Occupy DC Digs Democracy, Hints at Revolution, Doesn't like War, Corporations, or The Two Party System


Occupy DC has some familiar faces if you ever saw a protest (or footage of one) from the Bush years.

Code Pink was there yesterday and the Raging Grannies; there were a few Ron Paul signs and a few more for Ending the Fed; some hooded, orange jumpsuit-clad Gitmo protesters, the obligatory slightly off-key marching band, and people excited to be out holding signs. Perhaps this is where the anti-war movement has been hiding.

These folks were not as inanely partisan as the poor bastards captured in Adam Kokesh's video from the beginnings of the DC movement, but they still can be summed up (to a great extent) by the fact that many of the thousand-odd marchers chanted "Shame! Shame! Shame!" as they passed PNC Bank, but not a peep when they passed the White house. They also chanted "Where are the jobs? Where are the jobs?" in front of the Chamber of Commerce. A speaker with a very quiet bullhorn declared they had in fact "shut down the Chamber of Commerce."

The initially anti-Bush, now interested in "stopping the crimes of this government" group World Can't Wait played a large part in the event. This 10-years-since-the-Afghan-invasion protest had been planned for months and some of the anti-war people said they were using the new Occupy movements as a media piggyback, but they seemed to be in support of "the 99" in general. Here's The Alyona Show interviewing one of the of the organizers of the more structured, anti-war events. 

And here is a look at a few of the people we found occupying D.C.

Samantha Goldman, 24, a graduate student studying education, is from Philly. She was wearing a World Can't Wait shirt with a missile and the query, "Is it really okay when Obama does it?" She supports the Occupy movements, but "We have to think about 99 percent of the planet….[Americans] are the one percent in a certain way." And "the problem is capitalism and the solution is revolution….The U.S. needs, in order to stay the number one superpower, to take resources from all over the world." Her hoped-for, if far off, communist revolution would have to be "by force."  

Andy Batcher, 30, a grad student studying in Vermont, who works with the NGO Nonviolence International, said "The country is dominated by corporate interests." He was passing out anti-war fliers for "something to do." "I think that there's a lot of voices that want to be heard," he said. Also "the same interests that are pursuing these multiple wars that we are in are connected to our financial system." Those interests, he said after some consideration, are "Profit. Profit maximization." Government and corporations are equally to blame for the state of the world, and it's "not a partisan thing." At least "the issues are not partisan" 

Barry Freed, 22, wearing a classic Anonymous/Guy Fawkes mask, is a college graduate from Pennsylvania. He has

 a job, and is "not a dirty hippie.

Freed is disgusted with the two party system.

I don't want the lesser of the two evils….I want to choose the right candidate who will steer the country in a direction that the masses want, instead of what two people want…We are one of the only democracies that has two parties and it divides our country in two.

He seemed to think of the Occupy movements as big conversations, which is why he was not worried about the lack of a coherent message. He has already attended some planning meetings for Occupy Harrisburg and intends to eventually get to Occupy Wall Street. "We are not a left Tea Party, we are not conservative. We are the middle," he said. 

His official motivation, hence the sign in hand, was that he "wants to end the Fed." But he was glad to see other people out with their own messages. One solution for the troubles of the world could be a Fairness Doctine type rule, but for everyone, which would "allow everyone fair air time" because dissenting viewpoints are being "stifled by media and corporations."

Sherman Taylor, 28, was a foreman for Toll Brothers, a residential development company. He says speculators and the housing bubble led to him losing his job. And:

I'm here because of my fear for the wealthy….Are you familiar with Bastille day? The American revolution, the fall of Rome, the fall of China. Every single time the disparity becomes too great, the poor go after the rich….

America is "ten times overdue for a revolution" in the fashion advised by Thomas Jefferson, Taylor said. "We're still using the King's unit of measure! We haven't even gone metric! That shouldn't be that hard of a change!"

Taylor's revolution would look like "Socialism, a lot like socialism." He believes "housing is a human right, being fed is a human right, you have a right to a job for a wage that we can afford for ourselves and our offspring. We are not being afforded that right anymore." 

Socialism is far away, though. We still have to get beyond "monetizing everything." A festival community in which "if you don't contribute, you get ostracized" is how that process might get started. When asked if he wanted to say anything else, Taylor said, "We have the technology, let's take care of everyone. Isn't that a nice sentiment to end on?"  

As the report Nick Gillespie pointed to below said, most of these protesters were fairly cheerful, very keen on letting different voices be heard, all in the name of democracy. But that's been a part of left and anarchist movements for a long time. In my limited look at the protests, there were a few promising signs; the Obama love has grown at least a bit cold, there's opposition to war and empire. Lots of people are looking beyond the two-party system, but few–if any–are looking beyond the amount of power the U.S. government possess; they just want to spead that power around a whole lot more.

Check out Anthony L. Fisher and Reason.tv's great video from Occupy Wall Street, below:

NEXT: Pill Pushers

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. One out of three alt-texts? For shame Lucy.

  2. "Isn't that a nice sentiment to end on?"

    This is what happens when you destroy education.

      1. This is awesome.

  3. Love me some Adam Kokesh hotness.

  4. A festival community where "if you don't contribute, you get ostracized" is how you that would start that process.

    Oh God, if only. I would love nothing more than to never have to deal with people like this jackass ever again. Please ostracize me. Let me live my life the way that I want to without you interfering.

    1. Housing and food are human "rights"...except, apparently, if you don't "contribute" enough, which I'm sure will be in no way vaguely and arbitrarily determined.

      1. And you have re-education camps and mass murder. That is where this shit always leads. It is both depressing and amazing that less than 25 years after the fall of communism we have people believing in it again.

        1. What about me?

          1. Feering a rittre ronery?

            1. Fhoh Eva Arone.

        2. Yep. He ignores the fact that the main way over the last 100 years that people have been officially ostracized, is by putting them behind barbed-wire.

          Harry Dean Stanton:

          "Boys! Avenge me! Avenge me!"

    2. No thank you. You, and I, and most of the H&R commenters would start trading with each other and building cool stuff, then the communal people would notice. Even though we'd have better weapons, they would overtake us by sheer force of numbers. Then we'd be right back where we started.

      1. So, they're like fast zombies?

        1. Not as smart though.

          1. not a fair comparison. Zombies can get smarter by just consuming brains. Live humans have to actually use theirs to see any improvement.

            1. Come on, have you even tried it?

    3. A festival community where "if you don't contribute, you get ostracized" is how you that would start that process.

      Oh... you mean like what happens RIGHT NOW? And is the very reason most of the people are marching? Society is not valuing their contribution and is thus ostracizing them by not paying for whatever they're offering.

      1. Valuing their contribution? You don't get it, dude. The universe owes these gentle souls all of the comforts that everyone else has to work for.

        1. I wonder if they realize how few artists there actually were in the Soviet Union? They seem to think they should be compensated for what most people would term "Hobbies," and that they should never have to do anything unpleasant to make a living. None seem to have followed this concept to its logical conclusion, unless I'm way off about the number of people whose dream job is picking up garbage or working 12 hour shifts in a mine.

    4. Oops, shoulda read the comments before focusing on this one line as I did below.

      It's really such a great example of how incoherent they really are, though. I guess I shouldn't be surprised that everyone singled this bit out.

  5. "Is It Really Okay When Obama Does It?"

    Hope rising, rising...

    "hoped-for...communist revolution..."

    Hope dashed, it's corpse bloated and water-logged, staring lidlessly into an abyss of eternal sorrow.

    1. "Is It Really Okay When Obama Does It?"

      The unstated but truthful answer, which they're understandably ashamed to put on any of their signs, is "Yes. Yes it is."

    2. .....maybe they don't all have colds and stuffy noses. some of them catch the stench of fascism wafting out of the Obama White House....

      1. Now there's a sign to carry. SEIU goons might break your kneecaps for that one.

  6. "We have to think about 99 percent of the planet...[Americans] are the one percent in a certain way." And "the problem is capitalism and the solution is revolution..."

    That is just pathetic. What we need to do is round up some people form Eastern Europe, Cambodia, and China and lock this bitch up in a room with some real victims of communism.

    1. Not only round up victims of communism, but its beneficiaries as well. The 1% that got rich because they knew the right people and could work the system, kinda like Solyndra.

      1. (I remember Katarina Witt whining about the end of the commies in Germany because she wouldn't be able to buy her shiny, expensive costumes at taxpayer expense anymore)

        1. She was sadly a first class communist stooge. But somehow her enormous breasts and beautiful legs make me forget all about that. I could have never been an agent in the Cold War.

          1. BEing a hetero female, I pretty much just looked at her skating style, which was for shit.

            1. She won two gold metals. And I liked her better than the whinney Debbie Thomas.

              1. This was before athletic skills like jumping were graded on a difficulty scale....the Carmen routine was nice & artsy, but technically and athletically deficient. Hell, she could barely get full extension of her legs.

                1. BTW, I thought Muchelle Kwan's Salome was a good example of artistry mixed with athleticism. We're are talking about a sport here, so I generally go for the big jumping and such, with interesting music and dancelike moves being a nice bonus.

                  1. But it just seems like now all they do is jump. I am old school. I would bring back the compulsories. Make them do double rockers and draw figures on the ice again.

                    And hey, when you are stacked like Witt is, it is hard to get off the ground.

                    1. I loved the compulsories. They represented pure technical and athletic ability.

                    2. And I'm sure it was hard to stop once she got those things spinning.

                    3. Talk about centrifuge...

            1. A NSFW would have been nice. But admittedly so was the picture.

    2. Our example, our promotion of the liberal state, our economic engine, our Pax Americana--I'm thinking much of the world is way in our debt.

      Not that we don't do shitty things, but it's dumb to act like we're stealing from the rest of the world. We occupied Iraq, but we didn't take their oil. We buy what we need and want.

      1. It is like I always used to tell my German friends when they bitched about how bad the America was. I said "nothing lasts forever and some day the US won't be on top and someone like the Chinese or the Indians will be. And when that happens I bet you will really miss the US". None of them ever had a response other then muffled silence.

    3. We're the 1% thanks to capitalism.

      1. Closer to 5%, I think.

        1. But we use 25% of the world's power! We're Greedy!!!!!!

          No mention of how much of the world's power we generate, how much of the world's food we grow, how much of the world's technology we have created, etc...

    4. It must be true. It rhymes!

  7. Here is the thing for Democrats. In the past the Democrats have always been good about keeping the real fruit loops combined to conferences, fund raisers, back rooms and college campuses. They have never let the nuts be the face of the party. Twenty years no way would a nut like Elizabeth Warren ever have been allowed to assume a prominent public role in the Democratic Party.

    That seems to be changing. If these demonstrations continue and these people feel emboldened, isn't it just going to scare the hell out of middle America? And won't that be a really bad thing for Democrats if they let the media cover these people and associate them with the party?

    1. You're looking at it from our ("our" being broadly defined as anti-statism) point of view.

      As a former shit-eating leftist, I can tell you the way they look at it. They believe the republican party began getting radicalized when they put Clinton through the dog-and-pony show over his affairs.

      Then the neocons came, and the leftists REALLY thought the shit had hit the fan. The security state, PATRIOT Act, the wars, etc. This hyper-leftism, to them, is a natural backlash and reaction of the Newtonian variety to what they perceive as being the ultra-radicalization of the republican party from the late 90s - 2006 (when Bush started tacking towards the middle, after the Blue Crush election that year).

      Not saying any of this makes sense or is accurate, but that's how the guys in the circles I used to run in feel about it. They could have kept some coherence by actually, you know, remaining against the security state and the wars even AFTER their guys took power, but as is the nature of partisans everywhere, they immediately sold out the second they got a taste of that sweet, sweet lucre. Just as I'm sure the republicans will once we return them to power next year.

      1. James Toranto made the point the other day about how the Tea Party did a lot of good but it also produced unelectable candidates in Delaware and Nevada. People generally won't vote for nuts or at least won't vote for nuts who can't hide it well.

        I guess your buddies are delusional and think the country is ready to vote for a communist revolution. But if I am a Democratic politician who has to win an election, I am thinking that is a really bad idea.

        1. They aren't looking at it through the lens of electability so much as activism. In that regard, I'm still a lot like them; like Epi and Old Mex, I don't believe ultimate solutions can or will ever come from the ballot box, so I focus on the message and trying to live it every day.

          Same thing with them. They're protesting in NYC...do they really think NYC is going to become any more blue than it already is? No, but the important thing, is to get the message out and to try and radicalize those who may have been on the edge before.

          1. So they really like pissing in the wind. Sorry, but that doesn't sound like much of a winner to me.

            1. Jesus Charlie Sheen, what's with your focus on "winning"? I'd rather be a principaled loser than a statist winner, which is what most of the "electable" field of both parties consist of.

              1. I am not talking from my perspective. I am talking from the perspective of a politician. And if you depending on winning to eat, principled losing doesn't feed the bull dog.

                1. I thought of a better way to put this. These activists are like libertarians. Libs know we're not about to win any landslide elections anytime soon. But hopefully we can make enough noise to nudge the conversation in directions we're wanting to go.

                  They're the same way. The (non-delusional) activists probably understand that they aren't going to get a majority of the minority who vote (another myth: elections represent the will of the majority. The majority of geezers, maybe) to agree with them. But with enough noise and media exposure, they may shift the paradigm of the conversation in a direction they want to go, even if only slightly.

                  1. I understand the protesters' mentality. It is just that in the past the Democrats did a good job of keeping these people confined to places outside of public view and preventing them from becoming the face of the party. If they become the face of the party, that is not good for the dems.

                    1. If they become the face of the party, that is not good for the dems.

                      I get what you're saying, but I think there'll be a short-term bump in their favor, like there was with the TP. Hell, the TP helped much more than it hurt (Nevada, Delaware) on the balance sheet, I think. Helped reps take back control of the House.

                      Of course, the TP is now seen with disfavor by a majority of people (if one believes polls, which I usually do not). So there's always a danger of over-exposure.

                      All of this is even assuming that the DNC has some sort of control over these protests, which is far from certain. Maybe it will hurt them, but they can't stop it, because they aren't in control of it, anymore than the mainstream GOP could derail the Witch's nomination in Delaware, even though they tried.

                  2. The majority of geezers, maybe

                    If I took away one lesson from working the polls, this is it: Old people vote. Some of the geezers looked like Death was waiting outside to chauffeur them to the cemetery, but they were gonna stop at the polls first. They'd come in toting oxygen bottles and drooling on themselves, because voting is important, by gum!

                    1. Plus, it's probably the only reason they have to leave the home all year.

                    2. It's the biggest party of the year for the over 70 set. They all come out. And if they run into one other geezer they know, you get to listen to an hour about who died and got ill this year.

                  3. The more this kind of crap keeps up, and the more the Obama admin keeps pushing around mmj users (and EVERYONE loves them some ganj when the state allows it), the closer libertarians get to being able to win a landslide election. Look at Ron Paul's numbers in the last 3 years.

        2. And on the TP issue...frankly, I'd rather have an unelectable candidate like Gary Johnson than to feel like a "winner" by voting for someone "electable" like Mitt Romney. I think you're putting too much emphasis on that. Generally "electable" people are sell-out douchebags.

          And the dem politicians are eating this up. First, most of them look moderate in comparison, which helps them. Secondly, there's a mild fear factor involved...a "you see, these people are ready to revolt, so electing more radical conservatives will simply push this thing to boil over".

          Remember, a lot of people thought the TP was radical, but they still changed the nature of the game, however briefly. This has the potential to do the same.

          1. I think the fear factor is going to kill them. And it is really going to kill Obama. Seriously, does anyone really think that Obama can win by showing that law and order is going to break down along with the economy?

            Jesus Christ, a Pat Buchanan David Duke ticket could win if the main issue in the election is who is going to do something about the rampaging hippie mobs.

            1. Jesus Christ, a Pat Buchanan David Duke ticket could win if the main issue in the election is who is going to do something about the rampaging hippie mobs.

              I'd pay to see this.

          2. I'd rather have an unelectable candidate like Gary Johnson...
            and that gains you what exactly? I would rather have someone who is 80% or even 60% in my direction that someone who is 100% the opposite.

            Dems don't look moderate with this troupe. Most people are sharp enough to understand that this troupe IS Dems, the unvarnished kind that is not beholden to consultants, pollsters, word doctors, and managers.

            1. And what have we gained from embracing the republican party? Everyone thought that with Regan, we'd get more libertarianism input, and barely a decade later, we get neocon Bush & Co.

              Unless you're more of a traditional conservative than libertarian, I really don't see you getting anything except lies and promises from the GOP. They only sound the siren song of small gov't when they're out of power, and want the libertarian vote to help them get back in. They've stabbed those principals in the back one too many times for me to fall for that.

              Also, no offense, but I think you lose a close one to the Hogs tomorrow. Still, much, much better than I thought you would be with Cam gone. Color me impressed.

              1. that's what I meant about being on the same page 60-80% of the time. With Dems, it's zero. They don't even talk the small govt game, let alone do it. I am under no illusions that Repubs are the end-all be-all, but they are less dangerous, less seemingly intent on destruction.

                On tomorrow, like Herman Edwards said - it's why you play the game. I won't see it as an upset if we win; key is putting pressure on their qb. Cam was worth twice the price I paid for tickets, but the well did not dry when he left. Young but not empty and, five games in, young is no longer an excuse.

                1. That's what I meant about being on the same page 60-80% of the time.

                  George W. Bush is on the same page as libertarians 60?80% of the time? Speak for your fucking self, asshole.

                  They don't even talk the small govt game, let alone do it.

                  Talk is nothing without action. Actually, no: it's worse than nothing, because it makes people associate good talk ("free markets") with bad action (corporatism). So a pox on both their houses, and yours.

                  I am under no illusions that Repubs are the end-all be-all, but they are less dangerous, less seemingly intent on destruction.

                  That depends in large part on what country you're unlucky enough to live in.

    2. it would be bad if you could count on middle American taking the time to think through some of the drivel this bunch is spewing, and if you could count on middle America to read beyond the headlines. This is the same middle America that ignored the array of red flags billowing about Obama.

      Some people take the likes of Warren seriously because she is degreed. They have been conditioned to accept that just because a person went to certain schools, he/she is qualified to do anything. Add to that a media culture that regularly presents liberal orthodoxy as mainstream, even normal, and those outside its bounds start to think the problem is them. Lastly, much of middle America dislikes banks, too, along with Wall St in general because it feels better to do that than to reason that your 401k or pension or other retirement program is tied into the mechanisms these protesters claim to hate.

      1. Mainstream America is not and never has been socialist or communist. And having someone like Warren take a prominent public role is a really bad idea. It is like they have totally forgotten every lesson they learned in the 1990s.

        1. It is like they have totally forgotten every lesson they learned in the 1990s.

          Yes, they have. They're not socialist or communist but how many folks are on the receiving end of some type social welfare vs. paying in. Too many are willing to make tradeoffs rather than give that up.
          How many of these folks voted FOR Obama because he sounded like a better alternative to what they were experiencing. In a sense, it's why torture works...if you are uncomfortable enough, you will do lots of things that once seemed improbable.

          How many are on the receiving end of govt benefits as opposed to paying in.

          1. The democrats are a socialist party. Hell a lot of their congresscritters would be on the far left in Europe.

      2. To be fair, alot supposedly reasonable people on a certain supposedly reasonable blog didn't see the billowing red flags either.

        Drink, its Friday bitches.

        1. They voted for him because they wanted to punish the Republicans and convinced themselves he wasn't a communist.

        2. Is that two drinks? One for each reasonable?

    3. Now the hipsters can vacation there without guilt! Of course, they'll have no cleaning services, rice & beans for supper, and 19th century diving bells for their SCUBA excursions.

      1. Fucking squirrels - this was meant to reply to the Chavez seizing vacation resorts article from Michael

    4. Now the hipsters can vacation there without guilt! Of course, they'll have no cleaning services, rice & beans for supper, and 19th century diving bells for their SCUBA excursions.

  8. Here's some more true revolutionary spirit.


  9. "the problem is capitalism..."

    I just love that. Which capitalistic enterprise is princess troubled by? Is it the one that manufactured the components and produced the fuel that made her transportation from Philly to DC possible?
    How about the one that create the communication toys her life revolves around? Perhaps she can give back her cell phone, laptop, and other devices those evil capitalists within communication/technology created?
    Maybe it's the network of capitalists in the food production and distribution system that leaves her distraught. Perhaps she would prefer us to become like the old Soviet Union and those famous pictures of people waiting in line before empty shelves.
    And, she is a GRADUATE STUDENT. My god; she was shuffled through four years of allegedly higher education and learned absolutely nothing. Then again, she was at the knee of all those high-minded idealists who occupy faculty lounges thinking deep thoughts that sound good in societal petrie dishes but have no application outside them.
    The one thing this occupy thing is doing is exposing American colleges and universities for the sham that many are. I hesitate to say all as I actually had some decent professors; my dad was one; and some of you are, and it is doubtful you subscribe to the notions being heard from this gathering of grunge. Sadly, the good appear to be vastly outnumbered.

    1. She is a graduate student in "education" which is about like having a third grade education sixty years ago.

      1. education student...figures. Lovely; she gets to perpetuate this cycle of entitlement with the next generation.

    2. That's not capitalism, its... something else. Steve Jobs wasn't really a capitalist, not like those nasty Koch brothers. Capitalism is all the stuff they don't like.

      1. Just remind those folks about little Chinese people jumping off the roof at Foxcomm because of the pressure of cranking out Apple's produtcs.

    3. I always liked the professors in my science classes, like physics, because they demanded precision. Although I did like my linguistics professors too, but that was still the study of an actual system, not floating aimlessly in space like most liberal arts classes.

    4. I'd love to hear one of these knuckleheads attempt to square their anti-capitalist zeal with reality like this:


  10. Here is another idea. How about we have a "leave the USA" movement. The thing for these people to do is go to Cuba or North Korea where you are guaranteed a job and free health care. Why stay in the evil USA? Maybe we could take up a collection to buy them plane tickets.

    1. I remember Alec Baldwin threatening that years ago. But, he's still here, still cashing checks from that evil corporate structure the left claims to hate.

    2. I'd like to see them all go to a "folk music concert" at the big soccer stadium.

  11. I love this bit:

    he was glad to see other people out with their own messages. One solution for the troubles of the world could be a Fairness Doctine type rule, but for everyone, which would "allow everyone fair air time" because dissenting viewpoints are being "stifled by media and corporations."

    What's going to happen when speech with which they disagree is given as much time as enviro-vegan-back-to-tipis rhetroic?

    In some ways, it seems like the fairness doctrine might work in favor of free speech. Everyone really would be guaranteed a voice - by law. Whether you want to hear racist-corporatist-sexist-anti_whatever_ sentiment or not, FAIRNESS will ensure we all get it, all the time

    1. Fairness doesn't mean hate speech mad biker. It just means fair time to approved and acceptable views.

      1. It just means fair time to approved and acceptable views.

        so it would be like NPR all the time?

        Thought so.

        1. Exactly. Anything right of Garrison Keeler is hate speech. We might let a centrist like Bill Maher talk once in a while for balance. But that is it.

          1. I'm tempted to go down to my local Wells-Fargo and interview the protesters there. I wonder what they would have to say about the fairness doctrine, green jobs/green energy, utopia, veganism, etc.

            On a side note, I wonder if or how many of the protesters have read More's Utopia. The work can be viewed as satirical; outside of satire, considering More's ideals, highly organized societies would have to be too tightly regulated in order to achieve such ideals.

            I rather admire More; the Dead Catholic Inside My Head (band name! blog name? song name?) holds him in high regard for his adherence to principles, and I don't think of his principles as misguided or prosecutable, which is, perhaps, what makes him all the more admirable in my mind.

            But back to the point: protesters who want Utopia seem not to have any familiarity with the work that sparked the "movement." Nor have they read the Communist Manifesto or any histories of socialism in the 20th century.

            1. No they haven't. But if they understood those things, they would have to give up on things like multiculturalism and environmentalism that really are not in any way compatible with actual Marxism.

            2. I know a guy who claims to have been a commie all his adult life (he's in his 50's), but only read Das Kapital last year. And, of course, he's never read The Wealth of Nations.

              Unfortunately, I was required to read both in college (I say unfortunately, because not even a neutron star can compare in density to 19th century political philosophy. But maybe I'm just a shallow beyotch).

              1. I just started Wealth of Nations this week. It is thick as a muthafucka!

                1. Eff that 2 volume tome, just read the P.J. O'Rourke interpretation. I'd never get thru the original version without falling into a coma.


        2. NPR all the time? I would sooner saw my own head off.

    2. They would have room for all views. For example, in a debate on energy policy, equal time would be given to both groups: those who think solar is the best, and those who think wind is the best.

      1. We got both kinds: Country and Western!

  12. "One solution for the troubles of the world could be a Fairness Doctine type rule, but for everyone, which would 'allow everyone fair air time' because dissenting viewpoints are being 'stifled by media and corporations.'"


    What's that? Nobody reads your blog? I begin to understand what you mean by fair, and why you gravitate toward words like rule.

  13. I don't understand all the harsh vibes. All the liberaltarians for years assured us that these were the people we needed to team up with. The real problem was always the religious squares who would get all "Christiany" and stuff, even if they didn't want to use state power to enforce it.

    1. Terminal vapidness deserves harshness in response. This band of nothings takes cluelessness to new heights with alleged rights to food, housing, presumably reliable transportation, and work that pays well but is not too taxing. Can't imagine libertarians ever throwing in with the dependency class.

  14. I just walked by the Fed in DC (just north of the Vietnam War memorial, off the mall). A 60+ year old security guard had his MP-40 on display across his chest. No protesters. A tourist asking him about his gun. Various bureacrats enjoying the nice day and lining up at the ethopian food truck.

    1. Oh!!! The Ethiopian is out there today!! It's getting late, though...might have missed out. I hate that I can't get decent Ethiopian in the suburban wasteland that is NoVA.

      1. Where did the Ethiopian restaurants go? I thought the moved to NOVA. When I was here in the 1990s, they were all in Adams Morgan. When I came back 10 years later they were gone.

        1. gentrification. you have to poke around the lower rent strip malls in Arlington and Alexandria.

          1. Got any Metro-accessible recommendations?

            1. other than the crystal city place that you mentioned below, there's a place in Baily's crossroads called Meaza on Columbia pike. not only is that not metro, it's in Baily's crossroads. so i can't actually recommend you go there without a car.

            2. Dukem on U street is fabulous... http://dukemrestaurant.com/

              1. I second the Dukem recommendation. The U Street and 14th Street corridors are where much of the Ethiopian goodness in DC is now to be found.

                BTW, there's a decent Ethiopian place on the little 23rd Street "restaurant row" in Arlington.

                1. BTW, sorry Kristen that I didn't see your reference that you had been to the place on 23rd Street. I like it, but I hardly claim to be a connoisseur.

                  There's got to be at least one Ethiopian place in Clarendon, I'd think, given how the restaurant scene there has expanded.

                  1. My neighborhood (Huntington/Penn Daw) offers horrible pizza, horrible Chinese, horrible Thai, horrible TexMex, OK pho, and OK Peruvian chicken. And that's pretty much all she wrote. I could go up to Beacon Hill for horrible chain restaurants. I could go to Old Town for more variety, but no Ethiopian could afford the rents there. The proprietors of "my" hangout (Tiffany Tavern) own the building, I believe, so they can afford lower pricing and a more....errrr...casual atmosphere.

                    1. if you want Thai -- try Bangkok 54 on Columbia pike -- it's next to the cinema drafthouse. order the duck spring rolls (off menu) if you don't mind a trip further out try Elephant Jumps in the Dunn Loring/Merrified area. little family owned place that's great (basil scallops)

                    2. Don't Maruka Sushi right next door!

                    3. Don't forget...

                    4. I hear Columbia Pike and I think hinterlands. If I had a car, it would be different - then I could go to Atilla's also. But as it is, I'm pretty much stuck in the Yellow line corridor (because I'm lazy and god forbid I have to switch trains!)

                      I hope the used car market picks up soon as I can get my lil Nissan Versa.

                    5. It's not as much fun, but the various #16 bus lines on Columbia Pike are good and plentiful, even on weekends, and you can catch them at the Pentagon. I used to live off that street. However, there's really not that much along there to get interested in.

                      The Yellow Line in Va. is kind of tough for good dining options, outside of Old Town and Crystal City.

        2. Meskerem and Fasika's are still on 18th in AM, and I think there's another one, too, down the street from Meskerem. The only one that closed, AFAIK, is Red Sea, which also struck me as a cockroach breeding ground. If you have a cuisine that is eaten by hand, your premises better be clean.

          There is one Ethiopian in Crystal City, but they don't have my favorite dish on the menu.

          1. For those of us who lived in Adams Morgan in the 80s there are a lot of Ethiopian places that have closed.

        3. If you live in the DC metro area, you have to check out Tyler Cowen's Ethnic Dining Guide.

          Foodie + economics = yum


          1. Thanks Abdul! Seems NoVA Hickey was right about all the suburban Ethiopian being located in obscure strip malls.

        4. Silver Spring and Georgia Ave.

    2. Got a problem with guns? A security guard without a gun like like a vibrator without batteries, useless. 🙂

      1. Isn't a vibrator without batteries basically a dildo? So it's not useless afterall.

  15. This is what vaccination gets you.

    1. Ha! I got your joke.

  16. http://newyork.cbslocal.com/20.....n-subways/

    Reasons why there should be an absolute right to carry a gun. Where the hell is Bernard Getz when you need him?

    1. Hispanic male, 17-20, 55-10 to 6-1, 190 pounds, with a piercing in his right eyebrow.

      Well, this guy shouldn't be too hard to find. Might need some military ordinance to take him down, though.

      1. One big dude. But he can mate with the 50 ft. woamn.

      2. Shouldn't be hard to find? Not if he turns sideways.

  17. A festival community in which "if you don't contribute, you get ostracized" is how that process might get started.

    So we're right back to "earning" and "deserving" again.

    Well, I have to tell you that I prefer a system of "earning" and "deserving" that allows for private initiative and savings, because if you just do a really good job at earning and deserving you reach a point where you can tell people to go fuck themselves. In a "festival system" of earning and deserving, you get to abase yourself anew before the collective each and every day for the rest of your life, one meal at a time. No fucking thanks.

    1. That is just it. The market allocates goods by giving it to those who are luckiest, work the hardest, and have the most ingenuity. The collective allocates them by giving them to those who have the most political power and connections.

      In communist countries your quality of life never depended upon how good you were at anything. It depended upon how good your network of connections and corruption was. And how good of graces you were in with the powers that be.

      1. Given that fact, it makes sense that a bunch of people with unmarketable degrees but wealthy connected parents would think communism was a great idea.

    2. I prefer to just be left alone.

      Note: I don't do well in groups. Unless it is beer drinking.

  18. Samantha Goldman is looking forward to being Comrade Kaprugina.


  19. Sherman Taylor, 28, is a foreman for Toll Brothers who would never have had his job if not for speculators and the housing bubble.

  20. I hate things that aren't fair. Hot super models should be forced to have sex with me instead of douchbags. It's my right.

  21. Krugabe says these kids just need some Top Men to tell them what they REALLY want.

    It would probably be helpful if protesters could agree on at least a few main policy changes they would like to see enacted. But we shouldn't make too much of the lack of specifics. It's clear what kinds of things the Occupy Wall Street demonstrators want, and it's really the job of policy intellectuals and politicians to fill in the details.

    Reading that column is like looking at a Salvador Dali painting; you're pretty sure he was observing three-dimensional reality, but something awful happened inside his head, and what managed to escape was horribly mangled.

    1. If he ever attracted followers, Krugabe could be downright dangerous.

    2. You really shouldn't diss Dali by comparing him to Krugnuts.

      1. Much of Dali's work was influenced by Einstein's theories and other emerging physics, like extra dimensions. For that, he is awesome, even if I don't totally "get" it.

        1. I have five Dali posters on my walls in my home office. I'm fascinated by surrealism in general, but Dali's at the top of the heap.

  22. I really can't wait for when the communist take over and slaughter all of the grad sudents and professors ala khmer rouge and implement the "fairness" doctrine ala China. Fucking retards.

    1. I had a similar thought - going there with a t-shirt that says "Come the Revolution it won't be a Capitalist crushing your skull".

  23. http://newyork.cbslocal.com/20.....-officers/

    Zuccotti Park Owners: Sanitation Becoming A Problem, Quit Hogging The Place

    It is actually difficult to live outside. You have the be really clean and organized or you will get sick. That is why the military are such fanatics about cleanliness. An army in the field has to be. So how long before these people start getting sick?

    1. +1 Typhoid Hippy

    2. The bloody flux has been the death of many a protest.

  24. Leftist totalitarians will always be supported by legions of useful idiots who believe that their government will wisely and benevolently wield the instruments of tyranny for some reason. WTF

  25. Several assistants form my office went down the Freedom Sq. yesterday during lunch hour. I asked why. They said they were protesting "the corporations". Why? Because they have all this money and they aren't hiring. Plus Congress (Republicans) are not passing laws to force them to spend money to hire people.

    Just wanting to clear things up for those who didn't understand what this was all about.

    1. Did they say anything about roads or Somalia?

      1. Is that a Bob Hope/Bing Crosby movie?

        1. The Road To Somalia? I must have missed that when my dad was watching all those movies.

    2. I assume the fact that they had jobs to come back to after lunch means either that (a) they were hired to fill out a mentally handicapped quota or (b) you don't have authority to fire them.

      1. I did mention the irony. But, I love them anyway.


    TO ME"

  27. If anyone has any interest here's my account of yesterday's rally:


  28. Every time I wonder if this bunch should be taken seriously, someone like Sherman Taylor comes along to remind me not to. At least not until the unions get really involved and the first store window is broken.

  29. More Krugabe:

    In the first act, bankers took advantage of deregulation to run wild (and pay themselves princely sums), inflating huge bubbles through reckless lending.

    I remember the good old days in the late twentieth century, when banking was the last bastion of wildcat laissez-faire banking. Those were the days.

    Jamie Dimon and Dick Fuld would go to wakes and pry the pennies off the eyes of dead men, just because they could.

    1. Orwell was wrong; in the real world, we don't need any Minitrue, because our history books are Choose Your Own Adventure.

  30. I hate corporations. Do I..
    A) Boycott them by not buying thousands of dollars worth of electronics and the latest fashions or b) whine.

    1. C) Petition the gov't to enforce your ideals on them.

    2. This is about as clever as calling a libertarian a hypocrite for driving on government-built roads or calling a fire department paid for with tax dollars.

      Good for you.

  31. Sanitation becoming a problem?

    When the rats get really bold, bring in some snakes.

    1. And when the snakes get bold do we bring in the snake-eating gorillas?

      1. And when the gorillas get bold, we bring in the simian-hating elephants.

        1. And when the elephants get bold, we chase them away with rats.

      2. Mongooses.

  32. http://news.yahoo.com/poll-cai.....15440.html

    In news sure to inject shock and awe into the Republican political primary season, a Zogby poll released Thursday showed Herman Cain leading the Republican field, topping former front-runner Mitt Romney by an astonishing 20 points. Cain would also narrowly edge out Obama in a general election, the poll found, by a 46?"44 margin.

    WTF? Is Cain for real?

    1. I was arguing pretty strongly the other day that Cain wouldn't make it past the Iowas caucuses. I wouldn't feel terrible if I turned out to be wrong.

      1. People hate politicians and they hate the Republican establishment. Cain is none of that. I am starting to think he might win.

        1. I've seen Cain speak in public. He is very compelling. The only problem is that he has displayed a serious lack of foreign policy knowledge. That may not matter though if the campaign remains "it's the economy, stupid".

          1. The pundits ignore him at their peril. It does not take much time to learn "foreign policy". Just get the basics, and don't step on your dick. What I hear mostly is that he does not have the "organization" needed to win. If he wins Iowa, I think the organization would come to him, if not before, just based on polls.

            I am not advocating here. I'm just sayin'.

            1. And when he talkd about foreign policy he is humble. I would rather have a guy who admits that he doesn't have the information to give an answer right now than someone who just talks out of their ass.

              1. He should appeal very well to the core Republican base: turned around a failing business; personally socially conservative and preaches a return to a more moral Americal; came from nothing and made a name for himself; demands that others to the same.

                I watched a roomful of pasty-white Iowa activists stand and applaud many times.

              2. I agree, but I'd also hope to get some bearing on his philosophical bent. For example, the "I don't know I'd have to ask my experts" could turn into Feb. 5th, 2013: "Well, I've consulted my experts, and they all agree: a nuclear strike against the entire Middle East is the way to go. They're the experts." *launch*

                Clearly that's not likely, but you get the point I'm trying to make.

                Also, his pizza sucks, which I can and will hold against him personally.

          2. As long as his foreign policy isn't "blow up whoever the fuck I want, whenever I want it", I'm fine with Cain.

            1. As John says, his ability to say "I don't know" and then move on can come across as very refreshing. It's better than giving a bullshit answer that still communicates he doesn't really know the answer.

              So it comes down who he surrounds himself with.

              1. he sounds secure enough in himself to surround himself with powerful, smart people rather than yes men. I get the sense he would be pissed off if he was told what folks thought he wanted to hear as opposed to what he needed to hear.

    2. Zogby often strikes me as a giant push-poll.

      He may think that if he just pushes the reported number for Cain high enough, people will believe it and the average front-running sheep will decide they actually DO support Cain.

      1. True. But 20 points is huge. You can only push a poll so much. I wouldn't say this means that he actually has a 20 point lead. But it means he is at or near the top. You couldn't do a poll that put Santorum or Gingrich up by 20 points no matter how much you pushed it.

      2. Yes, Zogby is not regarded as as reliable as a lot of other polls. It never lines up with the rest and tends to gyrate wildly. But I do think Cain is clearly pushing Perry to the side. The main issues is money: Perry has it, Cain doesn't.

    3. two things about Cain:
      1) when he speaks, he does it without notes let alone a prompter. Cain knows where he stands and is not afraid to say so.
      2) he comes off as real, not afraid to admit he does know everything, i.e. foreign policy being an acknowledged weakness. Can't say that Mr Harvard's "expertise" there has been a boon.
      3) he is always smiling, always upbeat, always ready to talk about America's greatness and the good things that can be accomplished, even when addressing problems.
      4) not being in the political class helps. When asked of his inexperience in that regard, he pointed to all the professional politicians in DC and asked, "how's that working for you?".

      Don't know that he can win, but damn, I like him.

      1. I was seriously impressed with Cain, right up until he started talking about returning Americal to a more moral culture.

        1. which leads me back to the 60-80% agreement rule. I dislike the holy roller faction of the Repubs and wish candidates would keep morality out of it. However, I don't sense a desire for a theocracy from Cain. Anyway, how would a president return America to such a culture anyway?

          1. I really don't have any problems with Christians saying that church is essential to maintaining moral communities. But when they start saying that the government is necessary to help enforce the moral rules of the church, I get bent out of shape.

            Cain was being really vague, but he made it clear that the government belongs in the business of enforcing morals.

    4. Dude, Cain is the first murderer. He's thousands of years old because even the Angel of Death can't take him without pissing God off.

      If he was inclining his head forward and you were high above him, you'd see a small scar on the back of his head that, from that angle, says 9-9-9. That's his Mark. That's the source of his power, and of his damnation.

      If he's decided to openly pursue the mantle of Most Powerful Man in the World, it can only mean one thing: the earth and all those who walk upon it are doomed. The End of Days is at hand. Repent!

  33. I don't suppose any intrepid H & R sorts who live near one of these outbreaks of incoherency would care to go this weekend with a "Fuck Off, Slaver" sign, just to add some spice?

    1. Nothing exciting happens in Iowa. So I can't help you out there.

    2. In Latin, to appear erudite and education and to avoid arrest: "Efutue, servus dominum!"

      1. In Latin, to appear erudite and education . . .

        Yer doin' it wrong.

        1. Educated. Jesus, can't I have a typo now and again? I'm so friggin' buried by work that it's a wonder I'm commenting at all. A wonder!

      2. Mmmm...no. The sentence is ungrammatical. Assuming that you are using "dominus" for "slaver," you can simply say Efutue, domine.

    3. We have one in Houston, but college football is a priority over mocking the terminally clueless.

    4. There's one in Los Angeles, but I live in Irvine where you won't see this kind of crap.

      Plus they'll just assume you're talking about the Kochs rather than them, being the oblivious fools they are.

  34. I'm anti-corporate too, but the difference between myself and these protestors is that I don't blame businesses for taking advantage of government-created market distortions that inherently result in irresponsibility, corruption, fraud and violations of rights.

    If these protestors aren't primarily blaming Washington and in fact are calling for more Washington, which they themselves admit is bought out by the wealthy and corporations, they're shooting themselves in the foot.

    The regulatory system is completely arbitrary and even the lawmakers have no clue what they are passing. Even assuming there was a sizable contingent of brilliant politicians pure as the driven snow, one would have to assume unaccountable bureaucrats in charge of implementing these policies would be equally uncorruptable.

    Moreover, there's the tricky problem of the wording in the First Amendment, which does not designate that the law only applies to individuals, and very clearly states that Congress has no ability to restrict speech or petitioning government.

    If the government were restricted to consistent and equal enforcement of individual rights, removed the market distortion of state incorporation/limited liability, and radically simplified the tax code (and quit taxing productive activities), the need for the regulatory state collapses because arbitrary market distortions are removed, and the most responsible business practices would maximize profits by minimizing owner liability.

    1. *slow golf clap*

    2. The other day, I grilled up a nice 7 oz. t-bone. I turned my back for just a second, only to find that my dogs had jumped up on the counter and eaten it. Frustrated and hungry, I formulated a plan: grill up a 20 oz. porterhouse, and have my biggest dog guard against its being taken by the others.

    3. I'm with you, P, except for "the market distortion of state incorporation/limited liability".

      Limited liability does not protect the organization itself from anything, or its employees, executives, board members, etc. It doesn't even protect owners who are actively involved in whatever caused some third party to suffer damages.

      It only protects passive owners from liability for actions that they had no control over. This is actually a pretty direct application of basic ideas about personal responsibility.

      Taking the notion seriously that anyone who invests in a business should be held 100% liable for all debts and obligations of the business would be an excellent way to destroy an advanced economy.

      Not only would you do away with equity investment, you would also do away with lending to businesses.

      So, we part ways on that one.

      1. "It only protects passive owners from liability for actions that they had no control over. This is actually a pretty direct application of basic ideas about personal responsibility."

        But the "actions" of their agents are on the behalf of the owners, whether they are aware of the action or not, and whether the owner would approve it or not. Business owners being fully liable for the actions of their agents would be a good thing, because it would encourage better supervision and safety standards, better worker-employer relationships and impose contractual limits on the agents from violating the rights of customers, other employees and outside individuals effected by their actions.

        If a neighboring chemical plant burns down my house, I can sue the owners for their agents destroying my property without having to know who specifically was personally responsible. The owners can, in turn, find and sue the agents internally responsible for the actions, with liability insurance protecting their personal property for whatever they can't reclaim from the actor(s). This insurance could internally regulate the business's operations and being more responsible would naturally cut insurance costs - like a good driver credit on car insurance.

        Moreover, accidents happen and sometimes blame can't be placed with any actors specifically. In these cases, the owner is still responsible to compensate the victims.

        Standard libertarian ethics combined with our views on government would essentially state that the direct actor responsible alone is liable for their actions and nobody else is. Thus the worker who caused the fire that burned down my house would be the only person responsible - once they have exhausted their own resources, I have to pay for their actions.

        I hold that owners of businesses, who claim profits directly from the actions of their actors, should still be personally liable for the actions of their agents BEFORE the victims or taxpayer should be forced to pay for one cent of the damages caused to them. Saying the victim should pay before any people that potentially profited from these actors' actions and were contractually responsible for the actors seems fundamentally unjust.

        Moreover, I have no idea who in the company (if anyone) burned my house down and if the owners won't reveal, how could I ever claim damages from the responsible? If the owners aren't truly liable, you remove their incentive to locate the irresponsibility or the accidental cause. In fact, nothing would stop the owner from blaming their least favorite employee simply to avoid liability.

        There are no artificial limits on damages in the real world, so why artificial limits on liability?

      2. "Taking the notion seriously that anyone who invests in a business should be held 100% liable for all debts and obligations of the business would be an excellent way to destroy an advanced economy. Not only would you do away with equity investment, you would also do away with lending to businesses."

        I don't see how this is true - the company can contract to buy liability insurance for the equity holders out of the profits. Or I can buy the liability insurance for myself if they don't provide this. Or I don't buy insurance and assume the full risk.

        In all these cases, either the insurer or I (the uninsured stockholder) have incentive to monitor business operations so there will minimal chance payouts are necessary. The insurance only pays out if the damages exceed whatever voluntary barrier the owner(s) decide on to separate "personal" and "invested" wealth. The difference is that the risk is internalized instead of socialized.

        1. "Business owners being fully liable for the actions of their agents would be a good thing, because it would encourage better supervision and safety standards, better worker-employer relationships and impose contractual limits on the agents from violating the rights of customers, other employees and outside individuals effected by their actions."

          How would it do that, exactly? Passive investors don't get any say in how the business is run, just whether or not they contribute capital to it or not.

          The problem with the whole concept is the "in for a penny, in for a pound" part -- if your liability is not scaled to the size of your investment, you have a strong disincentive to make a small investment; investors will instead be more likely to put all their eggs in one basket to reduce their personal risk, which makes it much easier to be wiped out even if you don't get sued. Wealthy investors, in particular, will be much less willing to invest in any venture they don't completely control, since any single investment places them all at risk.

          I suppose I'm mainly thinking of punitive damages here, since they are often based on the means of the defendant, not the actual harm done. Punitive damages in particular seem unconscionable for passive or minor investors, since the defendant typically didn't really do anything morally objectionable.

          1. The "passive" part is the problem. By law, these investors are legally the owners of the business, and as such should take a more active role or contract that active role to insurance. Stockholders can make potentially infinite profits, yet have no more liability at stake than what they put in. This protection is provided for free by the government's legal status, yet doesn't apply to any other unique actions we do that we want to designate as "separate" from our personal wealth.

            A corporation goes kaput due to mismanagement, the creditors (their stockholders) eat the losses beyond the value of liquidation. Their company goes kaput due to lawsuit, the victims or taxpayers eat the excess losses beyond the value of liquidation. It doesn't work that way for proprietors or partnerships where owners are personally liable for business debts and damages and use insurance to protect "personal" assets they have designated. That's how a free market with full profit and full responsibility should operate.

            Moreover, examine this scenario: let's say I passively invested in a chemical company that saves millions a year by dumping chemicals into the river instead of properly disposing them. I sell making thousands from this irresponsibility, even though it is without my knowledge. A few years later, let's say the company has corrected the problem thanks to a new CEO and the company is heralded as a socially responsible business, but downriver mutants sue the company for damages. The current stockholders, even those who came after the pollution was ended, are stuck with the burden of the payout, and maybe the company is driven into bankruptcy and liquidated. I still have my thousands (or the items purchased with them), and the former CEO still has his bonuses (for saving the company millions, at least before they got caught). The responsibility has shifted from those who profited from the violation of rights (knowingly or not) to those who didn't or who fixed the problem - then the excess is shifted onto the victims or society. That strikes me as unconscionable.

            There's no question if I am made to pay for someone else's actions, I am victim too. But I claimed both profits and responsibility as the owner of the business, and therefore should pay for insurance to protect my liability. It's my (or my insurance company's) responsibility to claim from the contracted agents involved if possible. If there's nothing to extract, however, I should still eat the costs before my company's victims are forced to.

            I also note that it's not the responsibility of the government to encourage or discourage specific investments. If it become less profitable to be a constant stock flipper due to the complexity and price of liability insurance across many companies, that's because the market value for liability is no longer obscured and distorted, and costs are fully internalized instead of externalized.

            It will be more profitable to invest in the very best, greenest companies who impose lower costs on society, and less profitable to invest in highly risky, environmentally irresponsible companies - and this forces the riskier companies to improve safety and environmental standards and technologies to cut insurance costs and make their stock more valuable. That's the consensus outcome of a real free market.

            1. Do you support eliminating bankruptcy law? That's another case where a person's liability to other people is limited by government intervention. Maybe bring back debtor's prisons and work farms?

              1. Generally, yes. It's a huge moral hazard as well and encourages the rampant irresponsibility we see today.

                If it is a voluntary rearrangement of debt between debtors and creditors, that be negotiated via contract and protected via insurance. Creditors and insurance companies would more likely force the company to liquidate before repayment becomes hopeless, and attain such powers via contract.

                Debtor's prisons not so sure about - if individuals are in prison, they can't repay their debts. Do I have a problem with a creditor seizing someone's home, car, etc. via prenegotiated contract if the individual or their family can not repay the debts? No. Of course, responsibility also lies with creditors as well, if they lend to someone who has no means to repay and no property to put a lien on.

            2. By the way, the central point of my scenario, was that removing limited liability acts as an automatic deterrent against actions that are profitable for a business to engage in (in the short term) but violate the rights of others. The idea that stockholders should only care about short term profits without bearing long-term consequences of the actions that brought those profits is a humongous moral hazard, and it encourages corporate agents to not concern themselves with outcomes beyond profits in the long term.

  35. Picture 1. See, some people get it!

    Picture 2. Okay, well there are always those people, still not that bad.

    Picture 3. Fuck it, these people are 99% retarded.

    1. On picture 3, I suspect the bozo holding the sign is already subject to a de facto maximum wage.

  36. You really shouldn't diss Dali by comparing him to Krugnuts.

    Well, he (Krugabe) is nowhere near self-aware enough to be compared to R Mutt.

  37. After reading this post, I'm thoroughly depressed. Is there no one left in this nation who doesn't believe the government can do anything it wants, as long as its for the power of good?

  38. Its amazing that these people will rant against so called corporations that supposedly run their lives but will embrace government every time. Do you see the direction socialism seems to go?


  40. Only thing I see is people scared of real change they have already expressed anger at both parties and anyone who doesn't see what is wrong with the country IS THE PROBLEM.

  41. Your article is really nice you contains such a interesting information in this article i am pleased to visit this i always remember this visit.

  42. Exactly. That's the person I'm going to listen to and take seriously: A twit in Guy Fawkes mask. Right. Sure thing.

    Could be the next Milton Friedman (gotta tell ya though - I'm assigning that outcome a very low probability), but it doesn't matter because I don't take twits in Guy Fawkes masks seriously. I don't take college age people seriously.

    I take people seriously who know something and who can explain it in such a way that it both makes sense and demonstrates that they used reliable information and rational thinking to arrive their conclusions.

    Also, it helps if one has had a job at some point, paid bills for a few years, dealt with the realities of life, and has some personal experience with being productive in practical, down-to-earth, fix-the-sink, build-a-bridge, run-a-pizzeria kind of way.

    But expecting adults to take these twits in costumes with signs sporting slogans most of their bearers can't even explain or debate? No.

    Put down the signs and go make stuff. I want a flying car. Go invent one. This guy's way ahead of you. Catch up. Loose the mask.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.