Barack Obama

Support Reason: Because Politicians Lie, Especially on Days of the Week Ending in "d-a-y"

|

So, Politico has a story out (AP version here) that may foreshadow what Democratic politics will look like in 2010. And it for sure gives you yet another strong reason to donate to Reason right the hell now:

Verify, don't trust

President Barack Obama plans to announce in next year's State of the Union address that he wants to focus extensively on cutting the federal deficit in 2010 – and will downplay other new domestic spending beyond jobs programs, according to top aides involved in the planning.  […]

Obama has spent more money on new programs in nine months than Bill Clinton did in eight years, pushing the annual deficit to $1.4 trillion. This leaves little room for big spending initiatives. […]

"Democrats have to reassure voters we are not being reckless," said a Democratic official involved in the planning. "The White House knows this and that's why we'll be hearing a lot about reducing the deficit early next year. Democrats owned this issue for the past four years and cannot afford to cede it to Republicans now."

That horrible schnorking sound you hear is 10,000 Reason readers spitting beer on their keyboards through their noses. Sadly, we know better. Why?

When your conception of political coverage begins with two simple questions–what does Politician X think about the proper role of government, and what impact will Policy Y have on our well-being?–then you learn early the contours of the chasm between a politician's rhetoric and his actions. You tend to avoid the kind of reporting mistakes that you can damn well bet we'll be reading next year. Namely, that this time the president is serious about that whole "net spending cut" thingie.

Hi, Virginia!

Reason has been minding the gap between Hope and Truth since long before Obama cruised into the White House. In May 2008, David Weigel administered last rights to that 1990s curiosity known as the free-trade Democrat. At the Democratic National Convention a few months later, Tim Cavanaugh warned that "the New Democrats are finished. In their place there appears to be a new breed of Democrat, less driven by a vision of dumping leftist junk from the party's agenda, but benefiting from a nearly two-decade period in which the benefits of free markets have become conventional wisdom." Senior Editor Jacob Sullum warned voters in October to "beware any politician who promises to create new jobs," and two weeks later pointed out that the candidate's promises to create five million "green jobs" was not only nonsense on stilts, but served to "hide the costs of his global warming solution." And in our November 2008 issue, an all-star panel of libertarian-world thinkers, from Virginia Postrel to Jonathan Rauch to Deirdre McCloskey, assessed our soon-to-be president-elect. Here was the judgment by the country's pre-eminent property-rights scholar, Richard Epstein:

Unfortunately, on the full range of economic issues, both large and small, I fear that his policies, earnestly advanced, are a throwback to the worst of the Depression-era, big-government policies. Libertarians in general favor flat and low taxes, free trade, and unregulated labor markets. Obama is on the wrong side of all these issues. He adopts a warmed-over vision of the New Deal corporatist state with high taxation, major trade barriers, and massive interference in labor markets. He is also unrepentant in his support of farm subsidies and a vast expansion of the government role in health care. Each of these reforms, taken separately, expands the power of government over our lives. Their cumulative impact could be devastating.

Reason is one of the only journalistic outlets in these United States that lets you know how its staffers and contributors intend to vote in each presidential election. While some McCain/Palin enthusiasts (no really, there were some!) try to paint our staff/contributor picks of 2008 as evidence of an irredeemable soft-on-Obamaism (see for yourself), the proof is in the coverage. And when it comes to cutting through the gauze of media honeymoon-swooning, and drilling down into the nuts and bolts of economic policy, I'll put our coverage up against anybody's. It's nothing personal; I for one like our handsome new president on the all-important dude level (just as I liked the guy he ran against, though in a different way). Unfortunately, though, as Richard Epstein alluded to, economics matters, now more than ever.

Seriously, this was a pretty great alt energy package

Happy talk about green jobs, global warming solutions, and 21st century energy proposals? We took the best science correspondent in the business, Ronald Bailey, and actually measured the various technologies. Show me a more serious and comprehensive package on a crucial issue; I'm all ears. Do bankrupt states have a revenue problem? Unlike a thousand facile op-ed pundits, we counted up all 50 budgets, over five years, and answered the question definitively. If you're lucky, you have read about the colossal pension crisis hanging over the necks of state and local governments, but only in Reason did you learn how politically correct investing pressures exacerbate the problem. I challenge you to find a discussion about inflation as informative as this October roundtable, a real estate commentator as entertaining/crazy as Tim Cavanaugh, or an economics columnist more vital and on point in 2009 than Veronique de Rugy.

I ain't missing you at all

After eight years of beating up on George W. Bush, we have applied the same scrutiny to the new kid in town. Not out of any animosity, nor from any dark fears about secret totalitarianism, but rather out of a basic sense of citizen self-defense. The guy spends our money, sends our fellow citizens to war, and shapes public policy for decades to come. You want a magazine to send the guy roses, well, you won't have a hard time finding one. You want a magazine that aims to help you concretly understand the policies and rhetoric of an enigmatic and inexperienced president? You know what to do: Donate to Reason today!

We need 500 donors in eight days. Something goofy must be in the air, because we're halfway there by the end of Day 2. You are voting with the currency that counts–your, um, currency–for the journalism of Free Minds and Free Markets, for political independence, for influencing the next generation of free thinkers. Here's how it works: Twenty-five greenbacks gets you a "Free Minds and Free Markets" bumper sticker. A hundred buys you a bumper sticker, a subscription, and either Brian Doherty's Radicals for Capitalism or Peter Bagge's Everybody Is Stupid Except For Me! Two-fifty gets you even more Reason stuff, and $1,000 opens up the very doors of perception.

Those of you who donate will get to see your name (however you'd like to put it), up in the temporary banner we've got running up at the top of this blog page. If you wanted to, say, give a shout-out to some of our more indefatigable antagonists, that might be funny. Also, after making your tax-free contribution you'll see a little thank-you page that allows you to e-mail the donation info to a friend, loved one, or sworn enemy. AND THEY'LL TELL TWO FRIENDS, AND SO ON, AND SO ON.

Support Reason today!

NEXT: Take the 10th--Please!

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.

    1. reason staffers and contributors should be reminded of their stupidity. Often.

    2. You’re right. I can’t believe so many of them voted Republican.

    3. So they hate Ron Paul, but most of them supported Obama?

      If that’s the kind of world you want to live in, you can just donate to MoveOn.org.

      The rationale for the recent Randfest is suddenly becoming clearer…

    4. Bastards.

  1. sooo…

    If you guys get your 500 donors before the 8 days are up will you stop posting these things?

    Also why 500 donors and not a fixed amount of money….i mean 500 people could simply donate $1

  2. Those of you who donate will get to see your name (however you’d like to put it), up in the temporary banner we’ve got running up at the top of this blog page.

    Thankfully I use Flashblock

  3. Wow. Welch really is in the pocket, isn’t he?

    Let’s put up a column about lying politicians, and then use it as a reason for people to donate to Reason. Screw all of that Matt. Just show us your tits already.

    You might as well reduce yourself to race baiting and talk of “fleet footed” Negroes. Ron Paul wasn’t above it, and like him, you certainly know your demographic.

    This is the kind of preacher circuit fear mongering that I’ve always said is a hallmark of the Conservative/Libertarian psychology. Marjoe Gortner revealed the playbook for a documentary team back in 1972.

    Hopefully all off this desperate fund-raising talk means that this rag is having trouble staying afloat. I doubt it, but one can hope.

    1. What pathology is it that makes people want to stand up and try to get the crowd to throw rotten tomatos at them? I have never understood this. Having a debate is ont thing, but going full retard on the other team’s sideline is something else altogether.

      1. When the other guy loses his self-control it makes him look like an idiot.

        It’s the Bill O’Reilly school of debating: However gets angry first, loses by virtue of looking like, well, a pigcunt.

    2. Since I am rather low on funds, I wasn’t going to donate. However, your moronic, feverish rant convinced me otherwise. Now please fuck off and die.

    3. ‘Markets Are Magical’, given you believe that you can put a gun to the golden goose’s head and get her to plop out the eggs at faster and faster rates to cover the cost of your delusional ambitions, you have far more faith in the market than any of us do.

      1. Yeah, but… but… roads are socialist, and, and… you guys are racist!

  4. Oh violence is magical, where would we be without your ad hominem’s and tu quoque’s?

    Your tears are so yummy and sweet.

  5. Hey Reason, Obama grants wishes! Just yesterday that 9/11 terrorist, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, will go to New York to meet his lawyer. Just like he demanded when he was captured.

  6. For the love of Obama, will you people PLEASE resize your jpg’s before posting them in your articles? That energy cover is 3MB!

  7. “Democrats have to reassure voters we are not being reckless,” said a Democratic official involved in the planning.

    It’s way too late for that.

    “The White House knows this and that’s why we’ll be hearing a lot about reducing the deficit early next year. Democrats owned this issue for the past four years and cannot afford to cede it to Republicans now.”

    Owned this issue? Only to people dumb enough to believe they were serious about it.

    1. I think you seriously underestimate the ignorance and maybe even sheer stupidity of the average voter. Lots of folks can identify with Gilligan. The professor? Not so much.

  8. AND THEY’LL TELL TWO FRIENDS, AND SO ON, AND SO ON.

    Hey, that’s my idea!

    1. AND THEY’LL TELL TWO FRIENDS, AND SO ON, AND SO ON.

      AND THEN MY RICH UNCLE WILL DIE AND I’LL INHERIT HIS FORTUNE!

  9. Want to donate, but can’t find a clever banner name? I give you The Canonical List of Weird Band Names

    Here’s another

    I was going to donate as “Anus the Menace”, but thought better of it, choosing “Drunks with Guns” instead.

    1. ‘Drunks with Guns’ was a great band.

      Their cover of ‘Jesus Christ Superstar’ was amazing.

    2. ‘Drunks with Guns’ was a great band.

      Their cover of ‘Jesus Christ Superstar’ was amazing.

    3. Reminds me, whoever donates under the name of my one great contribution to civilization, Tard Anus Lust’ gets a Fonzi, ‘Ayyyy’ from Nick Gillespie while he wears the jacket. Okay, I can’t really promise you that but someone do it anyway. My funds are busted for the next two weeks.

    4. How about:

      From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs?

    5. Joe Bird and The Field Hippies. Hands-down, blow your mind fuel.

      And you don’t even hafta drop the brown acid to appreciate it. It’s THAT fucking weird.

      Bongwater, too. Those folks wuz twisted.

    6. I’m still wondering if it’s worth parting with a c-note to see Supported By: NAMBLA on the banner.

  10. In May 2008, David Weigel administered last rights to that 1990s curiosity known as the free-trade Democrat.

    Umm, so he read them a Miranda warning?

  11. Obama plans to reduce the budget deficit, I’ll buy that for a dollar (or maybe a Euro).

  12. AND THEY’LL TELL TWO FRIENDS, AND SO ON, AND SO ON.

    I may be misremembering, but I think if you go back to one of the Reason issues in their first few years, back to the days of Bob and Tibor and Manny, there is an actual article that provides this as a strategy to converting the USA to libertarianism…

  13. We could really use “DONDEROOOO!!!” in the banner…

    (I’ve already ponied up)

    1. See? i would totally give multiple donations of say $20 just so i could put a bunch of crazy shit in the banner…

      But if i do that i screw up their 500 donors thing.

      They should have gone for a fixed amount of money rather then a fixed number of donors.

  14. How can you tell Obama is lying?

    His cunt-hole of a mouth is open.

    1. It’s pigcunt hole, actually.
      Nevar forget!

  15. After your smear-attacks on Ron Paul, why you expect any self-respecting libertarian to donate to your pretentious magazine is beyond me.

    1. Because Ron Paul is a Republican.

      1. Ron Paul is not enumerated in the Constitution!
        Drink!
        RON PAUL!

    2. I very rarely have anything negative to say about Ron Paul because I love the guy and support most of his actions as a Congressman.

      However, your criticism misses the boat. Reason minimized its coverage of the negative aspects, the newsletters, and did nothing to bring it to light until the hit piece in The New Republic.

      I understand the time period it occurred, the LA Riots generated a lot of justiafiable anger by many, especially given George Bush was a less than useless pussy in his response. A lot of things got said by people angry at the kid gloves treatment and weirdly sympathic media coverage of the rioters that shouldn’t have been said as a result.

      However, the episode points out that Ron Paul is not an effective executive that demands discipline in his own people which is the defining prerequisite for the office for those who enter the office who have any chance of being successful while in office.

      Other factors point to this,
      one ad he allowed to air included a short scene of Mexican’s swimming across the Rio Grande. That is not exactly subtle, now is it?

      The last point I’ll mention is the Tim Russert interview where Paul let Timbo stump on a question which should have been a gimme to throw back in Russerts face and produce a few positive headlines like Bush did with Dan Rather in ’88. No, the good docter spent valuable minutes justifying in historical terms matters pertaining to the civil war (that I didn’t necessarily even disagree on the substance) when all he had to do to volley that gotcha question in Timbo’s face was answer, ‘Tim, I don’t give a damn about something that occurd one hundred and fifty years ago, and dwelling on the past does nothing to fix our problems now.’

      Ron Paul, certainly one of the greatest American legislators who has ever lived, but that doesn’t mean he is free from criticism even by those of us who are simpatico, nor does it mean he would have made a great president, or even a good president.

      1. apologize for my more than the usual quota of spelling and grammatical errors in that last rant. I’m dealing with a monitor that inconveniently twist my screen as I write. It isn’t fun.

      2. Reason minimized its coverage of the negative aspects, the newsletters,…

        alan apparently confuses minimized with covered extensively. This has come to be expected from home team ‘tards from both the left and right.

        1. Learn to read in full context, Detroit.

          However, your criticism misses the boat. Reason minimized its coverage of the negative aspects, the newsletters, and did nothing to bring it to light until the hit piece in The New Republic.

          Your linky shows that I am right. There was little coverage of the newsletters in Reason until the Kirchick story broke. It was a dereliction on their part, as it could have been dealt with in house before it crashed down from opposing media.

          ‘tard, huh? Okay, shit list got a new addition.

          1. expected from home team ‘tards from both the left and right.

            Non comprehending jackass, I am the one criticizing both aspects of my home team, Ron Paul and Reason. Goddamn, man, you are stupid.

            1. Ron Paul’s anus is made of pure gold.
              RON PAUL!

      3. Nonsense. I see that David Weigel– the anti-Paultard-in-chief at Reason until he found there was more money in being an Obama-tard — is now appearing on MSNBC, smearing the Tea Partiers and generally “policing” the movement he once “covered” for Reason, to the delectation of the Rachel Maddow Fan Club. We all wind up where we belong.

        1. I have no doubt Weigel is as despicable as you describe. I don’t watch the cable news so I can vouch for that. I do what I can to be truthful and to make solid arguments, and when my veracity is questioned as Detroit did, my anger meter goes up to eleven.

          I have read most of the content in Detroit’s link from 2007 Reason articles, I found a few paragraphs in a Weigel piece https://reason.com/archives/200…..-paradox/1 that deal with the strategy for libertarians going forward if the newsletter story broke, or other factors of political judgment considered outside of the mainstream get in the national spotlight, but nothing to indicate an attempt to find out what the actual content might have been. That is, shelve out a little cash, to examine them as The New Republic did, and do it before they, or anyone else could run with it. There was also a brief mention in a Doherty piece during the Summer of ’07.

          That is pretty much it. A few paragraphs and a few sentences in the body of ten of thousands of words dedicated to the Paul race. That ain’t much, even if the absolutism of the word ‘nothing’ isn’t exact. Perhaps, I should have said, ‘next to nothing.’

          People are likely remembering what was said in Hit’n’Run when they think of the letters and Reason coverage, and not the articles.

          1. Why no reply, Detroit? You read through the posts and through the links and then you realized, ‘oh, fuck, he is right’?

          2. Come on, Detroit, admit it. You jumped the gun there before you realized what I was saying.

            ‘Home team’ gives it a way. Who am I trying to curry favor with here, Reason who I said didn’t do a good job of covering the news letters, or Paul’s people where I said their man was not presidential material?

            See, you didn’t really think it through.

            Ah, I got it, The New Republic. Bam, you got me!

        2. What, making money is now bad?
          David Weigel’s gotta eat, man!

  16. Just for the record: I am poor and currently unemployed.

    I, therefore, must continue to mooch.

    1. The Ayn Rand community frowns upon your mooching shenanigans.

      Now looting, that’s a man’s game!

  17. President Barack Obama plans to announce in next year’s State of the Union address that he wants to focus extensively on cutting the federal deficit in 2010

    The drowning man is dispensing life jackets. Wonderful.

    1. Fixing the US budget and debt is very easy.
      Just stop wasting money on that welfare program/corporate subsidy boondoggle known as the military.
      Spend enough money for defense and not for raping the world with ninja bomber planes.

      1. I like your style eds, stick around, okay?

  18. The Dems have run it so high that it will be difficult not to reduce it. There probably won’t be a TARP III and there won’t be another 700 billion stimulus. This will allow them to reduce the deficit to just twice what George Bush’s deficit was and still claim to have cut the deficit nearly in half.

  19. “President Barack Obama plans to announce in next year’s State of the Union address that he wants to focus extensively on cutting the federal deficit in 2010”

    Just like he focused on closing GUITMO and getting out of Iraq and other fierce moral urgencies.

    1. GUITMO would be an awesome name for a Dick Dale/Link Wray-type surf instrumental band.

  20. John, Obama’s gonna blame Bush for the necessity of the deficit being so large and after changing clothes in the phonebooth, He is gonna roll up his sleeves and get to work on lowering the deficit. He is hpeful that the republicans will fight his methods on that so he can point the finger of blame like he does on healthcare reform.

  21. The administration is bringing the 9/11 mastermind to New York City to be tried for his crimes. This will likely result in an escalation of insurgent attacks in Iraq and Afghanistan, giving Obama an excuse to remain there. I can only assume that he is hoping that the trial will last about 2 years and then he and the dems can use the convictions as a soundbite for re-election ads.

    I am still waiting for a thread about the trials. I am interested in the opinions of the regulars here concerning the administrations decision to bring the trials to NYC and the ramafications of that decision.

    1. Had a long reply, but the squirrel dropped it in mid pass. Sorry. Essentially, I said that the trial lacks sex appeal as the man has been in custody for most of the decade, the Administration will likely want the press to play up the coverage as there are two many things that can blow up in their faces if the heat of the spot light shines too brightly.

      1. experiencing technical problems:

        the Administration will likely not want the press to play up the coverage as there are ttoo many things that can blow up in their faces if the heat of the spot light shines too brightly.

        1. I don’t really care about bringing them to trial in civilian court. Imagine what’s gonna happen to them in jail? a bunch of scrawny underfed arabs going up against Aryan Brotherhood, Latin Kings, Bloods, etc.? who are they gonna ally with? they’re gonna get shanked/raped within weeks of getting into normal US prisons.

  22. Thday’s horror : http://online.wsj.com/article/…..=rss_Today‘s_Most_Popular

    1. Irish coffee should be banned, huh?

      Yo! Fuck every useless sinecured nanny stater at the FDA.

    2. At one point I actually believed the left was better on personal freedom then the right.

    3. Meh, it’s the Rupert Murdoch-owned Wall Street Journal.

      WSJ went from mag to rag almost instantaneously after Rupert got his grubby little Australian Wallaby-hands on it.

      From top financial journalism to “what to buy on NASDAQ with the New York Post crew!”

      1. WSJ went from mag to rag almost instantaneously after Rupert got his grubby little Australian Wallaby-hands on it.

        Xenophobia is not an admirable quality.

        1. Waving the American flag and screaming about US patriotism while being a foreign-owned entity is not a good way to go through life, son.

          1. Sing it, brother. The sooner I and my minions tear America 300 million new assholes, the better.

            You, I shall spare… IF you please me further. I need servicing, if you get my drift, and Michelle’s not up to it at the moment.

        2. Neither is intellectual dishonesty.

  23. Hazel, I thought I was cynical. Yet I can not fucking believe that article you linked to. I’m so shocked, I can’t even think of the proper vulgarities or epithets for these people.

    Enyap – they were, for about 6 months after Watergate. Then it occurred to them that when they got elected, they could abuse the powers the previous administration created for themselves, and it’s been all downhill from there.

    1. “Hazel, I thought I was cynical. Yet I can not fucking believe that article you linked to. I’m so shocked, I can’t even think of the proper vulgarities or epithets for these people.”

      From the people who brought you Glenn Beck, a rapist, a murderer, and a Libertarian hero, we bring you WSJ outrage!!!!!!

      I’ll believe it when it comes from other sources than the Newscorp spew.

      1. So, eds, it like, strikes you as fucking reasonable that companies should have to PROVE “scientifically” that mixing caffiene and alcohol in a beverage is safe? O r have their products yanked from the market?

        Or has your bizarre hatred of FOX news so poisoned your sense or reason that you are willing to accept any outrage so long as an outlet that happens to be owned by rupert murdoch is against it?

  24. Why is NPR better at raising money from private donors than Reason?

    Joan Kroc, Archer Daniels Midland, and others have donated/are donating millions to NPR, so why not get them to donate to Reason as well?

    1. We do best with individuals, not corporations. NPR is big on the corporations & foundations.

      1. And the individuals.
        So NPR does better with regular individuals, corporations, foundations, rich individuals, whereas Reason begs for money from people who worship the free market, but are too stupid to become rich off the free market.
        Gotcha!

  25. Archer Daniels Midland is the consummate rent-seeking corporation; I doubt they want to pay for the privilege of being ridiculed and pilloried for being a welfare queen.

    1. NPR has been brutal towards ADM and they’ve still given them money.

      Ira Glass has torn them new assholes a couple of times now, so your argument is as valid as Nicolas Cage and his bird hair.

    2. ADM is buying an audience they need to convince-slash-mollify. We don’t offer such a thing.

      1. Reason: a whore pretending to be virtuous?

        “Yeah, you can fuck me in the ass, but don’t try to kiss me.”

  26. Do I really wish to joust wth the mental midget known as “alan” he (she? it?) without an internet address?

    Nah. I’ll interact with folks with intelligence.

    1. Ah, here is your reply. Great one. You have everyone in a tizzy of admiration of your rhetorical skills there.

      Care for ass back? Nah, you can’t have it. I’m not done with you yet.

  27. If beggars can’t be choosers, then what would Reason do for a contribution?

    I’d pay to see Nick Gillespie read from “Das Kapital.”
    How about the rest of you?

  28. If I donate 25 cents, will I still get my name on the banner?

  29. Does “eds” stand for educationally disadvantaed syndrome or erectile dysfunction syndrome?

    Or both?

    1. Do I really wish to joust wth the mental midget known as “J sub D” he (she? it?) without an internet address?

      Nah. I’ll interact with folks with intelligence.

      1. Funny, ‘tard. Most internet literate folks can figure out how to discern my address without being walked though the process.

        That is, most.

    2. Excrement Distribution Savant

    3. Excrement Distribution Savant

      (eat shit and fucking die mr. spam filter!)

  30. Apparently it was afternoon pass day at the dumb ass asylum. Nice to eds is taking full advantage of it.

    1. The world is an asylum, friend. And the lunatics are in charge.

      1. Got that shit right. Mr. Markets are Magical proves it.

        This schmuck is worse than a million Tonys, Chicago Toms, or other assorted asslickers.

        I’ll bet MaM strokes himself while listening to Ed Schultz and holding a glossy pic of Bernie Sanders.

  31. Donate! We can’t let these commie, pinko, Marxist, Hitler loving, Socialistic, baby eating, Scumbag, lying liars, non-white, intellectual, book reading, well-spoken, colored people (and the white people who love them) steal our liberty. Who else is going to give us a tax break?

    P.S. The financial collapse was the fault of ACORN, and poor people.

    Did I leave anything out? I had to have left something out. The list is too long.

    1. You forgot about the gays and how Barney Frank controls the universe, especially when the Republicans controlled the house, the senate, and the white house.
      Otherwise: A+, would read again.

  32. “However, your criticism misses the boat. Reason minimized its coverage of the negative aspects, the newsletters, and did nothing to bring it to light until the hit piece in The New Republic.”

    Did they ever. If this kind of scandal broke with one of the major candidates, Libertarians would have been on it like flies on shit, and used it to try and destroy them.

    But suddenly, Libertarians are interested in considering nuance when their interests are at stake. The equivocations used in support of Ron Paul were probably the most obvious example of what hucksters Libertarians are. The rules don’t apply to them.

    1. At least “this rag” doesn’t live off the government teat.

      Unlike you, asshat.

      Either swallow Obama’s spoo, or spit it out. Your choice.

    2. MaM! and alan are “minding the gap between Hope and Truth” on this one.

      I stopped reading Reason after the newsletter debacle. The Ron Paul stuff had been pretty loud and then there was this even louder silence. For my trust I was punished with disillusionment.

      But don’t worry, Reason, you’ve made me the bitch I always wanted to be. I’ll always come back.

      *smoochies*

      1. Could you point out what I got wrong?

        1. Nothing. I was the one who was wrong for failing to include your name. As a Gilligan my capacity is limited.

          1. Give me a sec with that, hope (har, har) you understand that the word ‘hope’ has acquired some serious negative connotations of late, and it is not only composed of four letters but it has become a ‘four letter word.’

          2. My bad. I’m being slow, and I can’t even blame it on morning lack of caffeination.

  33. I’ve always felt one of the biggest differences between libertarians and liberals is an understanding of economics, and some of these posts criticizing reason for soliciting donations illustrate my point perfectly.

    As far as I can tell, reason has three means of operating: 1.) solicit voluntary contributions for its services; 2.) charge for its services, or 3.) work for free and paying operating expenses out of its own pockets. Obviously option 3 is unrealistic, and I fail to see why option 1 is somehow hypocritical or otherwise inconsistent with libertarianism.

  34. The biggest difference between libertarians and liberals is that libertarians make rational arguments. They may not always be right (I don’t completely subscribe to Libertarian philosophy) but they are always based on reason rather than emotional and are reasonable at some level. Liberals, at least the post 1960s variety, have forgotten how to make rational arguments or to understand anyone who disagree with them.

    You can see that in EDS, Lefiti and the rest of the liberal trolls. They never engage in any substantive point. They just toss out invective. They don’t even try to understand the issues because they don’t think they need to. Their views are based entirely on emotion and the need for social acceptance.

    You can see this contrast when you hang around groups of liberals and libertarians. The libertarians will be at each other’s throats over various issues and, while the agree on most things, vehemently disagree on some thing. Liberals in contrast all hold the exact same politically approved views and stand around and smell each other’s farts.

    The only liberal on here that actually makes rational arguements in MNG. And I am not entirely convinced that he is not a sock puppet of one of the Reason staff sent in to stir things up.

    1. I’m not convinced that’s such a good thing. One reason leftism has been so successful compared to libertarianism is that the herd mentality is so deeply embedded in them. Herd mentality is a huge advantage in a gigantic democracy, where an individual’s vote is basically meaningless, but the combined vote of a herd can swing elections.

      While the liberals are off building coalitions, saying you guys can have your card check, and you folks can have your gay marriage if I get my health care reform — even though these things do not spring from a logically coherent set of premises — as John says, libertarians are at each other’s throats over minutia.

      You have neopagans refusing to work for the LP candidate because he’s a conservative Christian; you have anarcho-capitalists undercutting the reform attempts of minarchists; you have Ron Paul endorsing a theocrat for president because he felt insulted by Bob Barr wondering aloud what the fuck he was doing sharing a stage with Ralph Nader and Cynthia McKinney.

      Face it people: it would take 50 years of libertarian electoral victories and legislative rollback before any of the differences among libertarians actually became practically important. But unfortunately, libertarianism seems to draw a hyperindividualist crowd, each member of which is so convinced of the absolute truth of his or her positions that they can’t abide those whose positions are slightly different. I’m not saying libertarians should compromise our principles; I’m just saying that, given the extremely counterlibertarian nature of our current bodypolitic, the question of whether residential streets should be privately owned should not be anything more than a parlor discussion topic among libertarians.

      1. Liberals have done an excellent job of “branding” their product. Indeed, Obama is the ultimate expression of that brand. They have managed to convince people that only a liberal set of views are mainstream and acceptable or educated. Being a liberal is a way for the faux educated to appear educated and informed. Rather than working through issues and developing your own set of values and positions and risk being proven wrong or facing ridicule by those who disagree with you, liberals off people a set of pre-approved beliefs that allow you to show the world that you are “educated” and “thoughtful” regardless of how uneducated and unthoughtful you actually are.

        This has been especially successful with the young urban elite. They are young, don’t know much, are idealistic and inexperienced and generally insecure about being so. Liberalism offers them a way to escape their insecurity and hide their lack of knowledge by giving a preapproved set of beliefs and list of lesser beings over which they can feel superior. It is actually brilliant marketing.

      2. Liberals have done an excellent job of “branding” their product. Indeed, Obama is the ultimate expression of that brand. They have managed to convince people that only a liberal set of views are mainstream and acceptable or educated. Being a liberal is a way for the faux educated to appear educated and informed. Rather than working through issues and developing your own set of values and positions and risk being proven wrong or facing ridicule by those who disagree with you, liberals off people a set of pre-approved beliefs that allow you to show the world that you are “educated” and “thoughtful” regardless of how uneducated and unthoughtful you actually are.

        This has been especially successful with the young urban elite. They are young, don’t know much, are idealistic and inexperienced and generally insecure about being so. Liberalism offers them a way to escape their insecurity and hide their lack of knowledge by giving a preapproved set of beliefs and list of lesser beings over which they can feel superior. It is actually brilliant marketing.

        1. I think my eventual return should be evidence the LP *has* built a brand. It was Reason’s counterculture cach? that attracted me in the first place. You know, that “Libertarian Moment” campaign and such.

          Most of my fellow Gilligans want to have faith in ideology. Ya gotta sell it to them – keep talking features & benefits, but work on the gloss & sexy.

        2. liberals offer (sic) people a set of pre-approved beliefs that allow you to show the world that you are “educated” and “thoughtful” regardless of how uneducated and unthoughtful you actually are.

          This has been especially successful with the young urban elite. They are young, don’t know much, are idealistic and inexperienced and generally insecure about being so. Liberalism offers them a way to escape their insecurity and hide their lack of knowledge by giving a preapproved set of beliefs and list of lesser beings over which they can feel superior.

          Aside from a bit of quibbling over use of the word “liberal” – I’d say “progressive” is more apt – this sounds about right to me. Political correctness offers you social acceptance in exchange for conforming to a political doctrine that is determined by others.

        3. liberals offer (sic) people a set of pre-approved beliefs that allow you to show the world that you are “educated” and “thoughtful” regardless of how uneducated and unthoughtful you actually are.

          This has been especially successful with the young urban elite. They are young, don’t know much, are idealistic and inexperienced and generally insecure about being so. Liberalism offers them a way to escape their insecurity and hide their lack of knowledge by giving a preapproved set of beliefs and list of lesser beings over which they can feel superior.

          Aside from a bit of quibbling over use of the word “liberal” – I’d say “progressive” is more apt – this sounds about right to me. Political correctness offers you social acceptance in exchange for conforming to a political doctrine that is determined by others.

      3. Individualists of the world, unite and take over!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.