A.M. Links: Terry McAuliffe, Chris Christie, Bill de Blasio Win Elections, Kathleen Sebelius Returns to Capitol Hill, At Least One Dead in China Bomb Blasts

  • w00t puerto ricoMSNBCDemocrat Terry McAuliffe was elected governor in a tight race in Virginia, challenging the notion the place is a blue state yet, while in traditionally Democrat New Jersey Republican Chris Christie easily won re-election, and Bill de Blasio becomes the first Democrat to be elected mayor of deep blue New York City since David Dinkins in 1989. Will he last as long? In other cities, Marty Walsh won the mayor’s race in Boston, and former prosecutor Mike Duggan won the mayor’s race in Detroit.
  • Kathleen Sebelius will be back on Capitol Hill to testify more about how she’s accountable for Obamacare’s problems and how they’ll be fixed anyway.
  • Ladar Levison, who ran the e-mail service used by NSA leaker Edward Snowden before being forced by government actions to shut down, plans to launch a surveillance-proof and easy –to-use se-mail service next year.
  • At least one person was killed by a series of bomb blasts outside the Chinese Communist Party’s headquarters in the provincial capital of Taiyuan.
  • France is not planning on delaying its withdrawal from Mali any further in the face of a resurgence of violence that included the killing of two French journalist.
  • Diplomats from Iran, Israel, other Middle Eastern countries and even the US reportedly met in secret last month to talk about the possibility of organizing a conference on the banning of nuclear weapons in the region.

Follow Reason and Reason 24/7 on Twitter, and like us on Facebook.  You can also get the top stories mailed to you—sign up here. 

Have a news tip? Send it to us!

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

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Democrat Terry McAuliffe was elected governor in a tight race in Virginia...

    See? America loves socialized medicine and hates government shutdowns. And is apparently indifferent on Clintonian political corruption.

  • ||

    Yeah, I just asked about this on the other thread. I mentioned how Sarvis's family looks genuine (as opposed to the other one ruling the country) and that if Obamacare is so hated why wasn't Cuccinelli elected?

    I'm depressed. Di Blasio was elected in NYC. Here in Montreal, the idiots voted in a former Liberal party hack and crony. It seems everywhere we have a chance to elect for meaningful change we balk at it.

    I hate people.

  • wareagle||

    it may be time to put "change" in the weasel word category. People don't want the meaningful variety becuase it might cause them discomfort, like requiring that they make some decisions themselves instead of having govt do it for them.

  • gaijin||

    People do want change. They jsut want to see it in how others behave.

  • Rich||

    JidaKida?!

  • gaijin||

    uh, wut?

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    You types jsut.

  • fish||

    I hate people.

    I hate you you dirty Canadian.

  • ||

    Hey.

    I use Irish Spring.

  • GILMORE||

    what do you care? you're a fish

  • gimmeasammich||

    Maybe he wasn't always a fish, just like The Incredible Mr. Limpet.

  • Mike M.||

    We somehow managed to hold out a lot longer than you guys up there did, but it's over down here as well. America was by far the toughest nut to crack, but crack we have. Decades of public school indoctrination and relentless media propaganda have finally achieved their desired effect. I suppose it was probably inevitable.

  • Brett L||

    You get the government 16% of the population voted for.

  • thom||

    Maybe this will finally put an end to all the racist fear-mongering that has corrupted our political culture and finally allow our elected officials to get things done.

  • fish||

    Excellent point thom! There are dirty back room deals to be done....our politicians, now freed from the shackles of scandals of their own making can get down to the serious business of enriching themselves and their political patrons at the expense of the taxpayers!

  • thom||

    Exactly. Time to stop pointing fingers and start addressing the issues.

  • ||

    They want the world seen in Demolition Man.

    They will fine you for swearing. Won't be long now.

  • Gbob||

    Or they like sodomy. I sure do.

  • db||

    Bombs set off at Taiyuan, Shanxi Province, Communist Party Headquarters

    When I was there two weeks ago there were fireworks going off in the city all day-luckily for me, none of them were packed with shrapnel.

    Several of the companies I visited introduced us to their Communist Party Secretaries, who are installed on site to make sure the companies tow the Party lion. The one reminded me exactly of the Wet Nurse from Atlas Shrugged--a young guy right out of school installed by the government to exert control over and report on a business run by experienced adults who despised him. He was introduced almost sneeringly as a "very important man."

  • Lord Humungus||

    Troll Alert

    Remember that the trolls are in a state of Coventry. Do not respond, take the bait, or become their online porn.

    Coventry - the state of being banished or ostracized (excluded from society by general consent); "the association should get rid of its elderly members trolls --not by euthanasia, of course, but by Coventry"

  • William of Purple||

    until Sevo signs on you're fighting a losing battle.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Sevo isn't one of the ones we would be excluding?

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    A troll is only someone you haven't convinced yet.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Or a character in The Nightman Cometh.

  • ||

    Meh.

    This should be no problem as they show up less often and their arguments are increasingly weak.

    As obumbles becomes more transparently lies through and through I think even our resident trolls are having difficulty defending him.

    I keep thinking of Sebelius mumbling " ...dont make me do this..." in front of congress. At some point they have to realize they have bet on the wrong horse.

  • gaijin||

    or become their online porn.

    But this is the best chance I'll ever have at being a porn star.

  • Lord Humungus||

    *queues 70s porn music*

  • Zeb||

    I admire your persistence, but how far do you really think you are going to get with a bunch of prickly, contrarian anti-authority types?

  • Lord Humungus||

    apparently not far at all.

  • BuSab Agent||

    You're not the boss of me!

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Kathleen Sebelius will be back on Capitol Hill to testify more...

    Don't do this to me.

  • db||

    Rubbed raw?

  • Rich||

    "Now I've got you, my pretty!"

  • Brett L||

    The analogy doesn't hold up as the Wicked Witch never had a pack of monkeys turn on her.

  • Ted S.||

    Nobody's forcing you to watch the hearings.

  • DJF||

    That is until the Affordable News Dissemination Act is passed and you will be fined, oops, I mean taxed if you don’t watch it.

  • Rich||

    Damn it, DJF!

  • Rich||

    Actually, Ted, that is mandated by Democratcare.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    DO NONE OF YOU KNOW SEBELIUS'ES CONNECTION WITH THAT PHRASE?

  • gaijin||

    don't that to us Fist

  • gaijin||

    FOCK!

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    You can't even get that right.

  • gaijin||

    I am shame

  • Steve G||

    +1 hot mike

  • BakedPenguin||

    C'mon Fist, you have to admit -

    ...how she’s accountable for Obamacare’s problems and how they’ll be fixed anyway.

    young Ed got a good line in.

  • mad_hominist||

    Pisses me off how they keep parading out Sebelius to take the hit on this, like that's where the blame lies. Hope he has the balls to take someone down with him.

  • Lord Humungus||

    'Bigfoot hunt' ends in shooting, arrests

    An apparent hunt for Bigfoot in the woods of Oklahoma went wrong after a man reportedly heard a “barking noise,” turned around and shot his friend in the back, police say.

    One of the men told authorities they were hunting for the mythical beast in the woods of Rogers County Saturday night.
  • William of Purple||

    they arrested BigFoot?

  • Swiss Servator, WWII gold...?||

    STEVE SMITH STILL ROAMS FREE!

  • AlexInCT||

    GOONIE GOO GOO!

  • BuSab Agent||

    WTF? Everyone knows there are no Bigfeet in Oklahoma. Now Washington...

  • sarcasmic||

    Sibling for Coco!: David Arquette got girlfriend Christina McLarty 'pregnant two months after finalizing his divorce from Courteney Cox'


    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvs.....vorce.html
    Dude needs to sober up.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    ...to talk about the possibility of organizing a conference on the banning of nuclear weapons in the region.

    If you outlaw nukes...

  • alittlesense||

    only nukes will have outlaws?

  • Auric Demonocles||

    to talk about the possibility of organizing a conference

    Don't quote me regulations! I co-chaired the committee that reviewed the recommendation to revise the color of the book that regulation's in... We kept it gray!

  • Raven Nation||

    All hail #1.

  • AlexInCT||

    In Soviet Russia nukes outlaw you!

  • sarcasmic||

    She's almost as tall as the Terminator! Arnold Schwarzenegger heads out to lunch with his Amazonian daughter Christina


    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvs.....stina.html
    They called her an Amazonian, not me. I would have called her a brick shithouse.

  • db||

    She is strong, like bull.

  • William of Purple||

    also smart, like ox.

  • Mike M.||

    Poor girl got beaten fairly hard with the Ugly Stick.

  • db||

    I disagree.

  • fish||

    I disagree.

    Me too! Of course you probably won't want to attempt that without a safety harness and Sherpas.

  • SugarFree||

    That special time in a young woman's life when she finally manages to weigh more than her dad.

  • William of Purple||

    that's usually 11 years old. I think Christina is older.

  • Root Boy||

    She needs to get on a bike or do some running

  • Brett L||

    Five foot six is Amazonian?

  • BakedPenguin||

    Huh? The report says her dad is 6'2", and she's maybe a couple inches shorter than he is.

  • Brett L||

    Arnold ain't six-foot-two.

  • Snark Plissken||

    Naw, Arnie's not 6'2", I've stood next him when they were filming Twins in Hollywood and I'm 6'4". I'd knock an inch or two off that.

  • Snark Plissken||

    He might've looked a little shorter than he really was because he was so perfectly proportioned at the time, though.

  • Brett L||

    I mean, I know Lou Ferrigno is tall, but Arnold looked like a dwarf next to him. I would have guessed 5'10".

  • Snark Plissken||

    I would guess 6' but he could be a bit shorter.

  • Warty||

    Arnold being 6'2" is an invention of the Weider machine. 5'11", tops.

  • ||

    'Brick shithouse' means fattie, right?

    I would have used the adjective 'elephantine'.

  • Swiss Servator, WWII gold...?||

    "Was she a large girl?"

    "Yes."

    "Big through the hips? Roomy?"

  • fish||

    +1 Cannibal reference

  • Mike M.||

    The biggest surprise is that sarcasmic didn't say "Pron for John".

  • sarcasmic||

  • sarcasmic||

    Brick shithouse means rugged. As in a woman who splits wood with an axe before loading it into the stove.

  • Brett L||

    No a brick shithouse is something built way better than spec. Well above tolerable, over-engineered. In the case of a woman, far more attractive than would be necessary to attract your attention.

  • sarcasmic||

    Round here it means a woman who is tall, strong, big boned, who can kick the average dude's ass.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    I'm going with solid. Thick. Dense.

  • BakedPenguin||

    I've always heard it as Brett said - which makes sense. For further reference, I give you The Commodores.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    "She's the one, the only one, who's built like a amazon"

    That supports my interpretation, I think.

  • Atanarjuat||

    He's making a sequel to Twins, called Triplets. SWEET

  • mr simple||

    You missed the important news:

    He is set to appear in a fifth Terminator movie as well as a sequel to his 1988 movie Twins, entitled Triplets.

    I has a sad.

  • RBS||

    Who is going to join Arnold and DeVito in that one?

  • mr simple||

    Eddie Murphy. I'm not joking.

  • Warty||

    FUCK YES

  • Snark Plissken||

    Diplomats from Iran, Israel, other Middle Eastern countries and even the US reportedly met in secret last month to talk about the possibility of organizing a conference on the banning of nuclear weapons in the region.

    That'll totally happen.

  • sarcasmic||

    Here's our tasteless costume winners!

    'They want to slit my throat': Woman who sparked outrage with Boston Marathon victim costume loses her job and gets death threats as her nude photos emerge online


    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new.....nline.html

    9/11 families' fury after two British students wear TWIN TOWERS outfits to fancy dress party (and one of them is a pilot's daughter)


    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new.....tacks.html
    So... Which is worse?

  • Ted S.||

    The cyberbullying of the costume wearers is worse.

    But we have a society that thinks certain forms of bullying are virtuous.

  • sarcasmic||

    It's called tolerance.

    The more hate you shower on those you view as intolerant, the more virtuous you are.

  • RBS||

    The race to see who can condemn unapproved behavior the fastest/hardest is exhausting.

  • ||

    Thing is.

    What kind of a disconnected and indifferent mindset must you possess to do that?

    It's beyond the pale and retarded.

    And the parents? Man.

  • Zeb||

    They are all more or less adults.

  • Atanarjuat||

    I bet kids on your lawn really piss you off too?

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    Threatening people for their speech is far more offensive to me as a libertarian than a funny costume.

  • mr simple||

    Get over it. We don't need an international referendum on every costume some random person wears. Some costumes are meant to provoke. Who cares? Busybodies, nannies and people that hold their opinion in too high of esteem, that's who. Also what NK said about freedom of speech.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    Threats aren't acceptable, but you don't get to provoke and then act surprised about the response.

  • mr simple||

    Right, it's totally worth your time to get upset about every costume every person in the world wears. It's very healthy to go through life angry about all the absurd actions of random strangers.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    Because that's what I said, right?

  • Zeb||

    you don't get to provoke and then act surprised about the response.

    Sure you do. For exactly the same reason everyone else gets to have an opinion on your costume.

  • BakedPenguin||

    I wonder how many of those threats are from women who are just pissed that she's good looking.

  • Zeb||

    Maybe a bit soon for the Boston thing, but 911 is over 10 years ago. At some point it has to become OK to joke about it.

  • RBS||

    The 9/11 costume were in the UK right? Do the 9/11 families have someone who spends all day on google looking for something to be outraged over?

  • Zeb||

    Yes. I think they do. Because obsessing over it constantly for 12 years is the best way to deal with grief and loss.

  • BakedPenguin||

    21.2 years.

  • Zeb||

    Did South Park invent that, or did it come from something else?

  • BakedPenguin||

    So far as I know, they invented it. I'd never heard it previously.

  • sarcasmic||

    Excited woman literally wigs out on 'Price Is Right' as she whips off hair piece before winning $10,000


    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new.....g-10k.html
    I haven't watched that show in decades, though I bet Drew is a great host.

  • William of Purple||

    fat drew was funnier.

  • Rhywun||

    He was really nervous or something at first but he got better at it after a while. I don't know why every game show host has to be a comedian nowadays - I just don't think they're very good at it in general.

  • Juice||

    What is she hiding in her pants?

  • Certified Public Asskicker||

    1. Go to: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/

    2. Read main headline

    3. Vomit in mouth

  • waffles||

    Will Bill make people nostalgic for Bloomberg and Guiliani? Or is it just more of the same?

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    The man's got a red banner that says Progress. NYC is pretty fucked.

  • gaijin||

    The man's got a red banner that says Progress. NYC is pretty fucked.

    And you bet baby
    If I can make it there
    You know, I'm gonna make it just about anywhere
    Come on, come through
    New York, New York, New York

  • Ska||

    I'm a single male white middle-class property owner with no political connections. I'm looking at LI real estate starting today.

  • Rhywun||

    I had to laugh this morning at the lockstep message all the NY D's who are sweeping into power had on the news this morning, parroting DeBlasio's "tale of two cities" horseshit. I guess their idea of creating "one city" is to chase out all the non-poor.

  • waffles||

    I wonder why it is that progressive people for progress can never quite articulate what exactly they want us all to progress towards.

  • Metazoan||

    Can't, or won't?

  • AlexInCT||

    Gulags?.....

    Wait, no... New progressives call them reducation camps.

  • JW||

    The camps. It's always the camps, even if they don't call them that.

  • Root Boy||

    Now, now, just because Blasio went to the USSR in the 80s and supported sandinistas in Nicaragua it does not mean he's a communist.

    And if he is a communist he is the nice, cuddly type. Plus I hear he has all sorts of experience running a multi-billion dollar budget and city government - competence!

  • Rhywun||

    Don't forget got married in Cuba.

  • Jon Lester||

    We'll see what he becomes after New Year's Day. My radical labor activist hosts were telling me last week that they expect him to get assimilated into the NYC political machine.

  • Certified Public Asskicker||

    More of the same, now with even higher taxes!

  • Doctor Whom||

    He's North Korea's America's mayor! Instead of the other team's control freaks, one of our control freaks is on office!

  • fish||

    "BORN TO RUN"

    Maybe do sit ups too!

  • Certified Public Asskicker||

    Huffpo changed the story to screw with my link!

  • Certified Public Asskicker||

    Although, Chris Christie works too if you need to throw up.

  • mr simple||

    I like that the two stories under the pic are about how he's a terrible person. Can't let him get too popular.

    SLD: I wouldn't vote for Christie for head park janitor.

  • sarcasmic||

    Youth continues to be wasted on the young.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvs.....sters.html

  • Lord Humungus||

    I offer you a site filled with horrors beyond your petty imagination.

    Clown Dating

    Full of Clowns & Entertainers
    100% Genuine Members
    Easy messaging
    Add to favorites
    Winks
    Online chat
    Free email updates
    Recommended Members
  • William of Purple||

    i hate clowns.

  • db||

    There's a hater born every minute.

  • Swiss Servator, WWII gold...?||

    Is this a gateway site to Juggalo breeding?

  • Rich||

    SFed the link, which I suspect is HealthCare.gov, anyway.

  • Lord Humungus||

    it's better that way.

    but if you really want to know, just google it.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Im evefy dating site youve ever feared...

  • Ted S.||

  • gaijin||

    haha! A real story: I jokingly sent this site to a co-worker 6 years ago. She grew up on a farm. She ended up meeting a guy on there and marrying him (he had grown up not too far from where she had).

  • SugarFree||

    I don't see anything about clown ethics. Who wants to date an unethical clown? (Other than the spouses of politicians, that is...)

  • Root Boy||

    Yep, better be keeping the rodeo clowns and their hateful masks off of that site.

  • AlexInCT||

    Hi, I am Pennywise the clown, and I want you to see my lights!

  • SugarFree||

    They all float down here.

  • sarcasmic||

    The modern-day suit of armor: Tailor creates bullet-proof outfit for 'businessmen who live dangerous lives'
    Made-to-order bulletproof suits launched at a gun range today by Canadian tailor shop Garrison Bespoke, complete with open-ammo demonstration
    The suit is made with a special military-grade material that is 30 times stronger than steel and 50 per cent lighter than Kevlar, the product most commonly used in bulletproof wares
    Prices start at $20,000
    Creators say the suit caters to the needs of high-flying clients - such as wealthy businessmen who find themselves in danger - and follows the assassination of one customer in the Philippines
    Other men have been ordering them because, like a sports car that is never driven, 'they just want it'


    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new.....lives.html

  • Swiss Servator, WWII gold...?||

    Numerous Russian investment bankers just perked up.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    ...while in traditionally Democrat New Jersey Republican Chris Christie easily won re-election...

    WHICH SHOULD TELL GOP PRIMARY VOTERS SOMETHING IN 2016.

  • Root Boy||

    That some fat, ex-prosecutor from an extremely corrupt state is the guy you want running in every state?

  • fish||

    It's gonna be nothing but fat jokes when he squares off against Hillary in 2016.

  • KDN||

    He'll have a second lap band installed by then.

  • sarcasmic||

    Was that your haircut inspiration? Lingerie-clad Jennifer Aniston sports a bobbed wig and not much else in We're The Millers behind the scenes shots


    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvs.....shots.html
    If every 44yr old woman looked like that...

  • Swiss Servator, WWII gold...?||

    Thanks...now I am filled with regret, more than longing.

  • Juice||

    I never understood the hate she got. She's always been pretty hot in my book.

  • Lord Humungus||

    Lawyer: Client's f-bomb not an insult because he's Canadian

    "My client is a Canadian citizen and [expletive] off is not an insult in Canada ... but [expletive] you is a curse and an insult. [Expletive] off is commonly used when a person expresses themselves metaphorically and asks another person, who angered them, to walk away," the lawyer told Dubai Misdemeanor Court.

    "The Egyptian claimant alleged that my client told him [expletive] you. Well [expletive] you is a curse but my client did not use that term. The defendant admitted to prosecutors that he said [expletive] off and he meant to ask the claimant to leave him alone and walk away after the two indulged in a heated argument," al-Kazwini said.
  • gaijin||

    Take off hoser!

  • Mokers||

    I'm not your friend budy!

  • Protagoronus||

    I'm not your buddy pal!

  • Ska||

    Fuck off, Lahey.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    ...and former prosecutor Mike Duggan won the mayor’s race in Detroit.

    Is there really that much graft still to be had in Detroit?

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    There's gotta at least be a bunch of copper wiring left, right?

  • Root Boy||

    Lead pipes too.

    I heard the last lead smelter in the US is closed, so maybe Detroit should open some urban mining and refining sites. Sounds like a win-win.

  • sarcasmic||

    Pictured: Married undercover cop, 38, who had sex with drug dealer and blew cover of two other female colleagues to criminal lover
    Tempe, Arizona police officer Jessica Dever-Jakusz is accused of endangering the lives of two undercover colleagues by revealing their identities to a drug-dealer she was sleeping with
    Dever-Jakusz, 38, told her lover she was a cop while they lay in bed


    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new.....signs.html
    Officer safety!

  • waffles||

    This is a shining example of why the war on drugs is an abominable failure.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    When will the movie come out?

  • Auric Demonocles||

    The guy banging her was definitely on drugs.

  • Rich||

    "Jessica. ... Jessica Dever-Jakusz."

  • BakedPenguin||

    To bad, in a way. Jakusz is a great name for a cop.

  • Brett L||

    For fuck's sake. This is why women are the worst. You have 2 great reasons to not tell the dude you're fucking the truth, but... for some reason you just have to unburden yourself. Don't. Fucking. Do it!

  • RBS||

    Hung Like An Ornament
  • Root Boy||

    That has got to be some local news screwing up the story about the girl held captive in CLE - nothing but a horror story there. Rot in hell, fucker.

  • RBS||

    1-Fuck you 2-I don't keep up with whatever horror story the MSM happens to be fixated on at the moment.

  • Root Boy||

    The "rot in hell, fucker" was for the dead kidnapper from Cleveland - Castro - who supposedly hung one his captors up like an ornament on the wall. Not for you.

    I know you posted that because it was a funny non-sequitur in the story about the trashy cop.

  • Rich||

    Diplomats from Iran, Israel, other Middle Eastern countries and even the US reportedly met in secret last month to talk about thinking about beginning to consider the possibility of thinking about beginning to consider organizing a conference on thinking about beginning to consider the banning of nuclear weapons in the region.

    FTFY.

  • Lord Humungus||

    Stephens: Does Environmentalism Cause Amnesia?
    Climate-change alarmists warn us about coming food shortages. They said the same in 1968.

    Warming is becoming a major problem. "A change in our climate," writes one deservedly famous American naturalist, "is taking place very sensibly." Snowfall, he notes, has become "less frequent and less deep." Rivers that once "seldom failed to freeze over in the course of the winter, scarcely ever do so now."

    And it's having an especially worrisome effect on the food supply: "This change has produced an unfortunate fluctuation between heat and cold, in the spring of the year, which is very fatal to fruits."
  • SugarFree||

    Ah, Virginia... This morning the GOP is asking themselves that perennial question: "Why won't those stupid bitch women vote for us? What more can we do for those cunts?"

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Don't you start with that War on Women business. And the GOP is asking themselves today how they can stop the next libertarian candidate from spoiling their election.

  • SugarFree||

    Vague economic promises and abortion issues worked for a lot around here.

  • gaijin||

    Whose this 'lot' of which you speak?

  • SugarFree||

  • ||

    Who gave them the right to vote anyway?

    /furiously flips through pages.

  • Swiss Servator, WWII gold...?||

    No, no! It wuz the Libbertarianz! SPLITTERS!

  • SugarFree||

    MILEAGE TAX!!!1!!1!

  • Lord Humungus||

    http://www.nationalreview.com/.....m-geraghty

    It was the Libertarians’ fault! Let’s get one thing straight: A big chunk of Robert Sarvis’ voters aren’t really libertarians, or they don’t fit a definition you and I would offer for that philosophy. As Biased Girl and I have observed, some sub-segment of standard-issue liberals are self-identifying as libertarians, sort of a political hipsterism. They get to keep all of their usual liberal views on social issues, support smaller government in theory but never in practice, complain about taxes, and act like they’re so much more sophisticated than everyone else.
  • Brett L||

    Here's an idea, run better candidates. I anxiously await NR giving Cooch the same rectal exam about his unforced errors on social issues that reason has given Rand Paul.

  • SugarFree||

    It was the LINO's fault! Let’s get one thing straight: A big chunk of Ken Cuccinelli's voters aren’t really libertarians, or they don’t fit a definition you and I would offer for that philosophy. As I have observed, some sub-segment of standard-issue Republicans are self-identifying as libertarians, sort of a political hipsterism. They get to keep all of their usual liberal views on social issues, support smaller government in theory but never in practice, complain about spending, and act like they’re so much more unsophisticated than everyone else.

    Fixed it for them.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    I blame Cuccinelli supporters for splitting and keeping Sarvis out of the Governor's Mansion. If they had all thrown their support behind Sarvis, we'd have won!

  • Citizen Nothing||

    You see that after the Ohio House lowered the proposed requirements a bit, the Ohio Senate is now gonna try to put the screws even tighter to the LP in conference committee?
    Fuck the GOP. Fuck them now. Fuck them forever.

  • JW||

    It's days like this I relish the decision to never vote again.

  • Enough About Palin||

    ^^THIS^^

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    I even briefly considered voting for John Kasich, because I think he's been a decent governor. But not now. Not ever.

  • RBS||

    Yay, another day of LINO butthurt. Reason should leave that poor Rand Paul alone.

  • Mike M.||

    I strongly suspect that none of the cosmo dipshits who voted for Sarvis yesterday had any idea just how close they would come to throwing the election to Cooch. It was supposed to be a landslide, and it ended up being a pretty damn close call.

    Had they known what was happening, ninety percent of them would have voted for McAuliffe instead.

  • Brett L||

    Who the hell thought there was room for protest votes on the Republican side? If they did, that's its own problem.

  • Swiss Servator, WWII gold...?||

    Principals, not principles?

  • JW||

    Awww, do you want a cookie?

  • SugarFree||

    Had they known what was happening, ninety percent of them would have voted for McAuliffe instead.

    When I need an example of a LINO Republican shill trolling the board, Mike M. is always happy to oblige.

  • Kid Xenocles||

    Yawn. If you wanted to win, you should have removed all doubt. But it's always easier to blame others for your failures.

  • Root Boy||

    I loved the stories that came out about Mac-daddy going to fund raisers when his wife was in labor, but like the Clinton's private behavior doesn't matter (I kind of agree with that) to the women vs. trying to steal their lady parts.

    Or, what is really going on is all the single ladies like daddy government and want to get it good and hard from Dems.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    In fairness, I believe it was right after his wife gave birth and they were on their way home from the hospital.

  • Root Boy||

    I thought it was more funny than anything, and if his wife didn't divorce him, it's just who the dude is (creepy, corrupt fixer in my mind).

    I thought there were three or four stories about him doing shit like that. At least he isn't porking his secretaries - and there are a ton of great people throughout history who were dirtbags to their families.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    I didn't exactly think it made Mack a great dude or anything, but his wife should realize it's that kind of behavior that makes her lifestyle possible. We all have to make trade-offs.

  • Brett L||

    Agreed. I may have to schedule a job interview around the birth of my first child. I promised my wife I'll be there with her while she's in the hospital, but it isn't impossible that I'll drive straight from there to the airport. Its not my first preference, but she understands the possibility.

  • Root Boy||

    Man has to provide for his family. Just tell her to bite down on a dowl or something until you get there.

  • waffles||

    So the problem is women? I thought it was libertarians. Can we just blame libertarian women?

    I know it's like blaming Santa Claus, Steve Smith, or Warty. But it's probably better than blaming universal suffrage.

  • Swiss Servator, WWII gold...?||

    I would respectfully disagree - blaming STEVE SMITH or Warty is often accurate.

  • waffles||

    No! STEVE SMITH I can handle, but Warty isn't real!? He can't be!

  • Swiss Servator, WWII gold...?||

    He is...just don't sit too near any corners in a room, like the Hounds of Tindalos, he emerges from them...

  • Steve G||

    End suffrage now!! It's 2013!

  • robc||

    The gender gap goes both ways.

    They always talk about the GOP not getting women's votes, but it also means the Dems arent getting men's votes.

    The gap is the same size.

  • SugarFree||

    The education, income and class status of women is shifting upward, dragging them toward increased participation in voting.

    If, as I was repeatedly assured, Cooch couldn't actually outlaw sodomy or homosexuality, then why the fuck did he bring it up? The SoCons are a lock for him, so why alienate a large voting bloc to pander to them?

  • robc||

    Im not sure what either of those paragraphs have to do with the math I was pointing out.

  • SugarFree||

    I'm talking about the future. The War on Women narrative isn't going away, so needlessly feeding it seems counterproductive.

  • robc||

    But what about the Dems male gap problem?

  • Lord Humungus||

    The Obama administration may be guilty of war crimes

    Thus, the use of double taps relies on two assumptions. The first is that the victims of the initial strike were militants – an assumption the facts simply do not corroborate in numerous cases. And the second assumption, which is that first responders must also be militants, fails because of the failure of the first. Further, even if the victims of the initial strike were legitimate targets, to assume those who converge on the scene of the initial strike to be military targets clearly fails to satisfy the principle of distinction.

    Once again, the United States stands at a crossroad. Either it can immunize President Obama and members of his administration from accountability, as it did President Bush and his administration. As seen, this route exposes the hypocrisy of the administration's counter-terrorism policy to full display. Or the US can subject its leaders to the same standards it demands of others.
  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Even if they got the right guy they are rrally challenging the fistinction between war and criminal justice.

  • Root Boy||

    They've basically said "let's do both!"

    They don't want to hold enemy combatants and they don't want to try anybody in a court of law, so now they wack everybody.

  • Griffin3||

    Fistinction!

  • mr simple||

    May be?

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    It is not often you can say Alabammy did the right thing but kudos to them for sending Fundie '10 Commandos' Whackjob Dean Young packing in favor of a solid Chamber of Commerce Republican.

    Let's all give them a Hee-Haw salute!

  • sarcasmic||

    When you didn't respond yesterday to my suggestion that you go hang yourself, I had hoped that you had taken my advice.

    Oh well. =-(

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    I was about to compliment you and Francisco, Neoliberal Koch, (among others) for standing up to Team Red hacks like John/Tulpa in defense of liberty too.

    You see, they are on a recruiting trip where I don't give a fuck who anyone here votes for and certainly don't vote for a Democrat. I just maintain (rightly) that Obama is better than Bush. That ain't saying a whole lot but I liked comparative lit too.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSCH

  • ||

    Yes. Because, let's just pick foreign policy for example, supporting the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt or Al-queda in Syria is soooo smart. Did you notice Kerry's horrendous showing in Egypt recently?

    He's worse than Bush. By miles and kilometers.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Quit lying, ffs.

    Obama's Middle East policy has been harsh on Al Qaeda and the MB. Israel gave them their highest honor - the only POTUS awarded it.

    Quit listening to Fox News.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    Two worst presidents in history, back to back. Who the fuck cares which is #1 and which is #2?

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    Special message to CN: goddamn Arlington school levy.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    Sorry about your luck in UA. But I'm heartened that 69 percent of the Cols. Schools voters chose to ignore the commands of their betters. I mean, 69 percent? God damn. That's a big FU.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    Arlington gonna Arlington. Oh well.

    But yeah, almost 70 percent is pretty heartening.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    Our polling only missed it by 12 percent. Damn, we're good.

  • fish||

    CHRISTFAGBOOOOOSHPIGFUCKSTICKWEIGELRING!

  • ||

    Projection.

    I don't watch Fox.

    But I do read Foreign Policy and Foreign Affairs. It helps.

  • sarcasmic||

    What a cheek! Claudia Romani accidentally exposes her pert derriere as she's caught in a gust of wind after leaving lunch in Miami


    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvs.....Miami.html
    A model with a nice ass? That's unusual.

  • Rich||

    Nice little black dress.

  • Brett L||

    I'm not sure that dress covered her has when she was standing still.

  • Swiss Servator, WWII gold...?||

    And, I for one, am glad of that.

  • Root Boy||

    Pretty nice curves for a model. They are usually (in the words of Simon from True Lies) "ass like a 12 year old boy"

  • AlexInCT||

    These types are ususally models because the people that run that industry are into you boys....

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    Yeah. Accidentally.

  • Lord Humungus||

    Dig in Alsace yields intentionally deformed skull

    What really identifies her as an Alan is her ovoid skull, a result of intentional cranial deformation. The fashion for binding infants’ heads with straps or cradleboards to elongate and flatten their skulls wasn’t just a Mesoamerican phenomenon, although they may be its most well-known proponents today. Intentional cranial deformation was used extensively in Europe, Asia and Africa as well. The Alan version of the practice used circular bandages wrapped around babies’ heads to flatten front and back of the skull with equal pressure.
  • Lord Humungus||

    Giant firework penis lights up the night sky in Glasgow; residents love it

    Glasgow residents got more than they bargained for after marking Bonfire night with an X-rated bang over the weekend. And by X-rated, we mean a giant penis that filled the night sky, complete with ... well, the full package.

    By the looks of it, the Scots loved every second of it.
  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    For a country that made sheep-fucking and welfare-sucking a national pasttime, a giant fireworks dong would be pretty tame by comparison.

  • Lord Humungus||

    "Hitler only got one ball"

    Las Vegas man plans to sell one testicle for $35,000 for medical trial

    A Las Vegas man who makes money from medical trials is planning to sell one of his testicles for $35,000.

    Mark Parisi revealed in a trailer for an upcoming episode of TLC's "Extreme Cheapskates" that he will make the switch with an artificial ball in exchange for the cash.

    The penny pincher also confessed to undergoing medical experiments so he could get free checkups, which can save him around $700.
  • Brett L||

    Half-sack was the best SOA character.

  • Lord Humungus||

    Beer makes 1 out of 100 Canadian jobs

    A report from the Conference Board of Canada says beer is a major driver of Canada's economy, supporting 163,200 jobs across the country.

    Canada's beer industry is disproportionately domestic compared to that of other countries, the report released Tuesday found, as 85 per cent of the beer consumed in Canada is produced here.

    The report claims that for every dollar spent on beer in Canada, the impact on Canada's GDP (net of taxes) is $1.12.

    STIMUZZSZS!

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    +1 bob and doug

  • Auric Demonocles||

    That's probably because of American "children" spending that beer money in conjunction with hotel rooms and meals.

  • Lord Humungus||

    Toronto tailor introduces bulletproof three-piece suits

    Last weekend at Garrison Bespoke, an upscale tailor shop in Toronto, a potentially lethal scene was unfolding in the back room, where employees were taking turns trying to stab Michael Nguyen, Garrison’s co-owner, with a hunting knife.

    Surprisingly, Mr. Nguyen remained unscathed, thanks to the Donegal tweed vest he was wearing – part of a hand-tailored three-piece “bulletproof” suit – which he believes is the first of its kind produced in Canada – that Garrison’s is unveiling to members of the media on Tuesday at the Ajax Rod and Gun Club.
  • sarcasmic||

  • The Late P Brooks||

    It's a jargon-laced Inside Baseball kind of rant, but this guy isn't completely out to lunch.

    It's time for people to stop thinking about jobs, and high time to start thinking about how -- and where -- they can create profit.

    For example, if I run a company, I'll hire you to do work -- if it pays off more than what I pay you to do it. Today, few employers know which jobs actually pay off. That's why you need to know how to walk into a manager's office and demonstrate, hands down, how you will contribute profit to the manager's business. That's right: Be smarter than the manager about his own business. Stop begging for jobs. Start offering profit.

    -----------

    Here's the simple truth: Unemployment is made in America by employers who have given up control over their competitive edge -- recruiting and hiring -- to a handful of database jockeys who are funded by HR executives, who in turn have no idea how to recruit or hire themselves.

    American ingenuity starts with the individual who has an idea, blossoms with a plan that will produce profit -- for yourself and your boss and your customer -- and results in more money for everybody.

  • Brett L||

    Unemployment is made in America by employers who have given up control over their competitive edge -- recruiting and hiring -- to a handful of database jockeys who are funded by HR executives, who in turn have no idea how to recruit or hire themselves.

    I'm sure the Byzantine world of employment law compliance has nothing to do with that.

  • wareagle||

    you mean like that new anti-discrimination law making the rounds in DC? That's sure to end well.

  • Brett L||

    I can't imagine a small business deciding to export the risk of crippling legal action for the smaller risk of not getting the exact right mix of candidates.

  • Rasilio||

    "but this guy isn't completely out to lunch."

    No, he isn't out to lunch "AT ALL", he is entirely friggin right and is the first pundit I have seen correctly diagnose what is wrong in the American Job Market.

    The one quibble I have with him is when he talks about turning a job interview into a working meeting where you demonstrate to the manager how you can deliver profit to him. The problem is corporate structures have become so dysfunctional that often even high level managers really havn't got any idea how their entire division delivers profit to the company nor do they have any idea how to calculate it. Rather, they track "progress" by an increasingly arcane set of metrics most of which are meaningless and some of which are downright harmful to the bottom line (I once worked in a company where one of my VP's performance metrics was the ratio of work done onsite vs offshore, no accounting for whether that ratio was actually profitable and as a result he had a vested interest in doing more work offshore, even if it meant creating useless unnecessary and profitless make work for the offshore team to do).

    Further it is often impossible for an individual employee to calculate his profitability. Sure he can calculate his costs and cost savings, but if the entire project he is working on is unprofitable then by definition none of the work is profitable and the best anyone on that project can say is that they were less unprofitable than they could have been.

  • Brett L||

    OMG! HuffPo discovers that half of the 12 richest people in the world come from 2 families! I expect them to discover that half of the richest two people in the world have the exact same First and Last Names!!!

  • Certified Public Asskicker||

    The Koch brothers once threw $60 million into attempting to dethrone President Obama.

    Evil! EVILLL!11!

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Did they sctually say dethrone? Why not just accuse the kochs of lese-majeste

  • Certified Public Asskicker||

    Oh yes they did.

    And this comment is just adorable:

    Also, people who give money to right wing politicians expect to make money from the donation and usually do, so their money comes back to them. People who donate to left wing parties are not as interested in making a cash return and usually don't, so that money usually just disappears, so that's why the right can usually mobilize more financial resources than the left.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    When have the unions ever gotten money back for donating to a leftie?

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    Just about 9/10ths of the "stimulus" package.

  • Zeb||

    Or banks. Or electric car makers.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Jesus. I'm sure all the VA governor's race donor are doing it out of charity.

    Stupid bitch.

  • Gleep Glop||

    I guess President Goldman Sachs was unavailable for comment...

  • Doctor Whom||

    Yes. Sometimes the mask slips, and sometimes it just ends up in the trash.

  • Root Boy||

    Time for a death tax? Maybe admin'ed by the UN.

  • Brett L||

    But not for right-thinking people like Buffett, Soros, or Bloomberg.

  • Root Boy||

    This isn't fucking Vietnam, there are rules!!!

  • Auric Demonocles||

    They only seem upset about these because those particular people donate more to Republicans.

  • Root Boy||

    Sorry, didn't read, but assume the Walton's are on that list and maybe Carlos Slim (NYT investor).

    Walton's will put their money in a foundation which will go the way of the Fords and become a giant cash engine for progressive idiots.

  • Doctor Whom||

    Did you know that half of all people are of sub-median intelligence?

  • Auric Demonocles||

    The phrasing I like is:

    Think about how dumb the average person is. Now realize that half the people are dumber than that.

  • Certified Public Asskicker||

    Dumb people will know how to vote though, because democracy is magic.

  • Lord Humungus||

    As Obamacare implodes, what's the GOP alternative?

    - Federal dollars to incentivize states to create high-risk pools/exchanges for individuals with pre-existing conditions (Utah already had implemented a state exchange for small business and scholars like Shikha Dalmia at Reason have advocated deregulating Obamacare’s exchanges to include Medicaid and Medicare recipients).

    - Extending employer-based tax credits to individuals so that health tax benefits follow the individual, not the job (most uninsured are between jobs).

    - Allow states to create interstate insurance pools, broadening the individual and small business marketplace.
  • Root Boy||

    Tamp down on all the state ins mandates (I read even Texas has about 60) by allowing interstate selling.

    Also, stop giving people freebees with insurance - make them pay for routine crap so we get some price signals and stop going to the Dr for all our booboos.

  • wareagle||

    when the premise is flawed - in this case, that a govt solution is the only solution - you laugh at the person asking the question.

    The GOP alternative should have involved market-based things: lift the ban on interstate sales, do something with employer-provided coverage so portability is not sacrificed, NOT mandating that certain things be included, etc etc. All that the bullets above show is a dog with different fleas.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Why not just bust the insurance cartel? That is all I ever wanted.

  • wareagle||

    because the insurance cartel contributes mightily to political campaigns. Sort of like Wall Street PACs gave more to Obama than any candidate ever and proggies feigned shock that no banksters were prosecuted.

  • Gbob||

    "busting", in this case, means using force state power to force people to purchase services from them. Brilliant!

  • Root Boy||

    Yes.

    They can also get rid of employer tax deductions and go back to just giving individuals a writeoff for their own insurance - get insurance out of the workplace (people will get paid more as those benny's are removed).

  • BakedPenguin||

    HSAa as a pretax donation, with no need to spend the funds on a yearly basis. Combine with high deductible insurance.

  • Brett L||

    No, dude. That would actually solve the problem without graft, corruption and favoritism.

  • robc||

    HSAs dont have to be spent on a yearly basis. It carries over.

    FSAs have to be spent annually.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Nothing against Shikha, but isn't "scholar" for people in academia?

  • Ted S.||

    Catastrophic care plans.

  • mad_hominist||

    Get rid of patents.

  • ||

    I read that as get rid of patients, which would be brilliant.

  • Rich||

  • mr simple||

    Can this get me protection from being fired for being on the internet too much at work? It's a disease!

  • Enough About Palin||

    Just turn it upside-down (999).

  • Enough About Palin||

    Why the fuck is this showing up here?

  • The Late P Brooks||

    The nodders on Morning Joke were preening excitedly and puking up a lot of self-congratulatory platitudes about hoe the Virginia election "proves" the Tea Party is all washed up, and Legitimate Business Interests (the crony kind, who suffer most from a government shutdown) have abandoned the Wacko Bird faction for sane establishment foot soldiers who march to the fascist True Capitalist* beat.

    *soros.org

  • The Late P Brooks||

    I'm sure the Byzantine world of employment law compliance has nothing to do with that.

    Funny how he just whistled right past that particular graveyard.

  • KB Check Release||

    So last night a proggie buddy of mine and his liberalman friend came over. I got a great meal of leftist talking points:

    -Koch brothers buy all up and dominate all political speech (get real)
    -We should have publically financed elections (paging barfman)
    -Obamacare is 'not a big deal', I work in insurance building models
    -Obamacare is the law, get over it

    Dude is smart but it just freaks me out that his logic-meter was so broken.

    Obamacare is the law is my favorite though as though any law enacted is off limits for repeal or alteration.

    These are my complaints for the morning. Thanks for reading.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Dred Scott is the law. Get over it.

  • Moe19||

    I say this all the time. Too bad most progtards don't know what it is.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    There is a certain idiocy in the "Repeal the ACA now!" movement. It can't happen.

    However "Repeal the ACA in 2017!" is perfectly acceptable as a campaign strategy - just as ending the Iraq War was a good but failed strategy for Dems in the 2000's.

  • wareagle||

    gonna need a citation for "dude is smart" because the evidence you provide screams otherwise.

  • sarcasmic||

    I know plenty of otherwise smart people who believe some really stupid shit.

  • Zeb||

    History is full of very smart people believing very silly things. Everyone carries around loads of assumptions (even libertarians) and even smart people generally have lots of unexamined biases.

  • Michael||

    A more accurate assessment would be, "Dude can memorize a great deal of information and apply it in a way that sustains and advances him through life more effectively than the average person." Note that this is not the same thing as being smart.

  • sarcasmic||

    Good point. A stupid person can be taught all kinds of things, but it takes a smart person to learn.

  • Zeb||

    I don't know. I'd say that's a kind of intelligence. Smart/intelligence isn't just one thing. Most people who are very smart in some ways are kind of stupid in some others. I know that's true of me.

  • np||

    Ladar Levison, who ran the e-mail service used by NSA leaker Edward Snowden before being forced by government actions to shut down, plans to launch a surveillance-proof and easy –to-use se-mail service next year.

    He launched a Kickstarter project to fund cleaning up and eventually open source the original Lavabit code, along with integrating it with Dark Mail.
    http://www.kickstarter.com/pro.....initiative

  • Rich||

    Teen Refuses To Run In Cross County Meet After Being Given the Number '666'

    "I just don't believe that 666 should be a number that's anywhere on your body and I did not want that number associated with me. It kind of made me sick."

    This had jolly well better be covered by Democratcare!

  • Auric Demonocles||

    If it's covered by Obamacare, they'll penaltax him until he wears it, religious objections be damned.

  • Brett L||

    If her coach is any good, he or she will tell that girl she can sit the next two meets, too. And if she doesn't show up to every meet she's benched for, she can take gym instead.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    To some people a 666 uniform is like an obama shirt to you. Would you want her disciplined for not wearing a Hope Obama shirt?

  • Brett L||

    Its not a uniform, its a race number. Randomly assigned. Well, not intentionally assigned. Shut up and run. And yes, if they put "government is great" on my race number, I'll wear it. Because it has nothing to do with me other than to give the race organizers a way of putting me with my finish order.

  • RBS||

    Pretty much. I'm sure the girl before her got 665 and the one after got 667.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Well, anyway, the game officials and her coach both expressed support for her instead of doubling down on the stupid of "hurr durr wear the 666 bib you fundie bitch:"

    "Joe Angolia, a representative for [Kentucky High School Athletic Association] claims meet officials were not told Thacker objected for religious reasons, saying, “We've made adjustments to uniform codes and things like that in the past when it's known that religious reasons are in play. Maybe had that been made more clear to meet officials, they would have made that decision.”

    "Coach Croley said, “I wouldn't have been more proud of her if she won the entire meet. She stood on her principles; she stood for what she believed in.”"

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    should be ellipses between the two paras

  • Brett L||

    I would have said the same thing, then benched her for two weeks. That way, she could have two weeks to think about whether wearing a certain number was more important to her than letting down her teammates by not running.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    If she let her teammates down why did her coach support her?

    If she's so irrational why did the game official say he may have accommodated her if they'd had more advanced notice.

    It sounds like you're being more royalist than the king here.

  • Brett L||

    What are you talking about? She had the choice of wear the number she was given and run, or let her team-mates down by not running. In XC, the top 5 runners count for your team and the next two count against other teams, lowest top 5 score wins. She let her team down by not racing.

    If it was really so important to her, she should have told people ahead of time. I'd sit her for deciding on the spur of the moment that this was more important than her team. Part of what team sports teach is that your team needs to be valued. You let them down, even for something important, you ride the bench.

  • robc||

    No one gets numbers ahead of time, they are handed out at the meet.

  • Brett L||

    rob,

    It sseems in this case they did. Otherwise, she could have just traded with a teammate.

  • robc||

    I dont know the details in this case, but trading wouldnt be okay because the numbers are usually linked to a name.

    In my day, the way it worked was the coach picked up a packet at check-in with the 7 numbers that were assigned to the names of the people registered to run.

    Of course, for most meets we didnt have numbers at all, they were just in big invitations and such.

  • Brett L||

    Right. I even agree that the race directors should have just let her trade with someone. But as the coach, once they say no, her choice is run today or ride the bench for a couple more weeks. The bullshit level of HS athletes is high enough that its worth putting a few principled one through the ringer.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    Whereas benching her for two weeks because you didn't agree with her wouldn't let down her teammates at all.

  • Brett L||

    So there's never a time when holding out your best player to make a point to the rest of the team is the right thing to do? Or only when you're winning? Why do coaches do it to players who miss team meetings and or break team rules?

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    Yeah, but I don't think missing a team meeting or breaking a rule is a matter of conscience, even if you disagree with her choice.

    I think it's stupid, not as stupid as building that "don't have" a 13th floor, but stupid doesn't mean I'd want to tell her to shut the fuck up and view the world like I damned well tell her to.

  • Brett L||

    I'm not advocating that she shut the fuck up, I'm advocating that on my team she would sit for discovering her principle on the starting line. Y'all shouting, "how dare she be inconvenienced!" are confusing me. Nobody is denying her right to believe. Hell, I'd tell her I was proud of her for taking the stand. And that she needs to tell me about any number she won't wear ahead of time from now on.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    I doubt she "discovered" it on the starting line. The idea that she should warn you in advance of something that probably never crossed her mind as happening seems a bit rigid.

    What's the purpose of benching her? To motivate her to think about other rare scenarios that might pop up? Would you still bench her if she had told you in advance that she wouldn't wear 666? Would it let her team down any less if you knew in advance but the meet officials wouldn't permit a number switch?

  • Brett L||

    Yes. The motivation is to make clear to her and all of her teammates that your principles better be worth riding the bench for two meets. And yes, if I knew the day before, it would change things. The point is that in my day, HS athletes were amazingly full of shit, and that having a policy of benching people who found themselves, for whatever reason, unable to run on race day cut through much of it. Even if it made the principled people the example, the example was valuable. You miss practice without telling the coach ahead of time, you were gonna sit. You come to the meet, you race, unless you get hurt warming up. But in the program I ran in, if you got hurt warming up, you'd better be hurt enough not to run next week, because coach wasn't gonna run you.

    I understand that other people have different opinions. I am saying that I found the lessons of coming up in the sort of program I am advocating more valuable than not.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    You know, I think God will know what's in your heart, Eddie.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    I don't even know what point you're trying to make except hurr durr those fundies sure are stoopid

  • RBS||

    I think God will know what's in your heart

    I don't know how you can't figure it out.

  • wareagle||

    fundies don't help themselves. She was given a number, not targeted for harassment.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    I don't think she even claimed she was targeted. What's your point?

  • wareagle||

    my point is when you are on a team, you also have an obligation to the team. This isn't Sandy Koufax not pitching on Yom Kippur.

  • robc||

    This isn't Sandy Koufax not pitching on Yom Kippur.

    I dont see the difference. I found Koufax's decision silly too.

    If he was willing to pitch on the sabbath, why not Yom Kippur?

  • wareagle||

    I dont see the difference. I found Koufax's decision silly too.

    one obvious difference is he sat out game one and was perfectly capable of pitching in game and so forth. Sitting out the whole Series would have been different. And again, holiday falling on a certain date not the same as random number randomly assigned for one race.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    And a random cross country meet isn't the same as a World Series game, right?

    Is this chick proposing that she'll sit out the rest of the season because of this?

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    But Koufax wasn't targeted! They just made a religiously neutral decision that Koufax just *decided* to get all butthurt about! He let down his teammates, derp derp.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    I don't even know what point you're trying to make except hurr durr those fundies sure are stoopid

    The point is there is nothing magical about the number. I recognize that in the Book of Revelation it's the Mark of the Beast, but I think God will understand that you're not wearing it in support of the Beast, but that it's just a number.

    God counts every hair on your head, Eddie. I don't think wearing a randomly assigned number is any sin in God's book.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Well, I don't think it's a sin to salute the flag of the country, so I suppose we should tell Jehovah's Witness students to suck it up and do the salute, because they *shouldn't* have the beliefs they have. Take that, conscientious objectors!

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    I'm not trying to make a legal point, Eddie. The point is theologically, she's wrong. Her beliefs are irrational and incorrect. I don't care much about whether she should or should not have been punished -- the fact is her beliefs are wrong.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Is it your point that she's the wrong kind of Christian, or that she shouldn't be Christian at all, or even believe in God?

    I mean, if belief of God was so fundamentally irrational, the 666 thing is only a minor point next to the basic theistic error.

    And if you're doing Christian theology you should take into account Rom 14 1-15:

    "Welcome anyone who is weak in faith, but not for disputes over opinions. One person believes that one may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. The one who eats must not despise the one who abstains, and the one who abstains must not pass judgment on the one who eats; for God has welcomed him....I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; still, it is unclean for someone who thinks it unclean. If your brother is being hurt by what you eat, your conduct is no longer in accord with love. Do not because of your food destroy him for whom Christ died." (NAB)

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    Is it your point that she's the wrong kind of Christian, or that she shouldn't be Christian at all, or even believe in God?

    Nope. My point is that it's practically a sin *the other way* to hold certain icons, numbers and other sorts of symbols as having inherently "magical" or evil powers. There is nothing powerful or magical about that number and God knows His own.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    OK, so she shouldn't have the beliefs she has. I get it.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    That's right. Some beliefs are right and some are wrong.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    but most of the discussion has to do with (a) whether she has the right to her beliefs and (b) if so, does it violate that right to discipline her for not running the race? And I would add - (c) how far does this principle extend if she can be legitimately disciplined? Can JWs be disciplined for refusing to salute the flag?

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    (c) how far does this principle extend if she can be legitimately disciplined? Can JWs be disciplined for refusing to salute the flag?

    How far does it go the other way, Eddie? Should I be able to say that taxation violates my freedom of conscience and therefore I shouldn't be punished for failing to pay my taxes?

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Check this out:

    "Organizational statements on military tax resistance American Baptist Churches [carriage return]

    "...It is to this prophetic tradition that the Church of the Brethren aspires in its proclamations and actions for peace with justice as it:

    "...6. calls on government for the provision of alternatives to heavy taxes for the military and supports those who are war tax resisters"

    "[Montana Hutterites 1951] We can have no part in the financing of war operations through the purchase of war bonds and war taxes in any form or through voluntary contributions to any of the organizations or activities falling under the category described immediately above, unless such contributions are used for civilian relief or similar purposes."

    [etc.]

    http://www.centeronconscience......tance.html

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Delete the part about baptists, thanks

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    That doesn't answer the question I asked you.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Yes it does.

  • robc||


    Should I be able to say that taxation violates my freedom of conscience and therefore I shouldn't be punished for failing to pay my taxes?

    Yes.

  • Zeb||

    Religious freedom means you can act according to your conscience. It doesn't mean that everyone else has to accommodate your religion.

  • wareagle||

    do you really see no difference between requiring a group to salute something and refusing to wear a number that was arbitrarily handed out?

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    The JWs aren't being *targeted,* are they? They're just suffering collateral damage for sticking to their ridiculous beliefs.

    I mean, respecting your country's flag isn't a big deal, God knows what's in your heart, right?

  • wareagle||

    I mean, respecting your country's flag isn't a big deal,

    I'm reasonably sure you can respect the flag without me forcing you to salute it.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    And the girl's coach thought you could respect her team without doing an act she considered religiously wrong. Again, people here are being more royalist than the king.

  • JEP||

    I get where you're coming from Ed. Hopefully, someone will just offer to trade numbers with her.

  • Zeb||

    The JWs shouldn't be forced to salute because no one should be forced to salute. And anyone can decline to participate in a race for any reason they want to too. I don't know why this is an interesting story at all.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Should a JW athlete be excluded from competing because of a refusal to salute the flag, if that's part of the opening ceremonies? I mean, anyone can decline to participate in a race.

  • Zeb||

    If it is a publicly funded race, no one should be obliged to salute anything. Otherwise, I don't care.

  • tarran||

    I think I'd better put some code in my databases to make sure nobody gets the primary key number 666.

    I don't want to send them to hell by accident.

  • JEP||

    I don't agree with the chick - and I'm a Christian. But then again it doesn't matter if I think her beliefs are irrational or not. They're probably completely rational to her.

    Whatever happened to everything being voluntary?

    It's up to her to make the decision to abide by the rules of the contest or not and to deal with the consequences either way. And it's up to people running the race to decide how strict they want to be with the rules - they have a right to throw her out if she doesn't want to run with that number.

    "Consider the feelings of other before your own rights, and the rights of others before your own feelings."
    - John Wooden

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    "they have a right to throw her out if she doesn't want to run with that number"

    And they have a right not to. It seems if there'd been more advanced notice they'd have made an accomodation, and that they've made accomodations before. Again, y'all are being more royalist than the king here.

  • Mike M.||

    Just turn the thing upside down for crying out loud.

  • Rich||

    And give in to SATAN?!

  • Live Free or Diet||

    Just turn the thing upside down for crying out loud.

    "Nein! Nein! Nein!"

    /WWII movie villain

  • Mike M.||

    +1 Herman Cain.

  • waffles||

    Everyone knows you run faster on Satan's velvet wings. This girl just doesn't want to win.

  • wareagle||

    mental health counseling. Check.

  • SugarFree||

    Good for her. Sacrifice for things you believe in (as long as no one else is asked to make the sacrifice for or with you) is noble.

  • John||

    I agree with you. If those are her convictions, she should live by them. The world doesn't owe you accommodation. You only owe yourself integrity.

    At some we lost sight of that fact and decided walking away in protest is something no one should ever be expected to do.

  • Brett L||

    I have no problem with her walking away. Her job is to say no on principle. Her coach's job is to teach that letting down your team, even for something principled, has negative consequences. It ain't free to have principles.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    So if she skipped a meet last minute because of a death in her family, her coach should bench her for 2 weeks to teach her that letting your team down has negative consequences?

  • Brett L||

    OMG, what the fuck? Its a learning experience. It won't permanently scar her. Its an opportunity for everyone to consider whether or not they really care about a fucking number. A random number. And yes, I got benched for missing an event due to a family vacation, but wouldn't have been benched for a family funeral. Its not benching because she has a principle, its about discovering the principle standing on the starting line.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    So you've now admitted it's not a hard and fast rule that letting down your team requires getting benched.

    Which means you just don't think that wearing the number 666 is a big deal. And because you don't think so, she shouldn't either.

  • Brett L||

    Exactly. The team doesn't have to believe in her principles.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    So just come out say "Fuck her for being religious".

  • Brett L||

    No. Fuck her for breaking team rules.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    You already ruled out that option when you said it was fine to break the rules for a death in the family.

  • Brett L||

    Oh god. You got me. I hate Christians. There I said it.

  • Kid Xenocles||

    He broke the rules and he took the consequences willingly. You forgot that part.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    You forgot that part.

    No, I didn't. I just accurately read what he wrote: "wouldn't have been benched for a family funeral."

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    What about the Bong Hits for Jesus kid? Was it right to make *him* pay for his principles?

  • Brett L||

    What does right have to do with it? If she doesn't like it she can quit permanently. She's already shown that her race number is more important to her than racing. Last I checked XC was a voluntary thing and if she didn't want to run for me, she could quit. It isn't fucking abuse to say the rule is that you sit two races if you get to the line and then don't run for anything besides physical injury.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    So, what about Bong Hits for Jesus? He was on the parade route for the Olympic torch, for pete's sake. He defied the principal's order to take his sign down. If he wants to disrespect the Olympics, he should pay the price, right?

    Incidentally, I notice that a "religious right" organization supported the BHJ kid: "they are concerned, as counsel Jay Alan Sekulow writes, that public schools "face a constant temptation to impose a suffocating blanket of political correctness upon the educational atmosphere.""

    http://reason.com/blog/2007/03.....s-no-peace

    When you find yourself being less tolerant than a religious right group, maybe you could reconsider your premises.

  • SugarFree||

    I really don't see the point of benching for additional time, but if the coach wants to do so, she can either comply or quit.

    If she quits and he has to weather a storm of criticism from the community over it, it's up to him to take it or let her back on.

    If the criticism of the coach is such that is damages the school, the principal can fire him.

    Liberty is not really all that hard to figure out.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    I'm really curious about your view on Bong Hits for Jesus, but if you're not into such a discussion, that's fine.

  • Brett L||

    I agree with every bit of that. The coach would and should similarly be willing to put up with the consequences of enforcing such a rule.

  • wareagle||

    it's only a principle if sticking to it costs you something.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Fine, but what does it say about commenters who think the coach was wrong to be so supportive of the student?

  • Auric Demonocles||

    I'm really surprised by the reaction here.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Yeah, it's kind of chilling that certain libertarians would forget all about tolerance and choose their side in the culture war against compassion, common sense and even the girl's own coach.

    This is the push-people-around attitude they just got through denouncing in the voters of yesterday's elections.

    Its not as if there's a principled objection to public schools being voiced here - "this is what you get for having the govt operate schools so suck it up!" No, when the public school stops a student from wearing a Bong Hits for Jesus T-shirt, it's an outrageous violation of freedom of conscience.

    Why not tell the bong hits student to suck it up and wear what the school tells him to wear?

  • wareagle||

    this girl's choice affected the rest of the team. Scoring is based on the finishes of the top five runners. It's not like the school assigned her uniform 666 for the whole year.

  • Live Free or Diet||

    this girl's choice affected the rest of the team. Scoring is based on the finishes of the top five runners. It's not like the school assigned her uniform 666 for the whole year.

    So trade out the number with somebody else, note it in the records so the scores are logged correctly and move on.
    Other than the stupid kid believes in magic, what's the big deal?
    Besides, it's sports. Who gives a shit?

  • mr simple||

    Besides, it's sports. Who gives a shit?

    Real Americans, that's who. You can insult religion, children, runners, whatever, but what kind of commie hates sports?

    Also, running is not a sport. It's what people do to train for sports.

  • John||

    Yes. I agree. If the uniform had "God Bless America" on it and she had been an atheist and refused to wear it, Libertarians would be holding her up as a hero. Instead, it is all about how she let the team down.

  • Brett L||

    I disagree. I would be saying I ran XC, my coach would have benched me, and I understand why and would do the same. Its a voluntary organization. Its like saying, "I'm not running the Boston Marathon because of the flag waving that will go on." Great. Do it, but its a team sport and your team couldn't plan around you.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    "my coach would have benched me"

    But in the real world, this coach supported the student. Do you know better than the coach whether she's letting down her teammates?

  • Brett L||

    I have my own opinions. He is welcome to have different ones. I'm not sure why "if I were the coach", which is in everything I say has been taken to mean, "thus her coach is wrong". I disagree, but I have no way of evaluating on the basis of the incident what that means. Also, see tarran and I below. Just because the coach agrees with your decision doesn't mean he or she suspends team rules.

    One of my rules would be that if you come to the meet, you run unless you get hurt. And the consequence for not running would be not running the next two meets. It has literally nothing to do with the rightness or wrongness or validity of her belief. She is free to believe what she wants, but if it prevents her from racing, it better be important enough to her to sit 3 races. And she would know that ahead of time.

  • robc||

    Once again you use the example of a few idiots to paint with a broad brush.

  • wareagle||

    that's bullshit. The number was random; god bless america is not randomly stitched.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    John says something stupid, and you come along to prove him right.

    It's randomness is only relevant in that it actually makes it easier for them to say "oh, okay. Take this one instead."

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    But 666 =/= "God Bless America", John. That's the point.

    There's a line where you can rationally object to something offensive or against your beliefs.

  • Live Free or Diet||

    Wait until some frigid chick won't wear 69...

  • Auric Demonocles||

    In that one has a basis in being something bad in your religion, and the other is absolutely meaningless according to your non-religion?

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    "666" is content-neutral. God Bless America is not.

    And since when did it become OK for Christians to act like superstitious voodoo priestesses? Holy shit, I count on you people for civilization and instead I get gypsy bullshit.

  • John||

    But 666 =/= "God Bless America", John. That's the point.

    It does to the girl in question. Who are you to tell her what is a legitimate concern and what is not?

    Either someone has the right to say no or they don't. It is not "well you can say no provided Randian likes your reason".

    Freedom, it means people can hold views you don't like you have to support their right to do so. It is a tough concept I know. But give a try.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    Either someone has the right to say no or they don't. It is not "well you can say no provided Randian likes your reason".

    Freedom, it means people can hold views you don't like you have to support their right to do so. It is a tough concept I know. But give a try.

    I never said she had no right to say "no". I don't know where you got that from. But that doesn't mean it's consequence-free, either. And I'll repeat my question I posed to Eduard to you: if I say that taxation violates my freedom of conscience, should I be jailed for failing to pay my taxes?

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    I *support* saying God Bless America. I'm not so sure about boycotting a number.

    The discussion has been about the girl's rights. Not whether she should hold the views she does.

  • RBS||

    Actually, this discussion seems to be about her right to believe that 666 is the mark of the beast and an affront to her religion and how that belief would hypothetically conflict with Coach Brett L's team rules.

  • Brett L||

    Agreed. She has absolute right, Coach Brett L would not make an exception. Because while she might believe strongly, it would inevitably lead to teammates refusing to run because of some other arbitrary numerology. They would also have the right to refuse to run if their race numbers added up to 7 or didn't add up to a number divisible by 3. Because I would have to accept ALL of those as equally legitimate. So my solution is to bench everyone who won't run because of her number, whether their belief is unique to them or shared by 4 billion people.

  • tarran||

    When I was a kid I skipped a cross country meet to help my dad with an unpleasant project (moving my recently deceased grandfather's stuff into storage). I told the coach three days before the meet, he ordered me to show up, I told him I wouldn't.

    and I was benched.

    Nobody was angry. We just got on with life.

    I guess I should have gone whining to the media.

  • Brett L||

    Yeah. Same sort of thing above. The team had rules, there were consequences for breaking them, you suffered the consequences and went on. No grudges held on either side. Were I a coach, this would be a violation of team rules, and the consequence would be benching. Others are free to have other coaching strategies.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    I suspect the girl will get on with life. Her coach is proud of her and the athletic official seems to wish an accomodation had been reached.

  • Zeb||

    Surely they could have found some irreligious heavy metal fan who would trade numbers with her.

  • Brett L||

    They must have pre-assigned the numbers. Otherwise, she and a teammate could have swapped numbers without a problem. Of course, and driving my point, these are HS girls, and once one says, "I can't wear that" there is a high likelihood that her teammates will discover they hold the same beliefs, even the one who wore 666 in a previous meet.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Vunce ve make an exception for you, all ze ozzers vill demand an exception too!

  • Kid Xenocles||

    Well? Let's race on Sunday. Can't do that, there's a sect who won't work on Sunday. Saturday? Seventh-Day Adventists. Friday? Jews.

    Except none of this really matters because all that's important is getting to Heaven, right? If she's a true believer she should be ecstatic about the mockery and the hardship she is receiving on His account.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Given that HER COACH SUPPORTS HER, as well as her conviction that God supports her, maybe she *is* ecstatic.

    Your argument proves too much. She would presumably be ecstatic about suffering imprisonment for her faith. But that wouldn't let the people who imprisoned her off the hook.

    "She has a martyr complex so let's give her the martyrdom she wants, hurr durr."

  • Kid Xenocles||

    Come now. There's a bit of a difference between being burned alive and not being able to participate in a voluntary event because they won't flex to accommodate you. I ended my association with the Boy Scouts when I became an atheist. I would have preferred that they accommodate me, but they wouldn't. Those are the breaks.

    Sometimes you have to suffer for your beliefs. The further your beliefs depart from the mainstream, the more you will suffer. But virtue is its own reward.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    I actually agree with you on the merits of enduring suffering in the right spirit. That doesn't let the people causing the suffering off the hook.

    I mean, there's spiritual benefit to enduring imprisonment, sickness, a death in the family, etc. if you accept in in the proper spirit, offering it up to God, but that doesn't mean that its OK to imprison someone, etc. just so they can enjoy the spiritual benefits!

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Nobody's made the obvious comparison to the UK athlete Eric Liddell who was profiled in Chariots of Fire - he had religious objections to running on Sunday, the Prince of Wales himself visited him to urge him to run on Sunday for King and Country (no pressure!). But he still wouldn't run. Then "Having already won a silver medal in the 400 metres hurdles, [Lord Andrew] Lindsay proposes to yield his place in the 400 metre race on the following Thursday to Liddell, who gratefully agrees. His religious convictions in the face of national athletic pride make headlines around the world."

    But by the analysis here Liddell should have been thrown out of the competition for letting down his teammates yada yada. Even an inbred aristo had the class to respect Liddell's religion.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

  • Zeb||

    I don't think anyone should have done anything in particular. It's up to the individuals involved. Why is this interesting?

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Because it really brings out the fundie-baiting. There is actually tendency among certain fundamentalists to distrust the state. This is given practical illustration in their private schools, homeschooling, defense of religious freedom (and even of "Bong Hits for Jesus" - see above).

    But there's no way libertarians can ally with such icky people! Better to shun them and lose elections than join in coalition with them and maybe win some!

    A coalition is only acceptable if it's libertarians plus socially-liberal lefties.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    Oh so you're becoming one of the Cocktail Parties people too.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    If the fundies (see above) can support the libertarians on Bong Hits for Jesus, then why can't libertarians be a bit more open to allying with the fundies? You wouldn't have to give up your precious alliance with the liberaltarians.

  • Zeb||

    I'm happy to ally with the fundies as long as all they are asking for is to be left alone.

  • KMA Too||

    ^This^ should be presented in churches/church groups. I suspect it would get better reception than might be anticipated 'round here.

    The only reason it's not well received when presented to individuals in those groups is fear. The idea that your little slice of society won't look familiar if people are left to their own devices can be daunting for lots of people.

    If you can overcome that fear, you'll have many more so-cons realizing they don't need any government to simply have their beliefs.

  • CatoTheElder||

    Reasonable accommodation, how does it work?

  • Brett L||

    Hey, look. The Atlantic discovers that poverty is transient in America.

    The truth, though, is almost the exact opposite, as Washington University in St. Louis professor Mark Rank recently reminded New York Times readers. "Contrary to popular belief," he wrote over the weekend, "the percentage of the population that directly encounters poverty is exceedingly high." Between the ages of 25 and 60, Rank has found, almost 40 percent of Americans will live at least one year below the poverty line. Yet over time, most also pull themselves back above of it.

    Only 1.7% of all Americans spend more than 10 years in poverty between ages 25 and 60 in America.

  • waffles||

    So the stories about generational wellfare are just a manufactured right-wing meme?

  • Brett L||

    I don't have the data to know. Nor does, I think, anybody. But probably not. Some people are just lazy, but the government teat has its own drawbacks.

  • Live Free or Diet||

    I never drew welfare or food stamps or any other government assistance, even though I spent more than 2 years well below the poverty line, and the better part of one of those years homeless, living in a hole I dug in the side of a hill with a dirt-covered log-and-tarp roof.
    That's how I learned not to let my laziness get the better of me.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    wait, what? I think you need to write a book. Or at least a short story.

  • Zeb||

    I'd be surprised if generational welfare didn't happen. But it is probably not a very large part of the total population that is below the poverty line at any given time.

  • John||

    Yet over time, most also pull themselves back above of it.

    Don't worry. The readers of The Atlantic are working hard to make sure that doesn't continue.

  • John||

    What the Atlantic doesn't realize or won't admit is that poverty is a cultural problem not a monetary one. Most people when they are in school or first starting out in monetary terms live in poverty or close to it. But it isn't a problem because they are making smart choices and working hard and thus it is a temporary state. Few think of themselves as being "in poverty" when they are in college. They just think of themselves as "broke". That is because poverty is cultural not monetary.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    When in grad school I lived on $7500 over the course of the 9 months of the school year.

  • some guy||

    It's amazing how far money can go when you have no dependents, no social life and no time to play with expensive toys.

  • BigT||

    I was paid $320/mo as a TA/RA in grad school. And I managed to save enough money by the end of 4 years to put $2000 down on a car, and pay for my wedding (~$1000).

  • Steve G||

  • CatoTheElder||

    Poverty is usually determined by annual income, which can be highly variable. It is very easy for an affluent businessman to suffer a loss that causes his income to fall below the threshold of the lowest quintile of income. It's happened to me several times, but no sensible person would ever have considered me to be poor since college (when I really was poor but didn't know it.)

    Income distribution statistics for a single year make for sloppy economic analysis.

  • montana mike||

    I probably fit the bill in my mid twenties...we ate a lot of ramen, mac and cheese, hot dogs and fucked a lot. Looking back it was great.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    People who donate to left wing parties are not as interested in making a cash return and usually don't, so that money usually just disappears, so that's why the right can usually mobilize more financial resources than the left.

    Ummm, yeah.

    *makes motorboat noise, falls down stairs*

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    Hahahaha!!!

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    I liked it too.

  • John||

    Question, what are the Republicans in Virginia thinking this morning?

    Damn we should have ran a Libertarian and got those Sarvis votes or

    Damn we should have run a big government asshole like Christie who is competitive with Latinos and center left white suburbanites?

    And question 2, which candidate's campaign going forward will be more likely to serve as a model for Republican candidates?

    Sarvis and his 7%, Cuccinili and his close but losing campaign or Christie and is 60 fucking percent in a deep blue state?

    I have always written Fatso off as just another Northeastern RINO. But none of the previous northeastern RINOs ever won a state wide election with 60%. I think Fatso winning big in New Jersey might be a big fucking deal and not in a good way.

  • Brett L||

    Yeah, I've come to accept that my preferences in government will never be ascendant until the Boomers start to die in large numbers, and maybe not then. 2016 is going to be Rand getting shellacked in the primaries just like his dad.

  • BigT||

    my preferences in government will never be ascendant until the Boomers start to die in large numbers

    You would prefer the Millenials who voted overwhelmingly for Oh-no-not-my-fault?

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    If that's the lesson the Republican Party takes away, THEN WHERE WERE THEY DURING 2012 AND ROMNEY...

    We've been through this time and again. Don't. Nominate. Moderates.

  • John||

    The political spectrum runs both ways. If the libertarians take their ball and go home, the Republicans could move right to chase them. But they could also move left and go after center left suburbanites.

    In the last five years that option hasn't been available. Center left subrbanites were not voting Republican no matter what. So someone like Romney lost because he wasn't competetive in the areas that he was supposed to bring into the party.

    But as the Obama administration ends in a steaming pile of incompetence and theft, that may change. If the Presidential election had happened yesterday, would Romney have still lost? Maybe. But I think he might not have given that Obama was in the 50s approval then and is below 40 now.

    If the Republicans had run a Christie clone in Virginia would they have lost? No way. They would have won 55% probably.

  • John||

    So it is 2016, the Libertarians want Paul. But what happens if it is Cruz or Christie? Do the Libertarians go home and let Christie win? That is a good strategic move as long as fatso doesn't actually win the general election. If he does, then what? You have a big government asshole who just won the nomination and the election without libertarian support.

    And the irony of that situation would be, that Christie would end up fucking the Libertarians up the ass on the issue they left the party over, cultural ones. Who do you think would be getting political appointments and judgeships under a Christie administration? Libertarians or SOCONS? And how interested would Christie be in ending or moderating the drug war and NSA and such, when he just won thanks to winning center left suburbanites who are generally all about security and safety for their little snowflakes and thus tend to be conservative or at least neutral about such things?

  • Citizen Nothing||

    I assume I'll vote for the LP nominee no matter whom the GOP puts up. I'd consider Paul, I suppose. But GOP candidate would have to have at least Pauline-levels of libertarianism for me to start to consider strategeries and what not.

  • John||

    But if you do that, then how do you expect to have any influence over either party?

    We make fun of the liberaltarians like Wilkerson. But he does have a point. If you don't work with anyone, how are you ever going to have any influence?

    Think about Virginia. Okay, McAulliffe lost. But that doesn't help Libertarians in the short term. In the long term it will help, provided the Republicans decide to come over and get their votes. But if Republicans go the other way and run a Christie clone, you end up with four years of McAulliffe followed by four years of Fatso with a Virgina accent. So 8 years from now what will have Libertarians in Virginia accomplished?

  • robc||

    But if you do that, then how do you expect to have any influence over either party?

    Who says he is trying to have influence over them?

    You have a lot of assumptions built into your argument that just arent fucking true.

    I would vote for Paul. Otherwise, I will vote LP more than likely. Im more concerned with "influencing" the LP than the GOP.

    If the GOP wants to become LP-lite, I will then consider trying to influence them to go harder in that direction. But until that point, meh.

  • John||

    Who says he is trying to have influence over them?

    Because if you don't, you won't have any influence in politics. Rob, it doesn't make any difference how right you are if you don't ever win. The left is wrong about everything. But they are right about one thing, if you don't win, nothing less matters. The left plays politics like a death sport. The Right, SOCONS, Libertarians, and Conservatives alike play politics like it is the Harvard debating society, where the point is to be right and have principles than it is to win. Is it any wonder the left always wins?

  • robc||

    Rob, it doesn't make any difference how right you are if you don't ever win.

    It does TO ME. And since I dont give a damn about anyone else's opinion, thats that.

  • John||

    It does TO ME. And since I dont give a damn about anyone else's opinion, thats that.

    How does compromising make you less right? If you have a candidate who is right about issue A and wrong about issue B, how is voting for that guy so that you can at least get A right and then worrying about B later make you wrong?

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    How does compromising make you less right? If you have a candidate who is right about issue A and wrong about issue B, how is voting for that guy so that you can at least get A right and then worrying about B later make you wrong?

    Sort of the same way that consuming something that is half-bread and half-arsenic will fill you up?

  • John||

    Sort of the same way that consuming something that is half-bread and half-arsenic will fill you up?

    Well, taking a half a loaf and coming back and asking for more is what the Left has been doing for 70 years. In contrast Libertarians have been demanding all or nothing for over 50 years. Who has gotten more of what they wanted and moved the country closer to them?

    You say that. But you guys get less than 10% of the vote and the government continues to move further and further left despite poll after poll showing that the country as a whole is a center right country.

    Could it be that maybe the leftists are just smarter and work harder than you when it comes to politics? That maybe a half a loaf isn't arsenic but the way politics works?

    If what you are saying is true, why do Libertarians fail so badly even though they are right? And don't tell me it is because people are stupid. Even if they are, so what? They are not getting any smarter. So Libertarians better figure out a way to talk to stupid people better than leftists or accept the fact that they are losers.

  • Zeb||

    I've never imagined that my vote gives me any influence in politics. How would voting Republican give me any more influence in politics? I don't want to get involved, I don't want to campaign for anyone and my vote is worth approximately nothing. I think it's just silly to consider your vote strategically.

  • John||

    I've never imagined that my vote gives me any influence in politics. How would voting Republican give me any more influence in politics?

    The same way all of those good voting leftists have been able to influence the Democratic Party and the country as a whole, numbers and time. Enough people vote one way and keep taking little advances here and there and after a while it all adds up.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    I'm not a political strategist. Why shouldn't I vote for whichever candidate best represents my views? And why shouldn't I require agreement with at least 75% of my views to win my vote?
    If I WERE a strategist, I'd note that GOP promises have meant precisely nothing during at least the 35 years I've been voting.
    I'll grant you that libertarians probably won't win more votes until there are more libertarians. Which is why creating more libertarians is far more important than politics.

  • John||

    But CN politics doesn't work that way. See my post below about the hard left. The country is never going to one day decide to be "libertarian". Politics doesn't work that way. You are never going to get you big moment where everyone or majority realize you are right. That is what the left gets and the libertarians don't. The left never got "more leftists" or the country to look to them and say "you are right". But they are winning and getting what they want anyway. Why? Because they understand that isn't going to happen and don't care. They just keep coming and taking what is there year after year until finally they get it all.

    Libertarians have more raw numbers and are more in line with the views of the public than the hard socialists left. Yet, the hard socialist left has a thousand times more political influence and success. Maybe that is because at least in politics they are a bit smarter than Libertarians?

  • Zeb||

    Maybe that is because at least in politics they are a bit smarter than Libertarians?

    Libertarians are plenty smart in politics. Many just don't want to play. I'm sure everyone understands what you are saying, John, and the reasoning behind it.

  • BakedPenguin||

    The point John refuses to get is that the Republicans (with a few exceptions) have transformed into Democrats-lite.

    John, can you name the achievements of Bush the Lesser that libertarians should like? I'm currently drawing a blank. The distinction between going to Proghell faster or slower isn't an impressive one.

  • John||

    The point John refuses to get is that the Republicans (with a few exceptions) have transformed into Democrats-lite.

    I totally get that. And whose fault is that? The hard left didn't let the Dems transform into libertarian light.

    Yes BP, Libertarians are losers and political incompetents and as a result are standing around watching both parties transform into something they hate. My point is that instead of crying about it or smelling each other's farts talking about how much smarter you are than the rest of the country, you should try doing something about it. But truthfully, you guys make it clear you would rather lose.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Some have. Paul, Amash, and Massie are essentially Libertarians who infiltrated the Republican party. I hope more do. And they are doing exactly what you mention of the Socialists and the Democrats - pulling the party in their direction from the inside, and looking for small victories.

    And I admit, this will probably be a better long term strategy for liberty than the LP. None of this means I'd consider voting for Christie or Lindsey Graham.

  • John||

    Many just don't want to play.

    Okay. But doing that allows the country to go left. Yeah, Libertarians would rather be right and stick to principle than ever accomplish anything. And I would submit that is a pretty stupid and self defeating attitude.

  • From the Tundra||

    As distasteful as it is to some, minority blocks have to work together to achieve anything meaningful. To most of us, it's pretty clear - individual liberty trumps all. To most of my repub acquaintances,however, it's a "yeah, but...". They occasionally listen, though. Progs, otoh, do not. I feel like working with Rs is difficult, but possible. Proggies? Forget about it. Give me a group of fundie socons any day over the true believers of the left.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    I'm not sure I agree, Tundra. Progs, sure, are a lost cause. But not all liberals are progs, and the liberals, in my experience, at least seem open to rational argument, more so than a lot of the socons, in my opinion.

  • From the Tundra||

    Fair point, CN. Although, in my experience, most liberals will tow the lion when it comes to the voting booth. I have somehow ended up with quite a large number of socons around me and have had some very interesting discussions. I think think these GOP losses affect them deeper than you think. As libertarians, we go in expecting to get fucked over, so we're always bummed, just never surprised. I tell my socon friends that people like me pose no threat to them at all. By dismissing candidates over stupid culture war shit (that doesn't really affect their daily lives), they end up fucking themselves. I ask them, how would a President Paul hurt them? I think a large number of them are reflexively R, but truly do want to be left alone. And despite their reputation, I find them to be pretty fair in our debates.

  • Azathoth!!||

    I'm not sure I agree, Tundra. Progs, sure, are a lost cause. But not all liberals are progs, and the liberals, in my experience, at least seem open to rational argument, more so than a lot of the socons, in my opinion.

    Where in the name of sanity do you get this? What fucking planet are you living on?

    Ron Paul has been beatified here--he's been the 'let's get him elected guy' for so long that you all seem to have forgotten that he's a right-to-life Republican whose only national office was as Congressman from Texas. His son, the not-quite heir apparent is also a right-to-life Republican, Justin Amash is a Republican, Gary Johnson is a Republican.

    Where the hell is this liberal saviour you all fixate on so you can bloviate about how you're not 'right-wing'?

    It doesn't exist, it never has existed, and it never will exist. The very basis of their political mindset is against individual liberty--what could EVER make you think they'd be your allies?

    Wake up.

    Libertarians can take over the GOP--or they can continue to let themselves be assimilated into the greater Left.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    If Republicans go the other way, my guess would be is the Libertarian vote grows, not shrinks, because you guys just pissed off your base.

  • John||

    If Republicans go the other way, my guess would be is the Libertarian vote grows, not shrinks, because you guys just pissed off your base.

    Weren't you the one telling me last night that the SOCONS will vote R no matter what? The SOCONs are certainly not voting D. And it is not that hard to placate them. They agree with the center left suburbanites about a lot of things and they are smart enough to be happy with political appointments and judgeships and things like that.

    And if the Libertarian vote is going to get larger, why isn't that happening in New Jersey? Ask yourself, if the Republicans had run a Christie clone in Virginia, would Sarvis have gotten more or less votes? And even if he got more would it have mattered enough to keep the R from winning? I don't see how.

  • Kid Xenocles||

    IIRC polls strongly suggested that a hypothetical second Bolling term would have easily won out. For what it's worth.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    The Tea Partiers are not social conservatives. If you run Christie, Cruz and Company are going to take *their* ball and go home, and then you'll be well and truly fucked.

    That's John Boehner's problem right now.

  • John||

    If you run Christie, Cruz and Company are going to take *their* ball and go home, and then you'll be well and truly fucked.

    Maybe. But Cruz is, at least on this board, totally unacceptable to Libertarians. I would take Cruz or Paul in a heart beat and wouldn't vote for Christie even against Hillary. But after last night I don't see how I am in the majority.

    And not every Tea Party person is like me. A lot of them will vote because they hate Hillary. And at most they will stay home. They won't vote D. Meanwhile millions of center left suburban whites will be crossing over and voting Christie because the Dems will have fucked things up so badly.

    I think Cruz or Paul could win a general election. But the problem is that if it is Cruz, the Libertarians will take their ball and go home and we will end up with Hillary or Christie.

    That is my question, are Libertarians willing to live with Cruz if it will stop Christie and Hillary? Or are they going to walk away and cede t he field to Christie.

  • robc||

    Why not meet me "half way" and nominate Paul instead of Cruz. Im not asking for anyone with extreme libertarian positions like I would prefer.

  • BakedPenguin||

    I'd consider voting for Cruz. However, if he primaries on ramping up the drug war, banning all abortions, etc. etc., I'll probably vote L. (With the Barr exception robc made above).

    I'd be willing to compromise somewhat on a genuine fiscal conservative. However, something you mentioned about him also scared me - that he was afraid Obamacare would work. If he thought it was the standard free shit giveaway that would "work" in the typical fashion of people liking free stuff and the program becoming entrenched, that's one thing. However, if he knew about the program and still thought that bag of fuck would work, I'd be afraid he might get the itch to start a few programs of his own were he elected.

  • John||

    That scares me about Cruz too BP. And Cruz may not be such a great economic conservative. And in that case, he is as bad as Christie or worse. I was assuming for the sake of argument he was, to ask if Libertarians are willing to live with a real economic conservative who may be on the other side on some of the culture war issues.

  • robc||

    Libertarians are willing to live with a real economic conservative who may be on the other side on some of the culture war issues.

    Ive already said I will support Paul. Isnt that a decent description of him?

  • Kid Xenocles||

    I don't expect to influence either party. If I'm lucky I'll wind up ripping my guts out like Cato.

  • wareagle||

    if the Repub Party will make a point of courting center-left folks, then it's not the Repub Party any more, is it? The GOP gives lip service and nothing but to the concepts of limited govt and individual liberty. Then it acts surprised when people notice that.

  • John||

    if the Repub Party will make a point of courting center-left folks, then it's not the Repub Party any more, is it?

    Maybe. Depends on how you define the term. But reality is a lot of Republicans would live with Christie in order to win. What are Libertarians going to do about that? Walk away and let it happen?

    Here is the bottom line. In Virginia the L candidate got 7 % of the vote and the guy who won is a disaster from the Libertarian perspective. How do you change that? How do get someone in there who isn't a disaster?

  • wareagle||

    you get someone who focuses on things that matter to most people. Fairly or not, Cooch got painted as some extreme extremist more concerned with folks' bedroom behavior than anything else.

    Marvelous distraction for the Dems who did not have to defend their sleazeball of a candidate. Seems the political version of an unforced error.

  • Zeb||

    Oh, it's still teh Republican Party. They've never really been all that conservative or libertarian. Think of the Republican presidents of the 20th century. All solid centrists.
    There is certainly more room in the Rep party for libertarians and conservatives than in the Dem party, but the mainstream has never really been that at all.

  • robc||

    Christie would end up fucking the Libertarians up the ass on the issue they left the party over, cultural ones.

    Actually, Im more concerned with Christie fucking us over economic issues.

    Every GOP candidate in my lifetime has been disappointing on those issues. Yes, even Reagan.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    Exactly right. It would be one thing if the GOP actually meant what it said about the economic issues. But they've proven time and again that they don't.

  • John||

    He would do that too Rob. Basically Christie is more liberal Bush with a weight problem and a New Jersey accent.

    But he is a real threat to be President. I didn't think he was. But last night shows I am wrong. Sixty percent in New Jersey is astounding. Unlike Romney, fatso cold put the Northeast in play, especially if things continue to go so badly under Obama.

  • robc||

    If he is the GOP nominee, I will vote LP.

    If Cruz is the nominee, I will almost assuredly vote LP (If the LP runs Barr 2: Electric Boogaloo, I would vote Cruz instead).

    If Paul is the nominee, I will vote for a GOP prez candidate for the first time since 1988 (and I still regret that vote).

    I have made my preference clear, if the GOP wants my vote, they know how to get it.

  • John||

    I have made my preference clear, if the GOP wants my vote, they know how to get it.

    You sound like Fransisco Rob. You want your Casandra moment where the country crawls up to you and tells you they are sorry and you were right. Politics and societies don't work like that. You will never get anything thinking that way.

    Meanwhile, the left will continue to take half a loaf and a few crumbs or whatever they can get wherever they can get it. And they will continue to win.

    We didn't get where we are over night. And we are not going to reverse it over night. It will be reversed the same way it was built, one long slow slog year after year taking whatever victory can be had.

    Libertarians understand the nature of change and how nothing magical ever happens in the economy. It is the liberals who think you can wave a wand in make things occur without hard work and competence. In politics they are exactly opposite. Liberals get politics. Ever notice how liberals are always talking about the "struggle"? That is because liberals get how politics works and understand you don't get it all at once. Libertarians in contrast believe in magic. They believe if they just stand on principle long enough, the force of their being right will get America to one day turn to them. I wish that were true. But it is not.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    I don't see any evidence that voting Republican is going to get me anywhere I want to go.

    So why would I do that again?

  • John||

    I don't see any evidence that voting Republican is going to get me anywhere I want to go.

    And voting for a candidate who gets 7% is getting you there?

    And a hard core socialist could have said the same thing about the Democrats in 1960. Yet, they voted D. And 53 years later they have things they never dreamed of having back then.

    You don't see how it gets you there because you are like Rob and Fransisco. You want everything at once and for the country to one day decide you are right. This is why Libertarians always lose at politics and leftists always win.

    You can say I am wrong and maybe I am. But neither of us can deny that politically, Libertarians are born losers. They never win or change anything no matter how right they are. Meanwhile the Left goes merely on slowly getting everything they want.

    Maybe Libertarians ought to rethink things a bit?

  • Auric Demonocles||

    You want everything at once and for the country to one day decide you are right.

    Obviously that would be nice, but I know it's not going to happen. Fortunately, it doesn't matter what other people think. Whether or not I am right doesn't depend on that. And being right is what matters.

    Your entire argument is built upon consequentialist grounds. I'm not trying to make the outcome something good, I'm trying to do what is good on its own. It's nice when those align, but when they don't, do the latter.

  • John||

    Fortunately, it doesn't matter what other people think.

    Yes it does. Those other people get to make the laws and run the government. That matters. And when they do that, who the fuck cares that you are right? It doesn't make any difference outside of making you feel good about yourself.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Even if literally everyone besides me on the planet thinks it's okay for me to kill a baby, it's still wrong to do it.

    I can't control what other people do. It has consequences, but that's not the same as mattering in a moral sense. When they make shitty laws without my help, that's on them, not me.


    I'll say it again:

    Your argument is based on consequentialism. Consequentialism is wrong.

  • John||

    I can't control what other people do. It has consequences, but that's not the same as mattering in a moral sense. When they make shitty laws without my help, that's on them, not me.

    They would make less shitty laws and perhaps even after a while after a lot of effort make good laws if you viewed politics as something besides a vehicle for you affirming your morality. Just a thought.

    Being a Casandra makes you feel moral and good and smart. And if that is what you want out of life, fine. But understand that in doing that and in refusing to get your hands dirty and engaging in actual politics, you are ensuring that your views, no matter how right will never have any influence on the world.

    It is funny how sure you are you are "Right" and everyone else is "wrong". Has it ever occured to you that maybe other people might have valid views and that your views might not be as perfect and right as you think they are? Maybe that through the political process and compromise you might find that out and perfect your views a bit?

    When you say you will never compromise, you are really saying you are absolutely right and everyone else is just degrees of wrong. That is a pretty high view of yourself you have there.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    John, how hard is this to understand:

    Your argument is based on consequentialism. Consequentialism is wrong.

  • John||

    Your argument is based on consequentialism. Consequentialism is wrong.

    No it is not. My argument is that you have to live in reality not fantasy land. If you want to live in a Democratic Republic, you better be willing to compromise and live with a half a loaf or be prepared to have no influence at all. That is how Republics work. Wishing that everyone would come to their senses and agree with you doesn't change that.

    This whole conversation proves my point that Libertarians are morons when it comes to politics. They don't have the slightest idea how they work or how Republics are supposed to function.

  • robc||

    Or maybe we understand exactly how they work.

    And dont wish to participate.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    if you viewed politics as something besides a vehicle for you affirming your morality

    You are using politics the same way. You just subscribe to the moral view of consequentialism.

    It is funny how sure you are you are "Right" and everyone else is "wrong".

    We never even addressed that. There is a "right" out there. I (like anyone else) might be incorrect about what it is, but it's still there and you should still do your best to do it, which obviously requires you to do what you think it is. But whatever the "right" actually is doesn't depend on anyone's views.

    Has it ever occured to you that maybe other people might have valid views and that your views might not be as perfect and right as you think they are?

    Yeah. Those people should do what they think is the right thing. Exactly like I am.

  • robc||

    There is a "right" out there. I (like anyone else) might be incorrect about what it is, but it's still there and you should still do your best to do it, which obviously requires you to do what you think it is. But whatever the "right" actually is doesn't depend on anyone's views.

    THIS.

    However, not everyone agrees that there truly is an absolute "right" out there somewhere. And I think John is one of those people.

  • John||

    However, not everyone agrees that there truly is an absolute "right" out there somewhere. And I think John is one of those people.

    I agree with you there is. I just don't think I know what it is. And even if I do, I don't live in a dictatorship where I am in charge. I live in a Republic. And that means that if I want any influence, I have to compromise. I can't just say "give me what is right or I won't play" and expect to have any influence on the government.

  • John||

    Yeah. Those people should do what they think is the right thing. Exactly like I am.

    Then how do we have a government? What you are saying is that everyone should be fanatics and demand all or nothing. You can't have a Democratic Republic like that. Republics only function when the various factions are willing to compromise and work together.

    You guys all claim to want a Democratic Republic but then refuse to engage in the behavior that is demanded of citizens in such in order for it to work.

    If you want to be an uncompromising fanatic, then give up on the idea of having a Democratic Republic.

  • robc||

    They believe if they just stand on principle long enough, the force of their being right will get America to one day turn to them. I wish that were true. But it is not.

    Bullshit. No one believes this.

    I believe our country is going to fail because they wont one day turn to us.

    There was a description of the Norse myths that I saw once that I fully understand but that I dont think you do. It was something like "In the end, the Giants will defeat the Gods, but I will stand with the Gods anyway."

  • John||

    I believe our country is going to fail because they wont one day turn to us.

    Sure. But maybe it will also fail because people who knew better were too egotistical to compromise and work the political process like the Left has.

    Contrast the hard left and libertarian responses to the failing of Obamacare. The hard left is sitting around thinking of ways they can exploit any resulting crisis to move the country further left. The libertarians in contrast are sitting around watching the biggest Prog failure since Wilson and talking about how stupid America is and how the whole thing will just mean more government.

    Is it any wonder which side wins? Look Rob either you have the guts and the stomach to do something about what is going on or you don't. The left sure as hell has that and then some. The right in contrast seems to have a lot of ego and a lot of principle. But not a lot of will and not a lot of willingness to do what it takes to stop the left.

    Sorry, but if the country fails, those of us on our side are going to bare a lot of the responsibility for it. It will only fail because we lost and let the left win.

  • robc||

    NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ADVICE NOT TAKEN.

    Ive given everyone my advice, they can take it or not.

  • John||

    Sure Rob, I told the communists it was a bad idea to kill all of those people, but they didn't take my advice. It is not my responsibility to pick up a gun and stop them. That would be immoral.

    That is what you are saying here. The left is destroying the country and you warned us. It is not your responsibility to go out in the political world and do what is necessary to stop them. You have your principles.

    What good are your principles when the world falls apart?

  • robc||

    I value my soul more than this world.

  • BakedPenguin||

    This is pretty much where I am.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Oops. That was a reply to robc @ 10:31

  • Juice||

    So it is 2016, the Libertarians want Paul.

    They do?

  • Rasilio||

    'We've been through this time and again. Don't. Nominate. Moderates."

    I don't know that you can really draw this conclusion.

    Romey's problem was not that he was moderate but rather that he steadfastly refused to articulate a vision or support any policies except for Romneycare which hurt him far more than it helped.

    A moderate Republican could win if he wasn't also wishy washy seeming to float from opinion to opinion with the poll numbers.

    The keys to a Republican victory are

    1) stay off of social issues
    2) have a platform based on policy, not merely being in opposition to the Democrat
    3) control the message downparty (no more Todd Aken statements)
    4) actually demonstrate at lease some level of fiscal responsibility
    5) Stop pissing off minorities, aka stay away from immigration talk during the campaign
    6) actively outreach to minorities and genuinely care about their needs while showing how much more in line you are with their values than the Democrats are.
    7) See #1, it can't be said enough, abortion, gay marriage, the Drug War are all issues where you will only lose votes and inflate Democrat turnout on election day
    8) know the media is not your friend and will spin things in the least favorable way for you so you must find alternate channels for disseminating your message (and fox news doesn't count since only you'd just be preaching to the choir)

  • BakedPenguin||

    Asians, both Southern and Eastern, should be a core constituency of the Republicans, given their higher incomes and higher level of entrepreneurship. The R's have let the Dems gets way with their narrative of RACISM RACISM RACISM.

  • #||

    "A moderate Republican could win if he wasn't also wishy washy seeming to float from opinion to opinion with the poll numbers."

    This.

  • wareagle||

    they should be asking how they let a sleazebucket like TM sneak away with a win. Instead, they are going to blame everyone but themselves.

    In a sane world, this should not have been close. It's not like TM was some seasoned pol going for the bigger job; he is the poster child for crony capitalism and all that's wrong with it.

    But Repubs can't help themselves - either the party aparatchiks focus on unimportant things or their candidate does. And Dems and the media are all too willing to make huge hay of the smallest "they hate ____" opportunity.

  • Mike M.||

    In a sane world, this should not have been close. It's not like TM was some seasoned pol going for the bigger job; he is the poster child for crony capitalism and all that's wrong with it.

    Unfortunately, we're not in a sane world, and Virginia has become one of the richest states in America almost entirely as a result of top-down crony socialism.

    You think that a message of "crony socialism is wrong and we should reduce the number of federal contracts being doled out" is ever going to sell in Virginia now? Good fucking luck with that.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    There's no point in winning if you're exactly the same as the person you're running against (excluding of course the ability to abuse the power for selfish ends).

  • John||

    There's no point in winning if you're exactly the same as the person you're running against (excluding of course the ability to abuse the power for selfish ends).

    First Christie, as bad as he is, isn't the same as McAulliffe or Obama. I was having this argument with Fransisco last night. And he went on and on about how either party has to "earn his vote". Later it dawned on me that what he and a lot of libertarians want is this Casandra moment where America turns its lonely eyes to them and says "you were right all along". And politics doesn't work that way, American politics is specifically designed not to work that way.

    That is what hard leftists get that Libertarians don't. Do you think hard leftists liked people like Carter or Clinton or even really Obama? No. But leftists understand it doesn't matter if you are right if you don't win. In politics, leftists are relentless, strategic and very patient. They take a little bit here and a little bit there and just keep pounding that rock year after year decade after decade. And after 70 years you wake up and we have a left wing federal government even though a majority of the country is center right. That didn't happen by accident.

  • robc||

    Being right is all that matters.

    Fuck winning. Its just politics. Its not like its something important, like baseball.

  • John||

    Being right is all that matters.

    Not if you don't win. And there are degrees of right. People can be right about some things and wrong about others. What leftists get is that you can take the long view. Get what you think is right on this issue one decade and then move on to the other issues later.

    Libertarians in contrast want it all. They want a candidate who right on everything. And they want the country in one big moment to become libertarian.

    I am telling you, Libertarians live in as big of a fantasy world about politics and leftists do about economics. Politics doesn't work that way. You change things by being right. You change things by being willing to change things and being willing to live with slow and gradual change because that is all that is usually available.

    Politics is a war of attrition fought in inches and yards. Libertarians just don't get that.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Utilitarian arguments don't work with deontologists.

  • robc||

    Utilitarian arguments don't work with deontologists.

    More bolding for emphasis.

    Just once I would like to see John make a deonotological argument wrt this issue.

  • Kid Xenocles||

    John, we get it. But, like football, it's not a game of inches when it's 4th and 20 inside your own 10. Grinding out a couple of yards on that play is a losing strategy.

  • John||

    Grinding out a couple of yards on that play is a losing strategy.

    Leftists have been doing that for years and would disagree. Again, you can believe in magic all you want. But it doesn't make it true. You are never going to get your big moment.

  • Kid Xenocles||

    Do you even understand football? Turning the ball over inside the ten is a good way to give points to the other team. The correct play is to punt and try and keep them from scoring, even if you can't yet score yourself.

  • Zeb||

    No, I think most libertarians are cynical fucks who would rather be principled and lose than compromise and win.

  • John||

    I think most libertarians are cynical fucks who would rather be principled and lose than compromise and win.

    And lose is just what they do. How is that working out?

  • Auric Demonocles||

    The best of all the available options, since we're still right.

  • John||

    The best of all the available options, since we're still right.

    And the guys the Nazis marched off to the camps were right too. That is just it, if you would rather lose and be right, then lose. But what does that accomplish? It sounds like you are living your own little personal morality play.

    Seriously, if your choice in 1933 had been stop the Nazis or agree to something less than perfect, you would have let the Nazis win? But you would have been right. That is nuts.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Your Godwin makes no sense to me. What's right about submitting to genocidal maniacs trying to kill you?

  • John||

    What's right about submitting to genocidal maniacs trying to kill you?

    What is right about joining oppressive but not genocidal maniacs to fight them? The point is not the Nazis. The point is at what point do you compromise and take the best available instead of holding out for the perfect. I use the Nazi example because it is extreme and makes the point. But the point applies in less dire terms.

    Where do things get so bad that you compromise and fight for a less than right cause? If you wait until things get so bad the Nazis or communists are at the door, it is probably too late.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Where do things get so bad that you compromise and fight for a less than right cause?

    Hopefully never. I haven't been in that situation, but hopefully I would still do the right thing instead of the easy thing.

    Fortunately, when the Nazis or communists show up, defending myself is still the right thing.

  • John||

    Hopefully never. I haven't been in that situation,

    I think you might be right now or getting close to that. Sure, the Dems are not genocidal. But they will bankrupt the country if something isn't done. Stopping that is pretty important isn't it?

  • Zeb||

    And the guys the Nazis marched off to the camps were right too.

    Some of them probably were. But I don't see what that has to do with anything. I don't think that the people marched to the camps had a lot of available alternatives.

  • robc||

    It sounds like you are living your own little personal morality play.

    Correct.

    I will get my payoff in the next life. Such is life. And afterlife.

  • Zeb||

    How is that working out?

    Pretty much as expected.

  • robc||

    Libertarians in contrast want it all. They want a candidate who right on everything.

    Bullshit. I will accept a compromise candidate. Come out in favor of cutting Fed spending to 10% of GDP in the first year and that will be a good enough compromise for me.

    [Note for the humor impaired, even Paul hasnt suggested going that far and Ive said I would support him. Which shows Im willing to meet the GOP even less than 1/2 way. Just give me a little bit, like Paul]

  • John||

    Bullshit. I will accept a compromise candidate. Come out in favor of cutting Fed spending to 10% of GDP in the first year and that will be a good enough compromise for me.

    I am pretty sure Cuccinilli was the state equivalent of that and the Libertarians told him to go fuck himself because gays and abortions were important.

    So here is what is going to happen. Virginia will get four years of insane government under the Dem followed by four years of less insane but still really big government when the Republicans run a Christie clone in four years. In contrast, had the Libertarians not walked away from Cuccinilli, they could have had four years of a governor who actually wanted to cut spending and government.

    Had the show been on the other foot, and the Dem candidate had been really good on some things the socialists wanted but bad on others, they would have never gone third party and taken the spending or whatever and worried about the other issues later.

    This is why Leftists win and Libertarians lose. Leftists think long term and take what is available and never give up. Libertarians think short term and won't settle for anything short of a complete win, which is never going to happen.

  • robc||

    I am pretty sure Cuccinilli was the state equivalent of that

    I saw no evidence of that in his record, but I didnt follow VA case closely.

    And Im talking about the presidency. The GOP wont run a candidate who supports radical cuts in federal spending.

    And they wont run a candidate who supports 1/2 radical cuts in federal spending either. They arent willing to meet me 1/2 way.

  • John||

    I saw no evidence of that in his record, but I didnt follow VA case closely.

    There was a lot of evidence. Go look if you don't believe me. The Sarvis supporters didn't say a word about spending and taxes. In fact, Sarvis was worse in some ways since he supported a millage tax and going all in on expanding medicaide to get the Obamacare money.

    Maybe there were good reasons beyond his statements about gays and abortions to vote against Cuccinilli. But whatever those reasons were, Sarvis' supporters never gave them.

  • robc||

    Sarvis was worse in some ways

    I saw that, Im not sure I would have voted for him either.

    But I dont give a damn about VA, so I dont care.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Winning doesn't matter if you aren't right.

  • robc||

    Winning doesn't matter if you aren't right.

    Bolded for bonus emphasis.

  • Kid Xenocles||

    It's nice, but not the priority.

  • John||

    Winning doesn't matter if you aren't right.

    The monarchists in 1917 Russia were wrong. But I would say their winning or in reality losing certainly mattered.

    You guys live in a fantasy world. The world doesn't divide into neat "right" and "wrong". It comes in degrees of such.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    The world doesn't divide into neat "right" and "wrong". It comes in degrees of such.

    That's not the question we are debating. We can argue over when you cross the "right line", but that's not a different discussion.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    EDIT BUTTON:

    "but that's a different discussion."

  • John||

    That's not the question we are debating. We can argue over when you cross the "right line", but that's not a different discussion.

    That is exactly what we are debating. Do you go with "half right" because that is the best that can be achieved politically. You are saying that you shouldn't. I say you should take half right. Leftist have been doing that for years and seem to have a lot to show for it. Libertarians have been holding out for the perfect and have nothing to show for it.

  • robc||

    But some of us are saying that the GOP candidates arent 1/2 right.

    As Ive said plenty of times, it generally breaks down to something like 90/20/5. And I aint voting for a 20 with a 90 on the ballot, just to a avoid a 5.

  • John||

    But some of us are saying that the GOP candidates arent 1/2 right.

    Cuccinilli seemed to be. And Cruz might be. But Libertarians did not go for Cuccinilli and mostly say they won't go for Cruz.

    If the GOP comes up with a guy who is free market and wants to cut the size of federal spending but is a SOCON, will the Libertarians take that or will they go third party or stay home?

    Everything I read on here says the latter. And I think that is foolish and indicative of the kind of short sightedness that has caused the libertarians to be so politically ineffective.

  • robc||

    If the GOP comes up with a guy who is free market and wants to cut the size of federal spending but is a SOCON, will the Libertarians take that or will they go third party or stay home?

    His name is Rand Paul.

    Ive already said I will vote for him. So have a few other people. Your questions has been fucking answered 47 fucking times in this fucking thread, you fucking nitwit.

    Just acknowledge that and we can move on.

  • Outlaw||

    John, I'm with you.

    People need to stop being stupid and start electing libertarians in GOP primaries. That's how we got Rand and Amash and it's the only way we'll ever get anything done.

    They're not perfect but they're heads and shoulders better than a ton of other Republicans.

    This can be replicated all around the country.

    But when the choice comes down to totalitarian progressive asshole or ineffectual bible-thumping Republican (who can't ban abortion and can't bring back sodomy laws), go with the latter if you're going to vote at all.

    We are in a fucking war and the other side is playing for keeps.

    Read this and just disregard the last couple paragraphs about foreign policy:

    http://www.nationalreview.com/.....d-horowitz

  • KMA Too||

    Just a point, but this whole argument today has been an either/or pissing match IRT voting. If hearing libertarian arguments has taught me anything, it's that there are usually more choices in our situations than just either/or.

    By this, I mean, it's not just about voting, but about points of view and how people live their lives, and that is a society/culture argument at the beginning.

    Why not focus some of this back-and-forth energy into producing "a better way" arguments in entertainment and the like? When you get people seeing, hearing, experiencing a more free life, won't they be more likely to carry that over to the voting booth when the time comes?

  • Lord Humungus||

    Lately I've been watching the old Twilight Zone series.

    Last night was The Shat in Nightmare at 20,000 Feet

    Little did I know that STEVE SMITH makes a guest appearance
    http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_VlmH.....0-feet.jpg

  • John||

    Isn't that the one with the Gremlin screwing with the airliner? Or is that another one?

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    In the Shattner version, I think it was a giant teddy bear. The actual scary monster was in the seventies version IIRC.

  • Enough About Palin||

  • From the Tundra||

    Hey EAP,

    Looks like you're getting a new Dem mayor! So who is worse - Hodges or Andrews?

  • Enough About Palin||

    Coke / Pepsi

  • The Late P Brooks||

    they should be asking how they let a sleazebucket like TM sneak away with a win. Instead, they are going to blame everyone but themselves.

    They are already blaming Ted Cruz and the Wacko Birds who shut down the government and pissed off all those heretofore reliable Republican votes from the Honest Hardworking Business Interests glued to to the federal teat.

  • John||

    That might be true. You can't expect shutting down the government to help your candidate in NOVA. But if that is true, too bad. If losing the VA governor's race is the price to pay for making every Democrat in the Senate vote to keep Obamacare on the eve of it turning out to be a complete disaster, well sometimes life is like that. Sucks to be Cuccinilli I guess.

  • Sevo||

    "Kathleen Sebelius will be back on Capitol Hill to testify more about how she’s accountable for Obamacare’s problems and how they’ll be fixed anyway."

    She will take 100% of the responsibility and suffer zero consequences.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    The U.S. health-insurance exchange is seeing improvement and can now register 17,000 customers per hour "with almost no errors," an Obama administration official said at a Senate hearing where the website's underperformance was targeted by both political parties.

    Fixes included speeding up the site so insurance plans are displayed "in just seconds," Marilyn Tavenner, head of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, said in remarks to the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee today. The agency also doubled the number of servers and replaced a virtual database with a physical one as it tries to reach a goal of 800,000 sign-ups in the first month.

    Bloomberg News

  • some guy||

    The U.S. health-insurance exchange is seeing improvement and can now register 17,000 customers per hour "with almost no errors,"

    "Can register" is very different from "is registering". And "is registering" is very different from "is enrolling". I'll wait to see the enrollment numbers before I decide how much more I should mock this disaster.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Which side of The Curious Case of Satan's Bib will the ACLU come down on?

    Inquiring trolls want to know.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    "“Now that ObamaCare has crashed to earth in a ball of flame, the Utah media that pounded Sen. Mike Lee relentlessly for his attempt to spare the nation this pain owe him a sincere apology. Lee led a courageous fight in Congress to defund ObamaCare in hopes of saving the American people from this big government embarrassment.

    "“Rather than applauding the principled efforts of their own senator, the Salt Lake Tribune and Deseret News parroted the national liberal media’s shutdown hysteria. The wreckage of ObamaCare has vindicated Lee’s efforts to tie the fate of Obama’s doomed health care law to government funding. Even some Democrats are now calling for a delay.

    "“The honorable thing for the Utah media to do is apologize and acknowledge that while they were too short-sighted to see the oncoming disaster, Sen. Lee saw the forest for the trees.”"

    http://mrc.org/press-releases/.....n-strategy

  • BigT||

    The honorable thing for the Utah media

    Surely, you jest.

  • RightofCenter||

    WTH!?!?! Can't post from desktop or phone. Is there a particular character the squirrelz hate?

  • RightofCenter||

    They hated 72 of my characters. Apparently I can't express a thought concisely enough for this forum. Editing and trying to repost from my phone...

  • RightofCenter||

    I got involved in a NIMBY case last night. The city plans to rezone a residential area to a PUD--"Planned Unit Development," I think. I was lured to the planning meeting by a flyer falsely stating my subdivision would be rezoned and apartments would be built inside the subdivision. I figured it was hype but went to learn the truth.

    A developer plans to build 42 homes in a 6.5-acre area adjoining my subdivision. It will directly connect to another subdivision which has 43 homes in 25 acres, to give you an idea of the density change. That means all traffic, including construction, will pass through the residential area currently in existence. The developer plans a "sell one, build one" approach, meaning these residents will have near-continuous construction traffic for 3-5 years, per the developer's estimates.

    It was my first time witnessing my town's gov't in action, and I wasn't surprised to see the friendliness addressed to the developer's rep while the homeowners' spokesman was repeatedly interrupted and told his concerns weren't valid.

    I don't know where I stand on the issue. I'm grateful my roadz won't be overrun for the next 3-5 years, but the development has the potential to lower my property value. In any event, the proposal is up for public discussion so I get to comment whether it affects me or not. I'm trying to work through my NIMBY tendency and decide what's the correct liberty-friendly position on this matter. Any advice from the peanut gallery (racist!)?

  • montana mike||

    And I just discovered Arsenio fucking Hall has another talk show and it's just as stupid as it was 20 years ago. Who'd have thunk....derp

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