Nick Gillespie on Real Time with Bill Maher's "Overtime" Segment


Earlier tonight, Reason's Nick Gillespie appeared on HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher, along with political consultant Donna Brazile, actor John Turturro, and Braddock, Pennsylvania Mayor John Fetterman.

After each episode, there's a web-only "Overtime" segment. Watch it by clicking above.

For more on the show, go here.

NEXT: Meet the Man Arrested for the Utøya Shootings

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Nick, holy shit. How did you not strangle all of them?

    1. From watching that segment I think he did. Everyone but Nick sounded like a wet noodle.

      Who was the big guy who said nothing?

      1. Great exchange with the big guy earlier in the show: “I’m the mayor of the poorest town in Pennsylvania..”
        Nick: “Well you must be very proud.”

        Awesome, because it was said as a prelude to some pap about needing compromise, similar to someone starting a sentence with, “As a black lesbian single-mom…”

        1. After Nick’s “you must be very proud” comment, my buddy and I burst out laughing. Crickets from the studio audience though.

          1. “Crickets from the studio audience though.”

            Crickets from the audience, crickets from the entire pro-democracy country, crickets from civilization, crickets from just about everywhere worth living in.

            At least Mr. Mayor’s voters and supporters are well-known – they live in the same town.

            The Jacket, on the other hand, has zero voters, and his supporters are not more than a pair of inherited-wealth industrialists whose Daddy made a bundle refining oil for Josef Stalin.

            Since none of the Koch’s checks to the Reason Foundation get returned, I can only assume it’s The Jacket who must be very proud.

            1. breath, breath, your anger will pass…
              Owebama is still in office, be happy…

            2. Ohhhh, so very very sad.

              1. Great arguments. You must be very proud.

                1. I agree with Orel. Nick was a dick. Lots of opinions and strong statements without any substance… every rebuttal of his was a “because why?” response. I wish the mayor would’ve kicked his butt.

          2. This was a great comment by Nick. If you’re mayor for 6 years and your city is still the poorest in the country you’re doing a bad job.

        2. Nick should write the Mayor with libertarian suggestions on how he could improve his towns economy.

          He might even be able to sick Drew Carey on him.

        3. I think John Fetterman felt insulted by Gillespie and was p*ssed for the rest of the show. He didn’t talk, and it seemed awkward. Donna Brazile seemed to be checking on him to see if he was okay. I felt bad for the guy, but maybe he was too touchy.

    2. how does someone not strangle you and nick?? is the better question

    3. New York Police Arrest Man in Boardwalk Shooting

      A 19-year-old man was arrested on charges of second-degree murder and assault in a shooting last week on a packed New York City boardwalk that killed a teenage girl and left four others wounded, police said Monday.

      Iloune Driver was being held in Brooklyn and it wasn’t immediately clear if he had a lawyer. Driver was picked up by officers late Sunday on the street after witness reports, police said. They are looking for at least one more suspect.

      Nothing else happened.…..4-wounded/

      1. So if you’re a suspected murderer, you get the kid gloves. If you’ve got a joint in your house, look out!

        1. Police arrested an Upton Street resident Wednesday morning in his house after a search warrant of the property turned up 40 marijuana plants, police said.

          Kevin Berube, 58, of 24 Upton St., was arrested in his house about 10 a.m. and charged with cultivating marijuana. He also had two outstanding warrants from Billerica police for traffic violations.

          No dogs were shot.



              1. I never seen such pwnage! He just got served. Effed in da a. Shit, how do you pull off those smooth moves?

    4. He didnt have to strangle them, they strangled themselves….notice when he tells them all to pay more taxes voluntarily if they think taxes should be higher, they all squirm around, turn red and choke.

    5. He didnt have to strangle them, they strangled themselves….notice when he tells them all to pay more taxes voluntarily if they think taxes should be higher, they all squirm around, turn red and choke.

      1. That was perfect TV. Unfortunately, there’s nobody around to underline the moment for the uniformed masses… All 23 of those watching the Bill Maher “after party” webisode.

  2. bill maher is an insufferable ass. there are a lot of people i strongly disagree with politically but respect and can watch no problem e.g rachel maddow. but bill maher (despite his claims to be a libertarian) has that classic leftist snarky “i am so much smarter than you ” attitude that drives me fucking nuts

    1. but respect and can watch no problem e.g rachel maddow.

      You definitely need re-training.

    2. Whoa! Ditto. Rachel Maddow? Now I know why you have a hard time seeing the bad in your brethren in blue. You’re a saint, if Maddow’s smugness doesn’t irritate you.

      I’ll bet I could fuck your K-9 while you were issuing me a citation, and you’d just shrug and hand me the ticket.

      1. I can respect people with different POV’s. Heck, I can even enjoy a little Mike Malloy for a dose of bombastic far left absurdity.

        Hey, until recently you could LEGALLY fuck a K-9 but the Enumclaw factor forced the legislature to step in 🙂

        1. I can respect people with different POV’s.

          Yes, but Rachel Maddow doesn’t have a point of view.

      2. maddow and her msnbc brethren are irritating in a way that makes me roll my eyes, smirk, laugh out loud at them, makes me feel sorry for them, and then switch the channel to Pawn Stars.

        half a second of bill maher’s “incisive” commentary spurs me to get up out of my seat, physically turn the TV off, and thank the stars i’m not THAT guy.

        1. i like maddow. what can i say? i LOATHED olberman. i think he is a complete clown. schultz is ok. i’m kind of neutral on him.

          when it comes to radio, though, malloy is fucking hilarious

          1. Jesus, dunphy, you have the patience of a saint.

            Apropos of nothing, how much would I have to speed past you in WA to get a ticket? 50 miles over? 60?

            1. Bill Maher looks like a penis. He really does.

    3. Bill Maher called himself a “civil libertarian”, which is just a sneaky way of saying he’s just a liberal.

      You’re either a libertarian or you aren’t; you don’t pick and choose, that’s what conservatives do with the market and it’s called conservatism, and it’s what liberals do with smoking weed and sexual liberty and it’s called liberalism.

      In other words, there was never anything libertarian about Maher. He is about as libertarian as Mitt Romney.

      1. for 10 years or so bill maher called himself a libertarian, but he never had any idea what he was talking about (i think breitbart called him on it earlier last year). it was just a way for maher to allow his lefty audience to think he was contrarian and edgy. his basic explanation was always along the lines of: i think people should do whatever the hell they want to do, and as long as no one gets hurt, it’s all good. but that ignores the arguments about the size of government, the importance of free markets, and any love for capitalism. all he understood was the personal freedoms angle. libertarianism for him was a misused comic prop.

        1. Liberals often characterize their views as precisely that — people should be allowed to do what they want as long as no one gets hurt. When you dig deeper you find that the “as long as no one gets hurt” exception also applies to the person doing what they want (eg smoking bans, salt bans, etc) and the “do what they want” excludes any activity involving money.

          1. exactly. the idea that liberals are pro civil liberties is laughable.

            1. Their libertarianism begins and ends with gonads. Nothing wrong with gonad liberty, but life’s got more to it.

          2. Many people don’t get the difference between libertarianism and being a libertine.

            1. Including some libertarians.

              1. Including some self-described libertarians.


              2. Of course,

                libertarian who thinks abortion should be legal = libertine

          3. I take offense at that characterization. I have nothing inherently against money or wealth, I understand that they’re necessary for human society to thrive.

            I just happen to think people should only earn money in a committed, lifelong relationship between employer and employee, and that that relationship should be approved in the eyes of the union as well as the state.

            It’s a shame that so many teenagers allow unscrupulous employers to take advantage of them and make decisions that they’ll regret like working for minimum wage; they’d be much better off going to college instead, and saving their employment for later, when they’re mature enough to a pick a partner who will treat them with respect.

      2. In the days of Politically Incorrect, Maher was a “coke and hookers” libertarian because those were his hobbies. Assuming any deeper rationale or philosophy of government would be a stretch.

        1. Completely agree. Concise way of putting it.

        2. he was a libertine, not a libertarian

          1. He was a non-partisan douche rather than a partisan douche.

          2. He was a Democrat who liked to smoke pot.

      3. Most “liberals” aren’t anything close to civil libertarians. What the fuck planet do you live on? If one is even close to liberal on at least one of those issues, that’s a lot more libertarian than 99% of Dems/Reps/”libs”/”cons”

    4. Wait… `that classic leftist snarky “i am so much smarter than you” attitude’?
      You are saying Bill Maher has this but Rachel Maddow doesn’t?

    5. I can’t even watch maddow

      1. And THAT’S saying something…

        1. Well, rectal didn’t say she chose not to watch Maddow. She said she couldn’t watch her. Most likely because she lost the remote between two folds of backfat, and is incapable of navigating the stacks of empty cat food tins and used D-cell batteries that are blocking her way to the buttons on her TV.

          1. Thanks for the visual.

            1. yeah, i did a “clean out” not too long ago…
              it was like an archaeological dig, this is the Spiegel level, this is the L.L. Bean level, this is the QVC level, and all the while dolls, dolls, dolls…

    6. There are a lot of people i strongly disagree with politically but respect and can watch no problem

      For me, it’s Michael Kinsley. I disagree with his political slant, but I’d never consider him to be a hack or unworthy of being listened to.

      Maddow, OTOH…what’s that word? Backpfeifengesicht?

  3. I will watch Gillespie on any other show – even The View – but there’s no way I can watch anything with Maher. Pass.

    1. He’s up there, holding the flag, and doing a good job. He even passed a “Who needs him?” line on Obama, in that crowd. Good job, Nick.

      1. Holy shit. I watched it and it’s exactly what I expected. Maher pretending he’s not a Democrat and then all but admitting it before Gillespie could call him on it. And even better was his telling us about how bad Obama is in one sentence and then fellating him as “better than the alternative” in the next. BETTER HOW?

        And the Republicans were to blame for Obama’s first term? The same Republicans who had no power in either chamber of Congress for the first year?

  4. Rule of law > democracy.
    Skipping several steps from that premise, I would gladly grant Nick a giant alien laser arm cannon and just let him go to town.

  5. Gillespie did great, considering the entire panel consisted of democratic party officials and a giant mute.

    It’s simply embarrassing to watch Maher pretend that an argument consists of smirking and saying essentially that ‘everybody knows’ we need to raise the debt limit.

    Gillespie rightly lists foreign wars, troop increases and gay marriage abandonment as complete breaks from Obama’s initial electoral promises.

    Maher’s answer? B…b…b…but the debt! There’s nobody better than Obama!

    Maher’s as much a libertarian as Hannity and Olbermann.

    1. Which is why I say there are only about 5000 “true libertarians” in this country.

      And given the LP purity tests – that there must be absolutely NO regulations and a zero tax footprint – they are pretty much indistinguishable from anarchists.

      Show me a libertarian who favors a ban on dumping toxic chemicals into our waterways and all of a sudden we have a reasonable person who has flunked the LP purity test.

      1. You’re a fool.
        “True libertarians” believe in the rule of law and a government funded well enough to enforce its laws. What you propose is anarchy; an unworkable system at best, and tyranny of the strongest at worst.

        It’s morons like you that ruin the word “libertarian.”

        1. Libertarianism is anarchy. It all depends how you define anarchy. If you define anarchy as a Stateless Society, then libertarianism may very well be anarchy. Anarcho-Capitalism is the logical conclusion of libertarianism.

          1. You’re just pissed that libertarians are OK with people squeezing the Charmin.

          2. You sir are also an idiot. Libertarianism is not anarchy, else it would be called anarchy. Please learn your subject matter before attempting to discuss it.

            1. No, he is right. Anarchy is the logical conclusion of the NAP

              1. Yes, but not every libertarian bases their ideology on the NAP.

        2. It’s morons Democrats like you that would love to ruin the word “libertarian.”

          His LP purity test involves voting Democrat every time.

      2. You mean Murray Rothbard flunks the purity test?

        Shrieky, does the fact that you bat about 0.005 in your assertions about libertarianism ever give you pause?

        1. Cut the bullshit. I’ve been in hundreds of arguments with libertarians who insist that any regulation or tax is a form of socialism.

          I’ve been called a socialist here for supporting minimum capital requirements on FDIC banks. Then they say the inevitable – “There shouldn’t be any FDIC or bank regs at all – we should go back to the panics strickin’ 19th century like Elmer Ron Paul says!”.

          1. You picked a terrible example for many reasons with banks and the FDIC.

            If you had a choice between a bank that insured your deposits and a bank that didn’t insure your deposits, which bank would you choose to bank at? Since you have enough money to afford internet and a computer, I’m going to guess insured.

            Insurance obviously does not need to be a government entity. There’s an entire market available that the federal government has monopolized. What argument can you make against privatizing deposit insurance?

          2. Your problem is that you confuse state regulation with regulation in general.

            You are like the rubes that Bastiat was talking about when he wrote:

            “Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.”

            I imagine that the failure of any libertarian you have debated to make you understand this is not because they are poor explainers (there have to be a few good teachers in the bunch), it’s that you can’t comprehend the nuance.

            Or perhaps you argue in bad faith and do get the distinction.

            Who knows? The fount of your stupid arguments is quite ineffable.

            1. My point exactly – apparently I am a socialist for my support of capital requirements (to both of you).

              FDIC (or something like it) is necessary because the free market will inevitably fail to hold the capital required to back depositors – whether it is the bank or an insurance company (see AIG).

              The result will be 5-10 year periods where CAPITAL is completely lost (19th century) and long depressions occur — OR — something like TARP is required to bail out the grifters who under capitalize.

              An unregulated finance industry will always rip off taxpayers, depositors, and investors given time – see Bush the Elder (S&L debacle) or Bush the Lesser (2008 mortgage debacle.

              1. So shrieky, you admit that you believe that if someone argues that the government should not do something, you think they are arguing it shouldn’t be done at all?

              2. I find your faith in government disturbing.

                First, the FDIC is not necessary, as I’ve demonstrated above. The idea that somehow the federal government is the only entity that can provide insurance is completely bogus.

                Second, those 5-10 year periods of capital being “completely lost” are not losing capital; it’s capital reallocation. It’s necessary for a market to survive. You don’t keep dumping money into bad investments precisely BECAUSE you wind up with failed companies with massive amounts of capital ala AIG, Bank of America. Were these companies allowed to fail at a far earlier stage we would never have gotten close to the situation we’re in now.

                Third, it’s not in any company’s interest to rip off any potential customer. When customers inevitably find out about it, they will flee the company resulting in the company failing. The only way any company can rip off taxpayers is when the government props up a company that has failed. Only then can a company remain in business after failing and rip off customers and taxpayers.

                I told you, you’ve picked a horrible subject that you don’t know quite enough about to parrot the socialist view on. Socialism doesn’t work, and we’re experiencing its inevitable failure right now.

                1. Oooooh anon, you are playing with fire sir, shrike likes to present himself as an expert on the monetary system.

                  he’s probably hammering out a massive diatribe as we speak.

                  1. Yeah, I see he’s quite prone to the false dichotomy Frederick Bastiat exploded over 150 years ago. It’s amazing what government education has done to our country.

                  2. But Elmer Ron Paul is? The gyno turned Congressman who read a ridiculous book on the Fed by a known crackpot named ‘G. Edward Griffin’?

                    Go back to the 19th century when things were so all capitalisty.

                    1. Who even mentioned Ron Paul? Your logical fallacies amuse me.

                    2. @shrike RP was an obstetrician dumbass. and ad hominem attacks do not make an argument.

                    3. Calling RP a gynecologist, even if it were true, would be more non sequitur than ad hominem.

                  3. More likely, he’s hammering out a load on his monitor because someone questioned him re: banking.

                2. Yes, although I want to whack Medicare and lower tax rates, line up well with 90% of small govt ideas I don’t pass the LP purity test – my original point (not that I care to be one of the 5000 anyway).

                  And bullshit on your “capital reallocation” when 1/5 of capital is permanently lost in a banking panic – we lost $12 trillion of individual net worth in 2008 alone.

                  The idea of capitalism is to increase wealth. Finance is the only industry which uses OPM as inventory and the ridiculous idea that there are no grifters in finance is laughable. The whole S&L industry sprang up to don loose regs (of Carter/Reagan) and to rip off depositors.

                  Customers aren’t told by a bank – “Hey – there is a run on our deposits!” – what a joke you are.

                  How is that Washington Mutual stock/bond stuff doing? (the greatest of the bank grifters).

                  You have a very naive, idealistic view of the Madoffs and Allen Stanford’s of this industry.

                  And I am out now – I tire of you 5000 quickly.

                  1. The real problem is you have absolutely no concept of what a free society is. I can recommend some very good books to elaborate to you; yes, they’re very dry and some can be hard to get through but you’ll be far better off for it. Or maybe not; I’m often frustrated by the politics of the last century.

                    What you’re really calling bullshit on is your own economic philosophy; capital could not have accumulated in such bad investments without the government’s help. Bad investments break a company very quickly. Government propagating bad investments is the only way a company can continue to make such bad investments and not suffer the consequences of its actions. On top of all the misallocated capital the government sells us on the idea that somehow the taxpayer is still liable for a failed company.

                    As far as the rest of your post, it’s not even relevant. There are bad people in the world, and hence, there are bad people in government. I inherently trust the man that’s not forcing me to do business with him far more than I do the government that has the power to imprison me. I also believe that people who are in government are inherently more likely to abuse their power.

                    How can you hold the view that people should be free and yet at the same time favor a planned economy? How do you reconcile these two irreconcilable views?

                  2. See what I mean?

                    He confuses prices with wealth, and thus falsely confuses falling prices with destruction of capital.

                    The fact that the problem is a misallocation caused when capital is wastefully misdirected towards the production of consumer goods in low demand while ignoring more urgent needs completely escapes him.

                    And, of course, in his attacks of private regulatory regimes, he ignores the fact that in banking such regimes are explicitly illegal or crowded out by government systems that eliminate any advantage to using them.

                    This phenomenon also appears in pollution, oddly enough. Walter Block gave a very interesting lecture on lawsuits by the victims of pollution against polluters; how prior to the 1840’s (I think) the courts would permit such lawsuits to be heard and how factory owners were driven by both fear of lawsuit and by a desire to get cheaper insurance to put primitive emission control systems in place; and how after courts started ruling that factories were in the public interest and that victims of pollution could suck on that, how emission controls went from being an economic benefit to a useless expense that harmed the bottom line.

                    1. I really believe he just thinks that all business should continue on for eternity. He really has no idea that I could not care less if ANY company fails beyond my own. Companies need to be allowed to fail for markets to work.

                    2. Why the fuck do you argue with a sockpuppet? Its only purpose is to wind you up, and it does that with perfection. Do you like being played? Is that what it is?

                    3. Why do I care if it’s a sockpuppet or not? It’s the philosophy I’m arguing against, not the person. The more people see how terrible and stupid socialism is (in all its forms) the better off the world is.

                      I have no problem arguing with any statist on any subject; I couldn’t care less who that person is. It simply doesn’t matter.

                    4. So you have no problem being played. Got it. Thanks for feeding it with your stupidity.

                    5. Would you rather let their ignorance run rampant? Isn’t that what’s wrong right now?


                    6. Are you a complete moron, or just 95% moron? Do you understand that it’s a person sitting at their computer, saying shit that it knows will wind you up, and getting satisfaction that it got you to argue with it? That the stuff it says is not from belief, but from a knowledge of what will get a rise out of you? Do you even fucking understand how much you’re being played, and how your stupidity feeds it and makes it come back?

                      Thanks, moron. Thanks for feeding it and thinking you’re actually doing some kind of service. Its mark is you, and that’s for a reason: because you’re the idiot that falls for it.

                    7. Why do you care so much what I do?

                      I smell a closet commie.

                    8. That is possibly the dumbest insult I’ve seen in a long time. Well done. You are aiming for most moronic poster of the weekend, I see, and you are a serious contender.

                    9. “closet commie”. Heh.

                    10. “Do you even fucking understand how much you’re being played, and how your stupidity feeds it and makes it come back?”

                      Got it, from now, we should just ignore Episiarch’s acerbic inanities.

                    11. Epi,

                      If shriek – or his controller if indeed he’s a sockpuppet- gets pleasure from posting his insane diatribes in favor of Bush appointee Bernanke, and I get pleasure from refuting it, why do you care?

                      It’s obvious you do care – if we were debating the finer points of Rothbard’s arguments about water rights, I doubt you’d be up at arms.

                      Why not just incif him (and yes, I’ve incifed shriek a long time ago, I just unincif him when I want to play with the little mousy a little bit) and scroll on?

                    12. Why do I care if it’s a sockpuppet or not? It’s the philosophy I’m arguing against, not the person. The more people see how terrible and stupid socialism is (in all its forms) the better off the world is.

                      I have no problem arguing with any statist on any subject; I couldn’t care less who that person is. It simply doesn’t matter.

                      My answer below at 1.24 were in response to Episiarch, but likely appear to in response to your remarks given the limits of threaded comments.

                      To yours, I think it needs to be pointed out, though some statist are fairly okay at making cognizant arguments for their point of view, shrike isn’t one of them. His arguments are self defeating so their isn’t any reason to address them. They exist as a sort of crossword puzzle for the reader to sort out all of the flaws and fallacies for themselves.

                      Or, maybe, more like a movie review who needs a spoiler alert after every paragraph because he gives everything away. That’s more accurate because his remarks can be read separately still unlike a crossword puzzle that has been filled.

                    13. Holy crap, another paragraph got cut. This time between the 3rd and 4th. I know it was still there in the preview.

                    14. Arguing with Shrike is ridiculous. It is best to treat him like a hot house flower. Encouraging the inner turmoil instead of fighting it, we’ll get the scatological flow that sometimes becomes a thing of beat poetry like beauty. But when people argue economics and political matters with Shrike, he shrinks up into the Gordon Gecko facade and it gets ugly.

                    15. Yet they still do it, alan. Why? Why would you argue with a sockpuppet? Nothing is gained, it merely wastes everyone’s time, which is its point. Yet they still do it. Fuck, people are stupid.

                    16. Yeah, people like you let their ideas run on uncontested, and then we end up with Obama as president. Good job there. Please, refrain from doing me any more favors in the future.

                    17. I have to admit I did the same with Rather last night, but I was getting a laugh out of that. I see no fun to be had arguing with GekkoShrike so I’m at a loss why they do it.

                    18. When you all argue with Shrike,
                      lots of us (and lurkers) learn.

                      Shrike’s arguments are not different than most of the statists that we know and argue with.

                      One of my friends, who claims to be libertarian, and he has a degree in economics and considers all us “Tea Partiers” to be ignorant rednecks.

                      He uses very very similar arguments to Shrike.
                      When those of you who know more about economics than I do refute him, I learn.

                      Not the same as feeding the Rather.

                    19. When you all argue with Shrike,
                      lots of us (and lurkers) learn. Shrike’s arguments are not different than most of the statists that we know and argue with.

                      Exactly. World of difference between arguing with Shrike, and wasting time with Tony (who I sometimes think is a Reason employee sock, driving up page views.). I learn a lot too, reading comments from people like anon, tarran, etc…

                      Doesn’t mean I don’t incif shrike though; I just like reading some of the more thought-out responses to his rants.

                    20. For me, it is going over overly worn grounds without even a hint of payout. I use to engage, and did so for years, every now and then when I spot something that is not glaringly stated in bad faith, or that is interesting in itself, I’ll engage, but you have to understand I dealt with shrike, MNG (the absolute worst of the lot in terms of sniveling shallowness to be honest with you), joe, Tony and others for years before I finally decided it was not worth my time. You have to understand, I once spent an afternoon loading up a post with a pile of research with nothing less than a baker’s dozen of sources, sourced only with economist from the left explaining why the bailout was not only unnecessary but made things worse. Did shrike concede anything? Do I have to even ask? Does it look from his recent post it affected him in any degree? That is the extent of my saintliness. I put in my hours and then some.

                      If you really want to smack your pal across the chops, this is the guy you should be reading.


                      Read his posts from 2004 and 2005 for all the analysis of the events of 2008 you’ll ever really need.

                    21. While I understand the feeling of hopelessness that you explain in your post, I also understand that ideas take time to spread. It’s not just the person you’re arguing with that you’re convincing, but also everyone else that’s interested in reading the argument. Letting people like Shrike spout their nonsense leads to people not questioning the authority of the federal government in ANY matter.

                  3. Fuck you christfag paultards I’m done posting here.

                    1. fuck off then

                    2. Max said pretty much the same thing, shrike… are you SURE you’re going away?

                      Because we really won’t miss you that much.

                      BTW, you’d better not try claiming to be one of the “500 libertarians”, because you most certainly are not.

                    3. Oops… five THOUSAND. I left off a zero. But I caught it, so don’t bother correcting me, shrike.

                    4. I wish the world’s largest tree would fall on top of Shrike’s car with him in it.

              3. An unregulated finance industry will always rip off taxpayers, depositors, and investors given time

                Right. Because the best way for a bank, or any other business to be successful is to rip off its customers. I think I’ll adopt that for my business model.

                I think you need a little lesson on “wildcat” banking.

                From, of all places, the Atlanta Fed:


                1. An unregulated finance industry will always rip off taxpayers, depositors, and investors given time


              4. because the free market will inevitably fail

                And you’re angry that people call you a Socialist?

              5. No, shriek. You’re a socialist for your uncritical and unwavering support for the Democratic Party.

          3. I’ve been in hundreds of arguments with libertarians

            What a thing to brag about.

          4. shrike|7.23.11 @ 10:31AM|#
            “Cut the bullshit…”

            Be happy to. Go away, dipshit, that’ll end it.

          5. There shouldn’t be any FDIC or bank regs at all

            Given the historic insolvency in a crisis displayed by its sister corporation the FSLIC, placing one’s confidence in the FDIC is a foolish choice.

      3. Figures pussy-shrike would show up here.

      4. Dumping toxic chemicals in a waterway is definitely NOT a libertarian value as it negatively affects the freedoms of the entire society. You have created a strange bogeyman libertarian that does not exist. I guess it’s easier for you to claim allegiance to democrats if you convince yourself that libertarians want to (indirectly) murder babies through the water supply. If that’s what you need to sleep at night with your now democratic wars, patriot act, drug war, debt, anti-gay sentiments.

  6. I was already getting to the point where I could barely stomach Maher in very small doses. His self-proclaimed “libertarianism” only covers a tiny fraction of the issues. On everything else, he’s the typical liberal. And the fraction has been reducing a bit more every year.

    Then he sat there with a cute smirk on his face and let
    David Carr refer to the Midwest, and specifically Kansas and Missouri thusly:

    “You know, that’s the dance of the low sloping foreheads. The middle places, right? [pause] Did I just say that aloud?”

    And the smarmy coastal limousine-liberals wonder why it’s not only the hillbillies and rednecks who hate them, but also many of the “smart” (by their estimation) people in those “middle places” that might otherwise sympathize with at least some of their social issues.

    I will never watch Mahers show again.?

    And David Carr can eat shit and die.

    1. Carr is right though – as much as you might hate it.

      Flyover country is filled with those “hillbillies and rednecks” who cling to their Korans/Bibles, Creationism, bias AGAINST education and science, and hatred of liberty.

      I group the Koran/Bible thumpers together because its the same atavistic phenomena – they resist modernity and prefer to be trapped like insects pinned on a mat relegated to meaninglessness.

      I personally don’t give a shit if they die off, but the fuckers use their stupidity as a cudgel when they vote, terrorize others, and in general proselytize their ignorance via the ballot box, AM radio, and Fox News.

      1. Millions of new yorkers and californians voted for George bush,etc. Probably more than in several of the smaller states combined

      2. Those “hillbillies and rednecks” happen to know more about farming than anyone that’s ever posted here, ever, I’d wager. Know how hard it is to feed 300 million fat americans? Turns out, pretty hard.

        My point is that while certain demographics may appear stupid to you, they can be far more intelligent in areas that you don’t realize. Kinda why markets should be free, ya know? So that maybe we can all do what we do best and all be better off for it?

        1. Farming is hardly an example of a free market as difficult as it well could be. My point is that when people vote the Karl Rove ‘God, Guns, and Gays’ route they are stupid in general and that is basically the GOP platform. No one is going to take their Bible or gun away and gays kissing won’t hurt them.

          1. “No one is going to take their Bible or gun away”

            Do you honestly believe this isn’t a platform of the democratic party?

            Aside from that, on what arbitrary measure of intelligence do you propose limiting people’s ability to vote? Can’t you see that no matter what measure you choose, politicians would eventually game the law to work in their favor even furthering their job security attained through district gerrymandering?

            Laws and regulations are very dangerous devices. Your measure of another individual’s intelligence should have no impact on that person’s right to be free.

            1. Why are you defending conservatives? Don’t you claim to be LP?

              And I don’t propose taking anyone’s vote away – I am just making an observation on the culture wars.

              1. I’m not defending conservatives as much as I’m defending conservatives right to be conservative. Everyone has an equal right to be free, no matter how wrong they are. Just because I disagree with someone does not mean that I cannot coexist with them.

                This quote is what led me to believe you were against them voting; or at the very least did not approve of their right to exist:
                “I personally don’t give a shit if they die off, but the fuckers use their stupidity as a cudgel when they vote, terrorize others, and in general proselytize their ignorance via the ballot box, AM radio, and Fox News.”

                I don’t see how you can pretend to promote liberty while deeming others unfit to live.

              2. Why are you defending conservatives? Don’t you claim to be LP?

                And again we see that liberals (and conservatives) see “What team are you on?” as the sole consideration of what your position is. More evidence that partisans simply can’t comprehend the motivations of non-partisans.

                1. Commodore! You’re agreeing with me?!? Praise Jeebus!

                  1. You don’t seem to be a very loyal member of the Axis. Be careful that your co-members don’t give you the Mussolini treatment.

                    If you want to join the Depth Alliance we may give you strong consideration.

                    1. I join nothing, Commodore. But it’s nice to see you sharing my views on partisans. It means I’m getting through to you.

              3. Why are you defending liberals, shrike?

      3. As one born in flyover country and currently practicing medicine here, let me be the first to say


        We’re not all bible thumpers you moron. There is a libertarian contingent here, you just have your head so far up your ass you don’t realize it.

        And as far as I know, Ohio voted for Obama (I voted for Barr), kind of destroys your “God, Guns, and Gays” bullshit.

        1. We’re not all bible thumpers you moron.

          I’d take the bible-thumpers over SecProg Puritan nerds like shrike any day. At least the bible thumpers don’t give a shit if I have a cigarette in public once in while.

          1. True, though there are a non-bible thumpers who hate cigarette smokers and voted for the cigarette smoking bans (see: Neal Boortz).

            From your handle, I assume you’re in Colorado? Definitely not bible thumping country out there.

            1. From Colorado, so I got to see the “California Invasion” firsthand.

            2. Outside of Denver/Boulder Colorado is among the thumperiest states in the country

              1. Outside of Denver/Boulder Colorado is among the thumperiest states in the country

                Not really. This is Colorado we’re talking about, not the Mississippi backwoods. The San Juan valley has been populated by Hispanics for over 150 years. The ski towns in Eagle County are chocked to the brim with rich leftists and the immigrant underclass that supports them. Even the Springs, with its massive military population, Dobson compound, megachurches, and conservative city council, has a significant “protest” element that isn’t shy about making itself heard. Shit, this is a state that’s had one Team Red governor in the last 35 years. As for the rest of the smaller mountain, eastern plains, and western slope communities, I can see how an urban cosmopolitan would categorize low-scale, high-trust small towns as “thumperiest”–SWPL dorks always did display little but contempt for stable, supportive, functional communities.

            3. Outside of Denver/Boulder Colorado is among the thumperiest states in the country

              1. As a graduate of The Colorado College, located in the heart of the Springs, even C. Springs, home of Ted Haggard, has a large hippie/free spirit/ski bum contingent.

        2. And lets not forget, Shrikefag, that Iowa was the state which put Obama on the map in the primary. Hardly “Gods, Guns and Gays”

      4. You said you were done posting upthread, shrike.

        You’re a fucking liar.

      5. Carr is right though – as much as you might hate it. Flyover country is filled with those “hillbillies and rednecks” who cling to their Korans/Bibles, Creationism, bias AGAINST education and science, and hatred of liberty.

        I disagree with Epi. I don’t think you’re a sockpuppet. I think you are a real person motivated simply by hatred.

        Now, I know that you are completely ignorant regarding economics, ethics, and a whole host of other subjects. And that’s OK, you have a right to be stupid.

        And I know that you have an intense hatred of god-fearing folks. Apparently, your mommy put you in the cellar once too often because you couldn’t recite your scripture of the day. I happen to be an atheist, and I think that their beliefs are wrong, and counterproductive. But I don’t HATE them.

        But, are you REALLY so fucking provincial that you believe that a person’s intelligence and philosophy are predetermined by the geographic location of their birth or residence? I have been all over the U.S., and I can say in complete confidence that there is no shortage of God/Guns/Gayz morons anywhere. Nor is there a shortage of leftist morons.

        Furthermore, one would have to travel far and wide to find a stronger bias against education than that found in the “projects” of any coastal city. Areas of Queens, NY are FILLED with blue-collar, religious, racist, homophobic morons.

        I know that the “Jersey Shore” contestants are caricatures of New Jerseyites, but I would put the average “redneck” up aginst any one of them in a contest involving piss pouring from boots sans directions.

        I was born and raised in flyover country. I have lived in it all of my life. And you, sir or madam or “third” sex, as the case may be, are a complete fucking troglodyte compared to me, or 90% of the people I associate with.

        Now, go ask mommy to peg you fast and hard.

        1. Kant, the reason I say that shriek is a sockpuppet is that I know he’s a sockpuppet. A while back shriek and I were trading insults, and it slipped up and one of its insults involved knowledge about my history here that shriek, if it were real, would never, ever have had or known. Shriek is absolutely a sockpuppet. Quite a good one; it really knows how to suck people in, and I should know–it sucked me in for a while. But once it’s clearly a sockpuppet, why communicate with something that isn’t even real?

          1. If a sockpuppet, then a sockpuppet I would gladly bite the button eyes from and spit in it’s toe/face.

            If I am not adressing a real person, then I am addressing the real person behind the puppet.

            Someone is evil enough to think up the shit it spews. That’s who my issue is with.

          2. Now that you mention it, however, this did strike me as odd:

            Flyover country is filled with those “hillbillies and rednecks” who cling to their Korans/Bibles

            I’m thinking that very few “rednecks” cling to the Koran. LOL

            1. Hey there pretty little thing. Why don’t you gather up your toys and bring them over to mah tent. You married? Damn, you gettin’ to be an old maid, ‘f you don’t find you a man soon like. What are you, seven? Not even! Shit, you pretty advanced for yer age.

          3. one of its insults involved knowledge about my history here that shriek, if it were real, would never, ever have had or known.

            Considering everyone’s history here is fully available to the public, this means you must know shrike in real life or have had private correspondence at least. The disparate tapestry is all coming together now.

            1. Epi is Shrike!

              1. Episiarchs are shaggy quadrupeds that have the ability to temporarily alter reality by force of will, and are used to open short-lived portals that allow Tandu ships to travel instantly to distant parts of the universe, giving them nearly unmatched strategic speed. This method of travel is not popular among other starfaring races because of the risk involved, as it randomly results in the destruction of entire ships or even fleets. The Episiarchs have other military (and possibly civilian) uses as well, although these are not greatly elaborated upon. In Startide Rising an Episiarch is used to create a temporary dry pathway on waterlogged land so that a party of Tandu infantry may move more easily.

            2. Or Epi was using a different handle, sent a private email to reason, or some other information was passed to Shrike that did not have the handle Epi tied publicly to it.

      6. I group the Koran/Bible thumpers together because its the same atavistic phenomena – they resist modernity and prefer to be trapped like insects pinned on a mat relegated to meaninglessness.

        Pick a position, shrike. I don’t care which one, but please, rise above Michael Moore and pick one.

        Are they pinned to the mat, relegated to meaninglessness, or do they keep you up at night?

    2. David Carr? The ex-“quarterback” David Carr?

      If it is ex-Texan Carr, at least he has the excuse of being sacked over 80 times in a season for scrambling his brain.

      1. No, wannabe hack David Carr of the NYT.

    3. I will never watch Mahers show again.?

      And David Carr can eat shit and die.


      Most of my family happens to be from the states that loudmouth POS slandered.

  7. The best part of the show was when Nick asked Maher to give up his “carbon footprint.” The baffled looks and quiet few seconds that followed made the show worth suffering through. Brazile’s redirect was well met when Nick said he would give up the jacket. My only suggestion, I would have started an impromtu auction for the jacket with all proceeds going to the bald mayor to help drag his town out of poverty…and why stop there? He proved they only like it when other people have to “give up” stuff.

    1. Liberals are only liberal with someone else’s money and freedom. They don’t like giving up their own at all.

    2. Or when he told Turturro that the treasury dept has a website where he can “donate” more money after he said he wanted to pay more taxes.

      1. I LOVE that part. The look of befuddlement on his face was priceless.

        I believe that all these fools truly do want to pay higher taxes: they just want you to go first.

  8. Sad really, I can remember eagerly watching his “Politically Incorrect” show years ago. He was actually about 50:50 back then, which was far better than anything else on TV, and his panel makeup was pretty decent.

    I guess somewhere between PI and “Real Time, he figured out whose anus he needed to sniff to get his own show back.

    1. Yea, Bill Maher is kind of like an accelerated George Carlin. I really liked politically incorrect. Comedy came first, but now he’s just an insufferably smug not very funny liberal pretending to be a libertarian.

      Carlin took a lot longer… and now he’s dead… but he went from being a comedian to being a reflexively leftist “get off my lawn” curmudgeonly fuckstick

      1. George Carlin’s angry old man period was his best, dude.

        1. Unless you’re a fan of comedy.

          1. Ah, a right winger telling us about comedy. That’s pure comedy; just as funny as a left winger telling us about comedy.

      2. PI was where I learned to hate Maher. Sure be oils let his panel argue for awhile, but he would always end each segment by telling everyone what the right answer was, i.e. his opinion, and then move on without allowing a rebuttal. I guess that’s better than the current format where he lets the leftists o on and on, gives th non-leftist about two sentences, makes a joke so everyone knows not to take that person seriously and then moves on to another segment. He just won’t allow opposing opinions to be heard. Maybe Nick did better, he knows he has to interrupt, but I can’t watch that show.

  9. can’t. watch. Maher.

  10. I have been a fan of Nick ..i love the way he open and expose the topics

  11. Love the way interviewed happens, I have been face of Nick from a long time.. Just love him

    1. Face of Nick, why do you always look so bored?

  12. i saw some segment with maher where he was complaining about the fetal stem cell ban during the bush years.

    which of course never existed. there was a prohibition on GOVERNMENT FUNDING of stem cell research, not a ban.

    and the idiot reporter never called him on it or any of his other lies.

    1. You’re wrong. It wasn’t just federal funding restrictions – Bush also restricted that research to “existing lines” of embryos.

      And there were state initiatives to prevent ESCR – you might remember Rush (Praise Be Unto Him) Limbaugh mocking Michael J. Fox and his Parkinson’s in his pro-ESCR PSA.

      1. Point being it was federal research which was restricted. Private researchers could do whatever.

      2. Rush was actually correct in that case — Fox later admitted he was intentionally undermedicating himself the day of that interview so that he would appear more debilitated than he usually was.

        Of course you have no problem with the pro-ESCR side using sick people as props to advance their agenda…oh and tell me, how many medical advances have come from ESCR in the past decade while it was funded by foreign and state governments and private money, while your side was screeching about how pro-lifers were guilty of murder for not letting the research get US federal funding?

  13. Police Arrest Man the Dismembered Child Had Asked for Directions

    Police have arrested the man whom a missing Brooklyn, N.Y., boy had asked for directions before his dismembered body was found this morning in two separate locations, including the man’s refrigerator, authorities said.

    Police arrived at Aron’s apartment at about 2:40 a.m. and found the door slightly ajar. The suspect was standing shirtless in the middle of the room. When asked where the boy was, he pointed toward the kitchen, police said.

    There was blood on the refrigerator handle and police found a cutting board and three carving knives inside along with remains that are believed to be the boy’s, police said. Aron also directed them to the dumpster where more remains were found, police said.

    Nothing else happened.…..d=14062563

    1. Ahh, good to have you back AII! Am i correct in assuming from your screen name and general subject matter that you are finding fault with Reason’s reporting of ‘isolated incidents’ of police violence and malfeasence?

    2. That’s some top-notch detective work there.

      1. They shoot a guy for walking out of Costco, but they arrest the guy with a dismembered child in his freezer.

        What exactly is the point of having police?

        1. lol . they shoot a guy for walking out of costco. classic

          1. Oh sorry, my bad. I should have wrote “The valiant, stalwart, noble public servants eliminated a dangerous threat to the peace and order of the universe who happened to be walking out of a Costco at the time.”

            1. he may have happened to have had wheaties for breakfast too. that’s neither here not there as far as his being shot.

              did he have MPB also? hives? athlete’s foot?

              1. He didn’t do a damn thing wrong. He was a successful businessman, West Point grad, and law abiding citizen. The fucking cops shot him to death for no reason whatsoever. They should be in jail pending trial, instead they’re walking around with guns and three kinds of supposedly less than lethal weapons on their belt.


                  1. Oh right he had the temerity to exercise his constitutional right when there were cops around. Which honestly, is one of the more dangerous things an American can do at this point.

                  2. No, they gave him contradictory commands, and when he tried to obey one set of commands, the guys screaming the other set shot him.

                    The guy was a moron – if he ahd just laid down on the ground with his hands out, I doubt they would have done more than beat the crap out of him, but he would have lived to sue the local tax-payers.

                    If the police had a coherent doctrine for dealing with suspicious armed men, then he probably wouldn’t be shot.

                    But hey, the guys who serve and protect are expected to be cut a little slack when the mishandle a stressful situation, mundanes – on the other hand – well such mishandling is a capital offense.

                  3. No, they gave him contradictory commands, and when he tried to obey one set of commands, the guys screaming the other set shot him.

                    The guy was a moron – if he ahd just laid down on the ground with his hands out, I doubt they would have done more than beat the crap out of him, but he would have lived to sue the local tax-payers.

                    If the police had a coherent doctrine for dealing with suspicious armed men, then he probably wouldn’t be shot.

                    But hey, the guys who serve and protect are expected to be cut a little slack when the mishandle a stressful situation, mundanes – on the other hand – well such mishandling is a capital offense.

    3. Old news, dude.

    4. Aron’s family has opened an internal investigation into his behavior. Aron has been released from custody and put on paid leave from his job. He will be permitted to retain his carving knives until the full facts of the incident have been examined.

      This just in:

      The family of Levy Aron has announced that the results of the Aron family investigation completely exonerate Levy Aron from any alleged wrongdoing.

      Following an intensive investigation, the Aron family determined that Levy Aron was simply addressing several potentially dangerous actions regarding the runaway (fugitive) youth, specifically that the youth showed suspicious interest in strangers.

      Furthermore, the youth then followed Mr. Aron to his apartment. Fearing for his life from the unarmed 8 year old, Aron reasonably responded by performing an elaborate self-defense maneuver, lessening the danger to himself and his neighbors.

      In fact, the family spokesperson has chastised the Brooklyn Police for adding to Mr. Aron’s already heightened stress levels by jumping to conclusions, and suggested that an apology is in order.

      Levy Aron will be promoted to the head of the neighborhood watch.”

  14. I think Redeye is the best late night political show on tv these days.

    1. Redeye, is faster paced and more funny that Maher’s show ever was. Even when it was PI.

  15. Finally, (since Ron Paul’s last appearance) a voice of reason on Real Time, both literally and figuratively.

    1. Gary Johnson was on not too long ago.

      1. no help.

  16. Wow, I guess I’m the only one who thought Nick was a total ass. Never heard of him or this site before last night’s Real Time, but IMHO Nick is rude, condescending, thinks he knows everything, interrupts everyone constantly, and just gives off a general aura of a thorough and complete douche bag. In hindsight, I’m glad the other panelists basically ignored his lack of class Have fun, you brave Libertarians who are so assured and so brave that you can’t even pick a side that actually has a seat at the table.

      1. Damn grade inflation!

      2. I would say B, actually. Real enough to get responded to, but condescending enough to generate anger. Not bad.

    1. Shoot, Nick took the three whiny liberals to the woodshed last night. As you saw last night. It’s so easy to beat down the left with real information.

    2. When you’re voice isn’t heard at the table what is the benefit of picking a side?

    3. obvious troll is obvious

    4. Okey dokey there, Cory. You have fun with your “liberal” President who’s outBushing Bush (wars, civil liberties, WoD) and keep telling us there’s a difference between your brand and theirs.

      1. Why do you assume this guy is an Obama supporter?

        1. Only Obama supporters seem to go into ad-hominem mode when someone sitting in a panel of mainly Obama supporters starts pointing out how he’s just a third term for Bush.

          A non-Obama supporter might try to address the arguments. Or attack everybody for their heresy of disagreeing with 2% of the Republican platform where there is disagreement.

          1. The post just said that The Jacket came off like a douche, it didn’t say anything about the validity of his points or not.

            The assumption making around here has reached heroic levels since Obama has taken audience.

            1. MNG, the point of ad-hominem is not to address the points being made.

              If I say shriek’s diatribes in favor of central banking are irrational and incoherent and thus should be ignored, I would be addressing his argument.

              If I were to say that shriek’s diatribes should be ignored because everything he says is motivated by his anguish at hating his father and the desire to have his father sodomize him, roughly, that would be an ad-hominem.

              Furthermore, given the guy’s comemnts about “a place at the table”, it’s pretty obvious he is a worried supporter of the Democratic/Republican duopoly who fears that potential might abandon the duopoly and like an adjutant who sabres the men who break formation to flee to the rear, is discouraging people cutting and running from the eternal conflict for power.

            2. “…since Obama has taken audience.”

              Epic monarchist Freudian slip?

              1. To be frank,
                1) I don’t think MNG is a monarchist
                2) All the monarchists I have ever discussed politics with (N=4) have turned out to be very hard-core classical liberals who advocate a goverment along the lines of Victorian England. They would all hold Obama’s pandering to the vulgar masses in utter contempt.

                1. True monarchists seem to believe in the divine right of killing the fuck out of bad kings.

        2. Because he “came off like a douche” on a show with a panel composed exclusively (as far as I saw) of Obama supporters.

        3. Also, (as tarran pointed out) the “place at the table” remark meant he was TEAM RED or TEAM BLUE.

        4. Well, he’s upset because the big bad libertarian was mean to a bunch of liberals.

          Is there any other logical way to spin his comment?

    5. but IMHO NickBill Maher is rude, condescending, thinks he knows everything, interrupts everyone constantly, and just gives off a general aura of a thorough and complete douche bag.

    6. ” rude, condescending, thinks he knows everything, interrupts everyone constantly, and just gives off a general aura of a thorough and complete douche bag”

      Gee, this is your first time experiencing libertarians.

      1. Mirror, mirror on the wall, who is the fattest liar of the all?

        [sounds of slamming fist and glass shattering]

    7. “Have fun, you brave Libertarians who are so assured and so brave that you can’t even pick a side that actually has a seat at the table.”

      Shhhhh, don’t think for yourself… become a Bill Maher fan.

    8. Libertarians do pick a side on the question of individual choice vs. govt control.

      What side are liberals on?

    9. pick a side that actually has a seat at the table.

      Thanks for sharing your priority with us.

      You can go away now.

    10. Go back to the coffeehouse, you SWPL faggot.

    11. I’m glad the other panelists basically ignored his lack of class

      No need to show class on a panel full of short school bus riders. Just keep them from walking into traffic. Donna Brazile….class???

      Thats’s a DQ right there!

    12. Notice how the poor failtroll doesn’t actually take issue with anything The Jacket said, but merely points to him being a “douche bag” and expects that argument to fly?

    13. Why the fuck would I want a seat at the table?

      God damn, even when I was a partisan fuck I never ever got off on having power the way TEAM BLUE/RED fucks do.

    14. I’m glad the other panelists basically ignored his lack of class

      They “ignored” him because they couldn’t refute what he said. Classic leftist response.

    15. I agree Cory. HE WAS A FUCKING PRICK.

  17. lol, OK that just looks like its gonna be cool!

  18. I’m amazed nobody slapped that black lady. She’s completely brainwashed by her cult leader. Her and Martin whatshisface.

    1. Brazille is a bigwig in the DNC. IOW, she is one of the cult leaders.

      1. Oh, I thought it said CBS anchor or something. I shouldn’t be surprised with CBS just being another part of the DNC.

        1. I haven’t been keeping up. She was a DNC strategist for a long time. Maybe she’s just a (D) shill for the news now.

          1. She’s a full-time “Democrat Startegist” cable-news lefty pundit.

          2. She said she was on the committee when asked about a democrat running against Obama in 2012. She then said it was impossible because it’s impossible.

            1. I think Obama’s willingness to follow a John McCain foreign policy is entirely the result of fearing a Hillary challenge. I think that he hopes if he gives her everything he wants, she won’t want to unseat him.

              1. Nah, I think it’s more because he doesn’t want to take responsibility for anything. Had he quickly withdrawn from Iraq and Afghanistan and something bad happened afterward, that would be primo political ammo for the GOP. As it stands now they really can’t attack him on foreign policy.

                Also, Hillary is too smart to think she would have any hope of winning the general if she prevented the first black president from getting nominated.

                1. Had he quickly withdrawn from Iraq and Afghanistan and something bad happened afterward, that would be primo political ammo for the GOP. As it stands now they really can’t attack him on foreign policy.

                  Unless Johnson or Paul get the nom. (Why is everybody laughing?)

                2. he made it abundantly clear during his campaign that he would fight vigorously in afghanistan and he thought the causus belli was just peachy. his criticism of how we had been prosecuting afghanistan was one of we did it in an incompetent manner, with not enough boots on the ground, etc.

                  many on the left (and some here) were deluding themselves thinking that he ran as an anti-war candidate.


                  1. I had to explain that to my liberal hippie mom when she complained about that. Obama didn’t lie about his intentions to expand the war in Afghanistan. He made it perfectly clear to anyone willing to listen.

                  2. Wars + more government power. The key for a lefty is to sound erudite when lying to the people to make them seem justified. A conservative just needs to sound macho. Don’t kid yourselves the majority of the “anti-war” left are really anti-Republican wars. As statists they really don’t give a shit if innocent people are killed, their property destroyed and their lives disrupted.

          3. Brasille is a puppet. Utterly without any original thought at all. Has great hair though.

      2. Though I never agreed with them, Brazille used to present reasoned and fairly thoughtful analyses even if they did of course have a Dem slant. I generally paid attention to what she had to say. That was before her soul bro became Prez. Since then she has wedged her nose so far up Obama’s ass that she has pretty much reduced herself to farce as an analyst.

        1. I agree. She used to be able to give thoughtful, intelligent analyses of different situations.

          1. Yeah, that’s definitely how she appeared. I don’t know her nor knew of her before this clip though, so I have no reference for comparison.

            1. She was Gore’s campaign manager.

              1. Just tryin to elbow ‘Chelle out of the way and get some powerful black dick.

      3. Can’t get there without completely embracing your indoctrination.

    2. “I’m amazed nobody slapped that black lady.”

      Sounds like a potential slogan for the Right in general…

      1. Let’s run it by Herman Cain and see what he thinks.

      2. “The Right” has provided the highest-ranked black lady in the history of the federal government, so whatever I guess.

        1. By which I mean in the executive branch. Oops.

          1. And the judiciary (Janice Brown). And if we want to go way back, the first blacks in Congress were all Republicans.

            1. And yet no one in the Democratic party likes me. 🙁

              1. Unfortunately you have a penis, so good ol’ Thurgood beat you.

            2. And if we want to go way back, the first blacks in Congress were all Republicans.

              Yeah, there was a reason for that, wasn’t there? Do you suppose denying suffrage to former Confederate soldiers (Democrats) might have had something to do with it?

              1. When it comes to dominating Southern politics by selectively denying suffrage, Democrats may have been the pupils at first but they soon became the masters.

                1. They had excellent teachers.

                  1. You’re seriously defending Jim Crow Democrats? You are truly a disgusting creature.

              2. If you’re going to rebel, it’s a good idea to win. Besides, I’m pretty sure only a few thousand in the military and civil leadership ended up losing the franchise.

  19. Of course, Gillespie made sure to appear in his trademark leather jacket. Have to spread Ayn Randian drivel in the leather jacket to appeal to the hipster crowd.

    The big guy — who did, in fact, talk during the earlier, non-overtime Maher segment — is John Fetterman, innovative mayor of Braddock, PA. The reason — “reason”, get it?! — the *reason* Fetterman probably didn’t say much in the overtime segment might have been because earlier in the show he invited corporate weasel Nick Gillespie to “step outside” when said Gillespie got a little too snide spouting his Koch-sucking propaganda. Though Gillespie promptly zippered his pie-hole, Fetterman probably didn’t want to lose his temper and rip Gillespie’s head from his body.

    Then we would have had just a leather jacket with no head praising Citizens United in all those Reason TV suckup videos.

    1. Typical liberal. Respond to rational discourse with violence and ignore the logical fallacies present in his own ideology.

    2. Gotta love this, even from a troll. Corporate tool? Did he advocate giving billions of tax dollars to General Motors, Chrysler, Lehman Bros, or Goldman Sachs? No?

      Don was being kind – D+ is more than you deserve.

    3. ROLF, go back to the HP.

    4. Yes, Fetterman has been suck a huge success at Braddock, business is booming, oh, wait, nevermind.

      1. such*, freudian slip

      2. He’s “innovative”!

      3. That guy is a real character, and a staple on local Pittsburgh news shows. Apparently he gets a tattoo to commemorate every person murdered in Braddock while he’s mayor. Unfortunately, no one ever dares asking if he’s running out of room when he mentions this.

    5. yes, the retarded skinhead did want to take it outside.

    6. I think what he’s trying to say is that Gillespie wears a jacket.

    7. The reason — “reason”, get it?! — the *reason* Fetterman probably didn’t say much in the overtime segment might have been because earlier in the show he invited corporate weasel Nick Gillespie to “step outside” when said Gillespie got a little too snide spouting his Koch-sucking propaganda.

      Eloquent retort. Exactly what I would expect from a Harvard man. Seriously.

      1. P.S. The Jacket is a fuckin’ gangster.

        BILL MAHER, HOST: I feel like the American worker has been conditioned to feel like there is no such thing as revenue. That’s why this theory works that we can only do spending cuts. We can’t have revenue because the American worker has seen no revenue increase for 30 years. His wages have been trashed.

        NICK GILLESPIE, REASON TV: That’s not true. American workers, nobody’s wages has been flat for 30 years. Our purchasing power is very good.

        MAYOR JOHN FETTERMAN, (D -BRADDOCK, PENNSYLVANIA): I’m the mayor of the poorest town in Pennsylvania.

        GILLESPIE: Well, you must be very proud.

        FETTERMAN: No, again, you know, you want to take it outside? Geez.

        MAHER: Whoa.

        GILLESPIE: Yeah.(Emphasis Mine)


        GILLESPIE: That’s why I’m carrying the pen.

        MAHER: No, no, no, nobody’s taking it outside.

        Fuck with The Jacket and you will get stabbed in the neck. With a pen.

        1. That was fucking AWESOME,
          Nicely done Nick

        2. LOL. But Nick does come off as a little catty there.

        3. The question is, is Nick agreeing to Maher’s shock at the mayor’s challenge, or is he agreeing to the challenge?

          No offense to Nick, but I think Balko is better suited to be the next libertarian to go mano-a-mano with Mayor McCheese there.

        4. Nick was brilliant as usual, but the greater point is, I think, that many if not most politicians thrive on a misery-monger mentality and do so with a series of bread and circus programs ,real or imagined. When they fail, it is simply a matter of publicly blaming the “greedy”, those who oppose intrusive government or forceful labor unions while covertly making back-room deals with certain business interests and increasing occupational licensing fees.

        5. “The pen is mightier than the sword” is what I believe Nick was referring to.

    8. A liberal espousing violence as an argument tool.

      I am amaze.

      1. A liberal espousing violence as an argument tool.

        So what else is new? Fetterman sounds like an ex cop or union thug.

    9. The verbal exchange between Nick Gillespie and Mayor McLummox went exactly as follows:

      Mayor Fetterman: “Look, I’m the Mayor of the poorest town in Pennsylvania and all this?.”

      Nick Gillespie: “Well, you must be very proud.”

      Mayor Fetterman: “No, th’ again, ya’ know, th’.”

      (at this point Bill Maher laughs, Nick Gillespie does not)

      Mayor Fetterman: “We’ll take it outside, jeeze.”

      There was no propaganda of any kind, Koch or Pepsi.

      Nick Gillespie unabashedly went on to make, coherent, astute and relevant comments throughout the rest of the broadcast.

  20. D+, mentioning koch’s drags the grade down a bit

    1. Really? I would have thought that would add points.
      Most *drink* points he can get in a short post, the better the score.

  21. Nick’s Twitter:

    We have a winner MT @JuanGonzalez25: Hey, @nickgillespie just bc you look like the Fonze with Aids doesn’t mean you can ramble on like a fag

    1. I bet he was sipping a Brawndo while typing that.

  22. Hey, so is there anywhere that I can read what is said?

    Internet is slow where I am at, and you can just hit play and then after various hours replay it as it has slowly downloaded, like you can on you tube.
    In this HBO format you go to hit replay and it just slowly plays 3 seconds at a time all over again.

    1. It’s not your Internet, it’s HBO.

      That was just painful.

  23. I’d like to see video of the fat fuck threatening Nick. It sounds delicious.

    1. That does indeed sound fun. I suspect that the liberal troll was exaggerating though.
      there is a strong chance it is yawn inducing.

    2. It sounds delicious.

      “Delicious” sounds gay. Nothing personal. But only gay people say “delicious” the way you do. Again, nothing personal.

      1. you mean the way you just said it? NTTAWWT.

      2. you mean the way you just said it too?

      3. Keep trying, anonopussy. Your utter failures are…delicious.

    3. It wasn’t much of a threat. Nick could have just kept moving and that fat fuck would have dropped from exhaustion. What do you think his daily caloric intake is? 5000? He is definitely not into the Primal Blueprint or P90X.

      1. Are you kidding? That guy is solid muscle. He could probably crush a man’s skull between his moobs.

  24. 80F in LA yesterday and still with the leather.

    I love how Maher brings on moronic actors like Turturro, who’s only claim to fame is having read other people’s words.

  25. Is there a transcript of this show?

    1. Only if someone is kind enough to do it for you…and we’re not.

      1. I’ll do it for money, obviously.

  26. I love how Nick called the debt-limit debate another one in a long series of panics.

    Unfortunately, I doubt many people realized he was making a pretty good point.

    1. Maher’s trained-seal college student audience isn’t intelligent enough to get the reference.

      1. Maher’s trained-seal college student audience


        An insult to trained seals everywhere.

    2. It was a beautiful point. Even more beautiful was the entire panel rushing to agree with the other panics, but affirming Maher’s analysis that this panic wasn’t a panic, it was real! The lack of self-awareness would be comical, except you had Ms. Donna on the panel. Not so funny when you actually have access to the levers of power and are totally unaware of your own biases.

  27. the best parts were when you had the former skinhead so flustered he wanted to take it outside and when maher was dumbfounded and drooling that he would have to sacrifice something in a shared sacrifice.

    “how would you like to give up your leather jacket?” uh brazille, nick wasn’t the one calling for shared sacrifice. he was calling for bill to share in the shared sacrifice maher was calling for.

  28. Gillespie got a little too snide spouting his Koch-sucking propaganda

    Protect the Queen!

  29. A federal appeals court struck down a Securities and Exchange Commission rule that would have made it easier for stockholders to throw out directors and put forward their own candidates for board seats.

    The decision preserves a long-standing corporate voting system that gives powerful advantages to candidates nominated by incumbent directors.

    The stakes are high: Corporate boards have the power to direct business strategy and set executive pay. They are also supposed to serve as watchdogs over management.…..l?hpid=z10

    1. Honestly, it pisses me off how much power boards have relative to investors. Investors who, I don’t know, OWN THE FUCKING COMPANY!!!

      Then again, a lot of that can be traced back to the 80s hysteria over corporate raiders.

    2. The court … said the SEC did not adequately assess another risk: that institutional shareholders such as unions and state pension funds would use the rule as leverage to extract concessions such as additional benefits for workers at the expense of smaller shareholders

      Bold my addition.

      No wonder you’re all pissy.

      Of course, our fine leftist friends would never want to screw over the smaller shareholders to gain control of companies, now would they?

      Whatever happens, don’t look to anyone asking for accountability on the part of either the shareholders or execs for their decisions.

      Nope, the government must “save” all their friends.

      1. Hey, 51% of the people have the moral right to take the other 49% for all that they’re worth. That’s democracy. Only fascists hate democracy. Are you a fascist?

  30. Why did he bother?

  31. Like farmers markets across the country, this one sponsored by the USDA is thriving, propelled by a national craving for fresh food and the perception that locally grown food is healthier than food mass-produced by big agriculture and sold in grocery stores.

    But commercial tests found pathogens on raw chickens sold by a Virginia farmer at the USDA market; the pathogens could be harmful if the poultry is not properly cooked, according to an investigation by News21, a national university reporting project at the University of Maryland. The same was true of poultry sold by a Pennsylvania farmer at a Vermont Avenue NW market.

    The findings from both markets highlight seams in the federal government’s efforts to keep the country’s food supply safe through a maze of federal, state and local laws that can be confusing even for the people charged with enforcing them. They also illustrate the danger for consumers who think they can find refuge in markets selling food grown locally.…..story.html

    1. Eating poultry without cooking it properly can be dangerous? Who knew?

    2. “What’s clearly needed here is a 21st century version of the NIRA.”

    3. Pretty sure you can get sick from not properly cooking chicken bought at a supermarket too.

      You can also suffer severe brain injury if you don’t follow the warning on a power drill not to use it as a dental instrument.

      1. Only if you don’t use the correct bit.

    4. MNG, shut the fuck up. Have you ever been to that farmer’s market? It’s overpriced and everything there is basically inedible.

  32. Donna Brazile wore a pearl necklace.

    1. Too bad Billy Gibbons didn’t give it to her.

    2. She also said she’s in favor of legalizing pot. We’ll see where she will stand on that tomorrow after she gets called on it.

  33. was it me, or did Tyrian Lannister appear stupider than normal on HBO last night?

  34. I gonna vote for Obama again because I want to be part of the solution and not part of the problem.

    1. Giving ‘m’ a break today because it is used 17% ore than other letters. Which is copletely unfair.

  35. what’s the deal? Tyrian Lannister doesn’t usually seem stupid on HBO.

  36. That was painful, Nick. But kudos for going on there. I liked your miming of the violin at the end. Awesome. I like it better seeing you on a show like this, though, than an echo chamber like Freedom Fighters.

    1. You know, Sage has a point.

      I like The Judge and Freedom Fighters. But it is too safe for conservatives/libertarians. It’s also a lot of fun just seeing someone who’s smart go up against the nitwit Maher.

      Hey, Real Time producers, have Nick on again sometime soon.

      1. I like the Judge, but he either needs more time, or needs to cover fewer subjects. The constant question begging is irritating, and would be a deal breaker if I didn’t agree with him on most subjects. IOW, I think he’s preaching to the converted.


    In other news, PZ Myers wants to take out the Cato Institute with tanks.

    1. Oh yes, good to see PZ and his furious hate of all things libertarian persist.

    2. You say you want a revolution?

      SO DO WE.

    3. Several commenters pointed out on that site that Cato essentially agrees with the author – who labeled them “an extremist organization”.

      It was never refuted.

      That place is some full time stupid.

    4. PZ writes “I would support more tanks for the army iff they were immediately dispatched to take out the American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute, the Discovery Institute, Focus on the Family, a few thousand megachurches, and miscellaneous other extremist organizations.”

      A few years back I was quite active in the pro-science, anti-creationism online community(I was against creationism, not creationists, if you want to split hairs)
      Penn and Teller were an influence as was Micheal Shermer, but I have since distanced myself from the PZ Meyerses (sp?) when I learned more and more about their statist positions. Labeling CATO as an extremist organization goes beyond all forms of reason and skepticism. Science is supposed to be about determining facts through measuring observations, forming theories which explain the facts and then refining (or discarding) those theories with peer review. Whatever science is, it is not supposed to be advocating the destruction of institutions simply because one disagrees with them.

      Meyers is speaking in hyperbole (I think) but as a side note it seems that at certain points in time, leftists abandon their calls for civil language vis-a-vis the wake of the Giffords shooting. As I write this, I am now recalling when PZ mutilated several books, the Koran included but of course the leftists were up in arms when a Christian nutter did the same.

      It is quite interesting that some evolution advocates are very often NOT willing to put their theory to the test when it comes to education and trade. When it comes to those ideas, as well as taxation, public funding for everything from the Arts to Zoos, they become devoutly religious, espousing the virtue of the God called the State and branding all of those who disagree as uneducated and dangerous heretics.

      I, of course, accept the evidence for the theory of evolution in biology AND the marketplace.

      Science and education are important, so important…why would anyone want to leave it to the government to control?

      1. I think it’s only a matter of time before there’s split in the “skeptic” community between leftists and non-leftists. Non-leftists like Penn and Teller and Michael Shermer are skeptics when it comes to everything. Leftists like PZ are skeptics about religion but hopelessly clueless about economics and pretty uninterested in freedom. The benefit I get from reading PZ is not worth the rage induced by his socialism.

  38. TJ: In case you happened to miss this Thursday, I give you a little treat for a slow Saturday morning. The MSNBC dick lobs him a softball one can only dream of. And he is all sang-froid. And all pwnage.

    1. That’s my Representative. He ain’t perfect, but that was pretty fucking epic.

      1. Marvelous! Would have liked to see the subsequent stammering by the news reader, but nontheless very useful in perking me up on this muggy saturday morn.

    2. the clip ended, but did he follow up by asking her the same question?

      And when she said no, did he then say, “Then shut the fuck up and listen”?

    3. Credentialism is generally bullshit, but kudos to him for giving Cuntessa the beating she deserved.

      1. That’s my representative too! He has at a town hall meeting today.

  39. I haven’t watched this clip yet but I made a point of watching the actual episode. I’d never really watched more than a couple of minutes of Bill Maher before, but man was it infuriating… the guy just brings no actual content to the table. It’s just snide comments, platitudes and generalizations with no real supporting evidence. And the panel of course was pretty much the same, the PA mayor was so outmatched during the episode it was ridiculous. You could tell he was a little embarrassed I thought, although Nick probably didn’t need to go so far as to comment on the PA town’s poverty. But The Jacket won this one easy.


      Clip on this page for those who haven’t seen it. Didn’t think it was really necessary for Nick to lob that one in; would have been better to listen to Mayor Huey rail on against the corporashuns!1! and then take down his argment retroactively.

      1. No, it was appropriate. Maybe clinging to his socialist views is what has made his town the poorest in PA?

      2. It was appropriate because the mayor’s comment was intended as: I Am A Victim (or representative thereof) Thus My Opinion Is More Valid Than Yours.

        1. Exactly. +1.

    2. It’s just snide comments, platitudes and generalizations with no real supporting evidence.

      But it’s okay because he’s so funny.

      1. I watched about a minute of his rambling about signing pledges before I remembered that I could fast forward the parts that were just Maher. Do people seriously find him funny though? Like even if I agreed with him politically (or had no political views whatsoever) I still can’t imagine laughing. Although I did see Nick laughing at a few of Bill’s brilliantly creative jokes (Dogshit and Reagan! Get it?!?!?!), so maybe it’s not that hard to fake it.

  40. The world in a nutshell: a smarmy, rich conservative like Nick Gillespie spouts his piece before a polite panel. The least known guy–the mayor–finally gets to talk and Gilliespie tries to mock him and shout him down. At which point the mayor threatens to kick his ass. Priceless! Another right-winger who’s never been in a fight in his life talks the talk….then whimpers like a dog when faced with the actual threat of pain. Oh, the irony!

    1. Irony: it doesn’t mean what you think it means.

      Fucking words, how do they work?

      1. He called Nick a “conservative,” so it’s obvious the meanings of words have little value to him.

        1. Gillespie must of won the lotto, Otto; he’s apparently “rich” now as well.

          1. Yeah, but in fairness, almost all of his wealth is tied up in The Jacket. So I imagine his actual discretionary income is quite low.

            1. I mean, Jacket payments, Jacket-owners insurance, Jacket taxes, that’s gotta add up. I don’t even want to imagine his monthly dry-cleaning tab. It’s your classic case of Jacket rich / cash poor.

              1. I hope Nick runs him over in his shitty Buick.

    2. Yeah, because threatening violence is how real men win arguments! /sic

    3. The world in a nutshell: When confronted with facts that contradict their talking points and forced to think for themselves, statists will resort to threats of violence to silence their opponents.

    4. The least known guy–the mayor–finally gets to talk and Gilliespie tries to mock him and shout him down. At which point the mayor threatens to kick his ass. Priceless!



    5. The least known guy–the mayor–finally gets to talk and Gilliespie tries to mock him and shout him down. At which point the mayor threatens to kick his ass. Priceless!

      Yeah, right–that dickbag mayor would melt in about 15 seconds if shit ever got real.

    6. rich conservative like Nick Gillespie

      Yeah, he’ll just melt that behemoth’s girth by holding his monocle up to the sun. Take that, fatass!

    7. WTF?!?!

      What is Nick supposed to do?

      Get in a fist fight on TV with some Mayor?

      You are an idiot.

      1. “Get in a fist fight on TV with some Mayor?”

        Oh hells yes! Political fights on TV would be so much more entertaining if there was actual fighting going on.

          1. What the fuck are they fighting about? Is it one particular issue or do they go to fists on all issues?

            Also the big guy in the black suit was a big disappointment. After he slammed down that white board on the table and then stated heading for the rabble below i thought he was going to go full on HULK. He even had the hair cut for it.

            But all he did is end up yelling a bit and pointing. totally lame.

  41. You’re a better man than me Nick.

  42. I just watched the clip (didn’t watch the whole show).

    I don’t know about you, but Nick did a kick-ass job of representing liberterianism. I love the comment “Fine, then pay more.” I also liked the mock violin playing he did.


    BTW who is this Donna Brazile cunt? She actually makes Maher look somewhat reasonable. I love how she refused to even entertain the idea that there’s might be a better Democratic candidate out there than Obama. What a fucking tool.

    1. BTW who is this Donna Brazile cunt?

      First of all, LACIST (not sure how, but LACIST). She’s a lifelong Democrat operative from LOSERana. She got fired from the Dukakis campaign for accusing George H.W. Bush of cheating on Barbara. She ran Al Gore’s election campaign (yes, those grapes are mighty sour), and currently works on the DNC, presumably to keep her from fudging any more national campaigns.

      1. To be fair, I think Al Gore ruined his own chances. Unless your point is that she should have had better “wranglers” on him.

        1. I thought one of the primary duties of a campaign manager was to be a “wrangler.”

          Especially with a candidate like Al Gore.

      2. lacist???

        1. I just felt like casually butchering that ‘R’, Chinese-style. No other reason.

          1. hey – I thought I was getting advice from an older Chinese woman!

            1. Dude, INTERTUBES.

              There are no women here.

              Except for maybe Katherine Mangu-Ward. Tests are still being run to see if she’s real or a hard-light projection engineered by The Jacket.

              1. Clearly you didn’t get the reference…..

                1. Should have changed your handle to Estelle, but even that probably wouldn’t have worked.

    2. Next time Gillespie goes to one of these things, he needs to hold up a sign with the “Gift to the Treasury” address on it whenever a bunch of rich liberals start chittering that they need to pay higher taxes.

  43. Bill should be careful with his Marcus Bachmann gay jokes. He just got owned and spanked for over an hour by Nick Gillespie.

  44. They need to hurry up and put it On-Demand so I can watch the rest of the statists shouting down someone who disagrees with them.

    1. Am I the only who has no idea why this person is famous? Has she had any famous songs? When were they released?

      On a side note, DID YOU KNOW that Miss Winehouse now joins the infamous Club 27.

      List of famous singers who died at age 27:

      Janis Joplin
      Kurt Cobain
      Jimmi Hendrix
      Jim Morrison
      Amy Winehouse

      (Any of those names look like they don’t belong?)

      1. Brian Jones was also 27

      2. Brian Jones was also 27

      3. Apparently she won a Grammy or was nominated for a bunch of them, but I can’t be bothered to look up when it happened.

        Sad, but not unexpected since she’d been in the tabloids for a few years regarding drug issues.

      4. And has anyone really listened to Cobain’s ouevre recently? A few songs were on my classic rock station and damn, his work hasn’t aged well at all. Pretty amazing that he simultaneously killed the era of goofy hair metal and ushered in the subsequent era of goofy, hyper-emotive “alternative” music.

        1. A few tunes sound better to my ears than at the time — thinking of the one from a novel title — it eludes me, and the one with the river name.

          For the most part, quite right. First album sounds repetitive to a screaming fault. If I wanted to hear gargled wailing I would check myself into Camp Butner over the weekend.

          1. You know what song from that era still sounds fresh, 20 years later (at least to me)? Fuckin’ “Motownphilly,” before Boyz II Men turned into the go-to middle school dance group for DJs of the mid-90s. That song that could be released today and still be a Top 10 hit, which is my standard for greatness.

              1. *barf*

                Please–I’d take the New Jack Swing fluff from that era over whatever obscure SWPL clanking you claim to listen to.

                1. Yes! I love Motown Philly! This is How We Do It is also still amazing.

      5. Hendrix doesn’t belong on that list. He actually had some musical talent and therefore had a skill beyond merely being pathetic overhyped clown who died from overdosing.

    2. Through stunned disbelief the world weeps.

    3. RIP, my sweetest princess.

  45. NYT profile of Braddock (with pictures)

    This year, the town will be featured in the film version of another work of art, Cormac McCarthy’s Pulitzer Prize-winning novel “The Road.” Set in a post-Armageddon America where food is so scarce that many survivors turned to cannibalism, “The Road” was shot partially in Braddock.

    A town whose story has evolved from building America to making Americans to eating Americans for dinner might seem a hard sell. So Mr. Fetterman, who is paid $150 a month, also promotes Braddock as a place to buy extremely cheap real estate.

    1. Of course, this is nothing new for Braddock. It has been a shithole for over 30 years. Remember George Romero picked Braddock as the place to film Martin because it was the most depressing place in the Mon Valley even back then.

  46. Start the clock on how long it takes Maher to have another lucid, perceptive and principled libertarian on Real Time.

    1. When was the first one?

  47. Anyone else notice the uncanny resemblance between Maher and the Norwegian shooter?

    1. +1

      Kinda reminds me of that old Spy magazine feature: separated at birth.

    2. I always thought Maher looked more like Julian Assange(that’s the Wikileaks guy for you kids).

    3. I always thought his oil-slicked hair look was creepy–it makes him look like some sort of child-molester.

    4. Maher has never been a handsome man, but Jebus, he looks like shit now.

    5. I always thought Maher looked like one of Hugh Hefner’s unacknowledged bastards.

      1. I’ve always thought he looks like my penis.

  48. Amy Winehouse found dead in London apartment.

    No one surprised.

    1. Maybe the shooter went there first.

      1. The only shooter in that apartment was her right hand…and her left arm was the likely victim.

        1. on a positive note, heroin prices have dropped almost 50% in london due to the decreased demand.

          1. I also saw the claim she wasn’t dead.
            Turns out they tried to outline the body and she jerked up and snorted it.

            1. Amazing sevo, wow! Bravo!

            2. I’m doing stand up on Monday, and your joke just got JACKED good sir.

    2. In related news the price of drugs in England drops 3%.

  49. I loved how quick Maher and Brazille were to roll their eyes at the idea that this big panic is the same as every other panic, when they just finished a bunch of head-nodding in regard to the rest of them being overblown.

    Do these people hear themselves talking?

    1. but the old people! They won’t get their CHECKKKKZZZZ

      1. you know what Gillespie should have interrupted her and reminded her that it was OBAMA’s idea to stop paying social security firt.

        1. Funny thing – I haven’t heard anything about welfare checks not going out on time.

  50. FAA shuts down amid budget standoff. No federal taxes on flights. 4000 government bureaucrats laid off. Not a single plane falls out of the sky.

    Could we please remember this day, so we can declare it a holiday when Libertopia is a reality?

    Seriously, this should be held up as an example by libertarians as to what really happens when government is forced to loosen it’s death grip on a segment of society.

    1. But airlines will lose the authority to collect about $200 million a week in ticket taxes that go into a trust fund that pays for FAA programs.

      I’m sure the airline industry is heartbroken not to serve as a proxy tax collector for big government.

      1. Fuck, I’d better get tickets today.

        Of course they’ll probably force you to pay the tax before boarding or something iff the FAA is back up and running on the day of the flight.

        1. They don’t have the authority to retroactively apply the taxes (yet).

          1. Heh, heh. I can fix that. 🙂

    2. This little tax holiday should be a boon to the Airlines as people will save around 15% of their ticket costs if they buy now. I was slightly disheartened when I learned that they are still collecting the 9/11 security tax.

  51. I made it through about 90 seconds before I wanted to stab myself in the face with an ice pick while simultaneously setting myself on fire. I don’t generally have a problem getting along with liberals, but the smug, condescending douchebaggery of Maher and Brazile is just unbearable.

    And yes, I’ll echo whomever said Red Eye is the only similar show worth watching. Even if it’s on too f’ing late to be compatible with my work schedule.

    1. I’ve tried to watch Red Eye, but I can’t stomach Gutfeld. He’s claimed to be a libertarian, but he’s really little more than a pro-pot Republican.

      1. Which, sadly, describes about half of self-described libertarians. Gutfeld, at least, can be funny sometimes and doesn’t take himself too seriously.

        1. “Which, sadly, describes about half of self-described libertarians.”

          On TV for sure. Beck, Maher, and Gutfeld have all described themselves as libertarian (or libertarian ‘leaning’).


  52. God, when was the last time we had an A+ troll? I think that this one came close.

    1. No one can match LoneDipshit.

      (wipes tear from eye)

      I miss him so much. Can’t you let him back, reason editors? Please?

    2. I’m wondering what exactly that mother has to be proud of. Her lantern jaw? Her daddy issues, perhaps? Or is it the conviction that she won’t orgasm until all women get equal pay?

    3. If you can tell it’s a troll it’s not a good one.

    4. a good troll engages the commentariat and lures them further into the insanity. a One & done is not a successful trolling.

      1. Well, if she had come back and delivered on her promise of a verbal beatdown, we may have had a new, awesome troll.

        Like Roy Hobbes, she could have been the best there ever was in this game.

  53. I like how Bill Maher called himself an “independent like Nick” is in order to distance himself from Democrat hypocrisy.

    I have a feeling Nick will be invited back.

    1. I hope so. Sounds like he’d be a lot better at trolling the audience and the panelists than the conservative jokers Maher typically brings on.

      1. Yeah, Ross Doubthat is hardly worthy.

    2. I have a feeling Nick had to go home and take 10 showers in order to feel clean again.

  54. Sweet mother of God. Am I the only one that wanted to break something really, really badly when the woman in red starting talking about how people who can afford to pay more should, and it’s one of those things people need to be FORCED to do, while Nick was saying you could donate at the Treasury website?

    What a bunch of fucktards. Jesus Christ, seriously.

    1. Funny how those who like to say that “people who can afford to pay more should” are never ones who can afford to pay more.

      1. Oh, they can afford to – they just don’t.

        1. Yes, but to hear them tell it they can’t.

    2. Am I the only one that wanted to break something really, really badly

      Violence is a recurring theme with you. Are all anarchists that frustrated?*

      *Rhetorical question.

      1. 1) I’m a republican, not an anarchist.

        2) Violence against my own lamp, say, since I said “something”, is my business, and nobody else’s. Of course, that only applies if you respect the right to private property. I haven’t seen you post here before, so I’m not going to jump to any conclusions as to your ideology, like you did with me.

        To answer your question, even most centrists, who are also statists by my/our standards, are highly frustrated with the America of today. A minimalist like me? Well, yeah, I AM that frustrated. What’s wrong with that?

  55. Interesting letter published today on instapundit. I think this guy is probably on to something. Look at the liberals who post on here. They are nuts. You cannot talk sense to them when it comes to the budget. They honestly seem to be in denial about the fiscal state of things. Look further to Van Jones and his “we have lots of money” talk. I am starting to think the US may really default. That Obama and the Democrats really are nuts and the Republicans have badly misjudged them. Anyway, here is the letter.

    I’m worried. See if you follow my concern. Thus far the Democrats have proved intractable on these negotiations. But more than that, they seem to be living in denial as regards the national debt and more importantly the deficits. Right now we’re projecting deficits of 1.5 trillion every year for the next ten years. But those projections are based on growth rates of something like 3 ? 3.5% from 2013 onwards. Which is unrealistic when you consider the current debt load plus piling on 1.5T more every year. It’s obvious that these projections are pure fantasy. They’re in denial about Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid sustainability and about Obamacare. They genuinely believed O-care was going to “bend the cost curve”! It’s ridiculous.

    Now, we all know this. None of this is new information. What has me worried is the idea that the Democrats ACTUALLY DON’T UNDERSTAND THIS IS THE END OF THE ROAD. What if they actually aren’t capable of recognizing when they’ve lost? Or when we’ve run out of other people’s money? None of these people work for a living. Their concept of where money comes from and how wealth is created (and destroyed) is completely divorced from reality because they live in a government bubble. And the very small minority among them that do understand this from previous jobs and experience are okay with Progressive policies aimed at leveling/equalizing/delivering-economic-justice because they just assume that the economy can handle some siphoning. And usually it can. But not at this volume or for this time scale.

    Here’s the position I think we may be in. We’ve been negotiating with the President and The Democrats in Congress on the assumption that they’re sane. It’s okay to play hardball with these guys because eventually, whether they like it or not, reality insists upon itself and they have to cave. It’s a painful process so you expect some tantrum throwing and caterwauling, but eventually they HAVE to accept reality. Except if they’re not sane. If they want five apples and there’s only two plus two but they CAN’T ACCEPT that two plus two equals four. Orwell wasn’t just writing a parable about the eventual end point of IngSoc. He was describing what human psychology can drive Ministers to inflict upon the populace for the sake of “justice”. I’m worried they’ll pull the trigger on default as just one more “political” step in the march towards freedom from want or whatever other principle they’re operating under. They’re playing this game as if they could win, as if taxes in a downturn are a good idea with benign consequences. As if debt equivalent to GDP is survivable for the world’s anchor economy/currency, let alone sustainable.

    And so maybe, just maybe, Republican strategy (what little there is of it) has badly misread the opposition. Obama tried to add 400 billion in taxes to a deal he had already agreed with Boehner at the last minute. Boehner walks out cause Obama is negotiating in bad faith and has been all along, but what if Obama is actually incapable of good faith negotiation? I think right now that it’s actually possible we won’t see a deal at all. Because the Republicans are looking at the math and at reality and saying “Okay, Democrat demands can’t be serious because they can’t possibly work” and Democrats are looking at politics and how it works and saying “We don’t have to give in cause that’s not how you win these things. You pin it on the other guy politically and then reap the political dividends.” I wasn’t around for the start of WWI, but I get the feeling I understand Kennedy’s fascination with Tuchman’s Guns of August. I’m not talking about a shooting war, but about leaders overestimating and underestimating and just plain misjudging each other in a brinksmanship scenario. In short, it could be too late to do anything when people finally wake up. The crisis may have already arrived with an economic and fiscal momentum all it’s own that no amount of dealing or compromise or statesmanship can stop..

    1. They are nuts. You cannot talk sense to them when it comes to the budget. They honestly seem to be in denial about the fiscal state of things.

      No kidding. I’ve lost count of the times when I’ve pointed out that even if they looted every cent from everyone who earns more than a million bucks, they still couldn’t close the budget gap. They don’t care, they just want to loot out of spite.


    2. Don’t count on the hope that every single ‘crisis’ will be exploited to the fullest extent.

      They don’t want sense, they want to steal.

      1. Don’t count out the hope

    3. Oh bullshit

      The mayor on the show was right in that it is political theater.

      The dems just want to position themselves so that the republicans take the blame for cuts. the republicans want to put the blame on dems.

      What is messing up the issue is those lovable tea pirates who actually do want to shrink the size and scope of government rather then simply balance a budget.

      The dance they are doing really is a matter of math as the three major factions sort themselves out.

  56. Navy vet records police encounter on cell phone.

    No one was arrested. Nothing else happened.

    Oh wait, they did arrest him

  57. Navy vet records police encounter on cell phone.

    He isn’t arrested. Nothing else happened.

    Oh wait, they did arrest him.…..cell-phone

  58. Typical. Leftists blathering on about “the other guys” and more crap about how we are living in “unprecedented” times. They are a crazy as the religious loonies who see Satan at every turn and spend their time waiting for the second coming. Pathetic.

    1. it’s always “unprecedented times” even though even a cursory study of history (written by the victors of course, not their hero zinn) shows- not so much.

      reminds me of all the idiots in the market (that make for great trading opportunities) who ALWAYS believe the latest trend is “different this time”

      #1 rule of the market. it’s NEVER different this time. i don’t care if it’s fucking tulips, silver, or real estate.

  59. The summary

    if you were as bored as I was reading the comments:

    #1 a jew announced he’s practicing medicine

    #2 and epi must have quit smoking

  60. 6 minutes of my life, gone, just like that and I’ll never have them back, but we do it for you Nick, we do it for you. And because The Jacket commands us to do so.

    1. You’re more of a masochist than I thought you were, dude. Did your ears bleed?

      1. I actually lost control of my bodily fluids.

        1. But your Depends handled the situation, right? I mean, you do wear adult diapers, right?

          1. Sure he does – you want a lick?

          2. You say it as if it’s something odd.

            1. No I didn’t. I’m wearing a pair right now. I don’t even have to go to the bathroom to go to the bathroom. It’s all up-side!

              1. The problem with Depends is that they make it hard to detect intestinal worms.

                1. my tapeworm is famished. 13 big macs and I haven’t gained a pound.

                  1. My craps of late have been like the one’s you read about in fairy tales. Like in the Sorcerer’s Diarrhea Spewing Apprentice. Your mothers read that to you when you were wee high, right?

  61. Jonathan Kay: Already, the Norway conspiracy theories have begun

  62. lol. “what are you doing, man? You’re fucking up the lawsuit!”

    SEATTLE – A teen who filed a $450,000 claim against the city of Seattle after he was kicked by a police officer last year was arrested Friday night after witnesses said he was flashing a gun in downtown Seattle’s retail core.

    The teen, identified as Dvontaveous N. Hoston, 18, was arrested by Metro Transit officers after witnesses reported he had been flashing a handgun near a bus stop at Third Avenue and Pike Street, then concealed it when officers approached.

    As officers made the arrest and placed Hoston in handcuffs, someone in the gathering crowd yelled at the suspect and said, “What are you doing, man? … You’re f—ing up the lawsuit!” Officers later identified the man as the suspect’s cousin.

    Hoston was booked into King County jail for investigation of being a felon with a handgun, said King County Sheriff’s Office spokesman Sgt. John Urquhart.

    It’s unclear what effect Hoston’s arrest will have on the $450,000 federal claim he filed against the city of Seattle after he was kicked by Officer James Lee during an Oct. 18 incident at a Belltown convenience store. The incident was captured on video, which later went viral.

    The October kicking incident took place after a suspect fled from an undercover drug-buy-gone-wrong, and an officer was assaulted. Lee found Hoston at a convenience store and kicked him multiple times.

    Hoston was charged with first-degree attempted robbery in connection with the October incident, but was later acquitted in King County Superior Court. In February he filed a claim seeking $450,000 from the city, saying he was the victim of “unjustified and excessive force.”

    Officer Lee was later charged with fourth-degree assault after the kicking incident following an investigation by the Washington State Patrol, and he has pleaded not guilty to the gross misdemeanor.

    The videotaped kicking incident, Hoston’s $450,000 lawsuit and the charging of Officer Lee have triggered outrage and controversy.

    The Seattle Police Management Association called the charging of Officer Lee a “deplorable miscarriage of justice.”

    But City Attorney Pete Holmes said the decision to file an assault charge “was solely based on the investigative facts presented by the State Patrol and the law.”

    Friday night’s incident near Third and Pike began as two Metro Transit officers were on foot patrol in the area checking bus stops about 9:45 p.m.

    The officers came across a group of 10 to 12 men in a circle, just east of Third Avenue on Pike Street. They spotted two men in the center pushing each other as if they were preparing to fight.

    The officers broke up the group. After they did, three witnesses came up and said one of the men in the group had been flashing a handgun around. They said he then concealed it in the waistband of his pants.

    Officers located the man in front of the McDonalds restaurant at Third and Pine and found a loaded, semi-automatic pistol tucked into his waistband.

    It was then that the suspect’s cousin said, “What are you doing, man? … You’re f—ing up the lawsuit!”

    Hoston was then booked into the King County jail.

    1. It’s unclear what effect Hoston’s arrest will have on the $450,000 federal claim

      I dont see how it would have any.

      1. Csb.

        Just because he’s a shithead, doesn’t mean you can kick the shit out of him when you catch him. His credibility as a witness may be shit now, but the video camera recording the kicking isn’t going to be indicted for a felony.

        Sure sounds like a winner at life though, doesn’t he?

        1. also note yet another example of cops arresting a dangerous convicted felon with a weapon and nobody getting shot.

          it wouldn’t even have made the paper except for his prior notoriety.

          1. Cookie duly awarded.

            In all seriousness, it sounds like the police here did very well. An 18 yr old male felon with a pistol has be among the world’s most dangerous creatures. Or at least, the most unpredictable.

            1. “there is nothing more dangerous than a marine and his rifle”.

              the guy is also an example of the kind of person who is his own worst enemy. he was pretty lucky to be acquitted on the robbery charge (the thing that the cop was kicking him for). it was an assault on an undercover officer and he put up a decent defense that he thought the UC was trying to rob him bla bla and got off. the officer suffered pretty serious facial injuries btw. that explains (but doesn’t excuse) to an extent the whole kicking thing after that happened.

              regardless, he just got acquitted of a rather serious charge, he’s got a 450k lawsuit pending and he’s downtown flashing a gun in front of a bunch of witnesses knowing he’s a convicted felon.

              note he also turned 18 recently, so guaranteed he’s used to being coddled by the state of WA and king county’s juvenile court system, where they aren’t defendants, they are “respondents”. seriously.

              the VUFA case will be an almost certain slam dunk. heck, in a show of irony, they may decide to go federal on HIM (his lawsuit is federal). now, THAT’s ironic, alanis.

      2. because lawsuits are civil, and while all trials are theater, civil trials are – especially so.

        simply put, the more sympathetic a client, the more likely to win – ceteris paribus. the facts of the case are somewhat relevant.

        i just think the whole thing is fucking hilarious. he’s just your typical dirtbag who got the “golden ticket” by getting kicked by the cop. the cop was DEFINITELY over the line by kicking the kid. he’s been criminally charged, btw.

        1. Interesting, also, how the kid was charged with “first degree attempted robbery,” a pretty serious felony, for fighting back when he thought he was being robbed, yet the cop is charged with “fourth degree assault,” a misdemeanor for intentionally kicking the shit out of a defenseless person that had already been neutralized.

          Thanks, dunphy, for pointing out the two-tiered legal system we have for “civilians” and cops.

          1. actually, there is no two tiered system here, but don;t let facts get in the way

            robbery was the proper charge because there were the critical elements – the taking of property by force

            assault IV is the proper charge because there is NO other charge. that’s the charge we use for every assault where a person is kicked UNLESS there are “substantial or serious” injuries.

            i also note you (as usual) ignore facts. you said “kick the shit” out of him. did you bother to check WHAT HIS INJURIES WERE?

            no, of course not

            this was a garden variety assault IV.

            if he had kicked him while trying to steal his walled , THAT would be robbery.

            again, you are simply wrong on the facts. i have investigated over 100 assault IV cases. this was a TEXTBOOK assault IV

    2. I see 3rd and Pine is still the home of drug-dealing teens and other thugs. I’m still not sure why the cops never patrolled and busted up that area for loitering and, the occasional dice game, when it was a major transit exchange point for commuters.

      One of my fondest memories was of a young punk driving by waving a fan of money to his homies on that corner like he was in a Cash Money Records video.

  63. I’ve been watching Maher’s show for a little over 6 months now and Nick’s appearance was great. Anne Coulter was on a few weeks ago (I’m not a fan of hers) and was nowhere near as vocal as Nick was last night.
    I should admit that I am new to Libertarian ideas and have come to them through the Mises Institute podcasts. Previously, I could be described as left of center with a healthy disdain for politics and a tendency to not discredit conspiracy theories out of hand. What I have learned by listening to hours and hours of Mises Inst. podcasts is the science that disproved many of my left-leaning ideals and showed how good intentions don’t always clearly lead to good outcomes without some serious investigation of what the practices instituted will lead to.
    So, now that I have sought out information and theory I have come to understand why Libertarian ideas are what the USA needs.
    Getting back to the show, Gillespie’s comment to the Mayor (“you must be so proud”) was THE line of the night. How succinct and witty it truly was. Also, the second highlight of the night was Gillespie’s praise of Clinton’s NAFTA and Donna B’s empty refutation policy. We actually had a Libertarian getting a democrat to bash it’s own party’s policy with no understanding of the real effects.
    My only regret is that Gillespie didn’t get any digs in on the Fed and the Keynsian-American monetary system which so few Americans understand. Arguably, it would have flown completely over the heads of most of the audience. But, some people do tend to investigate when confronted with information unfamiliar to them.
    Strange things are afoot. Speaking from my own perspective, I’ve gone from being completely unaware of what Austrian economics or Libertarianism are, or how our manipulated economy works, to a deeper understanding of economics, politics, and financial systems. I’ve seen Gillespie run the show on RealTime and Thomas Woods on the Stossel show.
    I think people are eager to understand what is going on in this country and that Independents will continue to leave the Democratic and Republican parties.
    Kudos to Gillespie for grabbing the floor last night and to organizations like the Mises Institute for trying to enlighten the masses of Americans like me who were publicly mis-educated. There is hope.

    1. maybe if the public was mise-educated and not mis-educated, there would be more hope.


      1. Yes.
        Unfortunately, people DO seem to like to wall themselves in behind their like-minded brethren be it Limbaugh, Hannity, Olberman, or Maddow.
        But, as I said, people are more and more eager for information and options these days. So, the fact that modern media (wikipedia, podcasts, blogs, social networks) is helping expand the opportunity for people find answer is a reason for hope.
        If there had been no bailout is it possible things would have been further along? I wonder. Currently I am a 41 year old, broke, carpenter with a BA in English from UCLA. If I want to teach in a public school or a private school I have to spend over a year and at least 12K to get into a classroom. If the economy had been allowed to collapse would a person like myself have more opportunity to get into a classroom at a lower wage immediately? It’s possible.
        Unfortunately, the self-educated are stuck in a system designed by the State and funded by Federal loans which has caused the cost of education to become as prohibitive to access as it has ever been.
        I digress.

        1. This is probably too late for you to read, but I’ll throw it out there anyway. If you want to teach and have the basic skill set, I’m pretty sure you can always get hired by a private school. I don’t think you only need to be certified if you teach in public schools.

          1. Depends on the state — I know for a fact that in NYS any school that satisfies the compulsory K-12 education laws must employ only state-certified teachers.

        2. Uh, if you’re broke how are you watching HBO?

    2. I agree with you in the big picture, but Austrian economics isn’t science.

      1. Chaos theory.
        Economic systems are chaotic systems.
        Austrian economics fits in perfectly with the understanding that any attempt to change a chaotic system and predict the outcome is impossible.
        Maybe I’m technically wrong about it being a science, but it seems pretty scientific to me.
        Rothbard wrote an article in the late 80’s about how new discoveries in chaos theory may support Austrian economic ideas. I don’t know if he ever took it any further. Maybe he died before he was able to understand the new theories.

        1. If it’s not based on controlled, repeatable experimentation it’s not science.

          1. Science is more than just experimentation. You should know this.

            1. Don’t make me pull out the Popper.

            2. And I said “based on”.

          2. I think that’s a little extreme — science is based on forming conclusions from evidence based on reason (math, logic, statistics, etc.).

            Experimental science is about creating situations conducive to gathering particularly useful evidence to be applied to the reasoning process, but sometimes you just have to make do with what the world gives you.

            Early astronomers, for example, couldn’t really control anything other than where or when they took their measurements, but it’s still considered science.

        2. You’re looking for the word Philosophy, not Science. Also, I suggest reading Human Action by Mises; very dry book and hard to read, but the effort will pay off.

    3. Great post! If you’re interested in Economics, I also recommend checking out Thomas Sowell’s work. Back in my college days, I started out just like you (“left-leaning with a disdain of politics”), and he changed the way I see the world.

    1. I suppose I could have looked two posts up before posting. As mentioned below: I hope Da Truff was on that train.

      1. I’m glad that 32 people dying acts of proof that a cost-effective, environmentally friendly and sustainable form of transportation is somehow therefore not worthy. Trains represent the ideological boogeyman of the government. Therefore, they must be stopped.

        Nevermind that far more people die a year on American’s roads. We’re talking about some vague notion of freedom, not which form of transportation will safer and more sustainable. We want the form of transportation that represents some knee-jerk, childish notion of freedom.

        1. My head is spinning at all the lies and statist bootlicking in that statement. The left has come a long way now that they look to China as a model of efficiency and environmental quality.

          How dare the peasants want to go where they want when they want? Transportation of the masses is for the state to direct.

          1. There simply isn’t enough metal or gas in the world that will enable every Chinese person to have a car. Wishing government away and insisting that an unfettered free-market will somehow do away with this reality is absurd, but par for the course for libertoids.

            Libertarians can shout all they want, but they can’t dispense with reality. When China invests in high speed rail, and when our governments proposes to, the libertards start kicking and screaming. They have yet to propose any other solutions, but instead cheer when people die because of a rare train crash. Nevermind that people die everyday in car accidents here.

            1. Whatever happened to me?

              I was always the populist yin Tony’s elitist progressive yang. (Not to his wang, though. I have a wifey, you know.)

              And whenever the subject of trains came up, I could always talk about my experience with trains in Japan and how awesome that made my life.

              I must be sorely missed.

              1. Choad|7.23.11 @ 9:50PM|#
                “…I must be sorely missed.”
                Not at all.

                1. I actually do miss Chad. His errors were far more subtle and he did something other than repeat talking points and try to shift the burden of proof.

                  1. You’ve made me a happy choad.

                  2. Tulpa|7.23.11 @ 10:15PM|#
                    “…he did something other than repeat talking points and try to shift the burden of proof.”
                    I don’t recall that.
                    The first time I asked Chad to back a claim s/he made, s/he did exactly as Shithead did here:
                    “I don’t need to.[…]The burden is on you to prove otherwise.”

                  3. No way. I remember him repeating the same lie about stock market returns not beating inflation (which is of course profoundly stupid) and refuted him, at length, on at least half a dozen separate occasions.

            2. Every time you post two more recruits join the Resistance, so please don’t stop.

            3. There simply isn’t enough metal or gas in the world that will enable every Chinese person to have a car.

              If only there were some proven system for allocating scarce resources…

              And anyway, there are about 800M cars in the world. Pretty sure there’s plenty of metal to make another billion (and of course many Chinese already have cars). Most of modern vehicle bodies aren’t even made of metal anymore.

              1. The pathetic thing is that iron ore is plentiful, and ten years ago a whole bunch of steel mills when bellyup due to insufficient consumer demand.

                Hell, I’d warrant that there’s enough steel that is economically producable from unmined iron ore to give everyone their own personal DC-3!

            4. Tony|7.23.11 @ 9:42PM|#
              “There simply isn’t enough metal or gas in the world that will enable every Chinese person to have a car.”

              Prove it, shithead.

              1. I don’t need to. Gas is a scarce resource, it won’t last forever. The burden is on you to prove otherwise.

                1. Hello. Your name is Remy? And you are Stephanie? My name is Luke. Welcome to the Resistance.

                  1. Psst. Remy is from the TSA. We have video evidence.

                    1. Remy being a Wookie, we are doing a lot of passengers a favor by getting him out of the screening process.

                    2. This might sound sick, but I’d probably have less objection to being groped by a wookie. How soft is their fur anyway?

                    3. Like the downy of a new born Shambler.

                2. Tony|7.23.11 @ 10:09PM|#
                  “I don’t need to…”

                  IOWs, you *can’t*, shithead.
                  Go away.

                  1. You first. Prove there is enough gas in the world to fuel cars for every person in China that will last indefinitely. Until you can, it is better to start looking for other alternatives.

                    1. Tony|7.23.11 @ 11:03PM|#
                      “Prove there is enough gas in the world to fuel cars for every person in China that will last indefinitely…”

                      Shithead, I never made that claim, so I have no desire to prove it, shithead.
                      But, shithead, you made this claim:
                      “There simply isn’t enough metal or gas in the world that will enable every Chinese person to have a car.”
                      Put up or shut up, shithead.

                    2. You don’t have to prove that there is enough gas in the world to power a car for every person in China, but I have to prove that there isn’t. If I have to explain the absurdity of this proposition, there is no hope for you. Calling me shithead is probably about the best you can do given your limited level of understanding.

                    3. Tony|7.23.11 @ 11:26PM|#
                      “You don’t have to prove that there is enough gas in the world to power a car for every person in China, but I have to prove that there isn’t.”

                      Shithead, just in case it isn’t clear:
                      1) You made a claim of abysmal stupidity.
                      2) I requested you either back that claim or STFU.
                      3) You, shithead, responded by asking me to support a claim I never made.
                      Now, shithead, what is it in this process that you can’t quite figure out? Are you, shithead, entirely too stupid to understand this? Which is it, shithead, fool or knave?

                    4. Again, as I noted above, calling me shithead is about the best you can do given your limited level of understanding. At least you’ve shown you can count to three. That’s progress, I suppose.

                    5. You don’t have to prove that there is enough gas in the world to power a car for every person in China, but I have to prove that there isn’t.

                      I’ll remember this statement next time you deny that the US is out of money.

            5. There simply isn’t enough metal or gas in the world that will enable every Chinese person to have a car

              You really have no idea what our planet is made of do you?

              1. You really have no idea what our planet is made of do you?

                That’s my boy!

                1. No, that’s OUR son.

              2. “You really have no idea what our planet is made of do you?”

                I know it’s not made of gas. You are probably thinking of Jupiter. Perhaps we could harvest it’s gas! It will be more expensive than solar energy or electric cars, but if it means we can avoid those oppressive means of saving energy, so be it!

                1. I see he’s pretending he never brought up steel.

                  Tony is so cute when he backpedals. It’s like watching a chihuahua try to dominate dobermans

                  1. Because it’s painfully obvious to anyone reading that our planet is not made up of steel.

                    1. And it’s painfully obvious, Tonykins, that you have no fookin idea how much stuff is in the Earth’s crust.

                      Fortunately, I am feeling generous, so I will teach you.

                      Let’s assume that only 1E-5 percent of the surface of the earth is minable. Let us also assume that we can only mine down to 1KM. The minable volume of the crust thus becomes: 127 cubic km. This is actually much lower than the actual minable volume.

                      Let us further assume that this material is on the low end of crust density: 2.5 kg per cm^3. Let us further assume that 2% of it is Iron.

                      Now we are at a value of 6.4E15 kg of minable iron. Let us equally divide that among 7 billion people. It works out to 900 tons of steel per person.

                      Of course, we are ignoring the stuff disolved in the Earth’s oceans. We are ignoring the asteroid belt. There are asteroids known to have 1.6 E19 kg, or 1000 times what I calculated we could get out of the Earth.

                      Now, let us turn to gasoline. There are 1.34 trillion barrels of oil in proven reserves woldwide. Figure 18 gallons of refinable gas in each barrel, and that gives you 306,000 gallons per person assuming a 7 billion population. At US consumption levels 900 gallons per person per year, that’s 335 years worth of gasoline for every man woman and child that we can extract right now.

                      So, having assuaged your primitive, superstitions about resource scarcity, I hope you will sleep well tonight.

                2. How is that even related? Electric cars are cars, are they not? If everyone in china have a 400 pound solar powered car, would that make you happy?

              3. You really have no idea what our planet is made of do you?

                The only minerals that are accessible to us with any imaginable technology are those in the very outer edge of the crust, so the molten iron at the earth’s core really shouldn’t count. And there are no fossil fuels below that level either.

                1. A worldwide average of the chemical composition of granite, by weight percent:

                  SiO2 ? 72.04% (silica)
                  Al2O3 ? 14.42% (alumina)
                  K2O ? 4.12%
                  Na2O ? 3.69%
                  CaO ? 1.82%
                  FeO ? 1.68%
                  Fe2O3 ? 1.22%
                  MgO ? 0.71%
                  TiO2 ? 0.30%
                  P2O5 ? 0.12%
                  MnO ? 0.05%

                  1. In most of the earth’s crust the useful stuff is scattered all over the place.

        2. “Boogeyman”? Epi, you are SO busted.

          1. Dude, do you actually think I have the time to be Tony? And do you actually think sockpuppetry is my style? I just dismantled a lamb shoulder; I have no time for shit like Tony.

            1. Come on! That’s taking it too far. You don’t have to dismantle their shoulders to render them unable to resist penetration.

              1. I don’t have to, but I like to. You should have known that, Commodore.

        3. Tony|7.23.11 @ 8:49PM|#
          “…We want the form of transportation that represents some knee-jerk, childish notion of freedom.”

          As opposed to some knee-jerk, idiotic claims and strawmen.
          Way to go, shithead!


    Finally, the “ability-to-pay” principle means precisely that the able are penalized, i.e., those most able in serving the wants of their fellow men. Penalizing ability in production and service diminishes the supply of the service ? and in proportion to the extent of that ability. The result will be impoverishment, not only of the able, but of the rest of society, which benefits from their services.

    1. You’re assuming that those who have abilities are given a choice of whether to use them. But if the community has the power to make sure those who have abilities use them to the fullest, then that’s not going to be a problem.

      1. You pretend to pay me, comrade, I’ll pretend to work.

    2. We just have to make the penalties for failing to use one’s abilities are harsher.

      1. B- spoof. But, acceptable.


    At least 32 people died when a high-speed train smashed into a stalled train in China’s eastern Zhejiang province Saturday

    I hope Da Truff was on this train.

    1. And Nothing Else Happened?

  66. Did Nick really say that the fact that government brings in 18% of GDP and spends 20% of GDP is “proof” that we have a spending problem, not a revenue problem?

    Can anyone explain to me how logically (not policy-based) that statistic isn’t equally strong support for the proposition that we’re not taxing enough?

    1. Nick’s contention is that federal revenue has trended at an average of 18% of GDP for the past 50 years.

      There is no difference between the historically high top marginal tax rate of 91% during the Eisenhower and Kennedy administrations and the historical lows of 28% during the Reagan administration. The government pulls in, on average, only 18% of GDP.

      1. not to mention the “91% tax rate” was a complete farce. there were so many loopholes, etc. that NOBODY paid anywhere near that rate on the level of income that was in that bracket.

        liberals constantly mention the “91% during eisenhower admin” canard.

    2. Look for the post on Hit’n’Run where he has made this point if you are genuinely curious. Summations on a talk show are not going to give you the necessary qualifying information.

      The Feds are spending far more than 20% at this time, and when you add spending by the states (which exploded, nearly doubled during the last decade) you have significantly more of the GDP in the administering of government ‘services’.

      20% is close to the historical level of spending; however this is key, pay attention, make sure you don’t miss it the treasury has never been able to obtain more than around 20% of the GDP in terms of revenue for a sustained period of time no matter what the prevailing tax rates happen to be. Any guesses why? Okay, I’ll tell you. The government really is a burden on the private economy. Just face up to the fact. You know it to be so.

      When revenue goes up, the next dollar of revenue becomes all that much more difficult for the private economy to raise until you get diminishing returns and finally negative ones where the economy stagnates.

      This also occurs when the government borrows money, though the effect is better obfuscated. When we borrow money we borrow time.

  67. “”If it’s not based on controlled, repeatable experimentation it’s not science.”

    Astro-physics wouldn’t be “science” if that were true.
    What you define is *easy* science; the rest of it is tougher.

    1. Astrophysics and astronomy in general are sort of an exception to that rule, as it’s fairly easy to isolate pieces of astronomical systems. Thus mere observation is enough to qualify it as a science.

      Oh, and there’s little easy about experimental science. Usually one must be quite clever to design an experiment to test a particular hypothesis uninfluenced by anything else. Possible != easy.

      Indeed, the non-experimental areas of inquiry (other than math of course) are easier in practice, since it’s essentially impossible for one’s theories to be disproven.

      1. “Astrophysics and astronomy in general are sort of an exception to that rule”
        Yes, those and others are. The “rule” is not a “rule”.

        “Indeed, the non-experimental areas of inquiry (other than math of course) are easier in practice, since it’s essentially impossible for one’s theories to be disproven.”
        Uh, sorry, what you define is *easy* science; the rest of it is tougher.
        You’re propping the easy stuff where a good experiment yields specific results.
        The tougher parts are where:
        A) Direct experiments are impossible/unethical/illegal, or
        B) Even direct experiments yield tendencies.
        Oh, but it were so simple!

        1. Unfortunately, the response to facts (A) and (B) in many fields is to accept unfalsifiable crap as fact. I mean, it’s “hard” in the same sense that getting initial recognition for your theories is hard, but once you’ve got name recognition you’ve got it made. Any field where Paul Krugman’s statements are taken as fact is not a science in any meaningful sense of the word.

          1. “Any field where Paul Krugman’s statements are taken as fact is not a science in any meaningful sense of the word.”
            That’s an assertion, nothing more.
            For the reasons stated above, econ is a *tough* science, but a science none the less.
            It relies on predictions and observed (highly inconclusive) results.
            Particles don’t lie; people do. A good experiment in physical science (as you mention) reduces the variables to one; no such is available to econs.
            But I’ll mention an anecdote:
            In Austria (1918), Schumpeter stated the Russian revolution would be an experiment in econ; Max Weber responded that it would ‘be a laboratory heaped with corpses’. (Prophet of Innovation, McCraw, pg94). They were both right.

            1. My problem with economics is that it’s not falsifiable. Schumpeter’s statement for instance.

              1. Since Schumpter wasn’t making a specific prediction, I’m not sure how it *could* be falsified. Weber’s prediction could have been falsified by the USSR becoming other than a laboratory *not* filled with corpses, but it went the other way.
                My background is in physical sciences and I *love* indisputable experimental results. But I’ve come to realize that those sorts of absolute abstractions (and abstractions they are) are not available in questions of human activity.
                Given the inherent limitations on experimentation, human activity is still subject to scientific investigation, and should be informed by the best data available at any give time.

                1. Also there is a danger inherent to making human behavior a chemistry experiment.

                  Science is about trying to explain what we see. I would submit that Austrian economics of human behavior is a lot more scientific than some GDP=CIGX equation, purely based on the fact that it tries to convey a reason rather than an abstract quantity and associated equation.

              2. My problem with economics is that it’s not falsifiable. Schumpeter’s statement for instance.

                Neither is logic or mathematics. You have to disprove theories in these sciences, as sevo is said, by showing where their logic is faulty or non-existent.


    Obama has done his best to pretend to take them seriously. He claimed to have a $4 trillion deficit-reduction plan. The court eunuchs of the press corps were impressed, and went off to file pieces hailing the president as “the grown-up in the room.” There is, in fact, no plan. No plan at all. No plan whatsoever, either for a deficit reduction of $4 trillion or $4.73. As is the way in Washington, merely announcing that he had a plan absolved him of the need to have one. So the president’s staff got out the extra-wide teleprompter and wrote a really large number on it, and simply by reading out the really large number the president was deemed to have produced a serious blueprint for trillions of dollars in savings. For his next trick, he’ll walk out on to the stage of Carnegie Hall, announce that he’s going to play Haydn’s Cello Concerto No. 2, and, even though there’s no cello in sight and Obama immediately climbs back in his golf cart to head for the links, music critics will hail it as one of the most moving performances they’ve ever heard.

    1. The entire Western world is operating on an unsustainable business model: If it were Borders or Blockbuster, it would be hoping to close the Greek and Portuguese branches but maybe hold on to the Norwegian one.

      Holy bad timing, Batman!

    2. The problem is structural: Not enough people do not enough work for not enough of their lives. Developed nations have 30-year-old students and 50-year-old retirees, and then wonder why the shrunken rump of a “working” population in between can’t make the math add up.

      Right, the problem with the US economy is that not enough people are available to work. (And of course the vast majority of 30 and 50 year olds are in fact working) Partisan blindness does wonders for one’s ability to see patterns that aren’t there.

      By the way, demographically speaking, these categories ? “adolescents” and “retirees” ? are an invention of our own time: They didn’t exist a century ago. You were a kid till 13 or so. Then you worked. Then you died.

      Uh, yeah, we’ve had quite a few efficiency boosts in the past century that have enabled adolescence and retirement. And it’s convenient to choose 100 years ago anyway, since going back much further puts you into the time when agriculture was king of the economy, and in agriculture the line between working and not-working is quite fuzzy. 10 year olds and 65 year olds were probably doing some sort of work on the farm, but not at the intensity of what 30 year olds were doing.

      1. Shit, these days people extend their adolescence well into their 30s and sometimes beyond. Just check out all the neck-bearded nerds subsisting on Mountain Dew like mother’s milk and watching My Little Pony.

        1. Um, I prefer Regular Show.

      2. Well, he did say “working”, not “available to work”. But, presumably, he meant “working or looking for work”. But then, on the other hand, people might be looking harder for work (and more people might be looking for work) with less of a social safety net.

    3. While I don’t much use for the Federal Election Commission, there IS one regulation they could pass that would get my support:

      Any time a politician makes the public statement: I have a plan for (X), they better be able to throw a copy of it on the table, so that the actual nuts and bolts can be scrutinized.

      If not, then the American people can bring a class-action suit against them for false advertising, just as a corporation could be sued for claiming to have the best detergent on the market, when all they really have is a vague, untested concept for a new detergent.

      If the people win, the politician owes them each $1.00. A couple of $300 million settlements will shut the fuckers up, I would bet.

  69. Nick’s comment to Mayor Fetterman was condescending, in my opinion. I wonder if Nick even knows what this guy has done for this town of Braddock, PA. He has done a ton of volunteer work, contributed money from his own 401 K plan. He wants to save this town that has been devastated by the collapse of the U.S. steel industry, and whose population has shrunk drastically. I think what he’s done is admirable.

    I don’t think Nick did himself any favors by appearing so flip about this town’s problems, although he probably didn’t (doesn’t) care what the audience thought, or what I think.

    1. As a Pittsburgh resident myself, I’m very unclear on why Braddock (or Pittsburgh for that matter) needs to be “saved” just as I’m unclear on why Detroit or Cleveland or Virginia City, NV or all the other former boomtowns that are no longer economically sustainable need to be saved. I know people are sentimental about the towns they grew up in and stuff, but keep in mind that Braddock was sparsely populated in the mid-1800s too. There was never any guarantee that it was going to remain a major town forever.

      All of Fetterman’s energy and work isn’t going to change that. The only thing that can revitalize the town is if it offers something that other parts of the country and other parts of PA don’t offer. In the past its proximity to Pittsburgh, in particular its position on the Monongahela leading into the city, helped it tremendously…but now Pittsburgh itself is dying, and all Braddock has to offer is cheap real estate. Unfortunately, there’s cheap real estate all over western PA and most of it isn’t crime-ridden.

      1. Virginia city NV needs to be saved, because when I ride my Harley from Reno to VA City, I want to be able to buy an ice cream or a coffee when I get there.!

      2. Virginia city NV needs to be saved, because when I ride my Harley from Reno to VA City, I want to be able to buy an ice cream or a coffee when I get there.!

    2. Oh, and while I think Nick’s reply was kind of catty, you have to understand that Nick goes through this red-herring shit on every liberal gang-up show he goes on. Mayor Fetterman’s comment about Braddock being poor had nothing to do with Nick’s point about purchasing power.

      1. When Nick first started out I thought he was kicking ass, and I thought it was a good thing, as Bill Maher needs to open his mind to libertarianism, in my opinion. After Nick made the snarky comment to Fetterman, and during his continuing superior-acting behavior, I got turned off. At least he was polite to Donna Brazile, who I don’t agree with, but who seems like a genuinely nice person.

        In my view, Nick confirmed the idea of libertarians being cold intellectuals. Nick’s attitude reminded me of Christopher Hitchens but without the charm.

    3. Condescending? Perhaps. If the mayor just came into office, I might agree. But he’s been there since 2005, and by his own admission it is the poorest town in PA. So, either the mayor has maintained its poorest status for 6 years or he’s managed to make it worse.

  70. radii footwear shoes good combination of color, these shoes with cool colorway create a classic look. This Radii Footwear is surely a nice one that worth your order.All radii footwear features Urban high top design, Genuine leather and woven nylon exterior. Perforated star detail throughout, adjustable velcro strap across ankle, lace up closure rubber sole, contrast flat sole, a unique look. It is great popular, special.

  71. Are libertarians winning.…../#comments

    the comments give me hope but I am durnk


  72. Hey Nick! your a dick! Take your philosophy shove it up your ass!

    1. Your ideas intrigue me. Do you perhaps have a newsletter that I might subscribe to?



        1. +1

        2. It is Gillespi’s fault that i thought his last name was Italian.

          I remember him talking about his Italian grand parents, so i thought oh yeah Gillespi sounds sort of Italian.

  73. Check out child-murderer’s manifesto:

    The average “conservative” in the US is NOT a nationalist (anti-internationalist) but a
    libertarian (republican ? pro capitalism and pro multiculturalism). A majority of US
    conservatives have no understanding of the concepts of political nationalism. After all,
    they have no experience with these doctrines and often mistakenly confuse them with


    I identified myself, during this time, as a cultural conservative, economical liberalist (from
    age 16 to 21). During this time I studied all the major ideologies in depth, everything
    from Marxism, socialism, Islam, fascism, nationalism, capitalism etc. I became
    increasingly interested in the libertarian school of thought (extreme liberalism and laissez
    faire capitalism) due to, my then capitalistic/self serving mindset”. This mindset
    completely collided with my increasing interest for cultural identity and a more
    traditionalist conservative school of thought. At this point I had a hard time deciding what
    would be the driving force in the rest of his life ? self interest or nation/cultural identity?
    Could it be combined? I understood early that libertarianism was not a sustainable
    political concept. If everyone acted in an egotistical manner in combination with the
    doctrines of multiculturalism the nation and people would wither and society would
    eventually fracture and seize to function.

    Y’all are in the clear on this one. In fact, as I suspected, he disdains all American ideologies left or right. He also despises “laissez faire extremist” and “global capitalism”. Typical Euroweenie rightist.

    1. He also likes chunky peanut butter, the reprobate.

    2. I, too, seize to function.

    3. libertarianism and “killing random people’s kids” are not compatible. Even if said random people were Nazi youth (godwinning it here). Collectivism should be classified as a mental disorder, either right- or left-wing.

  74. I got hair like Richie B

  75. Winner, winner, chicken dinner!!! We have a new entrant into this years statist fuck awards!!!

    My condolences to the families of those gunned down by this terrible act.

    Norwegians have to face the worse mass shooting, outside of war, in modern history. And, in this case, the act was committed for a difference in political views of one individual. One would expect, with the level of divisions in this country, that this act would have been committed in the United States; a country with much freer gun laws than Norway.

    Maybe this should serve as a lesson to this country that strong, opposing political views can lead to violence, and in this case, tragedy.

    Shortly, upwards of 91 families will have to bury their dead. To the people of Normay, this is their 9/11. This attack will sting this peaceful society, the way 9/11 stung ours. However, unlike 9/11, the attacker did not come from foreign soil, or had different religious views; the attacker was one of their own. My prayers go out to these grieving families.

    Finally, the press was quick to assume that this was an attack by Al Qaeda, the Taliban or some other Muslim extremist group. Maybe it is time for the press to wait to the facts come out, before speculating on perpetrators. The world has enough tension, without the need to create new ones.

    Emphasis added. Yes, holy fuck, this asshat actually claimed that holding strong, contrary views is an evil which must be stopped.

    1. That is from the comments section on the Oslo attack killer, on the New York Times. Read them at your own risk:…..4oslo.html

      Also, gentleman, I am taking bets: Who will be the first NY Times columnist to write a column about Norway?

      Bet on Krugman or Friedman all you want gents, but I will give you even odds at best!

      1. David Brooks, and he’ll tie it into why Republicans must give Obama everything he wants on the debt ceiling.

    2. Strong, opposing views can lead to violence. Of course, constantly rolling over for the powers that be also leads to violence.

      Looks like violence is a tough problem to get rid of.

  76. Why does blockquote work only half the time?

    1. At least that’s better than quoteblock which works none of the time.

    2. Because you suck at html. I’ve never had it not work.

      1. Now be fair. Maybe he just sucks at spelling. <blokcquote> doesn’t get the job done…

  77. John Turturro is 400 pounds? Are you sure that isn’t Nick after Celebrity Fit Club wasn’t successful? And who is the Tom Arnold-like dude?

    1. John Fetterman, Harvard graduate (Masters in Public Policy) and mayor of Braddock, Pennsylvania.

      Here he is vandalizing a local business.

  78. Goddamn, do people ever just get on here and comment on the article? Lol I got a kick out of it though. I thought Nick did great. Oh and you guys Talkin’ about Red Eye w Greg Gutfeld have the right idea; that show is the funniest show on tv.

    1. Are you serious? Are you serious?

  79. Nick, you knew right where to hit the panel. Respond to the ‘panicker’ argument by listing all the panics, especially those panics so cherished by the progressives. Way to bait the hook.

  80. I thought Nick did a great job.. I especially loved the “car” comment directed at Bill, which he never got. It’s funny when confronted with facts, Bill Maher has no comeback. BTW, Ed Schultz is an ass.

    1. Yeah, Maher never S’sTFU about trains and how we’re killing the environment. I would love to see him bike to work everyday.

  81. Good job Nick, you didn’t let Bill get away with the BS!

  82. “Astrophysics and astronomy in general are sort of an exception to that rule”,I like this speech.

  83. Slight threadjack:

    NYT Opinion: Bad Food? Tax It, and Subsidize Vegetables.

    Fuck it, I’m just going to come right out and say it. You know who else liked green leafy vegetables?



    2. “The makers of our Constitution undertook to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness. They recognized the significance of man’s spiritual nature, of his feelings and of his intellect … They sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions, and their sensations. They conferred as against the government the right to be left alone — the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men.”

      Justice Brandeis, Olmstead v. the United States, 1928

  84. OK, now that looks like it might jsut work.

  85. Also, does anyone else find it interesting how many comments echo the idea, “It’s not what Nick said, it HOW he said it?”

    To go back to an earlier post, I think this may be the problem with libertarians. Classic rhetoric emphasizes that a good argument contains both logos (appeal to logic) and pathos (appeal to emotion). Libertarians are all about logic- we even disdain those who are swayed by emotional arguments, but that is a lot of people. In a way, I think that, as strong as Nick’s arguments are, maybe we, as libertarians, need to dress them up more nicely:

    We need to argue for, as an example, means-tested Social Security as a moral cause (it is immoral for a person making minimum wage to give Warren Buffet 3k a month, for example). Sadly, a tug at the heartstrings works better than a tug at the brain.

  86. Classic rhetoric emphasizes that a good argument contains both logos (appeal to logic) and pathos (appeal to emotion).

    The best arguments contain only logic. Appeals to emotion contain fallacies of logic.

    Libertarians are all about logic

    e.g., “Fuck you!” “Got sand in your vagina again, Commodore?” “Die in a fire!”

    1. Appeals to emotion contain fallacies of logic.

      This is interesting. How would you frame an argument against an injustice, say, against torture, without appealing to empathy?

      1. The easiest way would be through utilitarian arguments, negative consequences of such actions, and how it changes the incentives of actions.

        Of course, making an amazing, sound argument isn’t the same as making an argument that convinces people. Even if you construct a number of statements that are irrefutable, someone who is strongly (emotionally) opposed to them will just fall back on something else orthogonal to your point in order to keep up the denial. Besides, you don’t fight emotion (which is how most people make most decisions) with logic. This is the equivalent of trying to convince someone that bacon isn’t their favorite food. “But it’s full of fat and unhealthy.” “Yeah, but it tastes good.” “It’s heavily salted and you’ll die sooner if you eat too much of it!” “Yeah, but I still like it better than any other food?”

        1. I could well be missing the point, but in the absence of “negative consequences of such actions” that can be shown to be negative to the interests of the torturer, appealing to some sentiment transcending self-interest would seem necessary in order to dissuade him from torturing that seems to him, for whatever reason, convenient.

        2. Utilitarian arguments presuppose a utility function’s existence, and that utility function will always, without exception, have nonrational basis.

          Every philosophy with any relevance to human life and human endeavors has nonrationality buried somewhere in the details. Those who claim their philosophy is based purely on reason are inevitably just playing a shell game.

          1. “…the nature of man. His first law is to provide for his own preservation, his first cares are those which he owes to himself…”

            (This is posted in order to corroborate Tulpa’s comment.)

            1. When spell-check extends to handles, the Revolution will have been won.

            2. Suicidal men are not men?

              1. Lawbreaking men.

      2. If the government can torture that guy, then they can torture you too. It’s a logical point, even though, presumably, you’re reluctance to being tortured is mostly empathetic.

    2. Appeal to emotion is only a fallacy when it’s inserted into a logical argument.

      Of course one man’s best is another man’s worst. I believe Aristotle was considering persuasive power as the goal of rhetoric when he wrote on the topic, and he was probably right that interweaving pathos and logos was “best” for that goal.

      1. Of course one man’s best is another man’s worst.

        Is this an argument that life is zero-sum? Or are you being facetious?

        1. His butt-hole is doing the thinking while his brain takes the day off.

  87. How can that English producer have a name that combines “Martin” and “Lewis” and still not be funny?

    1. Maybe the ‘Lewis’ part (except in France).

    2. You noticed it too…

  88. Off topic
    Poole gets a mention:
    “California’s bullet train plans’ moment of truth”…..1KC8S8.DTL

  89. Gillespie was clearly the strongest intellect on the show. Well done.

    Brazile, in particular, is useless.

  90. I’m glad everyone feels the need to gargle with Nickies testicles on this site. Nice neocons you got here Nickie. You actually came off smug, self-absorbed, unfunny or amusing in any way. The mayor of that town should of kicked the sh*t out of you for that crass comment and after a while, most people stopped listening to you because you showed no restraint. You came off like a Mark Cuban wannabe. Congrats on not ever being invited back to that show again. You and Drew Carey deserve each other.

    1. If people got beaten up on Bill Maher’s show for being smug, self-absorbed, and unfunny, wouldn’t Bill Maher be first in line to get his teeth kicked in?

    2. Cool story, bro

  91. Nick, can you have your own show where your guests would only be leftists? Every week you could just ask them questions nobody ever asks them, and then we can watch their stunned expressions. Pure comedy gold!

    But then again, it’s rather pathetic how dim-witted these lefties are. Do these people have an individual thought, one not packaged in a progressive box and handed to them? Stunningly sloppy thinkers.

  92. I love watching Maher if for no other reason to stroke my ego, me being a state university educated flyover boy, and see the utterly contemptible smug ignorance of the East/West coasters. Makes me proud to be an American.

  93. The editor requests civility and virtually everyone calls someone else a dumbass or moron? And while many of you comment on Maher and Maddow’s “smarter than you” attitude, that’s how you sound in your own posts.
    I thought Gillespie was a “Listen to me, I have all the answers and you are pathetically dumb” bore. And rude to boot. The “You must be proud” comment was uncalled for. That arrogance turned me off and I lost any interest I might have had in hearing what he had to say.

    1. I find it hard to believe anyone who watches that smarmy fuck Maher is put off by arrogance. Seems more likely that you just got your nose out of joint from hearing an opposing viewpoint.

    2. Ah, I love seeing comments from someone’s first day on the internet.

  94. Here’s the YouTube link that features Gillespie and the panel discussing the debt from my YouTube account:…..ture=share

  95. Very girly tory burch reva, French and 60s inspired collection of Milly, the head designer Michelle Smith presented yesterday at the New York Fashion Week. The outfits were almost completely worn through the bank, except perhaps the gaudy tights in blue, pink and green. The little tweed suit seems to be omnipresent, Milly was seen in very young models with tight mini skirts and collarless jacket with three-quarter sleeves. There is hardly a blouse was waived XL Schlupp, wide puff sleeves on jackets and blouses were shown.

  96. Nick ruined the show, it wasn’t fun.

    He was pedantic and I suspect putting on to earn a position as a pundit cable tv host.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.