A.M. Links: Rep. Lee Terry Abandons SOPA, Lamar Smith Pledges to Push on Through, Ron Paul to Sue Makers of Anti-Huntsman Video

Do you want hot links and other Reason goodies delivered to your inbox twice a day? Sign up here for Reason's morning and afternoon news updates.

New at Reason.tv: "Blast Off Into Space with Reason Magazine's Matt Welch"

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

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    WHY IS REASON.COM NOT BLACK TODAY FOR SOPA?

    Is it because the Kochs are the one percent?

  • Suki||

    Once you go black, you never go back.

  • ||

    "No boom-boom with soul brother! Soul brother too beaucoup!"

  • Ska||

    Nice, was watching that two nights ago.

  • ||

    Nice, was watching that two nights ago.

    Definitely a very well-made movie, but it just came across as too bleak for my tastes. It was all the rage among my fellow recruits when I shipped off to Parris Island back in 1989.

  • SFC B||

    I have little doubt that it always sticks in the craw of the cinema elite that a sequence in a movie that is supposed to show the horrors and dehumizaing effects of war and service is viewed with affection and motivation by the people who live it.

  • Nipplemancer||

    The day I reported to Infantry School in Camp Geiger the Commandant and R. Lee Ermey came by to visit the squad bay. Every one of us Privates & PFCs were begging the Gunny to yell at us like we were Vincent D'Onofrio in FMJ.

  • ||

    The day I reported to Infantry School in Camp Geiger the Commandant and R. Lee Ermey came by to visit the squad bay.

    Which Commandant? I met General Mundy in Guam in 1991. Cool guy. Funny, I found the coolest officers were always the really senior ones, say, colonel and above. Of course, my very first personal ass chewing in boot camp was from a 2-star general!

  • Nipplemancer||

    Gen. Krulak. This was in the summer of '98.

  • SFC B||

    The USMC couldn't have made a better recruiting video than the Basic Training segment of FMJ if they tried.

  • ||

    The USMC couldn't have made a better recruiting video than the Basic Training segment of FMJ if they tried.

    It definitely played a role in Marine Corps culture at that time, that's for sure. When we first got to basic, many of the recruits would answer the drill instructors, "sir, yes sir!" or "sir, no sir!", to which they responded that this boot camp, not a fucking movie, and that the first "sir" wasn't necessary.

  • Pope Jimbo||

    When I went through San Diego in 86 it was required to be "sir, yes sir".

    Were you a Parris Island puke? Did you get your laundry washed in a machine and get to call yourself a private?

    Us "real" Marines had to spend Sundays washing our clothes by hand and only referred to ourselves as recruit (Our DI's told us that a Private was a rank in the USMC and we weren't Marines yet and didn't rate even that).

  • ||

    A supposedly serious libertarian editor calls an elected representative a "douche" and still wonders why nobody takes libertarians seriously.

  • o3||

    well, douchenozzle is the preferred pejorative.

  • Chatroom Crank||

    Would "scumbag" have been a better word to use?

  • Devil's Advocate||

    Carpetbagger is better. *Polishes monocle*

  • Brett L||

    Pearls clutched!

  • robc||

    The serious editors lie?

  • Surly Chef||

    The very idea of the professional politician is a good example of douchebaggery.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    No hop-ons.

  • ||

    You're gonna get some hop-ons.

  • Discount Double Choke||

    Yeah, serious editors at real publications like Newsweek would never do something like that.

  • Suki||

    Newsweek lied, people died!

  • ||

    Newsweek still has editorial standards, as do all serious publications. Reason continues to marginalize itself (and libertarianism) with the editorial standards of an adolescent punk. But hey, the kids here seem to like it! The adults, however, will continue to disdain libertarianism as a half-baked and childish ideology, so long as its spokesmen remain flippant and crude.

  • ||

    To paraphrase

    "WAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHH!!!!!"

  • ||

    Tulpa|1.18.12 @ 9:39AM|#

    Spoof

  • Butthead||

    Shut up, dillweed!

  • Jerry||

    So Newsweek has editorial standards, and yet are able to call critics of Obama "dumb." That makes it so much worse.

  • ||

    Calling the majority of Americans "dumb" on its cover. It has standards alright.

  • Ska||

    Those birdcages don't line themselves, man.

  • Chloe||

    But is it better than the NYT at it?

  • The Ingenious Hidalgo||

    Your standard for whether or not an ideology is "half-baked and childish" is not the arguments of writers on the ideology (Nozick, Rothbard etc.), but on the language used in a blog post on the website of a magazine dedicated to the ideology? Wait, who's flippant and crude?

  • ||

    Adults read Newsweek? Not ones with any brains.

    Whatever your politics, it's a rag.

  • Live Free or Diet||

    I've been known to look at a Newsweek in a dentist's waiting room,
    if I forgot a book... the cell service is down... finished clipping my toenails... the receptionist isn't cute enough to flirt with...
    I make paper airplanes and fly them across the room.

  • ||

    I remember the moment I realized that magazines like Time and Newsweek sucked ass. It had nothing to do with their heavily leftwards bias. They just put out so much crap that isn't particularly well written, frequently doesn't appear to have been properly researched or vetted, and, finally, operates on a local news level in trying to scare you into reading their rags. Screw that.

  • Tonio||

    You're not very well educated, are you anonowimp? I commend to you the rich history of political speech in the US. During the federalist/anti-federalist debate all manner of names were called. And these weren't just ink-stained wretches, they were the best political minds of the day, ie Alexander Hamilton.

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    You're not very well educated, are you anonowimp? I commend to you the rich history of political speech in the US. During the federalist/anti-federalist debate all manner of names were called. And these weren't just ink-stained wretches, they were the best political minds of the day, ie Alexander Hamilton.

    ^THIS^

    "Back in day," as some say, those guys published some truly awful statements about each other.

  • Colonel_Angus||

    But they used insults that included words in contexts that our language as it has evolved is less familiar with, and therefore must make them more sophisticated by comparison.

  • Zeb||

    Ooh. "The adults" Good one, dude! What an original and clever insult.

  • Amakudari||

    Hm. High-quality trolling until you said Newsweek had editorial standards. That took two posts.

    5/10

    But I think you have potential. You may want to try again on a Ron Paul thread. Those are easier.

  • Loki||

    Ahhahahahaha!!!

    Newsweek has standards, that's a good one!

    Oh, you weren't actually joking were you? Umm... wow

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    It occurs to me that Newsweek's love of Obama is a suicide pact. Obamacare will mean fewer doctors which will mean fewer doctor's offices which will mean fewer subscriptions to Newsweek.

  • Priestess||

    ^THIS^ lol

  • ||

    This is the most intelligent and insightful thing I've read all day.

  • Mine One||

    for using the phrase 'editorial standards' twice.

  •  ||

    Say what you will against libertarians, at least they take criticism well.

  • ||

    editorial standards

    Perfect! Do you care about being PC or do you care about free speech and the truth?

    Fuck off slaver!

  • Priceless||

    Dick-wad steals an Ayn Rand character for his anonymous handle, proves that he is the opposite of the character.

  • ||

    Using the same logic, Priceless, you aren't worth a shit.

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    Newsweek still has editorial standards, as do all serious publications.

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

  • ||

    so long as its spokesmen remain flippant and crude.

    What you think of as "flippant and crude" is what we sophisticated people like to call "witty and urbane." But such nuance is clearly lost on someone like you.

  • ||

    You can get all that at reason *magazine*. You're reading the blog right now, in case you didn't realize that. Different editorial concept, off you will,competing with other political blogs.

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    I prefer the term statist asshole, myself.

  • Observer||

    It's adorable how "libertarians" form cliques and posses when an outsider threatens the collective.

  • ||

    Yeah, maybe, but we do it by voluntary association.

  • The Collective||

    Swarm!

  • ||

    List of human subgroups that do not form cliques:

  • Colonel_Angus||

    Are you the representative? If so, take a cyanide pill.

  • Ted S.||

    Why should we treat people as if they're infallible solons just because they've won an election?

  • sarcasmic||

    Michelle Williams is still hot!

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvs.....shoot.html

  • Suki||

    Not black enough. It is Black Wednesday!

  • Suki||

  • Devil's Advocate||

  • Suki||

    LOVE that outfit!

  • White liberal||

    I'm ready for my "slavery reparations," Ms. Berry.

    I've been a naughty little racist!

  • Devil's Advocate||

  • sarcasmic||

    Sorry, but I'm fresh out of links to Ron Williams in lingerie.

  • Live Free or Diet||

    Never heard of here. Looks like she's seen a lot of "facial augmentation" though.

  • sarcasmic||

    I wasn't looking at her face.

  • Mike M.||

    Obama taps Bain alumnus as new director of Office of Management and Budget.

    Wow, I don't get that one. Kind of undercuts the central theme of his campaign against Romney, doesn't it?

  • Ice Nine||

    Naa, they won't even blink.

  • Loki||

    You're assuming Obama and his merry band are capable of recognizing their own hipocrasy.

  • Ice Nine||

    The tits were very poorly casted.

  • Ice Nine||

    Damn! re Williams

  • ||

    Wait a minute... Sarah Palin, Queen Regent of the TEA Party, is saying vote for Gingrich? I don't understand. TEAPers drop by here and demand we recognize TEAP as the premiere libertarian organization EVAR. I guess that means that Gingrich is a super-libertarian now, right?

  • ||

    If I had to vote in South Carolina order to keep this thing going, I would vote for Newt and I would want it to continue. More debates, more vetting of candidates.

    Hardly a ringing endorsement. What is the term, "damning with faint praise"?

  • Mr. Chartreuse||

    Putting my tinfoil hat squarely upon my head, but I wonder if she wants the race to go to the convention undecided, with no one having enough delegates to win. Then she could swoop at the last minute to be picked as the nominee (or do they have to choose from people who were actually on the primary/caucus ballots?).

  • ||

    I don't think that is tin foil hatty at all. If none of them can get 50%, the nominee would be someone else.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    Could be, not would be.

    The tin foil hattiest I'd go is that she envisions herself as the broker that swings someone over 50%.

  • Mr. Chartreuse||

    Well it would just seem to be a very roundabout way to get the nomination. I'm not sure what she thinks that they could find about Romney that would derail his campaign, unless he was the real-life Orgazmo.

  • SFC B||

    If it came out that Mitt was Orgazmo I'd vote for him.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    The tin foil hattiest I'd go is that she envisions herself as the broker that swings someone over 50%.

    ^^THIS^^

    She enjoys being the fairy god mother of conservatism. That doesn't take any real work, and she makes shit loads of money and garners ass loads of fame from it.

  • Tonio||

    Nominee? Unlikely. Power-broker? Yes. If this happens, expect to see her get a cabinet post or plum ambassadorship.

  • CE||

    Then she could swoop at the last minute to be picked as the nominee (or do they have to choose from people who were actually on the primary/caucus ballots?).

    The delegates can nominate anyone they want. Sarah Palin, Jeb Bush, Rudy Giuliani, Rand Paul, take your pick.

    Some states legally bind the delegates to the winners in that state or per congressional district, but the restriction is lifted after two or more rounds of voting with no winner.

  • Abdul||

    Moar debates? We've packed in as many as the calendar can hold, and this is a leap year.

  • ||

    I kind of agree with Chartreuse. She must want them all to destroy each other and create a brokered campaign.

  • robc||

    The Romney v Paul debates are going to be very confusing, with Romney being the only one speaking.

  • SIV||

    Paul will get some newsletter questions.

  • Brian D||

    And the obligatory "Are you going to run third party yet?"

  • ||

    How is it you can stand by and allow Iran to nuke our CHILLLRREENNNZZZ?!?!

  • mad libertarian guy||

    The media, besides Fox News, wants so badly for him to run 3rd party that they'd openly crap their pants if he said he would. They know that would guarantee Obama his second term to "seal his legacy".

  • ||

    He doesn't need to run third party. Team Red needs the libertarian vote to beat Obama. If Paul isn't the nominee, I know a significant number of libertarians who will pack up their votes and go home.

    They need us more than we need them. If it's not Paul, we are fucked either way, so the way I see it, they need to be kissing OUR ass.

  • The Collective||

    Jesus, you're delusional.
    Welcome aboard!

  • ||

    No, it isn't. Unless she's planning on swooping in at the last minute, running against a post-Obama Dem in 2016 is a far better chance for her to be President than running against Romney. I actually think she's sowing chaos. Something I approve of.

  • ||

    I think she's a witch.

  • Loki||

    Did she turn you into a newt?

  • ||

    I got better.

  • Masturbatin' Pete||

    I see what you did there.

  • Pron||

    I like her legs.

  • Suki||

    There appears to be some confusion within the ranks of rankless grass-roots organizations.

  • Occupy||

    what?

  • Suki||

    +1

  • robc||

    Sarah Palin, Queen Regent of the TEA Party

    ????

    I admit to having a True Scotsman type attitude towards the TP.

  • ||

    She spoke to large TEAP crowds on a few occasions.

  • robc||

    Were they really Tea Partiers she was speaking with?

    Like I said, Im applying a True Scotsmen definition here.

  • ||

    She gave the keynote address to the first TEAP national convention. If those aren't real TEAPers, I don't know what are.

  • robc||

    People who donated to the Tea Party moneybomb?

  • ||

    I didn't poll them one by one.

    Politics is perception. If the TEAP didn't want to be associated with her, they shouldn't have invited her.

  • robc||

    The point I have made for 4+ years is there is no "tea party" as an entity that can invite or not invite anyone to anything.

    It is an unorganized grassroots movement.

  • ||

    Then they need to object loudly and constantly that their name is being hijacked. So far, on here, it's just you. Dozens of people used to berate us for not TEAPping it up.

    SmurfMan made me stop referring to myself as a big-L, even if I am still registered as such.

  • Cliché Bandit||

    if youz is a big L you should go to Vegas. We will drink, We will smoke cigars, We will polish monocles and don TopHats...and at least one of us will vote for Gary Johnson.

  • Jumbie||

    The day I heard of her invitation was the day I realised the TEAP had been co-opted and was done for.

  • ||

    Sarah Palin, Queen Regent of the TEA Party, is saying vote for Gingrich

    Another nail in the coffin of the TEAP.

    If she just wants this thing to go to a brokered convention, a vote for Ron Paul would be just as good. The fact that she picked Gingrich as the spoiler tells you much.

  • ||

    Last I looked she was hardly the entire Tea Party. SO I don't see why this is a nail in the coffin as this. And isn't the line on Palin the whole world hates her? If that is so how does her endorsement kill an entire political movement?

    And she didn't endorse Paul because Paul misplayed his hand on foreign policy and confirmed all of the worst accusations against him. He could argue that we should leave the middle east and maybe go a little lighter on the every problem in the world in the US's fault. But he hasn't. And unsurprisingly he has pissed off a huge block of GOP voters.

  • John Q Adams||

    every problem in the world in the US's fault.

    He has never said this. You are lying.

  • robc||

    Stupid joke handles.

    But JQA would agree with me.

  • ||

    Sure he never said that word for word. But he never seems to admit that any problem at hand could be any one but the US's fault. And that has the same effect as saying it. It is not about whether he is right or wrong. It is about the politics of it, which are bad.

  • robc||

    Explanations != Fault

    And Right or Wrong is **ALL** that matters

  • ||

    No perception matters in politics. You job as a politician is to convince people not score moral points.

  • robc||

    Who are you to define the job of the politician?

    Look, you want to criticize his strategy, that is fine. But your posts dont sound like strategy critiques, they sound like policy critiques.

    Myself, I vote based on policy. I would prefer that my candidates maximize strategy without selling out policy, but that last part is key.

    But Im not going to not vote for a guy because he didnt run the optimal strategy.

  • Grammar Nazi||

    But Im not going to not vote for a guy because he didnt run the optimal strategy.

    Triple negative FTW!

  • ||

    But Rob, people have different perceptions of policy. Yesterday I posed the question of what Paul's foreign policy would really look like, considering the limits of the office, and there was little agreement.

    I think the military support of Paul is a great example of this. I perceive Paul's foreign policy to include a million or more pink slips for military personnel. If we are going to close bases we will have a corresponding reduction in manpower, won't we? If his supporters thought this also, why not pink slip themselves right now? It is because they are not seeing a cut in their pay or benefits, only a reduction in danger.

  • ||

    It is about the politics of it, which are bad.

    Since when has RP EVER been a politician? From what I can tell he's a respectable man.

    Do you want another lying politician or a true leader? I hope, eventually, Americans will wise up and answer that question correctly.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Here is John, running to the TP's recue yet again after it being shown demonstrably over and over that its so-called supporters have just about anything on their mind other than the spending and budget problems on their mind when they visit the polls.

  • CE||

    The latest poll I saw showed that only 26 percent of Republican voters would never back Ron Paul as the nominee. So apparently the loony neocon types aren't as big a majority as Fox News would hope.

  • Live Free or Diet||

    I'm active in my local Tea Party and Palin doesn't speak for us. A lot of the other groups near here are dominated by old folks who have been scared into thinking Ron Paul will starve them by killing off Social Security.

  • ||

    I'm active in my local Tea Party and Palin doesn't speak for me. A lot of the other groups near here are dominated by old folks who I think have been scared into thinking Ron Paul will starve them by killing off Social Security.

    There. Fixed that for you. Though a Tea Partier would know that having Palin speak at something is not an endorsement, but rather a chance to hear her firsthand--instead of through the approved media channels, and they would be well aware that Palin has, at no time, claimed to speak for the Tea Party, that, in fact, this whole ruckus is yet another attempt by the approved media channels to make her look bad.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    “It is ironic that a website dedicated to providing information is spreading misinformation about the Stop Online Piracy Act,” Smith said in a statement on Tuesday. “The bill will not harm Wikipedia, domestic blogs or social networking sites. This publicity stunt does a disservice to its users by promoting fear instead of facts. Perhaps during the blackout, Internet users can look elsewhere for an accurate definition of online piracy.”

    You can gauge how much a legislator understands the internet he's regulating by his response to the SOPA backlash. Smith's marginalization of the protest against his lobbyists' bill shows he has no clue.

  • ||

    Smith is a blatent crook even for Congress. He is from Texas. His actual constituents have no interest in SOPA. He supports if for no other reason that Hollywood is paying him to do so. It is strictly a cash money homey transaction. He is blatant even for Congress.

  • ||

    I believe the correct term is "straight cash, homey."

  • Fluffy||

    Perhaps when Wikipedia comes back up Rep Smith can browse there to read an accurate definition of the 5th, 6th and 7th amendments.

  • ||

    Just a note: Wikipedia is perfectly usable if you use NoScript or otherwise block Javascript in your browser.

    At first, I thought they had chickened out.

  • Bee Tagger||

    At first, I thought they had chickened out.

    Turns out it was just you that had chickened out. What's the point of living if you don't live dangerously by enabling javascript?

  • ||

    Touche.

    I must be doubly fowl by using Linux half the time at home.

  • ||

    I must be doubly fowl by using Linux half the time at home.

    SORCERY!! BURN HIM!!!!

  • Suki||

    Direct links work with Javascript on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S.....Piracy_Act

  • Apatheist||

    The wiki app on my phone works as well. Life goes on.

  • Bee Tagger||

    Obama taps Bain alumnus as new director of Office of Management and Budget.

    I know that the national narrative is that Obama is a master politician. But this strikes me as idiotic.

    However, I'll be willing to compromise and say that maybe he once was a master politician but years of cushy press coverage/worship has made him arrogant and to feel bulletproof. He can dole out favors and maintain his attack lines on Romney and no one will call him out on it.

  • ||

    It the the price you pay for having a worshiping media that does its best to cover up every flaw. You get sloppy.

  • o3||

    except that it was reported. duh

  • ||

    Which is not the same as calling him out on it twat.

  • MNG||

    Er, if the media "called him out on it" rather than reporting it, wouldn't it be engaged in the very bias you lament?

    Except, of course, it'd be a bias you agree with...

  • ||

    The Washington Examiner is hardly what might be considered a mainline news source. The point is that none of the American Pravda (NYT, AP, Reuters, etc.) is reporting it.

  • Suki||

    Idiotic? He can do whatever he likes and jail anybody who disagrees with him without a peep from the MSM.

  • MNG||

    "I know that the national narrative is that Obama is a master politician."

    Where did you get that? He's exactly what I predicted he'd be politically: in over his head and relying on Chicago cronies for which the same can be said...

  • ||

    http://blogs.the-american-inte.....c-warning/

    World Bank issues economic doomsday prediction. If Europe goes and it appears it will, everyone goes. Looks like another recovery summer.

  • Mike M.||

    I'll bet you dollars to donuts that Obama and Bernanke end up paying off that Greek bond at U.S. taxpayer expense, and they'll try to do it in secret. A full-fledged double dip recession in Europe, and he has zero chance of getting reelected.

  • ||

    I bet they will try.

  • ||

    No, they won't be able to do TARP II. Paulson merely had to stop a bank run over here caused by the Fed failing to print enough. The problems in Europe are WAY different. Frankly I don't see any solution, and the debt is too big for the IMF.

  • ||

    I think Europe, sans Germany and the Scandinavian countries and maybe the UK is toast. There is no saving Italy, Spain, Greece and France. Ireland has some hope. Their voters seem to understand that you need to stop spending to pay your debts.

  • ||

    Hi -Ho! Sure as hell hope Ireland can make it - all my family is still there! But I don't think you understand the scope of the problem. Most of the money is owed back to Germany, and also Switzerland and Austria. At the end of the day, I think we'll find out that many banks in Germany are bankrupt themselves, or as they say over there, pleite. The question is, what will the Germans do next?

  • ||

    Well, there has been one other time in history Germany went broke and blamed it on the rest of Europe...

  • Poland||

    Uh-oh.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    They don't have to do it in secret. The IMF will step in. Of course, who backstops the IMF?

  • ||

  • Tim||

    At least croissant prices will finally come down...

  • Discount Double Choke||

    Get ready for TARP 2: EU Boogaloo. No doubt the sequel will be better than the original.

  • ||

    The EU about to slide into the shitter. China's 9% GDP bubble about to burst. $15T in debt, with no reduction in spending in sight. Oil at $100/b BEFORE any recovery and NO realistic energy policy. A socialist administration. $1.75T/year goes to regulation compliance.

    What's not to like?

  • Raston Bot||

    Oil's going to spike to $200 when the Iran embargo and Hormuz blockade kickoff :-)

  • o3||

    Urban Outfitters loves spreading Santorum

    Now the company’s co-founder and chairman Richard Hayne is taking heat from Jezebel for giving donations to everyone’s favorite Google bomb, Rick Santorum, causing Miley Cyrus to tweet: ”every time you give them money you help finance a campaign against gay equality.”

    http://www.brokelyn.com/urban-.....-santorum/

  • ||

    I have to give you credit. That is funny.

  • Suki||

    Gay equality? Is that something like making every gay person as rich as Mr. and Mr. Elton John or is it more like jailing them all like Richard Hatch?

  • Ice Nine||

    Dunno. I just wish I could have grabbed one of those spiffy Tshirts before they pulled them.

  • o3||

    santorium would, no doupt, say that gay equality was a slippery slide out the back of a plane

  • Zeb||

    Go away.

  • Suki||

    I gave in and made a blog post just for you, Zeb. See the archive for December 14th, 2011. Now you can stop whining about the content.

  • Loki||

    Much as I dislike Mr. Cumfarts, I don't think I'll be taking political advice from Hannah Montana anytime soon.

  • Nipplemancer||

    Chris Dodd is calling the SOPA blackouts a dangerous gimmick.

  • ||

    I think Dodd might be the worst public figure in my lifetime. He was neck and neck with a lot of others. But leaving congress and going to the MPAA really put him in a different league of crapweasel.

  • Suki||

    I see that the Maobama Black Shirts got to you already.

  • ||

    ??

  • Suki||

    You actually think Dodd is worse than Obama?

  • ||

    I do. Obama has only been in national politics for six years. Dodd spent decades destroying the banking industry. As much as I dislike Obama, I can't blame him for the housing bubble. But I can blame Dodd who took payoffs form the supprime mortgage industry and then used his power in the Senate to make sure no one did anything about the fraud that was going on. Obama might be just as bad as Dodd. But Dodd had a 20+ year head start. So he is worse.

  • Suki||

    Who do you like better, Hitler or Mao?

  • Zeb||

    Seriously, you contribute nothing of interest, you are not funny or clever. GO away.

  • MNG||

    Figments of people's fancy rarely contribute much outside of the person's head that thinks them up...

  • Rich||

  • Discount Double Choke||

    I'm surprised the whole Countrywide deal and being half of Dodd-Frank didn't seal the deal for you. It did for me.

  • ||

    That just put him neck and neck with Frank. This puts him in the lead.

  • ||

    Frank is good on a couple issues. What is Dodd actually good on?

  • SIV||

    Frank Lautenburg is the worst.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    I always like to vote for Schumer in situations like this.

  • Ska||

    It's about the only time I'd consider it.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Chris Dodd one of the poster boys for why the 17th Amendment was a huge fucking mistake.

  • CE||

    I have a feeling that if the 17th Amendment had been repealed, 99 of our 100 senators would be the same, and Rand Paul would still be an eye doctor in Kentucky.

  • CrackertyAssCracker||

    I haven't paid attention closely enough to him to fully appreciate his awfulness. Are you saying he is worse than Schumer though?

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    That fuck is the MPAA's lobbyist now? How did I not know this?

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    Didn't realize that. Lowers my view of him even further. As if that were possible. Someone explain to me again why he isn't in jail for his involvement with Countrywide?

  • Amakudari||

    When I first saw "MPAA's Chris Dodd" I thought it was a pretty funny headline. Yeah, ha ha, 'cause he's bought and paid for by Hollywood, ha.

    When Reason's serious editors merely call these people douches, they're being overly generous. Douches have a legitimate use.

  • Bee Tagger||

    "It is also an abuse of power given the freedoms these companies enjoy in the marketplace today."

    Coming from a former Senator and someone who clearly is still able to nudge the levers of power, this should undoubtedly be read as a threat.

  • ||

    It is a total threat. The guy is just a gangster. How do you think he got all that money from the banking industry.

  • Nipplemancer||

    shorter Chris Dodd - That's a nice website you got there, it'd be a shame if anything were to happen to it.

  • ||

    that's fucking disgusting. a FEDERAL LEGISLATOR referring to a voluntarily imposed blackout by a web site as "an abuse of power" is rich

    this should be the new definition of chutzpah, beating out the murder convict pleading for mercy because he's an orphan after he killed his own parents

  • ||

    Google has the legal right to shut down its search engine completely and permanently. Granted, its shareholders would object, but as far as the rights of users and the government are concerned, well, they have none.

  • ||

    of course. not even dodd is claiming they don't have the right to do it.

    fwiw, i have heard in the past some legilsators (and progressives too) claim that google shouldn't have the right to "cook" its search engine such that it prefers certain commerically sponsored results over others.

    people think of google, and to some extent wikipedia as some sort of weird public utility.

    they have no duty to provide "truth", accuracy, etc. they are private companies, and free to use. for users.

    google could direct ALL its searches to paid sponsors without disclaiming that, and they would be well within their rights.

  • sarcasmic||

    people think of google, and to some extent wikipedia as some sort of weird public utility.

    And it's only a matter of time before they, and everything else on the internet, are regulated like one.

  • ||

    Which is insane. If anything, we've been heading the other direction.

  • ||

    i'm more optimistic than you. maybe an offshoot of my pragmatism. i just don't think it's PRACTICAL, so it won't happen

    i think the govt(s) WANT to do it, but it's simply not doable

    and there would be WAY too much pushback

    it's one thing for the prez to give himself the power to detain/execute US citizens w/o due process.

    it's another thing entirely to fuck with people's intert00bs.

    sad as that contrast is.

    the feds are tryin', and god knows my state passed a blatantly unconstitutional cyberstalking law (rarely used, except by the renton PD police chief against one of his employees lol), but the decentralized , international nature of the internet makes it a no go

    ironic that the govt. essentially spurred the creation of a form of media/communication that rendered it , or at least exposed it, as ultimately powerless to override the People (tm)

  • sarcasmic||

    i just don't think it's PRACTICAL, so it won't happen

    First they'll establish licensing requirements for hosting a website.

    Then they'll pile on condition after condition until everyone is afraid to put anything on their website without first asking permission, for fear of being fined or having their license pulled.

    Isn't that how government squashes everything else in the economy?

  • ||

    except again (and again,i realize we are a contrast in that i am optimistic. and despite all the fuckupedness in our nation, i still think it's a wonderful country, and we are in great shape) the govt. doesn't squash everything else in this country

    the media has NEVER been freer, more democratic, more available to the "everyman" than it is now - due ot the internet.

    for the first time in history, some guy sitting in his living room can read everything from BBC to National Review, to The Nation, to Reason, to some random guy's blog, to the North Korean govt/newsfeed.

    websites like copwatch can spread examples of (alleged lol :) ) police brutality for ALL too see, advocacy journalism has never been stronger, etc. etc.

    sorry, but i just don't buy the gloom and doom, man

    when it comes to information, media, and especially the ability of the average joe to get the word out (vs. the power of the big mainstream media), we have never been better off.

    the dinosaurs HATE it, but it's here , and it's here to stay

    i simply think you are way too pessimistic, unrealistically so, to put it mildly

  • sarcasmic||

    the dinosaurs HATE it, but it's here , and it's here to stay

    It is a threat to power, and thus must be regulated until it is no longer a threat.
    It may take a while, but it will happen.

  • ||

    i strongly disagree.

    and i think the arc of history supports my prediction.

    we will have to wait to see (grammar pet peeve "wait AND see") but i am confident in my prediction

    lots of things that are a threat to power nonetheless have happened and continue to expand freedom e.g. RKBA being one conspicous example

    if somebody told you 30 yrs ago, that not only would our homicide and crime rates plummet, but literally scores of millions more people would soon live in jurisdictions with "shall issue" RKBA, you would probably have been like "yea, right" (assuming you weren't a baby).

    i realize that it's the job of reason, and it's natural for us, to conentrate on the negative, but imo it simply won't happen

    the intertoobs are here to stay. they have created a shift that can NEVEr be undone

  • sarcasmic||

    Suffice it to say I do not share your optimism.

  • ||

    i think we can strongly agree on this.

    optimism and pragmatism guide me. clearly, i see we are not sympatico on this

  • sarcasmic||

    clearly, i see we are not sympatico on this

    Great. I'm not sympatico with a cop. Don't shove your gun in my mouth or your baton up my ass and let's just agree to disagree, K?

  • ||

    Dude

    Ad hominem.

  • ||

    no , you are not sympatico with me

    your collectivism gets old

    i'm not "a cop" in this regards. i'm dunphy. i suspect cops are in general far more cynical and actually far more like you in this regards, than i am

    they also have a high suicide rate. being a bitter person only diminishes you and it makes life less enjoyable for you, and others around you

  • ||

    put anything on their website without first asking permission

    "The current backlog on permitting content is two years, please be patient, we will consider your request in the order it was submitted."

  • ||

    First they'll establish licensing requirements for hosting a website....

    Yes, but the site can base itself overseas.

    Do you think the G will get away with blocking non-US registered sites?

    Of course I shouldn't give them ideas.

  • T||

    Cory Doctorow made the argument they should be a public utility, thereby sealing his status as one of the internet's foremost asshats.

  • ||

    people think of google, and to some extent wikipedia as some sort of weird public utility.

    I can't be out of teh Google, I just paid the bill!

    Morons.

  • DJF||

    But Comrade this will interfere with the Five Year Economic Plan. We cannot allow the wreckers to stand in the way of progress. The NKVD, oops I mean the Department of Homeland Security must root out these counter revolutionaries, oops I mean terrorists and bring them before the Peoples Courts, oops again, I mean Military Tribunals so they may be sent to Siberia, oops I mean Guantanamo.

  • Nipplemancer||

    Dunph - he quit being a senator to work for the MAFIAAMPAA

  • ||

    i'm aware of that. but just like one refers to a president for life, so to speak, my point was that his legislatorness is still relevant, even though it's not his current career

    granted, i could have made that more clear

    obviously, since he is NOW an MPAA lobbyist he is not ALSO now a legislator, although considering the slavish butt boyness of some legislators when it comes to kissing hollywood's ass, at least it would be honest that way

  • ||

    Pet peeve of mine, which is getting a hell of a workout these days, is referring to former officeholders by a title they no longer hold:

    "Speaker" Gingrich. Grrrr.

    "President" Clinton. When did he get reelected for a third term?

    Etc. ad nauseum.

  • ||

    There is nothing new about that. I did some work for a former ambassador once. Still insisted on being called "Ambassador" like it was some royal title. Tons of military retirees still insist on being called "Colonel" even though they haven't been one in years. Pomposity is nothing new.

  • Zeb||

    It's just a weird holdover from when people used titles more. Sort of like putting PhD or Esq. after your name or using the title Dr. when you have some useless terminal degree that you haven't thought about in 30 years.

  • ||

    i have a friend who constantly refers to herself as dr. even on her fucking FACEBOOK page.

    she has a doctorate in "industrial pschology" for fuck's sake

    give me a break

  • Tonio||

    I've found that ostentatiously referring to these people as "Dr." in social situations nips that chick in the bud real quick. "Carol, Dwayne this is Dr. Smegma and her husband Cooter." After a couple of time of having to explain that she's not a "real" doctor, she'll get the hint.

  • ||

    Tonio,

    My favorite example of that is Sanja Gupta. The guy hasn't started a sentence with anything but "As a doctor..." in thirty years.

  • ||

    Hey! That's DOCTOR Sanjay Gupta!

  • Loki||

    "After a couple of time of having to explain that she's not a "real" doctor, she'll get the hint."

    That's assuming that narcisstic douche-rockets can actually pick up on subtle hints. I'd prefer to just kick them in the head really fucking hard, but then I'd end up in jail for assault. It's one of the many sources of my rage.

  • ||

    I've never been one to use "Esq.", though I think it probably is proper etiquette to use it when formally corresponding with other attorneys.

  • ||

    In addressing them, I mean. Not me.

  • ||

    i read a fair amount of such correspondence, and i don't see it at all, fwiw.

    i think it's pretty old skool

    the term 'attorney at law" or something you will see, but i can't remember the last time i saw esquire in attorney correspondence

  • Tonio||

    Uh, RC, it's not new. This has been considered proper usage since at least the sixties. I don't like it either.

  • Chatroom Crank||

    I refuse to even use the titles of current office holders/government employees. No "officer dumbass" when talking to the cop, just "dumbass".

  • ||

    lol.

    civility and manners are their own reward.

    merely referring to men i deal with as "sir" has great rewards. i don't care if they are an unemployed, drug addicted convicted felon

    they are "sir".

  • MNG||

    Dodd's a first rate chump, but how GOP biased is this site that most of the hate here on SOPA is on Dodd rather than, say, the author of the bill?

  • ||

    Last I looked MNG the top of the post called Smith a douche. And I called him an outright crook. That is giving him a pass?

    And Dodd is more than a chump. He is one of the worst human beings ever to serve the United States.

  • MNG||

    Fun Math: How many posts and with how much intensity hating on Dodd vs. the actual guy pushing this bill through?

  • ||

    Last I looked Dodd was pushing the bill too. He is a crook Senator who left office in disgrace to work as head of one the most loathsome organizations in America.

    No one like Smith here MNG. Why do the attacks on Dodd bother you so much? Do you like Dodd. Are you embarrassed by him and angry that people on here still remember what a crook he was?

    And there are plenty of Democrats who support SOPA. Would you only be happy if we just mentioned the Republicans who support it? Is that your idea of "balance".

    Do you realize how odd you sound screaming about "bias" because we only called the Republican a douche and a crook?

  • Atanarjuat||

    Um, maybe because Dodd has been in the public eye longer? Most of the criticism toward him here was for stuff he did before SOAPYPIPPA.

  • ||

    civility and manners are earned, not owed.

  • ||

    not imo

    imo, they are the default position

    nobody has to earn civility, respect, and decency from me.

    they can engage in behavior that will cause me to revoke my polite mode (tm). but for me, polite mode is the default, especially on duty

    and ime, by defaulting to civility and manners, one often creates much better situations. people often respond to civiity, respect and deceny with the same in return. often, DESPITE themselves.

    attitude is SO important. if you enter a situation with respect towards your fellow man, and you show it, you are MUCH more likely to get a 'better result' and you may also substantially improve their day or more.

    trust is earned. but civiity and respect is default

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    Sometimes civility and manners comes across as simple condescension. Whenever a cop calls me "sir" it seems like he's thinking "fucker."

  • ||

    i think that says a lot about you, frankly. it kind of goes along with my point about how much attitude matters, and how often people bring on their own misery, bad "luck" (that often isn't luck at all, but at least partially a foreseeable result of their assmunchery), bad results, drama, etc.

    clearly, one CAN say 'sir' in a condescending manner, and that is of course NOT what i am talking about

    it's a matter of respect and decency.

  • MNG||

    "Sometimes civility and manners comes across as simple condescension. Whenever a cop calls me "sir" it seems like he's thinking "fucker."

    I know women who get offended when you call them "ma'am" too.

  • ||

    i'm not sure if that's some sort of offshoot of feminism.

    regardless, if somebody says "please don't call me ma'am, call me..." i can oblige (unless "..." = something i dont want to say :) ) but again, i think so many people who are miserable fucksticks bring it on themselves.

    treat others with dignity and respect and it's amazing how much better stuff can turn out.

  • Tonio||

    ^This. Sorry, dunphy, but he's right. It may comfort you, but everyone else sees through it as the abject BS it it.

  • ||

    um, no. the reason anti-cop bigorati is not everybody else. outside the rarefied climes of reason, most people respect cops , prefer being treated with respect, and enjoy treating cops with respect

    if there is one canard that reasonoids love, it's the assuming their very narrrow viewpoints are how people feel outside reason

  • CrackertyAssCracker||

    I "Sir" cops back too, even if they are 23-year-olds who have obviously doubled up on their roids for this month. I appreciate it when it is reciprocated.

    It's not just bullshit either. It's actual, genuine, very terse "dog whistle talk" for "I'm in control enough of my facilities to remain civil, even if this is a tense situation and I kind of hate you right now."

    If you can't accept it, and use it yourself in these situations then you are letting your ego get in the way.

  • ||

    I suspect this is often the case with the reason bigorati... Their attitude, ego, etc.get in the way of enjoying life, and being respectful towards people, to include joe cop on da beat

  • ||

    I hate, hate, hate that tradition. It makes no sense at all in a representative republic for a citizen to get permanent honors for holding office. Incidentally, that goes for things like pensions for elected office.

  • T||

    Once you've done your time in office, you're just another citizen and entitled to no special titles from the rest of us.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    I remember as a kid watching The Bounty (the Hopkins/Gibson treatment of the story). I was fascinated by them calling each other "sir" while yelling back and forth. "Shut your mouth, goddamn you, sir!" Hopkins shouted to his subordinate at one point I recall. I went around doing that to everyone. You have to spit it out quick and with force. It's great.

    "Shut your mouth, goddamn you, sir!"

  • ||

    Fuck you, sir!

    You see that kind of thing in The Three Musketeers. They'll kill you, but politely.

  • T||

    Wait, I thought Dodd was a tool of the mortgage and banking industry. He's a tool of the MPAA, too? Busy guy.

  • ||

    Hooker's gotta hook.

  • Barney Frank||

    Did someone say "tool"?

  • ||

    He's no one's one-industry whore!

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    (CNN) -- Republican presidential front-runner Mitt Romney revealed Tuesday that he pays about a 15% income tax rate but continued to resist calls by his rivals to release his tax returns.

    So that means Romney only paid like five hundred dollars into the tax coffers? Is that what that means?

  • Jerry||

    Plenty of people have a income tax rate of 0 or even negative.

  • Suki||

    That is what makes the mean effective tax rate in the US about 11%

  • MNG||

    "Plenty of people have a income tax rate of 0 or even negative."

    You don't say (over and over and over...)

  • Bee Tagger||

    Typical of a vulture capitalist from Bain to saddle a group he wants to take over and dump a short time later with a load of debt.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    It's only being a vulture if the group he's taking over has any value left.

  • #||

    Its because he doesnt have a job right now so almost all of his income is in capital gains, which are taxed at 15%.

  • Zeb||

    It seems like Romney only gets attacked about stupid crap. Everyone knows he is a rich guy. And everyone knows that you pay 15% on most investment income. This is not news.

  • ||

    Stupid of Romney to not just release the damn returns, already.

    Dunno if Obama's returns are public, but he could say he'll release his when Obama does, but I can't see another smart way to delay.

  • Tonio||

    Uh, no, brilliant delaying action, RC. Not only does he not have to release until after SC, but since he has yet to file he can have his 2011 returns done so he doesn't claim all his deductions and makes errors in the govt's favor to pump up his tax rate. I'd really like to see his 2010 filing but that ain't a gonna happen.

  • Kwanzaa Cake||

    It is not news but many of the people who pay a fucking ZERO percent tax rate think it is unfair for Romney to pay "only" 15%. Of course that 15% probably works out to several million dollars in taxes paid, but who cares -- class resentment must be stoked to keep Michelle Obama from having to ever fly commercial.

  • MNG||

    " many of the people who pay a fucking ZERO percent tax rate think it is unfair for Romney to pay "only" 15%"

    How about those of us who pay far more than Romney, do we get to think his 15% share unfair?

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    Sure, you can think it. The real question is whether you can rationally defend the thought.

  • MNG||

    Here I go: why should someone who proportionately has so much more than me pay so much proportionately less?

    Rational enough for ya?

  • T||

    I eagerly await your argument in favor of simplifying the tax code.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    Don't worry about how much Mitt pays. Instead, focus on how you can generate as much wealth for you and your family. Mitt makes his money, now you go make yours. Jealousy is an ugly beast.

  • ||

    Here I go: why should someone who proportionately has so much more than me pay so much proportionately less?

    Why does proportionality have anything to do with it?

    Does a wealthy person get any more access to the ROOAADDZZ or get more protection from the military than a poor person? Of course not. So why is it "fair" that a wealthy person pay MORE for exactly the same services?

    FAIR means paying the same dollar amount for a given service, NOT an equal percentage!

  • SFC B||

    Everyone knows the military has standing orders to evacuate the rich in the event of an attack.

  • Grummun||

    Here I go: why should someone who proportionately has so much more than me pay so much proportionately less?

    Mark this down as a red-letter day: MNG advocates taxes that are proportional to income.

  • ||

    So, MNG, are you a Fair Tax or Flat Tax guy?

  • Zeb||

    Well I happen to think that all income, regardless of the source, should be taxed at the same rate (if it is to be taxed, and I don't think income tax is going away any time soon).

  • cynical||

    I thought it was less to balance out the fact that sometimes it's negative, and you don't exactly get a credit for that?

    If they let losses roll over year to year, then I could see taxing it normally. That would also be good for the poor, since you could, instead of having a 0 bracket, tax below the lowest bracket at a negative rate, and let the poor lower their taxable incomes once they start to get into the positive bracket.

  • ||

    Obama taps Bain alumnus as new director of Office of Management and Budget.

    This marks the beginning of Obama's new plan to dismantle streamline the government, right? You go with the people best suited, et c.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    It shows that the Obama camp aren't the slick political operatives when the media aren't covering for them wholesale.

  • Jerry||

    You know, I think Obama is trying to run to the right of Mitt Romney in order to seek reelection.

  • o3||

    wont be too difficult considering both are moderates. >save the RW memes about socialism for the knuckledraggers

  • T||

    Moderate left, sure.

  • killazontherun||

    It's not going to work. He can't shake his Obamabots no matter what he does. He is stuck with them for life.

  • Ken E.||

    It just doesn't stop at FPM: Ron Paul’s Absurd ‘Golden Rule’

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    That's no surprise coming from Horowitz.

  • John Q Adams||

    She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit....

  • John Q Adams||

    Her glory is not dominion, but liberty. Her march is the march of mind.

  • killazontherun||

    The Golden Rule doesn't work with gimps like Horowitz, you see. Bitches like him enjoy their subservience to the weaker of kind, so do unto others as you would have done to you doesn't quite work when masochism is considered.

  • ||

    Setting aside the Golden Rule argument, going to war with people of another culture is an effective way to bring about intermingling of the two cultures. If you want to keep Christian culture pure and avoid intermingling with Muslims, having a huge chunk of your young men and women hang around with them every day can lead to some unintended consequences.

    Wonder if gimps like Horowitz ever think about that. I guess that's why we want to use more drones.

  • Old Mexican||

    Ron Paul’s Absurd ‘Golden Rule’


    The funnier thing is that supposed Christians booed something that Jesus Christ espoused and is part of doctrine... well, at least part of Christian doctrine; I don't think Socons are Christian at all.

  • ||

    The old joke about the religious right not voting for Jesus? Sounds like it wasn't a joke after all.

  • ||

    i think this entire line of reasoning is silly, but why would a christian vote for jesus for a POLITICAL office.

    kind of reminds me of the constant dumb canard the left uses about jesus being a radical socialist

    again, assuming he existed he endorsed charity whole heartedly

    he never once endorsed forced govt. charity via the barrel of a gun, as liberals claim via their "jesus was socialist" claim

  • MNG||

    "he never once endorsed forced govt. charity via the barrel of a gun"

    He kind of wasn't in a position to endorse anything like that, right?

  • ||

    no, i'm serious about this

    again, assuming he existed, bla bla there is no record of him saying GOVERNMENT should redistribute wealth, or any such thing

    this is a canard liberals constantly engage in at DU etc. this idea that jesus "was a liberal" and they use this canard to help enforce it

    even taking in the banned gospels, i still see no record of it

    and of course forced charity is NOT charity at all

  • Zeb||

    I don't think Jesus had much to say about what government should do one way or the other. But he did say to pay your taxes.

  • ||

    yup. and the disconnect that libs have is that when jesus said be charitable and shit, they read that as "govt. should force people to be charitable by taking their money by force"

  • John Q Adams||

    I wonder what percent of the SC audience was actaully Christian anyway?

    SC isnt monolithic.

  • ||

    That carefully selected and vetted Republican studio audience? Probably 110%.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    Exactly my thoughts.

  • CE||

    They couldn't have a repeat of the first SC debate last year, when the crowd cheered Ron Paul for suggesting that legalizing heroin wouldn't mean the end of the world.

  • ||

    I could swear that I read something about the audience being known as heavily Christian, but that could've been media bullshit.

  • MNG||

    Yeah, SC is well known as being lousy with atheists and Buddhists.

  • Zeb||

    Especially SC republicans.

  • CrackertyAssCracker||

    "Christian" in the TeamRed tribal identity sense of the word? ya, I dunno, in the 95% range.

    Christian, as in, espousing, or shooting for for something resembling, the normative philosophy put forth by Jesus? 20%? If you are booing the Golden Rule, you aren't really fucking Christian, in any intellectual sense.

  • Jerry||

    They're the postmodernist version of Christianity.

  • ||

    TEAM CHRIST?

  • ||

    OM, perhaps you do not know what the Golden Rule is. "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you". Does NOT mean doing nothing. If I am being killed I would hope someone would come to my aid. The GR then implies that I should come to others aid when they are in danger.

    It is not a Christian principle to leave others to be murdered because the murder hasn't ever done anything to you.

    All that being said, Nations are groups of individuals and therefore it is impossible for them to practice the GR because people wish to be treated differently.

    This is NOT a criticism of Paul's foreign policy. It is a criticism of a poorly used analogy, by Paul.

  • ||

    Well said Marshall.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Marshall Gill,

    OM, perhaps you do not know what the Golden Rule is. "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you". Does NOT mean doing nothing.


    Excuse me - who said otherwise? However, it certainly does not mean go and bomb brown people that did nothing to you.

    If I am being killed I would hope someone would come to my aid.


    That has nothing to do with the Golden Rule. It applies to your potential attacker, not to some third party. The Golden Rule is not a burden on everybody else to stop you from behaving badly, it is a burden on YOU.

    The GR then implies that I should come to others aid when they are in danger.


    This is false. I posited the same to MNG when he argued the same thing. I give you this scenario:

    I see YOU fighting with another person, and upon the situation I go over where you are and kill YOU. Would I then become the other person's hero?

    It is not a Christian principle to leave others to be murdered because the murder hasn't ever done anything to you.


    Really? Because one thing I know from Sunday School is that I am not to judge others. I don't know why some people kill each other, but I do know that I may make a mistake if I get involved, like I posited above.

  • ||

    The problem Mexican is that the Golden rule works really well as an individual. It breaks down when you start talking about large groups. I can tell you exactly how I would like you to treat me. But it gets a little harder when I ask how I would like you to treat America. What is the "collective good". I would generally not want other countries to bomb the US. But if the US were taken over by homicidal lunatics, I very well might welcome such bombing. When you get to very large groups, the "good" gets impossible to determine.

    Think of it as a Hayakian critique of morality. In the same way bureaucrats can't manage an economy because they don't have the information, statesman can't act for the greater good because they don't know what the greater good is. For that reason, the more noble the idea, the more harm it does when applied collectively.

    For this reason simple moral axioms like the Golden Rule are worthless when talking about national affairs. And Paul is thus engaging in sophistry when he tries to do as much.

  • MNG||

    "When you get to very large groups, the "good" gets impossible to determine."

    You're so dense you don't see you've proven OM's point. If it is so hard to discern the collective good then we should not engage in collective military actions...

  • ||

    Can you make an argument without insulting people? I know you are insecure, but it gets distracting.

    It doesn't make his point at all. The fact is that we still have to have a military and we still have to live in a world where collective decisions are made. The lack of knowledge of the "good" means we can't make decisions based on it. That means policy is run by practical concerns rather than morality. If we should leave Afghanistan it should be because we can't afford it or we think we can make a deal with our enemies not because we want to do unto others as they would do unto us.

    You make an interesting point. But your act is getting old. If you want to discuss something, fine. But you make me wonder sometimes if you have started to confuse me with all of the kids who stuck your head in the toilet growing up. Knock it off.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: John,

    It breaks down when you start talking about large groups. I can tell you exactly how I would like you to treat me. But it gets a little harder when I ask how I would like you to treat America.


    Let me just remind you of one thing, John: People don't have to like you, but they like you better when you don't get involved in their affairs. It's the exact same thing when it comes to larger groups.

    For that reason, the more noble the idea, the more harm it does when applied collectively.


    You totally misunderstand the knowledge problem principle, John. The point of the principle is to tell you that you cannot presume to know better than others and thus any idea imposed which is contrary to the wishes and preferences of other people is doomed to fail. The Golden Rule is instead lay off stance, totally contrary to an interventionist approach. I am truly amazed you would bring the knowledge problem principle forward to argue against the GR.

  • ||

    "thus any idea imposed which is contrary to the wishes and preferences of other people is doomed to fail."

    Not really. I would say communism was contrary to the wishes of the people of most communist countries and it lasted a very long time. Most people go with which way the wind blows. If you are powerful enough you can impose a lot. If you don't believe me, go ask the Indians sometime.

    Beyond that, the Golden Rule is a moral axiom. You can only apply morality if you have the information. Paul is using the Golden Rule to justify non intervention is no different than someone applying it to intervention. Depending on how you spin the information provided. If the US were ruled by the Mullahs, I would absolutely want a foreign country to come bomb us and help us get rid of them. So where does that leave Paul's Golden Rule? As a meaningless platitude that has no bearing on any real policy.

  • poetry||

    If we should leave Afghanistan it should be because we can't afford it or we think we can make a deal with our enemies not because we want to do unto others as they would do unto us.

    Interesting line of reasoning. You use the term "we" as if it actually means you and me and everybody in this country. But it doesn't – "we" are not making decisions about what the military decisions. A few old men in DC and Virginia are making those decisions.

    As to your assertion that military decision should be predicated on "practical concerns," I have this question: if it were monetarily profitable to bomb parts of London, should it be done?

    I submit that morality does apply to military decisions. Your assertion that morality does not apply is shocking, at least to me, and makes me sad.

    The Blitzkrieg wasn't just 'impractical.' It was fucking immoral. As was the Spanish-Indian war, the War of Roses, The 100 Years War, the Ottoman invasion of Vienna, etc.

    Looking back on history, it's easy to see how pathetic most wars were, and how juvenile most of the justifications for them were. But then, when it's your war, inflicted by people who look and sound like you, well... all of a sudden it's a great and wonderful thing.

    Sorry this has been so ramble-y. But reddit is down, what else am I supposed to do?

  • Tonio||

    "The problem Mexican..."

    Don't ever change, John. You rank with Mrs. Malaprop as an ongoing source of lulz.

  • ||

    That is not a malaprop. It is a missed comma. "The problem, Mexican" is perfectly appropriate. If you are going to be a smart ass, at least pick the right post.

  • MNG||

    "I see YOU fighting with another person, and upon the situation I go over where you are and kill YOU. Would I then become the other person's hero?"

    We've had this conversation before. You seem to believe that if you see two people struggling over a knife there is either no objective right/wrong that the two sides fall into or that it's impossible to ascertain that if it does exist. I think both assertions are wrong.

    But, I agreed with Paul here. His metaphor doesn't need to have academic precision, his point was clear: if we as nation would rather be left alone and not attacked let's do the same to others.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: MNG,

    You seem to believe that if you see two people struggling over a knife there is either no objective right/wrong that the two sides fall into or that it's impossible to ascertain that if it does exist. I think both assertions are wrong.


    That's not the assumption and I never said it would be impossible to assertain which side is wrong.

    The problem lies in the argument that a person of moral standing should always come to the aid of a person locked in a fight with another person. I don't know who is MG, I can't say if he's in the right or in the wrong side of a conflict, so I'm being unduly encumbered with a burden I am not seeking. The question is thus not if it's possible to know which party is in the right, the question becomes why the FUCK should *I* be the one to determine that? Or anybody else, for that matter? If you don't want to get into fights, then DON'T. If you want to defend your life, learn how to do it or get a gun, but don't appeal to some non-existent tenet that everybody else has a duty to help YOU. Why YOU? Who made you special?

    The same approach should apply to international affairs - why the fuck should the government burden us with the responsibility to save everybody else in the world, if that is the purported reason for bombing brown people and maiming their children?

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    I think Paul's point was "how would you like it if other countries meddled in US affairs?" An excellent point, and I think an excellent application of the Golden Rule.

    But simply because some (not all) of the SC audience had a different interpretation of the Golden Rule doesn't mean they're not Christian. Their analysis is wrong because their factual assumptions are wrong, not because they aren't Christians.

    If the US were solvent, if we could count on the gratitude of other nations whom we "help," if there was no such thing as blowback, and if our policy was coherent and human-rights based - all of which the neocons and the booers tend to believe - then given those premises I can see how U.S. foreign policy can look sensible. I'm sorry that people see the world that way, but they are trying to apply Christian premises to the world as they see it.

    Enlighten them, don't insult them.

  • ||

    The problem lies in the argument that a person of moral standing should always come to the aid of a person locked in a fight with another person.

    No it is not. The Golden Rule is NOT supposed to be applied when there is moral ambiguity, which there is in much of foreign affairs. A "fight" could very easily be one of mutual agreement from the participants. Except for the moral relativist, most things in life are not ambiguous fights in the Thunderdome where two men enter and one leave.

    Is there really a moral position to Mao or Stalin's actions? A person can't know if mass murder is wrong?

    This isn't to say we should ever, ever, intervene in foreign affairs. It is to say, again, that you can't apply the Golden Rule to foreign policy.

    It is really sad, too. Paul shouldn't be quoting the fucking Bible, he should be quoting The Prince.

  • CE||

    So you're saying Obama was right to attack Libya, but Bush erred by invading Iraq?

  • ||


    So that means Romney only paid like five hundred dollars into the tax coffers?

    HE PAID LESS TAXES THAN HIS SECRETARY!

  • Tim||

    Upon hearing that, millions of Americans promptly shat their pants.

  • ||

    Who was that about? I vaguely recall it but too vaguely to remember.

  • ||

  • ||

    Oh, right. Thanks.

  • ||

    Grandpa Buffett,

  • ||

    Imagine a World
    Without Free Knowledge Downloads.

  • ||

    More debates, more vetting of candidates.

    If the "debaters" will have electrodes on their genitals which are hooked up to buttons controlled by the audience, I'm all for it.

    Otherwise, why bother?

  • Rich||

    That'd be cruel and unusual.

    I am, however, on board with the electrodes being controlled by the 30-second timer.

  • Kromulent Kristen||

    Dodd and Smith sound like whiny little pussyboys. "Wah! Some web sites [that I don't even use] won't provide content! Wah! Mommy!"

    This is why DC is completely lacking in masculinity - these are the role models for all the young men that come here with stars in their eyes.

  • ||

    DC is full of whinny little bastards who will never confront you about anything to your face.

  •  ||

    Says the guy who posts anonymously in a chat room.

  • Ice Nine||

    So, they're all Bronies?

  • ||

    No. Just whinny little miserable shits with shrewish wives. DC is full of eligible women. Yet, the men who are married are often married to the most domineering women.

  • MNG||

    John's hate of his DC environs seems to drive his spittle-flecked, rage filled "political philosophy." If only his work and wife did not drag him to functions in this area he'd probably be a Rockefeller Republican...

  • Kromulent Kristen||

    No - that would mean they had personalities. They're mainly just cookie-cutter douches who look at the guy next to them to see what to do in any given situation.

  • ||

    Jesus Kristen, do you work in my office?

  • Funny Guy||

    Do you work in your office?

    [rim shot]

  • Kromulent Kristen||

    It's DC - all offices are like that! But especially in lobbying firms, Capitol Hill, and the more "prestigious" (for lack of a beter word) government agencies like Justice and State. Just going to the cafeteria for my coffee is an exercise in trying not to gag at the stench of douchewonk (not douchewank - douchewonk - it's a DC thing)

  • CE||

    That would be funny if you found out you were having an internet argument with the person two cubicles over...

  • Ice Nine||

    (sound of horse joke crashing to earth)

  • Quetzalcoatl||

    Don't worry, IceNein, I chortled.

  • Ice Nine||

    Bless you , my son.

  • Ice Nine||

    And that's EisNein to you.

  • Tonio||

    John, you tripped up on your own poor usage/spelling. People were making jokes about that. "Whinny" (rhymes with "ninny", appropriately) is a noise made by a horse; "whiney" (rhymes with "tiny") is an adjective frequently used to describe small children and others with the same level of emotional development.

  • ||

    I know. But so what? I was blessed with many skills in this world. Being a great natural speller is not one of them. Oh well.

  • ||

    I was blessed with many skills in this world. Being a great natural speller is not one of them. Oh well.

    Hmmm, they are not in evidence here, care to share some of them with us?

    Sorry, I had to do it. You pitched a floater right in the strike zone and I am a corked and roided up Sammy Sosa.

  • Tonio||

    Well, when you're having a particularly bad-usage day it's actually hard to discern your meaning. Also undermines your overall credibility, which is fine with me, of course.

  • Devil's Advocate||

    What I think is interesting is that they seemingly were unable to predict the magnitude of the backlash. I predict Lamar Smith will go down in flames next election over this, which make me wonder why he went there (yeah, cash money etc, but he's killed his political career). Talk about being out of touch.

  • Spoonman.||

    Sadly, I doubt he will.

  • Gray Ghost||

    For some reason, I thought his district was around Waco, which would better explain his legislative stances. However, this map shows that a large chunk of his district is W. Austin (i.e., the wealthy part) and NE San Antonio, as well as the hinterlands of the western Hill Country. I'd think that W. Austin has to be in the top-10 of metropolitan U.S. areas that's Internet-issue savvy. Maybe this will harm his re-election chances somewhat?

    Bah, who am I kidding?

  • ||

    these are the role models for all the young men that come here with stars in their eyes.

    "The peasants are revolting!"

  • ||

    The adults, however, will continue to disdain libertarianism as a half-baked and childish ideology, so long as its spokesmen remain flippant and crude.

    Somebody needs a fresh diaper.

  • ||

    You're the perfect example. Thanks.

    But don't stop. At least three people here think you're clever.

  • kinnath||

    Since you can't be bothered to pick an actual handle to post with, it's clear you're just a drive-by troll who's totally unfamiliar with the "vibe" of H&R.

    So be gone evil spirit!

  • Make that four||

    .

  • ||

    Five.

    Bye troll!

  • Troll||

    I feel your pain, "Fransisco."

    By the way, wouldn't "Bertram Scudder" be a more appropriate handle? Or is your use of that Ayn Rand hero meant to be ironic? Either way, it's pathetic.

  • ||

    Troll, wouldn't Jason Godesky be more appropriate for you?

  • ||

    Or is it Rectal? On second thought, I misidentified you above. Or did I?

  • sarcasmic||

    Hey!
    Something can only be true if the only people who understand it are arrogant experts who look down on you with contempt!
    If something can be explained in terms that a non-expert can understand, then it can't possibly be true!
    All hail Authority!

  • ||

    libertarians are often refreshingly non-elitist , at least when compared to liberals.

    that is nice.

  • ||

    I find that the defining characteristic of my libertarian tendencies is apathy.

    I just don't care what people do, for the most part, as long as it doesn't adversely affect me.

    Its hard to be an elitist and apathetic at the same time.

  • kinnath||

    Your apathy pales in comparison to mine ;-)

  • kinnath||

    Your apathy pales in comparison to mine ;-)

  • ||

    Recoiling in disgust is not apathy.

  • ||

    "i used to be disgusted now i try to be amused"

  • Surly Chef||

    You can only be serious is you are rabid about using violence against brown people and stealing from the other slightly less popular team this election cycle. Peace and snark, those are laughably childish.

  • sarcasmic||

    Isn't your handle a bit redundant?

  • Surly Chef||

    Yes, but the deep thought process I used to create the name lasted a total of 1 second and that's what I came up with. I'm not starting over now.

  • Toy Boat||

    I keep trying to say it 5 times really fast. It's driving me nuts.

  • Kromulent Kristen||

    Yeah - what is it about chefs that make them so crankypantsed? All that food, all that booze....I just don't get it.

  • ||

    It is a tough job. All that food. But a chef has no freedom with it. His job is to make the same menu over and over again exactly the same way to the same standard. It is like turning a wrench in a factory. It would make anyone frustrated.

  • Surly Chef||

    I've never liked you more John and I'll remember this when we are arguing over something tomorrow.

  • Zeb||

    A chef is the boss of a busy, time sensitive enterprise, employing lots of unskilled workers who don't really want to be there. To efficiently run a kitchen under those circumstances requires one to be somewhat of a hardass control freak.

  • Gray Ghost||

    And when you consider that the front of the house staff (waiters/bartenders/wine dude) can often make more than most of the chefs, the hours are shit, everything has to happen right this second, and that you come home smelling like food...it's a rough job.

    Glad I don't do food service anymore.

  • Kromulent Kristen||

    HHmm...I did not realize all chefs worked in busy restaurant kitchens! I've met some private chefs that were just as crotchety as their restaurant brethren.

  • Priestess||

    My daughter is a chef. The control freakery comes from working in an environment where you are around grade A morons with easy access to wicked sharp knives, boiling oil and water, fire and other implements of destruction. She has some hellacious scars (mostly burns) inflicted by various co-workers. It's a survival trait.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Press coverage of the video has been “scathingly negative” toward Paul because of the assumption that he was behind it, the lawyers said.

    Journalists knew damned well that Huntsman ad wasn't done by Paul. His ads attacked policy. And if they didn't know that means they hadn't bothered to research the candidate and lazily went by talking points.

  • Sparky||

    I don't get it. While Sarah Palin is probably a nice lady and not horribly dumb, I can't see why she is such a sought after voice. She keeps popping up on all the talking head shows as if she's the voice of the Republican party.

  • ||

    She looks good. In TV, that's 75% of what they care about. More if you've been murdered.

  • Mittens||

    I know! Isn't it great that I'm so Presidential?

  • ||

    Exactly.

  • Ice Nine||

    Because she is loved by millions of voters.

  • ||

    She looks good on TV and is guaranteed ratings.

  • You Just Don't Get IT||

    Palin is the leader! If she ran everything, the country would finally be on the right track. She's way more experienced with Obama and is pretty too. You dumb Libertarians!

  • Kromulent Kristen||

    She's experienced with Obama, eh? Once you've had black annat....

    (there aren't that many Libertarians here, BTW..check the LP Facebook page if that's who you're after)

  • Cliché Bandit||

    HEY, SF and I at least are big L.

    I realize that associating myself with him may not be my best political move but it is lonely being an L.

  • ||

    I take umbrage with the bronies for stealing my childhood nickname and using it for such... odd purposes.

    For the record and so no one gets confused, my Brony is pronounced "Brawny", not "bro-ny".

    Not that anyone cares but me... so... anyway.

  • ||

    Your way you should spell Bronny. Problem solved!

  • ||

    Ah, a revival of the Grody/Grotty debate...

  • ||

    Sug, that was a stupid word in the first place, but those two spellings are clearly pronounced differently. Was that a thing back in the Olden Days?

  • ||

    The dark and broken times before YouTube, when MTV ravaged the land and no man could count himself safe from Member's Only jackets.

  • Priestess||

    Heh I remember those. My boyfriend got so mad when I wrecked his while changing the tire on his Vega.

  • Cliché Bandit||

    this comment is so perfect it must be fake.

  • ||

    I'll see what I can do about altering 35 years of precedent :)

  • ||

    So those paper towels? Yours?

  • ||

    I have used that to explain how my name is pronounced (it's spelled phonetically, but yet baffles many).

    "It's Bron, like the Brawny paper towels, and win, like when you win something."

    Ohhhh (they say)... Brown-lin?

  • ||

    You're doing a helluva job.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    ;D

  • Brett L||

  • ||

    Good for Tim.

    Speaking of the Broncos, I think the announced decision to go with Tebow as the starter is an interesting one. If they really mean it, they can focus on building the defense (which, though capable of stretches of goodness, isn't consistently good) and keep developing their unusual offense. Which is off-kilter enough that they can pick up players without using high draft picks.

  • robc||

    Im not sure Fox/Elway are capable of committing to it.

    Im worried they are in late stages of NFLAids and will try to continue to wedge Tebow into a pro-style offense with a few "wrinkles".

  • ||

    The big question mark is how well he can throw in the NFL. He did throw fine in college (unorthodox throwing motion but great statistically) and has shown some glimmers of that this season. If he continues to improve his passing, then they'll likely move back to a more pro-set system.

    Personally, even if he becomes a more consistent passer, I think the game is ready for a committed running attack. Not the option, which doesn't work well against pro offenses, but a true, multi-pronged rushing attack. Play action, where he does best, becomes a great way to terrorize teams.

    All the bull about the NFL being magically different, and defense and running being things of the past, has been exposed by the defeats of Green Bay and the Saints. Look for the Ravens to finish the job this weekend.

  • robc||

    Not the option, which doesn't work well against pro offenses

    Bullshit.

    I diagnose thee with NFLAids (early stage). Statements like that are one of the early symptoms.

  • robc||

    An 11 on 11 offense is fundamentally superior to a 10 on 11 offense.

    How much superior? Its one superior.

    /this offense goes to 11

  • ||

    If you're thinking single wing, I'm with you--I think that could cause major angst among coordinators in the NFL, who've mostly built defenses to handle pass attacks.

    It's funny to me that conventional wisdom in the NFL about offensive innovation is always focused on the pass. A major commitment to the run could definitely work today, provided, of course, that you have good defense and special teams to support it. Which should be doable if you're not spending all of your money on QBs and receivers.

  • robc||

    Nothing specific. Just a QB who is a threat who must be considered a playmaker on every play.

    Ive never understood why the disdain for option runs.

    Passing, when done right, is nothing more than a triple or quadruple option play.

    Read 1, if check, throw to guy 1.
    else Read 2, if check, throw to guy 2.
    else Read 3, if check, dump to back.

    Looks a lot like a Triple Option run (which isnt even what Im suggesting for Tebow, he is gonna be shotgun spread option, which is mostly double option).

  • ||

    No, it's not bullshit. A true option attack can work against crappy defenses, but not against good ones. Not in the pros.

    There are variations that could work, and it certainly can work if used sparingly, but commitment to a true option is a good way to lose.

  • robc||

    It absolutely is bullshit. If your O-line is superior to the other teams D-line, then a true option attack can work, even in the pros.

    If you cant block the D-line, you cant beat them with any offense.

    The Pittsburgh game is a good example. Pitt was being forced to commit 8 and 9 to the box to stop the option run, and thats when Tebow hit deep passes on them. Which is the key, he needs to be a good enough passer to make the defense pay for overcommitting.

  • Brett L||

    Eh. The Pats didn't have any trouble stopping it with 2 weeks to prepare. Granted, Denver could bring in some personnel and plan around Tebow next year.

  • ||

    Keep in mind that Denver pulled this offense out of its ass around mid-season. This team doesn't have a complete playbook for this style of offense, nor does it have all of the right personnel.

  • robc||

    And they never committed to it (primarily due to the wrong personnel and pulling it out of their ass).

    although having DT at WR was a handy piece. From some stuff I heard, he was helping the coach with blocking suggestions on option runs.

    He was a good blocker in college and Im guessing was suggesting alternatives to "block the CB", such as blocking on the OLB or S to switch things up.

    I love watching a CB take himself out of the play following the WR inside as he then blocks the OLB. Two blocks for the price of one.

  • ||

    He's not a good, consistent passer. And he'll never be top-tier in the NFL until he becomes one. He has terrible mechanics; I'm shocked they haven't been coached out of him already. If he turns out to be uncoachable, then he's toast in the NFL.

    The option doesn't work (well) in the NFL because the defensive pursuit in the NFL is just too fast and too good. Even if the O-line is beating the D-line, you can't consistently catch the linebackers and secondary before they bury the option.

  • robc||

    The option doesn't work (well) in the NFL because the defensive pursuit in the NFL is just too fast and too good.

    Wrong.

    You just need fast and good blockers. And fast and good runners.

    The key, for example, on some plays is to beat the unblocked guy to the corner. If the running back is faster than the safety, it doesnt matter how fast the safety is, the RB just has to be faster.

  • robc||

    Now, the hashmarks do make a bit of a difference, as it makes it easier for the defense to string a wideside play out to the sideline.

    Of course, it opens up more room on the shortside runs.

  • ||

    Penetration and gang tackling mean you have to have an insanely awesome line, QB, and running backs. Why not just use all of that to run without bothering with the option?

  • robc||

    11 on 11 vs 10 on 11.

    Option is one superior. I covered this already.

    If I use that skill to just hand off, the QB isnt taking anyone out of the play. If the QB is a threat to pull the ball out of the RBs belly and run with it, someone has to account for him, and that player is effectively "blocked".

    Its the old "if you cant block em, read em" theory.

  • SFC B||

    And being able to accumulate the good and fast blockers, and the good and fast runners is prohibited by the salary cap.

    Every team, regardless of its offensive philosophy wants "good blockers".

    An option heavy team might be able to exploit the market to get WR/TEs who can be excellent blockers, but lack the hands or speed to be useful in a pro-style offense, but the NFL-option team will need to compete for O-linemen against the rest of the league.

  • ||

    Look for the Ravens to finish the job this weekend.

    From your lips to God's ear.

  • ||

    Don't be surprised.

  • Gray Ghost||

    Get thee to Vegas then, as the Pats are laying anywhere from 7.5 to 9(!). They're -325 to -330 according to this site.

    I think that's a crazy amount of points to lay, but what do I know?

  • Ska||

    Same line the Pack was giving to the G-men, and look how that game went.

  • Fluffy||

    It all comes down to turnovers.

    If the Pats don't turn the ball over, they will win.

    Then hopefully they will have another crack at the Giants, and that game will look like the last game in the original Rollerball.

  • ||

    I am not sure the Giants are going to beat the 49ers. The 49ers are really good. That is going to be a great game.

    And at some point the Patriots are going to play a team that exposes their horrible defense. They still haven't beaten a team with an over .500 record all year. There is a reason for that. Good teams score enough to keep up with Brady. And good teams hit Brady in the mouth. And Tommy doesn't like that very much.

  • ||

    I think San Francisco is a somewhat better team, but that could go either way. The key is whether San Francisco can stuff the run, which they probably can. If so, I think they win.

    Looks like the NFC has much better teams this year. The Ravens are okay, and New England has a nice offense, but its lack of defense will be its undoing.

  • Raston Bot||

    Manning's got mad sync w/ Hicks and that Puerto Rican this year. I hate them but respect that pass attack. That said, the Niners have all-pro talent all over that defense and can slow Manning down enough to give Smith, Gore, Hunter, et al a chance. 31-24 Niners.

  • SFC B||

    Didn't the Pats beat a bunch of teams that wound up like 8-8 and 7-9?

    Teams can only play the teams that they're scheduled to play.

  • Sparky||

    In my book, Tim Tebow gets high marks for being a genuine guy. He obviously cares about his faith and those people less fortunate than himself.

    That being said, if he's going to be a QB he really ought to learn to throw a ball. 90% of his passes look like he's throwing the ball by holding it on the point. He would probably make an excellent RB and maybe an option passer but he really needs work to stay at QB.

  • ||

    Elway said something before the Pittsburgh game about really pushing Tebow to (1) not turn the ball over, (2) not turn the ball over, and (3) not pass very much. He admitted that that had been a mistake and intended to cut him lose. Which worked against Pittsburgh. Would've worked against New England, but Denver's defense fell to pieces (which it did during the late-season losing streak, too), taking away Denver's standard offense.

    He needs work as a QB, but I think the distance between where he is now and where he needs to be isn't as far as popularly believed.

    I know that his religion puts people off, but he seems to be a genuinely decent person. Which is so anomalous in athletics as to make it hard for many to deal with.

  • ||

    I think he could be a great running back. Paul Horning was like Tebow a Heisman Trophy winning quarterback in college. He became a Hall of Fame tailback in the pros. Why couldn't Tebow?

    That said, he has had two different O coordinators and only one off season. I think the Broncos owe it to themselves to let him start another year with a full off season and the same system to see if he improves. He has a lot of things going for him that are hard to find. Why not try to teach him what he doesn't have?

  • ||

    There are worse things that making it to and advancing a game in the playoffs.

  • ||

    He has now won more playoff games that Matt Ryan and Tony Romo. I don't see anyone calling them failed quarterbacks. It is amazing how they will constantly make excuses for duds like Ryan and Joe Flacko but they will write off Tebow after less than a full year of starting.

  • Brett L||

    I've called Tony Romo a failed quarterback for as long as he's been in the league, but I hate the Cowboys.

  • ||

    You must not know many Cowboys fans, John. Romo got a new lease early in the season when he played injured, but even Cowboys fans know that a QB who can't win in December is a failed QB.

    And Romo can't win in December.

  • ||

    There are a suprising number of Cowboy fans in DC. And the ones around here constantly make excuses for the guy.

    Beyond that, I was referring more to the "experts" on TV who are constantly writing Tebow off but never seem to right other less successful quarterbacks off.

  • CE||

    Romo won one playoff game. He would have won another, but the stupid holder on the extra point fumbled the ball.

  • ||

    FUCK! FUCK! FUCK!

    I have absolutely NO problem when the links devolve into:

    Star Wars
    LotR
    Star Trek
    BSG
    Fire Fly
    WoW
    Skyrim
    Insert any sci-fi/fantasy movie or video game here.

    BUT CHRIST I HATE FOOTBALL!

    Shouldn't libertarians hate collectivist team sports?

  • ||

    I vaguely recall it but too vaguely to remember.

    If you're serious-

    That was the substantive coverage of Kindly Old Grandpa Buffett's tear-stained plea* to Obama to raise taxes on the evil pillagers of the dread Last Percentile.

    (*Pay no attention to the Berkshire Hathaway business model behind the curtain.)

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    Whenever anyone likes to talk about nice old Papa Buffett, I always like to tell them that he's in the same business as AIG.

  • ||

    I think Ron Paul suing the independent group is genius. It distances him from them, shows he's got some principles, and gets a little news play.

    Makes it perfectly clear that, unlike the other SuperPACs, he isn't actively coordinating with an allegedly independent group.

  • johnl||

    The girls need to apologize now and get this behind them.

  • Jumbie||

    Also, it hopefully gets his more kooky supporters from 'helping out' by making anti-_______ ads in bad taste that (unfairly to Paul) always get tacked to him so that he has to defend/disavow his supporters.

    Also, would throw off any consideration of false flag smears like the people who wanted to pretend to be KKK and attend the pro-Paul rally.

  • ||

    but he's killed his political career

    The horror.

    The

    HORROR.

    With any luck, he'll find a new career in no holds barred bumfighting.

  • Devil's Advocate||

    Well yeah, but you would think with a politician that maintaining his political career would be a priority. It seems unduly self-destructive, so I am really curious as to his thought processes and why's he's doubled down.

  • Kromulent Kristen||

    I'd say it's a combination of ignorance and cash. Of course, the cash is attractive, but I think he thought that teh interntez wouldn't notice and he could get this thing passed quickly and without fuss. Now he's in a fucked-22, because if he backs off and abandons the effort, he'll look like just as much of a pussy as staying in it.

    I love schadenfreude.

  • ||

    I am really curious as to his thought processes

    I'm going to go out on a limb and say he has been a member of the overpriveleged Political Class for so long he now actually believes the nonsense which spews from his tiny little reptilian brain. He will be shocked and bewildered when the peasants rise up against him.

  • ||

    Pretty much. He lives in a cocoon, where nothing is more important than arranging support/money from vested interests. The idea that the Little People might object literally never occurred to him, I'm sure.

  • Devil's Advocate||

    That's the vibe I get as well, but I guess it is hard for me to understand that level of denial of reality. I mean, his partners in crime co-legislators are even distancing themselves.

  • Tonio||

    The idea that the Little People might object were actually paying attention and understood what was going on literally never occurred to him, I'm sure.

  • Juice||

    How un-libertarian is it that the Paul campaign is using the state to enforce slander/libel?

  • Tony||

    Perfectly libertarian.

    Libertarian = state power for my purposes, everyone else can fuck off and die.

  • Juice||

    That damned agricultural city-state and its gambol lockdown!

  • ||

    Please don't feed the troll.

  • ||

    I think they may have banned White Indian for his gay porn post this morning. The post is gone and he along with it.

  • ||

    So, the squirrels are cis-sexist?

  • ||

    I had a meeting. Was it in this thread? Can someone summarize?

  • ||

    He put up a long and detailed piece of homosexual porn involving me and MNG. He is trying to take your mojo SF. And of course posted his usual cut and paste nonsense.

    For the first time ever on Hit and Run, I actually wrote to reason linking to the post and said really? And they deleted it and White Indian along with hit.

    I have no objection to either homosexuality or porn. And do not consider being called a homosexual an insult. But saying I would have sex with MNG. That goes too far.

  • ||

    There used to be a few griefers who would copy pasta some ham-handed porn from the web and find and replace the names. The first one I can remember involved Kerry Howley. They came down very quick on that nonsense a few times and it stopped.

    But saying I would have sex with MNG.

    That is quite beyond the pale.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    The first one I can remember involved Kerry Howley.

    I remember those. The single-mindedness of those were really, really creepy.

  • ||

    Considering the shit they tolerate around here, it sounds like they're just tired of our sweet Miss Rectal's antics.

    And it's incorrect to call White Indian "he", you know.

  • Tonio||

    Ewww, gross. And that's not a slam on you, John (for once). Glad he finally overstepped, but sorry you were the target of his slime.

  • ||

    Yeah, I'm not convinced Godesky is behind it at this point. He was too monomaniacal to get off script like this.

    I also don't think it's really an OWS attack either.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    He put up a long and detailed piece of homosexual porn involving me and MNG.

    And Tulpa. Don't forget him. And some random dude named 'Oliver'.

  • No Snitches!||

    Shame on you, John.

  • tarran||

    John, I believe Rather, with her moronic levels of emotional intelligence, couldn't understand the difference between a long repellent piece and the "get a room" teasing that many of us - and I am in that number - have been teasing you guys with.

    That girl really is a train-wreck.

  • ||

    Perhaps so tarran. I never know quite what to do about her. I think she is legitimately troubled. I really don't want to make fun of her and make her feel bad.

  • ||

    I really don't want to make fun of her and make her feel bad.

    Why the fuck not? I mean, there's a nonzero chance she'll murder us, but other than that, fuck that cunt and her feelings.

  • Kromulent Kristen||

    All you have to do is look at the list of reason commenters on the sidebar of her blog to know she's perhaps a bit touched in the haid.

  • Tonio||

    O, rly? Do tell...

  • Devil's Advocate||

    They are preventing gays from gamboling?

  • ||

    gaybol lockdown!

  • poetry||

    too bad we're only just now thinking of this

  • CE||

    Pretty standard libertarian actually. The state provides national defense, police, and the courts. What's the controversy? Ron Paul isn't an anarchist, and even anarchists posit a system of common law courts.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Juice,

    How un-libertarian is it that the Paul campaign is using the state to enforce slander/libel?


    He's not using the state, he's using the courts. Using the state as a Tony here would want is to enact laws that infringe on the freedoms of ALL people. A court still determines upon the preponderance of evidence if there's a tort which requires compensation or not. A Tony disdains courts - he prefers the very UNlibertarian sledgehammer of sweeping regulations rather than the very punctual decision of courts which only affect the two parties involved.

    There's nothing unlibertarian about using a court.

  • Juice||

    Well, if subpoenaed, a person is forced to show up in court at the threat of jail time by the state (a judge employed by the state). If someone is slandered or libeled, I don't see that as the initiation of force. So, to me, the lawsuit and its accompanying subpoena is the initiation of force on the part of the Paul campaign.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Juice,

    Well, if subpoenaed, a person is forced to show up in court at the threat of jail time by the state


    ONLY when the State is the plaintiff, Juice. The state can issue a warrant when you don't show for court to pay your parking tickets, but not when you're being sued in civil court.

    (a judge employed by the state).


    And roads are built by the state blah, blah, blah. I've heard this before from people that forget the State imposed their monopoly upon everybody, so it will be inevitable that most judges will be paid by the state. However, the Paul campaign can still drag the culprit in fron of Judge Judy and thus make hash of your inuendo-laden argument.

    If someone is slandered or libeled, I don't see that as the initiation of force.


    I don't, either. But Paul is not an anarchist.

  • Juice||

    ONLY when the State is the plaintiff, Juice. The state can issue a warrant when you don't show for court to pay your parking tickets, but not when you're being sued in civil court.

    SAY WHAT? If you ignore a subpoena from a civil suit in state court, you will be held in contempt of court and could be potentially incarcerated.

    And roads are built by the state blah, blah, blah. I've heard this before from people that forget the State imposed their monopoly upon everybody, so it will be inevitable that most judges will be paid by the state. However, the Paul campaign can still drag the culprit in fron of Judge Judy and thus make hash of your inuendo-laden argument.

    The state does not have a monopoly on arbitration and you make the case for that by bringing up Judge Judy. No one is dragged before Judge Judy. It's completely voluntary. And, if the Paul campaign had filed a suit with Judge Judy (or the like, private arbitration) the Huntsman supporters could and would have ignored it with no consequences. Instead, the Paul campaign is using the force of the state to try to get its way.

  • Tony||

    He's not using the state, he's using the courts.

    Just thought I'd repeat that.

  • ||

    Let me give you a clue. It is called LIBERTARIAN not ANARCHIST. There is a difference.

  • sarcasmic||

    But, but, but if you don't want the government to do something, you don't want the government to do anything. (false premise)
    Since there are things that libertarians do not want the government to do, then obviously they don't want the government to do anything.(logical argument based upon false premise)
    Hence libertarians are anarchists.(fallacious conclusion)

  • Juice||

    Can speech be aggression?

  • Juice||

    Shit, that was supposed to be in reply to:

    SugarFree|1.18.12 @ 10:41AM|

  • Juice||

    If libertarianism means following the nonagression principle, then the government should not be used for the initiation of force. Suing someone in state court is initiating force on someone using the apparatus of the state.

  • ||

    Unless you want to delve into the realm of MNG semantic idiocy, you are getting the state to address an aggression against you, not asking it to initiate aggression.

  • Juice||

    Can speech be aggression?

  • sarcasmic||

    Let's say you own a restaurant and I spread false rumors saying your shop is a rat infested shit-hole, resulting in your going out of business, defaulting on your mortgage, and finally ending up homeless on the street.
    Would that not be an act of aggression on my part resulting in harm to you?

  • Juice||

    First off, that's not the situation here at all unless you consider a political campaign to be a business.

    In the restaurant situation that would be theft by deception, actual aggressive fraud. But that's really only if you assume that the restaurant owner is entitled to having paying customers and that the primary reason for a drop off in business is the deception. But really, the restaurant is not entitled to customers. You can assume a loss future business, but who's can predict the future?

    Anyway, it seems reasonable to assume future business similar to past business and claim a loss caused by the deception, which would be grounds for a lawsuit.

    Again, this isn't the case here with a political campaign. Besides, is the Paul campaign claiming financial loss?

  • sarcasmic||

    I don't know what the Paul campaign is claiming, nor do I care. Let the courts figure it out.
    You asked if speech can be aggression and I gave you the first answer that came off the top of my head.
    Fuck you if you didn't like it because it didn't conform perfectly to the issue of Ron Paul's lawsuit.

    I don't care.

  • robc||

    unless you consider a political campaign to be a business.

    They receive paychecks, so Yes, yes I do.

  • tarran||


    Would that not be an act of aggression on my part resulting in harm to you?

    Sarcasmic, it wouldn't. You don't own those customers. They are free agents who can decide en masse not to do business with you for whatever reason, sensible or moronic, serious or frivolous.

    There are some great essays on this by Block and Rothbard, but none of my search engines are cooperating today (My Chris Dodd get anal fissures), so we'll have to table this for another day.

  • sarcasmic||

    They are free agents who can decide en masse not to do business with you for whatever reason, sensible or moronic, serious or frivolous.

    If they make their decision based upon fraudulent information that I gave them, that is not an act of aggression on my part resulting in harm?

  • ||

    If they make their decision based upon fraudulent information that I gave them, that is not an act of aggression on my part resulting in harm?

    But that's not fraud. Without an transfer of value to the person lying from the person being lied to, there is no fraud. If your potential customers subscribe to a consumer magazine and that consumer magazine lies about your restaurant to them, then *they* have cause to sue for fraud. But you don't.

  • tarran||

    ... er may Chris Dodd get anal fissures.

  • ||

    Let's say you own a restaurant and I spread false rumors saying your shop is a rat infested shit-hole, resulting in your going out of business, defaulting on your mortgage, and finally ending up homeless on the street. Would that not be an act of aggression on my part resulting in harm to you?

    Nope. No coercion was involved.

    If I open a restaurant across the street that serves better food at lower prices and you go out of business, is that aggression?

  • sarcasmic||

    Nope. No coercion was involved.

    I said "aggression", not "coercion".
    I agree that the customers are not being coerced, but they are making their decision on false information.

    If I open a restaurant across the street that serves better food at lower prices and you go out of business, is that aggression?

    Of course not. However if you open a restaurant across the street and then run a false advertising campaign against the competition, yes.

  • ||

    So the difference is that you consider one act morally worthy and the other not, despite the effect being the same.

    That's tough to fit into the NAP, I'm afraid.

  • ||

    Fraudulent speech can, especially if it deprives you of property or liberty.

    I'm less supportive of slander and libel laws, because the damages are nebulous.

    Our system has deliberately taken away (or we surrendered them, depending on your point of view) avenues of redress other than the courts they run. Hate the game, not the playa.

  • ||

    Carrying on the proud libertarian tradition of stretching the definition of "fraud" to cover noncoercive things we don't like, I see.

  • tarran||

    Carrying on the proud libertarian tradition of stretching the definition of "fraud" to cover noncoercive things we don't like, I see.

    .... "You're blacker than a field hand from the darkest Africa," the pot sniffs at the kettle.

  • ||

    OK, kettle, show where I have done this.

  • sarcasmic||

    The non-aggression principle precludes the initiation of force and fraud.
    Slander/libel is fraud, and a forceful reaction is justifiable.

  • Juice||

    Can mere lying be considered fraud when it doesn't result in material loss? I consider aggressive fraud to be synonymous with theft by deception. What was stolen? Paul is participating in a political campaign and hasn't lost physically anything through this deception.

  • sarcasmic||

    That is why there are courts. To answer the question of whether any harm was done, and to decide what, if anything, to do about it.

  • ||

    Only the person alleged to have been decieved can sue for fraud anyway. Paul wouldn't have standing if he tried to sue for fraud.

  • robc||

    If libertarianism means following the nonagression principle

    It doesnt. There are plenty of libertarians who dont follow the NAP.

  •  ||

    Most "libertarians" act out their aggressions here, not in the real world.

  • T||

    Considering how well-armed most of us are, that's probably a good thing.

  • CE||

    Ron Paul is a libertarian Republican, and a life member of the Libertarian Party, and the best major candidate running, but if he followed the NAP, he wouldn't accept his Congressional salary at all.

  • ||

    How un-libertarian is it that the Paul campaign is using the state to enforce slander/libel?

    There's nothing unlibertarian about requiring people to be responsible for the consequences of what they do. That's all slander and libel law does: it seeks damages and restitution from someone because they have caused you harm.

  • Juice||

    IMO, damaging someone's reputation using speech (as dishonest as it may be) is not an initiation of physical force, therefore it should not be met with physical force.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Juice,

    IMO, damaging someone's reputation using speech (as dishonest as it may be) is not an initiation of physical force, therefore it should not be met with physical force.


    You're equivocating. Suing someone in court is not initiation of physical force.

  • sarcasmic||

    It can lead to an initiation of force if the person refuses to show up.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Sarcasmic,

    It can lead to an initiation of force if the person refuses to show up.


    Only when the State is the plaintiff, S. A person that refuses to show up in civil court may never suffer any consequences except in his reputation if in a stricly anarcho-capitalist society. The court can let other people know that the person is unreliable and a cheat, lowering his or her chances of employment, business or credit. The court can also ask his or her employer to withold wages, which the employer can agree to do. No initiation of force is required in any case. Only the State forces a person to appear when the State has a stake - i.e. they want their money.

  • tarran||

    I should point out that Rothbard's analysis of slander and libel laws - one I agree with unreservedly - finds them to be unlibertarian.

    Your reputation is not really your own. Your reputation is what people think of you - they are free to think what they want, and to say what they think - and thus you have no right to use force to tell them what to think or what to say about you.

    In this particular case, there is fraud involved; these people claimed to be Ron Paul supporters, but declined the Paul campaign's request to take down the video. I expect that the lawsuit will allow him to subpoena google to provide him with the meatspace address of that user, and wouldn't it be entertaining if it was one of the Huntsman girls?

    In the end, Paul isn't behaving in a libertarian matter on this issue. He is, however, using the non-libertarian system that Tony and his ilk have imposed upon us with to good effect.

  • ||

    False flag operations are a real threat to Democracy. If you can't tell who is who, how can you make an informed decision?

  • tarran||

    If you can't tell who is who, how can you make an informed decision?

    I agree that you can't. Dirty tricks are effective in the short term but utterly corrosive in the long term in a democratic political order. It is, I think, yet another symptom of the high time-preference associated with democracies that prompted Herman-Hoppe to write Democracy, the God that Failed.

  • Juice||

    It's an effect that you think is good.

  • tarran||

    I'm sorry, who is the "you" you are replying to, and what is the effect that that "you" thinks is good?

  • Cap'n Crush||

    Needs moar you's.

  • ||

    In this particular case, there is fraud involved; these people claimed to be Ron Paul supporters, but declined the Paul campaign's request to take down the video.

    That's fraud? So if Ron Paul's campaign tells me not to talk about the newsletters, and I don't, then I'm guilty of fraud for claiming to be a supporter?

  • tarran||

    No tulpa, it implies that they are not Ron Paul supporters.

    I think most people can figure that out. Sorry for not dumbing it down for ya.

  • ||

    It doesn't even do that. Back in 2007 RP was telling the 9/11 truthers among his supporters to pipe down about 9/11 when campaigning for him, and they ignored him. Does that even imply they didn't support him? Of course not.

    It's perfectly plausible that this could be an RP supporter who just hates Huntsman.

  • tarran||

    ... Ron Paul supporter who really hates huntsman and romney ... who posted his first video which was in short order downloaded by someone with a Huntsman campaign email address... who managed to imprint the video with an authorship field used by the Huntsman girls when them made video's on behalf of their dad.

    It's possible that it is a very technically savvy Paul supporter who is an idiot when it comes to electoral politics.

    But, if it turns out that the person who produced the video is working for the Huntsman campaign, I think we can safely argue that when they represented themselves as Paul supporters they were behaving fraudulently.

    Absent such a clear connection to the Huntsman campaign, it might not be provable fraud - after all stupid people can sincerely support Ron Paul and do counterproductive things.

    But the preponderance of evidence I am aware of point to a false flag operation.

  • ||

    IMO, damaging someone's reputation using speech (as dishonest as it may be) is not an initiation of physical force, therefore it should not be met with physical force.

    So, I guess a libertarian would never seek damages or restitution for fraud, either? What about just plain old breach of contract - not a matter for the courts, as no physical force was involved?

    Your reputation is what people think of you - they are free to think what they want, and to say what they think

    True enough. The issue with libel and slander, though, is whether they should have to bear the consequences of saying what they think, when doing so causes you damage.

    I don't see why not. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from the consequences of speech.

  • ||

    It is more than that. Truth is a defense to libel. Freedom of Speech is not the freedom to lie.

  • Juice||

    Yes it is.

    As long as the lie doesn't cause immediate demonstrable material loss.

  • ||

    Fair enough. You have to have damage to prove libel. But if it does damage someone, you should pay for that.

    And note, you are still free to do it. No one goes to jail for libeling someone. You just have to pay for the damage you do.

  • ||

    So having money taken from you isn't coercion. I see.

  • Zeb||

    I agree. With a very high bar such as there is in the US, and where truth is an absolute defense, I don't see a problem with libel/slander when actual demonstrable harm is done. UK libel laws, on the other hand...

  • ||

    There's nothing unlibertarian about requiring people to be responsible for the consequences of what they do. That's all slander and libel law does: it seeks damages and restitution from someone because they have caused you harm.

    But there are many things that cause harm but are not actionable in court. For instance, a person who opens a restaurant across the street from yours and charges lower prices for better food has harmed you by taking away business from you. A person who finds a dead rat in their fajita and posts this fact online has done you harm too, despite the fact that their statement is true.

    Harm isn't enough to justify action. There has to be some coercion involved.

  • ||

    "Whinny" (rhymes with "ninny", appropriately) is a noise made by a horse

    Utterly appropriate, if your office is full of horses' asses.

  • Funny Guy||

    Hilarious!

  • ||

    Dude that makes a whole lot of sense to me man, I mean like wow.

    www.Total-Security.tk

  • SOPA||

    This is like the worst chat room ever.

  • ||

    flippant and crude

    Did someone say...GLIB?

  • Last Son of Krypton AuH20||

  • Devil's Advocate||

    Stony... heart... MELTING.

  • ||

    Was it in this thread? Can someone summarize?

    I must have missed it. I only read threads from the bottom up; saves me a lot of grief.

    *slaps knee, guffaws*

  • ||

    So you like to bottom. Noted.

  • ||

    He is capable of receiving a tremendous amount of power, you know.

  • ||

    I only read threads from the bottom up; saves me a lot of grief.

    I miss the old days, too. Maybe I'll start following your lead.

  • ||

    Are you going P Brooks on our asses now? Is that what's happening here?

  • ||

    Well, your asses are capable of receiving a tremendous amount of power.

  • Cliché Bandit||

    Seriously though, in the "old days' threads weren't 500 fucking posts long full of stipid bullshit...they were 150 posts long full of stupid bullshit.

  • ||

    you like to bottom

    Being a "bottom feeder" does not necessarily mean what your fetid little mind might wish to believe.

  • ||

    Can speech be aggression?

    I don't know, waffles; can it?

    It can be theft. If I tell people you are pissing in the soup, and your restaurant loses 95% of its business, have you been harmed?

    If I robocall voters on the eve of an election and tell likely voters their favorite candidate has been desperately working to squelch reports that he is a practicing necrophiliac, will that result in substantial real harm?

  • ||

    The first example is no different than setting fire to the restaurant. Libel and slander are common law torts. And like nearly every other case, in this case the common law got it right.

  • Juice||

    The first example is no different than setting fire to the restaurant.

    It's way different.

    If I put Coca Cola labels on my shitty soft drink and sell it, then I have created an immediate demonstrable loss to the Coca Cola company and the customer.

    If I take out an ad in the New York times saying that Coca Cola has rat poison in it, people are free to believe it or not. The only potential loss comes if people believe it, but I can't control what people believe. I have aggressed against no one.

  • ||

    By doing that you would radically depress the sales of coke over a complete lie. That is immediate and measurable damage because of your lie.

  • The Ingenious Hidalgo||

    Aren't you now conflating externalities with property rights violations?

  • Juice||

    Only if you decide that a restaurant is entitled to future customers and that you should be able to control what people say and hear. The owner of the restaurant can tell everyone "No, of course I don't piss in the soup! I'll even show you how I make the soup. This person is lying."

    Should people be sued for bad Yelp! reviews if they are inaccurate?

    What do waffles have to do with anything?

  • ||

    Depends on the review. If the review states an objective fact like "they piss in the soup" and that is false, then yes they can and should be sued. You have no right to lie about people. If it states an opinion like "their food and service suck", then no. You do have every right to an opinion.

  • Juice||

    You have no right to lie about people.

    Yes you do.

  • ||

    If I tell people you are pissing in the soup, and your restaurant loses 95% of its business, have you been harmed?

    If I open a restaurant across the street and charge less for better food and faster service, and you lose 95% of your business, have you been harmed?

  • 0x90||

    That slope is slippier than it appears. Also, you are using ambiguous terminology. What is a harm? I could call you a name, hurting your feelings; do you claim that I have done you harm? Perhaps so, but do you go further, claiming to possess a right of some sort, which I have violated? If so, what is the name of that right?

    In the first case, it would appear that a restaurant is claiming a right to its patrons. In the second, a politician to his votes. Unless you can characterize these relationships differently, you must admit that these claims are ultimately tenuous under a framework of negative rights.

    Strictly speaking, libel and slander violate no stated right of which I am currently aware. Even where they produce 'harm', that harm is technically caused by those who listen, and believe them, rather than those who perpetrate the speech. And again, the nature of this harm is nothing other than the voiding of a claim by one party, to an implied right of securing specific future actions on the part of other parties.

    To go further, if one can justifiably be sued for doing damage by means of negative speech, could one not also then reasonably expect to sue for compensation, in the case that he should choose to utter positive speech? In other words, if I give a glowing review of a restaurant, and this results in increased profits for that restaurant, why can I not sue for compensation? I am not saying I should be able to do that; I am asking for any sort of logic which would indicate why this should be a one way street.

    I do not imply that there is any sort of perfect solution to be found here; my point is simply to show that this area is greyer than it is sometimes perceived to be. In reality, I would argue that the key factor is reputation. I guarantee that were you to attempt to slander my business, my customers would be the first to laugh in your face. In fact, you should only expect to do damage to yourself.

  • Amakudari||

    In the first case, it would appear that a restaurant is claiming a right to its patrons. In the second, a politician to his votes.

    No, they're claiming a right to their reputation in the minds of others. It's very ambiguous and hardly what I would construe as property, but it's not a right to patronage.

    A right to patronage would mean that a restaurant could sue another, better restaurant for drawing too many of its customers. A right to its reputation -- which in the US includes only wanton lies like "sometimes rats get in their meat grinders" but not "their food is awful" -- would bar that.

    I'm still against defamation, which is generally used to chill open discussion (cf. that guy who sued Reason), but I think the right people are asserting is different than your characterization of it.

  • Linus||

    Fraud is a form of aggression. So is extortion. That's why there are legal avenues for the victim to take.

  • ||

    But what is fraud? The legal definition only applies when the person lying gains something of value from the person lied to. Slander etc don't usually fit into that category, and even when they do (for instance, if the liar is a Consumer Reports-type magazine) the person/organization lied about has no standing.

    Unfortunately, there's a nasty tendency among libertarians to try to stretch the definitions of "trespassing" and "fraud" to cover non-coercive things they don't like, so they don't have to question their core beliefs.

  • tarran||

    Unfortunately, there's a nasty tendency among libertarians to try to stretch the definitions of "trespassing" and "fraud" to cover non-coercive things they don't like, so they don't have to question their core beliefs.

    The projection! The goggles, they do nothing!

  • ||

    [citation needed]

  • tarran||

    Any thread having to do with law enforcement and immigration.

  • ||

    Not sure what your claim about law enforcement is supposed to mean, but on immigration I've always said that libertarianism (at least the minarchist variant) ends at the border because it assumes the existence of an overarching legitimate initiator of force, which doesn't exist at or outside the border. I don't think I claimed it was fraud or trespassing.

  • ||

    Of course, if waffles really IS pissing in the soup, I am providing a valuable service to the public at large.

    As my Business Law professor liked to say, "It's only libel if it isn't true."

  • ||

    Your professor obviously hasn't served in the Congress of the United States.

  • Juice||

    Speaking of lawsuits:

    It's Over - Only Two Republican Candidates On Virginia Ballot

    So Romney and Paul will indeed be the only people on the Virginia ballot. That means that Romney will win at least 75% and Paul will win at most 25% there.

  • ||

    So Romney and Paul will indeed be the only people on the Virginia ballot. That means that Romney will win at least 75% and Paul will win at most 25% there.

    --------

    keep on trollin' trollin' trollin' TROLLEEN, trollin' trollin' trollin' TROLLEEN

  • Juice||

    Here's the real test.

    Should blackmail be met with force?

    I say no.

  • ||

    No. The best strategy for dealing with blackmail is to ignore it, anyway.

  • Zeb||

    Or to expose the blackmailer.

  • ||

    If I open a restaurant across the street and charge less for better food and faster service, and you lose 95% of your business, have you been harmed?

    That depends; does your restaurant have wheels on it?

  • ||

    Assuming this is an attempted dig at my food truck positions, the question would be more like "is your restaurant situated on land that you own or have gotten permission from the owner to operate a restaurant on?"

  • ||

    a restaurant is claiming a right to its patrons.

    Really?

    There is a difference between a free and open relationship between willing buyers and sellers, and a government-style "right" to compel someone's patronage whether he wants to or not.

  • 0x90||

    Willingness does not come into the question. The scenario reduces to this: the restaurant states that where it had an expectation of obtaining X, it instead realized Y. This is blamed on the action of a third party, and a damage is claimed. Call it what you like, but the perception of this as a damage is rooted in nothing other than the restaurant's claim to have possessed a right of obtaining X. From that primary right flows a secondary one: the right to have truth told about oneself.

  • Kromulent Kristen||

    The ATC audio out of SEATAC is fun today, BTW. (and the hot man in my life appreciates that I have a hobby, haterz).

  • Mr. Chartreuse||

    Wow, a libertarian and a DXer.

  • ||

    the perception of this as a damage is rooted in nothing other than the restaurant's claim to have possessed a right of obtaining X.

    You seem to be discounting the difference between opportunity and outcome.

    If, to combine your response with Tulpa's, I go to the City Council and get them to prevent anybody else from opening a competing restaurant, that is claiming a "right" to all customers in that area, and not merely the "right" to take advantage of the opportunity to capture their willing patronage.

  • 0x90||

    So would it be accurate to characterize your position as one which equates libel and slander with physical force or the credible threat thereof, thus rendering them materially capable of impeding an entity's right to pursue opportunity?

  • ||

    Hello,my friends!Here's the most popular dating site for now__SeekCasual*com, a place for people who wanna start a short-term relationship.And also for finding soul mate.Over 160000 happy members are waiting their lovers.Join free and have a try,nothing to lose```

  • cheap corsets||

    Do you want to find cheap corsets online? If you do you won't be the only one. Everyone is trying to cut back on what they spend these days, but most of us are reluctant to stop spending money altogether, especially when it is on something that makes us feel so good.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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

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

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement