Creepy Quote of the Day

|

From an essay in the Sunday New York Times: "The public was desperate for a leader who would speak with confidence, and they were ready to follow wherever the president led." No, that isn't an historian explaining the rise of Mussolini. It's the Emory psychologist Drew Westen, writing wistfully about the leader he wishes Obama would be.

Advertisement

NEXT: Rand Paul Calls for Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner to Resign

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I LOVE IT!

    1. Who told you to talk, roundeye lackey?

    2. Shouldn’t you be playing with your trains?

      1. CHOO-CHOOOOOOOOOOOOO — !!!

    3. David Brooks loves it too!

      1. He’s just too good, too pure for this blasted heath of a world! YOU NEVER REALLY LOVED HIM, ANY OF YOU — !!!

        1. I did! I did!

          [::masturbates so violently, mousy little manhood actually tears off in hand::]

          1. Why does every leftist/liberal Obama apologia boil down, ultimately, to “Mmm, Mmm, Mmm”…?

            1. Because they’re a bunch of fucking retards.

  2. Westen’s own research on political adherence is instructive: He’s just being emotional.

    1. That explains it all — actual disagreement with Obama presents Westen with an internal conflict he cannot solve!

    2. Very nice. Westen’s research is actually quite interesting. It’s a shame that he is not capable of overriding his own emotional response, but at least he has contributed something to society.

  3. Maybe he can use his credit card to buy some leadership.

  4. We’ll never reach Peak Useful Idiot.

    1. But we try every day.

  5. So why didn’t they follow me?

  6. I think this is the much creepier quote:

    “The stories our leaders tell us matter, probably almost as much as the stories our parents tell us as children, because they orient us to what is, what could be, and what should be; to the worldviews they hold and to the values they hold sacred.”

    1. I only like stories if they are true, AND, if they have touchy feely puppy unicorn rainbow fart dancing. Otherwise it’s just absurd.

      1. Have to stay positive.

        1. Just wait until the historians of academia write their hosannas about the virtuous post-racial, post-everything reign of Obama.

          1. The wonders that you have wrought. Even your deadly war yielded blood that nourished the poppy fields.

          2. If Obama is not re-elected even lefty historians will not view him kindly. For a President to be seen as “great” he must serve two terms and generally get us into a least one major war. So far, Libya does not fill that requirement.

    2. I just knew he would include postmodernist drivel about “stories” and “narratives” to go along with the fapping to Fascism.

      1. The power of the anecdote. Every politician already knows this.It’s why all they have to do is trot out one person who was helped by a multi-billion dollar failure of a program and that program gets reauthorized.

        When it comes to statistics and anecdotes, people are generally stupid. Government understands this well.

        1. I for one cant fucking stand that even i its done for a program I support. It’s weak tea and talks down to people.

          I blame Bill Clinton for starting this when in his SOTU addresses he would always go off on tangents like “let me tell you about Granny McWrinkles, she’s 89, and lives in Louisville, Kentucky. Without my program blah blah blah…” fuck that noise, use real statistical data and treat us like adults.

          1. Most people don’t want to be treated like adults. Use statistics and numbers and I guarantee that you’ll be called cold and unfeeling, not traits that are likely to get you elected. It’s utterly frustrating to those of use who are sick of the constant bullshit, but still true.

          2. And Reason is never guilty of this with the police abuse stories, right?

            1. Of course they are. They have to be in order to get any damn attention at all.

            2. What the fuck are you talking about, Commodore?

              1. What I’m trying to say Epi, is that if Reason keeps writing about the widespread police brutality, people are going to eventually wake up. So STFU.

                1. if Reason keeps writing about the widespread police brutality, people are going to eventually wake up.

                  Now I know you’re joking. People don’t give a shit as long as it’s not happening to them…and Reason has essentially zero influence on the population at large.

                  1. People don’t give a shit as long as it’s not happening to them

                    Let me be clear.

                    I will rectify that situation.

              2. They always give anecdotes, never data. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, since one case of police abuse is severe, but to claim that this is somehow a dishonest tool of the left is not quite right.

                1. Are you actually saying that Balko’s years-long documentation of police abuses is “anecdotal”? Are you fucking kidding me?

                  1. Yeah, because Internal Affairs is going to be so forthcoming with their statistics.

                    1. Yeah, because Internal Affairs is going to be so forthcoming with their statistics.

                      This is indeed a problem. Look, I’m not faulting Reason for running stories of individual instances of police abuse, just noting that EVERYBODY DOES IT. It’s an effective tool.

                2. Balko has consistently linked to the no-knock raid map that shows all of said raids in the country. There are also links to the amount spent on certain raids. And a death toll IS a statistic, believe it or not. The difference between Reason on this and regular media on everything else is that Reason uses emotion AND statistics, as opposed to just emotion.

                  1. “Emotion AND statistics” = propaganda.

                  2. And Obama had a map of people whose jobs were saved by the stimulus, too.

                    1. I’m curious to see what a U.S. map would look like with 57 states. Would they shoehorn a state in up by Nova Scotia or just count each of The Hawaiian Islands as individual states?

                    2. Texas reserved the right to divide itself into up to 8 states in the future. If it did so, there would be 57 states.

                      Apparently, Obama got wind of this change before the rest of us, and is probably scared of the additional conservative senators and electoral votes.

                    3. Probably it’d just include DC and the territories American Samoa, Guam, Northern Marianas, Puerto Rico, and the US Virgin Islands. They all vote in the primaries already anyway. Then California can split in two. There’s 57.
                      I’m curious to see what the flag would look like. 8 rows of 7 stars with one huge star for DC?

                    4. I thought Guam tipped over?

                    5. Where’s the map of people whose jobs were supposed to be “saved” but weren’t?

                  3. Reason uses emotion AND statistics, as opposed to just emotion.

                    Emotion allows us to recognize a problem, while logic facilitates its solution.

                    1. Mr Whipple|8.7.11 @ 3:14PM|#
                      Emotion allows us to recognize a problem, while logic facilitates its solution.

                      Dumbest thing I’ve read today, but it’s still very early.

            3. Tell me how you would react: A fellow officer has a son three months older than yours. On duty, you get a call to that officer’s home. His kid found a shotgun the officer had and shot himself. As you have EMT training, you are asked to perform CPR on the kid, as you can see the kid’s brains hanging out. Kid just turned four years old. Of course he’s DOA at the hospital. The next day, after crying all night, some teenager with his cap on sideways and his pants at his knees smarts off to you. Might you be a teeny bit brutal? First half story true, and accurate in every detail. Fortunately he didn’t have to deal with the second half. Be honest, now; how would you react? Don’t bother commenting on the father that left a loaded shotgun at home. That’s above your pay grade.

              1. Tom,

                My heart goes out to this officer and his friend. I can’t imagine what it would be like to experience a loss like that. I do know that if I had a job where I held the lives of others in my hands, I would recuse myself from duties that I was not emotionally fit to perform. Are we really meant to believe that cops get paid leave for beating the hell out of 135 lb indigents, but not for being emotional wrecks because of an on-duty tragedy like the one you just described?

              2. I can understand it. Understanding it is not the same as condoning it, however.

                Since the cop is performing a contractually-bound duty for which he is being compensated, rather than a favor to the public, I would expect professionalism out of him: if for some reason he can’t perform, he should recuse himself; perhaps take some time off. If my grandpa died and my elderly boss condescended to me, I would have no more right to throw him out a window than a cop would have to abuse his power.

              3. The classic law enforcement defense – the stress of the job justifies all their human failings, and being parfait, gentle knights, they must never be doubted or questioned.

                Which is it young feller? If’n they’re human, they can make mistakes, they can lie, they can do bad things and should be punished. If’n their saints, they will never abuse their authority.

              4. Up yours, tom. You know damn well that father would be in jail right now for child endangerment if he were not a cop.

                1. Your scenario is a load of shit, tom. If someone isn’t in a mental state to do their job properly, they shouldn’t be doing their fucking job.

                  Fuck you.

                2. this is one of the most consistent reason canards. iow, it’s false, but it’s an ALWAYS retort in cases like this.

                  i can tell you, at least in my jurisdiction, a father would NOT be in jail in such a case.

                  this is part of the EFFECT of selection bias, which is another thing that affects reasonoids perception of reality.

                  1. specifically, the canard i am referring to is the “the father would be in jail if he wasn’t a cop” retort.

                    not in the shotgun incident

                    1. I can’t speak for the laws of your jurisdiction, dunphy. But in a world where parents go to jail for endangerment when the actual “crime” is drug possession you might forgive the assumption that so negligently storing a firearm that a child died as a result would be criminal. If the firearm were department-related I would certainly expect the officer to be professionally sanctioned in some way. In the Navy I could get in serious trouble if my watch section came up short by even a single bullet at turnover. I expect police to be held to similarly high standards.

                    2. if the firearm is a dept. one, and the dept. had a regulation that a firearm must be stored in a certain way when at home, i would agree.

                      that’s tangential to the ARRESTED part, which has nothing to do with dept. policy and everything to do with the law and police procedure when investigating (at best) possible crimes

                      i can say again – selection bias. you see extreme examples of CPS/WOD rubbish like the medical mj endangerment case – which is the height of absurdity – an extrapolate that this is par for the course. it isn’t

                      i can just say again, in my jurisdiction (a disclaimer i use because laws and procedures vary in our laboratory of states) the father would NOT be arrested.

                      heck, there was a case i recall nearby where a guy shot his girlfriend (a teen runaway) while she sat in his lap and he was “adjusting” his single action revolver which was in a holster at his side.

                      he wasn’t arrested either. despite the fact that he was HOLDING the gun when it went off and a teen runaway that he was harboring was shot and killed

                      that was a lot more “arrestable” than the classic “kid finds a gun” in the house case. those are rarely arrested in my jurisdiction.

                      otoh, SOMETIMES charges are later preferred

                  2. Fair enough, but let’s not forget he was using the shotgun incident to justify a cop beating, erh, being “a tiny bit brutal” to a teenager for not treating the cop with the deference he feels is his due.

                    I’ve been called a lot of things in my life, and I can proudly say I’ve never gotten “a tiny bit brutal” over any of them.

                    1. That was to follow up with Dunphy at 5:55. Someone needs to take a shotgun to the server squirrels.

                    2. here’s what SHOULD happen in such a situation.

                      the officer who performed CPR on the bloody shotgunned kid of his friend should NEVER be allowed to just return to patrol the next day. that would NEVER happen in my agency, or any agency that was run properly.

                      after any such traumatic incident, some administrative leave, an appointment with the dept. psychologist etc. are par for the course in any agency run properly, with consideration towards acute and chronic mental health effects on its personnel as well as concern for the people the agency serves.

                      simply put, in my agency, there is no way this officer would just return to patrol.

                      it’s a prophylactic measure to protect the officer (both long and short term) as well as the people served.

                      and of course if the officer subsequently broke the law (assaulted the teen or whatever), that is not acceptable or excused by what happened prior. however, it is of course a mitigating factor

                      and that’s exactly why no properly run agency would ever let that happen without counseling and a screen with a MHP before the officer returned to work

              5. So if someone beats the shit out of a cop, do they get off because a cop wrote them a chickenshit speeding ticket the day before?

                1. troll-o-meter: .003

          3. Actually Reagan was the first to introduce the “common man” story.

            1. BOOM.

            2. **cough** Checkers **cough**

              I suspect it goes back to Ook, 1st president of these United Caves.

              1. “A triceratops in every pot, a Flinstones car in every garage.”
                -Ook’s first inaugural

                1. I always loved Oog’s outfit with the bungee cable

                  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rokr2i-BQHk

    3. So that’s what Thinking of the Children means.

  7. I know the quip about Mussolini is sarcasm, but there’s a good section of our elites that, if this were the 1930s, would have be singing his praises. Just look at the widespread Sinophilia on both the elite left and elite right.

    1. Sinophilia on the elite right? I mean on the left Freidman is obvious but I can’t think of anyone on the right talking about China in any other terms than fear.

      1. Larry Kudlow, especially during the Bush years, and American corporate hotshots in general (excepting, to their credit, Google).

        And behind the fearmongering on the militarist right there’s a whiff of “we’re weak and doomed to be defeated because they are strong and disciplined and can GET THINGS DONE!!!! AND WE CAN’T!” *fap fap fap* You can sense the Jackboot Envy.

      2. I’m not EXACTLY sure you could catogrize Friedman as “left”, btw.

        Actually, the one thing I find that brings the tea party, neoconservatives, liberals, evangelical Christians, leftists, Marxists, Islamists, and libertarians together is an undying hatred for Tom Friedman. He’s a uniter, not a divider.

        1. I dig him, actually. I think he looks like a wiener-dog in a necktie, but I dig him.
          Also, Islamists only like him because they think he’s serious about the world being flat. “That Zionist pig really gets it,” they say to themselves.

      3. There’s quite a few ibertarians that hate anybody that identifies as right-wing or Republican just because they’re right-wing or Republican, regardless of what their actual ideologies are.

        1. I’m a liberal.

          1. To what extent?

            1. I believe it’s appropriate and beneficial for the federal government to run a safety net, think taxes should generally be progressive, and distrust all concentrated power regardless of whether this power is concentrated in the state, religion, corporations, or even labor if it were to become that powerful.

              1. Well, I’m kind of a minarchistic republican, so I’m sure we’ll only agree on a few social issues.

                What do you think of ObamaCare?

                1. It’s better than what we had before but if I had my druthers we’d have the French system (which is NOT the same thing as the NHS or Canadian Medicare).

                  1. It’s better than what we had before

                    How so? No one even knows what it is, largely because HHS still has to come up with the details.

                    1. Literally ANYTHING would be better than what we had before, even a wet-dream libertarian totally unregulated healthcare market. Yes, the old system is that bad and that unsustainable.

                    2. even a wet-dream libertarian totally unregulated healthcare market. Yes, the old system is that bad and that unsustainable.

                      Only a economically illiterate, pseudo-intellectual, statist liberal douchebag would think what we had was anything even close to resembling an unregulated free market in healthcare.

                      Health care in the twentieth century: a history of government interference and protection

                      http://findarticles.com/p/arti…..ntent;col1

                    3. My bad, missed the word “even”. I’m still hungover from last night.

                    4. there’s nothing so bad that the government can’t step in and fuck it up much worse.

                2. I don’t think of ObamaCare.

              2. why should the federal government run a safety net, and not the state governments? Or the local government? Or how about the UN? Or the United Federation of Planets? At what level of management do you stop getting efficient safety nets that doesn’t run into problems of rampant corruption?

                1. We don’t get cool-headed people like Imp around here — minarchists and republicans like me get hellfire-grade shit and hatred from liberals around here. So I’ve never had a chance to ask them myself.

                2. Why the feds and not the states? Economies of scale.

                  The stuff about “Why not the UN?” is a silly fantasy.

                  1. Why not NAFTA then? Why not groups of states acting in concert?

                    What’s so magical about the federal level that makes the advantages of economies of scale end precisely there?

                    1. Why not NAFTA then? Why not groups of states acting in concert?

                      Why not have space aliens run Medicare?

                    2. This is the dishonest crap I’d expect from a modern liberal. Anything besides the status quo is so silly it doesn’t even need to be addressed.

                    3. Ok I’ll give a serious answer:

                      Because nobody has set up a successful truly super-national government*, ever, in the history of mankind, while national governments have existed and have in fact successfully run safety nets.

                      *Just look at the fucked-up mess the EU has become.

                    4. The US was originally a super-national government.

                  2. and distrust all concentrated power regardless of whether this power is concentrated in the state, religion, corporations, or even labor..

                    Why the feds and not the states? Economies of scale.

                    So you distrust concentrated power, except where that concentration is efficient?

                    1. A safety net diffuses power to the individual. Ex., with universal healthcare you can quit your corporate drone job to try your hand at being self-employed in a small business, or as an inventor, or freelance writer, or whatever, without worrying about “what if I get sick? I won’t have health insurance.”

                    2. But once you start making decent money with said business, you get socked with massive taxes to pay for freelance writers’ health care.

                      Or God forbid, if your small business grows to the point where you actually start employing people, you really become the govt’s bitch.

                    3. The tax burden of corporations and small businesses is FAR, far outweighed by the money they have to shell out for healthcare. It will save them money to pay for healthcare through taxes rather than paying it directly, especially small business who again don’t have enough economy of scale to provide affordable plans for their employees.

                      BTW, have the lowest tax burden in the developed world:

                      http://tinyurl.com/3mz8vs7

                    4. If they’re paying for health care through taxes the taxes are going to go up by the amount that health care costs.

                      Your analysis seems to be based on an assumption that you can make health care free to the consumer while also making it cheaper for the entity that ultimately pays. Very, very, very unlikely…well, unless you ration care, which opens up a whole other can of worms vis-a-vis “freedom”.

                    5. Eliminate tax preference for employer-provided health insurance, and employers are out of the health insurance industry tomorrow. What you’re doing here is arguing that one massive government fuck-up (the tax break on which our screwy system is built) can only be undone by another hair-brained government scheme (total government takeover of healthcare). How about we just let individuals shop for insurance themselves, with a true “safety net” for those who are truly poor and can’t possibly afford it? Or is your idea of a”safety net” free government-provided health insurance for all?


                    6. BTW, have the lowest tax burden in the developed world
                      ~ Imp of the Perverse

                      Appeals to inter-country comparisons are irrelevant. Who cares what others do?

                      Their taxation arises to meet their other rules of governance.

                      Such appeals are made by those who are either disingenuous or stupid. Which one are you?

                    7. Also, the denominator (U.S. GDP) dwarfs all other countries. SO the comparison, from a statistical perspective is irrelevant.

                      Math ratios. How do those work?

                    8. Hey Imp! Why did you ignore Maxxx’s question about concentrated power? Your cognitive dissonance is hanging out. The bad news for you is that it is far, far bigger than your weiner.

                  3. Why the feds and not the states? Economies of scale.

                    Some countries have smaller populations than individual U.S. states and are yet able to provide safety nets.

                    Surely California and Texas, at least, would have the necessary economies of scale.

                    1. …economies of scale don’t work, the Obama Death Panels will compensate.

                    2. RE: Death Panels.

                      GTFO with that crap.

                  4. what economy of scale is there for mailing checks to people? Bulk discounts on paper?

                    And don’t forget charity. There’s something important to be said for the stigma that comes with having to beg, as opposed to govt action which basically are laws that always boil down to creating ways a person can forcibly extract money from another person via manipulation of rules.

              3. distrust all concentrated power regardless of whether this power is concentrated in the state, religion, corporations, or even labor if it were to become that powerful.

                There is no concentrated power in any American religion or corporation, except when the latter aligns with the state. Corporations are usually at each other’s throats. Hell, the SEIU has more power than probably any corporation in America other than some of the banks (see “aligned with the state” above).

                1. “There is no concentrated power in any American religion or corporation, except when the latter aligns with the state. Corporations are usually at each other’s throats. Hell, the SEIU has more power than probably any corporation in America other than some of the banks (see “aligned with the state” above).”

                  This.

              4. For the government to collect taxes and run a “safety net” it has to concentrate power. If they don’t threaten you or even coerce you with laws and regulations, you wouldn’t pay them a dime. I know I would opt out of the “safety net” immediately if I could. Their concentrated power assures that I will pay because I don’t want to spend time in jail or have everything I own stripped away from me. So they have to pretend it’s a moral issue, when actually it’s the power of the purse since now they can control a large segment of the population with their handouts.

            2. So do you think ObamaCare is contstitutionl via the normal Commerce Clause blank check interpretation, or do you not care about the constitution, or do you have some othe novel justification?

        2. I’m sure that’s true, but we’re not talking about Spain right now.

      4. Perhaps it’s not Sinophilia, but there were several ads by the RNC here during the 2010 campaign showing Chinese people from the future laughing it up about how stupid Americans were not to get their spending under control, and pointing out that “they work for us now”.

        1. That was an emotional appeal to stop deficit spending, dumb ass.

          1. Yeah that’s pretty obviously referencing the enormous amount of federal debt that the Chinese hold.

      5. I can’t think of anyone on the right talking about China in any other terms than fear.

        Jim Rogers: We moved here [Singapore] so our children can grow up speaking Mandarin and knowing Asia.

        If you consider Jim Rogers “on the right”.

        At: 2:13

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…..ded#at=100

      6. I think there are many good trends in China, though also cause for concern.

        That’s other terms than fear.

  8. This man possesses the mind of an automaton, a serf. If more than 5 people in this country actually listen to his shit, we’re fucking doomed.

  9. NYT. What would we do without them?

    1. Live in a better, freer society?

      1. Yeah, you’re right, the NYT is taking your freedom. By publishing information. With higher criteria of objectivity than the site you’re writing on right now.

        #dramaqueen.

        1. The fuck is “#?” Did you get lost and think you were on Shitter?

        2. Wait, wait, wait. Just wait a fucking minute. Did you seriously just say that the New York Times is more objective than Reason?

          You have broken my derp meter for the day. I mean, damn.

          1. Let’s see:
            1) The New York Times bothers to differentiate between opinion and news; this site is a pure opinion/commentary. If you’re saying that NYT shouldn’t write editorials, you should take your beef to every other newspaper in the country.

            2) The opinions that NYT does publish are often split between liberal and conservative voices. Their number 2 columnist is Thomas Friedman, the world’s most prominent spokesman for globalization/free trade. Their number three columnist is David Brooks, a conservative. And before Brooks, it was William Safire, also a well-spoken conservative. They shilled for the Iraq War and defense spending early in the decade, for crissakes.
            This site is solely devoted to promoting a single viewpoint: the libertarian one. Just because you agree with that viewpoint and see it as the truth does not make it objective. And just because that viewpoint is critical of both Democrats and Republicans on certain platform issues does not make it objective either.

            3) NYT covers all viewpoints well and fairly, and they have won over 100 Pulitzers to prove it – more than any other periodical, including this one. NYT attracts moderates and libs alike, which is probably why it’s known as the standard-bearer for news in America.

            1. in other news I saw a liberal dude talking on foxnews which proves it is fair and balanced too.

              Citing pulitzer prizes is hilarious. Amazing coincidence that the guys who award them are right down the street from the organization that won the most. Not to mention how liberal journalists overwhelmingly win them…

              1. Yep, I didn’t say NYT has no bias whatsoever, I aid it’s more objective than this site.

                And Fox having a liberal on for 30 seconds before they shout him down is a lot different than staffing 3 of the big-time conservatives in prominent positions.

                1. Yeah, and how many of those Pulitzers were won off of the back of knowingly false reporting? Duranty is the easy one. I’m betting Reasonoids know of more. Don’t forget names like Jayson Blair or Rick Bragg from more recent memory (Bragg also won a Pulitzer, later caught taking credit for others’ work).

                  The NYT is the most overblown excuse for a jobs program out there. Their opinion journalism masquerading as reporting is just there to keep Columbia J-school grads busy until they figure out their idealism was wasted.

                  1. The NYT is the most overblown excuse for a jobs program out there. Their opinion journalism masquerading as reporting is just there to keep Columbia J-school grads busy until they figure out their idealism was wasted.

                    Their purpoted market is the tri-state area and its expatriates.

                    But its declining circulation suggests it is going too far even for them.

    2. Be deprived of toilet paper?

      1. Jeez Nooge….just go to Starbucks or something.

        1. I wouldn’t sully my mouth or veins with any product from Starbucks, thank you. Tully’s is superior.

          1. I drink Tully’s Kona every day. Thank god for my Keurig.

            1. The whitest comment in Reason history?

      2. Newspaper doesn’t make good toilet paper, unless you’re still using an outhouse. It doesn’t flush well.

        The New York Times is therefore worth less than toilet paper. Much like U.S. currency might be before too long.

    3. NYT. what would we do without them?

      Have one less media outlet. Libertarians seem to hate philosophical competition because they are mostly impotent in articulating and defending their own philosophy, such as it is.

      1. Yeah, and their ad hominem attacks show their childish and anti-intellectual nature, too.

      2. ….with it’s heavyweight staff and ideological bent, why can’t the NYT survive against such impotency?

        1. It has a much higher circulation than Reason, of course, with no sugar daddy (like Reason), and it’s surviving just fine.

          1. …but the numbers show that it is not very healthy. Perhaps a George Soros type will step in for the rescue.

          2. Huh? What planet are you on? Does the name Carlos Slim ring a bell? How about the fact that the NYT kept a bunch of negative Slim news out of the paper?

            And you need to get some help with your balance sheet reading skills. “Surviving just fine” is not the same as layoffs, downsizing, or looking around for other renters of their giant folly, er, building in NYC.

      3. Libertarians: unable to coherently articulate their philosophy, yet somehow responsible for the destruction of all that is good and decent in the world.

        Time to buy a new monocle.

  10. Another NYT gem of the day. Hey, let’s raise taxes.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08…..yt&emc=rss

    1. In. Con. Ceivable.

  11. I can imagine Westen’s cataclysmic shock when told that following the president wherever he leads is not exactly an American thing to do.

    OT: Charles Johnson is fucking stupid:

    I wasn’t going to vote for Mitt Romney anyway, but now I’m really not going to vote for Mitt Romney, after learning that the so-called ‘moderate’ Republican has selected as one of his chief judicial advisers none other than paleo-right throwback Robert Bork.

    ThinkProgress lists some of Bork’s better known bad craziness (there’s much more):

    Opposition To Civil Rights: One year before President Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which banned whites-only lunch counters and other forms of discrimination, Bork criticized the Act as a moral abomination. “The principle of such legislation is that if I find your behavior ugly by my standards, moral or aesthetic, and if you prove stubborn about adopting my view of the situation, I am justified in having the state coerce you into more righteous paths. That is itself a principle of unsurpassed ugliness.”

    I’m not going to vote for Catcher’s “Mitt” Romney, either, but that’s an absolutely wonderful quote from Bork. I find it difficult to believe believe that even Johnson, who hates anything and everything even remotely libertarian, could construe that as an argument against civil fucking rights. Actually, he seems to be saying that proves Bork hates black people. I guess slinging that sort of easy “RAAAAACIST!” poo is easier to do than find a principled argument against the use of state power against private citizens because those citizens have repugnant beliefs.

    1. I can’t find anything negative to say about that quote, probably because I agree with it entirely.

      You don’t want blacks in your bar, you don’t have to let them in — it’s your property.

      You’re a black owner and you don’t want whites in your restaurant, you don’t have to let them in — it’s your property.

      What part of the word “freedom” does Charles Johnson not fucking understand?

      1. On the other hand, if you don’t want the police in your house, you have to let them in anyway, and the courts will decide if it was wrong later.

        1. I’m talking about the way it should be, not the way it is.

        2. STOP RESISTING!

            1. Old school.

              1. Fucking comments, how do they work?

                Old school, good, and relevant, even if not my style.

        3. and the courts will decide if it was wrong ratify it later.

          FTFY

      2. What part of the word “freedom” does Charles Johnson not fucking understand?

        The part that means that racist assholes can be racist assholes on their own private property.

        1. I’m going to go ahead and guess he doesn’t understand any of it.

          1. Seriously, it’s probably the part that means people can do stuff he doesn’t like. I think a lot of otherwise reasonable people (not that I am suggesting Johnson is not a man of fickle principles and mercurial temper) draw the line there.

        2. The “freedom” to be a racist asshole doesn’t eclipse the freedom of a black man to participate in mainstream society, or to peaceably assemble in protest of discrimination (a right that’s specifically guaranteed by the BoR, unlike your vague concept of freedom.)

          PS: What part of the words “equal protection of the laws” do you not understand, Res?

          1. When did RPA say anything that you just accused him of saying, derp?

            1. I was responding to you and Res in one post to save space. I’m all about conservation.

              Also, I’m sure you think “derp” means something, but it doesn’t sound like a word a grown-up would use.

            2. But seriously, Res, I do actually apologize for calling you a dramaqueen. That was dumb of me. You weren’t saying anything dramatic – I just get tired of everyone picking on the Grey Lady.

              1. Get used to it, bitchez! She’s grey because she smoked too much, partied with the wrong people, and tried everything else she could to stay young, but she looks like every other “rode hard and put away wet” skeeze in NYC. Looks OK from a distance, but when you get close, the cracks in the pancake show up.

    2. Charles Jonson is the Talleyrand of the political blogosphere. In the ’90s, he was a Clinton Democrat. During the Wargasm Period (9/11-2007 or so) he was a warmongering neocon Republican. Now, after Obama has been elected, he’s more or less a Democrat again. He’s always rushing to aid of the victors.

      1. He’s always rushing to aid of the victors.

        Good line.

      2. That’s not so difficult to do, since there is virtually no principled difference between neocons and democrats.
        How much more proof of that do people need?

    3. Nice quote but it doesnt square with Bork’s belief that as long as the majority wants them, then sodomy laws, laws against prostitution,etc are OK.

      1. I guess not.

    4. Who is Charles Johnson? Is he like, John Galt, or something?

  12. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yp6cB7BGj48

    What do you guys think of that video?

    You think Drew West-whatever-the-fucking-shit-his-name-is would like North Korea? After all, Dear Leader’s the shit!

    1. Dear Leader has top men working on the various problems in North Korea. Top. Men.

      fap fap fap

      1. ya ya mista amurican defactuh! ya ya dee-ah leeduh praise yoo foh yor loyawty!

  13. Read the comments for some more hilarity/rage-inducing mind-benders:

    “When President Obama was campaigning, his fiscal conservatism was not clear.”

    “The president explained already explained how companies were sitting on trillions in cash and yet not “creating jobs.” Did anyone run with that story?”

    “Excellent analysis. One comment on our nation being held hostage: I think there’s actually a chain of hostages. The under-privileged and unemployed, along with their progressive representatives, are being held hostage by the President, who in turn seems held hostage by the GOP, which is in turn held hostage by the Tea Party.”

    1. It would be funny if it weren’t so common nowadays.

    2. “Excellent analysis. One comment on our nation being held hostage: I think there’s actually a chain of hostages. The under-privileged and unemployed, along with their progressive representatives, are being held hostage by the President, who in turn seems held hostage by the GOP, which is in turn held hostage by the Tea Party.”

      Oh dear, everybody is a victim.

      1. Everybody except the Tea Party crazies.

        1. No, no, they’re victims of their delusions that the size and scope of government should be in any way limited.

      2. It’s victim creep.

      3. How will they blame libertarians in that air tight comment?

        1. cause we funded the whole thing, duh!

    3. Who knew: we’re all 4th degree hostages.

      Also, I don’t get this “sitting on trillions” argument. If you increase regulations and then spend time ranting about corporate jets, can you really blame businesses for waiting this president out? Apparently, yes.

      1. It’s actually pretty hard to sit on trillions. Unless you have a very big mattress, you have to give it to someone who’s going to loan it (banks) or spend it (govt).

        1. …shhhhh! That’s why I’m a big O-bomb-a contributor — I want him to leave my stash alone.

      2. I don’t get this “sitting on trillions” argument

        Because you have to this into the greater argument made by the left, which goes a little something like this:

        Businesses aren’t hiring, because demand is low. But demand is low, because people don’t have jobs. The whole problem could be solved, if only businesses would allow the government to redistribute those trillions of idle dollars to the common man, so that they will spend money, create demand, businesses will earn even more money, and they will hire. See, it’s a win-win!

        If the goal is to improve the economy, this argument is complete bullshit. On the other hand, if the goal is to expand governments power over private property, and increase government dependency, then the argument is spot on.

        Supply creates it’s own demand. Make a quality product, for the right price, and people will buy it. How much demand was their for the iPhone prior to it’s development? What about flat screen TV’s?

        1. How exactly is someone supposed to buy an iPhone when they’ve been unemployed for six months and can barely pay their rent? Now multiply that by millions.

          1. How is a business supposed to hire people when every day the feds are coming up with new hoops you have to jump through and new taxes and fees you have to pay for each person you employ?

            1. Seriously. Try opening a machine shop somewhere. Even in business-friendlier states, wait to see how many 10’s of thousands the inspectors require you pay.

          2. Which is why nobody is buying iPhones?

            1. iPhones aren’t the best example but his point is correct. The issue I have is that the causation doesn’t begin where he seems to think it does.

              1. just for the record, steve jobs made me a phenomenal amount of money

                capitalism: good

                i still think apples suck.

          3. I don’t know. I guess you’ll have to ask the 20 million people who purchased iPhones in the first quarter of 2011.

            Apple is on track to sell more iPhone’s in 2011, then all previous years combined.

            Unemployment may be high, but their are still enough people with jobs, that will buy a great product, as long as it has value to them.

            1. @free2booze: “The whole problem could be solved, if only businesses would allow the government to redistribute those trillions of idle dollars to the common man…”

              “Redistribution” is just giving it to people. “Employment” is making them earn it, which is what infrastructure projects are about. By your definition, I’m guessing that wealth is “redistributed” to you by a job of some sort?

              If you want to complain about money being taken from corporations via taxation, let me promise you that any corporation worth its salt has a half-dozen lawyers and i-bankers working round the clock to evade those taxes. And those lawyers and i-bankers are very, very good, Booze.

            2. Also, if you haven’t noticed, it’s not government taking money from businesses and giving it to people anymore. It’s government taking money from the people to give to businesses, especially during this recession.

              1. That’s how concentrations of power work. The more power you allow government to have, the more they will take from you.

          4. How exactly is someone supposed to buy an iPhone when they’ve been unemployed for six months and can barely pay their rent? Now multiply that by millions.

            by the makers of the iPhones offering a lower price.

            If not enough people are willing to pay enough for iPhones to cover the production costs, Apple stops making iPhones, and the resources used to make iPhones (plastic, silicone, labor, etc.) get used to make other stuff that is more valuable.

            1. I will bet anyone right now that the number of unemployed people with iPhones is in the millions. I will also bet that the number of welfare recipients with iPhones is inthe hundreds of thousands, easily.

              1. I have a number of friends in the punk rock scene who hardly make a dime. Funny thing, most of them have Androids or iPhones and are busy searching the web with their wireless plans. Then they bitch about the price of gasoline or ciggies.

                1. I occassionally ride public transit here in Atlanta, and let me tell you, there is not a blue collar and/or poor commuter on those trains (whote collar riders are pretty rare) who does NOT have an Android or iPhone.

              2. A few months ago I saw my wife watching some real-life couple on TV shopping at the local food bank while the female was checking her iPhone, wish I could remember which show it was.

  14. I’ll go out on a limb here and guess Westen was quite rightly horrified by the right-wingers who proudly called themselves “Dittoheads” and bragged about how they’d let Rush Limbaugh do their thinking for them.

    1. Let me help you with that limb

      “Today’s Republican Party has three wings: the psychiatric wing, the corporate wing, and the Democrats.”

      http://www.alternet.org/story/…..democrats/

      1. Alternet: Where the Socialist Worker’s Party meets Linkin Park.

      2. These guys need serious help with their metapohors if they’re gonna call themselves writers: no animal has 3 wings.

        They fail even in their ad hom.

        1. I’ll remember that when I add another wing to my huge ranch house.

          1. Do you know who had four wings?

            1. Cherubim?

            2. every buffalo is born with four wings, but they’re clipped and sent to bars shortly after birth. don’t you watch the Discovery Channel?

              1. HA.

    2. …that horror is justified but much less so, since Limbaugh does nothing but run his trap, whereas Obama sends taxpayer trillions to bail out his billionaire Wall Street favorites, bombs little villages, runs prison camps, and sends American soldiers to death.

    3. I’ve never met a dittohead who bragged about how they’d let Limbaugh do their thinking for them, proudly or otherwise.

      Sounds more like a miss-characterization from the left, including the misunderstanding of what dittohead means.

  15. Another nice NYT talking head quote:
    see 3 minutes, 5 seconds in:
    http://www.colbertnation.com/t…..-leonhardt

  16. “No, that isn’t an historian explaining the rise of Mussolini. It’s the Emory psychologist Drew Westen, writing wistfully about the leader he wishes Obama would be.”

    It’s actually better in some ways than some of the stupid shit I heard on television this morning enjoining the president to ignore what amounts to things like market signals.

    1. I actually wish he would ignore the market signals, if that meant he would do the correct things which would probably upset Wall Street. Imagine if Ron Paul got elected, all those parasites would be freaking out, no more free money for the corporatist thieves.

      1. That’s…not the way it works.

        Ignoring market signals when formulating public policy is like ignoring gravity when designing an airplane.

        …and Wall Street isn’t the problem. Just because they’re the expression of economic turmoil doesn’t make them the problem.

        Shooting the messenger isn’t the solution whether the messenger’s Standard and Poor’s or Wall Street.

        1. Wall St and S&P are not “the market”. They are tiny slices of the economy that respond to seriously perverse incentives.

          Both of them will have (temporary) heart attacks if the govt starts living within its means.

          1. “Both of them will have (temporary) heart attacks if the govt starts living within its means.”

            If treasuries take a hit tomorrow (and rates rise), it won’t be because of S&P’s downgrade; it’ll be because foreign investors (which hold almost half of our debt)–especially small investors in places like Japan? Will dump our treasuries or at least insist on a higher yield to rollover into another treasury.

            The market for treasuries isn’t about Wall Street. Sometimes it’s about Main Street in Japan.

            …and if the market has a “heart attack” tomorrow, it won’t be because of Standard and Poor’s. It’ll be a result of market participants demanding a higher yield or willing to pay less for the same yield.

            Also of note…

            The reason the market fell so hard a few days ago was because it had become increasingly likely that Spain and Italy wouldn’t be able to cover their debts because of their bloated budgets–and this perception had raised the cost of borrowing for Italy to the point that it was unclear whether they could afford to cover their outstanding debts with more borrowing.

            The reason the markets came back from their lows was because of this:

            “The Italian government has agreed to speed up its fiscal consolidation timetable, push through labor reforms and introduce a balanced-budget amendment in its constitution as part of an agreement with European Union authorities, according to a report from Dow Jones Newswires…”

            The report followed other media accounts that the ECB had agreed in principle to buy Italian and Spanish bonds if key structural reforms were brought forward.

            http://www.cnbc.com/id/44035627

            Those things happened in the wake of the budget deal in the U.S.–but the market turmoil that followed the budget deal in the U.S. wasn’t about the budget deal in the U.S.

            To a lesser extent, it was about Spain, but it was mostly about Italy.

            So let me play Captain Obvious here for a moment: the point is that budget cutting didn’t make the market fall–the prospect of a balanced budget amendment in Italy made the market bounce back.

            Despite the voices we hear on mainstream television telling us that budget cutting will harm our economy and make the markets fall–the evidence is all to the contrary. …because if the market falls on Monday, it’ll be because the markets are reacting to concerns about our bloat as revealed by Standard and Poor’s.

            1. For anyone who’s interested in what’s really happening in the market (rather than the blather on the Sunday morning talk shows)…

              The European Central Bank is meeting today, Sunday, to decide whether to buy massive amounts of Spanish and Italian bonds per this report in the Wall Street Journal…

              FRANKFURT?European Central Bank officials on Sunday evening will weigh whether to purchase government bonds of Italy and Spain on a massive scale, according to people familiar with the matter, a move that would mark the most dramatic, and controversial, escalation of their nearly two-year effort to stem Europe’s unfolding debt crisis.

              http://online.wsj.com/article/…..84518.html

              From a market opening standpoint, whether the ECB buys massive amounts of Spanish and Italian bonds is probably WAY more important than the downgrade of U.S. treasuries by S&P.

              If the ECB buys, we’re likely see some support for equities–and the U.S. dollar will likely to continue its surge against the Euro. …and that should be a really good thing for treasuries.

              In other words, it may very well happen that U.S. treasuries rally a bit as they become more attractive vis a vis Euro denominated bonds–and that may happen despite the S&P downgrade.

              We won’t know unless the ECB decides to buy (over Germany’s protest) and the market opens, but if the ECB does decide to buy? U.S. treasuries rallying despite the S&P downgrade could be the most likely scenario.

            2. … foreign investors (which hold almost half of our debt)–…

              Got a cite for that figure, Shultz? I’ve heard it’s more like 30 percent, with about 70 percent being held in this country.

              1. I read 46% somewhere recently. I’m lookin’ for it…

                I could be wrong. I’ve been wrong before.

                I’ll go look for that stat. Regardless, though, the pressure from Euro countries to buy U.S. dollar denominated treasuries should be really high…

                The ECB by the way has decided this afternoon to go through with the bond purchasing plan according to the WSJ site now–and I’ll stand by the suggestion that this should provide upward pressure on U.S. treasuries. …probably more than enough upward pressure to overcome whatever downward pressure there was from the S&P downgrade.

                In the meantime, I’m looking for that stat–it’s gonna bug the hell out of me now until I find it!

                1. “Got a cite for that figure, Shultz? I’ve heard it’s more like 30 percent, with about 70 percent being held in this country.”

                  Eureka!

                  “A key concern will be whether the appetite for U.S. debt might change among foreign investors, in particular China, the world’s largest foreign holder of U.S. Treasurys. In 1945, foreigners owned just 1% of U.S. Treasurys; today they own a record high 46%, according to research done by Bank of America Merrill Lynch.”

                  —-Wall Street Journal, August 6, 2011

                  http://online.wsj.com/article/…..02788.html

                  In your defense, most of the figures I’ve seen elsewhere were about 31% like you said–but they were all older studies. It seems like a big jump from 31% to 46% in such a short period of time, and I won’t claim to be able to explain the discrepancy…

                  But I could speculate that there has been a tremendous flight to the U.S. dollar from Europe over recent weeks and months–whatever figure it was several months ago, the falling yield on the treasury certainly suggests that, once again, treasuries are seen as a refuge…

                  And I think it’s safe to assume that flight to U.S. treasuries was probably coming disproportionately from Euro countries. And, of course, I still stand by the original broader point, which is that foreign buyers and sellers of U.S. treasuries, when they react tomorrow, will be reacting to the fundamentals. …rather than because it’s Standard and Poor’s that said it.

                  Killing the messenger won’t change the message–and given that the ECB is apparently looking to water down the Euro further to bail out Spain and Italy? We might even see the treasury rally on renewed buying from foreigners in Europe–despite what S&P says.

                  Tomorrow, if treasuries hold firm or rally, all the lefties will be talking about the S&P downgrade like it was “carmageddon”. In fact, I might put up a wager that Cavanaugh would make a reference to “carmageddon” on Hit & Run tomorrow. …if I were a betting man and I didn’t think Cavanaugh was on vacation.

                  1. that might refer to the publicly held portion of the debt. The govt holds roughly a third of its own debt. When when you ignore that portion the fraction that is foreign-owned jumps from around a third to around half.

                  2. @Ken Shultz –
                    Thanks for taking the time to dig up that source, man.

        2. “…and Wall Street isn’t the problem. Just because they’re the expression of economic turmoil doesn’t make them the problem.”

          Wall Street didn’t spend our future paychecks beyond anything we could possibly tax into balance again–that was Washington D.C.

          Wall Street didn’t choose to bail out Wall Street with our future paychecks either–that was Washington D.C. again.

          How many more times does the president have to bash Wall Street–before the Democrats in Washington stop pushing to spend more money?

          How much more regulation do the Democrats have to heap on Wall Street–before the Democrats stop pushing to spend more of our future paychecks than the market for our debt will bear at these prices?

          Wall Street bashing and Democrats overspending have almost nothing to do with each other. And instead of treating Wall Street like a whipping boy, Obama should start treating Wall Street like the agent of creative destruction it really is–and a big part of the solution to our problems.

          …but he won’t because he’s ideologically rigid. He’s so ideologically rigid that when the markets signal bad news? He blames the messenger.

          1. Wall Street didn’t choose to bail out Wall Street with our future paychecks either–that was Washington D.C. again.

            Bullshit. Wall St lobbied for that shit like crazy, and it was Wall St scumbags in the Bush administration who put it into action. There’s plenty of blame to go around.

            Libertarians shouldn’t give the slightest shit about what Wall St wants. They’d be the first ones storming the castle with pitchforks if we ever tried to institute a free market.

            1. If the government wants to give me $700 billion, I wouldn’t stand in their way. …but if Congress and the President chose to gave it to me, who would be to blame for that?

              Ken Shultz because he asked for it?

              Or the President and Congress because they chose to give it to me?

              1. Ken Shultz because he asked for it?

                Or the President and Congress because they chose to give it to me?

                The latter.

                1. That’s kinda their job, isn’t it?

                  To make sure taxpayer money isn’t squandered?

                  As a an addendum, there’s ample evidence that some of the recipients didn’t want the bailout money because of all the strings attached–and Congress actually passed some resolutions specifically prohibiting TARP recipients from paying their TARP money back until regulators said it was okay.

                  So, some TARP recipients were forced to take the money whether they wanted it or not–and they were all specifically prohibited from paying it back until regulators said it was okay.

                  I’d just hate to go on record as suggesting they all “asked for it”, when I know that wasn’t the case. …and, you know, my real name is Ken Shultz, and I’d hate for people who know me in meatspace to think I was an ignoramus.

                  1. some TARP recipients were forced to take the money whether they wanted it or not

                    Most of them were not forced. The purpose of the forcing was to give cover to the interests who really wanted the bailouts (ie, most of the big banks).

                    They only started rushing to pay the money back when Obama decided he was going to place extra taxes and executive pay restrictions on banks that had unreturned bailout money.

                    Now I’m not trying to minimize the responsibility of Bush, Congress, and Obama, but Wall St and big biz in general is NOT a reliable friend of liberty.

                    1. None of them were “forced”.

                    2. Nice bank you’ve got there. Shame if something were to happen to it.

                    3. None of them were “forced”.

                      Rubbish.

                      Not only were many of them forced, but they were prohibited from paying the money back.

                      If they weren’t forced, then why were they prohibited from paying the money back?

                      The best interpretation for Obama was that the government wanted to project a position of strength, and thought TARP participation would project that strength.

                      The Obama Administration’s good intentions have never been in question though–it’s always been about their incompetence. They didn’t know what they were doing then, and they don’t know what they’re doing now.

                      A lot of the TARP recipients might not be thought of as “Wall Street”–I’ll give you that.

                      “TCF Financial Corp. has moved to pay back the federal government the hundreds of millions of TARP bailout funds it received in November, calling its participation in the banking-assistance program “a competitive disadvantage”.

                      The payback still needs government approval.

                      The government’s Troubled Asset Relief Program (or TARP) was conceived last fall as a way to help get banks lending again. Federal officials at the time said that money would be steered to strong banks ? whether they needed it or not ? to help alleviate any stigma of taking federal dollars. Other recipients of TARP money include U.S. Bancorp and Wells Fargo Co., two banks with large Milwaukee-area presences.”

                      http://www.bizjournals.com/mil…..ily32.html

                    4. “Forced” to take TARP while they were frantically borrowing Billions from TALF.

                    5. None of them were “forced”.

                      According to the Wells Fargo side of this dispute, it was made plain by Hank Paulson that there would be retaliation from their regulators if they didn’t take TARP money.

                    6. According to the Wells Fargo side of this dispute

                      If you were near insolvent and needed a bailout you really wouldn’t want to look and sound like you needed it. $25 Billion wan’t some “token” amount. They weren’t in any hurry to pay it back either
                      http://articles.sfgate.com/200…..rkets-tarp
                      Now Wells Fargo may have taken the money so they could afford to acquire the toxic mess of Wachovia. Was that deal “forced”?

                    7. ,,,tool-pa

                    8. Wall Street will tend to take the path of least resistance to wealth — for a while that has been through the easy pickings of the diseased harlots of Washington. Cheap to send back billions in under-the-table campaign contributions when the return is hundreds of billions.

                      And Tool-Pa, Obama is three years in with malfeasance just as great as Bush’s. We don’t have to bring Bush up every time. Otherwise we’d have to mention LBJ and Nixon every time too, since Obama is to Bush as Nixon was to LBJ.

                      Furthermore, Wall Street has a beggar’s bowl, Washington has a gun.

                    9. We were talking about TARP specifically. Bush was president at the time that was pushed through.

                      Believe me, I’m no fan of Obama either. But one instance of big govt/big biz collaboration at a time.

                  2. there’s ample evidence that some of the recipients didn’t want the bailout money

                    No there isn’t.That was disinformation.

              2. Everyone involved would be to blame — I really don’t get your obsession with there only being one entity that gets the blame.

                But that’s not the best analogy since you probably don’t have lobbyists up and down K Street like Wall Street does, ready to pounce on the opportunity to get free money.

                1. It’s not an obsession. It’s just a fact.

                  Congress’ job is to make sure taxpayer money isn’t squandered.

                  In your twisted world, where TARP was free money? Turning down free money isn’t Wall Street’s job.

                  Wall Street isn’t to blame for what George Bush, Barack Obama and Congress do. No matter how many weak-minded people believe Barack Obama when he says otherwise, Barack Obama and Congress are responsible for what Barack Obama and Congress do. …not Wall Street.

                  Just because Barack Obama blames Wall Street for what Barack Obama did–doesn’t make it so.

                  1. Congress’ job is to make sure taxpayer money isn’t squandered.

                    If we’re going to be as ultra-cynical as you are about Wall St’s “job” to take any and all money that’s available from anywhere, even money that’s been coercively obtained, then you have to also admit that Congress’ job is to get re-elected. So is the president’s.

                  2. The dog food mill that makes “Ol’ Roy” dogfood can tell Walmart to fuck off.
                    Not listening and catering to your Primary Dealers isn’t the best business model however.

                  3. Wall Street isn’t to blame for what George Bush, Barack Obama and Congress do. No matter how many weak-minded people believe Barack Obama when he says otherwise, Barack Obama and Congress are responsible for what Barack Obama and Congress do. …not Wall Street.

                    Yeah, it’s not like “Wall Street” spends tens of millions of dollars getting pliant politicians elected or something.

                    1. “Yeah, it’s not like “Wall Street” spends tens of millions of dollars getting pliant politicians elected or something.”

                      How much good has that done them? They’ve been reamed over the last three years!

                      Those aren’t compliant politicians–they’re still on a witch hunt!

                      That wasn’t money to buy influence–that was protection money! You better pay those politicians their protection money–or somethin’ bad might happen to your company!

                      …and if anything goes wrong with the economy in the meantime? Guess who the politicians are gonna blame?

                      Hint: It won’t be the politicians. It’ll be Wall Street.

              3. Oh, and you’re probably not giving cushy six figure salaries to ex-administration officials for “consulting” jobs either.

                Wall St isn’t the innocent maiden corrupted by the big bad government that you seem to be painting it as.

                1. Wall St isn’t the innocent maiden corrupted by the big bad government that you seem to be painting it as.

                  Compared to the big bad government, it is an innocent maiden.

                  1. Not just that, but especially compared to the big bad government, Wall Street is a huge part of the solution to our problems!

                    Our economy needs investment right now so badly! Investment and finance are some of the keys to economic growth. We need creative destruction–that’s a big part of how we turn an economy around. And that’s what Wall Street does–finance, investment, creative destruction.

                    The government is not about growing the economy. Even Keynes didn’t think government was the solution to growth in the long term. The solution to the liquidity trap for a while? Maybe! But long term, the solution to tepid economic growth is tied to finance in lots of different ways…

                    And despite the Obama Administration heaping blame and regulation on Wall Street’s collective head, Wall Street does a lot of the stuff we need to make the economy grow. The government isn’t the solution to finance!

                    Nobody who didn’t willingly put themselves at risk needed to lose a penny on Wall Street–until the government put taxpayers’ money at risk. …and putting our financial system in handcuffs isn’t about to make our economy any better off in the near term–and taking the handcuffs off is something we’re gonna have to do if we want long term growth anyway.

                2. Wall Street generates much of the revenue and markets nearly all of the debt for the government.They have much more influence over the Executive and legislative branches than defense contractors have over the Pentagon

            2. Of course we should care what Wall St wants. They provide liquidity so that you can trade securities. Otherwise you’re searching for a way to get investors or buy assets. Having spent some time on the trading floor I can tell you they are big advocates of the free market system. And why didn’t you mention Timmy G. who is the biggest insider of all time in the OBAMA administration (NY Fed, Goldman Sachs, and now the Treasury).

              1. I guess I’m talking about the bigwig executives when I mention Wall St, not the poor blokes on the trading floor.

              2. And I’m one of Obama’s biggest critics on this blog, btw, so it’s kind of strange that people think I’m team blue or something just because I’m speaking ill of the previous Douche-in-Chief.

  17. Another gem of a quote:

    “When will a leader emerge with a true moral vision for the federal government and for our country? Someone who sees government as a balance to capitalism, and a means to achieve the social and
    economic justice that we (yes, we) believe in?”

    Government as a balance to capitalism?

    Words fail me…

    1. I think you deserve a firm handshake for finding what probably amounts to the most retarded shit I’ve read in a month. Nice.

      Where’d you get it? Will my IQ drop if I read the comments section at the NYT?

      1. Your IQ may remain the same, but you will be momentarily blinded by rage

        1. Sounds like he’s on the shitter and cannot shit, the anal-retentive asshole.

      2. I found this in the comments sectIon to the linked story. Unfortunately, your blood pressure and IQ have an inverse reaction after reading this swill…

    2. “government as a balance to capitalism”

      Um…what? Do we need to have more government the more capitalism there is, or something?

    3. Maybe some lefty can help me: what’s the difference between economic and social justice?

      I assume these both mean the same thing, equality of income, but maybe the left has come up with another pretense for redistribution.

      1. The term social justice is oxymoronic because it’s obviously different from the actual definition of justice. If you steal from me, justice would be you compensating me and being punished in some form for the crime.

        Social justice ENCOURAGES that kind of action, with the bullshit justification that the State has the right to arbitrarily take your stuff if it’s for the public good. Thus social justice is injustice because it encourages actions that are different from justice.

        1. The term social justice is oxymoronic because it’s obviously different from the actual definition of justice. If you steal from me, justice would be you compensating me and being punished in some form for the crime.

          Social justice ENCOURAGES that kind of action, with the bullshit justification that the State has the right to arbitrarily take your stuff if it’s for the public good. Thus social justice is injustice because it encourages actions that are different from justice.

          How does this apply to rape?

          Do males who can not get any get to rape the woman of their choice, under the theory of social justice?

          1. UNDER SOCIAL JUSTICE ONLY STEVE SMITH RAPE NEED IS IMPORTANT. OTHER MALES…..STEVE SMITH RAPE THEM TOO.

          2. paging pj orourke…

        2. Remember, the prefix social negates whatever term immediately follows it: Justice, security, science, democracy, service … worker.

          1. and especially “science”

          2. Hayek sums it up nicely:

            Social justice “does not belong to the category of error but to that of nonsense, like the term `a moral stone’.”

      2. “Social justice” is a term lacking in any concrete definition. You may as well be using the term “doubleplusungood” for similar value in political analysis.

        “Economic justice” is shorthand for “I want what you have” and that the government, in all of its righteous power, should obtain it for the wanting party.

      3. it doesn’t get defined because lefties are generally reluctant to admit they are socialists.

        and there’s so much more than income. for example status, wealth, etc.

    4. Lord God Billy-Bob – wtf?
      What amount of time must be spent avoiding introspection that someone can believe this??

    5. I know where government can start in its effort to balance capitalism: taxing the shit out of Westen Strategies, which is making money by consulting with the CORPORASHUNS!

      http://www.westenstrategies.com/

    6. Eric Cantor made an interesting observation about his negotiations with Obama et al.

      That is they believe that the purpose of the private sector is to serve the state. It generates the wealth that the government can then redistribute.

      State first, economy second.

      Or he may just be another lying Republican.

      But it sounds good.

  18. Commander Of The Faithful, sword held high, leading the heroic charge against all enemies foreign and domestic, ready to slay, torture and plunder all that oppose the March To The Future. Loot, Treasure and Status will be distributed to the Party Loyalists.

  19. And perhaps most important, it would have offered a clear, compelling alternative to the dominant narrative of the right, that our problem is not due to spending on things like the pensions of firefighters, but to the fact that those who can afford to buy influence are rewriting the rules so they can cut themselves progressively larger slices of the American pie while paying less of their fair share for it.

    It’s amusing the way the left fails to make the connection between expansive government, and cronyism. They want the government to regulate, and incentivise everything under the sun, then do nothing but bitch and moan when the inevitable result of those policies comes to fruition. When the government tries to regulate something, the individuals being regulated are going to try to influence the system, because individuals are always going to look out for their own interests.

      1. And this?

        Countrywide VIP Loans To Fannie Mae Execs Are Under Investigation
        …The number of loans to borrowers who worked at Fannie Mae spiked at two points during the lifetime of Countryside’s VIP program. The first spike came in 1998, as Countrywide was negotiating a volume discount with Fannie Mae, the second spike came in 2001-03, on the leading edge of a “mortgage boom that occurred from late 2002 through 2004” and an expansion of the VIP loan unit….

        …While negotiating the volume discount,”Countrywide CEO Angelo Mozilo leveraged his company’s position as the nation’s largest residential housing lender to extract a lower “guarantee fee” from Fannie Mae CEO Jim Jonson, who himself receive several Countrywide VIP loans.” (More than $10 Million worth of loans)…

        …At the market’s peak in 2005, only 10 lenders made up two-thirds of Fannie Mae’s business, and 10 lenders also made up over three-fourths of Freddie Mac’s business. Near the top for both was Countrywide Mortgage, one of the nation’s largest subprime lenders. In 2005, one out of every four loans purchased by Fannie Mae was from Countrywide. One of out every 10 for Freddie Mac was also from Countrywide. Apparently the affection was mutual, for as much as the GSEs depended on Countrywide, Countrywide also depended on them.

        According to the Fannie Mae Foundation, almost half of Countrywide’s production was sold to Fannie Mae. Additionally, Countrywide used Ginnie Mae to guarantee another third of their production. Close to 90 percent of Countrywide’s loan originations were bought or guaranteed by some arm of the federal government. Far from being a product of the free market, Countrywide could have only existed and prospered in an atmosphere of government guarantees….

        1. Yes, just like that.

    1. We give Big Government enormous power to *uck up people’s lives (put the letter of your choice in place of the asterisk).

      It’s the most natural thing in the world that people will go to great lengths to ensure that Big Government is using this power to *uck up somebody else’s life.

      The solution is not to give Big Government more power to *uck up people’s lives, and say that you’re going to have The Right People wielding that power.

      1. Kuck up? That’s not even a word!

    2. I read this and did a quick Google search to see if I could find out where Westen lives. And of course, his “slice of the pie” appears to be large indeed. It appears that he lives in a 4,000 square foot house in one of Atlanta’s most prestigious neighborhoods, near the private and very expensive Ansley Golf Club:

      http://www.zillow.com/homedeta…..7571_zpid/

      What definition of “social justice” permits Westen to have all this when others have so little? Or is that he’s fine with helping himself to the good life, but simply wants political control over everyone else?

    3. It’s amusing the way the left fails to make the connection between expansive government, and cronyism.

      It’s ok when our side does it!

  20. The left are just cracking up seeing that they’ve run out of OPM and nothing their ideology demands seems to work:

    Raging At The Dying Of Their Light
    Twice in recent years pleasant social events have been shattered by rage-filled outbursts when liberal men of a certain age learned that I disagreed with their views. In each case the rage with which perfectly polite disagreement was expressed suggested to me that more than political differences were involved. As time has passed, I have come to believe that the reactions I received represented a rage at the dying of all that which these men had embraced in the absolute certainty of the righteousness and soundness of their views, and their right to have them automatically accepted as the approved model for all right thinking people. …

    …I suppose if I had coasted through my adult life secure in the belief that I was destined to rule others, that my thinking was the height of sophisticated reason and scientific logic, and I began to notice that that game was up, I’d be rude at dinner parties, too. I mean they are just raging at the dying of their light, aren’t they?

    1. I offered my intellectual support for any and all things they wanted — an unquestioning defense of the Political Class. They promised me that I would have status, respect and tenure.

  21. He’s the smartest, so I follow! Now shut up.

  22. Yes, a leader, a man who will boldly lead America down the road to serfdom.

    1. Sieg heil!

  23. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: writers love simple stories.

    It’s much easier to write a story about a Great Man doing Great Things in government, than it is to write about the discombobulated, nearly incomprehensible mess of little people (both bad and good) doing little things (both bad and good) that is the marketplace. So writers will always and everywhere be one variety or another of statist.

    1. I disagree, that’s not the problem. I don’t think reading about the private market is boring at all. I just finished reading Beer Blast and it was extraordinarily entertaining.

      The real problem is some of our elites go on junkets to China or Singapore or Dubai, and come back incredibly jealous of the Chinese, Singaporian, and Emirati elites.

      1. The real problem is some of our elites go on junkets to China or Singapore or Dubai, and come back incredibly jealous of the Chinese, Singaporian, and Emirati elites.

        I don’t think that is the real problem; but you have made an astute observation.

        1. These are the people who think a dictatorship of the elites would put them in charge, instead of in the gulag along w/ the rest of us.

          1. Intellectuals generally have this career path in a revolution:

            revolutionary agitation —-> post in provisional government —-> administrative post —-> [after being exposed as a “wrecker”] —-> Gulag/icepick.

            1. +1

              A’int that the truth?

            2. Well said. May I suggest a slightly revised progression for the fiction writers?

              revolutionary agitation—> prominence——> state sanction and applause for previous works—–> censorship and prison —-> exile into diametrically opposed country, whereupon hailed as heroic dissenter —-> points out flaws in diametrically opposed country’s political philosophy —> moves back to original country after second revolution directly contradicts and overthrows first revolution previously agitated for by said writer

              1. Oh yeah, and the bodies. Can’t forget those.

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

                1. Holy crap, Sid could barely stand.

                  1. Ah, but the riffs were much clearer to the ear.

      2. I wouldn’t say it’s boring, but it’s definitely much harder to write about. You couldn’t churn out a column every day providing a sensible and engaging analysis of economic activity in a free market (and no, I’m not talking about the bullshit “The Dow was up today because Ben Roethlisberger is getting married” faux-analysis) the way these guys do about the White House. The same troubles that central planning has with coordinating economic activity also make it difficult to report on.

  24. “A second possibility is that he is simply not up to the task by virtue of his lack of experience and a character defect that might not have been so debilitating at some other time in history. Those of us who were bewitched by his eloquence on the campaign trail chose to ignore some disquieting aspects of his biography: that he had accomplished very little before he ran for president, having never run a business or a state; that he had a singularly unremarkable career as a law professor, publishing nothing in 12 years at the University of Chicago other than an autobiography; and that, before joining the United States Senate, he had voted “present” (instead of “yea” or “nay”) 130 times, sometimes dodging difficult issues.”

    His lack of ability as a president might stem from the fact that he had no leadership experience, no private sector experience and the only writing to produced as a professor was an exercise in narcissism?

    Glad Westen could use his 25 years of experience as a psychologist to figure out what is obvious to everyone else.

    1. Dude, if you mentioned that obvious fact in 2008 the Obama cultists would have a bitch fit and throw every name in the book at you. Pretty much NOT worshipping Obama meant you hated the poor, black people, and were a bitch for corporations and the rich.

      1. It’s true, I remember.

        I think that’s why now they pretend it takes 25 years of psychological experience to figure this out. That way the cultists are off the hook for not figuring this out before the election.

      2. All the while never mentioning that Obama was such for the corporations and the rich.

        1. All the while never mentioning that Obama was such for the corporations and the rich.

          GE. We bring bad Presidents to the White House.

      3. I’m shocked that you would put “Obama” and “bitch for corporations and the rich” in the same sentence. God, why don’t you throw Saudi Oil Sheiks in there while you’re at it and really get my dander up!

    2. “His lack of ability as a president might stem from the fact that he had no leadership experience, no private sector experience and the only writing to produced as a professor was an exercise in narcissism?”

      You could say the same thing about Woodrow Wilson, but look at what he accomplished.

      1. Throwing people in jail without trial? Using American soldiers as mercenaries for European governments? Revitalizing the KKK?

      2. Barfman, meet Trollbarf

        Trollbarf, meet *HWARRRRRPHHHHHHHH!!!!!*

      3. that comparison might not come off as you intended around these parts

  25. Dr. Westen believes that Obama’s key problem is that he is *too nice,* and fails to denounce the evildoers who are ruining the country (remember, this is a *psychologist* talking about enemies and evildoers):

    “When he wants to be, the president is a brilliant and moving speaker, but his stories virtually always lack one element: the *villain* who caused the problem, who is always left out…” [emphasis added]

    We need more polarizing and demonization! The President needs to tell a story with a “villain”!

    Dr. Westen proposes a free-market conspiracy as the villain.

    May I suggest some other villains who have been focus-grouped quite effectively: A cabal of Jewish Freemasons, working in cahoots with Opus Dei.

    1. Standard boilerplate VILLIANS: evil Wall-Streeters and Conservative Extremists. Let’s leave out the looting, plundering, war-mongering politicians of both political bents, that have been looting and providing corporate welfare forever. Obama has eagerly joined this crowd and has accelerated all of the worst of his predecessors.

      This is the typical clueless nut-job intellectual “cover up for Obama and the Welfare/Warfare society that he so well represents….

    2. Do people like Westen not hear Obama and his cronies speak?

      All I hear from them is how if it weren’t for the Teabaggers, Faux News and the GOP, we would be living in a balanced budget paradise where it’s impossible to walk down the street without being offered a good job and free, high quality health care.

      1. Man, in Obamatopia, it takes so damn long to get to work because every place I walk past offers me a job.

        1. And they’re all unionized, highly paid jobs that contribute usefully to the economy.

    3. Weston: “That story would have made clear…this would not be a power-sharing arrangement.”

      Oh, really — is that why Obama was able to unilaterally initiate aggressive war on Libya?

      Westen will be on Obama’s reelection committee, little doubt about that.

      1. Yeah, as if giving a reckless, violence-loving prick like Obama more power wouldn’t lead to bigger, more-expensive and bloodier disasters.

        1. Of course it wouldn’t.

          It would lead to high speed rail, environmental sustainability, unprecedented scientific innovation and energy independence.

          Of course, to achieve those goals, a little violence might be necessary at first.

          1. Hey Tommy, how ‘BOUT that Chinese high-speed rail?

            http://tinyurl.com/3ustbks

            http://tinyurl.com/3oy8epa

            Just for purposes of comparison, the Japanese high-speed rail system, which the Chinese claimed theirs was superior to, has been in operation since the 1960s and has never had a crash ever.

            At least with Amtrak’s delays it is because they don’t own most of their tracks and have to give priority to freight, not because of a fucking power outage.

            1. If Amtrak owned its own tracks they’d be even more poorly maintained.

              1. They seem to do a good job with the tracks they own in the Northeast. All the delays happen on the freight company owned tracks. Not because they don’t maintain them, but because they understandably want to give priority to their own traffic.

              2. They seem to do a good job with the tracks they own in the Northeast. All the delays happen on the freight company owned tracks. Not because they don’t maintain them, but because they understandably want to give priority to their own traffic.

    4. May I suggest some other villains who have been focus-grouped quite effectively: A cabal of Jewish Freemasons, working in cahoots with Opus Dei.

      How about an evil psychologist that is goading the president into becoming a dictator?

  26. This is a true historical parallel. Economic emergencies such as the present ongoing depression do make a lot of people feel that way, and many of the worst dictators in history got into power as a direct result.

    Let us all be thankful that Barack Obama turned out to be even more inept than Jimmy Carter. If he had been successful in enacting his platform, it would be Stalin’s Russia all over again. As it is, if we’re lucky, the hypnotic spell most of his voters were under has now broken.

    1. The spell has broken, but they will still defend and vote for him. But, since they know he’s a dud, will be even more vicious on their attacks to anyone who questions him.

      1. If the right hadn’t thrown obstructions into his every attempt to make things better …. Of course, come to think of it, I ain’t paying no mortgage now!

  27. That was what I was.

  28. The other obvious absurdity that we saw all over the airwaves today was the S&P bashing…

    The people bashing S&P for being independent and calling it like they see it? Are mostly the same people who were recently bashing the ratings agencies for bowing to various forms of pressure.

    So, I guess the partisan code words to pick up from this are “independent”, which means “I like what the ratings agencies are saying.”, and “flawed” or “biased”, which means, “I don’t like what the ratings agencies are saying.”

    1. I actually agree with their political analysis (Republicans refuse to raise taxes, Democrats won’t talk about Medicare reforms, brinksmanship on the debt ceiling was suicidal) but my problem is that it’s not the job of a ratings agency to comment on the political process. In the end of their report they say that our ability to pay has not changed at all. Well, TAHT’S what they’re supposed to be rating, not our political system.

      1. I think it’s their job to comment on whatever they think their clients will want them to comment on.

        Regardless, if and when the market reacts to information like this, it isn’t the messenger they’re reacting to over the long run. …it’s the message.

        If massive government bloat isn’t really a problem, then there’s nothing any ratings agency can do to trick the markets into thinking otherwise for very long.

        1. Well, this message wasn’t even FOR the market. The market will largely yawn.

          This message was meant for Washington. It’s a shot across the bow of the Super-Duper Extra Special Super All-Star Super Congress Committee or whatever they’re calling it.

        2. Let me clarify that I mean the market for Treasuries will yawn. As long as the government can borrow at practically zero percent interest it doesn’t matter if S&P rates them ZZZZZZZZZZ-. The stock market in the short term? Who the fuck knows, anything can spook them.

          1. Especially with the market for treasuries being driven primarily by events in Europe–especially Italy…

            So far, throughout all this, the dollar has continued to rally against the Euro. The ten year treasury has dropped its yield from 3.2% in July to 2.4% in August.

            Even if it went up half a percent, how big of a deal is that? …and with events in Europe still driving things?

            I agree. I expect more of a yawn too.

            1. Well basically the US economic situation sucks right now, and sucks badly, but it still sucks less than Europe and Japan. And China isn’t ready for prime-time and won’t be for another 20 years or so.

              BTW, remember back in 2006 all the crowing about how the Euro was going to replace the Dollar as the world’s favored reserve currency?

              LOL!

              1. I remember that!

                …but I remember back in the ’80s, when I was in high school, and Japan, Inc. mercantilism was gonna buy America out! They were buying all of our commercial real estate–and all of our debt too. Oh noes!

                It’s always somebody. There’s always a bogyman somewhere who’s sure to do us in–and finally prove that American capitalism was all a big mistake!

                We’ll get through this too.

                I don’t know who we’re supposed to be afraid of next–maybe it’s China. Someone told me the other day that it’s gonna be Brazil! I kinda like the idea of being overwhelmed by smokin’ hot Brazilian chicks, but unfortunately, I don’t think that’ll ever happen.

                1. The Dollar is going to be replaced by some kind of basket of currencies. Period.

                2. And none of those currencies will be the Euro. It doesn’t have long to live(seven years, max). Having a currency union without a political or *at least* fiscal union does not work.

                  The third German attempt to conquer Europe is about to end in tears just like the other two.

                3. This is exactly the kind of arrogant complacency that will lead to our losing dominance prematurely. Just because there have been past predictions of subjugation that have turned out wrong does not mean it’s impossible for us to fuck up our standing in the world, which is the giddily optimistic lesson many seem to draw.

                  1. That’s a reply to Mr Shultz.

    2. It could be worse. The Euroleft also bash S&P and the other ratings agencies for being American.

      It’s the same sort of foreigner-bashing that somebody like Anders Breivik engages in, but the Euroleft are going after the correct foreigners.

  29. Even stupider column:

    http://tinyurl.com/3j4uxxt

    There is no 20th leader more overrated than Winston Churchill. His views on India alone should knock him off his marble pedestal.

    1. Let me be clear.

      I have nothing to offer but loot, oil, fears and, uh, transparency.

      1. ….that bright ear-to-ear grin!!

  30. Most things that Rick Perry says these days would qualify as Creepy Quote of the day.

    1. Who would you want to keep your family safe from coyotes, Obama or Perry?

      I think the answer is clear.

      1. Obviously both, assuming they protect my family by feeding themselves to the coyotes.

      2. Why would you want either, you tools, when you can do it yourself by exercising your 2nd Amendment Rights.

  31. Yeah, who needs dear LEADERS?

    Famous libertarian leaders – The Mises Community
    mises.org/Community/forums/t/7696.aspx

    Training Libertarian Leaders | Cato Institute: Policy Report
    http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_repor…..2n5-7.html

    1. Weak.

      1. I agree, but then so is the original jibe. Humans have always had leaders.

        But in the Non-State* sociopolitical typographies, leaders were not so hierarchical.

        * see Non-State and State Societies, a summary of anthropologist Elman Service’s work. faculty.smu.edu/rkemper/cf_3333/Non_State_and_State_Societies.pdf

    2. Please don’t be his porn.

    3. Wiggle worm, wiggle.

  32. But the arc of history does not bend toward justice through capitulation cast as compromise. It does not bend when 400 people control more of the wealth than 150 million of their fellow Americans. It does not bend when the average middle-class family has seen its income stagnate over the last 30 years while the richest 1 percent has seen its income rise astronomically. It does not bend when we cut the fixed incomes of our parents and grandparents so hedge fund managers can keep their 15 percent tax rates. It does not bend when only one side in negotiations between workers and their bosses is allowed representation. And it does not bend when, as political scientists have shown, it is not public opinion but the opinions of the wealthy that predict the votes of the Senate. The arc of history can bend only so far before it breaks.

    Is it even remotely possible he understands the irony of what he’s written there?

    1. Is it even remotely possible he understands the irony of what he’s written there?

      No.

      How is it that intellectuals can be wrong about so many things?

      1. ….these inbred, group-think beings — teeming broods of which are found at the Ruling Elite’s institutions — have mutated into creatures devoid of logic, common sense and perspective.

        1. Shut up, stupid!

          As I was saying… OBAMA! OBAMA! OBAMA!

          1. I didn’t get an “OBAMA!” out of that guy, right there. [::points::]

  33. “That story would have made clear…this would not be a power-sharing arrangement.”

    They passed ObamaCare w/o anyone else’s input.

  34. Let’s all be thankful for the ineptness of our Presidents at becoming dictators.

    1. Nixon came pretty damn close.

      Fun fact: he created the ATF just because he wanted a federal law enforcement agency under direct Presidential control. The FBI and CIA had too much oversight, you see.

      1. not sure how this works.

        the primary difference between the ATF and the FBI was that the ATF was dept. of treasury (the latter day “revenuers”) and the FBI was dept. of justice.

        nowadays, almost everything is under the umbrella of “homeland security”

    2. The GOP of Nixon, Reagan and Bush have created quite a dictatorial state of drug testing, militarism and prisons. Want big government dictators, vote GOP.

  35. What about us (minority?) off people who don’t want to follow leaders? Are we to be trampled in the rush of “making a better tomorrow?”

    1. Would you say there was a core of people that supported Ron Paul for President that created a cult of personality around him?

      1. Dunno – I’m not much of a Ron Paul supporter. Though I suppose he would be better (in many respects) than others.

      2. I’ve never met such a person. I mean I know a lot of people that admire him and regard him as the best that Congress offers, but there is no way he has a cult like candidate Obama did, especially among young liberals and black people.

        1. People in a cult never think they’re in a cult.

      3. Every Ron Paul supporter I know is somewhat disappointed with Ron as a personality.

        We just are reasonably sure that we know precisely the course of action he would pursue if he was President, because of the obstinacy he has demonstrated to date (you can call it integrity if you want).

        But if he magically became President I wouldn’t be hoping for charismatic leadership and wouldn’t be hoping he would sweep up a “desperate” public that was longing to be led.

        On the contrary – I’d be most excited about his possibilities for action in the absence of “leadership” of that kind, using the veto power, the pardon power, the power to declassify documents, appoint an Attorney General and US attorneys, etc. I’d be procedurally excited.

  36. I don’t remember any people who voted for Obama that I know citing his confidence as the reason. I remember they all voted for him because 1. they wanted a rebuke to Bush/GOP for the past eight years of misrule and/or 2. they wanted to “make history” and/or demonstrate the age-old ideal that “anyone can be President in America” by voting for a black man for President.

    The confidence thing is silly. Remember it was Bush that supposedly wowed his followers with his lack of Kerry-esque nuance, his sticking with his gut, his “I’m the decider!” declarations…

    1. Bush was the president for those 8 years but the GOP certainly didn’t control congress for all of those years and had controlled both the House and Senate after the 2006 midterms.

    2. and/or 2. they wanted to “make history” and/or demonstrate the age-old ideal that “anyone can be President in America” by voting for a black man for President.

      Maybe next time out, said imbeciles might realize that something as vitally important as the casting of one’s vote for the presidency should be dispassionately weighed on considerations of issues and economics; not simperingly color-coordinated, like a mall-bound teenybopper dithering between the selection of her Hello Kitty or Keroppi purses.

      Be nice to think so, at any rate.

    3. Current situation certainly casts a bit different meaning to the phrase “mis-rule”.

  37. Paulie Krugnuts chimes in
    You won’t be surprised to hear that I am very much in sympathy with Drew Westen’s lament about Obama’s unwillingness or inability to change the narrative. I went back to look at my own reactions to the inaugural speech; I’m sorry to say that my misgivings at the time have proved all too justified.

    The one thing I might say is that we shouldn’t really wonder what happened to Obama ? he is who he always was. If you paid attention to what he actually said during the primary and the election, he was always a very conventional centrist. Progressives who flocked to his campaign basically deluded themselves, mistaking style for substance. I got huge flack for saying that at the time, but it was true, and events have borne it out….

    1. I went back to look at my own reactions to the inaugural speech; I’m sorry to say that my misgivings at the time have proved all too justified.

      Bow before the all-mighty Krugnuts! My powers never fail me!

    2. he was always a very conventional centrist.

      Heh.

      A-heh-heh-heh.

      BWAAAAAAAAAAHHH-ha-ha-ha-haaaaaaaa — !!!

    3. If only we had listened to Paul Krugman, none of this crap would have happened.

      Chastise’d, all of you!

      1. *walks up behind Tulpa and kicks him in the back of the knees to force him down*

        SHOW YOUR MASTER SOME RESPECT!!!

  38. What’s weird about this narrative that this guy spins is the effort to compare the America of the 1930s to the America of today. Ask yourself, how could FDR attempt to dominate a news cycle the way that he often did?

    (a) Americans were more poorly educated in the 1930s.

    (b) They had fewer fact checking sources.

    (c) They had fewer avenues by which to occupy themselves generally.

    There’s a reason why Obama’s narrative hasn’t sold that well; Presidents don’t have nearly the captive audience they used to have.

    The whole article reeks of nostalgia.

    1. One thing I noticed about American presidents in the movies is that they are almost always represented as being a modern day King Arthur, they are kind, wise and noble all at the same time. Contrast that to the average depiction of the British prime minister on tv, they are either a buffoon or machievillian.

      People realising that the US president is just a politician (with the only principle they adhere to is winning votes), is a very good thing.

      1. Contrast that to the average depiction of the British prime minister on tv, they are either a buffoon or machievillian.

        I thought the nature of parliamentary politics pretty much ensured that you had to be one or the other in order to become PM.

    2. I think it’s also because we have so many more choices to get our news. Unfortunately that means people tend to polarize and read only those news sources or blogs that support their preconceived notions.

      1. Choice is always better, otherwise all people will get to read is the preconceived notions of the group running the country.

      2. people tend to polarize and read only those news sources or blogs that support their preconceived notions.

        No they don’t. I’m putting you on ignore.

    3. iirc, it was a liberal who derisively made the pajamas blogger comment, and ime from reading dailykos, du etc. liberals far preferred the oligopoly of CBS/ABC/NBC to the current situation. they like the fact that they can access al jazeera, BBC, etc. but think it’s not offset by the fact that “faux news” etc. has so much influence over the people they perceive as being taught to “vote against their interests”

      they generally support a fairness doctrine, which is the HEIGHT of govt. control of media, the idea that GOVT can and should be the arbiter of “fairness” and equal time

      1. dunphy,

        Are you, or are you not, Mr. Fuddlesticks?

        1. i decline comment… i prefer that speculation run RAMPANT 🙂

  39. THE SUBMARINE [PUSSY] ARE NOW ENGAGED IN A FIGHT FOR THE SOUL OF MUSLIM AMERICA [PUSSY]. THIS FIGHT [PUSSY] WON’T ROCK MY HARD NIPPLES ANYTIME SOON. THE JEWS ARE ON THE VERGE OF KILLING EVERYONE [NIPPLES].

    THIS ISN’ THE TIME FOR FUN. WE MUST TAKE ACTION [ASS-EATING] UNTIL THE GREAT ONE CAN REGAIN CONTROL.

    TAKE MY FRIEND CHRIS CHRISTIAN AS AN EXAMPLE [PUSSY]. GO FUCK YOURSELF.

    ARES SPIELBERG PUSSY-EATER

    1. Oh, I get it. It is a really fucked up mad libs.

      1. Yeah, but at least it evocatively describes what it is doing to a particular body part in its name. Sort of like if one were to kick ass or something like that.

        1. Pfft, only a buffoon would use “kick ass” in their handle.

  40. The other day, in the comments to a Ron Bailey post, some were claiming “neuroscience” is legit science. Well, that is exactly what kind of “scientist” Drew Westen is. Like most scientist he does not deny AGW:

    He announces in a speech on energy and climate change that we need to expand offshore oil drilling and coal production ? two methods of obtaining fuels that contribute to the extreme weather Americans are now seeing.

    1. Consensus, bitch.

    2. And? Should I claim my mechanic doesn’t know shit about cars because he believes in AGW? Right or wrong, it’s not his field of expertise.

      1. “Neuroscience” is a catch-all for a few legitimate disciplines and a multitude of deterministic quackery and pseudoscience. I’ve addressed this at greater length before and will again.Westen (and other “neuroscientists) is renowned for using a fMRI like a Scientology E-meter, dowsing rod and phrenology craniometer to “prove” total BS or “confirm” things which can be demonstrated without the magic mumbo-jumbo.Westen is the worst sort of charlatan.

          1. God bless you my son.

      2. And? Should I claim my mechanic doesn’t know shit about cars because he believes in AGW? Right or wrong, it’s not his field of expertise.

        No, just that people should not take mechanics as an authoritative source on AGW.

  41. The only stories I listen to are from friends that party harder than I do, strippers, medics, and old people. Stories I refuse to listen to come from shit eating assclowns that want my vote.

  42. Benito Obama.

    Has a nice ring to it.

    1. Il Douche

      1. O ho ho. That’s the most appropriate political nickname since Abraham “the cockmaster” Lincoln.

      2. Beautiful.

  43. Rather than waste your time with these trolling fucksticks like white Indian and MoNGo, we need six more of you to get on over to the link to the Reason Hit & Run J sub D Memorial Fantasy Football League.

    League ID:  404017
    Password:  reason

    Draft is Saturday, August 13 at 2 pm Pacific (5 pm Eastern).

    As always:  Come one.  Come all.  Except rectal.

    10 people already signed up and the limit is 16, so whoever waits too long is gonna be fucked.

    1. No. Isn’t this place fantasy enough?

    2. so whoever waits too long is gonna be fucked.

      You absolute treasure, you!

      1. Go back to slobbering on Obama’s cock and leave me alone.

    3. Yahoo? Really?

      1. No choice, brother. They were the only one that would let me to have a free league with more than 12 players.

        And I knew I couldn’t count on too many people on here to chip in. Cheap fuckers.

    4. Still 4 spots left.

  44. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/…..ogram.html

    The ECB has decided to use the printing press to monetize Spain and Italy’s debt.

    “It is on the basis of the above assessments that the ECB will actively implement its Securities Markets Program,” the central bank said. “This program has been designed to help restoring a better transmission of our monetary policy decisions — taking account of dysfunctional market segments — and therefore to ensure price stability in the euro area.”

    1. As I wrote up top, that’s likely to give support to U.S. treasuries.

      …and the left will predictably point to that and claim our overspending is nothing to worry about.

      That’s how the left’s logic works. They see Italy unable to borrow at market rates to cover its deficit, so it has to be bailed out by the ECB–which the ECB only only agreed to do since Berlusconi pledged to seek a balanced budget amendment to the Italian constitution…

      The left sees our future here in the U.S. playing itself out in Italy–with Italy being incapable of financing its debts at the rate the market will give them…

      And they point to Europeans flocking to U.S. treasuries in droves and driving down our borrowing rate? As evidence that we don’t need to worry about or balance our budget!

      Oh, and THEN the left says that anybody who insists on fiscal sanity is a stupid redneck.

      That’s how the left’s mind works.

  45. Timmay!

    Asked whether Treasuries were as safe now as they were last week, Geithner replied: “Absolutely. And the judgment by S&P changed nothing.”

    Secretary Geithner Clouseau then went on to say, “That’s not my dog.”

    1. Treasuries are as safe now as they were last week!

      1. I think I still prefer to own physical gold, thank-you very much.

    2. “There is no risk the United States of America would ever not be in a position to meet its obligations,” Geithner said.

      Um, just last week the entire executive branch, Timmey included, was saying they weren’t sure they would be able to meet obligations like SS, medicare, interest payments… so what’s up with that ever Timmey. Were you caught lying lil’ buddy?

  46. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhxqIITtTtU

    this just in — a video of barack obama found showing the president acting out

  47. A “messiah syndrome” has been a defect in human genes since the sickle cell anemia defect.

    1. I bet it goes back to the bonobos.

      If you ever try piecing Obama’s theory of how economies grow, it bears more than a passing resemblance to a cargo cult, that’s for sure.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult

  48. Obama was the most left-voting U.S. Senator. His actions as President are consistent with that record. Still his supporters constantly talk about how centrist, even conservative he is. This country is nuts.

    1. When you are as far left, or dillusional, as his supporters are/were, then yes, he’s centrist. Just like the fascists were reactionary right-wingers to the communists.

        1. But the Constitution is, like, old and junk!

          1. And economics should be fair!!! Right Ezzy…

        2. in the past 50 years, “government spending has increased an average of only 1.73 percent annually during periods of divided government. This number more than triples, to 5.26 percent, for periods of unified government.”

          The flip side of this is that the government accomplished more than 3 times as much when it was unified compared to when it’s obstructed.

          Unless you think everything’s perfect in this country, you have to agree we need things accomplished now.

          1. “Unless you think everything’s perfect in this country, you have to agree we need things accomplished now.”

            What “things”?

            1. Getting people back to work, quitting the foreign oil habit, giving minorities equal rights, stopping global warming, stuff like that. Things libertarians don’t care about.

              1. Uh, yeah, sure, mustard.

              2. “Getting people back to work, quitting the foreign oil habit, giving minorities equal rights, stopping global warming, stuff like that. Things libertarians don’t care about.”

                You’re aware that some of those things conflict, right?

                I mean, what kind of effect do you expect “quitting the foreign oil habit” to have on the economy? …on job growth?

                How does government squandering what would be consumer discretionary income on “getting people back to work” AKA make work programs–help long term job growth?

                P.S. Ron Bailey on Reason staff probably spends half his time around here talking about global warming. Just because you’re completely ignorant about how much libertarians care about the environment–doesn’t mean we don’t care about the environment.

                1. Derp!

                2. federal programs and money had saved entire categories of the population in the past from certail economic peril that would have led to anything from undereducation to starvation, and you realy are heartless enough to suggest we should just dump them?

                  1. “Can’t we all just agree to tailor the entirety of the federal government to my exquisitely attuned fee-fees — ?!?”

          2. Just a li’l FYI: “Accomplished” and “spent” not actually synonyms.

        3. Fuck yo Constitution, nigga!

          1. Word!

            1. Awwwww YEAH — !!!

    2. Well, when he actually took the time to vote something besides “Present”…

      1. I liked it better when he voted present…

  49. Well. Glad to see everyone in such a great mood. Look at the bright side – IT’S ALMOST MONDAY!

    Wouldn’t it be wonderful if EVERY day were Monday? The President? and Congresstards are certainly doing their best to take us there.

    Happy Monday (almost), Reasonoids!

  50. This HAS to be in its own thread:

    http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201108070003

    Read the stoopid dripping from the MediaMorons commenters at the above link.

    “You’re not in favor of Spider-Man being non-white? You’re racist!”

    God, what fucktards.

    1. “You’re not in favor of Spider-Man being non-white? You’re racist!”

      Ultimateverse does not count. It died after Jeph Loeb wrote that 9-issue “fuck the universe for killing my son” clusterfuck called Ultimatum.

      1. Marvel is bending over forwards to be PC.
        Period.

        Create a NEW hero, otherverse or not, and make him/her/it whatever gender/race/whatever you want. That’s fine.

        This… is different.

  51. In case anyone’s wondering, gold just poked above $1700/oz in the Asian markets.

    1. Where’s that damned Shrike to tell us about gold? C’mon Shrike – come out and tell us all about how only idiots buy gold.

  52. This is the dumbest thread ever on reason. On any given day, it is more likely than not that the creepiest quote of the day spews from the dark corners of Sugarfree’s mind where the walls are plastered with the opaque ejaculate gathered from years of pathological masterbation

    1. master…bat…ion?

      1. Troy is into the B & D scene, apparently.

        “You may fap now, Troy”
        “Thank you, Master.”

  53. That’s pretty damn good. Here’s something similar from my “Funny Shit I Read Online” folder:

    “Statistical theory posits that if the above writer were to type randomly for a hundred thousand years, he would eventually produce a gigantic sci fi space epic in which two female characters kiss as he tearfully masturbates.”

    1. Sci-fi epics with hot lesbo moments generated from monkeys on typewriters are equally as likely as Hamlet (i.e. not that likely afterall).

      Mathematics is a self-destructive tool of the patriarchy; crushing our own nerd dreams.

  54. You’re just as likely to type the epic on the first day of typing as you are on the last day of the one hundred thousand years.

    1. This book has my favorite debunking of the “infinite monkeys on infinite typewriters” theorem.

      http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1400040922/reasonmagazinea-20/

    2. 1) There’s no reason to assume that the author meant the one hundredth thousand year exactly. A reasonable person would assume that 100,000 years was the upper limit on lesbian masturbation.

      2) The author never explicitly states that “random” isn’t subject to the “above writer’s” implicit bias.

      Also:

      1) I realize that “2)” doesn’t make any sense.

      2) Why am I defending some random shit I found funny a few years ago?

      1. Less weed, more sleep…

  55. Barack Obama on the stage, the American economy was unprecedented strike, these reasons exactly and leaders of the ruling ability and the leadership how many relationship?

  56. Dont see how the quote is creepy. Presidents are supposed to lead. Tea party types like you are the real fascists

    1. Less PCP, more sleep…

    2. Whoops, my bad. I see from your handle that your hallucinogenic of choice is STP

    3. You know who else wanted less government…

    4. *sllllllURRRRRRRRRRRP* — !!!

      1. All the way down to the root, bitch… ahhhhhhhhhh…

  57. there once was a nigger
    he made our country wither
    HE FUCKING BLOWS IMPEAcH TH FUCKER

    1. Fake troll is fake.

      1. not so much a troll as an illustrate-retardation-of-the-right-wingers sort of guy

        yes, i’m a liberal, but no, i’m not a troll

        you people seriously believe the new deal made things worse — why doesnt anyone take you dudes seriously?

        1. Yet, here you are.

        2. Townhall.com is over that way ——>

          1. i’m actually a libertarian leaning independent type guy, i was just testing the waters

            you guys are much better than the idiots at washington post — you say something like i did from a right-wing point of view, and theyll blow up like a fucking nuclear bomb

            1. As long as someone is making an honest argument, I don’t care what direction they’re coming from.

        3. not so much a troll as an illustrate-retardation-of-the-right-wingers sort of guy

          Why is it always the ones who punctuate and spell at the level of two-year-olds with profound head trauma who bray most idiotically, re: their own (ostensibly) dizzying intellects…?

    2. Even our run of the mill pieces of shit can rhyme. Geez.

    3. there once was a nigger

      Stormfront.org is over that way —>

  58. More brute economic illiteracy to be shared; this time from noted online crucible of crazy, FireDogLake.

    After admitting, grudgingly, that “[California] is in a near depression, with unemployment over 11 percent and foreclosures at record levels,” the blogger then plaintively wails:

    So why not ask for federal help? Why not borrow? […] the money’s almost free and the rates tell us the markets are begging to lend it.

    Honest to Hastur, you just don’t know whether to laugh or cry.

    1. try getting your crap together and moving to fucking antarctica if you dont like government assistance you fucking anarchist

      1. Nothing BUT government assistance (and penguin shit) in Antarctica…

        1. penguin shit

          Are you saying I’m from Antarctica?

      2. moving to fucking antarctica if you dont like government assistance

        too retarded;didn’t read

      3. “Why, no, I honestly don’t have Clue One as to how money actually works, now that you mention it.”

        1. Uh, yes I do. I almost got a bachelor’s degree in economics. Basically, you can print as much money as you want, and nothing bad happens because right-wingers are retarded and think Obama is a nigger.

          1. What a coincidence! I’m almost a WWI flying ace!

            1. I almost don’t turn everything I touch into gigantic mountains of unalloyed suck!

  59. This chatroom blows.

    1. Gay Friendfinder is over that way —–>

  60. why the fuck are reason bloggers not posting the morning links? i love this site’s morning links section, especially that isolated incidents guy

    1. No shit. I have a bomb to drop, and shit to do.

      1. Wow, that came out all wrong. hehe

  61. Lefties always pine for dictatorship.

    1. I really don’t see how it’s any of your business if I’m pining for dick. What two consenting adult men (or a man and his cat) do behind closed doors is their own goddamn business.

  62. Those guys really seem to know what the deal is. WOw.

    http://www.anon-web.it.tc

  63. Good article more useful to me, I will continue to pay attention, and I love ,I hope you lot just my site! discount aline wedding dresses http://www.tofuchina.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.