Reason TV Replay: Sen. Jim DeMint on Why Republicans Must Become More Libertarian

After a solid drubbing on Tuesday, Republicans are looking for answers to their electoral woes. Perhaps it's time for the party to live up to their limited government rhetoric and take a few notes from the libertarian playbook.

Back in February Reason's Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch spoke with Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) about why Republican survival is predicated on the GOP becoming more libertarian.

Here is the original text form them the February 7, 2012 video:

"The new debate in the Republican party needs to be between conservatives and libertarians," says Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.). "A lot of the libertarian ideas that Ron Paul is talking about...should not be alien to any Republican."

Yet right after the 2010 midterm elections, the influential Tea Party favorite proclaimed that "you can't be a fiscal conservative and not be a social conservative," a comment that was widely viewed as a slap at libertarians. And South Carolina's junior senator is also a staunch pro-lifer, has favored a constitutional ban on flag burning, and is on the record saying that gays shouldn't be allowed to teach at public schools.

More recently, DeMint has been leaning libertarian. His new book, Now or Never: Saving America from Economic Collapse, is a warning to the nation that we need radical spending cuts (including putting defense spending on the table) or else face economic oblivion. And he was instrumental in getting Tea Party Republicans elected in 2010, including the most libertarian member of the caucus, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who also wrote the foreword to DeMint's book.

Reason's Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch sat down with DeMint for a wide-ranging discussion about fiscal vs. social conservatism, cutting spending, the GOP presidential nomination, whether the Tea Party still matters, and much more.

Approximately 29 minutes.

Shot by Meredith Bragg and Jim Epstein; edited by Epstein.

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.

  • ||

    Looking for answers. The answer is starting them right in the face: quit being so retarded on social issues.

  • Hyperion||

    Yep, but the old guard cannot. Until the GOP get rid of those old cronies, they are screwed.

  • Killazontherun||

    The Obama campaign put out the Lena Dunham ad and they still won.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    DeMint is the #1 Senate retard then. He wants school teachers investigated to see if they are gay or promiscuous if single.

    DeMint is Todd Akin but he managed to not say anything about the benefits of rape.

  • ||

    Shrike is just mad because his Republican daddy molested him.

  • Banjos||

    Or maybe he is like Mr. Garrison, upset that his Republican father never molested him.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    I do love South Park.

    My dad was more like Randy. A likeable oaf who always meant well.

  • ||

    It's Ms Garrison now, m-kay.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    No, he's back to Mr. Garrison again:

    http://www.southparkstudios.co.....ek-a-penis

  • Lyle||

    Pat Robertson is seeing the light on marijuana. Know hope.

    There are also plenty of social conservative arguments that can be made in support of gay marriage and legalization of drugs.

  • American||

    Reason is run by atheists who think that everyone is a free-marketeer just dying to build a buisness and give to charity to support their fellow man. What Reason and Mr.Gillespe don't understand is that there are reasons why people vote Democrat, and the two big reasons, race and feminazism, are never discussed on reason, nor is the subject of intelligence.

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    Troll much? Or are you really that ignorant of Reason?

  • Mr Whipple||

    What Reason and Mr.Gillespe don't understand is that there are reasons why people vote Democrat,

    It has nothing to do with getting FREE STUFF

  • American||

    The definition of retardation is not something sage doesn't agree with.

  • Hyperion||

    Well, practically all of us Ls have been saying this, like, forever. I actually gained a lot of respect for Demint after that interview.

    I wouldn't mind seeing a follow up with Demint on that subject, to see if he is still enlightened or if he needs to jump back on the same ol same ol worn out shit, hint hint, you guys listening???

    GOP either goes a lot more Libertarian or they are screwed. The SoCons have got to go.

    Someone please punch Orin Hatch right in the mouth, now, just to emphazie the point.

    This is just the election that we needed, folks.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    This is just the election that we needed, folks.

    Yep. A devastating blow to SoCons across the board should be regarded by everyone except SoCons as a very good thing.

    This should be a very bright sign signaling to the party that SoCon issues can only work in some state and local races; that it is no longer a plank that can be part of Team RED in national elections.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    The key socon issues in this election were:

    -federal funding for Planned Parenthood

    -The HHS mandate requiring employers to include birth control in employee health insurance.

    As it happens, the socons and libertarians take the same view on these issues (against) and the voters took the opposite view (yay! free stuff!)

    So the same reasoning which calls for throwing social conservatives over the side also calls for rejecting libertarianism, since according to the latest voting results, they have both been weighed in the balance and found wanting.

    In addition to that, consider the issue of single motherhood, which the socons have been warning against for goodness knows how long - at least since the Moynihan Report. We've seen that single mothers, lacking a husband to support them, support a shotgun marriage to the public to make the latter pay for the stuff they don't have a husband to bring for them.

    Reject the socons and swallow single motherhood, and libertarianism goes down the toilet, too.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    You seem to be seeing the election in tunnel vision, viewing the presidential election as the only factor in play.

    Recreational marijuana was passed in 2 not insignificant states, one of them a swing state, and a state in which pot legalization received more votes than did Obama. Med pot was passed in yet another, bringing the total to 16. Gay marriage was passed in 2 more states, and an anti gay marriage proposal was shot down in another.

    Open your eyes.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    The dope votes were great news, but I don't see how they confirm a global narrative of people being libertarian across the board.

    Gay marriage is a matter of deciding to have the government tolerate certain behavior and suppress other behavior (private parties adopting an opposite-sex definition of marriage). It's the ideal social issue for liberal types - freedom for the stuff we love, suppression for what we hate.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Don't forget the tax-increase vote in California - not exactly a vote for libertarianism.

    It's going to be difficult enough to persuade these voters of the virtues of limited government, but to rake the socons with friendly fire will make it all the more difficult. The libertarians lost on two issues where they were *allied* to the socons (PP funding and HHS mandate).

  • ||

    The majority of Californians voted for the tax increase because the majority of Californians won't have to pay it.

  • The Heresiarch||

    Except for the sales tax part.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    And the worse economic environment that it creates.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    No one said that it confirms libertarianism across the board.

    But that it is a repudiation of social conservatism.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Yes, just as the support for the HHS mandate and PP funding was a repudiation of social conservatism. Sorry, libertarians, it's not zero sum - it's not libs up, socons down.

  • entropy||

    Everyone and their grandmother too wants to frame the election results as a vindication of what they believe.

    The big race was the presidential one, and neither Romney nor Ryan are socon heroes. The campaign ran on jobs, jobs, jobs, and the economy. Not much lip service was even given to socon issues. Even stuff like the HHS mandate was mostly just an old news cycle and not made a forefront issue.

    The only one injecting social issues into this election were the democrats, and there their social issues are as offensive to libertarians as they are to conservatives. Something about making catholics pay for gold-plated birth control out of cultural spite, free tax funded abortions up to age 3, free tax funded government children's programming on TV, and free tax funded cellphones for all the minorities in Cleveland apparently.

    I don't particularly want to think that's why they won.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Everyone and their grandmother too wants to frame the election results as a vindication of what they believe.

    THIS. A million times.

    I don't particularly want to think that's why they won.

    They sure as hell didn't win talking about jobs.

  • Virginian||

    But it is! The country is not what it was. It took them right on 100 years, but they've finally accomplished their goal: There are enough people getting checks from the government to reelect the guy who promises bigger checks. That's all there is to it. More free shit. Gimme gimme gimme.

    You don't need to persuade a taxpaying majority, don't need to guilt them into providing for the "poor" and the "needy". The "needy" have the numbers now. Democracy is a good thing!

    It doesn't matter how you package fiscal conservatism, because the issue is a moral one. Not about who's dick goes where, or what substances you ingest. I'm talking about the fact that a majority of the country not only denies that they're parasites and moochers, but celebrates the exquisite and beautiful justice that other people are subsidizing their life.

  • entropy||

    In war (and in politics, see Clausewitz) numbers alone confer no advantage. There has been much study and thought done on this premise from the political view. Most ruling regimes throughout history had no majority support. Many had tiny cliques, some had large pluralities.

    In insurgencies and revolutions, a bit of literature on which went around during the Iraq war, I found out 12% is fricken huge in terms of insurgency. If 12% of the public is armed against it, the ruling regime is in big trouble, things have gotten very serious. If it's 20% the regime is absolute toast. Some far right militia type websites talk about 3%ers, I think that's the number. That's what they figure was the actual percentage of colonists in favor of the Revolutionary War and willing to fight at the time when it first started. It sure as hell wouldn't have polled well, that I know. Do you want to declare war on the King Yes/No?

    There is such a thing as a force multiplier. Enthusiasm. Fewer people can still make history, if they're willing to work harder for it.

  • Lewisite||

    "Enthusiasm. Fewer people can still make history, if they're willing to work harder for it"

    I can see where the motivated often triumph over the apathetic in both politics and war.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    To be fair, the American revolution came very close to failing several times early in the war... and no doubt some overreaction and atrocities committed by the British won more colonials over to the rebels' cause.

  • entropy||

    You know, I actually happen to think all the minorities in Cleveland really should get free cell phones.

    So they can videotape the cops.

    I just wish some private non-profit or activist group or think tank had crowd-funded it instead of letting Patrons buy clientela with it.

  • Nick Griffin||

    Politics is about compromise and prioritizing. Not compromising principle but gains. GJ was not campaigning to get rid of all federal taxes, but the most oppressive and intrusive along with the IRS and replace it with the Fair Tax, a position that is politically possible that would be progress. Same with legalizing marijuana.

    Libertarians as politicians should advocate budget cuts that are the real problems, like the $700B military budget not the $250M planned parenthood budget which was targeted as an abortion provider. The last items to cut should be the social welfare programs for the poor. It is not only the decent approach, but god politics.

  • Virginian||

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/.....snt-matter

    3) In Fiscal Year 2011, the federal government collected $2.303 trillion in tax revenue. Interest on the debt that year totaled $454.4 billion, and mandatory spending totaled $2,025 billion. In sum, mandatory spending plus debt interest totaled $2.479 trillion… exceeding total revenue by $176.4 billion.

    For Fiscal Year 2012 which just ended 37 days ago, that shortfall increased 43% to $251.8 billion.

    In other words, they could cut the entirety of the Federal Government’s discretionary budget– no more military, SEC, FBI, EPA, TSA, DHS, IRS, etc.– and they would still be in the hole by a quarter of a trillion dollars.

    If you can't cut 250 million, how the fuck are you going to cut 250 billion (let's just say that a third of the military budget is unnecessary)?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    To be fair, there is no such thing as mandatory spending (aside from the debt interest, arguably). Medicare and SS could be ended by an act of Congress tomorrow if they wanted.

  • Bee Tagger||

    Yep. A devastating blow to SoCons across the board should be regarded by everyone except SoCons as a very good thing.

    Here's the thing though, I think SoCons already saw Romney as a compromise with the GOP establishment. So they now may be thinking this is the time to shape the GOP into a SoCon shape.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    And they will lose.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Now way.

    It is Rick Santorum's "turn" now.

  • Turd in the Punchbowl||

    Er, like the libertarians? Sorry, but while the SoCons may not be everyone's cup of tea, they're still a larger constituency (by far) than libertarians.The Republicans cater to the SoCons for a very good reason: that's where the votes are.

  • squarooticus||

    Libertarians and the libertarian-leaning are young people, and are a growing constituency.

    SoCons are old people, and are shrinking as a percentage of the population (despite reproducing like rabbits).

    Sticking with the SoCons guarantees a slow demographic death. Jettisoning them will be bad for the short term but will eventually eliminate the level of repugnancy from the GOP that makes the coastal states one-party.

  • Virginian||

    The libertarian leaning young who think student loan "forgiveness" is a great idea? Who think Obamacare is awesome? I'm 23 dude, you're being way too optimistic here.

    They're not libertarian, they're leftist. Because they combine social liberalism with socialist economics. I mean I'm all about making common cause here, and it's good that they're sensible about pot and gay marriage, but that's because they're Democrats, not because they're libertarians.

    I think you overstate people's clarity of thought. I think more then half of committed voters, whether Team Red or Team Blue, do so because of cultural markers and comfort. Look at all those videos of people voting Obama who have no idea what his policies are. They like the ad campaign, nothing more, nothing less.

  • Turd in the Punchbowl||

    SoCons are old people, and are shrinking as a percentage of the population (despite reproducing like rabbits).

    I've been hearing that for at least forty years (and it's probably been getting said longer than that, I just wasn't around to hear it).

    Somehow, that proposition never quite seems to pan out. Young people eventually become old people. Guess what happens to their views?

    If you seriously believe all of today's young people will still be holding the same views forty years from now, I submit you're just not paying attention.

  • squarooticus||

    So what you're saying is you really think young, pro-choice social progressives today are going to suddenly become racist, homophobic, pro-life xenophobes when they get older?

    What changes are social mores: society becomes more permissive as time goes on, and old people just look conservative relative to the changing standard because they don't keep up with the times.

    The GOP is far more socially progressive today than they were back in the 60's. As a party, they even believe in equal rights for blacks now! I understand there is a natural constituency for "keep things the way they are!", but I don't want that permanently dragging down the "government shouldn't control everyone and everything!" movement, which is arguably where we are with today's GOP. (No, they don't actually believe in smaller government, but there is a perception that they do, and small government types who are caught up in the two-party system see the GOP as the lesser evil from that perspective.)

  • Virginian||

    The GOP is far more socially progressive today than they were back in the 60's. As a party, they even believe in equal rights for blacks now!

    The GOP has always been in favor of equal rights for blacks, since the founding of the party. What happened in the 60s was that Democrats finally came around to that position.

  • ||

    The GOP has always been in favor of equal rights for blacks, since the founding of the party. What happened in the 60s was that Democrats finally came around to that position.

    You left off the ending to that: "... by jettisoning white Southerners, who made the GOP what it is today."

  • Virginian||

    The GOP has always been in favor of equal rights for blacks, since the founding of the party. What happened in the 60s was that Democrats finally came around to that position.

    You left off the ending to that: "... by jettisoning white Southerners, who made the GOP what it is today."

    Well, we can play "find the secret racists" all day long, but the fact of the matter is that the Republican Party was founded to oppose slavery, and supported every single civil rights measure ever passed at the federal level, and in overwhelming numbers.

    The Republican Party has a lot to be ashamed of from a liberty standpoint. Their (historically speaking) recent embrace of an aggressive and anti-republican foreign policy, the War on Drugs, the gay marriage policies, and many others. But for the entire period of their existence, they have fought slavery and Jim Crow. From Lincoln all the way to the final passage of the Voting Rights Act and Civil Rights Act, the Republican Party did the right thing on race relations in America. One of the more aggravating bits of stupidity they have is never bringing light to the fact that there people like Truman and FDR were virulently racist and did everything they could to prop up Jim Crow.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    by jettisoning white Southerners, who made the GOP what it is today."

    Which is why it took the Republicans 30 years to gain a majority in the Congress, dumbass.

  • Sudden||

    So what you're saying is you really think young, pro-choice social progressives today are going to suddenly become racist, homophobic, pro-life xenophobes when they get older?

    Nice false choice you got there.

  • squarooticus||

    I was responding to Turd, whose implication was that as young people get old, they become SoCons. Yeah, maybe by standing still they're increasingly socially conservative relative to young people giving/getting blow jobs instead of a handshake, but not relative to their parents, who were actually racist, homophobic, and xenophobic.

    The GOP's strategy is to be the party of buggy whips and Walkmans. I fail to see how this is a winning strategy in the long run.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    “There is not really any courage at all in attacking hoary or antiquated things, anymore than in offering to fight one’s grandmother. The really courageous man is he who defies tyrannies young as the morning and superstitions fresh as the first flowers”

    -- GK Chesterton

    Got news for you -- govt was a lot smaller in the age of Walkmans than it is in the age of iPhones.

  • entropy||

    No, they won't become racist homophobic xenophobes.

    Yes, they may become pro-life, as they stop running around having promiscuous sex and start having children. I suppose they may also become any of those other things, but it really misses the point.

    The debate will change. The issues being debated will change. And their views will also change. How old are you? I've been basically libertarian my whole life, but that's not to say my views haven't changed. At one point, I was briefly struck with neoconism. Then I got better.

    I'm not that old, but young people - lets be frank, are mostly stupid. By definition we are talking about a group of people defined around the fact that they lack significant experience of anything.

    People get more economically conservative/libertarian as they get older. Because they have more experience working in an actual economy. At 22, some goofy college student has only had experience flipping fries for minimum wage and having someone else (who's willing to wipe their ass) pay for everything.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Precisely. A lot of the most ardent drug warriors and internet porn censors of today were giddily fornicating and getting high when they were young.

  • entropy||

    I'm going to be fornicated and intoxicated until the day I die from it, but you are right about that.

  • ||

    You're going to be fornicated? That just sounds wrong.

  • shamalam||

    I've been hearing that for at least forty years (and it's probably been getting said longer than that, I just wasn't around to hear it).

    Somehow, that proposition never quite seems to pan out. Young people eventually become old people. Guess what happens to their views?

    ^^ THIS ^^

  • crazyfingers||

    But let's look at this honestly, the notion that the national GOP is some sort of radical soCon entity is almost entirely a made up Democratic talking point/liberal media narrative -- similar to how the left liked to pretend Paul Ryan's deficit-laden proposed budget really was an extreme "austerity" measure that would put grandma on the street.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Is it? (Hint: no).

    Abortion, despite a legal battle that was lost 4 DECADES ago, is still the number 1 question on the GOP purity test. The GOP finds any reason it can to start a new "unborn personhood" amendment in Congress VIRTUALLY EVERY YEAR. They openly castigate drug users, gambling, prostitution, and anything else that could be considered a vice at every opportunity.

    STOP deluding yourselves in to thinking that the GOP are victims of media "mischaracterization" and leftist propaganda, and that they didn't bring this upon themselves.

    If they've any hope in national elections, they MUST openly and actively retreat to their stated position of small government, especially in regards to social issues. It's that fucking simple.

  • squarooticus||

    If they've any hope in national elections, they MUST openly and actively retreat to their stated position of small government, especially in regards to social issues. It's that fucking simple.

    QFT.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    The War on Vice is different from the abortion question, because unlike abortion, vice involves a person's treatment/mistreatment of his or her own body and nobody else's.

    If the public were really libertarian, at the very least it would want to legalize gambling and some of the non-MJ drugs. I am not sure if this is the case, though it would be great if it were.

    Yet singling out the socons as if they're the only force behind the War on (certain kinds of ) Vice is midleading. There's a strong antivice component in the progressive Dem community, as shown right here on H&R.

    Obama didn't campaign on legalizing gambling, dope and other drugs - the social issues he focused on were free abortions and free birth control, where he attacked libertarians as well as socons.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    The War on Vice is different from the abortion question, because unlike abortion, vice involves a person's treatment/mistreatment of his or her own body and nobody else's.

    The idea that a fetus is a person (human, whatever) is a philosophical position, not a scientific one. See my argument below.

    If the public were really libertarian, at the very least it would want to legalize gambling . . .

    The ONLY people who are against legal gambling are SoCons (it can be argued, persuasively even, that many progressives are SoCons, simply manifested differently). And again, I didn't argue that people are libertarian, but that they are tired of SoCons forcing their opinions on us via government (which is, in itself, a libertarian position).

    Obama didn't campaign on legalizing gambling, dope and other drugs - the social issues he focused on were free abortions and free birth control, where he attacked libertarians as well as socons.

    See argument above. Many things were voted on on Tuesday, not just who is to be president. Taking as a whole, the latest election day and its very clear results on social matters should show all of us that social conservatism as part of a national platform is dead.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    ...it can be argued, persuasively even, that many progressives are SoCons, simply manifested differently

    Yep, progressives are christian fundamentalists that have substituted Yahweh for Big Brother.

    Among other commonalities, their hatred of the profit motive and suspicion of markets are straight out of traditional christianity.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: mad libertarian guy,

    The ONLY people who are against legal gambling are SoCons

    Leftists are SoCons, except their chosen targets are different compared to those of their fellow SoCons on the right: The Left also want to right perceived wrongs that represent an obstacle to achieving Paradise on Earth.

    Leftists are not against legalizing drugs, for NOW. But they're against many other simple pleasures enjoyed by man, just like their Christian socialist brothers.

  • Voros McCracken||

    "The ONLY people who are against legal gambling are SoCons"

    As best as I can tell, that's actually not true. The real force behind it appears to be some form of protectionism. Either for casinos or for sports leagues or for government run lotteries, the forces aligned against legalized gambling all seem to financially benefit from its continued prohibition and all make political contributions as such.

  • crazyfingers||

    They nominated a guy who not very long ago was adamantly pro-choice; that's not exactly the mark of an extreme anti-abortion party.

    It is not as if the Democratic Party doesn't "openly castigate drug users, gambling, prostitution, and anything else that could be considered a vice at every opportunity." Do you not remember Harry Reid last year calling for the end of legal brothels in Nevada? Him and his cohorts were also the driving force behind banning popular poker websites a few years back. And of course there is that recent HandR blog entry about the long-time Democrat douche talking about the evils of marijuana. In fact the only difference I can tell is the Dems are more openly pro-abortion and think the government should be able to force private religious institutions to pay for birth control.

    A couple of blown up comments by Rush Limbaugh or Todd Akin are not representative of tens of millions of Republicans or even the leadership. The left are professional liars and you apparently have fallen for it hook line and sinker.

  • squarooticus||

    What percentage of national GOP politicians are not pro-life?
    What percentage don't wear Jesus on their sleeves?
    What percentage are in favor of same-sex marriage?

    The GOP is heavily socially conservative at the national level, and young people find it repugnant. I don't really understand how this is in any way controversial, but I welcome an explanation.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    I don't really understand how this is in any way controversial, but I welcome an explanation.

    People are deluding themselves in to thinking that the GOP are solely the victims of leftist propaganda, rather than making their own bed to lay in.

  • sloopyinca||

  • Killazontherun||

    ^this. I can't believe how much proglodyte group think has entered our discussion here, after months of showing they understood the nuance involved that Eduard van Haalen writes about above. It's like after the elections the Reason editors and many of you freaked out and dumped it all for a good old fashion bend over.

    And the dumping on the GOP. Yes, they lost. I'm more concerned about the winners. If the fiscal cliff didn't scare the shit out of the country, if chronic unemployment and an under performing economy were not taken seriously, if record high energy prices did not as well, and the guy who promised to let the Federal Government waste 40 trillion of our wealth over the next ten years lost to the guy promising to divert 42+ trillion, we are fucking kidding ourselves if we think the people are interested in what we have to say about getting our fiscal house in order just so long as we promise to legalize marijuana and hand out cocaine.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    For proof that the GOP can win if they dump social issues on the curb, look no further than TWO FUCKING YEARS AGO, when libertarian(ish) candidates who oppose the drug war, and oppose using government to force their positions of all of us CLEANED FUCKING HOUSE.

    When the GOP sticks to NOTHING but the idea of small government, they can and do win. It's not a matter of free shit. It's a matter of intellectual honesty and not being hypocritical in their ideology v how they implement their ideology.

    If you are for small government, you must actually be for small government to win.

  • Jeff||

    But the difference in 2010 was turnout. The Obama voters didn't turn out because their God-King wasn't on the ballot, so the Republicans cleaned up.

    And that's the real reason Romney could never have won. The issues didn't matter because Obama is a personality cult president, pure and simple.

  • Killazontherun||

    Forcing institutions to fund abortions and birth control came out of Obamacare. What is small government about that? The abortion issue is no longer about freedom of choice, it is about valuing a certain Flukian lifestyle above all others through public subsidy and that is as disturbing as any outcome of this election. And, yes, free shit won.

    The commercials were about what Romney would take away from you. They even ran with a new free shit commercial in the last week of the campaign featuring Lena Dunham of all the repulsive brainless people on the planet. If it were not for the promises of free shit triumphing over all, the matters I listed above would have been taken seriously by the public when they chose their party nominations (you know, where the small gov guy lost) and later sent off to win the general election.

    Small government was on the table but did not have a chance. It is popular in some local races but for now it has no place on the national stage where it dies from ridicule from the all so serious press. Maybe that will change in the future, but that was how it stood in 2012.

  • Killazontherun||

    Hell, the truth of the matter, if Bush ran as the small gov candidate in 2000 he would never had won. If he didn't expand the National Security state, pass Sarbanes-Oxley to appease the cries for a blood letting, pass Medicare part D, he would have likely lost in 2004. Free shit, and punishing rich people is where it's at.

  • Killazontherun||

    he would never had won been nominated in the primary race against McCain

    Meant to fix that.

  • Blueman||

    Somehow I don't think they are going to get that message.

  • Wintermute||

    Excellent interview, Gentlemen!

  • Killazontherun||

    Excellent name, gentleAI.

  • Killazontherun||

    Seriously, it pisses me off the attention that Skynet gets. You were always the best.

  • squarooticus||

    As I've been saying for close to a decade, the Republicans need to end their association with the SoCons if they don't want to meet demographic death. The simple fact of the matter is that many, many people who vote Democrat do so not because they are in love with the Dems' spending profligacy but because the Republicans' viewpoints on social issues are so backward and repugnant.

    There is a natural liberty constituency for people who believe in economic freedom (relatively; I'm an anarchist, but that's not what I mean) as well as social freedom. And in my experience it's possible to educate young people on the social justice of free markets, versus the crony capitalism that both major parties espouse today, while it's basically impossible to get them to think teh geyz are ebil, that people who want to come to the US to work are our enemies, and that abortion in (say) the first month of pregnancy is any more meaningful than surgically removing a mole.

    But non-stop over the past few days, all I've been hearing about is "we need to appeal to the Latinos and blacks" and other identity politics BS. Those things may be true, but they are only a small part of a larger but simpler story: that you need to appeal to all people, not just to Jesus freaks. As demographics shift away from old religious xenophobes to young social progressives, thinking the way to greater freedom is through laws imposing your own vision of how others should live their lives is insane.

  • squarooticus||

    (Cont'd, getting around the twit filter)

    Bottom line: the GOP must not let the left permanently associate social liberty with economic authoritarianism in the eyes of the majority, because then everyone, SoCons included, will lose any ability to live the way they want without interference from others.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    everyone except unborn children

  • sloopyinca||

    You can't play identity politics with a fetus. They don't contribute to campaigns.

  • squarooticus||

    Unfortunately for SoCons, their belief that "life begins at conception" may be literally true from a certain perspective but the implication that all life must be protected to the same degree is simply never going to be accepted by the majority. That scab I just picked off my butt is human life, too, but I don't think twice about flushing it down the drain: the interesting part about embryos is their *potential* to turn into fully-functioning humans under the right conditions, but they are not an interesting form of human life by themselves at that stage.

    This is one example of where SoCons just need to get over it: their belief that there is one correct viewpoint on this issue is a posteriori not true, and while I'm perfectly fine with efforts to change peoples' minds through education and/or social pressure, the moment they try to get the government to enforce their preference on the rest of us, I draw the line.

  • sloopyinca||

    That scab I just picked off my butt is human life, too,

    This is just idiotic.

    This is one example of where SoCons just need to get over it: their belief that there is one correct viewpoint on this issue is a posteriori not true, and while I'm perfectly fine with efforts to change peoples' minds through education and/or social pressure, the moment they try to get the government to enforce their preference on the rest of us, I draw the line.

    Funny, there are many pro-life libertarians and I would imagine most of us believe a proper role of government is to enforce the human rights that personhood are supposed to guarantee all of us.

  • squarooticus||

    That scab I just picked off my butt is human life, too,

    This is just idiotic.

    This is not a rebuttal.

    Funny, there are many pro-life libertarians

    I know many of them. This is not a shocker to me.

    and I would imagine most of us believe a proper role of government is to enforce the human rights that personhood are supposed to guarantee all of us.

    And once you convince nearly everyone that embryos are persons, outlawing abortion will be non-controversial. I wouldn't hold your breath on that one. In the meantime, don't be surprised when people consider your effort to force your preference (the view that embryos are persons) on people who disagree as anti-freedom.

    Hence, why I used the phrase "a posteriori": "personhood" is simply not definable in a non-controversial way, as it necessarily involves a value judgment. Most people have concluded that 3 month old embryos are not persons in any meaningful sense, so they don't get that protection.

    As a slight aside, it seems to me a core tenet of libertarianism is that laws are self-evident: like physical laws, they should be discoverable through observation and experiment, and not invented by individuals or committees and imposed on others. Until there is the near-unanimity of thought on abortion that exists for (say) murder or theft, the personhood of embryos is simply not a law no matter how much conviction you may have on that point.

  • sloopyinca||

    This is not a rebuttal.

    OK, you want a rebuttal? It's idiotic because a developing fetus evolves into a completely independent person at some point in their life while a scab is excess human tissue with zero viability at any point in it's development and destruction.

    I'm sure you knew that though, and were arguing from a disingenuous position. Well, it's either that or you're an idiot.

  • squarooticus||

    It's idiotic because a developing fetus evolves into a completely independent person at some point in their life

    Under the right conditions, which the woman can alter through abortion.

    while a scab is excess human tissue with zero viability at any point in it's development and destruction.

    Unless a cell thereof is turned into a stem cell, in which case it is also viable, under the same conditions as the naturally-conceived embryo. This is basically what cloning is.

    It all depends on the right conditions, which science and medicine have given us control of.

    And anyway, this is all missing the point that you can argue until you're blue in the face that embryos are people, but you're never going to get near-unanimity on this point, which means imposing your will on others is authoritarian, not libertarian. You may consider the position of pro-choice people to be unreasonable, but that's simply too bad for you: you don't have a monopoly on philosophical truth. Sorry, but deal with it.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Funny, there are many pro-life libertarians and I would imagine most of us believe a proper role of government is to enforce the human rights that personhood are supposed to guarantee all of us.

    I understand and appreciate the sentiment. Unfortunately, it doesn't address, even in part, what he was saying.

    Personhood (being human, whatever the fuck you want to call it) cannot be defined by any scientific means because it is a philosophical construct. Because it cannot be defined by science, people will always disagree. And forcing your BELIEF STRUCTURE on other people via the force of government just because you happen to believe something strongly, is authoritarian, not libertarian.

    If you want to try and CONVINCE other people of the rightness of your argument, please do. Dialog is NEVER a bad thing. If you want to jail or otherwise punish others via government because you think your philosophical position is stronger than theirs is fucked up.

    Personally, I see abortion as barbaric. But not as barbaric as forcing women in to back alleys with heated wire hangers. A prohibition against abortion is only a market distortion, just like any other form of prohibition, which has a multitude of its own problems. Abortions will not stop; they will simply become part of the black market making them less safe, and forcing people to deal with some very shady individuals rather than simply going to a clinic.

  • sloopyinca||

    mad libertarian guy, it looks like you are arguing from a utilitarian viewpoint to me. And I'm sorry, but I don't see how protecting the personhood of a human being at any time in it's development is barbaric. Nobody is forcing these women into back-alley abortion mills, just as nobody is forcing them into the abortion mills that are illegal.

    Denying a person their humanity, on the other hand, is barbaric. People know their actions have consequences and those that roll the dice and get impregnated do so with the risk that they may create a person. They can give that person up for adoption if they so choose, but they are their caretaker until that person is born and have an obligation to not intentionally cause him/her harm.

    That's just my opinion and I've never imposed it on another person.

  • ||

    A butt scab does not have organized neural activity. Nor does a zygote. A five month fetus does, as do newborn infants.

    I will not comment on the lack of organized neural activity at MSNBC or Fox.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    but I don't see how protecting the personhood of a human being . . .
    Denying a person their humanity . . .

    Here is the problem (that you don't seem to grasp). It cannot be agreed upon, nor shown conclusively by science, that this position is correct in regards to an embryo. It is a philosophical construct, because the idea of humanity is a philosophical construct.

    No one is forcing women in to back alleys ANYMORE, because abortions can be had reasonably cheaply and safely. But when, by government fiat, it was illegal, and a woman still made a choice to have an abortion, she was absolutely forced to use back alley doctors. Just as those who choose to smoke crack are forced in to crack dens.

    I happen to agree with your philosophical position that abortion is barbaric. I'm simply not prepared to try and force it on anyone else, especially since "philosophical position" is just a fancy euphemism for "opinion." That is what makes my position libertarian, and yours not (unless I am misunderstanding you in my belief that you don't want to somehow use law to protect fetuses).

    To believe abortion is wrong is perfectly libertarian. To try and use government edict to force that belief on others is not.

  • sloopyinca||

    To believe abortion is wrong is perfectly libertarian. To try and use government edict to force that belief on others is not.

    Is it OK to shove a knife in a fetus' head as it is crowning?

  • mad libertarian guy||

    I never argued that it was.

  • ||

    I'm pro-choice but your reasoning is wrong, mlg. If abortion is murder than it should be banned, just like murder. Making murder illegal isn't forcing a belief on others.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    If abortion is murder . . .

    It cannot be established, other than philosophically, that it is.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Is killing a day-old infant murder?

    Many human cultures have answered no. What non-philosophical evidence do you have to the contrary?

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Is killing a day-old infant murder?

    Many human cultures have answered no. What non-philosophical evidence do you have to the contrary?

    They have not established any such thing. They have simply rationalized the murder of a 1 day old child as okay.

    Words have meanings, Tulpa.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    You're begging the question here. You're assuming YOUR view of what murder is is correct, and anyone who disagrees with it has the burden of proof to "establish" otherwise.

    You haven't established anything either, but you're going to force someone to put up with a crying baby rather than snuffing it.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    It would seem that no matter where each of us stands in the abortion debate, ALL of us would agree that a 1 day old IS human. Even the most ardent partial-birth abortion advocate would agree with that.

    Murder is not a philosophical construct. It is the killing of another human being. It's when a fetus attains the label of human being that philosophical.

    You're trying to shove a square peg in a round hole by comparing two things which are not alike.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Uh, I just gave an example of people who didn't think so -- most of human history. And in the modern era in our own culture, there are people like Peter Singer who argue that infanticide is moral.

  • Mickey Rat||

    "They have simply rationalized the murder of a 1 day old child as okay."

    As you are rationalizing that the murder of the unborn is OK.

  • Mickey Rat||

    "It cannot be established, other than philosophically, that it is."

    Neither can killing an adult human be murder. You are arguing against the very idea that humans are rights bearing entities because you do not like the moral implications with regards to abortion.

  • sloopyinca||

    Yes you did. You said trying to outlaw abortion would force people into back alleys and that was wrong. By that measure, you would have to support abortion. And until that baby is out of the womb, anything a woman does to it is her business and not mine. Shoving a knife into it's head falls under that category.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    You said trying to outlaw abortion would force people into back alleys and that was wrong.

    Are both accounts not true? Would outlawing abortion NOT force women in to back alleys, and would that NOT be wrong?

    By that measure, you would have to support abortion.

    Hogwash.

    I support the LEGALITY of abortion, but that doesn't mean I have to support abortion any more than agreeing with legalized drugs means that I must agree with using meth.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Is it OK to shove a knife in a fetus' head as it is crowning?

    Isn't that basically what a late-term abortion is?

  • sloopyinca||

    Yes. It is. But I'm the one imposing my will on other people because I think that is killing a person and should be abolished.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    But I'm the one imposing my will on other people because I think that is killing a person . . .

    You haven't, and CANNOT, establish any such thing.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    You can't rationally establish that anyone is a person, actually. It has to be a nonrational designation.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Here is the problem (that you don't seem to grasp). It cannot be agreed upon, nor shown conclusively by science, that this position is correct in regards to an embryo. It is a philosophical construct, because the idea of humanity is a philosophical construct.

    You claim ignoramus et ignorabimus concerning a scientific definition of personhood. I disagree. While we haven't reached a consensus yet, I do believe that advances in neuroscience will give us enough information at to when personhood begins. Indeed, until the last century, when we were able to observe the fetus in the womb, most people believed that personhood didn't start until the quickening. We now know that fetal neural activity begins before the fetus is big enough that it's movements can be felt by the the mother. I argue that further research will give us the evidence to solve the problem of personhood.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    While we haven't reached a consensus yet . . .

    Stop right there. Science and consensus have fuck-all to do with one another. And we cannot establish when "personhood" begins, because we cannot even agree as to what personhood is.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    And we cannot establish when "personhood" begins, because we cannot even agree as to what personhood is.

    Then how do you know already-born individuals are persons?

  • mad libertarian guy||

    By that measure, you would have to support abortion.

    Really? Are you THAT fucking retarded?

  • mad libertarian guy||

    By that measure, you would have to support abortion.
    Really?


    Are you THAT fucking retarded?

    That wasn't the quote I meant to copy/paste. Please disregard.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Really? Are you THAT fucking retarded?

    Of course I think already-born humans are persons. Just showing you that if you're playing skeptic when it comes to other people's claims, you can't present your own as beyond question.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Science and consensus have fuck-all to do with one another.

    You know what I mean. Don't be obnoxious.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Even if I extrapolate the meaning you wanted to put forth, I still disagree that neuroscience will be able to settle a philosophical question.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Why? Neuroscience has basically proven Hume's "bundle theory". Why wouldn't it be able to settle other philosophical questions concerning mind, body, and self? Are you an anti-Reductionist?

  • Mickey Rat||

    "It cannot be agreed upon, nor shown conclusively by science, that this position is correct in regards to an embryo. It is a philosophical construct, because the idea of humanity is a philosophical construct."

    The philosophical construct of personhood is that all human individuals are persons. Science shows that a fertilized ovum is an individual human. With that understanding the burden is on you to prove that a human embryo is undeserving of moral consideration, and you have done nothing convincing in that regard.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Personhood (being human, whatever the fuck you want to call it) cannot be defined by any scientific means because it is a philosophical construct. Because it cannot be defined by science, people will always disagree. And forcing your BELIEF STRUCTURE on other people via the force of government just because you happen to believe something strongly, is authoritarian, not libertarian.

    Then it's authoritarian to try and prevent people from killing any disabled person whose life they judge not worth living too.

  • Mickey Rat||

    "And forcing your BELIEF STRUCTURE on other people via the force of government just because you happen to believe something strongly, is authoritarian, not libertarian."

    So the 13th amendment is authoritarian?

    Your argument applies to every definition of personhood and every law that recognizes it.

  • kbolino||

    If conception confers personhood, and so an intentional abortion is to be considered murder, then an miscarriage ought to be considered manslaughter.

    But it is not. Nor do I see anyone advocating that every indiscretion on the mother's part ought to be punished as severely as heinous child abuse.

    There is an inherent difference between a embryo/fetus inside the womb and an infant/child outside of it. Everyone accepts this, whether they pretend to or not.

    It is as disingenuous for a pro-lifer to claim that a zygote (the single-celled product of inseminating an ovum with a sperm) is indistinguishable from a fully grown man as it is for a pro-choicer to claim that an full-term fetus is indistinguishable from an embryo.

    Conception is clearly a lower bound for the definition of personhood, and birth is clearly an upper bound, but no one actually intends to draw the line at either endpoint. Anyone who claims otherwise has accepted a dogmatic position and is not thinking through the implications.

  • kbolino||

    I count at least three instances of a/an confusion and apologize profusely to the sizable grammar Nazi contingent in advance.

  • Concerned Citizen||

    Anytime a person or group of people is deemed to be not human a horror show is about to happen. See: slaver, the holocaust, the Great Leap Forward, the Killing Fields, etc. For all the scientists on here it's disgusting how many can say a unique, living human, who exists by invitation of two people, can be equated with a mole.

  • ||

    I'm a biologist and it doesn't disgust me. My knowledge of the human body leads me to believe that a fetus isn't a separate entity from the mother until it can function on its own without being connected to the mother.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Is a tapeworm a separate entity from the human whose intestine it inhabits?

  • ||

    Tapeworms don't come from humans and they aren't connected to the human body. They merely inhabit it.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Tapeworms aren't connected to the human body? You said you were a biologist?

  • ||

    No Tulpa, can you point out the umbilical cord or vein or any other flesh connecting a tapeworm to the human body? If so, please notify the NIH, I'm sure they would be very interested in your new findings.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    WTF? The tapeworm's head connects to the intestinal wall. That's how it stays in place while everything else is being pushed through the intestine.

    You said you were a biologist?

  • ||

    It latches on, that doesn't mean it's connected in the same way your limbs are connected to your body. Either you're being intentionally obtuse or you're dumb as a post.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    What definition of "connected" are you using? A tapeworm is just as connected to the host's intestine as the wires are connected to the back of your monitor.... and a fetus is not connected to the mother's body like her legs are, either, if you're using a definition of the circulatory system being the same in both.

  • ||

    Concerned Citizen complained that the fetus was being compared to a mole. Do you see the difference between how a mole and a tapeworm are attached to the body?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    CC's complaint wasn't about the type of attachment, it was about the nature of a mole vs the nature of a fetus.

    And of course, the attachment of a mole and the attachment of a fetus are totally different anyway.

  • ||

    I know what his complaint was about. I'm saying the fetus should be considered part of the body because it is connected by flesh. In the same way a mole is part of your body because it is connected by flesh.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    And of course there are plenty of parasites that do connect themselves to the circulatory system.

  • ||

    But, again, they never came from humans. They are not human cells. Your fixation on one criteria of the entity is idiotic.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    And the circulatory systems of the mother and the fetus are totally separate. So I'm not sure what you mean by a connecting vein. The umbilical cord, of course, connects the fetus to the placenta, which is not part of the mother's body.

  • ||

    A connecting vein was one example of the way flesh connects to flesh. I didn't say that the fetus was connected to the mother's circulatory system.

    And the placenta is in fact an organ of the mother.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    And the placenta is in fact an organ of the mother.

    You fail biology forever. I mean, seriously?

  • ||

    The fetus is attached to the placenta, an organ that exchanges nutrients, waste and oxygen, which is in turn attached to the uterine wall.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    An organ of the fetus. Seriously? You don't know this?

  • ||

    Here is a picture of the placenta: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi.....acenta.svg

    It isn't an organ of the fetus. At most, it is a shared organ of the mother and fetus.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Yeah, you're a biologist who doesn't know what a placenta is. Maybe you need to go back to school?

    The placenta's blood supply is the fetus'. Which is kind of important since the mother and fetus may have different blood types.

  • ||

    The placenta is outside of the fetus. It connects the fetus to the uterine wall.

  • free2booze||

    The placenta is outside of the fetus. It connects the fetus to the uterine wall.

    You definitely fail biology

    The precursor cells of the human placenta–the trophoblasts–first appear four days after fertilization as the outer layer of cells of the blastocyst. These early blastocyst trophoblasts differentiate into all the other cell types found in the human placenta.
  • ||

    Actually you fail at reading:

    By 4-5 days after fertilization the embryo has differentiated into two distinct cell types: inner cell mass (lighter cells)–which will develop into the fetus and eventually become the newborn and trophoblasts (darker cells)–which will develop into the placenta and external membranes.
  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    And of course, prior to implantation the embryo is not connected to the body in any way.

  • ||

    So?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Your argument above is that the fetus isn't a separate entity because it's connected to the body. If you really hold to that claim, you must think the embryo IS a separate entity.

  • ||

    If you were a biologist you would know that the embryo is not a fetus until after the 8th week of implantation.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Oh my god, now we're going to play games with definitions.

    So the pre-implantation embryo is a person but the fetus, which as a biologist you know is more developed, is not?

  • ||

    Well first of all, I don't know where you got the idea that the embryo is not connected to the body. It's attached to the endometrium.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Not at first it isn't. Attachment to the endometrium is what implantation is.

  • ||

    So you're talking about abortion in the first week of pregnancy? I don't think that has anything to do with what we're talking about above.

  • ||

    Tulpa, I do embryonic assays at work all the time. Trust me, I know more about embryos than you.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    You're an anonymous person on the internet, just like the rest of us. Trusting you (or me) isn't an option.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Trust me, I know more about embryos than you.

    Like that they're always connected to the endometrium?

  • ||

    I didn't say it's always connected to the endometrium. Obtuse interpretations of my words is hardly an argument.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Here's what you wrote.

    Well first of all, I don't know where you got the idea that the embryo is not connected to the body. It's attached to the endometrium.

    If you were saying it's sometimes attached, then that's a pretty dishonest response to my statement.

  • ||

    And talking about the first week of pregnancy in response to my argument about the fetus is pretty dishonest.

  • Brian D||

    I'm a biologist and it doesn't disgust me. My knowledge of the human body leads me to believe that a fetus isn't a separate entity from the mother until it can function on its own without being connected to the mother.

    Advances in technology push this time closer and closer to the moment of conception. Would you say that an egg taken from a female and fertilized by a sperm cell in a petri dish, then grown from there without ever being in a human female is a person from the moment of fertilization?

  • ||

    Without a host, it is its own entity. Whether that is sufficient for making it a person is a separate issue. Note that my argument only states that the fetus is not a separate entity from the mother, therefore it cannot be a person.

    Tulpa confused the issue by interpreting my argument as "no connection = person."

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    But this position is preposterous. The embryo is not connected to the mother's body in any way until implantation. Therefore, your position requires that the pre-implantation embryo is an "entity", then ceases to be an entity, then becomes an entity again at birth.

    Leaving aside the fact that the question of what is an entity is metaphysical, not biological anyway.

  • ||

    Therefore, your position requires that the pre-implantation embryo is an "entity", then ceases to be an entity, then becomes an entity again at birth.

    And that's preposterous because...?

    At least you've stopped saying that I believe embryos are persons. He's learning!

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    It's a wonderful learning experience for all of us tonight. I taught a biologist about placentas being part of the fetus and embryos not attaching to the endometrium until implantation, so I feel pretty proud.

    Your position is preposterous because it requires that an entity stops being an entity and then starts being an entity later on. What is it in between these times?

  • ||

    Placentas aren't part of the fetus you idiot. There's a reason why FGR is separated into maternal, placental, and fetal causes.

  • ||

    Your position is preposterous because it requires that an entity stops being an entity and then starts being an entity later on. What is it in between these times?

    Between those times? What are you talking about? The embryo is either connected or unconnected to the mother. There is no "between." Your assertion is the only preposterous one.

  • ||

    Are you high dude?

    He clearly said that, according to your definition of separate entity, when the embryo is unconnected it's an entity and then when it implants, again according to your definition, it stops being an entity, and then becomes one again after the umbilical cord is cut.

    So his question is what the fuck do you call it from implantation to cutting?

  • Lewisite||

    Parasite?

  • ||

    First of all, it's not until the umbilical cord is cut, it's till viability. And you both answered your own question:

    Your position is preposterous because it requires that an entity stops being an entity and then starts being an entity later on.
    He clearly said that, according to your definition of separate entity, when the embryo is unconnected it's an entity and then when it implants, again according to your definition, it stops being an entity, and then becomes one again after the umbilical cord is cut.
  • entropy||

    I kind of agree with you. I don't have a problem with the morning after pill or plan b, which work I think up to 2 weeks after conception. I don't have a problem with stem cell research or fertility treatments. At 2 weeks after conception at the latest the embryo has the ability to split or merge, albeit extremely rarely, possibly turning into 2 different people or half a person.

    But the next time you hear about the abortion issue, think about the fact that a fetus begins to dream at 12 weeks. REM sleep, sucking it's thumb, playing with it's feet. Basically, a tiny baby.

    Heartbeat and independent movement begins at the 7th week.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    The simple fact of the matter is that many, many people who vote Democrat do so not because they are in love with the Dems' spending profligacy but because the Republicans' viewpoints on social issues are so backward and repugnant.

    Ding ding ding. We have a winner.

  • Virginian||

    The whole "GOP jettisons social issues and wins" is a talking point. Because leftists love to talk about how independent they are, and one of their main bullshit talking points is "I'm very fiscally conservative, but the social stuff keeps me voting Democrat. If the Republicans ran a moderate, I'd vote for him."

    This is a lie. Straight up. It really pisses me off how people fall for this nonsense. It falls into "Why can't they be more like the moderate Republicans of yesteryear?". It's a rationalization, not a reason. I know people are going to say "Well I know plenty of people who say this". They say it, but they would never ever go through with it. Hell, look at Scott Brown. He did everything a moderate Republican is supposed to do, and he still lost, because the left is not telling the truth. They literally never do. Their lying is pathological.

    They care, first and foremost, about the free shit machine. They don't care about war, they don't care about civil liberties, all they care about is more free shit. Because free shit is good. So please spare me this nonsense about how casting off half the party is a road to GOP victory. This country is totally fucked because a plurality of the electorate is part of the free shit army, or works for the State. Social issues is literally arguing about the color the rails on the good ship Titanic will be painted.

  • crazyfingers||

    But the "independent" (lol) Jon Stewart says that the GOP is conducting a WAR ON WOMEN!!! so it must be true.

  • Virginian||

    Yeah, just for the record, it would be wonderful if this talking point for true. But it isn't. If there was this huge block of social lib/fiscal con voters out there, Gary Johnson would have broken more then 1% of the vote.

    Please, please, please people get this through your heads. I have the same friends you do, who when you systematically destroy left wing economics will fall back on the social issues and claim that they're totally fiscally conservative, they just can't vote for those icky SoCons. Well they had their chance. Gary Johnson was literally the Republican they've always claimed they would vote for. Hell, he wasn't even a social truce guy. He was flat out pro-choice, in favor of ending the Drug War, better gay marriage stance then Obama. Not to mention antiwar and great on civil liberties So why didn't this huge mass of people who are fiscal cons and social libs vote for him?

    Because the people who vote Team Blue that aren't actually on the dole do so because of branding. Team Blue is the cool, tolerant, intelligent Team. They have actors! Musicians! Writers! Professors! Steve Jobs! It's literally all about the advertising.

    These people will never shop at WalMart. WalMart is icky and gross and declasse. But Target is awesome, even though its the exact same fucking thing with a different color scheme and higher prices. Oh, and the sporting goods aisles at target don't have ammo. Because guns are icky.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    So the lingering stench of Big Gov Bush was to be forgotten?

    The GOP has nothing to offer libertarians or liberals.

  • ||

    Listen kids, it's the mating call of Troglodytus liberalus: 'BOOOOOSH BOOOOOSH BOOOOOSH'

  • squarooticus||

    Is that you, Donderooooooo?

  • mad libertarian guy||

    The whole "GOP jettisons social issues and wins" is a talking point.

    So that must explain why the GOP was able to have record gains in Congress just 2 fucking years ago. You know, when they jettisoned social issues.

  • Virginian||

    No, because the Obama voters vote for Obama. They don't vote in off year elections. Obama lost all his independents and still won (leaving aside fraud) because he has a large group of people who venerate him. It's a fucking personality cult.

    How do you think FDR won reelection? Same fucking thing.

  • SIV||

    Rand Paul didn't get elected Senator by "jettisoning social issues". He got there by advocating small government AND saying the abortion of a child conceived in rape is still wrong.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    That works in Appalachia.

  • SIV||

    Like your Mom at a moonshiners convention.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Except that Rand Paul isn't fro Appalachia, dumbass. He's 2 separations from appalachia.

    KY is split in to essentially 3 sociological parts (I'm not even going to count Louisville). Eastern KY, Central KY, and Western KY.

    As a general rule, we talk differently (the further west you go, the slower the speech). Act differently, have different mores, and know it.

    Rand Paul is from Western KY. Appalachia is in Eastern KY.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    He did say it was wrong, while also saying that he wouldn't do anything to make it law.

    That is a fully consistent libertarian position.

  • SIV||

    He did say it was wrong, while also saying that he wouldn't do anything to make it law.

    Only this:

    I am 100% pro life. I believe abortion is taking the life of an innocent human being.
    I believe life begins at conception and it is the duty of our government to protect this life.
    I will always vote for any and all legislation that would end abortion or lead us in the direction of ending abortion.
    I believe in a Human Life Amendment and a Life at Conception Act as federal solutions to the abortion issue.

  • SIV||

    Rand proposes all sorts of Federal laws to outlaw abortion:

    http://web.archive.org/web/201.....bortion-2/

  • VG Zaytsev||

    "I'm very fiscally conservative, but the social stuff keeps me voting Democrat. If the Republicans ran a moderate, I'd vote for him."

    This is a lie. Straight up. It really pisses me off how people fall for this nonsense. It falls into "Why can't they be more like the moderate Republicans of yesteryear?". It's a rationalization, not a reason.

    Yep, I know plenty of dems that always claimed to love McCain and say that he was the kind of R that they would vote for, if only the crazy Rs would put him up.

    And then they all bragged about voting for Obama in 08.

  • sloopyinca||

    Wow. aTm just rammed it down 'Bama's throat.

    Bama loses today by at least 10 points.

  • sloopyinca||

    Interception at midfield.

    BTW, nice win Gators. Any time you can beat Louisiana Lafayette at home in Novemner by scoring two TD's in the last 4 minutes, you gotta be happy.

  • sloopyinca||

    14-0 aTm. Bama don't know what the fuck just happened.

  • sloopyinca||

    Am I the only one watching this?

  • sloopyinca||

    20-0. The rout is on...

  • Virginian||

    You know what would be delicious trolling?

    If the Aggies stomped Bama and the BCS decided they should be number one in order to keep the trophy where it belongs.

  • sloopyinca||

    Well, the SEC is just proving its depth because aTm is a conference foe. Nevermind the fact that this is their first year there and the SEC's overall OOC record this year is abysmal.

  • Virginian||

    Oh sloopy...sloopy hang on. Your SEC transplant coach will get a chance to lead tOSU to glory and victory. As soon as the sanctions run out.

  • sloopyinca||

    **sigh** Thanks for bringing that up.

    And no way the SEC gets to the NCG this year if Bama loses today. I can't see KSU or Oregon losing. ND will probably yack one away however.

  • Virginian||

    Even if ND wins out, they don't win convincingly enough for the BCS. Except the cynic in me says that if they are undefeated, the storyline of ND's triumphant return to greatness means they will get a NCG berth.

    If Klein doesn't play, I could see KSU falling.

    If all four of these teams win out, it's gonna be a real mess. When do playoffs happen again? 2 years?

  • sloopyinca||

    I think it's two more years of the bowls, counting this season. I see ND on the outside looking in. Two teams ahead of them will have to lose, and yes I could maybe see KSU losing to Texas if Klein doesn't play. However, I still don't think it's very likely, as it's two weeks away.

  • sloopyinca||

    SEC transplant coach

    WTF? The SEC was just a stop on his road back to tOSU, where he started his career and has an out clause that would let him leave for at every job he ever had.

  • Virginian||

    Haha I know, just fucking with you. I like tOSU, because I hate everything about Michigan.

  • sloopyinca||

    Did you see the way those assholes won today? If Northwestern gets that horse-collar called, they run out the clock. Or if the D-back lets the ball go instead of knocking it to the scUM receiver with 8 seconds left.

    Oh well, they've got two more weeks until they have to go to the Shoe.

  • Ted S.||

    The DB could have caught the ball, and some idiot ref would have called simultaneous possession. [pissed off]

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    I would take 3-1 odds that Alabama wins after the -20.

  • sloopyinca||

    I'll take that bet, shrikey. Loser has to stay away for a month.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    you take it nearly three hours later as time expires - you coward.

    29-24 - that is why I wanted 3-1 odds. I win money on those odds in the long run.

  • ||

    Shrike just schooled us guys. He would so theoretically make money!

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    You gotta follow Money Team Floyd Mayweather to learn how to bet

    Floyd Mayweather ‏@FloydMayweather
    30mins = $125,000 http://instagr.am/p/R3m0fEx3Y7/

  • ||

    Damn

  • sloopyinca||

    you take it nearly three hours later as time expires - you coward.

    It was a joke, dickface. Hell, I thought even you would get a kick out of that.

    29-24 - that is why I wanted 3-1 odds. I win money on those odds in the long run.

    Not at 3-1 odds. You'd need to win slightly better than 1 in 3 games to win like that. And teams rarely come back from 20 points down, as the better teams don't get down 20 points very often to begin with. If you want to win like that, you need to ask for at least 6-1 and probably at more like 10-1.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    I have been skimming the video, and so far I'm missing the part where DeMint called for abandoning the unborn or otherwise repudiating "social issues."

  • mad libertarian guy||

    And while he may win in SC, he and his "you must be a social conservative in order to be a fiscal conservative" politics would have no shot in a national election.

    At least I'm sure that most of us here would agree. I wouldn't vote for him.

  • SIV||

    Your vagina is not the most important issue in every election.

  • Brian from Texas||

    Hopefully the rest of the GOP will start to listen to people like Jim DeMint and Rand Paul. One would think Romney's defeat last Tuesday would be a big enough wake-up call but the Republicans will probably have to be dragged kicking and screaming into getting themselves straightened out by 2016.

  • sloopyinca||

    $20 says they double down on stupid.*

    *Anti-immigrant, anti-"vice", anti-gay, pro-subsidy, pro-DHS, pro-warmongering bullshit

  • squarooticus||

    I agree. I'm waiting for them to go full-retard and nominate Santorum in 2016.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Or Huckabee.

    He decided not to lose to Obama this cycle.

    Huck is the odds on favorite if he runs.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Huckabee probably would have beaten BO this time around.

    As I said when Reason first began giving its unsought opinion of why MR lost, the reality is that the easiest way to beat Obama was to run a social conservative socialist, not a libertarian.

  • Cytotoxic||

    How the hell would SoCon planks help a candidate against Obama.

    "unsought opinion"

    Fuck you. I sought their opinion. Not yours.

  • Virginian||

    Tulpa is right.

    This country does not like the free market. They like subsidies, tariffs, bailouts, welfare, entitlement programs. America is socialist, and has been so since the 1960s at the latest.

    I'm sorry, I don't see how we're hitting this libertarian moment. Of course we get more and more socially tolerant, and that is a good thing. But the State never stops growing, no matter who's in charge. Every time a somewhat laissez faire candidate has run in a national election, they got crushed. Going back to FDR.

    The options are now Christian socialism or secular socialism. That's what's on the menu. When people say "We'll end up like Europe" I laugh. We are already there.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    The socon planks keep the base intact, while the socialism gets the apathetic "moderates".

    More people voted against MR because he was rich and perceived as uncaring than voted against him because of abortion or gay marriage.

  • cw||

    If it was because he was rich, why then do voters keep returning some of the wealthiest Democrats to the Congress?*

    Not that I disagree, just that I'd like to know why Dems always get a free pass on the wealth front.

  • ||

    Because they downplay that shit and the republicans usually own their "wealthiness".

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    You mean they're going to nominate Obama?

  • Turd in the Punchbowl||

    Why? Incumbent presidents are notoriously hard to beat (only 2 have been beaten in my lifetime), and in that context Romney did pretty damned good. The only thing his defeat tells us is that you win some and you lose some.

  • Killazontherun||

    It's not a real American post election without the two week Airing of GOP. Just like the similarly named Festivus ritual but it is not allowed to stray.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    . . . Romney did pretty damned good. The only thing his defeat tells us is that you win some and you lose some.

    Not against an incumbent as bad as Obama. Anyone worth anything at all should have been able to crush Obama.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Who? How?

    There's an awful lot of certainty of the ease of beating BO considering the utter lack of any idea how to do it.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Florida certifies Allen West loser in FL House race and he refused to concede.

    He is outside the auto recount margin.

    Example #780979 of the GOP anti-reality bubble.

  • sloopyinca||

    Example #780979 of the GOP anti-reality bubble.

    Bullshit. They're way past 780,979 examples by now.

  • ||

    setting aside the problematic notion that abortion (i'm prochoice fwiw) is a "social issue" , this concept is spot on

    repubs got caught up in playing lip service and throwing some bones to the religious right and now they have abandoned, to a large extent, republicanism. go back to goldwater. goldwater has a lot of rand paul in him. santorum (remember him?) is the anti-goldwater.

    "The simple fact of the matter is that many, many people who vote Democrat do so not because they are in love with the Dems' spending profligacy but because the Republicans' viewpoints on social issues are so backward and repugnant."

    yea. like pretty much every dem/dem voter i have as a friend on facebook. they are tired of the anti-gay bullshit (and i know obama has a piss poor record on GLBT issues, but he TALKS a good game), the evolution vs. creationism crap, and stuff like that. few of them, apart from the obama cultists LIKE the dems, but the repubs are becoming their own worst enemy

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    And not just that too.

    It is the nuttiness of the GOP.

    Obama is a Muslim, not born here, not Christian, a Marxist, an anti-Colonialist, an America hater, etc.

    Fuck the idiot wingnuts.

  • Mickey Rat||

    "Fuck the idiot wingnuts."

    Says the person with THAT as his screenname. Total lack of self-awareness.

  • Concerned Citizen||

    Every day in America 4,000 unique individuals are denied their right to continue living. Reagan was right when he said "I can't help but notice that all the people who are for abortion have already been born." Their only chance at life is legally taken away. But we see footage of the Holocaust and say "never again". Except for the coolest, hippest generation ever. We're all about freedom without responsibility. And the liberals call pro lifers selfish.

  • ||

    Except they're not individuals, they're a part of the mother's body.

  • Concerned Citizen||

    Except that they have their own DNA.

  • ||

    It's likely that parts of your body have DNA that's not yours. It's called chimerism.

  • ||

    Well more specifically, it's likely that you have microchimerism. When you were a fetus, some of your mother's cells may have been exchanged with some of yours. So it's likely that your mother carries some of your cells and you carry some of hers.

  • Concerned Citizen||

    Life is life. There's no inbetween. If it isn't alive, why kill it? If it isn't human, when did inter-species reproduction become so common? Don't worry about convincing me otherwise, you never will. But you'll have to convince your Creator one day. Good luck.

  • ||

    The fetus is alive and human, but so is a foot. I'm talking about whether the fetus is a person.

    And I don't need to convince my creators. They're pro-choice too.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Biological life is not human life. A fetus is not a person anymore than a dog. Neither should have rights. I'm not even entirely against infanticide in certain circumstances.

  • ||

    Biological life is not human life.

    True, but in this case it is since the fetus has human DNA.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Having human DNA does not a person make.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    Cyto has yet to prove he is human.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Cytotoxic,

    Having human DNA does not a person make.

    Interesting proposition. Then what is it that makes a person, Cyto?
  • ||

    Having human DNA does not a person make.

    Yes, but my point is that the fetus is human. Do you deny that?

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Cytotoxic,

    A fetus is not a person anymore than a dog.

    Which would mean that a dog can strive to becoming a human, just like a fetus.

    Right, Cyto?

  • mad libertarian guy||

    This sub-thread makes my point far more eloquently than I. We can't even agree as to what personhood/ being human/ whatever you want to call it is, much less define when an embryo/fetus attains said personhood.

    These are all philosophical constructs.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Yet you seem convinced that infants are persons.

    If you're at the gas station and run into a woman with an infant in the car, who says she's going to the forest and leaving the infant there to die, because she's sick of being woken up in the middle of the night by crying, what would your reaction be? Call the police or chalk it up to freedom of choice and the mystery of personhood?

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    Don't try to talk sense with Cyto about humans right to life. He believes 6 year olds in 1945 Hiroshoma were plotting to kill FDR

  • OldMexican||

    Re: man libertarian guy,

    These are all philosophical constructs.

    So who made that statement - a philosophical construct?

    Oh, how people fall for Ye Olde Perfunctory Contradiction.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Poison a dog, or rip it limb from limb, and see how many people will defend your legal right to "choice."

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Concerned Citizen hits the nail on the head.

    If the fetus were just like a mole or a foot, aborters wouldn't be in such a rush to destroy it.

  • ||

    Concerned Citizen hits the nail on the head.

    Actually he does quite the opposite. He assumes that my argument is that the fetus isn't alive or isn't human. My argument is about personhood.

    And if I said the fetus was like a tumor or a pimple, then your semantic argument would make no sense at all.

  • Concerned Citizen||

    Nice atomic level hair splitting, I gotta admit. And by Creator, I meant the same one Jefferson referred to. Don't believe me? Talk to someone who has had a near death experience. Again, each baby who is aborted has been denied the right to continue living, and will not get that right again. Unless the God you deny intervenes.

  • ||

    Hair splitting has nothing to do with it. I agree with you that the fetus is alive and human. So your comment makes no sense as a reply to my argument.

    God must be a fucking bastard if he just lets all those innocent fetuses die. What a douche.

  • Concerned Citizen||

    God blessed us with free will. We're judged on what we do with it. Life is a test. For Christians it's an open book test, so we strive to love, forgive, and help each other. So the taking of an innocent's life is intolerable, whatever age they are. It is innately evil.

  • ||

    But apparently the God I deny intervenes!

    Concerned Citizen| 11.10.12 @ 9:15PM |#|–|filternamelinkcustom
    Unless the God you deny intervenes.

    I guess he's too busy helping Tebow to intervene for innocent fetuses.

  • Concerned Citizen||

    Ok, you are not of Faith, I get it. As Jesse Jackson said in the '70s, "the same arguments made in favor of abortion were used to defend slavery". He was still a pro life preacher when he said this. I believe he's since changed his mind in exchange for the left's love and treasure.

  • ||

    Really? So people argued that slaves were part of someone else's body? I don't think you should be getting your historical knowledge from Jesse Jackson...

    And you still haven't told me why God wouldn't intervene for the poor fetuses? Why does God hate them?

  • Concerned Citizen||

    Whatsover you do to the least of my brothers, that you do unto me.

    I'm going to pray for you, Heller.

  • ||

    That sounds really mystical and all, but can't you just tell me why God is such a douche?

  • Concerned Citizen||

    You know who else denied some their personhood?

  • ||

    You know what happens when you Godwin?

  • Concerned Citizen||

    Godwin owned slaves? News to me. But sure, Heller, claiming there's a difference between a living human with their own unique DNA and a beating heart and a person who has attained personhood at some immeasurable point, no, that isn't hair splitting. The guys at the Supercollider would like to meet with you.

  • ||

    Viability isn't immeasurable.

  • Concerned Citizen||

    Viability? That's all you got? Would you or I be viable if stranded without provisions in the Sahara? Or Antarctica? Or living next to Epi? At least slaves were counted as 3/5 of a person in the Constitution. You deny even that to babies of all races.

  • ||

    A fetus is 'viable' when it has reached the stage of development as to be capable of living, under normal conditions, outside the uterus. It has nothing to do with an adult's ability to live without food.

    Yes I am a baby eating monster. Mmmmm dead babies. Love 'em.

  • Concerned Citizen||

    And by normal conditions do you include having a knife shoved into the back of their heads as their being born to be fucking normal???

  • Concerned Citizen||

    Or the ones who survive and are left to die, sometimes taking hours to expire. Left cold and alone to fight a losing battle. Man, is their anything colder than a leftist?

  • ||

    Do you think that has something to do with what I said or are you just saying random things?

    If you're referring to late-term abortions, they're usually post-viability.

  • Concerned Citizen||

    Do you oppose partial delivery abortions? If so, it's a start.

  • ||

    As I've said on this thread, I oppose post-viable abortions. I don't even consider them abortions.

  • Brian D||

    A fetus is 'viable' when it has reached the stage of development as to be capable of living, under normal conditions, outside the uterus. It has nothing to do with an adult's ability to live without food.

    That definition still puts viability some time past the time of virtually all babies' birth, since babies have an impaired ability to regulate their own heat.

  • ||

    Again, the medical definition of viability is not living in a vacuum. It means the fetus can survive without a physiological connection to the mother.

  • ||

    The point is that if the fetus is not a separate entity from the mother, it isn't a person. Claiming this is equivalent to slavery is idiotic.

    But let's say fetuses are people. Why is God such a douche that he won't save them from being murdered?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Does God save already-born people from being murdered?

  • ||

    I don't know, I'm waiting for the Prophet to teach me about God. I can't determine anything about God so I need the Prophet.

  • Concerned Citizen||

    Freewill, my brother, free will. We're blessed with it, judged on what we do with it. If the fetus isn't a person, why does a nurse have to count the body parts after the killing, to make sure no fingers or toes were left behind.

  • ||

    So God doesn't intervene or he does? Which one is it, oh wise prophet?

  • Concerned Citizen||

    I don't speak for Him, and am too tired for a long theological discussion. I am a Catholic and a Knight of Columbus. I value my life, your life, the unborn's life the same. Science tells me that. Religion confirms it. Abortion isn't natural. Yet it's the most often performed medical procedure in the U.S.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    I value Scarlett Johanson's life more than any of you guys'. Ha.

  • ||

    Well you apparently do. I've been hearing alot about what God thinks of me and what he does and doesn't do. But you haven't given me a reason to believe you. And now you're telling me that you can't speak for God.

    Sounds to me like you're full of shit.

  • ||

    The fetus is ALWAYS a separate entity from the mother. Now that doesn't mean it is a person, necessarily, but it's totally disingenuous to pretend that they aren't two separate humans.

  • ||

    The fetus is ALWAYS a separate entity from the mother.

    I disagree. The fetus is merely an 'organ' of the mother until it can be split from her.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    Nice Emmanuel Steward tribute taking place before the Klitschko fight.

  • sloopyinca||

    Webster died?

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    Who knew Stallone was such a Klitschko fan.

  • ||

    ilya somin at volokh.com on the LP and Johnson: Although Johnson did much better than any other LP nominee in decades, there’s no evidence that it converted any significant number of people to libertarianism or attracted substantial new public attention to libertarian ideas. I watched four or five hours of election coverage on several different networks on election night (mostly CNN, Fox, and NBC). I didn’t hear Johnson’s name or the Libertarian Party’s mentioned even once. I’m sure if you scour the transcripts of all the network coverage that day, you can probably find a few references to Johnson somewhere. But, as far as the media was concerned, his campaign barely existed. You can blame this on media bias, ideological prejudice, manipulation by the major parties, and other nefarious forces. But the hard reality is that the media pays little or no attention to third party candidates unless the nominee is a famous celebrity (Ralph Nader), or can spend gargantuan amounts of his own money (Ross Perot), or was a big-time major party politician to an even greater extent than Johnson (e.g. – Georg Wallace in 1968). And that’s just one of many obstacles to developing an effective third party in the US political system, which is structurally tilted in favor of the two biggest parties. I describe some others in my postmortem on the LP’s 2008 campaign.

  • ||

    Given these realities and the failure of the LP to have an effective impact throughout its forty-year history, libertarians would be better advised to advance our cause by other means. Johnson might have done better if he had run for New Mexico’s open senate seat as a Republican. I can understand his and other libertarians’ frustration with the Democrats and the GOP, including with regard to the shabby treatment that Johnson got when he ran for the Republican nomination. But the misdeeds of the major parties don’t change the reality that the LP is a poor vehicle for promoting libertarianism. Working to make the major parties more libertarian from within is a much better strategy. Such groups as the Religious Right, labor unionists, gun rights advocates, civil rights activists, and feminists all considered third parties at various times, but ultimately realized they would do better to work within the major ones. The lessons of their experience apply to us.

    Nick Gillespie argues otherwise in this post. Much of what he says about the shortcomings of the major parties is true. But notice that he doesn’t provide any evidence that the LP has been effective in the past, or is likely to become so in the future.

  • ||

    This is not to say that all libertarians should drop everything and become Democratic or GOP activists. Party politics is far from the only way to promote libertarianism. As I have emphasized in earlier posts on this subject (e.g. here and here), libertarians have also sometimes had success in working to change public and elite opinion in other ways. If you don’t like partisan politics, you can still promote liberty by doing scholarship, blogging, policy analysis, public interest litigation, engaging in activism on specific issues such as drug legalization, or just simply working to persuade your friends and relatives that the nation would be better off with a smaller government. And that’s far from an exhaustive list. The point is not that major party politics is the only way to be effective, but that third party politics is usually ineffective. It’s long past time that libertarians fully internalized that lesson. Most in fact already have. But the LP does still include some capable libertarian leaders, activists, and donors. These people are well-intentioned in many ways admirable. But their efforts would have a bigger payoff if directed elsewhere. Compared with our liberal and conservative rivals, we have only very limited resources. We can’t afford to squander them on political dead ends.

    Political "DEAD ENDS". powerful stuff

  • sloopyinca||

    cool story, bro.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    It's not right to deprive Volokh of page views, dunphy.

  • ||

    i figger'd people would go for the discussion thread, but fair enuf

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    SO this Klitschko fight is just a promo for Rocky the Musical?

  • ||

    i like this nice heroic cop pull the woman from the burning car rescue. added points for his "S.W.A.T." pin on the uniform :)

    note also that yea, her legs are clearly broken, as you can see them lifelessly flopping about in a very icky (excuse the medical terminology) manner as he carries her.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VU2tWK4X6U

    another nice heroic cop video. you can see him look towards rapidly approaching vehicle, then grab woman, tackle her and push her (and himself ) out of the way

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hu9sxjMpWw

    two feel good videos from a VERY feel good dunphy (yea, legal marijuana)

    man, this legalized MJ feeling has some SERIOUS afterglow. i've been giddy like a little schoolgirl. :)

    also, i am not accident reconstructionist but DAMN that vehicle was hauling ass based on how much force it imparted to the stationary police car and the resultant crush damage.

  • sloopyinca||

    Cool! You only had to go back two years to find the first one.

    As to the second one, what kind of idiot pulls a car over in the fast lane on a freeway? And what kind of super idiot parks his cruiser in the fast lane of the other side without his fucking flashers turned on!? Those idiot cops endangered her life, their lives and the life of the person driving the car that came in and crashed. Thanks for pointing out their idiocy.

  • ||

    here's some phenomenal strength-endurance. you gotta give it to crossfit. they are developing some phenomenally fit athletes, with well rounded attributes.

    the guy is also yoked as #$(#$(#.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....watch-vrec

    (note: still basking in the afterglow. LEGALIZED MARIJUANA. cynics can go fuck themselves!!!! life is good)

  • sloopyinca||

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    You're so mean. Dunphy gets excited about a weightlifting video and you jump in to bring him down.

    I'm sure there are auctioneers who kill people too.

  • sloopyinca||

    I'm sure there are auctioneers who kill people too.

    Not for kicks.

  • ||

    tulpa, it's a crossfit video.

    THIS is a weightlifting video

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....re=related

    as for the resident sadsack nonothing cynic. best to ignore. it improves quality of life.

    much like living in a state that embraces privacy in its constitution. i've done ride-alongs in LAPD etc. the shit they can legally do down there due to the lack of privacy in the state constitution is way more extensive than WA state

    LAPD ridealongs are good fun

  • sloopyinca||

    as for the resident sadsack nonothing cynic. best to ignore. it improves quality of life.

    And you said you wouldn't be responding to me any more. Do you has a sad?

    much like living in a state that embraces privacy in its constitution. i've done ride-alongs in LAPD etc. the shit they can legally do down there due to the lack of privacy in the state constitution is way more extensive than WA state

    And their cops are held just about as accountable as yours. Well, at least Kelly Thomas' murderers are facing trial. John T. Williams's killer got a pat on the back from his rubberstamp IA investigation.

  • sloopyinca||

    And some people prefer to workout in a group. Apparently it helps them to focus better when they're beating the shit out of a man who opens the door for them.

    And as to your stroking the cock of your own state as some libertarian paradise...this incident happened in Seattle.

  • toolkien||

    The reality is the future of our liberty is fiscally related. At some point people are going to have to understand that. It is going to be a breeding ground for people to become more fiscally conservative as the Masters have to TAKE more money than simply borrowing it. THAT is when all those folks who have been disenfranchised by social conservatism might be brought into the fiscally conservative fold. People who have found refuge with the Dems based on social differences alone. Believe it or not, young people, women, gays can be fiscal conservatives. The Repubs have to begin by winning over people who aren't particularly inclined toward collectivism but make their pacts with them to provide a unified front against social conservatives. Pretty much the Repubs have to stop being socially conservative and fiscally liberal. Make fiscal conservatism its banner and let people who want to control their own bodies, enjoy their own lifestyles, and might like to blaze up every once in a while. The Dems do have a socially liberal, fiscally conservative branch (at least reasonably conservative in a general sense - perhaps more toward moderate). The great reckoning is upon us and if the Repubs insist on 1950's social policies and 1970's fiscal policies as its backbone, it's not going to be long for this world. And this has been the most frustrating part of the last 20 years as the Repubs have tried to woe voters by being more fiscally liberal than being less socially conservative.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Herman Cain today:

    “I never thought that I would say this, and this is the first time publicly that I’ve said it: We need a third party to save this country. Not Ron Paul and the Ron Paulites. No. We need a legitimate third party to challenge the current system that we have, because I don’t believe that the Republican Party … has the ability to rebrand itself,”

    Just wow!

  • cw||

    What's wrong with RP?

  • OldMexican||

    He's a Christ-fag as far as Buttwipe is concerned.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Nothing.

    It is the conservative Cain saying RP is not welcome in the GOP.

  • cw||

    So is the "wow" because a Republican said the GOP needs to rebrand, or because he says that while totally dismissing the best rebrander the GOP has?

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Ron Paul is libertarian, and those libertarians are just icky.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Now THAT is interesting!

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    Because of Remembrance Day/Armistice Day/Veteran's Day:
    World War I in Colour Part I

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    Quote of the episode:
    "They told us it would be over by Christmas (1914)."

  • Ted S.||

    On another forum, somebody suggested we should shake a veteran's hand, so I responded:

    My father had 18 months taken out of his life thanks to the peacetime draft. I'll thank him for keeping missiles from getting stolen by the Ernst Stavro Blofelds of the world from White Sands.

    Other than the Blofeld part, it's true. (Dad was drafted in '61 and spent 18 months mostly at White Sands in NM.) Needless to say, it didn't go down well with the military fellators.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    Because arguing semantics is stupid, here's Wes Anderson's attempt at Star Wars.

  • ||

    I can imagine the off-beat wackiness that would ensue if he cast Bill Murray as an older Han Solo, Angelica Huston as an older Leia, and Bob Balaban as older Luke.

    Maybe throw in Owen and Luke Wilson and Adrien Brody too.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    the clip had Owen Wilson as Han and Jason Schwartzmann as greedo.

  • ||

    I know, but I'm just speculating who he would cast if he did a movie set decades after RoTJ given his tendency to work with the same group of actors.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    It would be cool if he did it animated like The Fantastic Mr. Fox.

  • sloopyinca||

    I could see Raoul Julia in this somewhere. Perhaps as Palpatine's long-lost son?

  • Whahappan?||

    Sure, if he were alive.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    I'm in the middle of this. At least the power is still on.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    It's actually snow, not rain.

  • ||

    No one cares about the weather in Canada

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    The system causing the storm is called a Colorado Low.
    Ironic since they just made it legal to get high. HAHAHA!

  • Sevo||

  • sloopyinca||

    Fucking aTm. You motherfuckers are gonna blow this.

  • sloopyinca||

    Jesus Christ. There were like three holds on that play.

  • sloopyinca||

    Fuck it. Picked off on 4th down anyway. Hahahahahahahahahaha.

  • sloopyinca||

    Well I might have missed the margin of victory by a bit but I got the result right.

    Now if one of the other undefeateds lose, tOSU can move up to #3.*

    Of course, with the SEC bias, we'll probably see Georgia move up to that slot after beating the juggernaut that is the Auburn Tiggers.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    I don't know about Colorado lows, but I'm looking out my window at about 16 inches of snow which has fallen in the last 24 hours or so.

  • cw||

    Same here. First a shitty election, then having to dig my and the wife's cars out of the snow.

  • Ted S.||

    Make her dig the cars out herself.

  • Sevo||

    "After a solid drubbing on Tuesday, Republicans are looking for answers to their electoral woes."
    No, the GOP isn't looking for answers. The GOP is looking for excuses.

  • Lewisite||

    ^This^. Unfortunately, the GOP appears to have a real problem with introspection.

  • Sevo||

    "the GOP appears to have a real problem with introspection."

    Lack of introspection isn't the problem. The problem is the lack of honesty.
    Want an alternative to Obama? Well, Oromeny ain't one.
    And the GOP will spend the next four years trying to figure out why the PR campaign didn't fool enough people, rather than trying to identify *and present* an alternative.
    The GOP had R. Paul and G. Johnson, and instead we got Oromney.
    Fuck him and the GOP; the lot of them as much as decreed Robama's reelection.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    I fully intend to remind you how much of an alternative Romney was every time you guys bitch about what BO is doing over the next 4 years.

    Paul would have lost by 30 points. Johnson did lose by 50 points. These are not electoral saviors.

  • Lewisite||

    "I fully intend to remind you how much of an alternative Romney was every time you guys bitch about what BO is doing over the next 4 years."

    That is a worthy goal, something to be proud of.

    "Paul would have lost by 30 points. Johnson did lose by 50 points. These are not electoral saviors."

    So..and Romney and Obama still suck. Paul might have pulled votes from disaffected Dems, I guess we will never know.

  • db||

    I like to think that Romney spoiled the election of Johnson.

  • Lewisite||

    Other than "Lack of introspection isn't the problem."... "To thine own self be true" is a solid gateway to introspection, I feel. I certainly agree with you about the rest.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    No, the GOP isn't looking for answers. The GOP is looking for excuses.

    QFT

  • Sevo||

    QFT?

  • Lewisite||

    Q uoted F or T ruth?

  • ||

    Quite Fucking True

  • cw||

    Hey, Reason, why do you keep logging me out even after I click "Remember Me"?

    Also,

    Fuck Montana voters.

    That is all.

  • OldMexican||

    That's a problem with your browser, it probably deletes all cookies when you close it.

  • cw||

    I've got cookies enabled, and reason.com's are there in the cache.

  • sloopyinca||

    Then reason hates you.

    (Just kidding)

    Do you have AdBlocker on? Sometimes that can fuck it up until you refresh your settings by restarting your computer.

  • cw||

    As far as I know, nope. I don't ever download extensions/add-ons (except for the most basic stuff, like Adobe Flash).

  • OldMexican||

    I think we should give that "Reason hates you" hypothesis a second look...

  • cw||

    Damn you, Reason. Is it because I haven't employed enough child labor? Wrong-colored top hat and monocle?

  • ||

    Gold. Everything has to dipped in gold. Including the child laborers.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    were you considering a christmas bonus for the domestic staff?
    were you considering a christmas break for the domestic staff?
    What? you were considering giving the domestic staff Christmas morning off, weren't you!

  • cw||

    Pfft. Gold. I decorate everything in diamonds. My child laborers eat them for breakfast...ISN'T THAT GOOD ENOUGH, REASON??!!

  • Lewisite||

    Child laborers must eat coal and shit diamonds, you got it all twisted man. I think I have identified the problem.

  • cw||

    Of course I have them eat coal so they can shit diamonds. I just feed them diamonds because I'm that fucking rich.

  • Lewisite||

    Okay.. I was a little concerned there for a second, carry on.

  • Ted S.||

  • OldMexican||

    Denmark Dumps Fat Tax After Food Prices Rise

    After a while, the gods of economics make man learn why he cannot defy the gods.

    Sooner or later, the takes here in the U.S. will feel the wrath of the gods soon enough, no matter how dreamy are their favorite politicians.

  • cw||

    Don't worry, OM; I'm sure the Danes will find another way to ignore economics.

  • OldMexican||

    Man always finds ways to ignore the gods, that is true; but the gods have a sense of humor and make man learn his lesson in very humorous ways.

    Like making man wait in long lines at the gas station while having a full bladder, for instance, after man becomes arrogant and defies the gods.

  • ||

    And then the government arrests the gas station owner for price gouging.

  • MarioLanza||

    The worst big governmenters are the GLTBQ-ers and the pro-abortionists.

    Obama won because Romney had a too liberal background. Obama rightly pointed out the flip-flops but more importantly, Romney couldn't make a defense of why he would repeal Obamacare. Thus, a sizable chunk of conservatives stayed home.

    Social liberals/fiscal conservatives are delusional. Kick out the social conservatives/fiscal conservatives and you have more than halved the GOP and you are NOT going to pick up social liberal/fiscal liberals.

  • cw||

    No.

  • ||

    You heard it here folks, gay marriage and abortions are bigger state intrusions than welfare and warfare!

  • Cytotoxic||

    No.

  • Lewisite||

    "Obama won because Romney had a too liberal background"

    No, Obama "won" because Romney sucked just ~2.5% more. Romney was dull, uninspiring, and unlikable on many levels, and allegedly unwilling to offer to a reach around to the voters after promising to fuck them in the ass whereas the MSM/DNC swore up and down Obama would, right after the election. Obama sucked too, but voting for him was like hitting the snooze button before waking up to an unpleasant reality, coming soon enough either way. Too many independents could not see Mr. DrywhitetoastRomney as even remotely more inspiring than an ad for gourmet cat food, and probably figured we are pretty much fucked either way (Obama v. Romney) so get some free shit while you can, regret it later. The RNC ran their leftovers from 2008, playing it safe..because they thought early on that Obama was unbeatable, and when finding out later on that he was plenty “beatable”, they stuck with a fuck-up like Romney anyway rather than fielding someone worth a shit, fuck-em…they got just what they asked for. Just my .02

  • Sevo||

    "Kick out the social conservatives/fiscal conservatives and you have more than halved the GOP"

    False equivalence, and ya know, it's insulting.
    Fuck you.

  • Sidd Finch||

    Gig 'em

  • OldMexican||

    Re: mad libertarian guy,

    The ONLY people who are against legal gambling are SoCons

    Leftists are SoCons, except their chosen targets are different compared to those of their fellow SoCons on the right: The Left also want to right perceived wrongs that represent an obstacle to achieving Paradise on Earth.

    Leftists are not against legalizing drugs, for NOW. But they're against many other simple pleasures enjoyed by man, just like their Christian socialist brothers.

  • cw||

    For whatever reason, they're against me putting 32 ounces of liquid sugar into my body. At least in New York.

    Whatever happened to "my body, my choice"?

  • Cytotoxic||

    Many leftists are against gambling and drugs. At least outside tightly controlled state venues.

  • cw||

    Except for state lotteries. Every one can be equally fleeced!

  • Lewisite||

    State lotterys fund skoolz! Why do you hate the children?

  • cw||

    What the fuck doesn't fund schools?

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    Tuition?

  • Lewisite||

    Rethuglicans...and 32oz drinks...and herpes.

  • cw||

    Rethuglicans pay taxes that go to schools, soda taxes could go to schools...and I'm sure we could work herpes somewhere in there.

  • Lewisite||

    It’s common knowledge that Rethuglicans go out of their way when avoiding paying their fair share, especially if it’s for schools... to keep the prisons full, for the prison/industrial complex, and for the sheer joy of running poor people down with their limos while lighting cigars with 1 million dollar bills. Soda is worse than fucking radon, and should be banned forever, because fat slobs have no self-control, and are too fucking stooopid to realize this. Rethuglicals made herpes in a lab, to disenfranchise minority voters. It only flairs up around voting season you know.

  • cw||

    Win!

  • Lewisite||

    You would know this if you would just step out of your Faux news/Pat Robertson/Rush Limbaugh/Glen Beck bubble, come down off of bullshit mountain, accept the Scientific Consensus(TM) that this is ALL Bush's fault, and see the world the way it really is...Mkay? America is leaving you and your ilk behind!

    (Did I leave anything out?)

  • cw||

    You didn't blame Boosh enough.

  • Lewisite||

    Yes, definitely needz maor booosh!!!11one!

  • Sevo||

    "(Did I leave anything out?)"
    Uh, only that business is a horrible example of rethuglicans exploiting workers and consumers.

  • Lewisite||

    Shit, I forgot Breitbart's twisted rhetoric, which couldn’t hold an intellectual candle to their moral superiors over at the Daily Kos, or Cenk Uygur's site or the bastion of integrity that is MSNBC.

  • T o n y||

    Yeah see here's the problem. The only reason Democrats are so hawkish on foreign policy and drugs is because they are in competition with the GOP over masculinity. If the GOP wants to start appealing to the electorate by being flower children, then the Democrats can outcompete them just by exhaling and unpuffing their chests.

    The rest of the GOP's antilibertarian nature comes from religious fundamentalism. I'd be happy to let those people be politically impotent. But then who's left to vote for the GOP?

    In the long-term Republicans will have to move to the left, allowing Democrats to do the same and become Democrats again. It's a fairly predictable cycle. And in 20-40 years' time when Democrats grow decadent in their power, the Republicans can come back in electoral landslides and fuck everything up again.

  • cw||

    Democrats have rarely ever been peaceniks. And there is no fiscal conservatism in either party.

  • American||

    "The only reason Democrats are so hawkish on foreign policy and drugs is because they are in competition with the GOP over masculinity."
    It seems to be Democrats, not Republicans who think the government should regulate what you consume. Who did Soda Bloomberg endorse? And it was progressivist liberals who started prohibition in the 20s. And it has been leftist presidents, from LBJ to Clinton to Obama, who have a habbit of starting wars.

  • cw||

    Wilson, FDR, JFK, LBJ, Clinton, and Captain Zero all got involved in some kind of Overseas Contingency Operation. Often unilaterally.

    But it's OK if my guy does it...

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    The only reason Democrats are so hawkish on foreign policy and drugs is because they are in competition with the GOP over masculinity.

    Sounds like the Dems have some self-esteem and gender identity issues. Is everything OK in the size department?

  • Lewisite||

    I always kinda suspected the Progressive Dems had some kind of Oedipus complex with the SoCONs, TBQH. They are sort of creepy like that.

  • Sevo||

    T o n y| 11.10.12 @ 8:31PM |#
    "In the long-term Republicans will have to move to the left,"

    Yeah, shithead, anything shy of Castro is 'right' to assholes like you.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Tony,

    The rest of the GOP's antilibertarian nature comes from religious fundamentalism.

    Exactly the same with leftists.

    Oh, you don't think leftism is religious? It has a doctrine, a theology and a deity - the State.

    In the long-term Republicans will have to move to the left, allowing Democrats to do the same and become Democrats again.

    It should've been obvious to me by now that a person woefully unknowledgeable in economics would be this naïve about politics.

    Get it through your thick skull, Tony: The leftism of the Dems and the supposed "rightism" of the Repubs is nothing more than panis et circenses, a dog and pony show. BOTH parties are controlled by the same people, which is why they nominally agree on voting the same things: War and cronyism.

  • Redmanfms||

    "The only reason Democrats are so hawkish on foreign policy and drugs is because they are in competition with the GOP over masculinity."

    Pffft.

    Explain WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Iran, Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia/Kosovo, and Libya.

  • John||

    http://www.wptv.com/dpp/news/s.....-being-cut

    The comments to this story have to be read to be believed. The leftists are coming for the wreckers and saboteurs.

  • cw||

    Are you looking for penance, John? Why subject yourself to such torture?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Leftists just don't appreciate good pizza.

    Or chicken, I guess.

  • sloopyinca||

    John, have you looked into my theory a bit more since this morning?

    Oh, and the WH just announced that Hillary will not be participating in the hearings due to a conflict. She's apparently meeting with some of their military ministers because we're concerned that they are making cuts...really not a job for the SecState, is it? Seems more like a SecDef gig.

  • John||

    Her not testifying is a total joke. Clearly they have a lot to hide. The truth I think is exactly what you said it was.

  • Sevo||

    sloopyinca| 11.10.12 @ 9:04PM |#
    ..."Hillary will not be participating in the hearings due to a conflict. She's apparently meeting with some of their military ministers because we're concerned that they are making cuts.."

    I'm gonna presume you noticed that business somehow required her to be 12 time zones away when Obama was anointed at the Dem convention this year...

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Hey, Romney would have been just as bad. Or so I heard from a few silly little birds fluttering around these parts.

  • Sevo||

    Pretty hard to work up sympathy for someone who voted for Oromney.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Sympathy? I'm taking you guys at your word. You said Obama=Romney, so that means when Obama pushes for tax increases, that means Romney would have too. Right?

  • ||

    He probably would.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Your capacity for self-delusion continues to impress.

  • ||

    Coming from the guy that convinced himself to vote for Romney, that's pretty rich.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    RobertJ.Spreitzer
    Fascinated continually by the expression of "the government" as an enitity OUTSIDE of the American people, when "We The People" is SUPPOSED to mean We The Government. Right? So if WE really were being genuinely represented by "our" elected officials/representatives, then it would be fine to have government involvement with it's citizens, to act in it's own best interest and welfare. But NOOOOOOOO
  • cw||

    Fascism FTW!

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Notice the first five letters of his comment. It's a code!

  • cw||

    I like the "But NOOOOOOO" part.

  • sloopyinca||

    That cocksucker Charles Davis just said KSU was "one of three major unbeaten teams."

    I hope Gus Johnson punched him in the fucking head when they went to commercial break.

  • Ted S.||

    I'd like to see Gus Johnson's larynx explode live on national TV.

  • tagtann||

    OK wow you jsut know thats cool right? Wow.

    www.Geek-Anon.tk

  • Sevo||

    Alan says; "fail".

  • Lewisite||

    Cut Fisto Roboto...em.. Anonbot some slack, He's too damn sensitive.

  • An0nB0t||

    So's yer mama, Lewisite!

  • Hyperion||

    FTW? 300 commments? I have to work this evening. Clients need stuff and someone has to pay for the free shit that our king is promising to the new serfdom.

    GOP need to win moar elections? No more SoCon shit, you fucktards, get it now?

  • cw||

    FTW = Fuck the What?

  • ||

    For The Win

  • cw||

    Yeah, but in the context it looked like he was trying to write WTF.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    I always thought it was Fucking Thread Winner.

  • cw||

    And glad to see someone's paying for my government job. Thanks, Hyperion!

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Sorry, someone said abortion should be legal and we had to straighten them out.

  • ||

    And by we you mean the you and the guy who's telling me I'm a Nazi destined for the fires of hell?

  • cw||

    If I may wade into the endless tar pit that is the abortion debate, I will say that I am pro-life.

    *ducks*

  • Lewisite||

    Fascist

  • cw||

    Damn, should have ducked faster.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    "I don't know about hell, but you're definitely going to run into some bad dudes."

  • SIV||

    I have to work this evening. Clients need stuff and someone has to pay for the free shit that our king is promising to the new serfdom.

    Hurry your ass up my pizza is getting cold. Why are you reporting your tips anyway?

  • ||

    newsflash. general franco still dead

    WA state still leading the nation in libertarian values - right to privacy, legalized mj, open carry w.o a permit, no income tax

    haters still hatin'

    what's lame about the abortion debate is how rarely the two sides can respect each other. as a prochoicer i can only have great respect for the prolife position.

  • cw||

    as a prochoicer i can only have great respect for the prolife position.

    Well, that's refreshing. Seriously.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    No, it's barftastic and condescending.

  • cw||

    Why?

  • ||

    I agree with dunphy. I have a lot of respect for pro-lifers, and I understand completely where they're coming from.

  • ||

    "The ONLY people who are against legal gambling are SoCons"

    utter rubbish. look at the state of Hawaii. a very much left leaning state with some of the strictest anti-gambling laws around.

  • Lyle||

    Yeah, lots of progressives probably are anti-gambling. The anti-porn and anti-prostitution kind of progressives.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    Former CIA chief Allen Dulles was a serial philanderer and perhaps “the greatest intelligence officer who ever lived.”

  • ||

    Oddly enough they only seemed to care about homosexual affairs back then. Today it's the opposite.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Wasn't Dulles the genius behind some of the weirder Cold War shit? Couldn't even arrange a hit on Castro because he was too busy inventing LSD?

  • Lewisite||

    "too busy inventing LSD"
    Sandoz labs made it (LSD "25"/D2Bromo), Dulles just sprayed it all over people at Edgewood arsenal...you know..to see what would happen.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    He also took it during lovemaking. He thought his girlfriend was a llama. Strangely, that just turned him on even more.

  • Lewisite||

    LOL..That's awesome

  • John||

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07.....eyond.html

    Here is the NYT advice column that they think is Patreus mistress' husband writing it. A lot of people metaphorically thrown around the term "sucking the statist cock". Well read the answer. The term is not a metaphor here. The money quote.

    Don’t expose the affair in any high-profile way. It would be different if this man’s project was promoting some (contextually hypocritical) family-values platform, but that doesn’t appear to be the case....

    The fact that you’re willing to accept your wife’s infidelity for some greater political good is beyond honorable. In fact, it’s so over-the-top honorable that I’m not sure I believe your motives are real.

    Wow. Just wow. If your wife is a whore for the team, you are an honorable man. What kind of a pathetic fuck do you have to be to let some asshole bang your wife and not do anything about it because "what he does is so important". If I would have been that guy I would have been on the fucking Today show nailing Petreus' ass to the wall.

  • Lewisite||

    "If I would have been that guy I would have been on the fucking Today show nailing Petreus' ass to the wall."

    That is because you are a selfish asshole who cannot see the big picture. His courageous personal sacrifice is as foreign to you as the surface of the moon. Where do people like you come from?

  • John||

    So basically you would let these "top men" come into your house and fuck your wife if they wanted to. So tell me Lewisite, just what wouldn't you let them do?

    So much for the idea that if we sacrifice our principles the terrorists have won.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    I suspect Lewisite was sarcastic, but I could always be wrong.

  • John||

    It is impossible to tell. The "ethicist" at the NYT said basically the same thing. So who knows. But if he was, my apologies for missing it.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Hard to tell - there's some kind of rule here. (Poe's?)

  • Lewisite||

    LOL... my bad

    *\sarc off*

    I forgot that at the end. I assumed it would be implied.

  • ||

    That's hilarious

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Also hilarious: the title of Broadwell's Petraeus book, *All In.* A huh-huh huh, I bet he was, huh huh.

  • tarran||

    I like how they point out that his goal might be to let certain powerful people know that he knows, which they say is unethical as well.

    How dare you threaten the dear leader's great plan!

  • John||

    This article and the comment above just show how far gone these people are. Anything up to and including whoring out your wife for the cause as if Petreus is so important that he should be allowed to do anything. Just sad.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    I just realized that I haven't heard any "surge" jokes about this whole thing.

  • John||

    That and Sandusky's "Touched" is proof that God not only has a sense of humor but that he has a really good one.

  • ant1sthenes||

    Vaguely reminds me of some plot point in V for Vendetta, but I haven't read it in so long...

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    All the news that's fit to print...and a whole lot more! Spanking fetishist tells all in NY Times:

    "My kink developed early. As a child, I pored over any book that mentioned spanking, paddling or thrashing. Tom Sawyer went through many reads..."

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11.....tw-nytimes

    Uh-oh, Aunt Polly caught me with my hand in the cookie jar again...

  • SIV||

    That was lame. Apparently her fantasies are centered on "platonic" M/M spanking.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Of course, before he was a philosopher, Plato wrestled other men for a living.

  • ||

    Oh BOOHOO! That's probably one of the least embarrassing kinks out there, yet she agonizes for two pages about telling her husband. And guess what happens, he accepts it! Yawn.

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    The Republicans become more libertarian? Seems unlikely. First and foremost, they'll never accept the principles that form the libertarian positions; so their commitment to the positions will be shallow at best.

    Another big problem is that being more libertarian and less statist reduces a politician's power. Can anybody seriously see a Republican or a Democrat embracing that?

  • ||

    reason.com (understandably so) tends to only report on stuff that makes it look like rights are contracting, and pursuant to the WOD and WODV and WOTerra there are plenty of such cases. however, there are also cases, mostly at the state level, that evidence an expansion of rights, most recently seen in RKBA cases, force cases (taser -such as macpherson which was actually 9th circuit) etc. here are a couple of recent positive cases involving rights expansion or police conduct/discipline

    (2) SEATTLE PUBLIC SAFETY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION’S REDUCTION OF DISCIPLINE OF UNTRUTHFUL OFFICER FROM TERMINATION TO THIRTY DAYS SUSPENSION IS REVERSED BECAUSE RECORD DOES NOT SUPPORT COMMISSION’S RATIONALE THAT POLICE DEPARTMENT WAS INCONSISTENT IN DISCIPLINE; COMMISSION ORDERED TO RECONSIDER ITS DECISION – In Werner v. Seattle

    (6) OFFICER LAWFULLY OBSERVED EVIDENCE IN SIDE PANEL OF CAR DOOR UNDER “OPEN VIEW” DOCTRINE, HOWEVER, SEIZURE OF THAT EVIDENCE WITHOUT A WARRANT WAS UNLAWFUL – In State v. Jones, 163 Wn. App. 354 (Div. II, August 30, 2011),

  • ||

    (7) PUBLIC RECORDS ACT CASE: AGENCY’S FAILURE TO RESPOND TO PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST WITHIN 5 DAYS VIOLATES THE PRA; INADVERTENT LOSS OF E-MAIL PRIOR TO REQUEST DOES NOT VIOLATE PRA – In West v. Department of Natural Resources, 163 Wn. App. 235 (Div. II, August 23, 2011),

    yet again, WA is better - see Privacy
    SUPREME COURT EXPLORES FOURTH AMENDMENT ISSUES ABOUT ATTACHING AND USING GPS DEVICES ON VEHICLES; WASHINGTON SUPREME COURT RESOLVED THESE QUESTIONS IN 2003 JACKSON DECISION ADOPTING A WARRANT REQUIREMENT UNDER ARTICLE I, SECTION 7 OF THE WASHINGTON CONSTITUTION – In United States v. Jones, ___ U.S. ___, 2012 WL 171117 (Jan. 23, 2012

    COURT IMPORTS SEARCH-INCIDENT-TO-ARREST SCOPE LIMITS INTO CONSENT SEARCH CASE, AND HOLDS THAT GENERAL CONSENT TO SEARCH CAR AND ITS TRUNK DID NOT INCLUDE CONSENT TO SEARCH LOCKED CONTAINER IN THE TRUNK

    State v. Monaghan, ___Wn. App. ___, 266 P.3d 222 (Div. I, Jan. 3, 2012)

    (4) CITY ORDINANCE PROHIBITING POSSESSION OF FIREARMS IN PUBLIC PARKS OR PARK FACILITIES IS PREEMPTED BY STATE LAW – In Chan v. City of Seattle, 164 Wn. App. 549 (Div. I, Oct. 31, 2011) the Court of Appeals holds that a City of Seattle firearms ordinance which prohibits the possession of firearms in certain parks and park facilities is preempted by state firearms law.

  • sloopyinca||

    Cool story (again), bro. I especially like the fact that you post this crap on dead threads and don't provide links for context.

  • ||

    Dunphy is just a few loose bolts away from Herc

  • Mr Whipple||

    You had to mention Herc, didn't you.

    The Cult of Cats the [ASPCA] The American Society for the Protection of Cruelty against Animals – The Humane Society – and Feral Cat Society, do not understand the concept of property rights, business concerns and rights, the protection of endangered species, or floral and fauna, these organizations once again place the sub-species of [CATS] above the human species, they are unable to differentiate between a [CAT] as an Outside Pest an undomesticated wild sub-species, and that of an Inside [Cat] as a Pet a domesticated wild sub-species, or a Pet that when in an outside environment as a dog is by its master, must be under the direct control of its master, a cat is a sub-species to that of the human species it is a the human is the master and the cat is the sub-species, the cat does not control the human the human must be its master and in total control of that sub-species.

  • Mr Whipple||

    Thus it flies in the face of common sense with an a entire Pet and Pet Supply Industry devoted to the care and maintenance of any and all pet sub-species, that this concept eludes that of the The Cult of Cats the [ASPCA] The American Society for the Protection of Cruelty against Animals – The Humane Society – and Feral Cat Society. If the [CAT] sub-species is not under the control of dominate Human Master Species in an outside environment it is no longer a pet but a pest and must be seen for what it is a sub-species pest, and The Republic of California, the County of San Diego, has [1/2M] One – Half Million such pests under the protection of the The Cult of Cats the [ASPCA] The American Society for the Protection of Cruelty against Animals – The Humane Society – and Feral Cat Society, the American – Israeli Military Industrial Complex – [The Empire], it is time to change things.
  • Stephdumas||

    I spotted this article from Breitbart.com who mention other tips
    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-G.....Opposition

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