Making Sense of the Modern Republican Party

Timothy Carney's new column looks at the GOP's internal dynamics. Here's his starting point:

Fnord.Thomas Nast

To understand the Republican leadership vacuum, consider what's different today compared to five years ago.

The 2010 Citizens United ruling has spawned SuperPACs that offset the power of the political parties and K Street. The Republican earmark ban has taken away a vote-whipping tool. The Internet's advances have turned the grassroots into kudzu vines. The committee process has grown feeble. And all of these changes have injected an antiestablishment fervor into the GOP base.

Carney argues that Ted Cruz and Jim DeMint are better at operating in this environment than the party's nominal leaders are, but that their approach won't work in the long term. The whole thing is worth a read. And after you read it, as you consider Carney's argument, you might mull Ben Domenech's speculation that the man best poised to benefit from Cruz's recent activities is Rand Paul, who still looks like a leader of the party's anti-establishment wing but isn't burning the bridges that Cruz just set aflame.

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.

  • The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc||

    And after you read it, as you consider Carney's argument, you might mull Ben Domenech's recent speculation that the man best poised to benefit from Cruz's recent activities is Rand Paul, who still looks like a leader of the party's anti-establishment wing but isn't burning the bridges that Cruz just set aflame.

    Paul is definitely the Good Cop to Cruz's Bad Cop. If it comes down to Paul vs Cruz I think the media would be much more terrified of a Cruz presidency than Rand Paul, who they'll suddenly acknowledge is willing to reach across the aisle on issues like drug policy reform.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    If libertarianism making inroads is what they fear then they should fear Paul more than Cruz. I still have seen little from Cruz to convince me that he is much of a libertarian, he seems at this point not very much different than a Jim Demint. It is hardly surprising that a Texas Republican wants to take what he sees as a strong stand against socialized medicine. If they were discussing the defense budget I imagine he would be in a different stance.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    The MSM knows so little about libertarianism that they couldn't hope to make that distinction. They view everything as a horserace and right now Cruz is the one beating up on their horse.

  • Pathogen||

    The MSM collectively pisses themselves anytime any "Republican" politician to the right of Pol Pot makes enough noise to be seen on the national radar, and get people talking, their message is irrelevant. The MSM dispatches themselves like a swarm of leukocytes bent on containing that (R) politicians message (and career), mitigating the potential damage it might inflict, and force America to gag on the pus after the battle is over... A Libertarian message is perceived no different than any other "Right wing machination", merely another fly in the ointment to them...

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Cruz and Lee painted differences in tactics as a lack of principle — or a sign of secret liberalism.

    This burns bridges. Conservative Republicans get tired of being told they are sellouts because they take a different tactical approach.

    What "different tactical approach" are Corker and McConnell and company taking? Spreading their legs wide and hoping the MSM finds everything in order with their fundaments?

  • VG Zaytsev||

    That comment comes entirely from an establishment point of view. Republican Senators may get tired of being told they are sellouts because they take a different tactical approach, but you won't hear anything like that from any activist or even run of the mill voter.

    Who, by the way, are completely fed up with the douchebag establishmentarians.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    -What "different tactical approach" are Corker and McConnell and company taking?

    I think they would say make Obamacare an issue in 2014 and retake the Senate. Then make it an issue in 2016 and take the White House. Then repeal it.

    Is it really so unthinkable for them to conclude that Cruz's actions and strategies will come off more as grandstanding or extremism to the public and thus could be counterproductive overall?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    I think they would say make Obamacare an issue in 2014 and retake the Senate. Then make it an issue in 2016 and take the White House. Then repeal it.

    After they did such a good job of that in 2012! (How MM managed to hold on to his leader position after losing seats with such a favorable map, I'll never know) And they have not made this argument, just submissively urinated about "we only control 1/3 of the govt" etc.

    How are they planning to respond to Schumer whining about them cutting off cancer patients' treatment in 2014 and 2016? If they're going to do it they should do it now.

    There's nothing wrong with grandstanding on an issue the public agrees with you on!

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    You are ignoring the very reasonable guess that the public will be turned off by the strategy of attaching this to the CR or the mini-filibuster so close to a shutdown. You really cannot imagine that turning off people?

    These kind of tactics fire up bases, but if bases alone won elections this would be a different world.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    You really cannot imagine that turning off people?

    No I can't.

    The problem with McConnell and Corker is that they don't want to fight at all and their messaging sucks. They're trying to do the typical politicians thing of playing both sides against the middle and the public and especially the base are too well informed for that bullshit to work any longer.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    McConnell just wants this issue to go away until he survives the primary next year, so he can go back to betraying conservatives. I'm sure Jesse Benton will do a great job shoveling shit for him to make that happen.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    And BO refusing to negotiate on the debt ceiling and Reid refusing to allow amendments doesn't?

    Show me a poll that backs up your contention and we'll talk.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    -If the government shuts down, the Republicans in Congress may take more of the blame: 44 percent of Americans say they would blame the Republicans in Congress more if there is a partial shutdown of the federal government on Oct. 1, while fewer - 35 percent - would put more of the blame on Barack Obama and the Democrats in Congress. Sixteen percent volunteer that they would blame both sides equally.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-25.....poll-says/

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    That's a different question. And a push poll; it presumes that shutting down govt is a bad thing ("blame").

  • Sevo||

    If the gov't doesn't shut down, some huge percentage of the population will then blame the GOP for floods and pestilence.
    Shut it down.

  • John||

    So wHat? How many of that 44 percent would ever vote for them anyway? And what if the loss of faith for folding does more damage than being blamed whatever that means? Stop concern trolling

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    -Stop concern trolling

    John, I am new here but I have to wonder if before the 2012 election you did not say that Obama was sure to lose and the Senate would be retaken by the GOP. You may be right on this ultimately, but your dismissive confidence reminds me too much of that Pauline Kael story.

  • John||

    You are a concern troll. Your idiotic posts about how Cruz is really part of the R establishment trying to coopt Paul proves it. Every post you put up is some variation of "republicans would be smartto sell out" or "they say that but don't mean it". That is classic concern trolling. You don't fill anyone.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Yes, John, no one could disagree with you about how the public will react and this will turn out unless they are concern trolls or secretly establishment progressives.

    Again, I bet you were convinced that any polls showing Obama winning were 'in the tank' for him.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    But you don't stop there. You started this weird sidebar about how Cruz is secretly allied with the GOP establishment, based on the fact he went to an Ivy and clerked for a SCOTUS justice.

  • ||

    What? I don't see where he's said that. Saying he's less libertarian than Paul and Amash isn't an accusation of being secretly allied with the establishment, there can be more than two positions within the Republican Party.

    From where I'm sitting you and John are concern-trolling. You just can't believe anyone could possibly disagree with you without being a secret socialist™. This is SIV levels of paranoia.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Saying he's less libertarian than Paul and Amash isn't an accusation of being secretly allied with the establishment

    BCE wasn't just saying he's less libertarian than Paul. BCE is saying he's actively trying to stymie Paul, and the sole evidence offered is his putative connection to the establishment.

  • ||

    BCE wasn't just saying he's less libertarian than Paul. BCE is saying he's actively trying to stymie Paul, and the sole evidence offered is his putative connection to the establishment.

    [Citation needed]

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    RTFT. That's my cite.

  • ||

    Yes, I see that down below now. However, I still disagree that any criticism of Cruz or his tactics is "concern-trolling".

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Tell me Bo, what is your opinion of BO's statement that he won't negotiate on the debt ceiling and Reid's refusal to allow amendments to the CR? Are those going to look bad to the public or are they protected by a TEAM BLUE force field?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Republicans and conservatives have worked very hard in their rhetoric to create an image of themselves as being anti-government and anti-government spending. When the government closes down due to lack of funding of course they will be blamed.

    Maybe this time will be different and I am wrong. But my point is this: is it so far fetched that those who think it likely are being establishment tools or concern trolls?

  • Pathogen||

    Soo... The Republicans should lay supine, mount only token resistance to any scheme that the Democrats hatch, and go out of their way become the enablers in an abusive and pointless co-dependent relationship, where their constituents are always kicked and beaten and rarely benefit, in order to burnish their image amongst the polls, an MSM that despises them, and a demographic that will never vote for them? hat's the key to remaining a nationally viable and relevant party in both the present and future, ad a credible opposition party (as opposed to progressive shills) to balance the two party political landscape? My god, how could they have been soooo blind?!?!!

  • ||

    Good thing no one's said that, Path. But keep going, you're beating that strawman good. You've almost got him on the ropes!

  • Pathogen||

    "Good thing no one's said that, Path..."

    What?

    "You are ignoring the very reasonable guess that the public will be turned off by the strategy of attaching this to the CR or the mini-filibuster so close to a shutdown. You really cannot imagine that turning off people?"

    and

    "-If the government shuts down, the Republicans in Congress may take more of the blame: 44 percent of Americans say they would blame the Republicans in Congress more if there is a partial shutdown of the federal government on Oct. 1, while fewer - 35 percent - would put more of the blame on Barack Obama and the Democrats in Congress. Sixteen percent volunteer that they would blame both sides equally."

    and

    "Republicans and conservatives have worked very hard in their rhetoric to create an image of themselves as being anti-government and anti-government spending. When the government closes down due to lack of funding of course they will be blamed."

    "But keep going, you're beating that strawman good. You've almost got him on the ropes!"

    I fail to see the strawman in my response to those posts, but anyhow, if you do...

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Reading isn't darius' strong suit.

  • ||

    Apparently neither reading nor writing is a strong suit for either of you. Nowhere did Bo say nothing should ever be done and we should just lay back and submit. Criticism of a tactic for getting rid of Obamacare /=/ never doing anything about Obamacare. Lack of reading comprehension ftf guys.

    But don't worry guys, you've ko'ed that strawman. You can go back to your little circlejerk now.

  • Robert||

    All I know is that in those shutdowns that weren't very brief in the 1980s & 1990s, the Republicans got the blame whether they were in Congress or the White House. It was the news media that sold the public on that opinion, so maybe things are a little different now that the MSM is less respected, but I don't think that'll be enough of a change to keep the same blame from falling again & setting back the GOP at least a little.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    These kind of tactics fire up bases, but if bases alone won elections this would be a different world.

    An amusing comment, so soon after the last election.

  • robc||

    I live in KY.

    I know the relative popularity of Paul v McConnell.

    Mitch does too, there is a reason he hired Jesse Benton to run his reelection campaign.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Do you know the relative popularity of Allison Grimes?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    It's also funny that Citizens United and the earmark ban and the Internet also have changed for the Dems, yet they have nearly no antiestablishment fervor in their base.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    It's hard to be anti-establishment when your god is the establishment.

  • amagi1776||

    Like Xerxes?

  • ||

    It's hard to be anti-establishment when you ARE the establishment.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    The politicians are the establishment but the followers worship the establishment. They're brain washed sheep that really think the world will end if government spending is cut back 10%.

    Arguments using logic are utterly fruitless with those drones. The only way to free them from their hysteria is to cut government 20% and show them that the world didn't actually end.

  • ||

    Depends on how you define the establishment.

    IMO, the establishment isn't just the government, but also the media, academia, policy think tanks, all the people that control the organs of established thought and policy. Whatever is mainstream and right-thinking is establishmentarian.

    Progressives dominate all of those things and have for many years. They play this game of convincing themselves that they are outsiders by pointing at FOX News, the lone contradictory voice, as if it was representative of the "corporate media" ala Noam Chomsky.
    When in fact they effectively control all of the rest of the media including it's elite organs such as the New York Times. The establishment is the system by which the bien-pensant masses reinforce their own prejudices and beliefs, which in turn maintains them in power.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Why would the establishment be limited to 'organs of established thought and policy?' Would the Chamber of Commerce be establishment? How about Haliburton or Archer Daniels? I guess I have trouble thinking of an 'establishment' in which these do not play a significant role, and they are hardly progressive tools.

  • ||

    Establishment doesn't just mean having a lot of money. It has to mean some kind of self-reinforcing control of the organs of power. I see that they have power, I just don't see that it is self-reinforcing.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Would the Chamber of Commerce be establishment? How about Haliburton or Archer Daniels?

    Show me where leftists substantively opposed open borders and corporate welfare.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Substantively?

    Show me were the right has done that ;)

  • Pathogen||

    Use a stronger cement for your goalposts...

  • Rhywun||

    It's antidisestablishmentarianists all the way down.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    OT

    Sos I'm fixin brunch and the wife has some cop show on teh teevee.

    Cop 1: Type of weapon?
    Cop 2: A .357 Magnum.
    Cop 1: Ughh! A .357 Magnum, what's this neighborhood coming to?

    I turn to look at teh teevee to find this dog killing asshole dressed in full body armor and armed with an AR-15 "assault rifle."

    FUCK HOLLYWOOD!

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    It is curious that Hollywooders think a guy with a white shirt and jeans carrying an AR-15 is a massacre waiting to happen, but the same guy dressed in all black with a shiny metal thing on his shirt and the same AR-15 is masturbation material.

  • Pathogen||

    "..Cop 1: Ughh! A .357 Magnum, what's this neighborhood coming to?"

    Pet sacrifice, dogs and cats dying together... mass hysteria!

  • ||

    Unlike Cruz, Rand Paul appears to have some brains. He's one of the few people that could guide Tea Party Republicans in a strategically profitable direction, and the bonus for us is he is also a libertarian. He could engineer a real libertarian shift in the Republican party by actually winning elections on the basis of libertarian values.

    That puts him at odds with both the Republican establishment and the stupid faction of the Tea Party.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Unlike Cruz, Rand Paul appears to have some brains.

    Huh? Ted Cruz is sharp as a tack. He's probably smarter than Rand Paul, though it doesn't really matter -- both are smart enough.

  • ||

    Get back to me when ObamaCare is actually defunded, thanks.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    As opposed to Rand Paul's great policy victory of getting a promise about drones, from a man whose word is worth less than used toilet paper?

  • ||

    Rand Paul's victory wasn't getting a promise. It was publicly establishing his reputation as a civil libertarian.

  • Pathogen||

    "Get back to me when ObamaCare is actually defunded, thanks."

    Sooo.. Defunding Obamacare is well within Cruz's power, but he's too stupid to do it? Huh...

  • ||

    So .... given that it's not within his power, he should blow a lot of political capital in a futile gesture?

    Instead of, say, thinking up ways to undermine it that actually ARE within his power?

  • John||

    Except that the establishment hates. Cruz even more than Paul. And I see no evidence Cruz is any less smart than Paulmuch less stupid.

  • ||

    I'll believe that this filibuster was a smart move if and when it results in any actual delays or defunding of ObamaCare.

    So far I see no evidence that this is going to end in anything other than a giant cave by Republicans.

  • John||

    That and making Demcrates vote for Obamacare again again. There is a reason why Reid and Obama are so pissed off about this. And it is not because they are worried about a shut down or can't wait for the Republicans to fold. It is because the Republicans are forcing D Senators from red states to own Obamacare. That is why they are so angry.

    Unless you think Obamcare is going to be popular, in which case you should probably just throw in the towel and become a liberal, forcing the Dems to own it is a good end in itself. I don't know why people like you and the Reason staff have a hard time seeing that.

    More importantly, Cruz, by standing up and speaking gave voice to a lot of people who object to this law. last I looked, that was a good thing. Ron Paul didn't kill drones or the NSA. But I didn't hear you bitching and moaning about his filibuster.

    You are just a bit like Bo and think Cruz is some evil SOCON and thus can't help yourself but hate his guts and let that hatred color your judgement.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    -It is because the Republicans are forcing D Senators from red states to own Obamacare. That is why they are so angry.

    It is amazing that you usually find Democrats and Obama to be so duplicitous and yet you make, and ask us to make, such risky conclusions based on their public displays of anger.

  • Robert||

    How do the Dems not own Obamacare already? How much more does that have to be ratified?

  • Cytotoxic||

    The public must be reminded.

    It is amazing that you usually find Democrats and Obama to be so duplicitous and yet you make, and ask us to make, such risky conclusions based on their public displays of anger.

    Not really it just makes a lot more sense than your notions.

  • ||

    I don't know whether it will be popular or not. But I don't think the Dems are really having a hard time owning it, or voting for it over and over.

    I think you are overestimating how much damage those repeated votes are going to do, and are engaging in some wishful thinking if you think it is going to be a clear-cut problem for the D's.

    The trouble is that the government shutdown is likely to harm Republicans much like the 1996 shutdown caused a backlash against the 'Contract with America' Gingrich congress. In the long-term that's not likely to do much to accomplish anything serious in the way of rolling back the ACA.

    You have to think more strategically about this. It's not about making the democrats look bad, or making them own it, or helping or hurting Republican politicians.

    It should be about what can be done to actually pass legislation that actually undermines the ACA.

    That's why I've been advocating legalizing high-deductible catastrophic coverage. I think it will do more to actually undercut the ACA and has a much better chance of getting past the Senate, if only the R's had the brains to approach the problem with some strategic sense.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    But I don't think the Dems are really having a hard time owning it, or voting for it over and over.

    Which is why Reid fought like hell to strip out the defunding provision before it could come to a vote?

    I think you are overestimating how much damage those repeated votes are going to do, and are engaging in some wishful thinking if you think it is going to be a clear-cut problem for the D's.

    It's not a problem for Chuck Shumer, Dianne Feinstein, and Dick Durbin. It is a problem for Mark Begich, Mark Pryor, and Mary Landrieu.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    The trouble is that the government shutdown is likely to harm Republicans much like the 1996 shutdown caused a backlash against the 'Contract with America' Gingrich congress.

    Er, the GOP broke even in the 1996 Congressional elections. Clinton was never going to lose in the midst of the greatest economic boom in 80 years, especially not to Bob Dole, so don't bring that up.

    Really Hazel... peruse Wikipedia for 60 seconds on a subject before you start opining on it. It might help you not look so foolish.

  • Cytotoxic||

    And here Hazel demonstrates that she has no understanding of political tactics.

  • ||

    Is you goal making the D's look bad, or is it actually rolling back the ACA?

    Stop thinking about what helps or hurts Team Red or Team Blue. Start thinking about what sort of legislation to roll back or undermine the ACA stands a realistic chance of passing.

    Don't blow your political capital scoring points. Use it to leverage the D's into giving up key provisions of the act.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Um. Hazel? OC and the Dems are linked. To attack OC is to attack the Dems. Making them defend it will lead them to suffer for it. The D's are not interested in giving up key provisions of the act. They are not in a mental space compatible with rational acting. They have to suffer first.

  • ||

    If you think it's going to be the D's who are going to suffer for this, rather than the R's, you're living in an alternate reality.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    From claiming ignorance to making bold pronouncements in less than 3 hrs. Impressive.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    It is truly remarkable how Paul has managed to maintain his integrity and intellectual coherence while remaining politically popular. I imagine the establishments of both parties are afraid of him.

    This is partly why I suspect Cruz is actually working to undercut Paul. Unlike Paul Cruz has a DC establishment pedigree, and unlike Paul Cruz has taken relatively few libertarian stances on issues. Paul was gaining quite a bit of momentum after his NSA and drone filibuster. I suspect Cruz stepped in to try to undercut Paul's growing support from Tea Party types, offering them the boldness of Paul but in more typical conservative Republican form. The NSA scandal was hurting Obama with many liberals quite upset with him. Cruz has taken that out of the picture, now partisans of both sides can go back to their usual lines of scrimmage and butt heads.

    I might be wrong, Cruz may turn out differently. If he did it would not make me sad in the least. But for now, I am wary of him.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Paul was gaining quite a bit of momentum after his NSA and drone filibuster.

    I don't see how you can consider that filibuster a good idea and Cruz' one not a good idea. Paul was filibustering something that had nothing to do with drones just because he was pissed at the BO admin, and he was highlighting a position where a significant fraction of the GOP and the public in general disagree with him.

    And of course, Cruz helped Paul with that filibuster. Your claims here make no sense, particularly about distracting from the NSA stuff...that's old hat now after Syria etc.

    I might be wrong, Cruz may turn out differently. If he did it would not make me sad in the least. But for now, I am wary of him.

    Considering you're a left-leaner, that's a good sign.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Paul gained significant traction after his filibuster, and then more when he came out so strongly against the NSA (Cruz, if you will recall, urged us 'not to rush to judgment before finally ascertaining how the wind was blowing and coming out in mild opposition to it). A 'significant fraction' of the GOP may have disagreed with him substantively, but most liked that he had the chutzpah to stand up to Obama and did not hold it against him. More importantly these issues were actually hurting Obama where it counted, peeling off his supporters. Cruz's filibuster will not do that.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    More importantly these issues were actually hurting Obama where it counted, peeling off his supporters.

    Bull. BO could eat a baby seal on live TV and they'd still vote Dem.

    They rattle their chains a bit once in a while, but he knows he can count on them in the end.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    'BO' lost a significant amount of voters from his last election, it is just he got such a high turnout from minorities with a disappointing turn out for Romney (and who can be surprised at that?).

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    'BO' lost a significant amount of voters from his last election,

    Yeah, they're called independents. He didn't lose shit among his base.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Perhaps not his base, but he surely lost voters that often vote Democratic.

  • ||

    Paul was filibustering something that had nothing to do with drones

    Er. why does it have to have something to do with drones? He was filibustering funding for the NSA's surveillance programs. Is that not worthy of filibustering?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    No, he wasn't. He was filibustering a confirmation. Were you even paying attention back then? You may want to get the basic facts straight before you embarrass yourself further.

  • ||

    Oh, you're right. I was confusing this with the recent vote that almost defunded the NSA.

    Still, who cares? If everyone remember's Paul filibustering over drones and forgets the specific vote he was filibustering, then it makes no difference. Paul gets the publicity with no downside.

    In this case, people aren't going to forget that THIS filibuster was threatening a government shutdown. There aren't going forget the context here.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Oh, you're right. I was confusing this with the recent vote that almost defunded the NSA.

    So you though he was filibustering a bill to defund the NSA? Uh-huh.

    Admit it, you're just throwing leftist spaghetti against the wall to see what sticks. like BCE.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    And his filibuster had nothing to do with the NSA stuff. Snowden's business happened months later.

  • John||

    Don't let the complete lack of evidence and the obvious viceral hatred the establishment has for Cruz stop you from persisting with your idiotic obsession that Cruz is a secret tool of the establishment.

    I can't figure out if you are really a lefty spreading bullshit or if your hatred of the socon menace is so deranged you can't think straight

    Taking the NSA off the media? Yeah that is what Cruz is really up to. You can't be that stupid. Not even shreek is that dumb.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Lack of evidence? Unlike Paul he is an Ivy educated, former Rehnquist clerk who has worked with elite DC law firms most of his career and was part of the W. Bush machine.

  • John||

    So what none of that means anything about what he believes. That is guilt by association and not even current association. You are just slandering Cruz. Is idiotc and no one here is buying it. The est lush net wasn't feeding nbc negative talking points because he is really one of them. Stop pretending everyone on here is stupid.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Do you have anything substantive to say in rebuttal? I have listed my points out for all to judge.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    John's reply looks damn substantive to me. Your so-called points are irrelevant.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Please point out the substantive points then.

    All I can see is this 'obvious viceral hatred the establishment has for Cruz.' As if a common strategy for a besieged establishment is not to put forward a fresh, ree-form candidate for the public.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Please point out the substantive points then.

    You're the one making the extraordinary claim... pointing out that your evidence is faulty is substantive enough.

  • Irish||

    The substantive point is the fact that you're arguing guilt by association. He went to an Ivy League school. And? The people at that school didn't like him because he was known for being very outspoken about his beliefs; beliefs that have been virtually unchanged since college according to them.

    He clerked for Rehnquist. So? You're a Harvard law graduate who wants to get a jump on your career. Is there a better way to do so than clerking for Rehnquist? I worked for the Republican Party in Wisconsin because I wanted to help against the pro-union Democrats. That doesn't mean I agree with the Republicans on everything. Should I be smeared as 'an establishment Republican' just because I worked for them for a few months?

    He was part of the Bush machine. Okay, let's say you're a fiscal conservative. You may disagree with Republicans on many issues, but if you want to help in politics, what are you going to do? Work for the Democrats? As far as I can tell, he worked with the people who were most closely aligned with his views. This does not mean he shared all their views.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Where one chooses to work and who with in politics does suggest things about someone. If this were another person in another context I imagine you would not disagree.

    But I will grant you it at most creates a rebuttable presumption. What bolsters that presumption for me is I see little evidence of Cruz taking positions outside of the conservative GOP mainstream. John's counterevidence is that 'the establishment' has a 'visceral hate' for him. But it is common in political history for an establishment that is besieged to put forward a 'reform figure' and then play against it, even giving it largely symbolic victories. So far that is all I see here.

    Like I said, perhaps Cruz will prove me wrong. Perhaps he will start to come out for positions outside of the conservative Republican mainstream, libertarian positions. If he does no one will be happier than I, but until he does I am wary and vastly prefer Rand Paul.

  • Pathogen||

    "Where one chooses to work and who with in politics does suggest things about someone. If this were another person in another context I imagine you would not disagree..."

    Well... Where do you work? You're another person, let's see if we disagree...

  • ||

    I don't know if it is guilt by association. If you spend you entire career in the arms of the DC establishment, and then one day start adopting rhetoric of a populist movement within the party, while carefully avoiding any issues that are actually controversial inside the party, it's not crazy to wonder if your recent conversion is less than sincere.

    I'll agree that Cruz's TACTICS have pissed off the establishment, mostly because they are politically unwise, but from a philosophical point of view Cruz's espoused positions are not very distinct from the establishment's.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    This is said better than I could have.

  • Irish||

    In a bizarre smear piece that the Daily Beast ran on Cruz they interviewed people he knew in college who said that he has not changed his rhetoric or his beliefs.

    Those people had no reason to lie about that and it didn't come in a pro-Cruz Tea Party article, it came from his opponents.

    He's also voted with Paul more than he's voted with the 'establishment.'

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    If you spend you entire career in the arms of the DC establishment, and then one day start adopting rhetoric of a populist movement within the party, while carefully avoiding any issues that are actually controversial inside the party, it's not crazy to wonder if your recent conversion is less than sincere.

    Are we talking about Ted Cruz still or is this Hazel's make believe time? Cause nothing in your post applies to Ted Cruz.

  • Irish||

    But he's a lawyer who chose to work for a Supreme Court justice! Clearly this proves he is just an establishment Republican and doesn't mean that he was trying to help his career and build a resume!

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    What in that section does not apply to Cruz?

  • Cytotoxic||

    Cruz's espoused positions are not very distinct from the establishment's.

    The Establishment believes in nothing but its perpetuation. Cruz doesn't and has actual beliefs.

    You want Cruz to be The Inside Man SO BAD but you have nothing to back it up. Not a thing.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Take that guilt by association shit back to Kos.

    I'm all for having diverse viewpoints around here, but you're just trolling with that shit.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    To turn your statement supra around, it is interesting that this discussion sparks so much quick heat with John and yourself, both of which have in the past been described as more conservative Republican than LP.

  • Cytotoxic||

    And they're still more libertarian than a concern troll shitheel like yourself.

  • Irish||

    Unlike Paul he is an Ivy educated, former Rehnquist clerk who has worked with elite DC law firms most of his career and was part of the W. Bush machine.

    Yes, and his former associates in college say that he's acting exactly like they remember him acting in college.

    Unless he's in deep cover and was purposefully tricking people when he was 20 so that they'd be running cover for him 25 years later, I think your bizarre conspiracy theory about Cruz working to undercut Paul doesn't have any merit.

    Seriously, with the exception of the Obamacare filibuster, which Paul was against, they've been together on almost everything. They vote together like 97% of the time.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    While Paul has taken such bold stances on subjects from felon disenfranchisement to the CRA to drug legalization to ending mandatory minimums, where has Cruz been? Calling for more harsh treatment of sexual predators and better military recruiting?

  • ||

    Exactly. I don't see anything about Cruz that isn't just a more fanatic version of the standard Republican positions.

    Cruz isn't so much a libertarian as a Republican going around in "libertarian populist" drag.

  • Cytotoxic||

    You don't understand what the word 'evidence' means. This is Shriek-level tardation right here.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Arguments using logic are utterly fruitless with the drones

    He's Brink Lindsey?

  • Emmerson Biggins||

    I had the same thought. Felt a little tin-foil-hatty for even having it. But still. If TEAM BE RULED operative were trying to keep team red and team blue together, he'd be sayin crap like that.

  • Cytotoxic||

    The NSA scandal was hurting Obama with many liberals quite upset with him. Cruz has taken that out of the picture

    1) WTF are you talking about?

    2) Please go away. You are a painfully obvious concern troll. You just keep repeating the same nonsense in the hopes that we're going to buy it if you re-word it. Not gonna happen concern troll.

  • anon||

    "But .. But ... Those guys can't be trusted. They have -principles-. We can't let principles infect DC!"

    /carney

  • ||

    Carney is not pro-establishment.

  • Live Free or Diet||

    Making Sense of the Modern Republican Party

    Otherwise known as trying to repeat a process that never occurred.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Who weeps for the poor, the young, the downtrodden and exploited? PBS, that's who.

    For instance, with apprenticeships there's a small but very effective office in Washington, D.C., called the Office of Apprenticeship, which mandates certain basic standards. We have hundreds of thousands of apprentices today in the U.S., in fact, mostly in blue-collar trades, and by and large, they get paid a living wage, they have health insurance, and although the system has its flaws, it's relatively fair. If you compare that to internships, where an estimated third or half are unpaid, there's clearly an issue of privilege and access, because a lot of people can't afford to work unpaid, and indeed it's not just working unpaid: you have to be able to afford rent; you have to be able to pay for your food while you're doing this; and it's increasingly in the most expensive cities in the country -- New York, D.C., L.A. -- where internships are concentrated. So there is really a kind of disconnect between the ideal that apprenticeships, to some extent, are fulfilling and what current internships represent.

    We should unionize college students and guarantee every single one of them a fulfilling job at a living wage. Otherwise, we might as well just feed them to the lions, or drown them at birth.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    So, what's your solution? Outlaw internships? That should increase access. ::rolleyes::

    Apprentices are paid well because they're doing valuable shit jobs that most people don't want to do.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    == outlaw internships.

    Wait, you probably think minimum wage laws force employers to hire people, too.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Oops, looks like our friend Vidkus got unpersoned! Now it looks like I'm arguing with myself, great.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    I thought that was a little premature.

  • Irish||

    Great idea! Then no one can have an internship! It's much better if no one gets experience than if middle class and upper class people are the only ones getting it.

    Let's say they made unpaid internships illegal and you had to pay a 'living wage' that white national socialists like you never bother to define. Do you seriously think those companies would pay low skilled poor people to shuffle papers around if they had to pay them $12 an hour to do so?

  • ||

    Then they won't hire any interns at all.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    You mean, there is incentive not to be poor?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    For instance, with apprenticeships there's a small but very effective office in Washington, D.C., called the Office of Apprenticeship, which mandates certain basic standards.

    And yet they were unable to prevent Trace Adkins from winning last season, AND letting Gary Busey survive 8 episodes. Fuck them.

  • Rhywun||

    Duh, we just need a small but effective office in D.C. called the Office of Internship - problem solved.

  • John||

    Because government sanctioned killing of children is so libertarian. If you think there is no libertarian case against abortion you are stupid or lying.

  • Tony||

    Calling abortion child murder, period, is a conversation stopper on what is actually a controversial issue (unlike child murder). Setting your hair on fire like this does not help your cause. Of course that's kind of beside the point since all you're doing lately is calling people names and lashing out. Perhaps you're just clever enough to realize that your party is eating itself alive?

  • The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc||

    Dude you are so full of shit. Who are you to lecture anyone on 'calling people names and lashing out' when proggies will say with a straight face that anyone who opposes Obamacare wants people to die by the thousands.

    Or if you support cutting spending you want poor children to starve from lack of food stamps.

  • Irish||

    Or that any criticism of Obama is racist. Or that the NRA wants people to be murdered even though virtually every study on the subject has found no link between more guns and more crime. Or that any libertarian is a closet neo-confederate. Or that libertarianism loves Wall Street even though libertarians are some of the strongest critics of the incestuous relationship between Wall Street and government...

    I could go on.

  • Tony||

    Personally, I don't think your motives matter as much as the outcomes. It is the case that you don't have an ideas about how to get more healthcare to people or more food in the mouths of poor children, is it not?

  • sarcasmic||

    It is the case that you don't have an ideas about how to get more healthcare to people or more food in the mouths of poor children, is it not?

    The libertarian idea is to allow millions of people voluntarily cooperate, putting their own ideas to work, and see what works well. As opposed to your insistence that everything must be centrally planned by Top. Men. who use violence to make sure no ideas but theirs are implemented.

    You are a fascist, through and through.

  • Irish||

    No he isn't! He's a product of the enlightenment! Tony has assured me that, even though he is opposed to virtually every idea that came out of the enlightenment, he is nonetheless an heir to that intellectual movement.

    Just because he's actively opposed to the rule of law, property rights, freedom of speech, the protection of minority political views, and free markets doesn't mean he wouldn't have got along just famously with Adam Smith and David Hume.

  • Tony||

    Except they can't test any ideas that involve pooling resources, the practical and efficient means by which humans have solved many collective problems. Obviously any such plan requires a measure of coercion to eliminate free riders and such. When you exclude that means all you're saying is the market is magic and will take care of it, and that is empirically a ridiculous claim.

  • Jordan||

    Pooling resources requires coercion? Holy fuck, there it is folks. The mask has not only slipped, it has warped into a whole other dimension.

  • Irish||

    He also once told me that there is no way more than 10 people could work together without government coercion.

    I then explained to him what a football team is.

  • Jordan||

    I mean, I'm sure that pooling resources would require coercion in progtopia, since any form of voluntary cooperation would be outlawed (see, for example, fraternal societies which provided cheap medical care to their members), but we aren't there yet...

  • The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc||

    Personally, I don't think your motives matter as much as the outcomes.

    How very closed-minded of you.

    It is the case that you don't have an ideas about how to get more healthcare to people or more food in the mouths of poor children, is it not?

    I do, you just refuse to even think that one can advocate for freer markets and economic liberty in good faith.

    Instead we are all just shill for the Great Koch Brothers Conspiracy to enslave the black people and women.

  • Irish||

    Tony once told me that he thinks I'm being paid by big oil to spout off on a libertarian political website. It was one of the most paranoid, conspiratorial, and borderline psychotic things that I have ever read.

    There's also the time he went off on a rant about how the government will kill us all with drones during a rebellion. That was hilarious.

  • sarcasmic||

    Tony once told me that he thinks I'm being paid by big oil to spout off on a libertarian political website.

    Well, obviously. I mean, like the only reason someone would apologize for the rich is because they're like an employed shill and stuff. Because, you know, like not taking is giving and not giving is taking, and stuff. So if you like believe that the rich should keep their own property instead of it being taken from them by force to feed starving children, then you are like actively using force to steal from starving children to give to the rich! And stuff. Totally.

    You're a fucking monster!

  • Jordan||

    There's also the time he told us he supports mandatory birth control.

  • Tony||

    No the truly pathetic thing is you aren't being paid; you're shilling for free. Ayn Rand would be ashamed of you. Again, your motives for denying science are borne of ignorance (kind of by definition), but I don't think you actually want to do enormous damage to the human species. That last bit is just not that relevant if the damage happens anyway.

  • Irish||

    Hey Tony, remember the time that you said Barack Obama should round of climate 'deniers' and have them all killed?

    I honestly love that you post here. I have very left wing friends, but they're all good people that I just disagree with. You, on the other hand, are a vile totalitarian who would immediately start goosestepping if you were in Germany in 1932.

    It's nice to have a truly evil prog post here, since it allows me to get a good idea of who the real enemy is. Some liberals can be reasoned with and are good people with whom I just happen to disagree.

    And then there are wannabe murderous thugs like you. You're the sort of person who wishes you could commit mass murder but doesn't have the balls so you outsource the slaughter of innocents to the government.

  • sarcasmic||

    Again, your motives for denying science are borne of ignorance (kind of by definition)

    That's hilarious!

    By definition science is, well, the scientific method. What you call "denying science" is denying consensus, which is not a tool of science, but rather a tool of politics.

    So denying climate "science" is actually denying politics.

    Yeah. I deny politics. With honor.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    It is the case that you don't have an ideas about how to get more healthcare to people or more food in the mouths of poor children, is it not?

    You gotta be shitting me!

  • Irish||

    Yeah. First solution: Stop regulating inner city businesses to such an extent that low skilled African-American workers aren't worth hiring. Then black people could get hired, make money, become more affluent, send their kids to better schools, and improve their lot far more than the government ever will.

    Of course, that would deny progs like Tony the opportunity to treat black people like dependent children and fulfill their neo-imperialist white progs burden fantasies, so this is unacceptable to the racist left.

  • Tony||

    You mean the problem with high black unemployment is regulations? No shit? Is there no problem that can't be solved by enacting the Chamber of Commerce's wish list? They should be given a Nobel prize for their endless supply of panaceas.

  • Jordan||

    Increasing the cost of something reduces demand. It's not a difficult concept. Well, I guess it's difficult for an intellectual movement that can turn toilet paper into a luxury item.

  • Tony||

    I missed the explanation about how black people are costlier employees than white people. Is there a shortage of workers for low-skilled positions? No, there are actually too many job seekers for the number of jobs. And the reason black people have disproportionately high unemployment is because poverty is a vicious cycle. Despite the underlying ethic of libertarianism (that poor people are too coddled), poverty actually means you have less access to good education and all the other means of upward mobility.

  • Jordan||

    Is there a shortage of workers for low-skilled positions? No, there are actually too many job seekers for the number of jobs.

    WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU WOULD EXPECT WHEN THE COST OF LABOR IS TOO HIGH. Jesus, you are fucking retarded.

  • Tony||

    No it's what I would expect when economic demand is too low. Employment is saturated despite the existence of a minimum wage.

  • Irish||

    No it's what I would expect when economic demand is too low. Employment is saturated despite the existence of a minimum wage.

    WHAT. Tony, when demand for labor is too low, that means THE COST OF THAT LABOR IS HIGHER THAN WHAT EMPLOYERS WILL PAY!

    That is exactly what we're talking about. Demand is low for inner city workers because the price of their labor is higher than the expected return of their production.

    Employment is saturated despite the existence of a minimum wage.

    Are you seriously arguing that raising the minimum wage will INCREASE demand for low skilled workers? How? How will raising the minimum wage make people who are already too costly for their level of production suddenly become employed?

  • Irish||

    I missed the explanation about how black people are costlier employees than white people.

    WOW! You are unbelievably dense.

    Work with me here. A worker has a certain skill level, or what is known in economics as 'human capital.' Some workers are worth more money. In America, due to an admittedly abhorrent racial history and the continuing failure of inner city schools, African Americans tend to have lower skill levels and less human capital. Of course, poor whites in Appalachia have the same problem.

    Whether someone will hire you is based upon whether you can produce enough to justify the price they have to pay to hire you. Since inner city African-Americans, again, often through no fault of their own, often have less human capital, the amount an employer is willing to spend for someone in the inner city is lower than how much they're willing to spend in a wealthy neighborhood.

    Therefore, the cost of regulation is more likely to have a negative effect on the employment rates of black communities due to raising the price of labor above the amount an employer can expect to get from hiring that labor.

    This is really simple, Tony. It's not that black people are costlier employees, it's just that poorly educated individuals produce less and are therefore not worth the cost if you overregulate businesses.

  • Tony||

    These economic problems that disproportionately affect black people are not a new phenomenon. They existed when we had near-full employment in the 90s. It only makes sense to focus on the underlying problems: a lack of overall economic demand that causes high unemployment, and the cycle of poverty that exacerbates economic problems in black communities. Minimum wages existed in good economic times and bad. It is not a significant enough policy to be responsible for what we're talking about, it's just a particular hobbyhorse of yours. You would blame your stubbed toe on high taxes and regulations. This single-minded dogma just isn't helpful, and worse it's cynical. Stop whoring out underprivileged minorities, who most certainly didn't ask for your help, for your economic plan that will inevitably hurt them worst of all.

  • Jordan||

    These economic problems that disproportionately affect black people are not a new phenomenon. They existed when we had near-full employment in the 90s.

    Which is why the black unemployment rate has always been above average.

  • Irish||

    These economic problems that disproportionately affect black people are not a new phenomenon. They existed when we had near-full employment in the 90s.

    Which is exactly what you would expect from pricing black labor, largely through costly regulation, above the clearing price. You're making arguments that prove my point.

    It only makes sense to focus on the underlying problems: a lack of overall economic demand that causes high unemployment, and the cycle of poverty that exacerbates economic problems in black communities.

    Again, a lack of overall demand for black labor is proof OF my point, not against it. There is a cycle of poverty because no businesses open up in the inner cities because regulatory costs outweigh the potential profit someone can make through using inner city labor.

    Minimum wages existed in good economic times and bad.

    And as you just said, black people were highly unemployed in both good and bad times. This implies that minimum wages result in lower employment at the fringes even when the rest of the economy is fine. This PROVES MY POINT.

    This single-minded dogma just isn't helpful, and worse it's cynical. Stop whoring out underprivileged minorities, who most certainly didn't ask for your help, for your economic plan that will inevitably hurt them worst of all.

    You post arguments that prove my point and then start raving nonsensically. Okay, Tony.

  • XM||

    Most of the manual labor jobs performed by blacks in the past are now taken by Latinos and other immigrants.

    You won't find "ethnic enclaves" in America where there aren't (sometimes illegal) Latino laborers. A Vietnamese noodle house can hire 3,4 Mexican kitchen workers through word of mouth (their community is better networked), and many of these workers have some working knowledge of how to prep and make Asian food and such.

    Since blacks seem less willing to work in the shadow economy and perform hard labor, so they'll get hit the most anytime there's layoffs. They don't speak Spanish, and they don't have Asian's grads and earning power. Most Asian owned businesses tend to hire Asian waitresses and receptionists. Just go to LA or Koreatown.

  • Pathogen||

    "..And the reason black people have disproportionately high unemployment is because poverty is a vicious cycle I like turtles..."

  • Irish||

    Tony, when a poorly educated worker becomes too expensive for an employer to turn a profit from his productivity, that worker will go unhired.

    Is there no basic economic concept that can't be ignored by a would-be fascist who spends his days grinding his teeth over the fact that the American legal system robs him of the opportunity to murder his political opponents?

    Apparently there is not.

  • sarcasmic||

    Q: What do you call an unskilled worker (regardless of race) in a jurisdiction with a high minimum wage?

    A: Permanently unemployed.

  • Rhywun||

    You mean the problem with high black unemployment is regulations? No shit?

    Well, not just regulations. Unions too. And public schooling that serves administrators at the expense of students. Pretty much the whole progressive wish-list, in fact.

  • Pathogen||

    "Personally, I don't think your motives matter as much as the outcomes..."

    Ends ≥ means?

  • John||

    You don't like it because it is true. Either life begins before birth or it doesn't. And there is no thing controversial about abortion on the left. All abortion is considered laudable and good. Especially if it involves killing brown people.

  • Tony||

    Life began billions of years ago. Personhood, an artificial legal concept, is the matter at hand, and there is the civilized way of treating it or the authoritarian theocratic way. The latter doesn't care about human life so much as pleasing imaginary friends.

  • John||

    It is real "civilized" to pretend that a person is a lump of cells one moment and magically a person the next because of the trip down the birth canal. Yeah, that is real civilized. No magic thinking there.

    To believe in abortion on demand at any point in the pregnancy, which is an article of religious faith among your ilk, is to completely deny the science surrounding fetal development. But who needs science when you can have a program that ensures many fewer black children are born?

  • Irish||

    I agree with John. I'm pro-choice early in a pregnancy, but once a fetus is viable I see no good faith argument that can result in you saying it's not murder to abort.

    At that point you're basically arguing that it's a life or not a life based on location rather than development. If a baby could come out and conceivably live, aborting such a baby is infanticide.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    -I'm pro-choice early in a pregnancy, but once a fetus is viable I see no good faith argument that can result in you saying it's not murder to abort.

    Then you are at odds with your party and SoCons in a very big way. Yet in these discussions I only hear you criticize those who are pro-choice. Why is that?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Ah, Irish, I thought your comment came from John, my mistake.

    Though my point re John stands.

  • Tony||

    My position is that the line should be drawn at the most practical place--understanding that abortion is a fact of life and will always happen (though it can be mitigated if your theocratic buddies get their claws off birth control too).

    So you might say that all women who seek or get abortions should be locked up as murderers or attempted murderers, with the appropriate sentences applied for the outrage of child murder. In fact you'd have to advocate for that in order to be consistent with your premise. I just think that is untenable.

  • sarcasmic||

    If a drunk driver runs over a pregnant woman crossing the street to get an abortion, did he commit one or two murders?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    I thought we were supportive of drunk driving around here.

  • Tony||

    I dunno, should we wait till the woman gives birth before we send her to the electric chair?

  • sarcasmic||

    I dunno, should we wait till the woman gives birth before we send her to the electric chair?

    Dipshit tilting at straw men.

    As I said above, while I am morally opposed to it, I think abortion should be legal only because prohibition makes things worse. As in I'd rather a mother get a legal abortion live, than seek an illegal abortion and die.

  • Robert||

    Meanwhile none of you has any answer to someone like me who says it should be legal to kill anything that would not object in advance to being killed and is not the property of anyone who does object to its being killed.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    -You don't like it because it is true.

    It is sentimental claptrap, the pro-life equivalent of the 'for the children' talk from liberals. Pro-life people know very well that the basis for the beliefs of pro-choice people is that what is at stake are not 'children' or 'babies' yet they choose to discuss the matter as 'baby-killing' and such.

    Your racism charge is even more silly, borrowing a cheap rhetorical trick directly from what you call 'progs.'

  • John||

    You as usual have completely missed the point. The point is that if you believe that life begins before birth, the libertarian position has to be pro life. So, there the matter is hardly settled and pointing to R support of pro life position is not evidence they are not libertarian or leaning. It is evidence they understand that life begins before birth.

    And the left has a long history of support of eugenics. Unwanted children is nothing but code for "undesirable children". Pro choice, at least when practiced by people like NARAL is very much a racist position.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    -Unwanted children is nothing but code for "undesirable children". Pro choice, at least when practiced by people like NARAL is very much a racist position.

    What more proof could I need than this that you are essentially simply 'flipping' leftist talking points and rhetoric. 'Code for 'undesirable children' and racism indeed.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Well, eugenics was the leftist position before the Austrian corporal pushed it too far.

  • sarcasmic||

    Abortion is a tough one because while I am morally opposed to it, it's one of those deals where prohibition makes things worse. Ideally it would be legal but frowned upon, but that's just not the case. Instead it is morality that is frowned upon.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    Well, I agree with sarcasmic.

  • Cytotoxic||

    They're not children.

  • Nazdrakke||

    left-libertarian

    Still not sure what the hell this means as applied to American politics.

  • Tony||

    Surely there are some libertarians out there who aren't white supremacists.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Surely there are some libertarians out there who aren't white supremacists.

    Fuck you, you disingenuous cunt.

  • ||

    Tony, are you stoned? WTF are you talking about? Never mind, dont answer.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    He forgot to declaw the gerbil last night and yada yada yada now he has a perforated colon.

    I would call 911 for him if I cared about him dying.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    People who frame things in terms of liberty but then change the definition of coercion to apply to voluntary power relationships.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    I'm certain the Ministry of Plenty will do a bangup job of regulating and allocating internships. We cannot allow individuals to make these kinds of decisions without the guidance of our Best and Brightest.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    The poor are in effect shut out from these opportunities.

    Pardon me while I wipe the tear from my eye.

  • Irish||

    Shut the fuck up, American. You care about your noble white Americans, but black and Hispanic Americans could hang for all you care.

    Stop pretending you care about anything other than your fellow chinless goat fucking racists, you little weasel.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    I always thought P Brooks was American.

  • Irish||

    Yeah. I wish they'd put a 'comment deleted' post when they boot someone so that it didn't look so bizarre when a racist gets bounced.

  • Cytotoxic||

    I like it. Adds a sense of mystery.

  • Pathogen||

    Tulpa was arguing with evil Tulpa further up the thread, and Irish accused Brooks of being American (without a shred of evidence, mind you)... this is how Reason actively sows discontent.

  • Irish||

    I care about Black and Hispanic Americans and want what is best for them. = I think blacks and spics should stay with their own kind and stop polluting my noble gene pool.

    Seriously, why does reason have such a hard time banning this guy?

    I also like this part:

    But I care about my own race too and I won't let my compassion for Blacks and Hispanics lead me to support policies that are detrimental to the White race.

    Yeah, and I won't let my compassion lead me to support policies that are detrimental to all of human kind. You apparently have no such hang up.

  • SugarFree||

    Seriously, why does reason have such a hard time banning this guy?

    They can ban a handle, but not the underlying IP because it's either masked or dynamic.

    Although I really don't see the difference between American assuming there are white supremacists here for him to recruit and Tony calling us all white supremacists. Or shrike accusing us of being pro-AIDS.

    They are attempting to make this place look like it's full of evil opinions to the casual reader.

  • John||

    That is the idea. That is why they should be banned. The other day Shreek was responding to one of these posts with "this is why Libertarians will never reach anyone"

    It was tag team trolling where one leftist asshole posts something awful using a sock puppet and another responds to it giving it credibility.

  • Tony||

    I think any and all of the white supremacists who may or may not be banned here should be allowed to speak freely. This is a place of open and freewheeling debate, right? I think a disservice is done when the white supremacist viewpoint is disproportionately censored. It's a real viewpoint that's out there, and it helps no one for us to pretend that it's not.

  • John||

    But the person doing this is not an actual white supremacist. It is a leftist who is posting this shit here so that it can be used as evidence that Libertarians are really racists. For this reason they should be banned.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    It is a leftist who is posting this shit here so that it can be used as evidence that Libertarians are really racists.

    You know it. I know it. But proving libel is a tough trick, as you must prove intent to harm.

    Reason does more damage to itself if it bans than the trolls can muster otherwise.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Tony|9.29.13 @ 3:31PM|#

    I think any and all of the white supremacists who may or may not be banned here should be allowed to speak freely

    You are Tony, you are.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    That is why they should be banned.

    Hard to be a libertarian and call for bans on speech. Ya lose all credibility. Particularly when you are a media outlet that makes its living because speech is free.

  • John||

    I see your point Francisco. But the problem is leftists use that against Libertarians. They post racist stuff using sock puppets and then use the existence of that as evidence that Libertarians are racist. They do it to right wing boards all of the time.

    Sure people have a right to be white supremacists. But they don't necessarily have a right to post here.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Hard to be a libertarian and call for bans on speech. Ya lose all credibility.

    Favoring free speech does not mean that you have to let some asshole put a sign on you or your property implying that you are a racist.

  • SugarFree||

    And American has been "asked" to leave over and over again. This isn't about free speech, it's about property rights and trespass.

    American, like Mary and White Indian V 1.0, are aggressing against Hit and Run and the Reason staff is using the mildest form of self-defense to counter them.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Favoring free speech does not mean that you have to let some asshole put a sign on you or your property implying that you are a racist.

    False analogy. First, it's none of OUR property. Second, Reason advertises free minds, free markets. While they have the right to do what they will on their property, killing dissenting opinion rings of hypocrisy.

    Better to let the trolls, troll and let the commentariat refute the accusations, which really isn't that difficult.

    Racism and libertarianism are mutually exclusive.

  • Virginian||

    Racism and libertarianism are mutually exclusive.

    False. Racism does not violate the NAP.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Hard to be a libertarian and call for bans on speech.

    Freedom of speech does not imply a right to an audience.

    They're free to start their own blog and invite traffic there.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Freedom of speech does not imply a right to an audience.

    You are free to ignore their shit.

  • SugarFree||

    You are free to ignore their shit.

    I guess you don't remember the 2000 comment threads that were 80% Mary talking to herself.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    I guess you don't remember the 2000 comment threads that were 80% Mary talking to herself.

    Well, you have no right to not be annoyed. Tony annoys the hell out of me, but I wouldn't ban him.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Seriously FDA? You don't think Reason has a right to remove annoying messages from their property?

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Tulpa, look 4 comments upthread.

    While they have the right to do what they will on their property, killing dissenting opinion rings of hypocrisy.
  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    How does removing the comments of a known troll contradict "free minds, free markets"? We've had plenty of dissenting opinions (including me) allowed to plant themselves on these here threads. It's a behavior issue, not an opinion issue.

  • Cytotoxic||

    It's not remotely hypocritical FDA. Shriek and the other tards don't post anything of quality. Reason has every right to enforce QA and H&R and they should.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Reason has every right to enforce QA and H&R and they should.

    Cy

    I NEVER said they didn't have the right to. I said it's not in their best interests to.

  • Cytotoxic||

    It is. This board is not improved by the presence of Andrew Sullivan Shrike and Tony and other tards. 'Inclusiveness' sucks.

  • Pathogen||

    Ahh... and the incoherent ramblings of W.I....

  • SIV||

    Tulpa and "Bo" are working on it.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    So you pit one race against another.

    You know what that makes you?

    Larry?

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Nobody picked up on my Bull Durham reference. I haz a sad.

  • ||

    Uhhhh....your solution is to make internships pay a 'living wage'?

    Internships are not given out to people who can afford to work unpaid as much as they are given out to people with connections. If you force a living wage from internships, you will make the problem several orders of magnitude worse. There will be far fewer internships and those will be given exclusively to the most connected individuals.

    So far, without exception, when I hear someone endorsing a 'living wage' it has been followed by idiocy.

  • ||

    My comment was to the person whose comments have been removed.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Still not sure what the hell this means as applied to American politics.

    I think left-libertarians are those QUESTION AUTHORITY Democrats you see every fucking where you go.

  • Nazdrakke||

    Ah them. They always leave out the rest of the statement which seems to be: SO WE CAN MAKE SURE YOU'RE DOING IT RIGHT.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Wow, it didn't take long for American, or whoever that was, to vanish in a poof of malodorous smoke.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    And it didn't take you long to come back.

  • The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc||

    Alex Trebeck: Agent provocateur in the War on Women

    So who’s minding the “Jeopardy!” desk anyway? As it turns out, mostly men. Michele Loud (editorial supervisor) and Debbie Griffin (related to the creator, Merv?) are the only two women on the show’s current slate of nine writers. Suzanne Stone (research supervisor) is the lone woman among five men listed on the research team, according to the show’s website.

    Now, one could argue that there are simply more famous men than women. Maybe I should accept that for centuries women were in the kitchen, whereas men were free to create stuff, explore places, and build things. You don’t hear much about Mrs. Columbus or Mrs. Debussy, come to think of it. So maybe it’s unfair to expect that women should be represented equally on quiz shows.

    But what about categories where women easily come to mind? Like when “1960s TV” popped up one night, I instantly conjured Jeannie, Samantha, Gidget, Agent 99, Diahann Carroll, Mary Tyler Moore, Dinah Shore, and Donna Reed (I’m a boomer, remember). Instead we got a five-for-five male roster: Batman, the Grinch, “Bonanza,“ Maxwell Smart, and Dick Van Dyke.

    So she pretty much demolishes her own argument about sexist Jeopardy not having enough questions with women as answers. This is how college teaches people to think and reason.

  • Winston||

    So is she demanding that Jeopardy have some 50/50 quota of men and women answers?

    But what about categories where women easily come to mind? Like when “1960s TV” popped up one night, I instantly conjured Jeannie, Samantha, Gidget, Agent 99, Diahann Carroll, Mary Tyler Moore, Dinah Shore, and Donna Reed

    Wouldn't she instead be complaining of how sexist this was?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    I'll take The Rapists for $200, Alex.

  • Snark Plissken||

    Please mansplain your answers in the form of a question.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    So we've got Bo Cara, Tulpa, Tony AND John? Oh lord help this thread.

  • sarcasmic||

    At least Randian is here to hand out personal attacks.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Is NlK Randian? I didn't pick up on that.

  • sarcasmic||

    Yep. How does the saying go? Something about a big cat and spots?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Randian is no Isaac Newton. He's not even a Brook Taylor.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Randian is no Isaac Newton. He's not even a Brook Taylor.

  • John||

    I think you are right.

  • sarcasmic||

    I think you are right.

    The other day he/she/it claimed not to be hiding behind a new name, but that was on a deserted thread. When anyone is around, like now, he/she/it suddenly vanishes. Very telling.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    I'm right here, moron. No, I am not "hiding" behind anything. Yes, I once used the handle "Randian". I changed my name because of in-joke on twitter with a couple of people from reason. nothing nefarious except to the simple minded like yourself.

  • sarcasmic||

    It mans up. I'm shocked.

  • sarcasmic||

    Then again this thread isn't showing much sign of life.

  • SIV||

    Whatever you say, Nancy.

  • Cytotoxic||

    You're Randian!??! Shit I had no idea thought you disappeared.

  • John||

    It is funny, you are one of the more dimwitted posters on here. You are just less annoying because you are not a lefty troll. You have never once made an interesting or original argument. You mostly just spout the L talking points. That makes you much less annoying than say Tony or Bo. But it makes you really boring.

    That wouldn't be so bad except that you either secretly realize this and try to compensate by being tiresome or smug or worse you actually think you are smart and interesting. There are some smart and funny and interesting people on here, you are not one of them. You would do well to think a little harder about your own views and think a little less about how inferior everyone else is supposed to be. If your smugness wasn't so pathetic, it would be a bit comical.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    The "L" talking points? Classic.

  • John||

    Those would be Libertarian talking points. You are very good at mouthing all of the expected things and going with the flow. But you never deviate or have anything original or interesting to say. You are amazing conformist for someone who claims to believe in individualism.

  • SIV||

    Bo Cara, Tulpa,

    Are these two different posters?
    Is "Bo" Tulpa's slightly more retarded liberaltarian brother?

  • robc||

    Mirror universe.

    Bo leans left, Tulpa leans right. Both fit into a big tent libertarianism, but they are in the smelly corners of the tent that I avoid.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Wait, I'm on the right again? How did that happen?

    A couple of weeks ago I was supposedly a leftist infiltrator because I questioned whether mentally ill people should be armed.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    but they are in the smelly corners of the tent that I avoid.

    +1 vent flap

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Personally, I don't think your motives matter as much as the outcomes.

    Hilarious, coming from you, Tony.

  • Tony||

    Why? I'm not the insufferable moral absolutist nannies you guys are. Motives can come from ignorance about the outcomes. People should be judged on the outcomes though, regardless of whether they result from deliberation or from ignorance.

  • Sevo||

    ..."People should be judged on the outcomes though, regardless of whether they result from deliberation or from ignorance."

    A lefty just made that statement.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    And the irony will be completely lost on him.

  • Tony||

    Is this another one of those times where I'm to blame for Stalin, Hitler, and Mao?

  • The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc||

    No, just the failures and collateral damage resulting from the War on Poverty and War on Drugs.

  • Tony||

    How are liberals responsible for the War on Drugs?

    We'll have to agree to disagree that antipoverty programs have been misguided. I think they have been far too lacking in ambition, personally.

  • SugarFree||

    Please stop feeding the troll.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    Why people want to spend all of their lives arguing with sockpuppets, I'll never know.

  • SugarFree||

    I try not to judge them for their perversions.

  • SIV||

    Which one? We need a roster.

  • ||

    Can we not make this thread about abortion please?

  • Nazdrakke||

    Well, EvH hasn't shown up so far so all is not yet lost.

  • SugarFree||

    And on the Seventh Day, PopeTroll rested.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    He apparently just sics his Cardinals of Trolldom on all of us.

  • SugarFree||

    No one expects the Arguing From Irreconcilable Premises Inquisition!

  • Nazdrakke||

    Derp and Denial, Denial and Derp and Logical Fallacies..

  • Sevo||

    How about some agitprop in advance of Obamacare?
    "Why some will choose to opt out of Obamacare"
    Well, 'cause the people who choose to do that are falth-healers, that's why:
    ..."It's that the insurance offered doesn't cover the type of care she relies on: prayer."...
    See, everybody luvs them some Obamacare, 'cept for whackos!
    http://www.sfgate.com/health/a.....853486.php

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    That was started by American/Vidkus -- take it up when (s)he shows up again under a new name.

  • General Butt Naked||

    This thread is an abortion. Isn't that enough for you?

  • ||

    Oh, and Tony, you may be pleased to see the Repub party eating itself alive, but you are ( as always ) completely wrong.

    What you are seeing is a battle to revive the party with principle. If the libertarian movement within the Republican party succeeds the democrat party, as it currently exists, infested with socialists and fascists, will be done for.

    And, as always, go fuck yourself.

  • Tony||

    I am seeing retarded toddlers throwing feces at screaming baboons, not a battle over principles. Neither wing of the Republican party has any grasp on facts about practically anything. Because they've spent the last couple decades watching nothing but FOX News.

  • Sevo||

    Tony|9.29.13 @ 3:05PM|#
    "I am seeing retarded toddlers throwing feces at screaming baboons,"

    Leave Obama and that hag out of this.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    What does the FOX say?

  • DK||

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Swiper no swiping! Swiper no swiping! Swiper no swiping!

  • ||

    I already pointed out that you are wrong on nearly everything, you didnt have to give more evidence.

  • The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc||

  • SugarFree||

    Yes. Obviously. Neither of them went to Oberlin in order to learn how to properly consent to tongual interaction.

  • ||

    This thread is rape culture.

  • robc||

    So Tulpa v Bo...which one has the goatee?

  • Snark Plissken||

    We are in the darkest timeline.

  • SugarFree||

  • Robert||

    I can't shake the image of Bo Cara as a woman, because of the Cara part. Tulpa I could go both ways with.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Tulpa I could go both ways with.

    You must be really flexible.

    Just so you're not disappointed, I've been compared to a white version of Cedric the Entertainer.

  • Lord at War||

    Are you not entertained?

  • The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc||

    California authorizes the production of industrial hemp...as soon as Federal government rescinds ban

    California farmers could be growing industrial hemp - not marijuana, mind you - by spring after Gov. Jerry Brown signed legislation that would permit California farmers to grow the long-banned distant cousin of the trippy herb.

    But only if the federal government lifts its hemp cultivation ban.

    The new law permits the growing of industrial hemp - which contains trace amounts of tetrahydrocannabinol or THC, the active psychoactive component in cannabis - for the sale of seed, oil and fiber. Nine other states have passed similar laws.

    There is a potential agricultural windfall in California, where $500 million worth of hemp products were sold in 2012, according to industry figures - but all the raw hemp was imported from China, Canada and eastern Europe.

    But that windfall won't be realized unless the federal law is relaxed. Federal law regulates hemp in largely the same way it does its medicinal cousin. There hasn't been a commercial industrial hemp crop grown in the U.S. since 1957, hemp advocates say.

    Meaningless legislation is meaningless.

  • robc||

    Paul and McConnell are pushing it on the federal level, as KY has done basically the same thing.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    How the hell did you guys allow that scumhag Allison Grimes into office?

  • The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc||

    California authorizes the production of industrial hemp...as soon as Federal government rescinds ban

    California farmers could be growing industrial hemp - not marijuana, mind you - by spring after Gov. Jerry Brown signed legislation that would permit California farmers to grow the long-banned distant cousin of the trippy herb.

    But only if the federal government lifts its hemp cultivation ban.

    The new law permits the growing of industrial hemp - which contains trace amounts of tetrahydrocannabinol or THC, the active psychoactive component in cannabis - for the sale of seed, oil and fiber. Nine other states have passed similar laws.

    There is a potential agricultural windfall in California, where $500 million worth of hemp products were sold in 2012, according to industry figures - but all the raw hemp was imported from China, Canada and eastern Europe.

    But that windfall won't be realized unless the federal law is relaxed. Federal law regulates hemp in largely the same way it does its medicinal cousin. There hasn't been a commercial industrial hemp crop grown in the U.S. since 1957, hemp advocates say.

    Meaningless legislation is meaningless.

  • Robert||

    It's not meaningless. It just awaits the US DEA drafting more economic regs for licensure of hemp, or the approval of an application for hemp as an "exempt preparation" of cannabis, which AFAIK no entrepreneur has submitted. The situation is analogous to that of drug preparations containing small amounts of narcotics that are thereby exempt by rule from DEA regs for the control schedule those narcotics would otherwise put them in—but which many states do not exempt. So the state law does matter irrespective of the federal one.

  • Sevo||

    'Scuse me if this has been noted, but Christie is only 90% horrible:

    "Steve Malanga: How Chris Christie Split the Labor Movement in New Jersey"
    "My guys haven't gotten a raise in two years because their entire raise went to their health and pension costs," Mr. Sweeney said. "New Jersey has a government that we can't afford any longer."
    This drew a swift response from Bob Master of Communications Workers of America, which represents 35,000 state government workers. "This is frankly the kind of rhetoric we would expect from a right-wing Republican,"
    http://online.wsj.com/article/.....hp_opinion

  • Cytotoxic||

    There's actually a lot of good points for Christie in that article.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Fuck that fat fascist fuck!

  • Rhywun||

    I don't think he's as bad as everyone here makes him out to be. At least he doesn't seem as corrupt as several of his predecessors.

  • paulpemb69@aol.com||

    There's a ringing endorsement! Hey, at least Christie's not as corrupt as Jon Corzine!"

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    At least NJ doesn't have an entire wing of a federal prison for its governors.

  • Rhywun||

    Well, yeah, that's all I've got. But we're talking about NJ here. He is about as good as it can possibly get.

  • ro2nn3||

    Start working at Home with Google. It’s the most financially rewarding I ve ever done. On Saturday I got a gorgeous Ariel Atom after earning $6292. I began this six months/ago and right away began to make at least $80 per-hour. Official site, www.Pow6.com
    WORK LESS EARN MORE

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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

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

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement