Michele Bachmann Pledges to Increase the Size and Scope of Government

Minnesota Congresswoman and newly announced presidential candidate Michele Bachmann has signed a pledge titled "The Family Vow: A Declaration of Dependence upon MARRIAGE and FAMiLY" [strange caps theirs]. 

Authored by THE FAMiLY LEADER [again, strange caps theirs] the pledge's more mundane requirements are "personal fidelity to my spouse," "respect for the marital bonds of others," "official fidelity to the U.S. Constitution," "commitment to downsizing government," and "recognition of the overwhelming statistical evidence" that married people have better sex, and that kids raised by "a mother and father together experience better learning, less addiction, less legal trouble, and less extramarital pregnancy."  

Not so ugly, as far as theocratic pledges go.

Yet the pledge would also require signatories to provide "humane protection of women and the innocent fruit of conjugal intimacy" from "seduction into promiscuity, and all forms of pornography and prostitution, infanticide, abortion and other types of coercion or stolen innocence." This depite the fact that promiscuity, pornography, and prostitution, when done right, are engaged in by consenting adult women; that laws already exist to protect children from sex slavery; and that banning adults from engaging in mutually beneficial behavior, or from viewing other adults engaging in mutually beneficial behavior, would be impossible and impossibly expensive, and also harmful to the American adult entertainment industry, which generates tens of billions of dollars per year in taxable revenue. 

The pledge also asks candidates to waste time and money on "bona fide legal advocacy for the Defense of Marriage Act at the federal and state levels," and for candidates to extend "second chance" and "cool-down" periods for "those seeking a 'quickie divorce.'"

In addition to being damn expensive, many of those proposals are not "humane" and would ultimately harm women. We know, for instance, that the government cannot stop prostitution or abortion, only push those activities onto the black market where they are more dangerous and dehumanizing. And as the Quarterly Journal of Economics noted in 2006, no-fault divorce has actually made women's lives better [pdf]:

Easy access to divorce redistributes marital power from the party interested in preserving the marriage to the partner who wants out. In most instances, this resulted in an increase in marital power for women, and a decrease in power for men.

Our analysis of US data revealed the legislative change [to no-fault divorce] had caused female suicide to decline by about a fifth, domestic violence to decline by about a third, and intimate femicide – the husband’s murder of his wife – to decline by about a tenth.

Shutting down the entire adult service industry and denying women access to no-fault divorces and abortions, in addition to being inherently antithetical to the idea of personal liberty, could also only happen with a much, much bigger government. 

Read the entire pledge--which is also blatantly homophobic and anti-Muslim--here. 

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.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    There's no "I" in FAMiLY.

  • ||

    In certain families, however, there is plenty of 69.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    The aristocrats?

  • ||

    Honest to the God-Lord Jesus/Mohammet/Moshe, that was the worst movie I have ever seen.

    Fucking Penn Jillette, you owe me $7.50.

  • ||

    Honest to the God-Lord Jesus/Mohammet/Moshe, that was the worst movie I have ever seen.

    Fucking Penn Jillette, you owe me $7.50.

  • *||

    Fist of Etiquette|7.8.11 @ 5:31PM
    There's no "I" in FAMiLY.

    Let's jump ahead. Spoiler alert.

    Trident|7.9.11 @ 6:53AM
    For once i agree with liberals: Michelle Bachmann is batshit insane. Which means she probably has a good chance of winning

  • Terr||

    Christfags! W00t! What do I win?

  • ||

    A night with Max?

  • peachy||

    And may God have mercy on your soul, amen.

  • Auntie Semitic||

    It's enough to make me convert to Joo.

  • ||

    A passing grade for Shrike's libertarian litmus test.

  • ||

    That's MY line!

  • Achtung Coma Baby||

    Don't they mean

    THE FAMILY VOW: A DECLARATION OF DEPENDENCE UPON [MARRIAGE] AND [FAMILY AGAINST THE [ISRAELI-AMERICAN COMPACT] OF 2011?

  • ||

    Not enough strange capitalization, -5pts.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Open bracket! Everyone be careful.

  • Byron||

    lol]

  • ||

    Personally, I am hoping that a high school porn video of Bachman, three other women, a middle-eastern guy with a whip, a camel and two dogs surfaces about four days before the Iowa caucuses.

    (X-posted @ The Agitator)

  • Achtung Coma Baby||

    I have a pet-porn-peeve. I hate depictions of anal sex that don't show the woman's face. I mean, dude, let's see the agonizing facial expressions, please.

  • Otto||

    In the future, you might want to phrase that "...a pet peeve about...". Until I read your full comment, I thought you were talking about home made bestiality videos.

  • Sudden||

    What if its both?

  • Otto||

    What if it's both?

    I'm not going to his parties, for one thing.

  • ||

    Sex with animals?!? There's no time, man!!!

  • FlyoverCountry||

    Ditto. I think hyphenating pet-porn-peeve was a bad call. Unless, of course, this comment was meant as type of foot-tapping-under-the-mens-bathroom-stall-door sign to other with pet-porn issues...

  • Achtung Coma Baby||

    Sorry...And seriously, when are the girls who approach Backroom Casting Couch guy ever going to learn?

  • T||

    Really buying into the dream, aren't you? Hint: it's not real. They're just paid porn chicks.

  • Achtung Coma Baby||

    Dude, I don't know. If they're acting, it's pretty good. I get hardest at the moment in the videos when he asks the girls if they've ever tried anal before. They're reactions are wonderful.

  • Bar Student||

    and holy shit when I woke up someone had eaten the cookies and drank the milk!

  • ||

    From what little I know of "the industry", they have to have loads of paperwork specifying precisely what sorts of "activities" the performer will, uh, perform, all signed beforehand. Spur of the moment upgrades are unlikely.

  • ||

    Trinity Post, Registered Nurse, Scene 1 should be right up....er... your alley.

  • Bam!||

    Like this?

  • Cliché Bandit||

    HERC has begun his takeover! WOO HOO [HERC] 2012

    EMPIRE

  • ola||

    Next you'll tell us she thinks the government should support creationism being taught in public schools.

  • ||

    Actually, if I were a science teacher, I would ask the creationists to send me enough copies for my class.

    Then spend a couple of months having the class analyse the factual errors and logical fallacies in them. It would be the best education in real science that I could think of.

  • ||

    Why must you persecute teh jesus? I bet you hate xmas too, you monster.

  • goober1223||

    Doonesbury already covered it:

    http://friendlyatheist.com/201.....bout-this/

  • ||

    Her church is a very fundamentalist-brand of Lutheranism. They believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible.

  • ||

    Could this be The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod? This is the Cult my parents forced on me in my youth. Not that they would ever admit it but about the only difference between them (the church, not my parents) and Roman Catholicism is that Lutheran Ministers can marry. LCMS does have their own parochial schools and the Deaconess, who were (are) the same as nuns.
    As far as I know LCMS refuses to ordain women since it is anti scripture.

  • Mississippi Redneck||

    Shortly before my parents married, my dad joined an independent Lutherine church. It was great until, when I was a young child, we got a new pastor who happened to be from the Missouri Synod. Things went downhill from there and we switched to a Presbyterian church. Yes, Bachmann is one of those Missouri Synod nuts and should not be president.

  • Mississippi Redneck||

    *Lutheran

  • Kant feel Pietzsche||

    Your first spelling had better comedy value.

  • Mississippi Redneck||

    Good point.

  • horse||

    Bachmann is one of those Missouri Synod nuts and should not be president.

    So, you want a religious test for office, something that is flagrantly unconstitutional?

  • Cytotoxic||

    You're willfully misinterpreting this.

  • horse||

    Yes, yes, I am.

  • horse||

    *meant for Cyto, not a note to self

  • Team Blue||

    It's okay to be anti-Mormon when it comes to Romney and Glenn Beck, but keep your fucking yaps shut about our precious Harry Reid.

  • Mississippi Redneck||

    lol

  • oncogenesis||

    FYI, roman catholics do not take the bible literally.

    /ex-catholic

  • ||

    Since original "scripture" was written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek you have to wonder just what a literal interpretation of the Bible actually means.

  • ||

    I've met evangelicals who think the KJV was the original Bible.

  • ||

    I had a friend who was a missionary in Mexico who was frequently asked if they used the KJV in their missions. Usually by the same people who worried how people who adopted Mexican infants would understand them when they started talking.

  • ||

    Paging Dr. Chomsky...

  • OO||

    a literal interpretation of the bible is about as relevant as one of the constitution

  • MWG||

    Yea, because they're totally comparable.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    FYI, roman catholics do not take the bible literally.

    Ever had the Transubstantiation argument?

  • ||

    Not that they would ever admit it but about the only difference between them (the church, not my parents) and Roman Catholicism is that Lutheran Ministers can marry.

    Well, that and the whole original sin/sola fide/sola scriptura/purgatory/contraception/papal infallibility thing.

  • ||

    Apparently my instruction in Lutheran Catechism class some 50+ years ago did not stick. I always thought that the despicable concept of original sin was shared by Rome and Luther. On the other points I stand corrected.

  • Bingo||

    Whatever happened to Christians just living out their values instead of flaunting them everywhere with gigantic headlines?

    Something tells me that the answer to "WWJD?" isn't "hold a press conference proclaiming how much holier he is than everyone else".

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    That went out with Carter and pet rocks.

  • ||

    I wonder if I could get him to do that water-into-wine trick at our next office party? And considering the amount of food that management provided, the loaves-and-fishes thing would be nice if he could do it with the pizza and burgers.

  • Doctor Whom||

    Didn't someone once say something about going into your closet to pray?

  • ||

    "What Jesus Would Do" is irrelevant, because he lived, like, more than 100 years ago, and they didn't even speak english back then.

  • Almanian||

    +2011

  • ||

    Jesus also wasn't known for shunning public discussion of his faith and its demands, which I suspect is what you wish Bachmann et al would do.

    Living out your values is the bare minimum for a Christian; if you don't do that you're in trouble to begin with. But the Gospel is about a great deal more than niceness, it's meant to be spread, annoyed atheists be damned.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Why does Team Blue invoke "my brothers' keeper"-style religious shit, then the next minute they're grousing about the separation of church and state?

    It either is, or it isn't.

  • OO||

    it's the establishment clause not separation which was jefferson's prose in a letter.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    But Team Blue insists on the separation, unless it suits their agenda to ignore it.

    And I don't give a shit what Jefferson said about it... the two MUST be separate.

  • Dave||

    There's some serious alt-text failure in this post. I mean, really, how hard is it?

  • Sudden||

    Riggs refuses to do alt-txt. I believe that is why Reason is seeking a new editor. They are looking for someone with html skillz

  • Terr||

    I thought that was because he continually fails to roll out of bed at a decent hour.

  • Rhywun||

    When I don't vote in 2012, I'll remember to especially not vote for Michele Bachmann.

  • ||

    Hey, that's what I'm not doing too!

  • ||

    All this vote abstinence combined with the recent Supreme Court rulings on "activity" is just going to lead to Australian-style mandatory voting.

  • Mississippi Redneck||

    If a big-government RINO wins the primary, vote Democrat. That'll keep the libs from blaming capitalism for the messes we're in.

  • ||

    That'll keep the libs from blaming capitalism for the messes we're in.

    I'm pretty sure such an outcome violates the laws of physics. At least the laws of tribal politics.

  • Commerce Clause||

    VOTE, bitches!

  • insurance regs||

    yes massa

  • Eric Massa||

    Yes, regs?

  • Sudden||

    "The Family Vow: A Declaration of Dependence upon MARRIAGE and FAMiLY" [strange caps theirs].

    As if we needed any more proof that Steve Jobs is the fucking devil incarnate?

  • Sudden||

    and also harmful to the American adult entertainment industry, which generates tens of billions of dollars per year in taxable revenue.

    I will never understand this. Have people not heard of the interwebz? Its literally all free. It baffles me how there is any money to be made in porn anymore.

  • Cliché Bandit||

    It is called Ad Revenue...PPC in tubes talk. Ask Al Gore, I am sure he can explain it.

  • Sudden||

    So all those free videos are being funded by enough people not only clicking on the make your dick bigger pills, but by enough people actually buying the pills to fund the PPC?

  • Joshua||

    ssshhhhhhhh

    If everybody else finds out about this, there will be less money for paying the producers and actors who bring us new porn.

  • ||

    I guess money being made in prostitution must amaze you too, with all the sluts readily available to those who know where to look.

  • Rock Action ||

    Strip clubs, man. They're part of the "adult entertainment industry."

  • ||

    Buying porn can theoretically save time in finding EXACTLY what you want to fap to. My time isn't worth that much though, so w/e.

  • Bradley||

    Can the government force everyone to buy porn?

  • prolefeed||

    Have people not heard of the interwebz? Its literally all free. It baffles me how there is any money to be made in porn anymore.

    People pay to upgrade to hi-def porn. The free stuff is lower quality, except for orgasm.com, the only site with free hi-def.

  • Tman||

    Obama is going to be the first president to win re-election with unemployment at +9%.

    The GOP got nuthin, and people are too easily pushed around with lies and strawmen to listen to Libertarian candidates.

    We. Are. So. Fucked.

  • jasno||

    Yeah... this. :P

  • Joshua||

    NOT TRUE!!!

    They have Mitt Romney. Or as I like to call him, White Obama.

  • Atanarjuat||

    That could catch on.

  • Bingo||

    Or as I like to call him, White Obama.

    +lol

  • Eric||

    Shouldn't that be "More White Obama" ?

  • ||

    "A Paler Shade Of Obama."

  • Mississippi Redneck||

    I don't like Pawlenty, but I think "Obamneycare" was pretty funny. Should we start calling both of them Obamney.

  • ||

    Romboma.

  • wayne||

    BarackaMitt

  • AlmightyJB||

    Not gonna happen. Romney will not win the primary. I'd bet money on it.

  • ||

    While their politics are certainly very similar, hasn't Romney at least held real jobs, outside of government?

  • horse||

    "people are too easily pushed around with lies and strawmen to listen to Libertarian candidates."

    Alternative narrative: most voters don't want what Libertarians are selling.

    Ls are even worse than Ds and Rs about blaming voters for the lack of appeal of their party's message.

  • Tman||

    most voters don't want what Libertarians are selling.

    But that's my point, L's never get a chance at the table to sell anything. Look at the way Gary Johnson was blocked from the recent GOP debate. The Media looks at L's as a cute little fringe group subset al the while ignoring the fact that the current largest political group right now are independents. It's all TEAM BLUE vs. TEAM RED when most people aren't crazy liberals are bible thumping socons.

    It's not really a blaming thing either, it's just that common sense and personal liberty doesn't sell on TV as well as LIBERALZ ALL WANT YOU TO BECOME GAY vs. REPUBS WANT YOU ALL TO BECOME BORN AGAIN VIRGINS!!

  • horse||

    But that's my point, L's never get a chance at the table to sell anything. Look at the way Gary Johnson was blocked from the recent GOP debate

    Agreed. Big Media gate keeping is disgusting.

    The Media looks at L's as a cute little fringe group subset al the while ignoring the fact that the current largest political group right now are independents.

    I'm not sure that it is accurate to suggest that any where near a majority of those who call themselves independents are Ls at heart.

    What message or messages of Ls or ls do you think is not being heard? It seems to me that most voters hear "libertarian", think "gays and drugs", say "meh, heard it before" and then go about their day. The l message about personal liberty is fairly well subsumed (not perfectly, but more so than not) in the emphasis on Constitutionalism in the TP movement. Big nanny state socons like Huckabee don't get much support and, thankfully, the Huck seems content to gettin' paid by Fox and is staying out of the race this time.

  • ||

    Those aren't mutually exclusive. The lies and distractions are very appealing: I can't blame the voters for choosing a Ho-Ho and heroin weight loss program over one based on diet and exercise.

    The libertarian message is to a large extent a lesser of two evils bargain, e.g. yes people might in theory starve in the street under libertarianism, but the alternative definitely requires punishing the productive and locking the currently unproductive in dependency for generations.

    The lies and distractions, at which politicians, media, and other powerful interests are extremely adept with, obscure how evil that greater evil is.

  • ||

    We. Are. So. Fucked.

    First off your assessment that Obama can win an election with 9% unemployment. Obama is going to lose.

    Second is your assessment that we would not be fucked if a republican wins. We will be fucked in either case.

    To recap Obama is going to lose and a Republican is going to win and we are still going to be fucked.

  • Tman||

    I want a divided government between R's and D's because that will help the economy the most, but I don't see the GOP taking back the senate and they certainly haven't brought anyone worth supporting in to the presidential race yet.

    What's most likely to happen is that the economy lifts just enough in the next year and a half to give Obama some "LOOK EVERYONE!!! I FIXED IT!!!" campaign messages and we head in to the worst four years of American history.

  • ||

    "LOOK EVERYONE!!! I FIXED IT!!!" campaign messages

    Obama finally delivers 8% unemployment.

  • Kristen||

    Last time I checked, divided government (at least, the kind divided in two parties) does fuckall. Remember 2007 when the Team Blue swept into Congress and Pelosi promptly got on her knees to suck off GWB?

  • ||

    I have to agree with this. About 35% of the country absolutely hates Obama's guts, and his own base is fairly tepid. I doubt many liberals are going to vote GOP or even 3rd party, but getting volunteers and contributions from them is going to be like pulling teeth.

    As far as independents go, they're going to go in the direction the unemployment winds are blowing; the euphoria and novelty of having a black president have long worn off for such people. I hope for personal and humanitarian reasons that the economy starts recovering right now but that's highly unlikely. It's not like the current unemployment is a result of taking medicine and things will get better now...we've still got a full bottle of castor oil awaiting us.

    It is however pretty much inevitable that he's going to have an astronomical advantage in fundraising from corporate donors and such -- ironic considering his ostensible reasons for opposing Citizens United -- but this is one of those cases where money ain't going to buy the election.

  • horse||

    I would consider it a win if a Republican won who would stubbornly hammer away until Obamacare was repealed, some of the bailout money was recovered, the business climate was improved by reigning in at least some of the bureaucracy, the chains were removed from domestic energy production and some discretion was exercised in US involvement in the ME, esp. getting the US out of Libya and getting the US on the path of withdraw from Afghanistan and Iraq. I think all of these things are realistically possible in one-term if the right R is nominated and the Rs gain control of the Senate and the TP movement gains more influence in the RP.

    67% are saying that the country is on the wrong track. Obama is not likely to be elected regardless of who the R candidate is.

  • Tman||

    I'm telling you, unless Obama devours a live infant on prime time television he is getting re-elected. And this is why.

    The economy will turn around eventually despite Washington's best efforts to prevent it. This country is still filled with some incredibly talented people, and they are still coming from across the globe to live here. I was at a naturalization ceremony a few months ago (which every natural born US citizen should be required to attend at least once) and they are still flocking in from every damn corner of the planet -even to freaking Nashville Tennessee. The economy is going to get better. Maybe not 2006 better, but +/- 8% unemployment, modest inflation and a finally bottomed out housing market better. The DOW is only a couple grand away from it's highest ever, and from what I've read everyone thinks it's more realistic where it is now anyways.

    But you are out of your mind if you think that the GOP will be able to beat Captain I FIXED IT!!! come fourth quarter 2012. Remember that it's the Chony's of the world who currently control the message from Hollywood to TV to ye Olde Grey Lady. The Chony's. They aren't admitting they're wrong now, and they sure as shit won't miss any credit available for some improvement in our lives. The Tea Party is great but like any good decentralized system, it's not strong enough to overcome the populist fervor that gets unleashed at election time. Absent a wild card independent candidate it's gonna be another RED/BLUE slugfest with the Unions and the media carrying Captain I FIXED IT!!! over the finish line.

    Unless things get even worse, like Greece worse, in which case all bets are off for both candidates.

    Pretty optimistic, I know.

  • horse||

    I think you underestimate how pissed-off people are about Obamacare, gas prices, food prices and Obama's arrogance. I also think you underestimate the disillusionment that Obama supporters feel.

  • ||

    This is a factor too. Also note that while none of the GOP candidates are terribly likeable for anyone in the GOP, none of the likely nominees are particularly loathesome to liberals. (Gingrich, Palin, and Santorum are unlikely to get the nomination) Mobilizing the liberal base, beyond the unions that have a direct financial stake, is going to be very hard.

  • kraorh||

    But it also depends very heavily on who the GOP nominates. If they nominate someone who is very easy to hate, like Bachmann, we'll have the 2010 Delaware Senate race writ large. Pawlenty would be much harder to turn into a monster. If the race becomes like 2004, it'll be Not-Obama vs. Not-GOP, so the race would go to he or she who inspires less popular distaste. Bachmann would probably be able to generate enough to reassemble Obama's 2008 coalition, and overcome any economic fatigue Obama inspires. Pawlenty, Cain, (maybe) Romney, and Johnson would have a much harder time generating distaste.

  • Somaliland Times||

    If they nominate someone who is very easy to hate, like Bachmann

    Bachmann isn't so easy to hate outside of those who wouldn't vote for a conservative Republican under any circumstances. Her district isn't that conservative yet she wins reelection, in part, on likability.

  • ||

    I thought so, too. But then she goes and does something stupid like signing this hare-brained pledge. Although setting herself up to score major brownie points with Soc. Conservatives everywhere, the terrible wording and outright untruths of the pledge are sure to make the blood of any liberal boil.

  • ||

    The economy will turn around eventually despite Washington's best efforts to prevent it.

    people don't react to a good economy until long after it has started. Furthermore unemployment is a lagging indicator and even further the unemployment numbers are not telling the whole story about unemployment. Mountains of people have simply stopped looking for work. They do not vote a statistic they vote what they feel. If they feel that they have no job and have no hope of getting one they will not look at say 7% unemployment and think "hey Obama is doing a good job with the economy" no they will vote to remove him.

    and then you have the shear numbers of unemployment. In order to grow those job numbers by November the economy needs to grow at near historically fast rates...and time is running out.

    Can the economy turn around and pull Obama to a victory? sure it is possible but I think it is less then 50% and with each day that passes that possibility shrinks.

  • ||

    Mountains of people have simply stopped looking for work.

    And when people start reporting that the economy is improving, these people will re-enter the labor market, and will officially count towards the unemployment numbers, driving the unemployment numbers back up.

  • Cytotoxic||

    I think you are extremely over-optimistic regarding the economy. It will not be like it was before. The system is fucked. When the bankruptcy phase shift happens, it will be like nothing we've seen in generations.

    I hate the fact that if Obama wins, the David Frums and other conservative "intellectuals" will all start preening about how they were right about the Tea Party all along.

  • ||

    With our luck, libertarianish candidates will finally take office in the White House and become a force in Congress in the wake of the 2012 elections....only to have the inevitable collapse happen in 2013.

    We still haven't lived down the accusation that market capitalism caused the Great Depression, and that was over 80 years ago... who knows how long the reputation of libertarianism would be screwed in the wake of a scenario like I described.

  • Cytotoxic||

    It's scary because it HAS happened. Free marketers took power just in time for Argentina's banking collapse in 2001.

  • ||

    Problem (for Obama at least) is that unemployment is a lagging indicator. Not even any of the leading indicators of recovery look good right now, and BO only has about a year before the heat of the election season to turn things around. The economy would need to create a shitload of jobs to reduce the unemployment rate by the 1.3% necessary to get unemployment to 8% ... particularly considering that if the job market does improve, the denominator of that number is going to swell as a lot of people who'd given up reenter the market.

    Just because the economy has recovered according to a certain schedule in the past doesn't mean it will recover according to that schedule this time, or even that it will recover at all. To put things in perspective, the US has lasted about a third as long as the long-forgotten Moorish rule of the Iberian peninsula, so it's kind of silly for us to be talking about "always".

  • prolefeed||

    For the economy to turn around and shrink the unemployment numbers greatly, Obama would have to want, and get other Democrats to want, to repeal some of the financial idiocy they have inflicted upon us.

    Not. Gonna. Happen.

  • ||

    That too... of course, even if he had a libertarian conversion experience and started doing that, it's probably too late to turn things around in time for the election.

    Of course, chances are a full libertarian course correction would cause the economy to crash hard in the short term while the markets rearrange themselves, before it gets better in the long run.

  • B||

    "67% are saying that the country is on the wrong track."

    I suppose a great deal depends on why someone says that the country is on the wrong track.

    For the 20-30% of men with strong pedophilic tendencies, the persecution of men with pedophilic tendencies is definitely "on the wrong track". Liberal peds will be voting for Obama again in the primaries, and conservative peds will be voting for Ron Paul. This could mean a second term for Obama in spite of the economy.

    It's also worth noting that the chief cause of the bad economy is high fuel prices, as highlighted by the recent extremely bad quarter when fuel prices rose in the spring. The good news is that high fuel prices are driving innovation in energy production and energy efficiency, which will eventually mean much lower energy prices and a booming economy.

    To give credit where credit is due, Obama's "Cash for Clunkers" program was a disaster in terms of personal responsibility, but sheer genius in terms of marketing. For the cost of two stealth bombers, Obama's administration sent a clear message that fuel efficiency was important and cool, thus reducing our dependency on foreign oil and reducing the need for foreign wars (and stealth bombers) to protect our fuel supply.

    As much as I dislike much of what Obama is doing, I believe he is taking the heat now in order to establish the conditions for a huge economic boom in another 5 to 10 years.

  • Amakudari||

    Obama is going to be the first president to win re-election with unemployment at +9%.

    Is that more depressing than the fact that the economy's woes can be directly blamed on the policies of two parties, and that both of those parties will still wind up with widespread support?

  • Justin Cases||

    eople are too easily pushed around with lies and strawmen to listen to Libertarian candidates.

    Yeah like scary articles raising the Religious Conservative Boogey(wo)man instead of railing against the actual bad policies of the actual administration that wants 4 more years to continue to do the same.

  • ||

    Once in a great while, the slavering retards on the left are correct. They've been insisting MBach be cray-cray from the beginning and after this there can really be no doubt.

  • Cliché Bandit||

    Dagny, you talking all hood and gheto is somewhat...what is the word...intriguing maybe, to me. I would liek to see more of you comments be in this style.

  • ||

    In addition to white girl appropriations of AAVE, I am also fluent in jive.

  • Joe M||

    Jus' hand loose, blood.

  • Kant feel Pietzsche||

    Sucka don' want no hep,...

  • ||

    So Bachmann signs a pledge she probably barely read, and that has nice sounding things to say which, upon digging deeper, may not be such great policy prescriptions in the details...and this makes her crazy.

    Meanwhile, Obama attended a church whose pastor shouts "God DAMN America" for decades, buddies up with ex-Weather Underground bomb plotters, and he's articulate and clean.

    Makes you think.

  • Cytotoxic||

    It makes me think that 1) the media is shitty 2) Bachmann and Obama can both go to hell.

  • Mnemone Jones||

    Really? What does it make you think?

  • ||

    I'm saving it for the book.

  • Mnemone Jones||

    Damn it.

  • Kant feel Pietzsche||

    Yeah, makes you think that the people in the media have a narrative or something...

  • ||

    Also, from the full pledge, are they really trying to make "attracteds" happen as a noun?

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Candidates who agree to sign pledges are morons. (Candidates who don't sign pledges are morons for some other reason.) If I'm a moron candidate, I'm stating from the get-go that my name goes on nothing I didn't have a hand in writing.

  • Cliché Bandit||

    I find the "endorsed By" approach to be a better indicator. If the Colorado Union of Taxpayers or if the Gun Owners of America endorse someone then I feel an obligation to take a serious look at their other positions (usually they are one trick ponies, woe is the life of the libertarian).

  • ||

    I wonder if there's another GOP candidate who put their name on something bigoted and stupid. It does seem to ring a bell. IIRC this person was actually paid for the use of their name.

    Hmm, who am I thinking of?

  • Cytotoxic||

    Ha ha very funny. He was negligent and cavalier, she is probably sincere in her SoCon battiness.

  • Zuo||

    Lol. "Declaration of Dependence". Way to go so-cons, you never fail to impress.

  • ¢||

    The reason some of us could always tell that Weigel was an anti-libertarian Kos kid was because he didn't get mad at Republicans in the same way a libertarian would. His hate-surge was too strong, because it was tribal-defensive, so he never remembered to coat his TEAM! shit in fake-libertarian shit. He'd just go off all "homophobic!" and "taxable!" instead of, say, reframing fault divorce as an intractable calculation problem.
    When do you plan to lose your shit and denounce the Kochtopus, new guy? Do you plan to? 'Cause you're gonna. You won't be able to stop yourself.

  • Rock Action ||

    In the same way that the document is "anti-Muslim" because one pledges to refuse to acknowledge the legitimacy or support Sharia law? Where one of the reasons given for not doing so -- in a fairly well thought-out footnote 19 -- is its persecution of gays?

  • correction ||

    *legitimacy of or support

  • Stormy Dragon||

    Except that footnote 19 reference is in the context of calling for the overturning of Texas v. Lawrence. So apparently their beef is not violent persecution of gays per se, but rather that it's not being done by government officials.

  • Rock Action ||

    No it isn't. It's a stand-alone part of the pledge with a separate bullet point and separate footnote. If by "in context," you mean "within in the text of the same document they call for a reconsideration of the legal reasoning and possible subsequent precedent set by Lawrence," then yes. They couch it cleverly, though: The footnote brings up something I had two very liberal law professors point out. They asked our class to critique Scalia's dissent, and to see if the legal reasoning he criticized would lead to that precedent. IIRC, nobody did or could, and they smiled knowingly. The legal reasoning is separate from the ends, and the footnote points that out.

    Also, persecution of gays under Sharia law would be done by government actors, especially considering that Sharia is the incorporation of Islamic law into a theocratic government.

    You don't like the pledge. I don't want to defend it either. My antennae go up when I see those buzzwords and the policy calls. But your Lawrence criticism isn't exactly as you portray it.

  • ||

    Explain why Sharia law should not be allowed to be used by arbitrators (which is the ONLY way it has ever been used in anything related to the US legal system)... while Torah should be allowed.

    I mean, if you want to outlaw arbitration, that's fine (though probably bad policy) but if you want to play favorites among religions it's not fine.

  • horse||

    "if you want to play favorites among religions it's not fine."

    Totally agree. Religions that practice ritual human sacrifice should be treated exactly like all other religions.

  • Mnemone Jones||

    That would mean they just wouldn't be able to practice human sacrifice, just like all the other religions. I'm not seeing the problem.

  • horse||

    Some religions are simply incompatible with life in American society. If ritual human sacrifice is an unalterable precept of a religion, well then, that religion can't be tolerated in America.

  • Mnemone Jones||

    I'd say all religions, in themselves, are utterly incompatible with life in American society. Religions only survive in such a place by being fitfully applied and unevenly obeyed. Strangely enough religious people seem incredibly comfortable with this fact, so long as they aren't actively reminded.

  • BigT||

    I'm an atheist. But those religions are far, far less dangerous than the libs economic policies. I can take Bachman if she follows through on reducing govt and debt.

  • cynical||

    Or, alternatively, that religion can be forbidden to practice human sacrifice and can otherwise be tolerated.

    Shariah law in arbitration is still subordinate to U.S. law. Honor killings aren't about to become legal.

  • ||

    If ritual human sacrifice is an unalterable precept of a religion, well then, that religion can't be tolerated in America.

    It's not so much the religion that we wouldn't tolerate, it's the killing people. We tolerate Nazis and white supremacists just fine, even though their ideologies, if put into practice, would require killing quite a few people.

    And of course, this hypothetical has nothing to do with Islam which was where we started.

  • ||

    If they were applying Sharia to criminal cases, with non-monetary punishments meted out, you'd have a legitimate beef.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Beating your daughter to death because she "dishonored" the family, doesn't sound very advanced.

  • cynical||

    That isn't at question, nor has it ever been, so aside from using righteous fury to bypass people's rational judgment, what is your point?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    If you're talking to me, I was making an observation about the barbarism of Sharia law.

  • ||

    Arbitration doesn't prescribe beatings, just money transfers.

    And if you want to see some barbaric law, read Leviticus sometime. That wonderful religion of peace we always side with in the Middle East says girls who get raped in a populated area must be stoned.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    But that shouldn't happen under ANY religious model, Tulpa.

    It would be barbaric either way, but you don't see it happening from readers of Leviticus.

  • ||

    You don't see it happening among US Muslims either.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    There have been no honor killings here, Tulpa?

  • Rock Action ||

    That assumes we're talking about arbitration alone. I started writing a response and there are a million issues to consider. I mean, that's a dissertation topic in ADR, the First Amendment, Substantive Due Process, executive enforcement of judicial decisions, etc.

    Finer minds than mine are still trying to figure out where Sharia arbitration fits into a Western concept, what sort of oversight it deserves, if we shouldn't scrap religious-based arbitration entirely, etc.

  • ||

    Scrapping religious arbitration only would be a clear 1st amendment Free Exercise Clause violation. You'd have to scrap all arbitration.

    And I really don't give a shit how Sharia fits into Western concepts. If people freely choose to submit themselves to arbitration based on the collected works of Shakespeare, it's none of my business.

  • Rock Action ||

    Yeah, hence my First Amendment point, Tulpa. You don't have to give a shit, but if Shakespeare's doctrine treats unwilling parties to the arbitration like human chattel, then we might have a substantive due process issue.

  • Rock Action ||

    e.g., a minor involved in a dispute that her parents are the parties to. But we know how you feel about the rights of those who aren't at the age of majority...

    zing!

  • ||

    Assuming you're talking about divorce proceedings, children have little in the way of substantive due process rights in divorce proceedings in the regular US court system either. That's a damn weak reed to hang your outlawing religious arbitration on.

  • ||

    There aren't unwilling parties to arbitration. It can only be entered if both parties agree to eschew the normal court system. How it "treats" parties uninvolved in the dispute is irrelevant.

    True, they may be "forced" into arbitration now because they signed a contract in the past that stipulated enforcement via arbitration, but that's tough. They chose arbitration when they signed the contract.

  • Rock Action ||

    I meant the subjects of the proceedings, which was the impetus for my minor child analogy. And I said "parties" because a serious amount of literature asks how "willing" a Muslim woman is when she agrees to be a party to a Sharia law arbitrated dispute. I may have betrayed my own opinion there, frankly.

    And IIRC, minors indeed have due process rights in divorce proceedings. The whole system is to ensure the child's best interests. As far as rights, they have rights to their own counsel in cases of abuse, and I'm fairly certain they have others, emancipation coming immediately to mind.

  • ||

    And I said "parties" because a serious amount of literature asks how "willing" a Muslim woman is when she agrees to be a party to a Sharia law arbitrated dispute.

    Serious amounts of literature make all kinds of absurd claims. Dress up your bigotry as "asking questions" or "raising concerns" all you want, it's still bigotry.

    Adult persons of all faiths, genders, etc are susceptible to agreeing to unfavorable contracts for all sorts of reasons, but in the absence of demonstrable coercion or mental impairment, we still enforce them.

    As far as rights, they have rights to their own counsel in cases of abuse, and I'm fairly certain they have others, emancipation coming immediately to mind.

    Cases of child abuse wouldn't be dealt with in arbitration; that's a criminal matter. Keep trying.

  • Rock Action ||

    Nope. Not in custody cases, man. Just wrong.

  • Rock Action ||

    Wow, that really was disingenuous, or you misread that. Let me point out how much and please note the time stamps on all my responses. I had to re-read this.

    Tulpa, what the fuck?

    And IIRC, minors indeed have due process rights in divorce proceedings. The whole system is to ensure the child's best interests. As far as rights, they have rights to their own counsel in cases of abuse, and I'm fairly certain they have others, emancipation coming immediately to mind.
  • Rock Action ||

    And if someone renounces their desire to be bound by religion because of they renounce their religion, how to reconcile that with free exercise?

    Also, does not the agreement to be bound by religious arbitration possibly violate free exercise by acting as a deterrent to breaking the contract?

    Go ahead, Tulpa.

  • Rock Action ||

    And if someone renounces their desire to be bound by religion arbitration because of they renounce their religion, how do you reconcile that with free exercise? Does the contractual agreement have primacy?

  • Fluffy||

    And BTW, your other point about how changing your religion means you should get to drop clauses in a previously-signed contract is the stupidest thing I have ever heard.

    "Hey! I just changed from Catholic to Baptist! I want to void all of my credit card agreements!"

    That is literally no more stupid than your suggestion.

    The entire point of a contract is so that the other party can regard you as bound even if you change your mind.

  • Rock Action||

    Yeah, that's been addressed in the literature. So fuck you too, dude, fuck you. Great anger, fluff. Contacts are void when they're against public policy, like When they violate the free exercise clause. And bullshit divorces don't go to ADR mediation, you're fuckin wrong as wrong is. I'm on a train, so if you want to do this, let's roll on monday

  • Rock action||

    I think ADR is actually compelled in Cali for divorces and custody disputes. Am i wrong on this????

  • ||

    Also, does not the agreement to be bound by religious arbitration possibly violate free exercise by acting as a deterrent to breaking the contract?

    Free exercise doesn't allow you to void contracts.

    If I'm a porn actor, and sign a deal with Vivid to appear in 10 scenes for $30,000, but convert to Catholicism after the 6th scene and become a monk, Vivid can still sue me for breach of contract when I refuse to appear in four more scenes. They can't force me to "perform" but they will probably get to take back some of the $30,000.

  • Rock Action ||

    but in the absence of demonstrable coercion or mental impairment, we still enforce them

    Thank you.

    That was my point. The pressure from your entire community, where your marriage has been arranged and you "consent" to the arbitration.

    And you're going to give me a lecture in unconscionable contracts, then?

  • Rock Action ||

    By the way, he who laments ad hominems -- repeatedly -- calls me "a bigot," and therefore dismisses a veritable deluge of scholarly concern over when religious arbitration oversteps its appropriate jurisdiction?

    Ay de mi!

  • Fluffy||

    I don't believe your scholarly concerns are genuine because they only pop up in the context of the private legal arrangements of Muslim Americans.

    Seriously.

    There are 300 million other ways in which community pressure might induce people to make bad decisions (personally, I think all Amish people, Mennonites, Hasidic Jews, etc. are probably "pressuring" people in their community into bad life decisions, too) but somehow that doesn't jump up to you as a "scholarly concern" that is sufficient to trump the moral agency of adults to enter contracts - that issue only springs into existence when Muslims are involved. Forgive me if I see your concerns as a crass rationalization.

    And no custody issues anywhere in the US are submitted to arbitration. You can't write a pre-nup that covers custody and have it honored in any family court in the US. So that entire discussion was a pointless red herring on your part.

  • ||

    By the way, he who laments ad hominems -- repeatedly -- calls me "a bigot," and therefore dismisses a veritable deluge of scholarly concern over when religious arbitration oversteps its appropriate jurisdiction?

    My opinion that you are a bigot was an aside, and a fairly justified one for the reasons Fluffy notes. I still addressed what arguments you had on their own feeble merits, so it's not an ad hominem.

    Oh, and just because someone somewhere wrote something doesn't make it "scholarly concern". You haven't even cited what this literature you speak of actually is.

  • Fluffy||

    You have no right to be free from social pressure from your community, so fuck off.

    I'm the most virulent atheist on here, but honestly - if you're so weak that the fear that your parents or neighbors won't talk to you anymore makes you sign contracts that are against your interest, you deserve to lose, and maybe when other people see you losing that will act as a lesson to others to not repeat your fucking weakling mistake.

    Everybody in America has to worry that their parents or neighbors might not like what they do. Too bad.

  • Rock action||

    Bullshit. They have to worry about illegal honor killings? I'm in favor of banning all religious arbitration, but it's that nasty free ex clause. Go smoke something and don't impute shit to me. Yeah, I would love to hear your lecture on unconscionable contracts. Please enlighten me.

  • ||

    How many honor killings have occurred among US Muslims, RA?

  • Kant feel Pietzsche||

    One would be one too many, n'est ce pas?

  • Kant feel Pietzsche||

    And there have been some...

  • B||

    "The whole system is to ensure the child's best interests. As far as rights, they have rights to their own counsel in cases of abuse, and I'm fairly certain they have others, emancipation coming immediately to mind."

    The whole system purports to have the interests of the child in mind, which is an entirely different thing.

    A closer reading suggests that the legal system is primarily concerned with exerting its control over children. Whether that is for good or ill is beside the point; the primary interest is in control.

    For reference, see the recent videos on YouTube by several models for Webe Web who are now grown up. Search for "Webe Web" on YouTube and you can see several of their videos. You can start here:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....re=related

  • Mo||

    "Bachmann and her ilk want sharia law, they just don't want to call it that."
    -tio

  • ||

    Ah, and this is were Libertarians, and conservatives will always part ways, wish we could find some common ground here so we can stay better united against the collectivist mentality that is rotting our country from the inside out. Just when you think a conservative is finally starting to "get it" they go do something bizarre...

  • ||

    Your error is in assuming that Socons do not have a "collectivist mentality."

  • Chupacabra||

    Conservatives who pray together, stay together!

  • MWG||

    "Just when you think a conservative is finally starting to "get it" they go do something bizarre..."

    Not me. As a former conservative (with limited socon leaning views) myself I know they're nothing more than one side of the collectivist coin they share with the left.

  • Ocean||

    Agreed. Just like you stupid turd.

  • Rock Action ||

    Alt-text: "And so the guy stands up, points at the clown, and yells 'Forget you, clown! Forrrrrrrrget you!'"

    Banner ad update: I have moved from Filipino Cupid to Christian Mingle with a side of Afro Romance. I wonder what the FAMiLY would think of that? It's tough to look at the picture of Bachmann when you've got a shirtless white guy with his eyes closed, underneath a woman, looking like he's about to consummate some interracial pow pow. Afro Romance, where love is more than skin deep™

  • Klocker||

    Could the small "i" possibly be a reference to the unreleased Beach Boys album SMiLE?

  • Rock Action ||

    By the way, good catch and + Van Dyke Parks, whose middle name, I'm sure, has gotten the FAMiLY in a regular snit.

  • ||

    As soon as the politicians backed by the T-Baggz got elected in Minnesota, they immediately concentrated on the social issues, rather than the fiscal problem we have here.

  • Cliché Bandit||

    I am hoping the t-party is going to go for "Rebuke Round Two" in 2012 but somehow I seriously doubt it.

  • MWG||

    Surprise, surprise...

    I know there are some libertarian tendencies within the Tea Party, but they always seemed way too far right on too many things for me to be comfortable amongst them.

  • ||

    It seems to be an Upper Midwest-type of Tea Partyism. Really indistinguishable from Neocon thought.

  • MWG||

    I haven't really noticed the regional differences, but right from the 'beginning' I was skeptical of the overall potential of the movement.

    Don't get me wrong, there are a good number of libertarians in the movement, but it's mixed with a whole lot of bull shit populist republicanism.

    It's a bit like offering me a big bowl of ice cream laced with shit.

  • Cytotoxic||

    It's more like compromised medicine. Yeah, it may not work. Might even be poisonous resulting in illness or death. It's still the only thing to fight off this fucking cancer until we get something better.

  • MWG||

    "It's still the only thing to fight off this fucking cancer until we get something better."

    One of the main reasons I refuse to vote.

  • Cytotoxic||

    That's not fighting the cancer.

  • MWG||

    Absolutely correct, but if you fighting cancer while giving the patient an aneurism, you essentially no better of.

  • Ocean||

    Reading your shits is like drinking a big bowl of ice cream laced with shit.

  • MWG||

    Internet tough guy is tough.

    Meh.

  • Were All Doomed!||

    Honestly I don't know a single Tea Party supporter that did not vote for McCain in the last election and Bush before that. There just republicans who really hate Obama.

  • ||

    they immediately concentrated on the social issues

    No it is more of an add on as far as i can see.

    If the tea party was not still pushing a libertarianish agenda we would not still be talking about the debt ceiling....it would have been raised to 20 trillion already.

  • ||

    I mean:

    "libertarianish economic agenda"

    Obviously there is nothing libertarian about her social agenda.

  • ||

    You're ruining the hate, corning.

  • ||

    You're ruining the hate, corning.

    It is hard to hate those who fail so miserably at pushing their agenda...even when I hate that agenda.

    The fact is abortion is legal, new york just legalized gay marriage and people can divorce at light speed.

    Bachmann does have a vile social agenda (well not so much vile but more she wants to push it down people's throats at the expense of their liberty) but it has no hope of getting implemented in any real way even if she does get the nomination and wins the Oval office.

    It is just not going to happen.

  • Rock Action ||

    Um, and we'll never have a president that forces a case to the Supreme Court telling us that we must purchase a good because we'll be in the market for that good, at some point, anyway. Heck, we're all in the potential sex market, even if we're celibate.

    Okay, total red herring with that last bad analogy, but you get my point?

  • ||

    Okay, total red herring with that last bad analogy, but you get my point?

    If the winds of public opinion begin to swing then I would say you are right.

    But you have to remember we had at least 6 years of a republican control of both houses and pro-life Bush in the white house...yet not only did the policies not change but public opinion creeped slowly (to slow for my taste) the other way.

    I will worry when there is cause to worry...and Bachmann's pledge, elected president or road kill in Iowa, is not a worry.

  • Pope Jimbo||

    Mongo,

    How is plotting to give Ziggy Wilf (owner of the Vikings) $600M to build a new stadium a socon issue?

  • ||

    Neocon, not Socon.

    The stadium issue is a real mixed bag, having its supporters and critics from conservatives and liberals.

  • ||

    I think, as president, I could sign a pledge to provide women with "humane protection" from "seduction into promiscuity, and all forms of pornography and prostitution, infanticide, abortion and other types of coercion or stolen innocence."

    TO WIT: if you don't want to sleep around, or be in porn, or have sex for money, or have an abortion, I won't let anybody force you. And I will do everything I can to uphold the infanticide laws that are on the books of every state and territory of the country.

    Somehow, though, I think this dog-whistle is being blown for people who read the pledge differently than I would.

  • Robert||

    I think the drafters of the pledge do have the same thing in mind as what you wrote. They're under the impression that a large portion of the women involved in prostitution, making pornography, having abortions, and infanticide are coerced into it. If you read it in context, that's the compelling conclusion, else it makes no sense -- and there are a fair number of people with such beliefs, who think this sex trafficking problem is a real, serious one.

  • B||

    "They're under the impression that a large portion of the women involved in prostitution, making pornography, having abortions, and infanticide are coerced into it."

    Indeed. There's very good evidence that most such "victims" are not, but you can't convince some people.

    For reference, look up "Webe Web" on YouTube, or start here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....re=related

  • Doctor Whom||

    That pledge is epic fail from the first sentence. Anyone who appeals to the Jewish scriptures to support monogamy either (i) has never pulled the shrink-wrap off of their Bible or (ii) is willing to lie about the words attributed to their own deity.

  • uh||

    They always seem to skip my favorite part of the bible they do...

  • B||

    Indeedy. Where do I get my "Marriage = 1 (man symbol) + n (woman symbol)" bumper sticker?

  • ||

    the pledge would also require signatories to provide "humane protection of women and the innocent fruit of conjugal intimacy" from "seduction into promiscuity

    This means you, Cosmo grrrrrl.

    And you'd better not let the Thought Police catch you watching Sex in the City in any of its permutations.

  • MWG||

    I read the whole pledge. There is a helluva lot more from that Riggs could have highlighted to make the article more interesting.

    The footnotes alone provide for an interesting read.

    So what if Bachmann is a crazy so-con in sheep's clothing. At least she's a TPier, right?... right?

  • ||

    That's what SIV keeps telling us!

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  • ||

    Give the guy a break, I think he's just got a thing for (once)attractive conservative women. It seriously blinds his judgement.

  • ||

    Why should I give anyone a break for that? Especially when they relentlessly try to convince us that she's actually a libertarian? That gets old real fast. Light speed fast.

  • Mnemone Jones||

    But...tits!

  • ||

    In bras though.

  • Mnemone Jones||

    For the aged, that makes them more shapely.

  • ||

    "Pointy or pancake?" is the new "Boxers or briefs?". < ---what the fuck am I supposed to do with that period?

  • Rock Action ||

    Get rid of it, I think. Only one punctuation mark inside quotes.

  • Mnemone Jones||

    Yo, fuck the style manuals. The orphan period is the only clue that the interrogatory doesn't carry over into the sentence as a whole.

  • Rock Action ||

    Pfffft...fuckin' anarchist.

  • ||

    See, that's what I am inclined to do.

    I like this craziness even better:

    Is "Pointy or pancake?" the new "Boxers or briefs?"?

    Or when I'm angry:

    "Pointy or pancake?" is the new "Boxers or briefs?"!one!

  • horse||

    I bet you hate the Oxford comma, too.

  • ||

    That's a sore spot around here, man.

    A potential splitting point for libertarians, as it were.

  • horse||

    "crazy so-con in sheep's clothing."

    When has Bachmann ever claimed to not be a social conservative? Why does supporting traditional values make one crazy? There are a helluva lot more Americans who support traditional values than support legalizing prostitution and heroin. Jus' sayin'.

  • ||

    What are "traditional values?"

  • ||

    They're whatever Bachmann supporters want them to be, so that they can say that many more Americans support them and therefore they can continue their personal fantasy that Bachmann has a chance in hell of winning and isn't in fact a crazy attention whore with zero substance.

  • ||

    Oh, I thought it meant taking hundreds of thousands of Uncle Sugar's $'s not to grow crops.

  • ||

    Oh, they're that too. Like I said, they're whatever they want them to be.

  • horse||

    Not sure if troll or ...

  • np||

    There are a helluva lot more Americans who support traditional values than support legalizing prostitution and heroin. Jus' sayin'.

    What are "traditional values?"

    Exactly. Especially considering that prostitution and drugs have been legal for most of America's history.

  • MWG||

    "Especially considering that prostitution and drugs have been legal for most of America's history."

    Wrong. Drug prohibition in particular, didn't come into existence until the beginning of the last century. Hell, Washington and Jefferson grew weed on their farms.

  • Robert||

    Re-read.

  • MWG||

    Damn! Where are my reading glasses...

  • Ocean||

    It wasn't your eyes problem, it is your brain.

  • MWG||

    So what's your excuse for your poor grammar?

  • TJ||

    Shit, grow a little hemp to help out the navy and history never lets you forget it. Man, do I have the munchies.

  • MWG||

    Lol.

  • MWG||

    All I can say is go and read the pledge.*

    *Particularly footnote 8 and it's sub notes.

  • ||

    If the gays keep their dicks in their pants we can keep our medicare:

    8 No peer-reviewed empirical science or rational demonstration has ever definitively proven, nor even has shown an overwhelming probability, that homosexual
    preference or behavior is irresistible as a function of genetic determinism or other forms of fatalism. Furthermore, no peer-reviewed empirical science or rational,
    scholarly demonstration has ever definitively proven, nor even has shown an overwhelming probability: ...(2) That society‟s interest in a healthy, vibrant, and growing indigenous population and workforce to drive economic growth and actuarially support public and private pension, benefit and entitlement systems is in any way advanced by undermining the institution of faithful, lawful marriage as between only one man and one woman

    ???

  • jester||

    'indigenous population'. Beautiful. Yes, blame the immigrants. Those brown people will overwhelm us true Americans (who are of course white) with their anchor babies, etc.

    Yes. WTF? And of course, a gay plague has descended on us because of our unrighteousness.

    I'll pass on this candidate.

  • ||

    There's no evidence that gay people aren't bankrupting social security.

  • horse||

    You should brush up on your reading comprehension, jester. The quote was ultimately about taking steps to preserve American culture. Nothing strange or outrageous about that. You are reading stuff into it that isn't there.

  • jester||

    I can think of quite a few parts of 'American culture' I wouldn't like to preserve and I think you could too. See how ridiculous the statement you just made is.

  • horse||

    If new immigrants aren't assimilated and the indigenous population doesn't breed at a sufficient level, neither you nor I will have any input about which parts, if any, of American culture survive. Both the good and the bad will disappear. I would rate American culture above any other culture that currently exists, so I would consider that to be a bad thing. If you don't agree, I invite you to emigrate.

  • American Beauty||

    I like the challenge that gravy-piled biscuits throw down to my insulin shots too much to emigrate.

  • ||

    I would rate American culture above any other culture that currently exists,

    I believe that is literally the maximum amount of Stupid that you can fit into 12 words.

  • horse||

    I believe that is literally the maximum amount of Stupid that you can fit into 12 words.

    Be sure to supply your list of current cultures which are superior to America's.

  • horse||

    I don't see the problem. The quote merely expresses support for traditional family units. The result of promoting self-indulgence and alternative lifestyles in the west has been demographic suicide. The writers of the document clearly want to reverse the trend and promote respect for traditional families as a way to maintain society and preserve western culture. As it is, the ruling classes in both the EU and the US have been promoting indiscriminant immigration and multiculturalism in a desperate attempt to delay the inevitable collapse of western welfare states.

    The quote also challenges the ongoing effort to undermine the idea of personal responsibility by insisting that personal sexual behavior is deterministically fixed by genetics. It doesn't suggest that gays have to keep their dicks in their pants or out of one another, just pushes back against gay talking points.

  • Cytotoxic||

    The result of promoting self-indulgence and alternative lifestyles in the west has been demographic suicide.

    This is bullshit. The decline on birth rates can be largely pinned on excessive taxation. How the fuck would homos reduce the birthrate?

    You're evading reality. The pledge is a nudge for the government to promote lifestyles, not a call for government to back down.

  • horse||

    The decline on birth rates can be largely pinned on excessive taxation.

    Excessive taxation certainly places a financial burden on those wishing to have children, but poor people on welfare don't seem to have any problem breeding. People who are inwardly looking, who are self-absorbed and constantly focused on self-fulfillment are simply less likely to sacrifice a portion of their lives to bear and raise children. The decline in population can be reversed, but only by encouraging people to look beyond their own gratification.

    Calm down, Cyto. No one is going to prevent you from getting your rocks off.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Thing is, we see this decline in births in every country that gets wealthy, from Algeria to America.

  • horse||

    Thing is, we see this decline in births in every country that gets wealthy, from Algeria to America.

    So, for a society, "becoming wealth" automatically implies "demographic death" - how gloomy.

  • Robert||

    Not only that, but on the nat'l political scene (maybe even worldwide), libertarians still need to ally with coercive traditionalists to get much done. It's the only alliance strong enough against the "left".

  • Cytotoxic||

    We can do better. Different alliances at different times with different groups makes sense for different causes. For example, we work with many con factions for gun rights (highly successful!) and work with the liberals to repeal DADT.

  • MWG||

    This.

    I hate the knee-jerk reaction to align with or defend the right.

  • Kroneborge||

    bans against abortion and prositution are NOT the same thing. Prositution invloves sex between two consenting adults.

    Aborition involves one consenting adult terminating an unconsenting minor.

  • Cytotoxic||

    The unborn aren't capable of consent and are not people.

  • Sudden||

    Technically, informed consent is generally deemed only available at age 18. Casey Anthony would be happy with consent being the determinant in whether or not a thing can be killed.

  • Cytotoxic||

    CA was found not guilty.

  • ||

    That's relevant how?

  • sandwich||

    if someone is incapable of consent, it means they cannot consent. it does not mean we can do whatever we want to them.

    and a human fetus is a member of the species h. sapiens sapiens, same as you or me. in what respect do you mean they are they not a person? because in a biological sense they are .

    i am not trying to make a pro-life argument here, but lets not win an argument by denying someones humanity.

  • Cytotoxic||

    One's 'person hood' is not biological; that's just DNA. It's sentience and self-determination.

  • sandwich||

    clearly i wont be making you either my childs babysitter, or the executor of my will.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Your children are people and so have rights. Also, I'd respect the contract.

  • ||

    A will isn't a contract.

  • sandwich||

    a newborn is sentient, but my fetus is not? seems you are thinking legal personhood, which is just subject to changing the law.

  • ||

    So you think infanticide should be legal.

    It's unlikely that sentience and self-determination are conditioned solely on successfully escaping the vaginal gauntlet.

  • Cytotoxic||

    It's a useful if arbitrary deadline. Now that you mention though, the burden may just be on you to justify the criminilization of infanticide.

  • ||

    Look who's a utilitarian now!

    I don't have a need to justify criminalizing infanticide as I would also criminalize abortion. There's no dividing line issue for me.

  • Cytotoxic||

    I'm not a utilitarian I just try to do my best at respecting individual rights. You being an authoritarian leaner, not so much.

  • ||

    Can I just interject and give props on the superb poetic ability of Tulpa
    "vaginal gauntlet" lol

  • horse||

    "It's ... self-determination."

    So people living under authoritarian governments are not really people - good to know.

  • ||

    You realize they can't consent to being born, either, right?

  • ||

    Yep. Maybe we should leave them alone and not intervene either way, and see what happens.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Funny that's what pro-choicers have been calling for. We're agreed then.

  • ||

    They've been calling for fetuses to be left alone?

  • ||

    Sure. Alone outside any unconsenting women's bodies.

  • ||

    I'm unaware of any fetuses living outside women's bodies, so that would be a moot point. The case we need to deal with is what to do (or not do) with a fetus that's inside a woman's body.

  • seguin||

    Okay, what constitutes "people" then? 'Cause as far as I'm concerned, once a kid has brain function, it's a person.

  • ||

    This morning, as I was flipping through the "news" channels, Bachmann was on one of them. Some guy whose name I did not catch tried to ask her something about the debt limit. She let him get about two thirds of the way through his more or less carefully structured query, and then took the bit in her teeth and disappeared over the horizon, leaving her favorite talking points sawirling in her wake.

    You could hear him in the background, weakly saying, "That's not the question I asked. That's not the question I asked."

  • BigT||

    Isn't that what any successful politician does? How is MB somehow uniquely guilty?

  • hazeeran||

    Why should we like it when any politician does that?

  • jacob||

    Where are the dipshits that usually defend Bachmann to no end?

    I'm waiting for Holy Cow to come on here and try and convince people again that Bachmann is more libertarian than Ron Paul.

  • horse||

    "try and convince people again that Bachmann is more libertarian than Ron Paul."

    Is Bachmann more libertarian than RP? No. Is she much more likely than RP to win both the nomination and the election? Yes.

    RP has tried to win the nomination before. When has RP ever won support outside of his cult?

    Jus' sayin'.

  • Montani Semper Liberi||

    Is Bachmann more libertarian than RP? No. Is she much more likely than RP to win both the nomination and the election? Yes No.

    Fixed.

  • Sudden||

    Primary, maybe. But Ron Paul actually does have some independent and even cross-over to the lefties appeal based on his foreign policy positions.

  • Mr Whipple||

    The lefties that might vote for RP in the general, will not change their party affiliation to vote for him in the primary.

  • Sudden||

    I agree, which is why I said that Bachmann is more likely to win a GOP primary. The GOP will go for someone like Bachmann who they know won't touch defense, Medicare, or SS (in large part because the GOP skews incredibly old) because they know she cares about fetus' and talks the socon talk. It's interesting though because RP, for all his libertarian tendencies, is probably more personally sociall conservative than half the avowed SoCons. Its part of the reason he makes a great standard bearer for libertarianism within the republican party - he's proof that you can allow liberty and believe in a person's rights to do as they wish and still live the virtuous life yourself. And as for caring about fetuses, I'll take the OBGYN over some raving tax attorney from the great north anyday.

    It's just sad that the GOP can't see that RP is probably their best candidate to do what they claim to want: beat Obama and reduce spending. He is literally the only guy I think the GOP is offering up right now that would stand a chance at beating Obama in the general.

  • Bingo||

    What's unbelievable is that the GOP is stupid enough to nominate someone like Bachmann which will result in Obama winning in 2012.

  • Cytotoxic||

    What's incredible is that she's still better than almost everybody else in that field.

    Obama's getting re-elected.

  • Mr Whipple||

    he's proof that you can allow liberty and believe in a person's rights to do as they wish and still live the virtuous life yourself.

    Word.

  • horse||

    RP has said, in a very public way, that he supports legalizing heroin. That alone kills any chance he has of winning anything. The fact that RP wasn't beat up for making this "gaffe" is a clear indication that no one views him as having any chance to win the nomination. The fact that Bachmann is being beat up is an indication that there are people who see her as having a real chance to win the nomination.

    67% wrong track - anyone can beat Obama.

  • ||

    So if Paul's public support for the legalization of heroin makes him unelectable, then what of Obama's position that the office of the President has carte blanche to assassinate American citizens without due process?

    http://www.csmonitor.com/Comme.....se-to-kill

    How much evidence should the US government be obliged to show before it kills an American citizen?

    None, according to the Obama administration.

    And how much evidence should the government be obliged to possess of an American’s wrongdoing before officially targeting them for killing?

    That’s a secret, according to the Obama team.

    As part of its war against violent extremism, the Obama administration now claims a right to kill Americans without a trial, without notice, and without any chance for targets to legally object.

    Funny, I don't really recall Obama being "beat up" in the media like he ought to have been over that, either.

  • Mnemone Jones||

    It's interesting though because RP, for all his libertarian tendencies, is probably more personally sociall conservative than half the avowed SoCons. Its part of the reason he makes a great standard bearer for libertarianism within the republican party - he's proof that you can allow liberty and believe in a person's rights to do as they wish and still live the virtuous life yourself.

    Except when he sneaks off with Tucker Carlson to enjoy a batch of pot brownies.

  • Robert||

    Obama wins or loses on his own. It doesn't matter who the Republicans nominate.

  • ||

    No way a significant fraction of real leftists vote for Paul over Obama in the general election. Some of them say they would because they know it's a choice they'd never have to make and they're just venting at BO being such a disappointment.

  • horse||

    No way a significant fraction of real leftists vote for Paul over Obama in the general election.

    This. At the end of the day, bootlickers will be bootlickers.

  • MWG||

    They're almost as bad as authoritarians.

  • Mr Whipple||

    Tulpa, don't underestimate the anti-war lefties. Do you really think someone like Chris Hedges could possibly publicly support Obama over Ron Paul? He'd lose all credibility.

  • jacob||

    "Is she much more likely than RP to win the election?"

    No. While I think you are 100% correct that Bachmann has a better shot to win the primary than RP, there is no way she's more likely to win the general election. RP can at least siphon a bit of the antiwar crowd from Obama. I can't think of a single faction on the left that would choose Bachmann over Paul.

  • horse||

    I can't think of a single faction on the left that would choose Bachmann over Paul.

    She wouldn't have to. Conservatives outnumber liberals decisively. Throw in high unemployment, high gas prices, rising health insurance costs, etc. and any R will attract most of the ideologically wishy-washy. RP is old and busted. Bachmann is new and shiny. RP has alienated lots of people by sounding like an anti-war hippy who wants your children to shoot up heroin. Like-it-or-not, electability has a lot to do with not making huge mistakes. Bachmann hasn't made any to compare with RPs so far, though her enemies are trying hard to pin something on her.

  • jacob||

    Your arguments simply don't hold up.

    Conservatives outnumber liberals decisively.

    How'd the 2008 elections work out for you? Or are you implying that Obama was the conservative candidate?

    RP has alienated lots of people by sounding like an anti-war hippy

    Opinion polls show that the overwhelming majority of Americans oppose the military actions in Iraq and Libya. Does that mean we're all a bunch of hippies?

    [Ron Paul] wants your children to shoot up heroin.

    Where did he say that? He said that he doesn't need the government to protect him from using heroin. Are you saying that your kin is so retarded that they'll become heroin junkies if it's legal? I wouldn't be surprised if you said yes.

    Bachmann hasn't made any [mistakes]

    Are you fucking kidding me? Her vote to extend the Patriot ACT caused LOUD rumblings among conservatives. Look up threads from Free Republic if you don't believe me.

    Look, I get it. You are a socially conservative Republican and you don't like libertarians. Fine. But don't pretend your fantasy is reality.

  • horse||

    How'd the 2008 elections work out for you? Or are you implying that Obama was the conservative candidate?

    Ds won big in 2006 because Rs were acting all big governmenty and voters punished them. As is the usual pattern, the Ds declared that their victory meant voters gave the Ds a mandate to impose even bigger government. Bush acted as if he accepted the D mandate narrative, making Bush unpopular with the R base.

    Crappy nominee McCain was polling behind Obama until he choose Palin at which point the polls flipped and McCain was leading. Then, T. Sec. Paulson paniced the stock market, ensuring Obama's victory.

    Voters have wanted smaller, less intrusive government for the last 30 years. The political class just doesn't deliver it. Enter the TP.

    Opinion polls show that the overwhelming majority of Americans oppose the military actions in Iraq and Libya. Does that mean we're all a bunch of hippies?

    Nah, but RP doesn't just talk about withdrawing from Iraq and Libya. He talks about withdrawing all of the US military back into US territory. I don't think that has much support from most Americans.

    He said that he doesn't need the government to protect him from using heroin.

    He said he supported legalizing heroin or something close enough that a campaign ad can be spun saying he did. I *guarantee* you that that has miniscule support amongst voters and makes him look like he is on the political fringe.

    Her vote to extend the Patriot ACT caused LOUD rumblings among conservatives.

    Overall, that is a tempest-in-a-teapot. The Patriot Act is a bad thing, but having voted for it will not seriously damage Bachmann's candidacy, esp. given the bi-partisan muddle of votes surrounding the Patriot Act and its extension.

    You are a socially conservative Republican

    Nope. I know the Democrat Party is my enemy as it is fully committed to statism, but the Republican Party doesn't seem to consistently stand for anything. Call me an Independent and a TP supporter.

    you don't like libertarians

    Not true! Many of them are fun and interesting and the way they strut about with a confidence in their own intellectual superiority which is always betrayed by a hint of social insecurity and barely suppressed uncertainty about life is endearing in a mildly entertaining and slightly tragic way.

  • jacob||

    So, you're going back on what you said about "Conservatives outnumber liberals decisively"? After all, if they really do (and I'm not saying they don't) then they should win every election.

    Call me an Independent and a TP supporter.

    ...which is exactly what I said. You're a conservative Republican.

  • seguin||

    Just because you can't tell the difference doesn't mean there isn't one.

  • ||

    He said that he doesn't need the government to protect him from using heroin.

    He said he supported legalizing heroin or something close enough that a campaign ad can be spun saying he did. I *guarantee* you that that has miniscule support amongst voters and makes him look like he is on the political fringe.

    Buddy that is the same thing! The whole reasoning behind the War on Drugs is that there is an addiction epidemic and the best way to deal with it is by government to intervene and "control" (a misnomer really since by prohibiting they actually distribute control to the black market) the substance by making it prohibited under the threat of punishment.

    Since I'm sure you don't follow, I'll break it down for you: Legalizing a drug does not mean everyone can have it, it means taking it out of the hands of government and putting the decision into the hands of adult citizens.

    And to your point about it having minuscule support amongst voters that is highly debatable, since most recent polls show that between 50 - 65% of the population thinks the War on Drugs is an utter failure. (Which it rightfully is)

  • horse||

    Since I'm sure you don't follow,

    Sure, anyone who doesn't agree with you obviously just doesn't understand.

    Legalizing a drug does not mean everyone can have it, it means taking it out of the hands of government and putting the decision into the hands of adult citizens.

    Fine, not tell me something else that I already understand. I am talking about politics, not about the reasoning behind policies.

    And to your point about it having minuscule support amongst voters that is highly debatable

    Anything is debatable, at least until PCness takes over completely.

    since most recent polls show that between 50 - 65% of the population thinks the War on Drugs is an utter failure.

    And what % thinks that the WoD should be abandoned? And what % thinks that heroin should be legalized? I stand by my original assessment.

  • ||

    Sure, anyone who doesn't agree with you obviously just doesn't understand.

    I assume that those who disagree with me and support the WoD don't understand its full implications because that is more likely than someone who understands and grasps the scope of its failure and continues to support it; which would make that person evil or blindly misguided/stupid.

    Fine, no[w] tell me something else that I already understand. I am talking about politics, not about the reasoning behind policies.

    Politics involves convincing the public of the merits and demerits of policies (which includes the reasoning behind those policies) so maybe you should expand your discussion of politics...

    And what % thinks that the WoD should be abandoned? And what % thinks that heroin should be legalized? I stand by my original assessment.

    I'm sure if 50 - 65% think that the WoD is a failure, then 50 - 65% wish to see it abandoned or at the very least highly modified into a better program. Only blockhead politicians and Beltway-Insiders with heads shoved up their nether regions think that people can remove support for a policy but somehow want it to be continued.
    As far as heroin being legalized, that is a very specific question to which i don't know the answer, but i'd venture to say that even if support for that specific policy is low more and more people are willing to talk about it than you give it credit.

  • ||

    "RP has alienated lots of people by sounding like an anti-war hippy who wants your children to shoot up heroin."

    You are such a fucking moron. You don't understand one thing ron paul has said.

  • horse||

    You are such a fucking moron. You don't understand one thing ron paul has said.

    Calling me names just because I'm not a member of your political cult doesn't advance your cause. Furthermore, you have no reason to believe that I don't understand RP and the things that he says.

  • ||

    If you have reached the conclusion that Ron Paul is a "hippy who wants your children to shoot up heroin" then you classify as a someone who does not understand a single thing about Ron Paul and is a fucking moron.

    I'm not saying that classification includes you, Horse. Just putting it out there

  • Robert||

    It doesn't matter. The "left" will be solidly for Obama no matter what, because for them, now, it's all about making sure a black guy isn't embarrassed by losing re-election for president. But the "left" doesn't decide the election.

    The election comes down to Obama and Not-Obama. It doesn't matter who Not-Obama is.

  • jacob||

    The election comes down to Obama and Not-Obama. It doesn't matter who Not-Obama is.

    And there's the rub. There is a HUGE ideological difference between, say, Ron Paul/Gary Johnson and Santorum/Cain/Bachman et al. The gap is large enough that I'd posit that it would make an impact on the course of the country.

  • horse||

    I anticipate that Obama's loss will be used by opportunistic trouble-makers in the black community to commit acts of racially-motivated retaliation. Hopefully, no one will get killed.

  • ||

    Good god. You really keep getting worse with each post. You are rivaling Tony for the prize of biggest moron of the reason commentary.

  • horse||

    Good ...

    AG Holder has clearly indicated that he has no intention of prosecuting civil rights violations in which whites are victimized by blacks. He has made statements that reveal that he is a firmly committed racialist who looks at the world in black vs. white terms. Operation Gunrunner shows that the Obama administration is perfectly willing to advance its agenda even if it means risking the lives of US citizens. Obama's whipping up of Union thugs to take action is part of the message as well. BHO actions are perfectly in line with his background as a political agitator. The message being sent is that violence will not necessarily be punished. Some of his followers will take his message to heart.

    Perhaps you have been following the stories about rampaging groups of young blacks in MN which have taken place while police show no interest in finding the perpetrators. Not long ago, there was that case of the tranny getting beat up in a McDonald's while several black youths watched and recorded the incident. Drudge has a link up of another black on white attack in MN, this time on a woman and her 15 and 4 yr. old daughters. Sensationalism? Nothing more than what one expect to happen on occasion in a country with a large, racially mixed population? Perhaps.

    I take it as given that you are too young to know that since the 60s, the Ds have been radicalizing American blacks, telling them that America is a horrible country that oppresses minorities and has encouraged blacks to expect that white America owes them special treatment. There have been enough stories and public statements by black clergymen to suggest a pattern of radical agitation bordering on advocating revolution being preached from the pulpits of black churches in poor urban neighborhoods. Maybe you have never noticed how some liberals excuse criminal behavior, even violent criminal behavior, on the part of blacks as being understandable given the history of race in America - I have. Maybe you have never been on the receiving end of an incredibly hostile, threatening and entirely unprovoked outburst by a group of blacks yelling racial slurs - I have. Fortunately, I have never been assaulted, but I have been in situations which could easily have turned violent.

    Most blacks, like most people generally, don't want violent conflict, but the groundwork for racial violence has been laid for the past 40-50 years and there are a lot of blacks who are tremendously invested emotionally in BHO and who will take his election loss personally. It won't take much for a rabble-rouser to whip a mob into a killing frenzy. Then, too, human nature being human nature, there are some very sober minded individuals who see racial violence as being of some benefit to themselves and will work hard to create an incident. I hope I am wrong, but America is a big country and there are bound to be some extremists who will be pushed over the edge.

  • MWG||

    "I'm waiting for Holy Cow to come on here and try and convince people again that Bachmann is more libertarian than Ron Paul."

    Yea, where is John?

  • ||

    Ron Paul has put his name on some pretty heinous things, too. In fact he's had said heinous things NAMED AFTER HIM.

  • Jim||

    Man, I don't think he'll ever live down that ill-conceived children's book, Ron Paul's Old-Tyme Donkey Fucking and Sheep Fisting For Kids.

    Though I'm told Lew Rockwell actually ghost-wrote it.

  • ||

    Okay, time to play pick out fucked up thing in the pledge then copy 'n paste 'em here.

    My entry:

    Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an AfricanAmerican baby born after the election of the USA‟s first African-American President

    Wow.

  • MWG||

    Damn. Safari won't let me cut/paste from the pledge.

  • ||

    Maybe it thinks FAMiLY is an Apple trademark.

  • Mr Whipple||

    +1

  • ||

    Chrome doesn't work either, try here.

  • JackC||

    You mean something accurate?

    And important in demonstrating it wasn't slavery that destroyed the black family, but something much more recent.

  • ||

    Yeah, families are much more stable when THEY'RE CHAINED THE FUCK TOGETHER.

    Jezus Fucking Tapdancing Christ, what's wrong with people?

  • Sudden||

    Eh, I'm certainly not one to defend Bachmann. She's a certifiable SoCon fuckstick. But I'd actually say Jack has a point here. It's not that Bachmann want to return to the days of human chattel, the footnote is meant to say that, even in an era when families were torn apart by the father/mother/kids being sold apart from eachother to different owners, black families still managed to stay more intact than they have in the era of govt bennies being given for kicking the baby's daddy out of the house. Not sure how reliable the data is concerning slave families around the 1850's, but I do think you're missing the point there. And admittedly, its one I sympathize with. However, I don't think the solution is banning non/pre-marital sex and no-fault divorce (although one can argue that the no-fault divorce policy flies a bit in the face of the marriage contract, as it is essentially breach of contract). Rather, I'd argue that the very nature of how govt bennies are doled out has been largely responsible for the state of the contemporary black family (Shelby Steele has actually done really good work on establishing that link).

  • ||

    I considered that, but then I wondered that if a family was kept together and one parent wanted to leave...where the hell would they go? Or maybe being a victim of the worst imaginable oppression would be something that would inspire cohesiveness with your family and friends. Besides, I haven't heard serious people blaming slavery for the present condition of the black family. Usually it's blamed on the welfare state, the drug war, systemic racism, or some combination of the three.

    I don't think that we can discount the effect that the drug war has on black families. The overwhelmingly disproportionate brunt of the drug war has been borne by the black community.

  • Sudden||

    I've seen a couple of african american professors state that the disintegration of the black family in modern times is partly a relic of families being broken up by being sold off seperately in the slave era. And insofar as that is concerned, I think the footnote is of value in debunking that (although again, Shelby Steele's treatment on 60's welfare policies is actually more instructive in debunking that). And I agree that the drug war has been a big culprit in the disintegration, although it should be noted that, more than any other factor including race/ethnicity, the most common denominator of prison inmates is that 70% grew up in a fatherless home.

    As far as keeping families together is concerned, I don't think thats at all anti-thetical to libertarianism. Quite the opposite, I think the family is THE single greatest counterweight to an overarching govt. Intact families ask less of the govt, are more capable of taking care of their young and their elderly, and can exercise far more reasonable discipline and direction in shaping a kid to become a functioning adult than a trillion DARE programs and pornography crackdowns ever could. The family is THE central alternative to the govt, and that may very well be why so much govt policy seems to have as a side effect a weakening of families.

  • ||

    This is a strong case of grass being greener on the other side.

    "The family" (whatever that is -- families of today would probably be unrecognizable to people from 200 years ago) can be and has been a source of oppression in its own right. Just like the people who lament the rice of state surveillance and yearn for the old days when it was only the gossipy old ladies in town who were watching your every move.

  • Sudden||

    "The family" (whatever that is -- families of today would probably be unrecognizable to people from 200 years ago) can be and has been a source of oppression in its own right.

    And I recognize that and agree to some extent. The beauty there is that if it is entirely oppressive, you can chose to abandon it upon your 18th birthday, freedom of disassociation. Sadly, in the current state of affairs, the govt follows you for your whole life. Moreover, I don't think that societal and familial pressure is necessarily a bad thing. Sometimes, it should be pushed back against and proven wrong-headed, but in many cases, it is the learned wisdom of ages passed down. And I think a lot of times, there are things we did in our youth rebeling against our family's edicts, that we later in life were happy the family had those edicts because it prevented us from going too overboard on some things. As I age, I find myself seeing some of the merit in the shit my parents lectured at me that at the time I rejected.

  • horse||

    "The family" ... can be and has been a source of oppression in its own right.

    Communists really hate the family, too.
    Communist Manifesto chapter I:
    The bourgeoisie has torn away from the family its sentimental
    veil, and has reduced the family relation to a mere money
    relation.

    And in chapter II:
    Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this
    infamous proposal of the Communists.
    ...
    But, you will say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations,
    when we replace home education by social.
    ...
    The bourgeois clap-trap about the family and education, about
    the hallowed co-relation of parent and child, becomes all the
    more disgusting, the more, by the action of Modern Industry, ...

    Unrelated, but still interesting quotes from chapter II:
    The Communists are further reproached with desiring to abolish
    countries and nationality.
    ...
    National differences and antagonisms between peoples are daily
    more and more vanishing,

    Sometimes libertarians sound a lot like communists, although, to be fair, communists don't seem to like prostitution as much as libertarians do.

  • ||

    Oh shit, everybody come out. The jig is up, horse is on the case.

    We give up, you found our red menace terror cell.

  • Sudden||

    I LOL'd

  • horse||

    you found our red menace terror cell.

    :)

    My point, of course, is that communists, who are fanatics about controlling people's behaviors, really like the idea of breaking up families.

    I agree with Sudden that strong families are an excellent defense against government dependency as an intact family provides a support system that is independent of external institutions.

  • ||

    Oh for sure. Voluntary associations can be very beneficial to society and can better perform many of the functions that our government has undertaken; without the coercion. Voluntary is the operative word though.

    Frankly, I'm glad that my parents were able to easily divorce. I honestly think that I am better off today from not having to have to deal with a domestic warzone. My situation may not be typical, but I'm sure it happens enough that government enforced 'morality' isn't a one size fits all solution.

    Just as I think that you can better decide for yourself how to spend your money than the state could, I think that what you do with your body and who you associate with are decisions best left up to the individual.

  • horse||

    Frankly, I'm glad that my parents were able to easily divorce.

    "Easily" is the operative word here. No fault divorce has made getting a divorce trivial, which undermines the point of marriage as an institution. Marriage exists to increase security. Security for children to grow up in a predictable environment. Security for spouses as they age as they know that law and custom encourages another person to personally help them through the hard times, emotionally and financially. When a spouse can simply say, "My marriage is restricting my activities and making me feel obligated in a way that annoys me, so I'll go through the drive-through divorce lane.", then the security of marriage has largely been eliminated. The very sense of obligation is what makes marriage valuable.

    Of course, making divorce impossible or extremely onerous is also bad as there is no security in a bad marriage, but there needs to be something holding couples together so that relationships don't fly apart for reasons which ultimately prove to be unimportant or transient.

  • Sudden||

    Admittedly though, you and I diverge on the ways to get to stronger families, and more importantly so called "traditional values" in some key regards from what I can gather. One of my central points is that a world in which people are free to do whatever they wish but burdened with bearing the responsibility of those actions entirely themselves is the best path to getting to those so-called traditional values. The formation of strong families is one of the ways the strengthen their ability to bear the responsibilities and disperse the costs associated with responsibility for their actions.

  • ||

    First of all, we should take traditional values and his little brother family values out into the street and burn them alive. They are amorphous terms that will have different meanings depending on whom you ask. It really confuses things when we debate past each other because of our differing interpretations and definitions.

    Secondly, my prescription for stronger families is for government to get out of the business of raising/jailing kids and let people decide/fend for themselves with the help of voluntary associations. I don't know how your views differ, but I suspect they run parallel to mine.

    My view is that people are generally good, and that if you let them alone to make their own decisions(and to deal with the consequences)they will lead good and ethical lives.

  • horse||

    My view is that people are generally good, and that if you let them alone to make their own decisions(and to deal with the consequences)they will lead good and ethical lives.

    Which is why street gangs are so well behaved.

    Morality is not inborn. Without moral guidance, it's Lord of the Flies. Families are the primary source of moral guidance, which is why broken families produce more social pathologies.

  • ||

    I would argue that violent street gangs are a consequence of trying to legislate morality and, at the same time, shield people from the consequences of their own actions.

    How do you make "strong families" without government coercion? If people don't respond to social pressures, then do you resort to compulsory virtue at the point of a gun?

  • horse||

    I would argue that violent street gangs are a consequence of trying to legislate morality and, at the same time, shield people from the consequences of their own actions.

    I assume you are referring to the WoD and welfare programs. Welfare programs break up families so that young men are forced to find community and learn their values from other young men. Without moral guidance, these young men learn to be predatory. Even if drugs were legalized, gangs would find some other criminal behavior to engage in.

    How do you make "strong families" without government coercion?

    By encouraging adherence to some set of behavioral standards. If you were to walk up to a stranger and piss on their leg, then simply having your friends give you a disapproving look telling you how f***ed up your behavior would probably be enough to keep you from doing it again. That's how most behavioral standards work in practice. The government doesn't need to get involved.

    If people don't respond to social pressures, then do you resort to compulsory virtue at the point of a gun?

    It's done all the time, in every society with a functioning government. Do something unvirtuous like murdering someone and it is likely that someone from the government will end up pointing a gun at you. The idea that governments shouldn't legislate morality is nonsensical. Every law embodies a value judgement. The real argument is over what values should be enshrined in and enforced by law and what values should be enforced through social or cultural pressure.

    In the case of divorce, my view is that it should be a non-trivial exercise, but not one that is so onerous that it prevents spouses from escaping abusive or dangerous situations.

  • Robert||

    Yes to non-trivial divorce. The trouble was in going from divorce being allowed only for legal cause (in some states only a narrow range of causes) directly to no-fault, with no alternative seemingly in play.

  • horse||

    The trouble was in going from divorce being allowed only for legal cause (in some states only a narrow range of causes) directly to no-fault, with no alternative seemingly in play.

    I agree.

  • Sudden||

    My view is that people are generally good, and that if you let them alone to make their own decisions(and to deal with the consequences)they will lead good and ethical lives

    That is my view as well. Sorry, I should've clarified that my response about "you and I diverge on how to get there" was directed at horse. Capital L, you and I are pretty much on the same page... give people freedom, and they'll show you that they are inherently good.

  • horse||

    we should take traditional values and his little brother family values out into the street and burn them alive. They are amorphous terms

    They are not that amorphous. Taking personal responsibility for one's actions. Feeling a sense of duty to assist one's family. Being honest and fair in one's dealings with others. Working hard and not sponging off of others. Respecting and cherishing the parent-child and spouse-spouse relationships. Moderating one's behavior. Being polite and respectful toward others. Protecting those who have trouble defending themselves. Demonstrating personal integrity and strong character.

    Liberals and liberal policies attack almost every aspect of these.

  • ||

    Nice how you left off the second half of my sentence, but I'm not about to argue with a list of platitudes.

  • horse||

    Nice how you left off the second half of my sentence, but I'm not about to argue with a list of platitudes.

    They are not just a list of platitudes. There are people who disagree with each of them. The point is, most Americans agree with them and try to abide by them. Yet, progressives have waged war against them for well over 150 years. It's those damn bourgeois sensibilities don't you know - they're so oppressive. Your post suggested that "tradition values" is so vague a term as to be useless when used in political discussions. I take issue with that characterization.

    There are many people, myself included, who are tired of the promotion of moral relativism and the creation of government programs which undermine traditional values. It's wrecking our society and causing a great deal of suffering, particularly in those communities at which the programs are targeted. A little "social conservative" push back is long overdue.

  • ||

    Okay, I'll accept that your list of trite non-specific(I didn't say amorphous)sentences is the universal meaning of traditional/family values. And also that (just about)everyone agrees with this list. Happy?

    I'm not interested in getting into a semantic debate.

    What does interest me, though, is what a social conservative push would entail. What would the government's role be in rolling back the 150 years of progressive erosion, that you claim, of traditional values?

    ...specifically, and outside of abolishing the welfare/prison state...

  • Hate Potion Number Nine||

    "Protecting those who have trouble defending themselves"

    Like the stone-age peasants the US is bombing as I write here?

    "Being polite and respectful toward others"

    Like those good folks of Westboro Baptist?

    "Demonstrating personal integrity and strong character"

    Two words: George Bush

    "Respecting and cherishing the parent-child and spouse-spouse relationships"

    So long as they're not fags...

    "Working hard and not sponging off of others"

    big business subsidies anyone?

    "Taking personal responsibility for one's actions"

    George Bush...again!

    "Feeling a sense of duty to assist one's family"

    Yes, Kantism is very non-amorphous

    You're new to this aren't you?

  • MWG||

    "My point, of course, is that communists, who are fanatics about controlling people's behaviors, really like the idea of breaking up families."

    Bull. Shit.

    So much, in fact, that Stalin attempted to strengthen the family unit in the USSR.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F.....viet_Union

    The communists were/are a mixed bag when it came/comes to abortion, divorce, and other so called 'traditional values'.

    You are not the first to try and link libertarians to communists when it comes to the family, but your attempt to do so is just as dumb as the attempts by others.

  • horse||

    So much, in fact, that Stalin attempted to strengthen the family unit in the USSR.

    Yeah, Stalin was such a family oriented guy. But who am I to argue with wikipedia? Have you ever considered that communists took so much shit about calling for something so unnatural as the destruction of the family that they, or their apologists, are just rewriting their history to soften their image?

    Ultimately, communists, like all totalitarians, are all about control. If they have established their grip on a populace, then they won't hesitate to pragmatically modify their positions if it helps to keep the progs under their thumb. Once the commies had brutalized the Russian populace into passive submission, it was only sensible for them to relax their views on destroying the family so that it didn't remain an ever-present irritant which might inspire rebellion. Of course, commies always reserve the right to steal children away from their parents and subject them to intensive indoctrination in a child slave-labor camp, as is done in Cuba.

    You are not the first to try and link libertarians to communists when it comes to the family, but your attempt to do so is just as dumb as the attempts by others.

    The motivation for the rejection of the traditional family is different for communists and libertarians. For communists, the motivation is to suppress individualism and promote collectivism as a means of political control. For libertarians, it's just about not wanting to have to follow any rules.

  • MWG||

    "Yeah, Stalin was such a family oriented guy. But who am I to argue with wikipedia? Have you ever considered that communists took so much shit about calling for something so unnatural as the destruction of the family that they, or their apologists, are just rewriting their history to soften their image?"

    Yea, wikipedia is a marxist conspiracy. Actually, the information comes from the library of congress.

    http://rs6.loc.gov/cgi-bin/que.....tdy:@field(DOCID+su0160)

    "Ultimately, communists, like all totalitarians, are all about control. If they have established their grip on a populace, then they won't hesitate to pragmatically modify their positions if it helps to keep the progs under their thumb. Once the commies had brutalized the Russian populace into passive submission, it was only sensible for them to relax their views on destroying the family so that it didn't remain an ever-present irritant which might inspire rebellion. Of course, commies always reserve the right to steal children away from their parents and subject them to intensive indoctrination in a child slave-labor camp, as is done in Cuba."

    So basically you're just talking from your ass now.

    "For libertarians, it's just about not wanting to have to follow any rules."

    No... it's about the government not using guns to force the will of the majority onto the minority.

  • ||

    Hitler ate sugar.

  • ||

    "Sometimes libertarians sound a lot like communists, although, to be fair, communists don't seem to like prostitution as much as libertarians d"

    You can't tell the difference between "liking" something and "not willing to prosecute with armed cops and imprison you for doing it". Libertarians believe you should be able to do things they themselves find objectionable and do not like, including blathering on like a moron on public blogs, for instance.

  • ||

    I understand what you are saying and am inclined to agree with you. The problem I have is using statistics from another time when conditions were so drastically different. Like saying, "During slavery there were almost no black men in the penitentiaries of the south." So what? It's nonsense; apples and oranges. Things were so different back then for a black person in America that any comparison between then and now is meaningless plus dx.

    If they were to compare numbers from the years directly before LBJ's war on poverty, and Nixon's war on drugs I wouldn't be so critical.

  • horse||

    The late Daniel Patrick Moynihan used to quote some very damning numbers wrt illegitimacy rates before and after the Great Society was enacted.

    IIRC, in the mid 90s, he was fond of pointing out that before the Great Society, out-of-wedlock births to blacks was ~20% and to whites was ~8%, but by the mid 90s, the rates had risen to ~69% for blacks and ~25% for whites. Of course, this was a bit of "I told you so" on the part of Moynihan who had originally warned that the War on Poverty would encourage the destruction of the nuclear family. He was right.

    The disproportionate impact of that the WoD has had on blacks is more likely due to the feelings of powerlessness, hopelessness and despair that government dependency encourages.

  • Cytotoxic||

    You forgot the part where the WoD put people's fathers in jail.

  • horse||

    Pardon me. I wasn't clear.

    The feelings of powerlessness, hopelessness and despair that government dependency encourages results in a much higher drug-use rate in poor urban black communities than in other communities. More blacks using drugs as a means of escape, more blacks thrown in prison.

    Many "disproportionate impact" studies of incarceration rates of blacks versus whites presume similar levels of drug use in their respective communities. This assumption cannot reasonably be made. Also, many studies presume that black drug users are equally adept at evading the law as whites which is another unfounded assumption.

  • ||

    The overwhelmingly disproportionate brunt of the drug war has been borne by the black community.

    That's largely because that's where the hub of the drug trade lies. You may ask why that is -- but that's a very complicated question. Poverty, lack of opportunity, lack of connections to the world outside the ghetto, terrible education, and yes, racism, all contribute to this.

    It's a real mess, and there really aren't any easy solutions. Ending the drug war would help but it's not going to solve the underlying problems.

  • ||

    Here's a bunch of good info on sentencing disparities.

    Our research shows that blacks comprise 62.7 percent and whites 36.7 percent of all drug offenders admitted to state prison, even though federal surveys and other data detailed in this report show clearly that this racial disparity bears scant relation to racial differences in drug offending. There are, for example, five times more white drug users than black. Relative to population, black men are admitted to state prison on drug charges at a rate that is 13.4 times greater than that of white men. In large part because of the extraordinary racial disparities in incarceration for drug offenses, blacks are incarcerated for all offenses at 8.2 times the rate of whites. One in every 20 black men over the age of 18 in the United States is in state or federal prison, compared to one in 180 white men.

    While this doesn't directly contradict anything you posit, I find it very hard to believe that the drug trade is that concentrated in the black community. Anecdotally(i.e. worthless) just about everyone I've known in the trade has been white.

  • JackC||

    Then you need to branch out more. There's plenty of people in the black/white liberal communities who blame everything that's wrong American blacks on the legacy of slavery. Particularly when much of the social disintegration inconveniently dates back to the 1960s.

  • Tony||

    Don't defend that trash. Jesus Christ. Talk about a paternalistic attitude.

  • JackC||

    We're not talking about Progressives, Tony.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Progressives are maternalistic, Jack. SoCons are the paternalists.

  • ||

    "The family that slaves together stays together."

  • JackC||

    Black families stayed together in spite of slavery, for example - in spite of the constant threat of being sold as individuals to different owners, not because of it.

  • Kant feel Pietzsche||

    C'mon, CI. That was disingenuous. AA families were also much more stable in the first 1/2 of the previous century than the last 1/2.

    Of course, I guess you could REALLY stretch it, and say that they were too scared not to stary together prior to the civil rights movement. ;^)

  • horse||

    , less addiction, less legal trouble, and less extramarital pregnancy.[with irrelevant links to incidents involving high-profile public figures]

    The link between stable families and better outcomes for children is fairly well-established. I believe Charles Murray's work back in the 80s showed this pretty definitively.

    We know, for instance, that the government cannot stop prostitution or abortion, only push those activities onto the black market where they are more dangerous and dehumanizing.

    No one is claiming that prostitution or abortion can be stopped, but it sure as hell can be reduced by not having government endorsement. Also, wide-spread, subsidized, de-stigmatized abortion is pretty damn dangerous and dehumanizing for all the female babies who are killed.

    denying women access to no-fault divorces and abortions ... could also only happen with a much, much bigger government.

    Eliminating no-fault divorce wouldn't increase the size of government at all and would probably reduce it since fewer women would frivolously or impetuously marry and divorce, only to end up on welfare. Reducing access to abortion by reducing tax payer subsidies wouldn't affect the size of government much, if at all. The slight increase in births to poor women which might result would be partially offset by the renewed emphasis on personal responsibility.

    theocratic pledges ... blatantly homophobic and anti-Muslim

    Nothing screams "free minds and free markets" like name calling. Someone needs to tell Riggs what publication he is supposed to be writing for.

  • ||

    Nothing screams "controlling people's choices" like "traditional values". You don't give a shit about smaller government and less control; you give a shit about making it harder for people to do the things you disapprove of; which is actually a form of greater control dressed up as "smaller government". Which also makes you a typical asshole conservative.

  • Cytotoxic||

    +1

  • Sudden||

    I don't think so called "traditional values" are at odds with libertarian policy. Far from it, I think in libertopia, there'd be more incentive to live by approximately traditional values because the enhanced personal responsibility means you don't have daddy govt to bail you out for being a meth-addled fuckup. I've seen one too many drug-dependency funded in part by govt largesse (SSDI/TANF/WIC/etc) in my life to think there is no connection. And it makes sense when you realize that a lot of the deviation from traditional values has occurred in the era of increasing govt interference into our lives. Now, I'm not saying that abolishing medicare or SS will dramatically reduce the number of people who casually smoke a bowl every now and then. But when you're on the hook for your own actions with nothing other than the kindness of specific charities (that will only give you x number of chances), you kind of come to the realization that you either shape up (which is good) or starve and fucking die because you're too concerned with getting meth/crack (I ain't gonna cry about that, junkie).

  • ||

    Now, I'm not saying that abolishing medicare or SS will dramatically reduce the number of people who casually smoke a bowl every now and then.

    I don't understand why this would even be something that you cared about. Why the fuck do you care if people "shape up" or not? The purpose of doing away with government largesse is a moral one in the sense that the government should not steal from some to give to others. It has nothing to do with "improving" social outcomes.

  • Sudden||

    I don't care about it. I don't endorse smoking a bowl every now and then, but I think its harmless and something I engage in from time to time. My point is that in a world without govt money sloshing all over the fucking place to all sorts of human refuse, there would be a lot less that would be in extreme opposition to traditional values. I think most SoCons would readily admit that an adult who smokes an occassional J is much less in violation of their principles than a regular meth-user. The point I'm trying to get at is that in a world without all this govt cheese being doled out, and even if you had legal drugs (libertopia), there may not be any fewer (and almost certainly more) casual weedsmokers, but I'd imagine there'd be fewer, or at the very least not any more, methheads. Because the latter behavior is far more debilitating and typically requires an enabler (whether a parent or daddy govt).

    And believe me, I'm a first principles guy, but that doesn't mean I completely ignore the consequentialist arguments. Sometimes, its the attack from both angles that is needed to convince someone.

  • ||

    We're not about convincing here at H&R, we're about winning arguments. Or at least convincing ourselves that we won the argument.

  • Sudden||

    Fair enough, and maybe its less about convincing others. Either way, I find that consistent first principles usually result in consequentialist benefits where you might otherwise expect negative reprecussions from first principles. I.e., two of my big first principles: you have no right to anyone elses money (via govt force), you have the right to put into your system whatever you please. But if you're a junkie in Suddentopia, you ain't getting any help to keep at the habit from Uncle Scam, so eventually you'll wise up and quit.

  • Tony||

    The purpose of doing away with government largesse is a moral one in the sense that the government should not steal from some to give to others. It has nothing to do with "improving" social outcomes.

    Then that's a pointless moral premise, and certainly not one anyone's required to believe.

  • Sudden||

    We don't think anyone should be required to believe anything. If you think giving money to whatever cause will improve social outcomes, go for it..... with your own damn money or with contributions you have gathered from people voluntarily.

  • Tony||

    You mean as long as I act in accordance to your silly pointless moral premise.

  • Sudden||

    My pointless moral premise that I have the right to the fruit of my own labors and you have no legitimate claim on it? And as a corrollary that you have the right to the fruit of your labors and I have no claim on those? That doesn't sound like a pointless moral claim, it sounds like simple fucking decency.

    If the things you wish to contribute to are of such intrinsic value, convince me, persuade me, and then I'll donate willingly.

  • Tony||

    Okay explaining your pointless moral premise is not telling me why I have to follow it.

    We have exactly the system you are describing. You just can't accept the fairly uncontroversial reality that "voluntariness" on a large scale would tend to look like a country with economic policy powers.

  • Tony||

    the fruit of your labors

    You deserve a better answer. Yes it does sound like common decency. The thing is, your labors are only able to bear fruit because certain conditions apply to your environment, namely, a strong, stable government that enables a strong, stable society. Compulsory taxation in order to maintain it is, too, simple fucking decency. That's because you alone don't get to decide to reorder the society your fellow citizens have built. It's not like you can't leave. (That's not a throwaway point, it's what makes the whole thing voluntary--I don't know how you'd do voluntariness on this scale any other way.)

  • Cytotoxic||

    That's because you alone don't get to decide to reorder the society your fellow citizens have built.

    No that's for assholes like you in the government. Fuck you I'll do what I want with my money including tax evasion if I like.

  • Tony||

    For which you should be prosecuted, you dont get a free lunch.

  • Cytotoxic||

    You misspelt persecuted. And hey, there's lots of ways to evade tax. My friend in construction gets lots of money over the table. I'm considering doing semi-illegal cigarette smuggling.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Tony considers tax evasion to be equal to, say, running an illegal puppy mill, or beating a Girl Scout to death with a bag of golf balls.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Meanwhile, Tony ignores the criminals he voted for in past elections, and will support again in the future.

  • Kant feel Pietzsche||

    Because no one ever built a structure, or planted and harvested a crop, or fabricated a tool, or invented a more efficacious method of performing a task absent a government. Tony, you are ireedeemably stupid.

  • Tony||

    Were we in the stone age your form of government might work.

  • Tony||

    Yeah, in other words in Libertopia more people die from preventable things. Yay freedom!

  • Sudden||

    If by "die from preventable things" you mean "die as a consequence of their own misguided choices and general stupidity, thereby thinning the useless from the herd rather than subsidizing their outbreeding of the hardworking sonsabitches that pay for their very existence" then yes, that is Suddentopia™

  • ||

    +1

  • ||

    I disagree with "horse" on most of his points, but come on, Epi. That's pure ad hominem. If you can tell all the stuff you wrote is true, maybe you've missed your true calling as an Internet psychic friend.

  • ||

    Dude, he made several posts and was constantly subtly focusing on controlling behavior he didn't like. He may not have said "control", but the common theme was "direct people to act in a way I approve through subtle pressures". He tried to make it libertarian-ish by saying that direction was through the removal of government largesse, but that was only a happy coincidence. Let's see how small government he is if you tell him he can direct those behaviors with a new government program.

  • horse||

    he made several posts and was constantly subtly focusing on controlling behavior he didn't like

    I thought I was being subtle with my jedi mind-tricks.

    but the common theme was "direct people to act in a way I approve through subtle pressures"

    Guilty as charged. Calling for the end to government coercion is one thing, calling for the end to all stigmas, including social ones, is an entirely different matter. Advocating the maintenance of existing societal standards of behavior is not incompatible with libertarianism. All societies have standards of personal behavior. You don't like some of the standards implied by traditional values as you find them constricting. Okay. But be honest enough to admit that you just want to replace the traditional standards by a different set that you approve of and that there will be people who don't approve of your set and will want to replace your set with yet another set.

    I'm not accusing you, Epi, of this, but there are certainly people on H&R who want to use government policy to encourage the replacement of traditional values by more socially liberal ones. Some of these people even dare to call themselves libertarians.

    He tried to make it libertarian-ish by saying that direction was through the removal of government largesse, but that was only a happy coincidence.

    No, it was not a happy coincidence, but a sincere expression of my beliefs.

    Let's see how small government he is if you tell him he can direct those behaviors with a new government program.

    Go ahead, make my day.

  • MWG||

    You're an authoritarian POS horse. You're no better than the left attempting to mold society through income redistribution.

    You're not merely for 'stigmatizing' behavior you see as 'naughty'. You'd use the coercive power of government to enforce you view of 'traditional values'.

    "...there are certainly people on H&R who want to use government policy to encourage the replacement of traditional values by more socially liberal ones."

    If by 'coercion' you mean the government taking a purely HANDS OFF approach, you are correct. You're the one arguing for a hands on approach.

  • horse||

    You're an authoritarian POS horse. ...
    You're not merely for 'stigmatizing' behavior you see as 'naughty'. You'd use the coercive power of government to enforce you view of 'traditional values'.

    Once again, my jedi mind-tricks are no match for the mind-reading abilities of an H&R poster. Clearly, I need to sharpen my skills before I implement my plan to plant my boot on the necks of all.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Go back to posting with the Freepers, horse.

  • jacob||

    Amen Mr. FIFY. And tell him/her to take Gregooo with 'em.

  • Somaliland Times||

    there are certainly people on H&R who want to use government policy to encourage the replacement of traditional values by more socially liberal ones

    Kerry Howley has been gone for long time, Dude.

  • Ocean||

    Holy shit, you are fucking stupid. Horse, please go die in fire for good.

  • MWG||

    ^This troll swings both ways.

  • ||

    No one is claiming that prostitution or abortion can be stopped, but it sure as hell can be reduced by not having government endorsement.

    You keep making the classic Conservative mistake of assuming that if the government is not forcefully prohibiting an activity, it is somehow "endorsing" it. How does that fallacious False Dilemma match up against tobacco, whose use is permitted and yet the government doesn't endorse it but in fact discriminates against it (public building anti-smoking laws, forced harm propaganda on the cartons, etc..)

    There is a far wider gray area in public policy than you give it credit for.

  • alan||

    innocent fruit of conjugal intimacy

    seduction into promiscuity, and all forms of pornography and prostitution, infanticide, abortion and other types of coercion or stolen innocence.

    [smirk]

    Something I've noticed around the time William Bennett started growing bitch tits twenty year ago, SoCons always come off sounding as queer as a three dollar bill.

  • ||

    Michele Bachmann is just the type of bitch Tom Leykis would have a field day with.

  • ||

    This kind of control-freak horseshit has gotten under so many peoples skin for so long that they cant bear to vote conservative. I grew up in rural Louisiana and got my fill of it by the time I was 12. It took me a long time to see the light again.
    Bravo Michelle! Every time you advocate sticking a government nose into our business, Obama gets another vote. The left didnt elect him, you and yours did.

  • ||

    You got that right. If the GOP doesn't nominate either a Ron Paul or a Gary Johnson-type candidate they've all but guaranteed four more years of Obamanation.

  • jacob||

    +1

  • Apogee||

    all but guaranteed four more years of Obamanation.

    Maybe that's what they want.

    It's pretty nice being able to funnel money to your friends without anyone holding you accountable for the economy.

  • ||

    I know various libertarians disagree, but I think it's absolutely absurd to pretend that it's a libertarian ideal to let a mother murder her unborn child.

    Talk about infringing on one's right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness...

    That said, social activism isn't going to get conservatives anywhere in the next election. The winning message to defeat Obama is a strictly fiscal one.

  • Sudden||

    Although I more or less agree with you, the thing you have to keep in mind that it's not heartless, monocle-twisting, let's kill babies thinking. Its a fundamental disagreement over the definition of where life begins. Considering that the science of life is murky, its something that I can understand disagreements over.

  • ||

    Its a fundamental disagreement over the definition of where life begins.

    I don't believe it's that innocent; the people around here are not stupid enough to assert that life begins at birth.

    I suspect it's more a combination of out-of-sight-out-of-mind with respect to the fetus' life, and of course the lazy categorization of pro-choice as being the "socially liberal" position that libertarians think they're supposed to fit into. The latter phenomenon seems quite active in the embryonic stem cell funding debates and the death penalty as well.

  • Metazoan||

    1. Life started several billion years ago, and it hasn't stopped.
    2. There's a difference between an *embryo* and a *fetus*. It would be very difficult to argue that an embryo is a human- it's a presently-differentiating pack of cells. On the other hand, an 8 month fetus is essentially a human.
    3. "conception" is not instantaneous, and is a myriad set of processes. It seems like a pretty poor dividing line for when humanity begins.

  • ||

    1. Equivocating on the meaning of "life". We're discussing the sense of the period of existence of an individual organism, not the generic quality of being alive.

    2. that's not a dividing line

    3. it may not be instantaneous but it's brief enough that it would be impossible to abort a "partially conceived" embryo. Brain death isn't an instantaneous process either but it still makes a good dividing line at the other end of life.

  • Metazoan||

    1. I was being a dick

    2. Coordinated neural activity at ~5mo is

    3. Actually, conception can take >12hrs, so yeah, the morning after pill can halt it.

  • jester||

    A fetus is a fetus because it possesses fetusness. An embryo possesses embryoness. Entelechy schmentelechy.

  • Sudden||

    Eh, maybe for some, not for others. I also think a big part of it is the inherent skepticism in the libertarian worldview. Most libertarians are inherently irreligious and even anti-religious. Generally speaking, they ascribe pro-lifers as being so because of a nebulous belief in the soul of the unborn. So its partially an inherent rejection of what they usually see as an argument of the religious, eventhough there is such a thing as a non-religious pro-lifer.

  • ...ok tuuulpa||

    "people around here are not stupid...."

    if they agree with YOU, huh?

  • Unborn Child||

    I don't exist because I'm an oxymoron.

  • Mr Whipple||

    Murder? The proper term is evict. There is no right to life in libertarianism. There is only property rights, and the non-aggression principle.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNTAmwUHcLM

  • Sudden||

    And taking life is the same thing as initiating aggression...

  • Mr Whipple||

    If you rent a house, you can evict the tenants. If the tenants die as a result, that is not your fault. That is not the initiation of aggression. That is a response to aggression. In the case of pregnancy, it is the fetus that is initiating aggression. Abortion is the response.

  • Sudden||

    Yes, but you cannot evict the tenants by a means that kills them prior to or in the process of the eviction (i.e. a vacuum that tears them limb from limb).

  • Mr Whipple||

    That's because there is more than one way to do so. Whose fault is it that science hasn't progressed enough to offer a viable alternative to the present, and only method available?

  • ||

    Whose fault is it that science hasn't progressed enough to offer a viable alternative to the present, and only method available?

    Science hasn't come up with a way of getting an annoying passenger off your private boat in the middle of the ocean other than throwing them overboard either. That doesn't make it justifiable homicide.

  • Mr Whipple||

    Besides, deadly force can be justified as a response to the initiation of aggression, especially if it is the only means available

  • Sudden||

    Well, by inviting another's 23 chromosomes into your body you risk the possibility of becoming pregnant. It's pretty much akin to an invitation. If the sperm and egg meet and decide to stake claim on the fallopian, you can't just kill it on site. Its like inviting someone to your house, saying your sick of them and giving them limited time to vacate prior to shooting them. I suppose you can claim self-defense, but good luck convincing a jury you were in imminent danger.

  • Cytotoxic||

    You fisked yourself there.

    +111 for Mr Whipple. His argument is the win.

  • ||

    Explain how the fetus initiates aggression against the mother's body.

  • Cytotoxic||

    By occupying it.

  • Mr Whipple||

    Not just by occupying it, but also by taking resources away from the mother's body. Then there's morning sickness, weight gain, and a bunch of other side effects associated with pregnancy.

  • ||

    The mother's body consents to this. It even builds a little nest inside the womb for the embryo to implant in.

  • Bradley||

    You're seriously saying that an unconscious biological process constitutes consent?

  • ||

    Well, considering my opponents are claiming that embryos coerce their mothers, we've long since abandoned the world of common sense. So it's not much of a stretch.

    There's also the fact that you can't respond with force to "aggression" that would not be aggression if it were invited, if you appeared to have given such an invitation.

    For instance, say I'm sitting on a park bench and a beggar comes over and asks for change, and I reach into my pocket and give him what I think is a quarter. Two seconds after he walks away I realize it was a half-ounce gold coin, worth about $775.

    Can I go beat the shit out of him for "stealing" $774.75 from me? I didn't consciously consent to giving him a gold coin, after all.

  • ||

    By occupying it.

    Actually (at least in the case of conception resulting from consensual sex) it's not the embryo that initiated his or her presence in the womb, it's the mother's actions that caused this. So the embryo has a claim against her for unlawful abduction if we want to get technical about it.

    So it's more like dragging a tenant into the apartment, locking them in the kitchen for a few days, and then shooting them when they "steal" food from the fridge.

  • Bradley||

    So your proposal re: abortion is to turn every mother into a kidnapper who could potentially be charged with unlawful confinement for imprisoning a fetus for 9 months?

  • cynical||

    Exactly. And if a passenger on a commercial air flight becomes unruly, like any property owner, the airline can simply "evict" them from the aircraft at any point.

    You can't call it "murder" just because you exercise your property rights so as to intentionally cause someone's death in a context that doesn't involve self-defense. Wait, no, you totally can.

    Side note: There are plenty of reasons you might want to evict a tenant that don't involve aggression on the part of the tenant, so that justification is hollow; at any rate, there are degrees of aggression -- "knowingly causes death" rates a bit higher than "throws a loud party". Regardless, a fetus has definitely not aggressed against its host, anymore than you've aggressed against someone if another person shoves you into them.

    Pop Quiz: A pedestrian is walking by your car when another car slams into them, throwing them through your windshield. Luckily an off-duty EMT is eating lunch across the street. He runs up, checks the injured party, and tells you to stay put apply pressure to their wounds. He informs you that they can probably be saved, so long as you don't move them until an ambulance arrives. You're late for a meeting, so you tell him "Fuck this parasite. I'm not a slave, and this car is my property." You pull him off the car and onto the ground, whereupon he starts bleeding profusely. You take off for your meeting. The man dies. Legally, are you guilty of murder? How about ethically?

  • Fluffy||

    If the EMT example is murder, then it's murder if you don't use ALL of your time and ALL of your resources to try to save people who might otherwise die.

    So if you ate more than the bare minimum in calories today, instead of saving your money to send it to starving people in Africa, you're a murderer - if the guy in the EMT example is a murderer.

    You appear to think it's a big deal that you're RIGHT THERE in the EMT example, but that really is irrelevant morally. You're either obligated to save the lives of others if you can, or you're not.

    In fact, if the EMT example is murder, than if anyone who wanted an abortion walked up to you and said, "Look, we've got a new medical procedure where we can implant this fetus in YOU, and have YOU carry it to term instead!" you'd be a murderer if you refused merely because you thought complying would be inconvenient or onerous.

  • cynical||

    "If the EMT example is murder, then it's murder if you don't use ALL of your time and ALL of your resources to try to save people who might otherwise die."

    Nope.

  • Fluffy||

    OK, great, cynical - explain how.

    Because I can't see how you can draw any possible distinction other than:

    1. The bleeding guy is right there and the people in Africa are far away - and besides, we can't see them, so that means they don't exist, right? (This one is such a silly distinction that it essentially doesn't need to be rebutted.)

    - or -

    2. Hanging around for a few minutes is no big deal, whereas devoting all your time to helping people in Africa would be a big deal. (But each individual action taken to help the people in Africa would itself not be a big deal, and you have to make the decision regarding how to proceed for each marginal case. In addition, relative to Africans dying, anything you might have to give up to help them really is not a big deal, and really is in fact equivalent to hanging around for a few minutes while someone gets an ambulance for the bleeding guy. Death trumps everything, once we make the decision that property and autonomy aren't important.)

  • ||

    Except for black and white thinkers, that's actually a pretty easy distinction to make between heroic sacrifice and minor inconvenience. I think murder wouldn't be the right charge, but negligent manslaughter might be.

  • Neu Mejican||

    OK, great, cynical - explain how.

    Because I can't see how you can draw any possible distinction other than:

    1. The bleeding guy is right there and the people in Africa are far away - and besides, we can't see them, so that means they don't exist, right? (This one is such a silly distinction that it essentially doesn't need to be rebutted.)

    - or -

    2. Hanging around for a few minutes is no big deal, whereas devoting all your time to helping people in Africa would be a big deal. (But each individual action taken to help the people in Africa would itself not be a big deal, and you have to make the decision regarding how to proceed for each marginal case. In addition, relative to Africans dying, anything you might have to give up to help them really is not a big deal, and really is in fact equivalent to hanging around for a few minutes while someone gets an ambulance for the bleeding guy. Death trumps everything, once we make the decision that property and autonomy aren't important.)

    That's a lot of words to miss the fact that it is the direct action of the individual that kills the victim here. He dies because you removed him from your car. Not because you weren't willing to do something to save him.

    And, yes, his right to life supersedes your property rights. The mistake you make is in thinking that rights adhere to people. They don't. They adhere to acts. You would have no right to remove him from your car. That act would be unjustifiable because his right to live would supersede your property rights.

  • Fluffy||

    And the airline example is stupid too.

    You have purchased a ticket for the duration of the flight.

    We can easily just say the airline stands in the equivalent of a landlord / tenant relationship with you for the duration of the flight.

    That means that they should need a court ruling to get you off the plane if you don't want to go.

    A court ruling they can only obtain on the ground.

  • ||

    You have purchased a ticket for the duration of the flight.

    You're adding unwarranted assumptions to the hypothetical. The ticket could just as easily merely specify that you are permitted to board the plane that will travel from city A to city B, in which case kicking you out from 35,000 feet halfway between wouldn't violate the language of the contract.

  • ||

    Or it doesn't even have to be that -- maybe you found someone else's plane ticket in a garbage can in the terminal and got on that plane instead of the one you had a ticket for, in which case the airline has no contractual obligations toward you whatsoever.

    But I suspect we would shrink from the idea of summary execution as a punishment for misusing a plane ticket.

  • Kant feel Pietzsche||

    Not to mention that there is a slight difference between ejection from the plane at ground level, and ejection at 30K feet.

  • ||

    They don't check ID at the gates anymore (last I flew at least) so you could easily get on the plane only to be "discovered" midway through the flight.

  • Mr Whipple||

    A person falls out of a window and lands on a flagpole owned by resident on a lower floor. The owner of the flagpole wants to evict intruder from their flagpole, but doing so would cause the intruder to plunge to his death. If the owner of the flagpole had never put that it there, the intruder would be dead.

  • ||

    That's why I grease my flagpole.

  • barfman||

    *barf*

  • Tony||

    Problem is you have to violate the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of women in order to protect those things for a clump of cells inside of her. How else would you describe government forcing women to give birth against their will?

    If men had to be pregnant I suspect they'd treat the thing as an expendable parasite until as late in the game as possible.

  • Your mother||

    must be proud of you, Tony, you being a former parasite and all.

  • ||

    Former?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Good catch, Tulpa!

  • cynical||

    former?

  • cynical||

    ta ma de

  • Kinda like .....||

    the government forcing a person to accept Dr. Govt as their only choice of a doctor....

  • Tony||

    Sounds like you need a head doctor.

  • Or you need||

    Dr Barry to perform an anal probe.

  • ||

    If men had to be pregnant I suspect they'd treat the thing as an expendable parasite until as late in the game as possible.

    I am pretty sure there are as many women pro-lifers as there are male pro-lifers...or at least close enough that your point is mute.

    Also Buchmann is a pro-life women.

    Also having a pregnant wife is a far worse curse then being a pregnant wife.

  • ||

    Before I engage in any discussion with an anti-abortionist I would like to know how many sentient beings they have eaten in their life.

    Of course, everyone knows that only lefty faggots care about animals. Mindless clumps of cells are what needs to be defended!

  • Sudden||

    I've consumed more than my fair share of sentient beings in my life. Granted, none were sentient when I consumed them, but all were slaughtered out sentience in order to end up on my plate. However, I never have, nor do I even plan on, eating anything that contains a complete and unique set of 46 human chromosomes in each and and every cell (nor will I consume a partial set of 23 chromosomes that fails to meet the genetic threshold of humanity, although some do and men everywhere are thankful for those daring individuals).

  • ||

    Why should I care about what DNA happens to be in a particular clump of cells?

  • Mr Whipple||

    Cannibal!!!

  • ||

    As far as I know, all the (formerly) sentient beings I have eaten were already born/hatched when they died, so I'm really not sure where your gotcha is supposed to get me.

  • ||

    So killing a chick inside an egg is somehow worse than killing a hatched chick?

    OK, yeah, I admit your mastery of the non sequitur.

  • ||

    Actually I must bow to your mastery of that particular area.

    Your point appears to be that objecting to the killing of sentient beings while enjoying the fruits of killing other sentient beings is hypocritical.

    But this proves too much -- it would seem to mean that people who eat already-born animals but oppose the murder of already-born people are hypocrites. It's not specifically targeted at pro-life people.

  • Mr Whipple||

    Hmmm, I think I recall having to dissect a fetal pig in Biology class. Although I didn't eat it afterward.

  • Apogee||

    I know various libertarians disagree, but I think it's absolutely absurd to pretend that it's a libertarian ideal to let a mother murder her unborn child.

    You'd be surprised then, because the majority of Socons disagree that expectant mothers would ever be convicted of Murder for attempting an abortion. It's all about the doctors - the women are 'victims'.

    Since it's no longer about them, perhaps expectant mothers could be placed in a government camp until they deliver - for the sake of the children™, of course.

    For all the abortion debate, I never seem to hear much discussion on:

    1) punishments for pregnant women who attempt to abort.

    2) The disparity worldwide between 0 countries that allow the indiscriminate killing of children and the approximately 60% of countries that allow abortion.

    What seems absolutely absurd to me is the complete and utter lack of interest in dealing with these two important factors, which would necessarily be a part of any government authority in regards to abortion practices - especially those which treat abortion as murder.

  • ||

    Maybe I'm a little slow, but dangit if I can't figure out what "traditional values" are.

    If someone would be so kind to enlighten my 'tarded ass on the subject I would be most appreciative.

    Thanks in advance.

  • ||

    In due time they will reveal themselves to you, son. In due time.

  • ||

    merrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrinnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn!

  • Mr Whipple||

    "Traditional values" are what the overlords say they are.

    Got it? Good.

  • jester||

    Women can't vote. That's pretty traditional. So how is she gonna run for office? A woman's place is in the home.

  • Tony||

    Can't we just tell Bachmann and the mole people who follow her that voting happens on a Wednesday this year?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Only if we can tell you Obamazombies it's the same day.

    Man, an election where no one wins...

  • ||

    Sounds to like an election where everybody wins.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Two candidates enter... no candidate leaves!

  • The Pelosi of the Right....||

    Bachmann: Wild-eyed and eager to use govt force to run people's lives....

  • ||

    Chris Matthews is on the teevee right now blathering about "Tea Party murder-suicide pacts" with a guest talking about how "citizens are forcing politicians to do things they don't want to do" in regards to considering spending cuts. The horror, the horror. Those evil obstructionist wrecker citizens getting in the way of the things.

    Representative government is hard, let's go shopping. Ugh. MSNBC is fucking nauseating.

  • ||

    Yeah, don't those silly citizens realise that they're just supposed to listen to their betters and obey?

  • Tony||

    They are supposed to be informed.

  • ||

    Informed of what? That the latest flailings of porkbarrel stimulus have once again "unexpectedly" failed to produce the results predicted by proponents--and let's never bother to mention those who have repeatedly expected otherwise?

  • ||

    ...or that the president thinks it's okay to assassinate citizens without a trial

    ...or of the almost trillion dollars recently given to rich bankers

    ...or of the 3 front war we are presently waging

    ...or that our president doesn't think that gay people should be able to marry

    ...or of the continued imprisonment of our nation's poor and our minority citizens for victimless crimes

    ...or how we are now required to hand over money to giant insurance companies

    ...or how the atf sells guns to murderers to gin up statistics

    Shall I go on?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    "Informed" = "shut the fuck up and let Obama do whatever the fuck he wants, you racist gay-hating pig-fuckers".

  • racist gay-hating pig-fucker||

    That's Mr racist gay-hating pig-fucker to you, pal.

  • hazeeran||

    I would be less than surprised if any of the non-RP or GJ Repubs who might succeed Obama would retain the right to kill U.S. citizens w/out trial. Gotta win that WOT you know.

  • Apogee||

    Shall I go on?

    To quote Epi - "Dude, it's a sockpuppet"

    Capitol, do what you want, but Tony will never debate you on any facts. I fully agree with Epi that it's only here to spew BS.

  • .||

    (sigh) Can't someone just force-feed Tony a box of EXLAX and blow his brains out?

  • Trident||

    Liberal Code:
    Whenever someone doesn't listen to liberal propaganda, doesn't want to be robbed for liberal programs (including bailouts for corporations and war), sees the blatant inconsistency and hypocrisy of leftist politicians, uses his rational faculties instead of his bleeding heart, doesn't think people in the government are a "better breed" of people, thinks the constitution is pretty good document, and generally doesn't just sit down and shut the fuck up for the period that a liberal Democrat is in charge, is "uninformed".

  • Tony||

    That constitution has apparently allowed the "bailouts for corporations and war," which are not liberal programs, so I don't know why you like it so much. All of your complaints are ones better directed at Republicans.

  • Oh, bullshit tonee||

    No one more avidly bails out corporations and wages bloody war than Obomba has been doing.

  • ||

    and "recognition of the overwhelming statistical evidence" that married people have better sex

    Well, I'll have to find me some married women then.

  • ||

    Ladies and gents we have a winnah!

  • ||

    Nothing's worse than sex with someone who's enjoying it more than you are. Especially if they rub it in.

  • Neu Mejican||

    Nothing's worse than sex with someone who's enjoying it more than you are.* Especially if they rub it in out.

    FIFY

    *how can you not enjoy someone enjoying sex with you?

  • ||

    It makes me jealous.

    "How come they get to have sex with me but I don't? Not fair!"

  • ||

    You disgust me.

  • .||

    *how can you not enjoy someone enjoying sex with you?

    Ever been forcibly raped?

  • She sounds just as creepy...||

    ...as the one we have now.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Bachmann:
    A) would still hit that.
    B) If she won the primary and was running against Obama would vote for her.
    C) Could care less about some pledge she signe that would have zero impact on anything.
    D) Anyone woman who makes liberals foam at the mouth can't be all bad.

  • ||

    B) If she won the primary and was running against Obama would vote for her.

    If I voted? I would vote for a half-eaten ham sandwich if it was running against Obama.

  • AlmightyJB||

    word

  • jacob||

    E) Ron Paul continues to make her look like a fucking moron.

  • hazeeran||

    ding ding ding!

  • cynical||

    A) Ew.

    B) Other candidates will be running against Obama who aren't wannabe mullahs. She doesn't stand a chance with independents in the general election, especially with the MSM downplaying Obama's flaws and hyping her insanity, so you may as well for a doomed candidate that you like.

  • ||

    I care a lot about fiscal conservatism and keeping taxes as low as possible.

    I keep trying to care more about other issues, but every time I see that incompetent jackass president of ours say something stupid on television again? I pretty much stop caring about everything else all over again.

    Serious question--has there ever been a movement more feckless than the anti-pornography movement?

    Over the past twenty years, have the anti-obscenity people ever succeeded at anything other than making themselves look ridiculous?

  • ||

    Yeah, it's not like they have gotten anyone thrown in prison or anything.

    No feck indeed.

  • ||

    To what extent did this miscarriage of justice make pron any less available to anyone who wants to see it?

    As ineffective as the drug war is, it's probably a lot more effective at keeping drugs off the streets than anything anyone's done to try to keep pron out of the eyeballs of anyone who wants to see it.

    Anti-pron crusaders are by far the least threatening foot soldiers of the culture war--and culture warriors aren't a very scary bunch when it comes down to it. What do you think is a bigger threat to the kids in our public schools--intelligent design or the teachers' unions?

    Culture warriors are used like propaganda--they're like the Al Qaeda bogyman for the left... The culture warriors get a lot of press, but just like Al Qaeda's supposed to scare everybody? They haven't really hit paydirt in the U.S. for more than ten years--and it wasn't because they weren't trying.

    Meanwhile Obama all but nationalized two-thirds of the U.S. auto industry--and has the U.S. healthcare market all but cornered. And I'm supposed to be worried about what anti-pron crusaders say?

    I think what we're lacking here is a sense of proportion.

    Over here we've got a candidate who's courting a certain strain of Republican for the primaries--over there we've got a president with a record of fighting against capitalism like it's an unnecessary evil...

    Proportion! Let's try to keep things in proportion.

  • Fluffy||

    And here is the usual lack of concern for justice I've come to expect from Ken Schultz.

    If obscenity prosecutions are no big deal, then I'm sure you'll have no problem volunteering to pay the fines and serve the sentences of everyone convicted by such prosecutions, as well as personally pay the legal bills of everyone targeted.

    Right? Come on, show a sense of PROPORTION.

  • ||

    Does you math work on any other issue?

    If I think the deficit is more important than Iraq, does that mean I should be willing to go personally fight what's left of the Iraq War all by myself?

    If some other individual thought the War on Terror was more important than the deficit, would that mean he or she should be willing to pay off the deficit personally?

    Some things are more important than others. Everyone who votes makes judgements about which things are more important than others.

    Anybody who votes for Obama over Michelle Bachman--because of the pron issue?

    ...despite the fact that the availability of pron is under no significant threat whatsoever?

    Is somebody who's havin' a hard time seeing the size and significance of one problem relative to another. Obama is fighting a war against capitalism--and it's had a significant impact on our economy.

    Just try to be reasonable.

  • ||

    Ken, I'm a ancap leaning libertarian and if I were to waste my time voting, it sure as hell wouldn't be for some republican harpy. The republicans talk a good game when it comes to the budget but have never, let me repeat NEVER, reduced the deficit and or the size and scope of the federal government. NEVER. Not since day one.

    You'd have me believe that your preferred candidate wouldn't or couldn't do the things that I disagree with, but will only implement the policies that I do agree with. It's fine to shill for team red, as you are wont to do, but don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining. My name ain't Pollyanna.

    ...despite the fact that the availability of pron is under no significant threat whatsoever?

    Drugs are also widely available, does that mean that we should be fine with the laws as they are because they lack feck?

  • ||

    Just for the record, I've been a principled non-voter myself for a while now...

    Obama's war on capitalism by way of regulation of the banking industry and the effective nationalization of the healthcare industry (among other things) is really tempting me to want to vote again...and being a principled non-voter has never made me think it's necessary to shut up about the incompetence of the president...

    Our president is woefully incompetent--and not in a speculative sort of way. Bachman courting some cultural conservatives isn't anything compared to what Obama has actually done while in office.

    You asked about the Drug War--and whether I should be fine with it? I'm not fine with the Drug War or laws against pron either--but do you really imagine Bachman could launch a War on Porn like what the Drug War has become?

    And as bad as the Drug War is, it's an excellent example of what I'm talking about. If voters should only vote for candidates against the Drug War, then I don't know who voters should vote for--who's against the Drug War?

    But if you're saying people shouldn't vote against Obama and his war on capitalism--because his opponent said something against the legalization of marijuana during the primaries?

    Then you're not serious about opposing Obama's war on economic sanity.

    One of Obama's potential opponents is criticizing porn during the primaries--I bet she doesn't think much of marijuana use either. In comparison to what Obama's done for the UAW, to regulate the banking system, to bail out Wall Street, to nationalize the healthcare industry, etc., etc...

    Why should I give a crap if his opponent condemned porn in the primaries?

  • ||

    All excellent points...if you assume that a republican administration would reduce the size and scope of government. The candidates say they will, history says otherwise. I'm inclined to believe the latter.

    I'd vote for Paul or Johnson (maybe the LP candidate...depending) in the off chance that they got the nod. Otherwise I'll sit home and drink beer.

  • Apogee||

    Ken - Obama's war on capitalism by way of regulation of the banking industry and the effective nationalization of the healthcare industry

    Heh. Obama's a crony capitalist, just like all the other 'socialists' - you don't see Michael Moore giving away his money do you?

    Hell, Cuba's a capitalist country - everything is for sale there - it just happens to have a kleptocracy in charge.

    What's really obscene about the left is their continued protestations that they're for the little guy and helping the poor, when all they really want is the control to be able to line their pockets.

    The obscenity of the right is their continued protestations that they're for free markets and individual choice, when all they really want is the control to be able to line their pockets.

    You'll never get out from underneath them if you continue to buy their PR at face value.

  • ||

    "You'll never get out from underneath them if you continue to buy their PR at face value."

    The only appropriate place for a libertarian is in opposition to the emperor--of whatever flavor.

    The present emperor has done some seriously egregious shit. I thought George W. Bush was a jackhole for doing his best Lyndon Johnson imitation--Barack Obama sent that schtick through the roof.

    The devil we know--in this case--is not better than the alternative.

    I'll stand in opposition to the next emperor too--but I don't have to be stupid about it.

    Nationalizing healthcare isn't the same thing anyone else would have done.

    All emperors may be awful--regardless of party or constituency--but some are more awful than others. And party affiliation has nothing to do with it.

    As awful as Michelle Bachman might be as president--she would not be as awful as Barack Obama has already been. She doesn't have his ideologically rigid hatred of capitalism and capitalist solutions.

  • Apogee||

    Nationalizing healthcare isn't the same thing anyone else would have done.

    I disagree - the current party in charge of The House could easily refuse to fund many things until it was repealed - but they don't - because there's just enough pork in that 'monstrosity' to go around.

    "I didn't get a harumph outta that guy!"

  • horse||

    has there ever been a movement more feckless than the anti-pornography movement?

    It would help a lot if the feminists would just let everyone know, once-and-for-all, whether pornography was liberating or exploitive.

  • ||

    My opinion on porn isn't really dependent on what feminists say, but I can see how that might be important to some people.

    Either way though, I'd hope reasonable people would manage to keep a sense of proportion.

    We've got what feminists think about pron over here--and we've got what Obama's done to our economy and healthcare over there.

    One of these things is not like the other in an important way--proportion.

    P.S. Proportion!

  • Eric||

    The only reason why conservatives pretend to hate porn is because they've either been caught, or have caught their spouse, surfing gay porn.
    Then they're forced to come up with an elaborate lie about how they were doing research into sinful behavior.

  • ||

    feminist anti-pr0n crusaders have, arguably, been more effective than the rightwinger ones. certainly, that;s the case in canada - see mckinnonism

  • AlmightyJB||

    Where would we be without the he man woman haters post of the day? Is there anyone else running for president?

  • ola||

    bachmann is not getting the nomination. can you imagine her moon faced husband as the first dude? besides, I would rather have the tea party take over and control both the house and the senate and leave the president to Obama. If both congress and the president are of the same party, nothing good happens.

  • horse||

    Ordinarily, gridlock is good, but the damage Obama has done must be rolled back.

  • ||

    Not to mention the damage Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, Eisenhower, Truman, Roosevelt, Hoover, and Coolidge did.

  • ||

    Oh, and Wilson. How could I forget him?

    I do like Harding though.

  • ||

    DON"T YOU EVER SPEAK A FOUL WORD AGAINST COOLIDGE!!!

    EVER!

  • horse||

    Not to mention the damage Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, Eisenhower, Truman, Roosevelt, Hoover, and Coolidge did.

    And Madison. You left out Madison.

  • SIV||

    All the right enemies...

    God Bless our future President Michele Bachmann!

  • ||

    And may He make sure it's far, far, far in the future. Hopefully after I'm worm chow, or at least partying with the unbaptized infants in Limbo.

  • SIV||

    Your Mother Sews Socks in Hell*, Tulpa

    My favorite broadcast TV edit/Bowdlerization

  • ||

    I had no idea that my still-alive mother moved to Michigan.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Sieg Heil the Christian Uberstate!

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Between that and the liberal utopia, I don't know what's worse.

  • ||

    Fuck you and the brazeered woman you rode in on, SIV!hateone1!

    You pantie peeking freak.

  • SIV||

    "I love you... I love you all"
    -Jennifer Corvino

  • ||

    Oxford comma, or not?

    Why won't you debate me?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Barack Obama Pledges to Increase the Size and Scope of Government

    FIFY'd.

  • Trident||

    For once i agree with liberals: Michelle Bachmann is batshit insane.

    Which means she probably has a good chance of winning.

  • ||

    I think all our prognosticating about the election may be off-base. Consider:

    The Repubs are giving every indication that they will fold like the Dallas Cowboys in a playoff game, and attach themselves to a bill that raises the debt ceiling, raises taxes, and doesn't really cut a fucking cent.

    If so, there will be a third party, in which case Ronald Reagan himself could descend from the heavens surrounded by choirs of angels to accept the GOP nomination, and Obama will win.

    Ask yourselves: is GOP leadership really stupid enough to be stampeded into a trap by Obama, Pelosi, and Reid?

    Of course they are.

  • Fluffy||

    BTW:

    Horse is way off base if he thinks that a return to tougher requirements for divorce would help the family.

    The cultural milieu has totally changed over the last several decades. Having tough divorce laws supported the family well when the overwhelming norm was for nearly everyone to marry young (and stupid). In the modern era, resurrecting tougher divorce laws would probably crush the "traditional" family even more, because it would create a powerful incentive not to get married. And people today have much more latitude to make alternative arrangements than they used to have. And they'd use it.

    If you want a libertarian-ish proscription for saving the traditional family, I would say:

    1. Eliminate what remains of welfare, or if that's not politically possible, invert the benefit structure so that intact families get higher benefits even if they have marginally higher incomes.

    2. Make it impossible to obtain a child support order for any child born out of wedlock.

    Those two changes would dramatically decrease the out of wedlock birthrate. Probably bring it right back to the historical mean.

  • horse||

    I agree, Fluffy. Killing the welfare state would be the best thing for saving the traditional family. The welfare state has replaced the breading-winning father. Since single mothers don't face financial hardship, the stigma of a man getting a woman pregnant and then simply leaving her to fend for herself has vanished.

    If you want a libertarian-ish proscription for saving the traditional family, I would say:

    1. Eliminate what remains of welfare, or if that's not politically possible, invert the benefit structure so that intact families get higher benefits even if they have marginally higher incomes.

    2. Make it impossible to obtain a child support order for any child born out of wedlock.

    Your prescriptions strike me as social engineering and not at all libertarianish.

  • ||

    I love how the pledge includes a stance against Islamic Sharia law. I guess turning America into a Christian version of Saudi Arabia is perfectly fine to these people however.

  • Audrey the Liberal||

    I was going to say something similar.

  • ||

    Right, there's a friggin huge danger of that happening. About 1% of the US population is Muslim and a large fraction of them want Sharia as a legal system as much as most Jews want a Torah-based legal system, which is not at all.

    The bogeyman they're after is the existence of Sharia-based arbitration, which is voluntary and can only compel (limited) monetary transfers in its judgements. High stakes civil suits and criminal law are totally unaffected by this.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    How about we use NO religious influence in ANY criminal/civil proceedings?

  • Bar Student||

    Arbitration is a private matter (unless court ordered), who are you to tell them what rules the arbitration should follow? It is by definition consensual.

  • ||

    police dept's use arbitration, too. although it is definitely not sharia based as far as i can tell (unless sharia authorizes shooting people's puppies)

    i read the arbitrator's report from one of my coworker's whose firing the arbitrator overturned. the guy knew his investigative techniques far better than the cop-o-crats who fired the guy

  • Kant feel Pietzsche||

    I'm tellin' ya, Dunphy. I like you more all the time.

  • ||

    i love you too. but i'm not doing a threesome with you and pip. i love pip WAY too much and I am keeping his tender love vittles all to myself!

  • horse||

    The concern about Sharia is born from observing what has happened in some places in Europe. America is not Europe, but paying attention to possible encroachment of Sharia is not unreasonable.

  • horse||

    I guess turning America into a Christian version of Saudi Arabia is perfectly fine to these people however.

    We already had that under Bush, remember? The cutting off of the hands of thieves, the stoning of adulterers.

    How soon people forget.

  • Joe||

    I'd vote for her over Obama. How about you Mike Riggs?

  • ||

    Trade in a Pinko-Socialist for a Theocratic-Fascist? Call me a foolish idealist but how about we vote NO to both of them!

  • ||

    As you say, the government cannot stop abortion, but it should proscribe some of the crueler methods.

    By googling "salt solutions in abortion", I learned that some abortions use a salt solution to slowly poison the baby, which takes up to 24 hours to die, meanwhile eroding the skin. Torture in the womb.

    Let's oppose all torture, whether of animals (there is immense cruelty in the food industries), babies imprisoned in the womb, unable to scream, prisoners in the War on Terror, or anyone.

  • Bar Student||

    So food animals are in the same category as children and prisoners of war?

  • ||

    Probably not since you can still kill them.

  • ||

    I can't decide who is worse: the communists who hate libertarians or "values" crowd who hate libertarian but this new poster "horse" isn't helping his side at all. Not at all.

  • jacob||

    Well, Communists are much worse. In a strictly communist state, the gov't replaces all religion and becomes the deity for the people. That's just fucking crazy.

    But, your point about horse is well taken.

  • Tony||

    Have you ever met a communist?

  • Ocean||

    I am looking at communist right now.

  • Kant feel Pietzsche||

    Nope. You're looking at what a real communist would ID as a useful idiot.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    I've met a couple of Cuban refugees, and several from the old Soviet Union days.

    None of them had anything positive to say about their lives under communist rule.

    I have yet to meet a North Korean, but I daresay they didn't much care for it either.

  • horse||

    Have you ever met a communist?

    I have met many. Some are genteel. Some constantly teeter on the brink of savagery. Speaking with any of them, however, reveals them to ultimately be horrible people, not surprising since the foundation of any kind of Statism is disrespect for other people.

  • horse||

    this new poster "horse" isn't helping his side at all.

    Obviously, I don't post to influence you. Your sputtering doesn't suggest any ability on your part to think rationally.

  • Max Stirner||

    http://www.garyjohnson2012.com.....republican
    Gary Johnson Calls Family Leader Pledge “Offensive and Unrepublican”

    Woot, Gary Johnson supports my right to amoral hedonism! Seriously though, I'm for the first time considering voting in a Republican primary. I know I'll feel disgusting and dirty, but it might be worth it. I still wish he would just join the LP.

  • Cytotoxic||

    You want GJ to join the most ineffective political organization ever? So he and you can what, feel awesome?

    It's fantastic he condemned this POS though.

  • Cytotoxic||

    I'd also be very interested to hear what Ron Paul has to say about it. This is the 'paleo or libertarian' acid test.

  • ||

    Your cosmotarian is showing.

  • Zuo||

    "This type of rhetoric is what gives Republicans a bad name."

    Word, Gary. Word.

  • Ocean||

    Exellent.

  • Malcontent||

    This is the worst chat room ever.

  • ||

    I get the creeps when libertarians defend "taxable revenue."

  • ||

    Bachmann gets an epic thread???

    you people disappoint me

  • ||

    Abortion, religion, "The Muslim Question", and a picture of a woman.

    Reason's laughing all the way to the bank with this one.

  • J||

    She may not deserve an epic thread. But, the libertarian-minded will likely have to face a painful situation in 2012.

    The question for libertarians in 2012 will likely be "How badly do we want Obama to lose?" I really want him to lose in 2012, but I really see very few Republicans I'd like to have win.

    I bet there will be a lot more reason threads between now and 2012 dealing with the worse of two evils between Obama and whatever Republican is in the headlines.

  • ||

    "The question for libertarians in 2012 will likely be "How badly do we want Obama to lose?" I really want him to lose in 2012, but I really see very few Republicans I'd like to have win."

    Whichever way you go on that? We should all keep in mind that just because we vote against Obama doesn't mean we can't turn on whoever knocks him out of office--the first day he or she takes office.

    In other words, the suggestion that it's a choice between opposing Obama and supporting whoever knocks him out of office--is a false choice.

    We can both vote against Obama AND vocally oppose whoever we vote in--that's part of what's great about being a libertarian. We don't owe either party or their candidates--anything.

  • J||

    True enough, but if I vote in the opposition, and they turn out to be worse, then I would feel at least somewhat responsible. I know this is unlikely.

    Though I didn't vote in the 2008 elections (my absentee ballot arrived late and no third parties were on my state's ballot), I feel a little bad about wanting Republicans out of office so badly that I wanted Obama to win. Though McCain would've been terrible when it comes to economics, Obama is worse. In retrospect, I'm not sure that having Obama as president is a worthwhile price to pay for having ousted Republicans and making McCain go away.

  • ||

    But, the libertarian-minded will likely have to face a painful situation in 2012.

    Unless Paul or Johnson get the nomination I will vote for what ever troll the LP drudges up from its pits and sleep like a baby.

    and then the day after the election the republican candidate will win and that president elect a month later will make a horrible president.

    I really do not see any pain coming my way....democrats will weep but those bitter tears will be sweat to me for at least 6 months after.

  • ||

    Whoa no way dude, for real? Wow.

    www.anon-toolz.tk

  • ||

    Anti-muslim? How? Is sharia law pro muslim? I bet the muslim women would disagree.

  • scarpe Nike Store||

    is good

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