Rick Santorum: Rand Paul's "Not My Leader," GOP not a "Libertarian Party"

Via Andrew Kirell of Mediaite comes this snippet from Crossfire featuring former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) and former Gov. Ted Strickland (D-Ohio).

Van Jones asks Santorum about the current GOP frontrunner for the 2016 presidential nod, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.). Apoplexy ensues. The "Republican Party is not a libertarian party" says Santorum.

 "Do you agree with his ideas, are you going to support Rand Paul?"

"There’s diversity in the Republican Party," Santorum hesitated, but Jones pressed further: "Is he the new face of the Republican Party? Is this your leader?"

"Well, no, he’s not my leader, I can tell you that for sure," the former senator scoffed. "His father and I had some disagreements during the last campaign."

Jones then asked him outright: "If a libertarian like him becomes the leader of the Republican Party — gets the nomination — would you vote for them?"

"First off, I don’t think that will happen," Santorum asserted, "because the Republican Party is not a libertarian party, it is a conservative party. And it will nominate a conservative, and not a libertarian."

Then just to drive home the difference between brand-ecch libertarians and conservatives, Santorum calls for increasing the minimum wage by a buck and tells Strickland (a total bum as governor the Buckeye State) that Obama's request to bump it more than that is a bad idea.

Whole bit.

Wayback Machine: A year ago, Santorum was bitching and moaning about Rand Paul and the libertarians. 

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.

  • waffles||

    What a screaming pile of excrement. There's no way I could ever hold my nose and vote for a "conservative".

  • gaoxiaen||

    You should say "running stream of excrement mixed with lubricant".

  • ||

    Go die in a ditch Santorum. You're the reason the GOP is losing women and younger voters.

  • Lady Bertrum||

    ^This. Paul looks attractive to independents when he's pissed on by Santorum. Enemy of my enemy - yada, yada, yada.

  • John||

    The best thing to do with Santorum is ignore him. He has just slightly more credibility and following than Shreek.

  • ||

    We can't ignore him because the media won't. The only thing we can do is loudly condemn him every time he opens his mouth.

  • John||

    The media just pays attention as a way of trolling. I see your point. I am not sure however that dignifying him with an answer won't do more harm than good because it would accord him more importance than he merits. That is of course exactly what the media wants to accomplish by constantly talking to him like he matters.

  • SugarFree||

    They book him because Santorum will invariably say something stupid, scary, insane or a delightful concoction of all three.

    It takes two to tango. Santorum needs to fade away and stay away forever.

  • Pro Libertate||

    I'm just thrilled that he's distancing himself from Paul and from libertarians. He could do nothing more to help both than to repudiate them.

  • SugarFree||

    He could do nothing more to help both than to repudiate them.

    I agree heartily.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    To be fair, it's not like there's anything stopping Paul and the libertarians from repudiating him. And yes, I mean personally.

  • JW||

    Santorum needs to fade away and stay away forever.

    He needs to come back, if for no other reason, than for Yummy, Salty Tears 2: Electric Fetus Boogaloo

  • Bill Dalasio||

    "They book him because Santorum will invariably say something stupid, scary, insane or a delightful concoction of all three."

    And they can tar anyone who isn't a full-blown progressive as being like Santorum. Nevermind the fact that Santorum's views coincide more cleanly with progressivism than traditional conservatism.

  • John||

    How about Rick win an election before anyone pays any attention to him? Who does Santorum speak for other than himself? Notice where this was said, CNN. This is just CNN trolling. Invite a has been on the air so you can make it look like the Republican Party is divided and get the story off the Democrats.

    And lastly, the GOP establishment is constantly bitching and moaning about how the big meanie Libertarians and Tea Party people are always just "attacking other good Republicans." Okay, I guess they are going to be angry at Santorum for attacking Paul, right?

  • ||

    How dare we attack people who are destroying the Republican Party.

    HOW DARE WE!

  • R C Dean||

    Since I'm pretty well convinced that TEAM RED in its current incarnation needs to be destroyed to clear the way for any kind of libertarian re-alignment, I agree. Completely.

    We should be piling on, driving Santorum, Boehner, and their ilk into the wastelands. Either that clears the way for a libertarian takeover, or destroys the party. Whatev.

  • JW||

    Agreeing 1000% with that sentiment, the only problem with that idea is that in order for that to succeed, you need to attract people who aren't interested in power, or at least not *too* much power.

    It's hard to win a race that you don't want to run in the first place.

  • ||

    Well, I was referring to the attitude of establishment Republicans complaining that we dare to attack the likes of Santorum, who are actually liabilities for the party.

    But I agree with your general tractic there. Keep attacking social cons until we either take over the Republican party or destroy it. The social cons need to be driven out of civilized discourse if for no other reason than their existence gives progressives an excuse to keep changing the subject to sexism and homophobia.

  • VicRattlehead||

    Exactly, the So Cons are like drowning victims who are trying to pull others under to keep themselves afloat even though its just delaying the inevitable. When I was in SAR school they teach you to incapacitate these assholes to minimize the damage they will cause to the other victims.
    Where does this loons cash flow come from, surely we can beat him and his ilk with the free market just let the think progress guys know who he gets his cash from and have them unleash their hordes of morons to attack him for his beliefs. the enemy of my enemy

  • ||

    They invite Rick Santorum on for the same reason Piers Morgan invited Alex Jones onto his show. They know he can be relied on to say stupid things and paint everyone who opposes the Democrats as dangerous lunatics.

  • John||

    Yeah. He is a political side show freak at this point.

  • VicRattlehead||

    Oh come on now Alex Jones has a brand to represent, Santorum is just a whacko. pretty sure Alex is a brilliant entrepreneur in the sell your fears market.

  • Idle Hands||

    Jesus, is it sad that I know and actually like a person that wanted to seem him at the top of the R ticket in '12?

  • Rasilio||

    My brother thinks he's too liberal

  • Bill Dalasio||

    To be fair, on economic matters, at least, your brother's right.

  • mr simple||

    No. I have friends that voted for Obama and still don't know better. Politics isn't everything in life.

  • ||

    Shouldn't he be ranting about those goddamn homos who keep putting images of their sexy oiled-up bodies into his head?

  • SugarFree||

    Or reminiscing about about the boner he popped while fondling his wife's miscarriage.

  • ||

    Um...whuh?

  • ||

    You mean these ones?

  • ||

    Oil wrestling looks really fun, I'm not ashamed to say. And, honestly, it's not any gayer than what I do already. Actually, it's much less. I mean, no one gets choked with a crotch in oil wrestling.

  • Brett L||

    I've seen some videos...

  • ||

    Yeah, but under the waistband grabs are fair game in oil wrestling.

  • Lord Humungus||

    it's like watching to men fight over a purse.

  • nuffcedmcgreevey||

    "the Republican Party is not a libertarian party, it is a conservative party. And it will nominate a conservative, and not a libertarian."
    ---------------------
    I'll remember this when it comes time for the next whine-fest about libertarians "wasting their votes" by not supporting the Republican candidate...or how a third-party candidate is "stealing votes" from the Republican (because all your votes are belong to us).

  • wwhorton||

    Too fucking right. I'm sick of hearing about how I wasted my vote by voting for a Libertarian who agrees with 90% of my political views because there was a Republican running who agreed with 10%. Rick Santorum and his ilk are just Progressives who prefer blowing money on defense contracts. They don't give two shits about personal liberty or fiscal responsibility, and if you think you're going to wind up with a smaller, more limited federal government under a Republican you're ignoring forty years of American history.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Exactly right. Obama and Clinton have been the smallest increase spenders since 1980. You can give the credit to the House if you want to but the fact is that the GOP presidents broke the bank.

  • fuck you tulpa||

    "since 1980"

    Lol.

  • SugarFree||

    "First off, I don’t think that will happen," Santorum asserted, "because the Republican Party is not a libertarian party, it is a conservative party. And it will nominate a conservative, and not a libertarian."

    "Just shut your fucking mouth, libertarians, and vote as you're told!"

  • ||

    And lose.

    The Republican Party might be a conservative party. But America is not a conservative country.

    The social cons are just stealing votes from libertarians and helping the Democrats win.

  • GroundTruth||

    Social cons and imperialists, actually.

  • Redmanfms||

    But America is not a conservative country.

    Actually.... It is pretty conservative. Conservatives got duped when they elected prog-lite Bush II, much like they had been when they elected Bush I. Bush I didn't have an ongoing war and a particularly retarded opponent for his second term election, which is precisely why he lost.

    Clinton won because he and his media operatives succeeding in painting him as a centrist. To be fair after getting shellacked in the '94 mid-terms he changed course significantly.

    Obama won election because A. he's the shiny new black man, and B. both of his opponents were almost indistinguishable from him policy-wise.

  • JW||

    "Just shut your fucking mouth, libertarians, and vote as you're told!"

    And if we don't, he'll have to tell us again.

    Because we make him so crazy.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Santorum asserted, "because the Republican Party is not a libertarian party, it is a conservative party. And it will nominate a conservative, and not a libertarian."

    I wonder, how much does the Republican base likes to be told who they are and how they'll vote?

    I thought it was the primary voters who decided what the Republican Party is and how they will vote!

    If primary voters nominate Rand Paul, what's Santorum gonna do anyway? Throw a bible at them and spend the taxpayer's money like there's no tomorrow?

    http://www.nationalreview.com/.....ael-tanner

  • SugarFree||

    You mean the primary voters that voted for this shitheel in 2012 in enough droves for him to lead for a while? Or the ones that voted for Huckabee or Gingrich or the teeth and hair of Rick Perry?

    If Rand Paul is nominated it will be in spite of the best efforts of the GOP base and party establishmentarians.

  • ||

    "Rand Paul 2016: His party hates him!"

    That might be pretty effective, actually.

  • Lady Bertrum||

    The GOP establishment will do everything it can to stop him, but the base is split between the socons and the small government/Tea party types who care a lot less about socon issues.

  • SugarFree||

    Given how many Tea Party GOP seem to go socon once in office (or don't hide it at all while running), I'm not sure that division is enough to throw Rand a winning amount of votes.

    Or he sucks enough socon dick to shore up the base and loses independents in the main race.

  • Brett L||

    I think the real Tea Party people have quit the party (or working within the party) in disgust. At this point, Tea Party is a fairly useless moniker.

  • Lady Bertrum||

    There are still people who'd call themselves social liberal/economic conservative, particularly on the East coast. I think the socons co-opted the Tea Party, too bad really.

    Republicans will need a huge chunk of the independent vote to win. Less base (less socon base), more independents. Time will tell.

  • BakedPenguin||

    If Paul actually got the nomination, I think he'd win the election easily. The Dems would try all their dirty shit, but after 3 more years of Obamanomics and Obamacare, I don't think it'll matter.

  • Hydra||

    They already took care of that problem; Obamacare won't be in effect until after the 2016 elections.

  • fuck you tulpa||

    Don't be fucking stupid Tulpa/Hydra, it's in effect NOW.

  • Rasilio||

    The thing about both Pauls is that they ARE socons, Rand especially so.

    However the difference between them and every other socon on the block is that their libertarianism comes first and they have no desire to ram their social beliefs down anyone's throats.

    In some ways that may help Rand becuase he won't scare the socons off by appearing to be pro abortion but he can't really be attacked on the issue by the left because even if he was elected he's not going to really try to do anything about the issue or even talk about it. Sure they will probably try to paint him as a raging culture warrior who just wants wimmens back in the kitchen barefoot and pregnant they way they do with every other Republican but unlike all the others they are not going to have a history of votes and statements backing up those claims.

  • BakedPenguin||

    This. Personally, I don't care if someone is a socon if they're not trying to get tons of laws on the books.

  • SugarFree||

    The problem isn't people who are social conservative, but people who want to make their religious views into generally applicable laws.

    There's just not a widely recognized term for that position because so few people hold to it.

  • UnCivilServant||

    As a small government socon, it does kind of make prmary voting...interesting, until I remember that I live in New York and the state runs blue without fail.

  • VicRattlehead||

    me too....its maddening...truly maddening that i have so many fucking stupid people that outnumber me and think that democracy is a weapon for use against minorities
    disgusting wretched humans... good thing i live in "flyover" country hopefully they can continue to completely ignore us and stay the hell out of our mountains.

  • Ken Shultz||

    He won in Mississippi, Louisiana, and Alabama!

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Um...republicans...

    You might want to look at this.

  • VicRattlehead||

    whos republican here?

  • LynchPin1477||

    I would expect some grumblings about forming a third party. Nothing would come of it, but it might make enough noise to force the R's to throw the SoCons a bone or two.

  • Eric Bana||

    It's unsettling how Santorum got so many votes in the primaries. That shouldn't be the case in a few more decades though. Right?

  • John||

    It is unsettling because he was the only person who went out and talked to and tried to express the concerns of the middle middle and lower middle class. Santorum didn't get votes because he hated the homos. He got votes because he is and was an economic populist and the rest of the GOP field in 12 was too stupid to even talk to working people. In the worst economy since the 1930s, the GOP candidates were so stupid they didn't bother even trying to put out a populist economic message. They ceded the field to Santorum. That is unlikely to happen again, I hope.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Yeah, but these people have been lied to by the GOP for decades. They know that tax cuts don't create jobs. It is a myth. Tax cuts are justified based on the earner keeping what he earned.

    Then Romney pissed all over them with his 47% comments and his love of offshoring US jobs.

    They need the salve that the religious right gives them. It is their opiate.

  • R C Dean||

    Then Romney pissed all over them with his 47% comments and his love of offshoring US jobs.

    You mean the jobs a company his hedge fund invested in sent overseas after he left management?

    Yeah, totally his fault.

  • VicRattlehead||

    Yeah cuz Obama isnt totally spending trillions fighting a bunch of poor kids in thatched together boats with WW2 firearms just so that his buddies can continue having their overseas slave labor in eastern africa.
    .....nope nothing to see here move along peasant
    Glad to see we are still using our military to protect the jobs we shipped overseas, many jobs that were held by the working class, jobs that the fathers of those serving lost to crony government and false capitalism as our manufacturing base was stripped from under us. good thing we protect those who ruined American manufacturing...

  • CentristClassicalLiberal||

    It is unsettling because he was the only person who went out and talked to and tried to express the concerns of the middle middle and lower middle class.

    I thought it was Ron Paul, Gary Johnson and, on a rhetorical level, Herman Cain who did that, unless your definition of middle class are union members who think that they're always right and that their non-union boss is always wrong.

    Usually you sound like the Republican version of Tony. Do you know what you get when you mix left-wing economics with social conservatism? National socialism.

  • mr simple||

    Reading comprehension fail. Just because John noted what happened, doesn't mean he endorsed the opinion. There's more than one way to "address concerns" and most of the people in those levels are economically illiterate enough to go for populist rhetoric.

  • CentristClassicalLiberal||

    I responded to exactly what John said. He didn't give specifics and is by far softer on frothy than anyone else here.

    He also has a major soft spot for certain socially conservative, economically leftist Democratic voters. I won't say who they are exactly but alot of them voted for Bush in 2004 because of gay marriage.

  • John||

    Gee, someone who called me Red Tony completely failed to understand my point. Let me get my surprised face on.

  • Rasilio||

    No, Ron definitely talked different from the rest of the field but his economic speeches were much more intellectual and difficult than mere populism.

    Gary and Herman did have a touch of economic populism to their messages but Gary was summarily ignored by the media and Herman's political naivety and skeletons caused him to flame out too early in the process to matter. Had Cain managed to stay in the race it is a good bet that a large portion of Santorum's votes would have gone to him.

  • John||

    What Rasillio said. If Cain had not imploded Santorum wouldn't have gotten five percent.

  • Idle Hands||

    Herman Cain is/was a complete enigma to me as a candidate/campaigner. Was he trolling everybody, jockeying for a talk show, or actually trying to win?

  • mr simple||

    That's the same thing Huckabee did in the election prior.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    It's unsettling how Santorum got so many votes in the primaries.


    After literally everyone else had self-destructed in the primaries against one of the worst GOP Presidential candidates since Dewey.

    He's a street crazy. I wouldn't worry about him.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    just to drive home the difference between brand-ecch libertarians and conservatives, Santorum calls for increasing the minimum wage by a buck


    Hey, lay off. Rick needs that extra dollar/hour to afford paying for his anti-gay therapy sessions.

  • Zombie Jimbo||

    CNN. Crossfire. Strickland. Santorum? Van Jones?

    All Trolling.

    Santorum and Huckabee are low rent populists who happen to be religious. They'd be Theocons, but there is no conservative there. THey are Bill Clinton without chasing trailer trash.

  • John||

    ^^THIS^^

    If the Democratic Party hadn't kicked everyone who is pro life out of the party, they would be Democrats.

  • sarcasmic||

    Compassionate conservatism is little more than anti-abortion liberalism.

  • ||

    "when somebody hurts, government has got to move"

  • SusanM||

    Away, preferably

  • ||

    We should be so lucky.

  • SusanM||

    I can dream, can't I?

  • livefree||

    He is correct. The GOP is not a libertarian party. And that's because of people like Santorum.

  • sarcasmic||

    Didn't Dave Mustaine support Santorum? I think he did. Glad I don't base my musical preferences on politics.

  • From the Tundra||

    He said something nice about him, iirc. Hundreds of breathless articles later, he denied endorsing Santorum but said he wanted a Repub in the WH.

  • VicRattlehead||

    Dave Mustaine also tried to reason with the IRA when he was on tour in Ireland ending up being chased out of town with molotovs and rocks. some people dont realize that they are better playing guitar than playing politician. and i fucking love Megadeth

  • Juice||

    I'd stop calling Rand Paul a libertarian. He stands for at least a few unlibertarian positions and it would suck if people started associating libertarianism with those positions. "Oh, you're a libertarian huh? Why are you in favor of a border wall? Why are you against gay marriage?" Etc.

  • sarcasmic||

    I guess I'm not a true libertarian then, since I don't support using force of government to redefine marriage.

  • CentristClassicalLiberal||

    @ sarcasmic

    Actually the definition of marriage was redefined long ago by monogamists. Mormons and Muslims are the only ones who still adhere to the original definition of marriage.

  • sarcasmic||

    derp

  • Tonio||

    I know, sarc, you keep saying that. But maybe, just maybe, if we keep reminding you of the historical reality maybe it will actually sink in after a few hundred more repetitions. Maybe.

  • sarcasmic||

    You're missing the point.

    Using force of government to redefine a word is, well, not exactly the first thing that comes to mind when I think of what libertarianism is supposed to stand for.

    Regardless of what the word is or what it has meant in the past.

  • Calidissident||

    Yet it's ok for you to support government force to define that word in the first place?

  • sarcasmic||

    Yet it's ok for you to support government force to define that word in the first place?

    When did I say that?

  • SugarFree||

    You mean like redefining the word "person" to include a three-day-old fetus?

    Strangely, you never bring up your linguistic objections in abortion threads.

  • sarcasmic||

    I don't bring up much of anything on abortion threads.

  • SugarFree||

    I guess "person" isn't worthy of the watchful eye of the definition police.

  • sarcasmic||

    My stance on abortion is the same as it is on marriage: not the government's business.

  • Zeb||

    Gay people were getting married before anyone considered legal recognition a possibility. There was no force used in the redefinition of the word. Your continuing to repeat your counterfactual assertion is not going to make it any truer.

    Even if it were true, it was already the case. Not everyone agrees on the "traditional" legal definition of marriage. Many Catholics, for example, don't consider re-marriage after divorce to be legitimate. Are you also opposed to remarriage after divorce?

  • sarcasmic||

    So the libertarian thing to do is to initiate government force to define the word the way you like it, and give civil rights lawyers another excuse to initiate government force against people and businesses?

    Really?

    Libertarianism is now all about initiating government force?

  • VicRattlehead||

    Since when did anyone require government permission to love each other and raise a family together?
    if you decide to spend the rest of your life with a person how does a government issued scrap of paper legitimize it?

    ...oh yeah its all about money and taxes I forgot, love is irrelevant to these people.
    If my straight marriage before my creator gets along just fine without government intervention or authorization, a gay marriage does as well...or are you claiming they are different?

  • John||

    Ron was in favor of closed borders too. Was he not a "libertarian"?

    Define the term however you like. At some point, however, you can get so "no true Scotsman" that it loses all meaning. I think you may have reached that point here.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    The LP Purity Test is a bitch.

  • ||

    And yet somehow you managed to score a 97%. Impressive.

  • Rasilio||

    Yeah, as with the orginal purity tests I don't do enough drugs to get a really high score

  • Brett L||

    C'mon, John, you know national sovereignty libertarians aren't welcome at the cocktail party.

  • From the Tundra||

    They serve shitty booze there, anyway.

  • VicRattlehead||

    yeah but the legal weed was great

  • Matrix||

    I'm still on the fence about a border wall. But as long as we have a really strong welfare state, open immigration can never be.

  • sarcasmic||

    Yep.

  • ||

    "I'm still on the fence about a border wall."

    Nice.

  • CentristClassicalLiberal||

    So your plan to combat the bloated welfare state is to further empower the bloated national security state?

    I'm sick of these bullshit dichotomies.

  • VicRattlehead||

    the solution for illegal immigration, and the only possible one is for a base national income to replace the welfare system in a way that all welfare is abolished, only citizens issued a social security number would be able to collect their base national income. universal healthcare needs to be gone completely.
    if we accomplish these things and only allow persons of value to become citizenry
    illegal immigration will be pointless, and no wall would need to exist as they could not create the problems they currently do.
    in fact most stupid people will die off as a result of their own poor choices leaving a stronger leaner smarter citizenry to be free finally

  • Zeb||

    His position on borders is not libertarian, it's based on purely consequentialist arguments not based on any libertarian principle. But Ron is mostly very libertarian. I think it is better to use "libertarian" as an ajective in these cases.

  • VicRattlehead||

    seeing as Anarchist and Statist are on opposite sides of a vast spectrum of ideals i think its clear that the Libertarian Philosophy leans in favor of a more anarchistic approach meaning more individual responsibility and less government intervention. Ron took a very logical approach to the current situation seeing as abolishing the welfare state isn't as easy as keeping out those who would further complicate the welfare state problem
    though the only problem with illegals is taxpayer funded handouts

  • R C Dean||

    Anyone whose political schwerpunkt is reducing the size and scope of government is plenty libertarian enough for me.

  • Mr. Soul||

    seems like a pretty good litmus test to me.

  • anon||

    I haven't really read much about Rand. Is it possible that he -personally- favors a border wall while maintaining a stance against the Federal Government building it? (ie: states that want a border wall can have one etc).

  • Brett L||

    Not to start an argument, but could you expand on how that would work and why that would be a good splitting of the baby? It seems like the Feds would be solely or primarily responsible for enforcing immigration policy at national borders under any construction of our current governmental system.

  • anon||

    I was honestly curious myself. I imagine a 10th amendment scenario; States can close their borders to foreign countries if they so choose to.

    Me personally, I don't care; however, I think a good argument can be made for local governments basically fencing their yard. I'm not going to make that argument.

  • anon||

    Actually, I might change my mind: If we could vote to fence in Durham, Chapel Hill and Raleigh in NC, I'd be all for that shit.

  • Zeb||

    That's an interesting question. But states can't close their borders with each other, so it wouldn't do that much if only a few states build walls.

  • VicRattlehead||

    It'd be cheaper to abolish the welfare state that lures them in.
    consider the following
    if you have NO money (like the federal govt);
    do you?
    A)put up an expensive fence and surveillance cameras with flying robot death squads to keep the neighbors kids out of your pool
    or
    B) take your pool down and save the cash and work next year of not having to maintain a pool

  • GroundTruth||

    "Someone who votes with you 80 % of the time is not your enemey" Ronald Reagan.

    Rand may not be a Libertarian, but he is the most viable small government, non-interventionist, fiscal conservative around at the moment. Good enough for this cycle.

  • anon||

    Yeah; I wouldn't have to hold my nose to vote for him.

  • ||

    Shorter Rick Santorum: " I am the problem."

  • anon||

    Ding ding ding! You win.

  • Sudden||

    I don't see why anyone is mad about this. As Lady Bertrum articulated above, this makes Rand look even more desireable to moderates, minorities, and wimminz. The most effective campaigning Santorum can do for Rand is endorse any of the other candidates.

  • John||

    I agree. The Democrats are masters of this. They let their embarrassing nuts out of the closet to attack their nominee so the nominee looks like a reasonable moderate.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    By your logic Ron Paul should have easily won while standing in contrast to the nuts like Michele Bachman and Flava Cain.

  • R C Dean||

    So bigoted. Attacking women and minority candidates like that. Tisk. Tisk.

  • Sudden||

    Ron lacked the political tact that Rand demonstrates. Rand is the first serious libertarianish candidate since Reagan circa 1980

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Ron lacked the political tact that Rand demonstrates.

    This is true. Actually as a long time political watcher I have been extremely impressed with Rand's posturing (even is some of it is contrived). Yeah, you have to got to Bob Jones U and suck up to them. Israel too.

  • ||

    Should Rand get the nomination it will be interesting to see you twist yourself into knots decrying him and supporting The Hildebeast.

    The real question is, how will you hang Bush around Rand's neck in order to justify it?

  • anon||

    Ayn Rand had a Bush!

  • Tonio||

    Hah!

  • VicRattlehead||

    wouldn't have minded living my life without that image in black and white running through my head, my mentally undressed Ayn had a well groomed bush until this day.
    masturbating will never be the same again!

  • Sudden||

    In fairness to shriek, he's gone on record time and time again saying he'd support Rand over Hillary.

  • ||

    Shreek says a lot of things. We will see when and if the time comes.

  • Brett L||

    Its about the primary. Rick Fucking Sanotorum actually attracted a larger percent of the GOP base vote than Rand's dad. Although I do hope that Rand has enough money to just keep running. Making it to late March with enough money to run ads in the big states while guys like Santorum implode is key.

  • Sudden||

    Ron and Rand may have philosophically similar views, but Rand has an advantage over his dad in some key regards: political tact and acumen as well as his priorities and emphasis in his campaigning.

    Ron was anti-war, but occassionally caged it in rhetoric that was more common to the Left and thus anathema to GOP base voters. Rand knows how to sell non-interventionism as a decidedly conservative philosophy. Ron would rant about the Fed (a position I largely agree with him on), Rand will mention the Fed but won't make it the highlight of his campaigning.

  • Hydra||

    Santorum only got votes because he was the only credible sociocon (ie, not a Mormon, not antiwar, and not on his third wife) left standing. It was a very reluctant type of support he got.

  • fuck you tulpa||

    .

  • Swiss Servator, Gnomes FTW!||

    I thought it more "anyone but Romney" protest votes. kind of like Paul Tsongas got 25% for a bit vs Bill Clinton.

  • toolkien||

    It's sad that 25 years ago, when I was a College Republican, there was friendly debate between the libertarian branch and the more dyed in the wool conservative branch. The common ground was fiscal conservatism. Since then, as the Republicans finalized their shift into being the conservative branch of the Democratic Party, and shifted to fiscal liberalism to go with their social conservatism, the Republicans became actively hostile toward the libertarian faction - and pretty much booted us to the curb circa 2003. They had their "Contract With America" flowing like fire-water in their veins, Medicare Part D to float onto the backs of the taxpayer-serfs, and libertarians within the circle of Republicans were no longer tolerated. Of course, now that the Republicans have screwed the pooch with the their last moments in the sun, they try and sweet talk libertarians back into the fold. Of course with the flowers comes the note as to when to schedule the rape session (their best attempt at romance). Stuff like this simply reveals the crude treatment we are to receive in their tender hands.

  • toolkien||

    cont.

    For there to be a GOP of any kind down the line, they have to do a major shift away from fiscal liberalism and social conservatism. They need to embrace real fiscal conservatism and at least set aside their superstitions and find the necessary disinterest in social matters. They don't have to give up their ghosts and fairies, just don't make them the epicenter of a party's viewpoint. Economic liberty will give them more than enough room for their superstitions, as a well constructed separation of Church and State should afford. In short, economic/monetary/fiscal policies trump EVERYTHING ELSE and a solid party should be able to be founded on such from Republicans, Libertarians, and even some Blue Dog Democrats. At least that's the only hope left. Without it, the Progressive Fascists of the Democrats will reign unopposed.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Have I mentioned I love youz guyz?

    *wipes tear from corner of eye*

  • VicRattlehead||

    I know this is my last foothold on my spiral to insanity, without knowing that there are at least 30 others in the world that are willing to use their fucking brains for more than the 2 mins in between TV shows, I would have gone insane. I'm glad to have found all of you as well.

  • anon||

    Santorum is just mad about the last time he ran. His plan is to fling enough shit at the GOP that something sticks, as vengeance.

    That said, Hate, Detest, Loathing... Even English doesn't have words strong enough to convey the emotions I experience just from seeing this shitbag's face. Or ass. Whatever.

  • Lord Humungus||

    "GOP not a Libertarian Party" - yet.

  • Pro Libertate||

    I'm in your party, killing your cons.

  • anon||

    Does that mean we only have Pro's left?

    har har see what I did there

  • UnCivilServant||

    I'm going to have to kill you now. Justifiable homocide in self defense and all.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    the Republican Party is not a libertarian party, it is a conservative party. And it will nominate a conservative, and not a libertarian.

    Hillary it is, then.

  • Hydra||

    A "compassionate conservative" like Huckabee could probably win the general.

  • fuck you tulpa||

    Shut the fuck up Tulpa, the sockpuppets are so fucking old.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    I think that Rand Paul would qualify as a social conservative. He simply returns to the tradition of libertarian-minded conservatives working *together* - the tradition loosely described as "fusionism."

    It was when the libertarian/SoCon alliance began falling apart that the Republicans started sucking much worse than before.

    In contrast, there isn't much of a history of libertarians influencing a major party in alliance with SoLibs.

    Not all SoCons are for enhanced state power. Some are philosophically convinced that virtue and freedom go together. Others may in theory support various statist policies, but in the current political climate they are on the defensive vis-a-vis progressives who want to use state power against them, making SoCons at least temporary allies of limited-govt types.

    And remember the whining about how the Religious Right embraced unfettered capitalism, contrary to the teachings of Jesus the Socialist.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    A quick Google search discloses this Amanda Marcotte article from last December:

    "5 Ways the Christian Right Perverts Religion to Push Inhumane, Unfettered Capitalism

    "The Christian right works hard to craft theological arguments to support corporate policies."

    http://www.alternet.org/belief.....capitalism

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    Again - "[I] find it difficult to understand why today’s Christian right wing has enveloped the teachings of capitalism over the teachings of Christ and indeed have allowed capitalism to supersede Christ in matters of concern for the poor and needy."

    http://www.examiner.com/articl.....off-center

  • Pro Libertate||

    To be sure, Jesus had the ability to simply will food and other resources into existence, so he's more of a post-scarcity guy.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    "The Family Research Council, the evangelical advocacy organization founded by James Dobson, has been dipping into its war chest to defend Republican Governor Scott Walker's efforts to curtail collective bargaining for public-sector unions....

    "Another recent FRC lecturer offered a related interpretation of the Bible's calls for social justice. "Christ does not necessarily condemn the rich per se," said Mark Caleb Smith, the director of the Center for Political Studies at Cedarville University. But, he added, the good book does at times condemn the poor: "The Old Testament, especially in the Book of Proverbs, ascribes poverty to oppression, but also to other things like laziness, the love of sleep, the love of pleasure, the love of food, the love of wine. And so even Proverbs says, you know, sometimes you may be poor because of your behavior.""

    http://www.motherjones.com/moj.....nst-unions

  • paranoid android||

    I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty than Jesus' methods ever did.

    Of course, I can see why JC would be an attractive model for fans of socialism--you take a couple very scarce fish and loaves of bread, redistribute them enough, and BAM, there's suddenly plenty for everyone!

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    My point was there are "Religious Right" leaders defending capitalism.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    More, from the controversial evangelical David Barton:

    ""The purpose of government is to protect the life, liberty and property of all individuals, by punishing evildoers and encouraging the righteous." (America's Providential History p.20) On p. 128-129 the book discusses the "Biblical" principles of the Constitution proposed by Samuel Adams, "Father of the American Revolution." The third prinicple is the "right to property," which is one of the "rights of Colonists as Christians."

    ""Scripture defines God as the source of private property...Ecclesiastes 5:19 states, 'For every man to whom God has given riches and wealth, He has also empowered him to eat from them'...Also in I Chronicles 29:12, 'Both riches and honor come from Thee." (pps 187-188)"

    http://www.theocracywatch.org/rr_economics.htm

  • Pro Libertate||

    The only way we're getting to that kind of post-scarcity technology without Jesus coming back and going into the food distribution business is through massive technological advance. . .which is much more likely to happen with a market economy.

  • Hydra||

    Rand Paul is going to leave Santorum behind, just like Peter North.

  • fuck you tulpa||

    Wait wait wait, you actually think the presence of those pictures means he watches the show?

    Do you not understand how writing an article and the internet work?

    LOLOLLOL YOU ACTULLY THINK THAT MEANS HE WATCHES THE SHOW AHAHAAHHAHA

  • fuck you tulpa||

    Jesus ANOTHER post from your sockpuppet Tulpa?

    When are you going to learn?

  • eyeroller||

    The "Republican Party is not a libertarian party" says Santorum.

    Truer words were never spoken.

  • Tony||

    The theocrats and the social Darwinists have a lot in common, and the key to politics is finding common ground. You have total farcical incompetence on economic policy. You have the deep-seated shared purpose of shitting on minorities and poor people at every opportunity. You have a shared propaganda bubble you never venture out of. You all reject science you don't like on a whim. You're almost exclusively white and mostly male. The only real differences you have are how much to kneel before Jeebus, how much you want to blow up people in foreign countries, and how much you like to imprison people for smoking weed. But you are totally a viable alliance, an unbreakable bond of complete unseriousness.

  • GILMORE||

    Who are you talking to, Tony?

    The Santorum Channel is 'somewhere else'

  • sarcasmic||

    You have total farcical incompetence on economic policy.

    Says the guy who understands absolutely nothing about economics.

    You have the deep-seated shared purpose of shitting on minorities and poor people at every opportunity.

    Because it's racist to treat minorities equally instead of treating them like they are inferior and in need of special treatment. And because not giving is taking.

    You have a shared propaganda bubble you never venture out of.

    Principles are bad.

    You all reject science you don't like on a whim.

    We recognize the difference between science and political bullshit.

    You're almost exclusively white and mostly male.

    Obviously because we hate minorities and women, right?

    Fucking shit you're stupid.

  • Sevo||

    Tony|5.6.14 @ 12:35PM|#
    ..."You have the deep-seated shared purpose of shitting on minorities and poor people at every opportunity"...

    His drunken frat brother read a review of Atlas Shrugged and told him about it, so he knows all about us!

  • Tony||

    I read Atlas Shrugged, and I suggest you all reread it now that you're adults and have become acquainted with more serious schools of political philosophy. I'm not saying I went into it with a totally open mind, but the screeching fascism of it isn't exactly subtle.

  • Sevo||

    Tony|5.6.14 @ 12:54PM|#
    "I read Atlas Shrugged, "

    You should try it when you're sober.

  • sarcasmic||

    He thought Mouch was the hero and Reardan the villain.

  • Tony||

    You should try a better book.

  • Sevo||

    Tony|5.6.14 @ 1:04PM|#
    "You should try a better book."

    Oh, don't worry, and I've actually understood them.
    You should try it sometime.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    When did you read AS?

  • Tony||

    A few years ago. I read all her other stuff in middle school.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Tony,

    A few years ago. I read all her other stuff in middle school.


    You're still in HIGH SCHOOL???

    I should've known.

  • Tony||

    What grade are you in that you haven't learned to read?

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Tony,

    What grade are you in that you haven't learned to read?


    I know enough English and logic to know how to mess with you.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    How many years is that now?

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Can someone teach me how to search for previous comments?

  • SugarFree||

    google is the best way:

    site:reason.com [commenter] "[keywords]"

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    That's a nightmare. Any way to search comments via reason?

  • Tony||

    Are you baffled that someone can read AS and not come away praising it as the apex of all human thought?

    You know there's a reason it's not taken seriously in academia, and it's not a conspiracy of socialists I promise you.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    The only thing I'm baffled by is that your brain has enough power to keep your body inhaling and exhaling.

    It's quite obvious why you can't grasp it.

  • ||

    That's a nightmare.

    Reason just uses Google's search engine and the output is less well organized. Once you've searched for something you can use "Search Tools" to narrow down by date, which is handy if you have a general idea of when the comment was.

  • SusanM||

    I guess the fact that most of Rand's heroes in AS were rags-to-riches success stories just got lost on you?

  • Sevo||

    So long as he can shout "FASCIST", nothing else matters.
    It would make more sense if he knew fascism is socialism, but that sort of nuance is lost on imbeciles.

  • Tony||

    That's an awfully specific rebuttal to a criticism I didn't make. It doesn't matter what her characters' backstories are, because they are fictional, in a fictional world filled with all-good or all-bad people (like children's stories), yet she wanted readers to take it seriously as political philosophy. Rule #1 in my book is that any political philosophy has to acknowledge the qualities of the real world.

  • sarcasmic||

    Rule #1 in my book is that any political philosophy has to acknowledge the qualities of the real world.

    Haaaaaaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha! That's a riot!

    Your political philosophy revolves around government being the solution to all problems, and when the government is corrupted by the evil corporations the solution is to give more power to the government so it can control the corporations that control it and when that doesn't work the solution is to give more power to the government so it can control the corporations that control it and when that doesn't work the solution is to give more power to the government so it can control the corporations that control it and when that doesn't work the solution is to give more power to the government so it can control the corporations that control it...

    You're insane.

  • Tony||

    Your political philosophy revolves around government being the solution to all problems

    No it doesn't. Straw man. Lazy thinking. You're stupid. In tight competition with sevo as the dumbest motherfucker here, and that's quite an achievement because there's a lot of fucking dumb here. I really have no interest in talking to either of you anymore.

  • sarcasmic||

    Yeah, you have no interest in talking with people who point out the logical inconsistencies and downright lies that you pass off as conversation.

    I suppose if I was an emotional, illogical liar I would feel the same way.

  • fuck you tulpa||

    You're stupid. In tight competition with sevo as the dumbest motherfucker here, and that's quite an achievement because there's a lot of fucking dumb here

    Super adult, guy, way to take the adult high road

    I really have no interest in talking to either of you anymore.

    I wish you fel that way about everyone.

  • Sevo||

    "You're stupid. In tight competition with sevo as the dumbest motherfucker here,"

    Poor widdle Tony! Poor, poor Tony! Mommoy promised him he was smart and now no one lets him get away with his lies!
    Poor widdle Tony!

  • paranoid android||

    What's funny is that despite Tony declaring that he's taking all his marbles and going home to telly Mommy what a meany you are, he'll be back in this thread about twelve hours from now, after he's sure everyone else has left, so he can shout retorts to an empty room and get "the last word".

    He does this in just about every thread I've seen him post in, dude clearly has some self-esteem issues.

  • Sevo||

    "Rule #1 in my book is that any political philosophy has to acknowledge the qualities of the real world.

    Yeah, well, you should look up the Ellis Act. It was specifically passed to 'allow' business people to go out of business.
    IOWs, it was passed under the threat of an 'anti-going-out-of-business' act.

  • SusanM||

    Well, what's wrong with being an idealist? Anyway, my rebuttal is to a criticism you made, which was that there's a fascist, classist attitude to AS which just isn't there. AS is not about a small clique of rich people trying to gain domination. Oh, if you skim through it with that preconception you will find it but if you look past that and actually read you'll find that her heroes would never have existed under fascism. Fascism denies the individual the means to improve themselves. The heroes of AS had respect for those who had honor and integrity regardless of their wealth.

  • Tony||

    Well, what's wrong with being an idealist?

    Is that what's going on with Rand? I'm pretty sure she meant what she wrote and wanted to apply it to the real world.

    The heroes of AS had respect for those who had honor and integrity regardless of their wealth.

    I accept that Rand didn't make wealth itself a virtue, as many of her villains were wealthy. (I do wonder if many of her followers don't make wealth = virtue a shorthand for their beliefs.) No, it's not a money-class-based fascism, but a sort of simpleminded Nietzsche, a war between superior people and inferior people (no gray areas--none), defined by productivity or parasitism. This I have loosely called a form of fascism, and it is exactly the same thing that has played out in the realms of totalitarian butchers time after time. That is the impulse behind her philosophy.

    What happens to the moochers? She doesn't give a fuck and neither do libertarians. She sees them as enemies, not people. Liberals see the needy as victims, and that all humans deserve some measure of dignity. But all the considerations of gray areas are neatly disposed of when you invent the rules of your fictional world and then watch how things play out.

    The problem is it's good vs. evil (a bad story) and that she thought it had some connection to the real world.

  • kbolino||

    Liberals see the needy as victims, and that all humans deserve some measure of dignity.

    It's easy to find victims when you make so many of them.

    There wouldn't be so many moochers if you didn't go around telling people that it's perfectly okay to do nothing of value with your life, we'll just steal from people who do and give it to you.

    There is nothing wrong with being poor. There is something very wrong with being a thief.

  • Whahappan?||

    Holy shit, you can't be real! Rearden et al actually did care about the "needy" and less well off, and worked harder and harder to satisfy them, and were shit on by the "moochers" for their efforts, just like you shit on producers. You have it exactly backwards, as usual.

  • Redmanfms||

    Liberals see the needy as victims, and that all humans deserve some measure of dignity.

    You seriously think seeing people as victims is granting them some measure of dignity?

    You are not a liberal BTW, just because you and your fellow travelers co-opted that term in the '50s (after having so thoroughly discredited the "progressive" brand) doesn't make you "liberal."

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Tony,

    The theocrats and the social Darwinists have a lot in common


    Notice the usage of the term "Social Darwinists" by the left whenever they want to bad-mouth competition and markets, when in fact "social darwinism" is a term invented by SoCons at the end of the XIX Century to bad-mouth natural selection.

    You have total farcical incompetence on economic policy.


    Correct peg, wrong hole.

    You all reject science you don't like on a whim.


    You mean like rejecting radiated food and GMO's? Oh, I see, you were talking about rejecting a myth created under the guise of science.

    You're almost exclusively white and mostly male.


    An accusation that seems to imply that only those arguments posited by a disabled transgender minority single mother carry any weight. Which would ipso facto make your own arguments invalid, by exclusion.

    That's the extent of your rhetorical skills, Tony. You're definitively still in High School!

  • Tony||

    Well I'm using the term social Darwinist to refer to people who think the best possible society is one that promotes parentage and luck as the most important factors in one's success, i.e., libertarianism.

    I'm not saying white males are always wrong, I'm saying a major political group consisting only of white males has a serious problem.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Tony,

    Well I'm using the term social Darwinist to refer to people who think the best possible society is one that promotes parentage and luck as the most important factors in one's success, i.e., libertarianism.


    Which means, ipso facto, you have no idea what the term means or what the concept entails.

    I'm not saying white males are always wrong,


    Yes, you did.

    I'm saying a major political group consisting only of white males has a serious problem


    That one falls under the category of "opinion." Even if what you said is true (which is not, since there are plenty of Latino libertarians as well - you idiot) it would still not be evidence of a "problem".

  • Ayn Random Variation||

    tl;dr

    Anyone not a Democrat is a rich, bible thumping, racist, warmongering hater of the environment.

    D-

  • Zeb||

    You have the deep-seated shared purpose of shitting on minorities and poor people at every opportunity.

    Go fuck yourself. Many people on here are or have been poor.

    You're almost exclusively white and mostly male.

    So are you.

  • Tony||

    Many people on here are or have been poor.

    It's not a badge of honor to be a useful idiot.

    So are you.

    Yes but my political coalition consists of strong majorities of all other groups. If I found myself in a group of whites only, I would be very concerned, because it either means only white people are rational, or it means I'm in a room full of white supremacists.

  • Klan Democrat||

    Only a profoundly evil person can ascribe political views to a group of people based on nothing more than their gender and skin color.

    You're the same as an idiot that sees a group of black women and assumes they're waiting for a bus, or a bunch of Mexican men and start looking for a Home Depot.

    Seek help.

  • kbolino||

    Yes but my political coalition consists of strong majorities of all other groups.

    You have no political coalition. You are a schmuck just like us. You are not one of the elite and never will be. You accuse us all the time of being in the pocket of "the rich" but the only one I ever see carrying water around here is you.

  • GILMORE||

    I guess he never asked himself why he's now a "former" senator, and the guy he's talking about not only 'still has a job', but is in a position to get promoted.

    Maybe that's what this is about = sour grapes?

  • Sevo||

    GILMORE|5.6.14 @ 12:36PM|#
    "I guess he never asked himself why he's now a "former" senator"

    That voice in his head says he's RIGHT!

  • paranoid android||

    Then just to drive home the difference between brand-ecch libertarians and conservatives, Santorum calls for increasing the minimum wage by a buck and tells Strickland (a total bum as governor the Buckeye State) that Obama's request to bump it more than that is a bad idea.

    "My opponent's ten cent titanium tax goes too far."

    "Well, my opponent's ten cent titanium tax doesn't go too far enough!"

  • Mr. Soul||

    I still support Jack Johnson over John Jackson although the robot vote will probably through it to head-in-a-jar-Nixon .

  • Mr. Soul||

    *throw

  • SusanM||

  • ||

    Oh yes, this guy's a winner.

  • SusanM||

    More misses than hits, yes, but every now and then extremes meet. Even Reason ran one of this guy's pieces to go along with an article.

  • Matrix||

    And this is why the GOP will continue to alienate people. They aren't so much the "conservative" party as much as they are just "we're against everything Democrats are for."

    Do you honestly think blacks and hispanics are pro-gay rights? Hell no. They are very socon, but the Democrats will buy them off by appealing to their wants. Democrats will talk out of both sides of their mouths. There are gun rights Democrats. There are somewhat fiscally moderate Democrats. There are socially moderate/conservative Democrats. The Republicans drank the Neo-Con and hardcore SoCon Kool-Aid for too long and just want to say "no" to almost every single issue that Democrats stand for. Republicans have really tried hard for this party purity crap, and they treat libertarians like "turds in the punchbowl."

  • Tony||

    There have been recent large shifts on gay marriage among blacks, and Latinos support it by a large majority. But I don't disagree with the premise that Republicans, despite themselves, only seem to be losing by sheer stupidity, despite the fact that the country as a whole rejects everything they believe. The deck is really stacked in their favor that much.

    The US is a relatively conservative country as Western democracies go, but nevertheless as a whole it is more liberal, and will continue to get more liberal, than the most liberal Republicans today. The problem with putting all your chips on old people is, well, obvious.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Tony,

    There have been recent large shifts on gay marriage among blacks, and Latinos support it by a large majority.


    Linkey-link, please. Otherwise, don't blame people for thinking that you pulled that one out of your very arse. I am willing to bet that gay marriage is gaining traction among Latinos but not among blacks. That I will have to see for myself.

    But I don't disagree with the premise that Republicans, despite themselves, only seem to be losing by sheer stupidity,


    Indeed, they're losing for not being libertarian at all. That's stupid. The Demo-rats will lose for being their usual economically-illiterate, prevaricating, intellectually-dishonest and immoral selves, of course - that much is inevitable.

  • Tony||

    The Demo-rats

    Try again, this time speaking as an adult and not some WND pond scum, and I'll provide links. Or you can just google it. Why is googling so difficult for you people? Do they tell you you're not allowed in rightwing bubble camp?

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Tony,

    Try again, this time speaking as an adult and not some WND pond scum


    Ok, you're still in High School. Evidence does not lie.

    Or you can just google it.


    No, the onus is on you. I always provide links whenever I mention what people say they believe. You just assert it as if it were true.

    Do they tell you you're not allowed in rightwing bubble camp?


    They tell me not to talk to strangers with candy that are barely clad with lousy arguments.

  • fuck you tulpa||

    Why is providing support for your claims so difficulut for you?

    If googling is so easy why are you whining about it? Why not just do it?

  • fuck you tulpa||

    Also, adults call each other WND Pond Scum, but Demo-rats is off limits?

    That, and "google it yourself" are seriously what you're going with here?

  • Tony||

    Latinos on gay marriage

    Blacks on gay marriage

    The most important point is that younger people of all demographics tend to support it.

  • fuck you tulpa||

    See, that wasn't so hard was it? You could have avoided looking like an asshole and a crybaby just by doing that from the start.

    Instead you whined about how easy it was, then proved you were just being a crybaby by easily and quickly finding the links.

    I made you a better poster today, you're welcome.

  • OldMexican||

    In 2001, roughly one-third of both whites and blacks expressed support for same-sex marriage. Today, 54% of whites support same-sex marriage, as do 43% of blacks


    It is EXACTLY like I said [" I am willing to bet that gay marriage is gaining traction among Latinos but not among blacks. "], and I am using your own links: Latinos are coming around to gay marriage (at the same proportion as whites according to PEW), whereas a majority of blacks (57%) still oppose it or are ambivalent about it.

    So you were saying, Tony?

  • Tony||

    Precisely, I was saying "There have been recent large shifts on gay marriage among blacks, and Latinos support it by a large majority." Didn't say a majority of blacks supported it (though other polls show higher numbers). But the trend among all demographics is inexorable. If Republicans want to be viable in the future they have to figure out other tactics besides beating up on minority groups and hoping there are enough bigots out there to vote for them.

    Which brings me to the unstated point of all this: my what company you keep!

  • fuck you tulpa||

    my what company you keep!

    Tony's political philosophy in a nutshell, as we've always said, and as he so obligingly admitted there.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Tony,

    But the trend among all demographics is inexorable.


    That's possible, but your counterargument to Matrix's (that Latinos and blacks are favoring more and more gay marriage therefore they can't be SoCons) is still fallacious. Gay marriage is not the pivot point for a socially-conservative person, as many conservative-minded people would regard gay marriage as a very conservative concept compared to gays frolicking in Turkish baths (which is the argument posited by Justin Raimondo, that the fight for gay marriage is an attempt to stifle gay eroticism). Your counterargument is not that compelling (it's in the best of cases HALF-compelling because most blacks are still not sold on the gay marriage issue).

  • Bill Dalasio||

    From day one, Santorum's schtick has been that the GOP ought to abandon limited government and free enterprise in favor of hard line social interventionism. The man's a snake-oil salesman pure and simple. If hardline conservatives want to pooh-pooh libertarians for not toeing the lion on social issues, they ought to be just as quick to dismiss this clown.

    Absolutely and utterly toxic.

  • Alice Bowie||

    Although I don't see eye-to-eye on many libertarian issues as i'm a big Liberal, I did vote for Gary Johnson in 2012. I feel that Gary Johnson was on the LEFT of many of Obama's policies and I was willing to give a left-leaning Libertarian a try.

    Libertarians aren't going to get progressive votes if they remain in the GOP. As painful as it may be, they really need to sway independents and open-minded liberals to the Third Party.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Alice Bowie,

    Although I don't see eye-to-eye on many libertarian issues as i'm a big Liberal,


    You're a big idiot. "Liberal" means friendly to liberty. Modern "Liberals" are the children of the old Progressive socialists who became disillusioned with Wilson's government and then simply went nuts after trying to reinvent themselves. The spectacle has not been pretty ever since.

    Libertarians aren't going to get progressive votes if they remain in the GOP.


    The GOP is also riddled with Progressives, so it is not like libertarians are losing sleep over it.

  • Alice Bowie||

    You're a big idiot.

    You are a big Meanie VATO!!!

    You never have anything civil or nice to say to me and i never call people names.

    I just simply state my opinion and points that I know of.

  • Alice Bowie||

    "Liberal" means friendly to liberty.

    It's actually Liberty and equality.

    I think the later is something Liberals and Libertarians disagree on.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Alice Bowie,

    It's actually Liberty and equality.


    They're mutually-exclusive terms, Alice. You can't have equality in a free society, and you can't have freedom in a society where equality is the goal. We're all born with different skills and abilities.

    Which is why the spectacle hasn't been pretty, like I said.

  • Tony||

    "And those without requisite skills and abilities should fuck off and starve."

    That's where we differ. Neither Alice nor any other liberal means full equality, but definitely equality under the law and equality of opportunity to the extent they can possibly be achieved. Which to a liberal and any other sane person sounds like a necessary component of any meaningful definition of liberty-for-all.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Tony,

    "And those without requisite skills and abilities should fuck off and starve."


    Thus spake the intellectually dishonest lefty. Putting words in my mouth.

    By the way, forced equality =/= well-fed. Just look at North Korea under Juche.

    Neither Alice nor any other liberal means full equality, but definitely equality under the law and equality of opportunity to the extent they can possibly be achieved.


    That's not what Alice or you mean. Equality under the law is a given in a society where there are no protected groups, whereas equality of opportunity implies protected groups (otherwise, equal opportunity becomes a meaningless term). Both are MUTUALLY-EXCLUSIVE terms. You can't have equality under the law and things like Affirmative Action or anti-discrimination laws at the same time. Either a person is EQUAL to another under the law or he/she is not. You can't have it both ways.

    Go back to High School, Tony. Oh, you're already there - my bad.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    and equality of opportunity to the extent they can possibly be achieved.

    And in attempting to achieve such nebulous ends, Tony is willing to steal. And since he never defines what "to the extent they can possibly be achieved" means, he will never be satisfied thereby continuing to promote theft indefinitely.

    The pinnacle of morality.

    What a fucking pig.

  • sarcasmic||

    And since he never defines what "to the extent they can possibly be achieved" means, he will never be satisfied thereby continuing to promote theft indefinitely.

    As long as the rich are still rich, that's proof that they haven't paid their fair share!

  • Tony||

    While you will continue to promote maximum inequality, because you have "morals."

    Read another fucking book.

  • sarcasmic||

    Speaking of mutually exclusive, Tony says he supports property rights and wealth redistribution.

    He's got doublethink down, that's for sure.

  • ||

    Libertarians care a lot about equality under the law.

    That's why we hate regulations that penalize unpopular industries and reward favored ones.

  • Alice Bowie||

    Nick, I just realized that we both went to Rutgers during almost the same years. I went between 1983-1986.

  • Rasilio||

    Ok, we want details on the drunken hookup

  • Matrix||

    Yeah, he probably broke her heart, and that's why she hates libertarians now.

  • CE||

    Are all of us libertarians 40-something white guys then?

  • Ayn Random Variation||

    Ayn Random Variation to Rick Santorum: "Go kill yourself."

  • Loki||

    Does anyone really give two shits about what Dick Cumfarts thinks about anything?

  • The Late P Brooks||

    You should try a better book.

    You should read The Little Red Hen some time, Tony.

    Spoiler alert: the hen is not the villain.

  • jmomls||

    Santorum isn't going to get my vote, and neither is Rand Paul if he keeps posting pics on Facebook of himself partying down with the likes of Kristen Gillibrand [CCCP-NY]

  • CE||

    What they all would do if a libertarian leaning Republican won the nomination (likely with 35% of the vote in a 3 or 4 candidate race), is cry foul and run someone like Giuliani or Bloomberg as some sort of "conservative" savior as an independent.

    Even though they all cry and moan now about Libertarians wasting their votes if they go 3rd party.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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

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

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement