# HIT & RUN BLOG

## If Only Americans Weren't So Goddamned Stupid We Wouldn't Have to Send Them to Re-Education Camps

Jacob Weisberg, Slate:

there's no point trying to explain complicated matters to the American people.

Drew Westen, New York Times:

To the average American, who was still staring into the abyss, the half-stimulus did nothing but prove that Ronald Reagan was right, that government is the problem. In fact, the average American had no idea what Democrats were trying to accomplish by deficit spending because no one bothered to explain it to them with the repetition and evocative imagery that our brains require to make an idea, particularly a paradoxical one, "stick."

Christina Romer, on Real Time With Bill Maher:

Maher asked Romer, "How uncontroversial is Keynesian economics?"

Romer said, "The basic idea that if you increase government spending or you cut people's taxes that stimulates the economy and lowers the unemployment rate, is a very widely accepted idea. It's in every economics textbook, that's what we teach our undergraduates, and I certainly try to teach them the truth.

"It is a very known and accepted idea and fact and the empirical evidence is definitely there, and people just want to say the sky is green."

Maher asked Romer how she felt about being "Palinized" by Republicans who aren't economists. She said, "Policy would be better if we listened to the experts."

Jeffrey Wells, Hollywood Elsewhere:

Many times I've riffed on a dark, delicious fantasy about rounding up Tea Bagger types and sentencing them to green re-education camps for minimum one-year terms. Not to punish per se but to expose these contemptible morons to facts, to truth, to the way things really are and how they're being played by the rich, and the fact that Boomers have taken almost everything and that diminished lifestyles and economic security are being bequeathed to Genx and GenY for decades to come, and that the best is definitely over. The infra-structure that once provided decent, fair-minded quality of life to middle-class people in this country is disintegrating. The game is rigged. This is the fall of the Roman Empire.

All largely because of impediments to logical, intelligent governing put up by the knee-jerk, mule-like, corporate-kowtowing mentality of Tea-Bagger types and their 60 or so looney-tunes Congresspersons now in office. We've truly become a South American society of rightist oligarchs, angry lefties, disillusioned wage-earners, retirement-age fuddies and struggling, debt-smothered have-nots, and the rightist boobs will never understand that they're primarily the problem. The deficit-reduction deal will almost certainly hurt growth and kill jobs, most analysts are saying. And the radical right will own this when it happens. This level of ideological denial is no longer appalling -- it's become lethal. Ignoramuses can no longer be tolerated. The right is killing this country, things have gotten really crazy, and Obama will never stand up to them.

A second Civil War would be an incredibly destructive thing, but it would feel so good.

Related: Brian Doherty in the January 2010 issue, "Progressives vs. Democracy."

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.

• Warty||

A second Civil War would be an incredibly destructive thing, but it would feel so good.

Um...what?

• ||

It's a "progressive" fantasizing about war, putting their enemies into camps, and death and destruction. Normal shit for them.

Projection is definitely a hallmark of TEAM BLUE. A truly disgusting one.

• ||

Projection is definitely a hallmark of TEAM BLUE. A truly disgusting one.

Res Publica Americana|8.1.11 @ 7:56PM
Charge them with terrorism. And then send them to a secret prison in Somalia. And then hang them.

In a different age, and in a different part of the world, the individual policemen, their wives, children and assorted relatives would have been hacked to death, dismembered, and dragged to a promontory by this man's family, where wolves and vultures would have performed a clean up. What a shame we don't live in that age.

Phlogistan|8.4.11 @ 4:28PM
Taze them till the polyester melts.

• the real OO||

militias are right wing

• ||

Aren't all three of those people the same person....and all sock puppets?

• ||

You are right, directed punishment of evil doers is the same as rounding up and imprisoning people for political beliefs.

• Cheeseburger||

Thankfully, the world has sweet, perfect, wonderful ME to determine the true identities of said "evil doers," and to mandate the correct nature and level of "punishments," re: same!

DERP!!!

• STEVE SMITH||

ME LOVE EATTING CHEESEBURGER AND HAVE WAR THEN RAPE. ME LOVE TO PUNISH.

• ||

It's a "progressive" fantasizing about war, putting their enemies into camps, and death and destruction. Normal shit for them.

I fantasize about all sorts of crazy shit.

I think the difference is statists don't know when not to talk about it...or when not to act on it.

• wolfemi1||

How many times have I heard right-wingers talk about people being uppity, or immigrants taking all our jobs, or gays ruining marriage?

• JT||

Do they not realize how badly they would lose? Our military is, what, 60% Republican?

• JT||

Do they not realize how badly they would lose? Our military is, what, 60% Republican?

• ||

A lot more than 60%.

• OO||

i wasnt.

• Red Rocks Rockin||

i wasnt.

Acting out combat with your GI Joes doesn't count.

• Q||

Then it's a good fucking thing he didn't say 100%, huh?

• wolfemi1||

I wasn't either. By personal experience it's about 60%, but don't underestimate the unwillingness of a military to fire on their own countrymen.

• SFC B||

In my experience the rank and file is much closer to the national average, but the leadership tends to lean more conservative/Republican.

Add in the often-discussed locations of where the military is stationed and CWII might not go the way Jeffery Wells hopes.

• ||

I think CWII would see the military split, as well.

Some would follow orders to the point of killing their fellow Americans.

Others would take up their arms to defend their fellow Americans.

If there were a CWII, it would escalate beyond all belief, as the most powerful military the world has ever seen turned on itself in a cataclysm of violence that would be limited only by the very high consumption rate of available ammo supplies.

• SIV||

I believe combat forces skew white, rural, Christian, conservative and Southern.

• ||

B.S., I see lots of African-Americans here

• Dave||

Historically, black units were seldom used for combat, and most black units performed badly. There were, of course, some very notable exceptions. Even in today's army where one third of soldiers are black, black soldiers are no more common in combat units than in the general population.

Now, this might be proof of the superior intelligence of the black race, or not - but accounts of black soldiers doing most of the fighting and/or dying are demonstrably false.

• ||

Yeah, lots of Shaneequas and Laqueeshas join up, get a job driving a truck, and pop out a few more babies once they discover how much more lucrative that military dependent assistance gravy train is than the "ordinary" welfare all the hoodrats are already getting. There aren't a whole lot of blacks in the combat arms, though.

In all the services, ever since the end of the draft, the closer you get to the point of the spear, the whiter the military gets. There are lots of black truck drivers and clerk-typists. Not nearly so many black infantryman. Far fewer black paratroopers and Marines. Fighter pilots, attack helicopter pilots, and the spec-ops units are so white you'd look around and think you were at a Mormon camp meeting in Utah.

• wolfemi1||

Wow. Just... a post like this in response to an article about how the left demonizes their opposition...

• DevilDog||

More like 90%. Interesting how people who predominately hate guns, wars, the military, etc. fantasize about going to war with those who stand up for the constitution. So who is it that is GD stupid again?

• Sparky||

Don't worry. He's an anti-war activist so he can say things like that and we'll all know he's being facetious.

• }||

I think this guy forgets that the "right" is probably better armed than the "left".

• ||

Shhhhh...

• Old Salt||

What I find funny is that Mr. Liberal automatically assumes that his party has the testicular fortitude to NOT become the victims in the bloodbath that would entail an Second American Revolution!

Ya' know, because Democrats are ALL about gun ownership, military service, and random war making!

• k2000k||

well they are for random war making, as long as it is for a cause that makes them feel good and someone else does the bleeding.

• Brett L||

Let's be honest, they like bombing brown people whose weapons technology is at least 2 generations behind ours.

• Zeb||

Who doesn't like that?

and random war making!

*ahem*

• robc||

In the last century (and leaving out lots of little stuff)

Dems:
WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, Balkans, Libya

GOP:
Gulf War 1, Somalia, Gulf War 2, Afghanistan

• robc||

In the last century (and leaving out lots of little stuff)

Dems:
WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, Balkans, Libya

GOP:
Gulf War 1, Somalia, Gulf War 2, Afghanistan

• ||

Toss out Somalia (Somalia?) and put in Iraq.

There, that'll be 100 renminbis please.

• robc||

Gulf War 2 == Iraq, already there.

• SIV||

Somalia was a (reluctant) "humanitarian" mission under Bush I. The mission switched to UN anti-warlord "Nation-building" under Clinton.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.....lution_814

• STEVE SMITH||

ME LOVE WAR. ME LOVE SMOKE AND BANG AND RAPE.

• ||

Wouldn't be simpler to just enact the Lex Luthor Inititive in Superman: The Movie?

• ||

And to think, they claim that libertarians are the crazy ones.

• fish||

Hey shoudn't this guy get the first nomination for the first annual, "Froma Harrop Returning Civility to Discourse" award?

• Walter Sobchak ||

Nihilists! Fuck me. I mean, say what you like about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it's an ethos.

• ||

Scratch a liberal, find an autocrat. It never fails.

-jcr

• AlmightyJB||

Yeah, I'm sorry but who has all the guns?

• ||

Jeffrey Wells, Hollywood Elsewhere

Jeffrey who?
Hollywood what?

• ||

Stop spoofing me!

• El Foldo||

Wells is an idiot. As for the rest, so much unwarranted smugness

• Achtung Coma Baby||

For some reason, I just cried.

• ||

Ignoramuses can no longer be tolerated.

What makes you think anyone ever tolerated the likes of you?

• ||

Ignoramuses can no longer be tolerated.

Geezus, three years ago we were all geniuses. Hopey changey and all that.

Now, phfffft.

• Mensan||

I feel pretty safe in assuming that I will never run into Weisberg, Westen, Romer, or Wells at a Mensa gathering.

• Mensa for Dummies||

No shit.

• ||

Given the mensans I've met, they could be charter members.

• Dave||

Not to brag, but Mensans are to me as retarded people are to Mensans.

• Zeb||

Too many people think that being smart must correlate to being right or having good ideas. Nothing could be farther from the truth. It takes a lot of intelligence to maintain the levels of bullshit and doublespeak we get from the political and pundit classes.

• Brandon||

No it doesn't. Intelligence is recognizing the bullshit. The bullshit and doublespeak come from tribal affiliation outweighing any intelligence they have.

• ||

Intelligence is what you get. Intellect is what you have.

Commit the above to your memory.

• Mensan||

Maybe you should learn the definitions of the words before you start correcting others.

in·tel·li·gence noun \in-ˈte-lə-jən(t)s\
1. a (1): the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations : REASON; also: the skilled use of reason (2): the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria (as tests) b: mental acuteness : SHREWDNESS
2. a: an intelligent entity b: intelligent minds or mind
3 : the act of understanding : COMPREHENSION
4 a: INFORMATION, NEWS b: information concerning an enemy or possible enemy or an area; also: an agency engaged in obtaining such information

in·tel·lect noun \ˈin-tə-ˌlekt\
1. a: the power of knowing as distinguished from the power to feel and to will : the capacity for knowledge b: the capacity for rational or intelligent thought especially when highly developed
2 : a person with great intellectual powers

"Maybe you should learn the definitions of the words before you start correcting others."

Maybe YOU should read the fucking definitions so you realize he's right.

Jesus, you're an asshole, and then to be wrong, and post definitions that prove his point? DIAGF please "mensan"

• SIV||

Progressives love them some concentration camps.

• Fred Korematsu||

No shit.

• fish||

Irony?

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt authorized the internment with Executive Order 9066, issued February 19, 1942, which allowed local military commanders to designate "military areas" as "exclusion zones," from which "any or all persons may be excluded." This power was used to declare that all people of Japanese ancestry were excluded from the entire Pacific coast, including all of California and most of Oregon and Washington, except for those in internment camps.[7]

FDR: The ultimate progressive

• Huh||

Guantanamo Bay was created by a Progressive?

• Bill||

No, another statist fuck. Both parties have their share of statists.

• Anne Archist||

We believe in the state.
The state of anarchy!

• ||

• Jim Treacher||

Gitmo is the first concentration camp where the inmates get fatter instead of thinner. Coming soon to a theater near you: Schindler's Bisque.

• DJF||

“””"Policy would be better if we listened to the experts."“”’

The problem is that we have been listening to those experts and we are now in the situation we are in. Every time the economy got weak we increased spending and decreased interest rates.

• Old Salt||

In bookstore terms, "written by an expert" means "toss that shit in the bargain bin after the month ends"!

• Or||

return to the publisher who will then sell it as a discounted "remainder" item to "used bookstores".

• Brett L||

The Book of My Enemy has Been Remaindered

Perhaps the most honest bit of poetry ever.

• ||

Very good. It just cracked up a hot woman I am dating. Thanks.

• db||

Beautiful.

• sarcasmic||

You don't understand!
When the government removes money from the economy by selling bonds to investors, and discourages putting money in the bank by keeping interest rates artificially low, the economy booms because investors are not investing in profitable enterprise and there are no bank funds to lend to profitable enterprise.

Wait a minute...?

• ||

See, you aren't as bright as a smug statist. They have the ability to make logic jumps that are beyond your feeble intellect. Now that you have proven yourself so stupid, please report to the nearest re-education camp.

• sarcasmic||

My mistake was pointing out step one.

Economic stimulus makes sense when you skip step one and go straight to step two where the government showers all that money over the economy like Miracle Grow.
Well, kind of. It makes sense as long as you don't examine where that money goes.

But if you skip step one and view these good intentions at work from a distance, macro aggregates and stuff, it all makes sense.

No need for re-education. I know the drill.
Don't see what is actually happening (results), just see what you want to see (intentions).

• ||

• sarcasmic||

Corporate filters and stuff.

• ||

It's a Superchunk song. No bigee.

• JD the Elder||

Economic stimulus makes sense when you skip step one and go straight to step two where the government showers all that money over the economy like Miracle Grow.

Yeah, but if you let regular Americans keep that money, they'd probably spend it on the wrong things.* As opposed to the government, which will take it away and spend it on the right things. How the government knows what the right things are is never explained, except your average liberal has an amazing faith in the ability of the "experts" to know what's right.

* Or they would not spend it, and would instead invest it or put it in the bank. That should have the beneficial effect of lowering interest rates, which is supposed to be what the experts want, but all the experts know that interest rate changes don't work unless they're dictated from on high.

• sarcasmic||

except your average liberal has an amazing faith in the ability of the "experts" to know what's right.

If someone can explain something in terms that can be understood, then obviously they are not an expert. Experts are people who understand things that are too complicated to be explained. That's what makes them experts.

• Dave||

That sounds about right - and I've noticed that liberals get very upset when you explain something to them in words they should be able to understand. They insist that it's much more complicated than that, and I simply couldn't understand, evidently repeating what all their teachers said to them, and ... oh! that explains a lot.

• Dave||

Hmmm. I wonder. I have found errors in college textbooks written by experts. I have found errors in many other books written by experts, too. Perhaps the fact that I am highly aware that experts make mistakes (even in cases where they really do understand the subject as well as they think they do) gives me a perspective that the average liberal does not have.

• ||

Yes it was the experts who pushed the CRA and said everyone should be a homeowner because it was good for communities and banks were racist if they didn't make mortgage loans to people with bad credit scores.

• the real OO||

typical RW agiprop

• the real OO||

tpcal rgt glrble snorf gobnobble glbby flp

• the real OO||

*fap*fap*fap*fap*fap*

• T||

Chumble spuzz!

• ||

Pablo nailed it. The CRA expansion is directly responsible for the instruments that were created to unload crappy paper on government retirement mutual funds. That is why we had the bailout. DURRRRR. And liberals are the smart ones? please.

• OO||

the CRA didnt mandate obtaining misleading ratings, failure to disclose to investors, or SHORTING THEIR OWN PRODUCTS.

• ||

This is like saying the free booze at the party didn't mandate drunkenness and dangerous driving. No, but it had something to do with what followed.

• Apogee||

No, it just provided the incentive. The real crime was bailing out those losers after the inevitable happened.

• ||

To be wholly fair, under the CRA Congress held the banking industry at gunpoint and forced them to make a trillion dollars in home loans to unemployable crackheads. If Congress is not responsible for the fiasco, who is? Of course, any "bailout" will be done with the people's money, rather than funds confiscated personally from those Congresscritters who created this particular Frankenstein monster and loosed it upon an unsuspecting world in the first place.

• PIRS||

Next time any of these four people speaks in defense of "democracy" we know they are being incredibly disingenuous.

• Old Mexican||

Maher asked Romer how she felt about being "Palinized" by Republicans who aren't economists. She said, "Policy would be better if we listened to the experts."

She is certainly NO expert in irony...

• ||

Nor is she an expert in economics. What she is, is a consummate pseudo-intellectual, and her list of credentials is proof of the decay of American academia.

-jcr

• ||

Nor does she have any shame. She and others designed the failed stimulus yet it does not even occur to them that the failure calls into question their own "experise" or the theories on which they rely.

• WTF||

Drew Westen, backpfeiffengesicht.

• Brett L||

Must...keep...proles...in line. Otherwise, committee members don't get all the benefits of being part of the nomenklatura and we might as well all be nekulturny proles.

• sarcasmic||

Such hateful and violent language!
That could incite people to... oh it was the left who was saying those things.
Nothing to see here, move along.

• The Left||

WE'RE ENTITLED TO OUR OPINIONS!

• The Left||

YOU'RE ENTITLED TO OUR OPINIONS!

• Lib'Tarian||

THE LEFT SUCKS!
FUCK YOU!
WE'RE THE BEST!
WHOO-HOOO!

• ||

"TEH LEFT AND TEH RIGHT SUCKS!"

Fixed

• Lib'Tarian||

And neither side will have us, making us...
TEAM ZERO!

WHOO-HOOOO!

• ||

Why is it you resort to name calling and general silliness ie:

Lib'Tarian|8.8.11 @ 12:23PM|#

THE LEFT SUCKS!
FUCK YOU!
WE'RE THE BEST!
WHOO-HOOO!

And then you turn around and tell people they are stupid for calling you a troll.

• Banjos||

The funny thing is, you actually think this an insult. This is a bragging point to us.

• Zeb||

Seriously. One doesn't become a libertarian to be more politically relevant.

• sarcasmic||

You mean to say an idea based upon principles of decentralized power and authority does not get support from people who want to centralized power and authority?

Oh
My
God

I mean... ohmygod!

You serious?

Are you really fucking serious?

I can't believe it! Really! I can't!

• ||

Jeffrey Wells thinks a civil war would feel good? How presumptive that he thinks he would be on the winning side...or maybe he likes big, mean people kicking his ass?

• ||

It would feel great. So good, so want.

• ||

The military might would be so lopsided, you wouldnt even have to shoot the statist fucks. Just roll over them, disarm them, pull down their pants, and start spanking.

The sound of asses being slapped and whiny petulant crying would blanket the countryside.

• AlmightyJB||

Dude. They would like that Shit.

• Tony||

Well we did kick your redneck asses the last time.

• ||

"We"? Who the fuck is "we"?

I live in the "North" and I'm not on your side. Neither is any other Veteran, hunter, or shooter I know.

People like me finally beat down those "rednecks' after 4 bloody years. You think I'll lift a finger for you? Pussy.

• Mr. FIFY||

Notice how Tony - a supposed liberal, and liberals are supposed to be against hurtful stereotypes - descends into... hurtful stereotypes.

• Tony||

Well I was turned down in a mens room once by a farmer type! Those wounds never heal!

• Dave||

In fairness, those southern Rednecks had less money, inferior weapons, little food, virtually no navy, and were outnumbered 4 to 1, and still held out for 4 years. Somebody might want to reconsider what might happen today, especially since South Carolina has major nuclear facilities.

• ||

One of the points I was trying to make to Tony is that it wouldn't be along the same lines as last time.

It would be city versus country with the fault lines in the suburbs. The 2004 election map by county is probably a decent estimate.

Us northern soldiers like myself have far more in common with rednecks than liberal douche bags in the cities.

• Old Mexican||

Jeffrey Wells, Hollywood Elsewhere:

Many times I've riffed on a dark, delicious fantasy about rounding up Tea Bagger types and sentencing them to green re-education camps for minimum one-year terms.

He probably obtained his fantasy from watching this:

• ||

Yeah, and with Pol Pot as a shining example.

• Nipplemancer||

that Wells piece is weapons grade stupidity. I've disseminated it to my leftist friends hoping they'll take the bait and agree with him.

• Warty||

How can you stand to talk about politics in real life? It's way too depressing for me.

• Nipplemancer||

I'm an intellectual sadist. I enjoy being pissed off at other's ridiculous arguments.

• Ska||

No wonder you've turned to resurrecting areolae as a life pursuit.

• Ska||

Well to be fair, manipulation of, not strictly resurrection.

• Nipplemancer||

With my army of zombie nipples I plan to conquer the Known Universe (even the Kzinti).

• Dave||

Watch out for Pak!

• Zeb||

I've come to that conclusion as well. I used to enjoy getting into political arguments with people I know, but now it just brings on crushing depression.

• Edwin||

leftists are seriously fucked in the head

• JoJo Zeke||

Romer said, "The basic idea that if you increase government spending [...] that stimulates the economy and lowers the unemployment rate, is a very widely accepted idea. It's in every economics textbook

• ||

Wasn't in my testbook. In fact, my Macro Econ book said:

"The government drag on the economy is the Net Present Value of government expenditures mins transfer payments."

In other words, the more a government spends, the more it slows its economy.

This guy agrees. http://danieljmitchell.wordpre.....-evidence/

• ||

That "basic idea" is right as far as Romer says it -- if you hired everyone in the country to dig ditches, you would not have any unemployment.

The question is whether the kind of "stimulating the economy and lowering the unemployment rate" that you are likely to get is worth what you have to give up (current borrowing and future spending cuts/tax increases) to get it.

• ||

It wasn't in any of the textbooks I had, either, in two years of economics classes. Except as a mostly discredited notion.

• scythe||

"Policy would be better if we listened to the experts."

Who decides who the experts are?

• Mainer||

Top. Men.

• ||

Why, they are self evident of course.

• sasob||

And quite often self-proclaimed.

• ||

Experts on Experts.

Wait, this sounds like a weird porno.

• ||

Who decides who the experts are?

Think of it as a circle ... of jerks.

• Jeff||

That face... so very slappable.

• squarooticus||

Is that Andy Robinson next to Christopher Walken?

• kevin s.||

"because no one bothered to explain it to them with the repetition and evocative imagery that our brains require to make an idea,"

The car in the ditch thing was pretty repetitive. Strangely, it wasn't enough to offset the whole "everyone is losing their job" thing, for the reason Americans are teh dumbz.

• Mainer||

For anyone who know's how to actually get a car out of the ditch, the imagery was very evocative.

Obama revving the engine,spinning the tires, slinging mud, diggin in deeper and deeper and looking out the window with a dopey look at the bystanders smirking at the dumbass who doesn't know how to drive.

• BV||

That's actually a euphemism. He wanted to say they didn't propagandize enough to stick 2 paradoxical ideas in Americans' minds. I disagree with this man but you have to give him respect for being honest. He agrees with all the authoritarians of the past that people are just one ignorant mob and they will believe anything if the lie is repeated enough times.

(Ok you don't have to respect this scum.)

• WTF||

You know who else utilized the Big Lie?

• Barack Obama||

"PRESENT!"

• Iraq||

who?

• Matrix||

"If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth" Joseph Goebbels

So, they want to be like Nazi propagandists?

• ||

but but but, with the Right People in charge, it could work this time!!!

• ||

It's a "progressive" fantasizing about war, putting their enemies into camps, and death and destruction. Normal shit for them.

How else can they punish us for our insensitive eliminationist rhetoric?

• Montani Semper Liberi||

"Policy would be better if we listened to the experts."

Is this the same woman who projected unemployment would be below 8% right now if we hadn't had a "stimulus"?

• Old Mexican||

Yes, which is why I said that she's no expert in detecting irony.

• ||

When she's right, she's right.

• ||

Sad thing is she might have been right when she said that. Unfortunately we had the stimulus.

• ||

+1

• ||

It was a half stimulus! Or if you're Paul Krugman, it was only 1/4th of a stimulus! It failed because it wasn't big enough, you know?

Also, trickle down economics is one of the biggest lies ever perpetuated by evil right wing Republicans.

Herpa derp derp.

• ||

Also, trickle down economics is one of the biggest lies ever perpetuated by evil right wing Republicans.

Not to be confused with the trickledown economics of a government stimulus.

• ||

I thought the $152 billion Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 was the half stimulus. (You know, the one Dems passed and GW signed in Feb, 2008 - the one nobody remembers.) The 2009$787 billion grand daddy raid on the treasury was a stimulus and a half.

So almost a $trillion blown on crap in 2 years is half a stimulus? How much would a whole one cost? • mobiustrip|| If you run an expansionary policy when the economy is expanding, then run a contractionary policy when the economy is contracting, you are in for a world of hurt. Don't blame Keynes. He warned us to do the opposite. We just didn't listen. Keynes is "counter-cyclical": raise taxes and cut spending when the economy is hot, and maybe try to run a surplus; lower taxes and raise spending when the economy is bad, and maybe run a deficit you can pay off when the economy is good again. This isn't "liberal," it's just basic math. Our policy over the past 30 years hasn't been "un-Keynesian"; it's been "anti-Keynesian" or "inverse Keynesian" or, if you are a DC comics reader, "bizarro-Keynesian." We cut taxes and raised spending when the economy was hot. When the economy got cold we raised taxes and cut spending. Europe is doing the same thing. They call is "austerity." What it really is is "pro-cyclical." You can't just roll out Keynes when the economy is bad and forget about him when the economy recovers. You have to eat your vegetables every day. Refusing to cut taxes and increase spending when the economy is hot is particularly important if you want to be a true Keynesian. • || Yes, somebody else actually understands Keynes! He warned against borrowing during the good times because it would eliminate the ability to borrow when it was really needed - you know, now. • Dave|| True. Keynes was often wrong, but he wasn't a complete dumbass like everyone who quotes him. • Old Mexican|| Re: mobiustrip, Keynes is "counter-cyclical": raise taxes and cut spending when the economy is hot, and maybe try to run a surplus; lower taxes and raise spending when the economy is bad, and maybe run a deficit you can pay off when the economy is good again. This isn't "liberal," it's just basic math. It was also lousy economics, as deficit spending depends on allocation of resources that can only be accomplished through political expediency, as people are not clever enough to centrally-control an entire economy. Our policy over the past 30 years hasn't been "un-Keynesian"; it's been "anti-Keynesian" or "inverse Keynesian" or, if you are a DC comics reader, "bizarro-Keynesian." We cut taxes and raised spending when the economy was hot. When the economy got cold we raised taxes and cut spending. Europe is doing the same thing. They call is "austerity." What it really is is "pro-cyclical." It's also bad economics. There's little difference between the two, as both purport to be "stimulating." During the Roaring 20's the government cut taxes AND spending, leading to a surplus that allowed the government to actually start paying off the CAPITAL on the national debt, let alone the interest payments. This is counterfactual to both Keynesianism and Krugmanism. You can't just roll out Keynes when the economy is bad and forget about him when the economy recovers. Actually, we would be better off if we just forgot about him in toto. Krugman as well. • Masturbatin' Pete|| Can we get a definition of "Krugmanism"? I imagine that it has something to do with putting forth unfalsifiable economic predictions (i.e., if the stimulus fails, it's because it wasn't big enough), while growing increasingly shrill and partisan, but I'm sure someone can state that more succinctly. • mobiustrip|| Krugman has made accurate predictions. E.g., the Bush tax cuts would blow the surplus and return the deficit. He did not say IF the stimulus fails it's because it's too small. he said it WOULD fail BECAUSE it was too small. He was right. As for being "shrill" and "partisan," these are the labels pegged on anybody who does not blame the GOP and Democrats equally for all problems at all times, never mind the facts. "Shrill" and "partisan" should be worn as badges of honor. "Shrill" and "partisan" means a willingness to allocate blame according the facts, rather than an unchangeable pre-existing commitment to "neutrality." • Masturbatin' Pete|| But the left is telling us that the stimulus "worked"! It saved or created a shit-ton of jobs, right? So Krugman was wrong. • mobiustrip|| Krugman maintains that the stimulus barely offset the pro-cyclical policies of the state and local governments ("Fifty Little Herbert Hoovers" in his memorable phrase). In that sense, yes, it "worked" by keeping a disaster from becoming a cataclysm. Any other straw men you want to try to knock down today? • mr simple|| How about the ridiculous assertion that Hoover did anything but spend leading up to the Great Depression. • mr simple|| Stupid quotation marks. HERE. • Fatty Bolger|| In that sense, yes, it "worked" by keeping a disaster from becoming a cataclysm. Yet, we could have had the same thing for the price of one virgin thrown into a volcano. Really, now - isn't that more economic? • Masturbatin' Pete|| Also, "shrill" and "partisan" describes someone who for example, hypothesizes - without evidence - that a violent act was committed by one's political opponents. Teh Krugtard did that. He was wrong. • CrackertyAssCracker|| He also said we needed a housing bubble. • mobiustrip (condensed)|| • mobiustrip|| Reason dot com: hate "TEH TROLLS"; but love the griefers. • mobiustrip|| "Ow! Quit it! MOOOOOOOOMMMMM -- !!!" • mobiustrip|| ... and the handle-jackers. • Tony|| ... and the handle-jackers. PRESENT! • mr simple|| You mean the Bush tax cuts that increased tax revenues? They were responsible for "blowing" the surplus and not the wars or increased Medicare spending or regulations that created barriers to entry, and along with monetary policy, created a bubble that inevitably busted, etc.? And you and Krugman want to be taken seriously? • mobiustrip|| Do you understand the concept of "greater" and "lesser"? As in: revenues will increase over a ten-year period; they will increase less with lower taxes; more with higher taxes? Do you understand that if you jump out of an airplane, you will reach the earth, with or without a parachute? It's just that with a parachute, you get there more slowly? • || If we cut taxes on the wealthy to such a great degree, wouldn't it actually show up as decreased revenues? Oh wait. Maybe the economy got better, and thus, even though the wealthy was paying at a reduced rate, we still had increased revenues? Golly... that kinda sounds like... what it was SUPPOSED to do. As opposed to Krugman's and Barack's predictions of what the stimulus was supposed to do... • mobiustrip|| Yes, relative decreased revenues, not absolute decreased revenues. We would have had more government revenues without the tax cuts than with them. • mobiusdrip|| Look, if a burger joint is making$50,000/year sellijng burgers for $5.00, then obviously if they raise the price of a burger to$100 they will make a million dollars. Because prices don't affect people's bahvior or anything. DERP

• mobiustrip||

pseudo-handlejack fail.

• mr simple||

You can postulate all you want, but you cannot provide historical evidence for your positions. When Bush, Reagan, Kennedy and FDR cut taxes revenues increases at an increasing rate beyond expectations. Whenever they were raised, revenues fell. Do you understand incentives? Do you know what that word means or how it works?

• mobiustrip||

Tax increases did not decrease revenues, especially under Clinton.

• mr simple||

Yes, relative decreased revenues, not absolute decreased revenues.

Tax revenues were actually stagnant even though the economy had been recovering and adding jobs for a few years. They didn't really start growing until welfare reform and tax cuts of late nineties.

• JT||

That's not true. If you increase taxes to 100%, you will get zero revenue.

• JT||

That's not true. If you increase taxes to 100%, you will get zero revenue.

• ||

Your simplistic view that higher taxes = more income and lower taxes = less income makes me giggle.

• Night Elf Mohawk||

Krugman has made accurate predictions. E.g., the Bush tax cuts would blow the surplus and return the deficit.

Other than the fact that federal revenue was nearly identical in 2008 as in 2000 in constant dollars, the cuts in tax rates were definitely to blame for increasing the deficit.

• mobiustrip||

Without the tax cuts, government revenues would have been higher.

You are invited to try to disprove the above as many fruitless times as you wish.

• mobiusdrip||

Without the tax cuts, government revenues would have been higher.

You are invited to try to disprove the above as many fruitless times as you wish.

Since you are making the assertion, it is incumbent upon you to prove it correct.

• mobiustrip||

nope - u 1st

• mobiusdrip||

Fucking rules of logic. How do they work?

• Zeb||

"Fucking rules of logic. How do they work?"

Not the way you think they do. This has nothing to do with logic. You are both making unproven assertions.
And stop with the handle spoofing. mobiusstrip is making actual arguments, not trolling. Engage or ignore, but stop fucking up the threads with all of the spoofing and juvenile bullcrap.

• FUCK you||

"but stop fucking up the threads with all of the spoofing and juvenile bullcrap."

Get dick cancer

• ||

Even if we had never instituted the Bush tax cuts, revenues could never have kept pace with expenditures. To say that the Bush cuts created the deficit is like saying that reducing my salary from 45 to 40 thousand is the reason why I can't pay my $100,000 credit card bill. Since 1945, revenues have never exceeded 22% of GDP is spite of a top marginal tax rate of 90%. • Fluffy|| You are invited to try to disprove the above as many fruitless times as you wish. Hey, no problem. Krugman has written many times that the fact that the Reagan tax cuts increased revenues at a rate greater than both the inflation rate and the GDP growth rate doesn't "prove" that Laffer was correct, because there are just "too many variables" in economics for such simple data relationships to ever be considered a proof. By the standard of proof Krugman applies to the Reagan tax cuts, you can't make any statement whatsoever about the revenue impact of tax policy, looking forwards or looking backwards. It's Just Too Complicated. • || "He did not say IF the stimulus fails it's because it's too small. he said it WOULD fail BECAUSE it was too small. He was right." You're wrong on two counts. This is what Krugman said: "Unemployment is currently about 7 percent, and heading much higher; Obama himself says that absent stimulus it could go into double digits. Suppose that we’re looking at an economy that, absent stimulus, would have an average unemployment rate of 9 percent over the next two years; this plan would cut that to 7.3 percent, which would be a help but could easily be spun by critics as a failure." http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c.....important/ So Krugman wrote that he felt the stimulus was too small, and that it would keep the unemployment level to 7.3 percent, which would be "spun" by conservatives into a failure. Let me repeat that. Krugman said that a 7.3 percent unemployment rate would be spun into a failure. Yet, what is the left telling us today? That the stimulus, which hasn't been able to keep the unemployment rate below 9%, is a success. And you say that Krugman was RIGHT? • mobiustrip|| You're citing a post (January '09) from before the actual stimulus bill (February '09). At that point, Krug is talking about the Obama plan, not the actual legislation. • mobiustrip|| You're right, John. Me and OO are going to check into idiot re-education camp now. They say you can't fix stupid, but we're going to give it a try. BTW, OO says: ur so rt wer dum as rox lol • || Nonsense. Krugmann said the tax cuts were necessary because of the affects of the dot.com bubble bursting and then the 9/11 attacks. He argued that they were, in his view, too skewed for the top income earners but he said a tax cut was necessary at the time. The tax cuts didn't blow up the surplus; the dot.com bubble contracted the capital gains revenues and the surplus disappeared. Now the deficits were caused, in part, by the cuts but the surplus was lost when the economy tanked. • JT|| effects, not affects. That these two homophones mean almost, but not quite, the same thing is a great failure of the English language. • Michael Ejercito|| Krugman has made accurate predictions. E.g., the Bush tax cuts would blow the surplus and return the deficit. And yet, if spending were reduced to$8000 per capita, we would have a surplus without raising tax rates a single hundredth of a percentage point.

Imagine that.

• Old Mexican||

Re: Mobiustrip,

Krugman has made accurate predictions. E.g., the Bush tax cuts would blow the surplus and return the deficit.

You mean he predicted that the phony surplus would be blown by tax rate cuts, never mind the increased spending because of 2 wars? Wow! What a powerful mind this man has!

He did not say IF the stimulus fails it's because it's too small. he said it WOULD fail BECAUSE it was too small. He was right.

Never mind that such a prediction is no different than those made by parents when they don't give presents to their kids: "You weren't enough of a good kid! I told you!"

"Shrill" and "partisan" should be worn as badges of honor.

• ||

He did not say IF the stimulus fails it's because it's too small. he said it WOULD fail BECAUSE it was too small.

Government: We need to stimulate the economy.

Citizen: How are you going to do that?

Government: By spending money we don't have.

Citizen: So where are you going to get the money?

Government: We will borrow the money.

Citizen: If I lend the government $1000 for the government to spend then I no longer have$1000 to spend. Correct?

Government: Correct.

Citizen: So by Krugman logic it isn’t a stimulus if I keep the money and spend it but it is a stimulus if I lend it to the government and it spends it. Curious.

• mobiustrip||

You are not even coherent.

Let's see if we can't jumpstart your brain --

an economy can move in two directions:

(a) expanding
(b) contracting.

Taxes can be moved in two directions:

(i) increase/raise
(ii) decrease/cut
... or else just kept level.

Government spending can be moved in two directions:

(1) increase/raise
(2) decrease/cut
... or else just kept level

So, what is the right government policy under (a)?

What is the right government policy under (b)?

• Mensa for Dummies||

"So, what is the right government policy under (a)?

What is the right government policy under (b)?"

TO GET THE FUCK OUT OF THE WAY.

• mobiustrip||

by which you mean...?

• robc||

Really, how hard is GET THE FUCK OUT OF THE WAY to understand?

It means GET THE FUCK OUT OF THE WAY.

• the real OO||

libtoid TP

• the real OO||

glubble blop derp

• the real OO||

u r smrt mobi dud

• ||

I assume most of us would say "decrease/cut" in both circumstances.

• mobiustrip||

which is why you're wrong and Keynes was right.

• mr simple||

It's too bad there has never been any historical evidence to back this claim up.

• ||

Proof? Any?

Japan?

• robc||

The 1970s?

• Pudgeboy||

What proof that Keynes was right...

• Vaccine||

Even if you accept that Keynes' counter-cyclical approach is correct in theory, it is clearly impossible to implement in reality. People who want increased spending during a shrinking would scream bloody murder at cutting the size of government during good times.

• mobiustrip||

I don't know what "proof" you all are looking for since nobody has attempted sustained Keynesian counter-cyclical policy in the past 30 years. Is there some jurisdiction that cut spending and raised taxes in good economic times? I never heard of any.

• Pudgeboy||

Right, just like lefties will tell you that Stalin and Mao weren't real Marxist/Communists, mere poseurs. Pure communism hasn't been tried yet, except for the 40 or so times it has been...

• mobiustrip||

Not a good analogy. Keynesian counter-cyclical fiscal policy isn't some "ideology" like "Marxism." It is a pretty simple taxing and spending mechanism, nothing more. Hence, it should be simple to determine whether a jurisdiction has adopted a sustained commitment to Keynesian fiscal policy. It either has or it hasn't.

Does Pudgeboy maintain that there has been a jurisdiction that committed itself to Keynesian fiscal policy? If so, where and when?

• Pudgeboy||

Not a perfect analogy, I give you that.

It's never been fully implemented because even though it's a simple theory to understand, it doesn't make sound fiscal policy... the multiplier effect, consumption, Y=C+I+G. etc. don't pan out in practice. Like Marxism, the underlying assumptions are incorrect and don't stand up to reality; not even his predictions were accurate.

• mobiustrip||

Vaccine is probably right; and double-true for tax-cutters.

• mobiustrip||

Also Marxism never got a fair shake.

• mobiustrip||

If Marxism consisted of putting handle-jackers in re-education camps, I'd be all for it.

• Matrix||

is this a new Tony/Chad/Max or the same guy(s) posting under a different name?

• mobiustrip||

fyi, f/k/a "Danny"

• ||

"right government policy" for achieving what ends?

• robc||

Choosing a government policy based on ends is utilitarian bullshit to begin with.

• Tony||

Much better to choose it based on what some crank sub-minor philosopher said in his book 100 years ago.

• Mr. FIFY||

Did Keynes really write his stuff that long ago, Tony?

• mobiustrip||

I don't know. Social justice? Sure, that sounds good.

• mobiustrip||

[handlejack]

• mobius trip||

You my friend have come to the right place for some good ol' fashioned trolling. However, I also took an economics class in high school so I can humor you with your Keynsian babble...

If the economy is expanding we should raise taxes and cut spending which will create a surplus and also ward off damaging inflation caused by a hot economy. If an economy is contracting we should lower taxes and increase spending which will kickstart the economy, using the surplus that none of our stupid politicians have already spent.

However, I, unlike yourself, find my democratically elected officials in Washington to be incompetent blowhards with whom I would not trust my favorite pen, never mind the state of the U.S. economy and the futures of my family

• KMA too||

So, no one's giving him the "AHA!!!!11!" on this?

No, Social justice doesn't sound good. Maybe it's supposed to, but by this time, it doesn't. Besides, the whole "not a legitimate function of our government" thing, and all.

• HermanLame||

Not to mention, if social justice = egalitarian society, our society would be a Hell of a lot more equal if we pursued actual laissez-faire rather than corporatism-in-laissez-clothing.

• In other words||

We can't help people because it's not legitimate according to the standards I pulled from my ass in order to support the position that we can't help.

• ||

Your simplistic view that the economy can only expand or contract makes me giggle.

• Old Mexican||

Re: Mobiustrip,

You are not even coherent.

Ohhh, don't tell me, don't tell me: You are, right?

an economy can move in two directions:

(a) expanding
(b) contracting.

Taxes can be moved in two directions:

(i) increase/raise
(ii) decrease/cut
... or else just kept level.

A woman's boobs can be moved in two directions:

1) Increasing
2) Decreasing

Or just left as they are. Obviously, the woman doesn't know how to COUNT.

So, what is the right government policy under (a)? What is the right government policy under (b)?

How about "None of the above," genius?

• Tony||

So you neither raise nor cut taxes, and you neither increase nor decrease spending?

• Mr. FIFY||

Leave taxes right where they are, and cut spending.

• cynical||

That's nice, and might even be true, but thinking that politicians would ever do it is implausible. Mobiustrip, what's your opinion on abstinence-only sex education?

• ||

Congress hasn't cut spending since the 70s. Everything goes up 8% or more per year, year after year. Don't believe me? Go to Wikipedia, that well-known right-wing kook site, and you can see figures for US federal government spending year after year.

This is what I don't understand about this "stimulus" idea. In 2008, the year of the sub-prime mortgage implosion, the US government spent over 2.9 trillion dollars. Trillion, with a T, more than it had ever spent, ever, in any year on record. If that was not already enough to "stimulate" the economy, what conceivable figure could be enough?

• Fist of Etiquette||

The Left loves them some re-education camp fantasies. No one seems to hate two-way dialogue like leftists. What they think is so obvious that it's utterly exasperating having to be bothered with the existence of opposing ideas at all.

The camps are perfect as they aren't a debate, they are a monologue opposition would be forced to absorb and accept before gaining freedom (of sorts) back into the enlightened populace.

• the real OO||

FEMA re-education camps were RW agiprop in 08...along w death panels, gun confiscation, nationalized health care, etc...

• Fist of Etiquette||

The Left can't actually have the camps, but they masturbate over the thought of them. But for now they have to focus on getting the unchallenged message to the masses the first pass in the education camps of higher (and lower) learning.

• OO||

but libtoids call that public education

• OO||

i wuz pubic educated nd i trned out fine n smrt n stuff

• sevo||

"nationalized health care, etc...FEMA [along w]re-education DEATH PANELS camps were [gun confiscation,]
RW agiprop in 08... ,

Makes more sense now.

• Zeb||

Right. Those were things that the right wing perhaps irrationally feared. They are things that many of the left fantasize about and jerk off to.

• sasob||

In fact, the average American had no idea what Democrats were trying to accomplish by deficit spending because no one bothered to explain it to them with the repetition and evocative imagery that our brains require to make an idea, particularly a paradoxical one, "stick."

Yes, because having paradoxical ideas "stuck" in one's mind is so wonderful for one's mental health. What a dumbshit.

• Masturbatin' Pete||

What was so difficult to understand about what the Democrats were trying to do with the Stimulus? Are the basic principles of Keynesian economics unknown to the common man?

-Demand falls.
-Government steps in to stimulate demand through deficit spending.
-????
-Profit!

People understand that. People also understand that paying people to dig and refill holes is wasteful. People also understand that every dollar you borrow to spend on hole-digging is a dollar that's not being invested or spent on something that people actually want.

• mobiustrip||

Wrong. No one has ever proved that a National Hole Digging Program would not succeed. We simply haven't attempted it on a national scale.

• mobiustrip's mom||

Did someone mention a "National Hole Program"...?

• mobiustrip||

In fact, the Soviets were quite successful with similar economic experiments in their villages. Pulitzer price winner Walter Duranty wrote extensively (and quite persuasively) on the subject.

• Walter Duranty||

"Any report of a famine in Russia is today an exaggeration or malignant propaganda. The food shortage, however, which has affected the whole population in the last year and particularly in the grain-producing provinces—the Ukraine, North Caucasus, the Lower Volga—has, however, caused heavy loss of life."

Well, yeah, there are millions of dead starvation victims, but we can't call it a *famine*!

Have you been extensively persuaded yet?

• mobiustrip||

• mobiustrip||

Just because the experiments ultimately failed due to obstruction and unforeseen difficulties, it doesn't follow that the theory is invalid. The failure of Keynesian economic policies in spite of their vast superiority proves that beyond a doubt. Q.E.D.

• mobiustrip||

QED handlejack, that is.

Can't say you didn't try, Zeb.

This unmoderated forum, and it's endemic griefing and handle-jacking, is all you need to know about what a "Libertarian" society would look like: jerks and losers taking advantage and screwing it up for the rest of us, while the Libertoids bleat-bleat incessantly about "trolls," (viz., anybody who uses tough language against Libertarian delusions) as if that's the real problem.

Even Megan McCardle, a Libertopian of the first order, has Disqus and moderates her forum for griefers.

This griefing doesn't happen on liberal sites, conservative sites, or mixed sites. There is some sick, wretched pathology inside the Libertarian mind, as reflected on Reason dot com's comment board, that abets this stuff.

• mobiustrip||

Why, there oughta be a law.

• ||

I think I've seen this kind of behavior on non-political sites, so I'm not sure you're right about it being a libertarian problem. Definitely right about the griefing and handle-jacking being problems here though.

• Apogee||

jerks and losers taking advantage and screwing it up for the rest of us

Handle jacking seems to occur (not always, but often) when the content of the discussion begins to turn into:
mobiustrip|8.8.11 @ 12:54PM|#

Without the tax cuts, government revenues would have been higher.

You are invited to try to disprove the above as many fruitless times as you wish.

IOW, when faced with baldly fallacious arguments (i.e. Burden of Proof), the commenters on H&R often begin to ridicule. Sometimes this is undeserved.

Most people who argue with respect get it in return.

Maybe it's not all on the H&R commenters.

• mobiustrip||

So griefing is proper response to expressing the wrong opinions?

• Apogee||

From Below: There is some sick, wretched pathology inside the Libertarian mind, as reflected on Reason dot com's comment board, that abets this stuff.

Apparently, your expressed opinion of your own superiority can garner a response that you don't like.

Commenters with superior arguments don't have to announce it, and the H&R regulars are pretty fair when arguing with others who aren't here to hide their own inferiority complex.

• ||

There is some sick, wretched pathology inside the Libertarian mind, as reflected on Reason dot com's comment board, that abets this stuff.

You mean Liberty Danny? Yes, libertarians believe that even though some undereducated dip shit doesn't like the way things are here, he is free to leave. That is fucking SICK. They should be forced at the point of a gun to make Danny happy!

• mobiustrip||

"Liberty" = griefing

exactly

2% forever, Libertarians.

• mobiustrip's vagina||

Hey... what the? This is SAND, goddammit -- !!!

• ||

Why not just let the specie-flow mechanism do the work? Chaotic systems work because chaos forms an inherent order. Just look at the world economy since Keynsianism was adopted.
Isn't the fact that the theory isn't working proof enough?

• ||

"We simply haven't attempted it on a national scale."

Sure we have. It was called the WPA. In economic terms it accomplished approximately nothing.

• Masturbatin' Pete||

I don't remember who said it (possibly P.J. O'Rourke), but it bears repeating: Had we in 1917 restricted the franchise to those who held Ph.D.s, we'd be digging ourselves out of the same mess that Russia is today.

• Old Mexican||

Wells:

The infra-structure that once provided decent, fair-minded quality of life to middle-class people in this country is disintegrating. The game is rigged. This is the fall of the Roman Empire.

The illiterate fool doesn't even realize the irony of what he said: The Roman Empire fell because the government was maintaining this HUGE welfare system paid through ever-decreasing spoils of war and currency debasement. At the end, it went broke because it was following EXACTLY what the Dems (and no small number of Repubs) have been doing for years.

• sarcasmic||

"The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest Rome become bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance."
Cicero (~55 BC)

• rts||

• sarcasmic||

Damn you Snopes!
Damn you to Hell!

• Cicero||

But I was thinking it!

• Au H20||

Also, they were shipping tons of their currency (gold) off to India in return for spices, because Rome didn't have a single trade good that India wanted.

Now, if only I could think of a modern parallel for this...

• sarcasmic||

Like shipping away credit backed only by the good faith of the Federal Reserve?

• robc||

???

Rome had gold and apparently India wanted it.

• Imaginary Friend||

"The deficit-reduction deal"

What deficit-reduction deal?

• Jeffrey Wells||

Fuck, I wish I could re-educate you. And then kill you.

• the real OO||

dont forget waterboarding & sodomy

• the real OO||

especially the sodomy i luv teh sodomy buttsecks

• mobiustrip||

i'll be over in 5 min. lol.

• Au H20||

Hey, this gives me a chance to post a link that I didn't on Morning Links!

Let's invent a catchy new word for feminism!

Why is this relevant, you ask?

Well, I think that its interesting that both "liberal" and "feminist" became dirty words. Yet the people who would identify themselves as "feminists" and the people who identify as liberal (which has a pretty large overlap) all blame it on the other side, and especially on the Reagan 80s. They spin narratives about how it was those damn right wing reactionaries who hated blacks and wanted woman to go back to the kitchen. They never question the idea that maybe it was excesses within their own movements, and that certain policy positions became incredibly polarizing to even those who would not normally be sympathetic to right wing arguments. Also, because neither movement has never really had the introspection necessary to undergo "wilderness years" they have yet to come out with policies that can appeal to the common man/woman.

Also, I think that their is a definitional problem. When feminists say, "Feminism is the belief that women and men should be political, (socially sometimes), and economically equal" NO ONE DISAGREES WITH THIS. But then, when you go one step further, and say, "Oh, and to achieve this, abortion must be legal, childcare must be paid for by the government, etc." then people begin to have a problem with that. Similarly, when progressivism began to change the meaning of the word liberal from its 19th century roots, they defined it as, "The government should help the least fortunate in society and police corporate excess" which very few disagreed with (and most inhabit this site!). The only problem is that they began to define, "help the least fortunate" as "stop the least fortunate from following their basest instincts, like drinking."

Oh, also.... that link? Just read the text, unless you want some AAA stupid in your brain.

• Standard & Poor's||

Sorry, that's not AAA stupid. That's AA+ stupid, at best.

• Au H20||

S&P, you have to look at the non-featured comments to understand how stupid they are.

Just like you have to look at unfunded liabilities to see how screwed the U.S. is.

• JT||

I say we just keep calling them progressives like they want to be called, and make liberal into the general word it was. Nearly all Americans, minus Marxists, theocrats, and fascists are liberals.
I love that they call themselves progressives now. I'd give them Woodrow Wilson over Thomas Jefferson any day

• Zeb||

The first comment was pretty good:
" Why does it have to have any female pronoun (correct me please, I'm not good at this) when all we want is equality? Way more people would be on board and not dismiss it so fast if they knew that's all we wanted."

Problem is, most feminists don't seem to actually want to be treated the same as men. That and they can't seem to figure out that equal rights and equality of outcome are generally mutually exclusive projects.

• ||

What feminists don't understand is, men an women are treated equally, and the salary gap is proof of this equality.

Women, as a group, are not as aggressive as men. They will, more often then men, take time off to support their families, resulting in stunted career growth.

• ||

I so often wish that the Fatal Conceit was fatal to those who practice it, not just to those who are subjected to it.

Christina Romer is the kind of person who's lived in the academic echo chamber for so long, that she wouldn't know a fact if it bit her on the ass.

-jcr

• A Fact||

Dude, I wouldn't bite that ass with your mouth.

• mobiustrip||

Why is she wrong? She's a hero, IMO.

• ||

Um she's wrong cause unemployment is still over 8%?

• ||

the way things really are and how they're being played by the rich, and the fact that Boomers have taken almost everything and that diminished lifestyles and economic security are being bequeathed to Genx and GenY for decades to come, and that the best is definitely over. The infra-structure that once provided decent, fair-minded quality of life to middle-class people in this country is disintegrating. The game is rigged. This is the fall of the Roman Empire.

Yesterday, I took a little swim in the Crazy Soup over at Counterpunch. I had not been there in a while.

Holy fuck, I thought *we* were a bunch of disillusioned, despairing paranoids. There are some serious foaming-at-the-mouth rants over there, these days (including a ton of heart-warming Obama-hate).

However, there were two little gems of sanity which definitely deserve acknowledgement: a piece about drug-related asset forfeiture, and one about the imprisonment of the innocent (and the utter indifference of the "justice" system).

• T||

Holy fuck, I thought *we* were a bunch of disillusioned, despairing paranoids.

To be fair, I think a few around here are cheerful.

• JT||

Go to the free state project. Those people are happy as fuck.

• Brett L||

That's because they know they'll never have to move to New Hampshire.

Counterpunch can be good. They'll print libertarian-leaning pieces every now and then.

• mobiustrip||

"'Re-Education Camps': verily, verily all the liberals sincerely want them."

No hesitation here to generalize about an entire political cohort based on a single blog entry from some blogger nobody heard of before, eh?

Next up, course: Libertarians whining about being stereotyped based on a few unrepresentative online examples.

• shorter mobiustrip||

Shit. Busted.

Again.

• even shorter mobiustrip||

+1, Jeffrey

• mobiustrip||

Wrong. Real Liberals don't take prisoners.

• the real OO||

libya is all about tribal politics moron

• the real OO||

we have to kill them to save them morons

• the real OO||

Die, Libyans! DIE! Lord Obama commands it -- !!!

• OO||

obama's responsible for the arab spring?

• the real OO||

not the arab spring just the bombing slaughter of libyans

• OO||

u mean the libyan military

• Restoras||

See FDR: Japanese Internment Camps.

• the real OO||

see rush: FEMA camps

• Restoras||

Good one, OO; One existed, and one didn't. I'll give you two guesses to figure it out.

• OO||

FEMA camps damn sure existed for the very real purpose to foam-up then fund raise the [WINGNUTZ]

• CrackertyAssCracker||

Noam Chomsky and Pol Pot say "hey"!.

• ||

It's not that the people are stupid, but that the people with money and the Republican propaganda machine inundate them with misleading or outright false information.

• ||

D- Repeat the class.

• Pudgeboy||

Anything less than a B+ would be damaging to a person's self-esteem; and I learned in public school that that is much worse than ignorance.

• Shorter Joe Young||

• mobiustrip||

Yes. Corporate advertising has completely destroyed people's freedome.

• ||

Since Danny can resist the stupid, "buy two and get the second one free (just pay shipping and handling)" commercials he believes that the rest of the world is as ignorantly gullible.

• ||

The Jeffrey Wells bit is beyond derp. I know it hurt Welch to ctrl+v that into his post.

All largely because of impediments to logical, intelligent governing put up by the knee-jerk, mule-like, corporate-kowtowing mentality of Tea-Bagger types and their 60 or so looney-tunes Congresspersons now in office.

knee-jerk

looneytunes

Tea-Bagger types

It's a level of self-awareness low enough that I honestly would think a child had written it if I didn't know otherwise. Maybe a teenager who just discovered politics or something.

• ||

It's like someone picked up a Mad Libs off the floor of the DNC headquarters and decided to make it into an article.

• Masturbatin' Pete||

Take heart: for every Teabagger there must be a Teabaggee. And given the way the debt-limit negotiations went, it's a miracle that Wells et al can even make themselves understood through a mouthful of man-sack.

• rts||

*golf clap*

• ||

through a mouthful of man-sack.

I've been using actual teabags. I make tea with them 1st, overboiling so they're extra bitter.

Thanks for tellin me i was doin it wrong, jerks.

• mobiustrip||

I can show you how.

• The Left||

Libtoids employ the same rhetorical flourishes. Just look at the commentary here.

• .||

The difference being that Libtoids' flourishes are fairly accurate while those of the Left are just bullshit.

• Lib'Tarian||

That's right! We're never hyperbolic, we never engage in ad hominem and other logical fallacies, and when we say stupid shit, we're just kidding!

• Jon Stewart Leibowitz||

Stop stealing my schtick, you stupid goyim!

• ||

This is why the Progressives always ends up trying to force everyone to do their bidding...

They cannot accept the fact that the American people DO NOT WANT what they're selling.

Do not want QE3. Do not want another stimulus. Do not want ObamaCare.

Do not want Progressives running the country.

Obama got into office because the American people were weary of Bush's permanent War on Terror--not because they wanted a Progressive America.

The fact that Americans continue do not want Progressivism isn't evidence that they don't understand Progressives; it's evidence that they understand perfectly well--and they DO NOT WANT.

P.S. This is the ultimate difference between libertarians and progressives by the way--progressives see forcing people to do what's supposedly in their best interest as a virtue. Libertarians, on the other hand, aren't about seizing the levers of power and forcing libertarianism on a society that doesn't want it...

As a libertarian, I would denounce any libertarian that tried to force people to do something they don't want to do. Coercion is a libertarian sin! ...but coercion is a progressive virtue--and progressivism always ends in coercion.

Always.

• ||

Yes! Statist have two identifying features:
1. Casual use of force
2. Stupidity

It's a nasty combination.

• Pudgeboy||

Progressivism is coercion. It requires it at the beginning, middle, and end.

• ||

I disagree.

It starts on the campaign trail making promises about things people want...

Once it gets in power, it never ends up being quite as advertised.

On the Campaign Trail: "Free omelets for everyone!"

Once in Power: "If we wanna have some omelets, we're gonna have to break some eggs."

• ||

By the way, Obama's about to speak on the S&P downgrade in 15 minutes or so?

I'd pay 2-1 that he says something stupid.

There's nothing Obama WOULD say right now that could possibly improve the situation.

Treasuries are rallying as a safe refuge--despite the downgrade--so what is he gonna say about the downgrade that could possibly be good for the markets or good for the country?

The correct answer is: absolutely nothing.

He should resist his urge to speak--and shut the heck up.

Just shut up Obama! The markets are being driven by events in Europe--all Obama can do now is throw kerosene on the fire. A responsible president would just keep him mouth shut, but Obama is not a responsible president.

• WTF||

I'd pay 2-1 that he says something stupid.

Only 2-1? Bet the ranch.

• JoJo Zeke||

Who would have thought, just a few years earlier, that one day this hapless, hopeless yip-yop would actually make Joe Biden very nearly seem like a sentient life-form, in comparison...?

• ||

"Treasuries are rallying as a safe refuge--despite the downgrade--so what is he gonna say about the downgrade that could possibly be good for the markets or good for the country?"

My guess is?

Because treasuries rallied? He's gonna say that the S&P downgrade was a joke--and shouldn't be taken seriously.

...and the very last thing in the world that the markets need to hear right now? Is that the president isn't taking our budget deficit seriously.

The treasury market is reacting to the ECB bailing out Italy--in response to Italy promising to balance it's budget and propose a balanced budget amendment to the Italian constitution.

That's the GOOD news right now! If the president comes out and says we don't need to worry about the deficit--and that the S&P downgrade shouldn't be taken seriously?

That would be the stupidest thing he could say. That would be unbelievably dumb.

• ||

The world is flocking to U.S. treasuries because they think it's a safe harbor--the last thing we need is a crazy president saying something stupid to make them think we aren't a safe harbor.

That we're not serious about our deficit? That would be profoundly stupid.

• ||

On the radio this morning, somebody characterized US debt as the cleanest dirty shirt in the closet.

I thought that summed it up nicely.

• Pudgeboy||

Exactly... there is nothing he needs to say, but since everything has to be about him, he can't control himself.

Maybe they think that if the market happens to move up after he speaks, then he'll be given credit for calming things down. It usually goes the other direction, though...

• Tony||

He was already getting shit for spending the weekend silent.

• Pudgeboy||

The fundamental assumptions of progressivism are based on a fraudulent or incorrect understanding of human nature, economics, etc. The rot is at the core.

I'd suggest that the dishonesty required to get the pol elected is where the coercion starts, and it continues throughout the process.

• ||

Obama got into office because the repubs offered up obama-lite as their candidate--Johnny 'The Maverick' McCain, so comfortable across the aisle that he's moved there.

Being 'tired' of Bush was irrelevent. Bush was gone, no matter what. People stayed home rather than vote for McCain.

Statists have nothing anymore. The gig is up. More and more people are realizing that top-down economic and social engineering is destructive. The only argument the Statist has (or ever had) is "you're just too stupid to understand!"

• From The Big Lebowski ||

[the Dude, Walter, and Donny walk out of the bowling alley, to find the three Nihilists waiting in front of the Dude's car, which has been torched]

The Dude: Well, they finally did it. They killed my fucking car.

Nihilist: Ve vant ze money, Lebowski.

Nihilist #2: Ja, uzzervize ve kill ze girl.

Nihilist #3: Ja, it seems you have forgotten our little deal, Lebowski.
The Dude: You don't HAVE the fucking girl, dipshits! We know you never did!

[the Nihilists, stunned, confer amongst themselves in German]

Donny: Are these the Nazis, Walter?

Walter Sobchak: No, Donny, these men are nihilists, there's nothing to be afraid of.

Nihilist: Ve don't care. Ve still vant ze money, Lebowski, or ve fuck you up.

Walter Sobchak: Fuck you. Fuck the three of you.

The Dude: Hey, cool it Walter.

Walter Sobchak: No, without a hostage, there is no ransom. That's what ransom is. Those are the fucking rules.

Nihilist #2: His girlfriend gave up her toe!

Nihilist #3: She thought we'd be getting million dollars!

Nihilist #2: Iss not fair!

Walter Sobchak: Fair! WHO'S THE FUCKING NIHILIST HERE! WHAT ARE YOU, A BUNCH OF FUCKING CRYBABIES?

• ||

Walter is based on the guy who wrote and directed Red Dawn.

Pure awesome on all levels.

• Pudgeboy||

I didn't know that... I second the awesome.

• ||

More and more people are realizing that top-down economic and social engineering is destructive.

It's funny, I thought everyone learned this with the fall of the soviet union. I guess you can't teach a progressive no matter how many historical failures you provide as examples.

• mobiustrip||

The Soviet Union failed because they did it wrong, not because the idea was bad.

• ||

Incredible.

• ||

Bwahahahahaah!

Thank you for that. You basically just made the "This time it will be different cause we have Top Men" argument. To fucking funny.

• ||

Statists have nothing anymore.

That's where you are wrong. They always have the last argument of kings.

• ||

Libertarians, on the other hand, aren't about seizing the levers of power and forcing libertarianism on a society that doesn't want it...

Maybe we should be.

• ||

Don't start frumming on us.

• ||

Libertarians, on the other hand, aren't about seizing the levers of power and forcing libertarianism on a society that doesn't want it...

Wait....

We aren't?

When the fuck did this happen?

Anyway libertarianism, unlike the left and right, has no culture...so if you want to go start your own commune we are not going to fuck you with zoning laws and ATF raids and such. Hell you could even start up Sha'ria in a town or two...so long as it is voluntary we could give a crap.

• mr simple||

It's always voluntary until someone gets sentenced to a stoning for disrespecting their husband/father.

• WTF||

Libertarians, on the other hand, aren't about seizing the levers of power and forcing libertarianism on a society that doesn't want it...

Yes, libertarians want to sieze power so we can LEAVE YOU THE FUCK ALONE!!!!111!!

• Masturbatin' Pete||

You know what, leftists/progressives/liberals/whatever? If you're so goddammed smart, prove it by coming up with a way to market your policy preferences to the rubes in Jesusland. Marketing isn't rocket surgery. People without Ph.D.s, people who majored in marketing at Arizona State can figure out how to pitch dangerous, stupid, and useless products to low-functioning rednecks. Why can't you?

Oh, and you can't blame messaging problems for your woes when you're got the World's Greatest Orator in the White House - the guy who ran a supposedly "brilliant" campaign using the internet and social media.

• shorter pete||

democrats are black

• Chuck Schumer||

What?

• Tony||

Amen--I will never understand why Dems are so fucking horrible at selling policies, especially since they're usually more popular than the alternative when explained to people.

• Fatty Bolger||

Yes, it's strange how Democrats always hide their true intentions, considering how popular their ideas are. A real mystery.

• Tony||

I don't think they do that. I think they explain things in a too-clinical way. But you'll never hear a Republican say they want to take your money and give it to billionaires, which is the beginning and end of their policy platform.

• Fatty Bolger||

I see your point. Like when Nancy Pelosi said we had to pass the health care bill to find out what was in it. The American people just can't follow along with that kind of esoteric technical arcana.

• Mr. FIFY||

Maybe it's the horrible fucking policies they're trying to sell?

• Fatty Bolger||

It can't possibly be that, Mr. FIFY. Tony says the Democrats are "too-clinical." The poor Democrats never learned the trick of appealing to emotion to get votes and support. They're just above all that! It's a damn shame, really, considering how brilliant they are. Like shepherds to an unruly flock, they work so hard to provide our needs, but we mere sheep fail them time and time again.

• Mr. FIFY||

What? Democrats do nothing BUT appeal to emotion.

• fish||

they always explain it in too clinical a way

"Hope and Change"! Yep....way too clinical for the common man.

• Michael Ejercito||

But you'll never hear a Republican say they want to take your money and give it to billionaires, which is the beginning and end of their policy platform.

Is that not what Democrats in congress did?

• ||

The Tea Party loved their corporate masters so much, they wanted to allow them to fail. The Democratic Party hated corporations so much, they spent trillions keeping them alive.

Did I get that right?

• Jeffrey Wells||

That's it, Teabagger! IT'S CIVIL WAR TIME!

No mercy! Happiness is a warm handbag!

• Restoras||

I'd just love to see some of these metrosexual, greenie, left Hollywood d-bags try to round up even one Tea Partier for a little re-education summer camp.

Who d'ya think would end up being re-educated?

• ||

You guys are hitting on all my fantasies today.

• Tim||

"What's that coming up the driveway?"

"It's a pedal powered armored car with solar panels on top"

• Ska||

Hah, that made me smile, even if it was just from the visual.

• gang banger||

how bout i try to round-up ur old fat ass?

• ||

A nine being held sideways doesn't really stand up to a deer rifle from behind cover.

• Restoras||

I don't think the average gang banger is too interested in venturing far from his urban turf. Not afraid.

• Dave||

I used to think that, but I eventually came to understand that gangbangers are often gangbangers because they are afraid. Mostly they are afraid of the other gangs surrounding their hood, but they tend to assume that the whole world is like that.

Naturally, they can never admit that and have to act tough all the time - which causes needless grief and violence.

• the real OO||

dam i sound tarded evn whn i use jok handl lol

• Number 2||

Did it ever occur to these folks that if the American people were not so goddammed stupid, and were not so easily led around by the nose, Obama would never have been elected?

PS-if it re-education camps you want, there's this Village I can offer you...

• Masturbatin' Pete||

What's really amazing is how voters go from smart to stupid and back again, sometimes in less than a year.

2010 voters: stupid.
2008 voters: smart
2006 voters: smart
2004 voters: stupid
2002 voters: stupid
2000 voters: smart (at least by popular vote totals)

2009 NJ, VA voters: stupid
2008 NJ, VA voters: smart

• ||

there is some sort of pattern here... hmm...

• JoJo Zeke||

there's this Village I can offer you...

Are there bike paths?

• rst||

I got a fever. And the only prescription is, more czars!

• Mike M.||

This is awesome. When the left starts talking this way, it means they know what deep shit they're in and that they're going to be soundly defeated.

• OO||

u mean that fat woman is "the left"? youse jus funnin us...

• Tim||

"America is a whorehouse... where the revolutionary ideals of your forefathers... are corrupted and sold in alleys by vendors of capitalism... "

• ||

C'mon. We're all going to die. Die standing up!"

• ||

lets just pick up our guns and kill them....we are going to have to do it someday,lets get the jump on these lefty filth...it will be them or us.

• ||

So you're advocating eliminating people for having grotesque political beliefs -- like advocating eliminating people for having grotesque political beliefs?

• Jeffrey Wells||

I will slap your face so super hard!

• Banjos||

C-

• Rich||

[Drew Westen writes:] "Our brains evolved to “expect” stories with a particular structure, with protagonists and villains, a hill to be climbed or a battle to be fought."

With all due respect, WTF?

• Self-unaware Drew Westin||

I'm explaining to all you stupid people how your psychological need for simple-minded stories with clear villains is causing you to ruin the economy, and I'm lamenting how sad it is that those clearly villainous rich people didn't simply let us go into more debt to save the economy.

• Jennifer||

[rant] After events of the past year and change, I'm firmly convinced the only differences remaining between America's right and left wing are what excuses they use to take your freedom away: right-wingers will oppress you in the name of God, family values, national security and The Children; left-wingers in the name of public health, public safety, four-out-of-five-experts-agree and The Children. And both sides are convinced "The guys on my side are always right, and the guys on the other side are always wrong, no matter what either one does."

Have Obama come out tomorrow and say "My fellow Americans, I've changed my mind: henceforth I'm Republican," and even though he won't otherwise change a single goddamned thing about himself, still 95 percent of Americans who currently support him will change their minds, as will a good chunk of the Americans who hate him, because neither side gives a sweet rat's ass about principles or the good of the country; all they want is to score points for Their Side.

Last year, when the TSA first instituted its mandatory molestation policy I wrote a furious column about it for a left-wing website. And it got linked by lots of right-wing sites, even the infamous Drudge Report. So I thought, Great! Even the right-wing TSA boosters have finally come around; with the lefties AND the righties opposing it, surely TSA will soon be brought to heel, no?

No. Hell, no. Because the right-wingers who finally figured out that TSA (at least under a Democratic president) is an unconstitutional abomination were offset by the left-wingers who hated TSA when it was a Bush baby but changed their minds the second a guy with a -(D) after his name got in charge.

Walk up to any American partisan -- Tea Partier or Obamaphile -- and say "Holy crap, that man there just raped and murdered an entire kindergarten class and used its entrails for fertilizer," and the partisan WILL NOT criticize the man's actions unless it can be determined that said man's politics differ from the partisan's. If the politics are the same, they'll just make excuses. The right-wing partisan whores will praise the man for reducing the deficit by getting useless eaters off the welfare rolls; the left-wing partisan whores will praise him for saving the environment via reducing the school's carbon footprint. The idea "certain actions, like raping and murdering an entire kindergarten class, are just plain WRONG whether it's your opponents or your allies doing them" is utterly alien to these people.[/rant]

• ||

I got nothing to add. Well ranted.

Could use more random caps and [BRACKETS], but that's just a personal preference.

• ||

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.
• Brett L||

So if we just get rid of The Children... Its like we're living in Village of the Damned (the creepy original, not the excreble remake).

• Superfluous||

Jennifer putting [rant] before her comment is like Episiarch putting [dipshit] before his.

• Greer||

Welcome to the party. This is what I figured out about 10 years ago.

I'll go one further. If a guy with a D after his name is found to be fornicating with kindergarteners, not only will the Dems excuse it, but the Reps will make it out to be single worst act by humanity since history was recorded.

I remember watching Hannity one time (spare me the ridicule, I feel bad enough) after some Democrat got into a minor scandal. You would have thought Hitler came back and ate babies. Then a week later some Repub got into a thing, and he was sure it was nothing, probably a setup and only something that evil Dems were trying to make something out of nothing.

• ||

I'm sorry. You must have missed all those right wing people complaining about the TSA for years. Ann Coulter routinely rails against them--and did so while Bush was in office. Limbaugh speaks out against the TSA and also did so while Bush was president.

Where have you been?

• Dave||

Goddammit Jennifer, I'm in love with you!

I don't know how a woman can be so smart! Are you f2m trans - or is that too personal?

• ||

Desperation is a stinky cologne.

• Virginia||

Yeah, gotta say I'm pleased to see such radical sentiments from these folks... whoever they are.

• ||

"Our brains evolved to “expect” stories with a particular structure, with protagonists and villains, a hill to be climbed or a battle to be fought."

And witches. Definitely witches.

• Platypus||

And vampires and killer robots.
and LOTS of explosions.

• Brett L||

Have you ever noticed there are no moderately attractive witches? They are all super-hot or super-ugly. You'd think there'd be one witch who hadn't disfigured or transfigured herself because she was smart enough to know that being at the ends of the beauty bell curve get you noticed.

• ||

Michael Bay Presents:

10 Reason Progessivism Doesn't Suck

2) Free _fill_in_the_blank_ paid for by _fill_in_the_blank_
3) Explosions!

etc etc

• Brett L||

Speaking of Michael Bay, I finally saw Transformers last night for the first time. It was like going down a check-list of shots. And I think the only movie of his I've watched all the way through is Armageddon. Headshot of girl with light behind her. Check. Slo-mo of superawesome explosiony shit. Check. Having completely ignored the man before now, I never quite understood Epi's hatred. Now I get it.

• Carry On||

Not that you should not continue to despise Episiarch.

• ||

The idea "certain actions, like raping and murdering an entire kindergarten class, are just plain WRONG whether it's your opponents or your allies doing them" is utterly alien to these people.

It's the thought that counts.

Those sheriffs who pumped fourteen pounds of lead into Jose Guerena had good intentions.

• Michael Ejercito||

Those sheriffs who pumped fourteen pounds of lead into Jose Guerena had good intentions.

They might have been incited by the extreme rhetoric from Code Pink and International ANSWER.

• ||

Well, the H & R J sub D Fantasy Football League is almost full. One spot to go, so hurry the fuck up and get in on what could be the greatest thing you've been a part of your entire life.

League ID: 404017

C'mon you bastards!

• ||

I think we have have 20 teams.

• ||

....

I think we should have 20 teams...and i should not post comments until after 12pm pacific time.

• ||

I think so as well. had a few players say we should cut back to 16 and no dissenting opinions, so i did.

I'll send an e'mail to the league and see what the consensus is. Then I'll make a dictatorial decision and that will be that.

I'm for 20. its not like its a money league, right?

• Tony||

I don't see what the problem is with those quotes.

Yes, all the quotes are 100% accurate.

Yes, all the quotes are 100% accurate.

• Tony||

I don't see what the problem is with those quotes.

• ||

How fast are these fucks' heads gonna spin when the see that Ron Paul is running very strong in Iowa right now.

• robc||

Among those who are certain of their vote, Ron Paul is on top at 27%.

• ||

That's the best part of the story. Those numbers can only go up.

I'm still for a single-day national primary because there's no reason in the world why some yo-yo in Ames, IA or Lebanon, NH should have so much greater an impact on who gets to run than I do. That said, this seems pretty encouraging.

• ||

See, I'm for eliminating the electoral college and doing primaries in reverse order by state size. Thus the smallest states get first choice and all the attention from the Presidential contenders. Plus this forces candidates to stick around til the end (since Texas, California, Florida, NY, etc. come last) by which point their laundry will have been well examined.

• ||

That sounds like a pretty good way of doing it. 10 a week for 5 weeks, smallest to largest.

• robc||

Ive seen that suggested. Yeah, the early states may weed out some, so Wyoming gets a big say, but the middle of the pack guys would have the ability to "come back" as the states grow.

• robc||

Using electoral college votes as a proxy for delegates, the breakdown of the groups of 10 states (DC was excluded, as was PR, Guam and etc):

2. 53
3. 80
4. 113
5. 256

So nearly 1/2 the votes would still be up for grabs come the 5 group.

• ||

That keeps it going through at least week 4, and makes them campaign nationally, as opposed to hitting a few states and carving out set asides for their citizens and those in similar locales. (i.e.: farm subsidies will always sell in elections because of fucking Iowa.)

• ||

The only change I would make would be to have the primaries separated by 2 weeks, rather than only 1.

And I'd keep the electoral college. Perhaps if we keep our as much of original federal system as we can around in vestigial form, it can come back more substantively some day.

• ||

I dunno, I think repealing the 17th amendment would be a better way for small states to get direct representation. But as a Texan, it's not fair that my vote only counts as a fraction of a Rhode Islander (not that it counts at all if I don't vote for the winner of the state).

If we really want to go back to the originals, maybe we should dump formal recognition of political parties altogether. It's kinda crap that we have to pay for the primaries of parties and candidates we don't vote for. It should be an open primary where you can vote for any candidate, and all declared candidates should be on the same ballot - but can select only one. The informal "party" would then pick their most supported candidate to run in the real election. This eliminates ballot requirements for third parties, because there would be no distinction based upon that.

• cynical||

The problem with losing the electoral college is that it gives states that cheat more of a voice.

As it stands now, people gripe about dead people voting in Chicago, but it doesn't really actually matter in any substantial way to them. Same for red state shenanigans -- either way, they almost never actually affect the number of electoral college votes, so it's more of an opportunity to call the opposition unethical twats than anything else.

Once those elderly/minority voters are removed from national vote totals or dead Democrats vote from beyond the grave in a pure popular election, though, things might get more heated. And things are pretty close to boiling right now.

• HermanLame||

Agreed. Even though it isn't really being used for its original purpose, it still serves to represent the popular vote as 'the people voting per state' rather than the people as a homogenous mass, so each state is due its say based on its population.

• ||

They should be single quotes.

• Jimbo||

Uhh... this is a bit of a stretch, isn't it? Two quotes calling Americans stupid, one quote in support of Keynesian economics, and one anti-Tea Party article, placed sequentially in order to show a supposed chain of argument in favor of re-education camps?

I used to really enjoy Reason, but it gets more sensationalistic and silly every day. It's a real shame.

• ||

Couldn't disagree more, Jimbo. These kind of quotes are becoming more and more commonplace in the mainstream media. Hell, two of them came from the NYT and the former head of the president's council of economic advisers.

While the most damning one came from the HuffPo hack who writes some bullshit hollywood blog, the rest should be trumpeted far and wide as a perfect example of what so-called "elites" think of the rest of America.

Especially the professor. Since she is so well tied to the political establishment, repeating her words (and then showing how they are so much bullshit) will undercut the perception that our political betters have a clue what the fuck they are doing.

• ||

I used to really enjoy Reason, but it gets more sensationalistic and silly every day.

• ||

and the NYT. No sensationalism over there, right?

[rolls eyes]

• Lib'Tarian||

Two wrongs make a right!

• ||

So reporting what our self-proclaimed enemies are saying is sensationalism, and reporting what our supporters are saying is being an echo chamber?

In the words of Axl Rose:

"I see you standin' there.
You think you're so cool.
Why don't you just
Fuck off!"

• Lib'tarian||

Why don't more people let pop musicians do their talking for them? Or for that matter, cartoon characters? It would be totally awesome to quote, say, Cartman, or Chief Wiggum!

• Chief Wiggum||

Lib'tarian sucks Obama cock.

• db||

It's so easy.

• Jimbo||

So the argument for sensationalism and bullshit is "we're not the only ones"? Revolutionary!

• ||

Geez, when we say "gosh, the lefty elites are getting more desperate and authoritarian as their project fails", we hear in reply "Nuh-uh! Show me one desperate, authoritarian lefty elite!"

So, we do. And the reply?

"Cherry-picked quotes taken out of context!"

Sheesh.

• Lib'Tarian||

Reason...gets more sensationalistic and silly every day

Yup. One gets the feeling that, at least at H&R, the editors are playing to the peanut gallery, who, let's face it, are about as bright as a bag of coal.

• ||

Where do you go for your wisdom, O Enlighted One? Please bequeath your fountain of knowledge to us poor meager-minded libertarians.

• Lib'Tarian||

• ||

Why, would we find "the asshole of a unicorn" offensive?

• Jimbo||

Genuine LOL.

• ||

I used to really enjoy Reason, but it gets more sensationalistic and silly every day. It's a real shame.

DRINK!

• ||

It's reality that's getting more sensationalistic and silly every day.

• ||

+3 Well said, pro lib.

Now tell me why you aren't in the H & R J sub D Memorial FFL.

• ||

I'm not aware of such a thing. I was in the mountains of North Carolina last week and missed everything, including the Mars thread.

• ||

League ID: 404017

We're at 15 with a cap of 16. I may open it up to 20 if I don't get too much shit from the other ones already in it. I feel like I almost have to grow it, since it went from 0 to 15 people in one day.

• ||

Never did fantasy football before. Will it take any time or effort? Because I don't have much of either.

• ||

It'll probably take so little time away from your life that you won't even notice.

At least, that's my plan.

• CE||

In fact, the average American had no idea what Democrats were trying to accomplish by deficit spending because no one bothered to explain it to themit didn't make any sense.

Fixed.

• ||

it didn't make any sense.

Because it's paradoxical, you uneducated troglodyte. Back to the camps with you.

• Apogee||

Are you sure you want your troglodytes educated?

• Keynesian Economist||

It's so simple you guys, why don't you get it?

Y = C + I + E + G

Where
Y = GDP
C = consumer spending
I = investment by industry
E = excess of exports over imports
G = government spending

Ergo, if you want to increase GDP, increase government spending. What could go wrong?

• ||

If you were to subtract the deficit spending from total government spending, that would be, well, less misleading, anyway.

• H man||

At the very least subtract that from I. I know not real investment but that is where the dollars are coming from. Don't know how you would account for printed money.

• ||

Here's how Keynesian Theory looks once they let you into the club with the secret handshake:

Y = C +(I/R)+ E + (G/I)U
Y=GDP
C=Consumer Spending
I=Private Investment
R=negative effect of Regulation
E=Exports - Imports
G=Government spending
I=Inflation
U=Unicorn Farts

• ||

It's even better when you realize that C is actually C(G).

• Brett L||

The map is not the world. As people with shitty car-nav GPS find out all the time. Occasionally in a fatal manner.

• ||

Keynesian Economics: So simple, only a caveman would do it.

• ||

whoa, too far. You better watchout for those cavemen now, you're in a for a major clubbing.

• Jennifer||

Jacob Weisberg, Slate: there's no point trying to explain complicated matters to the American people.

Drew Westen, New York Times: To the average American, who was still staring into the abyss, the half-stimulus did nothing but prove that Ronald Reagan was right, that government is the problem. In fact, the average American had no idea what Democrats were trying to accomplish by deficit spending because no one bothered to explain it to them with the repetition and evocative imagery that our brains require to make an idea, particularly a paradoxical one, "stick."

And Nancy Pelosi: "We have to pass the [healthcare] bill so that you can find out what is in it."

No need to explain anything to anybody. Politicians exist to rule the public, not serve it.

• Spartacus||

You should just drop the text, and call the post a Gallery of Most Punchable Faces. And add a few more (*cough*Krugman*cough*).

• Gilbert Martin||

The intellectual superiority bluff and bluster routine has been their stock in trade for a very long time.

There's not a one of them who actually has any intellectual firepower to back it up.

They are all shooting blanks all of the time.

• ||

But these blanks actually hurt, because they always get implemented.

• Fluffy||

The length of time it took to snap back from recessions, and the strength of the snap back, was greater in pre-Keynesian times than in post-Keynesian times.

Keynesianism was tried during the Great Depression, in Japan following their crash, and in the US in our current recession.

Is this supposed to be a record of empirical success?

• Fluffy||

Sorry, that should have read that the length of time was shorter and the snap back was stronger.

All I have to say about some Kalifornia kook with regards to a civil war is - bring it on. How long do you think you would last with that nice AWB in place, comrade?

• Anonymous Coward||

In fact, the average American had no idea what Democrats were trying to accomplish by deficit spending because no one bothered to explain it to them with the repetition and evocative imagery that our brains require to make an idea, particularly a paradoxical one, "stick."

A reading from the Book of Orwell (PBUH):

The Ministry of Peace concerns itself with war, the Ministry of Truth with lies, the Ministry of Love with torture, and the Ministry of Plenty with starvation. These contradictions are not accidental, nor do they result from ordinary hypocrisy; they are deliberate exercises in DOUBLETHINK. For it is only by reconciling contradictions that power can be retained indefinitely. In no other way could the ancient cycle be broken. If human equality is to be forever averted--if the High, as we have called them, are to keep their places permanently--then the prevailing mental condition must be controlled insanity.

"Policy would be better if we listened to the experts."

It is time for you to gather some idea of what power means. The first thing you must realize is that power is collective. The individual only has power in so far as he ceases to be an individual. You know the Party slogan: "Freedom is Slavery". Has it ever occurred to you that it is reversible? Slavery is freedom. Alone -- free -- the human being is always defeated. It must be so, because every human being is doomed to die, which is the greatest of all failures. But if he can make complete, utter submission, if he can escape from his identity, if he can merge himself in the Party so that he is the Party, then he is all-powerful and immortal.

Many times I've riffed on a dark, delicious fantasy about rounding up Tea Bagger types and sentencing them to green re-education camps for minimum one-year terms. Not to punish per se but to expose these contemptible morons to facts, to truth..

We control life, Winston, at all its levels. You are imagining that there is something called human nature which will be outraged by what we do and will turn against us. But we create human nature. Men are infinitely malleable.
• Michael Ejercito||

Great quotes.

• Not Jeffrey Wells||

Many times I've riffed on a dark, delicious fantasy about rounding up Tea Bagger types and sentencing them to green re-education camps for minimum one-year terms, and how libertarians would subsequently take this fantasy seriously and use it to reinforce their own feelings of inadequacy, all the while protesting that their own violence fantasies should never be taken seriously, and to do so would necessarily prove that I have sand in my vagina.

• ||

"A second Civil War would be an incredibly destructive thing, but it would feel so good."

Does this put him in line with the folks who hope "The South Will Rise Again?"

• ||

Well, since he's likely a Democrat, isn't that where he should be?

• ||

Team Blue fantasizing about civil war is amusing. Team Red has all the guns.

• sevo||

"Refusing to cut taxes and increase spending when the economy is hot is particularly important if you want to be a true Keynesian."

No, thanks.

• ||

That's the fundamental flaw of Keynesianism. Regardless of the validity of using debt and state spending to stimulate a contracting economy, the notion that politicians would cut spending when the economy is strong and revenues pouring in is ludicrously stupid.

• Tony||

Especially if you keep electing people who have every interest in proving themselves right about how bad government is at everything. We've had responsible governments before.

• Mr. FIFY||

Sure would be nice if we had a responsible government NOW, wouldn't it?

• Pol Pot||

Just wanted to thank you for the kind words Tony.

• Fluffy||

Also, if correctly predicting the stimulus would fail means that you can claim that your underlying theory of economics is correct (as mobiusstrip is claiming of Krugman) -

- Wouldn't that mean that since every last person here correctly predicted that the stimulus would fail, that means that our underlying theory of economics is therefore "proven"?

• Tony||

It is rather taxing on one's patience to have blithering idiots running around lecturing us on personal responsibility while they assault the entire planet's population with nonsense economic policy. The tea party could do much less damage if they just started shooting up the place, and we'd be much more politically able to deal with them.

• ||

If only they would realize how easy it is to spend our way to prosperity, all our problems would be solved. Those blithering idiots just keep preventing us from spending enough money to make us all rich!

• Tony||

So how do you cut your way to prosperity?

Government should act like a business, only one that isn't allowed to invest?

• NotSure||

Simple you do not allocate capital to societies losers, you give it to those that increase productivity.

• Tony||

I assume you mean the poor are the losers and the rich are the productive (Jesus would be so proud). We've been doing that for decades. Where are the results?

• NotSure||

Yes because it is completely reasonable to believe that the poor are the truly productive and the rich are not. The rich are simply exploiting the proletariat, all they need to do is unite, lose their chains, an prosperity arrives.

• Tony||

But you think the poor are exploiting the rich, who need to be unchained. Which makes less sense?

• ||

But you think the poor are exploiting the rich, who need to be unchained. Which makes less sense?

It is the rich that is exploiting the poor.

ie tarp, stimulus, Fanny and Freddy, regional zoning regulaions tend to help the rich, social security helps the richest generation by taking from the generally poor young, 14 trillion which will grow to over 20 trillion by the next decade helps the rich by taking from the unborn, also our tax systems favors maga-corporations like GE but poorer small businesses have to pay more, then you have to big to fail banks which get special loans from the federal government while small Banks get to sit and spin.

So you got your rich and poor mixed up there.

• ||

So how do you cut your way to prosperity?

Seriously?
I shouldn't even have to explain this one, but ...

Have you ever heard of, er, thrift? efficiency?

What sort of moron DOESN'T KNOW, that being frugal with your finances leaves you in a better position to spend money on only the big, important stuff?

Our current Neo-Keynesian policy is about throwing money around randomly, and it's not much different from an individual buying a Porsche because he thinks that someone will be impressed and give him a job at an investment bank.

But the reality is, the people who really make it are the people who don't blow money on status symbols. They spend it on things that actually, objectively, improve their economic prospects in some concrete way. They don't read 'The Secret', or spend \$100 on a focusing crystal to help them "manifest" more money.

• ||

Also, er, spending is "investment" now?

Investment in what, exactly?

What, precisely, in the stimulus plan constituted, by any sane definition of the term, "investment"?

• Mr. FIFY||

"Tax expenditures", Hazel.

Orwell be rollin' in his muthafuckin' grave over that line.

• ||

He already rolled over at "spending is investing".

• Tony||

So how many more tax cuts do we have to give corporations and the wealthy before they start rebuilding our highways and bridges?

• cynical||

How much more revenue does the government have to raise before it starts spending it on public goods rather than buying votes?

• Tony||

It just takes political will and the money... both of which the right is denying because they hate Obama.

• fish||

Weak spoof!

• ||

Do you really think that our highways and bridges are holding back the economy, Tony?

How much wider do we need to make the highways before our productivity improves.

Ya know, it was one thing to argue for more highways and bridges when the country was mostly dirt roads and gravel, but now, I should think you would have to justify a specific project on the grounds that it's actually needed to allow development to take place.

• Tony||

I'm not saying more highways, I'm saying repairing the half-century-old ones we have. You guys got handed a robust civilization on a silver platter and want to bitch about a 3% increase in taxes to pay for basic government, because you're not "free" as a teenager defines freedom--with all bills paid.

• Mr. FIFY||

Shitcakes, Tony... what the fuck was the FIRST stimulus for? Eight-hundred-fucking billion dollars! Where the fuck did it go?

For that matter, did it actually... oh, never mind. You'll always say it saved our asses from Certain Doom, even though it did nothing of the sort.

• ||

Close to a million of it went to teach Africans to wash their genitals. Bet they were more stimulated than our economy was ....

• Tony||

Well I refuse to go down on dirty genitals!

• ||

The money went to fill the Union Pension funds of Obama's friends at SEIU, NEA, UAW, et al...Payback for the votes he got from the workers...How's that Hope and Change working out for all you Obamites?

• ||

The money went to fill the Union Pension funds of Obama's friends at SEIU, NEA, UAW, et al...Payback for the votes he got from the workers...How's that Hope and Change working out for all you Obamites?

• ||

The money went to fill the Union Pension funds of Obama's friends at SEIU, NEA, UAW, et al...Payback for the votes he got from the workers...How's that Hope and Change working out for all you Obamites?

• ||

The money went to fill the Union Pension funds of Obama's friends at SEIU, NEA, UAW, et al...Payback for the votes he got from the workers...How's that Hope and Change working out for all you Obamites?

• Anonymous Coward||

Government should act like a business, only one that isn't allowed to invest?

The "business" of Government is closer to racketeering than commerce.

• Michael Ejercito||

So how do you cut your way to prosperity?

That is one way businesses increase profits, by cutting spending that does not bring in more profit.

• Magic Obama Unicorn||

If only they would realize how easy it is to spend our way to prosperity, all our problems would be solved.

Wish on me, Hazel! Wish on my sweet, fluffy, rainbow-striped tail!

No. Seriously. That's totally what Mr. Geithner does.

• NotSure||

So hard to tell whether this the real Tony or a spoof, but either way, I agree. It is utter nonsense to believe that huge debt can is bad for the economy. Likewise is is pure rubbish not to believe that rewarding losers and punishing the productive leads to prosperity.

• Tony||

I think we have enough to worry about right now not to have government snooping in people's lives to make sure they're being sufficiently morally upstanding before we make tax policy.

If you didn't sound the alarm on debt when Bush was running them up, then be an adult and stfu. Someone might mistake you for an opportunistic partisan sheep.

• Tony||

... and. c'mon: that's my fucking role here, f'chrissakes.

• NotSure||

Um, actually this magazine has been sounding the alarm about the war costs under Bush for years, do a quick search you will find tons of articles.

Secondly, why exactly do you assume I supported Bush, I did not. So unless you somehow know my what my opinions were during the Bush years, the only one who needs to shut up is you.

Using the excuse: "he did it, so my man can do it as well", is not adult reasoning. It simply shows that the only child here is you.

• JoJo Zeke||

why exactly do you assume I supported Bush

Pinched, binary world view. "You didn't support my sainted idiot man-child in '08; it is flatly impossible, then, that anyone here -- on a libertarian site, mind -- might conceivably have, for instance, voted Libertarian that year."

Not just derp; it's ur-derp.

• Mr. FIFY||

Government snoops in our lives more than ever, Tony... and that's with Democrat majorities in the Senate and the nicely furnished room where the current hood ornament resides.

• cynical||

How, would you pass a law against shooting up the place?

• ||

Ahhh, let me bask in the heart-warming hate. So cozy in here.

• Nick||

Boy, you're really going to be pissed when the "tea baggers" constitute a super majority in both houses of congress and control the executive branch.

• Vichy||

The TeaTards are just Republican statists. Fuck them.

• Vichy||

Americans are fucking stupid. Even when they're right it's by accident, religious bullshit. They're retards. They have no business having an opinion on economics or politics. They don't know fucking anything about it.

• Anonymous Coward||

Sir, I find your unique brand of DERP highly persuasive and thoughtful and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

• Art Vandelay||

What's the endgame, I wonder?

Oh, now, don't despair. You still have plenty of market left to annihilate, after all.

• Tony||

What's the endgame, I wonder? Clinton made the right-wing crazy, Obama, understandably, has made them hysterically so. What I basically get out of this is that we have to have a Republican president in order for government to function and these idiotic people to stop whining and bitching and threatening chaos and destruction. Except Republican presidents are the ones who go on to fuck everything up and give them something to bitch about. Should we just give in and elect Romney to shut them the hell up, and settle for having a shitty country with shitty Republican policies?

• Eisenhower||

worked for me.

• ||

Elect a libertarian.

• Tony||

• Mr. FIFY||

We have a shitty country *now*.

Ten Obama terms couldn't fix that.

• Tony||

So you can force your brand of statism on all of us?

• ||

LOL

• The Ingenious Hidalgo||

Yes. That's the plan. Thank goodness we have you here to point that out.

• Mr. FIFY||

1. We don't like force. That's for Team Red/Team Blue to use as their only tool.

2. There is no such thing as "libertarian statism".

3. DU taught you well, didn't they?

• Old Mexican||

Don't feed the sockpuppet, please. You risk being inflicted by sheer boredom.

• Greer||

this. I always find Tony and the long rambling debates with Tony to be incredibly boring.

• ||

Considering it was the same independents that elected Obama that will replace him in 2012 I don't think they care which party stops sucking...and they will keep switching until one finally gets the message.

We will continue to get shitty republican and democrat policies until one of the parties decided to change their policy to what the independents want.

The tea party looks to be the closest to what they want right now...so if i had to guess it will be the republicans who get the crown in the end.

• Old Mexican||

Hey, I just went out to have lunch for 45 minutes and you guys managed to rack up 420+ comments in this thread??? Get a life!!!

• hmm||

I've always assumed my failure to explain something was my failure and not the person asking me to explain it.

• Sandy||

"We've truly become a South American society of rightist oligarchs, angry lefties, disillusioned wage-earners, retirement-age fuddies and struggling, debt-smothered have-nots, and the rightist boobs will never understand that they're primarily the problem."

Hypocrisy is even funnier when it's unintentional.

• ||

Indeed. Because we all know the toll that generations of free market economics and limited government has taken in South America.

• Libertarian Political Analyst||

We could suggest there be a special edition of the show "Undercover Boss" where the boss experiences all the struggles and stresses the employees face but the high ups in politics already know what is going on and they are just lining their pockets as they lie into the cameras saying, "money for school and healthcare is important", meanwhile their hand (off-camera) is evicting retirement homes and rifting 20,000 teachers with 2 signitures.

• ||

When Libertarians are taking a pounding in elections, and I complain that they just haven't been exposed to real libertarians and their ideas, not to mention hard political and economic facts, I'm told, "give up, America knows what libertarians want, and Americans doesn't want libertarian utopia -- they are happy with a mixed economy, maybe they know something you don't. Trust in the wisdom of the people." But when libertarian ideas and libertarianoid candidates are ascending, the same mouths (or their fellow-travelers and sock puppets) say, "the people just don't get it -- they're ignorant/stupid/obstinate/spoiled ... this is the end of democracy...," etc.

Listening to these guys can drive you crazy. So I don't, except to make note of their volume and the tenor of their attacks: the louder, shriller, and more personally insulting they become, the more I know I'm on the right path.

• ||

xxx ... and Americans DON'T want libertarian utopia

Sorry. Typed this quickly between appointments. I hope there are no more embarrassing errors. ;-)

• ||

xxx and I complain that they -- THE VOTERS -- just haven't been exposed to real libertarians

• Old Mexican||

Americans don't want libertarian utopia -- they are happy with a mixed economy fascism.

There, more accurate.

• ||

That's rich, but it put a smile on my face after a frustrating day.

• Sandy||

That's hardly surprising. Every group does this. When they're popular it's "xxx million people can't be wrong" and "the people have spoken."

And yet when their opponent is popular it's "Americans are stupid/misinformed/corrupt/being lied to/etc".

Currently popular: Obama hardliners praising Americans for being smart when they elected Obama, then saying Americans are stupid for electing Tea Partiers.

• ||

Wow I wish I could get a job as a writer where all I had to do was copy and paste other people's work - but alas I never went to Grad School and didn't want to work in Academia so I guess that will always remain a dream.

I also wish that one person in favor of the government's doings and against the Tea Party would actually try to explain why they have a better perspective in a logical manner, instead of resorting to polylogisms. If your argument is so sound why can't you support it in a manner other than name calling and placing blame on others???

• Jim Treacher||

Wells is a shitty movie critic, but I had no idea he was such a fascist. Well, Hitler wanted to be a painter...

• ||

Jeffrey Wells: "A second Civil War would be an incredibly destructive thing, but it would feel so good."

Yeah, well bring it on Jeffrey cause' unlike you liberal thumbsuckers those of us you want to have a civil war with can stand on our own two feet without gubment handouts!

Therefore we will mop the floor with pukes like you, 'cause we're stronger, smarter, and don't need to have everything handed to us and done for us to survive...we are survivors not leeches, therefore you will lose! So bring it on Jeffrey...bring it on!

• gramercy||

Could the guy in the first picture look any more smug, or any more Jewish?

• ||

That asshole has nothing to do with us. We haven't seen him in shul since he was an adolescent twat hitting up his relatives for Bar Mitzvah money.

Love,

The Chosen People

• Betty Wilkinson||

• Betty Wilkinson||

Good article more useful to me, I will continue to pay attention, and I love,I hope you lot just my site! discount aline wedding dresses http://www.tofuchina.com

• JB||

I look forward to the coming shit-show.

Just to see pukes like Jeffrey Wells scream.

Your side doesn't have the guns you stupid fuck.

• Bender Bending Rodriguez||

They don't have 'em, don't like 'em, most of what they "know" about 'em is from movies, and in fact they're mostly scared to death of 'em.

Yeah... I and my LRB Arms M14 that shoots 1 MOA accurate with iron sights all damn day are sooo scared of the thought of (snicker) anti-gun-liberals-cum-super-soldiers trying to figure out how to work "The Shoulder Thing That Goes Up" (google for LOLZ).

Bring it, Wells.

• SUV DRIVER ||

In my reducation camp will I be forced to watch Al Gore's movie?

• richard mcenroe||

The good news is, they're drawing up the list for us.

• ||

I do not know who's bright idea it was to title this article by Damning God, but I don't appreciate hearing it much less seeing it in print!! So, if this is the kind of language Reason Magazine allows on their web site, I'll not only discontinue it, but will advise everyone I know against it!!

What a contradiction!! You damn God, saying American people are so stupid we need to go to re-education camps, but I'm here to say.....There are 'MANY' Americans, including myself that are 'NOT' so stupid as to damn God!!

The more we damn God, the worse things will continue to happen in this country!! And for those who don't 'Believe' that.....Educate yourselves on the history of this Awesome nation of ours. Look at where we were a decade ago, two decades ago, three, four, five decades ago and then look at where we are today.

So my question is: Who do you say needs to go to a re-education camp?? I guarantee you, my education is high enough and my vocabulary is strong enough to get my point across without damning God. Can you??

Karen

• ||

Re-education camps?

Oh just like your party did with my Japanese-American grandparents in WWII. Tell ya what, try it now. We're ready for you THIS time.

• ||

Jeffrey Wells:

Thank you for your enlightening comments on a new civil war. I, too would enjoy. I have added you to the list of folks I hope to meet at that time.

Robespierre

• ||

Jeffrey Wells:

You know a lot about tea-bagging someone I see. And I hope YOU are the one that comes to my door to take me or on of my family members to a "Re-education" camp. They'll be picking up your ass, or what's left of you, with an eye dropper.

## GET REASON MAGAZINE

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

• Peter Suderman: Obamacare's 12 false premises and broken promises. Plus: The long, tortured quest for a conservative health policy.
• Consumers should drive medicine
• Jacob Sullum: Prosecutors disarm defendants by freezing their assets
• Ronald Bailey: The Aloha State’s dishonest anti-biotech campaign

SUBSCRIBE