Mitt Romney vs. Free Stuff

When Mitt Romney spoke to the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People yesterday morning, the biggest crowd reaction came when he promised to repeal ObamaCare. The crowd booed loudly. The Romney campaign shrugged it off, and, when asked about the boos, Romney reportedly told a group of donors later that evening that "if they want more stuff from government tell them to go vote for the other guy — more free stuff."

That's pretty rich coming from the same politician who worked so hard to sign ObamaCare's state-driven model into law while serving as the governor of Massachusetts, who has promised never to cut Medicare and has repeatedly criticized President Obama for doing the same, and whose party passed a massive unfunded Medicare prescription drug program that gives new federal benefits to the nation's wealthiest age cohort.

You could argue that Romney's political career is based mostly on the provision of "free stuff" from the government. Romney's biggest single accomplishment in Massachusetts was giving the state's residents the exact same free stuff he's now criticizing President Obama for giving the nation. Of course, it won't be free at the federal level, and it wasn't free for Massachusetts: In 2012, the state will devote 54 percent of its budget to health care, more than any other state. As an official from the state's Executive Office for Administration and Finance warned last year, the growth of health costs "threaten the very viability of government" within the state. "We’re on a path that if we continue...government will end up doing nothing more than providing health insurance, which obviously is not an acceptable result." Romney, of course, continues to defend the (not) free stuff he gave Bay State residents. Anyone who actually wants to vote against free stuff is going to have a tough time. 

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.

  • Pro Libertate||

    I am the god of hell fire and I bring you:

    Fire,
    I'll take you to burn.
    Fire,
    I'll take you to learn.
    I'll see you burn!

    You fought hard, and
    You saved and learned,
    But all of it's going to burn.

    And your mind,
    Your tiny mind.
    You know you've really been so blind.
    Now's your time burn your mind.
    You're falling far too far behind.
    Oh no.
    Oh no.
    Oh no.
    You gonna burn!

    Fire,
    To destroy all you've done.
    Fire,
    To end all you've become.
    I'll feel your burn!

    You've been living like a little girl,
    In the middle of your little world.

    And your mind,
    Your tiny mind
    You know you've really been so blind.

    Now's your time burn your mind,
    You're falling far too far behind.

    Oohhh,
    Fire,
    I'll take you to burn.
    Fire,
    I'll take you to learn.
    You gonna burn...burn...burn ...burn...burn...burn.

    Fire,
    I'll take you to burn.
    Fire,
    I'll take you to learn.
    Fire,
    I'll take you to bed.

  • Randian||

    Alright, I hate the Republicans as much as any other right-thinking American, but this is a little bit thin. Mitt Romney tells a group that currently epitomizes identity politics to sod off if they want to advocate for a Welfare State, and we're criticizing him for it?

  • Tulpa the White||

    The narrative is that Romney is a hypocrite, so by golly, they're going to fit their stories to it.

  • Cytotoxic||

    I'm sorry I was like that to you. I don't like Romney but cripes this is annoying and really kind of dishonest.

  • ||

    Romney is a hypocrite.

    Anyway it was pretty obvious in 2008 many reason readers voted for Obama.

    It is pretty obvious that few will vote for him this year.

    If you think Sudderman is pushing an anti-Romney agenda to the benefit of Obama i do not really care.

    Cuz the result in reality is more Gary Johnson votes.

    If you want people to vote Republican Tulpa you are going to have to find a better candidate.

  • John||

    Welcome to the heads I win tails you lose brand of Reason cometary. When Republicans say the wrong things they are excoriated for it. When they say the right things, they are excoriated for being flip flopers and not really meaning it.

    And yes, everyone knows Romney signed something very similiar to Obamacare while governor of Massachusetts. I guess Suderman didn't get that memo an thinks this is news to everyone.

    At some point I would like to think Reason would come up with something new to say about Romney. Maybe they will do it when they publish the Libertarian case for a second Obama term, this October.

  • Randian||

    Maybe they will do it when they publish the Libertarian case for a second Obama term, this October.

    Given that they haven't done that in the past, this is way off-base.

  • John||

    They published a Libertarian case for Obama in 08. Why not in 2012?

  • Tulpa the White||

    Cavanaugh wrote an article explaining why he was voting for BO in 2008. I'd be shocked if there wasn't a Terry Michael/Steve Chapman article in a similar vein.

  • Randian||

    And shrike and Tony love Obama, therefore the Commentariat loves Obama.

    What is that fallacy called again?

  • SugarFree||

    The tulpical fallacy?

  • $park¥||

    Is that anything like tulpical anti-itch cream?

  • Killazontherun||

    That's not playing nice, SF. Tut. Tut.

  • Tulpa the White||

    What you're currently engaging in is a red herring, which technically isn't a fallacy, only a distraction.

    John stated that Reason published a case for voting for Obama.

    You denied this.

    I pointed out who the author was.

    At this point, there is no question of a fallacy as there is no logical manipulation going on, only the truth or falsehood of Reason publishing the Cavanaugh article.

    If you think they didn't publish this, state that. Don't go into red herring territory.

  • Randian||

    When someone says "they published", Tulpa (and I am typing slowly so you can follow along) the clear implication is that reason magazine, as a collective and much in the same way that the editors of your newspaper publish such things, made a choice to publish "The Libertarian Case for Obama".

  • ||

    TULPICAL THREAD ALERT

  • Tulpa the White||

    Randian, you need a dictionary. STAT!

    That's not what "publish" means.

  • SIV||

    I pointed out who the author was.

    And like on everything else you are totally fucking wrong, douchebag.

  • Randian||

    bwa ha ha! Terry Michael doesn't even work for reason! This is priceless. Thank you, SIV.

  • bagoh20||

    Wow, go back and read that article. I'll remember to never believe anything Terry Michael writes. Turned out completely wrong on every point.

  • SugarFree||

    Terry Micheal is also on of those HIV-doesn't-cause-AIDS types, as well. And likes to email commenters to hurl abuse at them.

  • Loki||

    BWAHAHAHAHA

    Wow, that article's a blast from the past. And like bagoh20 pointed out completely wrong. On every single point. I'm actually looking forward to the pile of BS from the "libertarian democrat" on why we should re-elect Obama any day now. I'm sure it will likewise be side-splittingly hilarious come 2016.

  • Tulpa the White||

    Reason published it, which is the claim you denied.

    I'm sure you'll now come back and change the facts, telling us that John really meant that Welch or Gillespie wrote it and that anyone who didn't realize that he really meant that is an ignorant slut.

  • Randian||

    Already addressed:

    When someone says "they published", Tulpa (and I am typing slowly so you can follow along) the clear implication is that reason magazine, as a collective and much in the same way that the editors of your newspaper publish such things, made a choice to publish "The Libertarian Case for Obama".
  • Tulpa the White||

    So you've gone from changing facts to changing definitions of words. Congrats, you've adopted the tactics of the Left very well.

  • Randian||

    I argue what is meant when the speaker utters the comment. You know what is meant by that talking point.

  • Tulpa the White||

    LOL. At least with Akston's quote, you could claim to be giving a charitable interpretation.

    Doesn't work when you edit what someone said and then argue against the edited version in the most smartass manner possible.

  • Randian||

    Tulpa the Tiresome. Good Lord.

  • Tulpa the White||

    I guess I haven't been published, since I don't work for any of the mathematical journals that have binded my papers into those bound things they send out to libraries.

  • Randian||

    Consider the context and try again.

  • Tulpa the White||

    Cavanaugh wrote one too. And I mentioned Michael as another candidate.

  • ||

    Tulpa and John are being idiots.

    Don't listen to them and vote for Gary Johnson.

  • Pro Libertate||

    I think that's a little much. They don't like Romney. Most people aren't thrilled with him, right or left. But I think they really don't like Obama, by and large, and want him out. But don't expect any libertarian to be happy about Willard.

    I see Romney as a return to the slower path to destruction, but he won't reverse much, if anything. If we're lucky, he'll undo some of the Obama excesses, but, even then, I imagine that the bad precedents in the increase of government power will be built upon, not torn down.

  • The Hammer||

    Most of the reason staff and commenters seems to agree that Romney might be marginally better on economic issues than Obama, but then you can't really tell because he avoids taking any clear stands on any issues. I apologize that not all of us share your throbbing Romney boner, Tulpa.

  • ||

    Did you just call Pro Lib a tulpa? Fuck, dude. There's no reason for that kind of insult.

  • The Hammer||

    That was supposed to be a reply to:

    "Cavanaugh wrote an article explaining why he was voting for BO in 2008. I'd be shocked if there wasn't a Terry Michael/Steve Chapman article in a similar vein."

    I blame the squirrels

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Maybe, just maybe Romney's had a change of heart. Or maybe, he's pandering to small government voters, ie promising to give them what they want.

    Either way it's an improvement on the trading your vote for free shit from the government of our social democrats.

    But the only true small government people are the ones that have held those views since birth. Anyone that has had a change of heart, or appeals to those people is not a true scotsman and must be purged.

  • tarran||

    John, while I hear you, I think there is a benefit to attacking Romney when he says that sound small-governmenty.

    Romney is a technocrat with right-wing corporatist impulses. He no more believes in the efficacy of small-government and free markets than Orrin Hatch does.

    When he says nice sounding things, Romney is LYING....

    The danger of a Romney presidency is that when he continues Obama's craptacular interventions, but mouths limited-governmenty/free markety plaitudes, the vulgar masses will believe him, and when his policies "unexpectedly" fail, they'll say that the free market stuff doesn't work. Consider the damage that the myth that Hoover was a free-market promoting limited government guy has done to the U.S. economy.

    It's of vital importance that in 2015, should Romney be president, that we libertarians can point to articles that from the get -go called Romney out for the tax and spend/big government-loving/corporate-welfare-promotin' liar he is.

    And if Romney does support genuinely liberalizing reforms, and people mock us as chicken-littles, that's fine by me; I'll put up with being mocked if that's the price to pay for living in a freer country.

    My bet, though, is that Romney's presidency will turn out to be George Bush Jr's 4th term.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    This

  • R C Dean||

    My bet, though, is that Romney's presidency will turn out to be George Bush Jr's 4th term.

    Which, to me, would still be better than Obama's 2nd term.

    Don't forget, as he said on an open mike to the Russians, once he gets this election behind him, he's off the leash.

  • carol||

    I don't get why Romney is being criticized for RomneyCare. Sure it sucks and I would be pissed if Florida went for it but apparently the people in Mass wanted it. On the state level it should be a matter of anything goes (fifty laboratories and all that). In any case, RomneyCare was not rammed down the voter's throats-they opened wide and begged for it.

  • Drake||

    Yep - If the people of MA weren't happy with RomneyCare, the legislators who passed it would have been voted out and the thing repealed. No sign of that happening.

    And if Romney had dug in his heels and vetoed everything the legislature sent him, the massive Democrat majorities in both houses would eventually have overridden him with something even worse.

    But none of that fits the Reason narrative either. Romney bad!

  • T o n y||

    I believe he's being criticized for being a soulless hypocritical panderer.

    I'll criticize him for using the "free stuff" line in reference to black people, which has crystallized the fact that Romney has no qualms about resurrecting the white racial resentment component to anti-welfare-state sentiment among his voting base--who, as this article reminds us, don't want their "free stuff" touched (Medicare).

  • $park¥||

    Wait, so free stuff = racist now? I have to add it to my list...

  • ||

    $

  • ||

    Your fox sense of racial outrage has grown tiresome Tony. Find a new dead horse to beat. May I suggest Romney's inherent shittiness?

  • T o n y||

    Romney's ballet dancing horse is named Inherent Shittiness? And it's dead??

  • KPres||

    Let it be known that this is the real reason why groups like the NAACP exist. It's not to help black people (if so, their record is atrocious), it's to racialize everything. A public figure says something derogatory at an NAACP event that has nothing at all to do with race, but because it was an NAACP event, shameless slimeballs like Tony can go around pointing out the "racial element". These people feed off racism, which is why they do everything in their power to keep it alive.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    "why groups like the NAACP continue to exist"

    FIFY

  • Sevo||

    "Anyone who actually wants to vote against free stuff is going to have a tough time."

    Naah. You'll just be 'wasting your vote'.

  • Hugh Akston||

    I don't read a lot of blog comments outside of HyR. I wonder if partisans of either team are self-aware enough to realize that you couldn't fit a playing card between Obama's platform and ROMNIACs.

  • Tulpa the White||

    Only because the gap is so huge that the playing card would slide out into the alligator moat below.

  • Pro Libertate||

    I have a question. Is Romney, in your opinion, more conservative and/or more libertarian than George W. Bush?

  • John||

    I would say Romney is less big government than Bush if for no other reason that that is the way the wind is blowing. Bush ran as a compassionate conservative and on NCLB and such. Any Romney attempt to do such things would be dead on arrival in Congress.

  • Killazontherun||

    The real problem is what would happen in '14 if the House switches back and Romney is president. What can you do, though, but figure out how the current election should be gamed and hope for the best? Actually, that is all you can do, and it is built into the system.

  • BakedPenguin||

    There are 2 platforms - the one they talk about, and the one they implement. Obama had a few goodies for libertarians on the platform he talked about - transparency, ending torture, MM federalism. The platform he implemented had none of that. The platform Romney is talking about is a generic Republican one. If elected, Romney will implement the generic statist one.

    There's a small difference between their stated platforms, but only a miniscule one between the ones they will implement.

  • Tulpa the White||

    There are 2 platforms - the one they talk about, and the one they implement.

    The second one isn't a "platform".

    Yes, yes, it's semantics. Just don't be surprised or offended when someone assumes you're talking about the first kind when you say "platform".

    It's probably a good idea to avoid calling them an ignorant slut, too.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Good point. Remember, there is no person named 'Romney'. It's just an algorithm that responds to outside political pressure. This is a very different political climate.

  • Tulpa the White||

    Basically what John said. He's an intellectual cipher, the typical "administrator", and right now the GOP is (at least rhetorically) about cutting spending and regulation. We'll see if it lasts longer than the 1994 ltd govt streak did.

  • ||

    They're always "rhetorically" about cutting spending and yet they never do. Romney will be no different and the fact that you don't see that is mind boggling.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    ^^^ Exactly. And I refuse to get kicked in the nuts, yet again. That is why our household will be voting LP 2012.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Yeah, he's more conservative / small government that Bush.

    Bush ran as a compassionate conservative after all. I don't see Romney campaigning on new entitlement programs or deepening federal intervention in the name of compassion.

  • carol||

    Is Romney inherently more conservative than George Bush? Nope. But he is inherently more opportunistic and therefore he will do whatever it takes to get, and more importantly, stay, in office. Staying in office will require him to follow the smaller government trend.

    George Bush never understood that it doesn't matter if one's intentions are "compassionate" or downright evil-wrong is just as wrong either way.

  • Randian||

    Hilarious!

    I see absolutely no evidence that Mitt Romney is going to reign in spending (no details on that one), reign in the Drone Wars, overturn the bad sections of the NDAA, oppose SOPA or any of its engendered revenants, stop saber-rattling with Iran, or dial down the trade wars (if anything, he's going around spitting in China's face, which is a stupid thing to do).

  • $park¥||

    I see no evidence that many commentators will learn the difference between reign and rein.

  • Randian||

    Dammit! Thank you. I swear by my life and my love of it never to make that mistake again.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Or rain. Or Rains.

  • JW||

    Or Claude Rains.

  • Pro Libertate||

    That was my Rains.

  • The Hammer||

    Or Raisins.

  • sarcasmic||

    The rain in Spain...

  • BakedPenguin||

    falls meignly in the pleign.

  • Voros McCracken||

    One has a 'g'?

  • mr simple||

    No he means he will literally reign during the coming conflict that will be known as The Drone Wars.

  • mr simple||

    In the land of spending.

  • John||

    First, where did the trade war with China talking point come from? It is Obama who is running around Ohio pledging to get the yellow menace. And as far as saber rattling on Iran, have you been reading the news lately?

    http://latimesblogs.latimes.co.....-iran.html

    Obama is definitely going to go to war with Iran. It is just a matter of time. Maybe Romney will too. I don't know. But can we please drop this "we must vote for Obama to stay out a war" horseshit? How many fucking wars does Obama have to start before you people hold him accountable for one?

    And neither Romney nor Obama will reign in spending. Congress will. And who of the two is more likely to sign on to a budget that actually spends less?

  • Randian||

    How many fucking wars does Obama have to start before you people hold him accountable for one?

    "you people"? Are you fucking retarded?

  • John||

    Are you Randian? I would say pretending that Romney is just as likely to start a war as Obama is not holding Obama accountable. The war issue is a push.

  • Randian||

    I would say pretending that Romney is just as likely to start a war as Obama is not holding Obama accountable.

    He is just as likely, John. W. has taught us that the new Republican Party lurves them some war.

  • John||

    And Obama has taught us that the Democrats love it even more. And for 500th time on this blog, the Iranians get a vote on this too. They may give us a war whether we want one or not.

    Regardless, the issue is a push. So pretty much irrelevant when comparing the two.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Yes, let's all agree that when it comes to war, neither major party is different. War, torture, secrets, etc.--all the same.

    The LP might be a little different on those matters, though, to be fair, it's never been in power.

  • Randian||

    And Obama has taught us that the Democrats love it even more.

    Yeah, OK, John, whatever you say. What I know is that the Republicans invaded a country with absolutely no cause whatsoever. Like, boots-on-ground divisions worth of troops.

  • Cytotoxic||

    'What you know' is bullshit. There were lots of good reasons to get rid of Sadaam it was an excellent FP decision.

  • Randian||

    The Iraq war was not justifiable, even under Objectivist philosophy, despite the fact that Bloodthirsty Ticks have infected the body of that once-proud noninterventionist movement.

  • John||

    What I know is that the Republicans invaded a country with absolutely no cause whatsoev

    that is just not true and you know it. We had been at war with Iraq for 12 years by 2003. Iraq had totally violated the 1991 Ceasefire and the accompanying UNSC resolutions. Further, they had actively plotted the assassination of an American President.

    You just don't like the justifications given for invading. That is your right. But it is not your right to lie and pretend there were none.

    And last I looked Obama continued the war in Iraq, escalated the war in Afghanistan and NW Pakistan and started a new one in Libya and looks to start two more in Syria and Iran.

    Just stop it. You are normally smarter and more honest than this.

  • Randian||

    that is just not true and you know it. We had been at war with Iraq for 12 years by 2003. Iraq had totally violated the 1991 Ceasefire and the accompanying UNSC resolutions. Further, they had actively plotted the assassination of an American President.

    Ha ha ha. Laughter is all that deserves. Ha ha ha.

    You know damn well that Iraq was a "we feel like kicking ass after 9/11" war. All of the alleged 'justification' were a pretense for something the Republicans have been itching to do since the 1990s.

  • John||

    You know damn well that Iraq was a "we feel like kicking ass after 9/11" war. All of the alleged 'justification' were a pretense for something the Republicans have been itching to do since the 1990s.

    Republicans like Bill Clinton and Al Gore? You know the guys who launched desert fox and enforced the no fly zone for their entire Administration all the will telling Congress and anyone who would listen what a threat Saddam was? Those Republicans

    Al Gore was more hawkish on Iraq in 2000 than George Bush. And large numbers of Democrats voted for the war in Congress. Iraq was a bipartisan war if there ever was one.

    Just shut up with "Republicans wanted to kick ass after 9-11" bullshit. That is Tony level retarded, totally contrary to the known facts and frankly beneath you.

  • perlhaqr||

    The '91 Ceasefire we imposed after starting a war with Iraq in the first place?

    Further, they had actively plotted the assassination of an American President.

    GOOD!

    Maybe if the fuckers at the top feel a little heat too, they'll think a little harder about getting involved in these things!

  • John||

    Ceasefire we imposed after starting a war with Iraq in the first place?

    No Iraq started the war by invading a sovereign country. Try again.

  • ||

    First, where did the trade war with China talking point come from?

    IIRC, He's imposed tarriffs on Chinese made solar panels and windmill parts.

    Which is pure comedy. The best kind of entertainment a libertarian can have.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    I don't see all that much evidence that Romney will reign in spending either. But, I also see evidence (his own statments) that Mr. Obama wants to ramp up spending still further.

  • $park¥||

    We have to find a way to rein in this reign of terror.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    My bad. Brain fart.

  • mr simple||

    It appears to be contagious.

  • Lord Humungus||

    and long may he reign while it rains holding the horse's rein.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    I see absolutely no evidence that Mitt Romney is going to reign in spending (no details on that one), reign in the Drone Wars, overturn the bad sections of the NDAA, oppose SOPA or any of its engendered revenants.

    Possibly,

    But I don't see Romney getting away with smuggling guns into Mexico, changing laws by executive fiat or starting new wars while ignoring Congress; if only because the media will hate him instead of worshiping him like they do Obama.

    I also don't see Romney appointing bureaucrats that are openly hostile to business the way that Obama has.

  • ||

    This is a valid point. At least if Romney is president, we can look forward to progressives rekindled love of civil liberties, which will be a plus.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Politics has devolved in this country to the point where a politician only does things because they're afraid of being accused of called certain names by the other side.

    If we can only get them to be afraid of being called "liberty-hating".

  • Joe R.||

    They'll be anti-war again, too.

  • Mo||

    For example, Romney has already said that he'll massively increase military spending.

  • Joe R.||

    I don't read a lot of other comments sections either, but I did formerly have Facebook, and I can assure you that both sides are convinced the other side is evil and think this is the Most Import Election Ever.

  • ||

    Well....the other side is evil.

  • John||

    Last I looked Romney promised to repeal Obamacare. Last I looked Obama wanted to go back to the Clinton era tax rates and Romney planned to cut the top tax rate to under 30%. Obama is proud of and still believes in green energy unicorns. Romney promises to approve the Keystone Pipeline and pursue all forms of fossil fuel the country has.

    Those sound like reasonably large differences to me.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    If your an orange line cosmo you've got to pretend that there's no difference to rationalize your impending vote for Obama.

  • Randian||

    You're a dipshit.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Except you haven't refuted his statment.

  • Randian||

    There is no refutation possible to an ad hominem. You can join him in the dipshit pile.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Sorry, but people have offered up an array of differences. A good number of them significant. Your response has been holding your fingers in your ears and hollering "NAHNAHNAH I CAN'T HEAR YOU". I'll forgo the dipshit pile. I don't think you could stand any more piling on you.

  • Randian||

    Sorry, but people have offered up an array of differences. A good number of them significant. Your response has been holding your fingers in your ears and hollering "NAHNAHNAH I CAN'T HEAR YOU". I'll forgo the dipshit pile. I don't think you could stand any more piling on you.

    You aren't even capable of following along in the conversation. That's priceless. Aw, Bill, you're so cute when you're mad.

  • Tulpa the White||

    aaaand moments later Randian was whining about my "parsimoniousness" toward him.

    Don't dish what you can't take.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Indeed. God they are tiresome.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Don't worry Blandian, there's pills out there that can help you with your troubles. And if they don't work, there's always extensions.

  • ||

    That wasn't an ad hominiem, it was an insult. You see, he's not wrong because he's a dipshit, he's wrong and he's a dipshit.

  • Tulpa the White||

    I think Randian was referring to VG's comment as an ad hom.

  • Tulpa the White||

    There is no refutation possible to an ad hominem.

    That wasn't an ad hominem. You guys are really struggling with the fallacy identification.

  • Randian||

    ad hominem: an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it.

    "Because reason is staffed with orange line cosmos, the two candidates are not the same"

    That's an ad hominem, Tulpa.

  • Tulpa the White||

    "Because reason is staffed with orange line cosmos, the two candidates are not the same"

    That's an ad hominem, Tulpa.

    That's also not what he said.

    I mean seriously? You think you can get away with that when his actual quote is seven inches above your attempt to misquote him?

  • ||

    I'm admittedly rusty on my logical fallacies, but isn't "If your an orange line cosmo you've got to pretend that there's no difference to rationalize your impending vote for Obama." an abusive fallacy which is a subtype of ad hom?

  • $park¥||

    Except he made a statement he can't prove true.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    The fact that Randian felt compelled to respond in the way that he did supports the truth of the statement.

  • Randian||

    You're still a dipshit.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    You're still a dipshit.

    That's just pathetic.

    Can't you work in a trailer trash or community college kid or traktor pullzzzz.

  • Randian||

    Can't you work in "pinot noir" or COCKTAIL PARTIEZ?

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Say hi to Ezra and Matty tonight.

  • ||

    Tulpa and John are still being idiots.

    Ignore them and vote for Gary Johnson.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    That would hurt, if it wasn't coming from and Orange Line Cosmo that worships Roberts "logic".

  • Randian||

    Look guys, Orange Line Cosmo! That's a new and hilarious insult!

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Apparently the shoe fits.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Here ya go, VG.

  • nobody||

    Lone....LoneWacko, is that you?!

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Here ya go, VG.

    Yes, clearly anyone that doesn't accept the their all the same, so that's why i'm voting for O meme is neanderthal protectionist.

    Or was it a neo confederate crypto racist.

    It's hard to keep up with Team Orange Line's ad hominems.

  • Randian||

    oh my god it really is Lonewacko.

  • SugarFree||

    Yes, clearly anyone that doesn't accept the their all the same, so that's why i'm voting for O meme is neanderthal protectionist.

    Nope, but if you want to keep using a protectionist troll's favorite insult, don't complain when you get shit splattered all over you.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    How long has it been since lonewacko's last post?

    Three, four years ago.

    Maybe it's time to let it go and move on.

  • ||

    We did, but then you came here doing your best imitation of him. You drop it, TEAM RED moron.

  • Tulpa the White||

    SF was quoting joe from Lowell the other day multiple times.

    Here I thought BO was living in the past for arguing against Bush in 2012.

  • Randian||

    Desperate to bolster his own reputation, the Parsing Professor fetches about for any ally, no matter how odious...

  • Tulpa the White||

    I don't have any allies here and don't seek any. Unlike some people around here, ganging up on my adversaries isn't my style, nor is invoking "everyone here hates you" as an argument.

  • SugarFree||

    Tulpa is just a rugged loner, an outsider. No friends, friends just drag you down. Tulpa against the world. The last sane man!

    Your fucking ego could snuff out a star.

  • Randian||

    HE LOOMS LARGE

  • Tulpa the White||

    Go on making shit up to suit your narrative, SF. It's all you guys have left at this point.

    Well, that and making subthreads about HBO dramas that those of us looking for on-topic comments have to scroll past.

  • SugarFree||

    Go back to defending dog-murder. It's right in the prime of your skill set, copfucker.

  • John||

    I don't like Romney either. I doubt I will vote for him. But I am not going to pretend there is no difference between the too. Not enough difference is not the same as no difference.

  • $park¥||

    Any politician working within the system is a politician working within the system. Some people are just to obtuse to see that it's the system that is broke, not the people working it. The government we have ended up with is not designed for its executors to buck the system. It is now designed to turn every part of it into a perfect cog.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Oh brother give me a break. This is nihilistic claptrap.

  • $park¥||

    Yeah, I know. You wouldn't want Team Red to get Blue Balls. Just keep sucking Cyto.

  • ||

    If your an orange line cosmo

    Lonewacko? Is that you? Is this me?

  • SugarFree||

    Or it's just another Lew Rockwell dipshit taking a break from causal racism.

  • ||

    Lew Rockwell causes racism? I knew it.

  • SugarFree||

    *casual* You know, like slacks and an open-collared shirt.

    But I draw the line at flip-flops.

  • ||

    Not even a monster like Lew could cause flip-flops.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Lonewacko? Is that you?

    No, I had never heard the phrase before one of the Roberts threads but it really hits home with certain DC douches.

  • Randian||

    Looks like it's time to brush off the old term "yokeltarian" and bring it back out for another go 'round.

  • SugarFree||

    HitandRunpublican comes to mind as well.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    I like that one.

  • ||

    You are growing tiresome.

  • mr simple||

    I can't tell who is insulting whom anymore. Damn threaded comments!

  • Tulpa the White||

    The Orange Line thing came from Rockwell, while the Cosmotarian thing came from Reason itself.

    Lonewacko adopted it later, he certainly wasn't the origin.

  • robc||

    Im a paleo and I dont see any real difference and Im voting for Johnson. So what the fuck are you talking about?

  • BakedPenguin||

    It's true, robc not a cosmo.

    I made a bet with him a few months back, and he won. I had to hand deliver it, because the mail doesn't go to the back woods of Kentucky where he lives. I parked my truck on the side of the hill he said to stop at as the smell of sour mash hung in the air. He stepped out of a hollow near the treeline wearing overalls and pointing a side-by-side shotgun at me. As per our agreement, I could only pay him in metals, so I gave him copper wire.

    Upon getting the wire, he cackled gleefully that he had enough to make another still. His wife then came out in a tattered sundress, followed by three tykes without shoes. She started to inveigh against him building another still, which he cut short with a curt "not in front of company!" She retreated back into the tar paper shack, and we discussed Ron Paul's chances in the primary for a bit, he warned me against talking to any revenuers, and I was off.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Okay, none of that's true, but he would have preferred to be paid in metals.

  • carol||

    Sounds like robc lives in the tri-city area-Possum Trot, King Bee and Monkey's Eyebrow. Lovely area. I went to high school there.

  • Calidissident||

    The problem is you're basing all this on what they SAY they are going to do. What they actually will/would do, nobody knows

  • Mike M.||

    Just yesterday, Romney made a speech in front of the NAACP, in all likelihood the most intensely hostile crowd he could possibly manage to speak to in this country.

    And in that speech, he said, and I quote: "I am going to eliminate every non-essential, expensive program that I can find - and that includes Obamacare", which led to a rousing chorus of boos.

    Now, you might think that he is lying, and he very well might be completely full of shit. But if he says something like this to the NAACP of all groups, there can't be a whole lot of doubt that one of the key elements of the platform he's running on is that he's going to eliminate Obama's signature piece of domestic legislation.

  • Mike M.||

    And John beat me to it.

  • Randian||

    He says that, but then he'll gaze lovingly at the Ring of Power that is PPACA and then who the hell knows.

  • Tulpa the White||

    Maybe you should look up "platform" in your political dictionary.

  • Randian||

    Try to be a little less obtuse. And if you want to go through any political party's platform at any time and I'll point out where they totally failed to live up to their own professed beliefs, I would be glad to do it.

  • Tulpa the White||

    Comment I was replying to:

    I wonder if partisans of either team are self-aware enough to realize that you couldn't fit a playing card between Obama's platform and ROMNIACs.

    Sorry if replying to the post that was written, rather than the one you think should have been written, makes me "obtuse".

    Do I trust MR to put ltd govt into practice? No. Which is why we have to keep his feet to the fire if he wins.

    I do trust BO to balloon govt regardless of what the Congress or the people want.

  • Randian||

    That's parsimonious and you know it. Although I can always count on you to argue the irrelevancies of the terminology rather than the spirit of the conversation. Are you this way socially or is this just when you argue in print?

  • Tulpa the White||

    It's not an irrelevancy, it's the fucking thing we're talking about. There's a big difference between platform and reality, yes. But Mr Akston was talking about the platform, as was my response that you denigrated on irrelevant grounds.

    Your whining about my behavior is especially rich coming from someone who's called me "retard", "dipshit", etc at the drop of a hat.

  • Randian||

    Your whining about my behavior is especially rich coming from someone who's called me "retard", "dipshit", etc at the drop of a hat.

    I never said any of that to you, Tulpa. Care to quote where I did?

    Your response is irrelevant. I can proclaim to be Catholic all I like, but if I don't act Catholic and don't believe in God, guess what? I'm not Catholic.

  • Tulpa the White||

    Yeah, I'll totally search through months of H+R commentary since your rebirth with the shortened name. You've called me names and you know it.

    And if we were talking about your public religious exercise, then it would be irrelevant whether you believe in God. For the purposes of that discussion you would be Catholic.

  • sarcasmic||

    Your whining about my behavior is especially rich coming from someone who's called me "retard", "dipshit", etc at the drop of a hat.

    Perhaps if you stopped being a retarded dipshit people would stop calling you "retard" and "dipshit".

    Just sayin'

  • Tulpa the White||

    The problem with calling people those names, even when justified, is that you forfeit the right to be offended when people call you names or treat you disrespectfully. Also, you make yourself look like a brainless fool who doesn't have a real argument so he calls people names.

  • Randian||

    This is exactly the same thing MNG used to argue. Tulpa, you come in here and deliberately misunderstand the argument at hand just to score points. You know full well that picking up on the word 'platform' was completely irrelevant, and because you know that Hugh didn't mean 'platform', he meant, 'in practice' and used 'platform' as a proxy for "what those politicians actually stand for". And now we have to sit here and lead you by the nose through common sense instead of you just admitting, as you always do in Romney threads, that you are making excuses to be offended.

  • Tulpa the White||

    you know that Hugh didn't mean 'platform', he meant, 'in practice' and used 'platform' as a proxy for "what those politicians actually stand for".

    LOL. Just LOL.

    It's pointless to argue with you, because once you've been cornered you'll just change the facts to suit your side of the argument.

    Did Akston mistype that? I suppose it's possible, but there is no way on earth that you can expect me to know that. The statement he made is a fairly common sentiment, not absurd on its face at all. So why should I assume he meant something very different?

    That's the benefit of talking about arguments, not the people who make them...if someone does mistype their argument, then after you've attacked the argument, the person can disavow it and everybody is still friends.

    When you whip out the insults, that's no longer possible.

  • Randian||

    I am never going to be friends with you, Tulpa. You consistently argue in bad faith. You know the spirit in which the comment was offered, and you ignored it to plow ahead and argue the words.

    People call you retarded because you deliberately misconstrue and make arguments against things that no one is claims.

    Exactly right.

    I suppose it's possible, but there is no way on earth that you can expect me to know that.

    Yes, you ignorant slut, I do expect you to know that.

  • Tulpa the White||

    Funny that you didn't tell us what Akston really meant to type but didn't until you were losing the argument.

    The first time you accused me of arguing in bad faith, that hurt a bit. Now? It's clear you just whip that out when you've got nothing else to say.

  • Tulpa the White||

    Indeed, you changed the facts above too: when you claimed VG's comment was an ad hom, and I pointed out that it wasn't, you quoted a heavily changed version of what he said and said "look, it's an ad hom"! And this wasn't done six months later when it would be difficult to find the original quote, this was done a few minutes later, seven inches below in the same thread!

    There's intellectual dishonesty, and there's stupid intellectual dishonesty.

  • Randian||

    I didn't change the facts. I laid out the argument in quotation marks so that you could follow along. You have to be a real son of a bitch to think that I did that with ill will in mind.

  • Tulpa the White||

    Good GOD you are insufferable, Randian. Ill will? Who knows, hard to tell through the internet. But the other possible explanations aren't very flattering to you either.

  • Randian||

    Good GOD you are insufferable, Randian

    Today's winner for most unselfaware comment is...

    When you call someone "intellectually dishonest", that implies ill will and intent. We used ad hominem correctly, and you (wrongly) criticized us for it, and now your giant panties are in a bunch.

  • Tulpa the White||

    Perhaps I was jumping to conclusions with the "intellectually dishonest" stuff, and if you're really just blissfully unaware of the fact that the statement you typed and pointed to as an ad hom was totally different from the comment you were claiming was an ad hom, then all apologies.

    You didn't use ad hom correctly, and changed the statement in a way that made it look like an ad hom. Now, maybe you just made a typo or happened to rearrange the words and delete and insert other ones in a totally random way that just happened to make your claim look correct, with no ill intent. But your claim was incorrect regardless of your intent, and your huffing and puffing and whining about it isn't going to change that.

  • Randian||

    Tulpa, read what I wrote, read what VG wrote, and explain exactly how that was not an ad hominem. The logic is as follows:

    1. These guys say the two candidates are the same
    2. These guys are Orange Line Cosmos
    3. Therefore, the two candidates are not the same.

    That was the argument, and #2 is the black-letter definition of an ad hominem.

  • Tulpa the White||

    I don't see any way you can read that VG comment and think he was presenting it as an argument that MR and BO are not the same.

    He was offering an explanation for the multiplicity of Reason articles claiming they are the same.

  • sarcasmic||

    Also, you make yourself look like a brainless fool who doesn't have a real argument so he calls people names.

    There is a difference between calling you a retard because someone has no argument, and calling you a retard because it is painfully obvious to everyone but you that you are fucking retarded.

  • Tulpa the White||

    If you went to DailyKOS and started making libertarian arguments, it would be painfully obvious to everyone there that you are fucking retarded too.

  • SugarFree||

    If you came here and started making libertarian arguments we'd all die of shock, Tulpa.

  • Tulpa the White||

    I'm one of the most libertarian commenters here, in the sense that I don't shy away from the consequences or pretend they don't exist.

    Remember that argument about whether a guy should be able to punch another guy who calls his wife a slut? I was one of the only people actually staying true to the NAP. Everyone else was like, "oh yeah, I'm against coercion, but he deserves to get punched so that should be OK". Some of whom are die-hard road-privatizers etc.

  • SugarFree||

    I'm one of the most libertarian commenters here, in the sense that I don't shy away from the consequences or pretend they don't exist.

    Comedy gold.

  • ||

    Comedy gold.

    Th amusing thing is tulpa used his stance on some weird face punching thing as the evidence that he is one of the most libertarian. Of all the things to pick he chose his anti-face punching stance as the thing that sets him apart.

    Brilliant.

  • sarcasmic||

    People don't call you retarded because they disagree with you.

    People call you retarded because you deliberately misconstrue and make arguments against things that no one is claims.

    THAT is why you are a retarded dipshit.

  • Mike M.||

    I agree that Randian throwing out the manners card is kind of a laugh.

    And also, "parsimonious"? Randian, you should stop trying to use large words to try to make yourself sound more intelligent and sophisticated when you don't even know what they mean. You're only embarrassing yourself.

  • Randian||

    "parsimonious" is used correctly.

  • Mike M.||

    "parsimonious" is used correctly.

    LOL. Not at all, you have absolutely no idea what the word really means.

  • Tulpa the White||

    One meaning of "parsimonious" is stingy, mean, etc. I was not being parsimonious, but it does mean what he intended it to mean.

  • ant1sthenes||

    Why should we give a shit about "platform", which is just something that sounds nicer than "empty promises"? We're practical fuckers, we care about how he will govern.

  • Tulpa the White||

    Then your argument is with Hugh Akston.

  • ||

    Platform - The empty promises that politicians make in order to get elected.

    That is a good one ant1sthenes. I am going to be using that.

  • Cytotoxic||

    The whole 'Romney won't repeal Obamacare' meme is not a product thought but is turning into an article of faith for the anti-team TEAM on HandR.

  • Joe R.||

    The Senate won't pass it now; I fail to see how Romney would suddenly get it done, unless the Republicans can hold every seat they currently hold, and also win at least 13 of the other 23 up for re-election.

  • Mo||

    There's no downside to doing that. He goes to the NAACP, which assuages the racially sensitive voters by thinking that Romney won't pander to the racist wing. He goes and gives the same speech he always does at the NAACP, so the racially resentful side of the GOP will cheer him for not bending over backwards to be PC. He loses zero votes from AA votes because he wasn't going to win it. It's all upside, no downside.

    Obama could do the same at a Mormon church to similar effect.

  • Tulpa the White||

    If BO got booed at a Mormon church it would not be reported on any broadcast or print media outside of Utah.

  • JW||

    I wonder if partisans of either team are self-aware enough to realize that you couldn't fit a playing card between Obama's platform and ROMNIACs.

    Of course they do. One wears a green scarf, the other a purple scarf.

    That's all they really need to know.

  • #||

    Babylon 5 reference?

  • JW||

    Of course.

  • Tulpa the White||

    Right, Massachusetts was a barebones minarchist state before Romney came along with his sweet socialist siren song!

  • sarcasmic||

    You make fantastic arguments against things that no one is claiming!
    Absolutely fantastic!
    Bravo!
    *golf clap*

  • Randian||

    I think you have a favorite word for that...don't you?

  • sarcasmic||

    Something about overalls and plaid shirts, but I can't think of it right now.

  • Randian||

    "If I only had a brain..."

  • sarcasmic||

    If Tulpa had a brain...

  • Tulpa the White||

    They didn't explicitly make that claim, but they're blaming Romney for MA having a budget deficit which is bonkers.

  • sarcasmic||

    Wow you're retarded.

  • $park¥||

    "We're on a path that if we continue...government will end up doing nothing more than providing health insurance, which obviously is not an acceptable result."

    That's true, but not for the reason he thinks.

  • ||

    +1

  • VG Zaytsev||

    MUST BASH ROMNEY!!!!

  • JW||

    That's not a bad idea.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "We’re on a path that if we continue...government will end up doing nothing more than providing health insurance, which obviously is not an acceptable result."

    Actually, there's something kinda attractive about that. I mean, I don't want the government taking over healthcare. ...unless--maybe--if they're willing to give up doing everything else!

    It's a compelling idea. First you make it so the government does nothing but healthcare, and everything else gets contracted out or privatized. Then maybe someday, in order to get some better quality, what have you, you incorporate the health care system government and take it public through an IPO!

    Maybe Romney's an accidental genius.

  • KPres||

    Plus, once government runs nothing but health care, and people see that everything else runs just fine, they may begin to wonder why the government should be running health care as well.

  • Rich||

    "if they want more stuff from government tell them to go vote for the other guy"

    They don't call the GOP "The Stupid Party" for nothing.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Also, that alt-text was weak sauce, Suderman. That photo is practically begging for a Wicker Man reference.

  • ||

    Hier you go.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    "Romney, of course, continues to defend the (not) free stuff he gave Bay State residents."

    Not sure that someone getting "free stuff" was ever the argument for enacting Romneycare. Didn't the Dems in Mass propose single payer health care that brought the debate on? Seems a lot of people are ignoring the context of how it was enacted. As horrible as it might be, when shit is getting shoved down your throat, getting a glass of water is probably a relief.

  • ||

    I can't really blame the descendents of slaves for wanting free shit from the government.

    I can point out that it's not a very healthy desire, and not one that is likely to improve their standard of living in the long run.

    I just can't blame them for feeling like people should give them free shit.

  • Tulpa the White||

    What does their ancestry have to do with it?

  • Randian||

    I can't really blame the descendents of slaves for wanting free shit from the government.

    Why?

  • ||

    Unless they were slaves themselves, I can blame them.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    Unless your family line includes some aristocracy, the likelihood is that your ancestors struggled on some type of servitude whether you're a member of the NAACP or not.

  • Sevo||

    HazelMeade|7.12.12 @ 12:54PM|#
    "I can't really blame the descendents of slaves for wanting free shit from the government."

    Yeah, well, considering the source...

  • Ken Shultz||

    Far be it from me to tell them how to feel, but if it were me, it wouldn't be about the slavery anymore.

    There's still lots of discrimination in this country. It may not be the government that's perpetrating the racism against them anymore, but that doesn't mean they're not being discriminated against.

    Kerry Howley wrote an awesome piece one time about how certain women see the government as the only thing that holds back the misogynists (as I recall), and I'd apply that to African-Americans as well.

    If people of African ancestry reverence the government because they're afraid of how racists would discriminate against them if we were all free from government constraints, then I guess eradicating racism among the American people should be a big libertarian cause.

    There are lots of them still alive today who remember when black people weren't allowed in the hospital.

  • ||

    I don't think they revernce the government. I think they harbor a lingering resentment and sense of injustice. They want to get paid back for all that uncompensated labor.

    Problem is that getting "paid back" by relying on the welfare system and developing a culture of dependency will not, ultimately, make your life better.

    I don't think there is nearly as much racism as you believe, or most blacks do. The thing is that it's easy to blame your problems on someone else and then use that as an excuse to exploit the welfare state.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I couldn't care less about my 40 acres and a mule. (20 acres and a donkey?) I just want the liberty to purchase those 40 acres and to use the fruits of my labor as I see fit.

    Jus' sayin'

  • Sevo||

    HazelMeade|7.12.12 @ 1:19PM|#
    "They want to get paid back for all that uncompensated labor."

    "They" didn't do any "uncompensated labor".

  • Ken Shultz||

    In all the time I've worked in commercial real estate in Los Angeles, and elsewhere in Southern California, I've never once seen a black commercial real estate broker.

    The unemployment rate among black teenagers is basically double what it is for white teenagers.

    http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t02.htm

    Teenagers are particularly interesting because they're all more or less equally unskilled. Most teens under 18 equally don't have a high school diploma.

    There are other factors involved, but I don't think you can completely dismiss the effects of racism on those statistics.

    I think one of the reasons so many turn to gangs, selling commerce, etc. is because they know they don't face any discrimination in that business.

    People do discriminate against black people for all sorts of things. Finding decent rental housing is another problem. Where my brother lives in Las Vegas, before so many of the houses on his street were foreclosed on, it was a lily white neighborhood. When all those houses came up for rent, now the neighborhood is integrated...

    Funny how white landlords get a lot less racist when they're hurting for renters.

    Anyway, the racism black people face is real. It's just not coming from the government--as much--anymore. (Don't tell black people who live in areas with aggressive police departments that the government doesn't discriminate against them.)

  • KPres||

    "I think one of the reasons so many turn to gangs, selling commerce, etc. is because they know they don't face any discrimination in that business."

    You don't really believe that, do you? I mean, you made some good points but that's just off the wall. Black kids join gangs because gangs are glorified by hip-hop culture, and young people are susceptible to that.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Working on the edge of Inglewood, where every kid is affiliated by the time they get to Junior High, I've worked with several people who were wrestling with that.

    You're a file clerk. Are you going to try to work your way up in the business office, knowing that every one of the managers and senior managers are white? Or are you going to work another option?

    Simple econ should tell us that more people will gravitate to the option with the highest utility. If racism is a real consideration, in terms of limiting the upper range of outcomes, that's gotta be a factor.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    Maybe Ken. But I don't think kids from Inglewood are passing up the corporate ladder because they fear racism/discrimination. I think they join gangs because it is part of their family. Good kids come from good homes, gangsters come from thuggish homes.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Good kids come from good homes, gangsters come from thuggish homes.

    There are no unaffiliated kids in these neighborhoods anymore.

    Everyone--and I mean 98% of everyone--is affiliated with a gang by the time they get to junior high. The question for some of them is whether to become hardcore--not whether to be affiliated.

    Being unaffiliated isn't an option. I knew some that survived and went on to become responsible citizens. Took the money he made and became a landlord back in the hood. He's no longer active, but he still won't wear anything but blue.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Also, the kind of racism I'm talking about can be pretty subtle...

    Back in the day, there used to be an adage among IT professionals about recommending AMD chips. They used to say, no consultant ever got fired for recommending Intel. The idea is that if you tell your client that the savings on AMD chips are worth the risk--and then the chips are bad or whatever? You may lose your client. But no one ever gets fired if an Intel chip goes bad--your client just thinks, "Well, it was an Intel chip! How could he have known?"

    Well it's the same kind of thing for middle managers when they're hiring--if you know what I mean. Even if the middle manager isn't racist, they sometimes think to themselves, "What is the CEO going to think of me if I hire someone unconventional, who doesn't work out?"

    I don't think anyone ever lost the confidence of a CEO for hiring a Caucasian who looked and sounded like she came from the lily white suburbs.

    So what's the government supposed to do about that subtle objectively racist reagent? I don't think it can do anything effectively.

    Important problems like that have to be solved by people like us, who really care about them, and I suppose the first thing to do is to make sure we ourselves aren't propagating those forms of racism ourselves. The next thing to do is to call this stuff out like we see it.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I'd love it if libertarians became known for being hypersensitive to racism. Then maybe people who have traditionally been victims of racism, etc. would start looking to libertarian solutions, rather than looking to people like Obama, who really has making their choices and opportunities fewer than they would have been otherwise.

  • KPres||

    "I've worked with several people who were wrestling with that."

    Really, or did you work with people claimed to be dealing with that? Nobody's going to tell their social worker they're thinking of joining a gang because they think its cool. They're going to come up with some hard-knock-life reason because that's part and parcel of the gangster image.

    Here's my experience. I've seen how black people react in real-world situations to real racism, it's far more toned than when confronted with fake racism (ie, a republican said something that could only be construed as racist through some wildly tortured logic). It's just about how anybody would react when condemned for something that's not their fault, ie, pissed off for sure but you're not going to ruin your life over it.

  • Ken Shultz||

    All these guys were the real deal.

    Some of the younger ones were trying to go legit--even while they lived in their old neighborhoods. Many of them had juvenile records. They'd been locked up. They had the tattoos.

    One of them, who worked with me in my department, didn't show up for work for a couple of days, and that's when the cops came looking for him. It's just not the way it's portrayed in the media.

    What's that Ice Cube movie, where one brother is in the gang, and the other one is trying to get into college? That's bullshit. That doesn't happen anymore.

    What happens is that both of them would be in the gang, but one of them would be trying to get into college, and the other one is going hardcore--but practically all the young guys in the hood are affiliated with a gang.

    The rare guy that isn't in a gang is like the son of a really religious father or maybe they're Muslim. They get a pass sometimes, but all the other guys were affiliated in that neighborhood.

    Gang membership isn't unusual. It's the norm. Being hardcore isn't as common.

  • KPres||

    "I think one of the reasons so many turn to gangs, selling commerce..."

    Just caught that. Nice.

  • Calidissident||

    I don't have the link on hand, but I've read that in the early 1900's blacks actually had a lower unemployment rate than whites. And I'm pretty sure the country was a lot more racist back then

  • Ken Shultz||

    In the early 1900's, blacks were often prevented from moving from the South.

    The South needed them for farm labor and sharecropping.

    Many of them eventually moved north after World War II, but for a long time, black people who were traveling through the South were often worried that they would be pulled over by the cops and taken back where they came from.

    In the 1850s, when slavery was still legal, I bet the unemployment rate for blacks was even lower than it was in the sharecropping days of the early 1900s.

    In the Soviet Union, the unemployment rate used to approach zero percent!

    Forced labor will do that. We could get the unemployment rate down like that if we wanted to--but who wants to sign up for that?

  • Calidissident||

    The time was in the middle of the Great Migration. And conflating slavery in the 1850's with employment in the 1900's is asinine. A huge reason why unemployment is so high among black teens (and teens in general) is the minimum wage

  • Ken Shultz||

    The reason the minimum wage impacts black teen unemployment so harshly is because it gives hiring managers a surplus of options to choose from...

    The minimum wage entices middle class white kids to apply for jobs that they otherwise wouldn't ask for, so hiring managers have more applicants to choose from--and that's when the racism comes into play.

    All of this is to say that the minimum wage may amplify the effects of racism on black teen unemployment, but the ultimate cause is racism.

    The minimum wage releases the Kraken, but racism is the Kraken.

  • Ken Shultz||

    And conflating slavery in the 1850's with employment in the 1900's is asinine.

    I wasn't conflating slavery with sharecropping in the 1900s, but if conflating slavery with sharecropping in the 1900s is asinine, what do you call yourself conflating sharecropping in the 1900s with unemployed black people today?

  • ||

    See, I don't think most discriminatory hiring practices are based in racism. I think what you're describing is more akin to prejudice because of stereotypes. Maybe landlords don't like to rent to blacks because there is a perception (however wrong) that too many blacks in an apartment community will start making it more like the ghetto.

    And you can't tell me that young urban blacks "selling commerce" (love that by the way) aren't going to be looked over if white kids from the suburbs can get their commerce from other white kids in the burbs. (of course if those aren't readily available, the first thing the burb kids will do is travel to the hood. This in itself is buying into all kinds of stereotypes)

  • ||

    "...it's easy to blame your problems on someone else and then use that as an excuse to exploit the welfare state."

    You mean like wanting to be 'paid back' for someone elses labor?

  • KPres||

    I think there's very little serious racism and a lot of mild, mostly harmless racism. I've thrown out a racial slur in some of the angry moments in my life, but I would never pass over hiring a qualified black person for a less qualified white person, for example. Yet if you caught me in one of those racist moments everybody would think I was an unmitigated white supremicist, given how sensitive the culture is. The reality is it was just a passing moment, and I've said many more similarly derogatory things to other people completely unrelated to race, and all that gets rightfully brushed off because everybody knows we're all human and do shitty things like that from time to time.

  • ||

    How many people would ACTUALLY be racist, or misogynist, or anti-handicapped if the government took it's nose out of people's business?

    I think it's folly, as libertarians, to bury our heads in the sand about real, honest to god racism. But way too many things get labeled and carry the stigma of racism these days and I think that's what you see a reaction against.

  • R C Dean||

    There's still lots of discrimination in this country. It may not be the government that's perpetrating the racism against them anymore, but that doesn't mean they're not being discriminated against.

    Well, lets not overlook that they get discriminated for also.

    And also lets not overlook that "discrimination" can be a perfectly rational response to:

    (1) The fact that when you hire a black person, you are taking a legal risk that you are not taking with a white person. That is a risk created by statute, which gives blacks all sorts of protections and tools to use against their employer whenever something happens that they don't like, if they are so inclined.

    (2) For a variety of reasons, chunks of the black community are pretty dysfunctional, and people raised in those communities are more likely to be bad employees. At this point, its really cultural, but I have a hard time saying that someone who passes on any applicant because they are more likely to be a bad employee is doing something wrong.

    Would it be a good and noble thing to take these risks? Sure. Should it be illegal not to take these risks? No.

  • ant1sthenes||

    "I can't really blame the descendents of slaves for wanting free shit from the government."

    Why? They aren't demanding free shit from the CSA, they're demanding it from the country that defeated their oppressors and freed them. Ungrateful shits.

  • rac3rx||

    This is a really excellent point I hadn't ever considered.

  • ||

    "I just can't blame them for feeling like people should give them free shit."

    I can.

  • Loki||

    Anyone who actually wants to vote against free stuff is going to have a tough time to vote for Gary Johnson or write in Ron Paul.

    FIFY

  • Sevo||

    But, you see, that's 'wasting your vote'!
    I mean you can *not* 'waste' it voting for tweedle dee or tweedle dum, or you can 'waste' it voting for someone who might try to cut the beast down to size.

  • Killazontherun||

    You know, in a backass I'm seeing it only out of delusion and an explicable sense of optimism that has no right to exist in the current climate, it might actually be a sign of progress. Romney is looking at the financial situation of the government and realizes, 'I can't realistically promise free shit and not be totally called on it, so I'm going to run against free shit!' Running against free shit, could it be? Can it be real?

  • ||

    I had the same thought. I'm sure candidates for God-Emperor have anti-pandered to powerful groups before, but damned if I can remember it

  • Killazontherun||

    It's like Romney may know my weakness. Our weakness. If he gives the metal devil hand sign at one of his rallies, someone on his staff has our demographic figured out. That can't be good.

  • Joe R.||

    Or attends the Firefly reunion at Comic-Con.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    Spending increased in NM from 10.5% of GDP to a little over 13% of GDP during GJ's tenure. Glad the LP has found it's pure candidate.

  • ||

    Yeah, cause GJ had complete control of the state budget. It's not like he was a Republican governor in a heavily Democrat state or anything.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    I'm sure you don't feel anything is ironic about stating that

  • ||

    Are you saying it's ironic that he was a Republican governor that is now running as the Libertarian Presidential candidate? I don't think it's ironic for politicians to switch party affiliation, especially given the current duopoly of the Republocrats.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    No, I'm saying that it's ironic for you to say that considering he's not the only Republican governor in a heavily Democrat state...or anything.

  • ||

    My irony detector must be broken but I'll take your word for it.

    /no snark

  • Loki||

    Right, because spending as a percentage of GDP is the only meaningful economic metric. What was the rate of spending increase before and after his 2 terms compared to during his 2 terms? How big a deficit was the state running when he entered office compared to when he left? what is their deficit now after 2 terms of Bill Richardson and one partial term of Susana Martinez?

  • CampingInYourPark||

    From FY '92 to '94 spending decreased from 10.9% of GDP to 10%.
    Public debt decreased from 4.9% to 4.2%.

    Public debt increased from 4.2% to 8% from FY '95 to '03.

    From FY '04 to '11 spending increased from 13% of GDP to 16.5% of GDP
    Public debt increased from 8% to 11%

  • T o n y||

    If the Republicans somehow succeeded in gutting the safety net as they claim they want to do, it will of course spell the end of their electoral prospects for eternity. Granny's not gonna like what Paul Ryan has in mind for her Medicare. (Guess it's only bad when Obama cuts Medicare.)

    A fascinating thought is what happens if Romney gets elected and isn't able to deliver on all the Tea Party demands he's promising. Will they go quiet again as they were during Bush and accept whatever he does, or are they sufficiently ideologically settled to actually hold an R accountable? Perhaps a bloody 2016 primary challenge?

    Anyway it seems clear that both campaigns are focusing on a base mobilization effort (since there are increasingly few swing voters), and Romney's NAACP appearance seems to have just been an opportunity for him to come out and demonstrate his anti-Welfare Queen bona fides. There is definitely the familiar stench of white racial resentment politics going on here, something John McCain (a victim of them himself) was too honorable to engage in.

  • Tulpa the White||

    Will they go quiet again as they were during Bush and accept whatever he does

    Yep, fiscal conservatives were totally silent when Bush and the Dem Congress did TARP. Remember?

  • T o n y||

    Everyone was outraged by TARP. Where were fiscal conservatives when Bush was deficit spending to pay for two massive wars, the prescription drug bill, and massive tax cuts?

  • Sevo||

    T o n y|7.12.12 @ 1:10PM|#
    'Admission shithead can't read...'

    Right on the mark, shithead.

  • Tulpa the White||

    Everyone was outraged by TARP.

    lololololololol.

  • KPres||

    Bush's budget deficits were rather small until 2006, when a Democratic congress was elected. And at that point every conservative I talked to was outraged about it.

  • Calidissident||

    Really that was the only time he faced any significant backlash on fiscal issue, and that was right before he left office after 8 years of fiscal irresponsibility. And even then, if you look at the comments by conservatives on the subject, they generally tend to tiptoe around the fact that Bush was the president that signed it. In their anti-TARP comments, it's more common to see Obama, who was just a senator at the time, blamed than it is to see Bush

  • Sevo||

    T o n y|7.12.12 @ 1:03PM|#
    'Lies, misdirection, strawmen, false dichotomies, wild claims, assertions minus evidence...'

    You're doing fine, shithead.

  • Ken Shultz||

    If the Republicans somehow succeeded in gutting the safety net as they claim they want to do...

    If only the Republicans really wanted to gut the safety net, it might actually inspire me to vote for some of them again.

    Which Republican said that, Tony? I might want to send him or her some money.

  • T o n y||

    Paul Ryan's budget destroys Medicare. It doesn't do anything about the deficit but make it worse, but that's a secondary goal right?

  • Ken Shultz||

    If only that were true, Tony, but it isn't.

    There isn't anybody in the Republican Party that wants to destroy Medicare...

    That's one of the biggest reasons why I'm not a Republican.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    Are you a Libertarian? Gary Johnson doesn't want to destroy Medicare either:

    "Identify and implement common-sense cost savings to place Medicare on a path toward long-term solvency."

    http://www.garyjohnson2012.com.....he-deficit

  • Alex the wolf||

    How long would Gary last as governor of Mass?

  • Ken Shultz||

    I'm not sure what you're getting at, but we're not Republicans or Democrats.

    ...and that means that just because the Libertarian candidate for president supports something, doesn't mean I have to support it.

    I was a libertarian long before Gary Johnson became the nominee, and I'll still be a libertarian long after Johnson is gone.

    There's no doubt, Gary Johnson would be an improvement on the other options, and if even Gary Johnson--even the LP nominee--doesn't want to get rid of Medicare? Then that should tell Tony something about how bogus the idea of the Republicans wanting to get rid of Medicare is.

    Incidentally, the way the sick and elderly are treated in this country is disgraceful, and it's because of Medicare--we could do much better than that on our own.

    The results of convincing people that their parents' care is the government's responsibility--rather than their own--has been horrific enough by itself to merit getting rid of Medicare and Social Security on humanitarian grounds.

    And that's not even talking dollars and cents.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    "There's no doubt, Gary Johnson would be an improvement on the other options"

    This is what I'm getting at. Romney must be a liar because he is team red and GJ is obviously not one because he is team purple, thus an improvement. Of course, we should forgive that he was team red 7 months ago and obviously a liar then, but has since been reformed via the team purple nomination process.

    Didn't see you personally use the "liar" description, but that's gist of a lot of comments here. The article basically stating Romney is saying the right things but can't be trusted because....ROMNEYCARE

  • Ken Shultz||

    It's a legitimate concern. If he sold out to get reelected in Massachusetts, he'll probably sell out to get reelected as president.

    But you're right if you're saying that he's still a better bet than Obama. We might be afraid that Romney will etch-a-sketch himself into a werewolf, but Obama already is a werewolf.

  • ||

    Oh I get it, you're a HitnRunpublican that's pissed people are shitting on Romney.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    Nope...shit away. Just would be nice to see an argument other than "I feel like he is lying"

  • ||

    But he's a politician, so of course he's lying about something (this goes for GJ and Obama too).

  • Sevo||

    T o n y|7.12.12 @ 1:11PM|#
    'Lie that cutting spending won't affect the deficit'

    You're hitting your weight, shithead.

  • Ken Shultz||

    He's basically got two settings.

    1) Democrats good.

    2) Republicans bad.

    How he can regularly read a libertarian website for...how many years now, Tony? and still be stuck on those two settings?

    That world view of his should have blown up a year ago.

    It's getting kinda weird.

  • SugarFree||

    He's a sockpuppet. "Tony" as such stopped posting a long time ago. This is just someone trolling the board, either a bored regular (burn in Hell, asshole) or one of the many obsessed griefers we attract (burn in Hell, asshole.)

  • Ken Shultz||

    I'll keep that in mind, but he said that when we switched to registration, someone already took his name...

    I suspect it's just that Reason reserved it for him, and he missed the email. Anyway, he accounted for his name being kinda funny like that.

    But I won't dismiss the possibility that he's a sock puppet. Running interference for some cause he works for would make a lot more sense than someone coming back with the same mistaken notions about Republicans and libertarians--day after day, year after year.

  • SugarFree||

    Ken, my assertion is that "Tony" hasn't been "Tony" since the Tony/Chad heyday. It is just a convenient troll handle someone picked up. I can't build an air-tight case, but I used to (in the wild days of my youth) argue with them both often. That's not the 2010-era Tony.

  • Sevo||

    Ken Shultz|7.12.12 @ 1:23PM|#
    "He's basically got two settings"

    Disagreed.
    He's got one setting: Dishonesty.

  • T o n y||

    Nothing posted on this libertarian resource has convinced me that my worldview is flawed.

    There are two directions the country can go in, and, conveniently, two parties standing up to take us on one of the trajectories. A generation ago, perhaps, I wouldn't have been so adamant that there is only one logical choice for the intelligent American. But the GOP hasn't always had idiots and lunatics in its highest ranks. You don't get a patient hearing from me if you think dinosaurs and humans coexisted. You gotta get rid of that crap as a first step. Everything following that thought is almost certain to be wrong.

  • ||

    And this is why people rip on you and shrike. The GOP and the Dems BOTH want to take the country in the same direction.

    Of course the people that think Jesus rode a dinosaur are fucking retarded no matter who's totalitarian regime we get.

  • KPres||

    "Paul Ryan's budget destroys Medicare."

    Oh my God, I wish.

    Anyway, where's shrike? He's always claiming (when cornered) he hates medicare. You'd think he'd be all over Tony on this one...

  • Ken Shultz||

    Shrike claims to hate Medicare?

    I think he was saying he doesn't like the individual mandate, too.

    Sometimes I think it's just an aesthetic thing with people. They don't like Bush's policies, because he speaks with a bit of a drawl, but they'll instinctively defend the same thing when it's coming from someone they consider more...aesthetically appealing.

  • KPres||

    Maybe it's medicaid.

    Of course it's an aesthetic thing. Shrike is a flaming progressive, who doesn't want to carry the feminized image that goes along with that, so he tries to claim to be libertarian. He'll come out every once and a while and claim to oppose medicare/medicaid, but then never defend that position.

    Of course, it's hard to blame people for acting this way. Politics is collectivism by definition, meaning your individuality gets ignored in favor of the group you associate with. People don't like that so they're sensitive to it. That's why collectivism sucks.

  • SugarFree||

    If only the Republicans really wanted to gut the safety net, it might actually inspire me to vote for some of them again.

    ^THIS^

  • Ken Shultz||

    Yeah, Tony's wrestling with the shadows of his imagination.

  • #||

    I wish real republicans were even half of the fantasy republicans liberals have in their heads.

  • ant1sthenes||

    A safety net is supposed to break a fall. If you just stay there and hang out, the term is "hammock".

  • SugarFree||

    To be fair, they aren't thinking of a high-wire act type safety net anyway. The phrase is accented on net, as in something someone catches you in and you become hopelessly entangled.

  • sarcasmic||

    ^this^

    There is a difference between helping someone in need and rewarding sloth.

  • Killazontherun||

    If you just came up with that, I bow my head before your genius.

  • Ska||

    I'll be on 3rd in the notorious hammock district.

    (Could not resist....)

  • ||

    You can come and hang out in my banana hammock, if you like. Just sayin'.

  • SugarFree||

    "The best thing about Warty's Banana Hammocks is that Warty gets in them with you."

  • ||

    I just met you
    And this is crazy
    But here's my banana hammock
    So climb in, maybe

  • SugarFree||

    I sing that in my head, just like I read all your comments, Warty... In The Cookie's Monster's voice.

  • SugarFree||

    damn you typing

  • Charlotte Sometimes||

    Wait--I thought Cookie Monster's voice was reserved for STEVE.

  • SugarFree||

    It was one of the suggestions, but I always asserted the STEVE sounded like a Monty Python Gumby.

    But who can really say? Between the screaming and the ones who just go catatonic, how can we get any reliable evidence from eyewitnesses?

    Also, band for you: Bloody Red Shoes

  • Charlotte Sometimes||

    I like it! Thanks,SF. I get the best music links from you and Lord H.

  • rac3rx||

    Can anyone explain how Johnny Mac was a victim of "white racial resentment politics" (whatever the hell that is)?

    Tony's words appear to be English, but they have absolutely no meaning.

  • ||

    Considering the original Tea Party was an organic mobilization against Bush's TARP (One could posit it as the straw that broke the camels back) I would assume they were strewn about the country bitching about the fiscal irresponsibility of Bush on various blogs, discussion boards, and comment sections.

    The Tea Party as it is now (co-opted by the GOP) will go quietly into the night (except for the ones that have always been about decreasing the size and scope of the Federal Government).

    And would you please stop with this fucking retarded "Paul Ryan wants to gut medicare" bullshit? Wanting to spend $4.9T instead of $5.9T is not some draconian, throw old people in the street, difference.

  • ||

    Granny's not gonna like what Paul Ryan has in mind for her Medicare.

    That is not true. It is pretty easy to say if you are over 55 we will not touch your benefits. Same thing with social security.

    Also stop calling it a safety net. Middle class entitlements are not a safety net. Safety nets would be far less expansive and actually target people who have fallen.

  • Jordan R.||

    CAN WE TALK MOAR ABOUT LOGICAL FALLASEES PLEESE?

  • T||

    No kitty picture = fail.

  • Alex the wolf||

    come on guys, Romney is the closest you get to limited govt. in the soviet republic of massachussets. How long would Gary Johnson last in Boston?
    The problem is when you want to impose what bostoners want in Oklahoma City

  • Ken Shultz||

    Yeah, I think etch-a-sketch is a good thing.

    I mean, I don't trust Romney to be a great capitalist or a great libertarian, but the argument that he had to do what he had to do in order to win and keep office in Taxachusetts is a valid one.

    I'd also offer up, though, that if he did what he had to do to win reelection in Massachusetts, we should probably expect him to do whatever he has to do to win reelection at the national level, too.

    Those things probably aren't gonna be what libertarians want, but we might console ourselves with the realization that at least Romney isn't as likely to be openly hostile to capitalism like Obama was.

    And in this ugly era, that's a big plus.

  • T o n y||

    Romney's version of capitalism is openly hostile to human beings.

    No doubt he'll support every single demand of the Chamber of Commerce and return every single favor asked of the dominant corporations. What that has to do with the virtues of market capitalism, I don't know.

  • ||

    The shadows that swim in your head sound pretty damn frightening. Tell us more.

  • T o n y||

    Even more bizarre than the strange steadfastness of my worldview is how much grief I can get for doing nothing but criticizing sleazy Republicans. And then how much I get for any slight hint that this place may just be dominated by Republican apologists.

  • ||

    Oh, I hold no love for republicans either, and you know this, I just don't think they are all meeting in Monty Burns' secret lair inside Mount Springfield deciding the entire fate of the world. (Just like I don't think Soros, Buffet, and Obama have a secret cabal that meets underneath a volcano in the Pacific plotting on how they will destroy America and capitalism.)

  • ||

    Even more bizarre than the strange steadfastness of my worldview is how much grief I can get for doing nothing but criticizing sleazy Republicans.

    You spend far more time defending Crony democrats from libertarian criticism then anything.

    In fact i am pretty sure i have criticized republicans more then you...I am also positive Reason Magazine has done it more and better then you ever have.

  • Ken Shultz||

    He attacks Republicans for being libertarians when they're not.

    Then he attacks libertarians for not being Democrats.

    That's his MO.

    And it's ridiculous.

    And the longer it goes on, the more ridiculous it gets.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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

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

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement