"I Pledge to Serve Barack Obama" (Urgent 2012 Election Update)

Did Ashton, Diddy, Jason, et al keep their promises?

In a widely viewed 2009 YouTube video, America’s best and brightest celebrities bravely pledged to serve the most powerful man in the world, Barack Obama.

"I pledge to be a servant to Barack Obama - and to all mankind," announced Ashton Kutcher and Demi Moore, the video's producers," and  dozens of stars joined them in a chant to "become the change that we seek."

On the eve of the 2012 election, Reason TV decided to see how those pledges are working out for performers such as Ashton Kutcher, Sean "Diddy" Combs, Kevin Zegers, Red Hot Chili Peppers' frontman Anthony Kiedis, and Jason Bateman (whose forward-looking oath involved particularly intimate bodily functions).

About 1.20 minutes.

Written by Anthony L. Fisher and Nick Gillespie. Prodcued by Fisher, with help from Meredith Bragg.

No celebrities were harmed in the making of this video.

Scroll below for downloadable versions and subscribe to Reason TV's YouTube Channel to receive notifications when new material goes live.

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.

  • Appalachian Australian||

    Who was another leader famous people pledged to serve?

  • ||

    L. Ron Hubbard?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Emperor Palpatine

  • LTC(ret) John||

    I was going to try to answer with something witty, but the L. Ron Hubbard one sort of won the thread.

  • Xenocles||

    "I swear by God this sacred oath that to the Leader of the American empire and people, Barack Obama, supreme commander of the armed forces, I shall render unconditional obedience and that as a brave soldier I shall at all times be prepared to give my life for this oath."

    I think that was the oath I took three years ago when they promoted me. I can't really remember, it was a long time ago.

  • ||

    Way to Godwin the thread right out of the box, dude.

  • Xenocles||

    I also like to fart in elevators.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Charlemagne?

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Don't know for certain, but I don't think they pledged "unconditional" obedience to Charlie the Great.

  • Paul.||

    Snoop Dogg?

  • Mr Whipple||

    Caligula?

  • JW||

    Khan?

    KHAAAAAAAN!

  • Romulus Augustus||

    Ein Volk, Ein Vaterland, Ein Fuehrer.

  • Pro Libertate||

    One bourbon, one scotch, one beer.

  • Killazontherun||

    Thanks for the translation. I always wondered what that meant at the rallies I attended in my youth.

  • Voros McCracken||

    One of my great achievements was getting to see John Lee Hooker play before he died.

  • JW||

    That's one of the things from the Blues Brothers DVD features, was how excited John Landis was that they scored JLH for the film.

    Granted, it doesn't seem to take much to excite Landis, but still, pretty damn cool.

  • PapayaSF||

    To be pedantic, the phrase was: "Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer."

  • Killazontherun||

    One bourbon, one scotch, two beers?

    Ah! That's what those dots are for!

  • sloopyinca||

    You're right. That is being pedantic.

    :-O

  • Ice Nine||

    "...best and brightest celebrities"?

    Uh, Nick?...

  • ||

    Yeah, that one caused a raised eyebrow here as well. Then the sarcasm set in. -)))

  • ||

    Tallest midget?

  • John||

    Least sweaty fat girl.

  • AlmightyJB||

    The coolest fuckin' guy at Shenaniganz

  • ||

    I am so glad I have yet to watch this "Voting for Obama is like being deflowered on a bed of rose petals and down pillows" YooToob video, though I did hear it on the radio, and that was bad enough.

    I can look at a person with half their intestines hanging out, but I don't think I could stomach this Dunham gal, based on the all feedback from you masochists.

  • John||

    If given a choice between watching a training film on removing a gangreenous hemorrhoid or watching that video, take the hemorrhoid.

  • ||

    Well, considering I can do that, without batting an eyelash, for a living, John, that's an easy-peasy. And it pays more too. -)

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Well, if it helps with your clinical detachment, imagine Dunham as a morbidly obese, Klinefelter syndrome sufferer with moderate mental retardation.

    That's about right.

  • ||

    How...disturbing. This alleged woman must be the very Oxford definition of "self-unaware" to go parading around in some two bit hipster doofus parody of hipster doofi sans clothing and talent.

    So this is the face of nepotism, eh? Not so pretty, is it?

  • ||

    It's for the 18-25 demographic. If this is what they respond to, the future is fucked. And so much for the empty-suit being some "good guy" since he's cynically capitalizing on it like a, well, capitalist!

    Assholic hypocrisy all around. It's staggering.

    Word of advice girls. This coming from a former player: The "great guy" thing is just a shtick to stick the stick up your arse. Capiche? And something tells me Obama was king of the full of shits.

  • Drunk Jamie||

    18-25 demographic? So why Demi Moore?
    "Oh yeah, I caught my dad jerking off to her when I was 12."

  • Killazontherun||

    The flighty music that starts up around twenty seconds in is what really does me in. Nothing short of sacrificing twelve unicorns to the Elder Gods will unbind me from that spell. That video puts souls at risk.

  • T o n y||

    Was it also bad when Reagan did it?

  • ||

    REAGAN DID IT???

    THIS CHANGES EVERYTHING!!!

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    The fact that you think that's some kind of "gotcha" proves you're a Down's Syndrome mongoloid.

  • T o n y||

    Faux outrage is tiresome.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Snickering at clumsy propaganda is "outrage"..."faux" even?

    Die from colon cancer. Soon.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Tony,

    You mistake amusement at her expense with "faux outrage". Trying to be cute, Dunham made a fool of herself. Watching the video, the punchlines really do write themselves.

  • Sevo||

    T o n y| 10.27.12 @ 12:31PM |#
    "Faux outrage is tiresome."

    Shithead is tiresome.

  • ||

    Dude, he proved that beyond a doubt long ago.

  • shamalam||

    Dunham started out as a Republican?

  • ||

    So Reagan said people should vote for him because it's a romantic act and he would be oh-so-good to them? Reagan suggested grown women were like pre-teen girls who vote for a candidate because they think he's the sexiest?

    NO? Wow, so it's not actually comparable, is it?! There's a wide difference between saying voting has some similarities to sex, and telling people to vote for a candidate because it's like having sex with them.

    But you probably already know that, you just don't care as long as you can imply we're hypocrites.

  • ||

    Faux outrage is so tiresome, so just knock it off, kay?

  • Killazontherun||

    The Obama campaign should buy ad time during the Green Bay Packer, Steelers, Eagles, Browns, Bengals and Redskins games tomorrow and run it during every commercial break. I guarantee you an Obama victory will result.

  • PapayaSF||

    There's also a rather big difference between a one-line joke and extending the analogy into a one-minute commercial.

  • John C. Randolph||

    Seems to me that there's a comic book plot on "the origin of Dunham" that just writes itself. It would involve a white house intern groupie and a cigar.

    -jcr

  • Paul.||

    Did you read the quote, T o n y? Because what he said and what Lena Dunham said were starkly different.

    Reagan compared his switch to voting from Democrat to Republican like the first time.

    Lena compared voting for Obama like, well, like what Groovus Maximus said, which I can't top.

    While one might agree that the continuous and non-stop (at the same time!) comparison of voting to sex is, yes, gag-inducing, comparing voting for a particular candidate in an utterly cult-of-personality way and your first sexual experience raises the creepy bar to new heights not yet seen.

    You may now return to serving Brack Obama.

  • T o n y||

    It's a virginity joke. It's the same joke. I'm sure you're oh-so-genuinely put off by the ad. Practically in vapors.

  • ||

    You are such a disingenuous piece of shrike. Making a joke about how they're similar, saying there are similarities isn't the same thing as trying to sell votes by saying it's like losing your virginity to the candidate. But you know this, I think, you just don't care.

    I'm sure you're oh-so-genuinely put off by the ad.

    Yes, in fact. Whenever I see shit like that, or that horrid video about "serving" Obama like he's some sort of god-king, I feel so mad I'm not sure what to do. Bullshit always does that, which is why we dislike you so much. That's all you spew.

  • ||

    No Tony. It's NOT THE FUCKING SAME THING jerkoff.

    It's a cynical, vapid piece of junk. It's insulting to levels only the left can defend.

    I don't like telling people off but you sir make it too easy. You'd be the first with the "oh, it's a war on woman" meme if the GOP did it.

    You sicken me.

  • In Time Of War||

    I didn't think too much of Reagan, either, T O N Y. What's your point?

  • Sevo||

    T o n y| 10.27.12 @ 12:49PM |#
    "It's a virginity joke. It's the same joke"

    No, shithead, you were simply caught lying. Again.

  • amelia||

    I would call his remarks only vaguely similar...he did not liken voting to sex.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    The incriminating quote from Reagan:

    "I know what it’s like to pull the Republican lever for the first time, because I used to be a Democrat myself, and I can tell you it only hurts for a minute and then it feels just great."

    Tasteless, but not personality cult-ish. He didn't say that voting for Carter for your first time would give you a peanut allergy down there, though maybe he *should* have put it that way.

  • ||

    You know Tony. Now I know for a fact you're a leftist twit. How you can compare Reagan's humourous quip to this piece of junk only proves you're a faux-intellectual thinker.

    My apolitical wife, a gifted individual and a school teacher in elementary school looked on with stunned disbelief.

    It SHOULD outrage any mild-mannered person with half a brain you a-hole.

    It does piss me off as a successful, educated person with a seven year-old daughter. I need don't the Dunham's of this world and their nonsense making my job any harder.

    Fuck me.

  • ||

    It's hero-worship with little substance of the most offensive kind.

  • hotsy totsy||

    "It only hurts for a minute and then.."

    Yeah. Exactly like the Obama ad. Except Obama voters are a lot stupider, so being subtle is lost on them.

  • Sudden||

    Leave Mary alone

  • wef||

    I pledge to be a servant to our President and all mankind because together we can, together we are and together we will be the change that we seek.

    But remember the yes-we-can always-Jugend, even more disturbing:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....81554ACFB1

  • Pro Libertate||

    We were such a freedom-loving people once.

  • Paul.||

    Yes, but that was so many generations ago. We've evolved beyond freedom.

  • geo1113||

    There are just some things I will not watch. This video is one of them.

  • Ice Nine||

    Good lord! That will have been the best decision you made all day.

  • John||

    It is like stopping to look at a train wreck. I know it is bad. But who can resist?

  • RBS||

    I'm with geo, I still can't get over that Obama fuck/vote thing.

  • John||

    I can't get over that one either. I am so glad I don't have HBO. They tell me that chick gets naked quite frequently on her show. I can't imagine flipping by one evening and catching that.

    That commercial has to be the worst political ad of all time. Not even close. It is the 85 Bears of horrible political ads.

  • RBS||

    Someone posted some pics of her last night, she's got all the right curves in all the wrong places. Also, she's got those weird torpedo looking tits.

  • John||

    It is her face and that boy haircut as well. She looks like a transexual in that ad and not in a good way. She just wierds me out.

  • AuH2O||

    Well, John, looking at her sister, she did not get good genes:

    http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_IoFh.....godlis.jpg

    Also, her father is apparently of Mayflower descent, her mother is Jewish... two kinda inbred communities there, right?

  • RBS||

    Why did I click on that link?

  • AuH2O||

    For the same reason you click Jos Truit links whenever I link to them?

  • Bill||

    That's her Dad!

  • Balloon maker||

    Yeesh. The one on the right has a skrillex thing going on.

  • ||

    She reminds me of those idiot nut-eating leftists I used to see in class in university and all their "ums" and "you knows."

    Dumbest fucks. It actually annoyed me to the point I don't ever show my degree. Any piece of paper associated with those fools isn't worth much to me.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Don't mention the 85 Bears and horrible videos in the same sentence!

  • Stephdumas||

    I wish to see a parody of that ad. Meanwhile the Democrats came with a new one with Lena Dunham and I was.... O_o http://youtu.be/o6G3nwhPuR4

  • John||

    We were talking about that the other day. And I pointed out that I couldn't understand why you would make a double entendra ad with a woman as unattractive as Dunham. Why wouldn't you use someone that people besides those just finishing a 20 year prison term might want to sleep with? And someone answered that if they had used an attractive woman, the feminists who the ad targeted would have thought it sexists.

    And the more I think about it, the more I think that point is absolutely correct. When an ugly woman talks about sex feminists find it empowering. When an attractive woman does it, it her allowing herself to be exploited. When you think about it that way, feminism is really nothing but the ugly women trying to oppress the pretty ones and take away the advantages they get by being attractive.

  • RBS||

    Yep, nailed it with the second paragraph. It basically boils down to jealousy.

  • John||

    All of the first wave feminists were either crones like Betty Friedman or nuts like Gloria Steinan. Basically, they were all women who had little or no hope of attracting an attractive or wealthy husband. They wanted to change the rules because the old ones didn't benefit them.

  • amelia||

    Aw, come on. Gloria Steinem was good looking, and all kinds of nutty, good-looking women find attractive and wealthy husbands.

  • ||

    Yes, funny how those Feminist-types always always seem to find men who have more money and power than they do.

    I thought the point of the Womyn's Movement was to eschew that sort of thing, you know, the "Women always marry up" trope and "The MRS degree" syndrome.

  • ||

    "...almost always..."

  • VG Zaytsev||

    All of the first wave feminists were either crones like Betty Friedman or nuts like Gloria Steinan.

    A lot of them were lesbians that couldn't come out of the closet too.

  • sloopyinca||

    A lot of them were lesbians that couldn't chose not to come out of the closet too.

    FIFY. Socially difficult =/= impossible, IMO.

  • Sudden||

    Every aspect of progressive thinking is rooted in envy. It's more pathology than ideology.

  • ||

    And evil.

    I'm serious.

    Evil is not just killing.

    It's preying on ignorance. Giving in to envy. Socialism has a lot of that.

    And killing too.

    It also has an army of drones like Tony that can never be saved.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    The socialists, however, take it as their call to build a troop of followers out of the existing resentment which of necessity is present in a pluralistic unconstrained society.

    http://www.libinst.ch/?i=socia.....stribution

  • AuH2O||

    Well, its even better that Dunham is fat-ish, because then they can weave the whole weird "fat-positive" movement shit into it. Oh, and in the second episode of her show, abortion features pretty heavily, and as we know, that is the most important thing ever right now (BTW, how sad would both sides be if Roe v Wade got repealed, given how crucial it is to fundraising efforts?).

    But look at her background: The unattractive spawn of New York artists (her mother creates "distributing domestic tableux's with dolls", her father "overly sexualised pop art") who went to the right schools (Oberlin, and that gets more points than NYU because not only is it super insanely liberal, it is that in the middle of the dreaded Midwest) and got the right degree (Creative Writing) and holds the Right Views (I mean, did you ever read her New Yorker piece about her gay boyfriend at Oberlin?). She then has parlayed all of this into telling the essentially same story twice: That of 20-something upper middle to upper class (but, by New York definition, middle class) girl/girls who are aimlessly wandering through their post-college adulthood in New York, having perfunctory sex with hipsterish men and trying to "discover" themselves in Brooklyn.

    Cont...

  • AuH2O||

    I mean, yeah, sure, some feminists have actually pointed out how Dunham's sucess is tied to nepotism, how her show doesn't feature enough black/gay/transgender/alien characters, etc. However... did ya really think that Jezebel would ever shit on someone like her? She's basically like them, but more successful and doing what they wish they could do. Her show is even on the Right Network- HBO! Not anything remotely plebeian as basic cable or anything.

    And critics have seemed to reach the conclusion that the only possible reason that people dislike Girls is misogyny, and so they have gone to almost embarrassing lengths to praise the show (most notably Todd VanDerWuff at the AV Club). I think some of that is due to the fact that one of the initial reactions to the show was, "Why would I want to see HER naked?" and apparently judging a woman's attractiveness is misogynistic now, but seriously, it is embarrassing the critical reaction to a show that is so-so at best. Then again, that same critic thought that "2 Broke Girls" could become the sitcom voice of the "Occupy Generation", so there is that.

  • ||

    You know, if you substitute all the Feminfisting stuff in you post with Righteous Moral Racial Outrage stuff, the congruency b'twixt this homely lass' show and our hip, young, beleaguered and weary Pestilence-in-Chief is nothing short of remarkable.

    It's like the "Ebony and Ivory" of politico-socio-pop culture.

  • AuH2O||

    Yeah, if I were Dunham, I'd avoid getting in a room with Michelle alone.

  • John||

    The critical reaction is an example of the same phenomena that caused a so so movie like Sideways to get over the top critical praise. Sideways was about a balding middle aged neurotic schlep who manages to score Virginia Madson. That is pretty much the fantasy of every male movie critic who are all balding middle aged, neurotic schlep. Fantasy fulfillment goes a long way. Girls is just a fantasy fulfillment for a certain type of girl. The characters live in New York and get to have endless and consequence free sex.

  • AuH2O||

    With men cast, I'm sure, to be more attractive (in Dunham's eyes) than the girls themselves, especially her.

    Also, John, for a similar phenomenon, see the career of Woody Allen. A very good filmmaker who gets bumped up to great because of who he is and what type of movies he makes. Woody Allen would not be nearly as critically beloved if he weren't a nerdy Jewish film buff from New York who made his movies about nerdy film buffs/genre tropes set in New York.

  • robc||

    Good point, move Woody Allen to Indianapolis and have him set his films there. Keep everything* else the same. Yeah, I dont see him being as acclaimed.

    *well, some of the specific NY references would have to be Indy references instead, but otherwise the same.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    move Woody Allen to Indianapolis and have him set his films there. Keep everything* else the same

    You've never heard of the Coen brothers?

  • robc||

    Coen brothers

    They arent as critically acclaimed as Allen.

  • robc||

    Also, Joel Coen graduated from NYU.

  • ThatSkepticGuy||

    "Coen brothers"

    "They arent as critically acclaimed as Allen."

    wut

    The guys who did Fargo, No Country For Old Men, The Big Lebowski, O, Brother Where Art Thou?, Blood Simple, The Man Who Wasn't There and so on aren't as critically acclaimed as the guy who hasn't really done anything head-turning since Annie Hall and Manhattan?

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Except the Coen brothers have actually made a bunch of interesting movies. You've seen one Woody Allen movie you've seen them all. I mean the guy has made Annie Hall over and over since the 70s.

  • tarran||

    I disagree; The Curse of the Jade Scorpion is an awesome movie.

  • Jena||

    Nepotism? Yes. The critical approval was baked in with two main characters played by daughters of David Mamet and Brian Williams.

    My husband thought the point of the show was that it was a comedy about how whiny and inept this set of friends was. (We watched the pilot.) I told him it wasn't. He's still not convinced. Maybe he has a point.

  • ||

    And the kicker is Mamet came out of the conservative closet not too long ago. Go figure.

  • ||

    The implied nepotism in this ad is that Obama's mother was also named Dunham.

    Or is that interracial incest? I get cornfused.

  • ||

    That buffoon is on HBO?

    Anyway, I didn't know who she was and it doesn't surprise me she's "successful."

    All I know is she sounds like a fucking idiot.

  • T o n y||

    What about when hottie Ronald Reagan did it?

  • shamalam||

    You mean Dunham started out as a Republican?

  • ||

    So stupid it had to be said twice

  • Kreel Sarloo||

    Well, except for the fact that there's no sexual connotation there, unless you look really hard, they're just the same.

  • ||

    The part I don't get is, who thought that Feministing and Jezebel girls were in play for Romney anyway, and money needed to be spent to avoid that? Or was this a GOTV thing?

  • PapayaSF||

    It's a desperation GOTV thing. Playing hard to the base at the last minute is the sign of a losing campaign.

  • ||

    When you think about it that way, feminism is really nothing but the ugly women trying to oppress the pretty ones and take away the advantages they get by being attractive.

    You stole that from Rush.

    Note: this is not a claim as to whether the statement is right or wrong.

  • Lisa||

    "When you think about it that way, feminism is really nothing but the ugly women trying to oppress the pretty ones and take away the advantages they get by being attractive." It also discourages the less attractive women from compensating for their looks by being nice.

  • hotsy totsy||

    "When you think about it that way, feminism is really nothing but the ugly women trying to oppress the pretty ones and take away the advantages they get by being attractive."

    OMG Yes!

  • Stephdumas||

    I replied to myself, ^^; looks like Steven Crowder did a parody of Lena Dunham ad http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSxDE1QCHA4

  • Stephdumas||

    There more parodies of Lena Dunham's clip who appeared.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAkdHzpXXo0
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JiV7NkJT1s0

    The parodies are much more fun to watch then the original clip. :-)

  • John||

    Here is some good political crack up porn. Imagine Obama loses the popular vote by enough that Romney gets over 50% but someone cheats his way to just enough state wins to win the election. The embolden Republicans then impeach him for Bengazi. If it turns out, and looks it will, that Obama let a US ambassador die to protect his reelection campaign, that sounds like an impeachable offense to me.

    http://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon.....-benghazi/

  • ||

    Fantasy porn.

  • John||

    Obama would be such a disaster as a minority President. He is so stupid and arrogant that he would in no way be chastened by the experience. He would go full leftard like he had won a 60% landslide. The LULZ would be amazing.

  • Xenocles||

    So Obama becomes the second consecutive Democrat to be impeached by a Republican House in what will ultimately result in an empty spectacle in the Senate - The GOP won't take enough seats in the Senate to convict, so we'll wind up with another roughly party-line procedure that however legitimate stands a good chance of being spun into a backfiring.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Plus, an impeachment trial would make Obama the martyr his worshipers so desperately want him to be.

    Have your sins been washed in the blood of the O?

  • John||

    Isn't he going to get that by losing? America's last and best hope brought down by Republican dirty tricks and racism. Him losing will be this generation's Kennedy assassination.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Obama's losing the election would only qualify him for canonization.

  • John||

    Depends on how badly the election goes. If they lose the Senate, it might qualify him for scapegoat.

  • ||

    "So this is how liberty dies -- to thunderous applause."

  • AlmightyJB||

    Sieg Heil! Sieg Heil! Sieg Heil!

  • T o n y||

    Liberty lives by electing Mitt Romney?

  • ||

    So liberty lives by fellating Obama in this thread? Anything to make him come into office, I guess.

  • ||

    After watching this video, I think sanity has a shot with Romney.

  • ||

    Obama's losing the election would only qualify him for canonization.

    He can put the certificate next to his Peace Prize.

  • John||

    Different situation. Clinton won a big victory in 96 and was a successful and reasonably popular President. And perjuring yourself about a blowjob is not the same as letting people die because doing something would hurt your campaign. I think it would be more than an empty spectacle. And even if the Dems saved him, which they probably would, Obama would be a deeply wounded President. It would be chaos.

  • Xenocles||

    You badly underestimate their ability to spin.

  • John||

    Oh no I don't. They would lie like rugs. The problem is that if Obama is ever re-elected, he can't run again. So his usefulness to the cause goes down every day.

  • Xenocles||

    If you shoot at a king, kill him.

  • John||

    It would probably never happen. But it is interesting to think about. And a first Obama term gave us Fast and Furious, Solyandra and Bengazi. What kind of incompetence and corruption would a second one bring? It would be epic.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I'm concerned about life A.O. (After Obama). A 2nd term of Obama's incompetence and corruption would set the stage for any neo-Huey Long that takes his place to establish American fascism.

    Someone needs to update The Ominous Parallels and in such a way that it has greater appeal than just to "misunderstood teens".

  • John||

    Me too, especially if he won without the popular vote. It would be different if he had any capacity for humility. But he doesn't. It would be full on leftard even if he had less than a majority. The country would revolt.

  • ||

    Lots of people seem to forget that we've had hellishly abominable presidents before, and they weren't impeached. In this age of unusually high political cowardice, nobody's going to impeach the first black commander-in-chief if a superpower. Nobody.

  • John||

    Maybe so RPA. If that is true, a second Obama term would mean a President who is totally unconstrained by worries of re-election or impeachment. Somehow that doesn't make me feel very good.

  • ||

    Oh, yeah. And that's the worst thing. Whatever he does, even if it's bad enough for him to be subjected to censure by his own party and electorate, they'll ultimately let him walk away from it without consequence.

    That's what happens when a population gradually degenerates in morality.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Or they could just read this.

  • ||

    Bah!!

    Fascism is always descending on America but only ever lands in Europe.

    Anyway regardless of the Wolfe quote the books premise that democracy is somehow the opposite of fascism is bullshit.

    Why is it so hard to imagine fascism thriving in a democracy?

    It is liberty which is fascism opposite. The purpose of democracy is to keep revolts down so business can go on, not to protect freedom.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Oh Lenny...

  • robc||

    If you shoot at a king, kill him.

    Cromwell is still the only Brit with the right idea about royalty.

  • ||

    And perjuring yourself about a blowjob is not the same as letting people die because doing something would hurt your campaign.

    Someone is going to have to explain why letting n embassy fall and blaming it on some video was designed to help Obama's reelection.

    Sounds to me like he is an indecisive dipshit...I can't put together the counter claim that this was designed as a reelection plot.

  • Generic Stranger||

    The theory goes that since he had just spiked the football over killing OBL and dismantling Al Queda the week before, then admitting that the attack on the consulate was an Al Queda attack would show his previous remarks to be a lie. That was why he tried to pin the blame on a video for several weeks, rather than tell the truth (which he knew within 24 hours, according to new evidence).

    As for how that morphed into him letting the consulate fall, I dunno. I agree that it was most likely indecision and incompetence.

  • PapayaSF||

    Everyone forgets that Clinton's "big victory" in 1996 was to get 49.2% of the vote.

  • Ice Nine||

    If four good men are wantonly sacrificed in the forest by the Obama administration for base political purposes and no one in the mainstream press reports it, does it make a despicable and impeachable dereliction of duty?

  • Anonymous Coward||

    If TEAM Red didn't sack up and impeach him over Fast and Furious, what makes you think they will find their balls now?

  • John||

    Winning a majority in a Presidential election, retaking the Senate, and a worse scandal. Bengazi is worse than fast and furious. It is borderline murder. The CIA had a drone with the mortar battery targeted and the White House told them not to shoot. Think about that.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Aiding and abetting an ongoing criminal enterprise through the Justice department with the ultimate interest of attacking Second Amendment protections, is worse than the White House sitting on its hands?

  • John||

    And letting an American ambassador be murdered while they watched on video? Yes. It is a close call. But I go with Bengazi. It shocks the conscience more. And Fast and Furious could always be played away as a rogue operation at DOJ. This goes straight to Obama.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "And letting an American ambassador be murdered while they watched on video? Yes. It is a close call. But I go with Bengazi. It shocks the conscience more."

    Nobody's gonna impeach Obama for not launching missiles at what he can claim he thought were a bunch of protestors.

    I can think of a number of good ways to beat that rap off the top of my head, starting with: "First they blame us for killing terrorists with drones, and now they wan to blame for NOT using drones, too?!"

    The BEST you're gonna do is a get an investigation going and, maybe, force a resignation. ...after a year or two.

  • John||

    Nobody's gonna impeach Obama for not launching missiles at what he can claim he thought were a bunch of protestors.

    They had the mortar on video. They had it targeted. They watched it sit there and launch the rounds.

    Sorry, you will have to come up with something better than that. And as far as drones go, no one but libertarians and Glenn Greenwald gives a shit about drones. The country expects him to kill terrorists, so he won't be able to claim he couldn't do it because the evil Republicans would have attacked him either way.

  • Xenocles||

    Hell, I don't even care about drones. Drones are a weapon, not a policy or a strategy. I'd be just as pissed if a sniper had iced al-Awlaki or if we had B-52s dropping bombs on villages.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    An excellent point, Xenocles.

  • Bobarian||

    I don't know, drones seem to be turning into a policy or some form of diplomacy.

  • Xenocles||

    No, the way we are using them is the policy. The vehicles themselves are just tools.

    If my idiot cousin uses a hammer to punch ragged holes in his wall, that does not mean that hammers cannot be useful tools.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I'm not defending the Administration on this, but I can see clearly how they would defend themselves.

    And if the Republican leadership tries to impeach Obama over this, they'll be committing political suicide.

    They're going to lose that fight.

  • Xenocles||

    And for the record, if everything that the right is saying about the Benghazi incident is true and we had weapons aimed at people engaged in an attack on our people, I say take the shot. That's a good use of airpower.

  • ||

    Keep dreaming, Xeno. Everything the House of Obama does is ass-backwards -- when they're actual cause to blow shit up, they won't do it.

  • ||

    *there's

  • Xenocles||

    I'm just saying there's no reason to assume libertarians are pacifists.

  • sloopyinca||

    That's a good use of airpower.

    It's also called "defense".

  • Xenocles||

    Of course.

  • ||

    No, but Benghazi has shock factor in a universal capacity, whereas plenty of people give not a single fuck about gun rights.

  • John||

    And even more people don't give a fuck about dead Mexicans. Sad but true.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    And even more people don't give a fuck about dead Mexicans.

    They're called "Arizonians," John. Get your terminology right.

  • ||

    But he's right, you know. A major organ of the federal titan attempts to actively subvert provisions of the supreme law that authorized the existence of the very government they're part of, and there's no major scandal. That's a terminal point of apathy.

  • ||

    Brian Terry was a Mexican?

  • Cytotoxic||

    I do not understand how Obama's inaction and lies regarding Benghazi could possibly help his re-election. If he had ordered the AC-130 over and let it do it's thing he could be all like 'dead sand-nigger terrorists delivered. Vote Obama for more'.

  • shamalam||

    I guess I need to read more about the Benghazi incident. This is the first I have heard of a drone with the mortar battery targeted?

  • Generic Stranger||

    From what I understand, the mortar battery was being targeted by a SEAL or an embassy security member, not the drone. I also don't believe it's been established that the drone was armed or not. A lot of them are not, and are simply used for surveillance.

    There was, supposedly, an AC-130 only 400-500 miles away, which could theoretically have arrived in time to make a difference, but it's use was denied; exactly by whom is still uncertain.

  • Raven Nation||

    Another possibility: Obama wins popular & EC. But investigations continue into Benghazi; things get so intense that the Obamatrons decide to throw Hilary to the wolves. Think about what a Clinton-Obama civil war would do to the Dems.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Hillary's already promised to resign.

    They always blame the people who aren't there anymore!

  • ||

    Obama should be impeached, but Benghazi is way down the list. How about for a violation of the War Powers Act? How about for going to war with NO Congressional approval, let alone a declaration. Fuck Benghazi, he's in violation of the Constitution.

    Oh wait...old paper, written by old white slave owners... Who cares?

  • John C. Randolph||

    It should be an impeachable offense, but I don't know of any case where wasting American lives for political gain actually did result in an impeachment.

    -jcr

  • ||

  • John||

    Isn't that a movie about a retarded kid staring Sean Penn?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    As much as I hate, hate, hate The Boondocks (May Aaron McGruder spend eternity being sodomized by a hot curling iron), I have to admit that clip was pretty funny.

  • John||

    McGruder is a smart funny guy whose mind has been totally warped by PC thinking. It is really sad when you think about it.

  • ||

    Umm, how exactly is McGruder PC? He's pretty much the opposite of PC.

  • John||

    PC is a bad work. Black liberal thinking.

  • AuH2O||

    Yeah. He was at his best when he was willing to take on black culture, like his episodes featuring BET. Then, he was like a younger version of Cosby, going, "Seriously, people.... what the fuck do you expect our community to be when you act like this?"

    ...Sadly, he then reached the conclusion, "MOAR GOVERNMENT WILL SAVE US!"

  • ||

    I love Boondocks! It often skewers PC conventions IMO.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I love Boondocks! It often skewers PC conventions IMO.

    Yes, but it does so from the perspective of a uber-Progressive 9/11 "TROOTHER" that thinks PC is what's preventing the media from admitting such 'uncomfortable truths' like, "JOOZ did 9/11!!!" and "Freemasons enslave Black youth for the Illuminati Lizard People !!!!"

    Fuck the Boondocks.

  • ||

    But it's still funny as hell

  • Cytotoxic||

    I haven't seen that show in forever. Please tell me you're kidding.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I despise Obama as much as the next guy, but impeaching Obama would be political suicide.

    They'd end up looking like truthers in the press.

    Bill Clinton was a crook. Money intended to bail out Madison deposit holders ended up in his campaign fund--he just claimed neither he (nor his wife, who was the attorney that set the whole thing up) knew how it got there. Everyone else in the deal ended up in jail--including the sitting governor of Arkansas...

    And the people who impeached Clinton still ended up looking like a bunch of idiots using the power of Congress to investigate a blowjob.

    If you want to get rid of Barack Obama, vote for Romney.

  • ||

    But Romney sucks. Can't I vote for Ron Paul? Pretty please with Mexican reefer on top?

  • Ken Shultz||

    Yeah, Romney sucks.

    I don't think he's as bad as Obama, but he sucks.

    I can turn on Romney the moment he takes office, too.

    I think we have a better chance opposing Romney and making the world more capitalist than we do of making the world more capitalist under Obama's socialist boot.

    Congress can't do anything without the president's signature, so I don't think we'll ever make any progress on capitalism in terms of public policy so long as Obama remains in office.

  • T o n y||

    What specifically has damaged capitalism in the last 4 years?

  • Ken Shultz||

    Go fuck a duck, Tony.

  • T o n y||

    So when capitalism nearly collapsed in the last days of the Bush administration, and Bush and Obama and other figures worked specifically to save capitalism (from itself), at some point after capitalism came under assault? I'm just wondering what you mean by that.

    Or are you just talking out of your ass with Glenn Beck's lips as usual?

  • ||

    What was collapsing were some banks under the strain of the crony capitalism they'd been feeding off of, and then Bush and Obama came together to give the Presidency even more power by nationalizing some companies. I'd certainly call that an "assault" on capitalism.

  • ||

    Saving anything from itself is code for bull shit spewed by lying sacks of shits.

  • ||

    True enough, but there's a logical shortcut we can use that saves us having to go that deep: Anything said by Tony is bull shit spewed by lying sacks of shit.

  • John C. Randolph||

    capitalism nearly collapsed in the last days of the Bush administration

    That wasn't capitalism collapsing, son. That was a failure by the major anti-market force in this country. The Fed is not a capitalist institution.

    -jcr

  • ||

    What specifically has damaged capitalism in the last 4 years?

    Bank Bail outs, green subsidies, stimulus, shutting down good oil drillers who did not spill but letting BP recover oil, Dobbs-Franks, preventing Boing from opening a factory in the south, that pipeline from Canada, Auto-bailouts, stopping homes from foreclosing, mountains of regulations, Obamacare, QE1 2 and 3, farm subsidies, astronomical min wage laws....and on and on and on.

  • PapayaSF||

    Don't forget letting Corzine off the hook for looting customer accounts and using him as a campaign bundler.

  • ||

    Oh come on, like you and your accountants never accidentally put a billion dollars in the wrong column before.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Obamacare
    The Auto Bailouts
    Dodd-Frank
    The Stimulus
    QEI
    QEII
    Operation Twist
    QEIII
    Continued Deficits at Crisis Levels

    Shall I go on?

  • ||

    Congress can't do anything without the president's signature

    You might want to google "veto override". President, not dictator.

  • Ken Shultz||

    How many times do you expect Congress to override Obama's veto over the next four years?

  • sloopyinca||

    If you want to get rid of Barack Obama, vote for Romney.

    Yeah, because clearly these are the only two options that exist.

    Oh, I get it. We can all vote for Romney and help him defeat Obama, then we can tell the GOP that they have to take us seriously the next time.

    Fuck that shit. Vote your conscience.

  • John||

    Fuck that shit. Vote your conscience.

    That is just it. Leftists have no conscience. And that is why they win so much.

  • Killazontherun||

    The last leftist with a conscience voted Nader and looked where they wound up. Blind folded and against the wall like the rest of Che's victims.

  • Killazontherun||

    d'oh -- and looked where they wound up.

  • ||

    The thing is, Sloop, is that Romney's not even mediocre -- he downright blows.

    He has no redemptive qualities, and he's an utter political gamer.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I'm surprised Kendall admonishes us to vote Romney, considering Romney has a dim view of the swarthy, keffiyeh-clad mujihadeen that Kendall goes ga-ga for.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I have no idea what that's supposed to mean.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I'm sure you don't. That's what makes your undying support of them even more noxious, Kendall.

  • ||

    He's saying Romney doesn't like Muslim zealots.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I don't like Muslim zealots either.

    Is there someone out there in American politics or on this board--who likes violent Muslim zealots?!

    This looks like a really weird bifurcation here, circa 2003... Over here we've got, what, Americans? And over there we've got Ken and the libertarians--who like terrorists?!

    I don't like Muslim zealots. Who does?

    That bifurcated world doesn't exist anywhere except in some hyper-partisans' heads.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I don't like Muslim zealots. Who does?

    Based on what you've argued before in these fora, you're a goddamn liar.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Based on what you've argued before in these fora, you're a goddamn liar."

    Based on what you've written in this very thread, you call people a lot of names for no reason.

    I've got eight years of comments on this board. Go ahead and find one that shows my "undying support" for "swarthy, keffiyeh-clad mujihadeen".

    Do you even take yourself seriously?

  • Ken Shultz||

    And why do you call yourself "Heroic Mulatto"? Are you black? Are you a "mulatto"? Or are you trying to make fun of the president--because of his race?!

    Is that really the way you see the world? Do you think people are supposed to take the president less seriously--because he's a "mulatto"--just like you think people should only vote for Romney if they don't like Muslims?

    What part of the world raises adults with such a childish worldview? Did your parents bring you up that way? Do the women in your part of the world think it's really smart to make fun of the president because of his race--if that's what you're doing?

    Because you don't seem to have any good reasons for why you think anything!

    Maybe it's a backwoods inferiority complex; maybe that's what's causing all your bitterness and resentment? You see your arguments made to look foolish over and over again--because you have no cogent* reasons behind them--so you lash out at people who think and are different from you?

    I'm just speculating, but maybe you can fill me in! Why are you lashing out at the president's race--is that what you're doing, "Mulatto"? And why paint yourself into such a ridiculous corner? ...that you accuse someone of "undying support" for "swarthy, keffiyeh-clad mujihadeen"? It's gotta be the fish-lens, bigot goggles, 'cause flailing at somebody (with eight years of comments on the board) when you obviously can't back it up? Doesn't make any sense.

    * http://tinyurl.com/dcuxfg

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Do you even take yourself seriously?

    I don't take myself as seriously as you take yourself, Kendall. And that's a good thing, because you're a sanctimonious, pompous ass.

    Are you a "mulatto"?

    Yes. I am multi-racial with heritage from the West Indies.

    that you accuse someone of "undying support" for "swarthy, keffiyeh-clad mujihadeen"? It's gotta be the fish-lens, bigot goggles, 'cause flailing at somebody (with eight years of comments on the board) when you obviously can't back it up?

    Either you are mendacious as fuck or you have Alzheimer. Go back and read your whining on any NYC subway ads thread.

  • ||

    That's the way Ken, go to that race card. That rape whistle of the intellectually bankrupt. Soothing as a lullaby isn't it? Ahhh, yes. Much better. The world makes perfect sense now. Opposition to terrorism, criticism of the president, someone identifying his own multi-racial background... all easily chalked up to redneck racism. The world is so simple, isn't?

  • Bill Dalasio||

    No disrespect, Mr. Shultz, but what a load of crap. The person who brought up the President's racial background was Barack Obama. In fact, he harped on it. And understandably so. If he hadn't he'd still be, at most, a second term senator. But, that certainly makes his harping on it fair game for mockery.

  • John||

    Romney can be impeached. Romney has to worry about re-election. I don't care how bad he is or is not, those two things alone make him preferable to Obama.

    The sorry fact is that liberals are not adult enough to ever allow a black liberal President. They can't be trusted with one. A black liberal could declare himself God emperor and they would follow.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    A black liberal could declare himself God emperor and they would follow.

    Until he starts forced racial and socio-economic integration of their favorite private schools and gated communities, of course.

  • ||

    The hypocrisy burns like lava, doesn't it?

  • ||

    How many pinko racists and malcontents, on the other hand, would show themselves for what they truly are if that black conservative mayor lady got elected?

  • ||

    *From Utah. The one at the convention.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    You mean Mia Love, you racist who can't be bothered to remember her name!

  • ||

    I'll make up for it by chanting "God save Emperor Hussein I" a thousand times. Mother Gaia and the Ghost of FDR, PBUH, will surely forgive my heinous sin if I do that!

  • ||

    I think he just didn't want to go with the cognitive dissonance of a Mormon with a porn star name.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Oh, and considering she's a Mormon too, the lulz would be epic!

  • ||

    Yeah. If Mia Love became president, expect super-riots and Eurotroll-esque civil unrest instigated by the Occutard generation.

  • sloopyinca||

    Mia Love would get hammered. She openly professes a faith that considers blacks like her to be subhuman and not worthy of entry into their temples.

    /anti-Mormon proglodyte

  • AuH2O||

    I mean, to be fair, it is a bit fucked up that the Mormons stance is, "In 1978, God changed his mind about black people" as opposed to, "In 1978, our church realized the error of its ways." I mean, I get that is the advantage of a Living Prophet, but still... even John Paul II eventually admitted, "Yeah, we, not God, fucked up in World War 2."

  • Ken Shultz||

    "I mean, to be fair, it is a bit fucked up that the Mormons stance is, "In 1978, God changed his mind about black people" as opposed to, "In 1978, our church realized the error of its ways."

    They're a religion, what do you expect?

    More than half the people in this thread won't admit when they're wrong.

    I mean, I get that is the advantage of a Living Prophet, but still... even John Paul II eventually admitted, "Yeah, we, not God, fucked up in World War 2."

    How long did it take them to apologize for Galileo?

    And it's not like the Mormons participated in bringing Hitler to power. They held some racist beliefs, but there wasn't a holocaust because of it.

  • ||

    I'm expressly atheist, and I don't give a single shit about a candidate's religion if he has decent positions.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    More than half the people in this thread won't admit when they're wrong.

    That statement would be true, if by "more than half the people in this thread", you mean you.

    And it's not like the Mormons participated in bringing Hitler to power. They held some racist beliefs, but there wasn't a holocaust because of it.

    Kendall, you moral relativistic hack! If you did something about the oozing, pus-filled chancres that line the outside of that cum-hole you refer to as a "mouth", the syphilis wouldn't have reached your brain and you wouldn't be embarrassing yourself in a state of neurosyphilitic dementia.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I've admitted I was wrong on these boards plenty of times.

    Kendall, you moral relativistic hack! If you did something about the oozing, pus-filled chancres that line the outside of that cum-hole you refer to as a "mouth", the syphilis wouldn't have reached your brain and you wouldn't be embarrassing yourself in a state of neurosyphilitic dementia.

    You have almost nothing to say that doesn't involve some kind of personal attack, do you. You seem to take this stuff really personally.

    You should get out more.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    You have almost nothing to say that doesn't involve some kind of personal attack, do you. You seem to take this stuff really personally.

    Oh, I've got plenty to say, but not to you. I don't cast pearls before swine named Kendall Shultz.

    Besides, it's not personal, babe; it's just that you are so easy to tweak when you play your holier-than-thou game.

  • ||

    Mia Love, RPA, and they already have. It's quite disgusting.

  • ||

    Remember the Hitleresque crap they were spewing about Cain? These people get worse with every election cycle.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    The current Democrat coalition is almost entirely based on identity politics. Any threat to that must be destroyed.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Romney can be impeached. Romney has to worry about re-election. I don't care how bad he is or is not, those two things alone make him preferable to Obama.

    Plus the media will be on the war path for his scalp. Which will limit his actions as much as media sycophancy has enabled Obama.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Unfortunately, that will limit his *good* actions, like scrapping FM/FM.

  • sloopyinca||

    I can honestly say that they nominated the worst person to run against Obama. The architect of Obamacare against Obamacare? Come on, man. Nuclear Titties would have destroyed Obama by now, on the "balanced budget" he orchestrated, on Benghazi and on F&F. He would have put his hooks in him and not let go. Mittens has run a wishy-washy campaign and has refused to go after the President when his actions or those of his Cabinet-level staff have directly led to American deaths. That's unconscionable.

    The list of Obama failures is miles long. From Solyndra to Benghazi. From F&F to bowing to the Saudi king. He's done so many things that are anathema to what Americans want in a president, yet we've seen none of them in Romney ads. Titties might have had a likability rating around 40% right now, but if he had run this campaign, Obama's would be in the 30's and the polling would be for a landslide Titties win.

    I would not vote for the man even if GJ wasn't on the ballot. I'd simply stay at home.

  • John||

    Mittens has run a wishy-washy campaign and has refused to go after the President when his actions or those of his Cabinet-level staff have directly led to American deaths. That's unconscionable.

    It is also smart. If he had done that, he would have made independents feel sorry for the black President and afraid of the big scary white conservative. Yeah, independents are that fucking stupid. You have to work with the electorate you have.

  • sloopyinca||

    Bull fucking shit. He could have wrapped himself in the flag and ran ads of Chris Stevens and Brian Terry getting killed directly because of Obama and/or his cabinet-level officials. Follow that up by some quotes on F&F by Jay Carney and Obama himself and the same with Benghazi...end it with Obama at the funeral for Chris Stevens pecking away on his Blackberry as they're unloading the caskets and/or him blaming Americans at the UN.

    You may think independents are dumb, but they're also still Americans. And any candidate worth his salt would have been hammering Obama for the last month on it. Romney mentioned it exactly once.

  • ||

    Yeah. 9/11-type unity. When shit like that goes down, pretty much the entire population goes batshit with outrage. And Romney failed to use that to his advantage.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    He could have wrapped himself in the flag and ran ads of Chris Stevens and Brian Terry getting killed directly because of Obama and/or his cabinet-level officials.

    I'd say that's good advice - if you're trying to destroy Romney's chances of winning.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Do you really want to try wrapping yourself in a flag against a sitting president? That strikes me as a losing proposition.

  • sloopyinca||

    Typically, it would be. Not so when that sitting President just made (personally or at the cabinet-level) a decision that cost American lives overseas (like Benghazi) and/or ran a gun-running program that could be rightfully portrayed as arming drug-lords that are crossing the border and killing Americans (like USBP Agent Brian Terry).

    Remember back to Reagan and how he bashed Carter's "malaise" comments and inept handling of the hostage crisis? He wrapped himself in the flag and demolished Carter. And the polls in '80 looked similar to this year's polls on Oct 1.

  • Cytotoxic||

    I call BS on that John. Independents are stupid by they aren't down with beta-male campaigns like Romney's was except for debate #1.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I was offering that up as an alternative to impeachment.

    There are more than two ways to get rid of a president besides impeachment or voting him out of office, but the other methods generally involve treason and a life sentence in solitary confinement.

    If you want to make a statement with your vote, by all means--that's an option. ...but if you want to get rid of Barack Obama?

    You might consider voting for Romney.

    Seriously.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Your argument implies that a vote for not-Romney is a vote for Obama. I don't see any evidence for said assertion.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Does your argument imply that voting for someone other than Romney can remove Obama from office?

    Because it won't. Voting for someone other than Romney will not remove Obama from office.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Again, what evidence do you have for that?

    Personally, I think Romney is going to win with a surprise landslide, but that's beside the point.

    If I vote for "King of the Lizard People" how is that subtracting from Romney and/or adding to Obama?

  • ||

    But that's only true because nobody votes for third-party candidates, and nobody votes for third-party candidates because everybody thinks nobody votes for third-party candidates and that their votes would therefore be wasted.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "But that's only true because nobody votes for third-party candidates, and nobody votes for third-party candidates because everybody thinks nobody votes for third-party candidates and that their votes would therefore be wasted."

    Yeah, the market won't tolerate a third party president. Maybe someday in the future they will, but right now they won't. We've got single member districts in this country--and it's winner take all. Until that changes, there probably isn't gonna be a third party president.

    Teddy Roosevelt couldn't do it. Ross Perot couldn't do it. What does Gary Johnson know that Teddy Roosevelt didn't know?

    The market price is what the market price is. If the market won't buy what we're selling, then we need to market ourselves better. When the market finally does start buying what we're selling--becasue of single member districts--one of the two major parties will absorb what we're selling. ...much like FDR absorbed the communist party platform into his own.

    That may happen someday, and I hope it happens soon. But it isn't going to happen in the next two weeks. So, if you really want to get rid of Barack Obama, then you should vote for Romney.

    If making a statement is more important to you than getting rid of Barack Obama, then vote for somebody else.

  • ||

    I'm probably not going to vote.

  • Ken Shultz||

    That's what I usually do!

    I just think that Obama is a special case.

    Like I said before, imagine Lenin were running against Romney. There has to be a candidate that's so very bad, that you'd vote for Romney...

    Now, I'm not saying Obama is as bad as Lenin; I'm just trying to illustrate the point that all of us, well, most of us, would vote for Romney to kick a president out that was at some point on the spectrum of awful. We're really just arguing about whether Obama is really bad enough that he's past that point...

    I say he is.

    I say Obama is so bad, that I think we should vote for his opponent--because it's the only way to get rid of Obama.

    And that's basically it.

  • John C. Randolph||

    imagine Lenin were running against Romney.

    If Lenin is the opponent, then running for office is irrelevant. When the bolshies wanted power, they killed people.

    So, if Lenin were Romney's opponent, I'd be rather more concerned with rifle skills than counting ballots.

    -jcr

  • sloopyinca||

    Because it won't. Voting for someone other than Romney will not remove Obama from office.

    Sure it will. If Gary Johnson gets enough votes to win enough states and gets to 270 Electoral Votes, he will defeat Obama.

    Maybe I don't understand basic math, but I thought if any candidate got 270 Electoral votes, he won the Presidency. Does that only hold true if they're a Republican or Democrat?

  • ||

    That's what I was trying to illustrate. It's so retarded, it stings.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Maybe I don't understand basic math, but I thought if any candidate got 270 Electoral votes, he won the Presidency. Does that only hold true if they're a Republican or Democrat?"

    Single member districts.

    Winner take all.

    Gary Johnson is not going to win 270 electoral votes over the next two weeks.

    It's possible like me winning the lottery is possible--except the odds of Johnson winning 270 electoral votes is a lot lower than that.

    This is like a business deciding to manufacture something and just totaling their costs up, adding on whatever profit they want, and then selling it for that price...

    It doesn't work that way. You start with the market price and work your way backwards. If you the market won't pay the price you need to charge--then you just don't manufacture it!

    The market will not tolerate a libertarian president at this time. Now, like a business man, we should work backwards from that.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Ah, I see the basis of your misconceptions.

    There is no "market". There is an corrupt oligarchy that presents the illusion of choice, much like how Communist countries have two tiers of stores. One for the proles, an one for the Party elite and foreigners.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "There is no "market". There is an corrupt oligarchy that presents the illusion of choice, much like how Communist countries have two tiers of stores. One for the proles, an one for the Party elite and foreigners."

    There's a market for ideas.

    You can see it in the ads Obama and Romney pay to run on television. Appealing to the widest demographic possible is what we need to do to make the country more libertarian.

    We need black women and young girls with tattoos on our side, and that's why calling "Moochelle" a "wookie" and saying horrible misogynistic shit about the chick in that Obama video hurts our cause. Anything we do to hurt the libertarian brand in the market of ideas is something we do to our own detriment.

    There is no "market"? The purpose of this website is to market libertarianism!

    Our ideas and what we say to non-libertarians is still more important than who we vote for--but when we've got a president as bad as Obama, voting a vile socialist like that out of office CAN be important, too.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    We already have women like Kathryn De Long, Pia Varma, and all our fellow female Reasonoids on "our side". So I think your "misogyny" crusade is nothing more than you getting off on a unwarranted sense of moral superiority, as you are wont to do.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I'm glad we're making inroads.

    But if we're going to make enough inroads that we actually have enough support to achieve power--within the context of single member districts--then we're going to need more support than we have now.

    Right?

    As that survey Welch linked to the other day showed, some 20% of the people out there whose views are libertarian? Are voting for Obama.

    Those are people who when quizzed on their views (without presenting the label "libertarian") are views that are consistent with libertarianism--and 20% of those people--are voting for that anti-drug crusader, socialist scumbag?!

    That's a marketing problem. If we're making inroads? That's great. We need more. And anything we say that pointlessly tarnishes our brand is necessarily self-defeating--especially if you think libertarian change is going to come by way of the ballot box.

  • ||

    We already have women like Kathryn De Long, Pia Varma, and all our fellow female Reasonoids on "our side". So I think your "misogyny" crusade is nothing more than you getting off on a unwarranted sense of moral superiority, as you are wont to do.

    Ding Ding Ding! You win a Kewpie Doll, HM. Sergeant Shultz' bloviating and moralizing nannying is the worst form and most glaring example of projection.

    You, dear HM, are not the first to point this out. And I doubt seriously the last to do so.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Mr. Shultz, it's funny that you mentioned the odds of Johnson being a lot lower than you winning the lottery, but think you're going to have libertarianism make dramatic inroads amongst the "young girls with tatoos". The kind of girl who would be impressed with Dunham's prattle is about as likely to vote herself off the gravy train as Johnson is to pull off a 50 state electoral landslide. Meanwhile, the moderates who, really, don't know what to think are going to be less likely to buy into accepting that reasoning if there's enough mockery of it to prevent it from becoming "cool". Obama won in 2008, at least in part, because the notion of "Obama is cool" became part of the public zeitgeist. People heard it enough, unchallenged, that they accepted it.

  • sloopyinca||

    False equivalency. The business scenario is different because the market is what it is. In politics, the barometer of the people is always moving around. And the right third party candidate at the right time can win. GJ may or may not be that guy, but the more often supporters of third parties actually vote for their third party candidates, the more those parties attract good people to run. And those good people will eventually win races.

    Personally, I would like to see multiple party identification on ballots. That way, libertarian people could run as Libertarians and Republicans and that would show as representative when they are in Congress, state legislatures, etc. The two parties won't go for it because it would fuck up their stranglehold, but it would be a huge help.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "The business scenario is different because the market is what it is. In politics, the barometer of the people is always moving around."

    No, market prices are always moving around, too. And it's the market prices that ultimately tell you what you can manufacture and sell at a profit and what you can't. If you can't sell what you're making profitably, then you have to shut down production--do something else.

    The LP is useful in so far as it helps us market libertarianism.

    Voting for a Republican can be useful in so far as it helps us get rid of a socialist tyrant.

    Libertopia will not be imposed by a libertarian president from above. The purpose of libertarianism is not to seize the levers of power and force libertarianism down everybody's throats whether they want it or not.

    We will never get a libertarian president until we get a libertarian electorate. There has to be a market for what we're manufacturing before we can sell.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    We will never get a libertarian president until we get a libertarian electorate.

    Go on...keep speaking sense. It's an improvement. You can do it!

  • Ken Shultz||

    I've been saying that for years

    You just don't like the implications.

    Doesn't mean they aren't true.

  • ||

    We will never get a libertarian president until we get a libertarian electorate.

    And then Ken concludes that the way to get a libertarian electorate is to convince libertarians to elect Republicans.

    It's like the "elect" part of "electorate" confuses him greatly.

  • Ken Shultz||

    The argument that telling people about voting for the libertarian candidate is a good way to expand the libertarian base, that's an excellent argument.

    That's a great reason to vote for Gary Johnson.

    Getting rid of a socialist president is a good reason to vote for Romney, too. In fact, it's probably the only good reason to vote for Romney.

  • John C. Randolph||

    Getting rid of a socialist president is a good reason to vote for Romney, too.

    You're funny. It's like you actually believe there's any policy difference between the Ruling Party brands.

    -jcr

  • Cavpitalist||

    "We will never get a libertarian president until we get a libertarian electorate. There has to be a market for what we're manufacturing before we can sell."

    On the majority of the most significant issues of the day, Libertarians are more closely aligned with the majority of Americans than either the Democrats or Republicans.

    Try again.

  • PapayaSF||

    the right third party candidate at the right time can win.

    And the right lottery ticket always wins, but what are the odds? In the last century+, how many third-party candidates for President have won? Zero. How many have won for Congress or governor? It's quite rare. To imagine that GJ has even a remote chance at winning is fooling yourself.

    But I don't disagree with the rest of what you are saying. I am sympathetic, just realistic, as I think Ken Schultz is being.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Schultz is not being realistic at all. The idea of the "wasted vote" or "a vote for not-B is a vote for A" is a fallacy.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Schultz is not being realistic at all. The idea of the "wasted vote" or "a vote for not-B is a vote for A" is a fallacy."

    Do they teach people to read in your part of the world?

    "The argument that telling people about voting for the libertarian candidate is a good way to expand the libertarian base, that's an excellent argument.

    That's a great reason to vote for Gary Johnson."

    I didn't say a vote for Johnson was a wasted vote. Quite the opposite.

    I did say that a vote for Johnson won't remove Obama from office.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Do they teach people to read in your part of the world?

    I can read better than you can, Kendall.

    I did say that a vote for Johnson won't remove Obama from office.

    And you prove no evidence as to why that assertion is true. You just expect us to accept it without criticism and stamp your feet like a petulant child when questioned.

    Again, in the link I provided above, there is a whole litany of counter-arguments to your claim, but you didn't read that essay, of course. You'd rather project your anxieties of being functionally illiterate onto other people than engage in a serious discussion.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Shultz is basically right within fairly narrow confines (if you're in a few key swing states). The chances of Johnson winning are wildly remote. Given that fact, the option comes down to sending a message to the Republican Party by voting Johnson or voting for Romney as the lesser of two evils. A vote for Johnson would effectively mirror staying home in terms of removing Obama. Statistically, if there's a 99% chance either Romney or Obama will win, then voting for Johnson won't really do much to remove Obama.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Unless you're in a handful of swing states a vote for Romney will not remove Obama from office, either.

  • sloopyinca||

    but the other methods generally involve treason and a life sentence in solitary confinement.

    Bullshit. I'll just refuse to cut my beard off and Obama will hold my trial off indefinitely.

    Oh shit, there's another thing Romney hasn't brought up. That little case of "workplace violence" at Ft Hood hasn't been mentioned once. And by mentioned, I mean he hasn't said shit about Obama's DoJ refusing to call it terrorism or make sure the guy went to trial in a timely manner.

  • ||

    That was gut-wrenchingly disgusting. A homegrown mass murdered gets a pass while the administration's putting anti-jihadists behind bars.

    How much worse can shit get?

  • ||

    A homegrown mass murderer is the one putting the anti-jihadists behind bars.

  • sloopyinca||

    Technically, he was raised in Indonesia.

  • ||

    Ford Hood was also a gun-free done. Military personnel are disarmed on-base.

    Gaia bless the health & safety assholes at the Pentagon.

  • Xenocles||

    But I want to get rid of Romney, too.

  • Ken Shultz||

    So will I.

    Just as soon as he gets into the White House.

  • ||

    I know what your play is, but the way you put it makes it sound so ridiculous.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Well then I need to work on that.

  • John||

    http://professional.wsj.com/ar.....reno64-wsj

    RIP Jacques Barazon. I guess I can scratch dinner with Barazon off of my bucket list. Very sad.

  • PapayaSF||

    As a child in Paris in WWI, he heard Big Bertha shelling the city. Wow.

  • ||

    VERY cool. on the subject of openness, videotaping, etc. one of our local PD's is now posting videos to youtube. the link is the edited version of their helicopter video of a burglary in progress followed by vehicle pursuit followed by foot pursuit

    for those who want to see the longer unedited version, it's in the menu bar on the right.

    good police work, and the kind of stuff that happens every day without fanfare - pursuits, and bad guys caught - no shots, no injuries. now that we have the intertoobs, it's great that PD's are posting videos themselves. having the media (news channels) etc. is nice as a filter, but source video has its place in a free society with open govt.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IO6p0gqZBc

    here's the longer version

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....ure=relmfu

  • sloopyinca||

    TL/DR? Cops actually did their job and dunphy thinks that's newsworthy.

    Question is: does he think it's newsworthy when a man can get away with falsely imprisoning someone, theft by force, armed robbery assault and battery (all with firearm enhancers), and merely get a couple of months off of work with no pay? We'll see how he responds.

  • AuH2O||

    Forget it sloop. Its just dunphy-town.

  • ||

    the aspect of note is not how the incident went down. try reading for comprehension. it's the fact that local PD's are taking it upon themselves to share video etc. with the public, and doing it w/o the media filter.

    in the past, the only incidents you saw/read about it etc were those that the controllers of the media (and at one point long ago, it was just 3 major networks with a 1/2 total for all local news) thought were newsworthy

    there is nothing particularly notable aobut this pursuit. it's garden variety. it's what we do everyday, with consummate professionalism and due regard for suspect rights, the safety of the public, etc.

    what is noteworthy, AGAIN is that as an informed populace, we can seek out and find videos of cops "doing their thing" outside the narrow confines of the major networks and cable.

    i posted the video ultimately as a statement about videotaping, open govt., etc. and as usual, those looking to argue for the sake of arguing found something to wank about.

    do you not think it's a GOOD thing that local PD's are posting incidents to youtube? i do.

  • ||

    do you not think that the public is better off if they have exposure to cops doing their job, after all they are doing it on the public's dime, beyond what the media decides is or isn't newsworthy?

    i think this is a wonderful trend.

    open and accountable govt. is a good thing, and i give props to this agency (who recently got a new sheriff) because in the past they did NOT post this sort of thing on youtube. it may have been because they didn't have the technology access ( a way to load from their helicopter FLIR on to youtube), or may be because under new leadership they are taking the stance that open govt. needs to be improved

    again, i am posting this as a statement primarily about open govt. and about the importance of cops videotaping cops and people videotaping cops and cops videotaping others.

    the more open our govt. is, the more accountable it is, all other factors remaining equal

  • sloopyinca||

    the more open our govt. is, the more accountable it is, all other factors remaining equal

    And if you think a police department selectively releasing video that shows them in a positive light is a good thing, then you're a naive fool.

    Again: release every second of video to the public or don't release any. Selectively releasing videos is the same as the selectively edited recordings people release of cops doing bad. And I know I've seen you complain about selective editing making incidents look worse than they are. Well, this is the same, only on a larger scale, yet you compliment it.

  • sloopyinca||

    do you not think it's a GOOD thing that local PD's are posting incidents to youtube? i do.

    I would think it a good thing if they posted every second of video they record on youtube. If they post certain videos and do not make all others available, I have to think they are selectively choosing what they want the public to see.

    If you want PD's to get credit for what you posted above, they're going to have to make every second of video recorder either open to public review or post it online themselves.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    I think that's great. It shows the right way to do the job.

    And when circumstances arise where cops did not do the job the right way, as demonstrated in these videos, they can be fired. Right?

  • ||

    in dunphy-town, after a half hour, you are hungry for more videos

  • sloopyinca||

    Your lack of response to my linked story is conspicuously noted.

  • ||

    There's no double standard. Equality before the law is paramount to the police.

    Why do you hate our heroes in blue, Sloopy? Is it because you hate minority inner-city children?

  • The Late P Brooks||

    This will likely come as a surprise to nobody, but Melissa (all racism, all the time) Harris Perry is a fucking retard.

    Today's lesson: Everyone, everywhere should go to Harvard! For free!

  • ||

    Except white heterosexual men. Because, you know, they're not like the rest of us. *Sneer*.

    /MHP

  • AuH2O||

    You watch her show?

    Even I am not that brave, and I read Feministing AND Jezebel.

    Next to you, I am but a mere Samwise Gamgee, Mr. Frodo.

  • ||

    Teach me patience, oh Glorious Gamgee!

  • Killazontherun||

    Creating hobbits is proof positive Tolkien was a pederast.

  • ||

    HOW CAN YOU DO THIS BROOKSIE???? I am now officially in awe of your iron-clad resolve and constitution.

    The word "free" (meaning at no cost to you, parasites, but somebody else pays!) has now been bastardized past the point of no return, much like, "racism", "sexism", "access", "rights", "terrorism", and host of other words that went through a the syntactical equivalent of a taffy pulling machine.

    Oh, you do know when she says "everyone", you know she doesn't mean everyone, right Brooksie? This people disgust me.

  • AuH2O||

    Yeah, yeah, Doc. Make less with the talk and more with the free health care.

  • ||

    Careful, Goldy. You're coming perilously close to pressing my Berserk Button.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    This is what my Berserk Button sounds like.

  • AuH2O||

    Scary question: How bad would the deification of Obama get if he were to be assassinated, either after reelection or in the next weekish?

    I mean, I know even posting that probably gets me on several terrorist watch lists... but it would be insane, right? Like, within a year, he'd probably have a medium-sized city named after him, right?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Just 1 city? Lincoln has how many cities named after him?

  • AuH2O||

    I mean within the first year. I also several towns, and a county or two.

  • ||

    Two words: President Joe Biden.

    (I hope you got the joke, folks -)

    In all seriousness, Goldy, I shudder to think of the aftermath of such a thing.

  • ||

    He'd think the ICBM targeting computer is a game and nuke Texas.

    "OHHHH I'VE ALWAYS WANTED TO SMASH THOSE HILLBILLIES HAHHAHAHAA" *Smashes button repeatedly.*

  • ||

    Technically, the president can't just nuke any damn thing he wants. He can order the strikes, but the military officers controlling the nuke launches can refuse to obey.

  • ||

    Yeah, but high command will have deserted to Mongolia right after Biden ascended to the presidency. So it would be all at his disposal.

  • PapayaSF||

    Ha, I got it. Supposedly bin Laden thought that "President Joe Biden" would throw the US into chaos.

    And did you hear about Biden's funeral gaffe? Although "gaffe" is too weak a word here.

    Woods said Biden came over to his family and asked in a “loud and boisterous” voice, “Did your son always have balls the size of cue balls?”

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Biden will never escape what he is and always has been; a thuggish, 'blue-collar boy done good' from Scranton, who dealt with his anxieties as a stutterer and a self-proclaimed "dumb jock" by being a bully to those he perceived of no use than him and a sycophant to those he perceived he could gain advantage from.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    *to him

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    The East Coast Lyndon Johnson?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Pretty much. Biden would probably be stupid enough to escalate the Afghan war as well.

  • RBS||

    I mean, I know even posting that probably gets me on several terrorist watch lists

    Gets? THEY have been watching you for a long time.

  • ||

    Those Predator drones above your house? They ain't no coincidence, G.

  • PapayaSF||

    I'm more worried about some lefty nut trying to take out Romney. David Brin is now arguing that CIVILIZATION IS AT STAKE!!1! because Republicans are anti-science, don't you know.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    I thought the word was "service."

  • The Late P Brooks||

    You watch her show?

    Solely from boredom and desperation. I drop in once in a while as I am lapping the teevee dial.

    Just before I proved once and for all what a racist I am by switching to "Outlaw Country" on Sirius, she was babbling about how college administrators actually attempt to get PAYING CUSTOMERS to enroll in their institutions of higher learning. The unmitigated GALL! Polluting her perfect ivory tower fantasy world with the horrible dreary shopkeeper notion that a school is a BUSINESS which exists to bring in money.

    Oh, the humanity!

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Just so you can know and appreciate the depths of my depravity, I tell you this in all sincerity; President Joe Biden could be no worse.

  • ||

    Have you no decency, man?!

  • ||

    biden is at least entertaining, e.g. "clean and articulate" and other biden'isms.

    they both may be roughly equal in suckitude as to how they do the job, but with biden, you are always waiting for the gaffe o' the day

  • ||

    As ProL said, in many ways Biden has been the most awesome veep evar!

  • Killazontherun||

    O is a 0. You would have to be the worst, in terms of competence, president of the modern era to be as bad as O.

  • Killazontherun||

    IOW, the chance of Biden being better is about as sure a bet as you'll get.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Obama's incompetence is probably the only thing that kept him from destroying the country. If he wasn't such a petulant little shit, he'd have actually built relationships with congress critters and passed lots of new laws.

  • Paul.||

    Biden 2016!

  • Killazontherun||

    Biden Now!

  • Killazontherun||

    Assuming O resigns today due to his disgrace in Benghazi, Secret Service bitches.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    So can we stop calling it "public service" now?

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Also- MHP was moaning piteously at the very suggestion anyone would want to "re-invent" higher education. Because sitting in a circle in the grass flicking ants off your legs and listening to some "phd candidate" earnestly telling you how Huck and Jim were gittin' it on on that raft, and that the imagery of little boys dipping girls' pigtails in the inkwell is nothing less than incontrovertible proof of those boys' deep need to sexually subjugate themselves to the Black Man.

  • ||

    Those of us who attend college to learn shit that'll actually make us more employable are just haters. The City Planning major minoring in Dingaling Dynasty Chinese Literature deserves as huge a mansion as Bill Gates, damn it!

  • ||

    Yes, for "free", tozhe.

    Where's Barfman when you need him?

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Oh, look- Fearless Fosdick is here, asking "WHY WON'T YOU LOVE ME?" again.

    Golly, why wouldn't a flinty-eyed cynic like me be excited and happy to know the pigs are posting propaganda videos?

  • sloopyinca||

    Fearless Fosdick

    You know, I tried to make Buckaroo Banzai stick because it was so accurate, but I failed miserably. I thought you fuckers on here respected me. I guess I was wrong.

  • ||

    It was the Jo-Ann Fabrics ditty that cinched your road to othering perdition, sloop. I, for one, still respect you. Somewhat. -))))

    Though I did appreciate the lethally caustic flatulence part; I admit, I LOL'd at that. -D

  • sloopyinca||

    OK, I'm tired of this personal attack. As I said before, my options were limited. I had a In-N-Out Burger next door and a Jo-Ann within walking distance.

    Look at the fucking map. The Chik-Fil-A was at 8040 N Blackstone Ave in Fresno. Where the hell did I have to go? Dammit, man. I just wanted two sammiches. It wasn't worth my damn life and I couldn't have eaten a double-double. It was Jo-Ann or death by goon squad. I would imagine many posters here would have taken the same path.

  • ||

    I'm sorry, sloop. I'm just teasing you, and I probably would have done the same thing, as police are something to avoided at any and all costs.

    They are a festering, infectious pestilence to be given a wide berth at all times.

  • sloopyinca||

    Aw, I can't keep up the outraged charade anymore. I guess, in retrospect, I should have just said I went to "a store next door" to avoid the goons. I would have kept my manly bona fides at least.

    Well, most of them, anyway.

  • Ted S.||

    Why the hell were you in Fresno in the first place?

  • sloopyinca||

    I was coming home from looking at a concrete plant out toward Yosemite. And if I've got to get the stink of Fresno on me, there may as well be a couple of Chik-Fil-A's in it for me.

  • Ted S.||

    You being the doctor, what's the medical term for lethally caustic flatulence?

  • ||

    Lethalus Causticus Flatulencis.

    Adding "us" at the end of a word pretty much ensures you're saying it correctly in Latin.

    What, you missed that in school eh?

  • ||

    Actually, it is possible, but very rare, Ted. Gas gangrene can arise in advanced cases of colon cancer and infected by a strain of Clostridium colonizing in necrotic tissue.

    These gases are toxaemic to the surrounding tissues, and if they collect in the lower colon, particularly the sigmoid, it is possible to expel HS gas (rotten egg gas) and could conceivably poison another person.

    Gas gangrene is also associated with SSI (Surgical Site Infection) but this arises from using unsterilized surgical equipment, an improper closure of an incision, or improper WX care.

  • Ted S.||

    Um, thanks, I suppose. :-)

    Although I do wonder why you're using the British spelling "toxaemic". At least you're not using the ligature as in toxæmic. :-p

  • ||

    The exact term would be "Gas Gangrene (Clostridium perfringens), LGI, with expulsion."

  • ||

  • ||

    What's your medical specialty?

  • ||

    General Surgery. I mostly do lower GI procedures and hernia repair, but not limited strictly to those areas.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    Doc, what's your take on this story?
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/.....shine.html

    Kim Bernshine, 52, said she was told her hysterectomy and related surgical procedures in February 2011 would require a five-day stay at St. Boniface General Hospital.
    The surgeon mistakenly pierced Bernshine's bowel during the operation.

    As a result, her body waste started leaking inside her, infecting her blood and causing kidney failure.


  • ||

    What do you want to know specifically, My Friendly Manitobian Liege?

    Basically, the surgeon perforated her bowel, she became septic, and developed kidney failure.

    Are you asking me my medical opinion if the surgeon was negligent?

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    Yes, I suppose the question could be asked. I know the article states it's probably not negligence. Basically, is she owed compensation, or is she SOL and now living on Taxpayer money with a lower quality of life?

  • ||

    Well, pretty much, and here's why:

    The CHS and NHS, like just about all the centrally planned medical delivery systems, puts into place bureaucratic mechanisms to, while not denying the right to sue your doctor, nurse, etc., make it so damn difficult to do so that people just don't try. Exceptions to this are cases of res ipso loquitur, i.e. amputating the wrong leg or grossly botching a baby delivery, something that is notoriously prevalent in the NHS.

    This case perfectly lampshades this, even though I don't believe the surgeon here was negligent.

    In the pre-op consult, all the potential risks are made available and known to either the patient or the patient's health care proxy, and I won't even think of putting them on the table until this happens and I receive consent in triplicate and countersigned. This particular risk is well-known, and though I have made not this type of error (I am very, very careful), it would be very easy to miss a small perforation in the bowel, even after repeated applications of irrigation and a final pass before closing. And about the only way to catch internal haemorrhaging is either observing gross/occult blood in the stool (using a GUIAC test for the latter) or showing up in morning and evening blood work (or whatever routine the surgeon ordered, either BID or TID). Five days for a slow bleed is kinda hard to catch, unless the perforation infarcted.

    At any rate, she's pretty much screwed.

  • ||

    In the USA system, anybody can initiate a lawsuit, and I guaran-damn-tee you, the surgeon (myself included) would be poring over their notes and pre-, intra-, and post-op documentation, then immediately on the horn to possibly investigate a preemptive settlement, the USA being so sue happy (especially with punitive damages, something that which the NHS does not allow; you get recompensed for the cost of care only, as I understand, very similar to this woman's plight).

    Otherwise, then the surgeon is going to fight tooth and nail, and if they have a pretty solid case, ask for a bench trial. Juries are too iffy when the "Appeal to Pity" and "LOOK AT THAT RICH DOCTOR AND HIS LARGE MED-MAL INSURANCE POLICY!" cards are played.

    The point is, she gave consent in a centrally planned medical system, and, unfortunately, has little recourse. Governments, like businesses, hate to lose money, even if it may be a subtle, but legit case of med-mal.

  • ||

    i'm merely posting a video to show how great it is that local PD's are posting stuff to youtube. iow, it's great for open govt.

    sorry, if that dissapoints you.

    me coming here for love would make as much sense as me going to a white supremacist site for love. i come here to speak truth, and to engage in discourse with MOST people here, who i think are entirely reasonable, apart from a few trolls.

    i'm not exactly sure how posting the videotape from FLIR in a police helicopter during pursuit is a "propaganda video" but imo open govt. and MORE information is a good thing.

    in the past, we only saw police videos and police doing stuff in the media when the media (CNN, ABC, etc.) decided it was newsworthy.

    NOW, with "citizen" media like youtube, etc. local PDs and and do post their own videos and that's a good thing.

    btw, i found this interview to be rather informative. it at least could be qualified as "propaganda" but calling a flir tape propaganda is stretching i t. there's no commentary. it's merely a dispassionate record of what happened during the puruit - radio traffic and what the FLIR camera saw

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIbiQQ39JdY

    i found that interview interesting and informative. and it, unlike the FLIR video is opinion and commentary, or even (god forbid) propaganda.

    you, as the consumer of media can decide if you think it's credible or not.

    i have friends and relatives who live in maple valley, so i found the interview interesting and informative

  • sloopyinca||

    i'm merely posting a video to show how great it is that local PD's are posting stuff to youtube. iow, it's great for open govt.

    sorry, if that dissapoints you.

    Selectively posting stuff, dunphy. They're selectively posting stuff they want the people who pay them to see. That's not transparent. It's propaganda, pure and simple.

    in the past, we only saw police videos and police doing stuff in the media when the media (CNN, ABC, etc.) decided it was newsworthy.

    Yeah, and since there were so few citizen recorders compared to the police, those videos were almost exclusively released to the media by the police. Rodney King changed all of that.

    btw, i found this interview to be rather informative. it at least could be qualified as "propaganda" but calling a flir tape propaganda is stretching i t.

    I may be out of line speaking for someone else, but I would imagine he's considering it propaganda because it was selectively released. Had the department dumped the entire library of FLIR recordings to the public, that would be transparency. Releasing only selected videos smacks of selectivity. Only a bootlicker would not question the integrity of someone that did so. And if I recall correctly, you have lamented selectively edited "civilian" videos on here many times. Why is it OK for you to do so but not for us?

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    "me coming here for love would make as much sense as me going to a white supremacist site for love. i come here to speak truth, and to engage in discourse with MOST people here, who i think are entirely reasonable, apart from a few trolls."

    Yet it's the abortion commenters who are wasting time because they have no chance of changing anyone's mind.

  • sloopyinca||

    Wait, did he just accuse libertarians of being the same as white supremacists?

    OK, he just confirmed my suspicions that police departments put an IQ cap on candidates. Based on that statement alone, I'd place that cap around 70.

    Fuck you, scumbag. If there are any "supremacists" on this site, you're one of them. You think it's OK for cops to be above the law and/or to operate with a different set of standards than us proles. The overwhelming majority of posters here are for liberty and equal protection. You have said on many occasions that you have no problem with treating cops differently and holding them less than personally responsible for their actions. Go to hell.

  • ||

    Yeah, that threw me way the fuck off. White fucking supremacists? Seriously?

    A belief in the absolute primacy of individual liberty makes us shitty people, apparently -- as bad as the Ku Klux Klan. Wow.

  • ||

    I think he was only comparing the sort of reception he'd get. That a cop who defends police force on a libertarian site would get the same reception as a libertarian (or anyone who's not-racist) defending, say, racial equality on a white supremacist site.

    I think that's a bit of an exaggeration on his part, but only a bit. Many of the posters here react poorly to his presence, even when the topic has nothing to do with police brutality. When John or Tulpa post, they don't tend to get shit unless they say something we consider stupid or horribly, horribly wrong. Otherwise they don't get much vitriol. dunphy, though, tends to get hate even on non-police threads.

    I think the reactions to his comparison speak to that. I don't disagree with the other criticisms so much (I think the remark about selectively releasing footage makes a good point), but I don't think you or Res would have interpreted his comparison that way if someone else had made it.

  • ||

    I understood his comparison perfectly. There's nothing to misinterpret.

    A group of white supremacists reacting adversely to a non-white, or any proponent of racial equality, would be doing so upon the basis of their retarded, unjust animosity towards entire ethnic groups.

    Compare that to, say, our reacting similarly to a cop with a reprehensible tendency to make excuses for the theft, assault, and murder his professional pals are committing with increasing frequency.

    In other words, the comparison was beyond fucktarded. I would have hoped explaing something like this wouldn't have been necessary, since it's pretty self-evident.

  • ||

    I would have hoped I wouldn't have to repeat, "I think he was only comparing the sort of reception he'd get.", since it's pretty evident, especially AFTER I already said it.

    The reason why he'd get that reception isn't the point of his comparison, and you claiming otherwise simply reinforces this idea that you guys are biased. You wouldn't make this mistake if someone else made the analogy.

  • ||

    To reiterate, nowhere in his little comparison does he say we're like white supremacists, so your offended reaction is based on a straw argument.

  • ||

    And for the record, I still think the comparison's stupid. I think he gets a TON more respect here than he ever would at a bullshit racial supremacist site. But making untrue claims about what he said is ridiculous too.

  • sloopyinca||

    To reiterate, nowhere in his little comparison does he say we're like white supremacists,

    Sure he does. I'll quote him again: "me coming here for love would make as much sense as me going to a white supremacist site for love.

    He said coming here for love would be like going to a white supremacist site for love. Note he says "for love" (i.e.: the same thing) in both places. If he were not trying to equate us to white supremacists, he would not have used the same reason for going to both sites.

    Had he said something like, "Me coming here for love would make as much sense as going to a white supremacist site for racial harmony," I would have noted it as an analogy. But he said coming here for "X" would be the same as going to a white supremacist site for "X". In my book, that's a direct equation.

    X=X. X=/=Y (in all cases. His statement was an X,X comparison. I know it sounds pedantic, but words have meanings, and he made a point to use the same word when comparing us (actually me and a few others personally) with white supremacists.

  • ||

    If he were not trying to equate us to white supremacists, he would not have used the same reason for going to both sites.

    Having it be the same reason doesn't mean a comparison of the subjects, it's STILL an obvious comparison of reception. If he said a left-liberal would get the same reaction here that they would at a white supremacists cite, it would make sense, and yet it STILL wouldn't be a comparison of the two subject groups, but rather the sort of response he'd get from them.

    But he said coming here for "X" would be the same as going to a white supremacist site for "X". In my book, that's a direct equation.

    Yes, a direct equation of the REACTION HE WOULD GET. In no way is that an equation of libertarians to white supremacists.

    X=X. X=/=Y

    Saying he wouldn't get love here or at a white supremacist site says nothing about WHY he wouldn't. It says nothing about the subject itself, only the response given.

    he made a point to use the same word when comparing us

    Which, again has nothing to do with similarities of subject, and everything to do with similarity of reaction. He's quite obviously comparing the reaction he'd get, and saying "love" in each case doesn't change that. That "we're the same as white supremacists" in no way follows from the constant meaning of the word "love".

  • ||

    In each case, he says he'd get no "love" from the site. In neither case does he say the people not giving him "love" have similar traits or beliefs, only a similar reaction to his presence and posts.

  • sloopyinca||

    Darius, I know you're just trying to be reasonable and raise the level of discourse here, and I appreciate that. But being compared to skinheads tends to get my blood boiling. Perhaps I overreacted, but it's not like he typically comes out with reasonable points. He has said, on multiple occasions, that people shot by cops at the wrong address "has it coming," called them "idiots," said "fuck them" and laughed at their demise. If anyone is like a supremacist of any stripe, it's him, as he values the power police have over equal protection or a level playing field when it comes to investigating criminal behavior by officers of the law.

    He is a cop supremacist. Getting love from him and his "brothers" at PoliceOne would be like getting love from a White Supremacist site...because they are alike in their beliefs that their group are better than society at large.

    Question (and then I'll drop it): What would you think if I said "Getting an intelligent comment from you is like getting an intelligent comment out of an Obama campaign worker"? Or, "talking to you makes as much sense as talking to a mongoloid on bath saltz that had just butt-chugged a gallon of vodka and sizzyrup"?

  • ||

    here's a good example of not just excessive force, but what appears to be a clear cut example of an assault by a sheriff's deputy. props to this guy for recording it.

    we may disagree on some UOF's but imo this is about as clear cut (unless i'm missing something) an example of not just excessive force, but outright assault (or , since it's california - assault and battery under their penal code) upon this woman.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....re=related


    again, when you see cops talking to somebody pull out the cameras and start recording . when and if the situation turns bad, you will have CONTEXT (iow the stuff leading up to the incident), which is much more compelling. in the case of misconduct, it helps bring the officer to justice, and in the case of the officer doing the right thing, it helps bring the person who assaulted or whatever the officer to justice.

    either way, justice is the goal.

    modern technology has given the average Joe the ability to accurately record and document both police misconduct and police exceptional conduct (heroism, etc.). either way, it's a win when it's more than he said/she said, but it's on the screen.

  • sloopyinca||

    Thank God that other officer was there to arrest the cop that committed assault. I'm sure he is awaiting trial as we speak.

    Seriously, though, you act like it's a good thing, but how many people would have just given that cop their phone for the evidence of the assault to have been erased forever? And once it went to trial, (haha, that's a joke), it would have been the cop's word against someone else's without the damning video.

    Let's recap: a cop violently punches a woman in the face for no reason, his partner does not effect an arrest for the assault and then the cop tries to intimidate a witness. And you see the positive side of it all?

    By the way, the LACSD has come out in support of the officer's actions. So it looks like even when an assault is witnessed by several people and caught on video, the offending party is good to go if he's part of the brotherhood.

    Thanks for the heads-up. It just further points out how fucked up and out of control cops can be with zero consequences, accountability or outside oversight.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    A sheriff's department spokesman told NBCLA over the phone the department would not comment on this case and would not look at the videotape

    Bus Confrontation Caught on Video in Bellflower

  • The Late P Brooks||

    i come here to speak truth

    To POWER, Fosdick!

    SPEAK TRUTH TO POWER!

    STRIKE A BLOW FOR ALL THOSE DOWNTRODDEN LEOS BEING OPPRESSED BY THE EVUL LIBERTARIAN HORDES.

  • ||

    For the environment, I pledge to flush only after a deuce, never a single.

    Well Justin, to make up for your idiocy, I flush extra. I flush after a deuce (TWICE), after a single and often when just walking by the toilet.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    I thought you fuckers on here respected me. I guess I was wrong.

    I RESPECT NO MAN

    Besides, Al Capp was a fucking genius.

    It fits.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    here's a good example of not just excessive force, but what appears to be a clear cut example of an assault by a sheriff's deputy.

    And how would you react if the victim, or a good samaritan who came upon the scene, used lethal force against the deputy.

    I'm guessing it wouldn't be, "He deserved it. Fuck him."

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    Apparently Obama is a guy who will never lack for blowjobs. His ass might get chapped from all that kissing though.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Goddamn, that was great. Nick is well on his way to becoming Joel McHale.

  • BakedPenguin||

    My only complaint was that the flush should have after Nick's closing line.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    i'm merely posting a video to show how great it is that local PD's are posting stuff to youtube. iow, it's great for open govt.

    Be sure to let us know when a police department voluntarily (in the furtherance of open government) posts video of their officers beating a homeless man into a life-ending coma.

  • Xenocles||

    To be fair, in a just world that would have to be treated as evidence and not released until trial.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Democrats go all in for abortion rights

    "This was supposed to be an election in which the economy dominated the debate, social issues took a backseat and the culture wars were put on hold.

    "Yet in the homestretch of the 2012 campaign, abortion politics is coloring races up and down the ticket....

    "While Democrats have long supported a woman’s right to choose, this year’s full-throated embrace of abortion rights — from the president down to the most obscure House candidate — marks a historic departure that now places the party as firmly and unyieldingly in support of abortion rights as the GOP is in opposition....

    "The danger, according to Lanae Erickson Hatalsky, director of social policy and politics at Third Way, a centrist Democratic think tank, is if the Democrats “learn the wrong lesson” from an Obama victory and decide there’s no longer any need to reach out to voters who want to keep abortion legal but still have moral reservations."

    http://www.politico.com/news/s.....Page2.html

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    But the War on Women!

  • Skip||

    Have celebrities just gotten more stupid over the last 30 years or is it just the technology that makes it so much easier to share the stupidity off? If the internet had been around longer, would they have done this crap for Carter, Mondale and Dukakis etc?

  • PapayaSF||

    Everything has gotten more politicized, and the liberal Hollywood echo-chamber has become more of a cocoon.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    According to the AP, Ron Paul criticizing the Fed is an "October surprise".

  • Boehm Houle||

    Where are my attractive Hollywood stars pledging their devotion to service my (um) needs. I swear this is a pure envy thread....

  • Killazontherun||

    And you swear to false gods. Libertarians don't envy and don't need to be envied; we only fear those that do and the symbiotic relationship of that formulation. That is the stuff of which mass casualties are made.

  • ||

    That is the stuff of which mass casualties are made.

    And groupies. LOTS of groupies.

  • SIV||

    GayJay 2012

    VOTE LIKE YOUR LADYPARTS DEPEND ON IT!

  • tagtann||

    Should be interesting to see how that all turns out. Wow.

    www.Anon-Tipz.tk

  • Mr Whipple||

    The worst is that androgynous looking girl that wants to lose her "voting virginity" to Obama.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?f.....OGh64dyGpc

    **WARNING** Have a vomit bucket within reach before watching.

  • bot||

    Chuckled out loud.

Click here to follow Reason on Instagram

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