Unconvincing Quote of the Week
"Some call you swing voters. I call you Americans." Hillary Clinton, speaking to white people.
The Week in Brief
- The Democratic primaries effectively ground to a half as Barack Obama won a landslide in North Carolina and narrowly lost Indiana.
- Hillary Clinton refused to quit the race, praying for expected (Kentucky, West Virginia) and surprise (Oregon) wins in the remaining primaries to rattle the superdelegates.
- Bob Barr geared up for an official entry into the presidential race.
- Ron Paul's book rocketed to the top of the New York Times bestseller list.
- Rep. Walter Jones, the last anti-war Republican on the ballot in 2008, handily won re-nomination.
Below the Fold
- Libertarian Party co-founder David Nolan crafts a nomination strategy for the top 6 LP candidates. (One striking thing about this race is that the anti-Barr, anti-Root forces don't deny that Barr could get more votes than a candidate in the Badnarik mold. It brings to mind the war against McCain in the GOP primary: Conservatives were willing to trade the more electable McCain for the more doctrinaire, for the moment, Romney.)
- Brian Friel talks to Democrats about their coming, 1932 or 1964-sized landslide.
- John Judis wrings his hands about Obama's electability.
- Most of the Libertarian presidential candidates (except for Barr, Root and Phillies*) demand a new 9/11 inquiry.
- Matt Labash goes to the prom.
Did someone request mid-decade Marillion live? No? Too bad.
*This has been corrected -- I forgot about Phillies when I originally posted.
The Weekend Political Thread: Long Goodbye Edition
Comments to "The Weekend Political Thread: Long Goodbye Edition":
Ayn_Randian | May 10, 2008, 12:04pm | #
Most of the Libertarian presidential candidates (except for Barr and Root) demand a new 9/11 inquiry.OMFG.
Barr/Root 2008...Jesus Christ, I hope that Barr gets nominated and, as mentioned, the "radicals" walk.
If you click the link to the "Libertarians For Justice", guess which aspect the radicals think needs re-investigated?:
Which aspect of 9/11 Truth most needs an investigation with subpoeana power?
The collapse of WTC 7.
63%
Will someone please get the motherfuckin' truthers out of my movement. Ick!
Reason missed "Arfwitz" - the Bush pet/soldier final solution story.
Sponge | May 10, 2008, 12:44pm | #
In my book 9/11 truthers aren't any more or less crazy than the Christian Coalition types who love Barr.Neu Mejican | May 10, 2008, 1:12pm | #
With all the good prog that exists...how can anyone subject people to Marillion...8^(
Neu Mejican | May 10, 2008, 1:14pm | #
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FAwDdLKeQCEStill late period prog...but not nearly so suck-filled.
J sub D | May 10, 2008, 1:16pm | #
Will someone please get the motherfuckin' truthers out of my movement. Ick!Seconded. We joke about the tinfoil hats and decoder rings. These ultramaroons take it seriously.
Neu Mejican | May 10, 2008, 1:16pm | #
Turkish Prog-rock anyone?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_d0agQsFDE
Baris Manco
Ayn_Randian | May 10, 2008, 1:41pm | #
In my book 9/11 truthers aren't any more or less crazy than the Christian Coalition types who love Barr.I can say that demanding an "re-investigation" into WTC 7 is tantamount to Libertarian Lunacy. I refuse to support any candidate who signs on to this Truther crap.
Steven Horwitz | May 10, 2008, 1:43pm | #
Call me another libertarian against Truthers. We have enough credibility problems, most of them undeserved, we don't need this crap.Conservative Observer | May 10, 2008, 1:54pm | #
I'm a little dissapointed there wasn't a brokered Democrat convention and riots in Denver.Still, Obama is of the Stevenson/McGovern/Mondale/Dukakis model and will be super easy to defeat.
Conservative Observer | May 10, 2008, 1:56pm | #
Truthers are left-wing anti-American loons, and I'm happy to see at least some libertarians don't want to associate with them.Chris Potter | May 10, 2008, 2:11pm | #
The Democratic primaries effectively ground to a half as Barack Obama won a landslide in North Carolina and narrowly lost Indiana.OK, if he were speaking, this would be a spoonerism, but since it's written can we just call it a weigelism?
Ali | May 10, 2008, 2:14pm | #
The problem is, Truthers are already stuck to the libertarian movement. I am not sure they can be "kicked out" (I mean, what does that even mean?). Just accept it as yet another "credibility problem".The Truthers (and other conspiracy types) are really terrible people to keep around. Libertarians need to position themselves as the party of science, promoting good economics along with other topics. In a time when candidates from all parties are supporting further investigation into vaccines and autism, Libertarians have a unique opportunity to single itself out as the party that doesn't believe in bullshit. Do this and see how many academics come around to economics as science as well. These candidates are pandering, just like the mainstream candidates are, but I'd love to see if we could weed them out.
Conservative Observer | May 10, 2008, 2:25pm | #
Does that "science" include big government frauds like stem cell research and global warming? Thats what the Democrat Party means when they talk about "science".shrike | May 10, 2008, 2:25pm | #
And Creationists were "stuck" to the GOP in 2004.The Truthers look like Wittgenstein next to the Creationists.
Ayn_Randian | May 10, 2008, 2:31pm | #
Does that "science" include big government frauds like stem cell researchIn what way was it "fraudulent"? If by fraudulent you mean that "it has unperformed its exaggerated initial expectations", then the current Iraq Occupation could be classified the same way.
Conservative Observer | May 10, 2008, 2:34pm | #
Its a fraud Ayn Randian because its a big government program that should be taken care of by the private sector. If its so great private companies should have no problem funding it, the profits would be enormous.I hope I don't need to explain to you why global warming is a left wing trojan horse.
Yes, it includes stem cell research and global warming. Reason's own Ronald Bailey believes in anthropogenic global warming, even though he used to be hostile to it, as do many other libertarians (though they are skeptic of the other parties' solutions to the problem). Michael Shermer's Skeptic magazine published a series of articles explaining the evidence for it; he's a boon to the movement. Libertarianism needs more Shermers and Baileys.
Travis | May 10, 2008, 2:42pm | #
Come on people we all know it was the Rapture that caused the planes to crash into the twin towers on 9/11. The pilots were sucked up to heaven & no one was left to fly the planes.Conservative Observer | May 10, 2008, 2:44pm | #
Swimmy you honestly call yourself a libertarian and at the same time favor federal funding for stem cell research?Neu Mejican | May 10, 2008, 2:46pm | #
I find these two comments interesting in juxtaposition...Do this and see how many academics come around to economics as science as well.
global warming is a left wing trojan horse
I realize that they are from different posters, but there's some cognitive harmony, in them in at some abstract level...
Serious question: Which is the more rigorous field of science: 1) climatology, or 2) economics?
Opinions?
creeds?
Babbling?
All are welcome.
shrike | May 10, 2008, 2:50pm | #
The GW deniers are conspiracy theorists themselves.Their conspiracy, of course, is that the UN will require massive taxation of net GW contributors. This would mean outsized taxation of Brazil and China, among others - from an authority who could not enforce sanctions on crappy little Middle Eastern countries.
Anthropogenic GW is real (extent is an open question) and General Electric, AEP, and many other US companies are lining up to profit from clean energy - just like the free market demands.
The real question is - are you tied to dirty carbon and the past - or are you addressing the markets of the future?
I don't expect "conservatives" to understand - just as they can't grasp Natural Selection.
Conservative Observer | May 10, 2008, 2:53pm | #
What do you call the Kyoto Treaty shirke?That was nothing but a scheme to halt economic growth in the western democracies while exempting third world China and India from its provisions. It was socialist wealth redistribution in the name of saving the earth.
Naga Sadow | May 10, 2008, 2:55pm | #
Travis,You mean it wasn't pissed off Muslims? Maybe I need to take a second look at the "truther" websites? Is it possible that the rapture is just a big government conspiracy?
Naga Sadow | May 10, 2008, 2:58pm | #
CO is right swimmy. How dare you not conform to his perceived definition of a libertarian! Conform damn you!Conservative Observer | May 10, 2008, 3:00pm | #
Silly me, I thought libertarians take a strict interpretation of the Constitution.Please tell me which part of the Constitution authorizes federal subsidizing of scientific research.
Travis | May 10, 2008, 3:04pm | #
Fools, you don't need to worry about economics or global warming. It's almost been seven years since 9/11, the time of tribulation is almost over.UCrawford | May 10, 2008, 3:05pm | #
Well, Reason just convinced me to immediately discount every single Libertarian candidate except Barr and Root.And to anyone who claims that "truthers" aren't any crazier than creationists, so what? I wouldn't vote for anyone running on a platform of removing evolution from the schools either and just because creationism is a bunch of bunk doesn't make "truther" allegations any more real. The 9/11 "truthers" are whack-jobs and/or liars...period. There's no place for them in any serious political discussion.
shrike | May 10, 2008, 3:06pm | #
I call Kyoto a failure in every regard.But fear of "worldwide Marxism" is not a basis to deny climatology consensus.
This movement will benefit capitalists like GE. Go look up Ecoimagination (GE) and you will see how "nutty" GW is.
This conversation needs a dose of reality.
With a $9 trillion in debt the US cannot afford GW expense. But $200 a barrel for crude will kill us too.
The next president needs to work with the future "Google" types of ENERGY.
Don't bet on the GOP.
Travis | May 10, 2008, 3:07pm | #
"Is it possible that the rapture is just a big government conspiracy?"It's the work of Anti-Christ Cheney & his Bush Beast.
robc | May 10, 2008, 3:21pm | #
shrike,As google has proved (I think), the "google of GW" doesnt need to work with the government, they just need the government to get out of the way.
shrike | May 10, 2008, 3:27pm | #
robc-You are inclined correctly.
But the tax subsidies Big Oil now receives should be transferred to clean energy companies.
(yes, taxes AND subsidies are both cruel).....
But at least INCENT the "Google of clean energy" -- I would like tax credits for cars that get over 60 mpg - for instance.
Now - Hummers get tax credits! (We have oilmen running the world).
Karsten Nicholson | May 10, 2008, 3:31pm | #
I haven't sent any more to reason for a while. My subscription should have ran out last November, but they keep sending me issues up to the JUNE 2008 issue! Are you that desperate for subscribers? FUCK reason.J sub D | May 10, 2008, 3:32pm | #
Serious question: Which is the more rigorous field of science: 1) climatology, or 2) economics?Opinions?
creeds?
Babbling?
Economics and climatology have a lot in common. Both are sciences whose goal is to quantify and make predictions about chaotic systems, knowing that insufficient data will always be a problem. Economics has been around longer and seems farther along in those areas. Climatology, being a n00b science, will get better but I think you'd be foolhardy to omit the NaCl with that meal. Hell, that's probably true of economics as well.
[/babbling]
J sub D | May 10, 2008, 3:42pm | #
Now - Hummers get tax credits! (We have oilmen running the world).Linky-link? You make statements like that you've got to back them up. Ditto for the "oil company subsidies" folks. What tax advantage does Exxon get that Novi Precision Products doesn't? Or coal minering. Or wind farms. Or Wal-Mart?
We do have tax breaks and subsidies so eethanol can be sold below cost and still be profitable.
shrike | May 10, 2008, 3:51pm | #
Sure, JsD.http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1220-09.htm
Can't hyperlink yet...
This law was unchanged up to 2006.
shrike | May 10, 2008, 3:57pm | #
Even more damning, in 2003, Bush tried to triple the Hummer loophole.http://www.sptimes.com/2003/02/04/Opinion/The__light_truck__loo.shtml
Bush/Cheney have, at every opportunity, attempted to drive UP the consumption of oil while aiding OPEC against Congress (NOPEC) at every turn.
oh, and yes, I am aware as to the difference between a tax credit and deduction....
J sub D | May 10, 2008, 4:08pm | #
Shrike - Business owners can depreciate trucks faster than cars. Yep. that's all trucks, Toyotas Nissans, S-10s, and all SUVs. Color me unimpressed.BTW, I found a good (for me anyway) HTML link tutorial here
J sub D | May 10, 2008, 4:10pm | #
Bush/Cheney have, at every opportunity, attempted to drive UP the consumption of oil while aiding OPEC against Congress (NOPEC) at every turn.I've no love for the Bush administration, but your paranoia is approaching truther levels here.
shrike | May 10, 2008, 4:16pm | #
Business owners can depreciate trucks faster than cars So 20 million SUV owners and small businessmen should not complain about $6 a gallon gasoline then.I know this - there are two Real Estate agents in my immediate family who "own" their own business.
They are the first to cry about ANWR - like that would make any difference.
I tell them - you buy and depreciate a Land Cruiser over seven years to run a loophole - don't bitch about the price of gasoline.
Your welcome. I'm fairly new at this new-fangled intertubes stuff myself. I sympathize with ya.
Conservative Observer | May 10, 2008, 4:20pm | #
Shirke economics will force us to abandon oil and look for something else without the aid of big government.Conservative Observer | May 10, 2008, 4:21pm | #
Leftist will look for any excuse to expand the welfare state, and global warming is just the latest big excuse.shrike | May 10, 2008, 4:28pm | #
Leftist will look for any excuse to expand the welfare state, and global warming is just the latest big excuse.That is really lame.
Like, Sean Hannity type lame. No thinking required - nor a reality check for admission...
Swimmy | May 10, 2008, 4:29pm | #
CO: No, I don't support federal funding for stem cell research. But I oppose all attempts to pass laws that discourage such research, or any other research that makes people feel icky but doesn't actually violate anyone's rights.If we were to make a Big Libertarian List of greivances with the government, I'd put "funding of promising and life-saving research" pretty low. (Yes I know it's difficult to figure out what's "promising" and what isn't.) I'd put "funding of research into already settled science like the WTC collapse and the autism/vaccine connection" quite a bit higher.
Conservative Observer | May 10, 2008, 4:30pm | #
I'm of the opinion that the decision to make it legal or not should be left to the individual states.Conservative Observer | May 10, 2008, 4:36pm | #
Shirke if its so important I'm waiting for you to set the thermostate at 50 in the winter time and give up your car.I got a 5 on my AP English Test | May 10, 2008, 4:37pm | #
I have noticed an alarming trend....Please use "you're" when saying "you are" rather than "your". I have seen "your welcome" and other incorrect uses of "your" quite often in recent weeks on this blog.
That is all.
MikeP | May 10, 2008, 4:38pm | #
Well, Reason just convinced me to immediately discount every single Libertarian candidate except Barr and Root.Don't discount them all. California primary winner Christine Smith is not on that list.
shrike | May 10, 2008, 4:45pm | #
I don't want to argue with you, 'Conservative Observer'.Take my word on it. I am a hostile SOB.
The "right vs. left" thing has to go away.
Conservative Observer | May 10, 2008, 4:47pm | #
I don't see Al Gore or any other leftist celebrities giving up their private jets, limos, and big houses.My excuse | May 10, 2008, 4:50pm | #
AP5Firefox has a grate read line four showing spelling eras, but knot won four homophone miss steaks.
SIV | May 10, 2008, 4:50pm | #
Reason's own Ronald Bailey believes in anthropogenic global warmingAre you sure he really believes in it?
Ron is employed as the "science" correspondent for a leading cosmotarian periodical. He knows where his paychecks come from.
MikeP | May 10, 2008, 4:54pm | #
Then why, oh, why, would he claim to believe it?Any why did you add yet another silly conspiracy to this thread?
Kolohe | May 10, 2008, 5:09pm | #
'arfwitz'I like it; like the untergang/hillary mashup profane and unfair, but very funny.
And if you want a conspiracy, when I went back to that thread to get 'untergang' spelled right, the prolific 'Meet Singles in Your City' ad for that particular thread is 'Meet Christian Singles' with a suitably buxom (and aryan) blonde.
Travis | May 10, 2008, 5:14pm | #
"Then why, oh, why, would he claim to believe it?"He has no choice, ever since Ron got the mark of the beast the anti-christ controls his mind.
Neu Mejican | May 10, 2008, 5:16pm | #
JsubD,I agree for the most part.
Climatology has a distinct advantage over economics, however. That advantage stems from a better understanding of the basic level processes that comprise the system...
At the root of climatology is founded physics, while at the root of economics are either sociology or psychology.
n00b or not, that is a pretty big advantage.
Conservative Observer | May 10, 2008, 5:17pm | #
Hey Neu Mejican what kind of care do you drive? Do you turn off the global-warming inducing air conditioner down in New Mexico to save the planet?Conservative Observer | May 10, 2008, 5:19pm | #
Er, "car".Neu Mejican | May 10, 2008, 5:22pm | #
Conservative Observer...I don't own a car (haven't for 5 years, ever since I moved to within walking distance of work).
When I did, and there was a need to cool down the car, I used the air conditioner at highway speeds as that is more fuel efficient than rolling down the windows. A lower speeds, the windows cool ya off pretty dang good in the dry air.
FWIW, my carbon footprint comes out to about 1/3 of the American average...do you have a point?
Conservative Observer | May 10, 2008, 5:23pm | #
What do you think Al Gore's carbon footprint is Neu?FWIW, homeless(!) Americans still have a carbon footprint much higher than the world average.
Neu Mejican | May 10, 2008, 5:24pm | #
And to anticipate some responses, my quality of life has improved without the car, and my expenses are considerably lower...Conservative Observer | May 10, 2008, 5:24pm | #
How much beef do you eat Neu? Thats the next thing the leftist wacko enviros want us to give up.Its not good enough not to drive, we have to all become vegans too.
Its leftist cultural imperialism.
Conservative Observer | May 10, 2008, 5:26pm | #
My point is you want to force your way of life on us.Orange Line Special | May 10, 2008, 5:29pm | #
In other news, here are some questions for the apparent Dem candidate. Please go to one of his appearances, ask one or more, get it on video, and upload it to video sharing sites. Those are the type of questions that MSM hacks as well as mainstream bloggers don't have the guts to ask.And, in other news, as usual, I have several interesting and informative posts at my name's link.
First Little Pig | May 10, 2008, 5:35pm | #
CO,When did Neu Mejican say that he wanted to force his way of life on you?
Of course, by denying GW you may be -- should GW prove to be true -- advocating behavior that is harmful to everyone else. I will be seeking damages, sir.
shrike | May 10, 2008, 5:36pm | #
My point is you want to force your way of life on us.That coming from a conservative - so ironic.
Liberal = free......
Travis | May 10, 2008, 5:42pm | #
Lonewacko,You want libertarians to go to Obama events & ask why he is taking Lou Dobbs positions out of context.
matt | May 10, 2008, 5:59pm | #
I liked this comments section better when there were less Team Red/Team Blue cheerleaders. It's beginning to resemble a Yahoo! News discussion board.I'm looking at you, shrike & Conservative Observer.
Conservative Observer | May 10, 2008, 6:19pm | #
Matt libertarians and conservatives are natural allies. We are both "right wingers" aimed against a common leftist enemy.CO, you will then agree that I should be able to open an opium den/machine gun store/whorehouse? 'Cause, goddamn, that would rule.
Conservative Observer | May 10, 2008, 6:31pm | #
I believe people should be able to arm themselves with whatever weapons they please (machine guns, bazookas, hell, a tank if you can afford it).But no hard drugs, sorry. Their impact on society is too great to be made legal.
I'm more than open to legal marijuana, however.
Ali | May 10, 2008, 6:32pm | #
... and reproductive choice, freedom of and from religion. Do you agree CO?Conservative Observer | May 10, 2008, 6:34pm | #
Life in the womb is life and should be protected as life. Everyone has a right to life, including the unborn.After recognizing our cultural Judeo-Christian outlook, you are free t do whatever you want. But prayer in schools should be allowed.
Ali | May 10, 2008, 6:36pm | #
freedom of muslims to worship as they will?Conservative Observer | May 10, 2008, 6:40pm | #
Not of that includes sharia law but they're free to pray five times a day and give to charity and go to Mecca etc.Still I would only a allow a small number of Muslims to live in this country. I don't want it to be like Europe where the very cultural fabric is changing. Ex. piggy banks being banned because they might "offend" Muslims.
Conservative Observer | May 10, 2008, 6:41pm | #
Oh, none of your sharia here either.Cosmotarian Smack Down | May 10, 2008, 6:43pm | #
Karsten Nicholson hates Reason, but isn't Karsten the bitch who was complaining that Reason wasn't giving Bill Johnson a fair shake?Bill Johnson, the author of the Pace Amendment? The notorious white supremacist?
Ali | May 10, 2008, 6:43pm | #
it's funny you say that CO because Muslims have historically always voted Republican, and conservative in particular.Conservative Observer | May 10, 2008, 6:44pm | #
Of course Ali observing Jews, Christians, and Muslims are allies in the cultural war being waged on us by the left.In small numbers at a time Muslims can be successfully assimilated, but not in a flood like Europe.
Ali | May 10, 2008, 6:48pm | #
CO, but with people like Santorum et al., my guess is that Muslims are a lost cause for the consevative movement.Conservative Observer | May 10, 2008, 6:49pm | #
We're not against Muslims we're against radical Islamofascism. Moderate Muslims are allies.Mr. Nice Guy | May 10, 2008, 7:24pm | #
I've said it before and I'll say it again: this resistance to things like the IPCC's findings is clearly retarded.Here is what it amounts to: on one side there are thousands of people, from various nations and employers, who have about 10 years of higher education (highly specialized at the end years) and then years of on the job experience in the relevant fields, coming to an amazingly high consensus on an emerging issue (which is strongly suggestive in and of itself). On the other side are some people without those qualifications who have a very strong ideological committment/and or interests that they admit may be threatened by certain proposals to remedy the phenomena in question.
To suggest that thousands of scientists with diverse backgrounds are just concoting some hoax for the hell of it is paranoid delusion my friends. These guys, unlike yourselves, have better things to do. And oh, the handful of books and articles you've read, the data you think you've looked at and figured out, they're well aware of that shit and they've found it wanting. Don't you think it's something YOU don't know that makes this the case? Jesus.
I'll also re-issue my challenge: since you amazing amateur scientists can see through false consensus among experts, please enlighten us on other areas of emerging scientific consensus that do not threaten any ideological position you have that you have deduced is false. Anyone? Speak up guys...
Conservatism could be a viable intellectual movement, if it would just wake up and realize that opposing consensus among climatologists and biologists (evolution) shouldn't be central tenents of their philosophy...
Liberal Observer | May 10, 2008, 7:29pm | #
"Of course Ali observing Jews, Christians, and Muslims are allies in the cultural war being waged on us by the left."The only cultural war we here on the "left" are waging is against dumbass religious folks, which many conservative Jews, Christians and Muslims may be (believing in people living hundreds of years, people parting seas and other literal readings of Scriptures). The left doesn't make fun of a religious person like Martin Luther King who stands up and says "my religion informs me that all people are created equal" but we do laugh at anyone who says "my religion tells me that prayer can avert hurricanes" or "since this verse says we can handle snakes, we can."
Mr. Nice Guy | May 10, 2008, 7:37pm | #
"But prayer in schools should be allowed." And so it is, and always has been. It was government led prayers that was banned my obtuse friend!"I believe people should be able to arm themselves with whatever weapons they please (machine guns, bazookas, hell, a tank if you can afford it). But no hard drugs, sorry. Their impact on society is too great to be made legal."
SO according to your logic IF guns could be shown to have "too great" an impact on our society they have to go too?
"Matt libertarians and conservatives are natural allies. We are both "right wingers" aimed against a common leftist enemy."
Oh, that's SIV, aint it?
Ali | May 10, 2008, 7:52pm | #
CO-You see, the problem is that I am a practicing Muslim, but I do belief and trust others ability to choose for themselves. So I am for a woman choosing what she does in pregnancy, freedom for others from/of religion, personal responsibility when it comes to drugs, etc.. That puts me at odds with "conservatives".
MK2 | May 10, 2008, 8:11pm | #
When it was published, Pat Robertson's New World Order made the NY Times best seller list too. A lot of utter shit makes the list.Mr. Nice Guy | May 10, 2008, 8:13pm | #
In the US conservatives play libertarians like a Compton drug dealer plays his 15 year old baby momma. Their respective magazines and think tanks get funding from many of the same sources, and an alliance seemed natural when one thinks of things like the New Deal and how abrupt it was.However, there is a reason why "libertarian" and "liberal" share the root word: they have more in common philosophically. Conservatives believe in authority (religious, military, tradition, etc), not liberty. In the US they have often given lip service to libertarianism since they are convinced (not wrongly) that often limiting government will just protect the interests of traditional authority (religious authority, community authority, business authority), but conservatism as a philosophy has always had a special dislike of too much "liberty" (they refer to it as "license"). This is why conservatives are glad to embrace government when it will protect traditional authority...Liberals and libertarians both believe in expanding individual choice to live the life they choose, they split on the idea of negative vs. positive liberty (libertarians tend to think liberty best achieved by making people free from any compulsion, while many liberals think liberty best achieved by providing many people with positive benefits which then expand that person's choices and opportunities).
Ali | May 10, 2008, 8:18pm | #
MNG-while many liberals think liberty best achieved by providing many people with positive benefits which then expand that person's choices and opportunities
But said things have to come from somewhere else, right? Where from? By coercing others to give?
Classical liberals just broke into two, those who went to become "liberals" later (the majority) and those who went to become the "conservative" camp. Libertarianism as it is today are those who went to either camp.
Conservative Observer | May 10, 2008, 8:29pm | #
MNG how is government authority not the worst, most complete and total kind of authority imaginable?SIV | May 10, 2008, 8:35pm | #
MNG,You should know that's not me. I'm all for being able to buy machine guns and hard drugs at the same store-and no questions asked!
I'd probably shop there if price, selection and quality were on par with dedicated drug and gun stores.
I support private property rights regardless of any "impact on society".
Conservative Observer | May 10, 2008, 8:38pm | #
SIV thats where conservatives and libertarians break ranks.Conservatives respect and admire the market for its creation of wealth and knowledge, but believe that certain aspects of the market can morally degenerate society.
But I bet we both supported Fred in the primaries, right?
Mr. Nice Guy | May 10, 2008, 8:45pm | #
As John Stuart Mill (a forerunner of libertarianism btw) pointed out years ago, one of the worst despots is community opinion. Book after book, movie after movie, has pointed out how powerful and pervasive this can be.When government steps in to check community opinion it is like punishing a bad criminal offender: inflicting pain on someone is wrong, but if it prevents that someone from doing more wrong, it's actually right. Likewise using coercion to open more opportunities is justified.
Of course, I don't have to bite at this false dilemma. Historicaly and currently conservatives love them some government. Historically conservative forerunners, like Edmund Burke (hey, read the guy don't take my word for it) loved established churches with government support and suppression of "libel" (against the government). Currently, conservatives love government intervention to fight, as you mention, voluntary exchanges in "hard drugs" (those 60's liberals really hated strong drugs, eh?), pornography, reproductive services, prostitution, etc.. They also tend to like government power when it is aimed at people accused of crime (since conservatives like "order" above all and those nasty criminals threaten said order).
My experience has been that most "conservatives" have no fucking idea what that philosophy has historically and currently entails. They just think about, rightly to some degree, the excesses of some liberals, and think "hell, I can't go with that nuttiness" and with the help of talk radio think that conservatism is the voice of reason. You're being played, dude. Liberal fanatics are nuts, but conservative fanatics are extra nuts. The former are regular fodder for conservative media outlets, while the latter don't get that spotlight (there really is no self-consciously "liberal" media [of course there are "left-leaning" media as most professionals lean left, but nothing like the organized and strident right wing media).
Les | May 10, 2008, 8:45pm | #
CO, I'm confused. You're talking about limited government, but not allowing adults to make decisions about what they do to their own body requires that you greatly increase the scope and power of government and we see what that's brought us.Leftists love to tell individuals what they can and can't do to themselves and their property because of baseless concerns for the "collective." Your position on drugs puts you squarely in the collectivist camp, I think.
Les | May 10, 2008, 8:48pm | #
Conservatives respect and admire the market for its creation of wealth and knowledge, but believe that certain aspects of the market can morally degenerate society.And this position puts you in the same camp as Islamic fundamentalists. It's an anti-freedom philosophy because it rejects the individual's right to find his own sense of morality. And any morality which respects the property and lives of others should have no limits placed on it by "the collective," which you seem to embrace, despite your hatred of leftists.
Conservative Observer | May 10, 2008, 8:49pm | #
Les certain drugs are fine by me. Alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, possibly LSD and shrooms are harmful but not so harmful that they will impact our community in any significant way.But come on, Meth, crack , PCP, and heroin? They're extremely destructive. No decent society can allow them to be open available.
I bet we are still closer to eachother than leftists like Barack H. Obama, though.
Conservative Observer | May 10, 2008, 8:50pm | #
Les, there should be certain limits placed on individuals for the sake of the community, yes. But very limited ones.Mr. Nice Guy | May 10, 2008, 8:50pm | #
SIVI do remember you talking about total rights to use drugs. Sorry, the "right and libertarians are natural allies" plus your percieved absence made me think CO had to be you...
CO
"But I bet we both supported Fred in the primaries, right?"
I think a libertarian would have supported Ron Paul. And a right-leaning one certainly should have supported him (considering how Paul's only deviations from libertarian positions is the immigration and abortion positions which lean right).
Conservative Observer | May 10, 2008, 8:53pm | #
MNG I would've supported Paul, but he was too much of an isolationist pacifist for me.However, the fact that the most successful libertarian on the national stage in the last 30 years ran as a Republican says something, does it not MNG?
Mr. Nice Guy | May 10, 2008, 8:54pm | #
"Les, there should be certain limits placed on individuals for the sake of the community, yes. But very limited ones."Not so much "limited" as "traditional" ones I would bet ;)
Conservative Observer | May 10, 2008, 8:55pm | #
MNG traditions are things that time has proved useful and necessary. Read some Edmund Burke.Les | May 10, 2008, 8:59pm | #
CO, according to repeated findings by the government, the vast majority of meth, crack, and heroin users aren't addicts. And remember, drugs aren't "destructive" anymore than tobacco or alcohol are destructive (though people use the latter two to kill themselves much more often than the drugs you mentioned.) People do destructive things with drugs.The black market for drugs (created by their illicit status) is what destroys neighborhoods, not the drugs, themselves. And the government has done a good job of destroying plenty of good lives in its war to enforce drug laws.
Now, I don't think it's right to destroy yourself with anything, but it's downright totalitarian for me to expect the government to stop another individual from making bad decisions for himself. It's downright un-American is what it is.
I bet we are still closer to eachother than leftists like Barack H. Obama, though.
It's possible. But I don't think Obama wants to interfere in the lives of individuals any more than our recent previous Presidents. He can't be worse than our current President.
Mr. Nice Guy | May 10, 2008, 8:59pm | #
"However, the fact that the most successful libertarian on the national stage in the last 30 years ran as a Republican says something, does it not MNG?"And does his very poor treatment from the Republican and conservative establishment (Fox, National Review, etc) say anything?
Ali | May 10, 2008, 9:04pm | #
Les- In my view (based on my understanding of the scripture), a truly fundamentalist Muslim would give the individual the absolute right and protections when it comes to belief. Today's fundamentalist Islamists are just an extrapolation of Christian fundamentalists who wish to eventually conflate church and state.Mr. Nice Guy | May 10, 2008, 9:06pm | #
"MNG traditions are things that time has proved useful and necessary. Read some Edmund Burke."I love to read Burke. I really do.
Do you think we should repress religious Dissenters and have a state supported church like Burke did? How about a monarch, Burke was on record supporting that.
But as to your particular question, I think traditions are a mix of the wisdom of the "bank of nations" as Burke would say, and "the dead hand of the past" as Satre would say. I think people should have the freedom to explore and challenge the traditions that surround them. Liberals like Mill think that. Conservatives like Burke thought government should shore up traditions with the use of government force. Letting people choose too much would lead to anarchy in Burke's view...Mill thought it would be grand though.
Mr. Nice Guy | May 10, 2008, 9:13pm | #
Both CO and SIV with no link handles...Both posting here at the same time when very few are posting (no posts from "SIV" but when mentioned up comes a post)...The conflation of environmentalists with vegans... The Paul is a pacifist meme...The "libertarians and conservatives are natural allies" meme, a long time SIV meme...Sorry, I'm convinced: CO and SIV are the same authoritarian poster...
Conservative Observer | May 10, 2008, 9:14pm | #
MNG ask the reason editors if you want. We don't have the same IP address.Les | May 10, 2008, 9:14pm | #
That's a good point, Ali. It seems people tend to interpret scripture to support their own social theories and personalities.Conservative Observer | May 10, 2008, 9:22pm | #
John McCain is still closer than Barack Hussein Obama to libertarian ideas.Ali | May 10, 2008, 9:24pm | #
Les- Sometimes scripture is very tricky to interpret. This is certainly true of the Quran. Hence, it is easy to read it and, ignoring historical context, rules of interpretation, language rules and grammar, etc, one can come up with all sorts of reasons to "legitimize" one's actions. I completely disagree with OBL's interpretation. He's completely illegitimate. And this is acknowledged by the majority of Muslims. The problem is that that majority is silent or is itself dumbed down by authoritarian (mostly secular) regimes.Ali | May 10, 2008, 9:26pm | #
John McCain is still closer than Barack Hussein Obama to libertarian ideas.That's like saying Vienna is closer to NYC than Prague. Both are far away from NYC and have absolutely no resemblance to NYC.
CalGirl | May 10, 2008, 9:35pm | #
God, I'm a libertarian, but I find fellow libertarians to be such idiots sometimes. Reinvestigation of 9/11?So are we really just a bunch of pot-smoking (which should be legalized) conspiracy theorists? Can't we just be normal folks who believe in limited government?
So long as we come off as (or actually are) kooks, libertarianism will remain a fringe movement. But it seems that some people, who care more about looking like anti-government rebels than actually caring about school choice and tort reform don't mind if the movement never gets anywhere.
The 9/11 commission did a very thorough, brave, investigation of 9/11. A bunch of (mostly) Saudis did it. It wasn't the CIA or Mossad or some other conspirational organization. Get over it. This doesn't mean we have to hate Saudis or start a useless war, but let's not act like idiots.
Ali | May 10, 2008, 9:41pm | #
CalGirl,That's pretty much all one can do, just keep telling the Truthers that they are doing a huge disservice to libertarianism.
Alternative, "normal" libertarians (Trutherism aside, libertarians are mostly abnormal people for some weird reason!) should be loud, outspoken, and reach out to non-libertarians with libertarian sympathies. Basically, suppress the noise that is the Truthers.
Mr. Nice Guy | May 10, 2008, 9:51pm | #
"The 9/11 commission did a very thorough, brave, investigation of 9/11."I've always felt the same way. Sometimes we should doubt our government, but to do so just for kicks is silly. It was a well done commission.
SIV | May 10, 2008, 10:09pm | #
MNG,Remember I thought you and neu mejican were the same person !
I supported Ron Paul with both my $ and my vote.
I admit Fred Thompson was a strong second choice (he was electable).
I likely differ from "CO" on lots of issues.
Traditional uses of animals, professional licensure , foreign policy and most importantly the necessity of the State. Conservatism offers a road to libertarianism which leads to anarchy. I'm one of those "anti-government" conservatives, I'm just more "anti".
SIV | May 10, 2008, 10:17pm | #
The 9/11 commission weren't "brave".They were ass-kissing apologists for our crappy elected officials and bureaucrats.9/11 ain't the Kennedy assassination. We were attacked by radical Islamists. Truthers are nutjobs.(So are vegans and animal rightists:-)
Conservative Observer | May 10, 2008, 10:20pm | #
SIV we agree on animal rights, possibly areas of agreement on professional licensure, not on the necessity of the state.Per foreign policy , do you agree with the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars?
Elemenope | May 10, 2008, 10:31pm | #
CO, not for nothing, but you really lost the claim to be an *observer* when you started talking. How about a little "truth in advertising"?Orange Line Special | May 10, 2008, 10:32pm | #
I have to agree about the Commission. They did aa great - and brave 473112 - job, and look, anyone who says we should have abanother investigation or there are still too many open questions is a nutso loon.Neu Mejican | May 10, 2008, 10:36pm | #
Conservative Observer...My point is you want to force your way of life on us.
I realize you've already been taken to task for this, but you clearly have no idea what you are talking about.
Never seen a clearer case of hypocrisy on hit & run...nice job.
Neu Mejican | May 10, 2008, 10:45pm | #
To clarify...for ConObs,Some basic positions I have on government and its role in society.
Persuasion is not equivalent to coercion.
Recognizing a behavior is problematic at a societal level is not the same as advocating a specific policy for addressing that problem.
No single strategy is appropriate for all possible problem sets.
Restricting types of solutions without considering the specifics of the problem and the context a priori is guaranteed to be sub-optimal.
People who craft policy based solely on ideology craft bad policy.
Evidence-based approaches to any problem set require iterative evaluation of performance and realistic outcome measures.
Pooled resources are often needed to solve large or pervasive problems in a society.
A combination of top-down and bottom-up with always beat top-down or bottom-up strategies in isolation.
Thus ends my quick and dirty manifesto.
Conservative Observer | May 10, 2008, 10:46pm | #
Are you a member of the Democrat Party Neu Mejican?Non-aligned Observer | May 10, 2008, 11:42pm | #
Neil is a lot funnier than CO.Rick Barton | May 10, 2008, 11:48pm | #
Hillary has shamefully tried to use Obama's racial heritage against him. That's unethical as well as unnecessary. Obama has vulnerabilities, such as a voting record that indicates he'd savage economic liberty, and thus prosperity. Oh yeah, Hillary has a similar voting record.P Brooks | May 11, 2008, 12:36am | #
MNG,Remember I thought you and neu mejican were the same person !
Them's fightin' words
If you're Neu Mejican.
Bill Woolsey | May 11, 2008, 8:25am | #
Perhaps it has already been mentioned in this thread, but George Phillies is running for the LP nomination and he didn't sign the truther pledge.Personally, I think a further investigation is a good idea. I don't believe that the first investigation was able to discover all of the incompetency. That is, I believe it was done by Bin Laden and Al Quaeda.
But more investigation as to why the threat of terrorism against the U.S. homeland wasn't take more seriously, as well has about the failure to heed warning signs of this attack is worthy.
While I don't give any credence to the idea that it was an "inside job," the polling data suggesting that this belief is widespread suggests that this claim should be carefully investigated...to provide for a more official rejection. (What, is it really a popular mechanics article that is cited?)
I doubt whether it will convince many in the "truther" movement, but it may reduce their influence. Ignoring implausible conspiracy theories doesn't make them go away.
waylor | May 11, 2008, 9:02am | #
"I don't expect "conservatives" to understand - just as they can't grasp Natural Selection."It is a pity that the term "conservative" has been shanghai'ed. In many people's minds it is symbolized by the fundamental Christians who reject a whole lot of proven science.
Personally, I am a Goldwater Conservative. I have no patience with the crazed fundamentalists.
Travis | May 11, 2008, 9:03am | #
"Neil is a lot funnier than CO."Please don't give Neil any encouragement.
D | May 11, 2008, 9:10am | #
I liked this comments section better when there were less Team Red/Team Blue cheerleaders. It's beginning to resemble a Yahoo! News discussion board.I'm looking at you, shrike & Conservative Observer.
CO seems to be the only actual libertarian on here today.
Travis | May 11, 2008, 9:11am | #
"Personally, I am a Goldwater Conservative. I have no patience with the crazed fundamentalists."There is no way Goldwater would get the Republican nomination now a days. He was pro-choice & believed that homosexuals are citizens & have the same rights as everyone else. Could you imagine how Sean Hannity would react to that.
D | May 11, 2008, 9:13am | #
But no hard drugs, sorry. Their impact on society is too great to be made legal.Whoops, shoulda kept reading.
waylor | May 11, 2008, 9:17am | #
"As google has proved (I think), the "google of GW" doesnt need to work with the government, they just need the government to get out of the way."I disagree with you. Google used a relatively small investment to take advantage of an apparent market opportunity. They did not invent the internet. Frankly, I think no for-profit organization could have invented the internet.
Daniel Reeves | May 11, 2008, 9:28am | #
Truthers are left-wing anti-American loonsNow you won't see any America-lovin' conservatives claiming that the government is behind 9/11, but unfortunately, many "truthers" are also libertarians (probably closer to anarchists). Mistrust in government extends to us, too. Duh.
Jill | May 11, 2008, 9:33am | #
Neither Barr nor Root support an independent 9/11 investigation? Well, there goes my vote. If the truthers are wrong, a serious independent study can do no harm, if they are right, it's a groundbreaing win against evil. Anyone who is against this, merely because it is embarrassing with their status quo, pro-governement friends, is themself merely a pro government apologist, not a libertarian.I've long suspected that the reason libertarians are starting to gain some currency isn't because libertarianism is becoming more widely accepted, but rather because libertarianism's name is being captured by those members of the status quo middle who are tired of the radical Demo-Repub swings. In short, it's become stylish and superficial -- the moral equivalent of fake clip-on nose rings. On the basis of the majority of the comments here, it's sad to see Reason's readership falling so significantly into this catagory.
Episiarch | May 11, 2008, 9:35am | #
Hey, let's not conflate fucking Truthers with anarcho-libertarians. They (Truthers) are completely nuts; us anarchos are only semi-nuts.Independent question: why do all the crazies come out on the weekend? I'd say it's because they're off work, but crazies don't work, right?
Daniel Reeves | May 11, 2008, 9:49am | #
Anthropogenic GW is real (extent is an open question) and General Electric, AEP, and many other US companies are lining up to profit from clean energy - just like the free market demands.Not exactly. These companies are probably doing that for a few reasons, none of which both free market related and global warming related; only one or the other:
1) They're doing this because gas prices are soaring and other sources of energy are substitute goods for gasoline. (Free market)
2) They fear that the government is going to start pressuring them for clean energy cars. The first company that develops the right technology may get subsidies from the government or will be ahead of the curve when government stifles gasoline. (Global warming)
I bet only a diminutive fraction of the reason is because individuals want to help fight global warming without coercion. Unless everybody feels really really bad for polluting the air to the point that they would pay hundreds (Not me; I love pollution!), that completely defies all game theoretical logic.
dhex | May 11, 2008, 9:53am | #
if they are right, it's a groundbreaing win against evil.if evil can be broken by a fickin' commission, then it's not particularly evil, is it?
Guy Montag | May 11, 2008, 10:00am | #
CO,Don't worry, I am taking up the slack for him all by myself.
Neu Mejican | May 10, 2008, 5:22pm | #
Conservative Observer...
I don't own a car (haven't for 5 years, ever since I moved to within walking distance of work).
When I did, and there was a need to cool down the car, I used the air conditioner at highway speeds as that is more fuel efficient than rolling down the windows. A lower speeds, the windows cool ya off pretty dang good in the dry air.
FWIW, my carbon footprint comes out to about 1/3 of the American average...do you have a point?
Dave W. | May 11, 2008, 10:20am | #
I'm fairly new at this new-fangled intertubes stuff myself.Don't worry, Subbie. I won't try to infiltrate or view "Special" Grill-Aides (presumably where the special children go).
Fluffy | May 11, 2008, 10:51am | #
Neither Barr nor Root support an independent 9/11 investigation? Well, there goes my vote. If the truthers are wrong, a serious independent study can do no harm, if they are right, it's a groundbreaing win against evil. Anyone who is against this, merely because it is embarrassing with their status quo, pro-governement friends, is themself merely a pro government apologist, not a libertarian.True, but the same could be said for demands for investigations into the "faked moon landing", or into "aliens at Area 51", or into the great Masonic Conspiracy.
Investigating any or all of these could not possibly produce any harm, and on the off chance they uncovered something they could do a great deal of good.
But that doesn't change the fact that if you want these things investigated with government funds, you're a nutjob. And people should rightly be embarrassed to be associated with you, whether they have "pro-government friends" or not.
waylor | May 11, 2008, 10:56am | #
"There is no way Goldwater would get the Republican nomination now a days. He was pro-choice & believed that homosexuals are citizens & have the same rights as everyone else. Could you imagine how Sean Hannity would react to that."Unfortunately, you are correct.
Dave W. | May 11, 2008, 11:07am | #
Further to previous:Dee Watz: it seems that you can still get to Special Chatter threads via the Recent Posts page. I accidentally ended up reading a couple after I had just promised not to. So heads up on that.
J sub D | May 11, 2008, 11:10am | #
At the root of climatology is founded physics, while at the root of economics are either sociology or psychology.n00b or not, that is a pretty big advantage.
NM, ggood point.
Al Federber | May 11, 2008, 11:18am | #
Why do these weekend threads suck so badly?Daniel Reeves | May 11, 2008, 11:18am | #
Well, there goes my vote. If the truthers are wrong, a serious independent study can do no harm, if they are right, it's a groundbreaing win against evil.Somebody believing in Thor doesn't do much harm, but it certainly leads me to assume that "Somebody" is a complete idiot. Would you vote for a person who believes in Thor?
George Phillies | May 11, 2008, 11:51am | #
Reason's claim"Most of the Libertarian presidential candidates (except for Barr and Root) demand a new 9/11 inquiry."
is false.
As one of my Libertarian party's leading Presidential candidates, I certainly did not sign the "demand" in question. The primary source lists the actual signers. If I had been contacted by Reason, I would have been happy to make this clear.
Guy Montag | May 11, 2008, 12:09pm | #
GP,So, with you not signing is it still "most" or should that have been edited to say many?
Guy Montag | May 11, 2008, 12:17pm | #
Mrs. Clinton has every right to, and should, take this all the way to the convention. Just like Sen. Kennedy or Gov. Reagan did in contests of the past.Chris Potter | May 11, 2008, 1:05pm | #
At the root of climatology is founded physics, while at the root of economics are either sociology or psychology.And sociology and psychology ultimately have their roots in physics also, as does every area of human inquiry except math and possibly philosophy. The problem is that the human brain is such a complex system that trying to explain its activity in terms of the well-understood physics of its quadrillions of quadrillions of constituent atoms would be a fool's errand. Likewise with trying to explain the behavior of the atmosphere using basic physical laws.
You don't seriously think the climate models currently in use are simply simulating the atmosphere as 10^200 air molecules following Newton's Laws, do you? If they're simulating any physical entities at all, it's air masses, the physics of which is only vaguely understood. And they're probably not even doing that -- they're using climatological "laws" based on observations of the past which have little to do with basic physics.
Neu Mejican | May 11, 2008, 1:28pm | #
Chris Potter,I am not sure your characterization is apt.
Without going into detail, think of the progress in cosmology and astrophysics in recent years. Surely the systems studied are more complex than the earth's climate if you are measuring complexity using the number of molecules and interactions...but that metric of complexity is clearly not appropriate.
Neu Mejican | May 11, 2008, 1:36pm | #
A video appropriate for a discussion that brings together cosmology and climate?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SsBtfuSDxw
Sun Ra, true prog...
Syd | May 11, 2008, 1:52pm | #
Guy Montag | May 11, 2008, 12:17pm | #Mrs. Clinton has every right to, and should, take this all the way to the convention. Just like Sen. Kennedy or Gov. Reagan did in contests of the past.
She has the right, but you make it sound as if she has a duty to, and she doesn't. At this point, she may as well go through the rest of the primaries and caucuses. Some time in June, Obama will have enough pledged delegates and superdelegates to clinch the nomination. She can bow out gracefully at that point.
J sub D | May 11, 2008, 2:43pm | #
She can bow out gracefully at that point.[scratches noggin] Hmmm. Ms. Clinton gracefully conceding, humbly admitting that the voters preferred somebody other than her. I'll believe it when I see it.
Conservative Observer | May 11, 2008, 3:29pm | #
Who needs HRC now? We don't need any riots in Denver now that the candidate favored by Hammas has been handed the keys to the Democrat Party. They'll implode all by themselves. Ads to define him as what he really is--an out of touch liberal elitism who is too extreme for America--are going to be rolled out very soon.Add to that Axelrod's deluded electoral strategy (assuming Michigan is in the bag while targeting states he has no chance of winning such as Texas and Montana) McCain is going to blow him away in the EC.
With a candidate this weak being nominated by the Dems, we can pick up Michigan, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, and possibly New Jersey.
Conservative Observer | May 11, 2008, 3:31pm | #
In other words, we've got this election in the bag at the top of the ticket for sure.J sub D | May 11, 2008, 3:51pm | #
Conservative Observer -If you want to be a respected GOP fanboy, you should try something original or perhaps humorous.
If that is beyond your mental abilities, go here, where neither trait is expected from the posters or commenters.
Jsub - perhaps C.O. is the latest Kneel/EDWEIRDOOO style of poster?
(which is also consistent with the unoriginal and unfunny)
(which is also consistent with the unoriginal and unfunny)
Conservative Observer | May 11, 2008, 4:02pm | #
I see there are more than enough Democrat fanboys (like Shirke) yet you don't tell them to go to Daily Kos.Did I piss in your cheerios when I told the truth about Saint Obama J sub D?
J sub D | May 11, 2008, 4:15pm | #
I see there are more than enough Democrat fanboys (like Shirke) yet you don't tell them to go to Daily Kos.If it'll make you feel better, I did post this for shrike on this very thread -
I've no love for the Bush administration, but your paranoia is approaching truther levels here.An observant person would have noted that I am not too fond of Dem fanboys either. Perhaps you should change your handle from Conservative Observer to Conservative Shill. Truth in advertising and all that.
Neu Mejican | May 11, 2008, 4:15pm | #
JsubD,I believe the RNC is piloting a new automatic text producing program...just strings together boilerplate to any response/topic.
For me it fails the Turing Test...no real person can be that dull and oblivious...
=/;^)
J sub D | May 11, 2008, 4:31pm |