Media

Who Elected Scott Brown and Bob McDonnell? Well, You Know That It Was You And Me…

|

Writing at Politico, David Boaz and David Kirby explain the "centrist" swing vote that seems to be eluding definition by the MSM:

A careful look at polling data shows these voters may be less mysterious than analysts think. 

Libertarians seem to be a leading indicator of this trend in centrist, independent-minded voters, based on an analysis of many years of polling data. We estimate that libertarians compose from 14 percent to 23 percent of voters nationally. They are among the few real swing voters in U.S. politics. 

Libertarian voters are often torn between their aversion to the Republicans' social conservatism and the Democrats' fiscal irresponsibility. 

These days, they are angry about spending, deficits and government takeovers — but less motivated by social issues. Libertarians are slightly more likely to be male, white, independent and moderate than the general public.

Read the whole thing here.

NEXT: Reason Writers on Basic Cable: Matt Welch on Fox Business Channel This Morning at 10:30 Eastern to Talk About San Diego's Pension Bomb

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. If Republicans make big gains in 2010 with libertarian votes, we could be hearing about a “libertarian revolution.”

    Nope. Isnt gonna happen.

    1. The big gains probably will, but it being labeled a libertarian revolution wont.

    2. Why not?

      In 1960, no one could have imagined that Communist sympathizers would take over the Democratic Party.

      1. HAHAHAHAHA

        Thanks i needed that

  2. More Libertarian optimism. I’m too jaded at this point.

  3. Everyone’s a libertarian as far as cutting the government benefits of others go.

    http://www.boston.com/news/loc…..ing_views/

    My favorite excerpt:

    “When asked why her family used state-subsidized health care when she criticized people who take handouts, Valerie Shirk said she did not want to stop having children, and that her husband’s income was not enough to cover the family with private insurance.
    “I know there’s a dichotomy because of what we get from the state,” she said. “But I just look at each of my children as a blessing.”

    1. Your blessing is my curse! Stupid bitch.

    2. Funny that her name is Shirk…

    3. Everyone’s a libertarian as far as cutting the government benefits of others go.

      True, kind of reminds me of the classic Teabagger line “Keep government out of Medicare!”

      1. SHUT THE FUCK UP DANNY DEVITO!

    4. Valerie needs slapped around.

    5. Ugh, that woman needs a lot of miscarriages.

  4. Just “slightly” more likely to be white and male than the general public?

    Good one! I needed a laugh this morning.

    1. What ‘cha laughing at? I, for one, am proud to be more male (if only slightly) than the general public.

      1. To be exact, I have 47 percent more testicles than the average American.

        1. As for Dan T., I’m guessing 13 – 17 percent, tops.

          1. Oh, get a room and compare each others balls, you freaks.

            1. Indeed. Let’s hope CN doesn’t have elephantiasis.

              1. Only 47 percent more than average, SGM. That’s all I’m claimin’.

                1. And given that the Average American has slightly less than one, I don’t think my claim should be so hard to believe.

                  1. Actually, now that I think about it, I’ve probably got 103 percent more than average. I rock.

                    1. If your sample size contains of Hitler, perhaps.

                    2. He said of the average American, not of the average male American.

                    3. Women have testicles?

  5. Libertarians are slightly more likely to be male, white, independent and moderate than the general public.

    Racists, all of ’em! Right, Dan T.?

    1. Not necessarily racists, but white males tend to have the required $$ and “I did it all myself” attitude that defines libertarians.

      Besides, white males probably make up 25% of the American population. Do you think 75% of libertarians are women or minorities? Really?

      1. You’re right Dan T. I’ve got mine, so fuck the little people!!
        You can have ’em!!! Go do whatever the fuck you want to with ’em!!! Fuck, saddle ’em with Obamacare for all I care! No skin off my ass!!!!
        Bwahahaha!

        1. Actually, why the fuck do we rich, self-made libertarians even bother to come here and decry “injustice”?
          Oh, that’s right — we’re trying to save an extra 2 – 3 percent on our marginal tax rates. Carry on.

          1. Oh, come on…you can’t go around claiming that “personal freedom” is the most important thing in the world and then wonder why people think you are selfish.

            1. Uh – wanting individual liberties for all is “selfish”?

              Whereas wanting government to use its power to take away the wealth of a few (other than one’s self, natch) to distribute it to others is highly altruistic, I’m sure.

            2. Oh, come on…you can’t go around claiming that “personal freedom” is the most important thing in the world and then wonder why people think you are selfish.

              We have heard from people who claimed otherwise- people like Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot, Benito Mussolini, Francisco Franco, etc.

              1. ENOUGH!
                TAKE HIM TO THE DEATH PANELS!

      2. Because brown people never have any money or any kind of a self relient attitude.

        My God that was a racist comment. So racist that I think Reason should delete it as offsenive.

        1. Contrary to popular belief, people do NOT have the right to not be offended.

          1. I know that. But if Reason had such a policy, Dan T’s only white men are self reliant comment would qualify.

            1. It was in poor taste, but that is the type of comment in the real world that will get your ass kicked (deservedly so). It is also misogynistic because Dan T. neglected to include women (of any ethnicity) in his blanket statement.

              You are the foulest of creatures Dan T.

              1. Teabaggers don’t kick people’s asses, they just whine.

                The Tea Parties are the death throes of American conservatism. They don’t even have a coherant message other then general dissatisfaction that they have to live in a society that is not tailored exclusively to their tastes.

                1. Wait, I thought they were violent crazies, ready to snap at the slightest provocation?

            2. Spare your faux outrage John.

              Nobody is self-reliant, but white privilged men tend to be the most likely to think so.

              1. There is nothing faux about my outrage. You are a racist white supremacist who thinks that white people occupy a unique position of privilege that other colored people can never hope to attain. That is why you think minorities need more help than whites. You really are a racist Dan. You are not a malevolent racist who means harm to people. You are a paternal racist who wants to help. But a racist none the less.

                1. John, you are just a Troll I’m learning.

                  1. John, you are just a Troll I’m learning.

                    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

                2. Nice try John. It does happen that whites have more money on average than minorities. They also have half the unemployment rate.

                  What could possibly explain this? I’m curious to know what you think.

                  1. Tony: That would be because liberals cut many minorities off at the knees by keeping them in a perpetual cycle of welfare and slave-wage poverty, all while claiming to be helping them find jobs, education and so-called equality.

                    Why is it, Tony, that when many of these minorities manage to crawl out of that cycle of cultural suicide, the liberals call them Uncle Toms, or race traitors? Can you explain this phenomenon, since I know it’s supposedly impossible for liberals to be racist fucks?

                    1. Steff,

                      Black president. Hell-o.

                      You will go to any lengths of sophistry to blame everything on liberals.

                      How come blacks can’t get themselves out of this perpetual cycle with hard work and ingenuity? Surely a welfare check isn’t going to diminish their entrepreneurial spirit. Are they not starving quite enough to be motivated?

                    2. I don’t know Tony, but I sure as hell know quite a few (non-white) minorities that came to this country not knowing any English and within a few years own their own businesses, every thing from mobile food stands to prominent corporations in OK.

                      Some of them are even doctors Tony, my colleagues.

                      BTW, did you observe 167 sec. of silence?

                    3. Groovus,

                      And how are their friends back home, the ones who couldn’t afford to emigrate, doing?

                      So you don’t know what’s causing the disparity, or you neither want to engage in ridiculous nonsense about how social welfare programs are somehow holding them back, or just say it’s something genetic? Cuz it’s an interesting question–rather crucial to the debate.

                    4. Fine.

                      How about maybe believing the tripe that progressives shovel with race hucksters full blessing that they NEED, nay, MUST have the condescending help of the paternalistic progressive for if nothing else to assuage the guilt of said elite progressives. Who are wealthy (more wealthy than conservatives), with style lacking substance, and as long as they patronize “those poor ghetto folks, sigh” with feel goodism crap, and maybe suggest that white men, in particular, aren’t the fucking devil!!!! It also might help to leave the chip of entitlement off the shoulder as well, Tony.

                      Medically, higher rates of unplanned pregnancies and out of wedlock births is the biggest preventable factor, IMO, that needs to be addressed. Yes, condoms and sex ed, but kinda hard to to implement that when kids are too stupid or selfish to use them!!!

                      And yes, Bell Curve does play a factor across the aggregate. And that is true of any ethnicity Tony, so don’t even bother with the “racist” label.

                      /end rant

                    5. Groovus,

                      So your explanation for why black people are poorer on average is:

                      Unjustified psychobabble about guilt and paternalism

                      They think white men are the devil

                      Okay. Well, once we rule out inherent traits (which we must), then as Dr. House would say, that only leaves an environmental cause.

                      A history of oppression leaving significantly less wealth in the community as a whole might have something to do with it. An abjectly racist criminal justice system too. Just guesses.

                      Welfare isn’t distributed racially. It just happens that minorities are poorer on average. The original cause of this can’t be welfare or the liberal state imposing a psychological disorder on them. Maybe the original cause is still the cause?

                    6. Unjustified psychobabble about guilt and paternalism

                      I’m afraid it is not psychobabble Tony. Urban sociology and psychology recognize this phenomenon. If it was not real, then race hucksters would not have a logical leg to to stand upon.

                      They think white men are the devil

                      Yes, ask Louis Farrakahn, Jesse Jackson, and Al Sharpon, who purport to speak for Black America. All are on record using that term. Or do you subscribe that Black people cannot be racist?

                      Okay. Well, once we rule out inherent traits (which we must), then as Dr. House would say, that only leaves an environmental cause.

                      Logic FAIL Tony. We cannot rule out inherent traits, as they make up an individual. Once we do not treat people as individuals, then the aggregate will suffer, regardless of environment.

                      A history of oppression leaving significantly less wealth in the community as a whole might have something to do with it. An abjectly racist criminal justice system too. Just guesses.

                      There comes a time when a group must choose to let go of the past, especially if the unpleasant past is hindering the growth and development of the individual. Blaming the abject racist legal system does have merit. Perhaps if consensual crimes were no longer illegal, that excuse would be moot. Just a thought.

                      Welfare isn’t distributed racially. It just happens that minorities are poorer on average. The original cause of this can’t be welfare or the liberal state imposing a psychological disorder on them. Maybe the original cause is still the cause?

                      Then you have no argument if welfare is not distributed racially. It is distributed to those that apply for it,and the majority percentage by ethnicity happens to be black. If more blacks apply for welfare and entitlement programs, especially without which children could not be supported, why would one choose to have children they cannot afford? If one is trapped in a lifestyle and mindset of dependency, coupled with the mindset of entitlement then etiologically speaking, as Dr. House would say, we have cause.

                  2. Nice try John. It does happen that whites have more money on average than minorities. They also have half the unemployment rate.

                    So what?

                    Where in the world is there equality?

                    Japan?

                    Malaysia?

                    1. Michael,

                      You don’t find minorities having double the average unemployment rates is anything to worry your pretty little head over?

                      Because, uh, inequality is everywhere? So we might as well not do anything about it or even think about it.

                      How about finding causes for inequality and working to decrease it. Nobody said the world will be perfect anytime soon. But it can be more perfect.

                    2. The unemployment rate is due in large part to minimum wage laws, aka price controls on wages, mostly passed by liberals thinking they are helping minorities.

                    3. Your mom’s cunt.
                      Sorry, couldn’t resist.

                    4. As a reply to “Michael Ejercito”‘s question:

                      >Where in the world is there equality?

            3. LOL, poor John, it’s only you saying that since you don’t have anything to offer but poutrage.

        2. offsenive

          offensive + senile?

  6. I’m not sure about any truly libertarian surge, but there’s certainly a major wave of anti-government sentiment growing. Where that will lead is anyone’s guess at this point. Reminds me somewhat of the lead up to the Reagan election.

    1. Which led to unprecedented government, debt, and deficit enlargement.
      Yeah, go Reagan!

      1. I wasn’t saying I wanted another Reagan; I was saying that the attitudes today are similar.

        As for unprecedented growth in government and debt, well, we could fund several federal governments of the 80s variety with what we spend today.

        1. Really?

    2. It is not a libertarian surge. I don’t think they want to radically reduce the size and scope of governmen the way doctrinaire Libertarians do. They would just like to reduce to maybe 1980s levels, which to the media makes them some kind of radical.

      1. I don’t think that raising taxes, increasing the deficit and the size of the government would be popular with the taxed enough already crowd.

        Remember, Reagan’s speeches and his actual policies were vastly different.

        1. Reagan didn’t raise taxes in 1982 nearly as much as he cut them in 1980. And the 1986 tax reform was the best start at a flat tax the government has ever had.

          Seriously, if you are going to talk about history, at least try to know the facts.

          1. Reagan in a nutshell:

            Cut taxes and raise them afterwards.

            Borrow, borrow, borrow, increase the size of government, leave a giant deficit and government as your legacy.

            Also, Iran-Contras, War on Drugs, wasteful military spending, cut-and-run in Beirut, arming Jihadists in Afghanistan, etc.

            But hero worship is not rational, so I forgive you.

            1. Neither is ignorance. I guess I missed the part where Reagan was elected King and had the power of the purse, as opposed to Congress.

              You are so misinformed, your comments don’t even qualify as wrong.

              1. I understand that you are offended that I dared to question your Messiah and I apologize for engaging in a politically incorrect hate crime against your religion.

                1. You are not offensive. You are just stupid. There is a difference.

                  1. Yeah, Reagan cut taxes and congress increased them.

                    That’s what happened, because Reagan was powerless.

                    Congress must have hyp-mo-tized Reagan into raising taxes, because he would never do what was politically expedient.

                    Blessed be his government spending, for it was the sacred kind!

                    Blessed be St. Reagan, the tax-raising, deficit-spending, government-expanding, socially oppressive, fiscally conservative libertarian!

                    Amen!

            2. 1) Spurred sustained growth.

              2) The only way to pass any of his agenda was in increase social spending.

              3)ICA, overblown. WoD, check you are correct. Military, with Russia quite willing to spend every last dime and lifeblood of the Soviet people to keep running the arms race, justified. Beirut, justified. Afghanistan, you are correct.

            3. cut-and-run in Beirut,

              I’m sorry, do you want us to have bases and occupy other countries or not? Blind opposition is no better or no more rational than blind hero worship.

              arming Jihadists in Afghanistan

              Suriously, why are you arguing that the US should have colonized Afghanistan or otherwise interfered more?

              The US strategy in Afghanistan was one that libertarians would recommend. We armed all factions without prejudice in Afghanistan, refusing to pick a side and set them up as “our guys.” What happened later was that the US completely ignored Afghanistan after the Soviets left, and neighboring countries and various factions fought. If you really didn’t want the Pakistan-backed Taliban to take over in the ensuing civil war, then the US would have had to take a more direct role and pick winners.

              1. No, I’m just trying to explain to the Reagan-loving zombie-fellators that their beloved cowboy was just as much a cut-and-run guy as the ones they criticize for being so.

                And staying out of Beirut and Afghanistan to begin with would’ve been a better idea.

                1. Ummm…who here is opposed to cutting and running? or to not being there in the first place?

                  Are you one of those idiots who has confused us with republicans?

                  1. Some Republican Zombie-fellating Reagan-loving troll named John.

            4. cut-and-run in Beirut

              The best middle east strategy of the last half century. And you are criticizing it?

              1. No, a much better one would’ve been to stay out of that shithole to begin with.

                1. Wow, you have so much to add to the conversation. Your thoughts are like poetry. And no one has ever said something like “just stay out of that shithole”. What an amazingly informed and creative argument.

                  You apparently are not really a troll. You just really are that stupid.

                  1. Yeah, because colonizing the world like some deranged Roman empire is such a great idea.

            5. Also, Iran-Contras, War on Drugs, wasteful military spending, cut-and-run in Beirut, arming Jihadists in Afghanistan, etc.

              The jihadists in Afghanistan were fighting Communists, just like Communuists fought Nazis in the 1940’s.

              1. When the enemy of your enemy still wants to kill you, you might want to redefine who you call your friends.

        2. Do they even teach history in schools anymore?

          1. Yes, but only starting with FDR’s New Deal Administration.

      2. Hell John, remember in the Clinton Years, “A cut isn’t really a cut”.

        We’re not spending as much as budgeted, even though the amount we are spending is more than last year’s budget. And the press had kittens over that stuff.

        1. Yes I do. And remember the porkulus raised baseline domestic spending 50%. So if the new Congress in 2011 wants to put spending back to even 2008 levels, the media will have kittens about the “50% cut in spending”.

          1. When St. Reagan cut taxes, it was all because he’s the Messiah and performed miracles.

            When St. Reagan raised taxes, it was all because of that evil, evil Judas Congress.

            1. Troll. You have been fed enough.

              1. Religious simpleton.
                You’ve been fed enough.

          2. I really picked the wrong day to stop [whatever addiction du jour.

            1. Sounds delicious! I’ll have that.

  7. The reason so many white heterosexual males are in the tea party movement is because they’ve finally realized that the US government and corporate America don’t give a fuck about them and see them as grist for the mill.

    Everyone else figured that out a long time ago, but white and straight males were privileged for a long time, so it took them a while to understand that they are just as disposable as the rest of us.

    1. White, straight males will NOT be easy to dispose of. I will not go peacefully or quietly.

      1. See, they’ve been fairly successful at keeping the urban brown people from owning guns (for their own good, of course). But the crackers keep clinging to their guns.

    2. There really aren’t that many. The Tea Party rallies are attracting a fraction of 1% of the American population.

  8. Scott Adams has a nice line, something like — yes, the world is ruled by a group of white men, but 99.999 percent of white men aren’t a part of that group.

    1. A lot of white, straight men think that they are.

      Deficits are OK as long as a white, wanna-be cowboy rack them up.

      When an uppity community organizer took over and did the same, that’s when they decided to go out and protest.

      1. So suriously, Suriously, do you think that if Colin Powell had won the Republican nomination and had continued the Bush policies, the tea partiers would still be on the street?

        1. I don’t know.

      2. Your timeline is off. The first [modern] tea party was before the election.

        1. Yeah, of course it is.
          I remember the massive demonstrations against Bush’s mismanagement of the federal budget and his borrow-and-spend policies.
          1 million people in Times Square.
          Then again, you’re from a parallel dimension.

          1. Well, I seem to recall the movement starting after TARP, which kicked off under Bush.

            1. In conjunction with a Democrat-controlled Congress, of course.

            2. December 16th, 2007 was pre-Tarp.

          2. The movement is bigger now, but it did start while Bush was still President. If you want to attribute the growth in attendance to racism, nobody can stop you from having that opinion.

            1. Maybe, but it didn’t kick into crazy high gear until that elitist arugula-munching Kenyan took office.

              1. Maybe, but it didn’t kick into crazy high gear until that elitist arugula-munching Kenyan took office increased the deficit by trillions of dollars.

                1. Bush increased the deficit by trillions of dollars.
                  Didn’t see any protests then.

                  1. The deficit was well south of a trillion dollars when Bush left office. We never had a trillion dollar deficit until Obama came along. And he has run up more “debt” as opposed to deficit, in one year than Bush ran up in eight years.

                    I guess if you don’t like the facts you can always make them up.

                    1. Yeah, because the Bush tax cuts, the Iraq and Afghanistan war and the creation of Homeland Security was paid for by lollipops and unicorn tears.

                      What are you doing here except for trolling?

                      Seriously, this is a libertarian forum, not a Republican Party one.

                      Go back to freerepublic.com where you belong, troll.

                    2. And boy, with your talk of white people eugenics, you’re doing a bangup fucking job of being a libertarian yourself.

                    3. John, what you’re saying is only true if you let the Bush Administration’s funny accounting of war expenses slip by.

                    4. John @ 11:39

                      Ladies and gentlemen, i give you exhibit A. None of these folks gave a shit about Bush’s spending increases, and democrats held the congress for two years before Obama was elected, but it’s easy to blame a boogie man and play class warfare.

                      You people are transparent and sad.

                  2. Didn’t see any protests then.

                    Dec 16, 2007.

                    You ignoring that post for a reason?

                  3. They were happening. I can’t help it that you didn’t see them.

                    1. The tea party movement might have started a genuine and mostly irrelevant nonpartisan grassroots effort, but it went into “the president is a nig*BOING* and Gawd bless Faux News” crazy mode as soon Obama became elected, thanks to Dick Armey’s Freedomworks organization.

                    2. Don’t completely disagree. The Republican Party is clearly trying to co-opt the movement.

      3. And fiscal conservatives argue against those types of deficit policies.

        However there is the case to be made of “acceptable levels of debt”. Which is germane to the individual i. e. very few people have anough money lying around to buy a house outright as opposed to a downpayment and financing the rest.

        1. Hmmm…following that analogy, what does that make an “acceptable level of debt”?

          Using the Dave Ramsey guide, mortgage should be no more than 25% of take home pay. Which means that no more than 25% of tax revenue should service the debt. On average, the feds collect about 18% of GDP in tax revenue, which would limit debt service to 4.5% of GDP. At 5% interest rate (for easy math), that limits debt to 90% of GDP.

          Of course, he also thinks it should be on a 15 year mortgage. In that case, 53% of the debt payment should be interest, 47% principle, so that lowers that debt ceiling from 90% of GDP to 47%.

          yeah, if we got the debt back down to 47% of GDP, we would be in much better shape. I can see that as “acceptable level”, if that is understood as a max so we would want to be well under it in most cases so we could borrow to it in an emergency.

          Feel free to sprinkle SLDs all over this post.

          1. As long as they are NaCl free.

            /end snark

          2. One difference- With a home loan, you are gaining equity in a piece of real estate with each payment. With government spending, you as well be lighting the money on fire…..

            1. Yeah, because investing in real estate worked out so well for the economy…

              1. “Investing” in real estate was fucking stupid. But seeing value in owning a tangible, long-lasting asset is not the same thing.

      4. When an uppity community organizer took over and did the same, that’s when they decided to go out and protest.

        Nope. First protest was before that. But even before that, the Republican base stayed home and libertarian-ish swing voters voted against the Republicans in 2006 and 2008.

        The protests became bigger once it became obvious that the Democrats were only going to continue GWB’s bailouts and spending.

        Still, I’ll grant it’s true to some degree that people protest less when their team is in power, just like Democrats don’t protest about the war or detainees since their man is in power.

        1. Also, the budget for the fiscal year of 2009 was that of Bush, not Obama.

          http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/browse.html

          1. Also, the budget for the fiscal year of 2009 was that of Bush, not Obama.

            Well, except for the stimulus bill, of course.

            1. Don’t confuse the troll with facts. He doesn’t like them and they make him uncomfortable.

              1. A troll preemptively calling others trolls to avoid detection?
                Clever, clever girl.

          2. If Obama signed it, it’s his. You can play blame the previous guy all you want, but once your signature is at the bottom of the page, it’s yours in every meaningful sense.

            1. The 2010 federal budget is all Obama, but not the 2009 one.

              Here’s the link:
              http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/browse.html

              1. Again, you’re ignoring the stimulus.

              2. Again, you sign it, you own it. If the 2009 budget was so fucking terrible, Obama could have had his crack team of top men put together a better one.

                1. That’s not how the federal budget process works…

      5. Ah, there it is! It’s all about racism, of course.

        Sub-par trolling today.

        1. REAGAN! WOLVERINES! DEATH PANELS!

  9. Libertarian voters are often torn between their aversion to the Republicans’ social conservatism and the Democrats’ fiscal irresponsibility.

    Yeah, and the War on Terror, the Patriot Act, detainees, the wars in the Middle East, where do Libertarians stand on those issues?

    And since when are the republicans fiscally responsible? And speaking of social conservatism, what about all of the “Nanny State” crap the Democrats are pushing through? These people just don’t get it. Not even close.

    1. Thats why I deny that libertarians are “fiscally conservative and socially liberal”. Libertarians are fiscally libertarian and socially libertarian.

      1. I likw fiscally responsible and socially tolerant.

        personal preference

        1. I see a difference between “opposes laws against said behavior” and “tolerance”.

          But maybe that is just me.

          1. Touch?
            (which the damn filter is correct in stating as non-english but DAMN)
            Touch?

        2. I like turtles.

  10. The white males were more likely taught responsibility and self reliance. They were taught that they were important. Now, in a feminized America, they realize their importance is to be worker ants and warriors, and give their production to the colony, and to listen to women complain.

    Women did not march on Trenton on a cold Christmas eve in 1777 to get the right to vote. It was handed to them, without them firing a shot. Now that’s power!

    1. Sounds like Bilbo misses the good ol’ days when you could slap your broad around when she got mouthy.

      1. No way! I prefer the current system where the broad can slap her man around.

        1. Bilbo does have a point. Notice that Tiger Woods is the bad guy and his abusive and violent wife is sympathetic…

    2. um yeah handed to them 150 years later, but whatever.

      1. The point being (not that I agree with it) that they didnt have to fight a war in the 1910s to get the vote.

      2. Not all men had the right to vote. It was a dangerous undertaking. Voters had to own land. Polling places were in saloons. Guns and violence were at polling places. After democracy proved safe then some women, women who did not have a bunch of kids, decided they wanted to vote. Women had about 7 children. Was she going to get up in the early morning, prepare food, load her children, some infants, into an open wagon and ride several miles in inclement weather to vote?

        Queen Victoria was against female suffrage. Winston Churchill’s mother was against female suffrage.

        Why did women wait 100 years to ask? If they could get the right to vote without using force, why wait so long? Wyoming gave women the right to vote in 1869. When the 19th amendment was passed, only 19 states did not allow women the right to vote. Do you think those states would still prohibit women from voting without the 19th amendment.

        I would like to see half the states allow only men the right to vote and half the states allow only women the right to vote. Which do you think would treat the non voting gender the best. The answer will show you which gender has the power. All relationships are about power.

        1. Why did women wait 100 years to ask?

          either Dolly Madison or Abigail Adams is said to have said ‘Don’t forget about the Ladies’ to their husbands.

    3. Women did not march on Trenton on a cold Christmas eve in 1777.

      LOL, wut?

      1. Why are you historically significant again?

  11. Libertarian voters are often torn between their aversion to the Republicans’ social conservatism fiscal irresponsibility and the Democrats’ fiscal irresponsibility.

    1. +100

  12. “Libertarian voters are often torn between their aversion to the Republicans’ social conservatism and the Democrats’ fiscal irresponsibility.”

    Politicians just aren’t the solution to our problems.

    1. Nor is giving lots of money or power to those politicians.

      1. Give that money and power to the corporations instead!

        Check who donates to the Reason Foundation sometime.

        1. Give that money and power to the corporations for goods and services instead!

          Don’t mind if I do.

        2. KOCHTOPUS!

        3. Give that money and power to the corporations instead!

          Of course,

          Corporations do not have the track record of putting innocent people like Timothy Cole in prison.

          Governments do.

    2. Well, the government did save our asses when the financial system collapsed.

      1. Right after you typed this: “Give that money and power to the corporations instead!”

        You’re such a corporate tool. It’s truly hilarious.

      2. If by “saved” you mean “Gave a methodone addict another hit to get him through the day.” Addicition to non-existent money is not something that should be promoted by federally sanctioned (but not audited) entities. This country is in desperate need of an intervention, but in a world full addicts, who will tell us we are destroying ourselves?

        1. What do you mean non-existent money? Big Government can always just inflate us (more or less) out of the debt. Not that I like the idea, of course.

      3. Well, the government did save our asses Give that money and power to the corporations instead! when the financial system collapsed.

  13. I know right. Guess the joke is on us LOL

    Lou
    http://www.vpn-privacy.us.tc

    1. I miss the more advanced and sometimes witty quasi-self aware anon bot.

      Ho hum

  14. But in many ways, Brown’s campaign copied the winning strategy of Bob McDonnell in the race for Virginia governor ? emphasizing fiscal issues and playing down social ones. This would appeal to libertarian voters.

    Only the uninformed libertarian voters. McDonnell’s social conservative baggage was a red flag for me at least.

  15. Give that money and power to the corporations instead!

    *clutches chest, falls to floor*

  16. When have corporations jailed people, conducted wars, etc.? Your bogey man is weak, old boy.

    1. PL, when corporations have enough power, they become the government…one might say they are conducting wars right now. Does Halliburtion ring a bell? Blackwater? KBR?

      And with private prisons, corporations are currently very much involved in locking people up.

      Again, check into who funds the Reason Foundation.

      1. Proving my point. What could those corporations do without a large government? Not anywhere near as much.

        There are, incidentally, a large number of influential organizations and even individuals that aren’t for-profit businesses.

        1. PL, remember it’s the libertarian catch-22.

          You guys don’t want to limit the accumulation of power by private people or groups and then later complain when they use that power in ways you don’t like.

          1. Without big government, corporations dont have any power. How hard is that to understand?

          2. Without big government, corporations dont have any power. How hard is that to understand?

      2. Every single one of those corporations has had their actions sanctioned and funded by the government.

        1. Right, because corporations became powerful enough to call the shots.

          1. No, because government became powerful enough to sanction their actions and fund them…

            1. Come on, you have to know this is bullshit of the first order. Pure nonsense doublethink.

              Businesses are “sanctioned” to do whatever they want as long as nobody’s preventing them, right?

              1. Businesses are accountable to their customers and investors Tony. I assume you have a 401k and investments no?

                You buy products, correct?

                You can choose to vote with YOUR dollar, but don’t get pissy when others choose otherwise.

                1. And it might be in the interest of everyone concerned for this business to dump garbage on someone else’s property. Somebody has to prevent them from wrongdoing like that, not to mention fraud.

                  1. If it’s my property, and they want to lease it, fine.

                    Then it is up to property owners to to prevent that kind of abuse. If there is a legal grievance, that’s what courts are for.

                    1. BUT WHAT ABOUT THE MUTHA FUCKIN’ CHILDREN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                    2. To quote Pope Benedict:
                      Fuck the children!

    2. When have corporations jailed people, conducted wars, etc.?

      The British East India Company for one.

      Granted, this was a very special sort of company, and could not have existed without the support of the British govt, but still…

  17. check into who funds the Reason Foundation.

    Fucking space lizards.

    1. You know about the Reptoids too?

      1. I, for one, welcome our Kochtoid overlords.

  18. PL, when corporations have enough power, they become the government…one might say they are conducting wars right now.

    I agree that having monied interests take over a large and powerful government is a Bad Thing. Its one of the very best reasons to keep the government small and weak, then, isn’t it? Don’t forget:

    Money and power will always find each other.

    1. Yes, because a much larger and even less limited government will stop those evil corporations right in their tracks. Right?

    2. RC,

      That $997,000 that Goldman Sachs gave to Obama’s campaign had nothing to do with his desire to bail them out. Nothing. To imply otherwise is just racist.

      1. But according to libertarians, Goldman Sachs was just exercising its freedom of speech!

        You see how incoherant your philosophy is?

        1. It only seems incoherent because you are stupid Dan. Goldman has every right to give him money. The point is to limit government and deny him the ability to intervene on Goldman’s behalf. Then Goldman has no need or motivation to ever give him money.

          Since government power will ever be manipulated by the powerful and connected, it is rarely a force for good and should be limited at every opportunity.

          1. But limited by whom? The powerful can do whatever they want. That’s why it’s called power.

            1. And I might add, that seems to be what libertarians want. They want the powerful (read: privileged white males) to wield unlimited power, like CEOs of a corporation. I seem to recall something similar happening in Germany circa 1933.

              1. Correct me if I am wrong but Germany in the 30s experienced a socialist expansion of power and the government acquired the means of production and greater power over individuals…so what you are saying is that Governments are abd when they are socialistic and gain a bunch of power. Very well then, I agree. Hence I loke limited government.

                Thanks for clarifying

              2. I am impressed that you held off 2 hours & 35 minutes before Godwining this thread. Good job! Let’s shoot for 3 hours next time!

    3. But if we keep government small and weak then who is going to protect us from those who have power?

      Government is always going to be whomever has the most power. The question is, is it better to have a government that at least somewhat answers to the people or one that only answers to the 5% elite?

      1. But I guess that’s what libertarians want, is for the United States to become one giant corporation, where citizens are treated as employees. And employees who don’t belong to the privileged white middle class (ie, those dirty coloreds), are simply discarded. Or worse.

        1. Libertarians would never admit to having a racist bone in their body.

          That they’re so ignorant of history that they don’t realize that the “small government” crusade has mostly always hinged on white racial resentment isn’t their fault. It’s the fault of their high school teachers, I suppose.

          Scaring middle class white people by telling them all their money’s gonna be handed over to lazy blacks is just the way Republicans have managed to keep themselves in power to do their looting, complete with libertarianism providing the philosophical excuse.

          1. And I’ll take this opportunity to apologize for slavery, folks!

          2. Man, Tony. Only in your world is it okay to call yourself somehow privileged because you were born white. And yet, you wonder who the racists really are.

            1. Being born white is, on average, to be born more privileged than if you were born another color.

              Being born with rich parents also means you have a leg up.

              Being born in the USA instead of Uganda is also a completely random bit of luck that has given you a huge boost over other human beings.

              Yet we’re supposed to believe wealth is all the product of hard work and ingenuity. With the implication that if you’re poor, you’re morally unfit and don’t deserve help.

              1. With the implication that if you’re poor, you’re morally unfit and don’t deserve help.

                Wrong. Being poor doesn’t give you a claim on others’ property, because regardless of whether it’s your own fault or not, it’s damn sure not your neighbor’s fault. Simple really.

                1. Jordan,

                  What claim do you have to what you call your property? Finders keepers?

                  1. Post an address, shitbrains. We’ll come over and take what we like.

                  2. “With the implication that if you’re poor, you’re morally unfit and don’t deserve help.”

                    That’s a lovely straw man you have there.

                    “What claim do you have to what you call your property? Finders keepers?”

                    Purchase keepers? I realize that property rights aren’t really your thing, but they are indeed the basis of any functioning economy.

              2. > Yet we’re supposed to believe wealth is all the product of hard work and
                > ingenuity.

                No, you’re supposed to believe that wealth can be the result of hard work and ingenuity.

                > With the implication that if you’re poor, you’re morally unfit and
                > don’t deserve help.

                Now you’re just making shit up.

              3. A man walks into a room full of people. He pulls a gun and robs them all. Then he knowingly slips the pistol into the front of his pants, and insist that “past is past, from now on everyone respect everyone else’s property rights” After all he earned it

              4. Yet we’re supposed to believe wealth is all the product of hard work and ingenuity. With the implication that if you’re poor, you’re morally unfit and don’t deserve help.

                Lily Burk learned the hard way that the poor do not deserve help.

              5. “With the implication that if you’re poor, you’re morally unfit and don’t deserve help.”

                No, Mr. Statistician, if you’re poor you’re on average more likely to be responsible for your own condition through a lifetime of bad decisions. That doesn’t mean they’re “immoral”, only that they had the net effect of making you poor.

                Granted, no man is an island. Your decisions are influenced by those around you, etc. etc. But that shit doesn’t get you off for murder, so why should it get you off for poverty rap?

                As for Uganda, the problem with many poor nations is, at the root, lack of social capital. If social capital could even somehow be provided from outside (a doubtful proposition as Iraq and Afghanistan remind us), it would require, among other things, deliberate cultural imperialism. The left is willing to sacrifice many things for the poor (including, and limited to, other peoples’ money), but its sacred cows are not among them.

          3. That they’re so ignorant of history that they don’t realize that the “small government” crusade has mostly always hinged on white racial resentment isn’t their fault. It’s the fault of their high school teachers, I suppose.

            It was government that enforced Jim Crow Laws and the Sedition Act.

            1. And what got rid of Jim Crow? That’s right, the federal government. After all those local governments had engaged in unacceptable oppression.

              1. after being instituted by progressive woodrow wilson.

    4. when corporations have enough power, they become the government

      The Obama administration and corporate officers of Goldman Sachs are synonymous.

  19. Back to the thread title, Nick asks:

    “Who Elected Scott Brown…”

    So are Libertarians now taking credit for electing a guy who supports state-run healthcare?

    Interesting.

    1. There’s no shame in a vote for divided government.

    2. Scott Brown won the election, so obviously everyone wants to claim that they were responsible.

      Success has many fathers, while failure is an orphan.

    3. Most of us were bitching about his record before he was elected. Afterwards, others decided to relish the fact that an ill-conceived fiscal nightmare was for the moment, delayed.

      If anything, the tiny token libertarian strand of repulicans push the vote away from Teddy “My Deathwish is that Universal Healthcare Comes to Fruition” Kennedy’s succesor Marsha Coakley and Scott “I voted for some bullshit Mitt told me to vote for. I’m a fucking moron,” Brown. Personally, I would’ve voted for some dead celebrity or an old Hanna Barbara cartoon character like CAPTAIN CAAAAAVVVVEEMAAAAAN! You can’t beat his record.

  20. But if we keep government small and weak then who is going to protect us from those who have power?

    Please desist from this incoherent babbling.

  21. Besides, white males probably make up 25% of the American population. Do you think 75% of libertarians are women or minorities?

    Well at least now we know that the “white, male” part of libertarians is a minority. (Or is my (your) math wrong?)

    1. Tony doesn’t think so. XD I know I don’t exist, then. But I’m used to that, being bi — non-existence is quite nice sometimes.

  22. But I guess that’s what libertarians want, is for the United States to become one giant corporation, where citizens are treated as employees. And employees who don’t belong to the privileged white middle class (ie, those dirty coloreds), are simply discarded. Or worse.

    Unmasked, I am!

    1. They found us out, CHEEZE it!

      In all seriousness, go to hell you damn liberal sexists racists.

  23. “libertarians want … privileged white males … to wield unlimited power”

    Why do people even respond to his racist nonsense? He’s not even trying anymore.

  24. You guys keep encouraging Tony. Do you really have nothing better to do than refute the same nonsense over and over again?

    1. You’re 100% right.

    2. and whats up with Dan T’s recent upgrade to full blown troll?

  25. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…..K5DhkwgLyg

    Are these libertarians? I have to admit, some of their regurgitated talking points sound weirdly familiar.

  26. Scott Brown should go back to nude modeling.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.