Unless you're referencing a different thread, no, he didn't. You touched off this entire conversion with this post in response to Brooks reposting the CS Monitor article about the Baucus appointment and senate seat.

    To argue 'Brooks is a long timer who acted differently before your time' is kind of exactly what it means to replace self-reference (at the board level) for substantive debate.

    That's not what occurred here. You made this accusation:

    It is this sort of thing that makes a newcomer to this website wonder if some people are the usual Republican friendly 'libertarians' who inevitably migrate to libertarian groups during a Democrat administration.

    Based on a reblogged post that you took as a slight to Team Blue. In point of fact, Brooks has been participating in discussions here at Reason since before the current Democrat administration, and if you have some reason to question his libertarian bona fides, maybe you should have just come out and said so instead of making a passive aggressive inference because he linked to a story that you perceived as an assault on a political party that you ostensibly don't support and don't care about.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    "you took as a slight to Team Blue"

    No, I took it as a strange focus on and concern that some 'machinations' of the Democrat Party were going to hurt the Republican candidate.

    " In point of fact, Brooks has been participating in discussions here at Reason since before the current Democrat administration"

    So what?

    "maybe you should have just come out and said so"

    I did.

  • ||

    I would just like to state for the record, as someone who reads FAR more than he posts, and who has no love whatsoever for the GOP, that I wish Bo would just shut the fuck up entirely.

    You're ruining the comments section. It's more entertaining, more informative, and more constructive when Tony and Shreek are getting hammered down for their own idiotic blather than it is to read you mentally masturbating your way through a wall of text. I honestly don't give a fuck what you think about ANYTHING, because every single thread you're in is 100+ wasted posts of you trying to be smug and argue idiotic semantics, and it is just horrible, tedious, pointless blather.

    Until you have something relevant to say, SHUT THE FUCK UP.

  • ||

  • ||

  • ||

    Or you can always blame Canada

  • ||

    This might be an especially good day to blame it on alcohol

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Why would you? They're not even a real country anyway!

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Sydney, dude, Sydney

    Did you row your little boat out into the harbor for the bridge fireworks?

  • ||

    Nah - I used to live right on the harbour very close to the bridge, so I'm a bit over it all now. How did you celebrate?

  • The Late P Brooks||

    NYT concerntrolls Colorado

    Questions still abound. Will drug traffickers take marijuana across state lines, to sell elsewhere? Will recreational marijuana flow from the hands of legal adult consumers to teenagers? Will taxes from pot sales match optimistic predictions of a windfall for state budgets? What will happen to the black market for marijuana?

    Skeptical federal authorities are also paying attention. Although marijuana remains illegal under federal law, the Justice Department has given a tentative approval for Colorado and Washington to move ahead with regulating marijuana. But it warned that federal officials could intervene if the state regulations failed to keep the drug away from children, drug cartels or federal property, and out of other states.

    "Tentative approval" as in "We'll wait until they get up and running. No point in busting anybody until they have something worth stealing."

  • ||

    Will drug traffickers take marijuana across state lines, to sell elsewhere? Will recreational marijuana flow from the hands of legal adult consumers to teenagers? Will taxes from pot sales match optimistic predictions of a windfall for state budgets? What will happen to the black market for marijuana?

    Will a cloud of pot smoke subsume metropolitan Denver? Will the San Andreas fault mega-thrust California into the sea? Will polar shift throw the earth's orbit spiraling into the sun?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    "Questions still abound."

    You mean like, will thousands of Coloradans be able to enjoy a relatively harmless diversion without fear of the police using force on them to deprive them of their liberty, property and/or livelihoods?

    No, not those questions of course.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Gitcher hot fresh messiah here!

    In Mr. de Blasio, a wily, image-conscious strategist who had lagged far behind in polls just weeks before the Democratic primary, advocates on the left see a unique aligning of the stars: a champion of their values who is also a shrewd and cunning practitioner, stepping into office at a time when the national debate over inequality and social justice has reached a fever pitch.

    His administration could be a redemptive moment for a national left whose policies were often blamed for the crumbling of urban centers in the 1960s and 1970s, yet has now started to reassert itself in smaller jurisdictions with bold new approaches on issues like income equality and poverty.

    Wily, cunning, shrewd; those traits will stand him in good stead when he needs to deflect blame as the city crumbles around him.

  • ||

    ...yet has now started to reassert itself in smaller jurisdictions with bold new approaches on issues like income equality and poverty.

    Left unmentioned is that many of those jurisdictions, like Detroit, are smaller because of those very policies that turned them into rust belt wastelands from which people couldn't scramble away fast enough.

  • PapayaSF||

    By "bold new approaches" they mean "the latest version of the same old socialist bullshit."

    No doubt social justice will take a big leap forward when de Blasio throws 200 people out of work when he kills the Central Park carriage industry.

  • BigT||

    "...throws 200 people out of work when he kills the Central Park carriage industry."

    Someone will have to kill and cut up those old nags and make sausage. And dozens of battery-making jobs will be created when the toy cars break down. Not to mention the overtime the pigs will get chasing illegal horses. A mini stimulus!

  • C. Anacreon||

    Is he actually planning on doing something to the Central Park carraiges? I remember taking a fairly romantic ride on one 20 years or so ago and getting a good night in the sack as a reward.

  • PapayaSF||

    Sadly, yes. He campaigned on it and beat his opponent in the primary who wanted to keep them. The argument is that the horses are mistreated, but it's mostly b.s. And the horses will probably end up slaughtered.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    How did you celebrate?

    I was in bed by nine.

    Alone, alas.

    *sniffs, tries to hide quivering lower lip*

  • ||

    Alone, alas.

    At least you haven't had to ask for explicit permission to advance to the next level of intimacy.

  • RishJoMo||

    Sometimes man you jsut have to roll with it.

    www.BeinAnon.tk

  • The Late P Brooks||

    why in the world would a libertarian care about it?

    You bore me.

    I realize this is a wasted effort on my part, but...
    I despise "Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing" TEAM vs TEAM politics. I despise both TEAMS. All these people want is personal power, in order to deprive me of my freedom.

    The grand panjandrums of the Democratic party have put their sly, cunning heads together and devised a scheme by which they believe they will retain control of the Senate. It's all about power.

    As for your concerntrolling about "what if some innocent wide-eyed little acolyte wanders in and sees this?"- why don't you take your concerns over to the Bleeding heart Libertarian circlejerk? I think you'll fit right in.

  • robc||

    Bleeding heart Libertarian

    Every time I try to read something there I get about 1 paragraph in and discover that I know all the words, but they make no sense in the order then are put together.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    "The grand panjandrums of the Democratic party have put their sly, cunning heads together and devised a scheme by which they believe they will retain control of the Senate."

    As I have said supra, these are pretty commonplace and paltry machinations as 'schemes' go. Easy to see why a Team Red alarm raiser would, well, raise alarm, but anyone else?

    "your concerntrolling about "what if some innocent wide-eyed little acolyte wanders in and sees this?"- "

    You misunderstand, I was not expressing concern about someone coming in and thinking that, I was pointing to this as an example of a phenomena that would be recognized as such easily by any outsider to the board. It is just increasingly so transparent.

    "Bleeding heart Libertarian circlejerk"

    Say what you will about BHL, but they strike me as more like the libertarians writing for Reason, working at Cato, and at my LP party meetings. What I wonder is, why do not you and your ilk stay on Lew Rockwell's plantation (or, perhaps, something like National Review Online)?

  • robc||

    I cant stay somewhere Ive never been.

    BHL is unreadable. If that is a typical LP party meeting, Im glad I dont go.

    I cant put up with the illogic.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    It is pretty nuanced, I grant you. They try to take very seriously the argument of non-libertarians and then civilly try to show why they are in error. I can see why many here would find it 'not their thing.' But I think BHL is trying to sway some non-libertarians rather than provide what one poster here described as the purpose of providing a sort of 'supportive environment' for libertarians who have to face a hostile media climate outside of this site.

  • robc||

    The problem isnt trying to sway non-libertarians, its their acceptance of non-libertarian things.

    And nanny-state "liberty" crap.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    hypothetical GOP candidate from MT might be though.

    Unfortunately, the not-at-all hypothetical Republican candidate is Congressman Daines, who could conceivably have beaten Tester last time around, if he had devoted a little less of his time to sucking Janet Napolitano's enormous throbbing cock on "border security" and various other pet Total Security State projects.

  • robc||

    So it falls into the "doesnt really matter" category. Will the LP have someone on the ballot?

  • Cdr Lytton||

    Shhhh!!! You'll summon Tulpa and his "it's all the Montana libertarians fault that we've had a Democratic Senate for the past two years" argument.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Just what we need. Tulpa and Bo on the same thread.

    Of course, if we could lure them both together, they could fight each other all day over meaningless trivia, allowing the rest of us to slip off to another thread.

    It might just work.

  • robc||

    Its happened before.

  • SForza||

    Bolpa!

  • robc||

    I assume MT hasnt had their primary yet.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    So, robc, not an Amash or Paul.

    Color me stunned!

  • robc||

    see my post 15 minutes before yours.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Yes, let us all move to Kentucky where the Libertarian-Republican wave is cresting!

    That would be a fair basis for generalizations about the two parties!

  • robc||

    Sounds like a sound strategy to me.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Living in Kentucky is anything but easy ;)

  • The Late P Brooks||

    the usual Republican friendly 'libertarians' who inevitably migrate to libertarian groups during a Democrat administration.

    Waaaaaaah!

    You should have been here when I was a traitorous IslamoCommie TerrorSymp AmericaHater.

  • robc||

    So now Bo is getting his talking points from joe?

    Is he going to accuse us all of being racists and huff away?

  • Swiss Servator, Pikes Forward!||

    By God I hope so!

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Will the LP have someone on the ballot?

    I assume so. Last time around, I read a weepy little article by some Montana Republican Party bigwig about how those damn libertarians had stolen the election from Daines and handed it to Tester on a silver platter. I thought maybe Tulpa had moved to Helena.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Rehberg, not Daines.

  • Almanian!||

    Always good to have The Botard come and shit all over a thread.

    Happy New Year, Botard!

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Yes, let no one dispute the relevance and importance of a current favorite Republican talking point about a Democrat governor (gasp!) appointing a Democrat to replace another one, perhaps, potentially, maybe, giving him some slight advantage (that he would have had already were this part of any well planned 'scheme') to libertarians! To do so would only be 'sh*tting all over a thread'.

    And someone else was complaining about BHL being a 'circlej*rk?'

  • Swiss Servator, Pikes Forward!||

    If the rest of you would simply not get sucked into the even horizon of concern trolling, we could restabilize the thread universe.

  • Swiss Servator, Pikes Forward!||

    *event*

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Perhaps you could define 'concern trolling' in a way that my comments here fall into it? It seems some people here use it to mean 'someone posting comments that make me angry!'

  • The Late P Brooks||

    why do not you and your ilk stay on Lew Rockwell's plantation (or, perhaps, something like National Review Online)?

    "I and my ilk"? What was it Twain said about not going out of your way to prove you're an idiot?

    But I got a good laugh out of that, so thanks.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Thanks, Francisco.

    That was nagging me, but I have worked so hard to forget Rehberg ever even existed...

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    But again, it is silly because, who cares whether a R or a D wins the seat in MT?

    I have no problem saying this...

    If given a straight up choice, between a Republican and a Democrat, knowing nothing else about the individual, AND I had to choose one or the other, I'd choose the Republican EVERY FUCKING TIME.

    Why? Simple. When it comes to issues, your average Republican agrees with the libertarian position MORE than the average Democrat does.

    It has NOTHING to do with carrying Republican water. It has EVERYTHING to do with progressives/Democrats being the lowest pieces of shit to infest this planet. It's like asking who do you prefer, a Republican or a Nazi?

    That said, I DON'T vote for the Republican in such situations because there IS another choice. I vote for the libertarian or I write one in if none are running.

    Quit being such an obtuse fuck, Bo.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    This has to be read to be appreciated.

    I am regularly accused of carrying Democrat water because I do not instantly accept the Republican alternative as generally better, but people who proudly proclaim they will support a Republican EVERY time get no hassle for carrying Republican water.

    Can you guys who do that not see how transparently bad that would seem to anyone who was not part of your 'clique' here?

  • db||

    I agree that to the uninitiated, who don't understand that libertarians really loathe both parties, but have more points of superficial agreement with Republicans, that it may seem that way.

    The difference, is one of principles versus superficial agreement. The Republicans often claim to support policies that are superficially consistent with libertarian principles, while the Democrats support policies (probably superficially as well) that are explicitly antilibertarian. In practice, both parties support only what will gain them votes and keep them in power. However, the implementation of Republican policies often coincides with what libertarians would like to see as a result of their own principles in action.

    For instance, I generally prefer to have Republican governments in my home state, since they are less likely to try to impose gun control on me, which is an important issue for me. Other libertarians who value drug freedom more than gun freedom may prefer generally to live with Democratic leaders.

    At the core, libertarians really want something substantially different from what the two parties offer. Francisco above stated that while he prefers the Republicans to the Democrats based on their tendency to agree more with libertarian positions, still votes for libertarians. I do the same, even though I dislike stating publicly that I like Republicans at all, it is the case that I get better outcomes on issues that matter to me when they hold office.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I can agree with what you say here, very thoughtfully expressed. I would only add to it that many libertarians, like myself, live in deeply 'Red' states and may put more valence on issues like abortion or immigration where the GOP does not even adopt the rhetoric of the LP, and therefore the faults of Team Red are a bit more glaring than they may be for some here.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Except I've read The Late P Brooks, and Francisco D'Anconia and PM for some time here. I KNOW they don't carry water for the GOP. You show up a couple of months ago and appoint yourself Grand Inquisitor of the One True Libertarian Faith. And yet your One True Libertarian Faith never seems to have much pushback against Team Blue.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    "never seems to have much pushback against Team Blue."

    I do all the time, but may I suggest that as a self identified 'libertarian Republican' such as yourself might overlook that and focus on the ones that criticize your Team?

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Oh, yeah, BCE, you totally oppose all their statist goals.

    But you'll vote for them anyway. As you said yourself.

    And you'll condemn any libertarians who support the GOP as insufficiently holding to "a curse on both their houses".

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    "But you'll vote for them anyway. As you said yourself."

    I have never said that. Why not produce any, I mean, any evidence of me saying that?

  • Bill Dalasio||

    BCE, you state above that, even though he is anti-2nd Amendment, cosponsored a bill to raise and index the minimum wage, voted for Stimulus I and II, and authored part of Obamacare, you'd vote for Ron Wyden.

    You really are a disingenuous fuck, aren't you.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Why did you not cut and paste my comment?

    Could it be that what I actually said was this: "I would take Ron Wyden over Chris Christie or Jeff Sessions any day, for example."

  • Bill Dalasio||

    And by the way, if you think insufficient pushback is the core of my criticism against you, you've got a lot to learn.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    You have explicitly said you are a 'libertarian Republican,' so there is not mystery about the core of your criticism for me. Or John's, or EvH's or Restoras, or some of the others who have outed themselves as conservatives or Republicans.

    What is interesting is that those who rail against me and yet call themselves libertarians sound so much like you guys who are out in the open as conservatives.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Okay, let me see if I can make this clear to you. It's obvious you're not bright enough to take a hint. The core of my criticism of you is that you act like a dick. There's plenty of people on these threads who established their libertarian bona fides while you were, as PM suggested, still taking your LSAT prep class. And you presume to come in and deign who's a true libertarian and who's just a shill? Well, you presume too much. The fact is that you've consistently carried water for Team Blue. You consistently make excuses for them while attacking the GOP. Moreover, you don't really contribute much to the conversations. All you do is pick apart others' arguments, usually on details irrelevant to the core of what they're saying.
    And you seem awfully fond of the quotes around libertarian Republican. I guess according to BCE, the self-appointed Grand Inquisitor of the One True Libertarian Faith, Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Gary Johnson (until last year), or Justin Amash don't really qualify as true libertarians because they're members of the Republican party.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    "The core of my criticism of you is that you act like a dick."

    Would any newcomer look at Francisco's posts to me and mine here and conclude that it is I you need to be whining about being a d*ck? Come off it.

    "The fact is that you've consistently carried water for Team Blue."

    Come off it, you have admitted your bias, which explains why you think it is I that am biased.

    "And you presume to come in and deign who's a true libertarian and who's just a shill?"

    It is almost like you do not grasp that people like Brooks criticized me for supposedly carrying water for the Democrats far before I ever questioned him.

    "Moreover, you don't really contribute much to the conversations. "

    Bill, you are just throwing anything at the wall and hoping something sticks at this point.

  • ||

    The core of my criticism of you is that you act like a dick.

    That's pretty hilarious, considering how many people here turn into Shriek whenever he posts something.

  • 904cc||

    It didn't start that way, so I don't find anything hilarious about it.

    He got treated respectfully when he started posting here, and only after shitting the place up, did people tire of him.

  • ||

    I am regularly accused of carrying Democrat water because I do not instantly accept the Republican alternative as generally better,

    You're accused of carrying Democrat water because, just as you have in this thread, you consistently invent Republican hobgoblins hiding around every corner of the libertarian movement and display Daily Kos levels of butthurt whenever a slight to a Democrat is offered up without a corresponding slight to a Republican. Tulpa does the same in reverse (as does John), and is roundly criticized for it as well.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    If given a straight up choice, between a Republican and a Democrat, knowing nothing else about the individual, AND I had to choose one or the other, I'd choose the Republican EVERY FUCKING TIME.

    Why? Simple. When it comes to issues, your average Republican agrees with the libertarian position MORE than the average Democrat does.

    The other reason is that republicans are held to account by the press while the democrats are given a complete pass by the press whenever possible.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    No Bo, you are readily accused of being a cunt.

    I realize your child-like mind cannot grasp that there were qualifiers in my statement. Please let me repeat them, as your infantile synapses appear to have overlooked them:

    If given a straight up choice, between a Republican and a Democrat, knowing nothing else about the individual, AND I had to choose one or the other

    Now fuck off and die in fire...child!

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Can you guys who do that not see how transparently bad that would seem to anyone who was not part of your 'clique' here?

    Oh, no! Does this mean those persons over at Jezebel might mock us?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    It is one thing to miss my understanding the first time, but a second time, and after I have explained it?

    I am not pointing it out to say 'what will people think' but to buttress my conclusion that the leanings and double standards therefrom are rather obvious to anyone outside of the 'circlej*erk' I am criticizing.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    I'm in law school.

  • OneOut||

    As a relative new comer here I appreciate your concern.

    It is very touching.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I have explained more than once, and in the very comment you are responding to here, that it has nothing to do with such a concern.

    And I am accused of trolling.

    Sheesh.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    It is pretty nuanced, I grant you.

    It comes as no surprise to me you would confuse "incoherent" with "nuanced".

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    As of this posting, 127 comments, 28 of which have come from our attention starved, man-child, Lawyer in training. (Not one of which are worth reading)

    1 in 5.

    Look at MEEEEEEEEEEEE!

    Child.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    And I count 15 from you. And I am disagreeing with four persons. And most of them are just sad, stalking comments appended to my comments in discussion with someone else.

    Now who is trying to get attention there?

  • Swiss Servator, Pikes Forward!||

    Stop responding to him. I weary of threads being blown apart by Blue Tulpa and those that try to engage - IT DOESN'T WORK. When you respond to the concern troll, you are giving that person exactly what they want.

    Starve the beast.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Here's an assignment for you, Bo:

    Since this is not in any way a Machiavellian scheme to advantage Democrats in not one, but two, Senate races, I'm certain you will have no difficulty explaining in detail the qualifications which make Max Baucus uniquely suited to be Ambassador to China. So much so as to necessitate his early retirement from the high office entrusted to him by the voters of the state of Montana. After all, the President is carrying out the duties of his office to the best of his ability, right?

    Right?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I make no defense of Baucus, who is one of the worst Senators in the US Senate. And I do not think he would be the best candidate for ambassadorship to China from any objectively derived list.

    But this looks more like a reward for Baucus than part of some political machinations. It is not uncommon for an administration to reward a retiring pol (sometimes not even retiring, see Kerry, John) with a big ambassadorship job in return for years of slavish service to the party above all else. I bet this is all that is happening.

    The MT Lt. Governor is already a statewide elected official. His appointment to fill Baucus' seat gains him little in theory (if this were part of some grand scheme the Democrats would have already approached 'Washington donors' to support him, appointment or not, it is not as if in the current Senate he is going to cast the deciding vote on any passing legislation either), and little as a matter of history (where appointees often lose in the upcoming election).

  • db||

    I think the Ambassadorship-as-reward is usually done for politicians or big donors/organizers, but is usually limited to unimportant or uncontroversial countries. See, for instance, Ambassador Rooney (D, Pittsburgh Steelers)as our representative to Ireland, or Caroline Kennedy in Japan.

    Giving China to Baucus is different, since China is a particularly important country to the U.S., and has the potential to cause massive controversy.

  • OneOut||

    It is just an attempt to get a very pro Obamacare Democrat out of the line of fire in fear that a race against an anti Obamacare Republican might throw the seat to the Rs.

    A fresh face Democrat might not attract as much "he supported Obamacare" fire.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I think that is a good explanation for why Baucus is leaving and they are going with the Lt. Gov, but it does not seem to explain his 'advance appointment' since you would want him to be able to run as a 'true outsider.'

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    I apologize to the good people here for garbaging up the thread, but I figured I couldn't hurt it any. (And he still keeps talking.)

    Cheers.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    16

    And all focused on me, not the topics we are discussing.

    Sad.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Nonsense, Francisco. Your comments added much more to the discussion than BCE's. At least yours added a bit of levity.

  • C. Anacreon||

    I apologize to the good people here for garbaging up the thread

    Thanks. This one's starting to get like one of those old mile-long weekend threads with Mary before registration.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    But this looks more like a reward for Baucus than part of some political machinations.

    I'm sure it does.

    To you.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Look, rancor (unwanted on my part) between us aside Brooks, is it uncommon for administrations to reward years of slavish service to the party with ambassadorships and diplomatic posts? Of course it is.

    Now, if you take that and factor in my arguments about how little advantage is possible as a theoretical or historical matter, then it is hard to see this as some 'grand Democrat plot', unless you are just predisposed to see such.

  • ||

    Look, rancor (unwanted on my part) between us aside Brooks...

    Lol. Yes, no rancor intended. You wanted to call him a faux-libertarian Team Red shill who only discovers his mistrust for government when a Democrat is president, but still remain great friends.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Yes, no previous history before that!

  • BigT||

    It's a payoff to get him to leave early. So, YES, it's machinations. Did we really have to waste a thread on this?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I do not see it as a payoff but the common practice of rewarding a hack for years of slavish service.

  • db||

    Palestinian Diplomat Dead in Prague after Triggering Explosive Device in His Own Safe

    Czech police say the device may have been set up to destroy sensitive documents on tampering with the safe, but have not ruled out the possibility that the Palestinian Embassy may have been storing explosives for other reasons.

  • PapayaSF||

    Starting the New Year off with some good news.

    Are there really safes made with self-destruct mechanisms? If so, I don't think they blow up in a way that would kill anyone opening them. So, either a booby trap or "storing explosives for other reasons."

  • db||

    Maybe it had a self-destruct mechanism and some yahoo had stored a hand grenade or two in the safe. It was reported that the safe had been moved from the Embassy's office building to the diplomat's house.

  • playa manhattan||

    Generally, they burn. No detonation.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    This is what gets me about this dynamic.

    All of this began because I decided to post more about Team Red NAP violations than Team Blue (this was actually done as part of a conversation about how I enjoyed the regular posts about some Team Blue factions, and wondered if someone were doing the same for Team Red factions, and was told no, but 'run with it'). From that, a small, vocal group here got very agitated about it. Some, like Restoras, actually stumbled into admitting they were all for social conservatives restricting very basic liberties at the local and state level. Others, like robc admitted they were sympathetic to social conservatives, or identified as Bill Deblasio or John as 'libertarian Republicans' or just 'Republicans' respectively. Some, like Cytotoxic or EvH are rather well known themselves for taking rather extreme Team Red positions. Pretty much all of them I have never seen take anyone to task for focusing too much on Team Blue.

    Now, you would think to any outside observer this would indicate their bias, not mine. But no, it becomes evidence of my bias. And no amount of my criticisms of this administration, progressives in general, Democrat politicians or left wing policy positions on my part help (indeed, they seem to go absolutely unnoticed, even when they happen on the same thread at times!) undercuts that for this group.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    or identified as Bill Deblasio or John as 'libertarian Republicans' or just 'Republicans' respectively.


    I don't think Bill Deblasio ever identified as a libertarian Republican.

    Dumbass.
  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Hard to understand what part of this is supposed to be your comment and which mine, but as to your expression of your leanings, I can reproduce your own comments from this thread:

    Bill Dalasio|1.1.14 @ 12:04PM|#

    No, BCE, I've never made any pretense that I'm not a libertarian Republican.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Did you bother to note the name on that post? It's Bill Dalasio, D-A-L-A-S-I-O. It's NOT Bill DeBlasio, you half-wit. Learn how to fucking read. It's a skill that might come in handy as a lawyer. If you're going to be hear accusing people of being Team Red shills, you might want to be bothered getting their names right.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Wow, are you losing it over me misspelling your name? I guess if I had self-identified as a 'libertarian Republican' while trying to call out someone else's leanings I would try to change the subject to a pedantic one, too.

  • 904cc||

    "Wow, are you losing it over me misspelling your name?"

    Doesn't look like that at all, looks more like he's pointing out that you're intellectually lazy, so much so that you can't even be bothered to doublecheck something that trivial, even when it's right there in front of you.

    That says everything anyone needs to know about you and your positions.

    I mean, if you're so sloppy intellectually that you can't deiscern between a poster and a high profile politican, why would anyone care what you think?

    And then, rather than a mea culpa because you were irrefutably wrong, you come back with catty childish stupidity.

    Just own up, and shut up. Trying to take cheap shots when you are the one who is obviously wrong is pathetic.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    People misspell things like that all over this and other threads, I guess you and Bill call them out similarly?

    I mean, who wrote this "I mean, if you're so sloppy intellectually that you can't deiscern"

    "to him being out of lkine for checking your spelling"
    904cc, if you can not even take the time to check something that trivial...

  • 904cc||

    "People misspell things like that all over this and other threads, I guess you and Bill call them out similarly?"

    You're the opne who called him out for misspelling you stupid hypocrtical fuck.

    He and I called you out for confusing him with a well known political figure, and I clled you out for being a cunt when it was pointed out you were wrong.

    Or do you not know what a mea culpa is asshole?

  • 904cc||

    The difference is I know I misspell shit and don't attack other people when they point it out, like you did here. And I'm not making grand pronouncements about political theory, you are.

    "I guess if I had self-identified as a 'libertarian Republican' while trying to call out someone else's leanings I would try to change the subject to a pedantic one, too."

    Why not just say "oops my bad" and gain some much needed credibility?

    You're so attached to winning, you won't even own up to your irrefutable mistakes, and you look like an enormous asshole in the process.

  • 904cc||

    " I would try to change the subject to a pedantic one, too."

    You just did, you tried to change it form you being wrong to him being out of lkine for checking your spelling.

    So you're a hypocrite on top of eveything else.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Wah, Wah, Wah,

    [[sniffle, sniffle]]

  • Bill Dalasio||

    It's BCE's MO. He picks a fight and then goes into "everybody's picking on me" mode after he gets his rear end handed to him. I'm sure he was his mommy's special little snowflake and won all the attendance awards in Little League. But, in life, sometime's he's going to lose arguments.

  • ||

    There's not even an argument to win or lose here. The entire crux of the discussion is his perception of a few people's political allegiances vs their actual, stated political allegiances. He's just emoting and hoping that if he does it hard enough we'll all emote the same emotions that he's emoting.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I make no declarations of 'everybody's picking on me' (who is being puerile is easy for any objective reader to see), I simply note that it sadly all too common to have, as you style yourself, 'libertarian Republicans' groupthinking on libertarian sites.

  • ||

    People with acknowledged biases generally don't receive as much criticism as people who profess to have none while demonstrating them just the same.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I am happy you are happy with your biases PM. And I do not profess to have no bias, I am biased towards libertarianism. That means that, unlike yourself, I can not stand Republicans as much as I can not stand Democrats.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    this was actually done as part of a conversation about how I enjoyed the regular posts about some Team Blue factions, and wondered if someone were doing the same for Team Red factions, and was told no, but 'run with it'

    Except you haven't offered up any stories about Team Red violations of liberty. All you've done is whined, bitched, pissed, and moaned when anyone has brought up a matter regarding Team Blue.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    So you have missed my regular posts on social conservatives?

    This is what is so telling about you Bill. You seem totally unaware of what I post about here, but you are sure I only post about whining about bringing up Team Blue. You are really just trolling me, and ironically calling me the troll.

    I do not see how any regular could not know about my running posts about 'socons' (interestingly, it was from them that so many of the people angry with me on this thread started being angry with me).

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Some, like...EvH are rather well known themselves for taking rather extreme Team Red positions...I have never seen take anyone to task for focusing too much on Team Blue.

    Oh, yeah, no evvver tweaks EvH on his Catholicism.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Perhaps the most dishonest use of elliptical cuts I have ever seen.

    "Some, like Cytotoxic or EvH are rather well known themselves for taking rather extreme Team Red positions."

    So that is completely consistent with the fact that Cyto and EvH ARE taken to task here, their positions being 'well known.'

    My second sentence is a bit garbled, but it should read "I have never seen THEM take anyone to task for focusing too much on Team Blue." And if you have seen any of the posters I named in my first paragraph take anyone to task for focusing too much on Team Blue, as you and them have done to me for focusing too much on Team Red, then why not stop your own whining and puerile antics and produce such evidence.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Poor thing. You should wash the sand out of your vagina before you get a nasty infection. Other than that, you look good up there on that cross. Say hi to Tulpa for me.

    The point of origin of the Senate election discussion was my link to an article in the politically liberal Christian Science Monitor (socially conservative, to be sure, but more in the liberal nanny state mold than the domain of spittle-flecked GO TEAM RED ranting) which laid out in explicit terms an eminently plausible domestic political explanation for what can easily be described as the "unanticipated" selection of Max Baucus as new Ambassador to China.

    You should absolutely write a scathing letter expressing your dismay at their flagrantly partisan political hatchet job.

  • Swiss Servator, Pikes Forward!||

    Other than that, you look good up there on that cross. Say hi to Tulpa for me.

    Wait a moment, is Tulap the impenitent thief, or the one that repents and receives grace?

  • Knarf Yenrab (prev. An0nB0t)||

    Brooks, why do you start new reply chains rather than replying to individual posts? Your first sentence could apply to literally anything Bo has posted for the past six months, and it's sometimes hard to see where your comment fits in, not to mention that we don't see them in context of other responses.

  • Generic Stranger||

    Because P Brooks threads for no man.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    factor in my arguments

    I take them at face value.

  • Killaz||

    My eyes hurt just scrolling through this abomination. When Bo sues all of your asses for feeding his OCD, you are going to deserve it.

  • ||

    It's enablers all the way down.

  • Swiss Servator, Pikes Forward!||

    REPENT ALL OF YOU! FEED NOT THE CONCERN TROLLS!

  • The Knarf Yenrab||

    What's your great alternative? Ignoring a borderline personality who has access to a keyboard so that he can spend hours a day trolling a forum for the apparent purpose of absorbing torrents of increasingly creative insults, thereby transforming himself into a psychologically unbreakable ubermensch and ambulance chaser?

    That's crazy talk.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    What in your opinion is 'borderline personality' about my comments in this thread?

    I mean, really. I always try to explain my points of disagreement, the chain of the logic of my arguments, and the evidence I am relying on. When someone responds to me I try to fairly state their arguments and exactly where I disagree. I do not initiate insults, do not curse people.

    Now look at Francisco's comments on this thread. He follows my posts, not commenting on the substance of them, cursing me, and repeating juvenile comments. This is the same person who loudly 'filtered me' (I guess not) and followed my posts around loudly proclaiming that he had filtered me for weeks after doing so.

    And from that you think I am being borderline personality? Would any sane third party person not part of the discussion board clique come to that conclusion?

  • 904cc||

    "What in your opinion is 'borderline personality' about my comments in this thread?"

    Your total inability to admit your mistakes, and obvious need to have the last word, logical consistency be damned.

    I mean, this entire abortion of a thread is the result of you thinking the patently idiotic question "but why in the world would a libertarian care about it? "

    Ar eyou seriously asking why libertarians shouldn't care about how the sauasge is made? You're saying that, so you must beleive it.

    I can't fathom how you could be so ignorant as to ask such a dumb question.

  • 904cc||

    I mean, are you serioulsy so dumb that you're genuinely asking people who follow politics why they'd be interested in political maeuvering?

    WHo gives a fuck what you think is and is not trivial, no one made you arbiter of anything.

    There's nothing un-libertarian about monitoring and commenting on the political proces you stupid fucking rube.

    Your entire argument is "this happens all the time, and isn't worthy of discussion." Explain why anyone would care what you think is trivial?

    No, don't. There's enough of your stink in here already.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    "Ar eyou seriously asking why libertarians shouldn't care about how the sauasge is made? You're saying that, so you must beleive it."

    No, I asked why a libertarian would be so concerned about such a potentially slight advantage a Democrat would have over a Republican. As has been established, the Republican is not of the Paul or Amash type, so why?

    That you misunderstood my entire point after all of these posts makes me think you are not so upset about my supposed resistance to logical consistency.

  • 904cc||

    "No, I asked why a libertarian would be so concerned about such a potentially slight advantage a Democrat would have over a Republican."

    That's exactly what I said you stupid fuck.

    God damn, you're dumb and deranged.

  • 904cc||

    "That you misunderstood my entire point"

    Says the god damned moron who

    1) got butthurt and attacked bill delasio for pointing out he's not bill deblasio

    2) thinks that being "concerned about such a potentially slight advantage a Democrat would have over a Republican" and how such an advantage was gained isn't the exact fucking definiton of "how the sausage is made" and "political maneuvering".

    How fucking stupid and deranged are you?

  • SuperOBD SKP-100||

    Good post.
    By the way, obd2life is a good obd2 supplier.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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

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

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement