A.M. Links: Cantor Loses to Tea Party Rival, U.K. Banning Synthetic Drugs, Robbery Caught on Gamer's Live-Stream

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.

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.

  • Fluffy||

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/.....8678.story
    Eric Cantor's primary loss an 'apocalyptic moment' for the GOP
    Right, but which GOP?

  • waffles||

    Who won? Did I win?

  • ||

    Cantor lost, which means we all win.

  • Mongo||

    Are you in Virginia or a VA hospital, Sloop??

  • ||

    We're in Virginia now. Chantilly for a few more days till our apartment in Alexandria is ready.

  • Fluffy||

    Once in Alexandia go into the Penalty Box and have a beer for me...assuming it's still there, which I guess becomes a longer and longer shot as I get older.

  • ||

    It's changed names, but I'll give it a shot.

    http://www.bugsyspizza.com/aboutus.htm

  • NoVAHockey||

    It's a fun spot.

  • ||

    I'm glad you all providing him with watering hole options, because the only one I ever frequented closed last year and I've been bereft ever since.

  • NoVAHockey||

    what closed?

  • ||

    Tiffany Tavern

  • Rhywun||

    I think we're alone now...

  • Cliché Bandit||

    There doesn't seem to be anyone around?

  • ||

  • An Innocent Man||

    He's commenting thus he's alive thus clearly not in a VA hospital.

  • Fluffy||

    He could be on a waiting list, waiting to die without being seen by a doctor.

  • ||

    Question: is the wait longer in a VA hospital or here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fj_inlzsDhQ

  • KDN||

    "Eric Cantor's loss tonight is an apocalyptic moment for the GOP establishment. The grassroots is in revolt and marching," said Brent Bozell, a veteran conservative activist and founder of the Media Research Center and ForAmerica.

    Really, couldn't include the one extra word, Trib?

  • ||

    "Eric Cantor's loss tonight is an apocalyptic moment for the GOP establishment cocksuckers. The grassroots is in revolt and marching," said Brent Bozell, a veteran conservative activist and founder of the Media Research Center and ForAmerica.

    Is that the extra word you were looking for? If so, FIFY,

  • KDN||

    Just pointing out the Tribune's sensationalism. It's a pretty important part of the quote.

  • ||

    I stand behind my accurate, if unflattering, edit.

  • Ted S.||

    Nobody was this sensationalistic when Ned Lamont beat Joe Lieberman.

  • Virginian||

    The politics were different. The GOP in CT is essentially a castrated Theon Greyjoy, and they eagerly lined up to support Lieberman instead of supporting the actual Republican, who could have won a three way race.

    VA has a sore loser law, so Cantor would have to run as a write in, not as an independent. It would be funny to see if he goes full Charlie Crist.

  • AlexInCT||

    The name is Reek, damn it!

  • ||

    Hello.

    Scale of one to 10. Rate Cantor's defeat in the political scheme of things.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    Meh. Wake me when they actually eliminate something from the federal government.

  • Doctor Whom||

    This. I'd love to draw all sorts of conclusions, but something something one data point.

  • Bee Tagger||

    Hold on, let me count my yawns and get back to you.

  • Fluffy||

    I give it a 6. 6 Santorums.

  • SugarFree||

    I believe that's a liter.

  • gaijin||

    I believe that's a liter.

    when shaken

  • db||

    Foamy!

  • Ska||

    Cappuccino never sounded so unappealing.

  • Ted S.||

    Cappuccino has never sounded appealing.

    /drinks coffee black, no sugar

  • gimmeasammich||

    Cappuccino has never sounded appealing.

    /drinks coffee black, no sugar

    As my grandfather used to say to the waitresses on many road trips to Colorado I took with him as a kid, "I like my coffee like I like my women: hot, black, and first thing in the morning."

  • Cliché Bandit||

    MY favorite is a Navy Lt friend of mine when at some Officers gathering with his black girlfriend (he is white) he said "I like my coffee like I like my women. Bitter."

    I would have paid to see the reactions.

  • gimmeasammich||

    That was his other response. "Cold, dark and bitter."

  • ||

    I'd say right now it's a 6. If Brat wins the general, I'd say it's an 8 or 9.

  • robc||

    He is in a strong R district, hard to believe he will lose general.

  • PBR Streetgang||

    Until recently I lived in the 7th District and this is nothing short of stunning to me. I know nothing of Brat, but good on him.

  • Steve G||

    yeah, and here I thought being outspent 10 to 1 makes election unpossible!

  • gaijin||

    I thought being outspent 10 to 1 makes election unpossible!

    only Koch money has magical powers

  • ||

    Note the conspicuous absence of Tony from any thread since the news broke...

  • Restoras||

    He'll be around.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    He's still downloading his talking points.

  • entropy_factor||

    not saying this guy is gold standard libertarian, but I will take 90% ..

  • BakedPenguin||

    [Brat] wrote that “the government holds a monopoly on violence” because it enforces the law.

    Yeah, I'd vote for him.

  • entropy_factor||

    yeah and I love how WSJ was simply shocked to hear this kind of rhetoric LOL

  • TANSTaaFL||

    Also the WSJ felt the need to publish this headline,
    "David Brat’s Writings: Hitler’s Rise ‘Could All Happen Again’"

    The fairly innocuous and uncontroversial quote was in the context of how christians should have more concern for and be proactive in standing up to injustice done to others.

    Specifically, "We appear to be a bit passive. Hitler came along, and he did not meet with unified resistance. I have the sinking feeling that it could all happen again, quite easily. The church should rise up higher than Nietzsche could see and prove him wrong. We should love our neighbor so much that we actually believe in right and wrong, and do something about it. If we all did the right thing and had the guts to spread the word, we would not need the government to backstop every action we take."

    Was the "this-guy-thinks-Hitler-is-[insert something crazy here]-insinuation really necessary, WSJ? I thought it was a Salon article at first glance that was so bad.

  • TANSTaaFL||

    Could do without the Jebus talk, but am willing to tolerate it because of this oh-so-important-and-rare disclaimer he included:

    Can Christians force others to follow their ethical teachings on social issues? Note that consistency is lacking on all sides of this issue. The political Right likes to champion individual rights and individual liberty, but it has also worked to enforce morality in relation to abortion, gambling, and homosexuality. The Left likes to think of itself as the bulwark of progressive liberal individualism, and yet it seeks to progressively coerce others to fund every social program under the sun via majority rule. Houston, we have a problem. Coercion is on the rise. What is the root word for liberalism? (Answer: Liberty)

    He speaks in a surprisingly sane and libertarian fashion.

    It's funny to think liberal media is in panic mode about a republican who thinks he shouldn't force his morals on US citizens and is therefore liberal on homosexuality, gambling and abortion.

  • robc||

    At best, the government has an oligopoly on violence.

    And long as self defense laws exist, they dont have a monopoly.

    #libertarianmemesthatihate

  • Whahappan?||

    It would be more (but not perfectly) accurate to say the government has a "legal" monopoly on the INITIATION of violence.

  • Restoras||

    90%? Sounds like Purity Test Fail. What does the Arbiter have to say about this?

  • Fluffy||

    I am suspect of the Divinity School stuff, but like what I have read of his writings so far.

  • Ted S.||

    What do you have against divinity?

  • Lord Humungus||

    Suck it, Cantor /and then LH slinks back into the shadows

  • ||

    A "suck it Cantor" divided by you slinking back into the shadows = ?????

    Could one of our resident mathematicians complete the equation, please.

  • UnCivilServant||

    We got a divide by zero error, the wasteland has no shadows from the harsh, 24-hour sun and level terrain.

  • Lord Humungus||

    harsh crowd

    *slinks back into the shadow on the ground, underneath his nitrous oxide murder machine*

  • Fluffy||

    YAH BITCHEZ

  • ||

    The UK is banning synthetic substances that mimic the effects of LSD and heroin.

    AKA blood pudding.

  • Fluffy||

    Top 3?

  • Fluffy||

    No.

  • ||

    Intercepted!

  • ||

    Obama Praises Australia’s Gun Confiscation

    http://www.nationalreview.com/.....-c-w-cooke

  • Jordan||

    MOST 2nd AMENDMENT FRIENDLY PRESIDENT EVAR!!1

    /shriek

  • WTF||

    And yet the proggies will claim "no one wants to take your guns! That's just hype!"

  • wareagle||

    an article that the typical progtard gun grabber will either miss or agree with, though I'm leaning toward miss because one thing about progtards is their reluctance to be honest about their goals on things like gun control.

  • KDN||

    Nonsense. Why, yesterday afternoon I just heard him say that he respects gun rights, which means he would never stoop to such a policy. Are you calling POTUS a liar?

  • Shirley Knott||

    Isn't everyone in the reality-based community?
    Truth is an absolute defense against libel and slander.

  • gaijin||

    he respects gun rights

    where gun rights means the right people (aka cops) have the guns.

  • gimmeasammich||

    Except when they are in Cambridge and "act stupidly."

  • Rich||

    It is beyond astonishing that a president who considers his failure to reform the background-check system to be the defining low-point of his presidency has not yet bothered to acquaint himself with how that system actually operates.

    "There’s no advanced, developed country on earth that would put up with this.”

  • ||

    Just the other day he said this sort of thing (shootings) don't EVER happen in any civilized country. Which of course, is beyond astonishingly disingenuous and not factual. Only a lying sack of shit would make a public claim like that since there have been shootings around the world from Norway to Germany to Dumberlane (remember that one?) and even here in Canada where we've had three.

    Now he's realized Australia had a shooting? All to pimp his lazy-assed gun-control narrative?

    Unreal.

  • ||

    That's the quote I heard, Rich.

    Here's a list of shootings. I can't believe he would make such a statement.

    http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777958.html

    It doesn't include the Polytechnique massacre in Montreal in 1986. That was pretty bad.

    May as well add the latest shooting in Moncton. Canada has had its fair share I reckon.

  • Medical Physics Guy||

    (Dunblane.)

  • Medical Physics Guy||

    I might add that UK has a long history of knife crime epidemics, including London today, and Glasgow pretty much since always, which are no joke. No, knives can't mow down a room full of people at once while standing in one position. Other than that, they're deadly and silent.

  • ||

    Yeah, little bit of pain never hurt anybody. If you know what I mean. Also, I think knives are a good idea. Big, fuck-off shiny ones. Ones that look like they could skin a crocodile. Knives are good, because they don't make any noise, and the less noise they make, the more likely we are to use them. Shit 'em right up. Makes it look like we're serious. Guns for show, knives for a pro.

  • Medical Physics Guy||

    Had to look that one up.

  • Ska||

    Fucking northern monkies.

  • ||

    Fucking southern fairies.

  • Slumbrew||

    I'm not sure what's more worrying. The job or your past.

  • ||

    Yes. Shit, sorry. Dunno where that came from.

  • ||

    "...beyond astonishingly disingenuous and not factual."

    Has he ever been different?

  • ||

    By the way, hasn't there since been a backlash against gun confiscation in Australia? I believe there was a report that showed gun crime went up after it took place.

  • ||

    No-one's really sure what the effect has been on homicide or suicide rates. There have been no mass shootings since the buyback, but that's about all that anyone can say with any certainty.

  • Raven Nation||

    And the whole thing was bizarre anyway. To the best of my knowledge, the number of mass shootings prior to the Port Arthur massacre was zero.

    Unless, of course, you count some of the Aboriginal massacres in the 19th century.

  • ||

    Off the top of my head there were Milperra, Hoddle Street, and Queen Street, plus a few sprees and family killings in the 1980s. But yeah, and also in response to Rhywun below, they weren't that common anyway

  • Raven Nation||

    SHIT, my memory is screwed. Thanks for the reminder. Milperra to me seems not an outlier but something a little different to the average mass shooting.

    BTW: day before I came back to the US I caught the first part of a documentary on police violence in Victoria in the 1980s (?). I think on ABC - did you see that.

  • Rhywun||

    The population of the US is more than 12 times that of Australia. IMHO the lack of "mass shooting" since then doesn't prove anything.

  • ||

    What he fails to mention is that Australia's crime rate is off the charts and mass shootings in the US are down.

    Lying liars lie.

  • ||

    Australia's crime rate is off the charts

    Where did you get that from?

  • Raven Nation||

    Did you decide to go to Dark MOFO?

  • Raven Nation||

    Yeah, that surprised me too. Hard to find accurate info, but this:

    http://tinyurl.com/meao6hl

    suggests a measurable decline in homicide rates.

  • Virginian||

    Do they track homicides UK style?

  • Raven Nation||

    Not sure of the distinction - clarification?

    One of the tables did make a distinction between murder and manslaughter but the link above shows both rates on the same chart.

  • Virginian||

    In the UK, they only count the solved ones as homicides. Here in the US, unsolved homicides go on the books as homicides.

  • Raven Nation||

    Did not know that. I assumed the Australian numbers were all but now I'm not sure.

  • Virginian||

    Yeah. Some people, and I'm among them, think that if you measured UK murder stats with the American system, they'd have a lot more murders.

  • Jordan||

    In the interest of public health, the FDA’s current regulations state that utensils and other surfaces that contact food must be “adequately cleanable” and properly maintained. Historically, the FDA has expressed concern about whether wood meets this requirement and has noted these concerns in inspectional findings. FDA is always open to evidence that shows that wood can be safely used for specific purposes, such as aging cheese.

    Sounds like they're just biding their time.

  • Fluffy||

    FDA is always open to evidence that shows that wood can be safely used for specific purposes, such as aging cheese.

    Other than the evidence of the three millennia when people have been safely using wood shelves to age cheese.

    They mean some OTHER kind of evidence.

  • RBS||

    Those are just anecdotes Fluffy. The American People deserve hard, scientific facts like those produced by the government.

  • ||

    How many anecdotes does it take to make a hard pattern.

    Dumberlane. Wtf?

  • R C Dean||

    One, if the pattern is the Narrative.

  • Trouser-Pod||

    The American People deserve hard, scientific facts like those produced by the government.

    ^This. I would pay good money to see Kennedy use this line at some point on TI

  • ||

    Who wants aged cheese on their erection?

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    ewwwwwwww

  • Pope Jimbo||

    Dude, check you intact privilege.

    The circumcised shouldn't be othered just because they no longer have the means to age cheese on their wood.

  • entropy_factor||

    magnificent, simply superb. +1

  • ||

    So you're gonna turn this into a circumcision thread, IFH?

  • ||

    I imagine myself striding away purposefully while AM Links explodes behind me.

    It could have been worse sloopy - I could have linked it to pizza too

  • ||

    Linking to pizza is fine. I think everyone here of decent moral fiber agrees with me on that.

    Linking to deep-dish, on the other hand...

  • UnCivilServant||

    +1 New York Foldable slice

  • Ted S.||

    For any sexual kink you can think of, somebody else will find it a fetish.

  • Brett L||

    An implied corollary of Rule 34.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    Someone please give me the statistics on all of the cheese deaths.

  • ||

    eleventy thousand hundreds every month. All of them really cute children with big sad eyes.

  • UnCivilServant||

    Yay! We need to remove our surplus sad-eyed chilluns. They can't then be used in annoying heartstrings adverts.

  • Rhywun||

    The ones who aren't already working in our factories, you mean.

  • RBS||

    I;m sure it would include all cheese related deaths like guy who choked on a cheese ball at 3AM, guy who was gunned down in a mass shooting while buying cheese etc...

  • Doctor Whom||

    Statistics? Listen, you heartless bastard: If only one cheese-related death is prevented (or you can't prove that it hasn't been), it will all have been worth it.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    The FDA unveiled its new 7 billion dollar program designed to fight the scourge of accidental popsicle chokings today.

  • kinnath||

    Everyone that eats cheese aged on a wooden board dies eventually -- 100% fatality rate.

  • Trouser-Pod||

  • Trouser-Pod||

    ^That was for Scruffy.

  • WTF||

    Bullet-resistant security blankets. You know, for kids.

    It would definitely help when the cops throw flash bangs through your window and bust in your door shooting at 3 AM.

  • Ted S.||

    **** you, WTF!

    (This is what happens when you click "Preview" to make certain the server squirrels aren't acting up.)

  • ||

    We all know the only real security blanket is the warm, calming, burning embrace of our beloved overlords in government.

  • gaijin||

    Government issued woobies for the kids. Safety and security blankets for the win. Liberty for the loss.

  • Ted S.||

    Bullet-resistant security blankets. You know, for kids.

    Are they flash-bang grenade-resistant, too?

  • Restoras||

    Sure Sure!

  • SugarFree||

  • WTF||

    So "Ready for Hillary" is a real slogan they are going with. I guess because Obama got everyone all lubed up and loose.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    ewwwwwwww

  • waffles||

    I read on here that she may have dong of a clit. A clitdong.

  • SugarFree||

    It's actually a pseudo-penis, or reversible vagina, like a hyena.

  • waffles||

    So that explains Whoopi Goldberg's voice role in The Lion King.

  • Tejicano||

    Well, she does seem to have the right attitude to be a hyena so... ...yeah.

  • Medical Physics Guy||

    TIL...something I wish I hadn't.

  • RBS||

    I will not give her my enthusiastic consent.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    "what difference does it make"

  • Ted S.||

    Some people would find that a turn-on.

  • ||

    You can't post that and not give us some Hilldog sexts

  • SugarFree||

    Even I am not that cruel.

  • gaijin||

    Hilldoggy-style

  • Bee Tagger||

    So they *want* the phrase "it can wait" to immediately jump to mind when someone sees ReadyForHillary??

  • SugarFree||

    Or the equally doubting "but are we?"

    The only evidence of "readiness" for Hillary is that Obama can't run again. "Ready For Hillary" is just another way she stomping her hooves and scream-weeping "It's MY turn!"

    Hillary Clinton is little more than a horribly aged Veruca Salt.

  • BakedPenguin||

    She is definitely a Seether.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

  • Bee Tagger||

    The UK is banning synthetic substances that mimic the effects of LSD and heroin.

    Doesn't banning things give most legislators a high that mimics the effects of LSD and heroin?

  • PD Scott||

    Side effects include shoulder strain (from patting one's self on the back), smugness, irrationality and re-election.

  • Rich||

    Facing stern condemnation from the American Cheese Society

    "There is no whey we will stand for this!"

  • Fluffy||

    Thread over.

  • ||

    I am in awe.

  • Swiss Servator, CH yeah!||

    *narrows gaze, grumbles*

  • Pro Libertate||

    Blessed are the cheesemakers.

  • ||

    California's San Quentin State Prison is building a 40-bed inpatient mental health program for death row inmates.

    Dead man sharing.

  • Aloysious||

    Thanks, ENB, for beating the server skwerls into submission. Now if you could just do something about the little grey squirrels that are eyeing the artisanal corn I planted in my garden...

  • R C Dean||

    .22 rifle. Sub-sonic ammo. Fun for the whole family!

  • Virginian||

    http://www.breitbart.com/Breit.....rgara-Case

    A Los Angeles Superior Court judge has struck down teacher tenure as unconstitutional, ruling in the highly-anticipated Vergara v. California case that such protections "disproportionately affect poor and/or minority students." Judge Rolf Treu found that laws granting tenure after two years, prioritizing seniority in layoffs, and making it difficult to fire teachers violate state constitutional guarantees of adequate public education.

    This is fucking huge. I'm stealing analysis from Ace.

    This decision puts three critical blocs of the Leftist Coalition in direct and unavoidable conflict: Wealthy and Middle Class Suburban and Urban Liberals (who want to keep their own schools good), Poor Minorities, and the Teachers Unions.

    Only two of these three can "win" here. For years the two winners have been the Wealthier White Liberals and the Teachers Unions. Wealthier White Liberals supported the Teachers Unions incompetents, and pretended not to notice that all those incompetents were being assigned to minority schools.

    Now a judge says that Poor Minorities cannot be the loser -- which means one of the other two must be the loser. Either Wealthy White Liberals take their fair share of these incompetent teachers, or the Teachers Unions will have to lose them as teachers.

  • wareagle||

    "disproportionately affect poor and/or minority students."

    this describes most of the failings of the public school system, which has to be the plan. Hard to have a base of support for ever-expanding govt and entitlements if you don't have a class of people to whom that would appeal. That this class fails to realize it is voting against its own interests is just part of it.

  • WTF||

    The salty ham tears will be delicious.

  • Ted S.||

    Nobody taking their share of the incompetent teachers would be the best. For the children, you know.

  • gaijin||

    Either Wealthy White Liberals take their fair share of these incompetent teachers, or the Teachers Unions will have to lose them as teachers.

    Sounds like a job for Busing 2.0!

  • Restoras||

    Why do I feel like incompetent teachers will just end up in other school districts, just like incompetent cops end up in other PDs?

  • Virginian||

    At least the fuckers will have to move to find another cushy job.

  • Virginian||

    http://www.roadandtrack.com/ca.....2-on-gta-v

    Terminator 2 chase scene recreated in Grand Theft Auto.

  • R C Dean||

    I am in awe.

  • gimmeasammich||

    That was pretty awesome.

  • Jordan||

    Dad Arrested For Picking Up Kids At School By Foot

    A Tennessee father was arrested recently by an overzealous officer for picking his children up at school by foot. The school’s policy is that children can only be picked up by parents driving cars or kids can board a school bus.
  • ||

    No correlation between enforced inaction and childhood obesity, of course

  • Restoras||

    Food deserts, duh.

  • Rich||

    Meh. LBJ picked his dogs up by ear.

  • Bee Tagger||

    Would Romney have been arrested for strapping them to the roof of his car?

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    That's a fist in the face moment right there.

  • Virginian||

    So they're fighting against childhood obesity, but also banning walking?

    Typical government.

  • Jordan||

  • Certified Public Asskicker||

    2013?

  • Jordan||

    Is there a statute of limitations on A.M. links?

  • UnCivilServant||

    It has to still be online.

    Otherwise, it's hard to link to.

  • Certified Public Asskicker||

    We need Ted to confirm, but I think it is a duplicate link anyway.

    But, since it seems to be new news to at least 5 people, I will let it slide.

  • Cliché Bandit||

    I do recall this from last year

  • R C Dean||

    Since when is violating school policy a criminal offense?

  • MJGreen||

    That got a fair amount of attention here last year.

  • SugarFree||

    The UK is banning synthetic substances that mimic the effects of LSD and heroin.

    Because LSD and heroin are naturally occurring.

  • KDN||

    Bayer is a subsidiary of Gaia herself.

  • Rich||

    "Without chemicals, life itself would be impossible."

  • SugarFree||

    "Without chemicals, he points."

  • Brett L||

    Well, I would say both are distilled essences of nature (ergot and opium poppies, respectively).

  • SugarFree||

    But distilling is a "synthetic" process.

  • Brett L||

    Actually, I don't think either uses even starter chemicals from the plant (cocaine would have been a better example, as it is derived directly from the plant). Heroin is definitely a synthetic opiate. Pretty sure LSD was synthesized from organic compounds that don't come from ergot. I'm just being a dick.

  • SugarFree||

    So was I. :-)

  • BakedPenguin||

    Heroin breaks down into morphine in the body. Heroin is just a delivery system for morphine.

    From what I've heard, an awesome delivery system, but still.

  • Pro Libertate||

    If everything man does is bad, does that mean that human biological processes are also inherently bad?

  • UnCivilServant||

    Well, we are carbon emitters.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Why not ban carbon dioxide and, just to be sure, all carbon atoms? Or, at least, make it a controlled substance?

  • Homple||

    The EPA is trying.

  • ||

    Actually heroin is not natural - you're thinking of morphine. You have to add two acetyl groups to morphine to get Heroin (which is a trade mark)

  • UnCivilServant||

    (which is a trade mark)

    Not in the US, we got it genericized as war reparations from WWI, along with Aspirin.

  • ||

    I was hoping I wouldn't be the only one to realize how retarded that sounds.

  • Jordan||

    From Canuckistan:

    Cyberbullying law would let police ‘remotely hack into computers, mobile devices, or cars’

    OTTAWA — The Harper government’s new cyberbullying legislation includes little-noticed provisions that would allow police to remotely gain entry to computers and track cellphone users’ movements, privacy experts warn.
  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    Foreseeable consequences are not unintended

  • R C Dean||

    [smiles, nods]

  • wareagle||

    yup, no potential for anything going wrong there.

  • db||

    But self driving cars? Totally different.

  • ||

    These conservatives are for all intents and purposes neo-cons.

  • Virginian||

    http://pjmedia.com/davidsteinb.....ic-cantor/

    Most importantly — do not undersize the significance of this — Team Brat just put together the playbook for using the grassroots and new media to win as a conservative, because no challenger will face a more experienced, well-funded, by-any-means-necessary incumbent team than Brat just did.

    If you can make it in Cantortown, you can make it anywhere.

  • sarcasmic||

    Hillary told secret service agent who refused to carry her bag to 'get the f*** away from me,' and treated her detail like hired help but Bill was a softie . . . says former agent in bombshell book

    Dan Emmett was a Secret Service agent with the Presidential Protective Unit and guarded George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush
    Hillary was said to have hurled a book at the back of the head of one agent
    Bill was always friendly with the agents, inquiring about their families, making small talk, posing for pictures
    Out of shape agents were expected to keep up with the extremely fit Clinton on his daily runs, as well as carry a pistol and a radio
    Agents travel on a special plane with the limos and Suburbans and do not have to go through customs
    One agent brought home a brass bed, another a large supply of wine; many more unmentionables came home


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

  • Virginian||

    the extremely fit Clinton on his daily runs

    Clinton was extremely fit? Huh?

  • waffles||

    Dude ran a marathon in like 5 hours.

  • Virginian||

    Is that good? I mean, Clinton has always been chubby to fat, from what I remember. W was always running and cycling, he's a lean dude. But I don't recall Clinton being in what I would call good shape ever.

  • Brett L||

    It ain't bad for someone who took up the sport after age 40.

  • UnCivilServant||

    4 hours is Kenyan upland speed. 5 Is fantastic for an American.

  • Medical Physics Guy||

    Bzzt! Competitive Kenyans hit around 2:10. Lance Armstrong was one second under 3 hours and, jokes aside, he's a major cardio athlete.

  • UnCivilServant||

    I cede the point, my memory was flawed.

  • ||

    Hang on.

    5 is a bit high.

    4 (stretch to 4:30) is better.

    It 'should' be done in 3 to 3:45.

  • Restoras||

    4 for a Kenyan is a National Disaster.

  • waffles||

    More like 4 for a Kenyan is walking to school.

  • UnCivilServant||

    I get it, I screwed up.

  • Brett L||

    Grovel, Servant!

  • UnCivilServant||

    You haven't filed the proper forms, I need a P1-550(f) subsection f with an attached ID-10(t).

  • db||

    He was the first President I.can recall who ran frequently.in.public. I seem to.remember there was some.controversy about concern trolls being shocked at the risk he was taking, and the.extra effort he.put the Secret Service.through, back.I. the.'90s.

  • db||

    There was even a scene in a popular movie.of the.time,e (guess which.one) that referenced it rather shockingly.

  • Florida Man||

    The professional?

  • db||

    Yep.

  • Ted S.||

    I can't wait to read what they'll have to say about Michelle Obama.

  • Certified Public Asskicker||

    Can curl more than her husband.

  • WTF||

    Pretty low bar.

  • Homple||

    No, he meant "weights that are heavier than her husband".

  • BakedPenguin||

    Barry, too. I can't believe either of them treat agents as anything other than hired help.

  • ||

    My BiL was commander of the MP's at Belvoir for a while when Obama was first elected. His treatment of the soldiers there that assisted the SS guys was horrific.

    I will spare you all the details but will give one anecdote: there were two units there and one was rotating to Iraq in two days while the other just rotated back a couple of days earlier. Obama came to play golf and that required all of them to be present the entire day (since he did not tell them when he was coming) and be away from their families the entire time. That day was Fathers Day.

  • ||

    Did he know that's the effect of this? Just want to know if he's a moron or an arsehole.

    Oh, and it's interesting a father of two young kids bailed on Fathers' Day

  • ||

    Oh, he had to know. The SS liaison apologized to my BiL profusely. Apparently they asked O to please go play somewhere else for that specific reason and he said no because (no shit here) he can kick everybody out of the or shop at Belvoir so nobody can see him on the practice tee because it annoys him.

    Oh, and one of my nieces with a foul mouth said she was happy "that asshole" wasn't going to be around anymore when they moved to PHX and he was out in charge of a reserve unit.

    Of course, he's Provost Marshall at West Point now, so they had the pleasure of seeing him last week. And let's just say that his commencement speech wasn't well-received by the officer corps there or by the newly commissioned cadets.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Class act.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    The anecdote I got from an acquaintance who has an ex-Secret Service buddy is that Hillary screwed around more than Bill, only with more tongue.

  • sarcasmic||

    I heard something similar, about lesbian perfume parties or some other weird shit.

  • Libertymike||

    A high school buddy who enlisted in the Marines was assigned to Camp David where he claims to have regularly sniffed Nancy Reagan's undies.

  • ||

    What did they smell of?

  • SugarFree||

    Death.

  • Brett L||

    where he claims to have regularly sniffed Nancy Reagan's undies.

    Was he bulimic? I mean, Marines have a certain reputation for not being wired to spec, but that...

  • John||

    I will have to tell my dad that one. He is a former Marine and I am pretty sure that will gross even him out, but it won't surprise him.

  • WTF||

    Anthony Weiner's wife, Huma Abedin, was widely rumored to be Hilldog's squeeze.

  • UnCivilServant||

    Adipose doesn't stop bullets very well, what good is an out-of-shape bodyguard?

  • Aloysious||

    Hillary Clinton.

    Class. Act.

  • sarcasmic||

    Like school at five in the morning.

  • John||

    That Hillary was totally insufferable and despised by the Secret Service has been known but unpublished for a bit. If you know SS agents, they never tell tails but they will hint about who is a decent person and who isn't. Both sets of Bush's husband and wife were universally loved. Bill was not loved but respected and generally liked and Hillary was universally loathed. That is the impression I have always gotten.

  • MJGreen||

    I saw the Clintons at a small Christmas caroling performance at the Met museum. And it looked as you imagine it would and how this guy describes it: Bill looked happy and just going with the flow, kinda silently working the crowd, while Hillary was uptight and impatient.

  • sarcasmic||

    Dog's best friend: Hero cop braves murky lake to rescue Moochie the chihuahua from inside a submerged pickup truck


    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new.....truck.html
    I'm sure he's the butt of ridicule at the department being that he's supposed to shoot dogs, not save them.

  • Virginian||

    We found the good cop!

  • ||

    He put the dog in the submerged pickup truck first, so honour is maintained

  • Rich||

  • Ted S.||

    They could just use the YMCA across the street.

  • SugarFree||

    Jogging around Anacostia is free.

  • Certified Public Asskicker||

    Obviously we need a running tax. I mean, you can't run on sidewalks without also paying for them.

  • Swiss Servator, CH yeah!||

    Now we will see the revolt of the SWPL masses!

  • ||

    This is nothing but a money grab, related to this. They started salivating and hallucinating piles of cash the moment they read it.

  • Brett L||

    This will certainly not get the same coverage as school shootings, but one dad is glad he practices with his pistol. Good shoot, dad.

    The girl’s father and mother witnessed the abduction, and both retrieved their guns. When McClinton and Johnson entered, the father fired several shots, hitting both men. The girl’s mother fired one shot but missed.
  • Ted S.||

    The man is a good shot; the woman isn't. This is why there are no female libertarians, or something....

  • Restoras||

    Unclear? The father fired 'several' shots but how many found their targets? Granted if the woman fired once and missed her hit rate is zero, but better to fire once and be sure than to just unload a magazine in a general direction?

  • Brett L||

    He didn't hit his daughter and wounded both targets. That's good shooting in my book.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Well of course not. Why would you cover it? It didn't turn into a spree killing!

  • WTF||

    And Mothers Demand Action will continue to insist that a good guy with a gun never stops a bad guy with a gun.

  • All-Seeing Monocle||

    Weird, the article doesn't mention what the homeowners were charged with. It doesn't even have the obligatory police admonishment that protecting themselves is not something that most people should do, even if by some fluke it happened to work out this one time.

  • Rich||

    It’s a mysterious brain illness that triggers psychotic and violent behavior.

    No, it's not Progressivism.

    Seriously, that's some scary shit.

  • Fluffy||

    If we can weaponize this...

  • SugarFree||

    Sounds like someone has found the idea for his next book.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    Similar to an Asperger's outburst

  • Fluffy||

    Is Fist dead or something?

    How am I supposed to enjoy my victory when he fails to post at all?

    You fucker. You're like some kind of Hit N' Run Pompey, running away and getting your head cut off instead of facing my victory like a man.

  • Virginian||

  • Restoras||

    What a great series.

  • TANSTaaFL||

    Ciarán Hinds was awesome as Caesar. I am a classical history addict and whenever I read something that references Ceasar I can't help but picture Hinds.

    This was a great scene. Extremely accurate according to the best info available to historians. HBO just did a great job of portraying Rome and that time period in a manner that we could relate too (for example, using modern slang and highlighting crude and crass behavior). It took the luster and polish off it but still kept the grandiosity that it deserved.

    and fucking Pullo was spectacular in just about every scene

  • SugarFree||

  • ||

    Police in Tennessee have arrested 37-year-old Gregory Scott Hale

    This can't be right - no-one involved is German

  • Rich||

    Hale told police that he beheaded Hyder's corpse, then cut off her hands and feet and placed them into separate buckets.

    "The suspect is cooperating in the investigation."

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    I wish I had the discipline to grow a beard like that.

  • Swiss Servator, CH yeah!||

    You had best be ready for a Parthian shot instead...

  • BigT||

    Rehab.

  • ||

    OH NOES STEEROIDS

    Bonus points to the author for opening with a Milton Friedman quote. Even more bonus points for moving to Mexico for steroidal reasons.

  • RBS||

    John Romano used to be the only reason I would buy MD back in the day. His other TNation steroid article about crossfit is good too. He gets bonus points for not shilling for Biotest.

  • ||

    T-Nation cracks me up. 1 part decent advice, 1 part garbage, 3 parts Biotest ads, 1 part Plazma ads.

  • RBS||

    For only $500 a month you too can become unbreakable

  • John||

    It is flat out discrimination against men. A woman can get estrogen replacement by just asking her doctor for it and any insurance will cover it. A man in contrast has to beg a doctor to get testosterone treatment and insurance will only pay for it as an erectal dysfunction medication. If your dick works, no hormone replacement for you. From what I have read low level testosterone replacement is damn near a fountain of youth for men. But since we hate men we can't have that.

  • ||

    Come to Australia, our Government subsidises it

  • Medical Physics Guy||

    Duly noted. I wonder if I can get it in Europe.

  • Fluffy||

    That's because medicine is only supposed to be about fixing something that has gone wrong with you, John.

    You can't be allowed access to anything that might, you know, make you better or stronger or faster or smarter. Because that's not what medicine is for.

    If taking estrogen made women hot, they wouldn't let doctors prescribe it. For the same reason Adderall became a crisis once kids took it to do better on tests.

    "You want to be better than you 'naturally' would be? What are you, some kind of Nazi?"

  • Restoras||

    "You want to be better than you 'naturally' would be? What are you, some kind of Nazi and/or Chicom/DDR/CCCP athletic trainer?"

    Don't forget about these other eugenicists!

  • John||

    And sex is the ultimate good. All estrogen treatments usually do is give women their sex drive back. And even men can get testosterone if they need it to have sex.

    Feeling better and being stronger faster and smarter are as you point out illegitimate ends for medicine. Ensuring people can screw of course is, because sexual pleasure is the ultimate societal good these days.

  • ||

    Not only that, but a ton of AIDS patients are only alive because anabolic steroids reversed their weight loss. And even for people who don't need them, who really cares if they use them? The whole internet is shitting itself lately about Hafthor Bjornsson. He juices his fucking face off and everyone knows it. So what? We love supermen.

  • ||

    Andrew Sullivan is better than useless sometimes. Here he is writing about juice.

  • John||

    It has to affect Sullivan personally for him to support the issue. Had he not had HIV and needed steroids, he would be aghast about them.

  • kinnath||

    At least DHEA is available over the counter.

  • Steve G||

    I believe I know why Sajedene is so popular...

  • Rich||

    Sheesh, Steve -- Don't leave us in suspense!

  • Ted S.||

    The target demographic faps to her?

  • Steve G||

    She's as rare as the elusive female libertarian.

    Of course, I'm not sure many people would watch a webcam of our resident uniforns pounding out H&R comments

  • Steve G||

    *unicorns!

  • Auric Demonocles||

    I see what you're doing Ms. Brown. You're trying to use the picture to distract me from the lack of alt-text. You almost got away with it, too.

  • Virginian||

    http://thefederalist.com/2014/.....ic-cantor/

    For almost as long as I’ve lived here, which is coming up on 20 years now, the purpose of the seventh district has been to re-elect Eric Cantor every two years. It’s a strongly Republican district that spans across a very conservative stretch of rural Central Virginia, from the Richmond suburbs to Culpeper. So what were we going to do, vote for a Democrat? No, we were going to vote for Cantor.

    And Cantor knew it. Because he didn’t have to worry too much about getting re-elected every two years, his political ambition was channeled into rising through the hierarchy of the House leadership. Rise he did, all the way up to the #2 spot, and he was waiting in the wings to become Speaker of the House.

    The result was that Cantor’s real constituency wasn’t the folks back home. His constituency was the Republican leadership and the Republican establishment. That’s who he really answered to.



  • Restoras||

    Good on VA for showing these assclowns who they work for.

  • BigT||

    Diane Sawyer goes after Hildabeast.

    In an interview with Clinton that aired last night on ABC News, anchor Diane Sawyer threw the ARB right back in the face of the former secretary of state. In defending her work on this front, Clinton stressed that she had delegated the particulars of security to the experts in the field “I’m not equipped to sit and look at blueprints to determine where the blast walls need to be, where the reinforcements need to be. That’s why we hire people who have that expertise,” said Clinton.”

    Sensing an opening, Sawyer cited the document that Clinton herself has so often cited: “This is the ARB: the mission was far short of standards; weak perimeter; incomplete fence; video surveillance needed repair. They said it’s a systemic failure.”

    Clinton replied, “Well, it was with respect to that compound.”

    The anchor continued pressing, asking Clinton whether the people might be seeking from her a “sentence that begins from you ‘I should have…’?” Clinton sort of ducked that one. The accountability-heavy moment came when Sawyer’s slow and steady line of questioning on Benghazi security prompted Clinton to utter this self-contradictory and sure-to-be-repeated statement: “I take responsibility, but I was not making security decisions.”
  • VG Zaytsev||

    What difference does it make, Dianne, whether a coked up SoS failed to read the pleas for increased security, or the her staff failed to give them to her

  • All-Seeing Monocle||

    What the hell? Did Diane not get the memo that her job is to help get the First Woman President shooed in?

  • UnCivilServant||

    The memo said "It's not Billary"

  • ||

    What Benghazi shows is the breathtaking incompetence of the Hildebeast. I suspect the same is true of Obumbles. They are slicker than shit, good at scheming and conniving and ladder climbing, but grade school children could perform the actual job better.

  • cw||

    I take responsibility, but I was not making security decisions.

    A new President Not-My-Fault?

  • Lord Humungus||

    Eric Cantor Blew $168K at Steak Houses; Brat Spent $122K Overall

    According to FEC campaign finance data, Cantor's campaign spent $168,637 in 17 payments to both Bobby Van's Steak House and BLT Steak up until May 21.

    Brat's campaign had spent a total of $122,793 in that same amount of time.

    Until May 21, Cantor's campaign had raised $5,447,290 and spent $5,026,626. Brat raised a total of $206,663.

    This would be the classic movie montage: as the big wigs enjoy steaks, the plucky challenger is going door-to-door.

  • Fluffy||

    $10k on one visit to a steakhouse?

    Did they bring 100 people each time?

  • Restoras||

    The markup on wine is insane at restaurants in general, and worse at places like Bobby Van's.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    This is unpossible! Money is the only determining factor in politics!

  • PBR Streetgang||

    This simply cannot be true. Per Citizens United, whoever raises the most money wins EVERY TIME. I've read and been told this many, many time. Have I been lied to?

  • SugarFree||

    Gasp! Rich people we don't like fund lawsuit we don't like!

    The comments are filled with rich, creamy butthurt from teachers.

  • waffles||

    Ending teacher tenure is a huge win for anyone who cares about education. The butthurt is just icing on my cake. Maybe I'll get to eat it too!

  • Pro Libertate||

    Tenure in anything but research in higher ed makes no sense at all. It doesn't make much sense in higher ed, either, but at least there's an argument to be made to preserve "academic freedom," though we can see quite clearly how much of that there is in universities today.

    But for K-12, it's just union bullshit by another name.

  • Virginian||

    The best kind of butthurt. Teachers are bar none the single most likely people I hear complain about their job. Warehouse guys? Coal miners? Garbagemen? Never hear them bitch. But teachers are always complaining about everything.

    Their tears are delicious.

  • Certified Public Asskicker||

    This. Sure, I hate my job, but I generally only voice frustration to family and close friends.

    Teachers will tell anybody about how terrible it is being a teacher...yet how much they love it and deserve to be paid more.

  • WTF||

    Teachers bitch and moan because they don't want everyone else to find out that teaching is an easy fucking job. I know, I used to be a teacher many years ago.

  • Jordan||

    I've noticed this too. If your job keeps you in a permanent state of butthurt of that magnitude, then just fucking quit already. It's like they blame everyone else for the fact that their job sucks.

  • ||

    And this:

    For about 30 seconds when I lived in MN, I was in an elementary school band class- maybe 6th grade or so.

    I vividly remember the teacher actually physically kicked one of the students out of frustration, then told the student to "Go ahead and cry to your parents about it- they can't touch me, I have tenure." Direct quote.

    My mom happened to work in the front office as a secretary. Apparently, the administrators tried to fire the guy, but some combination of the band teacher and the teacher's union sued for wrongful termination. He was teaching next fall.

    Last I heard, some girl claimed she was fondled by him.

    Although in his defense, who wouldn't want to kick an elementary school band member.
  • Fluffy||

    Let them bitch.

    I actually like it when they attempt to drag the name of these guys through the mud because it increases their prominence.

    I only wish they had decided to demonize David Koch 30 years ago. If he was 50 instead of 74 the LP might be able to draft him for a run again. "Hey, thanks for giving me high name recognition to go with my billions of campaign dollars, dickweeds."

  • John||

    I agree. You only worry about notoriety if you are trying to stay out of politics or if you are trying to do something underhanded or dishonest. The Kochs are neither. All the Progs are doing by trying to demonize them is letting millions of people who otherwise would not have, know who they are and possibly listen to their message out of curiosity if nothing else.

  • Restoras||

    Love this one:

    Why can't rich douchebags be happy being rich without fucking in the lives of everybody else? Why couldn't this guy take his riches and just enjoy his life. Do things need to get changed in the educational system? Sure. But this douchebag doesn't need to be the one changing it since he's not changing it to get better for those 9 kids. He's making it good for 9 or more rich douchebag circle jerk buddies who are going to rip off the system and make people feel worse.

    I hope he spills McDonald's hot coffee on his crotch. Doubt it will destroy anything of value.

    Do you smell that? It's fear and panic in the hearts and minds of enemies of freedom, and it is wonderful.

  • PD Scott||

    It's always about penises with them, isn't it?

    They can be so Victorian.

  • R C Dean||

    Why can't rich douchebags be happy being rich without fucking in the lives of everybody else?

    You mean, like these rich guys?

    http://ballotpedia.org/Net_wor.....sentatives

  • Matrix||

    Comments:

    Why can't rich douchebags be happy being rich without fucking in the lives of everybody else? Why couldn't this guy take his riches and just enjoy his life. Do things need to get changed in the educational system? Sure. But this douchebag doesn't need to be the one changing it since he's not changing it to get better for those 9 kids. He's making it good for 9 or more rich douchebag circle jerk buddies who are going to rip off the system and make people feel worse.

    Because, as I was reminded by the CEO of an innovation incubator/think tank/startup at the Univeristy of Chicago Business School, these people really believe in their calling to change the world with what they are doing. I guess I was foolish to believe that it wasn't the untold riches that they could garner if they hit the big one?

    But I bet they are all Team Hope & Change and all that bullshit.

  • Lord Humungus||

    Goodbye and thanks for all the fish laughs.

  • db||

    Not.forever! Say.it.ain't so!

  • Swiss Servator, CH yeah!||

    ?

  • ||

    WTF?

  • db||

    OK, at first, I assumed this was a joking reference to LG 's statement a couple of weeks ago.about his.upcoming workload preventing participation here for a while, but I'm beginning to worry a bit.now.

  • db||

    LG s/b LH

  • John||

    So this Brat guy seems pretty good. He seems to be a no kidding economic literate and an actual human being who decided to run for office rather than a politician who tries to pretend to be human. More importantly, he has from what I can see a spot on populist message arguing for small government and freedom as an antidote to crony capitalism and the various elites looting the country. He seems to have a small government message that actually speaks to voters' interests and lives. The message is "the economy sucks and your taxes are high because various cronies are bleeding the country dry by manipulating big government for their interests and against you." That has both the benefit of being true and appealing to people on a personal rather than abstract level.

  • Virginian||

    Reason is already working on the articles criticizing him for his immigration stance.

  • John||

    That is the thing. The open borders message is not going to resonate with the people that the anti-crony capitalism message will resonate with. The people who support open borders generally love big government and are totally okay with crony capitalism. The people who are pissed about crony capitalism don't want open borders.

    So Reason needs to choose which it wants and try to achieve something. Sadly, they won't do that and will insist on calling the voters most receptive to the anti crony capitalism message ignorant racists.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    John, if we wanted to pick and choose among our principles we could have been Republicans anytime.

  • John||

    If you want to never compromise and expect everything or nothing, you will get nothing, which is what Libertarians have always gotten.

    If you have millions of people who are ready to listen to a hugely important part of your message, you should take the opportunity instead of bitching and moaning how those people don't agree with you about everything. If you are unwilling to compromise and find common ground with other people, don't form a political movement.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    You have a point there John, it's a perennial one for libertarians, the tug between principle and pragmatism.

    But it's a point that I think is at its weakest today. You don't just change things by winning elections, you can change the political debate. The Socialist Party in the US won few elections, but much of their old platforms have been adopted. Libertarianism has changed the political debate in the US. The Kochs, Cato, the Pauls. Glenn Beck pushes Hayek on his show and Rush used to have Walter Williams on. There is no Tea Party without libertarian ideas, and libertarian ideas are featured in such movements more prominently than ever.

    Add to this that one of the frontrunners for the GOP nomination, Rand Paul, currently is one of the most explicitly libertarian politicians on the national scene and I think your argument becomes really weak.

  • Virginian||

    Socialist Party in the US won few elections, but much of their old platforms have been adopted.

    They took over the Democratic Party. If libertarians want to win, they need to take over one of the parties, and accept half victories and compromises.

    To take the issue du jour, Brat is miles better than Cantor on basic principles and ideology. The things that we disagree on we have a much better chance of changing his mind because he's not a politician, he's a citizen who will listen to reason.

  • John||

    Exactly Virginian. Who do you want the people who voted for Brat last night voting for, someone like Brat or someone like Rick Santorum? Make no mistake, if you turn on Brat and run him out, someone will come along and try and get those votes and the next guy is likely to be someone like Santorum or if we are not lucky even worse.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I'm all for being pragmatic in the voting booth and picking the lesser of two evils, and all for supporting politicians who, while not always following the LP platform for example, seem to be more than not libertarians.

    But I don't see that as translating to what John is talking about. Reason and organizations like the LP should be places for libertarians to sell their product, so to speak, not to compromise for temporary partisan gain. I think in the long run we advance libertarianism as a philosophy by having some institutions that do just that.

  • John||

    You don't change by winning elections. You change by getting the government to actually change how it is. And you don't do that unless you can get voters to both agree with you on issues and vote on those issues. And you are not going to get all of your issues at once. You if you are lucky can get some of your issues as you are able to build a national consensus on a few things. That is what is happening now with big government and crony capitalism. People are disillusioned and tired of it and are willing to vote for candidates who are willing to do something about it. But they are not willing to do that at the price of open borders, which they see as part of the crony capitalist problem. So if you are not willing to compromise on borders, you are not getting those people's votes and you are not building a consensus to put a stop to it.

    Worse, if Libertarians and small government advocates won't listen to these people's concerns, someone else will. And that someone else is likely to be the worst sort of populist demagogue. This may be the last chance the country has to address its issues without the population turning towards some very ugly and radical people. And concern trolls like you and those at reason want to pass it up because you just can't stand working with people you don't like.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I like how you paint people who want to stick to principles as 'concern trolls.' I mean, who would be a better concern troll than what you are doing 'oh, libertarians, you really should soft pedal the immigration stance of voters are not going to like you!'

  • R C Dean||

    I'm not super-thrilled with his "Snowden is a traitor" thing, but hey, anytime an establishment TEAM BE RULED poohbah takes a dirtnap, I'm happy. I don't even care who beats them.

  • Fluffy||

    Reason thinks it's important for you to know that his campaign manager once retweeted something from lewrockwell.com.

    NEOCONFEDERATE TIES REVEALED, reports Reason Magazine

  • John||

    Gee you mean a politician representing a district of suburban and rural voters around Richmond, might have some staffers who occasionally say things sympathetic about the Old Southern cause? I am shocked Fluffy. Just Shocked. I would never have seen that coming.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Look, squaring libertarianism and the Confederacy is like squaring a circle. Not only it is philosophically crazy, it's the kind of thing that gives libertarianism a really bad name. "Hi, we're for freedom and against the slavery of income tax and minimum wage, but oh, that actual slavery the Confederacy enacted, that was all about tariffs and no big deal!"

  • Pro Libertate||

    It's not much different from trying to square libertarianism with the Founders, you know.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    It's pretty different. The Founding was not based on slavery, the Confederacy was. The number one thing the Confederacy claimed as its raison d'etre was the protection of slavery and that is the number one thing it is known for today. The Founders allowed slavery and some engaged and supported it (while others hated and fought it), but it was ancillary to their main values (it's not mentioned in their Constitution explicitly).

  • sarcasmic||

    Just because the South seceded because of slavery doesn't mean that everyone who supports the right to secede supports slavery.
    Likewise, pointing out that the war was not to end slavery but to preserve the Union is not an endorsement of slavery.

  • Virginian||

    Just because the South seceded because of slavery doesn't mean that everyone who supports the right to secede supports slavery.
    Likewise, pointing out that the war was not to end slavery but to preserve the Union is not an endorsement of slavery.

    No no no Lincoln was a pure lightworker who only did good things for good reasons. There is no moral ambiguity in the Civil War. Blue is good and grey is bad.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Well, there is no moral ambiguity in that chattel slavery, which was the raison d'etre of the Confederate cause, has got to be the unqualified worst to a libertarian or else that term has no meaning and is rightfully up for ridicule. I'm happy to talk about Lincoln's many violations of civil rights and mixed motives, but any discussion that tries for moral equivalence between the North and the South strikes me as incorrect and terrible PR for libertarianism as a movement.

  • Virginian||

    Well, there is no moral ambiguity in that chattel slavery

    No, it's an unspeakable evil, and unspeakable evil that was legal in both Union and Confederacy.

    See, if there was no slavery in the North, that would be a real argument for the moral high ground. But there were in fact thousands of human beings held in chains throughout the North. There was a slave market not a mile from the US Capitol.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    It's just foolish to argue that the North was as defined by slavery as the Confederate South. So foolish it invites the charge of apologia for the South and its institutions, which I think it downright terrible to libertarianism's respectability. If libertarians, of all people, cannot say 'the North had its problems, but the South was a slave state through and through and the greater evil' then we defame our very title.

  • Virginian||

    It was legal in the North, it was legal in the South. You want to talk about feelings, and perceptions, and all this other bullshit.

    I'm talking about actual facts. Your feelings are worthless.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I'm not talking about feelings, but the 'actual facts' that slavery was small in numbers and in influence in the North but was much more common and fundamental in the South. These are 'actual facts' easily demonstrable with reference to statistics, laws, proclamations, etc., of the time for both areas.

  • Virginian||

    that slavery was small in numbers and in influence in the North but was much more common and fundamental in the South.

    So what. Slavery is an unspeakable evil. Period. Full stop. The Union doesn't get a pass because the Confederacy was worse, anymore then FDR's concentration camps become OK because the Nazis had death camps.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    "Just because the South seceded because of slavery doesn't mean that everyone who supports the right to secede supports slavery."

    Sure, but it is a major part of our history. At the least, when you talk about secession it is good politics to make sure you address, denounce and distance yourself from the most famed historical example, which as Fluffy says was a monsterously evil one, of it in your history.

  • sarcasmic||

    Since when did I give a fuck about good politics?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Well, the start of this subthread was John talking about good politics for libertarians, so I'm working in that area.

  • Virginian||

    distance yourself from the most famed historical example

    Why would I want to distance myself from Washington, Jefferson, Adams, and Franklin?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I see where you're going, that our country is an example of secession. It's a case you can make, but at least popularly I'm guessing most people don't make that connection.

    I'll ask the commentariat here, is there a difference between the Revolution and the Confederacy in that (apart from the motivations)?

  • Virginian||

    I'll ask the commentariat here, is there a difference between the Revolution and the Confederacy in that

    The difference is that if the people who voted to leave win, it's called a "struggle for independence", and they get called "patriots" or "freedom fighters".

    If they lose, it's an "armed rebellion" or an "attempted secession" and they get called "criminals" or "traitors" or "terrorists".

  • sarcasmic||

    It all depends on who writes the history books.

  • Hawk Spitui||

    Not really. And this might be a good place to point out that if slavery is your gold standard for secession, if the US hadn't seceded from Britain, slavery would have been eliminated in the 1840s, when the British banned it in the rest of their colonies.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I see that point, but the Founders were not seceding from Britain to retain slavery.

  • CatoTheElder||

    In 2014, there are more Americans who believe in David Icke's lizard-people theory than believe in the legitimacy of chattel slavery. Which is to say: no sane person in 21st Century America argues the legitimacy of chattel slavery.

    I pretty much subscribe to the idea of libertarian class theory which posits that there is an elite ruling class that uses the State to its benefit. David Icke asserts the something similar, though he says that it is comprised of lizard-people or something. Is it really necessary for me to explicitly reject Icke's ridiculous before advocating the libertarian class analysis of Say, Comte, Rothbard, and Codevila? Are you stupid, or disingenuous, or just perfectly indoctrinated in political correctness?

  • CatoTheElder||

    Just because the Constitution uses a euphemism does not mean that it is not explicit.

    Slave = "Person held to Service or Labour"

  • John||

    Pretty much. And God knows there are tons of Libertarians who view the Union's rejection of slavery and the effective end of state sovereign equality with the federal government as an evil that we still live with today and one that was not worth enduring to end slavery.

    How many Liberty Mike Civil War threads have we had on here? About one a month for over ten years in my estimation.

  • RBS||

    How many Liberty Mike Civil War threads have we had on here? About one a month for over ten years in my estimation.

    Reason should just have an open thread for this already.

  • CatoTheElder||

    If the North was so supremely moral and upright with regard to the loathsome practice of slavery in the South, why didn't it secede?

    Principled abolitionists like Garrison correctly argued that there should be no union with slaveholders, and advocated dissolution. The fact is that Northern ruling elite had a greater interest in maintaining the Union, slavery or no.

    If the North was genuinely concerned about justice for slaves, why did it allow millions of them to starve and waste away from disease immediately after the war. Under the libertarian homesteading theory, the liberated slaves should have received title to the plantations that they had built. Instead, the North allowed Yankee carpetbaggers and sundry opportunists to obtain title rather than the rightful owners.

    The State, and its ruling elites, North and South, were just as rotten in the mid-19th Century as they are today.

  • Virginian||

    who view the Union's rejection of slavery

    The Union which had slavery throughout the Civil War? That Union?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I've always thought this is such a silly point. The Union tolerated some slavery, yes, but slavery was rare and under some attack from the North while it was embraced as fundamental by the South. Heck, the South saw things that way. So I'm not sure what rhetorical points are scored when people jump to point this out.

  • Virginian||

    The Union tolerated some slavery, yes, but slavery was rare and under some attack from the North while it was embraced as fundamental by the South.

    Look, yes the US had concentration camps. But it was rare, and we felt really bad about it. Oh, and we didn't kill the ethnic minorities, we just took all their property and left them penniless. Nazi Germany embraced far worse things as fundamental.

    /Things Bo believes.

  • Fluffy||

    It was incredibly unfortunate for the history of mankind that an absolutely critical tool for the defense of liberty (secession) was employed in the service of a monstrous evil.

    The 1830's version of US federalism was actually in pretty damn good balance. The states would have reliably served as a buffer against federal centralization and power essentially forever, as long as they could credibly threaten secession. Unfortunately, the Original Sin of slavery on the North American continent destroyed that balance by putting the naked economic interest of the southern aristocracy at odds with the natural and orderly advance of liberty under that system.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    "It was incredibly unfortunate for the history of mankind that an absolutely critical tool for the defense of liberty (secession) was employed in the service of a monstrous evil."

    I'd agree fully with this statement.

  • Virginian||

    It was incredibly unfortunate for the history of mankind that an absolutely critical tool for the defense of liberty (secession) was employed in the service of a monstrous evil.

    Bingo. But we don't throw out the right to remain silent because it is used by criminals. We don't throw out the right to free speech because it is used by the Westboro Baptist Church. We don't throw out the right to due process, even though having it guarantees that some guilty men will go unpunished for their crimes.

    Secession is not a bad thing. If you're not free to leave, then you're not free.

  • John||

    Secession is not a bad thing. If you're not free to leave, then you're not free.

    True. But that fact doesn't make the old South any less loathsome.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Absolutely. If you want to make the case for secession, by all means make it, but distance yourself from the old South. We're talking about people who embrace the South instead.

    It makes me wish that New England had carried out its secessionary intent during the War of 1812 or maybe Kentucky and Virginia over the Alien and Sedition Acts, just so we'd have other, less ugly examples to point to.

  • ||

    Vermont had a small but vocal secession movement during the Bush II presidency and lots of people cheered them on. The same people who are now shocked and horrified that anyone would want to seceded during the current Admin.

  • Virginian||

    We're

    You got a mouse in your pocket?

    talking about people who embrace the South instead.

    *Looks around* who are these imaginary enemies of Purity that you see, oh grand inquisitor?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Maybe like a guy who dresses in a Confederacy mask? We're talking about political operatives and staffers here, I think you may have heard of some of these real life examples if you will get off your snark for a second.

  • Virginian||

    We're talking about political operatives and staffers here

    So no one I give more than two fucks about?

    Maybe like a guy who dresses in a Confederacy mask?

    What the fuck are you babbling about? A Confederacy mask?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    You remind me of the quote from Big Lebowski about a child wandering into a film and asking questions about it.

    You never heard of the Southern Avenger flap with Rand Paul? You know, the political operative for Paul who wore a Confederate wrestling mask and had to be let go.

    Did you just wander into the libertarian movement a few days ago?

  • Virginian||

    wore a Confederate wrestling mask and had to be let go.

    I can't believe I missed such a weighty and important moment in the history of the libertarian movement.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    This entire discussion is about political operatives being old South apologists, and there is some ugly history of that being mixed up with libertarianism for decades.

    If you're new to the movement and its history that's great, we welcome you, but try not to lecture those who are not on things you are ignorant of.

  • Restoras||

    Did you just wander into the libertarian movement a few days ago?

    Smugness and condescension are not optimal qualities for The Arbiter...

  • sarcasmic||

    *Looks around* who are these imaginary enemies of Purity that you see, oh grand inquisitor?

    They're over there in the field, dressed up in flannel shirts and overalls.

  • Virginian||

    They're over there in the field, dressed up in flannel shirts and overalls.

    I think you mean gray homespun and the dreaded Confederacy masks.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Yes. But even though the result of that war was to taint the idea of secession in the U.S., it's still a right, regardless if people are willing to kill others to prevent its exercise. I mean, read the Declaration of Independence.

  • sarcasmic||

    I mean, read the Declaration of Independence.

    But the DoI isn't a legal document! It doesn't count!

  • Pro Libertate||

    I remember in law school when a friend of mine cited the Declaration of Independence as the basis for some legal decision. She was abused thoroughly.

    Of course, the one thing you can say about the Declaration is that it's a love letter to secession. Our entire justification for existence as an independent polity is based on that principle, which you may note that Jefferson stated was a fundamental right.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    "the Declaration is that it's a love letter to secession" Well, sort of. It also talks about the 'Prudence'...'that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes' and the fact of the lack of representation was key to justifying secession. One can argue these were violated by the Confederacy.

  • sarcasmic||

    One can argue these were violated by the Confederacy.

    Yes, Bo, you can and do argue all kinds of really stupid shit.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    So, you'd like to argue that the Confederacy was motivated by the fundamental concern over the Rights of Man? Because that is what the Declaration says justifies abolishing Governments long established.

  • sarcasmic||

    So, you'd like to argue that the Confederacy was motivated by the fundamental concern over the Rights of Man?

    No, but thank you for proving my point.

  • Virginian||

    No, but thank you for proving my point.

    Bo is really really good at putting words in other people's mouths.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    The DOI says that Prudence suggests not to rebel against long established governments, but that it is justified when done in protection of the basic rights of man. I said it can be argued the Confederacy violated that. Sarcasmic said it would be stupid to argue that.

    Which part of that is wrong?

  • sarcasmic||

    Bo is really really good at putting words in other people's mouths.

    He truly is a magnificent straw man slayer.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    The DOI says that Prudence suggests not to rebel against long established governments, but that it is justified when done in protection of the basic rights of man. I said it can be argued the Confederacy violated that. Sarcasmic said it would be stupid to argue that.

    Which part of that is wrong?

  • John||

    I remember in law school when a friend of mine cited the Declaration of Independence as the basis for some legal decision. She was abused thoroughly.

    There was one teacher at my law school who was a total Vulcan smart guy and a real constitutionalists and conservative. He considered the Declaration to be a part of positive American law and a guide to interpreting the Constitution. The rest of t he faculty thought he was a nut and he never made tenure, despite being of Univ of Chicago alum and the smartest man on the faculty. I loved that guy. I should look him up.

  • Pro Libertate||

    It's certainly an important foundational document and can serve a similar purpose as The Federalist Papers, but it's not really part of U.S. law. It's really a legal brief justifying our secession from the British Empire.

  • John||

    It was passed by Congress Pro. It is more than a legal brief. It is an actual law passed by a lawful Congress declaring the US to be sovereign nation. Therefore, the language in it should be looked upon as law. Sure, it was passed before the Constitution of 1789, but so was the Northwest Ordinance and it is positive law. The Declaration is the law that says we are a sovereign country. And therefore, the other claims it makes, specifically those in the preamble, are positive law. The first piece of positive law in the nation's sovereign history is the declaration that all men are created equal and have natural rights. All subsequent law should be read and interpreted consistent with that proclamation.

  • ||

    Good grief. I actually read all of that and learned nothing.

    Y'all go sit in the corner for an hour.

  • ||

    Sorry John. I was not referring to your comment, but to the whole thread.

    Now I see there is more below.

  • Pro Libertate||

    The 1789+ government had ratified some acts of earlier governments, but the Declaration cannot be said to be established law, especially since the Civil War, when pretty much everyone accepts that secession is no longer an option.

    If the Declaration still stands as law, then, at the very least, states (and other groupings) still have the legal option of secession.

    As a matter of natural law, I think people have this right, regardless of what other people think, but many do not agree and are likely willing to use force to back up that lack of agreement.

  • John||

    Succession is still valid. The Civil War only rejected secession for slavery. Secession for the reasons stated in the document are still valid. Moreover, the DOI stands for more than the right to succeed. It is a positive statement of the principles on which our entire nation is founded upon. Even if you take secession from oppressive governments out of that, the rest is still valid law.

  • sarcasmic||

    The Civil War only rejected secession for slavery.

    Bullshit. The South could have seceded because Yanks talk funny and Lincoln still would have waged a war to preserve the union.

  • Emmerson Biggins||

    Ya. IANAL but I've always seen the DOI as the meta-document which authorizes the Constitution (assuming it was authorized, see Spooner, etc).

  • Don Mynack||

    Secession can be easily defended once you remind it's detractors that it's use was threatened by Northern abolitionist states as a reaction to the Fugitive Slave Act.

  • CatoTheElder||

    You're right: squaring libertarianism and the Confederacy is ridiculous. It's almost as stupid as when the left attempts to portray libertarianism as a right-wing extremist movement akin to the Nazis.

    But, other than leftist pundits and the boobs who follow them, who is trying to square libertarianism with the Confederacy?

  • Virginian||

    Apparently there was a masked man. The Grand Inquisitor, Bo Cara, saw him. He was very frightening.

  • CatoTheElder||

    Was the masked man advocating slavery?

    If so, he cannot be a libertarian. He can call himself a libertarian, like Bill Maher calls himself a libertarian, but he is not a libertarian.

    The Grand Inquisitor is right about one thing: the libertarian movement should shun the Confederate battle flag. It means different things to different people. Most of them are bad, and some are really, really bad. Secession as an abstract principle isn't bad per se, but the Confederate flag is not a terrible icon.

  • CatoTheElder||

    correction: the Confederate flag IS a terrible icon.

    I ought to preview before posting.

  • R C Dean||

    Think of it like this, Bo:

    You're doing something on your property that isn't illegal, but is immoral. Even highly immoral.

    The cops show up and demand entry. Even though they have no legal basis. You refuse.

    They shoot you in the head.

    Were the cops right?

    Because secession wasn't illegal, and neither was slavery in the South. The South did nothing that violated the Constitution as it stood in 1860. Yet the Union shot them in the head.

    To justify this, the Union basically had to pretend that the South was trying to take over the entire country, not withdraw from it (which they had the right to do).

  • sarcasmic||

    To justify this, the Union basically had to pretend that the South was trying to take over the entire country, not withdraw from it (which they had the right to do).

    Which is why it is called the Civil War. To imply that it was an insurrection as opposed to secession.

  • waffles||

    With friends like these...

  • Restoras||

    There it is, Purity Test Fail.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Restoras, you're a funny guy.

    You've been on this 'Purity Test' and 'Arbiter' kick after in a conversation with me you slipped and said you supported the 'right of a majority of voters to organize the community the way they see fit' (and in the direct context of local governments forbidding consenting adults from gambling). When I pointed out that that was closer to Tony than libertarianism you got all 'butthurt' and started this 'OMG you're the Arbiter! Purity Test! whining.'

    Look, there are lots of things that libertarians disagree over. Some believe in IP, some do not. Duties to children or animals are big issues of contention. But your comment was prety fundamentally at odds with any form of libertarianism I or you could point to. It's straight from Tonyville. And if one can't say Tony is not a libertarian then the concept really has no meaning. No 'Arbitering' about it.

  • Fluffy||

    I am the Arbiter. I have taken this burden upon myself.

    You need concern yourself with it no longer.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I never wanted that yoke, I happily leave it to you.

  • Restoras||

    Come now Bo we are just having a laugh at your expense! You need a thicker skin if you are going to get through life, especially in law!

    I think you are a good Arbiter, but if you don't care for it, maybe you should reconsider the wisdom of ideological purity. One thing you are certainly not good at is magnanimity in victory, I conceded my flawed view to you long ago but whatevs.

  • sarcasmic||

    He seems to be a no kidding economic literate

    That won't get him very far in Washington.

  • John||

    He won't be getting invited to many cocktail parties that is for sure. And yes, I already read in Salon last night describing him as a "special economist", (note the subtle retard joke) because he is not a Keynesian and thinks perhaps printing money and borrowing our way to bankruptcy isn't the best option.

  • sarcasmic||

    You see, there's a consensus among Keynesian economists that Keynesian economics is right, and all other schools of thought are wrong. That means anyone who disagrees is an economics denier.

    Science!

  • waffles||

    Sounds dismal to me.

  • Virginian||

    His published papers include "God and Advanced Mammon: Can Theological Types Handle Usury and Capitalism?" and "An Analysis of the Moral Foundations in Ayn Rand".[7]

  • John||

    The first one sounds pretty interesting. Without reading them, I can't say for sure, but I don't see anything objectionable about either.

  • Restoras||

    Sure sure, but what about teh Purity Test?

  • ||

    Some lady asked my what the babies names were on the metro yesterday. When I told her "Liberty", she smiled and asked what her middle name was (after going through explaining Reason's name to her. When I told her it was "Ordeth", she almost shit her pants.

    I'm going to like living here if for nothing else than to shock the local douchebaggery.

  • Rich||

    Beautiful.

  • Restoras||

    Indeed. I hope she appreciates it at some point in her life ;)

  • Andrew S.||

    You laugh, until she calls Child Services on you for being some kind of dangerous nutjob.

  • db||

    Sweet.

  • ||

    Heh. People rarely talk to me on the train (probably because I'm scowly and don't have cute kids to make me approachable). Would love to needle these DC fuckwads like that sometime.

    Can I borrow your kids?

  • ||

    Um, sure. But I thought you hated kids for some reason.

  • ||

    I do, but it might be worth it just for the needling opportunities. Since I can't bring my dog (Ben Franklin) on the train.

  • ||

    Ha, my cat is named Ben Franklin.

  • R C Dean||

    Since I can't bring my dog (Ben Franklin) on the train.

    Sure you can. Just declare him your "emotional support dog", get him one of these:

    http://www.activedogs.com/prod.....5h0TWdOW3w

    And you're in.

  • ||

    "...my dog (Ben Franklin)..."

    I laughed.

  • Idle Hands||

    the pantswetters and people that vote for their jobs in this area are insane. The biggest thing that pisses me off is asking people what they do and them saying nonprofit as if that's a job description and not a tax designation. The smugness level awful.

  • ||

    I have a buddy that does web design and IT management for a nonprofit here in DC. We've known each other for years and I know he's a hardcore leftist. But even he mocks those people.

  • Idle Hands||

    I honestly believe they say that because either they don't understand where the money comes from or they don't totally grasp what they do.

  • ||

    Did your name make the cut? Mine didn't and it's one of the most popular girl names form the 70's & 80's.

    I'm guessing this shizz ain't targeted to my generation.

  • Andrew S.||

    It's also targeted to South Africa.

    Mine's on there though.

  • ||

    Ah...the article I read didn't mention that! I want my Kaptious Coke, dammit!

  • waffles||

    You're in South Africa? That may be your problem.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    "Hi, we're for freedom and against the slavery of income tax and minimum wage, but oh, that actual slavery the Confederacy enacted, that was all about tariffs and no big deal!"

    Holy shit, you're a moron.

  • Sevo||

    So congress has told the executive to make war whenever it looks interesting, the executive now 'modifies' laws regarding expenditures, and:

    "New authority for FDA
    The FDA's clarification calls that into question, and the agency has new authority to make its position stick.
    The Food Safety Modernization Act of 2011 gave the FDA additional powers to issue new food-safety regulations and demand recalls of contaminated foods."
    http://www.sfgate.com/food/art.....542497.php

    Regulations that can easily put businesses under? Let the executive do that!
    Our new three branches:
    The Executive, which does everything
    The Legislative which tells the Executive to do what it used to do, and
    The Judiciary that says 'Yeah, that's what they want. Constitution? What?'.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Can we just rise and spontaneously impeach the entire government? I call do-over!

  • db||

    Nope, you have to reform from within, using our existing institutions, which are totally responsive to public opinion and not corrupted at all.

  • Steve G||

    Pretty pointed piece:
    http://www.thenation.com/artic.....d-failure#
    "America at War: A Record of Unparalleled Failure"

  • Virginian||

    1. No matter how you define American-style war or its goals, it doesn’t work. Ever.

    2. No matter how you pose the problems of our world, it doesn’t solve them. Never.

    3. No matter how often you cite the use of military force to “stabilize” or “protect” or “liberate” countries or regions, it is a destabilizing force.

    4. No matter how regularly you praise the American way of war and its “warriors,” the US military is incapable of winning its wars.

    5. No matter how often American presidents claim that the US military is “the finest fighting force in history,” the evidence is in: it isn’t.

    Well that's just wrong. You'd have to do something totally dishonest like trim the sample size to fit your ideology to make those statements stand up.

    So here are five straightforward lessons—none acceptable in what passes for discussion and debate in this country—that could be drawn from that last half century of every kind of American warfare:

    Dishonest cunts are dishonest.

  • R C Dean||

    No matter how you define American-style war or its goals, it doesn’t work. Ever.

    It worked pretty well up until about 1946. Possibly even 1970ish, depending on whether you think beating the snot out of communist rump-countries without actually conquering them "worked" as a wartime goal.

  • John||

    No it is a record of unparalleled success. The record of failure lies in America's post World War II understanding of the limits of what war can accomplish. America is still essentially undefeated on the battlefield. Where it has "failed" is where its politicians tried to use war to do things that war cannot be expected to do, namely build nations into our image. To me that is not a failure at war. That is a failure at politics and diplomacy. The record of failure in America both domestic and abroad is its record of political failure post World War II.

  • Steve G||

    Concur. My thoughts I posted to FB where I saw the article: "Article makes no distinction between the military and the civilian leadership that employs it. This is basic PME-level Clausewitz and the author needs to go back and brush up on it.
    I can read this article and agree with most of it re: the trail of destablization, but only when I view it as a criticism of national strategy, which is not something "the military" controls. To say we're not the finest fighting force in the world because of political failures is pretty ignorant."

  • John||

    The author is a Wilsonian who can't admit the limits to war. Since war failed to do what he thinks it should do, he blames the military for being failures rather than himself and his ideology for trying to use war to accomplish things it can't.

  • Matrix||

    Indeed. It's like calling a hammer a failure because it cannot successfully screw in a lightbulb. It was never designed for that function.

    The US military is not designed for nation building. It's designed to kill people and destroy stuff. It does a really good job at that.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    In before TRAKTUR PULLZ!

    (maybe)

  • The Late P Brooks||

    The Judiciary that says 'Yeah, that's what they want. Constitution? What?'.

    Deference is so much easier than review.

    A Law is a Law is a Law is a Law. Law of the Land, FTW!

  • Virginian||

    But his words left little doubt that, should he win office in the general election this November, he will favor far-reaching change. "The only problem with Republican principles," Brat said, "is no one is following them."

    Bingo. The major difference between the two parties is that the Dems are loyal to their base. They are always doing everything they can to give the base what it wants. When they come up short, they apologize to their base.

    The Republican Party has nothing but contempt for their base, they give them fleeting scraps, and eagerly fold to the Democrats at the earliest opportunity. They're feckless and weak, and not in it to advance their ideology.

  • John||

    The Dems lie to the general public and then takes care of their base in private and in less public ways. The Republicans lie to their base. I understand the need to compromise and that you are never going to totally please your base. That is the nature of politics. But you can compromise while still having principles. And moreover, you can compromise without compromising on everything or acting embarrassed about your underlying principles. The Republican Party seems to have forgotten that and view their role as one of placating the scary hillbillies so them and the Democrats can get down to the serious business of stealing and doing what they think is "right" for everyone but them.

  • Virginian||

    Right, the Dems get 60% of what they want, and go back to their base and say "I'm sorry, I know you wanted all of it, but those damn Republicans and we will be back to take the other 40%, I promise". And they mean it. They are true believers.

    The Republicans go to their base after the same fight and say "listen you toothless retards, 40% is the best you're going to get. Now, we sat down with the Dems and they're going to come back next year and they might possibly be content to only take 20% more. Which means that might leave 20% for the year after. That's a good deal, you inbred morons, a really good deal. So shut up and enjoy it."

  • Stormy Dragon||

    Tea Partiers never say die: Following a string of bad primary luck, Tea Party types have something to crow about after last night, when their guy—economics professor David Brat—defeated second-ranking House Republican Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Virginia) by 11 percentage points.

    Given Cantor was himself a tea party darling just a few years ago and lost, while establishment type like McConnell, Graham, Boehner, etc. have clobbered tea party challengers easy, the real message here seems to be to just ignore the tea party. If you try to make them happy, you'll drive away non tea party voters and the people replace on them will turn on you without notice.

  • Virginian||

    Cantor was never a Tea Party darling. You have no idea what you're talking about.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    Yay. Another round of the "No One is in the Tea Party" game!

  • Virginian||

    When Eric Cantor took his seat in Congress for the first time, the Twin Towers were still standing. The Tea Party, whatever else it is or isn't, did not exist in 2001.

  • Steve G||

    So how does that prove he didn't latch onto it once it did appear?

    That's like saying Oprah ain't rich because she was on welfare a long time ago.

  • Virginian||

    The Tea Party is a grassroots thing. Cantor was and is establishment to the bone. I live in his soon to be former district. He's a Chamber of Commerce/private school educated/country club type.

  • John||

    Cantor was only a Tea Party darling when he was acting in their interests. It is not like they turned against him for sport. They turned against him because he voted for the debt ceiling increase and started to support amnesty.

    The message of this is that the Tea Party is not a cheap date. Just because you say the right things for a while, doesn't mean they are going to continue to support you if you later try and sell them out.

    Sorry, but the message of this isn't "just ignore them".

  • Stormy Dragon||

    Since the Tea Party does not control 67% of congress, any Tea Party candidate that actually wins an election is necessarily going to have to compromise with non-tea party politicians to get anything accomplished.

    It's basically getting to the point where they only way to succeed in the Tae Party is to never get into office but just go around claiming you'd be Tea Party Jesus if you ever did.

  • John||

    Sure they will have to "compromise". But Cantor did a bit more than compromise. And even if his sin was compromising, maybe immigration is the one issue the Tea Party will broker no compromise? Just because you are willing to compromise in general doesn't mean you can't have some issues that you wont' compromise on.

    The bottom line is that there are plenty of politicians who garner lots of Tea Party support. Cantor, didn't and lost because they felt like he was selling them out. That fact makes them more relevant not less.

  • Fluffy||

    Yup, you figured it out.

    You should be on TV.

  • ||

    How is it you can be so wrong, so often, about everything?

  • The Late P Brooks||

    The biggest thing that pisses me off is asking people what they do and them saying nonprofit as if that's a job description and not a tax designation. The smugness level awful.

    The first time I ran into somebody who self-described as a "grant writer" I struggled to resist grabbing her4 by the throat.

  • Virginian||

  • Trouser-Pod||

    Well, thank God someone was willing to do the tedious work and show the proof.

  • Adam.||

    wait, there are substitutes for LSD? Where? and how do i get them?

  • Brett L||

    Well, picking and drying the mushrooms that grow out of cow shit is a good place to start.

  • jamesrk||

    Ready for hillary? what diffrence does it make?

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